Pages

20 comments

Jump to bottom
1 kirkspencer  Jun 3, 2014 1:11:16pm

Below I’ve copied two reports generated from the CDC using years 1999-2010 for deaths by firearms, ages 0-14. First one is unintentional deaths, the second all firearms deaths. Notice how (relatively) flat the results are - NOT declining.

That decline that SAFE KIDS reports? I think there’s a reason they stopped at 2005.

Year Number of
Deaths Population*** Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
1999 88 59,955,370 0.15 0.15
2000 86 60,253,375 0.14 0.14
2001 72 60,450,257 0.12 0.12
2002 60 60,563,030 0.10 0.10
2003 56 60,628,650 0.09 0.09
2004 63 60,651,802 0.10 0.10
2005 75 60,519,046 0.12 0.12
2006 54 60,516,709 0.09 0.09
2007 65 60,681,615 0.11 0.11
2008 62 60,907,384 0.10 0.10
2009 48 61,087,581 0.08 0.08
2010 62 61,227,213 0.10 0.10
Total 791 727,442,032 0.11 -

===
Year Number of
Deaths Population*** Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
1999 489 59,955,370 0.82 0.82
2000 436 60,253,375 0.72 0.72
2001 414 60,450,257 0.68 0.68
2002 419 60,563,030 0.69 0.68
2003 380 60,628,650 0.63 0.62
2004 358 60,651,802 0.59 0.58
2005 404 60,519,046 0.67 0.66
2006 409 60,516,709 0.68 0.67
2007 398 60,681,615 0.66 0.65
2008 376 60,907,384 0.62 0.62
2009 355 61,087,581 0.58 0.58
2010 380 61,227,213 0.62 0.62
Total 4,818 727,442,032 0.66 -

2 shecky  Jun 3, 2014 1:13:51pm

ISTR reading that we’ve also gotten much better at treating gunshot injuries, such that incidence of death as a result of shooting is significantly lower than in the past. Just another factor involved…

3 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 1:22:38pm

re: #1 kirkspencer

Why wre: #1 kirkspencer

Not sure I follow. So it declined 97-02 then flattened out?
I could see that. Safe Kids looks like a straight well, er Safe Kids advocacy group. I don’t see any gun lobby action here.

safekids.org

Since 1988, when Safe Kids was founded by Dr. Marty Eichelberger of the Children’s National Medical Center with support from founding sponsor, Johnson & Johnson, there has been a 55 percent decrease in the unintentional injury rate among children 19 years and younger. - See more at: safekids.org

4 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 1:36:38pm

Now I’m curious to see how these proposed numbers hold up… Putting them here first while I back check some of the listed sources.
Caveat-Gun advocacy source-NSSF

If the numbers check out it’s good news right?

5 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 12:52:08pm
I think this supports the idea that gun owners are being more careful.

It doesn’t. That’s not how statistics works. It’s compatible with the conjecture that gun owners are being more careful. It’s compatible with a lot of other conjectures, too. Is there some reason to believe gun owners are being more careful?

I’m not sure why a five year trend in the past is meaningful for the present, either.

6 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 1:38:01pm

re: #5 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

No, it’s how with some caveats people discuss numbers sometimes. We need not hew to some academic level of statistical rigor to have this conversation or point out an opinion.

Yes I made a limited conjecture. It’s a part of a conversation, and I did not present it as statistical fact.

As someone else pointed out we differ in both content and style.

7 KerFuFFler  Jun 7, 2014 12:38:44pm

Why are intentional shootings left out of the picture? It seems disingenuous to label the report as describing “Firearms - Injury Statistics and Incidence Rates” and then leave out an entire category of firearm injuries and deaths. I imagine intentional shootings are a much smaller percentage of incidences, but still, it seems like a glaring omission.

