Lets break those numbers down.
There are 31920 gun deaths a year in the USA (CDC, 2013)
There are 21,175 gun suicides a year in the USA (CDC, 2013
That leaves 10745 homicide, accidental, or defensive gun deaths in the USA.
Of those 10745, 8454 are homicides.
Of those 8454, 80% are gang related http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Thats approx 6763 gang-related gun homicides.
That leaves the USA to have 1691 deaths from non-gang related homicides or accidental firearm use.
Factor in the 600 accidental gun deaths, thats 2291.
The US population sits around 321,000,000.
Your chances of dying this year from non-gang related homicide or accidental firearm use is 7.1x10^-6, or .00000716 percent.
The chances of you being struck by lightning this year is only half as likely from non-gang related homicide or accidental firearm use.
Le Black Science Man status: [BTFO] | NOT BTFO
Lemme break down your breakdown...
You see, a major philosophy in American society, is the freedom to make your own decisions.
And forcing people to do something they don't want to do when it has no effect on you is a douche move.
This guy lost all of my respect once I've heard him talk about ANYTHING other than space. It's absolutely idiotic. Why must all figures be idiots these days. I mean there are people like Stefan Molyneux which are pretty ok that base their things on broken down and analyzed facts.
>Based black science man is a gun grabbing liberal
End it now
Tweet him your info, m8. Oh, don't forget about deaths caused by police shootings, or are those not factored into the overall statistics?
At any rate, Neil lost a fan about space and space/time, and you should tweet your number break down to that fucking idiot.
actually, when you think of it, 400,000 people is not really a large number when you look at the big scheme of things also spread that number across the country like 10 people per town and I doubt that would spread past L.A.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 30 million Americans have died of every cause since 2000 right?
And that was with 282 million people alive during that year, and now there's 320 million Americans by 2015.
>Of those 8454, 80% are gang related
Where do you get this 80% of homicides being gang-related figure?
>Your chances of dying this year from non-gang related homicide or accidental firearm use is 7.1x10^-6, or .00000716 percent.
Wouldn't your chances of dying from accidental firearm use increase if you actually owned guns, versus a household without guns? A commonly cited number of firearm users in the US is ~33%, so you should include gun ownership as a risk factor for increased accidental firearm death.
Also don't gang-related gunshots strike and kill innocent bystanders? You have to account for that as well.
Meanwhile 7.2 million in the US have died from tobacco since 2001. Are we going to ban that evil shit already? Why do you NEED tobacco?
Because this is a goddamn free country and people can do whatever the fuck they like.
>Thats approx 6763 gang-related gun homicides.
In other words, a little over 100,000 Americans have been killed by black people since 2001?
The FBI UCR.
>Wouldn't your chances of dying from accidental firearm use increase if you actually owned guns, versus a household without guns? A commonly cited number of firearm users in the US is ~33%, so you should include gun ownership as a risk factor for increased accidental firearm death.
Accidental death from tools is no different from accidental death from pools or accidental death from cars. They can be prevented or lowered with education. And it's still very small, the chances of dying from a gun by accident. You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning that killing yourself by accident with a gun.
Gallup surveys last year, the same polls that use the 33% number have been 41 to 45% of American households since 2008. 33% is fucking old news.
50 to 53% of Americans no longer support an AWB for example. There is a paradigm shift occurring.
>Wouldn't your chances of dying from accidental firearm use increase if you actually owned guns, versus a household without guns? A commonly cited number of firearm users in the US is ~33%, so you should include gun ownership as a risk factor for increased accidental firearm death.
And if we had more publicly funded lessons/courses within highschool/university going over firearms safety and handling, we could cut those numbers significantly.
Of course, human error will ALWAYS exist, arguing to ban somehting because somebody might fuck up with it and kill themselves or somebody else is stupid. Somebody could fuck up putting gas in their car and blow up a gas station. It happens a lot, yet we haven't banned gas stations. Because we need them.
Just like we need guns in this current social and economical climate.
Get lucky and nick their keys and run away like a little bitch calling the cops?
