Firearms related deaths, some facts from the CDC (a little long...)


PDA






CJ
March 26, 2004, 10:06 PM
After reading some various sites with some hysterical claims about firearms, I decided to see what I could dig up of my own information. I wanted easily locatable facts that I could point people to when they make standard media-type claims. I discovered the CDC stats from 2000 at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_15.pdf

I summarized and compiled what they said (some of their percentages and actual numbers, filled in by me from another chart in the report) don't quite match, but it's fairly close.

Firearm mortality
In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States(tables18 and 19). Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 57.9 (16,586) and 37.7 (10,801)per-cent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2000. The other components—firearm accidents, firearm injuries of undetermined intent, and legal intervention involving firearms—accounted for 2.7 (776), 0.8 (230), and 0.9 (270) percent, respectively. Among those aged 19 years and under, the number of firearm deaths was 10.1 percent lower than in 1999. Despite the decrease, in 2000 those aged 19 years and under accounted for 10.6 (3038) percent of all firearm deaths.

Leading causes of death (overall number)(number involving firearms):
Accidents #5 (97,900) (776 by firearm)
Suicide #11 (29,350) (16,586 by firearm)
Assault #14 (16,765) (10,801 by firearm)

So, if I'm reading this right, of 29,350 people committing suicide, some 56.5% of them used firearms.

Unfortunately, of 16,765 assaults leading to death, 64.4% involved a firearm. Not as high as grabbers would want you to believe, but still disgustingly high.

What I could not determine was how some items were categorized. Does "legal intervention involving firearms" mean some law agency was involved, or is shooting a rapist within these bounds as well?

Overall some interesting stats, and with the suicide stats removed, the numbers change pretty drastically and firearms become the 5th injury-related cause of death instead of the second (the new order would be vehicles, suicide, falls, unintentional poison, then firearms).

So...it looks like to REALLY have an impact, we need better counselors, requirements for padding around all high locations, and better poison education.

Any thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Firearms related deaths, some facts from the CDC (a little long...)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Highland Ranger
March 26, 2004, 11:06 PM
Yeah a simple one.

Why does the instrument matter in any of these cases?

Assault and suicide were both around before guns right? Why do we fixate on them? Someone wants to off themself, or assault you, they'll figure out how, with or without access to a gun.

It's not the guns, its PEOPLE.

F4GIB
March 26, 2004, 11:19 PM
You are correct.

Firearms are objects which people can use for good or evil. The object is neither.

That firearms are deadly is neither good nor evil. So are tall buildings (for those who jump from the 10th floor or above). One Canadian study of suicides and strict handgun laws concluded that "Canadians appear to have fully substituted death by leaping [for the drop in deaths by shooting]." A death by shooting is not more or less tragic than a death by leaping.

To say, as many researchers do, that "of 16,765 assaults leading to death, 64.4% involved a firearm" is merely to highlight that guns when misused are deadly. They are always deadly but the use controls whether that effect results or some benign effect such as a hole in the X-ring.

The gun is, at most, a symptom. As the billboards say "The leading cause of suicide in untreated depression." No depression, no death. The presence of a gun, a rope, or a tall building makes no difference. Those who shoot themselves in the brain know the consequences. They desire the consequences. And denied one method of dying, they will find another.

Langenator
March 27, 2004, 07:01 AM
Something interesting I picked out of "Seven Myths about Gun Control" regarding violent crimes involving guns. Leads to a lot of questions. I'm not trying to be racist, or make this a race thing, but the NAACP will hate me anyway.

The statement was, if you factor out violent crimes involving guns committed by blacks, the U.S. rate becomes comparable to Canada's. This depsite the more than 200 million guns in private hands.

I don't have any explanations, nor solutions, just the info.

Skirmisher
March 27, 2004, 09:25 AM
The only person concerned about the method of the homicide is the victim.
There other methods of murdering a person other than shooting and some of them are reported as "gruesome". The anti-gunners who want to reduce crime are only interested in gun crime and don't care a whit about the victims. :fire:

Standing Wolf
March 27, 2004, 06:49 PM
The statement was, if you factor out violent crimes involving guns committed by blacks, the U.S. rate becomes comparable to Canada's. This depsite the more than 200 million guns in private hands.
I don't have any explanations, nor solutions, just the info.

Fifty years' worth of welfare would do that to any ethnic group.

Daniel T
March 27, 2004, 10:30 PM
The statement was, if you factor out violent crimes involving guns committed by blacks, the U.S. rate becomes comparable to Canada's.

