8 ms·

"gun-related deaths": There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, this number is not disputed. U.S. population 328 million as of January 2

"gun-related deaths": There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, this number is not disputed. U.S. population 328 million as of January 2018. Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. What is not insignificant, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths: • 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws. • 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion. • 489 (2%) are accidental. So "gun violence" isn't 30,000 annually, but 5,577... 0.0017% of the population. Still too many? Let's look at location: • 298 (5%) - St Louis, MO • 327 (6%) - Detroit, MI • 328 (6%) - Baltimore, MD • 764 (14%) - Chicago, IL That's over 30% of all gun crime in just 4 cities. But what about other deaths each year? • 70,000+ die from a drug overdose. • 49,000 people die per year from the flu. • 37,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities. • 250,000+ people die each year from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital! • 610,000 people die per year from heart disease. We don't have a gun problem... We have a political agenda and media sensationalism problem.

standeven 7y ago
Yet gun related deaths in the US are still MUCH higher than other countries[1]. 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws. I beg to differ. Gun laws that reduce the number of firearms in homes, and/or reduce the number of guns sold to those with mental health issues, would almost certainly reduce suicide rates. A gun is a dangerously quick, easy, and effective method that sits in the closets of many Americans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
- phendrenad2 7y ago
  That's like saying island countries have more drowning deaths.
  - decebalus1 7y ago
    only if island countries would have the possibility to move to some other inland territories.
  - ueuejdudi 7y ago
    It's not anything like saying that you stupid fuck.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Yet the US suicide rate is very comparable to European nations and countries like Korea and Japan lead in suicides.
mburns 7y ago
>There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, this number is not disputed. "There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before".[1] >Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. 'Deaths per capita' is the more common unit, isn't it? >22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws. As I understand it, suicide-by-gun are more 'successful' than suicide-by-other-means. Each failed attempt is a chance to save that person or for the person to save themselves from trying again in the future. How could gun control laws not potentially impact suicide rate? >• 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion. For some narrow definition of gun control, maybe. There has been talk of the increasing militarization of the police over the last decade+, putting more police in schools in response to school shootings, use of force by police officers in situations that seemingly could have easily avoided it. etc. All seems pretty relevant to the discussion. >Still too many? Yes. Staggeringly so[2]. >That's over 30% of all gun crime in just 4 cities. America has gang/drug/poverty problems that fuel violent crimes. No one is denying that. All part of the gun control discussion. >We don't have a gun problem... Can you please help me understand that in relation to [2]? Because it sure looks like we have a gun problem. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
- pdonis 7y ago
  > it sure looks like we have a gun problem We have a gun problem in certain particular areas; if you remove those areas from the data the rest of the US looks more like Switzerland in terms of gun violence. And all of those areas where there is a gun problem already have gun control laws that are among the toughest in the country. That does not seem like evidence that gun control is the way to solve a gun problem. > America has gang/drug/poverty problems that fuel violent crimes. Which is further evidence that the way to solve the gun problem in the areas that have it is to fix the gang/drug/poverty problem, not gun control. Just ending the war on drugs, all by itself, would be a huge win since it would remove the major incentive for violence associated with drugs.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TomMckenny 7y ago
Given that the grandparent comment was snuffed, apparently the 2nd amendment now even trumps the 1st. And, when the grand-parent says that "some people are in denial" about problems with medical, housing and other costs and problems. Apparently they're not just in conspiracy theory denial but even seek to prevent the merest mentioning of these issues.
jvanderbot 7y ago
I occasionally see a therapist, drive a safe car outside rush hour, avoid drugs, get a flu shot, do not live in areas with high violence statistics, exercise and wear sun screen, but simply have no recourse against most gun violence. The magnitude of risk is commensurate with problems we take head on, but somehow it's wrong to consider gun violence preventable or a worthy issue.
- allovernow 7y ago
  What recourse do you have against a random stabbing? Or a hammer blow to the back of the head? >but somehow it's wrong to consider gun violence preventable or a worthy issue It's not about believing it's worthy, it's minimizing or completely ignoring the tangible and intangible benefits of minimally restricted gun ownership. The cost/benefit analysis is treated only as a cost analysis.
  - jvanderbot 7y ago
    I beleive I'm as prepared as I can be against random stabbings or hammers. Also, I often carry a knife. I'm genuinely curious about the benefits of minimally restricted gun ownership. In a game theoretic sense, theres only two stable power dynamics. 1. Nobody has weapons 2. Everyone does. Otherwise, the power dynamic is so skewed as to be trivially exploitable.
    - pixl97 7y ago
      Since 1 is not possible 2 must be the only option. Firearms are trivially easy to build with any machining experience. Takes a little more chemistry to make gunpowder. That said we've been doing it in far more primitive situations for hundreds of years. If people want to kill you. Simply put, you are dead. Our focus should be on building a world where we dont want to kill each other.
      - jvanderbot 7y ago
        But thats not actually what I asked. What are the benefits of minimally restricted availability of weapons or how do I find a "canonical list" of such benefits? (also, option 2 is not possible either. What you propose is trending towards 2 has some scaling of benefit, and I believe the opposite: that removing as much as possible the possibility of gun violence will have far reaching de-escalating effects on police, politics, health, etc etc.) I just dont have a clear picture of how proliferation of guns helps to prevent gun violence except perhaps in the limiting, unobtainable case where everyone fears immediate lethal reprisal for any violent act?

