Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Accidental firearm fatalities in a metropolitan county (1958–1973). Am J Epidemiol 100:499–505, 1974.
—A study of accidental firearm fatalities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, (Metropolitan Cleveland) from 1958–1973, inclusive, has shown a threefold increase in the rate of such deaths since 1967. They are more frequent in the central city than in the suburbs, show a male preponderance, are more common in nonwhites, have a peak prevalence in the 25–34-year age range and usually happen in the home. Approximately half of the adult victims had been drinking alcoholic beverages when shot. It is hypothesized that the frequency of accidental firearm fatalities is primarily related to the number of guns, particularly handguns, in civilian possession. The data indicate that a loaded firearm in the home is more likely to cause an accidental death than to be used as a lethal weapon against an intruder.
And hydrocodone in the home is more likely to be abused then if no one had any in the home. A knife in the home bla bla bla. That line is old and stale and it can not get around the the second amendment. If you want to talk about doing something about mental health care and making lists of people who are not allowed to have guns because of mental disorders you have a point, this is a non started and you are only putting fear into people who are already afraid of guns so your in essence preaching to the choir.
That's the same flawed "study" that was used to come up with the original 43 number, which has been debunked a thousand times... twice already in this thread.
If you mean the badly formatted reply, I don't agree that it debunks that study.
Its funny, its like arguing that a swimming pool doesn't increase your risk of drowning. I'm not going to hang any argument on one study (i.e. the 43 times) .. .and I'm sure you WOULD love it if any gun control advocate would (because you can attack one study).
Yet its not this study that is your problem, its every study conducted before the NRA shut it down. Your chance of dying from any kind of violent attack (homicide) is so remote, that of course a gun is more likely to be used to kill a family member (by accident, suicide, domestic violence/intent).
What is at true issue here is the "head in the sand' approach that the NRA took here, and thats just wrong. The NRA doesn't want to solve this problem, they acitivley work to shut down ANY research that seeks to understand it. . .because they already know (much like tobacco companies oh so many years ago) what the researchers will find.
Guns are dangerous things, and will more likely hurt you than someone else.
But so are Ski(s). . .you can't really expect to use gun in self defense. Yet guns aren't nearly as dangerous as swimming pools or a trampoline in your backyard.
Guns won't increase your safety, so don't buy them for that reason. But they certainly aren't the least dangerous item you can buy in the house.
Very interesting. One doctor in one emergency room. What about nationally?
If you listened to the article we can't get national stats because Republicans have literally made it illegal to collect such stats. How about we lift the gag rule so that we can actually learn what is really going on? Of course, we do have stats from 15+ years ago before the Republican gag rule went into effect but the gun fetishists won't be pleased by that data either because it also says guns are dozens of times more likely to be used on family members in the home than on intruders.
There is a reason Republicans have tried to suppress these studies and it isn't because the data supports the claims of the fetishists. You can almost always tell who's claims are supported by the facts because they attempt to hide facts from people just as the Republicans are currently doing.
If that is going to be your debate style this will be a short thread, thankfully. There is plenty of data that shows that crime is decreasing. Why is gun ownership increasing? I know, your side will say it is because of the guns... well... well armed policemen and women are being shot and killed. 948 last year. In just the last four years, America has seen more (armed) police killed than have been killed in Britain (where police are still unarmed) since there have been police! That's like 300 years or more. Guns are useful things if you are the one who intends to ruin someone's day. Armed Secret Service didn't save Kennedy. Or Reagan. Or Nancy Lanza... ...
Guns won't increase your safety, so don't buy them for that reason. But they certainly aren't the least dangerous item you can buy in the house.
Well its refreshing to see that someone gets the bolded. However, the residents of New Town probably wouldn't agree with you. There are not likely very many news stories about someone going on a tear with stolen skis and injuring a large number of innocent people in the community.
If that is going to be your debate style this will be a short thread, thankfully. There is plenty of data that shows that crime is decreasing. Why is gun ownership increasing? I know, your side will say it is because of the guns... well... well armed policemen and women are being shot and killed. 948 last year. In just the last four years, America has seen more (armed) police killed than have been killed in Britain (where police are still unarmed) since there have been police! That's like 300 years or more. Guns are useful things if you are the one who intends to ruin someone's day. Armed Secret Service didn't save Kennedy. Or Reagan. Or Nancy Lanza... ...
Sorry I asked for data that backed up your statements, I won't ask you to prove yourself again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the same flawed "study" that was used to come up with the original 43 number, which has been debunked a thousand times... twice already in this thread.
