Actually, as we've seen in recent reports, the true number of accidental firearm deaths is double that. That would put us right after Fire/Burns.
But, what's the point anyway? Is all this to say the numbers of accidental shooting deaths we have are fine and dandy? They're dwarfed by car accidents and poisonings and falls, they must be acceptable?
Is that it?
"Actually, as we've seen in recent reports, the true number of accidental firearm deaths is double that. That would put us right after Fire/Burns."
ReplyDeleteMike, are you referring to that study that seems to contradict the CDC statistics? If the data the CDC puts out is incorrect, then why was the gun control lobby so thrilled that the President was going to allow more government studies on gun violence.
Well, the CDC report on accidental gun deaths may be lacking in certain respects which the study corrected. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do more studies.
DeleteSince you only accept studies that reach the conclusion you want, you'll have to excuse me from regarding your claims as having any worth.
ReplyDeleteAnd what studies do you accept?
DeleteI accept valid studies as far as they go. I also recognize that studies tell us facts, when they're valid, but don't determine what we should do about those facts.
DeleteYes, valid = agrees with your already determined position.
DeleteMikeb, you're a case of the pot calling the table linen black.
DeleteMike posted his statistics, where are yours?
DeleteThe point gunloons ignore (because it's inconvenient) is that the gun-owning population is supposedly self-selected. That is, the people who own the guns and who are having accidents are supposed to be law-abiding, responsible, trained adults.
ReplyDeleteThe other accidents (auto, fire, falling, etc.) involve the entire population not just a select few.
It's also worth noting that firearm accidents (and homicides) have not been declining while deaths from auto accidents, fires, etc have been.
Firearm accidental deaths are not decreasing? Where are you getting all your bad information from, Jade?
DeleteI know Mike doesn't like bringing up cars, but you did mention it. How are auto accidents any different beyond the percentage of users of the general population? People who own and drive autos are also self selected, and effect others in accidents.
DeleteAs for the direction accidental gun deaths and homicides are moving, you might want to check the data.
1999 accidental gun deaths, 824
2010 accidental gun deaths 606
Interestingly, the CDC and FBI seem to disagree,
CDC homicides,
1999 10,828 3.82 per 100k
2010 11,078 3.62 per 100k
Total numbers go up, rate goes down about 5%
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
FBI homicides,
1999 15,530 5.7 per 100k
2010 14,748 4.8 per 100k
Numbers goes down and rate goes down about 15%
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/
Tnhe sleight of hand SSG is using is to spread the number of accidents over the entire population as opposed to the population actually engaged in a specific activity.
DeleteFor example, let's say I never ride a bike. My chances of being involved a bicycle accident are nil. But if you include me as aprt of the population at risk of being in a bike accident--you are skewing the stats.
Gun ownership in the US has been decreasing steadily since the early- to mid-1970s--both in terms of household ownership and personal ownership. (NORC GSS).
We also know that firearm accidents (and homicides) have held fairly steady over the same period. There was a spike in the early 1990s but that doesn't help the gunloon argument.
When you account for the fact gun ownership is going down and gun deaths are stable or increasing--there's no way you can seriously argue the rate is decreasing. Since SSG likes 1999 and 2010 so much as comparison points, we see the actual firearm death rate (adjusted for ownership) was 10.35 in 1999 and 10.26 in 2010. In the 10 years between 1999 and 2010, the rate fell below 10.35 only twice and hit 10.52 in 2002.
Jade,
DeleteThe reason I used 1999 to 2010 is that was as far back as the CDC app goes in building reports. We must agree to disagree in the area of the percentage of gun ownership falling since it seems to be based on a poll, much like the mythical 90 some odd percent who want more gun laws.
Like auto accidents, gun accidents effect the entire population, unless you are suggesting that the only homicides and accidents that count are those in which the owners themselves are victims. This would have a drastic effect on the number of gun deaths of children for example, since most cant legally own guns.
Using your example,
"For example, let's say I never ride a bike. My chances of being involved a bicycle accident are nil."
If you don't own a car, and then you get hit by one crossing the street, is it an auto accident? My guess is that this event gets figured into the total numbers.
Jadegold is incapable of providing valid data. He makes things up at will to defend his position, whatever he's shoving at the moment under the name, Jadegold, or E.N. or whatnot.
DeleteFirst of all, Jadegold's assertion is absolutely untrue. The annual number of murders where the criminal used a firearm for the murder weapon rose through the 60s, 70s, 80s, peaked in the early 1990s, and has been declining ever since with the possible exception that 2012 was fraction of a percent higher than 2011. Go look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports to see the actual numbers.
DeleteMore importantly, it doesn't matter what "gun deaths" are doing. If lots of people began soaking tampons in gasoline and used them to burn down buildings (causing massive numbers of injuries and deaths from the fire), would that justify banning tampons? I don't care how a criminal misuses an object to harm someone, how often they misuse an object, how many casualties criminal cause with the object, or what object criminals misuse -- it is not a valid reason to ban citizens from owning and possessing the object.
-- TruthBeTold
If you want to go that route, Jade, it's not about how many people own guns, it's how often they are used. You know, the equivalent of accidents per miles driven when talking about cars. You are not so bold as to make the claim that ammo consumption is down, are you?
DeleteOr that concealed carry is down?
DeleteOr that hunting permits are down?
Or that ranges are going out of business?
Truth be Told, you're the only one not paying attention. Jadegold pointed out that although the total numbers may be declining, so are the total number of gun owners. The net result being not a decrease but an increase. Get it?
DeleteAll TS can come up with is some obfuscation and misdirection.
I can't help that you're easily confused and have no sense of direction. I thought I was pretty clear. Jadegold tried to rationalist a decrease in accidents by selectively weighing some ownership poll over others. Yet gun use is more important than gun ownership if you are going to make a rate analysis, i.e. if you want to look deeper into car accidents, you wouldn't look at whether there are more three car households than 20 years ago- you would look at miles driven. There are more people carrying than ever before. There are more people participating in shooting sports than ever before. This makes for more opportunity for accidents, yet accidents are down. You can desperately cling to this belief that fewer people own guns if you want, but even still you guys admit that the boom in sales is from a smaller dedicated faction of gun owners. According to your beliefs, these people should be causing more accidents, and letting their more numerous weapons slip into the criminal world thereby increasing crime. But that's not happening.
DeleteIt is happening. Your slight "improvements" wouldn't be so slight if it weren't for the problems caused by gun owners. The increased numbers of guns concentrated in fewer hands is responsible for increased gun flow into the criminal world. Where the hell else are criminals getting their guns?
DeleteFrom other criminals, Mikeb. And if that supply dried up, they'd import guns.
DeleteI would very much like to reduce accidental and unintentional firearm deaths. And the way to do that is with training and education.
ReplyDeleteTelling good citizens that they cannot own or possess firearms is not the way to reduce accidental deaths.
-- TruthBeTold
No one is telling "good citizens" they cannot own guns. We want to ensure that ONLY good people can own them. But since that's eminently reasonable, you have to lie about it and say we're trying to disarm the good guys.
DeleteMikeb, someone who is worthy to own firearms and who has the time and money to go through everything that you demand would be as common as a Mayan rabbi born on Mars.
Delete