 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Homicide no longer a leading cause of US deaths
From the "Blood in the streets" file
How will CeaseFire spin this? Homicide no longer among leading death causes
A blockbuster revelation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that homicide is no longer among the top 15 causes of death in the United States, during a period when firearm ownership and concealed carry is increasing.
How will CeaseFire spin this? Homicide no longer among leading death causes - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
Was homicide ever the leading cause?
Yeah, for many years it was either in the Top 10 or 15 causes of death. Read the story (linked in the column). This is the first time in I think about 50 years that homicide was not up there somewhere. It has never been THE leading cause of death, IIRC, but somewhere in the mix.Originally Posted by VW_Factor
But funny how it drops off the screen during a year when gun sales were spiking.
Homicide has never been the leading cause of death in this country. The highest it's been in the last 10 years is #13, in 2001, as a result of the 911 attacks.
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't have the long-term data in front of me and apparently you do.
The trick that anti-gunners play with stats is that they always consider suicide and genuine accidents (hunting, in the home etc) as "gun violence."
Here's the link to the story I posted last night on this
Homicide no longer a top cause of death in U.S.
More people die from traffic accidents then homicide. Don't recall any special interest group calling for cars to be band. I also believe more people die because of doctor mistakes than homicide. Don't recall any outrage there either.
Cars have a legitimate purpose that doesn't involve killing and/or destroying things.
As do firearms .... for example, I'll bet over 95% of all shots from a firearm do not kill, injure, or destroy anything.
I doesn't matter that 95% (or likely more) shots fired are to punch paper. Primary function of a firearm is to kill. Primary function of a car is to transport. One just needs to be careful when using such arguments with anti-gun people, it's a self-made trap
I usually see that fallacy expressed by anti-gunners on Huffington Post. It underlies their philosophy that guns are bad and and should be eliminated from society because "they have only one purpose, to kill". I'm surprised and disappointed to see a gun owner who agrees with those anti-gunners.
While it could be argued that military firearms are designed specifically to kill, firearms in general have one primary function: to shoot projectiles where the shooter aims them. The shooter determines what they hit. To dismiss and ignore the fact that the most common use of firearms in the US is to shoot paper, steel, or clay targets, while instead saying their "primary function of a firearm is to kill", when that represents a minority of their use (including hunting) is absurd.
I have never killed anything with my firearms even though I have fired them many times. Are they malfunctioning? Are they defective? Should I have them repaired? Should I get rid of them because they are not performing their "primary function" as you see it?
It is not the "primary function" of guns or knives to kill, although both are sometimes used for that purpose. It is as fallacious to say "the primary function of a firearm is to kill" as it would be to say "the primary function of a knife is to kill".
The most common use - not the minority use - defines the "primary function". In the United States, that "primary function" is target shooting, not killing.
I don't think it matters that it has another function. So what? Car accidents are MUCH more likely to kill and/or cause loss of limbs. Isn't that pretty bad for something that ISN'T meant or designed to hurt or kill? That bubblegum is dangerous yo.I doesn't matter that 95% (or likely more) shots fired are to punch paper. Primary function of a firearm is to kill. Primary function of a car is to transport. One just needs to be careful when using such arguments with anti-gun people, it's a self-made trap
Also, don't want to sound like I'm just pulling statistics out of my *** or anything..
I remember reading something about doctors and physicians being the cause of 100k or more accidental deaths per year.
How many more times dangerous is a doctor than "gun violence"?
I guess then atomic bomb's primary function is to split atoms
A lot of things are more dangerous than "gun violence". But this one has it in the name - no modern civilized society can accept violence (gun or not) as a valid phenomenon. We (gun people) don't accept it either, but our solution to it is through the threat of similar violence.
Sure it does, but only when violence is perpetrated by the state.
Sophistry. I wasn't talking about the mechanics of operation, I was talking applications and most common usage. I didn't say the primary function of a firearm is to strike a primer, setting off a chemical reaction that resulted in ignition of smokeless propellant, creating high pressure gas.I guess then atomic bomb's primary function is to split atoms
If atomic bombs were used most commonly for something other than warfare, then your analogy would have some relevance. As it is, it is an apples and watermelons comparison. So you seem to be the one who is confused.
Huh? Violence occurs in all modern civilized societies, even in societies where firearms are extremely restricted
2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
School attacks in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
whether we or they "accept" it or not.
Actually the example of atomic bomb stands - hundreds of them have been used to "punch paper", while only two have been used for warfare...Sophistry. I wasn't talking the mechanics of operation, I was talking applications and most common usage. I didn't say the primary function of a firearm is to strike a primer, setting off a chemical reaction that resulted in ignition of smokeless propellant, creating high pressure gas.
If atomic bombs were used most commonly for something other than warfare, then your analogy would have some relevance. As it is, it is an apples and watermelons comparison. So you seem to be the one who is confused.
I didn't say it doesn't happen. I said it is rejected, again philosophically.
Posting Permissions
13Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks