arma virumque cano (et alia)
It's curious that the year ranges in the first chart aren't the same for each group. Could it be that the maker of the chart doesn't want us to see the decline? And could it be that there's a difference between dying from the intentional act of another, such as what war and homicide are, and dying by your own choice?
Are you claiming these numbers are wrong?
I'm saying that the numbers are presented in a way that masks trends, and that they don't show the breakdown of types of deaths.
Parse the numbers any way you want. Fact is they are correct numbers and a dam good reason to put controls on guns. You are grasping for anything to defend your "side."
Fact, by themselves, say nothing. You believe that gun control is needed, but that's your interpretation, not a necessary conclusion.
You're just being contentions and disagreeable. You get defensive whenever we show how bad the gun violence situation is because you know you're partly responsible for it.
False, false, false, false.1. I disagree with your position. I realize that disagreement is counterrevolutionary and unacceptable to a gun control advocate, but that's too bad.2. I am defending my rights. Of course you call that being defensive. Name a right you care about, and we'll see how you react.3. The numbers actually would show how the situation is getting better, and there are solutions that I've already proposed to improve the situation even more.4. No, I'm not. I haven't killed anyone.
The amusing thing is how many soldiers died from disease rather than wounds during the wars.In other words, Far fewer may have died from gun shot wounds in the wars.
Amusing is an unfortunate word to use in reference to people dying.
"Far fewer may have died from gun shot wounds in the wars." Very true Laci, in addition to disease, you would also need to throw in indirect fire, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. Amusing isn't a word I would use either. I would also contend that the deaths listed in the various military conflicts would be a result of government sanctioned assault. This would suggest that on the civilian gun deaths, only homicides should be counted instead of the more general term "gun deaths". To prevent the inevitable quibbling over whether 63% or whatever can be called two thirds, lets round down to an even 60% of gun deaths being suicide. That would put the number of US homicides at around 553,669. Still not an enviable figure, but more equivalent when comparing it to those killed in war.
Parse the numbers any way you want. These numbers show in fact we do have a gun problem with enough deaths to prove the need for stricter gun laws. Your "side" has shown through the numbers alone it's willing to accept mass death and not even try gun control methods.
Gun control shows no promise of doing what you claim. I've offered better answers that don't also involve violating anyone's rights. Why aren't you willing to consider those?
As I said earlier Anon, the more germane enough. If that is the case, then why do gun control advocates work so hard to inflate the numbers the way this posting did? If they made a point of using accurate data that couldn't be denied, then they wouldn't have such issues with credibility. All of our rights carry a price.
In fact the numbers only show gun shot deaths from 1968, but deaths from war since the Revolutionary War. I stopped believing your accusations that this site uses false numbers, since you claim every study this site uses is false. Cry wolf all you want.
Can the pro-gun guys put aside their bias long enough to agree this is an amazing statistic?
The original statistic is amazing in its inaccuracy. The more truthful statistic is amazing in its magnitude.
Where is your proof these figures are inaccurate?
Anon, read my post above. Then recall back recently about the back and forth about whether 64 or 63% equals two thirds. And there you go.
Sorry, those are dishonest figures sine you changed them 3 times in 6 months. You will have to be more honest for anyone to believe you. You have yet to show these numbers are false, but you keep claiming it. Lets add all the gunshot deaths in America sine the Revolutionary war instead of just since 1968. That's the only problem with the comparison these numbers show.
You are free to research that if you can. As long as you keep it germane and use homicides and not gunshot deaths. As I said earlier, for some reason gun control advocates take what are truly troubling statistics and for some reason feel the need to inflate them by adding events that aren't comparable and thereby damage their credibility. Dare I say it, they are shooting themselves in the foot doing this.
You say that but haven't proven it, so it's just another lie from a proven liar.
I guess no Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, etc, were killed by guns. If ya ain't Murican ya don't count.orlin sellers