Gun violence in America.

[miketx]

I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.

You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.

Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.

I had never heard that before, thanks. But I don't think banning guns is a good idea because it would give the gov too much power and criminals would have a field day.

 

[RWNJ]

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

All right. to find a percentage, you must divide the smaller number by the larger one. Correct? So, 30,000 divided by 325,000,000 = 0.00009230769. Is this not correct?

And then to make it a percentage you multiple by 100.

And you still come up with less that one percent. If you exclude suicides and justified shootings you have about .2%. So, what's your point?

Just being a math nazi.

LOL! And I thought Grammar Nazi's were bad. Anyway, wouldn't you agree that the actual number of gun related homicides is a lot smaller than the Left is making it out to be, and that gun laws do absolutely nothing to combat it?

 

[forkup]

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

 

[forkup]

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

You are right. The error in using numbers speaks volumes.

 

[RWNJ]

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?

 

[g5000]

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically small number!

O'rly?

Our homicide rate is 290% higher than Canada, 500% higher than Australia, and 530% higher than the UK.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.

You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.

Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.

I had never heard that before, thanks. But I don't think banning guns is a good idea because it would give the gov too much power and criminals would have a field day.

I don't think banning guns is the answer either.

 

[g5000]

You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence.

 

[RWNJ]

It's just like Liberals to focus on one little mistake and claim that the rest is also inaccurate. They do this because they could never admit that gun violence is not nearly as prevalent as they say it is. The rest of the number can easily be checked. Why don't you do that? Maybe if you do it yourself, you'll actually believe it.

 

[RWNJ]

I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.

You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.

Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.

I had never heard that before, thanks. But I don't think banning guns is a good idea because it would give the gov too much power and criminals would have a field day.

I don't think banning guns is the answer either.

If the Germans had not allowed themselves to be disarmed, Hitler would have been nothing but a minor footnote in history.

 

[g5000]

Donald Trump: “I Support the Ban on Assault Weapons”

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not wrong 0.009. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

All right. to find a percentage, you must divide the smaller number by the larger one. Correct? So, 30,000 divided by 325,000,000 = 0.00009230769. Is this not correct?

And then to make it a percentage you multiple by 100.

And you still come up with less that one percent. If you exclude suicides and justified shootings you have about .2%. So, what's your point?

Just being a math nazi.

LOL! And I thought Grammar Nazi's were bad. Anyway, wouldn't you agree that the actual number of gun related homicides is a lot smaller than the Left is making it out to be, and that gun laws do absolutely nothing to combat it?

I’m pro-2nd amendment.

 

[g5000]

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.

Wrong.

There are about 10,000 firearm homicides each year in the US.

 

[g5000]

FastStats

All homicides

• Number of deaths: 15,872
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.0

Firearm homicides

• Number of deaths: 11,008
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5

 

[forkup]

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?

I didn't write this, but the numbers speak for themselves!

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: 0.000000925% 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 liberal loons and 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."

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?

You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?

Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.

You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.

Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.

I had never heard that before, thanks. But I don't think banning guns is a good idea because it would give the gov too much power and criminals would have a field day.

I don't think banning guns is the answer either.

If the Germans had not allowed themselves to be disarmed, Hitler would have been nothing but a minor footnote in history.

This is utter nonsense. You must know that, right?

 

[forkup]

It's just like Liberals to focus on one little mistake and claim that the rest is also inaccurate. They do this because they could never admit that gun violence is not nearly as prevalent as they say it is. The rest of the number can easily be checked. Why don't you do that? Maybe if you do it yourself, you'll actually believe it.

A factor of 10000 is neither little nor accidental. And focusing on a math mistake in a post that throws numbers at you too prove something is completely justified.

 

[RWNJ]

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?

You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?

Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidents

 

[forkup]

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?

Can I ask you why I should take this breakdown seriously when the first calculation is wrong? 30000 of 325000000 is not 0.000000925% but 0.00923%. If you can't even be trusted doing basic math why oh why should your statistical breakdown be taken seriously? That's being of by a factor of 10000

Your math is also wrong. The correct number is 9.230769230769231e-5 Or .0000923, rounded down. So you are also wrong by two decimal places. Either way, they are both astonishingly small percentages, and gun violence isn't nearly the problem you idiots claim it to be. Sucks to be you.

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?

You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?

Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStats
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?

I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.

You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?

I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?

You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?

Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidents

Going by your metric, terrorism isn't a big deal.

If you add up all of the Americans killed by terrorism in the US since 2000 (including the 3,000 people killed on 9/11), it's still less than 1 year of gun deaths.