The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[North Calaveras]

still calling me a rascist with tthe whole rascism rabithole comment, even though mexicans ARE NOT A RACE, here ill repeat it bold again MEXICANS ARE NOT A RACE IT IS A NATIONALITY.

my point isn't even really about mexicans, but im sure illegal aliens(OF ANY KIND) don't help the situation much. Maybe if we kept our borders secure and let Mexicans who want to come here LEGALY, they can try, but if you run across the border and are not a citizen, that is invasion of my country and I would not have a problem shooting them. Sounds harsh but its protecting America, if they want to come here legaly THEN THEY CAN, its there responsibility to renew there visas not mine.

[Jocabia]

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=SdPc46RcL52&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=5&age2=9&agetext=5-9&category=UNI&_debug=0

For ages 5-9, firearms were involved in 2.7% of accidental deaths. That’s 876.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 10-14, firearms were involved in 7.0% of accidental deaths. That’s 2,591.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 16-24, firearms were involved in 2.8% or 8,649 deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 25-34, firearms were involved in 1.8% or 4,892 deaths.

It falls off the top ten list right about the time age and disease enter the picture as major concerns, which is not likely to be a coincidence.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

However, from 5-65, firearms is still a top 10 cause of accidental death at 2.1% or 23,560. As you can see above, it’s a much higher risk to children and young people (7,250 from 5-18).

During that same time for 5-19, there were 30,543 Firearm deaths due to violence.

According to the FBI, 2/3 of the victims of gun violence are criminals. I think it’s fair to assume this most often applies to people who are slightly older but it should be considered.

There were 18,149 suicides using firearms for the same age group.

In case you’re doing the math, that means if you purchase a gun to defend your family, it’s far more likely that your children will either be accidentally killed with that weapon or that they will use it in a suicide than it is that you will even have the opportunity to use it in defense against another firearm.

http://www.domesticviolencetips.com/index.php/4

Note that only about 20% of murders that are not by family members occur within the home.

About 6 in 10 spousal murders use firearms. About 16% of homicides were spousal homicides (I’m including boyfriend/girlfriend here).
In other words, about 10% of all murders are against a significant other and most occur in the home. Most other murders occur outside the home. As such, a very strong argument can be made that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that a gun will be used within the home for anything but injuring another family member.

Keep in mind, these are deaths not injuries. It’s fair to assume that violent use of guns has a higher percentage of deaths than accidental use simply by addressing that one has purpose and is aimed and one is accidental. Anyone who would like to is welcome to prove me right or wrong on that by looking it up, but it wasn’t my purpose.

If gun ownership prevented all 16% of murders that occur in the home by non-intimates (about 3500), you’d still have a similar number of deaths, either accidental or violent, among family members. That’s not including suicide by firearm.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

As for where criminals get guns, it is mostly believed that those guns were acquired from legal sources. That means they either came from licensed dealers or were stolen from legal gun owners (according to this article about 10 to 15% of illegal gun use is done with stolen guns).

I don’t have a direct conclusion, but it’s pretty clear that people who advocate for gun usage aren’t actually addressing a lot of the issues. Most criminals acquire guns through legal dealers and owners. It’s very reasonable to suspect that limiting the legal dealers and owners would also decrease access to guns. Comparing US cities isn’t a valid test since there is nothing stopping the transport of weapons from one city to another. It’s not as if US cities have customs checking for imports from other cities.

It is questionable, however, how much that would limit gun violence much like drug control hasn’t limited cocaine usage. In fact, I would argue that expense of drugs is responsible for the rise in crime. We made criminal drug activity very, very profitable. Gun control done similarly improperly would just as thoroughly make illegal gun activity more profitable.

In other words, those who advocate gun control also don’t address a lot of the issues. The most important of these is whether or not the steps most propose actually accomplish anything.

Since my statistics and analysis are "flawed", I expect you'll be able to walk through this post and tell me precisely what is wrong with it. I'll wait.

Also, how ya coming on that economic model where theives don't pay for housing?

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Jocabia]

still calling me a rascist with tthe whole rascism rabithole comment, even though mexicans ARE NOT A RACE, here ill repeat it bold again MEXICANS ARE NOT A RACE IT IS A NATIONALITY.

my point isn't even really about mexicans, but im sure illegal aliens(OF ANY KIND) don't help the situation much. Maybe if we kept our borders secure and let Mexicans who want to come here LEGALY, they can try, but if you run across the border and are not a citizen, that is invasion of my country and I would not have a problem shooting them. Sounds harsh but its protecting America, if they want to come here legaly THEN THEY CAN, its there responsibility to renew there visas not mine.

