Looking at this, I’d be quite interested to see the stats for un-accidental gun deaths per year. I’m quite surprised at the number of accidental gun deaths per year though.

I would be interested in un-accidental deaths by handguns too, but I think that no matter what they are, the attitude of the gun owner is far more important than the fact that they have guns.  You fix the accidental deaths by teaching people how to safely operate a handgun.  You only fix the other by taking away the motive, not the tool.

Well done - also, completely in agreement with swordsbane here.

I’m also curious to know how they’re defining “accidental” death by doctor. Is this someone in perfect health coming to a doctor and then the doctor accidentally giving out the wrong prescription? Or is this people that are already injured or ill and there’s just nothing that can really be done?

I’m suspecting it’s the latter, in which case, the study is worthless.

This ‘study’ is a joke.  I’m sure the numbers are made up or at least severely out of date, but it makes a clear point: Statistics are NEVER the whole story.  This point is valid.  Statistics can be used to justify a whole range of things, and both sides play that game.  The only thing I know for certain is that the issue of gun-control is a political tool.  If it were a solved issue, then no one could use it in a political platform and squeeze any votes from it, so no one is looking to solve it, only to look like they are trying to solve it.

If you’re looking for real info, don’t look to the latest ‘study’ or what either sides PAC is saying about it.  You’ll get misinformation or outright lies.

Personally, if you’re going to play the statistic game, I think it would be better to compare guns with cars.  I think you have more parallels to work with, but be careful.  Nothing else on the planet is produced with the express purpose of killing another human being, and then marketed to the common citizens of this country (the US).  That’s going to mess up any statistics you’re liable to get your hands on.  Since death is the purpose of a firearm, you have to look at why and how the death occured, not simply the fact that it happened.  Accidents are all different.  Was it improper storage of the gun, or did someone forget the safety and was goofing off with it, or was it a terrified man trying to defend himself when he accidentally shot himself?

Non accidents are different too.  Was it a criminal shooting a victim, a policeman, or a shootout where an innocent bystander was shot?  Was it a man defending himself from a mugger?  Was it a drug dealer shooting another drug dealer?  Was it a hit?  Was it a criminal who got the weapon away from a victim and then shot him?  All of these can be put under the heading: “handgun deaths” but they are all different and only one or two are influenced by what passes for gun-control on the books now.

Raw statistics are useless unless you know the context of the way they were run.  The questions are often more important than the answers.

Of course, this is completely a one sided argument that uses statistics improperly.  As mentioned in previous posts, you could also examine the number of *intentional* deaths made by guns versus *intentional* deaths by doctors.  I’m sure the statistics would be skewed even further in the other direction.

Recently I tried to find out (while writing a post about ephedra that was never published) how many people die each year from stomach bleeding due to aspirin and similar pain relievers.  Best figures I could find were about 7,000 people a year.  And the iatrogenic association reports something like 50,000 to 96,000 deaths from medical mistakes each year, and they’re an advocacy group. 

However, the phrase “the statistics game” is what people say when they don’t like the numbers.  Or: “You can prove anything with statistics”.  I think statistics gets a bad rap.

That said, the gun owners I know don’t worry me at all.  But pillows - there’s a weapon.  Silent, effective…

And many people die when lying on a pillow.  Suspicious.  Maybe old age isn’t lethal, its the pillow!  Disease just weakens your immune system enough so that the pillow can finish the job!  All fear the pillow!

Guns don’t kill people. Bullets piercing the flesh at an excess speed of 100 miles per hour kill people.

Statistics are not the problem.  But they are valuable only if you understand how the statistic was generated.

If someone comes to you and say’s: “There were 3,000 gun deaths last year.” That tells me nothing of how dangerous or effective guns are.  Unfortunately, those kinds of statistics panic some people.  Everytime I hear or read a statistic, I always have more questions.

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila. Mitch Ratcliffe.

The problem isn’t easy access to guns, but easy access to oxygen. Certain people shouldn’t be breathing. Don Feder.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli.

