Please check my math on this one...

I'm routinely told that guns aren't a leading cause of death, so there's no point "persecuting" gun ownership and legislation on this topic without addressing other, more pressing issues - such as vehicle accidents. After some prompting in another thread, I decided to relent and check this out. Here's what I found:
1) The average driver travels 13,476 miles per annum (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm).

2) Drivers spend approximately 18.5 hours per week in their cars (http://www.somethingyoushouldknow.ne...ans-their-cars).

3) Simple math indicates that we travel an average of 259 miles per week, at an average speed of 14 miles per hour. This translates to 962 hours per year driving. Obviously, the average American spends a lot of time accelerating, decelerating and waiting at red lights/stop signs (or in traffic).

4) Given that, in 2009, there were 210 million licensed drivers in the US (according to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinform...chapter4.cfm); this means that America as a whole spent 20,202,000,000 hours in driving - assuming there were no additional (unlicensed) drivers on the roads.

5) This link (http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1114.pdf) indicates that - in that same year - there were 30,800 fatal crashes. This translates into one fatality for every 655,909 hours of driving.

6) This link (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...10_release.pdf), which was published in 2010, shows that there were 11,078 firearm deaths in 2009.

7) In order for firearms to be considered AS SAFE AS automobiles, we would have to illustrate that Americans spent over 7,266,159,902 hours actively firing guns in 2009.

8 ) Given that, in 2009, approximately 40% of households contained firearms (http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ow...-demographics/), and there were approximately 114,761,359 households in 2009 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html); it is clear that there were approximately 45,904,544 households with firearms.

9) In order for firearms to be considered AS SAFE AS automobiles, each household would have to have spent over 158 hours actively shooting in 2009. That's about a week of actively pulling triggers, per household – with no sleeping or eating. If you break it down to 8 hour days of solid shooting, the average household would have to average 52 days (almost two months a year) actively shooting.

10) If you break it down to 8 hour days, the average household would have to average 52 days (almost two months a year) actively shooting for 8 hours solid. That's an awful lot of money spent on ammo considering they'd have a heck of a time also holding down a job... And that's an AVERAGE. For every household that only spends 2 hours a month shooting, there'd have to be another household spending almost an hour a day...

Please, feel free to check my math and illustrate that guns are safer than cars because of some error in my calculations.
Emotional bias will be completely ignored, as this is about the numbers.

 

Cool story.

 

Guns and cars are two completely different tools.

But you must understand the thinking of your neo-communist, gun-grabbing friends at the CDC, Brady Bunch, American Assoc of Pediatric Doctors, and the like.

They say just having a gun in the house is the real danger. You see, at any time a child could touch a gun, and it will just go off! You must believe the superstion and religion of these people: "Guns are Evil."

If you are a man of logic, then seeing only 11K deaths (virtually all deliberate) from 46 million homes gunsin them---that's pretty low---ya think?

Studies show that 80% of gun murders each year are from gang activity.

Using your further powers of logic, wouldn't a home of gun collector with 100's of guns be more dangerous to live in than a houseful of dugged-up gangbangers with only a few stolen guns?

 

Precisamente (right on)!

Most gun owners have them to defend themselves and their families from the ever-pervasive packs of wild predatory yoots.

 

You worry about spain, I will worry about America. We will call if we need you.

 

¿You do not extend a welcome to me to be a participating American (U.S.) citizen?

 

There are two problems with your post. The first is that you assume only one death per fatal accident. In 2009 there were actually 33,883 traffic fatalities. Additionally, your corralation is not correct. You can assume that every vehicle accident occures while someone is operating a vehicle, but how many people actually get killed at a gun range by someone that is practicing? I imagine that is a relative small number.

If you want to directly link firearm fatalities to households possessing guns then the math would look like this:

1. Your estimate of households possessing firearms: 45,904,544
2. Number of hours per year: 8760
3. Number of Firearm Fatalities: 11,078
4. Number of deaths per hour of households possessing guns: 1 Fatality per 36,299,314 hours of ownership.
(note: That rate increases exponentially for each households possessing more then one firearm, and for every firearm that was not reported on the census.)

 

It's amazing how frequently vehicles are used by pro-gun folks when it suits them, but when you illustrate the flaw in their thinking suddenly "they're not comparable"...

Ad hominem attack = logical fallacy.

Random oversimplification = logical fallacy.

Ad hominem attack = logical fallacy.

Right, eleven thousand people dead in a year is no big deal because it's a small percentage of the total population...
Would this same logic dictate that the three thousand that died on 9-11 are no big deal either, because it's a small percentage of the American population?

