Anyone still care to argue that the advantages of an armed society outweigh the advantages of one that isn't armed?
What about the suicide? Stats prove that with less guns, less people do it.
Visit the Active Site for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . com
FACT: With less guns... less people kill themselves. A gun makes carrying out this decision very very easy, and leaves no time to think about it. All of the discussion in this forum about the corellations of guns to crime outshadows the correlation of guns with suicide.
In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.
For every firearm fatality in the United States, there are two non-fatal firearm injuries.
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.
In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.
In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.
In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age - second only to motor vehicle crashes.
In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.
From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.
Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.
For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.
The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.
At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent.
Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.
Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.
Every day in the U.S., 77 people die from gun violence, including 16,586 completed suicides; 10,801 homicides; and 776 unintentional shootings.
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
40-43% percent of households own guns. This means that an approximately 44 million Americans own an estimated 192 million firearms.
One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked.
Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home, and 40% occur in the home of a friend.
When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.6
All taken from the Brady Campaign website.
[center]
[SIZE=4]It's your money...
It's your life...
[color=red]VOTE LIBERTARIAN[/color][/size][/center]
Anyone still care to argue that the advantages of an armed society outweigh the advantages of one that isn't armed?
What about the suicide? Stats prove that with less guns, less people do it.
[center]
[SIZE=4]It's your money...
It's your life...
[color=red]VOTE LIBERTARIAN[/color][/size][/center]
False. This is proven by looking at nations like Japan with nearly no private gun ownership and a suicide rate which is much greater than the US.Originally Posted by stiffy
So what? The suicides would still occur as would the murders. The 3-4% from accidents and unknown is irrelevant when you look at the big picture. 5 gallon buckets kiilled more people by accident than guns.Originally Posted by stiffy
Again - so what?Originally Posted by stiffy
Again - so what? Taken on a per-capita basis - which MUST be done due to the substantial population difference - we see the rates arent really that different. Removing the criminal-v-criminal killing (courtesy of drug laws) and I suspect you'd have a much lower rate in the US than anywhere else.Originally Posted by stiffy
So? Whats your point?Originally Posted by stiffy
First off, someone who is 19 isnt a child. Neither are they a child at 18. We can already see the severe and intentional flaw in the statistic. Also, if you remove the criminal-v-criminal crime involved in that stat and only look at true accidents, you discover the number is more like 0.435 kids per day. Thats about 1 every 2.5 days. Not a valid reason for banning ANY product let alone firearms.Originally Posted by stiffy
Second by an absurd margin of difference. Again, remove criminal-v-criminal shootings and the number goes down.Originally Posted by stiffy
Oddly enough, that same demographic group commits the most crime. Wonder if there is a relationship.Originally Posted by stiffy
So? Again - SUICIDE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE GUN. People who are going to kill themselves will do it even without access to a firearm.Originally Posted by stiffy
So? These are CRIMINALS. Do you really think taking MY gun away will prevent this?Originally Posted by stiffy
That just means that we arent shooting as many crimnals as we could. The most conservative estimate says that guns are used legally to stop crime over 800,000 times per year.Originally Posted by stiffy
Good lord - even Kellerman doesnt quote that study anymore. I thought the brady bunch stopped referring to him?Originally Posted by stiffy
This study of course was done by the VPC and the Brady Campaign, so it must be unbiased....Originally Posted by stiffy
Again - so what? This is the criminal element we are talking about.Originally Posted by stiffy
B U L L S H I T. I defy you to prove it.Originally Posted by stiffy
Again - B U L L S H I T. In point of fact, according to the DOJ and FBI, the reverse is true.Originally Posted by stiffy
Well there's a good reason to ban em. Its illegal for most victims to own one, so we'll just take em away from everyone.Originally Posted by stiffy
Im not even going to dignify that one. We've had this discussionOriginally Posted by stiffy
Again - so what? See my above comments. Repeating the same garbage doesnt make it any less garbage.Originally Posted by stiffy
Again - kellerman...Originally Posted by stiffy
That number is WAY low. Its known to be ~90 million households with an estimate of over a half million firearms.Originally Posted by stiffy
Kinda useless otherwiseOriginally Posted by stiffy
The problem there is parenting - not the gunOriginally Posted by stiffy
Incorrect. It is used to KILL the criminal in fewer than 2 percent. There is a difference.Originally Posted by stiffy
Well THAT explains it. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.Originally Posted by stiffy
Stiffy, you wouldnt take stats from guncite.com as being unbiased, why on earth would you think crap from Brady is valid?

Eric, you should go easier on Spiffy. He has only stated over, and over, and over, that he only wants those bad guns banned, you know, handguns and assault rifles. Is it not obvious from this thread of his? BBWWAAHAAHAAHAAA! Don't feed the Tr*&l Eric.

Nice retort, BTW, Eric. You killed this thread in record time.
Funny how the truth will do thatOriginally Posted by Prince Charming
![]()
This has to be the first gun control thread that didnt break 1 page!
I didnt mean to kill it. It just went off by itself!
I would like a pro gun type to explain to me why the deaths of 30,000 Americans a year is considered acceptable but the deaths of 3,000 Americans results in a $300,000,000,000 war with over 100,000 deaths and serious causalities.
Are Americans lives only sacred when someone else takes them?
