If you don’t like my multiplying by number of years of life, the simple division of gun deaths in 2015 by all deaths in 2015 gives 1.9%. That can be faithfully extrapolated to, “assuming the ratio of gun deaths to all deaths to all deaths remains constant, the chance that a randomly chosen American’s eventual cause of death will be gun related is 1.9%.” That careful statement is the sort of thing people would summarize as “1.9% of Americans die from a gunshot” I think that second statement is misleading, but it’s only misleading because people don’t understand statistics. Misleading or not, it’s a common was that sort of statistic is described, and is just as accurate as the statement, “1 in 3 Americans die from heart disease.”
Well I can’t dispute your math. I think you convinced me to agree with what you are saying. Perhaps it is just a bit counter intuitive. Actually I have a neat fold out thing I saved years ago because I liked the graphic design, and it used graphics to show to scale the likelihood of death via what ever. Mostly cancer, heart disease, falls, etc. So it is just another way of looking at it. Stats are weird because their meaning can be hard to interpret on how they impact your life. In this stat, there is no getting out alive. Something is going to kill you. What was it?
So considering about half of gun deaths are murders, and looking the CDC fast stats there are nearly 5000 more non-gun murders (17,793), plugging in your number it is nearly a 1% chance you died via homicide - .894%
Let’s look at all suicides. There are 44,193 on the CDC fast stats (total), so that comes to 2.22%. Wow, we are over 2.5 times as likely, to take ourselves out. That’s sad.
Still, using your formula, when comparing it to more common, less sensational deaths, I think it puts the risk in some perspective. But I know, I know, stairs and ladders and cleaning chemicals aren’t made to kill people. It doesn’t make them less dangerous than they are, but we are more familiar and comfortable around that danger.
Falls - 33381, 1.678%
Poison - 47478, 2.387%
I am less concerned with changing minds, vs accurate info, and a perception of this side that better reflects reality, and not the caricature of people like Brian Kemp who I have to try to assure people is the exception, not the norm.
See, it’s things like this that make me think the NRA actually doesn’t give two floating shits about responsible gun ownership.
(Lest you think this tweet from an anti-NRA advocacy group is inaccurately claiming that the NRA supported this bill, their legislative advocacy site has a dedicated call to action for it. In fact, there seem to be NRA calls to action for this bill at every step of the legislative process.)
Some fun facts:
- You still can’t carry guns in public buildings like the state capitol. Always weird how that exemption crops up every time…
- The bill also amends state code to explicitly prohibit undocumented individuals from owning or carrying a firearm. Thank god they closed that loophole! Firearm free-for-alls are only for MURICANS, y’all.
2 Likes
Sure, in a cold, rational, statistical sense. I’m talking about the simple, practical sense. It is likely, far too likely, that there will be a mass school shooting in the month of May. I’d wager good money on it. And I’d likely win.
I think part of the ‘problem’ is that for some reason, the norm is allowing the exceptions to represent them.
In part that’s probably just because the moderate gun-ownership supporting politician doesn’t go on air waving his piece about and doesn’t get the coverage but still…
If the majority of gun-owners are not like this guy, then why do these people still persist with their antics? They obviously think it appeals to a significant number of people.
The media also seems to present the Ted Nugents and other colorful characters because let’s face it - they cause interest, conflict, make good sound bites, and stirs the pot. People like Colion Noir make much more rational arguments. John Oliver’s (who I do like, in general) “reporting” on NRA TV, seemed to omit him in his piece, even though his shows is one of the most popular. But he isn’t saying stuff that one can make good satire against.
And then in the wild - the guy who blows off his hand, leaves a gun in the bathroom, or makes a cringy political ad is who gets featured. The kid who won his state trap shooting meet and who represents how most people used a gun that day might get a mention in the local sports section of the paper.
There IS back lash some times for stuff like that. If there was clear safety violations you will usually get scolded. If you ever post a pic with your finger on the trigger, got help you. Even in this case on a FB thread you had about half the voices say that the ad makes gun owners look like herp derp rednecks. A quarter who were sorta neutral, but worried about safety, and a quarter saying it’s a southern thing.
But I think there is also the “don’t eat your own” mentality. Personally I’d rather present a more positive, less emotional front on the issues. Several of the spokes people for the NRA (who all have the disclaimer that they don’t necessarily reflect the views, blah, blah) I think hurt the cause. I suppose there is a section of the base it appeals to, but one already has those people locked up. The issue shouldn’t be split along political lines, and gaining moderate or liberal support should be a goal. As Wanderlust has posted many times, after Trump got elected, there have been more pro 2nd Amendment leftists creating orgs and getting together to learn and train.
1 Like
Really, why would you spend time, money and words supporting and defending an organization if they didn’t represent you?
