Gun death math?

[Nojoy621]

So there is roughly 300 million guns in the country, and in 2016 there was 36252 gun related deaths, include legal intervention, homicide, accidental, suicide, and "undetermined" (info pulled from Everytown for gun safety website.)

lets pretend a different gun was used for each death.

0.0001208% of the guns in this country were used to kill someone. And 60% of those deaths (roughly 22k) were suicide.

can some one explain where the gun problem is?

 

[jamil]

So there is roughly 300 million guns in the country, and in 2016 there was 36252 gun related deaths, include legal intervention, homicide, accidental, suicide, and "undetermined" (info pulled from Everytown for gun safety website.)

lets pretend a different gun was used for each death.

0.0001208% of the guns in this country were used to kill someone. And 60% of those deaths (roughly 22k) were suicide.

can some one explain where the gun problem is?

The gun problem is that we have them. If you don’t like that. It’s a problem for you. That’s the gun problem in a nutshell.

 

[churchmouse]

The gun problem is that we have them. If you don’t like that. It’s a problem for you. That’s the gun problem in a nutshell.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Mgderf]

So there is roughly 300 million guns in the country, and in 2016 there was 36252 gun related deaths, include legal intervention, homicide, accidental, suicide, and "undetermined" (info pulled from Everytown for gun safety website.)

lets pretend a different gun was used for each death.

0.0001208% of the guns in this country were used to kill someone. And 60% of those deaths (roughly 22k) were suicide.

can some one explain where the gun problem is?

This should nullify the argument.
"Everytown", really?
Why not get your data from the View instead?

 

[Nojoy621]

This should nullify the argument.
"Everytown", really?
Why not get your data from the View instead?

they pull their info from cdc and fbi reports, plus if I pull the info from a pro gun control source and the numbers are still that stupid, liberals can't say the evil pro gun folks are making up the numbers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Playing Devil's advocate, how many deaths, during that time, were related to terrorism in the United Stats? And yet, you'll find more complaints and encouragement about "doing something," relating to terrorism, than firearm violence. Given the minuscule amount of terror-related deaths compared to firearm deaths, why is terrorism considered a problem?

 

[jamil]

Playing Devil's advocate, how many deaths, during that time, were related to terrorism in the United Stats? And yet, you'll find more complaints and encouragement about "doing something," relating to terrorism, than firearm violence. Given the minuscule amount of terror-related deaths compared to firearm deaths, why is terrorism considered a problem?

I get the point, but I think it has to do with the randomness, generally, especially for these mass killings. Terrorism is a little different. They’re not just killing people but trying to use the brutality as a way to strike fear to intimidate people. It seems like the mass shootings are often people just lashing out.

I think there’s nothing wrong with wanting something done about either. But in either case I don’t want the solution to be taking rights away from citizens.

 

[dvd1955]

... in 2016 there was 36252 gun related deaths..

For the record, I am against more gun regulations, but seriously, it seems like you are saying 36 thousand deaths is acceptable. It seems to me that we in the "gun culture", (me included) would be better served to actively work to reduce gun deaths, by means other than regulations, than to argue that there is an acceptable level of gun deaths.

BTW, I try to make this same argument at work about injuries. We have a "goal" of 3.72 Medical Incident Rate (MIR) this year. In other words, some amount of injuries is acceptable. I believe our goal should be 0.00, and have voiced that opinion. Our goal went up this year, because we didn't meet the goal last year. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I guess my line of thinking is "What can we do, as INGO members-en-masse, to reduce gun deaths in Indiana?" I'm not the right person to get something like this rolling, but maybe one of us is. Could INGO become a leading organization in something like this?

 

[Kutnupe14]

For the record, I am against more gun regulations, but seriously, it seems like you are saying 36 thousand deaths is acceptable. It seems to me that we in the "gun culture", (me included) would be better served to actively work to reduce gun deaths, by means other than regulations, than to argue that there is an acceptable level of gun deaths.

BTW, I try to make this same argument at work about injuries. We have a "goal" of 3.72 Medical Incident Rate (MIR) this year. In other words, some amount of injuries is acceptable. I believe our goal should be 0.00, and have voiced that opinion. Our goal went up this year, because we didn't meet the goal last year. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I guess my line of thinking is "What can we do, as INGO members-en-masse, to reduce gun deaths in Indiana?" I'm not the right person to get something like this rolling, but maybe one of us is. Could INGO become a leading organization in something like this?

It could, if people weren't so willing to be dismissive and and simply say "well, what can we do.?"

 

[HoughMade]

Well, what can we do?

Easy question.

Let's hear some practical answers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, what can we do?

Easy question.

Let's hear some practical answers.

Personally, given my history admittedly skewed interactions, I honestly don't think people care. I really don't. It's not them, so it's not their problem. It makes for good tv, and re-energizes people before bodies are even cold to issue the warning "they better not try and do this," rather than "how do we solve this." If the problem immediately takes a backseat, to this is going to happen if... the problem will never be solved.

 

[jamil]

It could, if people weren't so willing to be dismissive and and simply say "well, what can we do.?"

Well, what can we do?

Easy question.

Let's hear some practical answers.

Yeah. What can we do? That's not the same thing as dismissing the problem.

The issue is that there's not a law we can pass to get people to behave differently short of literal tyranny. People hear those numbers and some people want to throw gun control at them. And that's just not a solution. And those people aren't willing to talk about actual solutions, because it doesn't include the one they want.

I'm not sure what the solution is to mass shootings, but I am sure that the way to reach it looks a lot more like working closer to the source of the problem than the tools used, and contrary to the insane opinions of late night talk show hosts, the tools used aren't the source of the problem.

