Shooting Rekindles Issues of Gun Rights and Restrictions

[HungLikeJesus]

While reading this thread I began to wonder about where firearms fell in the list of leading causes of death in the US. This table compares causes in 1990 and 2000: http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf (page 3)

Actual Cause No. (%) in 1990* No. (%) in 2000
Tobacco 400 000 (19) 435 000 (18.1)
Poor diet and physical inactivity 300 000 (14) 400 000 (16.6)
Alcohol consumption 100 000 (5) 85 000 (3.5)
Microbial agents 90 000 (4) 75 000 (3.1)
Toxic agents 60 000 (3) 55 000 (2.3)
Motor vehicle 25 000 (1) 43 000 (1.8)
Firearms 35 000 (2) 29 000 (1.2)
Sexual behavior 30 000 (1) 20 000 (0.8)
Illicit drug use 20 000 (<1) 17 000 (0.7)
Total 1 060 000 (50) 1 159 000 (48.2)
*Data are from McGinnis and Foege.1 The percentages are for all deaths.

Sorry about the format, I couldn't figure out how to make the table appear correctly. The first column is cause, the second column is number of deaths from that cause in 1990 then the (percentage), followed by the same information in 2000.

Note that firearms deaths decreased by almost 20% in that time, while motor vehicle deaths increased by over 70%, despite advances in vehicle design and safety (ABS, air bags, traction control, etc.).

This site has leading cause of death data broken down by age group: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html and includes a table of accidental deaths.

The point of all this is just to try to get some perspective on firearm deaths in the US, relative to all other causes. Note that tobacco and poor diet contribute about 30 times more to the death rate than do firearms. In terms of accidental deaths, firearms rank fairly low, but in terms of intentional deaths (of which I have not seen statistics) I would assume they would rank fairly high.

Edit: The text of the first paper indicates that "In 2000, 16586 deaths were due to intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes X72-X74). Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes X93-X95) resulted in 10801 deaths. Unintentional discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes W32-W34) resulted in 776 deaths, while discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (ICD-10 codes Y22-Y24), resulted in 230 deaths. The remaining 270 deaths were due to legal intervention (ICD-10 code Y35)."

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Not if I was on the jury. But I know there are some who would convict an 84 year old for killing someone that broke into her house to either steal her blind or worse. Just not me.

I wouldn't convict her either, or even want her to go to trial...but she'd probably have to, if she hadn't been such a good shot.

PHYSICIANS:

a. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

b. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

(statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

NOW THINK ABOUT THIS...

GUNS:

a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember: "Guns don't kill people, doctors do!"

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention. It's a vicious cycle.

[piercehawkeye45]

This doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Does a parent cry any harder if his or her kid dies from malpractice then from a bullet? They are still deaths and if we can lower any death number for reasonable reasons than it is worth doing.

These numbers are skewed anyways. Physicians perform a lot more operations than guns shoot bullets a year. Most cases that physicians are performing surgery; something can go wrong and kill someone. Most cases where someone fires a gun, they are in no danger to anyone else.

Also, accidental gunshot deaths aren't what we should concentrate on but homicidal gunshot deaths.

Once again, the point of doctors is to save and help people while the points of guns are to kill people.

[cklabyrinth]

Those statistics assume a lot. For instance, that the only deaths where guns are involved are accidental. Surely you'd agree this is not the case.

Also, is that the number of guns, or the number of gun owners? My stepfather owns at least 100 guns and his is a small collection compared to some.

It's also assumed every single one of those 80,000,000 gun owners--if this is indeed what they meant--uses the guns regularly. But I'm sure you would also agree that a percentage of gun owners own them for show and novelty with no intent to ever use them, if they even own ammunition for the guns.

If people could buy doctors, load them with ammunition, and fire them at animals for sport or at people, that quote would have a lot more credence. As it stands, I have to think to myself, "Why the hell did this get posted?"

[wolf]

Gun control is racist.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

This doesn't have anything to do with the argument. ~snip~ the point of doctors is to save and help people while the points of guns are to kill people.

Duh.. it's a joke. look at the numbers, they're bogus.

[TheMercenary]

Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
-- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.

This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have
here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay"
because it's
only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen.
Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

[piercehawkeye45]

I'm tired of hearing everyone complain that people are using the VTech tragedy to support their political agenda. Both sides are doing it and Republicans have done it just as many times as Democrats have. Both sides are hypocritical and blind to it.