The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

[damngrumpy]

There is nothing wrong with people owning a gun under the right circumstances.
If we have to be armed for the sole purpose of protection then truly society has
failed. If we have to shoot it out with every perceived foe the the word of law is no
longer of value

 

[Colpy]

notwithstanding your own propaganda, if you bothered to check, you'd realize the actual point the group was making:

- highlighting the online marketplace, with all those ads from unlicensed 'citizens', was a way for the group to reinforce the online outlet has become the go-to alternative to avoid background checks. I trust you're aware, licensed sales, by law, require a background check... no background check is required in relation to sales associated with those online ads highlighted. Surely you can't be against background checks... surely! I mean, after all, one of your fanboys just stated "Colpy has repeatedly shown flexibility and interest in finding a set of restrictions that will take some of the inherent danger out of allowing human beings to be armed." :mrgreen:
​

I'm Canadian.

I have absolutely no problem with licensing, which includes background checks and guns may only be bought by licensed individuals, private sale or not.

However, the old English (and Canadian) right to keep arms includes a provision for some restriction..."as allowed by law"

The American Second Amendment is a whole different kettle of fish.....".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not leave much wiggle room.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm Canadian.

I have absolutely no problem with licensing, which includes background checks and guns may only be bought by licensed individuals, private sale or not.

However, the old English (and Canadian) right to keep arms includes a provision for some restriction..."as allowed by law"

The American Second Amendment is a whole different kettle of fish.....".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not leave much wiggle room.

Though it is astonishing how much wiggle room the courts have found.

 

[Colpy]

Though it is astonishing how much wiggle room the courts have found.

It is.

Judges are the worst.

Canadian judges will tell you there is no right to keep arms in Canada.

They should be thrown off the bench for incompetence.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 26,

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Which means that our ancient rights are not cancelled simply because they are not listed in the Charter.


English Bill of Rights of 1689.

..........the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare;

...............7. That the subjects ......... may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You think that's bad, our judges find ways to "interpret" the phrase "shall not be infringed."

 

[Colpy]

You think that's bad, our judges find ways to "interpret" the phrase "shall not be infringed."

There seems to be a Reading non-Comprehension pandemic among the progressives....

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There seems to be a Reading Comprehension pandemic among the progressives....

Maybe we should change the Second to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, keep your damn hands off."

 

[waldo]

I'm Canadian.

I have absolutely no problem with licensing, which includes background checks and guns may only be bought by licensed individuals, private sale or not.

let's recap: you link to an article that had a most narrow focus on a group highlighting a number of online ads in the U.S. state of Vermont. The thrust of the article... and YOUR entire response/comment on it... was to denigrate the group for incorrectly identifying a mere ~4% of the ads as being associated with unlicensed sales. You called them LIARS! As I subsequently identified your bonehead fail, the reason the group correctly identified the other ~96% of the ads as those associated with unlicensed sales, was to highlight the extent of the market/sales reach that affords an avenue to avoid background checks... by law, background checks are only required for licensed sales.

you just stated, as quoted, you personally have no problem with licensing..... which includes background checks. Thanks for self-acknowledging your hypocrisy in targeting that group and labeling them as "LIARS".

The American Second Amendment is a whole different kettle of fish.....".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not leave much wiggle room.

how convenient for you to leave out the first part of that statement; here, let me quote it in whole for you: :mrgreen: talk about "wiggle room'!!!

"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."
​

So, I ask again....can we eliminate the United States because there is extensive gun violence in the inner cities that is drug/gang related?

The inconvenient truth is Mexico, with very strict gun control laws, is several times more violent than the United States.

again, your desperation reeks! The gun related violence in Mexico isn't a reflection on the gun regulations/laws within Mexico... it's a direct reflection on the long-standing decade+ long drug cartel wars... it's a reflection on the significant number of illegal guns brought into Mexico FROM THE U.S. ... and it's a direct reflection on the influence the U.S. has in being the most significant target market for Mexican drugs!

only a gun zealot, like you, would attempt to extend upon your agenda by claiming Mexico presents a representative point of comparison to the gun related murders of (those other) developed countries.

