- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
Gun Safety and Kids: 30 Child Gun Deaths Per Day in U.S.
ANN ARBOR, MI -- As many as one-half of American households have a gun, and each day, nearly 30 children are injured or killed by firearms in the United States - most from guns owned by the child's family or friends.
In August 2010, the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health asked 1,621 parents about gun ownership and if they have talked about gun safety with their children.
The poll found that one-third of respondents with children, age 5-17, report having a gun in the household. Of parents with guns in their homes, 82 percent said they have discussed gun safety with their children — most within the past year. In contrast, only 48 percent of parents without guns in their household have ever discussed gun safety with their children.
Eighteen percent of gun-owning parents say they have never talked with their children about gun safety and 52 percent of parents who do not have a gun at home have never talked with the children about gun safety.
"With firearms in about one-third of the approximately 35 million U.S. households with children under 18, discussing gun safety is something all parents need to consider," says Matthew Davis, M.D., director of the poll and associate professor of pediatrics and internal medicine in the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the U-M Medical School. "Parents in non-gun-owning households simply cannot assume that their children will never encounter a situation involving firearms."
Regardless of gun ownership, parents who have talked to their children about gun safety guidelines are more confident that their kids will practice gun safety than parents who have not talked with their children.
When asked, "How worried are you that your child could get hurt with a gun when at a friend's home?" 19 percent of parents say "very worried." Among gun owning parents, only 10 percent are very worried, compared with 24 percent of parents who do not own a gun.
"When more than half of non-gun owning parents have never discussed gun safety with their children and nearly 1 in 5 gun-owning parents have never discussed gun safety with their children, many children may be unprepared to understand and follow the basics of gun safety," Davis says. "Parents need to learn how to talk to their children about gun safety whether they own a gun or not, to be sure their children are prepared should they ever encounter a situation where a gun is present."
Davis says parents should look for age-appropriate education materials to emphasize the basic principles of gun safety and discuss them with their children. Some basic gun safety tips include:
-- Never point a gun at anyone, even if you think it is not loaded.
-- Only use a gun when you are with an adult.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Magazine ban law text is released
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47565.html
The McCarthy magazine ban bill text is released. Would ban mags over 10 rounds from sale or transfer, regardless of manufacture date. Apparently nothing about POSSESSION. Yet.
Clever splicing of two separate issues
Parents surveyed by the hospital: Children in the home 5-17 years old.
"Children" killed every day with guns : includes gang members up to 27 years old taken out in mutual combat.
Nice try. We do our research.
The U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics is one source. 99% of guns never involved in a crime or accident.
Gun safety education is wonderful, recommended for gun-owning families and EVERYONE ELSE, for the same reason everyone needs to know how to swim. Water and guns are here to stay.
Consider that in the Tucson pep rally -- I mean campaign stop -- I mean memorial service, Obama referred to "gun SAFETY laws," not "gun control laws." Advocates of civilian disarmament always call them "safety" laws.
Better to have one and not need it than need it and freakin get butchered.
Let a Canuck, give ya a yuck!
Funny how if one checks, the police as per 10 separate federal and state supreme courts have ruled the police are not legally liable to protect the individual citizen in the US, prove otherwise.
The pathetic numbers are FBI UCR database 2008 1.38 million violent crimes reported, 9 million property crimes. Of those reported review of totals shows that police only closed or solved 49% of the total VIOLENT crimes reported.
Then review the % of federal & state cases successfully prosecuted, you see an 80% average.
We haven't even talked about the 75% of violent crimes not reported each year. The USDOJ National Victimization annual report 2008 shows 4.8 million violent crimes not reported.
Even a Canadian study back in 2003/2004 that says the exact, same, thing!
Total those reported not solved and those violent crimes never reported but acknowledged to exist by the government, and only 10% of all violent crimes are solved each year. That means the police really, really, really suck at protecting the individual citizen, and really, really, really suck at solving and prosecuting those they have a clue on.
Yet you believe the only ones authorized are the only one capable of defending the citizens when they suck so bad at actually doing their job, such is the intelligence of brainwashed progressives.
Even funnier is the yuck Canuck believes the police in Canada are any different or more efficient, lol!
If the police were more efficient, why then since the extreme gun control implemented in 1997 has the Canadian police failed to reduce the violent crime rate in Canada from 951 per 100k? Why have the police in Canada failed to reduce the number of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm?
Why has less guns not equaled less crime, again?
Don't believe us, well just go to your governments database of Statcan and review, if you have the guts!
The story is the same in Australia & England, but worse.
