Some gun facts.

Martial_Artist · July 10, 2003

Recently I have been engaged in certain discussions involving firearms. The bulk of these discussion has been debating fact vs fiction. I realize a lot of "fear" or concern about firearms is a result of a lack of education concerning firearms, and the effect a biased-media has on an unsuspecting public. So, I have decided to post some articles relating to firearm fact in order to eliminate the "superstitious" fears. Man has always feared what it does not understand. Let us try to understand.

This article is long, but a good one. It is a medical response in Canada.

Canadian DSGL Member, Dr. Mike Ackermann, responds to misinformation on a medical website.

January 26, 2002

To the Alberta Center for Injury Control and Research

Dear Sir/Ms,

As a rural physician I am constantly seeking reliable sources of quality information on a wide variety of topics. My initial perusal of your site looked promising, until I happened upon your "Firearms FACTS" page at https://www.med.ualberta.ca/acicr/.

Unfortunately, you are apparently approaching a criminological topic from a medical perspective and as a result you are working outside your area of expertise.

First I will deal with your bullet points in turn and then I will give you the basis for a more rational approach to the firearms issue.

1) "Firearm related deaths account for nearly 10% of all injury deaths in Alberta over the past 5 years."

The actual statistics gleaned from The Alberta Vital Statistics Review and from the Statistics Canada Mortality Summary List of Causes reveal quite a different picture. I will use 1997 to illustrate my points, because it is a representative year and one which you have chosen to focus on.

In 1997 in Alberta there were:

8 accidental deaths involving firearms

22 accidental deaths arising from medical misadventure

2236 total accidental deaths

79 suicides involving firearms

401 total suicides

17 homicides involving firearms

56 total homicides

1 unspecified firearms injury leading to death

105 total firearms deaths

3534 total injuries leading to death (including 3 birth trauma)

Do you get the picture? You are nearly three times as likely to die accidentally because of a medical error as by a firearms accident. Only 2.9% of injurious death is attributable to firearms - NOT the 10% alluded to on your web site. Firearms are NOT used in 81% of suicides nor in 70% of murders. If you cared to peruse the criminological and sociological literature, you will find that the murderers and suicides all have long histories of escalating behaviour that has been inadequately addressed by the legal system. In addition, most victims of murder are involved in gang or other criminal activity.

2) "In 1997, 401 suicides were completed in Alberta. Nearly 20% of these involved the use of a firearm."

And more than 80% did not. So what? A quick read through some comparative statistics from around the world will reveal that the RATE of suicide is entirely independent of the means. Japan, for example has one of the lowest rates of legal and illegal firearms ownership and yet one of the highest suicide rates in the world. For further information, see teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Research/Observations/index.html

3) "Nationally, Alberta ranks first among the provinces in the percentage of homes with guns (39%)."

Again, so what? Statistics Canada reports that in 1997 the national average for suicides was 24.4 per 100,000 and homicides was 3.0 per 100,000. The provincial rates do NOT correlate with firearms ownership, but DO correlate well with the percentage of Aboriginal peoples in the population. For example, the national highs were in the Northwest Territories (NWT), with 87.4 suicides and 8.2 homicides per 100,000. Compare this with Alberta's modest 26.9 and 3.4, respectively.

Obviously it is the presence of social ills, that unfortunately are disproportionately represented in our Aboriginal population, that leads to suicide and homicide and not the presence or absence of firearms.

4) "Alberta has one of the highest death rates in the country (6.2/100,000 population). That national rate is 4.6/100,000 population."

No, it doesn't. In 1997, the national average death rate per 100,000 population was 718.8. Alberta had 579.8. Only NWT and the Yukon (YK) had less, at 380.5, and 381.5, respectively. 1997 is a representative year.

I can only assume that you have made an honest oversight here, and should be more careful of what you claim to be true. At any rate, there is absolutely nothing to indicate any association or causative relationship between the mere presence of firearms and death rates.

5) "A home with a gun is 5 times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and 3 times more likely to be the scene of a murder than a home without a gun."

Ah, yes, the much vaunted but repeatedly debunked Kellerman Study. For a full treatise on the fatal flaws and outright unethical research practices represented by the Kellerman Study, may I refer you to Suter's excellent critique at:

teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html

Need I say more? Kellerman's study is, unfortunately, typical of the junk 'science' used by hoplophobic fanatics to push their agenda.

