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.
Stay on topic please! We're talking about guns not automobiles.
So typically leftist. You always have to dictate the terms and definitions of the discussion so you can reach your foreordained outcome. Can't stand the light of reality, like all forms of cockroach.
What did you find that makes you question the data?
Here's a start:
A 2012 report by a Binghamton University historian estimated a 20 percent higher death toll from the Civil War, which would push total deaths in military conflicts to 1.4 million.
PolitiFact could not find data for gun deaths before 1968. Add in the missing years, and the total number of firearm fatalities since JFK's death would surely be higher than 1.5 million.
It's a pretty absurd premise for an article and they did a terrible job:
Quote:
From the Revolutionary War through December 2014, 1.2 million Americans have died in military conflicts, according to the Congressional Research Service.
A 2012 report by a Binghamton University historian estimated a 20 percent higher death toll from the Civil War, which would push total deaths in military conflicts to 1.4 million.
By contrast, domestic gun deaths from 1968 to 2014 add up to nearly 1.5 million.
Some 63 percent of those gun deaths were suicides, and 33 percent were homicides.
PolitiFact could not find data for gun deaths before 1968. Add in the missing years, and the total number of firearm fatalities since JFK's death would surely be higher than 1.5 million.
If 63% of gun deaths were suicides, then 63% of the 1.5 million total they're claiming needs to be thrown out. It is obvious to anyone that bothers looking into it that suicide rates in completely disarmed first world nations are as high or higher than the USA. Clearly guns do not drive suicide rates. Anyone killing themselves with one would have found another way of killing themselves anyways.
They were kind enough to say that 33% of the total deaths were homicides.
This leaves you with 450,000 gun deaths.
Wording like "would surely be higher" is kinda admitting that they don't know what they're talking about. It smacks of a rushed article that is heavy on opinion and low on solid research.
The article is unapologetically biased.
But if we were to just concede the point, it's not really all that alarming. The United States has had an incredibly easy time of it when it comes to wars and casualties. Just take WW2 for example. The death toll for the USSR was 27 million, 20 million dead for China, 7.4 million for Germany, 6 million for Poland, 2.6 million for India, 2.2 million in French Indochina, 3.2 million for Japan, 1.7 million for Yugoslavia. The USA fought on every arena and was a huge factor in victory, yet only 0.5 million Americans died in total. In our 241 years of history, we've only 3 wars that exceeded 100,000 in American deaths: The Civil War, World War 1 and World War 2. We have never experienced a war in which 1 million Americans died. Massive death tolls in wars just isn't part of the American experience.
With that in mind, I expect that diseases, accidental deaths, car accidents and deaths due to old age all have vastly larger death tolls than either of these things.
Hm, looks to me that New York and California are higher than Texas. How can that possibly be?
Are you a moron?
Both NY and Cali have lower rates than Texas...
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.