Something Interesting To Ponder

vant0037 · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Sorry another gun topic but I feel this is an important statistic for all to ponder and not get lost in a thread somewhere. In my mind it really puts things into perspective about US citizen's rights. I really don't understand why people discount comparisons made between gun ownership and vehicle ownership in the United States as being irrelevant. In my mind it's very relevant. I hear and read people talking about if the number of guns are reduced the number of deaths would be reduced. I don't believe that, but let's assume it's true. Can't the same be said about reducing the number of vehicles in the country as well. If a person's justification for being anti-guns is to save lives , shouldn't they also be anti-car? I found these numbers to be an eye opener for me actually.

These are 2009 numbers as they were the easiest to find. If someone wants to search out 2010 or 2011 feel free but I would assume they are pretty close.

2009 Estimated US population was 305,529,237

254,212,610 registered vehicles in the US including passenger cars, commercial vehicles, government vehicles, etc. All of them.

Estimated that there are 270,000,000 guns in the US both legal and registered, legal and unregistered and illegal.

33,308 fatalities in the US by motor vehicle.

9,146 homocides by gun (legal and illegal homicides so that's a legal citizen doing it, police doing it, and criminals committing a crime).

So there's less vehicles and more 3 times more fatalities by vehicle as compared to guns.

I'm not going to get into this one...I'm really, really, really tired of talking about guns. BUT...I think your numbers are still wrong. I can't find anywhere that says (1) there were 9,146 gun murders in 2009, or (2) that those 9,146 INCLUDES "legal homicides." Most statistics on "homicide" are referring to "criminal homicide," which would not include "legal homicides" (such as a police officer shooting someone). That's a valueless stat when you're studying the actual crime rate. Because a legal or justifiable homicide (like an officer shooting someone) isn't illegal, it's not a crime, and therefore (1) not relevant or helpful to an analysis of crime or murder rates, and (2) not collected as a "criminal homicide" in most databases.

So without going any further, I think you've got incorrect numbers, and the numbers you are using, are being used wrong.

The links are in this thread.

The numbers from the FBI and CDC for that year are different than the ones you've provided.

vant0037 · December 2012

As far as I can tell, "gunpolicy.org" is a (1) a site run by or in conjunction with foreign universities (not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that), and (2) cited frequently by posters on pro-gun forums.

Why would that be a more reputable source for information than the FBI or CDC?

DS1119 · December 2012

vant0037 wrote:

The numbers from the FBI and CDC for that year are different than the ones you've provided.

We've had this discussion before. Those numbers include suicides which are separate. I don't consider suicide to be a crime. Very very sad yes. Do I want anyone to commit suicide of course not? But in my mind if someone has reached the point of killing themselves with a gun, even if the gun wasn't there, they would find some other means to do it.

vant0037 · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

The numbers from the FBI and CDC for that year are different than the ones you've provided.

We've had this discussion before. Those numbers include suicides which are separate. I don't consider suicide to be a crime. Very very sad yes. Do I want anyone to commit suicide of course not? But in my mind if someone has reached the point of killing themselves with a gun, even if the gun wasn't there, they would find some other means to do it.

But that doesn't answer why the gunpolicy.org numbers are more accurate than say, the FBI's. As far as I can tell, the FBI's searchable database can be compared with virtually any set of numbers you want (say, for instance, without suicides/justifiable homicides etc).

rollings · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

Sorry another gun topic but I feel this is an important statistic for all to ponder and not get lost in a thread somewhere. In my mind it really puts things into perspective about US citizen's rights. I really don't understand why people discount comparisons made between gun ownership and vehicle ownership in the United States as being irrelevant. In my mind it's very relevant. I hear and read people talking about if the number of guns are reduced the number of deaths would be reduced. I don't believe that, but let's assume it's true. Can't the same be said about reducing the number of vehicles in the country as well. If a person's justification for being anti-guns is to save lives , shouldn't they also be anti-car? I found these numbers to be an eye opener for me actually.

These are 2009 numbers as they were the easiest to find. If someone wants to search out 2010 or 2011 feel free but I would assume they are pretty close.

2009 Estimated US population was 305,529,237

254,212,610 registered vehicles in the US including passenger cars, commercial vehicles, government vehicles, etc. All of them.

Estimated that there are 270,000,000 guns in the US both legal and registered, legal and unregistered and illegal.

33,308 fatalities in the US by motor vehicle.

9,146 homocides by gun (legal and illegal homicides so that's a legal citizen doing it, police doing it, and criminals committing a crime).

So there's less vehicles and more 3 times more fatalities by vehicle as compared to guns.

