PDA

View Full Version : battling the "427 Gun Deaths" factoid


Zin_dawg
01-06-2013, 2:15 PM
I'm being beaten over the head with this 'statistic'. I want to counter it, but I'm having trouble getting _real_ statistics:


For example: of the 427, I know that most have got to be suicides (given the 55% to 84% percentage I've found).

In the same time, we've probably had 1000 deaths due to 'medical misadventure', 500 or more deaths due to automobiles.

Any leads on stats I'd appreciate.

=M

Librarian
01-06-2013, 2:17 PM
Sorry - to what claim are you referring?

Hard to offer counter info if the exact problem is not presented.

Krak
01-06-2013, 2:23 PM
427 gun deaths in how long?

Zin_dawg
01-06-2013, 2:26 PM
Sorry: too mad to post straight :)

"427 Gun deaths in 21 days since Newtown". Slate (http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/01/gun_deaths_in_america_since_newtown_about_this_pro ject.html)

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 2:31 PM
Sorry: too mad to post straight :)

"427 Gun deaths in 21 days since Newtown". Slate (http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/01/gun_deaths_in_america_since_newtown_about_this_pro ject.html)

They also have a tendency to include people shot by police.

Krak
01-06-2013, 2:32 PM
Sorry: too mad to post straight :)

"427 Gun deaths in 21 days since Newtown". Slate (http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/01/gun_deaths_in_america_since_newtown_about_this_pro ject.html)

Counter with this: 427 in 21 days, that equates to roughly 20 deaths per day. Second hand smoke kills 49,000 people per year or about 134 people per day. Smokers are killing hundreds of people everyday. Why isn't there an outcry about that? Where is the cigarette ban?

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Rugerdaddy
01-06-2013, 2:33 PM
427, mostly suicides, gang shootings, and other criminal activities. We all know that if they took our guns away- which is precisely what they want to do- it would still be 427 gun deaths, mostly suicides, gang shootings, and other criminal activities. In fact, it would be far greater because we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.

Krak
01-06-2013, 2:34 PM
Also, your 55% stat is about right. So out of those 427, about 235 were most likely suicides, which aren't really preventable. If someone wants to kill themselves, they are going to (see Japan).

phamkl
01-06-2013, 2:34 PM
Not to mention, the Newtown shooting triggered copycats in violent crazies who wanted their time to shine too.

donny77
01-06-2013, 4:04 PM
Using the low end of the range, guns are used to prevent a crime 1.8-2.5 million times a year, 103,561 people have saved their life or scared off a would be criminal with a gun over the same 21 days. Do we victimize 103,561 people for the chance and preventing 427 deaths?

socal-shooter
01-06-2013, 4:06 PM
I think the FBI just released the results from a study that showed that hammers and crowbars or screwdrivers or something like that was responsible for more deaths than firearms in 2012

Dantedamean
01-06-2013, 4:13 PM
Counter with this: 427 in 21 days, that equates to roughly 20 deaths per day. Second hand smoke kills 49,000 people per year or about 134 people per day. Smokers are killing hundreds of people everyday. Why isn't there an outcry about that? Where is the cigarette ban?

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Wow, that's a perfect argument against most gun control.

Edit: after checking the Brady bunch website, for a extreme antigun view, they say 87 people are killed every day.... 33 are murders.

ElvenSoul
01-06-2013, 4:13 PM
Look at the stat for how many the Common Cold Kills....your in for a shock

otteray
01-06-2013, 4:31 PM
Not to mention drownings in pools and buckets!

ohiknow
01-06-2013, 4:35 PM
CDC is a good start:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6010a1.htm

I have not found any real time data, but it's a good start.

Edit:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nvdrs.html

Kid Stanislaus
01-06-2013, 4:36 PM
The number of kids killed while riding bicycles every year is astounding.

Librarian
01-06-2013, 4:58 PM
A twitter twit? Well, someone is. Since this summer, the anonymous creator of the Twitter feed @GunDeaths has been doing his best to compile those statistics, tweeting every reported death he can findPeople are giving credence to some guy reading newspaper accounts?

If that counts, post the link to the NRA-ILA self-defense articles - www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Fellblade
01-06-2013, 5:07 PM
The number of kids killed by TVs is pretty high too. Flat screens falling on them because hey bump into the cabinet or they're playing near them and knocking it over due to the high center of gravity and narrow base.

nick
01-06-2013, 5:18 PM
One counter everyone seems to forget is asking, what exactly makes "gun" deaths different from any other deaths. Are they worse? Are they not committed by humans?

philobeddoe
01-06-2013, 5:32 PM
I walk around all day smoking, I'm a serial killer, a psychopath. I know it's wrong but I don't care. I'm a stone cold killer.

thegratenate
01-06-2013, 5:55 PM
Wow that's pretty scientific he's tweeting all of the news stories that he can find with his google fu?

How long will it take to reach the conclusion that police need to be disarmed because they are killing too many people?

section31
01-06-2013, 6:00 PM
The flu just killed 18 kids

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257597/Flu-infections-sweep-America-hospitalizing-thousands-leaving-18-children-dead-complications-going-worse.html

erik_26
01-06-2013, 6:56 PM
Here is a stat for you.

80+ million law-abiding gun owners did not kill anyone yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that and so on.

There are over 300 million guns in the United States of America.

427 deaths in a 21 day period is = to ~ 20.33 deaths per day.

20.33 guns out of 300 million is .0000000067% of guns in the United States caused harm. Of those guns used per day, what percentage was in gang violence, in armed robbery, in other criminal activity, in self-defence, in police response or in suicide?

