US Gun Deaths Hit Record High of Nearly 49,000 in 2021

[Aristides]

37 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Thoughts and prayers are appropriate. 

Now get out there and help stop crime. Guns don't attack by themselves, you know.

No they don't but you donkeys will give them to anyone.

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

No they don't but you donkeys will give them to anyone.

And you donkeys want to take them from everyone. 

Do you see the problem with your thinking? 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

And you donkeys want to take them from everyone. 

Do you see the problem with your thinking? 

No, you are the one who keeps dealing in extremes because you have no other solutions.

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

f i were to provide sources and they were, say, sources like university professors or gov't departments... would it actually change your mind or would you acknowledge it? Or would you just try to change the channel and bluster in another direction because the beloved beliefs of your tribe is being questioned?

Of course I’m not a conspiracy nut like the right. But a link to NRA or tucker carlson or a right wing propgada site won’t do. 

 

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Typcal of you that you are fine with no sources for the conclusions when it's one you like but you condemn others when it's one you don't like

The conclusions are sourced. The only one that is not from what I can tell is the statement linking guns to assaults specifically. Go strike that one if you like 

 

Edit oh wait never mind here you go

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 (95% CI = 1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot.
 

…After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,^33,57 the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.

 

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#:~:text=Individuals who were in possession,more likely to be shot.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Of course I’m not a conspiracy nut like the right. But a link to NRA or tucker carlson or a right wing propgada site won’t do.

Well fair enough - i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

First is some works by Gary Mauser.  You can find MUCH research from him spanning many years - berkley educated and wound up as a professor at SFU in british columbia, taught in other countries as well. Won Queen lizzie's diamond Jubilee medal.

Here's his cv just so you know he's not some texan gun nut. 

https://garymauser.net/about/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Mauser

So - as i said he did many research papers which you can find on line on the subject but here's one to start you off:

https://search.issuelab.org/resource/would-banning-firearms-reduce-murder-and-suicide-a-review-of-international-evidence.html

 

Next i noted that gun laws don't do much to reduce crime. So - here's a paper that references 154 actual studies (listed so you can verify) that looks at whether or not there's an effect.  It's from RAND - which is certainly not a right wing group. They evaluated the effect these papers discovered various laws have.

As  you can see- not many make much of a difference. There's a small amount of evidence that background checks and seizing guns from violent people or spousal abusers has a limited effect but most laws dont.  And as you can see many of those research papers are from left wing or non-gun-friendly groups.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The only thing i will say is 'accidents wasn't a catagory and some laws CAN actually help with that.

So - enough to prove the point i think. You can read the 152 reports if you wish as well of course.

Quote

The conclusions are sourced. The only one that is not from what I can tell is the statement linking guns to assaults specifically. Go strike that one if you like 

LOL - no they're not! You don't 'source' a conclusion.  Some of the facts that are in the report that the article references are sourced elsewhere but that's not at all the same as referencing a conclusion.  So you've got a set of facts -then an interpretation of those facts which tries to draw a conclusion, then an interpretation of those conclusions which tries to draw it's own conclusions.  And none of it peer reviewed.   There's a LOT of room for error in there.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

if we had fewer guns, there would be fewer suicides.  

Or more drug overdoses.

[WestCanMan]

Of course the OP is BS, it was obvious just from looking at who posted it.

Glaring facts which are omitted:

1) more than half of the gun deaths are suicides. If those people didn't have a gun they woulda just used chainsaws or taken toaster baths or something. 

2) the vast majority of the homicides are by handguns (over 6,000/year), which the Dems don't want to restrict at all. The Dems only want to ban AR-15s which are responsible for less than 500 murders per year. 

Quote

If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.

Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle.

Let's be honest - almost every leftard here will jump to the conclusion that the vast majority of those gun deaths are from AR-15 mass shootings, and that's what the article and thread are hinting at. 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well fair enough - i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

First is some works by Gary Mauser.  You can find MUCH research from him spanning many years - berkley educated and wound up as a professor at SFU in british columbia, taught in other countries as well. Won Queen lizzie's diamond Jubilee medal.

