My "political" question.

[dogstar]

The CDC's website has that type of data. Probly the best source.
2004
Table 18
Injury deaths...........167,184
" "
" "
Firearms..................29,569
unintentional...............649
suicide...................16,750
homicide.................11,624
undetermined...............235
legal intervention..........311
This is not the compleat table, only firearm. PDF, I dont know how to cut and paste those.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
Reef,
Does this 1.2% constitute all firearms incidents, including police shootings, illegal use (murder, etc), as well as legally owned guns used by their rightful owners to commit crime, or accidents involving legally owned weapons?
I'd be interested to know what percentage of these 29,000 incidents are because of the last two.
Incidentally, those numbers come out to a 0.0096% chance of dying in a firearm "incident" in a given year.
The only way I could find it broken down was as a percentage of unintentional deaths so things like heart attacks and cancer are not included
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf
Table 18. Number of deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for injury deaths by mechanism and intent of
death: United States, 2002
number rate %
Firearm..............................30,242 10.5
Unintentional. ........................762 0.3
Suicide........... ................;;17,108 5.9
Homicide ...........................11,829 4.1
Undetermined........................243 0.1
Legal intervention/war...........300 0.1

 

[scsinet]

It's too bad there are not complete numbers breaking down the injury deaths due to firearms.
I'd be interested to know how big of a problem things like accidents are, and also how much legally owned firearms contribute to illegal activiites commited by their rightful owners...

 

[reefraff]

I am sure somebody has broken it down but the problem is its hard to find unbiased information, everybody is trying to push an agenda.
"Over a dozen studies have been carried out by various pro-gun, anti-gun, neutral, and even Department of Justice investigators to determine the value of civilian gun ownership in how many times citizens use their firearms for self defense. The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year. The differences in the numbers are attributed to variations in methodology, sampling techniques, and the bias of individual researchers."
The CDC considered persons 23 and younger children for the purpose or reporting firearms deaths in one report. No agenda there

I know you are like 3 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a doctor than a firearm and a child is 9 times more likely to drown in a pool or the bathtub.

 

[acrylics]

Reefraff,
#1 is a Ruger Mini 14, might be a Mini 30 but the barrel looks too slim, not an "assault weapon" in any jurisdiction I know of but might be now in CA
#2 is an AR15 or M16, can't see the selector. If it's a stock AR, it's not a *true* "assault weapon" but is considered one by many states. If it's a converted AR or M16, then it would be considered an "assault weapon"
#3 is either an M16 or converted AR15, set on full, the only true "assault weapon" pictured
#4 is an M1 Garand
#5 is a more than likely a toy (orange flash suppressor)
The one I'd least like to get shot by is the Garand and it's .30 caliber bullet (30.06 cartridge)
SCSInet,
I can't answer with specifics but I tend to doubt many legally owned firearms are used in crimes by their rightful owners. Registered firearms are easily traced to their registered owners if they should happen to be dropped or lost in the crime. I would guess that at least 95% of all gun related crimes are stolen weapons, probably a much higher percentage. Convicted felons and many others are not even allowed to possess a gun much less buy one. Criminals generally won't go to the gun shop, fill out the paperwork, and pay the high price for a new weapon just to rob the local gas station. They can buy stolen weapons on the street with no paperwork for much less $$.
The idea of banning all weapons is one for brain fodder but not realistic.
Open carry is legal in my state, not widely practiced in densely populated areas but not uncommon in rural areas.
Full autos are still legal to own in this country, they are expensive, require extensive background checks, and an NFA tax stamp to own. They have been legal to manufacture in this country up until the mid '80s. The 1934 National Firearms Act simply provided for the checks and tax stamps. You don't see legally owned full autos used in crimes because the owners of them quite possibly have the cleanest records of anyone in this country and are simply not the type to rob a convenience store with a $15k weapon. They are generally stored in "real" gun safes and are prized and well cared for by their owners.
One could easily make the argument for full autos on a simple premise: the Declaration of Independence states; "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". So the Declaration outlines the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd simply insures the citizenry the means by which to carry this out. Based on this, one could make the argument that since the citizenry has the moral obligation to carry this out, they should have the means by which to do it. Since the citizenry would be going up against law enforcement agencies that have full auto weapons, the citizenry should have the right to own them as well.
James

