Well done you answered a question, wasn’t difficult now was it! I think maybe as many as several thousand though would be the case. Not wanting to get the Australia statistics before and after their gun control.

aracer – Member
“How many road deaths are homicides?”
You’re more bothered about your loved one being killed in a homicide than an accident?

Please stop doing that.

+ Hilarious that you call strawman on me.

So when counting gun deaths it’s only homicides that you count, but with road deaths it’s every death. I’m guessing because that gives the figure you want.

You also seem to think that road safety isn’t thought about, or is not a priority, but declining road deaths show that’s not true.

with road deaths it’s every death. I’m guessing because that gives the figure you want.

I’m happy to remove suicides if you could give me the stats for that.

No, just count the homicides.

I’ll do that when you’ve explained to me why it’s worse having a loved one killed in a homicide than an accident. Can you really not see why suicides are a completely different issue? It doesn’t appear that a lack of guns has done anything to improve the suicide rate here compared to the US.

Why do you think an accident is worse that a homicide?

I think maybe as many as several thousand though would be the case.

More than the total number of deaths for the guns they’re considering banning? Interesting.

Not wanting to get the Australia statistics before and after their gun control.

Is that because they don’t support your argument?
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract

Oh dear!

From the data posted previously 330 “thousand deaths from firearms from 2000 to 2010, therefore not much of a stretch that it may be “several thousand”.

Is that because they don’t support your argument?

Sorry the fact being I couldn’t be arsed but here you go, I notice your link does not include any statistical data there is a lot of may, could etc.

My “argument” being that gun control in the US would reduce the number of gun tragedies, how difficult is that for you to actually get your head around but you want to bang on about road deaths. Yes they are tragic but not what the post was about. Are you actually Philip Van Greave you seem to be wanting to argue with totally irrelevant data. The fact remains and by your own admission gun control would reduce deaths, whether by hundreds or thousands is it not worth persuing to save some lives. Equally I do not even undertand your statement

More than the total number of deaths for the guns they’re considering banning? Interesting.

However it appears that gun deaths in Australia have approximately halved since 1996. So if we use that as a rough model and refer to the earlier statement of “several thousand” it may have actually saved 150 thousand lives in the 10 years from 2000 to 2010 in the US.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2010: 236
2009: 227
2008: 232
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

Good lord, are we really debating which is worse.

Being murdered or involved in a fatal car accident.

The Australiens have also been successful in reducing cyclists deaths. They cut the number of cyclists by enforcing helmet use.

As for US shoot-em-up killings it gives me the excuse to post a song I like:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVtgJs0Lx-o[/video]

aracer – Member

Just trying to give a little perspective.

No you’re not. You tried, very successfully, to derail the thread by discussing road deaths, despite the fact that there is no relationship between gun crime and road traffic accidents.

You then engaged in one of your favourite ploys on here and posted a picture of a “straw man”.

I bet you’re pleased with yourself. Or perhaps not.

Not sure what you think you’re doing here aracer but it certainly isn’t constructing logical arguments.

Introducing something off topic and then accusing others of committing a straw man falacy when they take that up is not on and makes me think you don’t really understand what a straw man is.

If you really want to reap the benefits of understanding logical falacies you need to be able to see them in your own arguments. For example your whole point is a red herring that moves the goal posts of the debate. It is also I feel an argumentum ad passiones despite your repeated requests for figures.

Just sayin’

This thread should be stickied and locked as an example of the cock and bull arse about bollocks arguing that taints STW,..

a straw man falacy

I’ve got a cheek criticising you when I can’t even spell fallacy.

…ahem.

my (not well expanded) point was/is:

America: could save thousands of lives per year if they changed/enforced a few laws. They don’t do this as lots of people would whine about their freedoms and rights.

UK: see above.

i was responding to the opening post:

…I simply cannot understand how they can carry on justifying the right to bear arms

rather than the tragic event in America.

jambalaya – Member

@ahwhiles – the UK is one of the safest places in the world with respect to road safety

exactly, we kill thousands, and we think it’s fine.

