This just made me imagine hoardes of old men poking about in rubbish bins and alleys then walking up to a police station with a rickety old shopping trolley full of handguns instead of tin cans 
Well, if family members and friends would just do as they were told and washed the dishes, we wouldn’t have that problem, now would we?
:eek:
Okay, that was really, really bad. I’ll be over here in the corner if you want to slap me or something.
I would like a link to these statistics please.
http://www.ichv.org/kidsandguns.htm
This is for Illinois, where I live.
Incidently, I’ve never heard anything contrary to my statement on any newscast or in any newspaper. Can you please tell me why you would think that many people aren’t killed accidentally, or why many gun related deaths aren’t accidental and totally unrelated to acts of self defense?
Four times more likely to burn to death or drown.
17 times more likely to be poisoned.
53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.
In 2001, there were only 65 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 11 times as many children die from drowning.
Sorry for the .pdf
You need to read the text of the law that was passed in San Fran. There’s nothing in there about registering handguns. It is an outright ban on the ownership and possession of handguns. All handguns must be relinquished to the authorities, if one is to avoid the unspecified penalties, prior to April 1, 2006. There is no handgun registration available in San Francisco which would allow persons to keep their handguns past that date.
Chicago has a “backdoor” handgun ban. About 30 years ago, a law was enacted requiring all handguns to be registered; the registration was good for a short number of years (three if I remember correctly) at which time you had to present your gun for a renewal registration. If you allowed your registratation to lapse, your gun was then ineligible for re-registration at any future date and you no longer possessed it “legally.” Then some number of years later (10 or 12, or something like that), the law was amended to prohibit any new handgun registrations at all. This not only prevented the legal purchase and possession of a handgun not previously existing, but also prevented transfers of currently registered handguns to any new owners. And lapsed registrations were still not permitted to be renewed. Thus now, the pool of existing handguns which could be legally possessed is reduced every year (through legal transfers to owners outside the city and lapsed registrations), no new guns could be added to the available pool, nor could there be any new persons capable of legally possessing a handgun.
I’m uncertain. The current ownersof a handgun can, of course, do this before that cutoff date of 4/1/06, but after that point, I’d say all bets are off. It’s possible that the authorities could prosecute San Fran residents persons who transfer guns through an FFL after that date by appropriating the transfer records. I’m not sure if the cops would have the legal means to get those records, but I wouldn’t rule it out yet either. This law is remarkable for what’s not in it as much as for what is in it. And I think those are grounds on which it is ripe for challenge; it simply lacks some, in my opinion, necessary specificity. There’s a lot that’s been left unsaid that will have to go through the courts before anyone can say how strictly it’s gonna be interpreted.
A - lawsuits of that nature are now prevented from ever reaching court with the newly enacted federal legislation. Or at least nearly all of them.
B - there are only about a hundred accidental gunshot deaths of children every year in the United States. And almost none of those are from kids shooting themselves, or other kids. These kids die because an adult has accidently shot them.
C - the 80 million gun owners in the United States are largely, vastly overwhelmingly even, law-abiding owners. 99+% of them never commit a gun crime.
I think you might wanna provide some support for this claim. I’d bet that almost every person who has bought one or more handguns hope they never have to shoot anything other than paper targets - or game - with them. That’s a pretty outrageous claim you’re making.
I hope these "statistics you’re referring to, aren’t from the 1986 Kellerman study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study has long been shown to be garbage and it’s the one most widely cited when I hear this claim trotted out. Kellerman “studied” only 43 gunshot deaths in that report; 37 of which were suicides. Each of the remaining six deceased persons were involved in violent crimimal activity, or the shooting happened in a drug deal gone bad. From this dearth of data, the claim was made that handguns are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than a criminal.
Also in that study, the claim was made that 58% of murder victims are killed by family members, or acquaintances. What was ignored is that 7 out of 10 of these victims had a criminal record of violent crime in their recent past. And “acquaintace” was defined so broadly as to be meaningless, cab drivers killed by a passeneger, hookers killed by a john, gang members killed by other rival gang members, etc.
This is all available here with the original sources:
That Illinois like you gave us earlier provides a source from which we can find that accidental gun deaths are quite rare. For instance, if we take their age range (0-19)and year (2002) and look at the number of gun deaths in Illinois, we find a grand total of 3 of the 146 deaths they’re talking about are accidental. Of the 2,893 nationwide gunshot deaths ages 0-19 in the year 2002, only 167 were accidental. (If we restrict the age range of “children” to disclude 18 & 19 year olds, there were only 115 accidental gun deaths in the entire U.S. in 2002; 48 of those 115 are in the range 16-17 leaving only 77 which are really “children”) And only 762 accidental gun deaths of all ages nationwide in 2002.
You can dig up those numbers yourself here:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm
The reason you don’t read about things like this in your local paper, or hear it on the news, is because it ain’t news.
Amazing. Restrict freedom of speech, circumvent search and seizure laws, stomp all over the Geneva Convention, and all we hear from you, Uncle Beer is a yawn and a sneeringly condescending comment. But put a ban on something specifically designed to kill human beings (there is no other use for hand guns), and suddenly you’re falling all over yourself about constitutional rights.