Uh, no, I'm not. Rabbithole is a reference to get us lost on the racism subject when it's not relevant or important. Who cares whether you're racist or not. I'm not willing to explain to you what racism actually means. And it remains irrelevant.

It doesn't have anything to do with how your argument sucks.

Border patrol has NOTHING to do with our gun problem. That is not the source of our guns, as I proved via a source. Guns mostly come from legal sources. That's just a fact. That's why you're little diatribe about Mexicans is irrelevant. I'm sorry that this thread isn't going to give you the chance to rail against Mexicans, but we're talking about gun laws in the US and you've not demonstrated why Mexicans are even remotely relevant.

[Spardicos]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

[North Calaveras]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

well just start using knifes then.

[Jocabia]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

well just start using knifes then.

Well, given that knives don't accidentally travel through walls or windows, that's an improvement. I hope they're really cool wavy knives though. It'd be like D&D.

You are going to address those statistics, right? I mean, all the "free my guns" crowd is so concerned with facts, that you should be happy to discuss the statistics. JJ was. I mean, he's been missing for a whole day but it's not like he's been on the forum posting in other threads and conveniently bailed when he really had no more corners to hide in.

Seriously, just one person actually show why we should ignore the statistics. Just one.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

Until people start hacking electronic keys, picking physical keys, or making their own ammunition.

[Jocabia]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

Until people start hacking electronic keys, picking physical keys, or making their own ammunition.

That was my thought as well.

[Cabra West]

This picture was taken by a friend of mine in Atlanta, Georgia. I know it looks shooped, but it's legit. It's a small picture from a crappy camera.

Discuss?

Ok, I'm a bit slow... how is that an argument against gun control, if the neighbour in question decides not to own a gun?
If anything, that's an argument for it, as otherwise people like the person who put up that sign can take advantage of others in such a way.

[JuNii]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

anyone can have a gun. just make owning bullets a major Federal Felony.

[Dazchan]

My views are simple:

Have as many guns as you want, but they must be registered to you. Once registered, you become responsible for it. If a child plays with your gun and kills themself, you get charged with murder. If your gun is stolen and used to rob a bank, you're an accessory to armed robbery, etc.

Basically, it becomes your responsibility to know where your gun is and what it is doing at all times.

[JuNii]

My views are simple:

Have as many guns as you want, but they must be registered to you. Once registered, you become responsible for it. If a child plays with your gun and kills themself, you get charged with murder. If your gun is stolen and used to rob a bank, you're an accessory to armed robbery, etc.

Basically, it becomes your responsibility to know where your gun is and what it is doing at all times.

I would suggest one amendment. Should your gun be stolen and you report it stolen before the crime is committed... then you should be absolved until it's proven that you used that gun in said crime.

[Dazchan]

My views are simple:

Have as many guns as you want, but they must be registered to you. Once registered, you become responsible for it. If a child plays with your gun and kills themself, you get charged with murder. If your gun is stolen and used to rob a bank, you're an accessory to armed robbery, etc.

Basically, it becomes your responsibility to know where your gun is and what it is doing at all times.

I would suggest one amendment. Should your gun be stolen and you report it stolen before the crime is committed... then you should be absolved until it's proven that you used that gun in said crime.

I would accept your ammendment only if it can be demonstrated that the gun was appropriately secured in a suitable cabinet prior to the theft. Carelessness is not a legal defense IMO.

If you haven't taken reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access, you should be held accountable for what is done with it.

[DaWoad]

If I was the guy living next door I'd probably booby trap the heck out of my place. On springing one of the traps, as well as having some sort of really nasty and possibly hilarious consequence (banana cream pie at 120 degrees to the face for example?) a sign would appear saying "You probably should have gone for the house with the guns . . .it would have hurt less".

[Demented Tigers]

My views are simple:

Have as many guns as you want, but they must be registered to you. Once registered, you become responsible for it. If a child plays with your gun and kills themself, you get charged with murder. If your gun is stolen and used to rob a bank, you're an accessory to armed robbery, etc.

Basically, it becomes your responsibility to know where your gun is and what it is doing at all times.

