500,000 to more than 3 million lives saved by guns per year

34,182 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by 303Bear
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This stat is straight from the CDC.

The report, which notes that " violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years," also pointed out that "some firearm violence results in death, but most does not." In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. "Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States."

More lives are saved by guns that people murdered by guns. So why do some of you want to limit or ban the ability for people to defend themselves?
Project Firefly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey, just wondering if you could provide a link to the CDC page with the 500k-3mil stat (not that I don't believe you, it's just that I need to use the fact somewhere and don't want to be without the source).
Thanks.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Project Firefly said:

Hey, just wondering if you could provide a link to the CDC page with the 500k-3mil stat (not that I don't believe you, it's just that I need to use the fact somewhere and don't want to be without the source).
Thanks.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Quote:

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."


This article makes good points as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.2a3a6396c50f
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Project Firefly said:

Hey, just wondering if you could provide a link to the CDC page with the 500k-3mil stat (not that I don't believe you, it's just that I need to use the fact somewhere and don't want to be without the source).
Thanks.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Quote:

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."


This article makes good points as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.2a3a6396c50f
Is this a CDC study?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

Doc Holliday said:

Project Firefly said:

Hey, just wondering if you could provide a link to the CDC page with the 500k-3mil stat (not that I don't believe you, it's just that I need to use the fact somewhere and don't want to be without the source).
Thanks.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Quote:

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."


This article makes good points as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.2a3a6396c50f
Is this a CDC study?
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC. So yes.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is more of a counter to those who wish to ban all guns like Australia or Europe has.

Because without guns crime like murder, rape, robbery etc. would skyrocket.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uh ... No. As in not even close.

1) This was not a CDC study. It was released by the CDC, but the CDC did not conduct the study. No big deal there, the institutional authors are well-respected and not partisan. But for context, the CDC was banned from conducting gun research from 1996 until 2011. Obama lifted the restriction in 2012, but CDC did not have the institutional capability to investigate and prepare the report on its own. That is why the work was outsourced to the authors and published by the CDC.

2) If you read the full study, the clear and overwhelming point is that more research is needed; something the NRA fights tooth and nail. So if you are going to get behind this study. lets follow its number 1 recommendation and fully fund gun violence research.

3) The 500,000-3,000,000 stat refers to how often there is a defensive use of a gun on an annual basis. The actual paragraph says the number might be as low as 108,000 and the point of the paragraph is to argue that disparities of this magnitude demand better research to understand, expressly cautioning against drawing conclusions from the existing data (See point 2).

4) To draw the conclusion that defensive gun use saves the equivalent number of lives is asinine. For instance, a couple of kids are rooting around in Farmer Jones barn looking to steal eggs. They are unarmed and have no intention of hurting anyone. Farmer Jones hears someone in the barn, grabs his shotgun and goes to investigate. The kids see him coming and haul ass. That qualifies a defensive use of a gun. For the thread title to be right, you have to conclude that Farmer Jones saved his life by having the gun.

5) The study does suggest that an armed potential victim generally fares better than an unarmed victim in the context of the crime. The study goes on to say, however, that the benefit may be offset by accidental casualties and suicides. To figure out the cost/benefit the study calls for--you guessed it--more gun violence research.

The stats Doc mentions are not stats at all. They are old studies that the authors were using to prove a point: we need to spend the money and talent to understand this better. The NRA ignores that central point and cherry picks a few lines to say the more guns that are out there the safer everyone is while fighting like mad against collecting data and funding quality research for fear that might not be true.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Uh ... No. As in not even close.

1) This was not a CDC study. It was released by the CDC, but the CDC did not conduct the study. No big deal there, the institutional authors are well-respected and not partisan. But for context, the CDC was banned from conducting gun research from 1996 until 2011. Obama lifted the restriction in 2012, but CDC did not have the institutional capability to investigate and prepare the report on its own. That is why the work was outsourced to the authors and published by the CDC.

2) If you read the full study, the clear and overwhelming point is that more research is needed; something the NRA fights tooth and nail. So if you are going to get behind this study. lets follow its number 1 recommendation and fully fund gun violence research.

3) The 500,000-3,000,000 stat refers to how often there is a defensive use of a gun on an annual basis. The actual paragraph says the number might be as low as 108,000 and the point of the paragraph is to argue that disparities of this magnitude demand better research to understand, expressly cautioning against drawing conclusions from the existing data (See point 2).

4) To draw the conclusion that defensive gun use saves the equivalent number of lives is asinine. For instance, a couple of kids are rooting around in Farmer Jones barn looking to steal eggs. They are unarmed and have no intention of hurting anyone. Farmer Jones hears someone in the barn, grabs his shotgun and goes to investigate. The kids see him coming and haul ass. That qualifies a defensive use of a gun. For the thread title to be right, you have to conclude that Farmer Jones saved his life by having the gun.

