START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

It's One Of The Craziest Internet Rumors About Guns. And As It Turns Out, It's True.


Society & Culture  (tags: activists, americans, culture, death, crime, dishonesty, ethics, freedoms, government, health, law, internet, politics, rights, sadness, safety, society, violence, usa, murder )

JL
- 675 days ago - upworthy.com
It's a fact so jaw-dropping it's unbelievable -- people thought it was a crazy Internet rumor until Politifact verified it.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 9:33 am
Itís One Of The Craziest Internet Rumors About Guns. And As It Turns Out, Itís True.

Itís a fact so jaw-dropping itís unbelievable ó people thought it was a crazy Internet rumor until Politifact verified it. But itís true: More Americans have died just since 1960 from gun incidents ó suicides, accidents, and homicides ó than died in every war in U.S. history. The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves.
Eli Pariser

UPWORTHY ORIGINAL: This statistic originated with Mark Shields on PBS. Found on AddictingInfo.
 

Michael M. (59)
Friday February 8, 2013, 10:15 am
AW, JL, guns-r-toys.

That is my concern, as those whom I care about deeply are shot for "pleasure."

Here's a quick factcheck.org look at the clash of statistical weapons:
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

You'll note that media reporting of gun violence is associated with "people feeling less safe."
So they buy more guns.

But guns long ago became toys, in the 1800s. Those toys were used as tools to get rich, tools to solve disputes (Well, that's why they were first invented).

I kind of don't like those uses.

But back to gun-r-toys:
The young have also learned that toys-r-guns, and so as 1/2 of us grow into men (or do not grow, as women so often realize), we try to find the fun in scarier toys. So we start shooting animals for "fun."

Many have posted this warped news on care2 - of the prevalence of guns-for-fun and killing-for-fun.

There is the big problem.

If it were up to me, I would crush all guns in the hopper of time,
and the other animals wouldn't have to keep so far away so much,
and we wouldn't be out of touch.

We needed certain weapons to survive and thrive, and these were different in scope and power - far more suited to our nature and our healthy part in nature. They could not divorce us much from others. (Guns-r-divorce? Yeah, that's what they are)

Guns probably were invented and caught on out of Fear.
Gun sales have gone up big out of Fear.

Fear mostly of one's own imagined obsessions, for in the real world, we gain excitement and mastery and fear is only a quick mindshake to focus us. But the Fear I meant with a capital F is a psychological disorder, a long weakness, like the poison of alcohol. It is very difficult to shake off, and it is carried, fed, and nurtured within, like some treasured parasite, isolating us from therealand beautiful world. That Fear does not, cannot, exist outside oneself.

So we feed it and protect it with bullets.

I don't keep such a being within me, and I hope none of you do.
 

Just Carole (338)
Friday February 8, 2013, 10:59 am
 
And then . . .
 
You read reports such as this:
 
Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun ... - Natural News
 
 
 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 11:09 am
Every person's death diminishes me--no matter what the cause and moreso when it was before their time.

Thank you Michael for the poignant explanation of the evolution of our fears and factors driving this problem.
You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last week.

Thank you Carole for reminding us that trends in health care leading to unnecessary deaths, and related quality assurance and other reforms, also requires addressing--possibly even more than ACA already has.
You cannot currently send a star to Just Carole because you have done so within the last week.
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 11:18 am

Thanks, now I'm completely depressed and may spend the day on the couch pretending to be a potato. At least potatoes don't have to think about what these two articles mean.

At least I have the Internet to assure me that it's a giant conspiracy, and I just need to stock up on canned goods, guns and ammo.

Just remember the doctors in Florida can not even speak about gun safety to parents of young children, and I think it's Missouri that passed a law that all first graders are to take gun classes from the most odious, NRA. Who let the stupids out?
 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 11:46 am
Good reminders Kit and I hope some of the day's more positive news helps you leave that couch! You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday February 8, 2013, 11:47 am
Does not surprise me Think its a plot to get rid of over population certainly seems like it
 

Michael M. (59)
Friday February 8, 2013, 11:54 am
Ahh, Kit, let's step outside now. I have been on care2 because of the social ills I run into, and I want to sing with the choir sometimes, get something done, some people motivated.