Get fucked cunt. I'm aussie as they fucking come and I know that that shit is pure luck that happened with them. Stupid fuck with one plugger could have gotten plugged with a fucking knife.
Our right to a fair trial, apparently.
Feminists pushing for "affirmative consent" laws, or as you lot know them, Yes means Yes law. Where you have to prove your innocence, rather than the state proving your guilt.
I remember he gave some talk where he said taking a substance or pharmaceutical medication wasn't unnatural because it's all a part of the universe or something along those lines.
I would like to see this same logic applied to drinking a quart of gasoline.
Perhaps I am horribly recalling it, but why would we ban guns if it's all apart of how we're using shit in the universe?
Now what we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a failure to communicate. I require a more well formulated question.
All he said is "what"... what's that? I'll tell you. A horrible response. There's a flaw with using text to communicate, and that is the complete lack of inflection or implication in the sound of the words which gives the listener more data to process so he or she can use that extra information to more likely extrapolate an appropriate answer.
Next query, please.
>Did You Know?
>A total of 32,885 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2010. Another 2.24 million people were injured.
Of course, guns need to be banned though.
if you looked into it you wouldn't be re-posting it
>Breaking down an old tweet that's already been broken down
>Implying BTFO when his numbers technically aren't wrong
Freshman as fuck. Everyone knew this was BS months ago, welcome to 2016.
No numbfuck. Japanese suivide rate makes vets and trannies blush. Just saying if they had real access to guns (or swords) GRORIOUS NIPPON would look like a ghosttown in surprisingly little time. It's just their reality.
So if he was into black power than someone should point out that black panther protest against Reagan which caused gun control in California.
And this speaks to another thing. Liberals are all about gun control when their guy is in power but as soon as someone like Bush is in power suddenly they want open warfare in the streets and go silent about wanting gun control.
Oh hey, wadyaknow, in that same timeframe (2003-2016) over 1.1 million americans are killed from alcohol related-causes, according to the CDC.
But it's GUNS that need to be banned.
I honestly doubt it. You'd see an increase in suicide rates, sure. But it'd probably go from 20 per 100k to something like 35-45 per 100k.
People wouldn't kill themselves en masse dumbshit. No bodies on every street corner. Otherwise they would have done it centuries ago when gun and sword laws were much laxer.
>using 2013 numbers for something that has fluctuated significantly between 2001 and 2013
>Of those 8454, 80% are gang related http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
>go to source
ban assault influenza. seriously, i dont get how someone so smart can say something so silly. why would you compare a 15 year period to a 4 year period, where 2-3 years where actual open warfare.
And you know what's even more astounding? It's estimated that there is over 3000 justified homicides (even exluding police shootings) in the US each year. Now the vast majority of these do not show up in FBI stats because something on the order of only 2% of US police departments actually voluntary report justified civilian shootings/homicides to the FBI database.
This means that for every non-gangland, "innocent" murder there are probably twice as many justified shooting deaths of criminals. Note that this does not cover incidents of criminals being wounded by citizens and surviving nor citizens scaring off criminals with the brandishing of firearms; these numbers are far, far higher (especially when you consider that the average hospital survival rate of gunshots wounds in the US is around 85%, and even at 4 or more gunshots the survival rate is still like 65%+).
I would post sources for this but I'm on mobile and I'm working off memory.
I'm on a desktop computer now so I'm actually able to post some sources.
Basically, it is incredibly hard to find justifiable homicide data because reporting it to the FBI is entirely voluntary by the police departments and states themselves; less than of all the police departments in America report this information. Entire states, like New York, Florida or Illinois, don't even report the information correctly or at all, and in New York's case, doesn't even have a definition of Justifiable Homicide!
Additionally the FBI uses an entirely different, and frankly retarded standard, of what constitutes a justifiable homicide. For example, two men getting into a verbal argument that ends with one drawing and threatening a knife and the other drawing a CCW and shooting in self defense would be considered a typical homicide by the FBI despite the fact that the CCW man wouldn't even get pressed with charges in the majority of cases.