6) "In 1997 in Alberta more young people died as a result of an encounter with a firearm than died due to leukaemia."

This is not exactly true either. Again from Statistics Canada we find that in 1997 the only age groups for which the firearms deaths exceeded leukaemia deaths were:

Ages 10-20

12 firearm homicides

59 firearm suicides

67 deaths from leukaemia

Ages 20-30

32 firearm homicides

102 firearm suicides

76 deaths from leukaemia

For all other age groups, the deaths from leukaemia greatly exceeded that from firearms. In addition, as already stated above, suicide rates are NOT means dependant and should really be discounted because in the absence of firearms suicidal people just switch methods. So in reality leukaemia causes more potentially preventable deaths than firearms misadventure at all age groups.

For interest sake, here are the remaining numbers:

Age <1

2 firearms homicides

0 firearms suicides

5 deaths from leukaemia

Ages 1-10

9 firearms homicides

0 firearms suicides

32 deaths from leukaemia

Age >30

85 firearms homicides

526 firearms suicides

5235 deaths from leukaemia

All ages

140 firearms homicides

687 firearms suicides

5415 deaths from leukaemia

7) 95% of all deaths in Alberta in 1997 involving firearms were intentional."

Again, so what? If you intend to kill your self or another person you will do your best to carry this out.

You should really look at this the other way around. What you have actually said is that of all firearms deaths, only 5% were accidental. That's a pretty good safety record, if you ask me. Compare this to accidental versus intentional automobile deaths, and you'll get the idea. Cars are far and away more dangerous to use than firearms. So are numerous other everyday objects that we take for granted. For further analysis may I suggest Sellick's detailed article: teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

"Among 26 industrialized countries, Canada ranked 5th in rate of firearm related deaths among children aged less than 15 years."

For once we agree on something. Canada has, indeed, quite a high firearms related death rate compared to the other civilized nations of the world. But as Guy Smith aptly shows in his book 'Gun Facts' https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf this has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership rates. In fact the firearms death rates can be shown to correlate quite nicely with the severity of a country's gun control laws. In 1994, the US Department of Justice released a study entitled 'Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse - Research Summary' https://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf. On page 18 (25 in Adobe format) there is a table that clearly shows that when inner city youth are given access to legal firearms training and ownership, their involvement in violent crime is ZERO. Apparently, a proper firearms education by a trusted adult mentor is highly protective against involvement in violence and gang activity.

9) "The rate of children killed with guns in Alberta is almost twice the national average and it is in fact comparable to the combined rates of Israel and Northern Ireland."

No, it's not.

The number of firearms deaths in Alberta in 1997 was, as mentioned above, 8 accidents, 79 suicides, 17 homicides, and 1 unspecified for a total of 105. This is from a population of 2,695,474, giving a rate of 3.8 per 100,000. The national average was 5.8 per 100,000. There is nothing to suggest that Alberta youth stray from this trend as compared to the overall population of all age groups.

It is plainly false to suggest that Alberta has a higher firearms death rate than the national average. As for international comparisons, what constitutes our death rates compared to other countries' has little to do with firearms ownership.

10) "In Alberta in 1996, more than 3 people are hospitalized each month with unintentional firearm related injuries."

For the last time, so what?! There are, on the average 500 times as many American children aged 0 to 4, and 100 times as many people of all ages killed by drowning in backyard pools as by firearms injury, and this is in the supposedly 'violent, gun infested' USA. Your statement is meaningless.

There is a huge wealth of reliable, peer reviewed, and supported primary research and review literature by well reputed members of the medical, criminological, legal, and sociological professions that clearly shows the complete failure of Draconian gun control laws such as Canada's, both historically and geographically as instruments of public safety or as means of reducing violent crime.

The recent Australian and British experiences with gun control shows that prohibiting or excessively controlling the lawful and harmless recreational and defensive uses of firearms by the ordinary citizen not only does nothing to reduce violent crime or suicide, but it in fact significantly increases the death toll due to criminal violence. These laws actually kill people. For example, in London, England, following the Dunblane gun ban firearms murders have risen by 90%. In Australia following the confiscation and destruction of some 665,000 legally owned firearms the murder rate went up over the entire country, with the worst increase seen in Victoria - a rise of 300 percent!

