Stats on gun violence.
- Thread starter Headhunter
- Start date
have read similar stats....add a category called "mass shootings" in the 1,712 and the number is negligible (no I'm not marginalizing the deaths libs). Its just such a farce to argue this. I continue to read where a ex-felon here or there uses a gun for a robbery, murder, abduction and so on. like they will ever obey a law! When seconds count and the police are minutes away...who ya gonna call, sure as hell ain't sis, Up or any of the other libs who want me eventually disarmed.
America has a liberal sycophantic media liar problem...not gun problem.
America has a liberal sycophantic media liar problem...not gun problem.
Another thing libs and the MSM won't tell you is that in Australia were they did a mass confiscation of guns, violent crimes and murders have gone up.
You see they only people who have guns now are criminals and they know the store owners and people they are targeting don't have one.
You see they only people who have guns now are criminals and they know the store owners and people they are targeting don't have one.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
These numbers are accurate or very close.
Suicide is getting lumped in with violence because no one wants to know why mass shootings and suicides keep going up while gun violence overall is actually going down.
Mental health is complicated and a terrible platform on which to run for office.
Suicide is getting lumped in with violence because no one wants to know why mass shootings and suicides keep going up while gun violence overall is actually going down.
Mental health is complicated and a terrible platform on which to run for office.
Monopolization of firearms into the hands of a government run by a profession rife with antisocial personality disorder. That's never been a recipe for disaster.
Saw this on Facebook, I assume the stats are reasonably accurate.
I posted similar numbers last week in response to @syskatine who then disappeared for several days in a typical defensive internet maneuver.
Saw this on Facebook, I assume the stats are reasonably accurate.
It leaves 1,712 what?
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
cute. I'll just call the CDC and ask about those numbers. Anyone in particular I should ask for?
Would you not tag me to respond to numbers that someone pulls off facebook without a link?
And assuming the numbers are valid, I don't understand why we back out firearm-related deaths to arrive at a number for firearm-related deaths.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
You can simply look them up online. The CDC and Pew make their research public.
Why is it that the fact checkers only care when it defends their viewpoint?
Why is it that the fact checkers only care when it defends their viewpoint?
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you not think a high percentage of people who are willing to put a gun in their mouth and actually pull the trigger wouldn't be willing to use another method if they didn't have a gun?
Libs are freaking morons when it comes to logical thought about guns and suicide.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
Ok. Flip side:
This is where Australia did see a difference. Their suicide rate plummeted (up to 70+ percent) and other methods did not at all make up for the decline. This shift is large enough to make the argument that many gun ban advocates do with this continent's numbers.
I've seen no data on attempted suicide.
Well I pointed out to him last week that gun suicide numbers and vehicle suicides are slmost identical.
I don't know what else to do when someone is unwilling or unable to think critical and have an open mind.
I'm willing to concede that a gun is a very efficient method of killing ones self and the success rate would go down without guns. I'm also willing to concede that there are probably people who grab a gun when they are in distress and kill themselves when if they had time to cool down they wouldn't kill themselves.
But are the rest of us supposed to give up our rights and ability to defend ourselves because others have mental or emotional problems? The lib says yes, collective good and all. I say no, I get to live my life free of others burdens as they get to live free of mine.
Since the originating discussions are about "gun control" and how a car can be even more effective for hurting and killing dozens, Here are more numbers to crunch. 80% of gun deaths are by hand gun. Only 2% of gun crimes in general are by what the politicians and the media call "assault" weapons with military style features.
Nothing that's mentioned or discussed in terms of legislation is useful for the stated "problems". Nothing.
Source, New York Times.
Nothing that's mentioned or discussed in terms of legislation is useful for the stated "problems". Nothing.
Source, New York Times.
How many times have you defended yourself with a gun, @Headhunter and @MegaPoke ?
Strike that -- Head will lie and come up with some crazy story about a minority that tried to rape him. He probably lays in bed at night and prays for the chance to use his gun on someone. Mega, how many times have you defended yourself with a gun?
Strike that -- Head will lie and come up with some crazy story about a minority that tried to rape him. He probably lays in bed at night and prays for the chance to use his gun on someone. Mega, how many times have you defended yourself with a gun?
Most people never will need their gun thankfully we live in a relatively safe country. But the fact is you have to be prepared because when evil comes you don't get a second chance. Do you deny that bad things happen to innocent people?
You want people to take their chances because the odds are low. Me I don't want anyone to be a bad stat.
You want people to take their chances because the odds are low. Me I don't want anyone to be a bad stat.
Well to play devil's advocate here. The question then becomes, if the danger of being a victim of gun violence is so minuscule, why do you need to wear a gun on your hip everywhere you go?