standeven 7y ago

Yet gun related deaths in the US are still MUCH higher than other countries[1]. 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws. I beg to differ. Gun laws that reduce the number of firearms in homes, and/or reduce the number of guns sold to those with mental health issues, would almost certainly reduce suicide rates. A gun is a dangerously quick, easy, and effective method that sits in the closets of many Americans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

phendrenad2 7y ago
That's like saying island countries have more drowning deaths.
- decebalus1 7y ago
  only if island countries would have the possibility to move to some other inland territories.
- ueuejdudi 7y ago
  It's not anything like saying that you stupid fuck.
vorpalhex 7y ago
Yet the US suicide rate is very comparable to European nations and countries like Korea and Japan lead in suicides.

mburns 7y ago

>There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, this number is not disputed. "There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before".[1] >Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. 'Deaths per capita' is the more common unit, isn't it? >22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws. As I understand it, suicide-by-gun are more 'successful' than suicide-by-other-means. Each failed attempt is a chance to save that person or for the person to save themselves from trying again in the future. How could gun control laws not potentially impact suicide rate? >• 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion. For some narrow definition of gun control, maybe. There has been talk of the increasing militarization of the police over the last decade+, putting more police in schools in response to school shootings, use of force by police officers in situations that seemingly could have easily avoided it. etc. All seems pretty relevant to the discussion. >Still too many? Yes. Staggeringly so[2]. >That's over 30% of all gun crime in just 4 cities. America has gang/drug/poverty problems that fuel violent crimes. No one is denying that. All part of the gun control discussion. >We don't have a gun problem... Can you please help me understand that in relation to [2]? Because it sure looks like we have a gun problem. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

pdonis 7y ago
> it sure looks like we have a gun problem We have a gun problem in certain particular areas; if you remove those areas from the data the rest of the US looks more like Switzerland in terms of gun violence. And all of those areas where there is a gun problem already have gun control laws that are among the toughest in the country. That does not seem like evidence that gun control is the way to solve a gun problem. > America has gang/drug/poverty problems that fuel violent crimes. Which is further evidence that the way to solve the gun problem in the areas that have it is to fix the gang/drug/poverty problem, not gun control. Just ending the war on drugs, all by itself, would be a huge win since it would remove the major incentive for violence associated with drugs.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

TomMckenny 7y ago

Given that the grandparent comment was snuffed, apparently the 2nd amendment now even trumps the 1st. And, when the grand-parent says that "some people are in denial" about problems with medical, housing and other costs and problems. Apparently they're not just in conspiracy theory denial but even seek to prevent the merest mentioning of these issues.

jvanderbot 7y ago

I occasionally see a therapist, drive a safe car outside rush hour, avoid drugs, get a flu shot, do not live in areas with high violence statistics, exercise and wear sun screen, but simply have no recourse against most gun violence. The magnitude of risk is commensurate with problems we take head on, but somehow it's wrong to consider gun violence preventable or a worthy issue.

allovernow 7y ago
What recourse do you have against a random stabbing? Or a hammer blow to the back of the head? >but somehow it's wrong to consider gun violence preventable or a worthy issue It's not about believing it's worthy, it's minimizing or completely ignoring the tangible and intangible benefits of minimally restricted gun ownership. The cost/benefit analysis is treated only as a cost analysis.
- jvanderbot 7y ago
  I beleive I'm as prepared as I can be against random stabbings or hammers. Also, I often carry a knife. I'm genuinely curious about the benefits of minimally restricted gun ownership. In a game theoretic sense, theres only two stable power dynamics. 1. Nobody has weapons 2. Everyone does. Otherwise, the power dynamic is so skewed as to be trivially exploitable.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Since 1 is not possible 2 must be the only option. Firearms are trivially easy to build with any machining experience. Takes a little more chemistry to make gunpowder. That said we've been doing it in far more primitive situations for hundreds of years. If people want to kill you. Simply put, you are dead. Our focus should be on building a world where we dont want to kill each other.
    - jvanderbot 7y ago
      But thats not actually what I asked. What are the benefits of minimally restricted availability of weapons or how do I find a "canonical list" of such benefits? (also, option 2 is not possible either. What you propose is trending towards 2 has some scaling of benefit, and I believe the opposite: that removing as much as possible the possibility of gun violence will have far reaching de-escalating effects on police, politics, health, etc etc.) I just dont have a clear picture of how proliferation of guns helps to prevent gun violence except perhaps in the limiting, unobtainable case where everyone fears immediate lethal reprisal for any violent act?