It is true that there is really nothing that can be done prevention-wise by family members to avoid random shooting rampages in public, but there are also plenty of abusive family members that intentionally kill kids. It would be good to not hide the stats on those so more people would recognize the danger of keeping weapons in households with violent dynamics.

8 Dark_Falcon  Jun 7, 2014 5:41:05pm

re: #7 KerFuFFler

Because these stats are intended to show the risks or lack thereof to those in a law-abiding household, which are accident risks. Intentional Homicide (which is Murder) is a very different thing and doesn’t really belong in the same stat as it does not occur unless a member of the household acts with malicious intent.

Moreover, including murder stats wouldn’t provide a fully accurate picture of the risks since many (if not most) such domestic deaths would happen anyways if a gun had not been used; The victims would simply have been killed with a different weapon.

9 goddamnedfrank  Jun 8, 2014 4:46:21pm

re: #1 kirkspencer

Below I’ve copied two reports generated from the CDC using years 1999-2010 for deaths by firearms, ages 0-14. First one is unintentional deaths, the second all firearms deaths. Notice how (relatively) flat the results are - NOT declining.

Let’s compare that to US fire fatality rates for children, 0.5 per 100k. Page 6 of this .pdf.

Now think about all the shit society dedicates to fighting fire, the mandate that every home have a smoke detector, building codes and inspections, hydrant systems, fire department equipment, training and labor, etc. Think about how fires used to devastate cities and town prior to these standards and practices.

Then think about how much we could reduce the gun fatality rate if we instituted real gun control measures, NFA procedures for all handgun transfers, mandatory FFL involvement and background checks for all longarms, mandatory reference / interview / safe storage standards, loss / theft reporting requirements.

10 goddamnedfrank  Jun 8, 2014 4:54:53pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

Because these stats are intended to show the risks or lack thereof to those in a law-abiding household, which are accident risks. Intentional Homicide (which is Murder) is a very different thing and doesn’t really belong in the same stat as it does not occur unless a member of the household acts with malicious intent.

This kind of shit is fundamentally dishonest. You can’t divorce the effects of murders committed by legal gun owners simply because murder is illegal. The reason you can’t do this is because our lax gun control policies allowed those people to get guns in the first place, without references, without interviews. In many states those people can legally acquire guns in a private party transfer without a background check, negating the effectiveness of whatever checks the State might otherwise impose.

Moreover, including murder stats wouldn’t provide a fully accurate picture of the risks since many (if not most) such domestic deaths would happen anyways if a gun had not been used; The victims would simply have been killed with a different weapon.

Simplistic nonsense. Killing a person with a gun is massively easy compared to other methods. The psychological barriers are lower compared to doing it via other methods. It doesn’t require the premeditation of poisoning or the physicality, risk exposure and up close terror of killing them by hand or with a melee weapon. There’s a reason that we have the worst homicide rates of any first world nation, easy access to guns.

11 Dark_Falcon  Jun 8, 2014 6:49:04pm

re: #10 goddamnedfrank

Fling insults, get downdings.

12 goddamnedfrank  Jun 8, 2014 8:07:33pm

re: #11 Dark_Falcon

Fling insults, get downdings.

It’s pathetic the way you respond to blunt criticism by whining about it instead of addressing the points raised. It also betrays a completely inability to do so.

13 The Awkward Guy  Jun 8, 2014 9:52:26pm

re: #11 Dark_Falcon

Fling insults, get downdings.

There were no insults in that post. What the hell?

14 palomino  Jun 9, 2014 3:17:15am

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

Because these stats are intended to show the risks or lack thereof to those in a law-abiding household, which are accident risks. Intentional Homicide (which is Murder) is a very different thing and doesn’t really belong in the same stat as it does not occur unless a member of the household acts with malicious intent.

Moreover, including murder stats wouldn’t provide a fully accurate picture of the risks since many (if not most) such domestic deaths would happen anyways if a gun had not been used; The victims would simply have been killed with a different weapon.

