Jump to content

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts


Recommended Posts

Let me see someone try to contest these numbers:


Let's talk about gun violence:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically small number! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:


• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.


So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.


• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)


So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.


Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.


Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.


But what about other deaths each year?


• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).


Now it gets good:


• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

 

So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:


Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.


Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I fully understand that just because laws are broken they are somehow futile.  I look at the those stats you post and I'm drawn more towards the cities than the numbers.  The names of the cities indicate poverty/hopelessness.

 

The laws aren't broken, its the people.  It's easy to point the finger at them and yell 'GET A JOB!'  but when they exist in climates that are bare, its nearly impossible.   'JUST MOVE WHERE THE JOBS ARE!' ...Also easy to say when uprooting your life costs money, and also the possible family ties to the communities.

 

I just wish people would try and understand that not everyone was born into a cozy situation.   And just because we can point to the exception to the rule, that makes every instance of poverty superfluous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Let me see someone try to contest these numbers:


Let's talk about gun violence:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically small number! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:


• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.


So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.


• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)


So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.


Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.


Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.


But what about other deaths each year?


• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).


Now it gets good:


• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

 

So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:


Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.


Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

I think you just proved that there technically are no gun deaths in the united states.

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, harryramar said:

I think you just proved that there technically are no gun deaths in the united states.

 

Not at all; just that there are better courses of action that we can take as opposed to a policy as fatally flawed as gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

I'm not sure I fully understand that just because laws are broken they are somehow futile. 

The point is that none of the mass shootings can be stopped by laws. 

Creating more/new laws wont' change that simple fact. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

The point is that none of the mass shootings can be stopped by laws. 

Creating more/new laws wont' change that simple fact. 

 

But that would apply to any law that gets broken, wouldn't it?   

 

Should we revoke/rebuke gun laws in favor of gun anarchy?

 

It also bring up an interesting side bar:  would mass shootings go down if we took away the guns that are prevalent in mass shootings?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

But that would apply to any law that gets broken, wouldn't it?   

Should we revoke/rebuke gun laws in favor of gun anarchy?

It also bring up an interesting side bar:  would mass shootings go down if we took away the guns that are prevalent in mass shootings?

No gun laws proposed, would EVER have stopped a mass shooting. 

Are you proposing gun confiscation?   Because if you are, can you show the constitutional authority to do that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to mass shootings, I think the issue that always gets laughed at or pushed aside is mental health. One can't claim with a straight face that the shooters in these infamous and tragic events are sane and rational. Plenty of people suffering mental illness do not kill 27 people on a sunday morning. However, it comes down to the tired prevention vs. treatment argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

 

=========================================

The idea that an armed populace could successfully fight the government was disproven with Shea's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion. President George Washington himself  rustled up an army and defeated these armed moonshiners with very little difficulty.

 Noah Webster was better at writing dictionaries.

 

There is NO CHANCE that armed civilians could defeat the US Army. NONE.

Again the more firearms are in circulation, the greater the chance someone will be shot with one of them, eventually.

There is no evidence that Trump & Congress  will  pass a law to fund any group to improve anti-suicide programs. nor is there evidence that they will do anything to  improve mental health care, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

No gun laws proposed, would EVER have stopped a mass shooting. 

Are you proposing gun confiscation?   Because if you are, can you show the constitutional authority to do that?

 

Of course not... I'm not arguing that.  A murderer is going to commit murder in spite of the law.   The preventive measures are what need to take place to subdue these occurances.

 

As for the con... If law is passed outlawing specific weaponry... I would suggest offering those with the newly outlawed weapons a voucher for equal price/value for a weapon of choice that is not currently illegal.

 

Give out a notice to any and all owners 60-90 days to turnover and/or relinquish their weapon and pick up their vouchers.

 

Obviously the gov would flip the bill for the vouchers since the compromise would be another weapon(s) of equal value.

 

Sounds like a decent place to start addressing the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

 So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

 

=========================================

The idea that an armed populace could successfully fight the government was disproven with Shea's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion. President George Washington himself  rustled up an army and defeated these armed moonshiners with very little difficulty.

 Noah Webster was better at writing dictionaries.

 

There is NO CHANCE that armed civilians could defeat the US Army. NONE.

Again the more firearms are in circulation, the greater the chance someone will be shot with one of them, eventually.

There is no evidence that Trump & Congress  will  pass a law to fund any group to improve anti-suicide programs. nor is there evidence that they will do anything to  improve mental health care, either.

 

Liberals seem to think that if the government tried to disarm the populace in directed violation to the Constitution the US Army would be on the side of the government...even though they swore to uphold the Constitution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

Of course not... I'm not arguing that.  A murderer is going to commit murder in spite of the law.   The preventive measures are what need to take place to subdue these occurances.