... if you do exclude them because of extensive drug/gang violence, you have to exclude every nation with extensive drug/gang violence......which would include the USA.

interesting! Somehow, in your delusion, you actually believe drug/gang gun related violence in the U.S. has no association to, no correlation with, the availability of guns in the U.S. ... an availability that reflects upon U.S. gun regulations/laws?

Now, our friend Waldo accused me of ignoring this post, in which it is claimed that the USA is no less violent, and that the falling homicide rate is simply due to improved medical practices. Indeed, the illustration claims attacks by knife and gun rose immensely between 2007 and 2010.....and that the decrease in death is due solely to medical advances.

why purposely claim I said something... that I didn't? I've repeatedly stated that medical advances and improved emergency/trauma care procedures have had an influence on the reduced rate of murders... an influence; I've never applied full attribution... nor is, as you state, attribution even mentioned in the graph. Quit making shyte up, hey!

of course, that's only a part of the post... you already wigged out once that the graph only covered a short 4 year period. I had to remind you of the rest of the article that speaks to a full decade period coverage/analysis.

I've only had a quick... very brief... look at your magic-math; just looked at the year 2006. It seems to me, a Table 19 covers aggravated assault in total... it's summation figure doesn't match your math total. Not sure why you need to total anything... isn't Table 19 all inclusive? Again, I've not spent any real time so a simple explanation on your part is something you could provide, right? I see the same thing with respect to robbery... how was your summation number arrived at? And as you acknowledge these 2 items are not the all-inclusive coveage of gun-related violence.

notwithstanding, of course, the caveats the FBI puts on that data... like, it's all voluntarily supplied by state level agencies/police... like there are limited standards for qualification and assignment... like unless a full year is provided by the voluntary sources, the FBI doesn't formally publish the data for that respective year, from that respective source (the FBI still has the data, it just doesn't publish it), etc. I'll draw your attention to the very bottom of that WSJ graphic... where it mentions its 2 data sources as being: the Howard-Hopkins Surgical Outreach Center... and the FBI. Again, that graphic:

​

I expect you're not aware... or could probably care less, but the Howard-Hopkins Surgical Outcomes Research Center does analysis on data from the U.S. National Trauma databank... data as sourced from more than 900 trauma centers in the U.S..

in any case, that WSJ article, as I quoted, also included a reference to the U.S. CDC (Center for Disease Control). As a part of its injury prevention & control mandate, the U.S. CDC maintains a comprehensive databank on U.S. injuries; e.g., fatal injuries, non-fatal injuries, violent death, cost of injury, etc.. It also provides the public a very informative interactive tool to allow one to source a variety of reports... like the most pointed report request result below:

simple trendline of the age-adjusted rate

​

 

[CDNBear]

First of all, these slime, these anti-liberty goose-stepping pseudo-intellectual dimwits have NO respect for the reader, as they immediately pull the standard con of the anti-gun scum.

Correction, they have no respect for intelligent readers.

It's shocking that we even need studies for this, but ok....

Which of course explains the above comment, lolz

 

[Colpy]

let's recap: you link to an article that had a most narrow focus on a group highlighting a number of online ads in the U.S. state of Vermont. The thrust of the article... and YOUR entire response/comment on it... was to denigrate the group for incorrectly identifying a mere ~4% of the ads as being associated with unlicensed sales. You called them LIARS! As I subsequently identified your bonehead fail, the reason the group correctly identified the other ~96% of the ads as those associated with unlicensed sales, was to highlight the extent of the market/sales reach that affords an avenue to avoid background checks... by law, background checks are only required for licensed sales.

you just stated, as quoted, you personally have no problem with licensing..... which includes background checks. Thanks for self-acknowledging your hypocrisy in targeting that group and labeling them as "LIARS".

In case you haven't noticed, this is CANADA, and Vermont is in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There is a difference in our right to keep arms.

Vermont has no gun laws. Private sales are completely unregulated, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with the advertising. The campaign pretended there was something very suspicious about it......and they lied about some of the sales (4%). There is nothing wrong with private sales, they are not done to bypass background checks, they are done to sell stuff you need to sell.