I was curious to see what the responses to this entry would be. I almost didn’t post it if only because it’s one of those arguments that I’ve always felt were dishonest. Whether or not more people die every year from doctor’s mistakes versus accidental shootings is irrelevant to discussions on the second amendment and whether or not gun ownership is a problem. Comparing the two statistics doesn’t tell you anything useful to the debate.

I would like to see someone define what an accidental death is in this study. My guess is that a very liberal (not in the political use of the word) definition was used. For example if a patient was told you have one year to live unless you get operation X but that operation has a ten percent chance of death. If the patient takes the operation and dies you could call it an accidental death. Those statistics are just too shocking for me to actually belive them.

And how about a link to the source rather than the general us dept. of health and services. I spent a few minutes searching for the study and quickly gave up due to the lack of good goverment websites.

Swordsbane: Everytime I hear or read a statistic, I always have more questions.

Agreed.  I HATE reading an article that states some statisic X, and no explanations of how it was derived. 

My favorite was one that linked brain cancer to computer monitor usage in the late 80s, based solely on increasing numbers of both.  Never did hear about the trends AFTER the “green” EPA monitors came out. 

I hate it when someone gives me biased info.  Just give me all the straight facts, I can bias it myself without your help, thank you very much.

Guns don’t bother me.  Homocidal maniacs, with or without guns, bother me.

statistics can be twisted.
this would have been better if the guns were compared to scalpels.

as for the date of this article, i saw it passwd around years ago. back when
juno was big as an ISP.

Sexy Sadie :Bullets piercing the flesh at an excess speed of 100 miles per hour kill people.

yes, bullets go fast. but how fast really?

a quick jump on google reveals, between 1100 & 4000 ft/s
for some pistol and rifle rounds.

the speed of sound @ sealevel is: 660 ft/s
this is also notated as mach1, which means that
munitions travel between mach 1.66 (720 mph @410 gr round weight)
and 6.06 (2727mph @55gr round weight). Damn, that’s fast…

so a bullet with a weight of 55gr (grains) traveling at 2727mph
is the same as one that weighs 149985 grains at 1 mph.
roughly 21.4 lbs.
like a large heavy pointy stone dropped 6 inches from one’s head.
guns are just more refined cave man tools and aren’t
that far from clubs at all…
..but I like ‘em.

yes, bullets go fast. but how fast really?

Fast enough to do the job efficiently.

Personally, I don’t see the appeal of guns. I can see how some people might find them nifty, but the sub-culture that has arisen out of an insane obsession with firearms (i.e. the NRA) just leaves me scratching my head. Even more bizarre are gun shows, which seem to attract the lunatic fringe of the political and social right-wing.

Any “nifty” thing attracts some level of attention.
Granted, purpose, function or intent can almost always be argued
that almost anything is good or bad. Ive spent much time
sleeping on a rifle in many climates. Most comfy
pillow I ever had.

Its been years but I still miss it.

I enjoyed hunting for years. But I valued an animal’s
life more than a humans. Still do, they are honest all of the time.

There are some simple rules in life that are unrefutable:

1) if its eyes are on the side of its head and it has a wide
field of vision, its food. if i has eyes in the front of its
head and binocular sight, try not to get eaten by it.

2) upon the weak, the strong will prey. [somehow i think
fistfights worked better after school than guns. makes a thicker
skin & thats good for kids.
you dont end up with bitchy whiny adults that think
theyre special or privleged]

3) deep down inside were all cavemen.
humanity hasnt changed in thousands of years and
its probably not going to anytime soon.

It’s not the guns, it’s the power. Anytime you can take some power from the politicians, I say HURRAH! Or am I the only one who has noticed that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? A good reading of the Federalist Papers shows that one of the arguments the Founding Fathers used for not fearing the strength of a federal army was the balance that the armed citizens and the armed militia offered against that strength. Balance is a good thing! And, yes, I think the argument against doctors was a bit specious, but it did gender some comments. Remember Shana’s thread about bread?

