steingar
Taxi to Parking
You are correct, my bad. 30,000 fatalities, roughly half suicides. I don't even know how any injuries. The point is the vast majority of these people did not go buy a gun to kill or injure themselves or anyone else.
EAA bans guns at OSH
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
You are correct, my bad. 30,000 fatalities, roughly half suicides. I don't even know how any injuries. The point is the vast majority of these people did not go buy a gun to kill or injure themselves or anyone else.
The question asked did not include "shovel", so my statement did not need to include it.
If you tell me 10 times your plane is 20kts faster than mine, but your plane has an ASI that reads 20kts sitting on the ground, how much faster is your plane ?
When longtime anti-gun researchers Cook and Lugwig set out to disprove the 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) per year number, they got grants, did the research, and came up with their own number . . . 3.2 million. Ooops. They then spent four pages of their own study to explain that their own numbers were not accurate.
In survey work, there are certain errors that occur whenever you ask for recall of rare events. For one, your conclusions are based on very low numbers of responses. In this case, we are supposed to accept that the 60 or so positive responses to the DGU question in Klecks study are representative for a population of 300mil. All of the long list of studies commonly cited suffer from the same set of errors.
It is not a glitch. The study asks 'how often have victims of a a specified set of crimes used a firearm in their defense' and come up with the number they do. They didn't ask 'how often do people who are easily startled reach for their gun'.
Many of the NCVS data categories can be externally validated, e.g. by comparing their trends over time to the corresponding data in the UCR/NIBRS system. So if for example we accept that the NCVS data for victimization by robbery is fairly congruent with what we know from real-world data, why should we somehow believe that the subset of individuals who defended themselves against a robbery with a gun is off by a factor of 10 ?
None of the studies commonly cited is either precise enough or valid enough in their methods to answer the question asked. A better method to arrive at that answer would be to ask every member of the NCVS cohort every year about defensive gun use without limiting it to the ones who report being the victim of a crime. Who knows, it would pobably double the incidence of DGU reported under NCVS.
Cohort studies like the Framingham study, the nurses health study and others are how we have managed to ferret out the contribution of many of the cardiovascular risk factors we know about today. If we relied on a one-time random dial phone survey to look for causes of heart attacks, 'my mother in law' would probably be considererd a valid causative factor.
I dont think the NCVS numbers are correct, I also dont believe that any of the random-survey numbers like Kleck or Cook and Ludwig are correct. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Last edited:
30k/year is about right, depending on the year (e.g. 31,513 for 2010)
Firearms related mortality in the US is around 11/100,000 population per year. Homicide makes a little less than 1/2 of that number, depending on the year about 4/100k/year.
Most countries that are economically comparable to the US are somewhere between 2 and 4 for the total and less than 1 for homicides. Brasil, Argentina and Mexico are the only countries that come close to the US in firearms deaths.
Injuries are more in the 200-250k/year category. Some of them accidental, hunting and target shooting accidents. Some of them intentional.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
A good number of people die every year running a shovel removing snow from their driveway. Doubt there are any reliable statistic as to how many but it's quite common. There is danger and risk all over - and the risk of being a gun owner really isn't much higher then all the other random **** that can happen.
So yes letting a 3 year old play with a loaded gun would be dangerous, just like letting a 3 year old play next to a swimming pool is dangerous (one died in a pool in my backyard about 3 years before I bought this house). A swimming pool isn't an unacceptable risk to most folks though just as a firearm is not an unacceptable risk to me either. I personally believe in my situation it reduces other risks resulting in a lower level of net risk. But that's hard to weigh
If we dig into this a bit more...
We lose about 550 kids per year (0-10 yrs old) to residental swimming pools, and considering how there are only about six million residential pools, that means for about every 11,000 pools one child dies per year.
If we look at guns, we lose about 175 per year (0 to 10) as a result of firearms. With something like 300 million guns in this country. For about one in every 171,428 guns a child dies each year.
