THE REALITY of GUN CONTROL

[Black Dog]

The Reality of Gun Control
Below are some Very Interesting Facts about gun control - which are NEVER discussed by naive liberals or the media....

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.
What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those 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 mostly justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100 (0.17 x 30,000).

Still too many? Well, first, how are 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 DC (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 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 the tool (guns) driving 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; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what of other deaths?
• 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 malpractice.
* You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!
* 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the cheeseburgers!

So what is the point?
If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease — even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun related deaths.
A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total 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.
*This is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact.
So, the next time someone tries to tell you that "gun control is about saving lives", look at these facts!

Read More

 

[Knobgoblin]

Emotional people can't be bothered with facts.
Feels matter.

 

[Howard1955]

In case you haven't seen it yet, here's a link:

 

[TTSX]

The statement you make about suicides not being prevented anyway is BS. People might attempt suicide anyway, however the "success" rate with a firearm is nearly 100%, which I'd wager is higher even than jumping off many buildings. Certainly higher than pills or cutting or exhaust inhalation and yes, hanging. All those other methods give a chance for someone to intervene after the attempt and save a life. You cannot intervene once a bullet passes through a skull.

Your other points I agree with, just don't make up bullbubblegum.

 

[Tinman357]

.

 

[Koda]

Suicides are often cited under "gun violence" and are not, its a different subject.


DGUs are always left out of the statistics, but they are greater than guns used in crime.

 

[Black Dog]

Your other points I agree with, just don't make up bullbubblegum.

I didn't make up any bullbubblegum. I just posted something I found. You can believe or pick out anything you want. All I can say about your post is WOW just WOW.

 

[Hueco]

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws

False.

I've provided data and sources on this here before - too lazy to go grab them now so just role with it.

Because I really wish gun owners would stop parroting this BS point.

Among those who attempt suicide, and who survive, the vast majority will NOT try again.

Of those who attempt suicide, firearm use has the highest (for lack of a better term) "success" rate. All other methods are more prone to survival.

It therefore follows that if you can decrease the number of firearms in the hands of suicidal people, then you may not decrease the number of suicide attempts, but you will increase the survivability - and that means more living people at the end of the day.

So, yea, less guns will save these lives.

 

[trekkerpaul]

The Reality of Gun Control
Below are some Very Interesting Facts about gun control - which are NEVER discussed by naive liberals or the media....

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.
What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those 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 mostly justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100 (0.17 x 30,000).

Still too many? Well, first, how are 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 DC (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 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 the tool (guns) driving 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; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what of other deaths?
• 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 malpractice.
* You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!
* 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the cheeseburgers!

So what is the point?
If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease — even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun related deaths.
A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total 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.
*This is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact.
So, the next time someone tries to tell you that "gun control is about saving lives", look at these facts!

Your logic is too much for utopian minded media watching drones. What you need to ask yourself is how you "feel" about it. Show me where the bad touched you on this doll.

 

[Black Dog]

All the people that voted for 114 are coming out.
Show me the STATISTICS how many people that jumped off a building or hung them self survived.
Someone can and do intervene on gun suicide just like any other type. But it makes no difference once they jump or kick the chair out or pull the trigger it's over. They don't say I'm going to commit suicide please be there for me. No matter how they are going to do it. They just do it
trekkerpaul I know where you touched the doll. shame

 

[gmerkt]

Among those who attempt suicide, and who survive, the vast majority will NOT try again.

Of those who attempt suicide, firearm use has the highest (for lack of a better term) "success" rate. All other methods are more prone to survival.

It therefore follows that if you can decrease the number of firearms in the hands of suicidal people, then you may not decrease the number of suicide attempts, but you will increase the survivability - and that means more living people at the end of the day.

So, yea, less guns will save these lives.

I tend to agree with this. Reducing accessability of firearms likely would reduce options for some, unknown number of attempts. It surely wouldn't eliminate suicide by that means.

However, in my opinion suicide is a matter of personal choice. Not something to be regulated or outlawed.

This is something people may come to appreciate more later in life, when they have all sorts of things wrong with them and their quality of life is in decline to one degree or another.

Show me the STATISTICS how many people that jumped off a building or hung them self survived.

I have no statistics, but don't a lot of suicide attempts involve ingesting drugs or other toxic substances? These are the kind that are potentially survivable. Moreso than jumping off a building.

Oh, and I didn't vote for 114, I'm not a resident. And on principle wouldn't have voted for it regardless.

 

[salmon creek gary]

The statement you make about suicides not being prevented anyway is BS. People might attempt suicide anyway, however the "success" rate with a firearm is nearly 100%, which I'd wager is higher even than jumping off many buildings. Certainly higher than pills or cutting or exhaust inhalation and yes, hanging. All those other methods give a chance for someone to intervene after the attempt and save a life. You cannot intervene once a bullet passes through a skull.

Your other points I agree with, just don't make up bullbubblegum.

An unsuccessful suicide attempt is just someone who lives to try again later, but "better" next time; life still sucks for them. There is nothing so magical about survival that being "unexpectedly still alive" can teach a person the error of their thoughts. And society provides damn little by way of timely counseling or treatment in such cases, so the mind is still ruminating and the clock is still ticking. Anyone ever involved in trying to get help for themselves or for someone in crisis learns that the system works so slowly or sporadically it can make life suck even more.