How do you know this? Without some data, it’s a highly dubious conjecture and an extremely weak argument.

What other weapon lying around most homes enables one to kill as quickly and efficiently a gun? A kitchen knife? Chainsaw? Golf club? All of those require proximity and physical strength that a gun allows one to bypass.

Your assertions and assumptions are variations on the disingenuous “hammers can kill people…should we ban all hammers, hahahaha” form of argument used by the dimmest of bulbs. You can do better than this, I hope.

15 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 9, 2014 11:15:06am

re: #14 palomino

When one looks at non gun assaults, murders, the fact that one of the mass killers used a knife and a gun then tried to kill people with the car-Yeah, we don’t “know”. But the numbers of such killings and real events give us a good clue on the possibilities.

Clubs, knives, poison, choking with rope….

16 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 9, 2014 11:18:55am

re: #13 The Awkward Guy

Fundamentally dishonest is not an insult?

Then take a look at the FBI stats on non gun killings, and see if they match well with the skeptical quote below

What other weapon lying around most homes enables one to kill as quickly and efficiently a gun? A kitchen knife? Chainsaw? Golf club? All of those require proximity and physical strength that a gun allows one to bypass.

Your assertions and assumptions are variations on the disingenuous “hammers can kill people…should we ban all hammers, hahahaha” form of argument used by the dimmest of bulbs. You can do better than this, I hope.

Dead is dead is dead. Gun controls are one way to make it harder to kill. But not so hard it’s rare.

17 goddamnedfrank  Jun 9, 2014 11:58:26am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

Fundamentally dishonest is not an insult?

Then take a look at the FBI stats on non gun killings, and see if they match well with the skeptical quote below

Dead is dead is dead. Gun controls are one way to make it harder to kill. But not so hard it’s rare.

I was saying his argument was fundamentally dishonest, as is yours. Look at the intentional homicide rates by country. Murder is indeed comparatively “rare” in several countries, like Japan which has a rate one sixteenth of that in the United States. All of the countries with low intentional homicide rates have one thing in common, incredibly strict gun control legislation. The clear takeaway is that nation wide gun control can and does have a massive impact on ability of people to kill one another, and when you sort that list by rate you see that we are in some rather poor company.

It would be nice if you two would stop repeating this meme that is so obviously wrong on its face and cannot bear the most basic scrutiny. There’s a world of difference between the simplistic notion that it must be just as easy to kill with a knife or a hammer or strychnine and actually trying to do it. In the real world guns make a conspicuous difference, and I say this as someone who owns a bunch of the damned things.

18 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 9, 2014 3:03:10pm

re: #17 goddamnedfrank

Non gun murder is not rare. Your comparison to gun killings is simply not the bar by which I measure. I was referring to the United States. There are far too many killings with other means here to describe those as rare events.
So the dishonesty if any is not in my or Darks argument, it’s by using a measure I did not intend.

I don’t really do memes. I sometimes say things others have misused as memes. See my conversation with Obdi about use of the language that has been abuse as propaganda by the NRA. And that is then exploited in turn by the anti gun critics.
littlegreenfootballs.com
littlegreenfootballs.com

19 goddamnedfrank  Jun 9, 2014 4:50:35pm

re: #18 Rightwingconspirator

Non gun murder is not rare. Your comparison to gun killings is simply not the bar by which I measure. I was referring to the United States.

The intentional homicide rate isn’t limited to gun killings so I have no idea why you think two different things are being compared. Whether it’s the “bar by which you measure” or not (and btw that phrase rather reeks of willful disregard) the intentional homicide rate is the measure per 100k population of incidents where one person willfully kills another, by any means. Though there are exceptions this is usually called murder.

I get that you would like to limit the discussion to the United States, because the existence of every other first world country on the planet and the legislation they’ve enacted totally undermines your argument that murder can’t be made comparatively rare via gun control. It’s just more disregard for facts inconvenient to the demonstrably false idea you’re trying to sell. In the real world countries that are economic peers of the United States have all enacted strict gun control legislation, and their murder rates are correspondingly a small fraction of ours.