In every one of the USA's concealed carry states, the rates of all violence, and most especially firearms violence, dropped significantly following the institution of 'shall issue' laws that permit ordinary law-abiding citizens to become trained and then engage in defensive concealed carry of firearms. It may sound radical, but those are the facts, readily verified by anyone who chooses to do a bit of literature review.

The reasons for these phenomena are complex, but part of it is that only the law-abiding will obey firearms laws, now matter how strict. In fact the more severe the law, the more law-abiding those who obey it. The Responsible Firearms Community are not the ones committing violent crimes in the first place, and so wasting vast sums of money interfering with their harmless pastimes simply squanders scarce resources that could be better used to fight real criminals.

As mentioned above, in 1994 the US Department of Justice released a

report on urban delinquency that looked into the issue of gun ownership by inner city youth. It turns out that when these youth are given proper firearms safety and handling training and are encouraged to practice with lawfully acquired firearms under the guidance of adult coaches, their involvement with violent crime is zero. Not just a lower percentage, but ZERO. It would appear that exposure to appropriate firearms training, as opposed to the media's and the gangs' violent versions of 'gun culture' when coupled with the attention of adult mentors is highly protective against involvement in violence.

There you have it: Draconian gun laws increase both violence and firearm death tolls while appropriate laws that respect the right of ordinary citizens to learn about and use firearms safely reduces both violence and firearm death.

Despite this, the Canadian Safety Council (CFC), via its mouthpiece Mr. Emile Therien, clings obsessively to the idea that if we can just punish the law abiding enough we can reduce the criminal's use of firearms. In addition most medical organizations across the country have jumped on the 'Costs-Only Analysis' band wagon without even the pretence of taking an evidence based approach.

They use misleading and partial statistics and inflammatory emotional rhetoric to make their case, all the while ignoring the facts. For example as mentioned 100 times as many American people of all ages and 500 times as many children below 4 years of age die of drowning in backyard pools as die by gunfire. The Canadian figures are similar.

Should we then launch a campaign to register and then ban backyard pools and water itself? Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim?

The various anti-gun organizations ignore the fact that firearms accidents began falling with the voluntary introduction of safety training put on by the shooting organizations in the '60s, long before any heavy handed government interventions. They ignore the fact that in countries where firearms are banned, guns are cheap and easy to obtain by the criminal element and suicides occur just as frequently, albeit with other means. They ignore the fact that firearms violence is simply violence, and has at its root the same causes as any violence. Guns don't cause the violence, but they can be its instrument.

A 'Cost-Only' approach ignores the 65,000 defensive uses of firearms by ordinary Canadians every year that result in saved lives and property. 3500 of these defensive uses are against human threats. In only 1% of the time is the gun actually fired. The rest of the time its mere presence is what buys the intended victim her second lease on life.

When the gun IS fired by an ordinary citizen, only in 2% of cases is an innocent bystander hurt, compared to 11% when the defensive shooter is a police officer. To the police's credit, this difference is explained by the difficulty they have entering a strange situation where the players are equally unknown to the cop. When an ordinary citizen uses a firearm defensively, there is little doubt who the bad guy is. My point is that when benefits AND costs are compared, it is plainly obvious that there is a net benefit to proper firearms training and ownership by ordinary citizens. The Swiss model is a prime example.

I find it ironic that Mr. Therien should support individual freedom, education, and responsibility as it pertains to driving and cell phone use, and drinking and driving, but he insists on State Nannyism in regards to the harmless, lawful use of firearms by ordinary, decent folk. It is interesting that 20 times as many people die while driving compared to murdered using firearms that anyone can purchase $5 million of public liability insurance as a shooter for $4.75 annually, no questions asked.

It is also interesting that some 300 times as many women die of breast cancer as there are people murdered with guns and yet breast cancer research gets 1/38th the funding as Bill C-68. To me THAT is a true public health issue.

I must whole heartedly agree with Mr. Therien when he states, "...It is counterproductive to have too many laws on the books if they cannot be enforced. Before calling for new laws, it is important to consider...can the problem be addressed through existing laws?...can the proposed legislation be realistically enforced?...can non regulatory approaches such as public education be used to address the issue?"

But I must ask Mr. Therien why the CFC applies this sensible public policy philosophy only selectively? To address his three questions in order as they pertain to the lawful use of firearms in Canada, following extensive research one can only answer, "yes, no, and yes!".