Went from ~15,000 to 30,000 for the purposes of your question...wow....Originally Posted by RDK
First off, since many of those deaths are from criminal-v-criminal murders, we dont really much care. Even including them in the total, the criminal ones we can do nothing about. One more law will not prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Do try to remember that murder has been illegal since Cain bashed in Abel's head with a rock.
Secondly, accidents are also something that a law will not change. Even if they were, if the accidental deaths is what you were trying to prevent, perhaps you would be taken more seriously if you addressed the larger causes of accidental death like car accidents, household poisons, 5 gallon buckets, etc. Since you do not, we can only conclude that your concern isnt really the accidental deaths but the private ownership of firearms. As such, your opinion and justifications carry little weight.
Third - you are comparing individual acts by individual criminals against individual people with an act of war carried out against the American public in general and you think there is some level of equality of action? It isnt like we're doing nothing about it either. Murders are investigated and prosecuted. What else would you suggest we do? We spend MUCH more than the amount you listed doing that as well.
Fourth, regarding the 100K dead, other than the American dead, I really dont care. Enemy dead are of no concern. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Never have been, never will be, and the person that has any level of concern for the number of enemy dead in a war is at best, a simpleton. At worst, he's a traitor. In either case, his opinion matters not.
That one silly comparison pretty much made all your future comments on this topic irrelevant RDK.
OK so you are admitting that only Americans can kill other Americans without it being a national issue.
You are also admitting that Americans can kill people in other countries with impunity.
Your response to the original post simply consisted of ridiculing the original post and did nothing to advance the discussion.
You can check a lot of the statistics that you ridiculed at your favourite pero gun web site guncite.com
For example stuffy said that
guncite claims that in 1993 firearm homicides were 3.72 per 100,000 and firearm suicides were 7.35. Based on a US population at the time of roughly 290,000,000 these numbers translate into 10,788 homicides and 21315 suicides. Total firearm deaths 32,103 which given that they are not for the same year are reasonably close.Originally Posted by stuffy
You responded callously with a so what and a unsupported statement that 5 gallon buckets killed more by accident than guns.
Ridicule and unsupported statements are an adolescent method of advancing a discussion.
When stiffy posted some comparisons you again dismissed them saying that only a per capita basis was the correct way to compare international death rates. Since you did not quote these rates they are from guncite.com. Remember the US number is 3.72 per 100,000
New Zealand 0.17 per 100,000
Japan 0.02 per 100,000
Canada 0.76 per 1100,000
Great Britain 0.11
We can assume that some of these deaths are also drug related so the comparison to the US numbers for non drug related firearm homicides would still put the US firearm rates in an unfavourable light. Even if the other countries had NO drug related deaths and 80% of the US fatalities were drug related then the US still leads in firearm deaths.
You also claimed that the death rate for kids with guns was 0.435 per day. You do not support this statement with a link and you also are comparing total firearm deaths to accidental deaths by firearm. That is hardly a true and valid comparison. Lets read the original post and compare apples with apples and offer some supporting links for your statements.
I won’t go into all your response since I simply do not have the time to argue with closed minds, I do note that you make a lot of claims of statistics and offer NOTHING to support them other than your loudly stated opinions.
If you want to discuss this then please stop simply claiming that the opposition’s stats are wrong without offering any supporting evidence for your statistics.
I said nothing of the sort. Read it again.Originally Posted by RDK
Again, i said nothing of the sort. I said when at war, I dont much care how many of the enemy die. Its kinda part of war. Sorry you didnt get the memo.Originally Posted by RDK
No - my response to the original post destroyed the bogus statistics AND ridiculed them as the lies that they are. I wont treat wholesale fabrications from an overtly and absurdly biased site with anything but the derision they deserve.Originally Posted by RDK
I sure can - and I have. The reason I point out guncite as a reference is because unlike the Brady bunch, they arent afraid to source their data.Originally Posted by RDK
No, stiffy said that the BRADY Campaign claimed that. That makes the stat questionable on its face.Originally Posted by RDK
Sorry I didnt cry and wring my hands over reality. Its not unsupported by the way - just do your own research. Drowning kills more kids than guns. A lot more.Originally Posted by RDK
So is dragging out crap statistics from a crap website and purporting them as fact. ESPECIALLY when those stats have been discussed ad nauseum already.Originally Posted by RDK
I also said its irrelevant regardless. Criminals will still kill - the gun is merely the tool used.Originally Posted by RDK
Do your own research. The Brady Bunch got called on their bogus claim a couple years back and it was discovered they were claiming people as old as 24 to be chilldren. Even their current claim of 19 as a child is dishonest. A 19 year old is NOT a child.Originally Posted by RDK
If you could present something other than the same old tired garbage, we might be able to have a discussion. You have been presented time after time by person after person with the data to back up claims. You have been asked question after question which you have refused to answer. You have had your claims dissected and dissasembled with nary a word of response. You continue to spout the same trite and irrelevant rhetoric in the apparent vain hope that saying it one more time is going to make it true.Originally Posted by RDK
And you say I have a closed mind? Come up with something better than "guns kill people so they should be illegal".
The supporting information has been presented in other threads. Even if the claims were valid, it is not justification for attempting to curtail rights. Perhaps the root cause of the problem should be addressed such as harsher punishment and better parenting? Of course that would require having a spine, something liberals usually dont have.Originally Posted by RDK
Last edited by EricOKC; 06-01-2004 at 01:46 PM.
Bookmarks