Posted on 03/25/2018 10:48:12 PM PDT by blueplum
The charts were fine. The article was a crock of shit. They claimed countries that had fewer guns had fewer people killed. How many civilian guns were there in various dictatorships which murdered millions?
Now recalculate to include those. Now what do your numbers look like business insider? The Leftist gun grabbers always want to try to pretend only murders by private actors count.....never mind that governments are invariably the biggest killers and never mind that the second amendment is specifically meant to deter tyrannical government.
Suicides account for around 2/3rds of gun deaths.
How many of those suicides are from taking pain meds away from Chronic pain patients who have no other recourse and lose all hope and can’t stand to live in a bed or wheelchair the rest of their lives and a simple trip to the Dr is 3 days in bed to recoup?
Vets Fight Back It’s not just for Veteran’s but all chronic pain Patients. https://www.facebook.com/
“But it clearly shows that gun violence in the US is a leading cause of death...”
“Leading”? Were they looking at the same chart I was looking at?
Also...I read yesterday (FR) that 11 teenagers die each day from texting while driving. Are there rallies scheduled to oppose that?
Punchable, very Punchable
So there was a notable increase in mass shootings and deaths from 2015 to 2016, with drops to both in 2017.
... it that’s it what they said. They only said there that if guns are available, people use guns.
It is deceptive in that, as you point out, it covers over and dismisses all of the other means by which people murder.
Discount gangbangers and gun violence is the lowest worldwide, minus a handful of really tiny countries my neighborhood could beatup.
That would be an interesting chart. Murders/zip code. I would bet it would be really eye-opening.
I can’t really add much to this thread. I’m pretty sure I don’t own any firearms. I lost them all in a boating accident; no, wait: I never had any. Yeah, I never had any.
This seems misleading to me. If only 1 in 315 die from firearms, but 1 out of 108 die via "any motor vehicle accident," then death by motor vehicles is about 3 times more likely than by guns. But the article has another category for deaths by motor vehicles, that of "riding inside a car, truck, or van," which the article uses for the statement,
"Assaults by firearm kill about 13,000 people in the US each year, which translates to a roughly 1-in-315 lifetime chance of death from gun violence. That's about 50% more likely than the lifetime risk of dying while riding inside a car, truck, or van."
In addition, the shock value title "Gun violence is a leading cause of death in America" is also misleading, since it comes in at #18 out of 48, which in a car race is hardly among the "leading."
And what is ignored is that as far as intentional specific activities are concerned (versus such things as deaths by heart or lung disease, or cancer, which come in at #1,2.4), then death by drugs (1 out of 72) and alcohol (1 out of 123) are more likely than by guns.
But where is the cry for banning drugs and alcohol by those who want guns banned?
Moreover, "Motor vehicle fatality is the leading cause of accident death among teenagers, representing over one-third of all deaths to teenagers." And while claiming to abhor the taking of lives, suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among teenagers. - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db37.htm
Of course, the real problem is not guns but the character of those who misuse them, which is that of not raising them up in the way they should go according to Scripture, and which lack of and poor character is that same thing behind the protests, and the undisciplined foul-mouth inane rants of kids such as David Hoggs.
But such were some of us, and may God peradventure grant them "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
1 in 123 murder ?
A lot more than I would have thought.
“Opportunity. (Attacker is in your space. Within 21 feet)”
Attacker an be at 50 feet or 30 yards - IF he is “attacking”. And IF that attack has a reasonable chance of resulting in serious injury or death to you or to another innocent person.
“In Arizona, you are justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other’s use, or attempted use, of unlawful deadly physical force against you. For example, if someone is threatening you with deadly force, such as a knife, bat, or a gun, you may use a level of physical force which may kill them in order stop them from harming you. However, deadly physical force does not require a weapon. If someone has you pinned down and is choking you, you would probably be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself....
... You do not have a duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force if you are in a place where you may legally be and you are not engaged in an unlawful act. Surprised? All that Stand Your Ground means is that you do not have to run away if you would be otherwise justified to use deadly force.”
https://www.davismiles.com/arizona-self-defense-and-the-truth-about-stand-your-ground/
“Space” is relative. Certainly not 21 feet.
And since the author makes a distinction btwn deaths "any motor vehicle incident," and deaths by "riding inside a car, truck, or van," then why not make a distinction btwn deaths by hand guns vs rifles? But as my post above argues, the author is looking for shock value.
As with any instrument, it is the heart that determines how it will be used, for good or for evil, and character is mainly shaped in the home, which is the problem behind school shootings as well as the ignorant protests promoted by the liberal elite.
Who may vainly invoke Switzerland in arguing for socialism but ignore the cultural aspects that contrast it with their open borders fantasy, and making gun ownership the problem.
Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings
Not to mention that that risk of murder by firearm depends a WHOLE LOT on just where you live.
It would be number ONE; but the HEADING for the odds says LIFETIME.
I guess since the dead human (soon to be a student in 5-6 years) hasn't achieved LIFE yet; they can just ignore it.
The odds are about 1 in 4 that a pregnancy will end with yet an other dead future American citizen.
Do you realize there would be about 743 MORE of you in that school if CHOICE hadn't killed them while you were allowed to be born?
It is sad you lost 17 of your classmates that fateful day.
But have you considered that about 3,300 future American students were KILLED that same day?
Have you stopped to consider why YOUR lives matter more than the unborn?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