This brings me to a question. How many mass shooters had conceal carry licenses?
Not sure the point of your non sequitur here but statistically, guns are used to prevent violence all the time. I can drop those stats and nationwide sheriff recommendations on you later. But to answer your irrelevant question, zero. I don't have a CCP personally and haven't needed one. I may get one this year though. Very simple. I would rather you be able to smugly sit back and nod to yourself at my answer than for there to have been a need for which I was unprepared. My main focus is on your baseless vitriol towards "assault weapons."
Why do you pay for insurance? Why do you go to the Dr for checkups? Why do you make storm shelter preparations? Why do you wear a seatbelt? Why do you lock your doors at night?
Right. I can't understand the energy, fear and anxiety over being caught unarmed when neither of you have ever needed one. Has anyone in your family?
You want to make policy on alarmist hypotheticals. I want to make policy on reality. If you're so worried about self defense, there are plenty of options without the ability to spray 30 rounds in 15 seconds.
You want to make policy on alarmist hypotheticals. I want to make policy on reality. If you're so worried about self defense, there are plenty of options without the ability to spray 30 rounds in 15 seconds.
So you would rather we have needed a gun and not have one than us have one and not need to use it. What's your fascination with having to be attacked to justify having protection?
You never answered my question. Do bad things happen to innocent people? Also do you hear about those bad things on a daily basis? Ever watch the evening news?
I don't see your logic. Why does it bother people that law abiding responsible people have access to a firearm? Or wear a firearm for that matter.
Lived in Arizona for 8 years in the 80's they've had open carry there since the 1800's. Used to see people with guns all the time didn't make me feel unsafe matter of fact I always thought it was a good deterrent to criminal punks acting like criminal punks.
You never answered my question. Do bad things happen to innocent people? Also do you hear about those bad things on a daily basis? Ever watch the evening news?
I don't see your logic. Why does it bother people that law abiding responsible people have access to a firearm? Or wear a firearm for that matter.
Lived in Arizona for 8 years in the 80's they've had open carry there since the 1800's. Used to see people with guns all the time didn't make me feel unsafe matter of fact I always thought it was a good deterrent to criminal punks acting like criminal punks.
Because they prevent or protect me from things that are VERY likely to happen. I see the point you are making and point taken. But if there was a only a .000008 percent chance I would get in to a car accident, I probably wouldn't pay for car insurance. Especially if having that insurance required me to carry a deadly weapon and explosives on my hip. By your logic of protecting yourself from something that, according to these statistics, has only a 0.000008 percent chance of happening we should all be walking around with lightning rods so we do not get hit by lightning because that is more likely to happen to us. Either your logic is flawed or your statistics are.
Have to answer these quickly, will devote more time later if I have it.
Yes bad things happen to innocent people. Yes I hear about them every day. Yes I watch and read the news. But the topic originally discussed in this thread is that the statistics say that the chances of these bad things happening involving guns is very minuscule.
Because I do not think that people wearing guns on their hips in public makes that public safer. I don't think the old west was safer for people than today's society.
People gonna be punks sometimes. My thoughts do not automatically go to "I want to kill the punks."
Bville I was mainly responding Syster and the whole if you haven't been attacked thing.
You seem like a responsible person who thinks for yourself and I respect that.
I'm all for gun laws that make sense like not needing a machine gun or bazooka. I don't have a problem with background checks or waiting periods but that's where I draw the line. I don't carry but I do keep a weapon within reach in my vehicles and my bedroom.
I don't have an issue with open carry but I know guns are safe. If someone has bad intentions open carry isn't going to change them but they might have second thoughts if they think a potential victim is armed.
You seem like a responsible person who thinks for yourself and I respect that.
I'm all for gun laws that make sense like not needing a machine gun or bazooka. I don't have a problem with background checks or waiting periods but that's where I draw the line. I don't carry but I do keep a weapon within reach in my vehicles and my bedroom.
I don't have an issue with open carry but I know guns are safe. If someone has bad intentions open carry isn't going to change them but they might have second thoughts if they think a potential victim is armed.
You know the "old west" comment I made brought a couple of thoughts to mind. And well, I watched Wyatt Earp this past week. 
My first thought was that if the whole "an armed society makes a safer society" thought was true, why when a sheriff wanted to clean up a town was the first thing he did is put up a sign saying that there were no guns allowed in town? Secondly, when did laws come in to place that outlawed open carry? And what were the crime statistics before and after? I mean we have looked at statistics ad nauseum about crime statistics when it goes from no open/concealed carry to allowed open/concealed carry. But it seems like we took open carry away at some point to make it safer for people. This could be a total rabbit hole and I welcome critical thinking and opposition to these points. Was just things that popped in to my mind.