 

As for the con... If law is passed outlawing specific weaponry... I would suggest offering those with the newly outlawed weapons a voucher for equal price/value for a weapon of choice that is not currently illegal.

 

Give out a notice to any and all owners 60-90 days to turnover and/or relinquish their weapon and pick up their vouchers.

 

Obviously the gov would flip the bill for the vouchers since the compromise would be another weapon(s) of equal value.

 

Sounds like a decent place to start addressing the situation.

And what happens to all the guns in circulation that people choose not to hand over to the government?

And where are you going to get the money for the millions of guns this would cover?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

 There is NO CHANCE that armed civilians could defeat the US Army. NONE.

What we DO know is that this would be true, once you idiots disarmed us. 

You should buy a book about the success of insurgencies, and educate yourself. 

 

It always amazes me that people who hate/distrust the military, and the police, want them to be the only people in this country to be armed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not about the government trying to disarm the people. It is about how the purpose of the Second Amendment is so that if the people got really tired of the president, they could grab their rifles, shotguns and pistols and DEFEAT the Army.

We no longer have an army selected against their will by a draft. The Army is now professional and they are sure to follow the orders from the commander in  chief.

The Constitution does not  order the military to stand down if a bunch of people attempt to take over the government.

The Army could easily corral the rebels with sonic devices and gas them. They would wake up in jail hogtied and ziptied and that would be the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

This is not about the government trying to disarm the people. It is about how the purpose of the Second Amendment is so that if the people got really tired of the president, they could grab their rifles, shotguns and pistols and DEFEAT the Army.

We no longer have an army selected against their will by a draft. The Army is now professional and they are sure to follow the orders from the commander in  chief.

The Constitution does not  order the military to stand down if a bunch of people attempt to take over the government.

The Army could easily corral the rebels with sonic devices and gas them. They would wake up in jail hogtied and ziptied and that would be the end of it.

Of course this is about you wanting citizens to be disarmed. 

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect our right to hunt, it protects our right to overthrow our government should the need arise. 

And please don't pretend to think you know what the military thinks or would do. 

I'll guarantee that you know no one in the military.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

And what happens to all the guns in circulation that people choose not to hand over to the government?

And where are you going to get the money for the millions of guns this would cover?

 

 

 

They become criminals.  If the guns are registered, then we should know who and how many.  

 

As who pays for it... I already said the gov.  Its as noble of a cause as anything else.  Perhaps a tax?  

 

Just to be clear... It wouldn't rid the world of the weapon because absolutism is untenable.  But we start somewhere and work from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

They become criminals.  If the guns are registered, then we should know who and how many.  

As who pays for it... I already said the gov.  Its as noble of a cause as anything else.  Perhaps a tax?  

Just to be clear... It wouldn't rid the world of the weapon because absolutism is untenable.  But we start somewhere and work from there.

So you want to force people to turn in guns or become criminals. 

Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
  1.  
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golfboy said:

The point is that none of the mass shootings can be stopped by laws. 

Creating more/new laws wont' change that simple fact. 

 

this perp was court martialed and thrown in a military prison for 1 year for beatng his wife and kid. he was dishonorably discharged. you seem to worry more about this cocksuckers right to own an assault rifle than you do the victims. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

So you want to force people to turn in guns or become criminals. 

Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
  1.  
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Huzzah!  Now we're down to the meat and potatoes.  'well reg militia' doesn't constitute what specifically you are allowed to carry.

 

For example:  there are plenty of military grade weapons the public are not privy to.   This would just be one more.

 

As for "encroaching" ... My scenario doesn't call for an unarming, it calls for a trade of sorts - voucher.   The constitution is fluid.  It was designed to be amended.  It was never designed to be concrete.

 

You still have your guns.  You still have protection from and against the gov and criminals.

 

Also, interpretation is huge with respect to the constitution and law.  It's essentially why and how lawyers exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Liberals seem to think that if the government tried to disarm the populace in directed violation to the Constitution the US Army would be on the side of the government...even though they swore to uphold the Constitution.

 

 

so you would shoot to kill police officers and soldiers who followed orders because you are a patriot? grow a ball

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XavierOnassis said:

 The idea that an armed populace could successfully fight the government was disproven with Shea's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion. President George Washington himself  rustled up an army and defeated these armed moonshiners with very little difficulty.

 Noah Webster was better at writing dictionaries.

 

There is NO CHANCE that armed civilians could defeat the US Army. NONE.

 

 

 

You keep posting this in defiance of the reality of current events, where a society of sheep herders and farmers with antiquated, cobbled-together, and obsolete firearms is fighting one of the most powerful military forces in the history of the world to an essential standstill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...