Here's his cv just so you know he's not some texan gun nut. 

https://garymauser.net/about/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Mauser

So - as i said he did many research papers which you can find on line on the subject but here's one to start you off:

https://search.issuelab.org/resource/would-banning-firearms-reduce-murder-and-suicide-a-review-of-international-evidence.html

 

Next i noted that gun laws don't do much to reduce crime. So - here's a paper that references 154 actual studies (listed so you can verify) that looks at whether or not there's an effect.  It's from RAND - which is certainly not a right wing group. They evaluated the effect these papers discovered various laws have.

As  you can see- not many make much of a difference. There's a small amount of evidence that background checks and seizing guns from violent people or spousal abusers has a limited effect but most laws dont.  And as you can see many of those research papers are from left wing or non-gun-friendly groups.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The only thing i will say is 'accidents wasn't a catagory and some laws CAN actually help with that.

So - enough to prove the point i think. You can read the 152 reports if you wish as well of course.

LOL - no they're not! You don't 'source' a conclusion.  Some of the facts that are in the report that the article references are sourced elsewhere but that's not at all the same as referencing a conclusion.  So you've got a set of facts -then an interpretation of those facts which tries to draw a conclusion, then an interpretation of those conclusions which tries to draw it's own conclusions.  And none of it peer reviewed.   There's a LOT of room for error in there.

So I challenge your assertion that he is a recognized expert authority. At best his views represent in the minority of ezpeet opinions.   And he is not impartial: Mauser by his own admission is a NRA-funded gun advocate and enthusiast. Yes he is a professor but his research is widely criticized by his fellow academics. I mean Mauser was the president of a gun club and signed off on the one its “members in good standing”  status of a man who then went on to massacre his estranged wife and 8 other people in the 1996 “Vernon wedding day massacre”, gunning down his victims with a pistol in each hand, cowboy-style.  

Specific criticism of Mauser’s work:

As Dr David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy and Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center pointed out: ‘The article appears in a publication, described as a “student law review for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” It does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, or one that is searching for truth as opposed to presenting a certain world view. The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims.”

Cited here:

Harvard Study Embraced by Gun Rights Advocates Is Neither a “Study,” Nor Really “Harvard”

And contrary to the claims of its authors (one of whom is backed by the NRA), it does not prove that more guns equals less crime. 
 

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/harvard-study-false-claims-armed-with-reason/

Fact Check: Did a Harvard study prove that countries with more guns have fewer crimes?
 

There was no such official Harvard "study."

It is true, however, that gun rights advocates Gary Mauser and Don Kates co-authored a 2007 paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, arguing that higher rates of gun ownership correlated with lower crime rates, Snopes.com notes.

The paper, however, was not peer-reviewed, Harvard University does not consider it a study, and it misrepresented separate research to draw unsupported conclusions.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/reason/2015/11/21/fact-check-did-harvard-study-prove-countries-more-guns-have-fewer/15689420007/

 

And on it goes  

 

Next up: RAND Corp says this

 

there’s moderate evidence that background checks reduce suicide and violent crime, limited evidence that prohibitions associated with mental illness reduce suicide, moderate evidence that those prohibitions reduce violent crime, and supportive evidence that child-access prevention laws reduce suicides and unintentional injuries and deaths. There’s limited evidence that concealed carry laws increase violent crime and unintentional injuries and deaths. And there’s moderate evidence that “stand your ground” laws — NRA-backed measures that expand when someone can use a gun or other weapons to defend himself — increase violent crime.

 

Most recently (January of this year) Rand said:

There is now supportive evidence that child-access-prevention laws reduce firearm homicides and self-injuries among youth, and that shall-issue concealed-carry laws and stand-your-ground laws increase levels of firearm violence, according to a new RAND Corporation report.

 

…Several other policies are now found by RAND to have moderate scientific evidence of effects, the second highest evidence rating used by the researchers. These include private-seller background-check requirements, which appear to decrease total homicides; laws setting the minimum age to purchase firearms at 21, which appear to decrease suicides among young people; and state laws prohibiting individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, which appear to decrease intimate-partner homicides.