But don't do depression. catch the juice of arousal if you need it to live in that real world.

The naive wolves have died this season, after the guns were let loose.
The use of guns to kill the innocents, from a distance, is being escalated.

Because the NRA labels those who dissent as "radicals", you might consider agitating forradicalideas,like,

making far more severe laws and punishments of those who use guns aggressively.. Making punishments for gun possession by a felon far more severe
Making first-strike wars illegal in the US.
Taking "Sport Hunting" out of the vocabulary of North America, and replacing it with legislation terming the practice as felony animal abuse, and legislation banning gun possession for LIFE, for any conviction on that felony.
How about adding No Gun Possession for Life, to punishment for using a gun in ANY illegal way?
How about turning all these terrorist laws toward ANY threat of illegal gun use, whether in email, internet comment columns, in-person, and any other concceivable way?

Get creative here.
If they want radicals, get radical.


 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 11:58 am
You cannot currently send a star to Carol because you have done so within the last week.
Michael, many of your ideas warrant serious consideration and could be the subject of C2 petitions and other actions that might lead to amendments of the legislation under consideration.
 

Just Carole (338)
Friday February 8, 2013, 12:54 pm

And let's not forget the lack of health care insurance that takes an estimated 18,000 Americans per year. (Watch Sicko here.)

(When you think about it, we're an odd lot of upright species, with media-directed priorities, eh?)

 

Pami W. (212)
Friday February 8, 2013, 1:04 pm
These comparison figures are a total shock. I am surprised they are not used more by gun control advocates. Is the info to buried for them to fine, see, use?
 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 1:04 pm
You are right about the health insurance problem adding to the death rates Carole. I might add that corporate control of most media contributes to what the media-directed priorities turn out to be.
 

Just Carole (338)
Friday February 8, 2013, 1:24 pm

Yes, the mainstream media is -- MOST definitely -- a corporate/government partnership and weapon of purposeful distraction.

Whatever reaches this week's headlines becomes full focus (while other issues are -- to their delight -- temporarily forgotten).

 

Kit B. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 1:57 pm

I have seen "SICKO" and anyone that has not should not be yapping about health care (or the lack there of) in this country.

Not to worry Michael , I will continue to fight on, but some days it is exasperating, the harder we work the more the engine of the Grand Old Patriarchs, fighting back. They do have the media to spread their misinformation like so much fertilizer on fallow ground.

I do wish I could send some Green Stars, but as usual I'm plumb empty.
 

Just Carole (338)
Friday February 8, 2013, 2:11 pm

Bless your humanitarian heart, Miss Kitty!

(And, no . . . I can't send you a green one yet either.)

 

Just Carole (338)
Friday February 8, 2013, 2:35 pm

Judi, you post the most significant stories.

Thank you, for what you do . . . and what you are . . . and for allowing me to enter your circle of friends.

As a member of the earth's human circle, I love you.

 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 2:51 pm
Thank you Carole--I'm close to speechless (commentless?).
From my perspective, most all posts by or on Care2, including petitions, are about life (and death) and/or quality of life; sometimes for one, sometimes for many. We can only do something about the particulars if we know about it and are sufficiently informed. I'm glad when others find my posts of value to them and I appreciate your letting me know, even if I'm a tad uncomfortable having it be so public.
 

Angelika R. (144)
Friday February 8, 2013, 2:57 pm
Too many wonderful comments here that i'll spare my 2 cents- all I can say is I so second Michaels statement "If it were up to me, I would crush all guns in the hopper of time,
and the other animals wouldn't have to keep so far away so much,
and we wouldn't be out of touch."
sending piles of *************** to you all and thanks to JL
 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 3:00 pm
You are welcome Angelika. You cannot currently send a star to Angelika because you have done so within the last week. Countless stars are indeed deserved for the marvelous comments.
 

Just Carole (338)
Friday February 8, 2013, 3:04 pm

Life (and the eternal fear of death) are quantities often regulated and abused.

Yes, all of humanity are in awesome fear of the end of their own.

But those, who realize that the ultimate expense of life is death . . . through many trials and questions . . . also realize that WHAT we do in life is ultimately more important (than the expected result, of death). And, as such, feel the need to feel the importance of expressing our feelings of this short-lived existence.