I must also ask why the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research continues to perpetuate the anti gun agenda and myths.

I look forward to your re-writing your 'Firearms Facts' page along scientific, evidence based lines.

--

M. J. Ackermann, MD (Mike)

President, St. Mary's Shooters Association

Box 3, RR 1, 4132 Sonora Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada

B0J 3C0

My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca

You will find extensive links to literature supporting my claims on the SMSA research site at:

www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/Research_Sites.html

In addition, I have appended below a bibliography of reliable information. An earnest review of this material should be done by your staff, and then we can all look forward to a rewrite of your "Firearms FACTS" site along unbiased evidence based lines.

Bibliography:

Statistical References:

1) Statistics Canada Cat. no. 84F0209XIB N o 84F0209XIB au cat.

Mortality - Mortalité -Summary List Liste sommaire of Causes, des

causes, 1997 1997 Shelf Tables

2) 1997 Alberta Vital Statistics Review.

Printed Texts:

3) More Guns, Less Crime John R. Lott, Jr.

2000, The University of Chicago Press

ISBN: 0-226-49364-4

E-articles and e-books:

4) Gun Facts, Version 3.1 Guy Smith 2001

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

5) Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse US Dept. of Justice 1994

https://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf

6) Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions by David B. Kopel April 25, 1993

rkba.org/research/kopel/kids-gun.html

7) Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review Edgar A. Suter MD

rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html?suter

Crime Comparisons Between Canada and the United States

https://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

9) Archive of Canadian Research Related to "Gun Control"

teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/research.html

10) A Mackenzie Institute Occasional Paper Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story Gary A. Mauser, Ph.D., Simon Fraser University, & H. Taylor Buckner, Ph.D., Concordia University (ret'd) January, 1997

teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/GUNCOVER.htm

11) Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality Sarah Thompson, M.D.

https://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

12) Physicians on Guns and Violence Edgar A. Suter MD, at al

home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/guns/physiciansRkba.htm

13) Gun Control And Justice In Canada Canadian Review Article

https://www.nucleus.com/guncontrol/index.htm

14) THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE RKBA Webring 9/19/2001

https://www.gunsandcrime.org/index.html

15) BBC News Online: UK Friday, 4 January, 2002, 12:28 GMT A country in the crosshairs

news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1741000/1741336.stm

Doctors Organizations:

15) Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

https://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm

16) Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws

teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

Martial_Artist · July 10, 2003

I apologize for its length.

There are countless other articles pertaining to guns in America with similar results. I refer the interested to

https://www.keepandbeararms.com

to the links located on the right side of the webpage, under Top Clicks.

Information revealing the truth behind firearms is located there, all fully supported by statistics and documentation.

Anyone not interested should ask themselves, why. Is there a prejudice against firearms present? Does a martial artist choose not to learn more concerning firearms simply out of a lack of interest or bias?

We can all do some good to learn more about firearms. We are martial artists. We study the arts of war and personal development. If we study for self-defense(as opposed to sport) it is imperative that we understand firearms. It is requisite that we know fact versus fiction. The criminals carry guns. The very reason we train for self-defense is against criminal assailants; to not understand firearms is a grave injustice to the martial artist.

I am not opening a discussion of politics or opinion with this thread. I am reporting fact and statistic. Whether or not someone likes guns is irrelevant in the face of statistical fact.

Please, take some time and learn more about firearms. Fear is dispelled with knowledge. It has been the adage for ages. Shed some light on the subject and you'll see better, and be better informed to make judgements and decisions.

Martial_Artist

sansoouser · July 11, 2003

thanks

G95champ · July 11, 2003

Although Im in the US Im all for the right to bare arms.

The only problem with guns and death is its so quick. I mean a person may think about killing himself but its hard to stab, hang, jump, etc. Its not hard to put your finger on a trigger it happens to fast. So maybe you save a few people every year that chicken out with gun bans.

I say don't bad the guns but make it hard to get the bulletts. I mean really how many bullets should a person have at one time? If you want to shoot, go to a range and you buy bullets there and what you don't use stays in your locker. If your going hunting, what a dozen or so should be enough. If you need more than that you don't need to be hunting what your hunting. LOL. Just my answer to a big problem.

John G · July 11, 2003

I don’t want to get into any political debate about the rights and wrongs about gun ownership.

