Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Gun Deaths vs. Car Deaths

A new Violence Policy Center (VPC) state-by-state analysis of government data comparing firearm deaths and motor vehicle deaths shows that gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 10 states in 2009, the most recent year for which state level data is available.  Nationally, there were 31,236 firearm deaths in 2009 and 36,361 motor vehicle deaths according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Alaska: 104 gun deaths, 84 motor vehicle deaths
Arizona: 856 gun deaths, 809 motor vehicle deaths
Colorado: 583 gun deaths, 565 motor vehicle deaths
Indiana: 735 gun deaths, 715 motor vehicle deaths
Michigan: 1,095 gun deaths, 977 motor vehicle deaths
Nevada: 406 gun deaths, 255 motor vehicle deaths
Oregon: 417 gun deaths, 394 motor vehicle deaths
Utah: 260 gun deaths, 256 motor vehicle deaths
Virginia: 836 gun deaths, 827 motor vehicle deaths
Washington: 623 gun deaths, 580 motor vehicle deaths

40 comments:

  1. So the story slug should read:

    80% of the Nation is Safer With Guns Than With Their Cars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously we must stop teaching driver's education to young drivers.

      Delete
  2. I bet you can a find a correlation between states with the most cars and the most motor vehicle deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is car availability that keeps those numbers up. States with lax car laws allow their cars to find their way into states that try to make a difference with stricter traffic laws. But there are all of those hidden criminals that have negligent encounters with other cars that really cause the problem.

    You know if we just did a better job of controlling motor vehicles, this wouldn't happen. If we ban cars and it saves just one child it is worth it.

    Really though, we don't need to ban cars, just attach governor's on them so that they cannot exceed the speed limit. Of course, they will have to set them at 55 mph. That way someone from a lax speed limit state that allows their drivers to go 70 mph can't infringe on other states that only want to permit you to go 55. State's rights and all that.

    Car manufacturers build more cars than they need to with the intention of flooding the market with new, attractive cars just so they can keep selling cars. They even make cars that can go over the speed limit even though they know that that can cause negligent encounters with other cars.

    We also need to end these car shows that happen all across the country. At these shows, people can come and see all manner of cars. Sometimes, people buy some of the cars direct from the owner without going through a licensed car dealer. We must all ban together to close the car show loophole now!

    Every day thousands of cars are bought from ads online and in local newspapers. While technically not illegal as long as both parties are not prohibited from owning an automobile, criminals could buy a car with no paperwork that they can use for getaway cars or to commit other crimes. Why they don't even need a drivers' license to own a car in most states. The horror!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a priceless comment FWM. Thanks for the laughs.

      Delete
    2. When we read a great comment like FWM's that shows the utter ridiculousness of the gun control extremist radicals, and totally demolishes their illogical, lame-brained ideas and yet they persist with their obsessive, pathological nuttery in the face of common sense, reason, and the basic principles of protecting life and property, it makes one wonder why they aren't locked up as a danger to themselves and others.
      Thanks for the chuckle, FWM.
      orlin sellers.

      Delete
    3. No, what that very witty comments shows is that when you guys are backed into a corner, you make jokes. Sometimes they're pretty funny, but the truth is inescapable. All those times you guys kept comparing guns to cars turn out to be foolish and mistaken comparisons.

      Delete
    4. How are we backed into a corner here? The data here are largely meaningless, since there's no mention of miles of paved road, total guns owned, total cars owned, total miles driven in a year, total guns handled in a year, and so on. You could do another "study" to show the number of bags of Cheetos sold in the ten states with the highest marijuana arrests, but we'd learn nothing interesting from that, either.

      Delete
    5. No, Greg, data isn't meaningless when it goes contrary to your biased agenda. You're one of the kings of the car comparison. These stats make you the fool.

      More gun deaths than car deaths, hahahahaha. I love it.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, you give me $36,000, and I'll give you $31,000. Who'd have more money in that exchange? In addition, there are fifty states in this country, not ten. Many of the states in that list of ten have lots of land and not many drivers. Are you seriously incapable of seeing that raw and uncontrolled data like these don't make any conclusion necessary? I do note that you just posted the numbers without making any analysis of your own, so you must understand this.