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by reefraff
There are places in this country where seeing someone with a gun is the accepted norm and most mothers there wouldn't think a thing about it. The anti gun hysteria the media pushes is rediculous.
Actual Causes of Death
The leading causes of death in 2000 from behavioral causes with the number and percentages of deaths were as follows:
Tobacco accounting for 435,000 deaths or 18.1% of total deaths in the US.
Poor diet and physical inactivity accounting for 365,000 deaths or 15.2% of total deaths in the US.
These are the corrected values from the often cited originally published and later corrected values of 400,000 and 16.6%.
Alcohol consumption accounting for 85,000 deaths or 3.5% of the total deaths in the US.
Microbial agents accounting for 75,000 or 3.1% of the total deaths in the US.
Toxic agents accounting for 55,000 or 2.3% of the total deaths in the US.
Motor vehicle crashes accounting for 43,000 or 1.8% of the total deaths in the US.
Incidents involving firearms accounting for 29,000 or 1.2% of the total deaths in the US.
Sexual behaviors accounting for 20,000 or 0.8% of the total deaths in the US.
Illicit use of drugs accounting for 17,000 or 0.7% of the total deaths in the US.
The last statistic listed concerning illegal drug use is extremely interesting. Fewer deaths than any other cause including guns, yet the "war on drugs" has become an industry and a political power base in the United States that has done far more harm than good and will never be "won" until existing laws and attitudes change. I shall cease commentary now as I do not want to hijack the thread.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by salty blues
The last statistic listed concerning illegal drug use is extremely interesting. Fewer deaths than any other cause including guns, yet the "war on drugs" has become an industry and a political power base in the United States that has done far more harm than good and will never be "won" until existing laws and attitudes change. I shall cease commentary now as I do not want to hijack the thread.
Of course, maybe the war on drugs is actually succeeding in keeping deaths low?
That's the problem with raw statistics. They can often tell a variety of stories based on how you choose to perceive them.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by acrylics
Reefraff,
#1 is a Ruger Mini 14, might be a Mini 30 but the barrel looks too slim, not an "assault weapon" in any jurisdiction I know of but might be now in CA
#2 is an AR15 or M16, can't see the selector. If it's a stock AR, it's not a *true* "assault weapon" but is considered one by many states. If it's a converted AR or M16, then it would be considered an "assault weapon"
#3 is either an M16 or converted AR15, set on full, the only true "assault weapon" pictured
#4 is an M1 Garand
#5 is a more than likely a toy (orange flash suppressor)
The one I'd least like to get shot by is the Garand and it's .30 caliber bullet (30.06 cartridge)
Good eye. #1 is the Mini 14. Functionally identical to #2, a Panther AR-15. 3 is an Actual M-16 and the Garand 4 could almost be classified as an "Assault weapon because it was Military issue but not being fully automatic it doesn't qualify. #5 is actually a BB gun and while not as leathal is probably the most dangerous one of the bunch and responsible for more injuries than any other.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by salty blues
The last statistic listed concerning illegal drug use is extremely interesting. Fewer deaths than any other cause including guns, yet the "war on drugs" has become an industry and a political power base in the United States that has done far more harm than good and will never be "won" until existing laws and attitudes change. I shall cease commentary now as I do not want to hijack the thread.
I'd make drugs legal, not because they aren't dangerous. I think you gotta be an idiot to try drugs. I know, I did. I happened to be lucky. Didn't really care for them and didn't have an addictive personality. But as the stats show the illegal drug trade causes more harm to innocent people than the illegal drugs do.

