Rebuttal to the argument about gun deaths annually

[medalguy]

I just found something that could easily be used as a rebuttal to the anti's arguments that firearms deaths could be reduced by banning firearms. They repeatedly quote the 30,000 annual deaths figure, but it's interesting to note that today the CDC released through JAMA the story that 75,000 patients in US hospitals die from hospital acquired infections. Quote from a story appearing on MSM page this afternoon: "People who are hospitalized in the United States risk acquiring healthcare-associated infections, which kill 75,000 patients per year, US health authorities said Wednesday."

Suppose we started using this figure to show that the firearms deaths aren't really that many in the USA since more people are killed in traffic accidents and hospitalizations, and there's no outcry to reduce those deaths, so where's the basis for eliminating a constitutional guarantee to try to make any difference in firearms fatalities? Further, when you eliminate the suicide and gang related deaths, the actual number is pretty low.

 

[45_auto]

You're obviously relatively young. As you get older, you'll learn that logic has absolutely ZERO relevance in 99.9999% of discussions or arguments with anti-gunners.

 

[RPRNY]

Take it from a former tobacco lobbyist, "this bad thing doesn't kill as many as that bad thing, so there", doesn't work.

 

[GEM]

I shall opine. Gun proponents don't get the argument of agency.

The opponents of gun ownership regard the gun as being designed as an instrument of killing potential. The gun is tool argument only is mantra within the choir and has little utility outside of it. Thus the deaths caused by gun are due to the action of an evil to begin with entity.

Hospitals and drugs are , apriori, designed to save lives - not take them. Thus, deaths from them are either necessary side effects of the risk in their use or through malpractice. They are not deliberate use or accidental use of an implement designed to harm.

BTW, there is outcry to control hospital deaths, side effects, etc. It may not be as flashy as a VT or Aurora massacre but if you get beyond the it bleeds, it leads news, it is very much under consideration.

Folks may not like this viewpoint but that's my take from studying the issue of gun attitudes and the pro and con arguments.

You have to make the argument that owning instruments of lethal force have positive use as in self-defense or defense against tyranny. The sporting argument is useless and in factor panders to the antigun folks. If you buy into self-defense and defense against tyranny, then the gun deaths caused by crime, suicide or accident are also unpleasant side effects of a positive benefit of gun ownership.

To summarize, the difference in agency or usage of the two systems under consideration (guns vs. medical) explains why the argument isn't that useful if someone is antigun.

A massacre induces a moral panic as no good use is seen for the gun. You have to convince folks that they should exist. No one doubts that medicine should exist and we just need to fix its flaws.

 

[vamo]

But if we can just save one child's life...

 

[GEM]

That's a moral panic response !

It's the same with the NSA - we can tap everyone's phone if it can stop one attack. But some researchers just found you can figure out gun ownership from such. That's why the NRA is part of the opposition to the NSA program.

But it might save one life.

 

[hso]

The comparrisons are not valid, but what you have to use is the deaths vs. lives saved numbers.

If 300,000 to 1,500,000 lives are saved through stopping a violent crime with a firearm each year (various private and government estimates) vs. the less than 30,000 deaths from firearms then the ratio is 1 death to every 10 lives saved to 1 death to every 50 lives saved. That has to be compared to the 75,000 hosptial deaths vs. the lives saved in hospitals. Can we defensibly say that each death from a firearm is offset by many more lives saved than each death in a hosptial from infection? If so, we might have a useful "numbers" tool to argue our point.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

The comparrisons are not valid, but what you have to use is the deaths vs. lives saved numbers.

If 300,000 to 1,500,000 lives are saved through stopping a violent crime with a firearm each year (various private and government estimates).

Uh... No. Not even slightly. There is no one claiming that guns "save 300,000 lives each year."

The highest claim (which is pretty ridiculous) is that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually, that does not translate to 2.5 million lives saved. Not every dgu saves a life.

