0
52

[–] RedViiper 0 points 52 points (+52|-0) ago 

Simple explanation for the mass panic we fear things we imagine. Most people don't imagine dying in a car. If they did we would be moving to ban cars.

12
33

[–] david_j 12 points 33 points (+45|-12) ago 

Lies. Damn lies, and statistics. The thing about "Truth" is that it's indifferent to deception. The graphic may be true, but that's not to say it's useful for anything other than reinforcing a position which, when viewed from different perspectives, might be seen to be fundamentally flawed.

Let's assume the graphic is correct, which in the absence of source citation is an assumption that should be questioned, it's still cherry-picking its filtering. I wonder what happens if "Deaths" is changed to "Preventable Deaths", and "Murders" is changed to "Deaths attributed to gun violence".

Cars? Cars started off being totally unregulated, very rare and incredibly dangerous to, relatively speaking, highly regulated and remarkably safe given their ubiquity. The reason they aren't banned due to the number of deaths they are involved with isn't because they aren't dangerous, it's because the utility they have relative to that danger is extremely high. Further, since we recognize cars are dangerous while at the same time being too useful to get rid of, we continue to require more training in their use and more safety built into their manufacture.

Personally, it frustrates me when people rail against things that will never amount to more than a few PPM problem, which my suspicion is what gun deaths in the US is, but poor critical thinking bugs me more.

4
12

[–] Joshua_D 4 points 12 points (+16|-4) ago 

"Personally, it frustrates me when people rail against things that will never amount to more than a few PPM problem, which my suspicion is what gun deaths in the US is, but poor critical thinking bugs me more."

Well, try not to sperg over the critical thinking and enjoy the relevant point.

0
11

[–] New_years_day 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Further, since we recognize cars are dangerous while at the same time being too useful to get rid of, we continue to require more training in their use and more safety built into their manufacture.

CPL's require way more training(in most states) then that of the average teenager manning a 4k lbs battering ram.

0
1

[–] Wolfeh2015 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While the graphic is likely hyperbole, it's not far off.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Top ten causes account for: 1,910,311 Deaths.


Car deaths don't even make the top 10 list.

There were 33,804 car fatalities

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (At the bottom under mortality)

All homicides are below that at: 11,208 deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

There were 33,636 firearm deaths. How is it so much higher than homicides? Because the overwhelming majority were suicides.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (At the bottom under mortality)


So I got your stats from a legitimate source. While OPs post smells of bullshit, it isn't stretching the truth as much as we thought.

Gun deaths are a relatively minor issue. In fact, it's more an issue of suicide than homicide.

On top of that, you're more than 18 times likely to die slowly from eating fast food than getting hit by a car -- further, you're about 3 times more likely to get hit by a car than murdered -- weapon not specified.

0
1

[–] un1ty 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Lies. Damn lies, and Statistics.

Great book!

0
10

[–] cmor88 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Oh thats coming in the future. The authoritarians just need Google and Tesla to get their shit together.

1
0

[–] 9-11 [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

nobody sees it coming

just wait until they determine that social security beneficiaries are not capable of owning a gun

what is going to happen

0
3

[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The media doesn't help. They reinforce these things daily. Hell, the new years eve show on my local news was mostly them wandering the streets and asking people if they were worried about being attacked by terrorists. When they got bored of that they spent the remainder of their time talking about all of the different "preparations" that were underway just in case there were crazy terrorists about. It was new years eve and that was the best material they could come up with - more fear mongering.

1
3

[–] rspix000 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Wait; there's 150 dryer lint fires per year in America. The NSA should be snooping on all our lint screens.

0
4

[–] watitdew 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

"The New GE Washer/Dryer line comes with a Built in Webcam and Wifi Capabilities and iPhone integration!"

2
33

[–] mamwad 2 points 33 points (+35|-2) ago 

I think the statistics on deaths due to terrorism are equally small.

Freedom comes with the small chance you'll get blown up or shot at.

0
22

[–] green_man 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

And tyranny comes with a big chance that you'll get blown up or shot at by the state for wanting freedom.

1
10

[–] mamwad 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

I'm not saying freedom is a bad thing.

4
-3

[–] 3789075? 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

Which illustrates the danger of looking at broad statistical compilations. Random murders scattered around the United States does not compare well to the destruction of entire buildings full of thousands of people in one city block. Moreover, people sitting in their offices are generally not worried about a gang war erupting in their hallways. Context is important.

0
1

[–] Tsugumori 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at?

Those people working in that office are still more likely to get hit by a car on the way to work than get shot. Logically, we should be focusing on tougher traffic laws and improved public transportation. I don't think you should be able to get a handgun without a background check; I also think you should lose your license if you're caught texting while driving (and the car is in motion). I know which one of those is more likely to get me killed.

1
16

[–] daneurl 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

This should have more upvotes! Nice graphic.

0
1

[–] RedViiper 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

124 and counting seems pretty good!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
14

[–] mcwilshire 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Yeah, when they talk about "30,000 gun deaths a year" they don't tell you that half of those are suicides. A little disingenuous, don't you think? But that's always the number, 30,000. Never just homicides.

Half are suicides.

Half of the rest are criminals killing each other.

A good portion of the remainder would be committed by other means - if I wanna kill my wife for the insurance money, a gun might be my weapon of choice, but I'm still gonna get it done if I don't have access to one.

And then some of the rest would be committed with black market guns even if you outright banned private gun ownership entirely.

We're not talking 30,000. Total bullshit number.

0
6

[–] Totenglocke 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Over half are suicides, there's only about 10k murders per year in the US.

13
-6

0
8

[–] Atarian 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Won't somebody think of the children, you monsters?

0
7

[–] goodluvin 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Better Statics of current Gun control issues:
Summary: Restricting legal gun purchases will have a small effect on overall gun crime

The 2013 National Crime Victimize Survey report there were almost exactly 300,000 crimes, including murders, facilitated with a firearm.

Of those, not more than 5,000 can be shown to have been facilitated with a firearm legally purchased by the offender.

Of guns recovered from persons arrested and charged with a crime:
84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635

0
6

[–] kantskittens 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

0
5

[–] Fiacre54 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Source of the data? Also, is this in one year? If so, what year? If not, what is the time period?

I love graphical representations like this, but this one is short of context and sources.

load more comments ▼ (23 remaining)