Guns Send over 8,000 US Kids to ER Each Year, Analysis Says

[phands]

(probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

As usual, <snip> facts contradict your nonsense.....

Assaults by firearm kill about 13,000 people in the US each year, which translates to a roughly 1-in-315 lifetime chance of death from gun violence.
That's about 56% more likely than the lifetime risk of dying while riding inside a car, truck, or van. It's also more than 11 times as high as dying from any force of nature, such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, or lightning strike.
These measures also suggest Americans are more likely to die from gun violence than the combined risks of drowning, fire and smoke, stabbing, choking on food, airplane crashes, animal attacks, and natural disasters.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2

This year, we're already at 12,126 gun deaths, outside of suicides, so that 13000 figure might be exceeded by around 1500 extra deaths. And what liberty is being lost? To slaughter innocent animals or fellow humans with distanced impunity? Abject twaddle.

 

[Trausti]

(probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

As usual, <snip>, facts contradict your nonsense.....

Assaults by firearm kill about 13,000 people in the US each year, which translates to a roughly 1-in-315 lifetime chance of death from gun violence.
That's about 56% more likely than the lifetime risk of dying while riding inside a car, truck, or van. It's also more than 11 times as high as dying from any force of nature, such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, or lightning strike.
These measures also suggest Americans are more likely to die from gun violence than the combined risks of drowning, fire and smoke, stabbing, choking on food, airplane crashes, animal attacks, and natural disasters.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2

This year, we're already at 12,126 gun deaths, outside of suicides, so that 13000 figure might be exceeded by around 1500 extra deaths. And what liberty is being lost? To slaughter innocent animals or fellow humans with distanced impunity? Abject twaddle.

You authoritarians always have your justifications.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.

The liberty to have the option to kill somebody quickly and easily?

 

[Worldtraveller]

(probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

As usual, <snip>, facts contradict your nonsense.....

Assaults by firearm kill about 13,000 people in the US each year, which translates to a roughly 1-in-315 lifetime chance of death from gun violence.
That's about 56% more likely than the lifetime risk of dying while riding inside a car, truck, or van. It's also more than 11 times as high as dying from any force of nature, such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, or lightning strike.
These measures also suggest Americans are more likely to die from gun violence than the combined risks of drowning, fire and smoke, stabbing, choking on food, airplane crashes, animal attacks, and natural disasters.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2

This year, we're already at 12,126 gun deaths, outside of suicides, so that 13000 figure might be exceeded by around 1500 extra deaths. And what liberty is being lost? To slaughter innocent animals or fellow humans with distanced impunity? Abject twaddle.

While your point stands, the bit about car deaths is incorrect. Car deaths are about 3x gun deaths in the US/year.

 

[Jarhyn]

As usual, <snip>, facts contradict your nonsense.....



https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2

This year, we're already at 12,126 gun deaths, outside of suicides, so that 13000 figure might be exceeded by around 1500 extra deaths. And what liberty is being lost? To slaughter innocent animals or fellow humans with distanced impunity? Abject twaddle.

While your point stands, the bit about car deaths is incorrect. Car deaths are about 3x gun deaths in the US/year.

But how often do we interact with cars, and at what percentage of the population, versus exposure to and ownership rates of guns? If one in four owns a gun, yet one in three deaths is gun over car, that implicates the gun as more dangerous purely in this stupid derail about cars. Someone who is more pedantic than I can fill in actual numbers; I have a real job I really should be doing.

more important is that guns are dangerous weapons which preclude extended reflection upon use and while approaching lethality. they turn an injury too often into a death, an incapacitation to an inhumation. And often enough they provide plausible deniability to intent to kill rather than protect oneself. They are just unnecessary for the purposes 2nd amendment assholes propose them to.

 

[southernhybrid]

As usual, <snip>, facts contradict your nonsense.....



https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2

This year, we're already at 12,126 gun deaths, outside of suicides, so that 13000 figure might be exceeded by around 1500 extra deaths. And what liberty is being lost? To slaughter innocent animals or fellow humans with distanced impunity? Abject twaddle.

While your point stands, the bit about car deaths is incorrect. Car deaths are about 3x gun deaths in the US/year.

I don't think that is true any longer. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths outnumbered car deaths in 2017, but I could only find the stats for 2016, when gun deaths narrowly outnumbered car deaths. Take a look.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 36,161
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 36,252
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't think that is true any longer. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths outnumbered car deaths in 2017, but I could only find the stats for 2016, when gun deaths narrowly outnumbered car deaths. Take a look.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 36,161
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 36,252
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3

Not to mention that cars are heavily regulated while pro-gunners are against all regulation.

 

[phands]

I don't think that is true any longer. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths outnumbered car deaths in 2017, but I could only find the stats for 2016, when gun deaths narrowly outnumbered car deaths. Take a look.

