Misuse of guns account for only about 1.25% of all deaths in 2007

Death rate by all causes is 803.6 / 100,000 or about 2.4 million deaths.

The 30,000 deaths by guns is about 1.25% of all deaths in 2007.

Put into perspective gun deaths are not a significant cause of death in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

The billions of dollars some here want to spend on gun buybacks and registration schemes and confiscations would be better spent on research and treatment of heart disease, strokes, hypertension and even diabetes rather than spending it on something that's already a tiny fraction of all deaths.

have I seen ANYONE advocate that "billions of dollars be spent on gun buybacks and registration schemes and confiscations...." NEVER


Fail

Even if they don't say that

The study shows that we have bigger problems than guns

That's only 10 times the deaths on 9/11
Or 100 times since 9/11

and ours would cost more than ten times more.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213.html

and add up all the money that is spent on lawsuits, gun control groups and anti-gun control groups and you can see the war against law abiding gun owners is very expensive.

Cause that sounds at least an order of magnitude too high.

to register ~7m weapons, if I recall correctly. (And some still contend compliance is at or less than 50%, even with multiple extended 'amnesty' periods.)

You have seen numerous posts that advocate the complete confication of all privately owned guns. On poster even wanted to get the Canadian and Mexican military to come here and do door-to-door searches for guns. Do you really think that registering all 300 million guns would be free? Heow much do you think it would cost to register, find, confiscate and destroy 300 million guns?

....people like sharesunited.

Countless people on this forum have suggested that we have register and license firearm owners. Canada does this, and they spend a boat-load of money doing it.

I hate it when I hear about accidental and other deaths by guns but I grew up in an aviation family so I am annoyed at when congress imposes more restrictions on airlines when it makes it harder to higher pilots and flying is so Extremely safe compared to any other form of travel

This is why I agree that the money would be better spent

Hand guns have only one purpose. To kill. There is no valid reason that any private citizen should be permitted to own a hand gun.

Not a significant cause of death? Tell that to the family of those who have been killed by guns.

Saying that 'this thing kills fewer people then that thing' is a mind-numbingly ridiculous argument.

Then there are fuckload of defective guns out there. 100M handguns in the US, and 6,452 homicides by handgun. On in every 21,500 handguns will be used to kill- that's 0.00654% of all handguns.

I'd love to have your input in this thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384



Self-defense. Next?

There are lots of mouse traps that haven't caught a mouse and fire extinguishers that haven't put out a fire

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

Feel free to chime in there.

Silly putty was made to be a replacement for rubber during the scarcity of WWII. Does that somehow invalidate the use to which people put it?

I never understood this. What bearing does it have on the price of tea in China?!?

What's the underlying moral principle that you won't spit out, hrm?

It's about what the tool was designed for. Why would you carry a specific tool if you had no expectation of using it for it's intended purpose?

When I carry a firearm the one thing I hope for more than anything is to not have to use it.

I think many people who carry, start to do so out of genuine fear, sparked by a bad experience or real threats. Then it becomes habit forming and the toter feels naked without his gun, which has now become a crutch. The mechanism is very similar to addiction to pain medication. Religion can also have similar effects. All slippery slopes.
I equate owning a gun to keeping a first aid kit. Something you keep in the home and maybe the car, boat, camper etc., but rarely on your person. Maybe if you're going camping, climbing or hiking in the wilderness. But to church and school and the mall? I don't think so. That would indicate a total lack of trust in society.

...the person carries because they like to be prepared for the possibility of being attacked by a criminal both inside AND outside of the home. No slippery slope, no "addiction" as you put it, no irrational fears, etc. Just preparedness.

Honestly, this is something that has been explained to you dozens of times now. You don't seem to have a problem with somebody being prepared in other areas, such as adequate supplies and tools in a vehicle for various vehicle related emergencies, but when it comes to people who carry concealed, its some sort of mental disorder in your mind.

So how come I'm not buying it? Hmm, maybe because not one toter has claimed, to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, to have used his gun for true self defense. I've heard stories about brandishing at young guys with big muscles who were ogling a member's tools and another member's spouse apparently is a common target and brandishes often. I consider this kind of use to be more of a deterrent than self defense, in which case OC and/or a loud whistle would be more appropriate. Once a gun is drawn and brandished the ante has been raised considerably and the likelihood of somebody getting shot becomes real.

For some, it may well be a mental disorder, but I consider it more of a behavioral disorder rather than something pathological. I'm sure there are groups out there who can help. Maybe something like a 12 step program. Think about it. The world really isn't that bad of a place.