Here is a summary of the System in Great Britain (not the UK because Northern Ireland has different Laws):

With a few specialised exceptions, all firearms in the United Kingdom must be licensed on either a firearm certificate (FAC) or a shotgun certificate.
Shotguns (Section 2 Firearms under the 1968 Act as amanded) are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[6] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.

A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition (except,where ammunition is both bought, and used immediately, on a range under s11 or s15 of the Firearms Acts).

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued.

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence.[7] Similarly, persons applying for licences with recent, serious mental health issues will also be refused a certificate.

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a licence is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

Edit: What do you think of this? Sensible? Scotland has a problem because they are forced to accept this law from England, and they want to make it more strict.

[Mercurior]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

[Nobel Hobos]

My views are simple:

Have as many guns as you want, but they must be registered to you. Once registered, you become responsible for it. If a child plays with your gun and kills themself, you get charged with murder. If your gun is stolen and used to rob a bank, you're an accessory to armed robbery, etc.

Basically, it becomes your responsibility to know where your gun is and what it is doing at all times.

I would suggest one amendment. Should your gun be stolen and you report it stolen before the crime is committed... then you should be absolved until it's proven that you used that gun in said crime.

Not reporting it stolen would surely be wrong, even if the gun isn't used in a crime. It could easily be found in the possession of the thief or someone they sold it to (receiving stolen goods, even if that third person has never committed any other crime) and if you couldn't explain how it got there, there would be a very real suspicion that you had sold it illegally. You certainly would bear some responsibility for the crime which was committed with it.

How would anyone know you hadn't just sold the gun illegally to a disqualified person ? The reversal of the burden of proof is justified: compare for instance if you bought some alcohol and that alcohol was later found in the possession of a minor. You'd be obliged to explain how it got there.

Also, what Dazchan said. Not taking sufficient measures to keep the gun from being stolen should get you in trouble. And not just if it's used in a crime: even if it is found in someone else's possession and you have not registered a legal sale.

[Grenartia]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

well just start using knifes then.

or pistolwhipping (or however you spell it). Besides, making something illegal only means that law-abiding citizens won't do it. And making sure that everybody follows those laws would be impossible.

[Nobel Hobos]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

It does say "the people". What exactly that means I don't know and don't much care (it's not my constitution) ... just pointing out that the "right" applies to "the people" and not to "a .. Militia". Read it again.

[South Norwega]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

well just start using knifes then.

or pistolwhipping (or however you spell it). Besides, making something illegal only means that law-abiding citizens won't do it. And making sure that everybody follows those laws would be impossible.

By that logic we shouldn't have laws controlling murder, Rape, and other crimes.

If you outlaw Murder, only outlaws murder.

[Jocabia]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

It does say "the people". What exactly that means I don't know and don't much care (it's not my constitution) ... just pointing out that the "right" applies to "the people" and not to "a .. Militia". Read it again.

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated" militia. Well regulated is right in the actual statement of the right.

[Demented Tigers]

Re: the subject at hand

I have an idea for gun control:

Anybody can have a gun, but it can only be armed at a designated firing range. Maybe a key, electronic or physical, could be used - or just ban the sale of ammunition except to the firing ranges. There could also be designated hunting ranges, for people who want to hunt. That way, murder and accidents are virtually impossible, and people can continue to use their guns in responsible ways.

well just start using knifes then.

or pistolwhipping (or however you spell it). Besides, making something illegal only means that law-abiding citizens won't do it. And making sure that everybody follows those laws would be impossible.

By that logic we shouldn't have laws controlling murder, Rape, and other crimes.

If you outlaw Murder, only outlaws murder.

No, normal people murder, and become outlaws.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=SdPc46RcL52&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=5&age2=9&agetext=5-9&category=UNI&_debug=0

For ages 5-9, firearms were involved in 2.7% of accidental deaths. That’s 876.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 10-14, firearms were involved in 7.0% of accidental deaths. That’s 2,591.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 16-24, firearms were involved in 2.8% or 8,649 deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 25-34, firearms were involved in 1.8% or 4,892 deaths.

It falls off the top ten list right about the time age and disease enter the picture as major concerns, which is not likely to be a coincidence.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

However, from 5-65, firearms is still a top 10 cause of accidental death at 2.1% or 23,560. As you can see above, it’s a much higher risk to children and young people (7,250 from 5-18).

During that same time for 5-19, there were 30,543 Firearm deaths due to violence.

According to the FBI, 2/3 of the victims of gun violence are criminals. I think it’s fair to assume this most often applies to people who are slightly older but it should be considered.