(it isn’t)

Love these threads, it’s like a game of “who can Google the fastest”

Unless this site is actually called statistiontrackworld?

This ‘debate’ highlights a common feature of the pro-gun lobby…they start talking total bollocks right from the start to detract from the fact they arguing for something totally nonsensical.

Good job we have gun control in this country, as judging by this thread there are definitely a few deranged nutters around 😆

how about combined gun and motoring incidents– do most gun assailants use cars in their felony– or do cycles play a part ? depends on social class i would imagine……

Does anyone have any stats for people killed by falling grand piano’s?

I’ve been watching a lot of old, black and white silent movies of late, and it appears it used to be a quite prevalent cause of death. Though purely anecdotal evidence would suggest its much less so nowadays

Or so I assume. I don’t really know. Not having seen any stats. Does anyone know if the apparently horrific figures were reduced as some form of grand piano control? As it looked like carnage out there! Maybe involving regulating the use of winches over crowded streets?

makes me think you don’t really understand what a straw man is.

Well do you? Because the point I posted the picture to is a text book example of one.

If we’re discussing how to avoid people being killed, then I don’t see how it’s off topic to suggest how to avoid more people being killed, or indeed to query how effective the measures people are suggesting are. Do remember that US citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms – I don’t think anybody is suggesting changing their constitution.

Good lord, are we really debating which is worse.

Well I’m trying not to, but some others seem to think that road deaths aren’t the same because they’re not homicide – possibly in reaction to my suggestion that suicide figures shouldn’t really be included in the stats. See all the complaints about going off topic by introducing them.

From the data posted previously 330 “thousand deaths from firearms from 2000 to 2010, therefore not much of a stretch that it may be “several thousand”.

However it appears that gun deaths in Australia have approximately halved since 1996. So if we use that as a rough model and refer to the earlier statement of “several thousand” it may have actually saved 150 thousand lives in the 10 years from 2000 to 2010 in the US.

Ah, so you’re looking to reduce the number of people using a gun when they decide to commit suicide ? Maybe you should check which gun deaths have decreased in Australia…

What about anvils? Deadly!

we kill thousands, and we think it’s fine

so many fallacies in such a shirt statement

Well done.

Kill should be murder as guns are used to murder so people may be killed by cars but very few are murdered but you know this as using the correct word shows your stat.ent to be the nonsense it is.
People do not think it is fine- do we have the right to drive in a way that endangers others , do we not have many driving laws to reduce risk and enforcement etc. We dk care to claim otherwise is a lie. It is hard to ban accidents.
to compare road deaths which are largely accidetal with gun deaths which are largely murder is silly.

to compare road deaths which are largely accidetal with gun deaths which are largely murder is silly.

I’m still struggling to see the difference in the impact on the victim and their family. Or is there some point I’m missing to the calls for gun control other than to reduce that?

is it a silly comparison? – thousands are dying, we could do something about it, we don’t seem to want to.

here you go: 20mph on all residential roads, 40mph on all rural roads.

easy, effective, sensible, it’ll never happen.

my (silly) comparison is this: we* seem to accept the current trade off between lives and ‘freedom’…

(*America + UK)

I see they still have the right to arm bears.

I’m still struggling to see the difference in the impact on the victim and their family.

Are you really strugglng to see the difference between losing a relative to an RTC and losing a relative to murder? 😯

er, i am…

care to explain?

(i’m only a silly person with a head full of nonsense. I’m keen to be corrected but you’ll have to use short words)

care to explain?

Blimey. Go to top of thread and start again. It’s been explained.
Gun law and road traffic accidents are not related just because there is death involved. Otherwise all causes of death should be discussed..

Guns? Hey, what about electric bar fires?
Guns? Hey, what about pianos?
Guns? Hey, what about stairs?
etc etc

@awhiles – we obviously are doing something right as the uk is one of the safest countries in the world with regard to road safety. Fwiw I am in favour of 20/25 mph in towns, you have that in the US and in France now.

On another note thankfully and miraculously it looks like there were no deaths in New Orleans

Wow.. aracer’s managed to make the stupidest thread ever out of nowhere.

