Real Estate Agent Gives Guns To Homebuyers

[Jesus_lol]

You asked for some statistics i got you some, with references.

FACT:In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
[size=1]-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.[/size]

FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 56% of total 2003 gun deaths nationwide. In 2003, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 16,907, a 1% decrease from 2002 numbers. The state of Illinois saw a 13% decrease in gun suicides, from 466 in 2002 to 404 in 2003. Most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.

[size=1]-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.[/size]

FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

[size=1]-A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)[/size]

FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
[size=1]
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)[/size]

FACT: Contrary to popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3-to-4-year-olds, 70% of 5-to-6-year-olds, and 90% of 7-to-8-year-olds can fire most handguns.
[size=1]
-Naureckas, SM, Christoffel, KK, et al. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995.[/size]

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
[b]11,789 [/b] people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

[size=1]- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence[/size]



FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.


[size=1]Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence[/size]

FACT: Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.

[size=1]
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1) [/size]

FACT: In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.


[size=1]- U.S. Department of Justice[/size]

FACT: In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.


- U.S. Department of Justice

People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home [size=1](Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771). [/size]

A recent survey of 236 types of pistols made in the U.S. found that:
only 13% had a loaded chamber indicator
only 20% had a grip safety to make it harder for children to use the gun
only 21% had a magazine safety, which prevents the gun from firing when the magazine has been removed, even if there is already a round in the chamber of the gun
[size=1](Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p 1) [/size]
A recent Emory University study shows that 32% of unintended shootings in the U.S. are caused by deficiencies in gun design. [size=1](Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p 10)[/size]

For every child killed by a gun, four more are wounded.


Thats all verbatim from this site[url="http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm"]http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm[/url]

Sorry if thats a lot to sift through, i think those cover most of the points i have made, if not ask me for more and ill look it up

[Paladin D]

I haven't denied there isn't firearm violence in this country, but compared to what? The U.S. has an estimated population of 300 million, the 3rd largest country in the world. The amount of deaths will of course be higher than most other countries. On that list, Japan is the only one that comes close (over 127 million). Japan seems to be doing a good job. However, you also have to examine cultural differences, I'm in no way a history buff nor do I study culture as a hobby, but I would imagine the average Japanese male would committ suicide with a melee weapon of some sort (such as a katana), or of some other means, than a gun. It sounds absurd, but there are some vast differences in culture between the US and Japan.

If you take away guns, people will still committ suicide one way or another. [url="http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html"]Suicide rates per 100 000 by country, year and sex (December 2005)[/url]

The US looks to be about average in total number of suicides per 100,000. People will find other ways to committ suicide, it's a sad fact. Many European countries have strict laws on firearms (or outright bans), yet their suicide rates are around the same as the US.

[Norseman82]

Note to self: send out email to young adult group to gauge interest in St. Gabriel Possenti Day outing to local gun range......

[quote name='White Knight' post='1142777' date='Dec 14 2006, 11:59 PM']
Well put, however the person who is buying the gun sould also be able to know how to use it for the right time and keep good matienence on it, otherise selling the gun would be useless to a buyer because the guns wouldn't funiction properly. or You would have poorly trained or lack of training, in the skill to use such a device.

Every person in America sould know how to fire a gun, effectively too, without or miniumal mishaps.
[/quote]


Bingo. Unless you've been trained in the military, look up a firearms safety course through the local gun range or the NRA (and I do NOT mean the National Restaurant Association!)

Edited December 17, 2006 by Norseman82

[Groo the Wanderer]

Jesus_lol : I see a number of statistics conspicuously missing from those you provided:

The number of home invasions stopped by a homeowner with a handgun
The number of armed or unarmed robberies foiled by a citizen/shopkeep/homeowner with a handgun
The number of criminals, shot, killed, or wounded by handguns by police or civilian
The number of lives saved by someone intervening with a handgun


Also:
None of the stats you posted about peeps killed gave the percentage that were committing a criminal act
Some of the stats came from the Brady Campaign and the CDC, and thus are not of value, since both institutions are rabidly anti-guns

In addtion, many of your stats are not quantitative and therefore are also suspect. For example:
"FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present."
If the first risk is only .000001%, then 3x that is still only .000003% - hardly significant at all.

If you wish to make your point, you should gather objective stats instead of a slanted set from questionable sources such as anti-gun lobbies, the CDC, and academia.

At the very least, check out stats from the other side. Maybe from the FBI, the NRA, etc. If yer gonna slant one way, be sure to get the other slant too for balance.

[Totus Tuus]

JMJ +

To Jesus_lol:

I appreciate the stats (though slanted which you posted, but they were not the stats that respond to the questions I asked.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1143542' date='Dec 16 2006, 12:06 AM']
many people think they could intimidate a criminal to leave their house without having to fire a shot but in most cases they are also armed, resulting in a shoot out were the home owner often is the one dead.

