It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2014 Crude death rate. Why isn't the USA at the top of the list with all our guns

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Crude death rate vs guns make no sense. When you do compare why not death by guns. Then remember that you need to make provision for all the people the us shoot in other countries and then you will know why. If we take all those war deaths and add it to america you get a better picture




posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

The crude death rate is all deaths not just homocide huh?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neversaynever

Yes, but using the rate of murders or gun related murders wouldn't match the disinformation the OP is trying to spread.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: alienjuggalo

The crude death rate is all deaths not just homocide huh?


Yes, as I pointed out, guns account for only just over 1% of ALL deaths in the USA. But they also account for over 100x more than they do in the UK, per capita.

Trying to use total death rate to talk about something that only accounts for 1% of total death rate is ridiculous.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
We cannot kill home invasion criminals in the UK - we would be simply charged with murder, so having a gun is pointless anyway.

If i smacked one over the head with a baseball bat who then died - id be charged with manslaughter or murder. Kinda weird since a home invader could hit me with a baseball bat kill me and then run away and probably get away with it. Messed up huh.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Biigs

Its down to the use of "reasonable force", some dobbing nutter coming at you full pelt with what looks like a loaded weapon and you happen to have your shotgun on you (lets say going off to bag a few ducks) it would be reasonable to take them down but not to do like that guy in america where you deliberately execute the person once they're of no threat and immediately get plod/ambulance on the phone to sort out the mess, the same is if you clonk someone on the head in a struggle and they go unconscious and later die it would be considered fine



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: greavsie1971
So, according to these figures, Italy is worse than North Korea?


You need to use more relevent data.

Yes.Who would imagine gun violence in the home of the mafia,right?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Danbones
wow
quite a few countries on that list have had their control systems destroyed by nato invasion or covert action,
which is not a vindication of the US.
quite the opposite


What are you saying, America is responsible for other countries being higher on the list? Give me a break! That's ridiculous.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61

originally posted by: greavsie1971
So, according to these figures, Italy is worse than North Korea?


You need to use more relevent data.

Yes.Who would imagine gun violence in the home of the mafia,right?

Once again, those numbers have nothing to do with gun death. They show the death rate from all causes, natural and unnatural.

Trying to ascertain anything about gun deaths from those figures is like trying to compare the height of a person in Miami with one in Denver by measuring the altitude of their head above sea level. It is totally masked by other factors.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Now compare the number of mass shootings and you'll find the U.S. at number 1


Yes. Which actually indicates other, probably social factors, besides allowing citizens access to guns. There are other advanced ("1st world") countries where their population can have guns and they don't have nearly as much violence as the U.S. There is something else going on here besides simple access to the weapon.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
If it was purely about the availability of guns then plenty of places would be slaughtering people by the metric crapton and until the mid 80's or so it was fine to have fully auto weapons so whats changed at the same pace as the increase in nutters killing? medical "advances"? , education? , political ideas? , crappy parenting? , video gaming etc?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Do you have any idea what a small percentage of total deaths in the USA are caused by firearms? Why should you expect it to distort the whole death rate?

Guns are, however, the second biggest cause of death among people in their late teens and early twenties.

knowing for a FACT that medical mistakes, misdiagosis and properly prescribed prescription drugs is one of the leading causes of deaths in the usa, and it is not on your list i suspect you need to find a more accurate list. You are trying too hard to be right



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: manna2

There is no "trying" about it. However you dice the figures (and the CDC figures are broadly similar www.cdc.gov... ) you will find that deaths by firearm account for a very small number of total deaths, even in the USA. Therefore comparing total death rates is pointless: even if you totally removed the 1.3% of deaths caused by guns, the USA would still be mid-table: the death rate would drop from 8.15 to 8.04.

In fact it would only drop from 95th place to 99th place. Hardly a major difference!

That doesn't mean it is "insignificant", though. Just because hundreds of thousands die of heart disease every year, does that mean 30,000 a year by gunshot is nothing to worry about?
edit on 25-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

The United States DOES in fact rank much higher in homicide rates than does the UK, Canada, and Australia. BUT, it has a much larger and also more diverse population. The United States is called the melting pot for a reason.

Something I noticed a while back was when comparing murder rates (actual homicide rates) in countries all over the world, you see the European countries rank lowest on the list, and African and Latin American countries highest.



Many of the countries with extremely high homicide rates are also NOT in the middle of war. They appear to be, quite possibly, more genetically disposed to homicidal violence. In the United States, the highest crime rates are in the areas with the least amount of people of European decent, which again evidences a possibility of some sort of genetic predisposition to violence.

Therefore, it does make you wonder... are firearms to blame or is there more of a blame within a genetic predisposition?

In the Unites States there are 89 guns per 100 people, much much greater than countries like Brazil who have only 8 guns per 100 people, yet they also have a homicide rate per capita much greater than the United States - nearly double.

en.wikipedia.org...



You decide... If it were only firearms which caused crime we would rank 1st in the world... yet, oddly, we don't.


edit on 25-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB
I don't think anyone has ever argued that firearms cause violence. Clearly they don't.

I was simply pointing out that if you want to compare homicide rates then you should use homicide figures, not crude death rate figures which include all causes of death. Like I said, even if you took away all gun deaths, the USA would only drop from 95th to 99th in the crude death rate table. Gun deaths are barely above statistical noise in that context.
edit on 25-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Actually, the anti-gun people do argue just that every day. They argue that if we had fewer guns we would have fewer homicides, yet, that is definitely not the case in many parts of the world, therefore, its not guns that are the problem - but the people.

When you break it down there are two possible factors, either genetics, or economics - and neither have anything at all to do with guns themselves... nor is there any proof that banning guns would have any effect at all when you look at world-wide statistics and take all factors into consideration, rather than just one or two.


edit on 25-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Yep, I don't disagree. My quibble was with the OP's poor choice of stats, nothing more



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

lol... definitely gotta agree with you there!



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Perhaps if there was fewer guns then minor problems that may of been settled with a few punches may not have gone straight to pulling out a weapon and terminating the other person, but as they say when in Rome do as the Romans do - so if you're in the US its probably better to have a weapon and be prepared to use it as the other guy may be very willing to turn you into Swiss cheese




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join