Both are quite dangerous and smart parents are afraid of both. But many anti-gun folks would be perfectly OK with there being a swimming pool in the backyard versus a firearm in a locked safe (which reduces the risk dramatically).
I'm not saying that a gun isn't dangerous - nor am I saying we shouldn't have swimming pools. I'm just saying that people get let their political opinions and beliefs distory reality way too often.
Now a gun might one-day save your life (not that likely, but it could). It's probably not that likely that the swimming pool is going to save your family (but perhaps by providng a source of exercise)
Based on what I've seen - those that grew up around firearms believe one thing and those that didn't beleive the other. I've seen people that can't even sit in a room comfortably if they know there is a gun there. Just the thought of that gun in the room makes them extremely nervous. It's interesting.
Last edited:
I am pro-shovel at OshKosh. We should all be allowed to carry one wherever we want -- into the museum or otherwise. There is no reason for the museum to post signs banning shovels. Doing so runs counter to a realistic understanding of statistics.
fgcason
En-Route
Well, sort of but not really.
A gun is just like any other tool. It's hazards come from how it's handled. A gun or a stick of dynamite or a 1/4" socket will sit there on your table all day long or even decades at a time without hurting anyone. Even a loaded and cocked gun or dynamite with the blasting cap installed sitting on the table for years won't hurt anyone until someone idiotic messes with it.
People themselves are what makes inanimate objects dangerous.
If you let irresponsible kids or adults play with absolutely anything that is beyond their ability to handle safely, that is where the problem begins. A kid can choke to death on a socket or a toy just as quick as they can shoot themselves.
Seriously, look at the actual cause of problems, not the side effects.
More people die in their sleep than all the other dangerous things combined. Do you sleep?
Not really. An accident with a shovel or a socket wrench typically leaves you with maybe a broken toe or at times a broken metacarpal (the bones underlying the palm of the hand). I dont have my laptop with me, but I could post a nice slide-show of the stuff that routinely happens in firearms accidents, and it goes way beyond a closed fracture of some small bones.
Firearms are unique tools in that they can concentrate a lot of energy in a small place with very little effort of the user.
Absolutely. Shovels don't dig holes. People dig holes. You never know when a hole will suddenly need to be dug and there are no ditch-diggers around immediately to dig. Ordinary citizens who carry shovels all the time can be there to take over the situation and dig a hole at once.
Make sure the kids learn how to handle properly and make certain they only use them in the sandbox.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
I think that is a true statement, but there are many other implements that concentrate more energy, and have potential for more destruction that we take for granted every day. Automobiles, trucks, airplanes, lawnmowers, wood chippers, snow blowers, jack hammers, anything electrically powered, fireplaces, campfires, gas stoves/ovens, chain saws, and that is just off the top of my head.
It is emotion that demonized the tool, not the person behind it or leaving it negligently available to a child. I would neither leave the keys to my car, nor access to a gas or electric powered tool to a child.
fgcason
En-Route
And that takes it right back to the incompetence level of the person using it. It's not the guns fault that some dumbhead pulled the trigger.
Guns are 100% safe. Airplanes are 100% safe. Motorcycles are 100% safe. A stick of dynamite is 100% safe. Rock climbing gear is 100% safe. The Lunar Module circa 1960's is 100% safe. A chain saw is 100% safe. Cars are 100% safe.
The person handling the equipment is the problem, not the tool itself. Don't blame the tool.
skidoo
Line Up and Wait
Same thing can be said with substitutions as follows
The MSM are unique tools in that they can concentrate a lot of energy in a small place with very little effort of those in power.
Don't ban the guns. Ban the idiots carrying guns.
I know my little son, with the greatest of effort, would not be able to fire up my chainsaw or any of the other powered implements sitting unsupervised in the shed. Beyond cutting his fingers on the chainsaw chain, there is little risk to life or limb for him and the rest of the family. Otoh, if I left a handgun accessible for him, he would figure out in no time how to get it to 'work'.