AND there is still the fact that over 33% of all homicides are still left unsolved, and in some areas like Detroit or Chicago it can reach 75%-80%; how many of these are criminals bleeding out from being shot in a home invasion or attempted robbery by someone who is, say, a ex-felon who brought an illegal gun to defend themselves or a poorfag who doesn't understand the law or doesn't want to deal with a potential jury trial in a blue-state?
Oh and I was slightly off on my gunshot survival rate; it varys from 66% (early 2000s Pennsylvania trauma center) to 86% (national 2010) survival rate. Surprisingly enough, gunshots to the heart are only lethal 25%-36% of the time.
>That leaves the USA to have 1691 deaths from non-gang related homicides or accidental firearm use.
>Factor in the 600 accidental gun deaths, thats 2291.
Did I mis-read or miss something? Why are you adding that 600?
>Lets break those numbers down.
Automobile deaths since 2001: More than 400,000
Automobile Safety Legislation passed since 2001: Not remotely as much as gun legislation, if any
Number of Cars in the US: About 260 Million
Number of Guns in the US: About 310 Million
>Fewer cars cause more deaths
>Cars demonstrably more lethal than firearms
>No one cares
Keep texting and driving, phaggots.
I just want to know one thing: when these meme-statistics are spouted, do these spouters actually believe that someone killing themselves at all is bad? Or is just death by suicide SO MUCH WORSE than awful hanging or slashing your wrists, making an exit bag can be conspicuous. I think if a person wants out, the clean and sureness of a gun is admirable.
I want these people to announce whether they believe a person does not have the right to kill themselves if they truly want to die, and then somehow justify their announcement with the spreading of that suicide-inflated gun statistic,
>>Fewer cars cause more deaths
>>Cars demonstrably more lethal than firearms
>Every time I bring this up
>BUT CARS ARE HEAVILY REGULATED ALREADY AND GUNS ARE NOT
>"Wow, tell me how regulating guns will save people then"
>PEOPLE ARE DYING WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
It's both frustrating and exhilarating to get people stuck in that fucking circle.
The people behind gun control believe they should be the only ones with power to make those choices for everyone else.
They don't care about cars or cigarettes because their agenda and lives are not threatened by an opponent with a car or smoking habit.
They care about other human life as long as they have control over it.
You'd think that being shot in the heart would be more dangerous than that. Damned tough organ.
I have heard though that most of the time in gang related shootings they only load their guns with FMJ target loads because the rounds are cheaper and they don't know any better.
I mean 400,000 people died sure but his
is that we have a gun problem. OP broke down the numbers and unless youre a gangbanger or depressed guns arent a problem.
a fuckload more people die from alcohol/drug overdose and auto accidents but nobody addresses either because guns r scary.
yeah but there are guns in a few million civillians holsters day in, day out and 99.5% of the time they arent shooting anyone. also
>le gun is a machine designed to only to kill
so the machine that is designed only to kill still kills less than the machine designed to transport people
>I mean 400,000 people died sure but his implication is that we have a gun problem.
>implication is that we have a gun problem
learn to fucking read
>You'd think that being shot in the heart would be more dangerous than that
What I found the most surprising t b h was the fact that you have a 88.5% survival rate FROM BEING STABBED IN THE FUCKING HEART.
Modern medicine is fucking amazing. I cringe whenever I hear people disparage it as somehow "unnatural" or worse than taking herbs and toughing it out.
you can say what you like about tyson but he is right. put it this way, I'm a huge racing fan and he believes the internal combustion engine is a problem too. I hate that he's right and I will continue to enjoy cars and guns despite him being right. you're being dishonest if you don't see the issues with your interests
>Within a 12-year period ending in March 1984, 1109 patients with penetrating thoracic injuries were treated at King-Drew Medical Center located in south central Los Angeles.
>All patients with cardiac trauma underwent thoracotomy, and the mortality rate was 18.1%. Specifically, the mortality rate of gunshot wound of the heart 24.5% and that of stab wound of the heart, 11.5%.
Correction, even with 1970s-1980s medical technology in a fucking ghetto ass area with terrible social services you have a 88.5% of surviving a stab to the heart.