We know people die in cars. People die of lots of things.

This was supposed to be a thread about gun control not preventable death in general.

awhiles: google bereavment+counselling+murder and have a click around.

Many links will go into quite some detail about complications of losing relatives/loved ones through murder, whether the murder is known to the victim/family or not, in fact the first link I found also sub-categorised into bombings, stabbings, blunt instruments and firearms.

HTH

my (silly) comparison is this: we* seem to accept the current trade off between lives and ‘freedom’

Again I use car to get from a to b in doing this accidents happensand people may get injured accidentally or I have shun and I go out and attempt to kill people. To constantly compare these two events us daft. To claim we don’t care a lie and to suggest accidents and murders are the same is ridiculous
yes if we ban guns people will still die but that is not evena an argument it is just a fact. If we all went back to horses folk would die by horses…if we all walked we die from trios..if we stayed in our homes we would fall down stairs. None of this has anything to do with gun control or deaths from guns.

ahwiles – Member
here you go: 20mph on all residential roads, 40mph on all rural roads.

20mph limit on all roads in Cambridge is happening fairly soon. I suggest you have a word with your council.

Back on topic: there was a programme about Pakistan on Radio4 the other day. Apparently most people are actually not that concerned about the Taliban (corruption is the big concern). In the last ten years about ten thousand people have been killed by them, which was compared to the numbers killed in the US by gun violence in the same period of about 5 times that.

😯 So gun violence in the US kills more people than the Taliban in Pakistan?

Will someone please think of the puppies

The taliban do more than just kill people though.

So gun violence in the US kills more people than the Taliban in Pakistan?

Official death toll for US dead in Vietnam is 58,151 – or less than 6000 a year (the “policing action” lasted at least ten years)

Compared to over 300,000 deaths a year from 2000-2010 from US domestic gun violence

I’m still struggling to see the difference in the impact on the victim and their family.

If you really can’t see the difference in the emotional impact on a family that have been the victim of a homicide vs an accident then I really don’t think you should be commenting on a thread like this as you’d have to have the emotional and empathic qualities of a used teabag not to understand.

Not to mention the ridiculousness of families/friends of accident victims going out looking for revenge creating lots of other ‘accidents’ for those they feel responsible for the original death and then causing a ghetto turf war of ‘accidents’ perpetuating the ‘accident-culture’ and inherent dangers that brings…

They are not the same, and not mutually exclusive, just because there are still big steps to be taken in road safety it does not negate the OPs point of the validity of gun controls in reducing the number of preventable deaths through firearms (homicide/suicide/accident whatever)

Lets not do anything about child abuse – incorrectly fitted car seats harm FAR more children each year

That’s a great riposte to the, quite frankly, embaracing argument which attributes importance to any death, of any cause.

I see aracer’s point about suicides in gun death statistics as it isn’t possible to infer anything if the presented statistics do not represent the rate of suicide in general. This is as, although gun death statistics may have gone down resultant of a ban on arms, other suicide rates may have gone up? e.g. hangings, overdose etc. Thus, the impact of banning guns on mortality may not be as large as those statistics suggest

However, this argument is nullified as the topic of ‘road accidents requiring more attention than gun deaths’; which brought about the suicide statistics debate, was completely off topic and isn’t in the same sport, let alone ball park, as gun deaths. The reason being that banning guns would present an immediate solution to a large problem (don’t throw road accidents being a larger problem back at me because any ammount of avoidable death is a large problem…including gun related). I think the point is that all deaths that can be stopped should be, and regardless of what is required to stop RTC related deaths, banning guns is an immediate and direct solution to the gun related death issue, whereas reducing RTCs would be intrinsically more difficult due to the accidental nature of many of the deaths within these RTC statistics.

Official death toll for US dead in Vietnam is 58,151 – or less than 6000 a year (the “policing action” lasted at least ten years)

Compared to over 300,000 deaths a year from 2000-2010 from US domestic gun violence

I’m guessing there weren’t that many deaths due to suicide in those Vietnam figures.