There were 18,149 suicides using firearms for the same age group.

In case you’re doing the math, that means if you purchase a gun to defend your family, it’s far more likely that your children will either be accidentally killed with that weapon or that they will use it in a suicide than it is that you will even have the opportunity to use it in defense against another firearm.

http://www.domesticviolencetips.com/index.php/4

Note that only about 20% of murders that are not by family members occur within the home.

About 6 in 10 spousal murders use firearms. About 16% of homicides were spousal homicides (I’m including boyfriend/girlfriend here).
In other words, about 10% of all murders are against a significant other and most occur in the home. Most other murders occur outside the home. As such, a very strong argument can be made that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that a gun will be used within the home for anything but injuring another family member.

Keep in mind, these are deaths not injuries. It’s fair to assume that violent use of guns has a higher percentage of deaths than accidental use simply by addressing that one has purpose and is aimed and one is accidental. Anyone who would like to is welcome to prove me right or wrong on that by looking it up, but it wasn’t my purpose.

If gun ownership prevented all 16% of murders that occur in the home by non-intimates (about 3500), you’d still have a similar number of deaths, either accidental or violent, among family members. That’s not including suicide by firearm.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

As for where criminals get guns, it is mostly believed that those guns were acquired from legal sources. That means they either came from licensed dealers or were stolen from legal gun owners (according to this article about 10 to 15% of illegal gun use is done with stolen guns).

I don’t have a direct conclusion, but it’s pretty clear that people who advocate for gun usage aren’t actually addressing a lot of the issues. Most criminals acquire guns through legal dealers and owners. It’s very reasonable to suspect that limiting the legal dealers and owners would also decrease access to guns. Comparing US cities isn’t a valid test since there is nothing stopping the transport of weapons from one city to another. It’s not as if US cities have customs checking for imports from other cities.

It is questionable, however, how much that would limit gun violence much like drug control hasn’t limited cocaine usage. In fact, I would argue that expense of drugs is responsible for the rise in crime. We made criminal drug activity very, very profitable. Gun control done similarly improperly would just as thoroughly make illegal gun activity more profitable.

In other words, those who advocate gun control also don’t address a lot of the issues. The most important of these is whether or not the steps most propose actually accomplish anything.

Since my statistics and analysis are "flawed", I expect you'll be able to walk through this post and tell me precisely what is wrong with it. I'll wait.

Also, how ya coming on that economic model where theives don't pay for housing?

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to read your CDC links. Sometimes the CDC gets into world-wide stats, so it's worth checking. Other numbers peg the U.S. accidental firearm death rate at 0.5% -- comparable to bicycle accidents at 0.7%. Of course, one of the responsibilities of exercising one's right to possess a firearm is to handle, store, and shoot safely. Accidental deaths have dropped over the years, which is a good trend, yes?

[Nobel Hobos]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

It does say "the people". What exactly that means I don't know and don't much care (it's not my constitution) ... just pointing out that the "right" applies to "the people" and not to "a .. Militia". Read it again.

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated" militia. Well regulated is right in the actual statement of the right.

OK. The purpose of the well regulated militia is described too: to protect the State. They were worried about Canadians or something ...

I consider it very poorly worded. It qualifies the right with a purpose and a means (to protect the state, by means of a militia), but then states the right in a way that it is very hard not to take as a statement of an individual right.

Does "right of the people" mean "right of each of the people" ? Are the arms kept by individuals, or are they available only while serving with a militia (eg, stored in an armoury, to be used only according to orders). Are the arms "borne" individually (eg worn in a holster) or is it in a collective sense (ie, only as part of a militia) ?

When there is such protracted disagreement about the meaning, surely it isn't too disrespectful to suggest that the wording could have been better ?

[Jocabia]

Unfortunately, it's not possible to read your CDC links. Sometimes the CDC gets into world-wide stats, so it's worth checking. Other numbers peg the U.S. accidental firearm death rate at 0.5% -- comparable to bicycle accidents at 0.7%. Of course, one of the responsibilities of exercising one's right to possess a firearm is to handle, store, and shoot safely. Accidental deaths have dropped over the years, which is a good trend, yes?

Eh, I'll fix the links later, but given it's gotten no actually analytical response, it's not all that likely to be worth it.

It is a good trend, but I don't think it's that low. Even NRA doesn't appear to have it that low. They have it low as percentage of total accidental deaths but that's not really relevant to the point. It's necessary to look at the actual rate.