 

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2023/01/10.html
 

And also:

 

The science is increasingly clear that while some restrictive gun laws seem to reduce gun violence, other more-permissive gun laws worsen it. And with more than 40,000 gun deaths a year in America, the stakes could hardly be higher.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/01/responding-to-the-firearm-violence-crisis-are-some.html

But mostly it says not enough research has been done on the topic because of a NRA-backed ban on public funding for research on the subject. Why do you suppose NRA is trying to shut down research if the facts are on their side as you suggest?

 

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So I challenge your assertion that he is a recognized expert authority. At best his views represent in the minority of ezpeet opinions.

So he's a professor with a field of study in human behavior who's studied this for over 15 years and has numerous peer reviewed papers and is highly respected.

But he's no expert. And you immediately dismiss the work on that without being able to refute a single point.

Yeah - i give up. You're a lying sack of shit. "oh as long as it's not a right wing media source i'll take it seriously'.   And you can't even refute the findings. Why i ever thought a left wing loser would actually be able to be honest or have an adult conversation is beyond me. 

After you post a highly partisan source who's quoting a highly partisan source.

Then you can't even refute it so you quote a study i made no mention of.

Nor do you address the 152 studies cited in the second source ,

Meh - that's what i get for taking the word of a lying leftie.  You people really are the worst.

Anyway - always remember i gave you a chance to be a decent and honest person and have a decent discussion.  I won't be making that mistake again.

[Aristides]

How America celebrates a long weekend.

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1183041211/deadly-mass-shootings-across-the-u-s

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How America celebrates a long weekend.

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1183041211/deadly-mass-shootings-across-the-u-s

And it will continue as long as liars and apologists like beaver and "others" keep it up. Its that simple.

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And it will continue as long as liars and apologists like beaver and "others" keep it up. Its that simple.

You are the one who keeps apologizing for Americans having over twice as many guns per capita than any other country on the planet.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You are the one who keeps apologizing for Americans having over twice as many guns per capita than any other country on the planet.

Having twice as many guns as any other country on the planet isn't the problem. If it was then there'd be half as many killings in countries with half as many guns - and we know that's not the case.

Which is what you and the beve are in denial about.  Look at him dance in that post - Trying to claim a well respected researcher and professor who's spent almost two decades researching something and who has spoken at the UN about the issue is not qualified to talk about it - AND attempting to discredit the one article i posted (despite me pointing to his other peer reviewed work) ..; without once making ANY kind of argument that the guy is wrong. 

ALl of which is what he promised not to do earlier - "oh as long as it's not some right wing magazine.. " Sure.

And as long as people like him and you pretend that's the problem - this continues. Sorry.

[Aristides]

3rd world countries maybe but nowhere comes close to the US among developed countries.

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

 

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

3rd world countries maybe but nowhere comes close to the US among developed countries.

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

 

That shows gun deaths - not deaths.  If your argument is that more guns mean more deaths, then the overall death rate should be twice as high in the us as a place with half the guns.  Or at least close.  In fact - the avilability of guns has no bearing on that.

ANd that's what mauser's paper proved.  And those who disagree with it really don't disagree with the facts he uncovered, they are like our friend beaver up there who simply attack the source.       "BUT IT WASN'T PEER REVIEWED!" .  Sure - that particular paper wasn't, he has others that are, i pointed out there's a library of his works but sure - that one isn't. SO - what facts do you disagree with ?  (Silence).

There's been a lot of research on this in and out of the usa itself. Many of the states like vermont where you can still wear a sidearm openly as well as concealed carry have much lower death rates AND gun death rates than places with lots of gun restrictions like new york.

Gun laws mostly prevent accidents. They're decent at that.  Screening to prevent known criminals from getting easy access to guns helps as well. So bsckground checks.

Pretty much everything else is largely useless.  Gun bans, types of guns mag caps - really makes no difference.  But that's all that gets talked about.

It's my belief that so-called "Red flag" laws would also help if done right but they'd be useful for more than just guns.