However after reading Mr Ackermann’s comments on Australian's murder statistics I was somewhat alarmed.

The recent Australian and British experiences with gun control shows that prohibiting or excessively controlling the lawful and harmless recreational and defensive uses of firearms by the ordinary citizen not only does nothing to reduce violent crime or suicide, but it in fact significantly increases the death toll due to criminal violence. These laws actually kill people. For example, in London, England, following the Dunblane gun ban firearms murders have risen by 90%. In Australia following the confiscation and destruction of some 665,000 legally owned firearms the murder rate went up over the entire country, with the worst increase seen in Victoria - a rise of 300 percent!

On further investigation this is what I found:

All stats taken from: Australian Institute of Criminology

http://www.aic.gov.au/

---------------

Nationally, the highest proportion of homicide victims in 2001-2002 were killed with a knife or other sharp instrument (37.4%).

Assaultive force (hands/feet) was the second most common method/weapon used (25.7%), followed by firearm (14.2%).

A further 11.5% of homicide victims were killed with a weapon classified as "other weapon".

----------

In 2001-2002, almost one-half (46.4%) of all Australian homicides (where an offender has been identified) occurred between family members (intimates and other family combined).

More than one-third (36.4%) occurred between friends and acquaintances.

Only 15.6% of homicides in 2001-2002 were committed by strangers.

------------

Violent crimes recorded in Australia, 1995-2001

Year _ Homicide _ Assault _ Sexual assault _ Robbery __ Population

1995__ 356 _____ 101,710 ___ 13,099 ____ 14,564

1996__ 350 _____ 114,156 ___ 14,542 ____ 16,372

1997__ 360 _____ 124,500 ___ 14,353 ____ 21,305

1998__ 332 _____ 130,903 ___ 14,336 ____ 23,801

1999__ 386 _____ 134,271 ___ 14,104 ____ 22,606

2000__ 346 _____ 141,124 ___ 15,630 ____ 23,314

2001__ 340 _____ 151,753 ___ 16,744 ____ 26,565 ______19481746

Australias population growth is around 206,000 / Year

-----------

Homicide involving firearms as a percentage of total homicide, 1915 to 2000

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig09.gif

------------

Mr Ackermann’s link between the "confiscation and destruction of some 665,000 legally owned firearms" and Australia’s increase murder rate is selective statistics at best.

I agree with G95champ's comment "The only problem with guns and death is its so quick."

And for any of you who have had too scrape the brains of a 10 yo boy off the living room wall just because his mommy wouldn’t let him go to his friends place would attest to the fact that there are/were far too many unnecessary guns in Australia.

John G · July 11, 2003

We can all do some good to learn more about firearms. We are martial artists. We study the arts of war and personal development. If we study for self-defense(as opposed to sport) it is imperative that we understand firearms. It is requisite that we know fact versus fiction. The criminals carry guns. The very reason we train for self-defense is against criminal assailants; to not understand firearms is a grave injustice to the martial artist.

I couldn’t agree with you more..

I am not opening a discussion of politics or opinion with this thread. I am reporting fact and statistic. Whether or not someone likes guns is irrelevant in the face of statistical fact.

I'ts some of Mr Ackermann’s statistical fact's I find disturbing and alarmist.

Thought provoking post Martial_Artist

ZR440 · July 11, 2003

Suicide from guns is probably one of the efficient ways to go, if you are that disturbed or depressed enough. It's quick. No struggling, choking, gagging, anything like that. Yeah, I know, that's pretty crude. Children should not have to be included in that statistic. Parents need to lock their guns or ammo up with kids who don't know the consequences. But I'm a realist, not an idealist. I also like being in a state that has faith enough in it's people to allow concealed handguns.

Martial_Artist · July 12, 2003

Thank you John G, for the informative post. Without debating politics governing ownership there are a few things I would like to comment on.

I'm not entirely familiar with the Australian government or its reporting agencies. In fact, I am not a statician; I merely gather the results of studies that have already been conducted. But, I am always subtly reminded of the differing approaches of reporting agencies. I gathered some statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Sydney Morning Herald taken from a work titled, "Gun Facts v3.2" which can be found on the https://www.keepandbeararms.com webpage. The results are as follows:

Here are the reported percentage increases since the 1995 ban.