BTW, Vermont has practically no gun laws outside the federal requirement of a background check at licensed dealers. Wanna but a handgun in Vermont? Go to a store, show your Vermont driver's license, undergo an instant computer background check, put down your money any buy yourself a .357 Magnum. Want to carry it concealed for self defense? Buy a box of Federal 125 gr JHPs, load the piece, and drop it in your pocket. All perfectly legal.

Vermont is 47th out of 50 states in murder, with a rate (averaged over the past 5 years) lower than the murder rate in Canada.

how convenient for you to leave out the first part of that statement; here, let me quote it in whole for you: :mrgreen: talk about "wiggle room'!!!

"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."
​

Naw, I leave it out because it is irrelevant, and just confuses the ignorant. I leave it out for four reasons:

1. The lack of Reading Comprehension that is an epidemic amongst "progressives". Quick lesson: there are two phrases, an explanatory phase "A well-regulated Militia" and a declaratory phrase "....the Right of the People...." The first in no way modifies or changes the second. For example, if I say "Because I need bread and milk, I went to the store" The Phrase "Because I need...." in no way changes the phrase "I went to the store"

2. The Militia are the people, and the people are the Militia. This is verified by a quick look at the US Code, which is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. (as explained in Wikipedia)

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

3. The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, second only to freedom of speech, assembly and religion. A Bill of Rights by definition, exists to limit the powers of the state. The military is an arm of state power. A guarantee of "rights" to the state would be insanely out of place in a Bill of Rights.........

One needs to ask....what part of "....the right of the people..." do you not understand?

4. A quick overview of the opinions of the leaders and thinkers of the American War of Independence will soon disavow anyone of the idea that the Second Amendment is anything but a guarantee of an individual's right. There are many, including Washington and Jefferson, who spoke plainly on the right to keep and bear arms. But as an example I give you James Madison, the primary mover and shaker of the establishment of the Bill of Rights:




The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison

Read more at James Madison Quotes - BrainyQuote

In short, I left out the first phrase of the Second Amendment because, as I said, it is irrelevant, and I did not wish to waste my time explaining to those that fail to understand it. But, you forced my hand.

 

[Colpy]

l

The gun related violence in Mexico isn't a reflection on the gun regulations/laws within Mexico... it's a direct reflection on the long-standing decade+ long drug cartel wars... it's a reflection on the significant number of illegal guns brought into Mexico FROM THE U.S. ... and it's a direct reflection on the influence the U.S. has in being the most significant target market for Mexican drugs!

only a gun zealot, like you, would attempt to extend upon your agenda by claiming Mexico presents a representative point of comparison to the gun related murders of (those other) developed countries.



interesting! Somehow, in your delusion, you actually believe drug/gang gun related violence in the U.S. has no association to, no correlation with, the availability of guns in the U.S. ... an availability that reflects upon U.S. gun regulations/laws?

The UN liars chose the OECD as a designation of developed countries, and in their graph included every OECD country except Mexico, and claimed the heading that the USA was the developed country with the highest rate of gun deaths.

That was a lie. A blatant lie. A lie so obvious a grade 8 middle school student would find it laughable.

You can not set out the parameters of a study, then eliminate the evidence that does not agree with your theses, and expect it to be considered valid......whether the issue is gun deaths or global warming.

All the rest of your blather on the subject is completely irrelevant.

l

interesting! Somehow, in your delusion, you actually believe drug/gang gun related violence in the U.S. has no association to, no correlation with, the availability of guns in the U.S. ... an availability that reflects upon U.S. gun regulations/laws?

Not to any significant degree.

There are lots of gun deaths in Mexico, and low availibility of guns to the general population, and a high murder rate.

You can not control gun violence by preventing the good people having guns......and gun laws by definition are only followed by the law-abiding.

You can make submachine guns in your basement.

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

 

[waldo]

In case you haven't noticed, this is CANADA, and Vermont is in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There is a difference in our right to keep arms.

