These would be actual deaths caused by physicians or deaths "proven" by lawyers to be caused by physicians?

This showed up in my email today, I cannot account for its veracity. I do think the gun statistics tend to look pretty good when viewed objectively (which is rare).

The stats are probably factual but misleading, as stats often are. They leave out purposeful gun deaths for example, which at about 12000 per year are 800% higher than accidental deaths. No mention of the likelyhood that many of those 120,000 might have been gravely ill and died with no medical intervention as well. I am sure the stats would support banning cars before banning guns as well, but doctors and cars used correctly will not kill, guns used correctly will.

I don't think the stats are misleading. Intentional and accidental gun deaths should be considered separately. 12,000 intentional gun deaths per year might be correct and the majority of those are probably bad guys shooting either each other or good guys.

But all evidence worldwide (look at Australia and Britain) indicates that if you ban the guns the crime and murder rates will climb and NOT go down. This doesn't even consider the fact that it is another one of those pesky liberty issues.

Let's stipulate that your 12000 "purposeful" annual deaths figure is correct. Doctors would still be over 1000 times more dangerous than guns.

I found these same statistics on another blog dated October 2003 (http://structuredthought.org/archives/000088.php) The accidental deaths by physicians number is attributed to the US Dept. of Health, not the American Bar Association. I think their definition of "accidental" would certainly be characterizable as "it wouldn't have happened if the doc hadn't screwed up."

Incidentally, what is meant by "purposeful" gun death? Intentional I presume. So now we're lumping self-defense shootings with homicides? Let's not.

I am just having fun with statistics. The purposeful stat was homicides by the way, from a 2003 stat claiming 18000+ homicides of which 71% were from guns so approx. 12000 gun homicides.

I personally by the way am 100 times even more likely to die by doctor rather than by gun simply due to the number of hours I will be in contact with them in my lifetime.

I do agree as well that gun control is not the answer to limiting crime. The only problem I can see with the various gun carry laws is the small percentage of people it will make dangerously brave. By this I mean people who will be emboldened to put themselves in dangerous postions because they have a gun. Nature gave us fear as a self preservation mechanism and it works quite well.

I'll come clean: I put this up for humor, even though I knew it might engender some deep feelings.

If I can tie two threads together, I rail against Roe v. Wade below because the Constitution does not clearly dictate a right to privacy or abortion and it is claimed as sacrosanct under penumbras.

The Second Amendment, by contrast, is completely clear, excepting some who get hung up on well-ordered militias. Yet states routinely regulate and prohibit the right to bear arms.

When Congress passes a partial-birth abortion ban by a huge majority, its Constitutionality is suspect. We can't regulate abortion but we can restrict gun ownership. Kinda makes me say "hmmmmm."

Silence,

I reject (surprise!) your self-preservation theory. I like firearms as an equalizer, allowing petite women, disabled persons and even geeky computer guys to escape a sub rosa tyranny by large, strong predatory humans.

Enabling a person to take a job or visit a friend or participate in something he or she might be scared to do is a very good and ennobling thing.

Gotta quote Glenn here: "Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons"

Amen.

The second amendment may be as clear as you claim, but there is actually a whole document that came before the amendments, hence the necessity to call them amendments. I quote from Section 8 of that esteemed document:

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia is actually a claimed Federal right.

And yes I commented in humor as well, I just love to poke at statistics.

Who questioned the Constitutionality of the federal armed forces? This has no bearing on the right to arms by individuals so I'm at a loss as to why you brought it up.

You are confusing the term Militia as used in the Constitution with Army or Navy. Look at the preceding clauses of Section 8 :

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now look at the famed 2nd amendment:

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.

The regulation of the militia is governed by the US congress as stated in Section 8 of the Constitution. The federal armed forces, the Army and the Navy are covered seperately. The right to arms is there, but so is the right of the federal government to arm and call up a militia, or to regulate that militia. It is not stated wether or not those regulations could include on types of weapons.

Thanks for the review of the Constitution. We could all use to read that more than we do.

You have demonstrated that the federal government is Constitutionally authorized to raise and support an army and a navy (that two-year limititaion must have been revised somewhere) and to call forth some Part of the state militia for employment in the Service of the nation. There is no requirement that all state militias be governed in their entirety by Congress.

But even if that were the case it has no bearing on the individual's right to arms. Let's consider an expanded Second Amendmendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, an adequate supply of oxygen, being necessary to the survival of mankind, one plus one being two, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As my wife and I wrote in the comments register at the Second Amendment exhibit at the Minute Man Visitor's Center at Minute Man National Historic Park between Lexington and Concord, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"

Oh yeah, Minute Man National Historic Park:

http://www.nps.gov/mima/

http://www.nps.gov/mima/vcenter.htm