I'd find it more interesting to see what would happen if you factored out violent crime involving guns committed by people in the lowest percentile of income.

Stand_Watie
March 27, 2004, 10:46 PM
That firearms are deadly is neither good nor evil. So are tall buildings (for those who jump from the 10th floor or above). One Canadian study of suicides and strict handgun laws concluded that "Canadians appear to have fully substituted death by leaping [for the drop in deaths by shooting]." A death by shooting is not more or less tragic than a death by leaping.

I think you've understated your case there a little. I read somewhere that the human body achieves terminal velocity at the height of a typical five-story drop...I asked my uncle (an engineer) if that sounded right and after a couple minutes of (one-eye-squinched-shut) mental math he concluded that that sounded about correct. I have read the Canadian study you mentioned and the death by leaping that they were referring to was bridge-leaping, and most bridges I've encountered aren't anywhere near 10 stories high. I suspect the lethality rate of leaping from anything higher than 40 or 50 feet substantially exceeds that of self inflicted gunshot wounds.

Stand_Watie
March 27, 2004, 10:54 PM
The statement was, if you factor out violent crimes involving guns committed by blacks, the U.S. rate becomes comparable to Canada's. This depsite the more than 200 million guns in private hands.

There's nothing racist in and of itself of that observation, any more than observing that asian-Americans have a lower homicide rate than white Americans, unless you are trying to (and I don't believe you are) draw the conclusion that there is a genetic cause to homicide. A person of a liberal bent should (unless they are trying to make the case for gun - control) make the conclusion from that that historical racism in America is a root cause of homicide. A person of conservative bent that welfare is a root cause of homicide. I myself think it's a combination of the two, plus several other factors.

Stand_Watie
March 27, 2004, 10:59 PM
I'd find it more interesting to see what would happen if you factored out violent crime involving guns committed by people in the lowest percentile of income

While that would make a dramatic difference, I don't think you'd be able to make a case that that alone is the critical factor. There are large sub-populations of poor people who have comparitively low homicide rates. For example, the state of Maine is one of the Union's poorer states (and would be one of the poorest states if the demographics weren't so skewed by rich retirees from the northeast megalopolis that don't retire to places like Alabama and Mississippi), yet has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country, slightly lower than Canada's as a matter of fact.

benEzra
March 27, 2004, 11:25 PM
the state of Maine is one of the Union's poorer states (and would be one of the poorest states if the demographics weren't so skewed by rich retirees from the northeast megalopolis that don't retire to places like Alabama and Mississippi), yet has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country, slightly lower than Canada's as a matter of fact.
And their per capita rate of gun ownership is among the highest in New England, as my Mainer wife would tell ya, ayuh.

MeekandMild
March 28, 2004, 02:10 AM
Accidents, homicides and suicides are low on the list of common causes for death. About 30% or 725,000 deaths per year relate to heart disease alone. (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/burdenbook2002/02_heart.htm) Cancer is the number two overall and the one cause of death in the mid 30's to mid 60's age group. (http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/content.asp?ID=1101)

I've read the stats about white versus ethnic American's murder rates. I've also heard the rate of white American homicides compared with those of Scotland.

I can only conclude there is a lot of BS involved in the gun control movement.

c_yeager
March 28, 2004, 04:21 AM
Taking into account BOTH the statistics about Maine and about the homocide rate among black americans i think that an alternate consideration can be made. Black americans are over represented among lower income levels more so than any other ethnic group. But, as the statement about Maine points out economic status isnt the only factor at play here. But, Maine is a very rural state. While the fast majority of poor blacks live in urban areas. So, if you COMBINE poverty AND geography i think you will find that violent crime statistics among POOR CITY DWELLERS will account for the VAST majority of violent crime in this country.

GunWares
March 28, 2004, 06:14 AM
Given that obesity has become the most prevalent health problem in this country, I'd be curious to see a study of mortality rates from guns versus McDonald's french fries. Or, how many people have died from being beaten with bags of Cheetos? These are the real questions that the anti-gunners don't want the public to ponder.

Ryder
March 28, 2004, 07:10 AM
So 0.6 people are murdered each day per state in a year by someone who used a gun?

Doesn't sound significant for a country that has something like a quarter billion people. Quite the rarity!

Not rare enough to be a sheep IMO however.

artherd
March 29, 2004, 01:27 AM
Accidents are really the only thing I am worried about happening to me, so that's all I'm concerned with.

The rest does not even concern guns IMHO (killers will kill with string if they have to.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Firearms related deaths, some facts from the CDC (a little long...)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!