According to "Brady"

R W

New member
A report (re recent shootings in the US) in to-days paper The Sunday Telegraph, www.sundaytelegraph.com.au ends with; According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 80 people per day die due to guns, with twice that many being injured.(in the US)
Are these figures correct.
 

zoomie

New member
Possibly. If you count every gang shooting in LA, Chicago, NYC, and Miami, and you include justified/self-defense shootings, and you include accidents. But they don't report it like that, do they?
 

nate45

New member
It's something like 133 people who die on the road every day because of reckless driving.

The automobile is a tool for personal and commercial transportation.

A firearm is a tool for defense, hunting and recreation not to mention that there is a right in our constitution to 'keep and bear' them as a safegard against tyranny.

If you do a little research is easy to counter the anti's statistics with ones of your own.

My favorite one is the fact that every year more children under the age of 5 drown in five gallon buckets than are killed by firearms.

That one always makes the over emotional cringe.:)
 

Kreyzhorse

New member
My favorite one is the fact that every year more children under the age of 5 drown in five gallon buckets than are killed by firearms.

Without going "Brady" is that stat correct? If so, it's a scary stat. You'd think Brady and some of the other anti-gunners, if they were interested in saving lives and not just banning guns, would spend a little time and effort dealing with "rogue" 5 gallon bucket dealers.
 

nate45

New member
Nationally, about 25 children drown every year in buckets, and many more are hospitalized. Many of the containers involved in drownings nationally were 5-gallon buckets containing liquids. Most were used for mopping floors or other household chores. Many were less than half full.

Remember the key to the statistic is children under 5. I mean I'm sure some individual years accidental firearms deaths may have exceeded bucket drownings on the average however they do not.

I like the way the antis will always place the emphasis on the 'children'. Such as 'Last year x amount of children and teens were killed by gunfire'

Of course the majority killed are teens, but they count the 19yo gang member the same as the 6yo playing with a gun.
 

JuanCarlos

New member
Nationally, about 25 children drown every year in buckets, and many more are hospitalized. Many of the containers involved in drownings nationally were 5-gallon buckets containing liquids. Most were used for mopping floors or other household chores. Many were less than half full.

Remember the key to the statistic is children under 5. I mean I'm sure some individual years accidental firearms deaths may have exceeded bucket drownings on the average however they do not.

I like the way the antis will always place the emphasis on the 'children'. Such as 'Last year x amount of children and teens were killed by gunfire'

Of course the majority killed are teens, but they count the 19yo gang member the same as the 6yo playing with a gun.

If you expand it to include backyard pools, you can bump that age up quite a bit higher. Backyard pools really are more dangerous to "children" (by any reasonable definition of the word) than firearms.

And age cutoffs are often used in this way, in a variety of contexts. I remember one that was something along the lines of "percent of children aged 6 to 16 exposed to internet porn" or some such. Yeah, because I'm sure there's not an uneven distribution if you broke that down just a smidge further (for instance, kids age 6 to 12 and kids age 12 to 16). But lumping smaller children and teens allows for all kinds of statistical shenanigans.
 

psyfly

New member
Just doin' the math:

That's 29,000 people a year.

I'd like to see a citation for where those numbers come from.

w
 

JuanCarlos

New member
Just doin' the math:

That's 29,000 people a year.

I'd like to see a citation for where those numbers come from.

That's about right, because they're probably including all firearm-related deaths (including suicides). Just punch in "firearm deaths united states" into google and click some of the results, you'll find that this is accurate. For instance the CDC put it at 38,000 in 1994, and that's just one of the first couple links I clicked.

But when you get down to it, 29,000 in a nation of 300,000,000 isn't that many, especially when it includes suicides (which are a significant portion of that figure, though I'm too lazy to go look up the percentage).
 

Garand Illusion

New member
30,000 is a valid number, but like has been said the majority are suicides. Better than 60%.

About 12,000 people are murdered in this country every year using firearms, which is the only number that really matters. That's a very large number per capita compared to most other Western countries, but for whatever reasons we are just a violent country.