Quoayn: Ive spent much time
sleeping on a rifle in many climates. Most comfy
pillow I ever had.

Just like Charlton “cold, dead hands” Heston (or was that under his bed?). 

Leguru: Remember Shana’s thread about bread?

No, ‘fraid not. Do you mean “bread” as in the slang term for money, or “bread” as in sustenance derived from grains? I’m always up for interesting threads.

Remember Shana’s thread about bread?

It’s not the guns, it’s the power.

Well, anytime someone is killed by a gun, there’s a whole chain of causes: the gun, the bullet, the intention, the aim… interrupt the chain at any point and no one dies.  The question is, presuming that we want to cut down on gun-inflicted deaths, where do we break the chain? 
Here’s another statistic that may, or may not, be pertinent:  America has the highest murder rate, by far, of all the First World countries.  And the highest rate, by far, of handgun ownership.  Coincidence?  Here in Austria, it is much more difficult to get a handgun than in America, and the murder rate is about a fifth of that in the States.
I won’t make the dubious claim that the high murder rate in America is solely a result of easy availability of handguns.  There are obviously lots of factors, and probably they are too complex to completely sort out.  I will also add that the people I know with guns (in the States- I don’t know anyone here who has one, other than a policeman friend) don’t worry me a bit either.  It’s the angry kids with nothing to lose, who find it all too easy to get their hands on a piece, who worry me.

Even more bizarre are gun shows, which seem to attract the lunatic fringe of the political and social right-wing.

Sadie, I went to a gun show in Portland, Oregon, years ago, to buy some mammoth from a knife maker.  I was a bit nervous about my reception there, with my hippie long hair and beard.  What I didn’t know is that some of the lunatic fringe looked just like me, so I fit right in.  Bizarre it was indeed.

Any “nifty�? thing attracts some level of attention.

Yep, Qoayn.  I like looking at guns as tools, and can understand becoming obsessed with them. My uncle Bob, lifelong NRA member, has a nice collection that I always admire when I’m visiting him.

[somehow i think fistfights worked better after school than guns. makes a thicker skin & thats good for kids.  you dont end up with bitchy whiny adults that think theyre special or privleged]

Well, guns have the advantage over fistfights that they really slow down your enemies, especially if they’re little kids…
As far as the utility of the “thicker skin” from fistfighting goes, unfortunately it’s not just the kids who need taking down a notch who get involved.  My experience in school was rather that the stuck-up kids finessed their way out of fights, which left the bullies to learn that might makes right, and their victims to learn to run away from bullies.  Not necessarily society building imho.

Homicide Rate Household Hand

Country Per 100,000 Pop.  Gun Ownership

United States 5.7 29%

Canada 2.2 5%

Australia 1.9 2%

New Zealand 1.5

Belgium 1.4

United Kingdom 1.4 1%

Switzerland 1.3 14%

Denmark 1.2

Germany 1.2 7%

France 1.1 6%

Holland 1.1 1%

Japan .6

Ireland .6

....Coincidence?…

Actually, yes.

Until someone can adequately explain how DC can have the highest murder rate in the country and also the most restrictive gun-control laws on the books, or how Switzerland in this list can have 14% gun ownership but not a commensurate homicide rate, or why Australia is higher than Germany, France and Holland, or why England is so high with only a 1% handgun ownership rate.  This is what I mean by playing the statistic game.  Make a judgement based on one piece of data that seems to support your argument, ignore the other pieces of data in the same data set, and imply a conclusion that is too encompassing to be warranted without additional data that isn’t in this data set.  In simpler language; make the statistics mean what you want them to mean.

It isn’t the guns.  It’s the culture.  I think the fact that a lot of people own guns in this country is a symptom of the same problem that makes the murder rate high, not a cause.  If that is correct, then you can mess with gun laws all you want and it wont change a thing, except for the portion of the citizens who are law-abiding and don’t murder anyone.  In any murder plan, the choice of weapon is the weakest link, the easiest part of the plan to substitute.  You want to stop people killing each other? Find a way to make them not want to kill.  Even if you could somehow take away guns from every criminal, in a few years we’ll be right back here debating the “knife menace” Its not how we kill our fellow man.... It’s the fact that we do it, and that’s what we have to focus on.