20 goddamnedfrank  Jun 9, 2014 5:44:58pm

Also, FYI whether you intended your argument to survive reference to other countries or not was A. never stated and B. misses the point.. Trying to limit discussions to your terms, where you get to approve the references and frameworks that can be brought to bear by others, makes for a pretty intrinsically weak argument. Especially when you never actually state a reason for the limitation. This seems to be one of your go to tactics when unable to address or refute an argument directly.

Basically you’re crying “no fair,” that certain counter examples and arguments are outside the scope you are prepared to handle.

In any event lets take your rather non specific assertion that non firearm committed murders in the US aren’t “rare.” That’s true to a point, though statistically soft. According to 2006 to 2010 UCR data they comprise less than a third of all murders. Even if we assume that some people will find a way to murder we know that most murders are crimes of opportunity and/or passion, premeditation is uncommon. So we could very plausibly slash the United States murder rate in half by enacting and strictly enforcing the same kinds of gun control laws other first world democracies have on their books.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
NATO to Create New Spearhead Force to Respond to Crises
NATO leaders will respond to the Ukraine crisis by agreeing this week to create a "spearhead" rapid reaction force, potentially including several thousand troops, that could be sent to a hotspot in as little as two days, officials said ...

3 minutes ago
Views: 16 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Hyped Up On Ganja
Lindsay Lohan reveals she’s voting for Mitt Romney because ‘employment is really important’
Asked to expound on her comment, Miss Lohan giggled, and replied "Wingnut Mormons are so $$#@#$ hawt and junk" / But this was not the first time the fledgling political pundit has jumped into the presidential twitter fray. In early ...

39 minutes ago
Views: 20 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Souliren
Natalie MacMaster
22 hours, 23 minutes ago
Views: 90 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
The War TARDIS
Doctor Who “Into the Dalek” Open Thread
This episode will echo old Dalek episodes, both with a bit of a twist. Also, Clara will be finding someone, as she seems to be moving from her feelings of the 11th. But, this for talking.

1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 243 • Comments: 37
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4
FemNaziBitch
Roger Goodell: ‘I Didn’t Get It Right.’ -NFL TAKES A NEW STANCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell admits he was wrong on the Ray Rice decision, and Goodell took an important step Thursday towards showing the league is serious about cracking down on domestic violence as well as sexual assault. In a ...

3 days, 5 hours ago
Views: 219 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3
sagehen
Doctor Who Spoiler Thread
For those who want to post immediately... live... without having to hide spoilers behind the button.

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 689 • Comments: 99
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
EiMitch
Escapist: Maniac Cop
escapistmagazine.com Link broken? The gist is that this is an impressively sarcastic review of an old slasher flick based on the "unrealistic" premise of a cop abusing his power to murder people.

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 504 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Rightwingconspirator
A Lizard’s Regenerating Tail
Don't ya hate it when that happens? You feel so short for a month. Anoles are curious little lizards capable of ditching their tails when they feel threatened. This self-amputation, called autotomy, takes about 25 days for the tail to ...

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 520 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5
CriticalDragon1177
Io9 - Everything You Need To Know About Lemuria, The Lost Continent Of Lemurs
Esther Inglis-Arkell talks about the weirdest lost continent myth, I've ever heard. Its the only one I know of that ever included giant telepathic lemurs. No seriously! In 1858 a young zoologist, playing around with an idea, came up with ...

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 703 • Comments: 4
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 7
Laughing Gas
Scumbag “HBD believer” claims Michael Brown charged officer
WARNING: LINK TO HATE SITE He links to some ijreview, a right wing site: This guy makes me sick.

1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 1,586 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
 Frank says:

He was in a quandary...being devoured by the swirling cesspool of his own steaming desires...