While my mark may be small, I will still impress my footstep.

 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 3:47 pm
Thank you for your poignant eloquence Carole--beautifully said!
 

Terry V. (30)
Friday February 8, 2013, 7:34 pm
It is becoming harder for me to say "I'm PROUD to be an American"

Imagine
 

JL A. (276)
Friday February 8, 2013, 7:57 pm
Thanks for posting the all too appropo Lennon song video Terry. Many of us find pride harder I suspect.You cannot currently send a star to Terry because you have done so within the last week.
 

Joanne Dixon (40)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 9:14 am
The last time I was really, really proud to be an American was on Inauguration Day in 2009. I won't say I have been depressed since, because I know what clinical depression feels like, but I have been on an extended political downer of too many things that need to be fixed and not enough time and support to fix them all. Kit, my deepest sympathy. I hope you get some good news!
 

JL A. (276)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 2:38 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Joanne because you have done so within the last week.
 

Lynn Squance (232)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 11:00 pm
It is truly a sad statistic when in the past 52 years, more people have been killed in domestic gun violence in the US than in all the wars. More than a statement of fact, it is also a statement of a culture, a culture tied to its guns.

Imagine the energy of all those silenced voices working against poverty, for the environment, for education, and for the common good. It just boggles the mind. I am glad that I live in a country, with all its faults, has strict gun control and does not worship the gun, the beast!
 

Roger M. (0)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 11:05 pm
All you need to know, really.

And yet there are those who want this situation to remain unchanged. I don't understand and, I have to tell you, neither does anyone else outside America.
 

Giana Peranio-Paz (394)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 2:38 am
All the more reason to fight for gun control and never let up!! It's a prime issue!
 

Shanti S. (0)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 6:03 am
Thank you.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 8:05 am
Well said Lynn, Roget and Giana!
You cannot currently send a star to Lynn because you have done so within the last week.
You cannot currently send a star to Roger because you have done so within the last week.
You cannot currently send a star to Giana because you have done so within the last week.
 

Arielle S. (317)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 8:52 am
There is just far too much stupid out there. We want guns to "protect" us, doctors to give us pills somebody else to make everything right. I think maybe it's time we all pulled up our boots and got to work taking care of ourselves - and that includes gun safety AND health care.
 

Allan Yorkowitz (448)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 9:52 am
I really would like to disbelieve this...sadly, it's more than likely true.
 

Michael M. (59)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 12:08 pm
I am goingto post news onMontana legislature allowing silencers/suppressors on hunters' guns as they are murdering wolves outside of ungulate seasons.

In my experience, silencers are ONLY used for executions (there are quick ways to make impromptu ones which I will not discuss), in which noise (and flash) will not call attention.
Those charged with maintaining laws and others who explore to satisfy our concerns about poaching and illegal wolf-killing would not thus be able to tell when this is going on.

I'm another against ALL guns.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 12:25 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Arielle because you have done so within the last week.
You cannot currently send a star to Allan because you have done so within the last week.
 

Birgit W. (152)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 1:19 pm
Thanks
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 3:23 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last week.
You are welcome Birgit
 

Lois Jordan (58)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 4:07 pm
Sent stars here where I could. Michael M: I believe you're on the right track. As the "opposing side" gets radical in their comments and demands, so should those of us opposing them. The NRA answer to 20 first graders being violently murdered in their classroom was to arm teachers. My response is to remove all guns from the population....THEIR biggest fear. I've taken to this tactic recently myself--out of sheer frustration, infused with some anger. It's time to "fight fire with fire." Our own president, (that I voted 2ce for), seems to have no intestinal fortitude to do the right thing in these matters....including drones. So, "we the people" will do our best to speak Truth to Power by being as radical in our demands and messaging. Same is true for the Keystone XL Pipeline. No drilling, no fracking, no pipeline.
I feel much as Kit does. We don't have the media on our side, either. Maybe there should be some petitions out just banning guns. If we can compile many signatures to send the White House, Congress and the NRA...maybe they'll take note that we're serious, and not "playing." I don't want to play--I want serious reform, as do most of us here.
 

Theodore Shayne (56)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 4:32 pm
Noted
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 4:33 pm
Might work Lois with the compromise position being letting people keep those designed for hunting for food.
You cannot currently send a star to Lois because you have done so within the last week.
 

greenplanet e. (157)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 6:04 pm
Shocking stats for sure.