Any comparison of X vs. Y deaths is usually pretty meaningless. Cars, falls, medical malpractice, guns, etc.

There are people working on all of these issues, there are improvements to be made in medical fields, auto laws and technology, workplace safety, and guns. Each issue has groups who care about it and work hard to make those improvements.

 

[Walkalong]

If the antis would work to actual reduce crime and criminal activity, that would be most excellent, instead of consistently being soft on criminals.

The antis who also make such arguments care nothing about saving lives, they only care about disarming all Americans. Naturally there are those in the anti camp who actually believe that is what they are fighting for, but the driving force behind the gun control push is strictly about disarming Americans. They have proven this over and over. They only use these arguments to evoke emotional responses to get votes.

Any comparison of X vs. Y deaths is usually pretty meaningless

This is completely false. It is a good comparison because it shows how these same people who scream about saving lives when a gun is involved are mysteriously silent when the cause of death is cars driven by people, or medical malpractice or simple incompetency, etc etc.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

This is completely false. It is a good comparison because it shows how these same people who scream about saving lives when a gun is involved are mysteriously silent when the cause of death is cars driven by people, or medical malpractice or simple incompetency, etc etc.

is there some requirement that all people be equally involved/passionate about all issues?

Ppl pick issues they care about and advocate for those. Some pick drunk driving. Some pick playground safety. Some pick medical malpractice. Some pick guns. Some pick humane treatment of animals. It is personal choice.

Now, maybe YOU think that you have some right to dictate to people what they should think about, devote their energy to, and care about, but I would never assume such a position.

 

[barnbwt]

Ah, but you can't legislate microbes or disease; only individuals with mental illness or lacking scruples

Seriously. Most anti's will say "there will always be sickness; but we can end violence" without batting an eye. I've come to learn there are a whole set of people out there who live their entire lives through continual contradiction, and seek to resolve the paradox by controlling others. They will invent every shade of grey just so they can ban them all. Refusing to defend themselves while actively seeking out and neutering anyone they perceive as a threat. I suppose you could say it's a symptom of excessive pride or hubris, but these folks often come off to me as lacking self confidence or a defined world view (again; contradictions). Double-thinkers.

From Wiki:
"Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction."

Worth noting; Cognitive Dissonance is how human minds determine whether something is correct or incorrect (it's not a Yes or No binary calculation like in a computer), so a person lacking that capacity is...

TCB

 

[MedWheeler]

A good rebuttal is not the same thing as a comparison. If someone tells you that Ford trucks are crap, telling them that Dodge can't make a good one, either, doesn't help convince them that Fords are okay.

You already answered your question in the last sentence of your post.

 

[jerkface11]

is there some requirement that all people be equally involved/passionate about all issues?

If saving lives was what they cared about they would be equally pasionate. Instead they only care about shootings. You'd almost think they had some other motive and that saving lives was just the cover that they use.

 

[Sniper66]

George Will made the best comment I have heard about people who purport to want to save lives. He said, "If saving lives was the most important issue, we should ban left turns." He went on to show how stats can show almost anything and that the greatest cause of vehicle deaths occur when one car turns left in front of another. The point here, at least for me, is that to reduce gun deaths, it is important look for realistic solutions rather than seeking to eliminate gun deaths at any cost.

 

[58limited]

Medalguy said: They repeatedly quote the 30,000 annual deaths figure,

Well, assuming those who quote this would even listen to you or be interested in actual facts, start by breaking that figure down: Of those 30,000 or so gun deaths, about 8900* are murder/non-negligent manslaughter. Of the remaining 21,100 or so gun deaths some are ruled justifiable homicide, some are accidents, and 19,392 of them are suicides** . Anti-gunners then like to say that if there were no guns then the suicide rate would go down because other methods of suicide are less effective or slower and the people are more likely to change their mind or be discovered and saved. Well, tell them about Japan. Japan has one of the highest, if not the highest, suicide rates in the world and they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Those Japanese who wish to commit suicide are very effective at doing it without guns and that would be true of anyone else in any other country. Finally, point out that despite all of the media hype (violence sells and boosts ratings after all) that according to our own government's crime report our gun murder rate is the lowest since the early 1960s***

At this point it is perfectly valid to point out death rates from car accidents, etc. to show that you are more likely to die from something other than a gun.