Go review aic dot gov, and home office uk and boy, their violent crime rates went up after their bans in 1997, and haven't come back down. Murders stayed the same or increased. and just like in Canada, they can't even count all the crimes the same as the FBI.
Yeah, we by a Canucks lame viewpoint, should only allow the police to defend us, when they fail to almost 6 million times a year, and fail to catch much less prosecute over 10% of that total each year.
You do know the best response time is 4 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes average if they show up at all. All the while you are going to sweet talk the attacker into not attacking you or yours right?
We should be good little drones and let the criminals who by the Canuck-a-Yucks viewpoint have more inherent rights than the intended victim. After all a women raped and strangled in her own panty hose is morally superior to a dead attacker eh?
Hey, take a look at the following where in 4 instances, people violated the law in several gun free zones and had a gun to defend themselves and others.....
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois UNiversity, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone 5 incidents
Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 4 incidents
murdered: 7
injured: 13
Even the US Government, the Clinton Administration in 1997 agreed that 1.5 million defensive gun uses occur on average every year.
So much for unarmed being safer in a GUN FREE ZONE.
Sooo much more government data, so many more facts.
So next time Canuck-a-Yuck old boy, if ya don't want to look a fool, don't blog about this subject!
Good call Jarhead1982!
Police Have NO DUTY to Protect Individuals
Here's some examples of what the courts have ruled:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
But what do a few fact mean to Libtard-No-Nuts anyway?
to the "Non-Biased" Jarhead
Your comment is full of misquotes, incorrect information and several times you've completely missed the point in what I said, but I found it funny nonetheless how much effort you put into justifying to yourself how for some reason the answer to reducing violent crime is to arm everybody. I won't address everyone of your mistakes but in response to your statement that Canada hasn't reduced violent crime in the last 10 years... please see the link http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100720/dq100720a-eng.htm to be humbled. As you did not list a source I'll assume you were ill-informed.
What makes you look so ignorant and brainwashed is that you use the above examples of shootings in schools and restaurants as evidence FOR making guns available. Where exactly do you think these psychopaths procured these guns!? There's obviously no convincing someone that looks at comparative murder rates per capita and doesn't understand that while Canada an most of western Europe for example enjoy the lowest rate on the planet, the USA is nestled somewhere between Kenya and Uruguay. The disappointing part of it to me is that my Country has to suffer because of guns that find their way into Canada from guess where...south of the border. In the end you offer no explanation as to WHY your country is so different from the rest of the civilized world to have the murders that you have!! If you don't think more guns per capita is correlated to more gun crime per capita that please tell me what it is?!!!
So tell us how the U.S. NON-GUN related murders compare...
to Canada's murder rates.
Does Canada have as many blacks as the U.S.?
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.
Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and in 1998 the murder rate was 56.9 per 100,000. While just 3 MILES AWAY, Arlington, Virginia with its "lax gun control laws" had a murder rate of just 1.6 per 100,000, less than 3% of the "Gun-Free" D.C. murder rate.
You stated: "There's obviously no convincing someone that looks at comparative murder rates per capita and doesn't understand that while Canada an most of western Europe for example enjoy the lowest rate on the planet, the USA is nestled somewhere between Kenya and Uruguay."
What is YOUR source?
As for "List of the Top Countries for Murder in the World" . . . the U.S. doesn't even make the "Top Ten List".
(United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 – 2000.)
Hey! Mexico is "GUN-FREE" and has a murder rate that makes it the 4th highest in the World.
What is the gun control like in Columbia, Jamaica and Russia, the 3 countries that have murder rates higher than "GUN-FREE" Mexico?
You claim: "There's obviously no convincing someone that looks at comparative murder rates per capita and doesn't understand that while Canada an most of western Europe for example enjoy the lowest rate on the planet, the USA is nestled somewhere between Kenya and Uruguay."
Kenya and Uruguay didn't make the "Top Ten Deadliest Country" List.
HEY! Is #3 Russia considered Europe? How about # 6 Latviain Europe? Isn't #7 Lithuania in Europe? #8 Belarus?
As for the deadliness of countries with guns : Is Switzerland considered Europe, what the availability of guns like there? Gun crime rates?
I thought this excerpt from your own article was interesting:
"However, some violent crimes did increase. There were 806 attempted murders in 2009, 85 more than in 2008. Increases were also reported in the rate of extortion, firearms offences and criminal harassment."
So while making gun access for the LAW-ABIDING more DIFFICULT in Canada, the gun offenses by CRIMINALS in Canada went UP!
Hmmm, this makes it look like your own source disputes your claim of "restricting access to guns lowers crime".
So could you give a little proof back ANY of your claims?