[reason10]

On 6/12/2023 at 10:25 PM, BeaverFever said:

Gun Deaths Hit Record High of Nearly 49,000 in 2021

Firearms were the leading cause of death for children in 2021, surpassing COVID deaths. 

 

New research based on the latest publicly available data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention finds that 2021 was a record year for gun deaths in the U.S., with deaths hitting a record high for the second year in a row. 

The report by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions finds that 48,830 people died due to firearm-related causes in 2021, the highest number on record. This is just over 3,600 more gun deaths than in 2020, and works out to one gun death every 11 minutes.
 

…And, even though 2021 was the deadliest year in U.S. history due to the COVID-19 pandemic, gun deaths among young people still outnumbered COVID deaths. Gun violence was the leading cause of death for those aged between 1 and 19, accounting for 20 percent of deaths among that group.

 

…The data also showed a correlation between gun violence and state laws, with more gun violence occurring in places with looser gun laws. People in Mississippi, the state with the highest rate of gun violence (as well as the highest rate of poverty in the U.S.), were 10 times more likely to die due to gun violence than someone in Massachusetts, which has the lowest rate of gun violence in the U.S. Anti-gun violence group Everytown for Gun Safety has ranked Massachusetts as having among the strongest gun laws, while Mississippi is ranked the worst for gun regulation.

“Our country is breaking records for all the wrong reasons — record gun sales combined with increasingly permissive gun laws are making gun violence a pervasive part of life in our country, leading to a sharp increase in gun deaths,” Ari Davis, the lead author of the report, said in a statement. “Perhaps most troubling is these spikes in homicides and suicides are almost entirely connected to guns.”

Davis further linked the violence with gun purchasing in an interview with NPR, saying that the increase in gun violence is likely related to increases in gun purchases and bills passed by Republicans to weaken gun regulations in recent years. 

“Guns are driving this increase,” Davis said. He added that CDC’s provisional data for the first nine months of 2022 is showing about the same rate of gun deaths as 2021.

The data corroborates other research finding that gun violence is on the rise. According to a report by The Washington Post in February, 2022 was the worst year for school shootings on record, with 46 shootings at K-12 schools. And an analysisfrom Pew Research Center this April found that, between 2019 and 2021, the number of children under 19 dying from gun-related causes increased by nearly 50 percent, the largest increase in child gun deaths since 1999, when the CDC first began collecting such data.

The research demonstrates the extent to which the gun violence crisis is worsening while Republicans are doubling down on efforts to increase gun ownership, ignoring polls finding that the majority of the public wants action to curb, rather than expand, the gun violence epidemic.

By a longshot, the U.S. is a global outlier on gun violence. Among wealthy countries, the U.S. has by far the highest rate of deaths by assault, as well as high rates of suicide, due in large part to gun violence, a report by the Commonwealth Fund found earlier this year. 

 

https://truthout.org/articles/gun-deaths-hit-record-high-of-nearly-49000-in-2021/

When you find a reliable NON NAZI link, try again.

Your link mentions the Republican party. It quotes the failing Washington Post.

Give me a fcking break.

What's next? THE VIEW?

[Aristides]

Every two years, more Americans are killed in gun homicides than American service men killed in action during the eight years they were in Viet Nam.

Every year, more Americans die from guns than American servicemen killed in action during the  eight years they are in Viet Nam.

 

The NRA would call it 2nd Amendment collateral damage I suppose.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

Every two years, more Americans are killed in gun homicides than American service men killed in action during the eight years they were in Viet Nam.

And? If more people had been killed in vietnam you'd be ok with things then? If twice as many died in vietnam and we were only hitting those numbers once every four years with the current death rates you'd be ok? What's an acceptable vietnam death-to-"gun" death for you?

It's an old appeal to emotion trick to try to relate two unrelated things.  It's like saying "There were more murders than gay marriages last year - so we should have gay marriage control to do something about the problems."   It makes NO sense.

It's meaningless and trite comments like that which cheapen the deaths and prevent sensible conversation.

