Well..... let's see here. First thing that jumps out is that the total deaths by guns that Bill cites comes to about 1.2% of the total deaths for the year (gun deaths according to Bill's source = 29573 divided by total deaths in 2002 of 2,443,387). Hardly a terrible crisis, given that the numbers that the good prof is hardly trying to be objective and did not seek to balance the numbers for a number of factors, such as violent crime deterred, stopped, or lives saved BY THE LEGAL INTERVENTION (The study indicates that legal intervention caused 300+ deaths). Second, the numbers include deaths from guns that have nothing to do with the NRA being good or evil, such as unspecified, or accidents. Thirdly, the fact that a number of them were suicides, it seems fairly obvious that those folks were committed to killing themselves and would have done so anyway. The study cited was being used by this person to imply that this is a raging problem. This person clearly was trying to sway opinion by throwing every kind of death that occurred, whether it would have been prevented by some form of gun control or the outright banning of private ownership of weapons or not.

I knew you couldn't resist the demagogic comment, "If that doesn't move you, come see me, and I will introduce you to a few..." comment, and I would simply point out that it doesn't mean much. But I would be happy to show you, for each of these folks you show me, 10 others that are responsible owners who obey the law and aren't wackos running around shooting their wives, children and folks out for a Sunday drive. But as I said, that really doesn't mean much. As an aside, there was just a case of an armed man in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caught on a gas station security camera as another man picked up a heavy metal lid with the intention of doing him great bodily harm. The man pulled his weapon and shot and killed the assailant. The police department and the prosecutor, reviewed that tape and came to the conclusion that he was completely justified and that the implement could have killed or very seriously injured him. Of course had he not been armed, and had he been hurt or killed, you certainly wouldn't be suggesting that it is too bad he wasn't armed so he could protect himself. This is exactly why there is an inverse proportional effect as to the number of deaths/injuries from violent crime and strict gun control laws. Where citizens have the right to carry arms, under very strict rules of training and use, deaths/injuries from violent crime are demonstrably lower.

By the use of these studies, in the manner in which you are citing them, it speaks exactly to what the real agenda is. And it is ridiculous. Law abiding citizens who responsibly own, and use, guns are not causing the deaths. The notion that even one death is reason enough to ban them flys in the face of all intellectual reason. And I can assure you of one thing.

Mick