Guns

[Solid Lifters]

Well, there are reasons for gun control. It's not as if governments would implement such systems if it didn't benefit their country, after all, all it does is cost them money, so why would they do that if there wasn't a reason?

There are reasons for governments to regulate (ban) gun ownership. Hitler and Germany, is a prime example.

I think it is silly for people to say gun control kills.

You think it's silly? You think, when I correctly say, you're ignorant and unreasonable view of gun control that gets innocent people killed, is silly? Wow, insane is correct. Down-right heartless, too.

^ I mentioned the 2nd amendment. It's not a human right to own firearms, it's a human right to defend yourself. It's only a right to own guns in countries where they say so.

Owning a firearm is a right to defend yourself. There's no difference. That's what you don't get. How come? Again, I do have the right to defend myself with a firearm no matter what country I'm in. Why can't you understand that?

 

[Keef]

Well, there are reasons for gun control. It's not as if governments would implement such systems if it didn't benefit their country, after all, all it does is cost them money, so why would they do that if there wasn't a reason?

This is such a naive view it's sad. Governments regulate to benefit themselves, not their "country". And it doesn't cost the government anything because they get their money from us, and from the printing press. Money is no object to a government with a central bank.

I mentioned the 2nd amendment. It's not a human right to own firearms, it's a human right to defend yourself. It's only a right to own guns in countries where they say so.

I view not being able to own a gun as an infringement of my right to defend myself. I'm a small guy and wouldn't have a chance against some big strong dude, so a gun for self defense is necessary.

 

[Nicksfix]

I mentioned the 2nd amendment. It's not a human right to own firearms, it's a human right to defend yourself. It's only a right to own guns in countries where they say so.

If I have the right to bear arms,then that means that I am permitted to own a gun (upon background check),correct ? So why would you say it's not a right to own a firearm ? To bear an arm is to own an arm.

You don't have the right to own a firearm in any country

Then you turn and say this :

It's only a right to own guns in countries where they say so

Contradictory,yes ?

 

[Lasdul]

There are "reasons" for a lot of things governments do. That doesn't mean the reasons are rationally sound, or were made for logical reasons.

Yes, sometimes reasons "weren't made for logical reasons". However, it's not as if gun control is unjustified. It's a double edged sword. Facts don't lie- Domestic violence is far more likely to be committed (nearly double) in a household with a gun that can be accessed. Guns in homes are 43 times more likely to be used against a member of the household by someone who lives there than against a criminal. It's a double edged sword. The thing about gun control is it needs to be rational.

These 5 things constitute rational gun control:
- A national registry system
- Instant background checks
- Stiffer sentences for gun crimes
- Gun education
- And in the future, Hand grip ID tagging

Sorry, I really needed to read what I posted before^^^^. Of course guns should be allowed for self defense, but that doesn't eliminate the need for gun control.
Again, sorry. That was a shockingly naïve comment, but I think what I wrote above makes more sense.

 

[a6m5]

What bothers me is my right to own a gun. They let me, a Japanese citizen, own firearms in the United States of America.

Sounds funny, but it's true. It is mind blowing & a little scary to me that a foreigner(legal, permanent resident) can actually own guns in this country.

Not so much in what you think is right or wrong, but what are your impressions of this fact? I can't be alone in thinking this way???

 

[Omnis]

Dude, are you serious?

 

[darkninja210]

These 5 things constitute rational gun control:
- A national registry system
- Instant background checks
- Stiffer sentences for gun crimes
- Gun education
- And in the future, Hand grip ID tagging

No just plain no

National registry would actually allow the government to be able to seize firearms. It would also effectively stop private sale of firearms or become completely useless otherwise.

There are already instant background checks. Darkninja doesn't have a problem with making this area better in some way though.

Stiffer sentences? You can't do much else to someone on deathrow. It is relevant that darkninja mentions its cheaper to keep someone in jail for life than put them on deathrow; what with all the appeals and delays and what not. More to the point stiffer penalties has absolutely nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with criminal penalties being fair or unfair. Darkninja has no sympathy for true sexual predators or people who commit violent crimes of any sort. So please do tell how this will solve any problems though it won't.

