Suicide trigger warning [spoiler](no pun intended)
I see gun deaths listed in a variety of ways, but is there somewhere that just provides raw data? The NY times, The BBC, Wikipedia nor gun violence archive seem to agree & provide the same numbers.
The NY Times says suicide by gun accounts for 60% of deaths, but I can’t find other references that confirm that (seems high, knowing full well that’s just a gut feeling with zero basis in fact) the references I found (on a quick google) always group suicide in with their total. None seem to provide an independent total for suicide. Some get fishy when you dig into their numbers.
Anyone know of a DB that answers this honestly? How many gun deaths in US / year, of that, how many are intentionally self inflicted?
ETA: I found a good data source National Vital Statistics Reports - Deaths: Leading Causes for 2012 but I can’t seem to tease the data out of it. Maybe it’s late and I’m not looking at the data properly. I can see there are references to intentional self harm, but I can’t seem to quite find the data.
[/spoiler]
I think the ad is accurate but missing something, probably the top part of it has been cut out.
The part where it’s written "If you have criminal records, show signs of mental illness (and they manage to catch you) or you are a wannabe registered terrorist"
Hillary blah blah.
there is the following source of information of violent deaths from 200-2013-- https://wisqars.cdc.gov:8443/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp but it doesn’t have the information for the whole country and is not representative of the u.s. as a whole which is by design to avoid being said to be studying gun violence. it does offer a multitude of different parameters for searching the data.
I don’t care much for the constitutional argument. However I’m slightly more sympathetic to the gun owner position having talked to my brother in law about it. He is from a rural area in New Zealand and he says you need guns. Apparently home invasion is a serious problem in the sticks so it’s not advisable to walk up to a farm house and ask directions. If you look a bit like a Maori you have every chance of having a gun pointed at you before you reach the house.
So I can now see that guns are important to people who live in low population density areas.
I would rather no one had guns in urban areas . Including the police. But that’s not going to happen.
the suggestion is that Republicans whine won’t someone rid us of this turbulent Clinton and then someone goes and does it, not that there is a big organized conspiracy to do it.
So really the counterpart is not the Clinton conspiracy theories, it’s planned parenthood / abortion provider killings.
Or doesn’t the Republican campaign of hate have anything to do with those?
No civilian should be allowed to purchase a weapon like this
Why, because it looks scary? It is a semi-automatic rifle. It is not more lethal than
any other of the hundred million which citizens own. It is not a submachine gun. The large capacity magazine is extremely useful for self defense situations, as the MA state police have pointed out in their Patrol Rifle Manual. Most people miss their shots most of the time when they are defending themselves against one or more attackers.
The chances of being killed by firearm of any kind are about 1 in 27,000 (Examples using the Risk Perspective Scale). Chances of being killed while crossing the street are 1 in 47,273. There are probably a hundred million rifles
in American homes, but only about a few percent are deaths from rifles of any kind per year. So the chances of being killed by a rifle of any kind is around one in a million. By way of comparison the chances of being legally executed by the state are about 1 in 4 million.The one or two high profile cases that make the news are not even a little bit “typical” of the day to day reality of rifle ownership in the US.
I didn’t say it was a submachine gun. It’s a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds extremely quickly. It’s designed to make it easy for an inexperienced person to kill as many people as possible. That’s specifically what it’s for.
Can you give me a good reason, besides mass murder, for an average citizen to own this weapon? Oh, I see that you feel it’s good for “self defense”. Against who? A militia? The army? Not acceptable.
Low recoil, low flash, light weight, tumbling rounds designed for human targets and high capacity, ergonomics optimised for pumping out as much aimed fire at diverse targets in a given period of time as possible.
The only substantial functional difference between this and current standard US military rifles are that the civilian versions lack the option for three-shot bursts. It is very much not the same thing as a farmer’s low-capacity semiauto .22.
It’s function for the 99.99% of law abiding gun owners is as a means of
self defense, or
for recreational purposes.
According to you, "It’s designed to make it easy for an inexperienced
person to kill as many people as possible. "
However, the police believe it has a different purpose. According to the MA
State Police Patrol Rifle Manual , the purpose and function is
The Mission of the Patrol Rifle The Patrol Rifle is a force multiplier.
