Will gun deaths outstrip Automobile deaths in the USA

This is not about correlation but a simple comparison of death rates

 

Really???

 

These are not rates. This thread only expresses raw numbers. My previous post that breaks it down into 100,000 persons is rate.

If you don't present data in a form of correlation/rate, than that presentation becomes meaningless and holds no value in a debate. The only time raw numbers are valuable is when one is coding, or in a math class.

 

Does not matter if it is rate or raw numbers the figures apply to both - the long standing excuse of "but cars kill more people per year than guns" no longer holds water, It also does not matter if it IS converted to rates if the total numbers rise, for both and if the population rise is the same for both then the numbers ARE comparable,

Please if I am wrong show me a research paper/article that shows that the figures are other than what I have pasted

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/

 

I've never used that argument, and it's not 2015 yet. As far as we know the U.S. could go pacifist next year and murder rate could drop by 4 points per 100,000, considering our murder rate has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years. It's all speculation.

I'd recommend you do some research on the importance of rates and percentages. As I have stated before our population in 1990 was 248,709,873, the current population is ~314,000,000. Which expresses the need to use rates, chances, and percentage. For example, lets say you have 10 balls in a cup, each ball has its own number on it (1-10) the chance to pull out any number is 10%, but if you add another 400,000,000 balls to the cup your chance to pull out the the number 7 ball greatly decreases. The amount of number seven balls is still one, the raw number stayed the same, but your chance of grabbing it falls. I'm saying this because even though the raw number stayed about the same, the rate/chance/percentage has changed, and that change could either lead you to accurate data, or fail to find the change in the data.

Also, that website is lying. The federal data says otherwise.

"An estimated 14,748 persons were murdered nationwide in 2010. This was a 4.2 percent decrease from the 2009 estimate, a 14.8 percent decrease from the 2006 figure, and an 8.0 percent decrease from the 2001 estimate.
In 2010, there were 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4.8 percent decrease from the 2009 rate. Compared with the 2006 rate, the murder rate decreased 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2001 rate, the murder rate decreased 15.0 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Nearly 44 percent (43.8 ) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, with 20.6 percent reported in the West, 19.9 percent reported in the Midwest, and 15.6 percent reported in the Northeast. (See Table 3.) " (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain)

How could firearm deaths be at 10 per 100,000 while murder rate was at 4.8 per 100,000? The data does not match up.

 

Thanks for presenting that website to me. I have new data to look though (and finally something productive to do for the next couple days). It's going to take me awhile to look though the information, i'm going to break it down into suicides, and non-negligent/negligent manslaughter, i'm also going to break down to see where most of the death is coming from, such as see if the data shows mental and medicational status. Should take me a few hours over the next few days. I'll work on it when I have time in my google docs. Also, when data is concerned, there is no such thing as a "wrong spot." There will always be more than one, but I didn't know the CDC collected data on firearm related fatalities, I assumed they focused on drugs, mental stability, and chemicals. Anything related to Disease.

I'll also break down vehicular fatalities, and compare them.

The data will work in my favor mate. Even with this new data. I'll make sure of it.

 

I am sure too. It has always been that way.

 

Yes and that is the problem - unfortunately one person "fiddling the books" is not going to make the problem go away. Wishful thinking will not make a problem go away - and the CDC has already DONE this form of research - and they are expert at it - it is called epidemiology

 

what problem? Ya mean the Bill of Rights?

 

Soon enough gun control won't be enough to accomplish what you desire. 3D printing is getting good, give it another 20 years and who knows what's possible - semi-auto rifles perhaps. Maybe even full-auto rifles. Your ability to own a gun would then depend on your ability to own a 3D printer. What then?

[hr][/hr]

You're making the wrong argument - that guns lead to deaths. You need to be arguing that mere ownership, without any indication of malicious intent, is coercive.