Did I say that they should ban firearms in this thread? Nope.
30,136 gun deaths in the U.S in 2003 (CDC, latest data available)
90,000 people die/year from infections caused by stays in hospitals.
I’d be willing to bet that you’re right, depending on what you consider an “encounter”
Actually, a compound bow has a much more effective range than a crossbow. They are much more powerful and in the right hands more accurate.
I’d like to spit out facts about how few of these weapons “designed for killing” are actually used to kill in this country. but unfortunatly there isnt much data on assault weapons because so few are used to commit crimes. in fact assault weapons only account for about 1% of the guns in circulation.
the reason why the comparison i made is valid is because alot more people die in this country as a result of street racing than as a result of assualt weapons. and i wont even get into how many deaths are caused by the “entertainment value” of drinking alcohol. id be more inclined to say alcoholic beverages were “designed to kill” with the statistics of alcohol related deaths in this country.
either way i know i will never be able to buy an automatic weapon legally, so arguing about it is pointless. but when the govt starts to put regulations on street cars and you can only putt around town in a slow, fuel efficient econobox i will gladly put it in the same terms you just laid out for me…wanna have fun in a car? take your slow, completely stock econobox to auto-x or the drag strip…leave the racing where it belongs, with sponsored race teams.
:word:
The reason why more people die in the things you described is because there are a lot more people involved with them. If as many people owned and fired automatic weapons as there are street racers and such I bet you would have alot more gun related deaths. Also, if people were freely able to buy automatic weapons I bet you have a lot more crimes where automatic weapons were used due to the fact there would be more in circulation.
They are in circulation or did you not read. They are on the underground. the inner city.
um…probably not. I shoot competitively, on a national level. I coach a high school team. I know hundreds of people who own guns and shoot guns. Not one of them have been in any way injured or killed by guns. However, I know more than a couple of people that have died due to a doctor screw up….[/QUOTE]
Conversely, I have seen many people who have died from gunshot wounds, yet know few that own guns. It’s all in the population that you work with.
And current estimates of surgical procedures (from minor repairs of cuts to major operative interventions) alone are over 100 million in the US per year - which is a number that is roughly one-third of the population. That doesn’t even include regular doctor visits, ER visits, etc.
That’s compared to an estimated 47.8 million households that own at least one firearm.
So I still think the ratio works in my favor.
Oh, and I’ve always hated the fact that many things are blamed on “doctor screwups” for deaths of people that insist on supersizing-it, drinking and driving, shooting drugs, etc. I’m not saying that things can’t be improved, but many Americans presume that we in the medical field can always fix what their bad habits create, and don’t assume any responsibility of maintaining their own health. Case-in-point: morbid obesity affects an estimated one-third of the population now - which is a disease that has significant long-term consequences (diabetes, joint disease, asthma, etc).
I am an EMT. Hence, I also am in the medical field. But you can not argue with facts. More people die due to infections in a hospital than from GSWs. More people die in car accedents in one year than 10 years from GSWs. So really…guns are not the biggest problem in this country as some people would like to think. You are safer in an area where everybody carries a gun than in an area where only criminals carry them.
Well, I’d hate to go to a bar in that area. You think drinking and driving is an issue, I’d hate to think what drinking and carrying would be.
And I still think that the risk-exposure denominator is much more for cars and medical care than guns - so I’d expect those overall numbers to be higher.
Oh - and don’t get me wrong, I’ve been on shooting teams and had a NJ firearm permit - but I’d also say that the risk-benefit ratio to universal gun ownership is alot worse than universal healthcare or universal automotive ownership.
Simple statistics say otherwise. In London alone the violent crime rate rose over 300% when they banned guns. In Australia, again, the crime rate skyrocketed. I has been proven time and time again that areas where people openly carry firearms has a less of a crime rate.
I’m not sure all that is true.
England’s experience:
http://timlambert.org/2002/10/malcolm
And from the UK Home Office:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics50.htm
<LI>The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40% at its peak in 1995 to 23% according to BCS interviews in 2005/06, representing just over six million fewer victims. This remains at the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981.
<LI>Property crime accounts for the majority of both BCS and recorded crime (77 and 73% respectively).
<LI>Violent crime has remained stable according to BCS interviews in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05. Recorded crime statistics show a 2% increase in violent crime in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05.
<LI>Almost half of the violent crimes recorded by the BCS and of violence against the person offences recorded by the police involved no injury to the victim. (italics mine)
I italicized the last because it differs from the US description of “violent crime” as homicide, assault, rape, and robbery; whereas the UK adds burglary and vandalism.
Also, here’s Australia’s experience:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. (The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which 35 people were killed.)
All of those “increasing” statistics had been created by changing the method of measurement (police vs. victim surveys, in England’s case).
This measurement error is akin to how many cars “lost” power when the SAE went to the J1349 “SAE Certified” program. You can’t really compare those numbers to each other and get meaningful results.
And mind you, the rates in England and Australia are much lower than the US to start with: for homicides alone, there is a rate of 1.86/100K population per year for Australia, 1.41/100K for England, and 6.1/100k for the US. (9/11 even bumped that statistic to 7.1/100k for 2001). (Both England and Australia always had fairly stringent gun-control laws already in place - and Australia’s program was a buyback program, not a mandatory ban.)
So - according to that “simple statistic”, even with that restrictive gun control policy in place, you’re 3 times better off living in Australia or England.