3 ms·

From Wikipedia: > According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal in

by yongjik 11y ago

From Wikipedia: > According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). So, 11,713 homicides and accidents in the US, not counting suicide. This week alone, gun will likely kill more Americans than the attack on Paris today.

tvm 11y ago
This can be somewhat misleading. eg.,: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-hom... Brazil, Italy etc. - significantly lower percentage of firearms between citizens (say compared to USA), yet there are percentually more homicides performed with firearm.
- disabledalpha 11y ago
  One has to be careful there. Yes, according to that data, in Italy 67% of homicides are by firearm while 11.9% of people have a firearm. Since the numbers for the US are 60% and 89% one is tempted to conclude that in Italy there are more firearm related homicides. However, this is false. If one looks at the fourth column it is clear that in Italy there are 0.71 homicides by firearm for each 100k peoples while in the US there are 2.97, more than 4 times as many. Brasil on the other hand has indeed much more homicides per 100k people than the US, although having only an 8% of the population legally possessing a weapon. TL;DR: In Italy there are four times less homicides by firearm per 100k people than in the US.
stray 11y ago
By that reasoning it is three times more important to prevent automobile ownership, three times more important to prevent access to poisonous substances, and three times more important to prevent high places. Because the three most common causes of accidental death in the US are Unintentional fall deaths, Motor vehicle traffic deaths, and Unintentional poisoning deaths. And each of those kills roughly three times as many Americans as guns. When you add in intentional firearm deaths, it's roughly the same as automobile deaths -- yet we give 16 year olds the keys without a second thought.
- yongjik 11y ago
  Of course it is more important to prevent automobile ownership. That's why the US has DMV offices, administrating automobile ownership and zealously preventing "unqualified" people from driving these vehicles. Imagine how many more will die if people say "Driving a vehicle isn't privilege, it's my basic right." Snark aside, I think we're talking about different problems. The comment I'm replying to proposed that arming citizens will solve (or mitigate) the problem of terrorism. I pointed out that the proposed solution will kill orders of magnitude more people than terrorism itself. Automobiles are a separate problem.
  - stray 11y ago
    Yeah I just think the increased number of accidental shootings will balance or possibly exceed the number if intentional shootings including terrorism. A guy with a gun isn't going to be as brave when he knows others probably have guns too. And most shootings are intentional. So it seems no more dangerous to arm everybody. And possibly far less dangerous. Not to mention that many other types of crime would likely decrease as well. You know, because of the threat of getting shoy by your would-be victim.
    - j2bax 11y ago
      That's debatable. I have to think of situations like one I saw in the news recently where some hero decided he should shoot an unarmed robber in the mall. I think there would be far more situations like this if everyone was packing. People aren't always very rational and if every time a major conflict breaks out the guns come out you are going to have a far bigger issue than the occasional terrorist attack. I'm not saying I don't agree that well trained individuals shouldn't be able to carry and provide safety to everyone around them, but I don't think the grand majority of the populous would be willing to put in the time to have this kind of training. Even if everyone has a gun, handling a terrorist in a crowded space can be a very tricky ordeal and you could easily have people killing each other with crossfire if everyone is trying to take them out.

by yongjik 11y ago

tvm 11y ago

This can be somewhat misleading. eg.,: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-hom... Brazil, Italy etc. - significantly lower percentage of firearms between citizens (say compared to USA), yet there are percentually more homicides performed with firearm.

disabledalpha 11y ago
One has to be careful there. Yes, according to that data, in Italy 67% of homicides are by firearm while 11.9% of people have a firearm. Since the numbers for the US are 60% and 89% one is tempted to conclude that in Italy there are more firearm related homicides. However, this is false. If one looks at the fourth column it is clear that in Italy there are 0.71 homicides by firearm for each 100k peoples while in the US there are 2.97, more than 4 times as many. Brasil on the other hand has indeed much more homicides per 100k people than the US, although having only an 8% of the population legally possessing a weapon. TL;DR: In Italy there are four times less homicides by firearm per 100k people than in the US.

stray 11y ago

By that reasoning it is three times more important to prevent automobile ownership, three times more important to prevent access to poisonous substances, and three times more important to prevent high places. Because the three most common causes of accidental death in the US are Unintentional fall deaths, Motor vehicle traffic deaths, and Unintentional poisoning deaths. And each of those kills roughly three times as many Americans as guns. When you add in intentional firearm deaths, it's roughly the same as automobile deaths -- yet we give 16 year olds the keys without a second thought.

yongjik 11y ago
Of course it is more important to prevent automobile ownership. That's why the US has DMV offices, administrating automobile ownership and zealously preventing "unqualified" people from driving these vehicles. Imagine how many more will die if people say "Driving a vehicle isn't privilege, it's my basic right." Snark aside, I think we're talking about different problems. The comment I'm replying to proposed that arming citizens will solve (or mitigate) the problem of terrorism. I pointed out that the proposed solution will kill orders of magnitude more people than terrorism itself. Automobiles are a separate problem.
- stray 11y ago
  Yeah I just think the increased number of accidental shootings will balance or possibly exceed the number if intentional shootings including terrorism. A guy with a gun isn't going to be as brave when he knows others probably have guns too. And most shootings are intentional. So it seems no more dangerous to arm everybody. And possibly far less dangerous. Not to mention that many other types of crime would likely decrease as well. You know, because of the threat of getting shoy by your would-be victim.
  - j2bax 11y ago
    That's debatable. I have to think of situations like one I saw in the news recently where some hero decided he should shoot an unarmed robber in the mall. I think there would be far more situations like this if everyone was packing. People aren't always very rational and if every time a major conflict breaks out the guns come out you are going to have a far bigger issue than the occasional terrorist attack. I'm not saying I don't agree that well trained individuals shouldn't be able to carry and provide safety to everyone around them, but I don't think the grand majority of the populous would be willing to put in the time to have this kind of training. Even if everyone has a gun, handling a terrorist in a crowded space can be a very tricky ordeal and you could easily have people killing each other with crossfire if everyone is trying to take them out.