5) The study does suggest that an armed potential victim generally fares better than an unarmed victim in the context of the crime. The study goes on to say, however, that the benefit may be offset by accidental casualties and suicides. To figure out the cost/benefit the study calls for--you guessed it--more gun violence research.

The stats Doc mentions are not stats at all. They are old studies that the authors were using to prove a point: we need to spend the money and talent to understand this better. The NRA ignores that central point and cherry picks a few lines to say the more guns that are out there the safer everyone is while fighting like mad against collecting data and funding quality research for fear that might not be true.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's interesting and I agree we do need more information and studies.

This is something that is important, but I still don't want government to tread on my 2nd amendment rights.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Uh ... No. As in not even close.

1) This was not a CDC study. It was released by the CDC, but the CDC did not conduct the study. No big deal there, the institutional authors are well-respected and not partisan. But for context, the CDC was banned from conducting gun research from 1996 until 2011. Obama lifted the restriction in 2012, but CDC did not have the institutional capability to investigate and prepare the report on its own. That is why the work was outsourced to the authors and published by the CDC.

2) If you read the full study, the clear and overwhelming point is that more research is needed; something the NRA fights tooth and nail. So if you are going to get behind this study. lets follow its number 1 recommendation and fully fund gun violence research.

3) The 500,000-3,000,000 stat refers to how often there is a defensive use of a gun on an annual basis. The actual paragraph says the number might be as low as 108,000 and the point of the paragraph is to argue that disparities of this magnitude demand better research to understand, expressly cautioning against drawing conclusions from the existing data (See point 2).

4) To draw the conclusion that defensive gun use saves the equivalent number of lives is asinine. For instance, a couple of kids are rooting around in Farmer Jones barn looking to steal eggs. They are unarmed and have no intention of hurting anyone. Farmer Jones hears someone in the barn, grabs his shotgun and goes to investigate. The kids see him coming and haul ass. That qualifies a defensive use of a gun. For the thread title to be right, you have to conclude that Farmer Jones saved his life by having the gun.

5) The study does suggest that an armed potential victim generally fares better than an unarmed victim in the context of the crime. The study goes on to say, however, that the benefit may be offset by accidental casualties and suicides. To figure out the cost/benefit the study calls for--you guessed it--more gun violence research.

The stats Doc mentions are not stats at all. They are old studies that the authors were using to prove a point: we need to spend the money and talent to understand this better. The NRA ignores that central point and cherry picks a few lines to say the more guns that are out there the safer everyone is while fighting like mad against collecting data and funding quality research for fear that might not be true.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's interesting and I agree we do need more information and studies.

This is something that is important, but I still don't want government to tread on my 2nd amendment rights.

One of the interesting points about the report is that guns are essentially old technology. the report urges that if funded, significant effort be given to what technologies could be used to make guns safer without impacting gun ownership.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

cinque said:

Doc Holliday said:

Project Firefly said:

Hey, just wondering if you could provide a link to the CDC page with the 500k-3mil stat (not that I don't believe you, it's just that I need to use the fact somewhere and don't want to be without the source).
Thanks.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Quote:

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."


This article makes good points as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.2a3a6396c50f
Is this a CDC study?
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC. So yes.
If you release a study for me, it's not yours. It's mine. You really are a Trumpkin.
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guns still inherently dangerous.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.91d079999722
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

Guns still inherently dangerous.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.91d079999722


No they aren't. No matter how many times you say it it does not become true. They are an inanimate object. The people using them are dangerous. Like that idiot showing off a loaded gun.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Actually they are. "Inherently dangerous product" has a specific legal meaning: a product that is dangerous due to its nature rather than a defect or misuse. A gun kills or injures when used as intended, its nature is to cause damage.

Courts have often classified guns as inherently dangerous: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/597.02/in-class/Legal%20Reasoning.pdf

That has not meant much in tort law as Courts are reluctant to impose common-law duties where the legislature has made considered policy decisions about the dale and regulation of a product.
303Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Actually they are. "Inherently dangerous product" has a specific legal meaning: a product that is dangerous due to its nature rather than a defect or misuse. A gun kills or injures when used as intended, its nature is to cause damage.

Courts have often classified guns as inherently dangerous: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/597.02/in-class/Legal%20Reasoning.pdf

That has not meant much in tort law as Courts are reluctant to impose common-law duties where the legislature has made considered policy decisions about the dale and regulation of a product.
Respectfully, I think it is a bit of a stretch to cite a single case from the early 1800's as "often".

The ultrahazerdous activity rule (now inherently dangerous activity rule) simply means that you are responsible for any harm resulting from the activity. It is a strict liability rule for classes of actions. Since almost all situations where someone gets shot are already willful criminal acts, willful torts or legally provable negligence, the rule has not been widely applied to gun accidents or shooting sports. A gun that malfunctions and causes injury would produce a products liability case.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.