Gun education is available and in my state hunters safety is required in order to go hunting. As has been mentioned getting a CCW requires a class as well. While something Darkninja would suggest to any gun owner he doesn't think it should be mandatory for grandpa to take a class to keep a .22lr pistol; to if nothing else scare the ever living crap out of a home intruder.

This is not Metal Gear Solid 4 its real life. The magnetic "safety" ring modifications for 1911's have proven to be unreliable, uncomfortable, expensive, and easily removed. Not to mention what if a buddy of mine wants to shoot a firearm that is fire ID locked and can't. Its a huge hassle that is just not worth it because stolen guns will just have the components stripped out.


Darkninja is for no control in the US the 2nd amendment is very clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. however Darkninja believes that felons lose this right and agrees that domestic abuse should stop said assailant from owning a firearm for a minimum of 10 years without any other misdemeanors.

 

[Keef]

What bothers me is my right to own a gun. They let me, a Japanese citizen, own firearms in the United States of America.

Sounds funny, but it's true. It is mind blowing & a little scary to me that a foreigner(legal, permanent resident) can actually own guns in this country.

Not so much in what you think is right or wrong, but what are your impressions of this fact? I can't be alone in thinking this way???

Dude, are you serious?

Yeah, really. As a Permanent Resident you're entitled to the same rights and protections as US Citizens as long as you meet whatever conditions you have to meet to keep your status.

 

[Danoff]

Well, yeah. The constitution gives people the right to bear arms. While it's certainly not some sort of global "human right" to carry arms, it's a right within that particular country.

The question is whether the government is authorized in using force to prevent you from owning a firearm, not whether it is a right to carry one. The answer is no, the government is not authorized to use force in preventing you from owning, selling, manufacturing, or using a personal defense device like a handgun.

I never really understood what "right to bear arms" actually meant. I can kind of see why this becomes hot topic in politics though. It does say a lot towards total gun ban, but not that much on the degree of gun control.

The DC vs. Heller majority opinion went a long way toward explaining where this inalienable right comes from and therefore what role the government can play. That being said, the commerce clause can still be abused to enable the government to "regulate" gun sales - which can result in things like waiting periods and certifications. This is a problem with the abuse of the commerce clause rather than the 2nd ammendment.

Well, there are reasons for gun control. It's not as if governments would implement such systems if it didn't benefit their country, after all, all it does is cost them money, so why would they do that if there wasn't a reason?

They may have reasons to ban guns - but they aren't good ones (pretty sure I've heard them all). I can't see banning guns as a legitimate function of government from any angle. Not only is it in conflict with property and self-defense rights, but it doesn't sit in the government's charter. The proper role of government is the preservation of rights via justice - gun banning generally falls into the category of government trying to legislate safety at the cost of liberty.

 

[Lasdul]

Well, I agree. That was a bad post. However, gun control ≠ gun bans.

 

[a6m5]

Dude, are you serious?

Yeah, really. As a Permanent Resident you're entitled to the same rights and protections as US Citizens as long as you meet whatever conditions you have to meet to keep your status.

I am dead serious. I do hear what Keef is saying, I really do, but at the same time, I just can't believe a foreigner could own firearms here. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.

Danoff, thanks for the reply. While I can see why you would call those restriction "abuse", and it does make sense from general perspective, I can't help but to think that we do need some sort of background check in place.

From what I've been told, In the State of Oregon, you can purchase firearms from private party without any background check, or filling out any forms. In fact, I've come close to purchasing a Glock this way before, and a Remington 870 today(!). Of course, this means that people who have no business owning guns(criminals, terrorists) could, in theory, obtain firearms without revealing their shady identity, just by having some cash in their hand. Scenario like this makes me think that gun ownerships & transactions do need some form of regulation. I don't know, maybe I'm being crazy again. What do you guys think?

 

[Lasdul]

I am dead serious. I do hear what Keef is saying, I really do, but at the same time, I just can't believe a foreigner could own firearms here. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.

Danoff, thanks for the reply. While I can see why you would call those restriction "abuse", and it does make sense from general perspective, I can't help but to think that we do need some sort of background check in place.