In terms of risk to kids, the only comparison that holds some water here are in-ground pools.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Actually I grew up with firearms. My father taught me how to shoot as a kid. He also kept a loaded pistol in his bedside drawer. He told me not to touch. I didn't touch but I would occasionally look, and it was a temptation as it is for any kid who has been told not to touch something.
I'm also not uncomfortable around guns. I formerly lived with someone who had at least 20 here in my house. On the other hand I know that you can have more unintentional and lethal mishaps with a gun than a shovel.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,034
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
Source?
The data I saw from the CDC indicates about 31,000 injuries from firearms and only about 11,000 total firearm-related fatailities.
airguy
Cleared for Takeoff
So does electrical wiring - do you have that dangerous stuff in your home? It's putting your family in danger...
It is fatalities.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Mortality
All injury deaths
- Number of deaths: 177,154
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7
- Number of deaths: 34,485
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
- Number of deaths: 41,592
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5
- Number of deaths: 31,347
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf
Here are the prelimnary data for 2010:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf
It is 31513 fatalities for 2010, you can find it on page 45. Suicide by firearm is 19308, homicide by firearm 11015, accidental 600 (it is of note that a negligent discharge where one person shoots another would be in the assault/homicide collumn and only accidents were a person accidentally shoots themselves are in the accident collumn).
Last edited:
There is the main reason people need to be able to defend themselves..
homicide by firearm 11015..........................
That is 11,015 humans who could have used a firearm to stop their premature death...... How could anyone argue against that.
That is 11,015 humans who could have used a firearm to stop their premature death...... How could anyone argue against that.
How ? Let's start by pointing out that only in a minority of those cases, the victim carrying a firearm would have made a difference. Data from urban areas indicates that carrying a handgun is correlated with a markedly increased risk of getting killed by one (that of course is not the resulf of legal carrying of handguns but rather the result of carrying of handguns by delinquent minors and criminals).
A gun doesn't protect against getting shot or against the consequences of getting shot. A ballistic/bullet-resistant vest or a hardened vehicle may accomplish that.
Last edited:
" How ? Let's start by pointing out that only in a minority of those cases, the victim carrying a firearm would have made a difference "
Prove it....
Prove it....
The 19308 Suicide by firearm?There is the main reason people need to be able to defend themselves..
homicide by firearm 11015..........................
That is 11,015 humans who could have used a firearm to stop their premature death...... How could anyone argue against that.
Prove it....
Why dont you prove your assertion that for those 11015 homicide victims a firearm would have made a difference ?
A good number of them were armed at the time of their demise. It is certainly the nature of 'urban penetrating trauma' that frequently the victim that ends up in the hospital or morgue was an active participant in what is listed as 'dispute' in the UCR category.
If another human being feels the need to "check out" who are you to say which method they choose is incorrect
...
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Once someone has made that choice the medicine cabinet in the bathroom or the car in the garage are just a potent and a determined mind finds a way.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
If another human being feels the need to "check out" who are you to say which method they choose is incorrect
Most survivors of suicides attempts make no others. Suicide is often prompted by local stressors. Make it harder to do, and fewer people do it. For example, the rate of suicide in New York went down after they put guard rails on the bridge.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Can you explain the similarity you apparently see there?
roncachamp
Final Approach
A university with armed campus police is not firearm free.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
That is true. And being they are uniformed and visibly armed, are easily avoided by anyone intent on doing harm. They are there to call the municipal police after the horror occurs.
There are risks inherent to both activities. Anyone who claims that those risks dont apply to them, be it in aviation or shooting sports, is deluding themselves.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
They are no more inherently riskier than other normal, everyday life issues, and pursuits most have.
roncachamp
Final Approach
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
He's not heavy, he's my brother!
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
thread creep, but , do you know where that quote first originated? (it's not the song)
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Nope, during the 40s and 50s there were posters up all over this nation showing one big brother carrying his little brother, (in braces) caption was " He's not heavy, he's my brother" to solicit money to support "Boy's town"
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Read the article!That's what it says for the origin!
Yup, just went to your link, and scrolled down.. OOPS