Not all firearms are being banned. A specific type of firearm. Namely handguns. Which, as I already said, have no other usage but to kill people. I don’t see how your constitutional right to “bear arms” is being taken away, especially if you don’t happen to belong to the California state militia. Do you?
Oh, and by the way the irony in this:
is priceless. Grade A home protection ya got there.
So…you want me to believe that 1% of gun owners account for 100% of gun related crime? Tell me another fairy tale, daddy.
What in the name of holy thundring fuck are you ranting about? I have not made any kind of Constitutional argument at all in this thread. I dunno why the hell you’re teeing off on me.
It ain’t me making the claim. You can go bitch to the guys at the Justice Department. That’s where that number comes from. Jus because some obstinate folks from the gun control crowd refuse to consider, (or even acknowledge, facts which happen to gore your godamned sacred oxen, doesn’t make 'em a “fairy tale.”
I haven’t said one qualitative word about the gun deaths of children. You can attach whatever emotional quality you want to the information, but all I’ve done is demonstrate that the quantitative supplied in your link is error. It’s a statement of fact, that is incorrect.
I don’t think that this new measure will really alleviate crime- I dont think that most handgun murders are commited with registered guns-because they can be traced–right???
Well, the numbers are enough to keep me against handgun ownership. From the site I cited:
General Gun Violence Statistics
FACT:In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.
FACT: In 2002, there were 1,231 gun deaths in the state of Illinois, a 5% decrease from 2001 Illinois gun deaths. The 2002 Illinois gun deaths included:
728 homicides (59% of all IL gun deaths),
466 suicides (38% of all IL gun deaths),
and 17 unintentional shootings, 6 legal intervention, and 14 of undetermined intent (3% of all IL gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.
FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 56% of total 2002 gun deaths nationwide. In 2002, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,108, a 1% increase from 2001 numbers. Total gun suicides in Illinois for 2002 were 466, a decrease of 8% from the 2001 numbers. Most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.
FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.
-A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. “The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries.” Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)
FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
FACT: Contrary to popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3-to-4-year-olds, 70% of 5-to-6-year-olds, and 90% of 7-to-8-year-olds can fire most handguns.
-Naureckas, SM, Christoffel, KK, et al. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995.
FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.
- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
FACT: Contrary to popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3 to 4 year olds, 70% of 5 to 6 year olds, and 90% of 7 to 8 year olds can fire most handguns. - Naureckas, SM, Christoffel, KK, et al. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995
FACT: Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
- Martin M, et al. “The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries.” JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. “Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries.” Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)
FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. “The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries.” Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40
Back to top
FACT: In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice
FACT: From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
FACT: As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.
- National Institute of Justice, May 1997
FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report “Deaths: Final Data for 1999.” Vol. 49, No. 8
Not really. In actual fact, the cops recover very few guns at the scene of a crime. And guns can’t be traced unless you’ve got the serial number.
Unclebeer you can’t simply toss an 87 page, obviously biased, book at someone and call that your cite.
and for that matter you can’t either Kalhoun
Someone who hadn’t done their preparation. 
Fuck Kellerman. There’s not a single study he’s produced that hasn’t been discredited. He’s a compromised source.
You can also take those 56% if all U.S. gun deaths by suicide right out of the equation. Many studies - local, national and international - have shown that the availability of guns has no statistically significant effect on suicide rates. Suicide rates can be tied most directly to cultural mores and economic factors.
You want fact tho’, how 'bout these:
The number of handguns owned in the United States has climbed drastically in the past 30 years. So has the number of households with handguns. And yet the handgun homicide rate, as well as the handgun accidental death rate shows a steady and often precipituous decline over that same period. Thus it can be conclusively demonstrated that the availabilty of handguns isn’t a determining factor in handgun homicide or accidental death.
This is an outright falsity. A simple logic test shows that. If handguns had but a single purpose - killing humans - then you should see the characteristics of handguns which would tend to make them most efficient at killing maximized in all handguns. Those characteristics are: large caliber, large capacity and rapid cycle rates. And that’s not the case at all. Your statement is false and inflammatory to those of us who own handguns. You’re saying flat out that owners of handguns are intent upon killing. But hey, if you can effectively make bloodthirsty demons out of your opponents, then you can justify doing nearly anything to contain them. How 'bout we just lock up everybody who’s got a handgun? After all they’re just gonna use it to shoot somebody’s baby. It’s only a question of when.
Well, it’s pretty easy to find the things in there I’m speaking of. And like I said, contained in that booklet, are the original sources for its claims - the vast majority of which are federal government agency reports. If you wanna claim the federal bureaucracy is biased in favor of gun rights, then by all means, go right ahead. But most people consider federally generated data the most reliable we have. If I wanted to use biased sources, I’d link to unsourced articles on the NRA website. In any case, I was attacked unfairly and inappropriately, so I’m not terribly likely to want to spend too much time sourcing things for that, obviously biased, person. If she wanted to hear a calmly argued and better sourced argument, she can wander over to GD and read any of the dozens of gun control threads there where I’ve done just that.
Each of the facts listed on mine are backed by various cites; most reliable, and some of it from that site that evidently is considered by some to be less-than-reliable (but a cite nonetheless). How else would you like me to cite it?
And I suppose all the other cites are garbage too? Typical.