posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by pieman
The numbers really didn't contradict themselves. The entire firearm related death rate of the US is somewhere around 5-6 per 100,000 in any given
year. Knowing that, when he presented the 3 per 100,000, it should have been clear which one was a rate and which one was the total.Barring that,
just run a little very quick math. You know there are 300 million people in the US and you know that in a western society, about 20-25% will be
teenagers. Run your 2,251 per 100,000 against that. If you estimate 75 million in the age range, that equates to a little less than 1.7 million
firearm related deaths per year, which simply doesn't any sense.
And as for the lethality issue, maybe a knife is less lethal, but in reality, its not so simple. As I think I said earlier, about two thirds of
all homicide victims in the US die from gunshot wounds. But there's a catch. That percentage decreases with age. For those who are over age 50 or
older, there were 2,645 homicides in 2007, but firearms only made up 1,202 of those. That's only 45%, which obviously means the majority of
the homicides in that age range actually don't involve a firearm.
The implication here is clear. People will use whatever weapon they can find. Technically, a gun may be more effective, but that doesn't make
other means ineffective,
and the numbers bear that out. You can ban guns, but they're still going to kill each other and, in fact,
you'll be lucky if it even makes a dent in the total.
[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]