From what I've been told, In the State of Oregon, you can purchase firearms from private party without any background check, or filling out any forms. In fact, I've come close to purchasing a Glock this way before, and a Remington 870 today(!). Of course, this means that people who have no business owning guns(criminals, terrorists) could, in theory, obtain firearms without revealing their shady identity, just by having some cash in their hand. Scenario like this makes me think that gun ownerships & transactions do need some form of regulation. I don't know, maybe I'm being crazy again. What do you guys think?

Well, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I realize my past arguments in this thread were naive, but that doesn't mean you should be able to walk in to a store and buy. There needs to be in-depth background checks and mandatory training, everywhere. A national gun registry would also be very helpful because it means the government can keep track of the who, what, where on guns in the country. Why is guns being seized a bad thing? If people abuse their gun rights, then they should be taken away. Hell, No private sales wouldn't even be that awful. The government could tax guns, and make sure that only the people who should get guns can, as opposed to shady private dealers. Everyone should be able to buy guns for self defense, but that doesn't mean that you should allow anyone with money to simply walk in and walk out.

 

[Azuremen]

I am dead serious. I do hear what Keef is saying, I really do, but at the same time, I just can't believe a foreigner could own firearms here. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.

You might want to. My friend's wife, who is a Japanese Citizen that has been in the US for several years now, cannot own a firearm from what he has said. It is one of the reasons they've considered having her get a US citizenship, but that would revoke her Japanese Citizenship.

Maybe Oregon has different policies on it than Washington? Sounds like you may have more relaxed rules on purchasing a firearm than Washington.

 

[Joel]

Well, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I realize my past arguments in this thread were naive, but that doesn't mean you should be able to walk in to a store and buy. There needs to be in-depth background checks and mandatory training, everywhere. A national gun registry would also be very helpful because it means the government can keep track of the who, what, where on guns in the country. Why is guns being seized a bad thing? If people abuse their gun rights, then they should be taken away. Hell, No private sales wouldn't even be that awful. The government could tax guns, and make sure that only the people who should get guns can, as opposed to shady private dealers. Everyone should be able to buy guns for self defense, but that doesn't mean that you should allow anyone with money to simply walk in and walk out.

Oh 🤬 no. Don't even get me started on the Canadian gun registry.

 

[Danoff]

I am dead serious. I do hear what Keef is saying, I really do, but at the same time, I just can't believe a foreigner could own firearms here. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.

Danoff, thanks for the reply. While I can see why you would call those restriction "abuse", and it does make sense from general perspective, I can't help but to think that we do need some sort of background check in place.

From what I've been told, In the State of Oregon, you can purchase firearms from private party without any background check, or filling out any forms. In fact, I've come close to purchasing a Glock this way before, and a Remington 870 today(!). Of course, this means that people who have no business owning guns(criminals, terrorists) could, in theory, obtain firearms without revealing their shady identity, just by having some cash in their hand. Scenario like this makes me think that gun ownerships & transactions do need some form of regulation. I don't know, maybe I'm being crazy again. What do you guys think?

Well, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I realize my past arguments in this thread were naive, but that doesn't mean you should be able to walk in to a store and buy. There needs to be in-depth background checks and mandatory training, everywhere. A national gun registry would also be very helpful because it means the government can keep track of the who, what, where on guns in the country. Why is guns being seized a bad thing? If people abuse their gun rights, then they should be taken away. Hell, No private sales wouldn't even be that awful. The government could tax guns, and make sure that only the people who should get guns can, as opposed to shady private dealers. Everyone should be able to buy guns for self defense, but that doesn't mean that you should allow anyone with money to simply walk in and walk out.

I'm all in favor of taking away gun rights from certain convicted criminals. That kind of check is justifiable - they have violated the rights of others and have forfeit some of their own. That's about as far as I can see support for it though.

 

[darkninja210]

From what I've been told, In the State of Oregon, you can purchase firearms from private party without any background check, or filling out any forms. In fact, I've come close to purchasing a Glock this way before, and a Remington 870 today(!). Of course, this means that people who have no business owning guns(criminals, terrorists) could, in theory, obtain firearms without revealing their shady identity, just by having some cash in their hand. Scenario like this makes me think that gun ownerships & transactions do need some form of regulation. I don't know, maybe I'm being crazy again. What do you guys think?