+1
Nice work
Bad article.
This article is in all ways quick and loose with the facts. While it has a valid point, they went about in a poor way of making it.
The most recent figures I could find on child related gun deaths with the CDC was 1997. It reported for groups ages 0-14 2,514 nonfatal firearm injuries and 630 fatal. This comes to a rate of 6.9 and 1.8 a day, respectively.
While this is the 1997 values, all resources indicate that gun violence and accidents have been declining since 1993. So we could actually expect less today.
The 30 a day figure included the 15-24 age group. (read, gangs) which has a much higher rate of injury than every other grouping the CDC uses based on age. nonfatal injury for that range is actually equal to each other group combined.
In close, yes we should teach out kids about how to be safe with guns . That should be common sense yall. I mean, even if you don't own a gun doesn't mean your kids best friend's parents don't.
And, we should also work to keep our kids from joining a gang. cause that's the number one source of violence here. the only way we'll stop them is to starve their members.
sources
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4845.pdf
How to lower gun deaths - reduce gun laws
The state with the most gun control laws has a murder rate over four times higher than the state with the least gun control. If you want to lower gun violence reduce restrictions on the good guys. The six states that have the lowest rates of murder have all adopted a policy of "shall issue" concealed carry. Places such as Chicago, New York City, and Washington D.C. go berserk over the thought of a citizen being able to carry self protection and their murder rates reflect their unwillingness to respect the citizen's right to self defense. And I am..... E. Zach Lee Wright
PS the headline said "30 Child Gun Deaths Per Day in U.S." This is pure bs. Total gun deaths nationwide including police shootings and justified homicides are around 15000 a year which is 41 per day. For the headline to be true 75% of deaths would be children. Yeah, right.
E Zach Lee-Wright
Backwards Dilemma in the Cost of Doing Business
I'm curious which two states you refer to in the beginning of your comment, I'd like to look that up and verify it because it sounds like an impossible reality, as farfetched as this articles claim of 30 child guns deaths/day like you mentioned.
I suppose the best way to answer the debate "Does the availability of guns affect the gun related crime rate" is to look at two similar countries like Canada and the USA and acknowledge that the availability and regulations around guns quite obviously is related to the violent crime and murder rates. If Canada has around 12% the people as the USA but the murder rate is less that 1% of the USA's, one can draw a logical conclusion that a key variable in determining how many people in your country will be murdered this year is: the quantity and availability of the murder weapons.
The idea that a gun offer's you any kind of protection is an argument that is over a hundred years old and from a much less civilized society where life was a little more cheap. The chance of you ever using a gun in an instance where it will save your life is very slim, and if you are unlucky enough to enter a situation with a armed person who means you harm, there is virtually no chance that you pulling out a gun at this point are going to improve your chances of survival (if you even have it one you at the time). You are buying a gun for protection against something you will probably never need. Before you consider its "better safe than sorry", you have to consider that the risk of a gun related accident in your home is increased by having one there and the causal effect that society now has to accept is that gun violence and murder WILL increase because of this. Gun supporters understand this and accept it. The Gun Control folk don't, but what voice do they have, seriously? The one at the forefront of this debate is the NRA. There is a little too much power with a lobby like the NRA which is, as is known to most, has some questionable links to the KKK in it's origin and is heavily funded and entrenched in the firearm industry and an arm in politics that represents this industry whose goals are achieved at the cost of innocent lives (to take a step back and look at the broader picture for a moment). They not only accept the status quo, they fight for less regulation and consider the harm that guns cause "the cost of doing business". I guess I just can't believe why if the USA is a true democracy than 1) how does the public accept this and 2) Why does America allow for lobbies to become so empowered and influential in steering public policy to benefit themselves at society's expense. What can't ever be disputed is that the presence of more guns in a society is accompanied by an increased rate of gun deaths. It's sad/confusing how that the voice of a society that is feeling the negative impacts of the crime is relatively unheard next to the NRA, almost as if they've just swallowed the kool aid and accepted this reality as is, which is too bad because they are the one's who will have to stand up if things are to ever change.
The NRA is a bunch of quislings
I wear seatbelts and have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, neither of which I hope will ever be called upon to do their job.
I've owned guns for about 25 years with no effects except not having to wake up in terror at every sound downstairs, preventing a rape and a robbery, and learning how much freedom we've had taken away. Gun owners of necessity have to learn about gun laws, and history.
Constitutional republic, not democracy.
Let's stick to the facts
You said, "[...]there is virtually no chance that you pulling out a gun at this point are going to improve your chances of survival[.]"