Strictly scientific analytically speaking, to obtain the true effect-potential* of a product**, comparison would necessarily have to be done on a per-use basis.

*In this case the effect is death
** In this case the products are the gun and the motor vehicle.

To compare on a "per existence" basis is inherently flawed....otherwise a never-used gun holds the same comparative weight as a gun used in war everyday.

If you are truly trying to represent which is more "deadly" you need to go back to the old drawing board as they say.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

Guess what?

The president called on Congress Wednesday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and to pass legislation that would close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check. Obama also said he wanted Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity ammunition clips.

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

see the entire article here: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/soci ... ing/nTZn2/
___

The gun show loophole and internet sales are an easy way to have an AR-15 at your doorstep in a flash.

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Guess what?

The president called on Congress Wednesday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and to pass legislation that would close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check. Obama also said he wanted Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity ammunition clips.

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

see the entire article here: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/soci ... ing/nTZn2/
___

The gun show loophole and internet sales are an easy way to have an AR-15 at your doorstep in a flash.

Good luck with that Obama.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Guess what?

The president called on Congress Wednesday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and to pass legislation that would close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check. Obama also said he wanted Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity ammunition clips.

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

see the entire article here: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/soci ... ing/nTZn2/
___

The gun show loophole and internet sales are an easy way to have an AR-15 at your doorstep in a flash.

Good luck with that Obama.

just curious, do you think guns should be sold over the counter at gun shows and on the internet with no background check and no waiting period?

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Guess what?

The president called on Congress Wednesday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and to pass legislation that would close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check. Obama also said he wanted Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity ammunition clips.

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

see the entire article here: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/soci ... ing/nTZn2/
___

The gun show loophole and internet sales are an easy way to have an AR-15 at your doorstep in a flash.

Good luck with that Obama.

just curious, do you think guns should be sold over the counter at gun shows and on the internet with no background check and no waiting period?

I'm for guns being sold legally.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Good luck with that Obama.

just curious, do you think guns should be sold over the counter at gun shows and on the internet with no background check and no waiting period?

I'm for guns being sold legally.

So that's a "yes" I assume? You're OK with anyone buying a gun at a gun show or over the internet.
Got it.

fife · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Guess what?

The president called on Congress Wednesday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and to pass legislation that would close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check. Obama also said he wanted Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity ammunition clips.

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

see the entire article here: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/soci ... ing/nTZn2/
___

The gun show loophole and internet sales are an easy way to have an AR-15 at your doorstep in a flash.

Good luck with that Obama.

just curious, do you think guns should be sold over the counter at gun shows and on the internet with no background check and no waiting period?

I'm for guns being sold legally.[/quote]

so your answer is yes? since that is legal.

aerial · December 2012

catefrances wrote:

aerial wrote:

catefrances wrote:

embryos are not people.

Then why get rid of it? Why not leave it? Maybe because it means responsibility or consequences. Or on the other hand it reminds some of irresponsible moments.
I am not referencing any crime that may have been committed.

i know plenty about responsibilty, consequence and irresponsible moments. go try your guilt trip on somebody else cause im way too strong for your shit.

Well I should have been more clear....I did not mean you personally :roll:
Just saying if it is not a person why abort it?

comebackgirl · December 2012

aerial wrote:

Well I should have been more clear....I did not mean you personally :roll:
Just saying if it is not a person why abort it?

Some of the health complications that are often associated with pregnancy might be a reason. This is not a fun list to ponder as I try to conceive :? :shock:

Bacterial Vaginosis
Bed Rest
Blighted Ovum
Cervical Cerclage
Ectopic Pregnancy
Gestational Diabetes
Gestational Hypertension
Group B Strep Infection
HELLP Syndrome
High Amniotic Fluid Levels
Polyhydramnios
Incompetent Cervix
Low Amniotic Fluid Levels
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Placental Abruption
Preeclampsia
Back pain
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Constipation
Dehydration
Edema
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
Hemorrhoids
Pica
Lower abdominal pain
Diastasis recti or abdominal separation
Pelvic girdle pain (PGP)
Severe hypertensive states
Deep vein thrombosis
Anaemia

aerial · December 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

aerial wrote:

Well I should have been more clear....I did not mean you personally :roll:
Just saying if it is not a person why abort it?