First we have to realize that we're not going to solve the problem of violence. It is an inherent trait in every human. Most humans have overcome this tendency. It's probably unlikely that all will. But to get more humans to overcome this tendency seems to be the most logical place to start. So we should work down a rank-ordered category of those statistics and ask more focused questions.

Suicide: why do people kill themselves? What can we do to reduce the number of people who want to do it? Or should we help people do it legally so they don't have to resort to violent means themselves? At least this isn't Japan. I'd hate to be the train station employee that has to clean that up.

Accidents: What can we do to reduce those? Seems like education would be a good place to start.

Gang violence: what can we do to get kids out of gangs?

Domestic/social violence: Jealousy, greed, abusive partners, warring neighbors, what can we do to reduce this kind of violence?

Random/mass murder: What dark state must people be in to decide to do this?

 

[jamil]

Personally, given my history admittedly skewed interactions, I honestly don't think people care. I really don't. It's not them, so it's not their problem. It makes for good tv, and re-energizes people before bodies are even cold to issue the warning "they better not try and do this," rather than "how do we solve this." If the problem immediately takes a backseat, to this is going to happen if... the problem will never be solved.

The problem immediately takes a backseat because people can't let crises go to waste. In almost all of these kinds of shootings, when people start talking about causes, and solutions to those causes, gun the control zealots come out and shame people for daring to talk about mental health and other causes, and start pushing gun control.

How can we have a discussion about it when before the discussion starts, before any causes are determined, ideologues already have a solution they want to push.

Sure. We can have a discussion about these mass murders, as long as we talk about gun control as the solution. Well, **** that. And I'm not saying that to say I don't care that it's happening. I'm just frustrated because we can't actually talk about IT.

 

[Libertarian01]

We could do a lot, if we wanted to. It would take time on folks behalf, and some money.

We have an existing forum with hundreds of members. This allows for communication. Communication facilitates organization. Organization focused in a direction equals political power. So we could start small and grow.

First we would need some people to organize. Then to educate themselves on what would really work, not what we wanted to work. Then form outreach to facilitate the adoption of programs that would target certain areas of concern that would be the easiest to address, like going after the low hanging fruit.

Here is an article posted elsewhere on INGO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin....html?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.7965e40dc3a1

In it there are several suggestions to reduce gun violence that have nothing to do with gun control. It would be best to learn more, possibly by contacting and interviewing the author to learn more. Then follow up self education, then organize to share that information and get people outside of INGO involved.

Now all we need are some folks with the drive, time, and money to make it happen.

Note, when I am talking about money I am initially talking simply gas money to get together, a few bucks for a luncheon, etc. I am not talking thousands or even hundreds of dollars.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

If I suggested that we exhort people to care about others as much as they care about themselves, I think the left would be with me until they figured out that this sounds shockingly like the second greatest commandment....which is kinda useless without the greatest commandment, then I'd be considered a close-minded kook....even moreso.

 

[cosermann]

... And 60% of those deaths (roughly 22k) were suicide. ...

And the U.S. is 48th on the list of countries by suicide rate (with countries "ahead" of us, like Japan, that have virtually 0 private gun ownership), even though we are an order of magnitude higher than anyone else in the rate of gun ownership. Ergo - no relationship between firearms ownership and suicide rate.

 

[IndyGlockMan]

The thing I don't like about these studies is that they make the gun look like it's the one at fault for deaths and it encourages the mindset that believes banning guns will stop guns from killing people.
It's the wrong way to approach the issue but it feeds their angst and reckless belief in Utopian solutions.

 

[Gabriel]

Personally, given my history admittedly skewed interactions, I honestly don't think people care. I really don't. It's not them, so it's not their problem. It makes for good tv, and re-energizes people before bodies are even cold to issue the warning "they better not try and do this," rather than "how do we solve this." If the problem immediately takes a backseat, to this is going to happen if... the problem will never be solved.

It's because the subject is so polarizing. I will admit that after something like Las Vegas happens I see all the gun control rhetoric come out of the woodwork and I have no use for those people. Could I get past it to work with them? I don't know. The problem is that their solution is tightening gun regulations and that is something I will not compromise on. I'm fine if the solution is something other than firearm restrictions, but even then if it is mental health related you start suggestion limiting gun rights to certain groups based on "mental illness'. The conversation would be far more complicated than most would like to admit.

 

[WanderingSol07]

If you look at CDC numbers, and make your own list of "tools that kill", you will be surprised (or not) by the ranking of guns (tools that are made specifically to kill). Cars of course are at the top of the list, but industrial tools, such as forklifts, bulldozers, backhoes, and such make a fairly large contribution. It is amazing that just about every death by gun makes the news, but the yearly death of the population of a small city by cars is not a big deal. Good thing gun makers don't have to make guns safe like cars, there would be four safeties and three triggers otherwise!

 

[Gabriel]

If you look at CDC numbers, and make your own list of "tools that kill", you will be surprised (or not) by the ranking of guns (tools that are made specifically to kill). Cars of course are at the top of the list, but industrial tools, such as forklifts, bulldozers, backhoes, and such make a fairly large contribution. It is amazing that just about every death by gun makes the news, but the yearly death of the population of a small city by cars is not a big deal. Good thing gun makers don't have to make guns safe like cars, there would be four safeties and three triggers otherwise!

You already stated the reason. Vehicles have a primary purpose that isn't firing a small projectile out of a barrel a xxxx FPS. That's the argument you'll get from the opposite side (see how I naturally made them the enemy?), and they aren't exactly wrong.