There is also a large quantitative difference between US population, and the population of other nations.The USA has the worlds third largest population. It has more than 10X the population of Canada. Thus the few mass shootings in Canada must be multiplied by 10 to compare them to USA. Still, USA has higher numbers, but comparing just nation by nation does not take population into account.
A gun is a tool to project a projectile or small cloud of projectiles over a distance. I have never killed a living thing, knowingly, with my shotgun. (The chance of an errant fly is non-zero.) I have used it repeatedly to break small resin platters as they arc through the air. It is being used correctly when I use it in such a manner.
Once again, there are very few dangerous guns. (The Nambu pistol is one, it has a tendency to explode when used) There are dangerous people. Not much you can do about that. Life isn’t safe. College and high school doubly so.
According to this site, homicide (doesn’t distinguish between firearms and other, but lets assume that the majority of them in the US were firearms related) only accounts for .7% of deaths (statistics as of 2002):
Even if we assume ‘All other causes other’ to be ALL accidental firearms related, it wouldn’t put it in the top 3 of killers in the US per year…which was the point I was making.
I couldn’t find good statistics on deaths due to firearms vs automobiles, so I’ll be interested if someone comes up with those stats (and I won’t be surprised if I’m wrong…I’m going on pure memory wrt the gross numbers of deaths in auto’s vs firearms). The point is still that people are bad at risk assessment.
-XT
I did manage to find this however (this is in response to Burton btw):
Its obviously a site designed to show us that the probability of a HAZMAT accident is vanishingly small…but if I’m reading it right, the probability of being killed by a fire arm (accidental) in the US (between 1999-2003) was 1 out of 399,000…while being killed in a car accident was 1 out of 7700.
Unfortunately they don’t list purposeful murder by firearm…but that stat was covered in the other post and seems fairly small (.7% for ‘Assault Homicide’).
-XT
Doubtless others will disagree with me but I do think guns are by-and-large useless objects. Or rather, useless in-as-much as they provide any redeeming benefits. Once upon a time people needed to hunt for their food and in that instance I could see a rifle being quite useful. Today, at least in the US, I doubt anyone needs to hunt for their food and only hunt as a sport. I do not think the benefits of a sport (even if just target shooting to stay away of wheher hunting is moral) trump the downsides that firearms bring to society.
After that you have what? Protecting yourself from bad guys? Curious how often that actually works. Then you may say militaries benefit from them but dubious on whether you’d call that useful since it cuts both ways.
So we are to be ok with small statistical probabilities? Flying in a plane is still the safest way to travel. Statistically you are more likely to die any number of ways and if you crash in a commercial jet you just got really unlucky in the cosmic lottery. Does that mean plane crashes should not be investigated as thoroughly as they are? Seems a lot of resources that could be applied elsewhere.
I do not claim to have 100% control over all that happens to me while driving and certainly some drunk could whip through an intersection and t-bone me. Nonetheless, as a driver, I actually have a habit of looking both ways before proceeding through an intersection even when I have the light giving me perhaps a chance of spotting some drunk who is not stopping. I cannot get rid of all risk but I can do things to minimize that risk.
I think there are two types we have to deal with here. Fuckups and actual bad people. In driving we will encounter a lot of fuckups and only so much that can be done. Presumably there are some dopes with guns who are the same (not actually meaning to cause harm…just idiots). However, it is rare that actual bad people get in a car and aim for other people with the intent to kill or maim them. It is more likely that such a bad person would grab a gun to achieve whatever mayhem they are on about.
This is easy…more gun deaths by far and the stats are easy to look up.
2004 - 8,256 deaths caused by a drunk driver (cite )
2001 - 11,671 homicides with a firearm ( cite )
Now off the top of your head do you think there are more people who own a car or own a gun?
If I want to end my self via a McMuffin to the head that is my business. If I wanted to end myself with a gun to the head that is my business too (not trying to get into debate on suicide here).
Frankly this discussion should happen each and every of the 11,000+ times a year this happens in this country. Yes the chances of my getting shot by someone on a rampage are small but sadly the public becomes desensitized to violence of all stripes. So if it takes a tradgedy of this scale to force the issue back into the light I’ll take it even if in and of itself it is a drop in the bucket.
Overall there are more deaths arising from automobiles but that’s not what you asked.
Target shooting is a hobby. Some families are so poor they still need to hunt. Few, I will concede, but they are out there. And many dudes just collect guns.
Let us look at xtisme list. Right below firearms we have Recreational Boating- is that not also a by-and-large useless hobby? Not only does Recreational Boating kill almost as many dudes as firearms directly, it also adds to air and water polution, and drives up gas prices. So should be ban that? In the Motor Vehicle section, doubtless racing and similar recreation hobby use causes more deatsh than firearms- along with also air and water polution and so forth. Ban that hobby also? Ban any car which has more speed than is needed? Ban shops that modify cars?
