statistics to use with people scared of being shot by so called assault rifles

[rci2950]

I realise old stats but i will get to that

i have been searching thorough stats for US rifle deaths in 2000 on

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2000

And contained within that site i have found that in the year 2000, 396 people died from being shot by a rifle. Thats any rifle including those fired by police.

now the reason for the old stats

All I could find on this was from 2000

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

650 people died from falling off furniture (falling out of bed)

Fall on same level from slipping, tripping and stumbling 565

Drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub 341


just something to dabble in when arguing with someone who is terrified of being shot with a skeery assault rifle.

If anyone has more to add please by all means. We should arm ourselves with facts in order to stop this madness.

[NAPOTS]

I have seen these stats as well. I have also seen it quoted that annually only about 350 people are killed by rifles on average.

In comparison alcohol is involved in the deaths of 80,000 people annually.

[rci2950]

In comparison alcohol is involved in the deaths of 80,000 people annually.

I find the ridiculous ones are more effective at easing worry of the timid. We all know tobacco and alcohol is a terrible killer. But finding out you are statistically more likely to drown in the tub then be shot by a deranged psychopath with an assault rifle is almost comical and sinks in better.

[NAPOTS]

But to save one child, just one, shouldn't we do something?

You take that logic far enough and we will all be locked up in rubber rooms with drains in the floor guarded by DHS agents and our food brought to us by FEMA personnel..... for our safety

[Kadmos]

Personally I've never found those arguments to be all that convincing to me or to anyone else really.

The problem is there are different types of risks, acceptable risks, preventable risks, manageable risks.

It's like the bathtub thing...

First, what are you going to do, never clean yourself? You know you're going to have to bathe or shower.

Second, societal pressures and general market demands have increased bathtub safety over the years. You started with just a tub, then later came a drain, then a drain plug that overcame the weight of the water by mechanical advantage and a lever, then textured floor surfaces to minimize slipping. And of course you can take it further if you want and instal additional safety rails, seats, etc. if you feel it necessary, particularly if you are older, ill, or disabled.

And finally it's a risk that you decide to take....strange people don't generally walk up to people and randomly bathe them which may cause them to accidentally drown or be injured.

[NAPOTS]

Then what are you willing to risk? I'd say sacrificing my right to self defense it not an acceptable risk mitigation.

[l921428x]

I find the ridiculous ones are more effective at easing worry of the timid. We all know tobacco and alcohol is a terrible killer. But finding out you are statistically more likely to drown in the tub then be shot by a deranged psychopath with an assault rifle is almost comical and sinks in better.

If it was all rifles, why do you say assault rifle? No such thing by the way. We have to be able to talk with correct terms.

[l921428x]

John Lott Jr. More guns less crime. ISBN 0-226-49363-6

[Kadmos]

Then what are you willing to risk? I'd say sacrificing my right to self defense it not an acceptable risk mitigation.

No, of course it's not acceptable. I assume at least part of the reason we all own guns is to mitigate other risks.

I'm just saying I don't think that argument end up being very persuasive.

It's like the doctors kill more people than guns argument. While it may be true, people tend to shrug it off as a silly argument as the doctors are obviously trying to save lives.

Or the registered machine guns are basically never used in crimes argument, it's actually a better argument FOR registration.

[l921428x]

Dead is dead. it does not matter how it happens. Bee stings to car crashes to asbestos to lightening strikes. Numbers don't lie but liars use numbers. Death is the same no matter how it happens. So whether the "argument ends up being very persuasive" or not...you're dead.

[Kadmos]

Dead is dead. it does not matter how it happens. Bee stings to car crashes to asbestos to lightening strikes. Numbers don't lie but liars use numbers. Death is the same no matter how it happens. So whether the "argument ends up being very persuasive" or not...you're dead.


Sorry but by that logic we might as well eat our young, I mean they were going to either be shot, hit by lightening, or die of old age at some point right?

[l921428x]

Yep that is true. Nobody gets out alive but to ignore numbers or stats because you can shows intellectual dishonesty. I you have 100 people and 3 use drugs that is 3%, now if the next time you look 6 use drugs it is only 6% that use drugs. But if you use the language another way, you all of a sudden have a 100% rise in drug usage. My God we have an epidemic! Even though it is only 6 out of a 100.

But the numbers can be used to tell a overly exaggerated story.

[ltorlo64]

The deal with alcohol is that, with the exception of drunk driving, there is no attempt to correlate the use of alcohol with other items that kill. For example, of the 350 or so people killed every year by "assault weapons" how many happened because the shooter was drunk? How many happened, because, like happened here in Virginia recently, a drunk person decides to break into a house and gets shot? I think alcohol is a contributor in many more preventable deaths and criminally caused deaths than even the statistics portray. If I am right then, once again government us looking in the wrong place to have any useful outcome.

[Cypher]

Good job on looking up some info.

gunfacts.info is also a great source of information and statistics to combat anti gun people.



As far as comparing rifle deaths with drowning and what not. All you have to do is look at how many people are killed from assault, knives, other melee weapons, how many people are killed by drunk drivers, how many killed by drunk people, the list goes on. There is a plethora of good examples to show the idiocy of anti gun advocates.

The reason for looking at statistics like slip and fall deaths is to show how stupid it is for dims to act like rifle deaths are the new holocaust when in fact is is minute when there are plenty of other problems that cause a lot more deaths.

[Gunner1558]

I have seen these stats as well. I have also seen it quoted that annually only about 350 people are killed by rifles on average.

In comparison alcohol is involved in the deaths of 80,000 people annually.

I'm quite certain there is some dumb word play can be done here, using the word "shooters", but I'm "drawing" a "blank".

[NAPOTS]

The deal with alcohol is that, with the exception of drunk driving, there is no attempt to correlate the use of alcohol with other items that kill. For example, of the 350 or so people killed every year by "assault weapons" how many happened because the shooter was drunk? How many happened, because, like happened here in Virginia recently, a drunk person decides to break into a house and gets shot? I think alcohol is a contributor in many more preventable deaths and criminally caused deaths than even the statistics portray. If I am right then, once again government us looking in the wrong place to have any useful outcome.

absolutely, there is a ton of overlap. There is no way to know if a particular death would have happened in the same situation if alcohol wasn't involved.

[coppertales]

But to save one child, just one, shouldn't we do something?

You take that logic far enough and we will all be locked up in rubber rooms with drains in the floor guarded by DHS agents and our food brought to us by FEMA personnel..... for our safety

If taking away our guns will save the live of one child, why are all these idiots pro choice? chris3

[NAPOTS]

If taking away our guns will save the live of one child, why are all these idiots pro choice? chris3

If you are the one writing the rules, you write them the way you want and decide that they aren't children yet.

I have noticed they have quite a strategey and much patience for pushing an issue and convincing people that it is a normal viewpoint. Look what they have done with gay marriage in the last 25 years.

[Cypher]

If taking away our guns will save the live of one child, why are all these idiots pro choice? chris3

Yep. And what about the millions of people that defend themselves and families every year.

[5.56NATO]

No, of course it's not acceptable. I assume at least part of the reason we all own guns is to mitigate other risks.

I'm just saying I don't think that argument end up being very persuasive.

It's like the doctors kill more people than guns argument. While it may be true, people tend to shrug it off as a silly argument as the doctors are obviously trying to save lives.

Or the registered machine guns are basically never used in crimes argument, it's actually a better argument FOR registration.

Facts and rational thought seldom have any effect on sheeple.