>The rest of the world
>a handful of countries with one tenth the population and land mass of the US
dont forget that the vast majority of homicides are black on black crime
population of UK 64 mil
population of US 320 mil
>but muh rates per 100,000
its not as simple as that
This is a pretty pointless graph.
>Why did they only put 23 countries on the horizontal axis?
>Why did they arrange them in order of assault levels rather than in order of gun ownership levels?
>Why do they always make the US the biggest one, even though there are many countries with significantly larger crime rates?
>Why is there no source?
Here's a much better set of graphs.
Note how there's absolutely no correlation between guns and crime.
>guns are a problem because violence is a problem
>diversity is important
>id rather have a diverse population of people with no guns killing each other than a diverse population where people can defend themselves
john oliver pls go
Asshole. I was going to post that.
But that mother fucker has gotten so god damned preachy and annoying. That and Bill Nye only has an irrelevant bachelor's degree.
All these assholes trying to replace Carl Sagan are nothing but shit-tier trolls.
hes not a scientist, doesnt publish papers or anything of the sort
he just goes aronud saying blck science shit
I used control+f on the CDC source and did not get any matches for "gang," "violent," "crime," or "gun." What's the page number for the statistic that shows 80% of gun homicides being gang-related?
But that would be racist and interrupt the narrative and make nice liberal metrosexual suburbanites uncomfortable and interrupt their virtue-signalling and.... stuff.
it gets ignored because it doesnt fit their anti gun agenda
every notice how pro gun people use govt/well constructed research while antigunners use shit from blogs and purposefully misleading graphics
Yeah I bet the perp in the crimes are niggers. Most crime is caused by niggers. If we shipped those monkeys back to the jungle you'd see violent crime, welfare, and foster care needs plummet. Niggers are literally locust of the planet. It's time to gas them. RACE WAR NOW!!!!
That's why I said "crime rate". The crime rate in china is pretty high, and notably, they did have gun confiscation prior to a series of mass killings conducted by the government, back in the 50's.
well nye does have some patents and a BS in mech engineering
at least he does something i dont know why people like him so much though, yeah i saw those videos of him too in class but still people worship the shit he spouts on kikebook
Even though it's already been demonstrated ITT that there's no correlation between guns and crime...
There is a very strong and consistent correlation between blacks and crime.
my point your chart is vague enough that I could use it to support my argument against diversity.
Look at your chart, "other means" and "sharp object" both look higher in the US than the other countries. This chart only tells us that there is more violence in the US. Since the US is significantly more diverse than other countries it is not illogical to conclude that diversity causes violence.
So either your chart is bad evidence or you need to start wearing a white hood
For the record, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland at least are all more diverse than the US.
okay, then higher GDP=more death
Because your political enemies never ever will stop with the fallacies and demeaning tones, especially over SOCIAL MEDIA, which is I think where your average moron gets the news that they take seriously but I don't know that for sure. News corporations sure take it seriously though.
Finland, Portugal, New Zealand, Belgium, all have lower GDPs than Australia;
Greece, Sweden, Luxembourg than France;
Denmark than Italy;
Netherlands than Spain;
Norway and Ireland than Switzerland and Japan;
Iceland than Germany and Austria.
And ALL but the US, Japan, and Germany are lower than the UK.
>how about you check the correlation between gun ownership and violence while you're at it
>When I never said anything about that.
I was just pointing out that diverse=violence isn't exactly the case.
People were saying diversity correlates with violence, I wanted to point out that wasn't true.
Also, correlation != causation, and I was talking across nations, the source you gave is for the United States.
> Since the US is significantly more diverse than other countries it is not illogical to conclude that diversity causes violence.
Which is someone I contest.
>correlation != causation
Y'know, you can't just say that every single fucking time there's a correlation.
We're talking consistent 80% correlations over a large number of years.
There's a fucking causation.
>We're talking consistent 80% correlations over a large number of years.
>There's a fucking causation
nigger you don't know what you're talking about
Okay, then enlighten us.
What is causing these insane correlations between blacks and crime?
Why does it transcend wealth, area and upbringing?
Tell us, why is there such a strong correlation between blacks and crime if there isn't a causation?
>Global warming stopped pirates/Pirates going away caused global warming
So you're saying that you're retarded, and that literally nothing will ever be good enough for you?
