What did this family not have that it needed?

[piscator]

The CDC lists 346,925 nonfatal injuries due to "Dog Bites" in 2013

Code: Select all

 Overall Dog Bite Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
2013, United States, All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Disposition: All Cases
 
 

Number of
injuries 	Population 	Crude Rate
346,925 	316,128,839 	109.74

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

[JimC]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... post-says/

Avtomat

The reference above details how it is that about 100,000 people receive a bullet each year. They added up 104,000, but 100,000 is a nice round number.

This reference you showing include people who give bullet to self, also not mention if maybe people bit giving bullet to self is criminal get shot by criminal, or get shot by police. Is clear you want for people to think normal American person dodging bullets on way back and forth to office, but your numbers not proving this at all!

There is little doubt that the number is much higher than in comparable western countries with more stringent gun regulations. Collector and others have given the honest answer that, even if US gun laws lead to a significant increase in gun deaths, their freedom to own guns trumps any other consideration.

[Blind groper]

This reference you showing include people who give bullet to self, also not mention if maybe people bit giving bullet to self is criminal get shot by criminal, or get shot by police. Is clear you want for people to think normal American person dodging bullets on way back and forth to office, but your numbers not proving this at all!

That is because I was not trying to prove that. My statement was simply that about 100,000 Americans get a bullet pass through some part of their anatomy each year, and that is correct. That means 1 in 50 at some stage in their life receive a bullet.

The thing about gun suicide attempts is that 90% result in fatality. Of the 100,000 mentioned, about 70,000 are woundings rather than fatalities, and almost none of the woundings come from suicide attempts.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

This reference you showing include people who give bullet to self, also not mention if maybe people bit giving bullet to self is criminal get shot by criminal, or get shot by police. Is clear you want for people to think normal American person dodging bullets on way back and forth to office, but your numbers not proving this at all!

That is because I was not trying to prove that. My statement was simply that about 100,000 Americans get a bullet pass through some part of their anatomy each year, and that is correct. That means 1 in 50 at some stage in their life receive a bullet.

The thing about gun suicide attempts is that 90% result in fatality. Of the 100,000 mentioned, about 70,000 are woundings rather than fatalities, and almost none of the woundings come from suicide attempts.

Also is officer like this:

What did this man have that he didn't need?

[piscator]

Code: Select all

 Unintentional Poisoning Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
2013, United States, All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Disposition: All Cases
 
 

Number of injuries 	Population 	Crude Rate
         1,055,960 	    316,128,839 	     334.03

Wow, 10x the number of people who have bullet-related injuries poison themselves unintentionally in America. One would have to surmise that the majority of these cases involve children who aren't suicidal.

[Seth]

Seth

You started this thread, and started it in a forum section other than gun club. You have no "right" to object.

I have every right to object. And I do object. so fuck off.

Couple of other points.
1. 100,000 is the correct number for the people each year in the USA who receive a bullet through some part of their anatomy. Roughly 14,000 of them are suicides or attempted suicides. 12,000 are murders.[/quote]

Last time it was 8000 murders. Padding your stats again I see.

There are a few gun accidents, and a few police killings.

Very few.

The rest are wounds caused mainly by would-be murderers,but with a few accidental woundings.

Liar. Now you're double counting accidental woundings and gun accidents.

When you take 100,000 per year, and multiply by 79 (average American life span) and divide by population and make an allowance for some people being shot twice, you end up with 1 in 50 Americans receiving a bullet some time in their life span.

That's what you get when you're an idiot who doesn't understand statistics, but it's still wrong.

2. The USA has the highest, by far, murder rate in the western world.

One which continues to drop every year as more and more guns (by the millions) fall into the hands of law-abiding citizens who carry them for protection.

Finland is second highest, but has half the rate. Excluding Switzerland, there is a nice clear relationship among all the developed countries, of murder rate is correlated to gun ownership.

Cherry picking statistical bilge. Once again, for the record, if what you claim were even remotely true the American firearms murder rate would be skyrocketing because there are tens of millions more guns in our society today than there were even 15 years ago. Contrary to your idiotic analysis, murder rates, and indeed violent crime rates continue to decline as more and more guns are carried by law-abiding citizens.

That's a very simple and verifiable fact that you have consistently ignored in your lame attempts to support your silly claims.

[laklak]

1 in 50, eh? I love statistics. I'm 60 and have met a lot of people in my life, I don't know how many but it's a LOT more than 50. I do know three people who have been shot. My dad when he committed suicide, a guy who picked up a shotgun pellet while hunting, and a co-worker who got hit in the leg during Operation Just Cause in Panama. He was a spectacularly unlucky guy, as there were over 25,000 U.S. troops involved and only about 300 wounded.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

About changes in murder rate.