Despite the lack of appropriate referencing/links to these studies, this point is irrelevent since the pro-gun movement passionately defends the systemic flaws that allow criminals to obtain firearms; and this has nothing to do with the original post.

I'll presume you meant "drugged-up gangbangers"...
Given that it is the USE of firearms that causes danger (as per my original post), and that "drugged up gangbangers" are more likely to USE their few weapons than a "collector" sitting in his bunker, the answer seems self-explanatory.
Again, the question becomes "What are we doing to make it more difficult to steal weapons, and identify weapons that have been stolen?"

 

Ok, this sounds like a valid point, so I've done a little additional research... It seems clear that the TOTAL number of people who died as a consequence of vehicular accidents - including those who died up to 30 days later - is 33,808 ( as per http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1105.pdf)
This is not enough to change the final result. Good catch, though.

Ok, this is ridiculous. I'm routinely told that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" because it takes a person handling the gun in order for it to fire. Guns don't just magically shoot by themselves.
Now you're saying that we should be counting the timeframes when the gun is not being used and couldn't possibly go off? That would be like being amazed that nobody get's run over by my car while it is sitting in my garage...

 

logic
did you also count the suicides caused by cars i have been to a couple of those or are you just using accidents.
If you are only using accidents then gun deaths are about 600,
that way you are not counting suicides, and self defense or criminal use. if you include those things then you have to expand your numbers for cars, things like fleeing a scene of a crime, dwi ect.

 

That's almost a fair point... The info I was able to source included all fatalities resulting from crashes (ammended above to include passengers and/or pedestrians run over). I don't believe this would include the old "hose from the exhaust" method of suicide. I'm not sure this would dramatically modify the vehicle numbers, as I'm under the impression people who choose suicide by vehicle most often drive themselves to death (eg: into a stationary object or body of water) which would be captured as a crash. Please feel free to provide a link to any usable data that indicates otherwise.

As for not counting gun suicides, suicides or criminals, why not? The crash statistics for vehicles would include the crashes resulting from fleeing the scene of a crime and DWI...

 

It is notable that the statistic you provide (80% of gun murders each year are from gang activity) is misleading. . .as it ONLY refers to MURDERS, leaving out accidents and suicide (which, obviously, represent a large percentage of gun deaths!).

And if guns were not so accessible (guns purchased legally by "responsible" gun owners are an easy target for gangs. . .in fact, I am pretty sure that a gang member would prefer to enter a house to steal a couple of firearms than to steal a TV or a computer!), gang members would not be killing each other (and innocent by standers) with stolen firearms!

YOUR logic seems to be lacking!

 

Logic dictates that if the government has a moral imperative to protect people from some amount of risk, then there must be a way to objectively determine when the risk is great enough to create that moral imperative. I submit that the objective limit is any amount of risk, so therefore, while you may not consider it a priority to eliminate the risk of automobile travel by eliminating it or reducing it to only the most necessary usage, you will have to agree that it's appropriate for the government to do so. Or, you will tell us why, objectively and using your famous logic, some amount of risk is moral for government to ignore completely.

 

Given that we live in a deocratic society, you are free to believe that "any" is an unacceptable amount of risk - and vote for governmental representation on that basis. On the basis of this belief, I'm sure you will agree that prioritization of risks from greatest to least is a viable first step, and that addressing this issues in descending order of risk makes sense.
As flattered as I am that you find my use of logic "famous", I'm just trying to ensure that "common" sense, rather than solely raw emotion, is introduced into the often heated "discussions" on this forum.

 

I consider myself logical, and rational. I don't advocate for the use of police powers based on what I feel to be good or bad. If the government has a moral imperative to eliminate some amount of risk, then it must be possible to determine that objective amount of risk, or one's view of law is that it should be based on subjective feelings. The fact is that your OP relies on a certain amount of risk requiring government intervention, that you ought to be able to define that amount of risk. Otherwise, what is the point of comparing guns to automobiles in terms of risk as a means of deciding policy?

As for a "democratic society", what exactly does that mean? The government has some democratic principles, and government is not society. It's not logical to conflate the two.

I see. I figured since you called yourself "logician" that you would actually use logic rather than sophistry.

 

Your right, and a gun locked up does not kill anyone either. But as I pointed out, shooting at paper targets do not kill anyone either. So, as I pointed out before, your original correlation is invalid. About as invalid as the point I made. So, how do we reconcile the points. Compare deaths to total number of rounds fired? But we would have to seperate out those fired by the Police and the Military. Or maybe we should just admit that there is no correlation between traffic fatalities and gun related fatalities.