Fist of all, I think at least several DU'ers have shared their personal stories here they had to use their carry firearm in a self defense situation. Simply because you haven't read them doesn't mean it never happened. Secondly, a loud whistle? A loud, fucking whistle? You have to be fucking kidding. Yes, CLEARLY a loud whistle is just as compelling a deterrent as a firearm. As to the merits of open and concealed carry, each have clear pluses and minuses but that is not really the point of this discussion here.

And honestly, even if not a single DU'er has ever experience a DGU situation while carrying, this is hardly a large sample size, not to speak of hardly being scientific. If this is the process of how you form all of your opinions, then you have even less credibility than I thought.

I think many people who carry, start to do so out of genuine fear, sparked by a bad experience or real threats. Then it becomes habit forming and the toter feels naked without his gun, which has now become a crutch. The mechanism is very similar to addiction to pain medication. Religion can also have similar effects. All slippery slopes.
I equate owning a gun to keeping a first aid kit. Something you keep in the home and maybe the car, boat, camper etc., but rarely on your person. Maybe if you're going camping, climbing or hiking in the wilderness. But to church and school and the mall? I don't think so. That would indicate a total lack of trust in society.

And most people do leave their firearms at home. It's simply too much hassle to carry a firearm and most people going about their lawful, normal daily lives are unlikely to be victims of crime.

But this does not mean that people should not have the option to carry a concealed firearm if they feel it is necessary or prudent to do so.

wearing underwear. "Once you carry you should always carry" and that, my friend, is junkie talk.

or are you just trying to be offensive? :shrug:

I have read posts that claim "Once you carry, you must always carry". How would you describe that kind of comment? I am absolutely not trying to be offensive. And if anyone takes offense then I apologize. Is junkie too strong a word to describe a person who cannot function fully without something or is so devoted to something they feel a sense of deprivation or loss when they go without.

junkie junky
noun
1. addict, user, drug addict, druggie (informal), head (slang), freak (informal), mainliner (slang), smackhead (slang), pill-popper (slang), pothead (slang), cokehead (slang), acidhead (slang), hashhead (slang), weedhead (slang) a heroin junkie in a TV drama
2. lover, fan, supporter, follower, enthusiast, freak (informal), admirer, buff (informal), fanatic, devotee, fiend (informal), zealot, aficionado a vinyl junkie

...the reasoning behind that saying. Lets say that you get your concealed carry permit, but only carry some of the time. You leave it home for quick trips to the store and that sort of thing. What if it is on one of these quick trips when you leave it behind that you come into a situation that you actually need it? Worse yet, what if you would have been in a position to prevent great harm coming to either yourself or somebody else, but were unable to because you decided to not carry on that trip?

So the argument comes down to if you are going to carry, better to do it at all times so that you never have to worry about finding yourself in the above situation. It's a dilemma that likely doesn't make itself readily apparent to someone who doesn't carry.

It's your choice, but I see it as such a burden, for the very reason you describe. What if you were to need it on the day you left it at home? I don't want a gun to be an extension of myself. I want to be able to choose if and when I carry. I'm also happy to let others decide where I cannot carry for reasons of public safety. I know the latter is not a popular point of view amongst toters, but I believe the society's rights trump individual rights in a democracy.

...based off of the individual rights held by the members of that society?

As for not carrying in areas for reasons of public safety (and I'd argue that legal carry in such areas doesn't generally present a public safety hazard in the first place given the statistical evidence, but that's besides the point right now), the biggest problem I tend to have with that is that in many such areas, nothing is done to make sure somebody does so anyway in violation of the law. For instance, most schools do not have armed security or mental detectors, yet they are gun free zones. But what is to stop somebody with ill intent on going in there with a gun anyway? Nothing. The same applies to most businesses. At least at public government buildings there is usually a security screen you have to go through.

There we have the dilemma. In our democracy individual rights are protected by the Constitution, but only insofar as society as a whole is not threatened by the acts of individuals, or groups of individuals exercising those rights. Waco comes to mind. The examples you give of "gun free zones" come to mind. You accept a government building with metal detectors as a place you don't need to exercise your right to carry, but not a place without metal detectors. I assume you accept an airplane as a legitimate gun free zone. Why, because it makes sense, even though the events of 9/11 were caused by individuals armed only with box cutters. Some here have expressed a need to carry a gun to defend themselves against young guys with big muscles, knives, clubs, baseball bats, fists, feet and whatever else could conceivably be used to injure or kill. In my mind, these people are afraid of life itself. There are no guarantees in life and the notion that carrying a gun is likely to prolong one's life or better one's chances in a confrontation is illusory. I don't believe it improves the odds and may lessen them. If I felt like taking a walk at night in the park or in a sketchy neighborhood, I'd be more likely to take something hefty like a walking cane. A good sized dog also helps. I find these to be a far better deterrent than a concealed firearm, which has no use until you pull it, at which point the ante has been raised substantially.

