Will gun deaths outstrip Automobile deaths in the USA

Constantly I hear the excuse for the horrific gun death rate in the USA as "bit cars cause more deaths" - well so does old age - but that is not an excuse not to reduce the carnage. Laws are working to reduce the road related deaths - where is the same commitment on gun related deaths

Oh! And before anyone uses the excuse "mostly it is young gang members" I will remind you that they are people too - impressionable YOUNG people who might have grown out of the need to belong and made a good life

 

You tell me. We are willing to take the keys away from people at highest risk for driving accidents, but we are not willing to selectively take the right to a gun away from the people who are the highest risk to commit murder because that would be racist.

 

Perhaps it would be better just to disarm one political group since there is anapparent high correlation between political stance and gun violence

 

Same end--blacks vote democrat so we we can start there and see where it gets us.

 

Skin colour - when it really is about socio-economic background

 

Either way, the statistics say "Black/African-American" so there is your starting point.

I have noticed, however, that you seem to be avoiding addressing the issue of why with guns there must be a universal solution and not a selective one like we do with automobiles.

 

Elaborate please

 

Make up one. There is a link between race and firearm violence, so why is it so horrible to think that perhaps that should be a factor in who can have them as the victims also usually are black--kind of hard to say you are discriminating by trying to save their lives. Since we can't have whole cities gun free--why not have violent areas/neighborhoods labeled gun free (I really did not have a problem with whole cities being labeled gun free--just not whole states)? Since a lot of our mass killing attempts involve younger people, why not raise the age to possess a semi-auto to 30 instead of trying to ban them all for everybody everywhere?

 

There is an even stronger link between socio-economic conditions and gun violence - and I agree with the stricter controls to stop the sad and horrible loss of young life - no matter what race

 

These threads always start the same. Someone tries to compare "gun deaths" to auto "accidents". A justified self defense killing is counted the same as a toddler killing himself with his daddy's gun. The statistics should compare accidental gun deaths to accidental car deaths. You could also compare DUI deaths with murder by gun violence. To lump all gun deaths into the same category is dishonest. A justified self defense killing is a good thing. It's not pleasant, but it is better than a murder and the criminal is the only person to blame.

 

Go for it!! Nothing is stopping you - because I KNOW that you will be embarrassed by how few "self defence" deaths you can prove statistically

Most are like this

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...defense-after-firing-warning-shot-at-husband/ and research backs that up
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

 

We don't "prove" self defense deaths or take statistics for them. Maybe governments are afraid that gun grabbing won't be justified with those statistics in play. We can only guess. The only thing proven is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during a conviction.

Maybe we should compare all gun deaths to gun death convictions. We can then assume that the rest of the gun deaths are either justified shootings, unsolved murders, suicides, or accidents. I wouldn't know how to find statistics to decipher any further, but assuming that all gun deaths are bad is not the place to start. There are also no statistics on how many times a gun prevents a crime or death. Since there are no rock hard statistics, they are ignored as well.

 

I remember destroying your stupid theories on a thread like this awhile back.

The CDC commissioned a report and said there was no link between gun control laws and crime rates. The evidence is conflicting and all over the place. What the CDC did say was that:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.”

“Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

There are also the two Harvard studies that said gun control laws are not effective. Then you have countries like Russia which have very strict gun control laws and yet have a much higher murder rate than the US. Illinois, Washington DC and California have had strict gun control laws for decades and yet they have high homicide rates.

What this thread shows is a complete lack of understanding of statistics and the difference between correlation and causation. The CDC study and the others showed that there isn't even reliable correlation. On top of that we have other factors such as culture and even weather which have a much higher degree of correlation to gun crimes. There is a reason that it is higher in the South than in the North East (minus gun control bastions like Washington DC of course) and that is because guns and "machismo" culture are prevalent in the South. A man from the South catches his wife in bed with another guy he reaches for a gun to shoot, a man from the North catches his wife in bed with another guy he reaches for his phone to call a divorce attorney.

