Gun rights
To which a sane and sensible retort should be: "why is there a right to own a deadly weapon, especially if the possession of which is more likely to yield adverse results?"
Of course, the usual responses are that they protect homes with a ridiculously high amount of defensive uses, reduce crime, or something else patently bizarre.
But, it goes even deeper than just how effective are firearms for self-protection or do they reduce crime.
It seems that there is no real data as to how many people are shot in the US. ProPublica points out:
How many Americans have been shot over the past 10 years? No one really knows. We don't even know if the number of people shot annually has gone up or down over that time.The problem is that the "pro-gun" freeze on research in this area means that many basic facts about the topic are unknown: some of which really are necessary to have an informed debate on the topic.
The government's own numbers seem to conflict. One source of data on shooting victims suggests that gun-related violence has been declining for years, while another government estimate actually shows an increase in the number of people who have been shot. Each estimate is based on limited, incomplete data. Not even the FBI tracks the total number of nonfatal gunshot wounds.
"We know how many people die, but not how many are injured and survive," said Dr. Demetrios Demetriades, a Los Angeles trauma surgeon who has been studying nationwide gunshot injury trends.
Such as: how much does the current lack of regulation of firearms cost society (e.g., the tax payers). While you may not like it, society bears the cost of this "right".
The Department of Justice has estimates of nonfatal shootings that suggest a similar trend: Its National Crime Victimization Survey shows a decline, from an average of about 22,000 nonfatal shootings in 2002, to roughly 12,000 a year from 2007 to 2011, according to a Department of Justice statistician.
But over the same time period, CDC estimates show that the number of Americans coming to hospitals with nonfatal, violent gun injuries has actually gone up: from an estimated 37,321 nonfatal gunshot injuries in 2002 to 55,544 in 2011. [1]
The FBI also gathers data on gun crime from local police departments, but most departments do not track the number of people who are shot and survive. Instead, shootings are counted as part of the broader category of "aggravated assault," which includes a range of gun-related crimes, from waving a gun at threateningly to actually shooting someone.
There were about 140,000 firearm aggravated assaults nationwide in 2012, according to the FBI's report. How many of those assaults represent someone actually getting shot? There's no way to tell.
The contrast between these estimates is hard to clear up, since each data source has serious limitations. One can try to keep track of each shooting as is done in real time by using news sources as is being done by http://gunviolencearchive.org/.
But, each of these methods lacks in accuracy: with some being more accurate than others.
The American Bar Association and medical and public health groups collaborated on an extensive campaign with the message, "what we don't know is killing us". The bottom line is that the topic of firearms regulation in the United States is being debated in ignorance without even the most basic facts being presented.
So, why don't you get back to me when you can provide me with some REAL facts about how bad the gun violence problem is in the US because we can't have a real discussion until that time.
But, I would say you definitely have a problem with gun violence if you don't know the extent of the issue: or even admit it is an issue.
[1] These numbers include only injuries caused by violent assault, not accidents, self-inflicted injuries, or shootings by police.
Because we cannot agree on a certain number does not erase the problem, which is why debating numbers is secondary to finding solutions to the problem. The folly of trying to trump each others numbers, then declaring a certain "proof" of an issue is the height of false certainty. A given set of facts can be defined in many different ways.
ReplyDelete"The Department of Justice has estimates of nonfatal shootings that suggest a similar trend: Its National Crime Victimization Survey shows a decline, from an average of about 22,000 nonfatal shootings in 2002, to roughly 12,000 a year from 2007 to 2011, according to a Department of Justice statistician.
ReplyDeleteBut over the same time period, CDC estimates show that the number of Americans coming to hospitals with nonfatal, violent gun injuries has actually gone up: from an estimated 37,321 nonfatal gunshot injuries in 2002 to 55,544 in 2011."
The different figures are troubling Laci, and I agree that knowing the actual number is important. Especially if it can be coupled with demographic and geographic data.
I believe that pretty much require all gunshot wounds be reported to the police, whom I presume report some of them to the FBI. And I'm presuming that the CDC gets its numbers from the same people who report to the police.
I can see where injuries determined to be accidental might not be forwarded to the FBI since they wouldn't be an assault, especially if self inflicted. Then also unsuccessful suicide attempts likewise wouldn't probably be considered an assault. So, the CDC number is likely closer to the truth since the other two collectors deal with criminal acts.