The reason why I don't have as much of a problem with certain "gun free" zones is because those areas actually do something to ensure they are, in fact, gun free. They typcially have armed security and have taken measures to ensure the protection of those in the building from armed violent criminals. However, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of "gun free" zones.

You don't believe that carrying can improve your odds in a confrontation. I believe the evidence available does not support that conclusion (both statistical and anecdotal). However, I don't believe carrying a gun makes a person some sort of supernatural force to be reckoned with (though I don't think most people who carry believe this either). Simply maintaining situational awareness is at least as important, if not more so in some ways, as having an effective means of defending yourself. Situational awareness will help you avoid situations where a confrontation may occur in the first place, or at least identify a possible confrontation and take whatever precautionary measures may be warranted.

Honestly, I think part of the reason so many people end up in ugly situations is because they walk around totally unaware of the world around them. They inadvertently place themselves in danger because of their inattentiveness.

You might find this site interesting where cops from different countries discuss their preferences

http://www.policeworld.net/vb/showthread.php?16985-Unarmed-Police.

that it is important, when choosing to carry, to cultivate and practice safe, responsible habits. That becomes more difficult when you carry on an ad hoc or random basis.

As for "junkie", I've seen no evidence anywhere (and definitely not around here) that "cannot function" or "feel a sense of deprivation or loss" describes anyone who exercises the right to carry, and it's clear that the definition you were using was the first one - so I think people who carry could fairly assume you were intending to insult them...

I trust society. I do not trust those who choose to live outside it's rules. Ever meet someone you helped put in prison fifteen years ago at McDonalds? Or bump into the guy you jailed for drug abuse while shopping the toy aisle at Wal Mart with your kids? Ever have a guy just walk up to you and tell you he was a British secret agent and the Russians had abducted his super model girlfriend, turns out he was off his medications. He had a knife in his hand at the time. Monsters are real and they live among us.

My judgment is every bit as valid as yours in this regard. My feelings are every bit as valid. And on top of that the law is on my side.

As I've said many times, it is up to the individual to decide. I had similar incidents when working in LE. Had my life threatened a couple of times. Once in a courtroom. Comes with the territory, but I never considered toting as an option.

If I were a psychiatrist, police officer, judge, lawyer, delivery man, cab driver, or convenience store clerk, I would almost certainly carry a firearm.

Doesn't mean others are not justified in considering it though.

From what I gleaned from postings, I think Jeep is a cop. If so, his "crutch" is a condition of employment.

some places require you to be armed off duty.

Norway has an armed population but unarmed police. Their murder rate is about half as Japan's.

Apart from the homogeneous nature of both countries I see no reason to compare them. Population density and cultural traditions are most likely indicators of their disparity.
Comparing 2 countries with similar cultures like the US and Canada is interesting, the US having 3x the murder rate of Canada. The main differences in culture being that Canada never had a tradition of slavery and despite being a country of immigrants, it does not sell the "melting pot" myth, which serves only in feeding bigotry and racism.

There are more differences between US and Canada than slavery. I think we are finally getting through to you.

I'm definitely learning a lot, which I guess is inevitable when one exposes oneself to those of a very different mindset. Unfortunately, in spite of all the discussion here and elsewhere, I see no easy solutions to the extraordinary amount of gun violence in this country. The answers, obviously go way beyond any kind of legislation. The underlying issues are rooted in the country's violent past. I guess we reap what we sow.

There's more to running a country than telling people what to do.

"Ooh, you wanna kill someone!?"

Spit it out.

used to put out fires. 99% of gun uses are hunting and target shooting which also defines their purpose. Killing is less then 1% of uses of firearms, therefore killing is not the purpose of most firearms.

I have no issue with hunting, target shooting. I enjoy shooting skeet. I also have no problem with home defense, for which I prefer a shotgun.

I've been the victim of violent crime a couple of times in my life, and both times were outside of my house. I don't understand why you recognize a right to defend your self in the home with a firearm but not outside of the home. The disconnect there simply makes no sense to me.

But we do agree on one thing, I also prefer a shotgun for my home defense firearm.

Having been a victim of violent crime twice in your life explains a lot as to why you might feel safer toting a gun outside the home. It leaves room for many questions though. First, I would ask, what kind of attacks were they and were you carrying on either of these occasions? Second, if not, how do you think it would have played out?
If the attacks were unprovoked and resulted in you arming yourself, then you allowed others to radically alter your behavior. If you break an arm you put it in a caste till it heals. If you leave the caste on forever, the arm will whither.

