age-adjusted cause of mortality info

A

A_McDougal

New member
For perspective, the leading causes of injury-related death are automobiles, poisoning, and then firearm-violence.

I infer from this graphic that the peak age of BG's with guns is 19 to 24. Good to know.

The CDC says that the poisoning-death rate is driven by drug overdoses. To me, this data seems unbiased compared to surveys and polls about who admits to using. Granting that younger bodies are more resilient, this suggests that the peak age of narcotic-addled junkies is 44-54. In worrying about home defense and situational awareness, I've never really thought about middle-aged folks as being worst-case adversaries. But this graphic seems to say I should worry more about old men trying to rob me for drug money, than punk kids? Am I reading too much into the data?


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/injury99-05/injury99-05.htm

injury99-05_fig1.png
 
Am I reading too much into the data?
Click to expand...

Probably. The graph doesn't indicate that middle-aged junkies rob people more often, just that they die of overdoses more often. There are lots of other ways to get money for drugs besides robbing people.

I do find it interesting that the motor vehicle deaths and firearm deaths graph almost identically until the very end.
 
"Drug overdoses" does not necessarily equate to elicit drugs. Prescription drug overdoses, anticoagulants in heart patients for example, are treated frequently by dose adjustments and are reported to and by the CDC as drug overdoses.
 
Overdoses due to medical error *should* be included in the CDC's data. It isn't their role to sort out crime, but rather mortality. It's our job to remember that and not misinterpret their data. On which subject, I'd go look at the FBI's statistics on robbery and property crimes, and see if they have data on the ages of the perps and whether they had a history of drug abuse before I'd assume that an uptick in poisoning death meant that middle-aged men were more likely to commit robbery or burglary to support a drug habit.

Mortality statistics are not crime statistics. Need to remember that.
 
The chart does not take "bad guys" or "good guys" into account. These are deaths related to firearms whether intentional or unintentional. IMHO you are putting too much thought into it if you are trying to conclude which demographic is more likely to steal your wallet.

What you would need is a chart that shows age groups that committed crimes with firearms that resulted in death. This chart only accounts for who got shot, not who pulled the trigger.
 
What would be really helpful is if the firearms deaths category was broken down into a few different subcategories (suicide via firearm, shot while not committing a crime, shot while committing a crime or in a gang on gang incident, and what I think would probably be the rather small death by firearm negligence or idiocy).

the peak age of narcotic-addled junkies is 44-54
Click to expand...
That's also a very common age to be taking hearts meds, blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds... Take enough of them for long enough and you're bound to make a mistake at some point.
 
Being 73, and not taking any medication of any nature, am I dead, and people are afraid to tell me?
 
A_McDougal

age-adjusted cause of mortality info
For perspective, the leading causes of injury-related death are automobiles, poisoning, and then firearm-violence.

I infer from this graphic that the peak age of BG's with guns is 19 to 24. Good to know.

The CDC says that the poisoning-death rate is driven by drug overdoses. To me, this data seems unbiased compared to surveys and polls about who admits to using. Granting that younger bodies are more resilient, this suggests that the peak age of narcotic-addled junkies is 44-54. In worrying about home defense and situational awareness, I've never really thought about middle-aged folks as being worst-case adversaries. But this graphic seems to say I should worry more about old men trying to rob me for drug money, than punk kids? Am I reading too much into the data?
Click to expand...

I think you greatly misunderstand the meaning of the statement of the study's conclusion: "they are primarily related to drug overdose and their rates of increase have outpaced those of all poisonings".
Medical related deaths are the third leading cause of death among all Americans after heart disease and cancer. The drug over doses the study is most likely referring to are misuse or abuse of prescribed drugs.

If you want an interesting slant on statistics find an authoritative number for all firearms in the U.S and the number of unjustified homicides. Compare that to the number of medical doctors and the number of deaths attributable to medical mistakes. I think you will find that someone is 4000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by someone using a firearm.

Assuming that there are 800,000 active medical doctors in the U.S. and that there are 225,000 deaths caused by them (AMA Journal 2000), that is 0.281 deaths per doctor. Could be stated as a 1 in 4 chance.

Assuming that there are 200,000,000 privately owned firearms in the U.S. and that there are 12,791 (CDC 2006), that is 0.000064 per firearm. Could be stated as a 1 in 15,625 chance.
 
Last edited:
Whoa, did anybody else feel a cold breeze in here just now?

Even if the OD mortality graph is primarily driven by drug overdoses, I'd guess that the "peak" stealing stuff to get drugs part of the career would fall somewhat prior to the "fall over dead" retirement.
 
good to know that right now I am in the most danger of dying by gun and car. But next year I have an equal chance of all 3, and when I am older apparently I will become stupid and poison myself. Darwin will smile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top