A world without guns would be possible. Shooting animals for "fun" is really warped and sick.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 6:06 pm
You cannot currently send a star to greenplanet because you have done so within the last week.
 

Carlos L. (1)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 6:21 pm
Just an ugly little fact...
 

Christina G. (11)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 9:06 pm
a lot of ruthless people are making a lot of easy money playng one side against the other and selling both sides guns - it is so easy to do, maybe we should lock all males in the basement??? or send they to mars to play with their guns, if woman like that game they can go their too, but they can not imperiil our and our childrens future and the future of our planet
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 9:17 pm
ou cannot currently send a star to Chris because you have done so within the last week.
 

Robert Hardy (68)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 10:30 pm
Sad, sad, sad.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 11:57 pm
the way of humans
 

Walt G. (2)
Monday February 11, 2013, 12:28 am
Sigh! Does ANYONE HERE actually try to verify insane-sounding 'stats' before jumping on the knee-jerk-feel-good bandwagon?
Remember...THIS is the claim in the article..." More Americans have died just since 1960 from gun incidents ó suicides, accidents, and homicides ó than died in every war in U.S. history." Got that? More AMERICANS DIED via so-called 'gun violence' than AMERICANS DIED IN EVERY WAR IN US HISTORY! THAT'S the claim!

Let's look at some actual figures, shall we?
Just Military deaths cited below:
Civil War 625,000
WW II 405,399
WW I 116,516
Vietnam 58,209
Korea 36,516
American Revolutionary War 25,000
War of 1812 20,000
Mexican-American War 13,283
War on Terror (Iraq/Afghanistan) 6,280
Phillipine-American War 4,196

TOTAL: 1,310,399

Now, THIS doesn't even address the myriad of smaller conflicts/wars the US has engaged in, with casualties ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred, to a few thousand....which would expand the figure appreciably.

What SHOULD be obvious to anyone without an axe to grind....is that the article/claim is simply fallacious in the extreme....basically false rhetoric to make an emotional/political claim.

About the ONLY factual part of the article was the statement...."The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves."

This was true....but NOT for the intended/implied reasons....but simply that the US Civil War claimed approximately 625,000 lives total....all American, on both sides of the conflict....more than any other war the US has engaged in in her history.

Please exercise some discernement, folks, BEFORE posting knee-jerk supports for mindless and unsupported rhetoric.

 

Paul Girardin (126)
Monday February 11, 2013, 12:44 am
Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor!

The horror!
 

june t. (66)
Monday February 11, 2013, 12:47 am
Whenever I watch a show where the gun issue is being discussed, the pro-gun people are just so excited and angry to the point of being out of control; the thought of any of them carrying guns is a little bit scary. They all look like they would be eager to pull the trigger a little too quickly.
 

Katherine May Williams (0)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:11 am
I'm so glad most guns are illegal in the UK.

London, particularly would be a terrifying place if guns were as easy to get here as they are in America.

There but for the grace of strict UK gun laws...
 

Walt G. (2)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:36 am
I misread some of the numbers from the article....damn bifocals.....but I fail to see the artificial correlation of American deaths in wars.....where presumably all parties are more or less equally ARMED, and civilian deaths....of which a disproportionate number were suicides.

Another way to look at it would be that even in a war zone, with everybody armed with everything from rifles to machine guns to cannons to missilies, not to mention hand grenades and landmines....it is just as safe or....even safer....than being in civilian life, where fully automatic weapons are strictly controlled, and, of course, access to grenades and landmines, not to mention flame-throwers, airplanes, bombs, etc, are prohibited, thus destroying the attempt to correlate a correlation between firearms deaths in civilian life and that of warfare.

Of course, it would then make sense to ADD the hundreds of thousands who were KILLED BY THOSE AMERICANS WHO DIED AND WHO SURVIVED....to come up with the actual TOTAL number of deaths caused by weapons in warfare......and I suggest that this would completely blow the specious argument right out of the water.

Um, let me see....why was there no attempt to correlate the total number of years of warfare being used? What would it be....30 or so years of actual warfare?

