posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:35 PM
Why compare to the amount of deaths in wars?
As another member said, this is not relatable. Are we supposed to think in our minds "ALL the war's deaths must be a BIG number" ? I would think
that is the only reason a person would compare the two peices of data, for the 'shock' effect likely to happen out of a person's expectation on the
death toll from all those wars. Typically, I would say a normal person would assume that all those wars combined would not come close to firearm
deaths in the US and as such this data is meant to suprise them into thinking "wow that's alot of firearm deaths".
Really though, for the firearm debate the only comparisons that matter are comparing deaths in the same timeframe and with other causes of death that
can relate to how large an issue it could be. How many were suicide ( because if people want to kill themselves, they do it anyway - gun or not ).
Can you compare firearm deaths to other causes of death in the same timeframe? How many die of alcohol, tobacco or other things? This is the only
real way discussion on firearms can continue. Sorry about that, I hate to take such a strong stance but ultimately the original post's data not only
is misleading but is completely unhelpful to the very argument it's trying to prop up. What I mean by that is regardless of what my personal stance
is on firearms, I know that in a court of law ( or logical discussion ) this data would be interpeted not viable to prove a point.
2/8/2013 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/8/2013 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)