Some of the health complications that are often associated with pregnancy might be a reason. This is not a fun list to ponder as I try to conceive :? :shock:

Bacterial Vaginosis
Bed Rest
Blighted Ovum
Cervical Cerclage
Ectopic Pregnancy
Gestational Diabetes
Gestational Hypertension
Group B Strep Infection
HELLP Syndrome
High Amniotic Fluid Levels
Polyhydramnios
Incompetent Cervix
Low Amniotic Fluid Levels
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Placental Abruption
Preeclampsia
Back pain
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Constipation
Dehydration
Edema
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
Hemorrhoids
Pica
Lower abdominal pain
Diastasis recti or abdominal separation
Pelvic girdle pain (PGP)
Severe hypertensive states
Deep vein thrombosis
Anaemia

Are you serious? Have of this come with being pregnant! Back pain, constipation lol. Do people really have abortions for this reason?

comebackgirl · December 2012

aerial wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

aerial wrote:

Well I should have been more clear....I did not mean you personally :roll:
Just saying if it is not a person why abort it?

Some of the health complications that are often associated with pregnancy might be a reason. This is not a fun list to ponder as I try to conceive :? :shock:

Bacterial Vaginosis
Bed Rest
Blighted Ovum
Cervical Cerclage
Ectopic Pregnancy
Gestational Diabetes
Gestational Hypertension
Group B Strep Infection
HELLP Syndrome
High Amniotic Fluid Levels
Polyhydramnios
Incompetent Cervix
Low Amniotic Fluid Levels
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Placental Abruption
Preeclampsia
Back pain
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Constipation
Dehydration
Edema
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
Hemorrhoids
Pica
Lower abdominal pain
Diastasis recti or abdominal separation
Pelvic girdle pain (PGP)
Severe hypertensive states
Deep vein thrombosis
Anaemia

Are you serious? Have of this come with being pregnant! Back pain, constipation lol. Do people really have abortions for this reason?

I doubt anyone has an abortion for back pain or constipation. There are some serious medical complications that can come along with pregnancy though that are often overlooked, and that may be a reason someone would terminate.

catefrances · December 2012

aerial wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i know plenty about responsibilty, consequence and irresponsible moments. go try your guilt trip on somebody else cause im way too strong for your shit.

Well I should have been more clear....I did not mean you personally :roll:
Just saying if it is not a person why abort it?

to define what a person is wed need to get into a philosophical discussion about what constitutes personhood. perhaps this is where youre tripping up... personhood and what constititutes a person is an ages old philosophical discussion and is different from identifying what is human, which is an undeniable biological fact. would you like me to start a thread on that so we can continue to discuss it and stop highjacking this thread? but just so you know at no stage have i ever denied an embryo growing in my womb is human. afterall how could it be anything else?

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

So that's a "yes" I assume? You're OK with anyone buying a gun at a gun show or over the internet.
Got it.

Until legally sold weapons becomes a major problem in the US than I guess my answer is yes. When I look at the numbers I just don't see a major problem. Do I want to see anyone killed? Of course not. What I see is a hotspot for people to unfairly target US citizens who choose to follow the law and their Constitutional rights. I see people who thinking taking away these rights from law abiding citizens will solve the problem when it's actually a people and behavior problem not a gun problem. It's a kook problem not a gun problem. Instead of rallying to take away people's rights we should be rallying for increased police presence and mental help for those who need it.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

So that's a "yes" I assume? You're OK with anyone buying a gun at a gun show or over the internet.
Got it.

Until legally sold weapons becomes a major problem in the US than I guess my answer is yes. When I look at the numbers I just don't see a major problem. Do I want to see anyone killed? Of course not. What I see is a hotspot for people to unfairly target US citizens who choose to follow the law and their Constitutional rights. I see people who thinking taking away these rights from law abiding citizens will solve the problem when it's actually a people and behavior problem not a gun problem. It's a kook problem not a gun problem. Instead of rallying to take away people's rights we should be rallying for increased police presence and mental help for those who need it.

I can respect that response. I agree to a point.
But I also think its kinda irresponsible of us to have such inconsistencies in how availability guns are. That said, in one avenue of purchase a person might have to endure background checks and waiting periods, and at another, like gun shows, there's nothing! I just think it should be consistent, and the easier it is to get a weapon, the more likely that every schmuck on the street will have one. There should always be some kind of background check!

Horos · December 2012

On the cars vs. guns analogy.

I certainly see a lot of irresponsible drivers on the road everyday. Even with the laws and regulations in place people risk injuring others everyday by ignoring said laws.

SPEEDY MCCREADY · December 2012

Horos wrote:

On the cars vs. guns analogy.

I certainly see a lot of irresponsible drivers on the road everyday. Even with the laws and regulations in place people risk injuring others everyday by ignoring said laws.

Personally, I believe 20-30% of the people on Americas highways, should have their drivers license revoked.

Something Interesting To Ponder

Comments

Categories