PDA

View Full Version : This Is Why People Shouldn't Be Allowed to Bring Guns in Their Car to Work


ericafny
07-11-2008, 11:39 AM
Posted on yahoo.com:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/us_nm/workplace_usa_deskrage_dc

OKW Lover
07-11-2008, 04:47 PM
I'm sure you'll get a lot of people to agree with you, but please be aware that the law in Florida is that people can bring guns in their car to work. The gun must be securely locked when left in the car.

andrewilley
07-11-2008, 05:07 PM
The gun must be securely locked when left in the car.

"Securely Locked"... I'm so glad that cars are never broken into in Florida parking lots. It seem to happen fairly often over here in the UK.

Just an observation.

Andre

Dismom+two
07-11-2008, 05:08 PM
I just don't understand WHY they passed this law....what is the PURPOSE of being able to "bring your gun to work but keep it in the car?"

I just don't get it!

OKW Lover
07-11-2008, 05:37 PM
I just don't understand WHY they passed this law....what is the PURPOSE of being able to "bring your gun to work but keep it in the car?"

I just don't get it!

"Why" doesn't matter. It is the law in FL.

I can speculate that some people carry a gun with them most of the time and rather than having to go home first before then going to work (or back home first at the end of their shift), they would like to simply keep them in a secure location that is convenient.

ericafny
07-11-2008, 06:13 PM
I understand its the law. And I also understand there are plenty of responsible people who own guns who would not go 'postal' on a group of people. But what about those people that aren't stable and would use their gun if they had a bad commute in to work? I'm just sayin...

Dismom+two
07-11-2008, 06:43 PM
I understand its the law. And I also understand there are plenty of responsible people who own guns who would not go 'postal' on a group of people. But what about those people that aren't stable and would use their gun if they had a bad commute in to work? I'm just sayin...

EXACTLY!!! I just think for those that are unstable its too conveniently close by... NOT that they might not have anything in the car whether it was legal or not.
BTW...I am not a anti-gun person...I feel people have a right to protect themselves.

tjevans
07-11-2008, 07:03 PM
I understand its the law. And I also understand there are plenty of responsible people who own guns who would not go 'postal' on a group of people. But what about those people that aren't stable and would use their gun if they had a bad commute in to work? I'm just sayin...

What about people who aren't stable and would use a knife from the break room/kitchen? What about the people who aren't stable and would use a utility knife from the mail room? What about the people that aren't stable and would use their car as a weapon during the commute?

The law just doesn't seem that unusual to me. I grew up in a town where students would bring guns to school (and leave them in their cars) because they were going hunting when school got out.

I'm willing to bet that the new law in Florida really just legalizes action that has been going on for years. I can't imagine that (unless you want to be a test case) you're going to start bringing a gun with you just because the law changed.

Allison
07-11-2008, 07:04 PM
"Why" doesn't matter. It is the law in FL.

I can speculate that some people carry a gun with them most of the time and rather than having to go home first before then going to work (or back home first at the end of their shift), they would like to simply keep them in a secure location that is convenient.

Sure it matters. There must have been a reason to create this law. The other poster is interested in what that reason was. I'm curious also.

drakethib
07-11-2008, 07:11 PM
These people would lose it with or without a gun. If they had a bat in the car, they would use it just the same.

I am very Pro-Gun rights.

With that being said, I don't think Disney employees need to be carrying guns to work even locked in their car.

Where I work, if you bring a gun to work (in your vehicle or wherever) you are terminated immediately.

Call it an infringement of rights or whatever, but I had a choice not to go to work there. I chose to stay employed and follow the rules.

As far as carrying a gun in my vehicle when I take a trip somewhere, absolutely.



JMHO.

