Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Excellent! Stats on gun violence
#1
Here is an article I think should be given the widest circulation. All of our reps in both the State legislature and Congress should be made aware of these figures?especially the Dems.

Interesting statistics! This jives with the research of Prof. Lott at the University of Chicago, who is a noted expert on gun laws and stats.

Here are some facts.

There are 30,000 gun related death s per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons ? better known as gun violence.
3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, ?gun violence? is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So, if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assaults are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose?THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It?s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So, what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ?????. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So, you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?

It?s pretty simple:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs . So, the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: ?Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.?
Reply
#2
Do you actually think that anybody cares about statistics, when something like this happens?

[video=youtube;HsvUA5L5USc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvUA5L5USc[/video]

If statistics mattered, bump stocks would still be legal.
Reply
#3
stanc Wrote:Do you actually think that anybody cares about statistics, when something like this happens?

[video=youtube;HsvUA5L5USc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvUA5L5USc[/video]

If statistics mattered, bump stocks would still be legal.

Yes. Stats matter to gun owners and voters that may be on the fence about those scary black rifles. It truly must be exhausting to be you.
Reply
#4
Yup, some people agree with Stan!

There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. Quote from: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Reply
#5
Montana, thanks for the excellent analytical summary!

Yes, I concur that gun control is about much more than safety. “Gun Control” is more about population control.

In my view, folks who recognize and understand the distinction tend to be a lot more proactive in pushing for more open access to firearms of all types.
shootersnotes.com

"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown

"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle
Reply
#6
Most of what I need to know about the second amendment is explained here:

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]
NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

www.AR15buildbox.com
Reply
#7
mv1arms Wrote:Yes. Stats matter to gun owners and voters that may be on the fence about those scary black rifles.
Sure, statistics matter to those gun owners who are desperately grasping at any straw they hope might help. I very much doubt that they matter to anyone else.

If statistics matter, explain why bump stocks were banned. AFAIK, they were used in only ONE criminal shooting, the statistical significance of which is near zero.

mv1arms Wrote:It truly must be exhausting to be you.
Not in the least. I can't imagine why you'd think so. :confused:
Reply
#8
I would be more impressed with stats that were accurate and relevant.

1) Detroit is not a heavily regulated city. Michigan is a shall issue state and Detroit follows state laws.
2) Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and DC hardly represent all those death spanned across the nation, LOL
3) Not sure exactly where they derived their data. This is an often-repeated meme that has been altered over time. However, they chose to use raw numbers because that makes these localities look really bad. However, when you take the number relative to the population, Baltimore is still really pretty bad. Chicago nearly as bed. Places like St. Louis, MO, that allows for concealed carry and doesn't have rigid gun control is known to be the murder capital of the US has a murder rate much higher than Chicago. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/nationa...8e.html#29 Most murders are committed with firearms, usually around 2/3 or more.

LOTS of cities in gun-friendlier states have high homicide rates, most of which come from firearms.

The issue doesn't just come down to the laws. What the laws do in these cases is hamper pro-gun folks from being able to defend themselves as readily (or at all). This is a critical factor, but the laws or law of laws are not causing the violence. If that was the case, then New Orleans, Memphis, Detroit, St. Louis, Baton Rouge, Kansas City Mo, Orlando, Cleveland, etc.

The point is that there are plenty of cities in pro gun states that have more than their share of these issues.

As for all that other stuff about other deaths such as medical errors, traffic, etc., every one of those has people complaining about them. Everybody thinks their pet cause is what is most significant. That there are other deadly issues in our environment does not impact whether or not firearms used in homicides is or is not a concern to people.

Guns used in violent crime, no matter how we want to down play it, is a significant issue for us as well which is why so many of us are armed against it.

We do need more pro-gun legislation, no doubt, but that isn't going to change the numbers of violent crimes committed with guns. It isn't going to cause homicide rates to fall.
Kill a hog. Save the planet.
My videos - https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Reply
#9
So....
1. You actually have no clue about the effect of statistics and admit that.
2. Statistics obviously don't matter to the politicians that infringe on the 2A.
3. It seems like you just enjoy spewing pessimism without making an actual point.
Reply
#10
You’re preaching to the choir!
Now try convincing the anti gunners!
Reply
#11
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14581[/ATTACH]


Attached Files
.jpg   gun graph data.jpg (Size: 57.96 KB / Downloads: 35)
Reply
#12
mv1arms Wrote:So....
1. You actually have no clue about the effect of statistics and admit that.
2. Statistics obviously don't matter to the politicians that infringe on the 2A.
3. It seems like you just enjoy spewing pessimism without making an actual point.