There are cases, admittedly, when what appears to be an "unsuccessful attempt" is followed by that person expressing gratitude for another chance at life. We hear or read of such cases (glowingly touted by anti-gunners as yet another reason why guns are bad). Bluntly put, that is not likely "a life saved"; instead, that is more likely someone who was just crying for help, a suicidal gesture.

My career exposed me to quite a number of suicidal gestures. They are often discernible as desperate cries for help because of the superficial nature of the injury, or by the ineffective method chosen, or by the seemingly fortuitous timing of the "rescue". (An example of "calculated timing" would be junior writing a note and swallowing 15 baby aspirin in a glass of orange juice . . . at the kitchen table . . . just five minutes before mom or dad is expected to arrive home.)

In contrast, there is serious intent, not a cry for help, when someone steps in front a speeding freight train, leaps from a skyscraper, fires a gun into their head, drives at high speed into a bridge abutment, or climbs more than a hundred feet up a power pylon to grab a high voltage line. If anyone accidentally survives such deliberate effort, the clock is still ticking.

 

[Hueco]

All the people that voted for 114 are coming out.
Show me the STATISTICS how many people that jumped off a building or hung them self survived.
Someone can and do intervene on gun suicide just like any other type. But it makes no difference once they jump or kick the chair out or pull the trigger it's over. They don't say I'm going to commit suicide please be there for me. No matter how they are going to do it. They just do it
trekkerpaul I know where you touched the doll. shame

Here you go: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/

Happy trails.

 

[Koda]

So if guns have a virtually 100% success rate then whats the pro gun solution to suicides?

 

[Gunbuggy]

The left knows this but they don't care.

 

[GrayGoose]

 

[Hueco]

So if guns have a virtually 100% success rate then whats the pro gun solution to suicides?

- mandate all health insurance companies cover mental health services under their medical coverage umbrella

- create economic incentives to get more men into the career of clinical psychologist

- open up research grants study the issue with the goal of determining key psych styles that produce the best results (not discounting pharmacological aids - ex, lots of promising initial data on mdma and shroom use for ptsd and depression).

- open up the laws so that FFL's (or a sub type) can more easily check in and check out someone's guns (getting them out of the house)

- allow for mental health professional recommendations to influence NICS for a fixed duration

I'm sure we could think of more - as we're (as a country) not really doing anything where mental health services are concerned.

 

[Koda]

- mandate all health insurance companies cover mental health services under their medical coverage umbrella

- create economic incentives to get more men into the career of clinical psychologist

- open up research grants study the issue with the goal of determining key psych styles that produce the best results (not discounting pharmacological aids - ex, lots of promising initial data on mdma and shroom use for ptsd and depression).

- open up the laws so that FFL's (or a sub type) can more easily check in and check out someone's guns (getting them out of the house)

- allow for mental health professional recommendations to influence NICS for a fixed duration

I'm sure we could think of more - as we're (as a country) not really doing anything where mental health services are concerned.

so this is what I thought, and while I agree its the more difficult argument to make in regards to gun rights.

I still think suicide rates should not be included in criminal violence statistics ("gun violence").

 

[Hueco]

so this is what I thought, and while I agree its the more difficult argument to make in regards to gun rights.

I still think suicide rates should not be included in criminal violence statistics ("gun violence").

Totally agree. You need a specific problem and good data to have even a shred of hope to come up with a solution.

If the problem is "gun violence" - well that's a crappy problem because it should be whittled down to criminal violence, random acts of violence, intimate violence, and suicide before we can really start talking.

I take issue with ideologues conflating data to make a point, especially if that point is not supported by the actual data.

I also take issue with right wing ideologues for the same reason. Like OP's insinuation that solving for some of the heinous gun crimes we have is not a worthwhile goal.

I also take issue with OP's accusation that those of us less intoxicated on the koolaid are 114 supporters. That's just bad faith and shameful, though no doubt a well represented opinion among über conservatives.

 

[Koda]

Totally agree. You need a specific problem and good data to have even a shred of hope to come up with a solution.

If the problem is "gun violence" - well that's a crappy problem because it should be whittled down to criminal violence, random acts of violence, intimate violence, and suicide before we can really start talking.

I take issue with ideologues conflating data to make a point, especially if that point is not supported by the actual data.

I also take issue with right wing ideologues for the same reason. Like OP's insinuation that solving for some of the heinous gun crimes we have is not a worthwhile goal.

I also take issue with OP's accusation that those of us less intoxicated on the koolaid are 114 supporters. That's just bad faith and shameful, though no doubt a well represented opinion among über conservatives.

Reality is suicidal issues have a different cause than criminal violence with guns, gun restrictions still do not address the suicide issue. But thats a difficult one to argue as suicides are virtually always successful when a gun is used. I do agree with you we should be honest of that fact.

Still.... guns are not the cause. Mental health is what needs to be addressed.
(as a tangent to improving mental health I think we also need some pro family parenting programs would help raise families with less depression but thats another subject)