Launchpad11B
07-11-2008, 07:40 PM
There sure are a lot of gun threads lately. This subject is always a big divider with strong arguments on both sides. Both sides have merit. A persons position on this issue is formed by there upbringing and there experiences with guns, which are of course all different to a certain degree. Reasonable gun laws make sense to reasonable people. A back ground check and firearms training is a reasonable requirement when applying for a handgun permit for example. Outlawing owning a gun, even in your own home, such as in Washington D.C. is not a reasonable law. Not to mention it did nothing to slow down gun crimes in D.C. . I'm a gun owner that thinks Disney should be allowed to control what happens on it's own private property. If they're the ones who will be sued for big dollars when someone is hurt with a gun on their property, they should have the right to make it a condition of employment that you not bring your gun on WDW property. If someone is hurt with your gun on Disney property, you the gun owner, not Disney should be held liable. It seems as if Disney is being forced to accept a huge liability risk by Florida passing this law. All that being said, the law is on the books and people have to accept it and obey it, or try and change it through proper channels. I hope this one goes in Disney's favor.:thumbsup2

drakethib
07-11-2008, 07:41 PM
There sure are a lot of gun threads lately. This subject is always a big divider with strong arguments on both sides. Both sides have merit. A persons position on this issue is formed by there upbringing and there experiences with guns, which are of course all different to a certain degree. Reasonable gun laws make sense to reasonable people. A back ground check and firearms training is a reasonable requirement when applying for a handgun permit. Outlawing owning a gun, even in your own home, such as in Washington D.C. is not a reasonable law. Not to mention it did nothing to slow down gun crimes in D.C. . I'm a gun owner that thinks Disney should be allowed to control what happens on it's own private property. If they're the ones who will be sued for big dollars when someone is hurt with a gun on there property, they should have the right to make it a condition of employment that you not bring your gun on WDW property. If someone is hurt with your gun on Disney property, you the gun owner, not Disney should be held liable. It seems as if Disney is being forced to accept a huge liability risk by Florida passing this law. All that being said, the law is on the books and people have to accept it and obey it. I hope this one goes in Disney's favor.:thumbsup2


Well Said Dude

Launchpad11B
07-11-2008, 07:48 PM
Pretty long winded aren't I.:lmao:

drakethib
07-11-2008, 07:50 PM
Pretty long winded aren't I.:lmao:

Not when stating the truth !

dpuck1998
07-11-2008, 08:17 PM
Hold on while I go cut and paste from the other 19 threads about this same thing.....

BTW, good post Launch!!

drakethib
07-11-2008, 08:24 PM
Anyone ever heard that Pickard and Bowens song, Guns made America great.

Pretty Funny. Do a search on you tube for it.

Of course it will offend a bunch of folks but what the heck.

WaltD4Me
07-11-2008, 10:30 PM
I just don't understand WHY they passed this law....what is the PURPOSE of being able to "bring your gun to work but keep it in the car?"

I just don't get it!

First, it does matter WHY. They made a law, but did someone just think this up out of the clear blue sky? There must have been some basis/reason to write it up to begin with. It just seems an odd thing to make into a LAW.

Originally Posted by Launchpad11B
There sure are a lot of gun threads lately. This subject is always a big divider with strong arguments on both sides. Both sides have merit. A persons position on this issue is formed by there upbringing and there experiences with guns, which are of course all different to a certain degree. Reasonable gun laws make sense to reasonable people. A back ground check and firearms training is a reasonable requirement when applying for a handgun permit. Outlawing owning a gun, even in your own home, such as in Washington D.C. is not a reasonable law. Not to mention it did nothing to slow down gun crimes in D.C. . I'm a gun owner that thinks Disney should be allowed to control what happens on it's own private property. If they're the ones who will be sued for big dollars when someone is hurt with a gun on there property, they should have the right to make it a condition of employment that you not bring your gun on WDW property. If someone is hurt with your gun on Disney property, you the gun owner, not Disney should be held liable. It seems as if Disney is being forced to accept a huge liability risk by Florida passing this law. All that being said, the law is on the books and people have to accept it and obey it. I hope this one goes in Disney's favor.

EXACTLY. This is what I have been saying. I don't care if it's a gun or a a pair of rollerskates, if your employer says you can't have it on their privately owned property that should be the end of it. It is their responsibility and their liability if something happens...since Disney would have to pay for the lawsuit, Disney should get to make the rules. Period.

ericafny
07-11-2008, 10:38 PM
Reasonable gun laws make sense to reasonable people.

You can spin that in favor of ANY law. I happen to be against guns, however I respect the fact that people have the right to own a gun on their own property. I also happen to be a reasonable person.

ericafny
07-11-2008, 10:41 PM
Hold on while I go cut and paste from the other 19 threads about this same thing.....

I guess Pete should make a law that only one person can post about one topic at a time. OH NO I posted about something that had been previously posted before...please.

andrewilley
07-12-2008, 05:35 AM
I feel people have a right to protect themselves.