Armed robbery 170.1%

Kidnapping/Abduction 144%

Assault 130.9%

Attempted Murder 117.6%

Sexual Assault 112.6%

From inception of the ban to March 27, 2000 there has been a

rise of 19% in gun murders

rise of 69% in armed robberies

rise of 21% in home invasions

However in the 15 years before national gun confiscation,

firearm related homicide dropped 66%

firearm related death dropped almost 50%.

Even the statistics you present demonstrate a very high increase in assault, rape, and robbery. The homicide statistics only demonstrate a fluctation, there were 386 in 1999--four years after the ban, there isn't a demonstratable correlation.

Anyways, I'm sure you can agree that suicide is a statistic that is unaffected by the presence of a gun. Japan, a country with very strict gun control, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Suicidal tendencies are psychological, not dependent on whether an inanimate object is located within a house. Pieces of metal do not tell people to kill themselves, as much as the building tells the person to jump from it, the razor to slit their wrists, or any other method. A relation between suicide and gun ownership is irrelevant. A person with suicidal tendencies will find a way. Agreed a gun is quick way of killing yourself. Then again, so is jumping from a building, stepping in front of a semi-truck, drowning yourself, poison, etc. Having a shaving razor does not increase the chances of suicide. Living in a tall apartment complex does not increase the chances of suicide. Having a gun in the house does not increase the possibility of suicide. Suicide, the attempt thereof, is an illness that requires attention and interception before the victim reaches the point of taking their life.

But suicide and firearm possession are irrelevant. I'm not sure what you mean by unnecessary firearms. For every person who has had to use a firearm to save the life of their loved one, or had to watch their daughter being raped and killed before their eyes in their own living room, I can assure you each one has felt a firearm necessary.

I think perhaps you mean illegal, i.e. those in the possession of ones who should not have firearms, i.e. criminals. I can see the reasoning behind not wanting such an effective tool in the hands of those with wrong intentions. But, defining unnecessary is vague at best. What is unnecessary? Defining that would require entering into a discussion on the politics behind gun ownership; something I did not intend with this particular thread. Perhaps another thread...

Thank you for the additional statistics. We were able to learn that most of Australian crime is commited by a loved one. I can assume they are domestic violence cases between spouses. I wonder how many deaths or injuries could have been prevented by the mere possession of a firearm by the victim. In the US 2.5million possible deaths and injuries are prevented by law-abiding citizens who carry a firearm. 97% of those victims report that the firearm saved their lives. 0.1% of that 2.5million actually fired a shot. The other 99,9% didn't, they merely brandished it.

It is not alarming, however, that rape, assault, and robbery are on the rise. Criminals have less to fear now. They did not participate in the gun turn-ins recently. They do not follow law (they are criminals). They know that the average joe in Australia won't have a gun. They know that the average house in Australia won't have a gun. What do they have to fear? A phone call to the police?

As for accidental firearm death the number is insignifcant, in the US, compared to other ways of dying. For example, taken from the 1997 National Safety Council's Accident Fact Book.

You are twice as likely to suffocate on something swallowed.

Seven times more likely to be poisoned.

10 times more likely to die from falling

and 31 more times to die in an automobile accident.

Automobile accidents rank the highest with 43,000 per 100,000

Other (including medical malpractice) 14,000 per 100,000

Falls 14,000 per 100,000

Poisoning (solids and liquids) 10,000 per 100,000

Drowing 4,000 per 100,000

Fire, burns 3,000 per 100,000

Suffocation 3,000 per 100,000

Firearms-related less than 2,000

Poisoning(gas & vapors) less than 1,000

In 1996 there were only 21 accidental deaths from firearms for children under 15. About twice as many children under 10 drowned in a bathtub. (Center fo Disease Control, US.)

I could go on and on and demonstrate that firearms represent a near non-problem in the accidental world, but I refer the interested student to https://www.keepandbeararms.com GunFactv3.2 under TopClicks on the right side of the webpage.

An additional fact. Every year there are 750,000 deaths and injuries from medical malpractice. There are an average of 11,000 firearms related incidents. I think anyone who has lost a loved one to malpractice would understand that there is no need for unnecessary doctors. Just keep the doctors that are necessary.

I appreciate the input and reponses. This is exactly what I sought to accomplish with this thread: a place to discuss, outside politics, facts concerning firearms. Personal opinions are welcome, but should not extend reasonable support offered by available information.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

MA.

p.s.