But the facts don't support that statement. According the the Bureau of Crime Statistics:
Percent of people injured during a robbery and resisting with a knife: 40.3%
Percent of people injured during an assault and resisting with a knife: 29.5%
Percent of people injured using non-violent resistance during a robbery: 35.9%
Percent of people injured using non-violent resistance during an assault: 25.5%
Percent of people injured doing nothing during a robbery: 24.7%
Percent of people injured doing nothing during an assault: 27.3%
Percent of people injured resisting with a gun during a robbery: 17.4%
Percent of people injured resisting with a gun during an assault: 12.1%
That doesn't exactly jive with the anti-gun position that it makes a situation worse. And there are plenty of real life examples available to those that would only look. Of course they are ignored by the media . But before you say that's just conspiracy theory bunk, take the example of the 2002 Appalachian State shooting. In the hundreds of news accounts that were published about the event, only two or three even mentioned that the attacker was stopped by armed students. Plenty more examples can be seen here:
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com
"What can't ever be disputed is that the presence of more guns in a society is accompanied by an increased rate of gun deaths."
Then how do you explain Chicago vs. Kennesaw, GA? Guns are illegal in Chicago and only criminals have them. Their murder rate is so high that the governor at one point considered bringing in the National Guard. Kennesaw, GA on the other requires every eligible citizen to keep a gun in the home. Admittedly this law is not strongly enforced, but there are plenty of gun owners there. And they haven't had a gun-related homicide in 25 years.
The fact is, the presence of guns does very little to affect the homicide rate. There are many socio-economic factors you are ignoring and simply blaming the presence of guns. I'm afraid it's not that simple, as evidenced by Switzerland. Or on the other end, Mexico.
Who are the "Bureau of Crime Statistics?
You write about "facts", but I can't find the supposed source of your "facts''.
My bad.
It's the Bureau of Justice Statistics, not Crime Statistics. I'm not sure where I came up with that name.
You could further address the LIE . . .
Simply by comparing the "Gun-Free Zone" Luby's Massacre where 23 were murdered and 20 were injured; to the Shoney's NON-Massacre where Thomas Glen Terry used his gun against THREE armed assailants and NO INNOCENT WAS HARMED.
No, the media seldom mentions people saved by guns (Pearl HS for example); that would too clearly illustrate the stupidity of the anti-Freedom crowd.
It would be bad enough
If the mainstream media refused to tell the whole story by marking the preventative uses of crime by lawful gun owners, but the fact is that they are actively SQUASHING that truth.
You read that right: The site thearmedcitizen.com is being sued for collecting (with linkbacks to their sources) small newspaper stories of armed people thwarting crime and protecting themselves with their firearms-- By a newspaper company. (Las Vegas Review-Journal)
The site itself is almost an internet gravestone marking its place on the web, but google caches:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache : http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/2010/07/29/lawsuit-update /
Yellow journalism is alive and well.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
OV has a tendency to break some links.
This one was no exception, but we patiently wait on them to fix whatever causes it.
To view the link, one must copy both lines and paste it into their browser, remove the 3 spaces, and mash the ENTER key.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Facts
On the Brady score card Utah scored the lowest, with a 0, and California the highest with a 79.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2454429/posts
The Utah murder rate is 1.3 per 100,000 as of 2009, where as CA had a 5.3 per 100k in 2009.
Utah had 212 per 100,000 violent crime rate, Ca had 475.5 per 100,000 violent crime rate.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/utcrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
The Kleck and Gertz report estimates that there are 2 to 3 million uses of a firearm annually to prevent crime in the US in which a shot was never fired. This report has never been refuted by any gun control advocacy group. Many of them even conceding its point.
It can be estimated there there are around 1.5 million violent events in the US reported annually. Meaning that if Kleck and Gertz' report is accurate, that 1/2 of all violent crimes were never committed due to a confrontation with an armed victim.
As for Canada and the US. Comparing the crime rates of two countries is difficult, due to a difference in laws and what counts and crime. I guarantee you Somalia has the lowest "crime rate" since it has no functioning government or laws.
But anyways. I can't make a solid argument around the US or Canadian crime rates since the only ones that ever get posted are homicide and and aggravated assault. Both of which are around the Utah or Vermont rates.
Whereas, up in the North West Territories or Nunavut the crime rates would place them amongst the top ten most dangerous places to live in the US.
Mexico, which has very strict gun control laws (Effectively only police and military forces are allowed to even have ammo) has a crime rate much higher than the US.
I'll propose, that its not the availability of weapons that controls the crime rate, but the moral fiber of the people.
Backwards sounds right
It seems you must get most of your information from Spin City because legitimate sources are easy to find and quickly show how misinformed you are.