      Delete
  4. Thought you said we couldn't do car comparisons anymore Mike? That they weren't relevant.
    Also your numbers are wrong. Including suicides is padding the numbers. It has already been proven that suicide rates aren't tied to method. In fact Japan has a much higher suicide rate per capita that the US and they don't have access to firearms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're cherry picking your studies, Scott. I've seen reports which show the exact opposite of what you said, and to me they make sense. Japan has a culture of honorable suicide, we don't. People who shoot themselves in the head and survive, invariably say they're glad to be alive and don't try it again, proving that suicide is usually a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Remove guns and most of those suicidal people live long lives.

      Delete
    2. In addition, since we're allowing car comparisons again, most car deaths are accidents, few are murder and fewer are suicide. Gun deaths are suicide, murder and accidents in that order. We're comparing to totals, which is what you guys always did when you made your bogus claims that cars kill WAY more people than guns.

      It just ain't so.

      Delete
    3. Uh, Mikeb, 36,000 > 31,000, last time I checked. It's not a vast difference, but the one is greater than the other. But since you're now willing to separate the types of deaths due to firearms, let's say that drunk driving deaths ought to be called intentional homicide, since the driver commits an intentional act by driving while under the influence. The number of accidental deaths due to firearms is far less than vehicular accidental deaths. Suicides are also intentional acts, and I'm all for allowing choice. (By the way, you do realize that a survivor of a suicide attempt is likely to say whatever the shrink wants to hear to get away, right?) That leaves murder, and the number there, as well as the number of accidental deaths, is going down.

      Delete
    4. You're right, the total for car deaths is more, SLIGHTLY MORE. It's a far cry from the bullshit you guys have been laying on us for years.

      When you adjust for the frequency of use, guns are 10 times more deadly than cars.

      Delete
    5. So you want us to use our guns more?

      Delete
  5. Since Josh is making car comparisons and trying to relate guns to NHTSA regulations saving lives, let’s break down his recommendations for guns and see if there is an equivalent that was done for cars:

    Comprehensive regulation of the firearms industry and its products could include: minimum safety standards (i.e., specific design standards and the requirement of safety devices);

    There are minimum safety standards, and it is extremely rare (much more so than cars) for a gun to fail resulting in jury or death. In almost every “gun death”, the firearm functioned as intended. The NHTSA has no regulations that prevent someone from stomping on the gas and steering the car straight into a brick wall.

    bans on certain types of firearms such as "junk guns" and military-style assault weapons;

    There are no bans on cheap cars (because that is what he is talking about), and there is no ban on “military-style” cars, or sports cars or any other class of vehicle. And if there were, they certainly would not be banning them based on having racing stripes, spoilers, or mag wheels.

    limits on firepower;

    Limits on horsepower? Nope.

    restrictions on gun possession by those convicted of a violent misdemeanor;

    There are already restrictions on guns for felons, he just wants to keep lowering the bar. For cars there are only suspensions, and after multiple offenses (even only suspensions for felony manslaughter)- and never restrictions against ownership.

    heightened restrictions on the carrying of loaded guns in public;

    Not too many heighten restrictions on driving in public proposed by the NHTSA.

    improved enforcement of current laws restricting gun possession by persons with histories of domestic violence;

    He says “improved”. So he got what he wants here- he just wants more of it. Is the NHTSA is always asking for improved enforcement of traffic violations too?

    more detailed and timely data collection on gun production,

    How much more detailed does he want it? He already has the exact number for each caliber from each manufacturer- jeeze. And “timely”, sorry Josh you have to wait a whole year- its part of the rules of capitalism so no one gains a competitive advantage.

    sales, use in crime, involvement in injury and death;

    Injury and death is well known (he just quoted it in his article). They had that crime information too. They abused it and compromised on going cases, and it was taken away. For cars, do we know how many are used in crimes? I never saw a stat like that.

    and, public education about the extreme risks associated with exposure to firearms.

    Why, is it giving me cancer or something? There is nothing stopping his publicly educating everyone. It is just that no one is forced to listen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TS, I think you're supporting my point, which is that car deaths are already lowered by all the restrictions and controls on cars. Gun deaths are still unhindered by those same kinds of restrictions and controls. If guns were regulated like cars, there's be about 30,000 car deaths and 5,000 gun deaths.