Further more finally shut this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amateur nonsense up once and for all. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm

The observed declines in firearm homicide rates and increases in firearm suicide rates are consistent with longer-term trends in homicide and suicide nationally (1). Homicide rates generally have been declining in the United States during the past two decades (1). Factors identified by previous research as influencing this decline include shifting demographics, changes in markets for illegal drugs (e.g., type, demand, and participants), law enforcement responses to gun violence and drug-related crime, increased incarceration rates, community policing and related efforts, and improving economic conditions throughout much of the 1990s (2). Increasing suicide rates have been prominent in the middle-aged population during the past decade as the percentage of suicides accounted for by this group has steadily increased (1,3). Suicide rates within this age group previously have been associated with business cycles (4); national unemployment rates notably doubled from 2006–2007 to 2009–2010 (5).

Notice that it lists stuff from demographics to better law enforcement to increase prison time and improving economic conditions. Nowhere does it list gun control laws.

 

WOW! Impressive! To come out with the liberal truth so early in a thread is unheard of.

So disarming conservatives is really what your after? You really think that would bring peace on earth? Looney tunes.

 

Did they also "project" the lines on the graph would merge in 1993? Should have been a given for junk science drawing straight lines on a graph. No need to wonder why the lefts science is no longer trusted for weather prediction.

If suicides are to be included in gun deaths I believe it's only right all deaths by the manufacture and use of gasoline be included. Without automobiles the chance the average person would have needs of petrol would be minimal. Electric lawn mowers would suffice if there wasn't already a needed supply of fuel.
So every death from drilling, pumping, processing, and using should be included. Let's not forget the cancer that can occur from prolonged exposure.

Wonder what that would do to the silly lines on your silly graph.

 

I doubt that most gang banger and drug dealers vote, but if they do It surely is not for Republican candidates.

 

I cannot figure out how was it possible that crime existed and was well diffused BEFORE that firearms existed.

May be I'm stupid, but I wonder if crime is a matter disengaged from available weaponry to "help" in committing it ...

 

Ha, I am also getting sick of the republican reverse discrimination, or even weak defenses of what obviously constitutes bigotry.


" The following statement is not racist. 7% of all crime committed in the EU (comprising 28 countries), is committed by 240 Romanian gangs" - Nigel Farange, defending his statement that he wouldn't feel safe living next to a Romanian Family. (Paraphrased, but near exact)


^Is this what conservatism has come to? Rich bigots defending their racism with slanted statistics?

 

You're not telling the entire story. In fact you're being biased when presenting the data, and you're not presenting it correctly.

The U.S. population during '79 was 225.06 million persons.

We will pretend the U.S. population during 2015 is 320.9 million. A 3 million increase. (The population between 2014 and 2013 had a 2.5 million increase)

With ~53,500 vehicle related deaths in the US, and ~32,000 gun related deaths in '79. That would put the death rate at ~0.023549275% for vehicle related deaths, and 0.01421843% for gun related deaths. (Which is very good. It's a shining example of data that shows the U.S. people are not as violent as people portray them to be)

With ~32,929 gun related deaths, and ~32,036 vehicle related deaths predicted in 2015. That would put the death rate at ~0.010261452% for gun related deaths, and ~0.009983172% for vehicle related deaths.

Your own predicted data has led to the downfall of your own post.

That would put gun related deaths at a 32.3284% decrease in rates, and vehicle related deaths at a 80.9133% decrease between '79 and the predicted 2015 data.

Thank you, please try again.

 

Sarcasm - unfortunately unknown by some

- - - Updated - - -

Statistics for the really confused

Or put another way playing with numbers

Sorry but no matter how you twist it the truth is as it is

 

at least this time, you didn't mention gun control as opposed to complete seizure. So you are still in favor of dictating to our society in the form of surrendering everything to the will of the government.

 

So many who have no standing want to impose on us and our constitution with little regard. I have no respect for the mindless drivel.

 

Socialists, especially the extremist Socialists want nothing to do with Individual Liberties. I wonder what it's like living for the State?

 

What an absolutely massive pile of male bovine excrement!

FBI statistics indicate more people are killed every year by blunt force trauma - fists, hammers, etc. - than by guns!!!

Another liberal take-their-guns-away thread.

 

That is because it is an obvious fact that as population goes up the number of crimes go up with it. So you can't look at raw numbers and call them "the truth," because their can be over 100 quintillion truths for a single topic.

When comparing two variables their will always be a third variable that needs to be accounted for in another two variable correlation, but correlation does not tell cause because of this third variable, and the infinite amount of them.