>Hurr correlation isn't causation
>It's literally impossible to determine a causal link for race and crime
>Therefore they will eternally dindu nuffin
I already have, you absolute colossal faggot.
I've linked you to it multiple times.
Read the fucking thread.
let me give you an example
>every day I go to bed once the sun goes down
>when I wake up the sun is up again
>this happens 100% of the time
wow, I guess I cause the sun to come back up, after all, we know that correlation=causation when correlation > 80%
>Hurr durr I have literally no idea how statistics work
>Hurr hurr nothing will ever be good enough for me because I heard a meme once that said incredible correlations are never ever valid forms of evidence
>Even when I was trying to argue correlations between guns and crime in literally the same thread
I don't really see anything much about wealth, give me the quote.
Literally ALL the graphs are urban areas are above 250k you fucking retard
Same as the first
>>Hurr durr I have literally no idea how statistics work
You are certainly one to talk.
>>Hurr hurr nothing will ever be good enough for me because I heard a meme once that said incredible correlations are never ever valid forms of evidence
That's exactly true though, that's shit science and shit statistics.
>That's exactly true though, that's shit science and shit statistics.
So you're admitting that literally nothing will ever convince you that blacks cause crime?
That you're so set in your indoctrination that absolutely nothing could ever possibly convince you otherwise?
What does he mean by household firearms? Firearms in the home? So then what does that include? Self defence? Suicide? Accidental discharges? Or is he saying all guns are household items like say a kitchen knife?
For starters, learn to properly cite your sources. Links, pages, and, if needed, table numbers. Secondly, your gang related stat isn't born out by your source. Your source doesn't list anything about gangs. The FBI UCR doesn't give a concrete listing either, only a range of estimates along with an average national estimate of all gang-related violent crime, not just murder.
>Ignoring other posts
>So you're admitting that literally nothing will ever convince you that blacks cause crime?
When I see a study or research paper that provides actual proof beyond that of correlation, I'll believe it.
>That you're so set in your indoctrination that absolutely nothing could ever possibly convince you otherwise?
Yeah, that was never the issue, I can change my mind, but with actual evidence. Not by some sperglord spouting shit he read on infowars.
If you can provide something beyond correlation, by all means, until then, stop talking when you can't back yourself up.
In 50 years, after your children have grown up and have had their own children, they will all look back at you and feel ashamed at your blatant bigotry. And when you finally die, a decrepit and hateful old man, all they will have to say about you to their friends is how much better off the world is without you.
>When I see a study or research paper that provides actual proof beyond that of correlation
That's simply not how the field works.
The only ways you could prove a causal link would be along the lines of locking up a bunch of black and white people in separate rooms and waiting for them to murder each other.
There is no such thing as an irrefutable proof of a causal link in sociology.
I'm not sure how I can get this through to you, because you're actively trying your hardest to be as retarded as possible.
>blah blah blah prove to me blacks cause crime
90% of black people are killed by other blacks
You may notice that there are a lot of whites killing whites too, even more than blacks kill each other. There are also 3x as many whites as blacks in the US so whites kill eachother 1/3 as much as blacks.
>105 Americans die by suicide every day
>79% are male
>guns are used in 51% of all suicides among boys
to expand on my comment though heres some census data on race populations:
there are 42 million blacks in the US
there are 198 million white people in the US
2509 white on white crimes in 2013
2245 black on black crimes in 2013
>156 million more whites and only 264 more same race murders.
3005 murdered whites in 2013 (offender any race)
2491 murdered blacks in 2013 (offender any race)
>again, 156 million more whites than blacks yet black people get murdered almost as much as whites
>blacks dont cause crime.
sauce: US census, FBI murder data
>white americans are afraid that black americans would come into their homes and murder and rape them
>black americans think that white americans will go rope day on them
The realistic thing to note here is that:
>blacks are 8-9x more likely to murder than whites
>blacks murder blacks 90%ish of the time
>whites murder whites 90%ish of the time
>males are 90%ish more likely to murder than females
Basically, blacks should be afraid of black men and whites should be afraid of white men.
