As for the "not infrequent cases of even young children killing each other with firearms that they "found" in their parents bedside table etc"
Hoes this? I don't think stats are needed, as even a single loss of life is tragic. Anyway... heres the first case I hit on.
How about a 4 year old shooting his brother.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/national/main679935.shtml
I can find some more if you'd like, but I'm a busy person. However if you think my statement is without evidence, I'll make the effort.
This is pretty recent data where asleitch's is from 1999;
I read it that the entire thing was based on the same evidence. Did I miss something? The way I read it was that, Ed Chenel has selectively used some statistics, and not provided actual numbers, nor was their any reference. E.g. When the number of murders in a county of (say) 50 million rises from 7 to 14, that appears as a 100% rise, however this is not a quantifiable result as the numbers are too low. You could have had a single person going on the rampage, or a particularly savage gang land fued.
And if I took you shooting I think you might enjoy it more than you's care to admit. It is a lot of fun.
Thanks, but I come from a farming family and shooting and fishing are pastimes I've enjoyed in the past. I don't have any moral objection with shooting, or fishing, and yes, it is enjoyable, I'm just surprised people find a need to have handguns in their house, not in a locked cabinet, or with strict licences.
In fact, fatal firearm accidents in the Eddie Eagle age group have been reduced more than two-thirds since the inception of the program, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. NRA feels that gun accident prevention programs such as Eddie Eagle are a significant factor in that decline.
I think thats amazing, I mean, they are seriously suggesting its good that fatal accidents have reduced by two thirds - what about the 1/3 left who loose their life due to a firearm. Thats a gross statistic.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
What? So if they changed the wording you'd all be happy? Just becuase some defined something in law hundreds (or even the same applies to recent laws etc) of years ago doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Just becuase something is defined in a constitution doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it wrong either. (so don't flame me here). A constitution should define the will/rights of a nation. That is something that changes over a long period.
When that was written, they surely hadn't imagined all the innocents who'd be dying, due to accidents, due to violent robbery etc.
On a similar but slightly changing note. When asked to justify guns, most Americans jump to the "constitution" as part of their justification. I'm bemused, its a bit of paper, with some writing on it. Surely they should have 100 better reasons than that before the "constitution" comes up?
(don't flame on the "its a bit of paper". I know what it is, what I'm trying to say is most people justify something based on usage, or requirement, or need etc).