PDA

View Full Version : 41.



The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 09:18 PM
We know for a fact that every 41st American male dies of a gunshot wound. The death statistics for the last 30 or so years prove it. That's a staggering statistic to people who live in civilised parts of the world.

However.... here's an interesting comment I saw posted elsewhere...

The persons most likely to kill you are your spouse, your kids, your friends, your neighbours, and you. in other words, people who have most access to any guns you possess present the greatest danger, not burglers or other strangers.

.... so why do people possess guns for "self defence" when in fact that ownership most often is the supply of the attack weapon most likely to kill you?



..... yes Phillip... I know you can't understand that a statistic on male deaths is a valid statistic... even if it doesn't include women, but how about you just think about it for a while before you post something dumb eh? The statistic that includes women is that every 68th American that died over the last 30 or so years did so of a gunshot wound.

purri
12-16-2012, 10:19 PM
So that's 3.8% of the total population at any given time but is it per annum or over average life expectancy of say 70 years?

(BTW do you intimate that foreign wars count? By counting the (un)civil war that's abt 2.8 million).

You're up to the usual MW.

skuthorp
12-16-2012, 10:23 PM
Provocative, insensitive, time to put this thread on ice..............

LeeG
12-16-2012, 10:25 PM
At least we don't suffer from uxo

The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 10:41 PM
So that's 3.8% of the total population at any given time but is it per annum or over average life expectancy of say 70 years?

(BTW do you intimate that foreign wars count? By counting the (un)civil war that's abt 2.8 million).

You're up to the usual MW.


I know you haven't got a clue on a lot of stuff, but this takes the cake. Care to explain your logic?

If every 41st male dies of a gunshot wound.... that's about 2.5% of male deaths. Its a bit under 1.5% of deaths if you look at men and women.

Foreign wars not included.... and I'm only covering the last 30 years anyhow. Total deaths of US servicemen and women in foreign wars since 1900 is under 600,000. Total gun deaths in the last 30 years is a few thousand under one million. For the years 1980-2009, it is 983,076 gun deaths out of a total of 67,662,400 deaths.

The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 10:43 PM
Provocative, insensitive, time to put this thread on ice..............

Couldn't disagree more. The nutters are flailing away with their typical distortions. Time for some facts.

The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 10:46 PM
This school massacre is simply 30% of the daily death toll due to guns in the US.

I understand the sensitivity due to the deaths of so many children.... however, if that's the excuse for "putting this on ice"... what about the hundreds of other children who are gun victims during the rest of the year? Do we just ignore them because they didn't all die together?

The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 10:49 PM
376 of them aged 15 or younger in 2008..... of whom 88 were aged four or younger.

It isn't as if shooting kids in the US is a new thing.

SaltyD from BC
12-16-2012, 10:56 PM
Even if you ever got past your ego I don't think there's much hope for you Bigfella. Unreal.

The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 11:13 PM
Even if you ever got past your ego I don't think there's much hope for you Bigfella. Unreal.

I'm assuming you mean this as an insult, but seriously mate... you could spit out some words and pad it out a bit.

What's your beef?

I'll take the ego bit as a compliment... when a dolt tries to insult someone over their "ego" its normally a sign that something has been accomplished.

So, there's not much hope for me? To do what? I'm fine with where I'm at... maybe its you that needs to do something. Ever achieve anything? Ever change something for the better?

Unreal? Nah... cold hard facts. One million dead Americans due to gunshots in 30 years. Do you find that acceptable?

SaltyD from BC
12-16-2012, 11:24 PM
You wouldn't agree with anything I put forth as has been the case with all other posts so I'll take a pass thanks. But if you'd consider agreeing with any of them no. 3 would be the best bet.

The Bigfella
12-16-2012, 11:40 PM
You wouldn't agree with anything I put forth as has been the case with all other posts so I'll take a pass thanks. But if you'd consider agreeing with any of them no. 3 would be the best bet.

Provocative. Perhaps. However, the only way you will EVER achieve change on this issue in the USA is to be provocative.

Insensitive. Never. I worked around death and destruction for a few years. Saw more dead kids than you could imagine. The most sensitive thing that could ever be done for the parents of these kiddies is to help in some small way to achieve some change so that less people have to endure what has just ruined their lives.... If you want to be sensitive, maybe you could do something too, rather than sit in a corner and be angry.

Time to put in on ice. Why?

pefjr
12-17-2012, 10:33 AM
The persons most likely to kill you are your spouse, your kids, your friends, your neighbours, and you. in other words, people who have most access to any guns you possess present the greatest danger, not burglers or other strangers.

.... so why do people possess guns for "self defence" when in fact that ownership most often is the supply of the attack weapon most likely to kill you?



Interesting facts , but this one you said is a comment you read. I would like to get some facts on this one. "Your friends", ??, like this one. He/she is not your friend if they kill you, unless an accident. I 'll try and find some facts.

Gerarddm
12-17-2012, 11:01 AM
Accidents work, too. Not to mention drunk friends. Or suddenly mentally deranged friends who reach an unforeseen breaking point. Etc.

John of Phoenix
12-17-2012, 11:12 AM
He/she is not your friend if they kill you, unless an accident. I 'll try and find some facts. A recent "fact" -


A pro football player for the Kansas City Chiefs fatally shot his girlfriend Saturday, then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and killed himself.

pefjr
12-17-2012, 11:32 AM
A recent "fact" -Spouse.