The advantages of the rifle permit a single officer to effectively deal
with multiple adversaries without the disadvantages of being only armed
with a handgun.
So, which is it? Your breathless hyperbole, or the professional police
force? In the minds of people like you, who’s only experience is to have
watched hollywood movies and TV, each bullet finds its mark every time, and
kills at least one innocent person. Nobody ever defends themselves with a
weapon, only psychopaths use them. In reality, the policemen in New York
fire 300 rounds at the guy in the street with a knife, and 99% of the shots
don’t hit the guy they’re aiming at.
If you want to take the literally one in ten million case of a crazy person
using it, and confiscate it from everyone else, you are fooling yourself
that you are doing anything
to improve public safety. As witnessed in Europe, a motor vehicle is more
lethal than a gun in
many circumstances, are you saying a truck is also designed to let an
inexperienced person kill as many people as possible?
You didn’t answer my question. Why would 99.99 percent of people need a semi-automatic weapon designed for military use for self defense? Whom are they defending themselves against? Gay people in a nightclub?
You certainly assume a lot about people, don’t you?
No, I don’t think that 30 rounds = 30 kills. But Omar Mateen was able to kill 49 people and wound 53 with it (and a Glock). Given that we’ve had so many mass shootings so far this year already, that’s not a “one in ten million case”.
I absolutely agree with the police force that a semi-automatic weapon is a ‘force multiplier’. It allows a single person to ‘deal with multiple adversaries’. In this case, a room full of gay people.
I think @Snowlark points out the main problem with comparing registration/insuring a gun vs nearly any other household item.
Computers or TVs can be used for evil purposes…even can be used to kill a person. As can power tools, kitchen knives and utensils, even common household cleaners. But harm or death is not the primary function of these things. They are used for practical purposes. A car of vehicle has a primary purpose as well…transportation/recreation. Yet we register and insure them because they can also cause death and destruction as a result of negligence.
Guns have one purpose. AND ONLY ONE. To harm a living thing and potentially cause its death. PERIOD. there is no other purpose for a gun. While registration and insurance will not prevent all of the illegal things that do happen, and it will not prevent all gun violence entirely; it is a completely logical and acceptable step to take.
Simply put, we as a nation have turned right numerous times while driving. We have also stood still at the intersection refusing to make a choice which direction to go. We’ve also gone straight on a handful of occasions. But we rarely ever ever turn left. Let’s try it on this one. Let’s turn left for once. We’ve done it a couple times before…and its always worked out awesome for us…so on this one…let’s just slide the turn signal down and ease the car left.
two ways of describing the same feature. what do you think force multiplier means other than making it easier for one person to kill or injure a lot of people? i agree @nungesser 's rhetoric is over the top but the rifle manual is decidedly under the top to about the same proportion.
If you are so persuaded by the “outrage of the month” in the mass media,
that you would confiscate 100 million rifles from citizens to stop one or
two incidents of rifle violence per year, there is no way you
will be able to rationally put the risks vs harms to freedom in
perspective. The nanny state says that self-defense is practically a
crime, whereas many people regard it as a human right. It happens that the
most effective tools of self defense are still lethal, that’s too bad, but
it doesn’t make it any more ethical to take
them away from the vast majority of people, to avoid what are vanishingly
small risks (rifle crime) compared to say stepping off the curb every day
to cross the street. If you want to save lives, start throwing people in
jail for jaywalking, or else put up large fences and gates such that
crossing the street is highly restricted and regulated. Or is that some
kind of infringement on your freedom? You will save far more than the 300
lives per year that are lost by crime with rifles of ANY type.
I am definitely persuaded by the deaths of 49 people in a nightclub. That’s not something the media made up. 49 people died. 53 people were injured.
This has nothing to do with self defense. Nothing to do with a “nanny state”. I honestly have no idea what your argument is: that it’s OK for the occasional massacre to happen as long as you can shoot a semiautomatic weapon for fun? Because that’s literally what you’re saying.
If it’s an infringement on your “freedom” that certain types of weapons are more highly regulated to help prevent mass murders, then I am very okay with infringing your freedoms.
I don’t think NBA expect or even desire Trump to be president, they want to scary people into buying even more guns when Mrs. Clinton is elected
They say they represent gun owners but I guess the interests of gun manufacturers are the most important