What, from other people who have got guns in their cars you mean?

Sadly, it's one of those Catch-22 vicious circles - basically the reason you might need to carry a gun is because other people are allowed to carry guns.

Again, just offering a UK perspective to this debate. I do know all about the US Second Amendment rights, but I don't have to agree that it's right in a modern world.

Andre

Jillery
07-12-2008, 06:08 AM
What, from other people who have got guns in their cars you mean?

Sadly, it's one of those Catch-22 vicious circles - basically the reason you might need to carry a gun is because other people are allowed to carry guns.

Again, just offering a UK perspective to this debate. I do know all about the US Second Amendment rights, but I don't have to agree that it's right in a modern world.

Andre

Please. In the UK, you are painfully aware that it isn't just guns that predators use. I might want a gun to protect me from a knife attack in London. The point is, violent criminals have no regard for the law in the first place, so restrictions on them have limited impact. Restrictions on them end up being restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

andrewilley
07-12-2008, 12:07 PM
In the UK, you are painfully aware that it isn't just guns that predators use. I might want a gun to protect me from a knife attack in London.

You might want one, but you'd be arrested if you tried it. Or indeed if you were carrying a knife or any other dangerous weapon in London. Thankfully, the criminals would also be arrested for so doing (if caught, of course!).

The argument that criminals break the law doesn't make it right for law-abiding folks to decide to do the same in retaliation.

As I said, using the argument that "I want a gun because someone else might have one" is a vicious circle with no way out - which is where the US seems to be today.

I do agree that there isn't a way out of it now though, some 200+ years after the right was granted, but in an ideal world no one would be carrying (or need to carry) any lethal weapons in a modern civilised society.

Anyway, before this gets out of hand, shall we get back to the subject of whether it's necessary or desirable for Walt Disney World cast members to bring their guns with them to work...

Andre

cslittle999
07-13-2008, 03:05 PM
Have you seen this story Man accidentally shoots himself in Downtown Disney (http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/Travel_News/Man_accidentally_shoots_himself_in_Downtown_Disney .htm). If that isn't a reason to not allow people to bring guns to work, or any where else in public for that matter, I don't know what is.

drakethib
07-13-2008, 03:29 PM
Have you seen this story Man accidentally shoots himself in Downtown Disney (http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/Travel_News/Man_accidentally_shoots_himself_in_Downtown_Disney .htm). If that isn't a reason to not allow people to bring guns to work, or any where else in public for that matter, I don't know what is.


What does someone being careless about a firearm have to do with anything?

Again. I don't think people need to be carrying guns to Disney, but someone shooting them self isn't the reason IMHO.

cslittle999
07-13-2008, 04:11 PM
What does someone being careless about a firearm have to do with anything?

Again. I don't think people need to be carrying guns to Disney, but someone shooting them self isn't the reason IMHO.
Because the accident happened in the parking lot at DTD. Guest/employee not much difference. The challenge with guns is that they aren't very forgiving of accidents. What if instead of shooting himself the bullet hit another guest?

In the end I think it is very sad that there are people who don't feel comfortable leaving their home without a firearm.

drakethib
07-13-2008, 04:35 PM
Because the accident happened in the parking lot at DTD. Guest/employee not much difference. The challenge with guns is that they aren't very forgiving of accidents. What if instead of shooting himself the bullet hit another guest?

In the end I think it is very sad that there are people who don't feel comfortable leaving their home without a firearm.


Going to sound like a troll here but there have also been car accidents as well as ride accidents at WDW were people were hurt (possibly killed).

I don't think we want to ban automobiles or rides in the park.

At the end of the day, Disney made a rule that their employees are not allowed to bring guns on property. End of story. If people want to work there they cannot bring guns to work.

It just bothers me when people use careless acts by other people and blame guns as the issue. It is not the gun, it is the people who misuse them that is the issue.

cslittle999
07-13-2008, 06:11 PM
It just bothers me when people use careless acts by other people and blame guns as the issue. It is not the gun, it is the people who misuse them that is the issue.
Of course it is about the people but that is the problem. You can't tell the difference between a good and a bad gun owner. No background check can tell you if someone has good judgement. IMO it means that the only truly safe thing to do is exclude all guns from public places.

Guns and cars aren't equivalent because the spread between a minor and major accident is so much smaller for guns.