Why is it surprising that the public takes the message and spokespeople seriously, and how can we be expected to believe that nembers don’t?
2 Likes
-
Find me a large political organization you feel represents you 100%. I’ll wait. You vote Democrat? I can only assume you fully support every thing they do. Of course not. Even the often loved ACLU has critics. Obama kept Gitmo open, despite campaign promises - yadda yadda yadda.
-
There are voices that do represent me. I keep saying Colion Noir, as he is the only person I check out with any regularity, and I agree with nearly everything he says.
-
Despite bad representatives at times, and disagreeing with some of their ideas for solutions, their actual support of the actual laws I want passed/not passed align with my overall ideals of less government authoritarianism, more individual liberty.
I don’t have to, because I don’t give any of those organizations my money, nor do I belong to them. I also don’t “vote democrat”, I choose candidates individually.
Including his attacks on the Parkland kids?
Your and other’s willingness to overlook the overall character of the organization, the racism, extremism and bad representation doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
When the NRA makes videos, statements, and political gestures, I’m going to take them at their word. It would be dangerous not to.
2 Likes
So do you agree or disagree with their support for legislation in Oklahoma that essentially eliminates any and all requirements to demonstrate proficiency or even competency with firearms before you’re allowed to carry them, concealed or not, in public as a means of “self defense”?
2 Likes
That is a good, yet hard question. Missouri has that as well now. And my home state of Kansas.
What is funny is remember when I was like 18 or so talking to a friend who just got hired as a cop (I worked with him at walmart, he was in this early 20s), asking about conceal carry. Actually I had taken to carrying a knife for protection when going to the “big city” of Wichita after hearing about what was surely an urban legend in hindsight. But that lead to asking about conceal carry of weapons and guns. At the time you couldn’t get a license in Kansas unless you were a cop, ex-cop, or some specific security type jobs, like guarding money transfers.
The conceal carry movement started in the early 90s, and it was a response to the rising crime rate (which at it’s peak was nearly twice what is is now in homicides). People wanted the same “rights” criminals were exercising. The NRA, I imagine, had a hand in this, but honestly from what I have read most of the leg work on these issues are by state based conceal carry orgs. In 25ish years the landscape moved from no-issue, to may-issue, to shall-issue, to constitutional carry in some states. so I find it interesting how fast this has changed.
So, anyway, back to your question. Honestly, I have mixed feelings about it. In the past my support for licensing has extended to USE in places other than the home. i.e. nothing is needed if you just buy one and shoot on your land, or a designated range. Hunters for ever have to go through a hunters safety course. I still remember taking mine with my dad and friend Ben Thompson. I got a perfect score on the test.
Conceal carry is one area where I am ok with rudimentary training for a license. It isn’t just for the people out there, but for the user, letting people know about the various legalities of conceal carry, the restrictions etc. Now MO actually has a CC license you an still get, and it affords you MORE rights than constitutional carry. Even though the required training is pretty basic, it is better than none, IMHO. Also IMHO if one does plan to carry regularly they need to invest in some basic to intermediate training, and self train (practice) for proficiency. (I by far had the best group in the shooting portion, getting all but one round in the orange section I was aiming at. Oh that one little guy…)
Sooo - on one hand, I would l think it is prudent to ask people to have at least a class under their belt for CC. On the other hand, I suppose making it not illegal by default to have a concealed weapon on you IS an increase in personal liberty, which I ideally support.
I think in reality, most people, everyone I know who does it, takes it very seriously. They are proficient enough to defend themselves (one of them doesn’t need a gun to do that, as he is extremely proficient in martial arts, including his native Filipino stick fighting), and take the idea they can defend with lethal force seriously. It makes one think hard about NOT putting themselves in situations where they would need it. They tend to not engage in actions which would lead to an escalation.
But we aren’t worried about those people, are we? We are worried about raging hot heads. The thing is, I am not sure them sitting through a CC class would change their minds or actions any. And keep in mind, even before this laws change, before there was CC as an option, people CC when they weren’t supposed to. Not intent on crime, but defense.
So while I am not against the licensing requirement for CC, and I am not for constitutional carry, I think from a practical level constitutional carry won’t have the negative effects some people are picturing in their heads. I know that is a wishy-washy answer, but like I said: mixed feelings.
You’re going to have to point that out to me. I have heard him disagree with their points, but not actual attacks.
And technically I haven’t been a member of the NRA for several years. It is more out of laziness than anything.
But that wasn’t the question I asked. I asked one to find a political org that you agree with 100%. Unless you started such org, you won’t find one. Even if you aren’t a democrat, can you say you have NEVER defended them? Like when someone calls Obama or Hillary a communist, for example. Ever correct them and tell them they are neo liberals? If not this example, can you think of others? If the answer really is no, then I am guessing you just don’t have political passion subject.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
