Don't love the CDC either, but since they're usually anti-gun, and their suicide numbers seem about right, and their other numbers look reasonable, I'm good with this. Obviously, none of the groups, governmental or non-governmental, seem to be able to agree on firearms usage statistics, so I guess it all comes down to whose numbers we want to believe. If I am ever really bored, I think it would be interesting to sit down and try to do a spreadsheet with the numbers side by side from FBI, VPC, NRA, CDC, etc. But I'm not usually bored enough to want to spend the hours to do do this....I'm not one to trust the cdc much, they've been directed by others agenda's far too long.
So, what do you suggest? Having a discussion with anti-gun people seems pretty futile most of the time. Wish that was different, but that seems to be the case to me.Getting the gun violence folks on board requires some deeper argument on why the division of deaths is rational.
I'm not sure. I know that the pro gun folks don't need any more convincing 'cause they are already on board. I suppose there are some in the middle that can be swayed and I guess for those, rational arguments for why the division of deaths by gun might be valuable. The devils advocate might ask why countries with less gun rights have fewer overall homicides - regardless of method. I'm not making that argument, but it is not an irrational question for the middle of the road folks to ask. As you noted, the rabid anti-gun folks aren't any more interested in serious inquiry and dialog than the rabid folks on any side of the debate.So, what do you suggest? Having a discussion with anti-gun people seems pretty futile most of the time. Wish that was different, but that seems to be the case to me.
I am sure there are many. But, of course, that's what they would call "anecdotal evidence" and "scientists" don't count that.My question is this: How many people avoided being victims because they had a gun but didn't need to shoot the perp> I know I'm one. And it doesn't show up on any statistical data base.
Yeah, I've never seen the homicides broken down into gang-related stats (and I've wanted to). I'd like to see a link so I know that was actually a CDC stat and not just something posted on Facebook before I go quoting it.FBI stats say 40% of murders in the U.S. go unsolved. So how can the CDC determine that 80% of the homicides are...Gang-related? Are they only counting the ones that result in a conviction? :blink:
My head hurts. :hmmmm2:
I think you probably have to take these numbers as they are presented; i.e., 80% of the 10560 homicides are gang related. But don't take my word for it, I have always been math challenged. :gah:It does fry the grey matter. So, 80% of the 60% of the solved murders are gang-related, correct?
True, yet that is a huge part of the equation! I don't carry a gun to be cool or as a decoration. I carry it because perceived benefits outweigh perceived costs.I am sure there are many. But, of course, that's what they would call "anecdotal evidence" and "scientists" don't count that.