 

[acrylics]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Good eye. #1 is the Mini 14. Functionally identical to #2, a Panther AR-15. 3 is an Actual M-16 and the Garand 4 could almost be classified as an "Assault weapon because it was Military issue but not being fully automatic it doesn't qualify. #5 is actually a BB gun and while not as leathal is probably the most dangerous one of the bunch and responsible for more injuries than any other.
I was wondering about #2 (the DPMS Panther), it looked like the piston upper but wasn't absolutely certain. I couldn't see the designatin on #3 to know if it was a 16 or 15 but the selector was a dead giveaway for the FA

 

[tizzo]

Originally Posted by salty blues
I shall cease commentary now as I do not want to hijack the thread.
Bah... You can hijack, I'm learning a lot reading this thread. I think my original question got answered. Well if "it simply can't/ won't happen is my answer. And its prtletty much looking to be that way.
so take the topics where the wind blows them

 

[acrylics]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Of course, maybe the war on drugs is actually succeeding in keeping deaths low?
That's the problem with raw statistics. They can often tell a variety of stories based on how you choose to perceive them.
Perception is a problem as well as the political rhetoric surounding the situation. The "low death count" can be perceived as either A) the "war on drugs" is working or B) there isn't a *real* problem large enough to warrant the "war on drugs".
If you are in favor of the legalization or at least decriminalization of drugs, you will be hit by the rhetoric "what? you actually want kids using drugs?" The answer is "no more than I want them to use alcohol and that drug probably kills more than all illegal drugs combined." Decriminalize drug use, make the consequences to their misuse similar to that of alcohol; minimum ages, driving under the influence, public intoxication, etc. On that note, keep in mind that nicotine products kill far more people than anything in this country and that is legal but a huge tax base so maybe legalize many drugs but tax them.
Problem is that the "war on drugs" has become it's own political machine and will fight for it's own survival. You have literally thousands of jobs in place in the war on drugs, from police officers to prison guards to the bureaucracy that oversees it to the politicians who govern it. They all feel they serve a vital purpose and will fight for it using whatever means necessary, rightly or wrongly.
If you are of the opinion that goverments ought not be governing social behavior - you have a tough road to hoe as this type of legislation is well entrenched in our society.
If you are in favor of the "war on drugs", IMO you have to ask "how far am I willing to go?" Remember too that the originations of virtually all anti-drug laws were either forms of political warfare or racial/class warfare from opium to cocaine to heroin to marijuana. Historically, virtually all prohibitionist movements in this country have failed miserably as the by-products of such are, more ofthen than not, more harmful to society as a whole than the targets themselves.
FWIW, I'm on the fence on this, trying to see both sides. We do have a problem, no argument' I've seen as many have, the effects of certain drugs on people, just that I don't see the present "war on drugs" as a viable solution.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by salty blues
The last statistic listed concerning illegal drug use is extremely interesting. Fewer deaths than any other cause including guns, yet the "war on drugs" has become an industry and a political power base in the United States that has done far more harm than good and will never be "won" until existing laws and attitudes change. I shall cease commentary now as I do not want to hijack the thread.
Because it involves Billions of dollars.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by acrylics
Perception is a problem as well as the political rhetoric surounding the situation. The "low death count" can be perceived as either A) the "war on drugs" is working or B) there isn't a *real* problem large enough to warrant the "war on drugs".
If you are in favor of the legalization or at least decriminalization of drugs, you will be hit by the rhetoric "what? you actually want kids using drugs?" The answer is "no more than I want them to use alcohol and that drug probably kills more than all illegal drugs combined." Decriminalize drug use, make the consequences to their misuse similar to that of alcohol; minimum ages, driving under the influence, public intoxication, etc. On that note, keep in mind that nicotine products kill far more people than anything in this country and that is legal but a huge tax base so maybe legalize many drugs but tax them.
Problem is that the "war on drugs" has become it's own political machine and will fight for it's own survival. You have literally thousands of jobs in place in the war on drugs, from police officers to prison guards to the bureaucracy that oversees it to the politicians who govern it. They all feel they serve a vital purpose and will fight for it using whatever means necessary, rightly or wrongly.
If you are of the opinion that goverments ought not be governing social behavior - you have a tough road to hoe as this type of legislation is well entrenched in our society.
If you are in favor of the "war on drugs", IMO you have to ask "how far am I willing to go?" Remember too that the originations of virtually all anti-drug laws were either forms of political warfare or racial/class warfare from opium to cocaine to heroin to marijuana. Historically, virtually all prohibitionist movements in this country have failed miserably as the by-products of such are, more ofthen than not, more harmful to society as a whole than the targets themselves.
FWIW, I'm on the fence on this, trying to see both sides. We do have a problem, no argument' I've seen as many have, the effects of certain drugs on people, just that I don't see the present "war on drugs" as a viable solution.
Drugs such as cocaine and heroin/morhphine were all once legal..until we realized they created zombies... Drugs should not be legal because they are addictive and will turn anybody inside out. They destroy familes and commuities. Much of the problems that blacks face in this country came as a result of the crack epidemic.
Then you have our gov't and CIA supporting drug cartels in S. America so that their militias will fight against governments we want out of power. We know where all the drugs are grown and brought in from...Afghanistan, China and S Asia, Mexico and S. America... We enable them to ship drugs in and we could stop much of this at the source...
The war on drugs in not a war to rid our country of drugs... its a war against the poor.