John of Phoenix
12-17-2012, 11:42 AM
You reds define marriage as "1 man + 1 woman = marriage". She was a live in girlfriend and mother of his child but they weren't married. That piece of paper makes all the difference.

pefjr
12-17-2012, 12:10 PM
You reds define marriage as "1 man + 1 woman = marriage". She was a live in girlfriend and mother of his child but they weren't married. That piece of paper makes all the difference. You think all the emotion from lovers is dependent on a piece of paper? When you measure emotional level, she was a spouse.

John of Phoenix
12-17-2012, 12:26 PM
So where are all those facts you were going to dig up? "Friends don't murder friends, they only shoot them by accident" was your premise.

pefjr
12-17-2012, 01:17 PM
So where are all those facts you were going to dig up? "Friends don't murder friends, they only shoot them by accident" was your premise. There is a lot of anger in your posts, plus you obviously have a few problems. One might be cured by seeing an Optometrist, or in your case a "Reading Specialist". You are reading things that don't exist. Meanwhile why don't you fly your copter over to this thread and give your educated opinion.
Acts of horror.....what underlying part does Imperialism play. (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?156774-Acts-of-horror-what-underlying-part-does-Imperialism-play)

John of Phoenix
12-17-2012, 01:39 PM
He/she is not your friend if they kill you, unless an accident. I 'll try and find some facts.

So what facts have you found?


I barely read your posts, and usually don't bother with your threads. I'll pass on this one too.

pefjr
12-17-2012, 02:57 PM
I barely read your postsI see that.

purri
12-17-2012, 05:43 PM
From your raw data of 1.5% of population per annum (assuming a 2.5% birth rate) then over a lifetime of 70 years there is a 90% chance of death by firearm.

BTW demographics and socio-economics have a large role in the refined data and Canoez thread has some. Enforceable regs and health care is just a start to reduce the issue.


I know you haven't got a clue on a lot of stuff, but this takes the cake. Care to explain your logic?

If every 41st male dies of a gunshot wound.... that's about 2.5% of male deaths. Its a bit under 1.5% of deaths if you look at men and women.

Foreign wars not included.... and I'm only covering the last 30 years anyhow. Total deaths of US servicemen and women in foreign wars since 1900 is under 600,000. Total gun deaths in the last 30 years is a few thousand under one million. For the years 1980-2009, it is 983,076 gun deaths out of a total of 67,662,400 deaths.

The Bigfella
12-17-2012, 06:00 PM
From your raw data of 1.5% of population per annum (assuming a 2.5% birth rate) then over a lifetime of 70 years there is a 90% chance of death by firearm.

BTW demographics and socio-economics have a large role in the refined data and Canoez thread has some. Enforceable regs and health care is just a start to reduce the issue.


I never said anything about 1.5% of population per annum.

I said 1.5% of deaths.... and a bit under 2.5% of male deaths.

Don't give up your day job.

purri
12-17-2012, 11:20 PM
Hoist on yer own raw data. BTW everyone dies, thus a rate of 1.5% versus a total birth and supposed immigration rate of 2.5% PER ANNUM gives us with my figure that is abt on the money. Take yer own advice eh?


I never said anything about 1.5% of population per annum.

I said 1.5% of deaths.... and a bit under 2.5% of male deaths.

Don't give up your day job.

The Bigfella
12-18-2012, 02:00 AM
Hoist on yer own raw data. BTW everyone dies, thus a rate of 1.5% versus a total birth and supposed immigration rate of 2.5% PER ANNUM gives us with my figure that is abt on the money. Take yer own advice eh?

Are you really that thick?

1.5% of deaths. Nothing else.... I haven't met anyone yet that has had more than one death.

Here... read slowly and see if you can comprehend it....

From 1980 to 2009 (inclusive) 67,662,400 Americans died... 34.4 million men, 33.3 million women. In those same years, 983,076 Americans died of gunshot wounds. All 983,076 of them only died once.... not once every year. Get it? That's just under 1.5% of the deaths over those 30 years. Do the same thing for male deaths and male gun deaths and the percentage jumps up significantly... as previously detailed.

Can you work it all out from that... or do you need more hand-holding.

btw... the edit comment "for the fool" is something you might want to mouth next time you look in a mirror.

purri
12-18-2012, 02:39 AM
So you're not "across" the concepts of per annum and actuarial studies then...

MW's SOP redux self induced reality.

The Bigfella
12-18-2012, 02:55 AM
So you're not "across" the concepts of per annum and actuarial studies then...

MW's SOP redux self induced reality.

First up, stick your slimy acronymical insults into the nearest quoit.

... and yes, I'm fully aware of statistical concepts. I'm also aware of how it is useful to present statistics in a manner even the simplest of folks can understand. Let me say it again, just for you though.

2.5% of American male deaths in the last 30 years have involved gunshot wounds.

1.5% of all American deaths in the last 30 years have involved gunshot wounds.

Get it?

Need some more hand-holding?

The Bigfella
12-18-2012, 06:35 AM
Still checking those numbers eh Puster?

Tom Hunter
12-18-2012, 10:18 AM
The answer to this one is pretty simple, people want to be prepared for bad things, and having a gun in the house does prepare you to defend yourself against various threats.

Its also true that people do more things with their friends and family than with others, its a simple proximity issue. People are more likely to do good things with friends and family, more likely to commit crimes with and against friends and family, and more likely to have acccidents with friends and family.

Some folks on this thread are having trouble telling the difference between % of deaths and % of population, that's been kind of amusing to look at.