Monday, October 9, 2017

Figures never lie, but liars often figure

Here are some interesting figures that Ted Nugent, the musician who is a well-known advocate of gun ownership rights, posted on Facebook:

There are 30,000 gun-related deaths per year by firearms in the U.S., and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population was 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun-related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! 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 - gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spread 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 U.S. 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 equally, 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, and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths in the U.S. each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose
• 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 in Chicago than when you are in a hospital.

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It's time to stop the double cheeseburgers! What is the point? If 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 gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.

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.

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, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional, for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is "control," not "gun."

[Here endeth the reading of the Facebook post. Yup, you weren't reading me, you were reading Ted Nugent.]

The most unbelievable figure in that piece -- my jaw almost hit the floor -- is "Alabama had 1." If that is not a downright lie, it is a whopper of a typographical error.

I did a little digging on my own. You might be interested in seeing what another group says about gun deaths in Alabama.

Here's another one.

Perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges. Then again, perhaps not.


Emma Springfield said...

I cannot dispute the figures because I don't know if they are accurate or not. I do know that people are far too ready to hurt other people. Other weapons are used including fists. So the first thing that needs to be accomplished is to foster a system that encourages caring and discourages violence. I like to target shoot. I'm not too bad. I can see few instances in which I would be willing to shoot a living thing. It is true that the original purpose of the second amendment was designed to ensure that citizens have the means to protect themselves from an unjust government. I do not object to law-abiding people owning guns. To my knowledge no one is trying to take away all guns from all people. There is no reason people need to own automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. They annot be used for hunting. All they are good for is killing and tearing up the body. Stock bumps need to be illegal. There is no need for silencers on hunting equipment. There is no need to have flash repressers on a rifle. And there is certainly no reason for one person to have an entire arsenal of guns and ammunition. Mr Nugent is a strong believer in using guns partly because he is an avid hunter. As long as he is doing so lawfully he can do that. He can even collect guns. It is his right. Not everyone who owns a gun is a murderer. Not everyone who does not own guns is innoccent of violence. Let's all use some common sense here.

Elephant's Child said...

From this side of the world I watch and wonder. And certainly don't see the need for automatic or semi-automatic weaponry. On a personal level until the animal/bird also has a gun I cannot see hunting as a sport. Hunting for sustenance is a different matter.

rhymeswithplague said...

Emma, well said, all around!

Sue, I agree.

Yorkshire Pudding said...

It's amazing how skillful people can be in manipulating the truth - using particular facts and figures creatively to support specious arguments. I have never listened to anything Ted Nugent has ever done and now I shall avoid his music like the proverbial plague.

Do you and Mrs Brague have a gun in your house? Why?

rhymeswithplague said...

We lived in a rural area when I was growing up, but my mother and father had both been brought up in cities. My dad owned a 12-gauge shotgun and a .22-caliber rifle for hunting, and kept a .38 revolver by his bed for protection and self defense if our house were broken into. My mother was petrified of guns. I am not willing to divulge on a public forum like this one whether we have a gun in the house, because There is always the chance that Big Brother is listening or future intruders may be reading and I want to keep him/them guessing.

I read the other day that there are more than 350 million guns in this country and if they were all used to kill people everybody would be dead by now.

Yorkshire Pudding said...

But most of those guns would be trained on two lecherous old men - H.Weinberg and D.Trump so I think you will be okay when the apocalypse arrives. You might not be willing to answer the gun question but have you got a catapult?

rhymeswithplague said...

Y.P. the bad guy's name is Weinstein, not Weinberg.

Two catapults, three trebuchets, and an ample supply of hot tar and chicken feathers.

ADRIAN said...

Regardless of the number of deaths attributable to bullets I have always liked Alabama. Never been but I love the Lynyrd Skynyrd song.
America is more entertaining than the UK. Bill Clinton gets $12 million for his memoirs, his crazy wife gets $8million for hers and this from two people that have repeatedly testified that they couldn't remember anything. One snippet I did find unbelievable was the film producer and Clinton financer bonking actresses. I can't credit such behaviour.

All Consuming said...

Ted Nugent is a monumental ...bedknob and broomstick (keeping it above board here sir hahahaha).

As I see it, and as I've said before, it's too late to take all the guns away; that won't work, it is very much time to put some legislation in place to prevent the hoarding of them, the types people can carry and own, mental health tests to see if you are sane enough to carry a gun (Trump would fail this one straight off I can tell you) and some serious education in schools so children grow up respecting life and death, and the effects pulling that trigger can have. No child should be allowed anywhere near a gun, there is no need for it and there is no need to shoot animals at all unless you happen to be wandering about a bear's territory and then I think it incredibly unfair to the bear that you are there leaving yourself no choice but to kill the poor sod.

People seem almost rabid about their rights on this issue, whilst

Have a gander at this;

I'm pasting a section for those who don't want to follow links which shows a different angle to Ted's;

'When the president uses his executive powers to ban more than 200 million people from entering America, ostensibly in the interests of security, and then, in the same week, the House of Representatives relaxes background checks for gun ownership, one is compelled to question the sense of proportionality when it comes to security. Whom do they intend to keep safe? By what means? And at what price to liberty?

Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year. It is unlikely that scrapping a rule requiring extended background checks for gun purchases by some social security recipients suffering from mental illness will improve the situation.

(To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people.)'

(I'm writing the rest in my next comment dearie, because it won't fit in this one apparently.)

All Consuming said...

Here I am again *waves*

This link shows the amount of gun violence perpetrated in 2017 alone -

There are other links to show just how many children have died or been seriously injured in 2017 too, but I'm not going into major linkage. The fear these people have about losing their 'rights' is trampling over their potential good sense and disregarding all the children who have died and continue to die, purely because they want to keep their gun legislation as it is. It's insane. I can only imagine the thousands of children here who would have died had the UK allowed guns into people's homes, because I know without a doubt when I was growing up the exact sort of kid who would have taken a gun, come into school and killed and killed because their screws were becoming loose or they were being so severely bullied and battered (at school or at home) they'd go down that path into oblivion.

Something needs to be done. One of the country singers who saw the Vegas shooting said he's been right up there with all the gun toters bleating and screaming for no change, but having seen the carnage and almost losing friends himself he's changed his mind, and wants some limits put on who can have them and the type they can have etc. The problem with humans is that until something actually affects them personally, they often behave in a selfish, pigheaded fashion. And should that fateful day come along? They suddenly see the other side. The 'all or nothing' people have must to answer for in most debates regarding human safety.

There's my two penneth and a half. Interesting post as always rhymes x