One in a million

TailGator · September 13, 2012, 03:31 PM

The Centers for Disease Control have released some figures that might interest some here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6106a1_e

The title of the thread refers to the fact that accidental firearms deaths occur at a rate of only 0.1 per 100,000 population, or literally one in a million. This might be a figure to have in mind when antis talk about banning guns to avoid accidental firearm deaths.

It should be noted that the above figure is the only one that is directly related to firearms. A common tactic of gun control advocates is to assume that all violent deaths are a result of firearms, when in fact this CDC report specifically states that other means of violence are included.

Ridge_Runner_5 · September 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

Accidental firearm deaths are still nothing to brag about. Somebody broke the rules for it to happen.

TailGator · September 14, 2012, 11:25 AM

I agree that one is too many, and I did not post the number to say that we should be satisfied; rather, gun support advocates sometimes exaggerate the threat of accidental discharges and we should be able to confront them with the actual figures, especially since it is a pretty easy number to remember.

**44 AMP** · September 16, 2012, 02:46 PM

With that low a number, it sounds like someone finally set the parameters realistically.

At one time (and not so long ago, it seems) Handgun Control Inc (TheBradys and their ilk) were taking the numbers of people under the age of 25, shot and killed by anyone, for any reason, with anything (accidents, suicides, gang violence, general crime, and including those the police shot) as "Death of a Child due to a Handgun". And the press just blindly repeated it for years, without bothering to check to see if it had any basis in reality.

Now, the CDCC ought to be putting out statistics you can rely on, BUT......

Aren't these the same people who are trying to get gun violence classified as a disease?

Just because this statistic seems to be realistic (and in our favor in the gun control argument) does not mean it is automaticly accurate, or trustworthy.

ballardw · September 22, 2012, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Aren't these the same people who are trying to get gun violence classified as a disease?

CDC is far from a monolithic entity. There are advocacy groups and data groups and they don't all talk to each other. Plus since the arrival of Obamacare there is a lot of reorganization and changing priorities.

Quote:

Just because this statistic seems to be realistic (and in our favor in the gun control argument) does not mean it is automaticly accurate, or trustworthy.

Generally if you read MMWR you'll find that data limitations are addressed in the fine print or appendix to an article. Notice that right up front this article mentions that only some states were included and California was excluded because they did not have statewide data only 4 counties.

MMWR data is going to be good. The conclusions/ recommended actions if any, may be flaky.

The anti-gun folks almost never use accidental firearm deaths because there are so few.

September 13, 2012, 03:31 PM	#1
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,599	One in a million The Centers for Disease Control have released some figures that might interest some here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6106a1_e The title of the thread refers to the fact that accidental firearms deaths occur at a rate of only 0.1 per 100,000 population, or literally one in a million. This might be a figure to have in mind when antis talk about banning guns to avoid accidental firearm deaths. It should be noted that the above figure is the only one that is directly related to firearms. A common tactic of gun control advocates is to assume that all violent deaths are a result of firearms, when in fact this CDC report specifically states that other means of violence are included.

September 16, 2012, 02:46 PM	#4
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 8,966	With that low a number, it sounds like someone finally set the parameters realistically. At one time (and not so long ago, it seems) Handgun Control Inc (TheBradys and their ilk) were taking the numbers of people under the age of 25, shot and killed by anyone, for any reason, with anything (accidents, suicides, gang violence, general crime, and including those the police shot) as "Death of a Child due to a Handgun". And the press just blindly repeated it for years, without bothering to check to see if it had any basis in reality. Now, the CDCC ought to be putting out statistics you can rely on, BUT...... Aren't these the same people who are trying to get gun violence classified as a disease? Just because this statistic seems to be realistic (and in our favor in the gun control argument) does not mean it is automaticly accurate, or trustworthy. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

September 13, 2012, 10:02 PM	#2
Ridge_Runner_5 Senior Member Join Date: February 8, 2008 Location: Castle Rock, CO Posts: 1,742	Accidental firearm deaths are still nothing to brag about. Somebody broke the rules for it to happen.

September 14, 2012, 11:25 AM	#3
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,599	I agree that one is too many, and I did not post the number to say that we should be satisfied; rather, gun support advocates sometimes exaggerate the threat of accidental discharges and we should be able to confront them with the actual figures, especially since it is a pretty easy number to remember.