I believe I may have mentioned this story at some other point. I've spent most of my life in SE Wisconsin. Now as anybody from that area can tell you, winter can be nasty there. I once found myself in a situation where I was stuck on the side of a road in a disabled car. I wasn't planning on being outside long, so I didn't have my hat and gloves on me. Nor did I have my good winter boots on. Suffice it to say it was a truly miserable experience. No heat, inadequate clothing, and some of the coldest weather of the year at that point. I was much luckier than many that have found themselves in similar situations and did not end up with frost bite (or worse). But I learned a hard a valuable lesson. I allowed the experience to radically alter my behavior, as you say. I now have a solid winter weather kit for my car, and I never go out in the cold without appropriate clothing. I've had to employ the kit several times since that incident, and have been very greatful that I made the preparations that I did.

Learning from our experiences and altering our patterns of behavior isn't always a bad thing as you seem to imply that it is. Yes sometimes in can result it negative behaviors, but not always. Part of your problem is you believe that concealed carry is a negative behavior, yet you do this in spite of the evidence available. Concealed carry is no more negative a behavior than the cold weather gear I keep in my car now.

Both of my experiences were unprovoked, and concealed carry would likely have not helped in either (one for certain). In fact, at the time of both incidents I didn't care much for the idea of concealed or open carry. I was not carrying on either occasion. I have never carried, neither openly nor concealed, in my life. I do intend on getting my permit now that I live in Indiana. Not because of any fear I may have of being a victim of a violent crime, but because I'd rather be prepared for an eventually when I may need one than not.

No mental illness. No manipulation from fear mongers. None of the crap you seem to think causes people to conceal carry. Just an understanding that sometimes shit happens, and it's better to be ready for it than not.

isn't always a bad thing as you imply it is"
On the contrary, I think it is almost invariably a good thing. I'm sure many of us would not be alive today if we hadn't learned from our experiences and adjusted our behavior accordingly. I don't know how I managed to imply the opposite.

Having spent several winters in Canada, I can relate to your car story. In 1977 I got stuck in Tipp City, Ohio for 5 days in the blizzard of the century and I had no winter clothes. I learned a lot, changed my behavior. I've spent most of the past 20 years on the ocean, which, needless to say, is a very unforgiving and often demanding environment. If I were not flexible in my behavior and decision making, I would not have survived. I have to make safety decisions all the time and make sure my backup systems are all in order. My life involves a lot of redundancy, so I can relate to your concerns on those levels.

Now, concerning CC. I had never considered it before coming to this forum. Wasn't part of my life. Never met anyone who practiced it. So, any "crap that I think" is a result of my digestive experience in "Cafe Gungeon". My curiosity has been piqued by the heated discussions here and I have learned much and I must admit my position has softened somewhat in certain areas and perhaps hardened in others. But, I assure you, it remains fluid. I appear to be in a minority there, as most members who post here appear to be extremely rigid in their views, which makes me wonder why they bother to engage at all. Their sole purpose seems to consist of continual sniping (excuse the pun) back and forth, with little effect. So, as one of the few who actually appear to think and not just feel, I am curious as to your decision to apply for a CC permit in Indiana, never having carried previously. Is it a personal experiment or do you think you will be more vulnerable there than in WI?

Do I feel like I am more threatened than I was in Wisconsin? Not really. I know the area I'm in has a higher crime rate than where I was before, but that really doesn't factor into it much at all. I guess between the two options presented, personal experiment would fit more than anything else. I don't see a compelling reason NOT to carry, yet I see many compelling reasons TO carry. I'm 30 years old now with chronic back issues. The days of me being able to effectively defend myself with physical strength alone are numbered. Hopefully, I'll never have the need to defend myself again, but I've always been a proponent of the saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

I think some of us that post in here a lot get a bit jaded simply because a lot of the people that do come in here are usually here to try and paint us as some sort of blood thirsty monsters, or other form of savage. This can lead to some of us (myself very much included I am sorry to say) being overly sensitive at times to this sort of thing. I know I continue to post in here because every now and then somebody does come in here and strike up a conversation that ends up being enlightening for both parties, and I think that serves a very useful purpose, especially on this subject, for us progressives.

I apologize if I have at times been very harsh towards you, though at times you have made statements that made my blood boil! Hopefully we can put that behind us and move on to a more productive and meaningful dialog. :)

I know I say things at times to stir up the debate, which tends to get bogged down with the same old back and forth responses. My intention is not to insult or bully, but to learn how others reason and encourage all of us to think outside the box. We get so locked into our beliefs, especially as we age. I make no pretense at being better or of higher morals than anyone else, though some may have inferred that from some of my posts. I cross the line occasionally, and apologize for any personal offense taken. The gungeon debates can get very contentious at times, but rarely boring.
I wish you good luck with your experiment. It's your decision to make. Stay safe.