More comments are welcome. I would rather this thread not die out from inactivity.

Martial_Artist · July 12, 2003

G95Champ,

I can understand the concern behind wanting to restrict access to the bullets. But who is to define what is a reasonable amount? For example, to maintain good pistoling skills so that one is able to consistenly hit their target, be able to maintain safe handling skills, and safe defensive skills a person should shoot at the very least 100 rounds a week. Ideally that person should be shooting 200-400 a week. It takes less than an hour to shoot 100 rounds in a training session. A responsible gun owner should be shooting for at least 2 hours. With firearms it is especially important to shoot often, because of the quickness of loss of skill inactivity brings. Now, we are looking for the average person a minimum of 400 bullets a month. Best case, meaning the case in which the shooter will become the most proficient and safe, is 3200 rounds a month. The more a person shoots the better that person becomes in handling their firearm. The better that person is at handling his firearm, the safer that responsible gun owner will be. So, ideally each person should be allow 3200 rounds a month for their handguns. Each hand must be shot differently. So if you own two guns you should ideally be shooting 6400 bullets a month, or if money is tight 800. Now, hunters and sport shooters need to shoot too to keep their accuracy up. Practice for a target shooter will need to be as equal as a defensive shooter, with an allowance for more bullets because accuracy on a stricter is requisite with their sport. Hunters, in order to be successful, must be accurate and safe. Though not as much, their needs are still high.

So, when do we define what amount a person should be allowed? The more you shoot the better a shooter you become. The more training you receive, which is always coupled with shooting, the safer you become.

You see, you have missed the problem, and instead have chosen to blame an inanimate object. Bullets are not the problem. Guns are not, either, because neither can act of their own free will. People with bad intentions holding firearms are the problem. Not the 80+million law-abiding gun owners in America.

Restricting gun ownership or bullet limits is not the solution. Better education is. There have been guns in my family, our houses, since before the Civil War. Gun deaths : 0. Accidents : 1 (Because my uncle was foolish enough not to be safe. He shot himself in the thigh). This is a hundred or so years of gun ownership in our family. 1 accident and the accident was because of the user, not the firearm.

Gun accidents usually the result of unsafe behavior on the part of the user. With children who have not been taught properly, or are too young, the fault lies with the parent. With children who are older and have been taught to be safe, the fault is theirs. I was taught properly. I have not had one single accident with guns in the 20 some odd years I have been shooting them and in the years before that when I was just allowed to look. My kids are being taught properly. Gun in this house are a non-problem. In fact, they are respected and recognized for their benefit. This is because we understand firearms. Our understanding leads to mroe responsible possession and usage.

You see, by stating that guns should only stay at ranges, who are you targeting? The criminals who actually commit crimes? No, just the law-abiding joe trying to live a peaceful life. When do criminals go to the range and leave their guns and ammo there? How could this possibly affect crime? When you place restriction such as you have suggested you are not affecting criminals. You are not targeting criminals. Although, I feel that is your intent, it is not the result. Making a law that states, all guns must be locked at a range and you only get 1dz bullets means only the law-abiding will be gunless and ammo-starved. I mean, last time I checked there weren't any criminals who think, "Man, there's this gun law out there that I must follow. Guess that means I'll have to leave my gun at the range and only carry a handful of bullets."

But, anyways, I'm straying. Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to open this thread to help educate. We all carry misconceptions about some thing. I am merely hoping to help clear some of those misconceptions out. Knowing more about firearms helps us all. It better equips us in our decision making, our safety, and in our roles as martial artists-the upstanding in a community.

Thanks G95. Your participation in this thread is appreciated. To be honest, I was afraid that it might be totally avoided as people usually fear even talking about guns. I'm glad you weren't.

MA.

Red J · July 14, 2003

These laws actually kill people.

Just when I thought I had it. Guns don't kill people, people used to kill people, now laws kill people. How about statistics? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I personally think that individuals need to be held accountable for their actions on any and every level. Education always helps. Agressive accident prevention curriculums are easily available and almost always have something on gun safety/awareness.

Sign In

Some gun facts.

Recommended Posts

Martial_Artist

Martial_Artist

sansoouser

G95champ

John G

John G

ZR440

Martial_Artist

Martial_Artist

Red J

Browse

Activity

History