Possibly but Darkninja believes most people are only going to sell to people they know personally or have some way of proving their lack of criminal back ground ie. displaying a CCW or agreeing to a middle man sale which can be done at near any pawn shop and certainly any gun shop for 20-50 dollars. So why take this away, would you expect someone to prove that they drive safely before selling a car to them; would you even ask to see a valid drivers license for your state of residence. Point being the people who most likely sell to criminals and such no questions asked most likely obtain the firearms they are selling illegally. No need to punish the majority for the actions of few.

I am dead serious. I do hear what Keef is saying, I really do, but at the same time, I just can't believe a foreigner could own firearms here. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.

This kind of thinking from immigrants in the 70s and 80s gave rise to antigun campaigns culminating in the brady law and assault weapons ban, which by any measurable standard did absolutely nothing to curb or prevent gun violence. Since late 80s through today as more states lessen gun laws, adopt shall issue carry permits, and castle doctrine laws you see the trend of violent offenses of all sorts decrease. Of course people against guns attribute "other" factors, but when strict gun laws and high crime are successes for them Darkninja has to wonder what world they are living in. Look at the District of Columbia even before the gun ban was repealed the mere thought of the general populace being armed again lowered the homicide rate to the lowest it had been in more than 20 years SOURCE: http://www.borderstan.com/01/dcs-declining-homicide-rate-still-35-higher-than-1964/. Cannot wait to see the results for this year if they are lower still big win otherwise it would be acceptable to attribute other factors. Lets just wait and see.

There needs to be in-depth background checks and mandatory training, everywhere. A national gun registry would also be very helpful because it means the government can keep track of the who, what, where on guns in the country. Why is guns being seized a bad thing? If people abuse their gun rights, then they should be taken away. Hell, No private sales wouldn't even be that awful. The government could tax guns, and make sure that only the people who should get guns can, as opposed to shady private dealers. Everyone should be able to buy guns for self defense, but that doesn't mean that you should allow anyone with money to simply walk in and walk out.

OK Darkninja will go over this once more because you didn't appear to understand the first time.

The US already has fairly extensive back ground checks, granted only for the purchase of new guns or used guns bought from licensed gun dealers. While there is some room for improvement its fairly moot because as i have already mentioned most private sells are done responsibly. Where as criminals buy guns from criminal sources mostly.

As it stands now there are only state registries and the only purpose they serve is as a way to track firearms that are stolen and tack on extra taxes. A national registry would effectively stop private sales of firearms, which again infringes on my rights to sell personal property and increase general tax of firearms. How would you like to be taxed on the money you make from a garage sale or unable to have one without buying a permit to sell personal property? Also it would NEVER work any gun some one has that is already unregistered is most likely going to stay that way.

Guns being seized is a bad thing because it infringes on the rights of citizens. Now don't get Darkninja wrong its most likely unanimous that everyone has no problem with criminals losing their rights, but this issue goes much further. Take California for instance lets say i buy as SKS there legally in 2006, and in 2007 they pass some other law that the SKS that was legally purchased is now illegal. Instead of "grandfathering" the firearm in like they should do under the clause of ex post facto laws. They can go through there state registry kick in your door, seize your firearm, and send you to jail even if you had no idea that your legally purchased firearm magically became illegal. Dont think this happens? Check for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LQZI9COOU4&feature=channel granted this is an NRA video but this is also factual regardless of bias.

No private sales huh. No selling of any product without prior licensing and tax paid including yard sales, lemonade stands, bake sale fundraisers, ect. Does it still make sense? Blah Blah Blah firearms are a deadly weapons, no they only can be a deadly weapons. Darkninjas firearms have never hurt anyone, does that mean they are malfunctioning?

Firearms are HIGHLY taxed already. How much do you think the government makes each time a form 4473 is filled out (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf) keep in mind the people you are buying the gun from have to pay a Special Occupational Tax, SOT, as do manufactures and ammunition companies. Then there is the elevated sales tax because firearms are considered "luxury" items. Point is registration fees and NCIS come out of the pocket of the buyer not the seller on top of markup in total if you buy a gun at MSRP $100.00 the final cost will be around $175.00 at least in TN it works out that way but we have an even higher sales tax as there is no state income tax.