You may find it interesting to learn that I was at one point solidly anti-gun. AWB, handgun ban, you name it, I was against it. Basically low cap firearms for sporting purposes is all I really got behind.

My opinions changed over time as I started to look more closely at the evidence provided, in no small part due to many conversations I was having with people on the other side of the spectrum. It wasn't an easy process, either. Looking critically at ones long held beliefs is never easy.

though I buy very little of the evidence provided by those on either side who have a vested interest in exploiting peoples fears, be it to make money or garner votes. I understand an individual's decision to carry a firearm, but I think society, as a whole, ultimately suffers from the proliferation of such a practice. I see it as anti-progressive, rather than progressive. As the number of folk carrying increases, inevitably the number of accidental and irresponsible shootings will increase. Eventually, if the present rate of proliferation continues, it will reach a point where intolerance will prevail and repressive laws become the only solution. That's when everyone loses.

Death of the attacker is not the primary objective. The objective is to stop the badguy. So the primary purpose of a ccw is not to kill but to protect oneself.

yes it is important how many people die from a certain cause. We shouldn't waste billions of dollars attacking law abiding gun owners if the misuse of guns only accounts for 1.25% of all deaths each year.

You wrote:

"There is no valid reason that any private citizen should be permitted to own a hand gun."

Tell that to the lady and intended victim in this current thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x419841

Need more? No problem. Stories like this are posted almost daily on this site.

Semper Fi,

"Hand guns have only one purpose. To kill". Really? How bout to defend life.

"Not a significant cause of death? Tell that to the family of those who have been killed by guns."

I happen to be one of those people who have had a family member
Shot and killed, and by a permit holder no, less.

We can speak for ourselves just fine.

" There is no valid reason that any private citizen should be permitted to own a hand gun."

The second amendment isn't valid enough for you?
Which of my other rights would you like the arbitrary power to ,permit, me to exercise?

About 50 million of us choose otherwise, lawfully and without violence. We will continue to do so.

My wife saved herself from being murdered by having a handgun on her person when she needed it.

"Saying that 'this thing kills fewer people then that thing' is a mind-numbingly ridiculous argument."

Of course, thats NOT the point that is really being made, which is:

'this thing kills fewer people then that thing', and yet all we ever hear about from the so called "resaonable" anti-gun crowd, is how bad THIS thing is...and never so much as a PEEP about THAT thing.


And that simple truth really cuts to the heart of the matter:

Its not about deaths to the so called "reasonable" antigun crowd - its about guns - and only the deaths they can use to prop up their arguments ever get mentioned.

in addition to diggers post, handguns are also used in the Olympics as target shooting. Handguns are also used for hunting, including big game. Growing up of very modest means, I used my .22 revolver to hunt small game. That helped stretch my single mom's meager salary.

Do you own a bong? Unless you grow your own, you contribute more to gun violence than 99.9 percent of all gun owners combined.

94 percent of all murderers are felons. Many victims are too. Business disputes in the drug trade. Unfortunately, good people and children have to live there too and at times are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Next time you read about a house being machine gunned in LA, don't blame us, Thom Hartmann's brothers, Rachel Maddow's sister in law, or the NRA.

Your absurd statement of fact that; “94 percent of all murderers are felons.” is mind numbingly devoid of accuracy.

FYI according to ongoing studies by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice statistics available on-line at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf

The multi-year SCPS dataset includes a sample of felony cases filed during selected months in the 75 largest counties from 1990 through 2002. About half of all reported violent crimes nationwide occur in these counties.

They found and documented that 38% of convicted murderers had been convicted of a prior felony.

What is your source for 94%?

that do not always mean conviction. I may have read it wrong, kind of like how a BATFE memo was misread and became the 90 percent myth. There is a difference between inaccurate and absurd. I will give you credit for this, you are the first anti to actually find a fact and not a talking point from the Brady website.

Your study shows that 58% of murders were committed by people who had previously been charged with a felony offense. You factor in misdemeanor offenses (as well as plea bargains down to misdemeanors from felonies) and people who were involved in criminal activity but were never charged because of lack of evidence, and you begin to see where this is going.

The basic idea is that there is a myth out there that most murders are committed by people who would otherwise be considered law abiding citizens. The stats just don't support that. Simply not having been convicted of a crime doesn't equate to somebody being an upstanding citizen prior to their committing murder.

Thank you. Without poster's like you, gun control might seem reasonable to some people.


Bowens43: "There is no valid reason that any private citizen should be permitted to own a hand gun."