If you compare the stats in our country on murders that DON'T involve firearms, that per capita number is also much higher (usually about 2x) than in any other Western country. And if guns were the problem, that number would be much LOWER. Because even if you make the guns disappear, there's not likely to be an effect on that unarmed murder number, which means we'll still have the highest murder rate in the Western world even disarmed.

The per capita number could even conceivably go up with widespread gun bans, because some percentage of murders (the number can be debated all day) will simply be carried out without firearms and all except criminals will be defenseless.

I've played around with the numbers quite a bit because I have a background as an accountant and numbers aren't biased, and it doesn't take much to realize there would be very little effect even of a total gun ban. There would still be some gun murders (there always are, even in nations with the strictest gun bans) and a significant transference of gun murders to non-gun murders.

And when you factor in even a small percentage of the people who protect themselves with guns in this country (whether you go with the smallest or largest numbers available) it's easy to see why a gun ban would have no affect on the murder rate (at least for a few decades) and could actually have a negative effect (by leaving more people unarmed/at the mercy of human predators).

LIke I said ... numbers don't lie. As to why American's are so danged violent, I couldn't say. For better or for worse we're definitely not a "tame" old-world society.

But the worst per-capita murder rate number in this country isn't really all that bad -- certainly doesn't compare to many non-Western nations. I'll accept it if it is the price I and my children have to pay for our civil liberties. Though I will make sure I and my children are among those with the courage and tools to defend themselves if the unthinkable happens.

But hopefully we can find someway -- someway that works, since gun bans don't -- to bring it down.
 

Rifleman 173

New member
But what the Brady Bunch will NEVER tell anybody is that because of anti-gun laws that they helped put into place at least 40 people of those a day die because of them. So, if it hadn't of been for Brady, et al, only about 40 people would have actually died that day. Aren't statistics fun when you really look into them????
 

TexasFats

New member
Another thing that the Brady bunch will not tell you is that nearly one-half of the victims and one-half of the perpetrators are from a single ethnic group that makes up 12% of the population. If we remove the killings that occur in the gang-ridden ghettos and the population that lives there, then the rest of the country has a rate per 100,000 that is no worse than Europe.

More and more, I am seeing that the racism of gun control is still in effect just like it was in the post-Civil War era when gun laws were used to disarm freed slaves so that the KKK could have safe working conditions. This country doesn't want to admit that a lot of our crime problems are the result of a 400-year history of slavery, Jim Crow, and, more recently, failed social programs. The sad fact is that some the AFDC programs did more to destroy black families than slavery. Now, we are reaping the bitter harvest of that in the crime rates in the inner cities. Of course, none of this excuses criminal behavior since so many people come from that background but do not become gang-bangers and criminals.

How does this tie into gun laws? Simple, the politicians first of all want a cheap solution, and gun laws seem to fit that bill, with the added bonus of increasing the politicians' control over all citizens. Second, the politicians of the left don't want to admit that many of their programs helped to create this monster. And, politicians on the right don't want to admit that our so-called War on Drugs has failed and helped create this situation. Instead, too many of them want to blame inannimate objects like guns. But, until we get serious about doing what it takes to fight crime, the inner cities will remain septic tanks of crime. What two things: First get more cops and put more crooks in jail. Second, we have to break the cycle of poverty, but that is easier said than done, and is likely to take generations.
 

gc70

New member
A few statistics from the CDC's National Vital Statistics preliminary report for 2003 (issued 2005):

Causes of death - injury by firearms = 29,730
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms = 16,859
Assault (homicide) by firearms = 11,599​

Injury by firearms did not even make the top 10 list of causes of death, composed of such perennial favorites as (1) diseases of heart, (2) malignant neoplasms, (3) cerebrovascular diseases, (4) chronic lower respiratory diseases, (5) accidents (unintentional injuries), (6) diabetes mellitus, (7) influenza and pneumonia, (8) alzheimer’s disease, (9) nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis, and (10) septicemia.
 
Top