I don't really want to start a gun control discussion. As a Canadian this is all very foreign to me because it is nearly impossible to get a carry permit here. I only posted the article because it seemed scary timing with Florida law and Disney's ban.

In the end the scary thing to me is that there are people who feel Orlando is so unsafe that carrying a gun is the only option and that some of them have poor judgement.

eazyeray
07-13-2008, 06:18 PM
I'm not sure I want to jump in on this conversation but here goes. I've read a couple articles on this story and get different accounts but I believe they may have violated the 4th amendment by illegally searching his vehicle. Like I said I get conflicting stories on weather he allowed the search or not but it seems agressive on there part even if he stated he was bringing his gun to work the next day. Do they thoroughly search everyone of the employee's cars? Do they sign a contract waving thier 4th amendment right? When asked about having the gun did he admit to having it or saying none of your buisness? Just asking...

drakethib
07-13-2008, 08:06 PM
Of course it is about the people but that is the problem. You can't tell the difference between a good and a bad gun owner. No background check can tell you if someone has good judgement. IMO it means that the only truly safe thing to do is exclude all guns from public places.

Guns and cars aren't equivalent because the spread between a minor and major accident is so much smaller for guns.

I don't really want to start a gun control discussion. As a Canadian this is all very foreign to me because it is nearly impossible to get a carry permit here. I only posted the article because it seemed scary timing with Florida law and Disney's ban.

In the end the scary thing to me is that there are people who feel Orlando is so unsafe that carrying a gun is the only option and that some of them have poor judgement.

How about we just agree that guns do not belong at Walt Disney World? ;) :)

cslittle999
07-13-2008, 08:31 PM
How about we just agree that guns do not belong at Walt Disney World? ;) :)
Definitely.

Paging Tom Morrow
07-13-2008, 08:45 PM
How about we just agree that guns do not belong at Walt Disney World? ;) :)

In general, I agree; however, there are some people (e.g., police) that I would like to see armed while in WDW.

Call me crazy, but I'd like to think that if someone a person got crazed while waiting for a table at LeCellier and decided to hold steak knife to my throat, that there just might be someone on property who could end that situation from a safe distance for everyone else's sake.

Oh yeah - and make him a really good shot.

cslittle999
07-13-2008, 09:03 PM
In general, I agree; however, there are some people (e.g., police) that I would like to see armed while in WDW.

Call me crazy, but I'd like to think that if someone a person got crazed while waiting for a table at LeCellier and decided to hold steak knife to my throat, that there just might be someone on property who could end that situation from a safe distance for everyone else's sake.

Oh yeah - and make him a really good shot.
Should there be a shoot range at the front gate as proof of ability? :lmao: Really, I think that Disney likely has enough security to handle that kind of situation. Adding someone not familiar with Disney's security protocols to the mix is likely to make the situation worse.

Paging Tom Morrow
07-13-2008, 09:17 PM
Should there be a shoot range at the front gate as proof of ability? :lmao: Really, I think that Disney likely has enough security to handle that kind of situation. Adding someone not familiar with Disney's security protocols to the mix is likely to make the situation worse.

Given the choice between being protected by a "security agent" or an actual police officer, I'll choose the latter.

Given the choice of being protected by the security protocols of Disney or the local police department, I'll choose the latter as well.

If you would prefer to be protected by agents who are not as well trained and have far less experience in those types of situations, feel free.

However, my guess is that if you were ever in that type of situation, you'd want the most qualified person for your security and that, without a shadow of a doubt, is a police officer.

......or maybe you are the type of person that would actually yell, "Quick, call a rent-a-cop!" Somehow, I doubt that.

cslittle999
07-13-2008, 09:49 PM
Given the choice between being protected by a "security agent" or an actual police officer, I'll choose the latter.

Given the choice of being protected by the security protocols of Disney or the local police department, I'll choose the latter as well.

If you would prefer to be protected by agents who are not as well trained and have far less experience in those types of situations, feel free.

However, my guess is that if you were ever in that type of situation, you'd want the most qualified person for your security and that, without a shadow of a doubt, is a police officer.

......or maybe you are the type of person that would actually yell, "Quick, call a rent-a-cop!" Somehow, I doubt that.
It might or it might not. It really depends on the individual officer. Many have never drawn their weapon in that kind of situation. The officer you get might have only been on the job for a week. Who knows. Considering that Disney operates what amounts to a medium-sized city I would imagine that their security force, at least the part that would deal with an armed confrontation is a little better than the rent-a-cop level.

