Here ya go.

Selecting "Homicide" as the "Intent" for "Firearms":

2005, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95, *U01.4

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
12,352 - 296,507,061 - 4.17 - 4.15

Vs.

Selecting "Homicide" as the "Intent" for "Poisoning":

2005, United States
Homicide Poisoning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X85-X90, *U01(.6,.7)

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
89 - 296,507,061 - 0.03 - 0.01

Of course Homicidal intent is much more likely with a Firearm, but the stats still show that if someone is going to kill you, it doesn't matter which method they use, thier still going to do it.

Cool stats, Conundrum!

Yes, but firearms make oh so much easier! Reminds me of Arlo Guthrie from "Alice's Restaurant" when he tells his recruiting officer that he wants to join so he can "kill, KILL, KILLLL!!!!". er.., or at least that's how I remember it.

_Lazza

What about "death By Snu Snu"?

You can get anything you want (If you have enough money)...

It would take some doing, but one could go through each possible method and tally them up to find out if "Homicide" other than by Firearm equals the same, less or more than by Firearm.

Then you're going to have issues with let's say the guy that rammed the Van into the crowd today and hurt/killed people (Haven't seen the update). That may be considered homicide, but will it be "intentional" and listed as such in the CDC's stats?

Snu Snu is not an option. :p

Here's intentional homicide with motor vehicles:

2005, United States
Homicide Overall Motor Vehicle Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: Y03

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
38 - 296,507,061 - 0.01 - 0.00

Much lower than I expected with the way the Media covers such events.

How about Homicide by Drowning:

2005, United States
Homicide Drowning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X92

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
49 - 296,507,061 - 0.02 - 0.01

Much Higher than I expected when you consider how difficult it would be to drown someone. It's higher than poisonings.

OK, in fairness I have to post this. I believe that it's rare for people to actually use their weapons in self-defense. That still may be true but we just had such an incident here in Georgia.

"Eighty-one-year-old Robert Jenkins said he loaded his wife's handgun and tried to scare off a burglar in his Tucker home, but he fired when the intruder rushed him, according to a family friend. DeKalb police said the shooting was justified, and Jenkins will not be charged in the death of the suspect, a man possibly in his 20s who had not been identified Wednesday."

Story

Is that always the standard liberal argument.... anyone who disagrees with you is not "objective"?

If that is the case then you are accusing at least two Circuit Court panels of judges of not being "objective". Possibly also the current Supreme Court.

Your attempt to link the militia clause in the constitution as an argument for the collectivist view of the Second Amendment is a bogus argument. Walter Dellinger representing the District of Columbia made a similar attempt the other day in his oral argument and was shot down by some of the Supreme Court justices.

The Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of the federal government and enumerate rights of individuals. The Anti-Federalists felt that without it, a strong centralized government can become tyrannical.

Almost all of the founders felt people had the right to own their own weapons. They have written about it and many felt it was necessary to protect them from a potential tyrannical government. I already posted one such quote from George Mason who was influential in the Bill of Rights.

There is the concept of the "universal militia" that goes back hundreds of years. It is the entire body of all able bodied free citizens bearing their own arms. All of the founders were well aware of that concept. They were also well aware of the common law right to self defense.

In modern times it is the gun control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment means a collective right, not an individual right. These are the people who wish to disarm the populace. A good argument can be made that these are the tyrannical types many of the founders feared in some of their writings.

The correct interpretation most likely lies in that the Second Amendment grants both collective and individual rights to keep and bear arms. The fact that the founders put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which enumerates rights of individuals cannot be ignored.

The Supreme Court is going to agree with the individual right. They will find that reasonable restrictions can be implemented, but the individual right is going to prevail.

How do you know that? On what are you basing that opinion?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around out there in regards to defensive gun use. Some figures are 1.5 million defensive gun incidents per year. Some are even higher.

Here is one old government report that suggests defensive gun use figures are higher than some government agencies estimate....

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The problem with accurate figures on defensive gun use is that if no firearms were discharged, the authorities may not even be notified in many cases.

I say we declare ourselves a militia - The Xterra Owners Club Militia. Problem solved - we can all own guns!

Right...this group is "well-regulated"...

Madman, we just disagree and my belief remains, based on our many, many "discussions" on this board, that you have your view and you think anyone who disagrees is 1) wrong and 2) a liberal.

I believe people should have the right to own weapons. But I can also look at things, like the SA, and objectively try to determine their meaning whether or not it fits my own view. In the case of the SA, my best, objective evaluation of those words yields a meaning contrary to my own view. Based on what you've said about the Founding Fathers' other writings, I've not researched that and it adds context, but the fact remains that if they meant to clearly state that the SA applied to individuals' rights, they did a poor job of it.

And about the stats, I suppose my reasoning is that I live in a large, heavily-populated area that is well-covered by local and national news organizations, and it just doesn't happen very often. There's no shortage of crime, either. The flip side for example would be that I believe fires in apartment buildings are fairly common. Why? No, I don't have stats from across the country, but from day to day I frequently see or read of local fire units trying to put out apartment fires. I can either conclude that metro Atlanta has a disproportionate number of apartment fires or that it's just a fairly common occurrence.

People don't debate other people with whom they are in agreement. If I'm arguing a certain point, it's logical to conclude I think the opposition is wrong and they think I'm wrong. The difference between us is that I don't complain about it like you do.

Quote:

I believe people should have the right to own weapons. But I can also look at things, like the SA, and objectively try to determine their meaning whether or not it fits my own view. In the case of the SA, my best, objective evaluation of those words yields a meaning contrary to my own view. Based on what you've said about the Founding Fathers' other writings, I've not researched that and it adds context, but the fact remains that if they meant to clearly state that the SA applied to individuals' rights, they did a poor job of it.