You cannot use logic on someone that is emotionally charged in the issue or using the issue to earn an income/publicity (media/hollywood).

hoffmang
01-06-2013, 7:03 PM
427 over 21 days implies 7,421 per year which, if anything, is a bit low for yearly US gun homicides.

The primary counter point is that about 85% of the perpetrators and 75% of the victims are violent felons. I believe the Baltimore Sun had a decent article on this for Baltimore but it's not immediately yielding to my Google-fu.

-Gene

Ieyasu
01-06-2013, 7:28 PM
The primary counter point is that about 85% of the perpetrators and 75% of the victims are violent felons. I believe the Baltimore Sun had a decent article on this for Baltimore but it's not immediately yielding to my Google-fu.-Gene
Lots of stats along those lines here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

Fish
01-07-2013, 7:04 AM
Using the low end of the range, guns are used to prevent a crime 1.8-2.5 million times a year, 103,561 people have saved their life or scared off a would be criminal with a gun over the same 21 days. Do we victimize 103,561 people for the chance and preventing 427 deaths?

This is the strongest argument, IMO.

There are about 20 gun deaths a day, and about 1300[1] instances of self-defense use of firearms every day. (The range of estimates is from 170[2] to 6800[3], I use the 1300 number because it doesn't seem have the methodology and credibility problems of the higher numbers and is still plenty high enough to make my point.)

Also note that per [2], in approximately 2/3 of the cases of defensive gun use, the assailant is not armed with a gun. So it's not right to say "if we could magically take away all the guns the problem would be solved": a typical scenario would be that you're home alone and person or persons come through your living room window with a length of rebar from the local construction site. Another fact from [2]: victims who did not defend themselves with a firearm had about a 50% chance of being injured, as opposed to a 20% chance among those who did.

Use facts early and often. (But also make the facts relatable -- actually talk about being home alone and having somebody come in through the living room window. Make people *feel* the other side of the story, not just understand it.)


[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
[2] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
[3] http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

CBruce
01-07-2013, 11:57 AM
Counter with this: 427 in 21 days, that equates to roughly 20 deaths per day. Second hand smoke kills 49,000 people per year or about 134 people per day. Smokers are killing hundreds of people everyday. Why isn't there an outcry about that? Where is the cigarette ban?

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Strawman.

Kukuforguns
01-07-2013, 1:56 PM
I think the FBI just released the results from a study that showed that hammers and crowbars or screwdrivers or something like that was responsible for more deaths than firearms in 2012
Wrong. The FBI's statistics indicate that it identified more homicides attributable to hammers and other clubs than attributable to rifles. This differs from your summary in at least two ways: First, most gun homicides are committed with handguns. There are in fact many more handgun homicides than hammer homicides. Second, there were many gun homicides which the FBI was unable to attribute it to handgun, shotgun, or rifle. If all of the unattributed firearm deaths were rifle deaths, then there would be more rifle deaths than hammer deaths.

Also, with respect to the number of defensive uses of a firearm per year. The low end of the range is actually 108,000 per year. This number is from the most recent National Victimization Survey, in which people were asked if they were the victims of crime. As previously indicated, other surveys indicate that the number of defensive uses per year goes up to the millions. Since all the numbers are based on surveys, none of them are definitive.

Whether the number of defensive uses is 108,000/year or 2.8 million per year, the argument still stands. Whenever I use the argument that automobiles kill more people each year than guns, the response is always that automobiles are societally valuable (they increase production etc.). To which I respond that firearms also are societally valuable in that they prevent a minimum of 100,000 violent crimes each year and potentially millions of violent crimes each year.

CBruce
01-07-2013, 2:33 PM
Second, there were many gun homicides which the FBI was unable to attribute it to handgun, shotgun, or rifle. If all of the unattributed firearm deaths were rifle deaths, then there would be more rifle deaths than hammer deaths.

I see no reason to assume that unatributed or unidentified firearm deaths could be 100% attributed to rifles. It sees far more likely that these would be roughly equivelant ratios to known firearm homocides, IE the majority would still be handguns.

Even with a proportional amount of unidentified firearm homocides added to the identified rifle homocides, it would still be fewer deaths (generally speaking) than are attributed to bladed weapons, bludgeoning weapons, or hands & feet individually.

But, we can't say that all so-called "assault weapons" would be classified as rifles--some would be classified as handguns--or that hammers would represent the entire category of bludgeoning weapons.

Librarian
01-07-2013, 2:41 PM
Whether the number of defensive uses is 108,000/year or 2.8 million per year, the argument still stands. Whenever I use the argument that automobiles kill more people each year than guns, the response is always that automobiles are societally valuable (they increase production etc.). To which I respond that firearms also are societally valuable in that they prevent a minimum of 100,000 violent crimes each year and potentially millions of violent crimes each year.

It's also the case that automobile-associated deaths are primarily accidental, while firearms-associated deaths are overwhelmingly intentional.

Kukuforguns
01-07-2013, 3:00 PM
I see no reason to assume that unatributed or unidentified firearm deaths could be 100% attributed to rifles. It sees far more likely that these would be roughly equivelant ratios to known firearm homocides, IE the majority would still be handguns.
I absolutely agree that there is no reason to assume that unattributed firearm deaths should all be attributed to rifles. I also agree that the best assumption to make is that the unattributed reflect the distribution of the attributed homicides. However, that is an assumption, and as a rule I try to avoid assumptions.

What we can say with some degree of confidence is that - using FBI statistics - there are more homicides attributed to hammers and similar weapons than there are homicides attributed to rifles. I do not think we can state with the same amount of confidence that hammer homicides outnumber rifle homicides, because of the uncertainty posed by the unattributed firearm homicides.