US gun related murder rates compared to other countries

[ripthekik]

literally 99.9% of the time gun usage is safe."

There is no usage until the gun is fired. Just like alcohol is not used until it is consumed. Otherwise can I use the statistics for millions of tonnes of alcohol sitting around in factories? I think that threw your entire case of "legitimate sources" and statistics out the window.

Just stop . I'm not really sure that you're serious in comparing alcohol with firearms either. The intention, function, rate, and direct/indirect cause, usage for other purposes, among with tons of other reasons, are just not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed over dinner, bars, home, everywhere without causing harm. How much places can you shoot a gun? What is the main function of a gun? I'm sure you can figure it out.

And it's a lost cause trying to argue this. Everything other ISH posters and I have said has been said by thousands others. If it can't change your mind, nothing will. Not to mention changing your mind does nothing for the U.S. as well.

I'll leave with one final comment here. The same psycho in China couldn't get his hands on guns, so he used a knife and caused 0 deaths. That's all I have to say.

[raiderfan19]

if anything, the high rate in mexico reinforces the importance of gun control. where did 90% of all the confiscated guns in MX come from? They were legally purchased in the US. The US gun laws have a direct impact on the presence and use of guns in mexico. That is a fact. Even the repubs have indirectly acknowledged this with their pursuit of too fast too furious.

This isn't true

[bmulls]

There is no usage until the gun is fired. Just like alcohol is not used until it is consumed. Otherwise can I use the statistics for millions of tonnes of alcohol sitting around in factories? I think that threw your entire case of "legitimate sources" and statistics out the window.

Just stop . I'm not really sure that you're serious in comparing alcohol with firearms either. The intention, function, rate, and direct/indirect cause, usage for other purposes, among with tons of other reasons, are just not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed over dinner, bars, home, everywhere without causing harm. How much places can you shoot a gun? What is the main function of a gun? I'm sure you can figure it out.

And it's a lost cause trying to argue this. Everything other ISH posters and I have said has been said by thousands others. If it can't change your mind, nothing will. Not to mention changing your mind does nothing for the U.S. as well.

I'll leave with one final comment here. The same psycho in China couldn't get his hands on guns, so he used a knife and caused 0 deaths. That's all I have to say.

What? Alcohol sitting in factories? The fck are you talking about?

[bmulls]

Somebody please explain what ripthekik is trying to say and how it refutes my point.

[ripthekik]

What? Alcohol sitting in factories? The fck are you talking about?

You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
Guns aren't used until they are fired. What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

[maybeshewill13]

Iceland is probably the nicest place to live in the universe.

Iceland GOAT country

[MMM]

other countries have lower crime rates, healthier populous, comparably highly skilled and trained populous, and generally a happier populous. So, why is America lagging behind some of these nations in these areas and why is no attempt made to actually learn from said countries.

For example, prior to the economic collapse if America had banking regulations relatively comparable to that of Australia or Canada does the banking melt down occur???

If that could be the case then what about other areas where America lags behind like gun crime or health outcomes.

[miller-time]

You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
Guns aren't used until they are fired. What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

I might be throwing a spanner in the works for you here, but you could argue that at least some of the time the simple possession or visual of a gun could be considered "use." To use a gun doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be fired.

But overall I think the statistics would still be in your favor.

[bmulls]

You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
Guns aren't used until they are fired. What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

That has nothing to do with anything I posted and makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously

You asked me how a hobby can merit 10,000 deaths every year. I countered that alcohol, another hobby, causes 15,000 deaths every year. You replied that 99.99999% of the time alcohol usage is safe, therefore we should not ban it. I showed you statistically that 99.999% of gun usage is safe.

[bmulls]

I might be throwing a spanner in the works for you here, but you could argue that at least some of the time the simple possession or visual of a gun could be considered "use." To use a gun doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be fired.

But overall I think the statistics would still be in your favor.

How are they in his favor?

50.4 million people own guns. 49.6 million of them will not kill anybody with them. Assuming each person uses their gun once per year, the statistics are still 99.999% of the time a gun is fired it is done safely.