There is much in the constitution that is vague. However, regarding the Second Amendment we disagree. I see it as clearly giving the right of people... individuals... to "keep and bear arms".

Quote:

And about the stats, I suppose my reasoning is that I live in a large, heavily-populated area that is well-covered by local and national news organizations, and it just doesn't happen very often.

Unless an incident of defensive gun use was reported to local authorities, you wouldn't hear about it. The media would not hear about it and therefore the public would not hear out it.

There is also a tendency for the mainstream media to be biased in favor of gun control.

The fact that you don't often hear about defensive gun use doesn't mean it does not occur more often than you think. Unless shots are fired, you won't hear about it at all. Also don't forget that many people who stop a crime by simply brandishing a gun will not report anything to the police out of fear of being charged with some type of violation themselves. Probably the only way to get statistics is to poll and sample gun owners.

The Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice study "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," estimated that 1.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes every year.

Here is an essay that explores defensive gun use and the lack of accurate statistics....

http://www.claytoncramer.com/HowManyDefensiveGunUses.pdf

It seems these people also run a blog that keeps track of major media reports of defensive gun uses. Of course most are stories where shots were fired and someone was killed or wounded....

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

There is an audio file available of the oral arguments in the case at the link below...

DC vs Heller

Excellent Article by Massad Ayoob.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob77.html

Citizens armed to the teeth is what keeps state militias well regulated.

Article was ok, but seems a little dated. Point is still valid though.

So you think Joe Bob and his Glock are going to keep the National Guard in line? Good luck. Let's face it, it will never happen, but if it ever came down to the U.S. military vs. John Q. Public, the public wouldn't have a chance.

BTW, this thread's title reminded me of that ironic scene in Red Dawn where they pan the shot from a "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" bumper sticker to an enemy soldier doing exactly that. It's at the very end of this clip.

Blue who makes up the military? John Q. Public....

If there becomes such a great rift in this country that a revolution or civil war would break out, it would be all encompassing. It might start with civilian uprisings, but everyone would be drawn into it. The government, military, etc. would all fracture and devolve into factions just like it has every time in history. It would not be Joe Bob and his redneck friends vs. the Military. Joe Bob and his redneck friends ARE the military, along with Alan the corporate consultant, Dave and Suzy the nurses in the hospital etc. Why can't people get this? If you're in the military you are more than likely to march with your brothers and sisters than you are against them. Our Civil War is a perfect example of this. The entire nation, people, government, military etc. all split into their respective factions and duked it out. Where did it start? Did the military back then not have more "might" than Joe Bob?

Using a Hollywood movie (no bias in Hollywood?) as an example, especialy a movie that depicts the downfall of the US is not really a good example.

That's why I said it will never happen. It was the same dilemma when JFK had the National Guard out to enforce school desegregation, right? But what if that had escalated? Interesting question.

As a hypothetical question, what would happen if say, the Supreme Court re-interpreted the SA and the government ordered the seizure of all privately-owned guns? My take is that most people don't own guns, so they wouldn't forcibly resist (note I said forcibly, there would undoubtably be protests and legal action). Many (most?) gun owners wouldn't choose to forcibly resist. A relative few would fight it with force. Do you agree? My original point was to that kind of scenario.

Let me state clearly that I do not advocate that on any level. It's a hypothetical question as a followup to your comments on who makes up the military.

I disagree that the Civil War is a perfect example BTW. There were two defined sides and it was government vs. government. But I still see your point.

Finally, the movie wasn't an example, as I said the thread title just reminded me of that scene. Nothing more than that. Also, the movie depicted an attack on the U.S., not our country's downfall. U.S. forces ultimately prevailed.

I think, what would happen is that many law abiding gun owners would instantly be turned into felons if it's a seizure based on the honor system where as you the owner take your gun to a depot etc. I don't think the Fed has the resources to send the Military en-masse or the balls to order local law enforcement to physically search homes without the states going into a frenzy and if the police do start winding up on peoples doorsteps to search their homes, you bet there is going to be violence, and widespread in my opinion as those who do not own guns aren't going to put up with that type of invasion of privacy either. What would be next, searching of your home for drugs just because? Porn, etc.?

If the government can set the precedence for that type of search on the general public, then they'll try to do it for anything. I think it would be extremely bad and that would be the day we truly become a police state. America as we know it would die. That's the whole reason for the SA's existence, and if we let that get stripped away, then everything else will follow.

I respect other people's opinions. If they have a rational and intelligent point to make, it's worthy of respect and some reflection.

However, that doesn't describe some of the things you have said here in this thread. In fact on page 5 you said something that was utterly ridiculous and maybe even kind of dangerous, I ignored it. Maybe it's worth a second look right now.

You said.... "Like the criminal justice system, the SA hasn't evolved with the times. We should be debating what laws make the most sense now."

Is that a statement based on emotion or legitimate constitutional jurisprudence? Maybe you'll explain how an amendment to the constitution, one of the Bill of Rights, is supposed to "evolve" without being re-amended. Without the consent of the people and another Constitutional Convention.

What would you like it to "evolve" into? What law makes sense to you now?

I don't know if the numbers are accurate. The only way to tell is by polling legal gun owners and asking the correct questions to get a decent idea.

Quote:

My concerns with gun ownership are irresponible yahoos, gun nut extremists, and accidental shootings. Everybody should have those concerns regardless of their position on guns or the SA.

And your solution is what?

Is it denying people their constitutional rights because of the behavior of a few?

Should we legislate according to the behavior of the lowest common denominators among us? That is not liberty. That is not freedom. That's not a republic by the people and for the people.

What would happen is there would instantly be a call by the majority of states and Congress to amend the constitution which would negate any such Supreme Court ruling.