I enjoyed hunting for years. But I valued an animal’s
life more than a humans. Still do, they are honest all of the time.

im sorry Qoayn maybe i dont understand...your saying you hunted and killed animals for years, even though you respected their life more than humans???? i wouldnt like to live next to you...if u can kill animals whose lives you respect more than ours then you could kill humans? the men in white coats r on their way....

Personally, I don’t see the appeal of guns. I can see how some people might find them nifty, but the sub-culture that has arisen out of an insane obsession with firearms (i.e. the NRA) just leaves me scratching my head. Even more bizarre are gun shows, which seem to attract the lunatic fringe of the political and social right-wing.

This might help: a Guide to gun-show vernacular (humor)

Seriously, precision control of power is… uplifting.  Golf, Zen archery, competition shooting, auto racing, martial arts, off-road bicycling - all have this in common.  Alas, I am a lousy shot even after quite a bit of practice in my youth. 

Hunting and respecting animal life - my dad used to go out hunting a lot.  He was an excellent shot and good at tracking but unfortunately he had a soft heart.  He’d get the deer in his sights and think; “what did he ever do to me?” and then bring home a box of apples from an orchard on the way home.  Which led to the expression; “Daddy shot us a box of apples!”

I think the fact that a lot of people own guns in this country is a symptom of the same problem that makes the murder rate high, not a cause.

I would say it’s both a symptom and a cause, swordsbane.  That’s why I qualified my statement by saying “There are obviously lots of factors, and probably they are too complex to completely sort out.”

If that is correct, then you can mess with gun laws all you want and it wont change a thing, except for the portion of the citizens who are law-abiding and don’t murder anyone.

If we were all angels, we could sell guns to anyone who wanted them.  But no one would want them if we were all angels.  Do you think there should be no limitations on gun ownership?  Frankly, I’ve never understood why any sane non-criminal could be against strict handgun laws, including waiting periods, thorough background checks, mandatory training (that’s something the NRA is good at), and registration.  It’s not as though I’m going to stop the Feds from doing whatever they want with me if I’m packing heat they don’t know about.  And if you’ve got a gripe with the government, and gun control has put a crimp in your plans, there’s always the Timothy McVeigh route…

Seriously, precision control of power is… uplifting.

Indeed it is, DoF.  It’s an amazing rush to feel in control of power beyond your own.  In fact, a celebrated theory by William Calvin postulates that the precision control necessary to throw rocks at game is partly responsible for the rapid enlargement of Homo sapiens’ brains, and thus was literally “uplifting” in an evolutionary sense.

Contrary to the stereotype of a gun-hating liberal I don’t tend to have a problem with the second amendment or gun ownership in general. That said, I do think there are some reasonable limits to what should be allowed so I also have no problems with the restrictions on, say, fully automatic rifles.

The only guns I’ve ever owned were toy cap guns and one really pathetic single-cock action BB gun that couldn’t shoot out a window without a hurricane force tailwind behind the BB. It wasn’t even good for target practice because it didn’t leave enough of a mark to tell where you hit the target. Which isn’t to say that I’ve never held a gun as my grandfather was an avid hunter and taught me to shoot a .22 caliber rifle in my teen years as well as a shotgun. I’ve also fired a number of pistols as well as the civilian versions of several assault rifles from a friend’s private collection.

I understand the fascination with guns that some people have and I have enough of that same fascination in me that I get enjoyment from the gun play involved in most First Person Shooters, but I’m not so enamored that I feel the need to go out and buy a gun myself. I realize that FPS games are a poor substitute for the real thing from having experience with them, but it’s close enough for me.

All of that is to say that I can see both sides of the issue and am not beholden to one viewpoint over the other. In general I think America has a pretty well balanced set of laws in regard to gun ownership, though it could use some polish in various areas.