Your last sentence was the most intelligent thing you have said, and then you went and screwed it up do you have any idea how many gun laws there are? Let this sink in 20,000 that is not a typo twenty thousand, and if that is not enough to stop gun violence you really think adding more is going to make it better? As its been mentioned the problem is not the guns its the people, the failing education system, and the poverty level many people live with.

 

[a6m5]

I'm all in favor of taking away gun rights from certain convicted criminals. That kind of check is justifiable - they have violated the rights of others and have forfeit some of their own. That's about as far as I can see support for it though.

Yeah, on one hand, it is great it is awesome how I can just hand some guy $150 and own a used shotgun without the hassle of background check. But at the same time, it is disturbing that some guy who was just in jail for mugging can obtain a gun the same way, although I'm pretty sure law prohibits it.

You might want to. My friend's wife, who is a Japanese Citizen that has been in the US for several years now, cannot own a firearm from what he has said. It is one of the reasons they've considered having her get a US citizenship, but that would revoke her Japanese Citizenship.

Maybe Oregon has different policies on it than Washington? Sounds like you may have more relaxed rules on purchasing a firearm than Washington.

I can't imagine the ownership part of the law being different from state to state though. Perhaps on the identification process, waiting period, etc., but not on whether you are permitted to own a gun, or not.

Japan does not allow dual-citizenship, and that does suck. Stingy mother truckers.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Option b, I support strict control.

gun control ≠ gun bans.

exactly

not everyone can have guns / is prepared to bear guns.

if you are a thief, murderer or whatever, I'm sorry but you can't have guns.
if you want your first gun, ok, but before you have to do a course to learn the minimum about guns and prevent accidents.

I don't know where, but I have read that 30.000 people died in USA due to home accidents with guns.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't know where, but I have read that 30.000 people died in USA due to home accidents with guns.

What kind of time frame? That's Vietnam War or 1990's drunk driving deaths kind of numbers.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it says 613 in 2007, which is the most recent data available.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents


As for your other stuff, known criminals aren't allowed to own guns by law. And while in Kentucky you don't have to take a course to own your first gun, in order to carry a concealed gun legally you must get a permit, which requires a safety course and must be over 21, as well as pass a few other checks, such as DUI history, recent divorce or child custody case, etc.

 

[jswilli1]

We can debate forever on whether or not citizens of this country (U.S.A.) or any other country should be allowed to have or carry guns. I have reviewed several states laws since I recieved my Concealed Carry Permit namely in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado. The state laws vary from state to state but they do follow federal law when it comes to sales. Granted Lasdul has a valid point about private sales and guns possibly falling into the wrong hands. Bottom line is criminals will get what they want no matter what, Including gaining guns via theft. These nuts that get their P:censored: in a wad and decide to go to a college or workplace and shoot thier peers make it harder for law abiding citizens to keep their gun rights. Not only do I carry concealed but I thoroughly enjoy target shooting especially with my boys. Target shooting employs the boys to learn shooting safety and become familiar with various firearms. We are also avid hunters and enjoy the sport of hunting Deer and Squirrel. Being a resident of New Mexico now I am looking forward to entering the lottery to hunt Elk, and possibly to start hunting Quail.

With that said, Lets see some pictures of the GUNS you guys like to shoot!

I have one other point to make about Concealed Carry and Guns in general. I joined the NRA this year to support the fight for my 2nd Amendment rights. In the past seven years or so many states have made leaps and bounds in allowing Citizens the "Right to Carry" or protect or domain. Many states have passed legislation and adopted the "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand you Ground" laws. These two laws basically protect an individual from being sued in the event an intruder or aggressor is shot and killed by you in your home or on your property. Unfortunately New Mexico has no "Castle Doctrine" and is referred to as a "Retreat" state. In other words you are supposed to call the police and leave your home if someone kicks down your door to commit a crime! What this also translates too is this: If I shoot and kill someone who kicks down my door to commit an Home Invasion or robbery then I can be sued by the perpetraitor's family if they choose to do so. This past mid-term election cycle will help our 2nd Amendment rights as U.S. Citizens as many of the candidates are Pro-Gun. This includes both Republican and Democratic candidates across the ballot. In the future you will see more and more people applying for CCW permits and carrying concealed. More and more businesses will allow people to carry concealed in their establishments. Currently their are a great number that do allow concealed carry including banks! Concealed carry = deterrent in many businesses eyes, especially the ones that have been robbed mutliple times. Guys this is just food for thought, or maybe something else to debate? If anything you should find out about the Castle Doctrine in your state, this does not just include someone getting shot in your home! If someone trespasses on your property to rob you (or whatever) and inadvertantly gets hurt or maimed while nobody was home you can get sued if your state does not have the Castle Doctrine!