What I don't want is someone who is on vacation carrying a firearm with them. The chance for something to go wrong, very wrong, is just too high and out weighs any potential benefit that it might bring.

Uncleromulus
07-14-2008, 06:51 AM
The reason for the law? I think some people--in fact, perhaps a lot of people in Florida (and elsewhere)--have lost condfidence in the police and courts to protect them. Merely as an illustrative example, around here in Glen Rock, there was a citizens meeting a few years back about State Police respose time to 911 calls. Records showed it ranged from 5 minutes up to and beyond a half-hour.

If you have a gun, you have a chance to at least attempt to protect yourself in case of an incident. Otherwise you might be just another helpless victim of the many, many, many people who have and carry guns illegally. It's really a self-defense issue with people knowing that for the most part, when serious trouble develops there probably won't be police anywhere nearby to help.
I believe some of the hunting and firearms magazines carry monthly articles about folks around the country who were able to save their own lives, their property, or the lives of others because they had a firearm.

andrewilley
07-14-2008, 07:04 AM
I don't think we want to ban automobiles or rides in the park.

That would certainly cut down the crowd levels a bit though, you may have something there! :)

But of course both of those items, while still being prone to accidents, have some legitimate reasons to be required at a theme park, whereas firearms do not.

What does someone being careless about a firearm have to do with anything?

Because if that gun had not been there in the first place, not even the most careless person in the world would have been able to shoot themselves (or indeed anyone else).

Andre

wishspirit
07-14-2008, 07:20 AM
But of course both of those items, while still being prone to accidents, have some legitimate reasons to be required at a theme park, whereas firearms do not.

I guess cause cars and rides are not designed to kill people, but firearms are.

We both seem to have a very UK based ideas that guns aren't needed to protect ourselves. Yes we do have knife crime, but it is majourity in youth gangs, no one else feels the need to carry them for protection.

I guess i have a lot of trust in the police. So understand your side Andre.

cslittle999
07-14-2008, 08:57 AM
I believe some of the hunting and firearms magazines carry monthly articles about folks around the country who were able to save their own lives, their property, or the lives of others because they had a firearm.
It is with much trepidation that I reply to this. Do they also carry articles on accidents caused by people having a firearm readily available?

The problem with statistics, and this is in general, not you or this issue specifically, is that people only show those statistics that support their position.

Paging Tom Morrow
07-14-2008, 11:21 AM
I guess cause cars and rides are not designed to kill people, but firearms are.

Firearms are not designed to kill people; they are designed to send a piece of metal through an object.

Cars are designed to transport people from point A to B.

Rides are designed to entertain people.

However, each one of those items, can quickly become a weapon if not properly used within their proper guidelines.

I'm not a crazed gun-rights activist; I just find a great deal of hypocrisy within many of the anti-gun lobby's argument. They could save a significantly greater number of people if they concentrated their efforts on improving safety standards within cars, enforcement of seat belt laws, enforcement of speed limits, increased safety inspections on all motorized vehicles and increased safety training for their operators.

All that being said, I am firmly for increased licensing requirements (including testing during an annual renewal process) for anyone wanting a carry permit. I also believe that anyone with a child within the home should also be required to show documentation of a gun locker within their residence.

My opinions on all this would change greatly if the criminal element would denounce guns. Somehow, I don't see that happening.

DisneyKevin
07-14-2008, 11:48 AM
Firearms are not designed to kill people; they are designed to send a piece of metal through an object.

Cars are designed to transport people from point A to B.

Rides are designed to entertain people.

However, each one of those items, can quickly become a weapon if not properly used within their proper guidelines.

One can find inherent danger in virtually every aspect of life.

Cell phones might cause brain tumors

Antibiotics can have dangerous side effects.

You can fall getting out of bed, hit your head on the night stand and die instantly.

However, you never hear news of a dysfunctional teen killing classmates with a prescription of Cipro.

Or....of a person getting hurt in a theme park parking lot cleaning his night stand.

Or ...someone holding up a convenience store with their iPhone

Yet each of these things if used improperly could cause bodily harm and therefore be construed as a weapon. The difference being that none of these things was designed as a weapon.