[/quote]

This is something I would like stats on, if you can find them.

[quote]tis called sneaking up on him, or suprising him in short range, which is how most encounters go in robberies. as long as you dont announce your coming, then stand ten paces away and challenge him to a duel then you should be fine. i mean it is your own house.[/quote]

Stats?

[quote]
tis called sneaking up on him, or suprising him in short range, which is how most encounters go in robberies. as long as you dont announce your coming, then stand ten paces away and challenge him to a duel then you should be fine. i mean it is your own house.[/quote]

Stats?

Edited December 17, 2006 by Totus Tuus

[Jesus_lol]

it is really hard to find nonbiased statistics, from anyone. as ones from the NRA are just as suspect. just because those ones i posted may have came from one bias doesnt mean they should be thrown out completely. many are not related to some points i have made but i put in cause i thought there were interesting. some of the things i have said are just speculation and common sense on my part, or are from some body of knowledge that i no longer remember the exact reference. i admit that but i will try and back some of these up.

i doubt i will be able to find anything from one bias or the other on the typical confrontation in a house situation. but it makes sense that it would be fairly close quarters and instigated by the homeowner, mainly causse if the homeowner did not hear someone robbing the house and go to investigate, using caution and knowledge of his house, then likely the robber would simply go about his business and leave quietly and/or murder the homeowner in his sleep, in which case it doesnt really matter wether the homeowner has a gun or not. common sense on my part, dispute if you like

[quote]QUOTE(Jesus_lol @ Dec 16 2006, 12:06 AM)

many people think they could intimidate a criminal to leave their house without having to fire a shot but in most cases they are also armed, resulting in a shoot out were the home owner often is the one dead.




This is something I would like stats on, if you can find them.[/quote]


didnt you just agree with me on that one? you know shoot to kill and all that, the criminal wont have your sense of mercy?
ill look for them(stats) but that isnt the sort of thing that would have statistics for it. i also did no say that most people think this way but certainly some would. many i have talked to think that intimidation would be enough



also to totus, i commend you and your family's safe manner towards firearms, if more people did the same, gun deaths would not be the same problem as it is now

[quote]However, you also have to examine cultural differences, I'm in no way a history buff nor do I study culture as a hobby, but I would imagine the average Japanese male would committ suicide with a melee weapon of some sort (such as a katana), or of some other means, than a gun. It sounds absurd, but there are some vast differences in culture between the US and Japan.[/quote]
those stats do not include suicides
[quote]19 people in Japan
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).[/quote]
[quote]

to Groo the Wanderer, well you guys were asking for statistics that support my points that i am making, not to support yours. and i am willing to bet that the stats for your questions will be only available from the NRA, etc... just as mine came from anti gun lobbyists. different groups will research the matters that concern them, so i think both sides the data must be taken with a grain of salt. id like to see those stats if you can find them. and what would you call objective sources? i think at some level there is a bias, whether its coming from who is funding said research, or what the researcher is expecting to find will influence their findings as well.
[quote]None of the stats you posted about peeps killed gave the percentage that were committing a criminal act [/quote]

actually the ones i was basing of of were on accidental shootings and deaths of family members for the most part
People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms
[quote]FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense. [/quote]


and to Groos question about amount of gun deaths from police shooting criminals

[quote]347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined). [/quote]
not too much, sadly

whew, thats a lot of stuff. i hope i covered everything people asked for , but if not ask again please.
i do realize that as a lone canadian talking to a grup of americans about gun control, that it is similar to trying to talk down a brick wall. but i hope ive made a few good points and made you think a bit.

[Jesus_lol]

no replies?? do i win or something? :
anyways...

[Totus Tuus]

Sorry... haven't had time! I'll get back to you soon

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1144113' date='Dec 17 2006, 12:27 AM']
it is really hard to find nonbiased statistics, from anyone. as ones from the NRA are just as suspect. just because those ones i posted may have came from one bias doesnt mean they should be thrown out completely. many are not related to some points i have made but i put in cause i thought there were interesting. some of the things i have said are just speculation and common sense on my part, or are from some body of knowledge that i no longer remember the exact reference. i admit that but i will try and back some of these up.

