Is this a joke? Without even looking at the stats you pointed out, I know you're wrong. But to humor you, allow me to post official stats and not some huffington post/msnbc/cnn/fox/etc. article.
Accidental gun deaths per 100,000 in the US is as follows:
2010: 0.206
2009: 0.18
2008: 0.19
2007: 0.20
2006: 0.22
2005: 0.276 23
2004: 0.226
2003: 0.25
2002: 0.26
2001: 0.286 19
2000: 0.286
1999: 0.30
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-statesMurder rates in that same time period:
2010 4.8
2009 5.0
2008 5.4
2007 5.6
2006 5.7
2005 5.6
2004 5.5
2003 5.7
2002 5.6
2001 5.6
2000 5.5
1999 5.7
US murder rates taken from:
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeTrendsInOneVar.cfmAccidental deaths is hardly even a portion of any those statistics. Eliminating all accidental gun deaths would still leave us at substantially higher murder rates than every country gun control enthusiast keep comparing us to. And seriously? You're suggesting that "someone who kills someone out of anger" isn't crazy behavior? Again, you have an extremely warped sense of what is perfectly sane and what is crazy.
Why is it so hard to admit that this is a cultural problem of resorting to violence and has absolutely nothing to do with the ease of obtaining tools of violence. Perhaps if there was a greater rate of one parent staying home and raising kids without some economical strain or greater ease of obtaining qualified therapy (Not psychoactive drugs) then we could not only reduce that violent murder rates, but help with hundreds of thousands of other issues. Know why that isn't a topic? Because it's harder to admit that things we're all guilty of doing are causing these problems. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, yet everyone can justify in their own mind why they're right and everyone else is the problem. I know, I know... no one is suggesting mental health should not be looked at. Further gun restrictions can only be enforced by violent means and does nothing but justifies resistance against authority. Why should the Military have the right to protect me with something that I cannot own. If the local police force finds justifiable means to defend themselves with an AR15, then I should have that same right.
And to the people that keep bringing up the constitution saying the founding fathers would never have allowed you to own an AR15 - the speculation of validity to that argument can not be proved - however, for a group of men that just escaped a tyrannical government, they never would have allowed our government to have AR15's, M16's, Nuke's, Tanks, etc. The line should have been drawn at bombs - but it's too late for that. So unless the government & police force are also considering disarming themselves, than I"m pretty sure the founding fathers would be okay with you having equal force to any government sponsored militia.