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Drugs such as cocaine and heroin/morhphine were all once legal..until we realized they created zombies... Drugs should not be legal because they are addictive and will turn anybody inside out. They destroy familes and commuities. Much of the problems that blacks face in this country came as a result of the crack epidemic.
Then you have our gov't and CIA supporting drug cartels in S. America so that their militias will fight against governments we want out of power. We know where all the drugs are grown and brought in from...Afghanistan, China and S Asia, Mexico and S. America... We enable them to ship drugs in and we could stop much of this at the source...
The war on drugs in not a war to rid our country of drugs... its a war against the poor.
So what are your thoughts concerning alcohol and tobacco products? Booze will certainly "turn anybody inside out". Tobacco is said to be as addictive as heroin. I've never used heroin, but I have consumed booze & smoked cigarettes. I quit both many years ago & stopping smoking cigarettes was way harder for me than stopping drinking. Statistically, booze does more harm than all illegal drugs combined. Obviously, we live in a hypocritical society. The "war on drugs" is a farce, yet it continues on with no let up and people are losing many rights and privacies. It is a power base and a mantra for politicians and a money source for law enforcement. And we, the citizens are letting it roll right over us .

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by salty blues
So what are your thoughts concerning alcohol and tobacco products? Booze will certainly "turn anybody inside out". Tobacco is said to be as addictive as heroin. I've never used heroin, but I have consumed booze & smoked cigarettes. I quit both many years ago & stopping smoking cigarettes was way harder for me than stopping drinking. Statistically, booze does more harm than all illegal drugs combined. Obviously, we live in a hypocritical society. The "war on drugs" is a farce, yet it continues on with no let up and people are losing many rights and privacies. It is a power base and a mantra for politicians and a money source for law enforcement. And we, the citizens are letting it roll right over us .
Tobacco is no match to heroin or crack...One hit can make you addicted. But I agree with you as far as alcohol and tobacco. I drink occasionally... not to the point I'm drunk... use to... But drugs destroy communities were as alcohol doesn't seem as powerful in taking out a whole community. As far as alcohol... with moderation and responsibility I have no problem with it. I do hate cigs though... I hated coming home from a bar and reeking... I also hate when I see parents smoking with their kids in the car.
I'll add this... look at how they prosecute drugs... it is a shame because it essentially targets the minority community and disinfranchises and removes these people from their homes and families which further causes additional problems such as crime, poverty, and no hope. FYI there is a 100- 1 disparity.
If you have 5 grams of crack you will get a 5-10 year mandatory. You have to have 500 grams of cocaine to get the same sentence.

 

[reefraff]

If you just make the drugs legal ( I am talking pot, coke, hash etc.) and go after the illegal drug trade it does a couple things.
1. Allows the government to tax the drugs, I like "sin taxes".
2. Frees law enforcement up to go after the real criminals.
Now you take all that tax money and use it to open up detox/rehab centers. Make laws requiring sentencing to the detox/rehab centers for repeat offenders of drug or alcohol related crimes. (anyone can make a mistake, let first time offenders choose between a fine or rehab)
As long as the government doesn't get stupid with the level of taxation this will kill most of the illegal drug trade. Now all that extra room in the jails. Seems a shame to leave them empty. Make stiff sentences for anyone who engadges in the manufacture or distribution of drugs or illegal drugs.