Let me see....how about extrapolating between the numbers of those killed....to all the combatants, and harmonize that with a number that represented a measurable correlation...such as deaths per 100,000 as is commonly done in other studies? In other words....they add up the supposed 'dead' in wars....but only count American dead, and don't express that as a percentage of those involved in the conflict, which would drastically increase the percentages, while the figures taken from civilian life are drawn from a much larger pool....currently sitting at something like 360 million or so. I'd really like to see a correlation that accurately conveyed the deaths either per 100,000 or as a percentage of the body involved....if military during wartime, as a percentage of the americans involved in that war, if civilian...as a percentage of the population of the USA.
Perhaps there's a reason such 'logic' was lacking? Because it simply would not convey the desired slant?
Hmmn!
 

Kenneth L. (314)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:39 am
Perhaps Walt would look at where the article got it's stats from, 'addicting.info' link at the bottom of the graph page.
Whereas Walt posts what HE calls 'actual figures' the figures behind the graph states a few different totals than what he does. ex. Two sources I looked at say 2.260 deaths in the War of 1812, not '20,000'
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

And the graph shows 1 million, 50 thousand as a figure but the graph goes above that to approx. 1 million, 200 thousand I'd say. (you're not reading the figures in hundreds of thousands instead of millions are you Walt? That would be a big faux pas on your part).

As for "The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves." it's not talking about the Civil War. This pertains to the 'war' of citizens killing other citizens in gun violence' since 1960.

Thats the WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE. Anyone can see that.
 

Kenneth L. (314)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:40 am
Trying to dig yourself out eh Walt lol.
 

Kenneth L. (314)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:43 am
Um, LET ME SEE.
Nope, you're just PLAIN WRONG.
 

Kenneth L. (314)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:44 am
Now behave or you're going to have your crap comments deleted.
 

Walt G. (2)
Monday February 11, 2013, 2:03 am
Umh....Kenny....so far you haven't made any pertinent points in your myriad posts...so I question just whose posts/comments are 'crap'.
As far as the 'point' of that rather biased and incomplete article....I'm fully aware of what the author intended...however, the simple fact is that 'war' is clearly defined, notwithstanding the recent tendency to call nebulous concepts 'war' such as 'war on drugs' and 'war on terror', etc.....and, the civil (or uncivil) war claimed far more victims than any other WAR the US has engaged in.

An unassailable fact is that the murder rate has gone down by some close to 50% over the last couple decades....and that while both population, gun ownership, and gun owners have increased in the US.

The reality is that violent crime as well as murders have decreased steadily over the past years in many countries, including ours.
 

Kenneth L. (314)
Monday February 11, 2013, 2:18 am
LOL Walt. You don't have to question anything. Your problem is more than your bifocals.

All your blather about how wrong EVERYONE ELSE is on this thread and Mr. BIG AND IMPORTANT WALT G. KNOWS BETTER. LOL! What a fool YOU look----instead of succeeding at making everyone else look like one. Pompous blowhard.









.

 

Kenneth L. (314)
Monday February 11, 2013, 2:19 am
I left the rest of my post out just for you angel.
 

Barbara D. (79)
Monday February 11, 2013, 5:03 am
Whatever statistics you look at, they all point to the same conclusion ~ guns in the hands of people are BAD, BAD, BAD!
 

Jaime A. (35)
Monday February 11, 2013, 5:09 am
Noted.
 

paul m. (93)
Monday February 11, 2013, 5:22 am

Noted,
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday February 11, 2013, 11:05 am
The numbeers aren't really that shocking: As flashy as it is, war is a relatively tiny direct contributor to human deaths. I have long said that a bad policy can easily be bloodier than a war. I highly recommend checking out Pinker's TED Talk on "the myth of violence".