Hand guns have only one purpose. To kill. There is no valid reason that any private citizen should be permitted to own a hand gun.

Not a significant cause of death? Tell that to the family of those who have been killed by guns.

Saying that 'this thing kills fewer people then that thing' is a mind-numbingly ridiculous argument.

I'll ignore for a moment that there are countless law-abiding people, like myself, who enjoy pistol target shooting.

I know what you mean - handguns are extremely good for killing. This is because they are portable, useable by nearly anyone, and carry between 6 and 15 or so cartridges, providing serious firepower that can be used by nearly anyone. There is a reason why police officers carry handguns - they simply work. When your life is on the line, a handgun is one of the best things to have to defend yourself with.

However, you can't use emotion to dictate policy. You can't use the argument that one death, no matter how tragic it is for the family involved, is a reason to deprive everyone else in the country the right to the most effective tool for self-defense there is.

Modern semi-automatic handgun technology is now 100 years old. Yes, bad people will use them to do bad things. This is not an excuse to curtail the rights of good people to have access to the most effective tool for self-defense there is.

As you stated... "To kill".

That is the beauty of them. Bad guys know very well how well they can work and a lot of times, the mere mention or display of one can stop an attack.

Also, some things need killing. I am feeding my family on what I have killed. And then there is the fact that some people need killing as well, they will not stop otherwise. http://crimevoice.com/botched-home-invasion-leads-to-gunfight-with-victims-5749/

only look at the total number of deaths by accident, suicide, or homocide. Those account for a total (2007) of 176,663 deaths. Of those, 30,597 were due to the use of a firearm or 17.3%.

Death rates cost money and putting money into gun control is a waste given that gun control will not reduce death rate and the potential reduction is tiny.

His numbers are a little short.
This board topic is “guns”. It is understood that causes of death such as heart disease and cancer (which account for 48.6% of those 2.4 million deaths) are wholly irrelevant and immaterial.
It isn’t sinkingfeeling who is “try to twist the data up”, but your OP, (as usual) certainly does.

The relevant category is “injury related death”. Check out Tables 18, 19 & the lengthy Table 29, which breaks numerous categories (including: all accidents, motor vehicle, suicide, homicide, alchohol induced causes, injury by firearm etc.) down by State.


re ur 11
FYI, in 2007, a total of 23,199 persons died of alcohol-induced causes and 4,086 drowned in the United States, compared to 31,224 deaths from injuries by firearm.


See Tables 23, 18 & 19.

Heart disease.

There is nothing irrelevant about comparing death by different mechanisms. Many here seem to think guns should be feared, when they should fear heart disease and cancer more. Are they trying to ban steaks or hamburgers? How's that ban on aspartame coming along? How about banning cars? This country would be a better place if we could burry gun control and then money won't be wasted on either side of the debate. I used to donate to the arbor day foundation and other charities, now all my donations go to pro gun groups.

yup

Guns?

method to reduce a death toll is acceptable, prudent, or effective...

yup

from the OP

yup

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and/or that certain efforts to minimize that outcome are are inefficient or unacceptable, is very much not the same thing as saying that any particular rate of that outcome is "acceptable" in the common usage of that term. What do you think 'acceptable' means?

Death toll from guns is not. You jump are very excited to post news of deaths here, I'm not. So you seem to enjoy death.

Everyone dies. The death toll of humans will always be approaching the number of humans who have been born.

:)

That's why we have no medicines, no cars, no freedom of speech, no alcohol, no. . .

"The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69."

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

In short, we lead the industrialized world in gun deaths.

Cheers!

One example is the "industrialized" nation scam. We should compare all nations not just cherry picked ones.

Using total gun deaths tells you nothing about the rate of violence

Japan: murder (1) + suicide (24.4) = 25.4 per 100,000
USA: murder (5.4) + suicide (11.1) = 16.5 per 100,000

So using just gun deaths will mask problems and it is obvious that japan has a larger problem with violent killing than the USA.

First what does epidemiology have to do with criminology. Switzerland and Norway lead Europe in "gun deaths". Problem is that since each of their murder rates are about one third to half of Japan, these gun deaths are almost exclusively suicides. Granted, there are a few Swiss that actually think that if they had stricter gun control, their suicide rate will magically go down.

Honestly, I thought it was a fraction of that.

Thanks for the useful statistic.

Skimming through tables, I see 157 suicides by fire/flame!? :scared: Sounds particularly horrible...

Particularly when you realize that many deaths are due to diseases that accompany old age. Not so with guns. Gun deaths rob people of a big portion of their lives.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Lies and defamation. Shame on you and the pseudo-moral high horse you rode in on. "Callous indifference to human life"? Why don't you care about Japanese suicide victims? Victims of drowning accidents? Victims of the slaughter on the highways?