Stay away from men.
Aren't they also trying to make it illegal to criticize the government in Australia as well? Slippery slope in actiom, my friends. You're women are beautiful and loose, but man you guys make awful decisions.
What moving goalposts? I never argued blacks commit less crime, that's simply false. I argued that simply because they commit more crime does not mean black people are the source of crime. If I had been asked, I would have said it was primarily because of socio-economic factors.
7.5% of blacks are murdered by whites
13% of whites are murdered by blacks.
your post is true in that chances are if you are going to be murdered it will be by a male of the same race as you but data shows blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.
They don't affect them more, there are simply more poor black people than any other group. Can you provide something that shows poor black people commit more crime than poor white people? (honest request btw)
ok lets say poverty leads to murder
there is a greater number of whites and hispanic persons living in poverty than blacks living in poverty
why then, dont they make up a staggering amount of the murder offenders?
This sums up murder in America pretty well.
This link talks about that extensively.
Hispanics have very high comparative rates of poverty, but they don't have unusually high rates of criminality.
>Uncomfortable Facts Guy
>Black males (6% of population) commit 52% of those murders
They're careful to refer to any event involving a gun as "gun violence" so they can put up big numbers, clearly insinuating that it's all murder. Then we're forced to spend 50x the effort researching statistics most normies won't read to debunk them.
So fuck it, turn it around on them. Insinuate that black men are murdering 204k Americans a year and let them trip over themselves debunking their own bullshit
>For the record, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland at least are all more diverse than the US.
Yes, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland maybe more CULTURALLY diverse in that they have more immigrants from France, Germany, etc, but overall these countries are much "whiter" than America. America has far, FAR more racial diversity than Europe.
For example Britain or France is about 85% white, while America is only 63% (although its a WHOLE 'nother story on whether Mexicans count as white, since some of them are actually more European than Italians or Spaniards).
El Salvador has the highest murder rate in the world at 103 killed to 100,000 people which btw they just reached the top murder country this year.
Guns are banned for civilian use in El Salvador. you can not even so much as look at one if you a civie. So tell me anti gunners, if banning guns works than why doesn't work?
Many really intelligent, highly educated people just become completely irrational when guns come into the equation.
I blame Hollywood and big news networks being their only exposure to firearms for their entire life and conditioning them into thinking they're purely killing machines.
Instantaneous high volume loss in blood pressure + extreme pain = incapacition
Just because someone is incapacitated does not mean that they are dead. A lot of wounds that aren't even physiologically capable of stopping someone can drop someone dead in their tracks. Its been said that the reason most people that are shot fall to the ground instantly, regardless of any trauma that actually causes loss of leg/motor control, do so out of deep ingrained notions from film, culture, etc, that that is what people who have been shot do.
Besides, even if they are dead, trauma/neuro-science has advanced to the point that patients with stopped hearts and zero brain activity can be "brought back" several hours after "death". Death is a process, and one that can be interrupted with proper medical intervention.
>A lot of wounds that aren't even physiologically capable of stopping someone can drop someone dead in their tracks. Its been said that the reason most people that are shot fall to the ground instantly, regardless of any trauma that actually causes loss of leg/motor control, do so out of deep ingrained notions from film, culture, etc, that that is what people who have been shot do.
That's why I specified a determined attacker. Besides that, the body can compensate for losing up to 20% of its blood before blood pressure starts dropping with 40% being the point at which people die. So I have to wonder if 64%-76% of gunshot wounds to the heart are survivable, what percent of those people even get past the 20% blood loss point.
Source for the blood loss percents is "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets" by Ken Newgard
>Besides that, the body can compensate for losing up to 20% of its blood before blood pressure starts dropping with 40%
The Heart is the great pump; damage the pump and you will lose a great deal of blood pressure even if you don't lose a whole lot of blood from the ordeal because the heart is the physiological reason for blood pressure in the first place.
And to the topic of Asian counties having low firearm deaths. Singapore has zero gun crime but if you spit on the street your ass is getting caned.
These societies are a lot more complex than just no gunz and some of their draconian laws also extend to free speech and other freedom's liberals hold dear.