The cross over point was back in 2015. Since then gun deaths are higher than cars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-as-cars-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.68ebc352944b

In fact, because of the gun loons' suppression of gun violence research, the numbers may be even higher, and the cross-over earlier.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I don't think that is true any longer. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths outnumbered car deaths in 2017, but I could only find the stats for 2016, when gun deaths narrowly outnumbered car deaths. Take a look.

The cross over point was back in 2015. Since then gun deaths are higher than cars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-as-cars-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.68ebc352944b

In fact, because of the gun loons' suppression of gun violence research, the numbers may be even higher, and the cross-over earlier.

Ok. I was misunderstanding what you were quoting in the OP. (12k vs. 36k) They are about equal now!?! Holy shit.

That's shocking to me, especially given as how Jarhyn pointed out, the shear amount that we use cars vs. how often we (should) use guns.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ok. I was misunderstanding what you were quoting in the OP. (12k vs. 36k) They are about equal now!?! Holy shit.

That's shocking to me, especially given as how Jarhyn pointed out, the shear amount that we use cars vs. how often we (should) use guns.

Well, cars are not designed to kill people and a large number of the improvements in car design are specifically geared towards making them even better at not killing people. That's the exact opposite of the case with guns.

 

[RavenSky]

If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.

Anyone who wants to join the military so they can play with guns are still welcome to do so

 

[RavenSky]

I don't think that is true any longer. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths outnumbered car deaths in 2017, but I could only find the stats for 2016, when gun deaths narrowly outnumbered car deaths. Take a look.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 36,161
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 36,252
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3

Not to mention that cars are heavily regulated while pro-gunners are against all regulation.

Actually, that is the most important point to mention.

The reason car deaths are dropping is because of regulations to improve safety and use.

As Jarhyn said, almost no one here suggests we can (or should try) to eliminate all guns everywhere. What we can and should (and will) do is increase training and safety requirements, require insurance, etc.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.

Would you want to weight that probability against the chances of potentially being forced into a police state by your government and actually curbing that force by the use of your own power? Do you think the second amendment in any way curbs the ability of the government (which is what the constitution is supposed to do)?

You manufacture crazy and impossible scenarios that could not possibly be true and sacrifice children and innocents to protect those scenarios.

It is factually true that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is being sacrificed purely for the purpose a "right" that is significantly either no longer necessary or completely irrelevant.

AND NO I DON'T WANT TO BAN GUNS. But any attempt at regulation is met by an opposing argument that starts with 'no guns'. You'll have to do better and describe why regulation is so abhorrent.

aa

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't think that is true any longer. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths outnumbered car deaths in 2017, but I could only find the stats for 2016, when gun deaths narrowly outnumbered car deaths. Take a look.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 36,161
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 36,252
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.3

Not to mention that cars are heavily regulated while pro-gunners are against all regulation.

Cars are not an enumerated right that the government is restricted from denying.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not to mention that cars are heavily regulated while pro-gunners are against all regulation.

Cars are not an enumerated right that the government is restricted from denying.

We are not talking about are. We are talking about "should be".

Edit: sorry for the edit if you were around to read the above but not see this right away. This is what it means to be progressive. It is to talk about ought from consideration by oneself in addition to the consideration of others. The regressive GOP (almost all of it), and the regressive DNC (a disappointing percentage of it, but not as bad) do not do this. They shop for things that they feel the best about believing, either because their parents forced them to get used to thinking that way, or because their parents didn't give them anything solid and objective to believe in or teach them how to learn, and now they're just stuck wandering lost in the forest. And then there's everyone between there, to the folks who lost their ability to think and not consume, to folks who consume every idiotic thing they think due to mental disease, to those who just never learned how because they never had to, to those who consume purely social thought. The only way to really move forward is to think about "should be", to verify, what you think "is", what you trust. It hurts like hell. But that is the real core of being a progressive.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

We are not talking about are. We are talking about "should be".

Awesome. Dream on. Here's some theme music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZfZ8uWaOFI

While you are free to divide our nation into what you labe "progressives" and "regressives", I see it in terms of idealists, usually young, and realists, usually mature adults. Idealism is good, but it needs to be tempered with realism. It's fine to want to save all the puppies and kittens in the world, but that's an unattainable goal. Better to work on reducing the number of puppies and kittens through neutering, license for breeding, etc.

In the case of firearms, the problem isn't firearms, it's mentally ill people and criminals accessing firearms. Suicide the the #1 cause of death by firearm by a factor of about 3 to 1. The remainder are domestic disputes then gang-bangers killing each other. Banning guns won't fix those problems. You're seeking to shred the Constitution for a partial fix. Bad precedent and highly unrealistic.

 

[Jarhyn]

We are not talking about are. We are talking about "should be".