Public policy is driven by numbers, like it or not. "Callous indifference" my ass.

You can't count suicides
You can't count deaths of criminals
You can't count deaths by LEO's
You can't count deaths by gangs
you can't count deaths caused by drugs
You can't count accidental shootings

1) Examination of table 10 places gun deaths at 30873 from all causes, not 30000. Then again, one common misuse of
statistics is to round the numbers in your favor before giving them.

2) "Billions of dollars in gun buy backs" -- Source please. Sounds like we can make a big chunk in balancing the
budget with so much money.

3) Numbers look much less favorable when you only include non-disease related deaths in Table 10

Of the top 15 causes of death, only 3 are non-disease connected -- Accidents, Suicide and Homicide.

From Table 10:

Accidents: 123706 (613 from firearms)
Suicide: 34598 (17352 from firearms)
Homicide: 18361 (12632 from firearms)
Undetermined Intent: 5381 (276 from firearms)

Totals: 182046 (30873 from firearms)

So in terms of non-disease related deaths, guns are involved in more than 16.9% of the cases.

4) Considering that transportation is regulated quite closely and heavily insured with a fatality rate only slightly
more than three times larger, one could conclude this from a public safety perspective this a good argument
for manditory registration of guns, required annual training for owners and a re-evaluation of the amount
of insurance premiums AND taxes charged to gun owners considering the impact on society as a whole -- after
all, as taxpayers and insurance customers we're all paying to clean up these bullet-induced messes.

5) The actual point of this post is that you can throw a lot of numbers behind what you feel in your gut
is true, but sometimes counterarguments exist in the same data set.

The cost of buying 270 million guns and the cost of registering 270 million guns before confiscation will be in the billions and today if you add up the anti and pro gun donations and lawsuits and operating costs of the current war against law abiding gun owners it is at least 200-300 million per year which is the NRA budget. If they were not trying to ban guns the NRA would not be necessary. So the cost is very high and we get nothing for it.

30,000 is the generally accepted number, I didn't see the actual number for 2007. That doesnt change the percentage much.

The point of the thread is that the government and antis are causing us to waste a huge amount of money on banning something that causes about 1% of deaths in this country. They are willing to risk a civil war and the expense of billions of dollars over guns. It's time for this to stop and its time to erase gun control as a political issue.

We need a new amendment to the constitution. The gun ownership protection amendment.

> 30,000 is the generally accepted number, I didn't see the actual number for 2007. That doesnt change the percentage much.

So you attach this 135 page document to your post and you didn't READ it?

Sheesh.

Thank you for helping me clarify something however.

You can have a constitutional amendment, but while you're writing it keep in mind:

I SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED to pay any additional tax or insurance premiums to support the societal costs of your hobby. You should.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

since most of the 12,632 gun homicides are business disputes in the drug trade. That being the case, bong owners have a greater impact on society and public safety than nearly all gun owners combined.

There is a federal excise tax on guns since 1937. Pat Robertson's dad co-wrote the bill.

The 17 million dollars estimate comes from DeLisi etal (2010), Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology.
12632 murders from your post.

So a 1 billion dollar per year industry stimulates public spending more than 200 times that per year. I think Mr. Robertson's dad didn't anticipate that in 1937 and my pocketbook doesn't deserve it.

200 billion dollars from about 200 million guns = $1000 cost per gun per year. Pay up.

Actually I think this USERS PAY FOR THE ACTUAL SOCIAL COST analysis works for bongs too, so yes I agree.

The right to own and use should be protected, as long as the rest of us see this as cost neutral. It's only fair.

Edit. Remember that the $1000/gun is an ANNUAL, not one time, cost.

...if it were the gun that were the generating factor in the crime in the first place. In this case, given that the vast majority of gun homicides are criminal on criminal, and the vast majority of those are either gang or drug related (often both) then I think the social cost should be passed on to gangs and those who support the disastrous war on drugs.

gun owners are closer to the problem than me. When it comes to splitting responsibility they should carry a higher burden. Just a lot less than my initial number. Maybe a tenth?

How are gun owners closer to the problem? Do you honestly believe, without any supporting evidence, that legal gun ownership is somehow even remotely responsible for the sort of gang and drug related violence we are seeing in this nation?

You know who is truly closer to the problem? People that waste our time and political capital with nonsense gun control laws. Time and political capital that would be much better spent combating the root causes.

217 billion is a lot of money and I figure most of it is on the taxpayer and those carrying insurance. That's me. If I'm paying, I get a say in what happens. You have already voiced that you don't want my solution and you consider it a waste of time and money. Fine, then YOU step up and pay for it.