* 2010 Annual Crime Report, the last figures I have.
** CDC gun suicide rate for 2010
*** Annual Crime Reports covering 1960-2010

 

[carbine85]

The "death by Guns" numbers also include suicide, self defense and accidents. The antis group all them all into one as if they are violent crimes.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

So what are your thoughts on "Mothers Against Drunk Driving?"

Would you ask one of the M.A.D.D. folks:

"Why spend your time fighting drunk driving? Medical errors kill more people than drunk driving. If you REALLY cared about saving lives, you should focus on medical errors!"

I still don't see how "NUMBER OF DEATHS" should be the sole determiner of what people care about.

By that logic, the ONLY thing ANY of us should care about in the US is heart disease.

No cancer research, no auto safety, only heart disease because if your REALLY care about saving lives, you should focus on the one thing that kills the most people. Obviously that is ludicrous, people are free to care about whatever touches their fancy. Telling people "you care about the wrong thing because there are worse things!" is never going to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

BTW, there is one way that you could use this, but it is NOT an absolute "Because more people die from XYZ, you should not care about guns!" response.

It can be useful to look at it in terms of resources devoted to an issue.

So, compare guns to the #1 killer, heart disease:

How many injuries, deaths, and other negative impacts on society involve guns?
How much of societies resources are consumed by these injuries, deaths and other negative impacts?
How much of societies resources do we devote to preventing injuries, deaths and other negative impacts involving guns?


How many injuries, deaths, and other negative impacts on society involve heart disease?
How much of societies resources are consumed by these injuries, deaths and other negative impacts?
How much of societies resources do we devote to preventing injuries, deaths and other negative impacts involving heart disease?

Answer those questions and you can make well informed statements of the RELATIVE value of efforts in any particular area.

Unfortunately, those answers are not always easy to get and projecting the cost of changes (EX: cost to implement and enforce a new gun control law) is even harder to estimate. Clearly we should devote MORE resources to auto accidents, heart disease, medical errors, etc than preventing injuries/deaths associated with firearms, but that does not mean we should not use ANY resources on preventing injuries/deaths associated with firearms. And we do devote more resources to those issues, there is no question that a LOT more people, time, and money is spent on those issues than on gun control.

 

[benEzra]

If you look at actual proposals, the bans the prohibitionists are currently proposing often target the least misused firearms ("assault weapons", .50-caliber bolt-actions, ad nauseaum)---not to save lives, but to stick it to gun enthusiasts.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20 (Murder by State and Type of Weapon), all rifles *combined* account for less than 3% of murders. Quite a few states have zero rifle homicides in any given year.

Does that matter to the zealots who want to criminalize rifle handgrips that stick out? No, not a bit. (It does matter to fence-sitters and uncommitted antis, though, so it's a good fact to hammer on.)

 

[Walkalong]

So what are your thoughts on "Mothers Against Drunk Driving?"

A great organization that believes in what they do, keeping drunks off the road. You'll notice they do not mistakenly blame alcohol but instead realistically focus on the people abusing alcohol and endangering lives by drinking and driving.

Not so with antis, they blame the inanimate object instead of the people abusing it. The reason is that they are not concerned with the number of deaths, they are only concerned with taking away guns. Deaths from guns is just an emotional subject they try to exploit to further their anti gun agenda.

Your argument of why should they care about deaths from other causes is bogus. If they truly care about all violence and violence related deaths, they would get behind the NRA on pushing tough sentences for people who abuse firearms and commit violent crime with them, but they don't. They hate the NRA for fighting peoples rights, because they are fighting for gun rights, even though those gun rights are for honest law abiding citizens.