i doubt i will be able to find anything from one bias or the other on the typical confrontation in a house situation. but it makes sense that it would be fairly close quarters and instigated by the homeowner, mainly causse if the homeowner did not hear someone robbing the house and go to investigate, using caution and knowledge of his house, then likely the robber would simply go about his business and leave quietly and/or murder the homeowner in his sleep, in which case it doesnt really matter wether the homeowner has a gun or not. common sense on my part, dispute if you like
didnt you just agree with me on that one? you know shoot to kill and all that, the criminal wont have your sense of mercy?
ill look for them(stats) but that isnt the sort of thing that would have statistics for it. i also did no say that most people think this way but certainly some would. many i have talked to think that intimidation would be enough
also to totus, i commend you and your family's safe manner towards firearms, if more people did the same, gun deaths would not be the same problem as it is now
those stats do not include suicides
actually the ones i was basing of of were on accidental shootings and deaths of family members for the most part
People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms
and to Groos question about amount of gun deaths from police shooting criminals


not too much, sadly

whew, thats a lot of stuff. i hope i covered everything people asked for , but if not ask again please.
i do realize that as a lone canadian talking to a grup of americans about gun control, that it is similar to trying to talk down a brick wall. but i hope ive made a few good points and made you think a bit.
[/quote]
I came late to this discussion (btw, why is this not moved to the debate table?), but I'll just say that as an American, I'm proud of our Constitutional right to bear arms, and would fight against having it taken away!
Many have already made good points on this thread, so I don't need to repeat them all in depth.
There have been many documented cases of firearms saving lives against attackers. Sure, possession of firearms will not be able to stop every crime, but they have stopped quite a few, and the possession of firearms can be a powerful deterrent to would-be criminals, who usually have fewer qualms about attacking or robbing an unarmed person or household.
In some areas near where I live, where most people own guns and aren't afraid to use them, burglaries are rare.
Firearms provide particular protection for the vulnerable, such as women and the elderly, who might otherwise be unable to resist a healthy young attacker.

You mention accidental gun deaths, but this simply shows the need for greater gun safety and education, things which are heavily promoted by groups such as the NRA.
Guns are [i]not[/i] safe, and are not toys. In places with a tradition of gun ownership, gun safety and respect for the weapons is taught from an early age.
And the vast majority of gun owners do not kill themselves or others with their guns, either accidentally or deliberately. Why should millions of responsible gun-owners have their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights taken away for the actions of some irresponsible geniuses?

That whole arguments smacks of the nanny-state mentality, in which the government is seen as having the job of protecting us from ourselves by keeping dangerous toys away from our crib. This is not the nation of free and responsible citizens invisioned by the American founders.
Many more are killed by cars and other vehicles than by guns each year. Should the government ban cars, or restrict driving to a few authorized individuals?
Many things are dangerous, but that doesn't mean they should be banned by the government.
Last year, there was discussion in England concerning a proposed banning of certain butcher knives. That raises the question of where do we draw the line?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1145264' date='Dec 18 2006, 10:49 PM']
Many more are killed by cars and other vehicles than by guns each year. Should the government ban cars, or restrict driving to a few authorized individuals?
[/quote]

Please don't give the government any ideas.

[Jesus_lol]

well me coming from a place were no one owns a handgun(a lot do go hunting though)
and i cant remember the last time anyone was robbed and the only non natural death was a suicide by an out of towner over ten years ago, you gotta understand that to me "protection" seems a bit silly. however i dont live where you do and im sure the circumstances are much different, and while i understand the fight fire with fire mentality, to me observing from the outside it seems to be just feeding the flames. not to say that you should take away one of your rights (though with current goverment policy over there, it might not be that out of place) ( the rights involving privacy and certain freedoms being revoked and all that)

anyways, the handgun itself is more offensive to me as a symbol than the actual object. sure if someone is robbing old man mcfees farm he might press the old twelve gauge into action, but when people buy a hand gun, its not a useful tool that could be used for that or hunting, but simply for killing another human being.
we have a few shotguns and rifles, and i am by no means a granola munching hippie. hell, when i was in guatemala i was accustomed to keeping a large belt knife on me, partially for protection (down there you actually need it) but mostly for use as a harmless tool in everyday life. the thing about handguns for me is its singular, deadly function.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Jesus_lol

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1145264' date='Dec 18 2006, 10:49 PM']

Firearms provide particular protection for the vulnerable, such as women and the elderly, who might otherwise be unable to resist a healthy young attacker.
[/quote]

As a woman, I vouch for this. Having a gun (and knowing how to use it responsibly) is often one of the only things that makes me feel safe in certain situations. Of course I trust in God, but, as I have mentioned before, the [i]Catechism[/i] advocates -demands- defending oneself, even if it means administering the "lethal blow".




[quote name='Norseman82' post='1145278' date='Dec 18 2006, 11:11 PM']
Please don't give the government any ideas.
[/quote]


Sometimes I think they sit around a top hat filled with random ideas, and then get their jollies from enacting whatever they pull out of the hat.

[Jesus_lol]

Well, looking at this thread is extremely embarrassing for me. Safe to say my views on this have changed 100%, as i just got my firearms license, 2 rifles(10/22 and mauser 30-06) and plan on picking up a bunch more (12ga pump, single shot 12ga and SS .410 for hunting/farm use, Russian SKS, SVT40, M14 and eventually a ruger mark 3 and Tokarev TT33 when i do my restricted license, and others)
I just remembered posting dumbly in this thread some years ago, figure i should necropost(deal with it) and set the record straight.