Before considering policy, I would recommend looking at total numbers of murders and total numbers of accidental deaths rather than gun-related deaths because this lumps murder, accident, self-defense and suicide together, and appropriate measures to address each are very different. Gun-control would do nothing to prevent suicide, and self-defense is something that I think many of us don't want to stop. Accident-prevention and murder-prevention also demand separate policies. Also importantly, looking at those numbers would help us to tell whether reducing the numbers of guns in circulation would actually reduce violence by allowing comparison to places where guns are less common, or which have different gun-control measures. I don't really care if someone is murdered with a gun, a knife, or bare hands, and I don't want measures intended to stop assaults to just change the choice of weapon.

here is some relevant data:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/fadeathwithrates65-04.pdf
As you can see, just over half of the gun-related deaths in the U.S. from 1965-2004 were suicides. Gun-control would do little or nothing to stop these. You can also get the time-averaged death-rates, but those look a little suspicious as the numbers clearly don't always add up. (It says that in 1975, there were more suicides by gun than homicides, but the death-rate from the homicide by gun is listed as higher.)

It would also be instructive to look at the differences in death-rates as fractions of the total population, averaged over time. Otherwise you run into what I call "Pogge's problem" (after the philosopher Thomas Pogge, much of whose work centers around severe misinterpretations of data).
 

Walt G. (2)
Monday February 11, 2013, 11:10 am
Barbara D:
Quote:"guns in the hands of people are BAD, BAD, BAD." End quote

I assume then, Barbara....that to remain 'consistent'....you also advocate disarming the police and the military? After all, at any given time, there are many police officers who abuse their power, break the laws, and, yes, often use their firearms in an illegal manner...so one must conclude that 'guns in the hands of the Police are BAD, BAD, BAD too....right? After all, we can't point to all the conscientious, law-abiding policemen who DO their jobs with courage and diligence, can we? We must focus on the abusers, right?

It is estimated that firearms are 'used' some 2.6 MILLION times per year by ordinary citizens to defend against attack and agression....and in the vast majority of cases, without even a shot having to be fired. This greatly exceeds the criminal misuse of firearms in any given year.

What about the military....they are made up of CITIZENS, right? So....IF guns are BAD, BAD, BAD in the hands of ordinary citizens....are we to conclude that they are ALSO BAD, BAD, BAD in the hands of citizens who have volunteered to join the armed forces? Why not have a kinder, gentler nation, where police and the military are issued with daffodils or tulips....to hand out to felons, or invading armies...perhaps, as some hippies did in the 60's....to stick down the barrels of the guns held by the opposition?

Why not restate your premise....that evil people....with ANY weapons, including but exclusively guns....are BAD, BAD, BAD. An inanimate, non-living object can neither be bad nor good, what determins the morality is the use to which they're put, and THAT is determined by living human beings....who then can be categorized, if you have a need to label them....as BAD, BAD, BAD.
 

JL A. (276)
Monday February 11, 2013, 12:12 pm
Stephen, the research to date clearly indicates suicide far less likely if no access to a gun, especially by males, and effective interventions are possible so lumping the three together of enhanced risk and likelihood of death due to the presence of the gun is scientifically sound.
 

. (0)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:20 pm
Sorry, I didn't read ALL the comments...
But, I wonder how the chart would look if we moved all the deaths from the Drug War over to the war column.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday February 11, 2013, 1:59 pm
Thanks JLA :)

I would really like to check that research, though. It doesn't seem to hold up back home, unless there are confounding factors I missed (like differences in household-size of licensees, differences in black market gun-access, and differences in licensing-processes):
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Canada
The number of suicides does not appear to be proportional to the number of people with access to guns.
 

JL A. (276)
Monday February 11, 2013, 2:18 pm
http://www.pbs.org/thesilentepidemic/riskfactors/guns.html (teens)

http://www.pbs.org/thesilentepidemic/riskfactors/guns.html (homicide) review of all the research

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

It may be US cultural & other factors vs. your back home Stephen
 

John Coleman (18)
Monday February 11, 2013, 2:42 pm
If the author was so sure of his "facts" it would be nice if there were details behind the graphs. It would also be interesting on how the alleged "stats" treat the conflicts with the various indian tribes, conflicts between abolitionist and pro slavery groups prior to the Civil War, conflicts between those disenfranchised Southerners and carpetbaggers running things corruptly in some of the Confederate areas during Reconstruction, draft riots during the Civil War, violent union-labor disputes, and killings in areas without law enforcement during frontier times just for some possible areas where things weren't quite as structured as today and were quasi conflicts. Then we have today's terror related domestic killings like Ft Hood and the Beltway snipers or the government overreach like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

BTW, Politifact has its biases as well so not exactly a source of truth, All you have to do is follow their "lie of the year" that seems to be largely directed at the GOP or opponents of ObamaCare and those proved not to be lies.