My first thought was that if the whole "an armed society makes a safer society" thought was true, why when a sheriff wanted to clean up a town was the first thing he did is put up a sign saying that there were no guns allowed in town? Secondly, when did laws come in to place that outlawed open carry? And what were the crime statistics before and after? I mean we have looked at statistics ad nauseum about crime statistics when it goes from no open/concealed carry to allowed open/concealed carry. But it seems like we took open carry away at some point to make it safer for people. This could be a total rabbit hole and I welcome critical thinking and opposition to these points. Was just things that popped in to my mind.
I have carried a gun for over a year now and haven't shot one person. I also wore a hoody for three days straight at night with the hood up as it was cold outside and I didn't get shot once in those three days. You know what the common denominator is in this? I wasn't breaking any laws when I did these....
Neither my logic, nor my statistics are flawed. Your critical thinking in this thread is.
The statistics being applied in this thread are related to reported "gun deaths" (including suicides), and how they are broken down statistically. Correctly stated, it's rare to die from a gunshot wound in this country unless you are trying to, or are an active member of a violent criminal gang.
However - it is not nearly as rare (according to the FBI, an occurrence of 370 per 100,000 annually) to be the victim of violent crime. In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to this study:
- In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate.
Privately owned, legally carried firearms prevent thousands of violent crimes every year. The vast majority go unreported because again - the crime, whether robbery, assault, kidnapping what have you, was prevented simply by displaying the weapon without having to use it. How many life threatening violent crimes are prevented this way and unreported is open for wild speculation. Some estimates are as high as 2 million PER YEAR - which admittedly sounds like a fantastic stretch. But, the same article cites 5,000 separate news stories the previous year (2011) where an armed citizen prevented a crime. Who knows what goes unreported? But I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of these stories did not make any kind of news because, again, no crime occurred.
Need more?
Sheriffs around the country think armed citizen "good guys" are a good idea.
Nationally, gun sales are up and violent crime is down. Perhaps we need to be looking much more narrowly at what is causing mass shootings and mass pedestrian vehicular attacks to occur rather than breathlessly debating the machines that facilitated them.
By the way @BvillePoker - you are THIRTY SIX TIMES* more likely to be a victim of violent crime than you are to die in a car wreck. So again I ask, why the seatbelt? Why the liability insurance? Obviously that stat is mitigated by where you live among many other relevant contextual factors, but still that's the raw national data.
sources, FBI and DOT if you want to look them up.
Annual violent crime is 367 per 100,000 or 1,178,000 in a country of 321 million people, according to the FBI.
Annual traffic deaths are 32,675 according to the DOT.
The good news is both numbers are in sharp decline over the last several years, but we all know people who have been killed in car wrecks so it's not exactly an unthinkable statistical outlier that you could be faced with needing to defend yourself, your family or your property from violent crime.
sources, FBI and DOT if you want to look them up.
Annual violent crime is 367 per 100,000 or 1,178,000 in a country of 321 million people, according to the FBI.
Annual traffic deaths are 32,675 according to the DOT.
The good news is both numbers are in sharp decline over the last several years, but we all know people who have been killed in car wrecks so it's not exactly an unthinkable statistical outlier that you could be faced with needing to defend yourself, your family or your property from violent crime.
Mega, how many people have used an assault weapon for self defense? I'm reading these stats, keeping an open mind..... I'm trying to sync it up with assault weapons. Is there data on how many are used for self defense?
I'd wager most of the sheriffs are just rednecks that are also projecting a world view that already existed.
Beyond what I already posted? That they account for 1-2% of gun homicides as opposed to 80% by hand gun and 18-19% by other (non-scary looking shotguns and rifles), I'm not sure what to say about them. For one thing, I don't know that you can even articulate what one is. They don't use "clips" for example.
Since the vast majority of self defense occurrences are un-reported, and nobody conceal-carries one, I would concede that the numbers to support them for self defense are low. That doesn't change the fact that if there was a threat on my acreage, I am reaching for my AR, not a pump action shotgun, bolt action deer rifle or a hand gun. It's the right tool for the job where I live. May not be for you.
Last edited:
I guess if the numbers are so important to you, good. I agree, it's a numbers game.
So what # of innocent deaths at the hands of guns would be big enough for you to say, "That number is too high -- ban them." Or is statistical analysis only relevant for validating the points that you find compelling?
So what # of innocent deaths at the hands of guns would be big enough for you to say, "That number is too high -- ban them." Or is statistical analysis only relevant for validating the points that you find compelling?
