And even they can look at the numbers behind the arguments for gun control and find them lacking
Additionally, when you do the math about chances of being a victim of firearm murder, the figure 312.8 million is what you need to divide into the 8,775 yielding a terrifying 0.000028% chance of being a victim of a firearm murder in 2010 (if you’re a gambler, though, move to Chicago and you can quickly reduce the odds).
The 24 Hour news cycle has conditioned people to believe that which is said loudest and most often is the truth. In reality, the numbers clearly indicate that these ‘epidemics’ are anything but. If you notice the chart, handguns are the most common tool used to commit homicide (not necessarily murder, mind you – homicide. This can be justifiable, and I assume suicide as well). If you listen to the screeching voices of the anti’s and the TV talking heads, you’d think that “high powered assault weapons” were the culprit, but those numbers don’t add up.
As morbid as it sounds, I’m interested in knowing the average number of shots fired for those handgun homicides. I have a suspicious feeling it’s far less than 10, making any sort of argument for magazine size restriction moot, but I really would like confirmation (regardless, magazine size has no bearing on any of this, considering again the overall numbers).
We have facts, history, and reality on our side. They have emotionally driven hysteria, misunderstanding, and dick jokes.
That’s part of why we win.
Incoming Fire
Comments
Still a very low number, but he forgot that you remove 2 decimal places for the "percent".
Also, nitpicking, but going to Chicago would increase your odds, not reduce them.
Still, .0024% is ridiculously low. This works out to be about 36000:1. For fun, you can see here for what else you'd have better odds at: http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm
Murder by firearm is a very incomplete metric to use for violent crime involving firearms, in that it includes NONE of those shot and wounded who survived, those shot at who were missed, and those who ran away before shots were fired.
Firearm murder rate is also affected by the quality of medical care available in a location. In the 1990s Baltimore, MD, developed a fantastic trauma center with docs well trained on the victims of the crack dealer wars. In the 1980's in Atlanta, GA, a med student friend of mine stated, "I used to think that when people got shot they died. Now I know they just go to Grady (Hospital)."
Let's start using at least murders PLUS woundings to count firearm violence. After all, those wounded didn't get their scars because the shooter wanted to send them to a hospital; the shooter wanted them stopped dead.
For example the yearly US death toll by drowning in swimming pools is higher than that, about 9,000.
We've not bothered adding injury to the mix because we haven't needed to.
McThag has it right - on both points.
Of course, using all "gun violence" even suicides does not support the gun-grabbers' arguments, it simply demonstrates that where there is a commonly owned tool, that tool will be commonly used, both for good and evil.
If they gun grabbers lived in Rwanda, would they be asking for legislation against machetes?
But I wonder what the odds are of a major house fire versus the odds of an armed home invasion?
Why is preventing one tragedy acceptable and encouraged, and yet methods and preparation for the other unacceptable and considered "dangerous"?
However, on the Flip Side, that 8,700+ figure seems a little high. I'd like a better breakdown. Does it include "Justifiable Homicide," where a Cop or a Lawfully Armed Citizen takes out a Goblin? Does it include "Self Inflicted Suicides" (after all, it is Illegal to Kill one's self)?
But Statistically, it probably doesn't matter. Chance are, getting into a Car and Driving down the Road is more Dangerous than a Firearm.
Which is Why We Win.