First up: The U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, never has been and hopefully never will be one. It is a constitutional republic which is different in several very important ways.
The least biased statistics can be found at
Interesting to note that crime rates have not only declined in the face of rising drug violence, the nature is changing as well. My first thought s a reluctance (night home activity down, daytime numbers up) to chance a confrontation with an armed citizen.
The report show justified shootings growing from about 198 to 261 over the past five years so I guess it works much better than you thought. Here's a sample of how it works around here.. .
You might want to consider getting correct and reliable information before you wind up sounding like an idiot again.
BTW: Comparing apples and pineapples doesn't work either.
Typical backwards thinker
The only one that sounds like an idiot is the one celebrating an increase in justified shootings. That's great! 261 clean shoots for every 13636 murders in 2009 and that is clearly getting to the root of the problem which is for one thing the abundance of guns .
(using your posted source," http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html ")
That's a cool 1.9% of incidence where the would be victim shot someone successfully. If someone where selling any other product with this poor of a success rate and with the same implications on many other social factors this wouldn't fly. THis does only because fear has taken over and the USA is sadly one of the last developed countries in the western world that stands alone on this issue as with many other things. The track record speaks for itself so I wouldn't be patting yourself on the back yet. You are looking at the figure's of the US's futile attempts to get a handle on gun violence using the same approach as always. Why don't you do some research about the murder rates of countries outside of the USA with a firm stance on gun control. I'm interested hear what a person like you thinks the differences are in the USA that makes them so much more violent?
If your stance is, the more people that are armed the better, I take it that you accept the deaths that wouldn't have occurred if not for the accessibility of a gun as the cost of your own perceived increased safety. Perhaps you have some murder reducing strategy in mind that allows for less killing AND a society full of guns, I'd love to hear all about it.
One more time
I have no idea why the links went away. Here they are for another try. Search by source name if they vanish again.
FBI Uniform Crime Report
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
Woman calls 911 and ends up shooting intruder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7OfbvNmGJc
I'll take my chances
"The chance of you ever using a gun in an instance where it will save your life is very slim, and if you are unlucky enough to enter a situation with a armed person who means you harm, there is virtually no chance that you pulling out a gun at this point are going to improve your chances of survival (if you even have it one you at the time)."
OK, If that's a fact, We can safely disarm our Police.
Don't disarm cops yet, They're your only real defence, not your rifle
Police deal with the 1% of society that cause 80% of crime . These 1% are people that you and I do not normally come into contact with but Police are trained specifically to deal with these dangerous people. My argument is that if YOU did, you really think you are going to get in a gun fight with someone? That's an irrational Cowboy reaction that will get people killed.
By the way, the United Kingdom has completely unarmed police, so as unlikely as it seems in the US's current condition, countries can function safely without having a government institution monitoring you with guns .
This is of course untrue.
Non-cops encounter the criminal element far more often than the cops do.
THINK about it: Do the criminals most often attack cops or non-cops? (Criminals go to some trouble to commit their crimes out of view of the cops. Cops have Tasers, pepper spray, sticks, GUNS and radios...with those radios they can call MORE men with Tasers, pepper spray, sticks and GUNS.)
Cops seldom arrive at the scene of a violent crime in time to even arrest a suspect, and certainly not in time to STOP the crime from happening.
While "there is never a cop around when you need one" . . . the VICTIM . . . is ALWAYS THERE!
The police in England not only have many areas where they WON'T GO, but since the subjects have been forbidden to defend themselves, more and more cops in Britain are now ARMED.
As for your comment: "My argument is that if YOU did, you really think you are going to get in a gun fight with someone? That's an irrational Cowboy reaction that will get people killed."
It is usually the "Bad guy" that is shot where the law-abiding are allowed to defend themselves. But then again: Why NOT give the law-abiding the opportunity to defend themselves against a deadly attack? (Compare the Virginia Tech to Virginia Appalachian massacre to the School of Law Shooting)
Many time serious crimes are stopped by the ARMED law-abiding citizen without even a shot being fired.
OK
What happens to an officer in the UK when he comes across a criminal that has a gun attempting to do harm? Wait a minute, everyone is disarmed though, even the criminals are decent enough to play along.
When seconds count, police are minutes away.
HUH?!?!
I am a firearm owner, and am friends with, and know of, many, many families that own firearms and I have never heard of anyone personally, or second hand injured by a firearm. I know of many people injured by automobiles, some permanently disabled. . . LET'S BAN CARS!!! How 'bout we exercise some common sense and reason and stop vilifying inanimate objects.
Thanks,
an unashamed NRA member