      Delete
    2. No, he's supporting our side. Cars are far less regulated than guns. If cars faced the same level of government interference as guns, there'd be states in which driving on public roads would be all but impossible. There'd be states in which an SUV would be illegal for most people. Driving under the age of twenty-one wouldn't be allowed in most places. There'd be a patchwork of places where driving was legal here but not there, and driving from one state to another would require checking with each state's DMV to see if it's allowed. The list could go on.

      Delete
    3. Exactly right, Greg. Sugarmann laments how guns are less regulated than cars, then gives us his wishlist for gun regulation- NONE of which is done for cars (or they are already true for both, like death statistics). Since when has the answer to vehicular deaths been to ban some types of cars?

      Delete
    4. Also, Mike, explain how accidental gun deaths have decreased over the decades while gun proliferation has increased. That is the part that can be lowered through safety improvements and educational campaigns.

      Delete
    5. When gun owners are all licensed and guns are all registered to a licensed gun owner, then you can talk about guns being regulated like cars. When you need insurance to own a gun, then get back to me with that lame argument.

      Delete
    6. Ain't gonna happen, Mikeb.

      Delete
    7. 1)Sugarmann didn’t even mention universal licensing and registration as one of his wants. His listed a bunch of things that aren’t done for cars, like bans. You didn’t address that.
      2)We have whole states that do licensing (like Illinois) and registration (like California). Why aren’t their gun deaths any different as a result?
      3)No one needs insurance to own a car.
      4)The punishments are exponentially more severe for guns. When they start throwing people in prison for having a tail light out you can get back to me with that lame argument. Explain how this works: If you get drunk and kill someone with a car, you will go to prison and have your license suspended for maybe a few years (which doesn’t really matter when you are in prison anyway). We let these people get behind the wheel again practically before the buzz wears off. But at the same time you lose your gun rights for life- for killing someone… with a car.

      Delete
  6. This will put a dent in the oft-used red herring argument used by the gun guys when statistics aren't going their way, where they basically say, "Yes, those gun death stats are awful, but vehicular deaths are worse, so we should ignore the gun stats unless you want to ban all cars."

    My blog post on this report: http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-by-gun-now-higher-in-10-states.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Baldr, since you do not allow comments I have no intention of going to your blog to read your post. I prefer allowing adults open discussion.

      Delete
    2. Oregonian Sockpuppet, I take it that data analysis is another area about which you know nothing? Or are you using the marketing trick of making numbers say whatever you want them to say? Let's look at some of what's wrong with your comment:

      1. The number of vehicular deaths is greater than the number of firearms deaths in the whole country.

      2. There are fifty states in the Union, not ten, so these numbers really show not a whole lot.

      But as Anonymous said, since you won't allow comments on your site, there's not much point in answering you here. You won't come back to this site to continue the discussion. You remind me of the D.C. sniper, squeezing off a round and then running away.

      Delete
    3. wah wah wah, he won't allow comments. Why don't you guys grow the hell up.

      You know what that is, when you repeatedly make that complaint? It's a personal attack. It's a personal attack against Baldr which has nothing to do with the discussion.

      What is the point of repeating it so often? You should be embarrassed.

      Delete
    4. I don't really care if you gun guys go to my blog post or not, but you should at least read the VPC report that you criticize. If you had, you would have seen that the point of it was to show that vehicular deaths are falling rapidly, because of strong regulation and safety practices, despite a growing number of drivers, driven miles, and that 90% of homes have a car. By contrast, shooting deaths have increased slowly and steadily, despite the fact that only 33% of homes now have a gun.

      So, yes, Greg, vehicular death rates are still higher in the other 40 states, but not for long. Take a look at the graph in the report.

      Delete
    5. "What is the point of repeating it so often? You should be embarrassed."

      I ask, "What is the point of putting links to your blog here? Why not just post your thoughts as a comment on here and let us a respond, both positively and negatively?" The reason is because Baldr isn't interested in discussion. He wants to tell you what you should think. He wants to berate you and chastise you for not thinking the way he does. That's exactly why he doesn't allow comments. It's why Laci, Dog Gone, and Democommie HEAVILY censor their comments. It says a lot about one's character that they can't be questioned. I think that is quite embarrassing in itself.