Awesome. Dream on. Here's some theme music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZfZ8uWaOFI

While you are free to divide our nation into what you labe "progressives" and "regressives", I see it in terms of idealists, usually young, and realists, usually mature adults. Idealism is good, but it needs to be tempered with realism. It's fine to want to save all the puppies and kittens in the world, but that's an unattainable goal. Better to work on reducing the number of puppies and kittens through neutering, license for breeding, etc.

In the case of firearms, the problem isn't firearms, it's mentally ill people and criminals accessing firearms. Suicide the the #1 cause of death by firearm by a factor of about 3 to 1. The remainder are domestic disputes then gang-bangers killing each other. Banning guns won't fix those problems. You're seeking to shred the Constitution for a partial fix. Bad precedent and highly unrealistic.

Look at the hyperbolic language you CONTINUE to use despite the fact that we keep stating that we do not want to ban guns:

Laws placing liability for theft and damages arising from the theft and forward use of a stolen firearm will push gun owners to make the decision to secure their firearms properly. A gun being in a safe, not-immediately-accessible place WILL result in fewer domestic shootings, because by the time someone actually gets to the gun and removes a trigger lock, vital minutes will have passed and some percentage of those shootings which would have happened will not, purely due to a cooldown period. The guns being kept in such secure places and with owner liability for theft will also reduce gang access, as many gang firearms are stolen. Requiring accountability will also reduce straw sales further reducing illegal access. You are 100% correct that banning guns won't solve the problems. That's why we aren't for banning guns. At least not the progressives.

You should go back and read my edit. At any rate, we are still talking about 'should be' and 'what is' does not talk to should be except in yielding the phenomena which we are modeling.

There is a basic problem in philosophy that divides "ought" and "is": ought comes from the intersection of two IS plus a GOAL: it IS a phenomena that X yields Y (without causing Z), and it IS that Y is my goal (again, without causing Z), thus it follows that to obtain my goal I ought Y. Thus, "Ought" comes in the context of a goal. But your statement of IS does not speak to the ought.

You are on progressivist forums, trying to talk to progressives. You have to learn to speak the language, and argue in ways we will respect, if you want to actually change opinions.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Look at the hyperbolic language you CONTINUE to use....

Perhaps you should progress to the point of just ignoring me instead of working yourself up into a lather. It's a discussion forum, not the last chance to stop WWIII at the UN.

...You are on progressivist forums, trying to talk to progressives. You have to learn to speak the language, and argue in ways we will respect, if you want to actually change opinions.

Are you claiming this is an echo chamber and that I need to either give the proper echos or shut the fuck up?

 

[Jarhyn]

Look at the hyperbolic language you CONTINUE to use....

Perhaps you should progress to the point of just ignoring me instead of working yourself up into a lather. It's a discussion forum, not the last chance to stop WWIII at the UN.

...You are on progressivist forums, trying to talk to progressives. You have to learn to speak the language, and argue in ways we will respect, if you want to actually change opinions.

Are you claiming this is an echo chamber and that I need to either give the proper echos or shut the fuck up?

ig you want to idolize the dissembly others use here, we will probably just ridicule you. I certainly know I will. It isn't about echo, it's about shaping arguments in ways that meet a rubric most of us here require to respect any given argument. I don't personally, and I don't think others here in general, filter arguments so much on whether we like the conclusion, but rather we filter them based on whether they are well-formed, or capable of being well-formed*.

Oughts don't come from Is's, they come from GOALS. You stated XYZ is the law, when the subject is OUGHT XYZ be the law. You have not answered the question. If you want to justify the law, justify it, don't just restate it as if it wasn't a question we are asking. And so far, the point is that we are critical(ly thinking) of that very law. It's like a religionist saying 'the Bible sez' as a justification of their view when the whole question is 'is the Bible justified in saying?'. See also: Begging the Question.

*some do filter arguments like this. But I don't generally don't have respect those people or what they say. Part of the issue with this is the unfortunate intersection between those who evaluate argument by belief, authority, and naive self-interest, and those who hold onto far-right beliefs; I am not going to say that I would not return to positions which could be considered 'conservative', however none of the 'justifications' offered for those beliefs that I have ever encountered meet my standards for justification, nor could I, in the time that I held such beliefs, justify them to such a standard for myself.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

ig you want to idolize the dissembly others use here, we will probably just ridicule you......

Dude, you never stopped. LOL

Meanwhile, the anti-gun mob continues to be dishonest their screams of thousands of "gun deaths" without pausing to clarify that 2/3s of them are suicides....mostly of older white males. I'm surprised you aren't applauding and handing out bullets.

When the anti-gun mob wants an honest discussion on guns, they should prove it by being honest in their data usage.

http://www.sprc.org/scope/age

https://www.sprc.org/racial-ethnic-disparities