The biggest change in murder rate over my lifetime, anyway, is related to the baby boom. It is well known that most murders are done by young men between late teens and early 30's.

Well the baby boom created a large number of young men of that age group, starting late 1960's and ending early 1990's.

Surprise, surprise, the murder rate followed that exactly. Murders went up on a per capita basis in the late 1060's and started dropping in the early 1990's.

I am aware that the NRA, and all its stooges are trying to say the drop in murder rate from the early 1990's was due to having more guns. Duh!!

But you may wish to note that this drop in murder rate happened simultaneously all over the western world. In fact, everywhere where the baby boom made a difference to age demographics of the population. In other words, the drop in murders had precisely zero to do with any increase in guns.

[piscator]

1 in 50, eh? I love statistics. I'm 60 and have met a lot of people in my life, I don't know how many but it's a LOT more than 50. I do know three people who have been shot. My dad when he committed suicide, a guy who picked up a shotgun pellet while hunting, and a co-worker who got hit in the leg during Operation Just Cause in Panama. He was a spectacularly unlucky guy, as there were over 25,000 U.S. troops involved and only about 300 wounded.

I know a Marine who got half his ass blown off in Beirut. Does a dump truck load of Semtex, amfo, and bottles of chlorine gas count as "Firearm Related"?

[Seth]

To Seth

About changes in murder rate.

The biggest change in murder rate over my lifetime, anyway, is related to the baby boom. It is well known that most murders are done by young men between late teens and early 30's.

So what?

Well the baby boom created a large number of young men of that age group, starting late 1960's and ending early 1990's.

Yup. Many of them dependent class welfare recipients who formed street gangs.

Surprise, surprise, the murder rate followed that exactly. Murders went up on a per capita basis in the late 1060's and started dropping in the early 1990's.

Useless claim. You have to look at more than the raw numbers to understand why this sort of thing might occur. The main reason for the jump in crime is the welfare system that destroyed the black family and left millions of unemployed and unemployable black youths with nothing better to do than kill one another in gang warfare.

I am aware that the NRA, and all its stooges are trying to say the drop in murder rate from the early 1990's was due to having more guns. Duh!!

Maybe, maybe not. What is incontrovertible however is that the murder rate has not gone up with the addition of more than a hundred million firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Instead the murder rate has declined and continues to do so. This puts paid to your silly and ignorant theory.

But you may wish to note that this drop in murder rate happened simultaneously all over the western world. In fact, everywhere where the baby boom made a difference to age demographics of the population. In other words, the drop in murders had precisely zero to do with any increase in guns.

And since there is, as you falsely maintain, zero increase in murders due to an increase in guns in society, there is no need, demonstrable or otherwise, to further regulate or restrict access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Thanks for destroying your core argument so effectively.

Bye now!

[Blind groper]

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-r ... homicides/

Boston University found that states with more guns had more gun homicides.

Simple. More guns mean more killings with guns. Duh!

[Seth]

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-r ... homicides/

Boston University found that states with more guns had more gun homicides.

And which way is the trend going? Down. Despite an increase in the number of guns.

Here's an example of the horseshit data they used: "State levels of gun ownership were estimated using a well-established proxy variable: the percentage of a state’s suicides that are committed with a firearm."

It's not a well established proxy value except in the minds of hoplophobes and gun-haters because it falsely assumes that the number of guns in society is proportional to the number of gun suicides, which is utterly impossible to prove, and therefore makes their results, as I said, horseshit.

Simple.

Yes, you are. So are your anti-gun shills.

More guns mean more killings with guns. Duh!

Except it doesn't.

[piscator]

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-r ... homicides/

Boston University found that states with more guns had more gun homicides.

Simple. More guns mean more killings with guns. Duh!

State levels of gun ownership were estimated using a well-established proxy variable: the percentage of a state’s suicides that are committed with a firearm (FS/S). Because there is no state-level survey that measures household gun ownership, researchers have widely relied upon the FS/S proxy in injury prevention research, and this proxy has been extensively validated in past studies. The proxy correlates highly with survey measures of household firearm ownership, the authors said.


Paper behind paywall. Nor p or R values cited. A sample scatter plot would be nice.

I wonder how injury by unintentional poisoning correlates to suicide by firearm?

[laklak]

Ah, it's all making sense now! More suicides means more firearms, more firearms means more suicides.

One question, though. If there are no state-level surveys measuring household gun ownership, then how do they know the suicide rate is a valid proxy variable?

Hang on, found it:

... the authors said.

[piscator]

Ah, it's all making sense now! More suicides means more firearms, more firearms means more suicides.

One question, though. If there are no state-level surveys measuring household gun ownership, then how do they know the suicide rate is a valid proxy variable?

Hang on, found it:

... the authors said.

I still say busybody Kiwis could save a lot more American lives by educating us about household and industrial poisoning.