      Delete
    6. Thank you, Anonymous. My point is to show the hypocrisy of a blogger who comments on other sites, but won't allow the same discussion on his own. It's a symptom of his desire for control. A personal attack is valid when it goes to the heart of the subject. We here debate how much control society should have vs. how much autonomy and liberty each person should have. We debate the free flow of ideas vs. limiting the conversation. The guy from Oregon shows that he's not interested in freedom and openness. His concern is to get people to do as he says.

      But to the Oregonian specifically, I don't have a lot of faith in what the Violence Policy Center cobbles together and calls a "study." It's what I'd call a biased source in my composition class and would require more research. I do enjoy seeing their "study" of carry license holders who commit crimes with guns, since no matter how much cooking the VPC does, the number is still tiny.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous and Greg, who gives a fuck what you think about Baldr and Lacy and Dog Gone? Who made you the judge of their motives and decisions about how they run their blogs?

      IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT.

      Delete
    8. Yes, bloggers have the right to set the rules for their own blogs. That choice does tell us about the character of the blogger, though. That's why it matters.

      Delete
  7. If you guys may recall, I allowed comments for a year. I cut it off because, just as in face-to-face conversations, I don't care to talk to people who are snide and seek only to berate rather than discuss. The comment section turned into nothing more than a platform for you gun guys to spout NRA talking points and make vulgar attacks on my character. The few rational commenters were drowned out. The same is true on this site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you'll recall, my comments were rational and directed to the point in question. I disagreed with you, that was the problem. To you and to others on your side, rationality only means agreeing with what you say. But since you don't like the discussion here, why do you come?

      Delete
  8. @ Greg: "I don't have a lot of faith in what the Violence Policy Center cobbles together and calls a "study." It's what I'd call a biased source in my composition class and would require more research."

    As usual, you extremists poo-poo any and all statistics and studies which shed a bad light on your fetish (that would be all gun studies, by the way). In this case, the statistics are primarily from the CDC and the Journal of the American Medical Association. While you can claim the VPC is "biased against gun owners," are you also claiming the source of the statistics are as well, even though they are a governmental agency dedicated to American health issues and an internationally-renowned peer-reviewed medical journal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take an objective look at the numbers, if you can. Gun deaths and injuries represent a tiny fraction of the number of guns, of gun owners, and of people in this country. To have a free society, we have to accept a certain measure of risk. That's your problem--you want control to make life safe. Your goal is impossible, but that doesn't keep you from chasing after it. If you'd just leave the rest of us alone, we'd leave you to your dreams, but you insist on advocating for limits on our lives. Control yourself. That's all you can do, if that much.

      Delete
    2. The source of the data isn’t the problem, Baldr. It is the way it is presented- the old “lie with statistics” meme. The time field isn’t relevant to the major advancements in safety features in both industries. Secondly and more importantly, advancements made by the industry to prevent accidental discharges are intentionally made invisible by lumping accidents in with suicides and homicides which are a combined 60 times greater. Likewise if you lumped car deaths in with heart disease deaths, the car deaths would become noise.

      Here’s an interesting link. It is from the CDC nearly 20 years ago, and basically has the same theme as the VPC report, only back then it was 15 states with more gun deaths than car deaths. Of course they have the same projections- that by the year 2003 gun deaths with exceed car deaths…

      http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/M0023655.asp

      Delete
    3. That is, indeed, an interesting link. Clearly drawing that regression line wasn't predictive. It is interesting to note just how far the death rate has fallen for motor vehicles since the late 60's, and how far the death rate from firearms has increased. Though the curve didn't remain constant, it has still risen significantly.

      At some point gun-related deaths went back down, to about 30K. What worked to do so? And why did it start creeping back up? Those are important questions to answer to help fight the problem. If I remember correctly, that was about when the Brady Background Check system and NICS systems went into place.

      Delete
    4. Oregonian, why don't you throw in the Assault Weapons Ban too? Oh, right, that went out of business, thank the gods you blaspheme. We could note that crime rates also started falling at the same time as the rate of gun deaths dropped. Did the check system reach out and grab people who weren't using guns?

      While we're speculating wildly, let's note that the claim of the authors of "Freakonomics" is that the early nineties is twenty years after Roe v. Wade. A lot of unwanted children didn't happen. Their contention is that this was a contributing factor to the drop in crime rates.

      Or perhaps it was the gun control fairy. . .

      Delete