Vermont has no gun laws. Private sales are completely unregulated, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with the advertising. The campaign pretended there was something very suspicious about it......and they lied about some of the sales (4%). There is nothing wrong with private sales, they are not done to bypass background checks, they are done to sell stuff you need to sell.

interesting that you can so easily switch off your declared personal support for licensing and background checks! Rather than show your uber-hypocrisy you should have just acknowledged you didn't investigate the background around that group's initiative; instead, you simply parroted the narrow-focus your agenda driven article took. Of course the group is challenging the online ads... because by skirting the provision to include background checks (WHICH YOU PERSONALLY SAY YOU SUPPORT), those online ads are allowing a greater preponderance of those prohibited to own guns... to own guns! The group's stats indicate that sales through the online unlicensed ads show that, "the percentage of prospective gun buyers who are prohibited from possessing guns is six times higher online than the percentage at Vermont licensed gun dealers "

why continue to use the LIE labeling? It was a simple mistake ... improperly identifying 48 of some 1100 or so online ads isn't a lie... 4% isn't a lie... it's a mistake. What difference does 4% make? Well... other than allowing gun zealots to shout LIARS?

BTW, Vermont has practically no gun laws outside the federal requirement of a background check at licensed dealers.

and I expect that's one of the reasons they targeted the state of Vermont... along with it having the second lowest population total; a lack of any real significant urban influence (i.e., it's strong rural character) coupled with its hunting traditions and outdoor sport has helped to shape it's most permissive gun laws.

Naw, I leave it out because it is irrelevant, and just confuses the ignorant. I leave it out for four reasons:

1. The lack of Reading Comprehension that is an epidemic amongst "progressives". Quick lesson: there are two phrases, an explanatory phase "A well-regulated Militia" and a declaratory phrase "....the Right of the People...." The first in no way modifies or changes the second. For example, if I say "Because I need bread and milk, I went to the store" The Phrase "Because I need...." in no way changes the phrase "I went to the store"

2. The Militia are the people, and the people are the Militia.

"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."
​

damn, you are an American wannabe, aren't you? :mrgreen: Ya, ya... no need for you to parrot the usual talking points. It's absolutely mind boggling to have anyone presume to parse that statement into 2 separate and unrelated statements... and presume to carry it forward from the time/circumstance it was written. With all those guns owned today by individual Americans (with the typical 310+ million figure used as a conservative estimate on the number of U.S. guns), the gun lobby and it's supporters had to find a way to tie individual ownership to that statement... hence your parroted nonsense, "The Militia are the people, and the people are the Militia"! One of your fan-boys earlier used the word "wiggle worm"... well done with your own... wiggle worm! Of course, the vast majority of Americans don't own guns... that ownership is concentrated into a much smaller percentage of the whole... damn there's a lot of non-militia Americans, hey! Given that low(er) militia participation, Is "the state" still secure... and free? :mrgreen: Colpy, how many members in the militia you belong to?

don't bother replying with more parroted U.S. 2nd amendment talking points; after all, didn't you just emphasize, "this is Canada and not the U.S.... didn't you just emphasize you're Canadian, not an American"?

The UN liars chose the OECD as a designation of developed countries, and in their graph included every OECD country except Mexico, and claimed the heading that the USA was the developed country with the highest rate of gun deaths.

That was a lie. A blatant lie. A lie so obvious a grade 8 middle school student would find it laughable.

You can not set out the parameters of a study, then eliminate the evidence that does not agree with your theses, and expect it to be considered valid......whether the issue is gun deaths or global warming.

All the rest of your blather on the subject is completely irrelevant.

UN liars??? You've already blown up on this, at least once! And I've already corrected you on it! The UN had nothing to do with that article, that graph. Of course, the author used the data as collected/hosted by the UN. And I've already stated the source of that data. I'd suggest you lay off your UN targeting unless you'd first like to challenge the data and it's sources.

this is just you... being you. Again, the article fully qualifies why Mexico wasn't included on the graph... and, again, that title reflects upon per-capita numbers. I've already told you this. But why let reality and facts get in the way of your continued idiocy and bluster?

interesting! Somehow, in your delusion, you actually believe drug/gang gun related violence in the U.S. has no association to, no correlation with, the availability of guns in the U.S. ... an availability that reflects upon U.S. gun regulations/laws?

