Facts for anti-gun crowd

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
I like to use this to help people re-assess exactly how likely their chances of being a gunshot injury victim are. All the sources are cited and linked where possible. Note the National Safety Council's yearly accident report uses numbers from the previous year.

"Firearms-Related Deaths compared to other causes of accidental death (1997)

1. Motor vehicles 43,200 deaths
2. Falls 14,900 deaths
3. Firearms-related homicides AND accidental death: 11,896
4. Poisoning by solids or liquids 8,600 deaths
5. Drowning 4,000 deaths
6. Fires, burns and related deaths 3,700
7. Suffocation by swallowing object 3,300 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical misadventures) 13,900

total deaths 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
(Source for firearms-related homicides and non-negligent manslaughter: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t3130.pdf)
Unintentional Firearm-related death (1997): 1,500
Firearms-related homicide and non-negligent manslaughter (1997): 10,396

Thanks stychz.


Results for 1998 are:

1. Motor Vehicles: 41,200 deaths
2. Falls: 16,600 deaths
3. Firearms homicides and accidents COMBINED: 10,143 deaths
4. Poisoning: 9,000 deaths
5. Drowning: 4,100 deaths
6. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700
7. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,200 deaths

Fatal firearm accidents for 1998 fell to an all-time low of 900, down from 2,513 in 1974.
Firearms homicide and non-negligent manslaughter (1998): 9,143

(Source for accidents: National Safety Council 1999 Accident Facts http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/99report.htm
Source for firearms-related homicide and non-negligent manslaughter: FBI 1998 UCR http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/98crime/98cius07.pdf)

Thanks rolltr"
 
The problem with your "facts" is the anti-firarm crowd argument is based on lies, deception and emotion. They are not interested in the truth, the facts and common sense. Truth, facts and common sense cannot win in an argument based on lies, deception and emotion. You, I and many others base our decisions on critical thinking backed up by the facts but we are alone. One cannot reason with a mad dog.

As Will Rogers said, "Ignorance ain't our problem, its what people know that ain't so."

You and I both know that people such as ourselves who believe in the RKBA base our discussions and arguments on facts and principles that are both sound and logical yet we will never convince Sarah Brady and the die-hard anti-gun crowd that we are both reasonable and right. They don't give a hoot about the truth.

While we can't convince the anti's perhaps we can convince those with an open mind. In any event I have always liked statistics especially those that support my position.
 
Even your facts are a bit off; They don't break out seperate numbers for JUSTIFIABLE homicides, which are actually a plus in any rational accounting, not a minus! Difficult to do, of course, if you're relying on federal statistics, which don't exactly go to great lengths to make sure of the distinction.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Roybean: "The problem with your "facts" is the anti-firearm crowd argument is based on lies, deception and emotion. They are not interested in the truth, the facts and common sense. "

That is OK; because I am not interested in converting the die-hard antis. It can be done but it is usually a waste of effort. I am interested in reaching people who aren't always well-educated on gun rights issues.

Most of these people are well-meaning, they are just ignorant and the cure for ignorance is knowledge. Delivering it in a calm, "justthe facts" manner lets them question their beliefs rather than the more aggressive mode of attacking their beliefs.

Brett Bellmore: "Even your facts are a bit off; They don't break out seperate numbers for JUSTIFIABLE homicides, which are actually a plus in any rational accounting, not a minus!"

Well, my facts are off - just not in the way you think. The FBI UCRs do not include justifiable homicides in their homicide reporting. Justifiable homicides MAY be under-reported in the UCRs because the determination is made based on the initial officer's report and not on the determination of the prosecutor or the jury - but these numbers err towards the low side because they only include homicides for which supplemental data was reported. For example, in 1997 the FBI reported 10,396 homicides while CDC recorded 13,252 (although CDC only excludes homicide committed by military or law enforcement officers. Regular civilian self-defense cases equal homicide in CDC reporting.) The difference is that the FBI had not received supplemental data for several cities (including notoriously crime-prone Washington DC) and had a deadline to meet. So they published what they had (10,369) and estimated the rest.

I used the FBI UCR numbers instead of CDCs (which are more accurate) because CDC hasn't published numbers for 1998 yet and I couldn't find the FBI estimates for non-reporting organizations for 1998.

If you have any questions regarding specifics on the number crunching, I'll be happy to address them but I assure you that the numbers are as accurate as possible.
Even better, people can go to the source and see the numbers themselves.
 
Bart,

You forgot one of the leading causes of 'accidental' death: Medical Malpractice.

The American Medical Association and their legal departments will, of course, deny that they 'cause' more deaths every year than automobile accidents. Look it up!

I'm not sure of the source or the absolute correct number, but medical malpractice is a major factor in almost 90,000 deaths in the US alone EACH YEAR!!! I don't have the references right in front of me at the moment, but they are readily accessible.


------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top