I found these stats interesting

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Saw someone post this in a comments section of an article about the LV shooting. The person who posted it said it was copied and gave no reference, so I cannot give credit to the unknown author. Also, I did not check any numbers for accuracy.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
GOOD FIND 9. :Thumbsup:
HOW MANY LIVES DO HOSPITALS SAVE?
(SEEMS A FAIR QUESTION)
HOW MANY GUN DEATHS WERE STOPPED DO TO A HOSPITAL SAVING THEM?
HOW MANY HEART DISEASE PATIENTS LIVED BECAUSE OF HOSPITAL CARE?
HOW MANY LIVES DOES OWNING A GUN SAVE EVERY YEAR?
(A COMPARISON SEEMS ONLY FAIR)
SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT BECOME CRIMINALS IF THEY DIDNT HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS.
(BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DONT HAVE A BACKBONE WITHOUT A GUN)
WITHOUT ACCESS TO GUNS ACCIDENTAL DISCHRAGE IS ERASED.
WITHOUT ACCESS TO GUNS SUICIDE RATE MAY BE LOWERED.
(FALLS UNDER BACKBONE THING)
THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY HAD NO IDEA WHAT SHAPE THEIR COUNTRY WOULD BE
IN TODAY OR THEY MAY HAVE HAD DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON THIS SITUATION.
I DONT BELIEVE THAT TAKING GUNS AWAY FROM CITIZENS IS THE ANSWER, BUT WHAT IS
TAKING PLACE IN AMERICA TODAY SURE ISNT WORKING.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Fair arguments, WAMO.

Recently we watched "Super Size Me", a documentary on Sugar (similar to Supersize Me, but the guy purposely eats only foods marketed as "healthy", while making sure he ingests the avg. amt of Sugar each adult eats in Australia per day), and just tonight "Food Inc." So the mention of heart disease in my original post stands out.

If our government is serious about preventing avoidable death, then surely they wouldn't keep taking all the bribe money from the food lobbyists and allowing what is happening with our food. In my mind, they're all interwoven: food makes us sick, which increases revenue for the health care industry, which refers business to the pharmaceutical industry, and of course puts billions of dollars into the insurance industry. They all have to be in cahoots to pull this off! They are in charge, control nearly every facet of our lives (to some extent).

So where does this rant go? It points to a serious question; Why are they so concerned about gun deaths when it is already well established our well being means absolutely nothing to them?
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
AGREE WITH THAT 9. LOOK WHAT TV SPONSORS AND EVENT SPONSERS DID WITH CIGARETTES YEARS AGO. IF THEY SAY THEY CANT CONTROL THIS OR THAT, IT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Fair arguments, WAMO.

Recently we watched "Super Size Me", a documentary on Sugar (similar to Supersize Me, but the guy purposely eats only foods marketed as "healthy", while making sure he ingests the avg. amt of Sugar each adult eats in Australia per day), and just tonight "Food Inc." So the mention of heart disease in my original post stands out.

If our government is serious about preventing avoidable death, then surely they wouldn't keep taking all the bribe money from the food lobbyists and allowing what is happening with our food. In my mind, they're all interwoven: food makes us sick, which increases revenue for the health care industry, which refers business to the pharmaceutical industry, and of course puts billions of dollars into the insurance industry. They all have to be in cahoots to pull this off! They are in charge, control nearly every facet of our lives (to some extent).

So where does this rant go? It points to a serious question; Why are they so concerned about gun deaths when it is already well established our well being means absolutely nothing to them?
They're complaining about gun deaths because the vast majority of them are quick, and don't make any money for big pharm. The gov, and big pharm would rather you die of diabetes or cancer so it takes a long time and nets them billions in the process.
 
Top