1) I know that there is no effect of statistics as they are just data, but there is an effect that comes from the interpretation of that data.
2) Statistical interpretations do matter to the politicians, but only the interpretations that they like or want to change. They readily share information that is biased bolster their causes.
3) If reality of data manipulation and presentation takes the shine off your rainbow, I am sorry. We are supposed to be the good guys, right? We aren't supposed to be making up lies such as Detroit having strict gun laws. Technically, Baltimore doesn't either, but they are in the state of Maryland that is pretty strict. Maryland specifically has a law that says that local governments can't regulate firearms. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/local-aut...-maryland/ As noted here, all the state laws of Maryland haven't made Baltimore any safer. https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/201...trol-laws/ Interestingly, Germantown is the 3rd largest city in Maryland and enjoys homicide and crime rates below the national average, yet is under the same guise of Maryland gun control laws.

Point? There are a lot of armpit cities around the country that have terrible crime rates and homicide rates. They are located in states with strict gun control laws and in states that don't have strict gun control laws. The laws don't seem to be driving the level of violence. When you look at the history of laws in many states, you will find that a lot of the laws are reactionary, knee jerk reactionary. They aren't good laws and they failed to deal with the issues they were supposed to correct.

Take Chicago. Homicide rates were climbing going into the 1970s when they started implementing gun control measures. The issue was out of hand and they reacted. Has it worked? Nope. Homicide rates seem to fluctuate quite a bit over time despite increased levels of gun control being enacted. They have had some of what they think are successes. In 2004, for the first time in 40 years the number of homicides dropped below 500 for the year. Of course, you can't say that gun control did that because they popped up again, despite gun control. Obviously, the laws are not keeping the homicide rate in control, no matter how hard they try.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/brea...story.html

It isn't the laws that are driving homicide numbers, though the laws are keeping many Americans from having guns to defend themselves.
Kill a hog. Save the planet.
My videos - https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Reply
#13
Montana, would you please post a link to the article you referenced. John Lott hasn't been at the University of Chicago for 20 years and his last book was published in 2010. Note that the article uses 2016 population data but doesn't state where the data came from. I wonder if there is updated data anywhere. A lot has changed in the last decade and I am now curious about trends.
Ever since reading the book "How to Lie with Statistics" many years ago, I like to check the sources of information. This goes double for anyone who makes money from books or speeches on a topic!

Thanks
Reply
#14
Double Naught Spy, sorry that was meant for each line of Stanc's reply.

You on the other hand have actually provided value to the conversation.
Reply
#15
mv1arms Wrote:So....
1. You actually have no clue about the effect of statistics and admit that.
I'm willing to learn. Can you prove that gun violence statistics have had a significant effect in changing people's minds?

mv1arms Wrote:2. Statistics obviously don't matter to the politicians that infringe on the 2A.
Precisely my point.

mv1arms Wrote:3. It seems like you just enjoy spewing pessimism...
Nah, I just don't like to encourage self-delusion and wishful thinking. Wink

mv1arms Wrote:...without making an actual point.
See my response to your line 2 above.
Reply
#16
montana Wrote:Yup, some people agree with Stan!

There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. Quote from: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
So, you're a disciple of AOC? You'd rather be "morally right" -- whatever that is -- than factually correct?
Reply
#17
stanc Wrote:So, you're a disciple of AOC? You'd rather be "morally right" -- whatever that is -- than factually correct?

You're fishing without a worm on your hook Stan Wink
Reply
#18
Fess Wrote:Montana, would you please post a link to the article you referenced. John Lott hasn't been at the University of Chicago for 20 years and his last book was published in 2010. Note that the article uses 2016 population data but doesn't state where the data came from. I wonder if there is updated data anywhere. A lot has changed in the last decade and I am now curious about trends.
Ever since reading the book "How to Lie with Statistics" many years ago, I like to check the sources of information. This goes double for anyone who makes money from books or speeches on a topic!

Thanks

I got it off of The Montana Shooting Sports Association face book page. The left in Montana hates Gary Marbut and has tried to smear his name and organization at every chance, since he has been very successful throughout the years winning gun rights for Montanans. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/what-ha...z5xCV60Aft
Reply
#19
montana Wrote:You're fishing without a worm on your hook Stan Wink
I never did like fishing, anyway. Cool

Okay, maybe "disciple" was too strong, but it was a fair question, considering the similarities between you and AOC.

AOC would rather be "morally right" than factually correct. You would rather be "morally right" than factually correct.

AOC wants to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. You want to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Reply
#20
The numbers behind those stat's is highly in question.

For example:
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2017/...in_us.html
Alabama had 400 murders in 2017. I rather highly doubt only 1 of those was done with a firearm.

A common error when trying to make a case to a potentially hostile audience, is to throw a bunch of items and hope something sticks. That's not how it works, when you list 11 things as items of complaints, or supporting data, and any one of those is either absurd or outright wrong; then the entire case is considered suspect and often dismissed if it's already a hostile audience, even if the other 10 points are spot on.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)