 

[JRH6856]

I wonder how many of the 30,000 firearms deaths are the result of infection contracted during hospitalization for otherwise non-lethal wounds.

 

[happygeek]

If you look at actual proposals, the bans the prohibitionists are currently proposing often target the least misused firearms ("assault weapons", .50-caliber bolt-actions, ad nauseaum)---not to save lives, but to stick it to gun enthusiasts.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20 (Murder by State and Type of Weapon), all rifles *combined* account for less than 3% of murders. Quite a few states have zero rifle homicides in any given year.

A great organization that believes in what they do, keeping drunks off the road. You'll notice they do not mistakenly blame alcohol but instead realistically focus on the people abusing alcohol and endangering lives by drinking and driving.

One was involved in 10,288 deaths in 2010 due to malfeasance, one was involved in 367. Guess which one I can buy with 'cash & a handshake' and which I have to buy from a federally licensed dealer complete with 4473 and a call to NICS?

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Oh, and one of those was involved in the deaths of 211 children under the age of 14

 

[JustinJ]

Not so with antis, they blame the inanimate object instead of the people abusing it.

How does one focus on the people using the gun rather than the gun itself? The gun is very often the means used to kill or harm so gun control advocates are seeking to remove the means. Such is same basis for a whole host of other issues. One can't even buy chemistry glassware in many states because of laws aimed at curbing meth production. Is such "blaming glassware" rather than meth makers? Those who advocate such laws aren't trying to punish glassware, they are trying to remove a means to meth production.

No rational person will say that we should remove hospitals because of nosocomial infections because the harm is hugely out weighed by the good. Gun control advocates don't see guns in the same manner as they don't see much benefit to allowing guns or certain types of guns. Its largely a value judgment. Many see the highly infrequent incidence of guns saving lives as not worth the damage inflicted by criminal use of firearms. And they certainly don't see the enjoyment of shooting hobby and sports as worth the damage inflicted with guns.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

A great organization that believes in what they do, keeping drunks off the road. You'll notice they do not mistakenly blame alcohol but instead realistically focus on the people abusing alcohol and endangering lives by drinking and driving.

Not so with antis, they blame the inanimate object instead of the people abusing it.

I notice that the number of deaths associated with drunk driving relative to hospital infections did not enter your evaluation of MADD.

STRICTLY based on "number of deaths" evaluation, without bringing in methodology or philosophy, why do you object to MAIG but not MADD?

The point is, you don't object to MAIG because of the numbers, you disagree with their philosophy and views. You don't apply the argument presented by the OP (there are more deaths from X than Y, so Y is unimportant) uniformly, you ONLY apply it to the one group you disagree with on philosophical grounds. So, the argument is not legitimate, it is just a way to attack/distract someone you disagree with.

And... No one is going to be even slightly convinced by the argument, if you want to talk about advocacy.

"You shouldn't care about these 10,000 dead people, because over here there are 70,000 dead people!"

Yeah... Not exactly a very humane approach.

 

[happygeek]

Such is same basis for a whole host of other issues. One can't even buy chemistry glassware in many states because of laws aimed at curbing meth production. Is such "blaming glassware" rather than meth makers? Those who advocate such laws aren't trying to punish glassware, they are trying to remove a means to meth production.

This assumes that the person you're making the argument to buys into the perception that The War on Drugs is actually accomplishing anything.

To answer the OP, to even talk in terms of "gun deaths" is misleading. "Gun deaths" even includes criminals who are shot by the police in self defense. If you're going to even begin talking about whether a gun control scheme accomplishes anything you have to start with concrete numbers and not, for lack of a better phrase, spin numbers like "x Americans killed by gunfire" (another phrasing of the term "gun deaths" I've seen in the media).