 

[Danoff]

If someone trespasses on your property to rob you (or whatever) and inadvertantly gets hurt or maimed while nobody was home you can get sued if your state does not have the Castle Doctrine!

If I shoot and kill someone who kicks down my door to commit an Home Invasion or robbery then I can be sued by the perpetraitor's family if they choose to do so.

...and the case will be dismissed in summary judgement. Someone's ability to bring a lawsuit against you is very different from the ability to succeed in suing you.

 

[jswilli1]

...and the case will be dismissed in summary judgement. Someone's ability to bring a lawsuit against you is very different from the ability to succeed in suing you.

This is most likely true, however this should never make it to court in the first place.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is most likely true, however this should never make it to court in the first place.

Summary judgment is pre-trial and where it would be tossed out on review of the merits of the case.

 

[Danoff]

This is most likely true, however this should never make it to court in the first place.

Summary judgment is pre-trial and where it would be tossed out on review of the merits of the case.

I'd have to review what these "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws actually do. But my guess would be that they simply alter the summary judgement dismissal of the case.

With the "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws, the SJ dismissal would probably be something silly like lack of standing - and extremely straight forward. Without those, SJ is probably less likely (though still likely) and likely to rely on a finding that the facts simply don't support the suit.

You're obviously better protected with a doctrine that covers your actions, but it doesn't mean you'd lose the case - or that it would even get past summary judgement if the doctrine didn't exist. And summary judgement is exactly how the court would toss out the case even with those laws.


Edit: I should point out that this aspect of our legal system is extremely confusing to many people in part because it is not taught in our phenomenal public education system. This is compounded by the fact that the NRA regularly confuses the term "sue" with "liability" in their materials. As a past contributor to the NRA I know this all too well. They do this intentionally to scare people into sending them more money. When they say "the burglar could sue you!" they mean exactly that, but they want you to think "you'd be liable" which is not what they mean. Suing someone is a fundamental right in this country that can't be taken away. Liability is something else. I like their cause, but I can't stand behind their scare tactic methods. In fact... I've arrived at a very strange place in this little aside. The NRA is using terror to achieve their goals. That actually makes them terrorists.

 

[darkninja210]

Castle Doctrine laws basically state anyone willing to enter your house illegally is assumed to have deadly intent whether they are armed or not thus justifying used of deadly force to defend oneself or family. Darkninja lives in Tennessee we don't have stand your ground laws, however we recently gained the ability to carry concealed weapons into restaurants that sell alcohol provided the person carrying does not consume which has been part of CCW permit regulations since forever. Darkninja was even told not to use listerine because it contains alcohol.

What you say is true Danoff but its a hassle to go through. Darkninja doesn't think anyone wants to kill another but that they will to defend themselves or their family, and having to go to court and be treated criminally after killing another is just going to make someone feel worse than they already do. With castle doctrine at least they get to keep anonymity and try to go one with their life for the most part. If you have never heard of mark of cain syndrome you should check it out.http://www.recguns.com/Sources/PStrauma.html Unfortunately defense of oneself has its draw backs as well. Sending them to court over something that should make them feel more like a hero is just not American in my book.


HAPPY VETERANS DAY

 

[Danoff]

Castle Doctrine laws basically state anyone willing to enter your house illegally is assumed to have deadly intent whether they are armed or not thus justifying used of deadly force to defend oneself or family.

Ok, that's basically what I assumed. So what I wrote above applies.

 

[LizMcQueen]

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it says 613 in 2007, which is the most recent data available.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents

yes, I'm sorry, I read it wrong.