Not to any significant degree.

There are lots of gun deaths in Mexico, and low availibility of guns to the general population, and a high murder rate.

You can not control gun violence by preventing the good people having guns......and gun laws by definition are only followed by the law-abiding.

ya, ya... all those "good people of Mexico" would rise up against the drug cartels... if only they had guns!!! That sir, that is a fitting comment to member mentalfloss' OP... to this thread... to the myth of the good guy with a gun!
.
.
anyway... CUlater... pick-up hockey game awaits. I look forward to more of your nonsense! Carry on.

 

[CDNBear]

Ya, ya... no need for you to parrot the usual talking points. It's absolutely mind boggling to have anyone presume to parse that statement into 2 separate and unrelated statements... and presume to carry it forward from the time/circumstance it was written.

Yet successive legal experts interpret it the same way Colpy does, and it has stood many challenges.

But why let reality and facts get in the way of your continued idiocy and bluster?

 

[Colpy]

I expect you're not aware... or could probably care less, but the Howard-Hopkins Surgical Outcomes Research Center does analysis on data from the U.S. National Trauma databank... data as sourced from more than 900 trauma centers in the U.S..

in any case, that WSJ article, as I quoted, also included a reference to the U.S. CDC (Center for Disease Control). As a part of its injury prevention & control mandate, the U.S. CDC maintains a comprehensive databank on U.S. injuries; e.g., fatal injuries, non-fatal injuries, violent death, cost of injury, etc.. It also provides the public a very informative interactive tool to allow one to source a variety of reports... like the most pointed report request result below:

Now this is interesting, and you may have something approaching a point here.

That said, I have some doubts.

Just to take the extremes....

In 2001 the CDC claims there were 45,316 gun injuries. In 2001 there 8,719 murders with firearms, according to the FBI Crime Reports.

in 2013 the CDC claims there were 64,394 gun injuries. In 2013 there were 8,454 murders with firearms, according to the FBI Crime Reports.

These statistics, especially when combined with the crashing number of aggravated assaults in the USA, leads me to believe that the increasing number of injuries has little to do with gun crime, and has more to do with the increasing legitimate use of firearms.

But, you still have a point.

One that I would counter by pointing out that 65,000 injuries is a completely acceptable level in a nation in which (to compare) 450,000 people die every year from tobacco...........

interesting that you can so easily switch off your declared personal support for licensing and background checks!

I support licensing IN CANADA, not in the United States, where their right to unfettered access to arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment

 

[CDNBear]

I support licensing IN CANADA, not in the United States, where their right to unfettered access to arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment

You'll have to excuse waldo, he'll employ any and all manner of obfuscation to muddy the conversation when he realizes he's wrong.

 

[gerryh]

interesting that you can so easily switch off your declared personal support for licensing and background checks! Rather than show your uber-hypocrisy you should have just acknowledged you didn't investigate the background around that group's initiative; instead, you simply parroted the narrow-focus your agenda driven article took. Of course the group is challenging the online ads... because by skirting the provision to include background checks (WHICH YOU PERSONALLY SAY YOU SUPPORT), those online ads are allowing a greater preponderance of those prohibited to own guns... to own guns! The group's stats indicate that sales through the online unlicensed ads show that, "the percentage of prospective gun buyers who are prohibited from possessing guns is six times higher online than the percentage at Vermont licensed gun dealers "

At this point in time, it's perfectly legal, as Colpy has pointed out. Doesn't matter what Colpy's personal opinion is of background checks and Colpy's opinion has no weight in the Commonwealth of Vermont.


This is a prime example of the bullshyte arguments you make.

I look forward to more of your nonsense! Carry on.

Actually, it's the other way around.

 

[Colpy]

"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."
​

damn, you are an American wannabe, aren't you? :mrgreen: Ya, ya... no need for you to parrot the usual talking points.

You should really stat away from subjects that you do not understand.

 

[gerryh]

You should really stat away from subjects that you do not understand.