I am sick and tired of paying for public cleanups from large corporations who pollute, public bailouts for wall street corporations and I am sick and tired of paying for cleaning up messes created by the gun industry. For every DOLLAR they make, the public at large pays 200 dollars to clean up after them. That's a pretty stiff cost and I will bet you that superfund sites don't even work at that ratio.

And you may find this hard to believe but I have other pastimes and guns just don't turn me on that much. Despite living in South Tucson AZ I have never felt the need for one. If I did, I personally would *gladly* pay my share of it. But, you see, I get NONE of the benefits and still have to pay the costs. It's not fair.

Sure, murders will still happen, but I think my model still works.

For example, I own a claw hammer and a steak knife. I *will* pay my share of the bill for murders committed with a claw hammer and I will also pay my share for murders committed with a steak knife. It's only fair, after all, since it is a privilege to own a claw hammer and a steak knife and I like using them for their intended purposes, enough to pay to keep them around. Just like you and guns.

You keep working on fantasy land solutions to serious problems. Meanwhile, the rest of us adults will continue working towards solutions that will actually help keep more people from falling into the meat grinder that is the drug and gang wars.

All thanks to the NRA for making it so. So just go along and delude yourself into saying you're the "adults" here. In the end, you're the one that won't admit that you're robbing me to pay for your toys.

The Mexican gangs AREN'T coming up here to arm up. The ATF has been running guns TO them, but even still the majority of their heavy firepower comes from the south, not us.

You can't get rocket launchers, full auto weapons, grenades and grenade launchers easily at all in the US.

So really, who is deluding themselves now? Drop the whole high horse bullshit act, because nobody is buying it.

Many crimes are committed with knives as well and the need for police forces and detective work would not change if guns were removed from the equation, therefore guns are neutral in the cost of law enforcement. Some think crime would go up if we removed guns. If criminals used only knives and they survived attacks against each other at a higher rate the disability and medical costs would exceed the cost of the thug dying before getting to the hospital.

This is rather obvious and it seems like you are trying to wrap your justifications around a hate for guns and gun owners.

You need to learn to tolerate the cultures of other people. Gun ownership is not a hobby, it is part of my culture and family heritage. Coexist with my culture too, please.

Tell you what. I own knives. I will pay for murders and assaults using them. Just like I do for cars. You pay for the guns. Deal?

And no, I don't have hate for guns or for gun owners. I disdain those who spend hours and hours rationalizing why it's okay that I am compelled to open my wallet to clean up after them.

If I have to pay, I have a say. Sorry if you don't want to hear that.

Their children the proper use of guns. If you just examined the gun culture population, which are disproportionatly in rural areas you'd find the rate of crime to be near zero, therefore gun owners are subsidizing the cost of law enforcement and violent crime thanks to the rest of the population outside of the gun culture.

I mean, steak knives are almost more common...

And hence we get to the bottom of the empty argument you are making. We both know why guns are chosen over other methods. Yet somehow, despite being 1/3 as lethal as cars the gun lobby doesn't want even close to the same level of regulation and taxation. It gets dressed up in this hyperventilating about "they're trying to take my guns" which really masks the fear that guns might someday be taxed at an APPROPRIATE level corresponding to the true cost.

It's kind of the inverse of the DC license plate. Representation without taxation.

$295 per year starting at birth?

I'm not sure your interpretation of it is entirely correct, however - most of the calculated cost (like the willingness-to-pay factor) doesn't appear to be real money in the sense that anyone paid it, and the 'lost earnings' parts wouldn't come out of our pockets. I'm also thinking that it's too simple, from an accounting sense, to just divide the total cost by the number of offenses, since that ignores how much of the cost would occur whether or not the offender was present.

As for the parts that are real - prison costs, for example - I don't agree with your notion that you shouldn't have to pay for it; it sounds like the kind of reasoning that is often trotted out in favor of privatization and tax cuts ("I don't have kids in school; I shouldn't have to pay for them.") As a society, we provide various services to ourselves, and we pay for them through taxes. But once the tax is paid, it's not our (the individual) dollar anymore - I don't see the validity of trying to 'track the money' to say "my tax paid for that thing, but it shouldn't pay for that other."

(And of course, to stay on Forum topic, you're making the big and erroneous assumption that the gun is the responsible cause of the crime, which is what allows you to erroneously extend that responsibility to gun owners in general...)

Suicide is a personal decision, sometimes made in a clear state of mind and sometimes in a state of depression or other psychological issues.

it doesn't and never has.

That's just a line they use because saying they desire control and subjugation doesn't really resonate well with the voters.