Fatal firearms accidents per year: 1.100 click me.

but what surprises me is this, U.S. quadruples Canada or European countries (all first world countries) in murders per capita.

 

[GTsail]

....I don't know where, but I have read that 30.000 people died in USA due to home accidents with guns.

I've seen the same 30k number used in some articles. So I tried to find the source of this number. After some web-searching, I found that it relates to overall deaths from guns.

I found the following link that gives us the data from 2006 for deaths from firearms, which breaksdown as follows:

Suicides_____16,883
Homicides____12,791
Accidents_______642
Other___________580
Total________30,896

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

I also read part of FoolKiller's excellant link above, and found some additional data from the CDC in regard to accidental guns deaths during 2001. The CDC reported 802 accidental gun deaths during 2001 (which is similar to the number shown in FoolKiller's post above).

Most articles that I've seen, talk about the strong link between suicides and having guns in the house, but also point out the weak link between homicides and gun ownership.

Edit: I see that I've been tree'd by LizMcQueen due to my slow typing. Must need more practice. I'm off to the 'Ring for said practice!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[darkninja210]

but what surprises me is this, U.S. quadruples Canada or European countries (all first world countries) in murders per capita.

Why is the US #1 for vehicular fatalities SOURCE:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mot_veh_dea-health-motor-vehicle-deaths

Its not guns its people the US is truly just plain one of the most violent nations in the world. Have you seen the national defense budget? Do you know how many fight clubs there are? Have you listened to popular music among males? Have you watched any TV?
The US glorifies violence and it has a correlative effect IMO. Darkninja has met parents that actually teach their children to hit back, violence can be sporting wrestling, boxing, fight clubs ect, but it should not be glorified and made to be cool to hurt another or gain respect by killing another.

Homicides____12,791

There are places that claim 2/3rds of homicide victims are criminals or at least having a criminal background with a strong indication of criminal activity at place of death
SOURCES: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/5/1130.abstract
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/102233204.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PolsbyFirearmCosts.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

Darkninja may be cold hearted on this issue, but criminals killing criminals can be a good thing. First one is taken out immediately so as not to be a further burden on the justice system nor a waste of tax payer money. Second we now have a strong case to put another social deviant behind bars for hopefully longer than 15 years.

If the US would stop with the "war" on drugs for marijuana it would severely cripple the way gangs make money. Without money gangs would slowly disband, and we all know or should know that gangs will and do randomly kill people for initiations or for "disrespectful" looks and such. http://www.hopefs.org/Behavior/TeensandGangs.html FAQ on gangs possibly a little exaggerated but good read as well in order to get an idea of how dangerous gangs are. With all the money saved by not locking up people for simple possession the police might have the ability to really crack down on gangs. This would dramatically lower random homicides. Next teach people ways to deal with social injustices which drove the killers of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and near every other mass shooting. In some ways an armed society is a polite society may fit in for the issue of mass murderers that cannot cope socially because of how they are treated. Which really in a country where it is so easy to get a gun you would think people would not want to anger other people habitually. The issue of husband on spouse or vice versa will most likely never be truly solved nor will issues of jealously and cheating girlfriend/boyfriends, but Darkninja thinks education can help a lot in those areas. Darkninja wants the US to be safe he just thinks its wrong to attribute the problems to guns, because without guns its just going to be knives, hammers, blunt force trauma ect. London is an unfortunate example of this and England still has gun problems.

 

[Famine]

Why is the US #1 for vehicular fatalities SOURCE:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mot_veh_dea-health-motor-vehicle-deaths

Its not guns its people the US is truly just plain one of the most violent nations in the world.

What on Earth does violence have to do with deaths from road traffic accidents?

Even assuming the statistic to be true - which it isn't by a very long way. In fact the US is at just about half the average for the world - at 12.3 per 100,000 compared to 20.8 for the world. Compare that to the horrific, massively-violent, war-torn St. Lucia with 17.6 (43% higher than the US), the phenomenally psychopathic nation of Nepal with 15.1 (23% higher than the US) or those lunatic bastards in Cape Verde with 25.1 (204% higher than the US). The world leader is Eritrea at 48.4 (393% higher than the US), closely followed by the bloodthirsty baby-murderers of the Cook Islands at 45.0 (366% higher than the US).