He wouldn't be able to post anything.

 

[Colpy]

i hence your parroted nonsense, "The Militia are the people, and the people are the Militia"!

"Parroted nonsense" that is American LAW.

Really, you need to deal with that Reading Comprehension problem.

Once again, the US Code:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age.............

If that isn't the mass of the people, I don't know what is.........

 

[mentalfloss]

let's recap: you link to an article that had a most narrow focus on a group highlighting a number of online ads in the U.S. state of Vermont. The thrust of the article... and YOUR entire response/comment on it... was to denigrate the group for incorrectly identifying a mere ~4% of the ads as being associated with unlicensed sales. You called them LIARS! As I subsequently identified your bonehead fail, the reason the group correctly identified the other ~96% of the ads as those associated with unlicensed sales, was to highlight the extent of the market/sales reach that affords an avenue to avoid background checks... by law, background checks are only required for licensed sales.

you just stated, as quoted, you personally have no problem with licensing..... which includes background checks. Thanks for self-acknowledging your hypocrisy in targeting that group and labeling them as "LIARS".



how convenient for you to leave out the first part of that statement; here, let me quote it in whole for you: :mrgreen: talk about "wiggle room'!!!

"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."
​

again, your desperation reeks! The gun related violence in Mexico isn't a reflection on the gun regulations/laws within Mexico... it's a direct reflection on the long-standing decade+ long drug cartel wars... it's a reflection on the significant number of illegal guns brought into Mexico FROM THE U.S. ... and it's a direct reflection on the influence the U.S. has in being the most significant target market for Mexican drugs!

only a gun zealot, like you, would attempt to extend upon your agenda by claiming Mexico presents a representative point of comparison to the gun related murders of (those other) developed countries.



interesting! Somehow, in your delusion, you actually believe drug/gang gun related violence in the U.S. has no association to, no correlation with, the availability of guns in the U.S. ... an availability that reflects upon U.S. gun regulations/laws?



why purposely claim I said something... that I didn't? I've repeatedly stated that medical advances and improved emergency/trauma care procedures have had an influence on the reduced rate of murders... an influence; I've never applied full attribution... nor is, as you state, attribution even mentioned in the graph. Quit making shyte up, hey!

of course, that's only a part of the post... you already wigged out once that the graph only covered a short 4 year period. I had to remind you of the rest of the article that speaks to a full decade period coverage/analysis.

I've only had a quick... very brief... look at your magic-math; just looked at the year 2006. It seems to me, a Table 19 covers aggravated assault in total... it's summation figure doesn't match your math total. Not sure why you need to total anything... isn't Table 19 all inclusive? Again, I've not spent any real time so a simple explanation on your part is something you could provide, right? I see the same thing with respect to robbery... how was your summation number arrived at? And as you acknowledge these 2 items are not the all-inclusive coveage of gun-related violence.

notwithstanding, of course, the caveats the FBI puts on that data... like, it's all voluntarily supplied by state level agencies/police... like there are limited standards for qualification and assignment... like unless a full year is provided by the voluntary sources, the FBI doesn't formally publish the data for that respective year, from that respective source (the FBI still has the data, it just doesn't publish it), etc. I'll draw your attention to the very bottom of that WSJ graphic... where it mentions its 2 data sources as being: the Howard-Hopkins Surgical Outreach Center... and the FBI. Again, that graphic:

​

I expect you're not aware... or could probably care less, but the Howard-Hopkins Surgical Outcomes Research Center does analysis on data from the U.S. National Trauma databank... data as sourced from more than 900 trauma centers in the U.S..

in any case, that WSJ article, as I quoted, also included a reference to the U.S. CDC (Center for Disease Control). As a part of its injury prevention & control mandate, the U.S. CDC maintains a comprehensive databank on U.S. injuries; e.g., fatal injuries, non-fatal injuries, violent death, cost of injury, etc.. It also provides the public a very informative interactive tool to allow one to source a variety of reports... like the most pointed report request result below:

simple trendline of the age-adjusted rate

​

Good posts all around.

Keep it going guys.