Guns are designed and meant to be used as weapons. That's pretty much their sole purpose. Yes, they can be used for target practice, which can be considered sport, but that sport is basically practice for being proficient at using a weapon.

While I wholeheartedly agree that all standards involving a motor vehicle could and should be more stringent, therefore offering a higher level of safety,
I don't think that the comparison to a gun holds water.

Cars, like antibiotics, cell phones and nights stands can all be dangerous, however,none were designed as weapons.

Uncleromulus
07-14-2008, 01:02 PM
cslittle: Of course they don't carry those stats! But their point seems to be that those who saved themselves at least had a CHANCE to save themselves.

ericafny
07-14-2008, 01:04 PM
One can find inherent danger in virtually every aspect of life.

Cell phones might cause brain tumors

Antibiotics can have dangerous side effects.

You can fall getting out of bed, hit your head on the night stand and die instantly.

However, you never hear news of a dysfunctional teen killing classmates with a prescription of Cipro.

Or....of a person getting hurt in a theme park parking lot cleaning his night stand.

Or ...someone holding up a convenience store with their iPhone

Yet each of these things if used improperly could cause bodily harm and therefore be construed as a weapon. The difference being that none of these things was designed as a weapon.

Guns are designed and meant to be used as weapons. That's pretty much their sole purpose. Yes, they can be used for target practice, which can be considered sport, but that sport is basically practice for being proficient at using a weapon.

While I wholeheartedly agree that all standards involving a motor vehicle could and should be more stringent, therefore offering a higher level of safety,
I don't think that the comparison to a gun holds water.

Cars, like antibiotics, cell phones and nights stands can all be dangerous, however,none were designed as weapons.


Very well said :thumbsup2

cslittle999
07-14-2008, 01:25 PM
cslittle: Of course they don't carry those stats! But their point seems to be that those who saved themselves at least had a CHANCE to save themselves.
And I'm not surprised at all. I'm sure that somewhere someone is publishing those stats skewed to emphasize the harm firearms can create. A really interesting stat would be how many people have caused an accident in attempting to save themselves.

It is one of those "needs of the many" versus "needs of the one" problems. For the individual having a firearm may indeed provide a great benefit in some exceptional case but the simple act of creating that potential may cause a detriment to society as a whole. It is a very complex problem.

andrewilley
07-14-2008, 01:48 PM
A really interesting stat would be how many people have caused an accident in attempting to save themselves.

I guess a figure per million of population is more meaningful than an absolute, so:

Homicide
USA (2001): 39.8
England/Wales (2002): 1.5

Suicide
USA (2001): 59.2
England/Wales (2002): 2

Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001): 3.6
England/Wales (2002): 0.3


Now... tell me again, which country allows public access to guns and which doesn't?

I do know that I personally feel much safer knowing that all the people around me don't have routine access to guns. Hence my agreement to the concept that guns should not be allowed within a tourist environment like Disney.

Andre

Paging Tom Morrow
07-14-2008, 03:11 PM
* In 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled.
* According the British Home Office, between 1997 and 2001 homicides increased by 19 percent and violent crime increased by 26 percent; meanwhile, in the United States, those same crimes fell by 12 percent.
* Between 2000 and 2001, robbery increased by 28 percent in Britain but only 4 percent in the United States. Domestic burglary increased by 7 percent in Britain, but only 3 percent in the United States.
* In 1996 Australia enacted sweeping gun control laws. In the six years following, violent crime rates rose by 32 percent.
* Canada isn't faring well under its stringent gun control laws. Today Canada's violent crime rate is more than double the rate in the United States.

If the trend among "civilized" nations is that enacting gun control laws increases violent crime, what is the real benefit of doing so here?

Paging Tom Morrow
07-14-2008, 03:15 PM
I guess a figure per million of population is more meaningful than an absolute, so:

Homicide
USA (2001): 39.8
England/Wales (2002): 1.5

Suicide
USA (2001): 59.2
England/Wales (2002): 2

Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001): 3.6
England/Wales (2002): 0.3


Now... tell me again, which country allows public access to guns and which doesn't?

Of the homicides/suicides/other, what portion of each was driven by LEGAL gun ownership? How did those rates break down among states which have right to carry protection. I know the greatest drivers in homicides in the US are from the inner-cities and AFAIK, almost all of them have major restrictions on carry permits.