Frankly this one smells like propaganda like most anti Second Amendment screeds here.
 

JL A. (276)
Monday February 11, 2013, 2:50 pm
The civilian gun deaths are since 1960. The war deaths began with civil war so all the questions related to earlier times do not apply to the methodology involved here and thus is completely irrelevant, spurious and intended to distract from the reality of the verified and verifiable deaths in the two categories for anyone interested in having their views be consistent with the facts in this area.
 

Birgit W. (152)
Monday February 11, 2013, 3:50 pm
Thanks
 

JL A. (276)
Monday February 11, 2013, 6:04 pm
You are welcome Birgit
 

Winn Adams (203)
Monday February 11, 2013, 6:51 pm
Thanks
 

JL A. (276)
Monday February 11, 2013, 6:59 pm
You are welcome Winn
 

Michael M. (59)
Monday February 11, 2013, 9:16 pm
Aside from the silly little game of my statistics are bigger than your statistics, we might look at an interesting tome:
"The Deaths of Others." by John Tirman.

Here's from a review of the Oxford University Press publishing:
Between six and seven million people died in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq alone, the majority of them civilians. [America] have used their weapons intentionally to kill large numbers of civilians and terrorize adversaries into surrender. Americans, however, are mostly ignorant of these facts, believing that American wars are essentially just, necessary, and "good."

Having read the book, I can tell you some documented facts:
1. In the Korean War, numerous written orders to kill civilians were issued.
2.Some of us know a bit about Viet Nam, and those who were there can tell you that there were many, many My Lai incidents. That named one however, was the only one prosecuted. Calley, who butchered a number of innocents personally, was cut loose from his life sentence within about 5 years. A hero. I can tell you that that is what war heroes are made of.

Since the book only deals with the 3 wars (Iraq included) it leaves out the heroes who murdered in 1892 at Wounded Knee, the fine sojers who committed the atrocity at San Creek, and endless others.

So keep pretending that those living beings YOU don't know are mere numbers. Keep denigrating all others who do not kiss your association of killers, americans. Others were born to this beautiful continent, and they are at least as worthy of life as those who would exterminate safely with guns or drones or poisons. The true poison is that of a mind which covets the means to kill for pleasure and/or self-righteousness.

Bad news for sporty narcissists out west: Montana legislature had to drop the bill naming a winchester "the gun that won the west", due to the uproar made by still-resident Native Americans, who pointed out that invading butchers took the lives and sustenance of families, the vast herds of buffalo and antelope, and others like the great bear. (the wolfers - trappers who didn't know what to do when they executed all the beaver, used poison on the wolf, but now that the new innocent wolves were allowed to repopulate for a few short years, crazed gunfire can be found going on all over the Rockies).

Gnus-r-toys. Time to retire these toys, they are just too dangerous for the unsupervised children let loose upon the world.
 

JL A. (276)
Monday February 11, 2013, 9:24 pm
Thanks for the eloquent and poignant expose of a further variety of deaths Americans have been responsible for Michael. The underlying theme many see in this debate is those who celebrate death vs. those who seek to preserve and celebrate life. You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last week.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday February 12, 2013, 12:02 am
Hi JLA :)

Thanks! Looking at the fatality-rate per suicide-attempt, it looks like there is a causal relation. The difference is likely cultural, and, given that we are talking about the U.S. here, U.S. statistics are definitely the relevant ones.

The comment at the bottom of the last link, though, does suggest another possibility: Guns are more common in rural areas, and suicide-attempts are more often fatal there. It is possible that in rural areas, non-fatal attempts are relatively underreported. Still, I think it is a fair assumption that given time, desire, and opportunity, people can overcome any static challenge, including a gun-safe, so perhaps guns should be kept out of the household of anyone deemed to be especially at risk for suicide (or, obviously, violent crime), unless the home is in a particularly dangerous area.
 

JL A. (276)
Tuesday February 12, 2013, 7:34 am
You are welcome Stephen. Emergency response times tend to be much longer in rural areas than in urban or suburban and may be a primary factor for the difference in fatal vs. nonfatal, like is found in the data on heart attacks.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.