Now if we are more realistic and assume on average (some more, some less) each person uses their gun 5-10 times per year, the statistics swing even more wildly in my favor. We're talking 99.999999999999999999% of the time a gun is fired, it is fired safely.

[bmulls]

*Safely in this case means nobody is murdered. If you want to include injuries accidents, then we have to add in injuries caused by alcohol, and that would yet again swing things wildly in my favor.

[ripthekik]

That has nothing to do with anything I posted and makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously

You asked me how a hobby can merit 10,000 deaths every year. I countered that alcohol, another hobby, causes 15,000 deaths every year. You replied that 99.99999% of the time alcohol usage is safe, therefore we should not ban it. I showed you statistically that 99.999% of gun usage is safe.

Ok, let's deal with statistics for a moment here. There are only 2 situations, so it'll be easy.

A) based on your statistics on how many home owners own guns, and how many were used per year, you said 99.9999% gun usage were safe.
In this case, the equivalent statistic for alcohol would be: looking at all the alcohol that sits around a home unconsumed (unused), which is nearly 100% in all families, and then comparing it finally to a number of death caused by alcohol. Good luck with that.

B) How about comparing them when they are finally used? Guns fired, alcohol consumed. What is the rate of fatality between them?

That question there, would you place a 5 year old boy in a room with a loaded gun, or a can of beer, should demonstrate the difference between them.

That is DIRECT/INDIRECT cause of danger. A gun can directly kill the boy. Alcohol? so what if the kid is drunk? What danger is he in?

If you still don't understand the difference between the 2 through this demonstration, then I am out of words. Consider your battle won.

[bmulls]

Ok, let's deal with statistics for a moment here. There are only 2 situations, so it'll be easy.

A) based on your statistics on how many home owners own guns, and how many were used per year, you said 99.9999% gun usage were safe.
In this case, the equivalent statistic for alcohol would be: looking at all the alcohol that sits around a home unconsumed (unused), which is nearly 100% in all families, and then comparing it finally to a number of death caused by alcohol. Good luck with that.

B) How about comparing them when they are finally used? Guns fired, alcohol consumed. What is the rate of fatality between them?

That question there, would you place a 5 year old boy in a room with a loaded gun, or a can of beer, should demonstrate the difference between them.

That is DIRECT/INDIRECT cause of danger. A gun can directly kill the boy. Alcohol? so what if the kid is drunk? What danger is he in?

If you still don't understand the difference between the 2 through this demonstration, then I am out of words. Consider your battle won.

That is not a logical argument.

I am talking about the overall death tolls caused by alcohol and guns annually.

What I would give a 5 year old has nothing to do with anything.

[miller-time]

How are they in his favor?

50.4 million people own guns. 49.6 million of them will not kill anybody with them. Assuming each person uses their gun once per year, the statistics are still 99.999% of the time a gun is fired it is done safely.

Now if we are more realistic and assume on average (some more, some less) each person uses their gun 5-10 times per year, the statistics swing even more wildly in my favor. We're talking 99.999999999999999999% of the time a gun is fired, it is fired safely.

But people aren't drinking 5-10 times a year. The majority of drinkers (which I would hazard a guess and say the total is more than the number gun owners) are drinking weekly and daily. And yet with so much more prevlent alcohol use they are only raking up 5,000 more total deaths per year (based on the figures you gave).

If people consumed alcohol as much as they used their guns imagine how low the number would be. 5-10 drinking sessions a year for everyone and I'd conservatively claim you would slash the total deaths in half.

[ripthekik]

That is not a logical argument.

I am talking about the overall death tolls caused by alcohol and guns annually.

What I would give a 5 year old has nothing to do with anything.

You can't used overal death toll, because by your own argument, we need to look at rates! Alcohol usage rate is nearly about a million times more than guns in the country. Use rates: what is the rate of a death caused, everytime an alcohol beverage is consumed, compared with what is the death rate caused every time a gun is fired?

I'm using the example to show you the difference in indirect/direct danger. Do you finally see it now?