[Aristides]

It's appropriate to draw those comparisons. I would fire that question right back at you because you don't seem to have a limit on an acceptable number of deaths. It doesn't seem to concern you at all. That kind of carnage is just collateral damage.

Only an i***t would draw a comparison between marriage and homicide.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

It's appropriate to draw those comparisons.

Not even a little. Or are you ACTUALLY suggesting putting a stop to gay marriage will control gun crime

I would fire that question right back at you because you don't seem to have a limit on an acceptable number of deaths. I

You would fire it back because you have no answer. You have no answer because it was an !diotic comparison that has no value in the discussion other than to try to falsely appeal to emotion.  It's a joke of a thing to say and indicates you dont' care about the problem as much as you care about virtue signalling about it.  THAT is why you can't answer it.

I also wouldn't have an answer because it's stupid. There is no relationship between what happened in viet nam 40 years ago in a combat zone and the violence we're seeing now - almost half of which is apperently accident or suicide.
 

Quote

 

t doesn't seem to concern you at all. That kind of carnage is just collateral damage.

Only an i***t would draw a comparison between marriage and homicide.

 

Sure it does.  But there's no chance to do anything about it while people like you suck all the oxygen out of the conversation

And yes - only an !diot would make those kinds of comparisons - SO STOP.

[Deluge]

On 6/13/2023 at 1:34 PM, Aristides said:

No, you are the one who keeps dealing in extremes because you have no other solutions.

You blame everything on guns - not only is that extreme, but it's extremely stupid. 

The solution is simple: We bring back traditional American values - sort of a reset to the 1950's. Try and explain how things wouldn't be better if we did that. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Deluge

[Aristides]

34 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You blame everything on guns - not only is that extreme, but it's extremely stupid. 

The solution is simple: We bring back traditional American values - sort of a reset to the 1950's. Try and explain how things wouldn't be better if we did that. 

Your population has more  than doubled since the 50's and they aren't coming back. 

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not even a little. Or are you ACTUALLY suggesting putting a stop to gay marriage will control gun crime

I would fire that question right back at you because you don't seem to have a limit on an acceptable number of deaths. I

You would fire it back because you have no answer. You have no answer because it was an !diotic comparison that has no value in the discussion other than to try to falsely appeal to emotion.  It's a joke of a thing to say and indicates you dont' care about the problem as much as you care about virtue signalling about it.  THAT is why you can't answer it.

I also wouldn't have an answer because it's stupid. There is no relationship between what happened in viet nam 40 years ago in a combat zone and the violence we're seeing now - almost half of which is apperently accident or suicide.
 

Sure it does.  But there's no chance to do anything about it while people like you suck all the oxygen out of the conversation

And yes - only an !diot would make those kinds of comparisons - SO STOP.

Soldiers who die in wars are usually the ones being shot at.  What does gay marriage have to do with guns or being shot at?

[Deluge]

Just now, Aristides said:

Your population has more  than doubled since the 50's and they aren't coming back. 

Probably not. Does it excite you to say that the 50's are not coming back? Does it give you a sexual tickle? 

[Legato]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:29 PM, herbie said:

Just f***ing trolls. Can't even discuss the issue so they argue facts are fake news.

How about another 'more thoughts and prayers because that's best we can do' speech to the NRA.

Well there where only 49,000 gun deaths, and it took a whole year, these are rooky numbers. What's the matter with these people, they can't shoot straight. Everyone should attend a 6 week shooting range course. Cmon guys lets get the numbers up. [/sarc]

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

 

Soldiers who die in wars are usually the ones being shot at.  What does gay marriage have to do with guns or being shot at?

It has EXACTLY as much to do with people in America being the victims of violence as  casualties in a war on another continent 40 years ago does.   Absolutely nothing.

And fun fact  - more us soldiers died from friendly fire and booby traps than getting shot by the enemy.

If NO soldiers had died in vietnam - the number of people murdered would be the same

As to the gays - how do you know they weren't "Shotgun" weddings?  LOL

It was a ridiculous and childish appeal to emotion that tried to tie two things together that have nothing to do with each other. You should feel mildly embarrassed you even tried it.