I don’t know if this distinction is relevant, but the above site of 8,256 deaths in 2004 from drunk drivers is technically correct, but somewhat misleading. It only includes people who were legally drunk (.08 blood alcohol content). The number of deaths attributed to drivers who had .01 or greater BAC was 13,952.
Um…your cite seems to say:
I think you are misreading it. BTW, its was 17,400 in 2001 (the time period your other cite goes too). In addition, there were 42,196 total fatalities (vs 29,573 total for all firearms related).
So, even though your stats seem to run differently than what I found, there were still nearly half as many deaths. When we look at injuries its even worse of course. So…ban all cars! 
-XT
Is the security of a free state a legitimate purpose?
Thanks to God that VT has a campus-wide ban on guns to prevent this type of thing from ever happening again, though.
Thats true…feel free to cite evidence against what I DID say then. Because at least looking at what I’ve found, and even what Whack-a-Mole found (when we examine his first cite more closely), it doesn’t seem my statement was wrong…though I will admit I thought there was a bigger gap between alcohol related deaths and those due to homicide by firearms.
-XT
Thats true…but as we live in a society sometimes things are out of our control (as shown by both the death by firearms stat and the larger death by drunk drivers stat which you helpfully provided). Or IOW, sometimes shit happens.
Should it equally happen 17,000+ times a year as well when some ass gets behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated?
Thats fine…as long as you realize that you are worrying about the wrong things statistically speaking. In fact, you are in the majority…MOST people are terrible at risk assessment and focus on the flashy things with fairly small probability of actually effecting them. While ignoring those things most likely to kill them because either they think they have more ‘control’ of the situation than they think (if familiar), because the ‘danger’ is familiar to them and so they don’t worry so much about it or because they simply don’t think through the implications. Or a combination of those factors most likely.
-XT
No, you are misreading it. You specifically asked about drunk drivers. The cite I provided first quotes all auto accidents where alcohol was present in any of the parties. So, if I am sitting on my couch drinking beer and you, completely sober, lose control of your car and drive through my front window and park on my lap that counts towards the larger statistic. The stat YOU asked for was drunk drivers which I took to em the person behind the wheel was deemed legally drunk.
Whack-a-Mole, could you quote from your cite what is leading you to this conclusion? I have to admit, I’ve read it and not getting the same conclusion. I assume you mean this section:
This just seems to indicate that 8256 people were killed by drivers who had BAL HIGHER than was legal…but ALL the deaths were by drivers impaired to one degree or another by alchohol. I suppose if thats your definition of ‘drunk driver’ (i.e. only someone who’s BAL is higher than legal) then I will accept that…but everyone’s tolerance is different. Regardless, ‘alchohol related’ still means the DRIVER was under the influence…and thats pretty much what I was getting at myself (though again, I used ‘drunk driver’ which is a purely subjective term).
-XT
Always interested in how people try to obfuscate the issue with stuff like this.
Certainly many things we do carry risks. But until you show me stats of people racing around in motor boats trying to run people over it is not the same thing. Accidents happen. If you were at a gun club target shooting accidents can happen and people could get hurt.
When you come up with stats that show motor boat homicides are on par with firearm homicides you have a point. Note “homicides”…not accidents.
No…here, I’ll quote the relevant part from my earlier cite (highlighting mine):
EDIT: A BAC of .08 is quite low. Granted people have differing tolerances but that is really low (which is fine and as it should be as to whether you whould be able to drive).
But you didn’t quote the whole paragraph:
Also, there are no stats given on the page indicating strictly drunk drivers (or strictly describing accidents who’s sole cause is the driver being impaired) one way or the other…so your parsing of the numbers is random. We don’t KNOW, from this cite at least, how many of the accidents counted were caused by (directly or indirectly) by the driver being impaired (or conversely, the driver NOT being impaired, but someone who was impaired wandering out in front of a car while intoxicated).
You do realize we could most likely parse the numbers for death by fire arms in a similar fashion (for instance, how many of those deaths were in self defense yet still counted? How many were mis-identified accidents? etc)?
Using your own cite, and the part you didn’t quote, and taking 12% off the 17,400 number we STILL get over 15,000…which is more than your 2001 stat about firearms related murders. No?
-XT
Should point out that buying two sides of cow is expensive. You kill a deer, you’re saving eight hundred bucks or so… pun noted and ignored.
Tell me that doesn’t help with the family finances.
Geez…read the thing! I am not parsing anything. That cite DOES give us exactly the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers (highlighting mine again):
Now they state in the article that anything over .01 counts towards the alcohol related statistic in accidents regardless of which party in the accident had that level. But note if you have less than .08 BAC you are not a “drunk driver” as that is not legally drunk. Start another thread if you think a BAC of .08 is too high a level to allow but that is how it stands today.
I do agree.
However, since Annie (and KarlGauss) chooses to compare the US to European countries in terms of population, she could take into account, say, the population of the EU (~450 million) and compare that with the US’s ~300 million, then add up the number and death-toll of gun massacres between the two population centres, but of course multiplying the US’s figures by 1.5 to take into account the population disparity.