But you did say something that is correct. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. So, how do we reduce the number of people being killed? Figure out who is doing the killing. I don't have the numbers for 2009, but in 2011 the FBI stated that there were 15,000 gang related deaths. So, if we outlaw gangs, we could cut the number of gun related deaths in half.

- - - Updated - - -

Your right, and a gun locked up does not kill anyone either. But as I pointed out, shooting at paper targets do not kill anyone either. So, as I pointed out before, your original correlation is invalid. About as invalid as the point I made. So, how do we reconcile the points. Compare deaths to total number of rounds fired? But we would have to seperate out those fired by the Police and the Military. Or maybe we should just admit that there is no correlation between traffic fatalities and gun related fatalities.

But you did say something that is correct. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. So, how do we reduce the number of people being killed? Figure out who is doing the killing. I don't have the numbers for 2009, but in 2011 the FBI stated that there were 15,000 gang related deaths. So, if we outlaw gangs, we could cut the number of gun related deaths in half.

 

You like to play with numbers, Log, so play with these. I travel 100 miles to work one way at an average speed of 65 miles per hour when traffic allows it. It takes from 1 1/2 to 3 hours to get there in the afternoon and 1 1/2 hours to get home. I drive all night for 12 hours checking the set ups. I have been doing this for 16 years. So please tell me why I have never hit anybody. I get to shoot my guns about 2 hours a year, now, where do you think I am going to be the safest at, driving or shooting.

 

I put the blame on bad people, not bad guns. It is people like you who try to mislead. So desperate to demonize honest individuals who own guns, gunphobes, like you, MUST always try to stir gun accidents and suicides into the pot.

In cases of sucicides, people will use whatever means are avialible to them. Women typically use drugs to do the job. Men often guns. Suicides are over twice as likely in Japan, as they have a race/culture of offing themselves. In WW2, they used swords, daggers, guns and grenades and sometimes jumped off cliffs. Now with so few guns, most jump off buildings, jump in front of trains or cars, or other means. People will kill themselves withthe tools they have. If they don't have a good tool like a gun, they will use some other means. Japan proves that guns don't increase the chances of suicide.

Your Great Leader Obama will not address the real problem with crime and violence in America, which is urban and drug gangs. Only about 20% of murderers in Chicago ever do any jail time for their crimes. Jury nullification dwarfs any preceived gun safety issue you imagine.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/01/chicago-murder-number-triple-new-york-city-in-january/

Your fantasy about gun registration and making it harder for gangs to get guns by putting more infringements on the 2nd Amendment will not work.

Just look at how well gun control works in South of the Border, in places like Mexico and El Salvador. These places are kiling fields. Gangs will get their stolen guns from police and military thefts and smuggle them in from anywhere they please. In Mexico, one can only get a licence for small .22's and other more simple type guns. The local corrupt and ineffective police depts must approve these permits. Of the 50,000 murders in Mexico of late, all of the firearms used in these murders were illegally obtained. Many of them full-auto rifles that they didn't get from the US.

Your gun control ideas are completely worthless here as they are in Mexico. Morally debased people could care less about laws and justice.

 

Well Google ranger it looks like you like bending numbers to fit your perspective. Why do you equate hours spent driving a car to actively shooting. Doesn't actually carrying a weapon for self defense fit into the equation for protection or having one in the house for self defense fit into the equation? Amazing how if you set your own parameters you get to make a silly assed assertion that is nothing close to the facts. Owning and carrying weapons for self defense is a major part of operating them, just like operating a vehicle....how's your equation looking now...sheesh
In conclusion in checking your math, I don't think you'll find many logicians or numbers crunchers who wouldn't laugh outright in your face.....but that's just me LOL

 

You're not gettig much traction in this current thread.

I'm not the one comparing guns to cars in the first place.

Your main thesis about making guns harder to steal, and making guns more easy to trace, and it is going to drastically reduce crime, is just fantasy thinking.

They outlaw narcotics here in the US (most of it anyway). But huge amounts are brought in anyway and sold out in the open. Punishments are light for doing this, so the drug trade flourishes.

In Singapore, the drug trade does not exsist. Why is this? Because drug dealers and their "mules" are harshly punished, with long prison sentances and even death. The risk of punishment is too great, so gangsta's don't go there much.

In the same way, if anyone is convicted of doing a violent crime here in the US, with or without a gun, as member of any violent street gang---then they should be punished in a similar, harsh manner.

Punis the felon. This is answer.

 

One other thing.....I can "use" a gun for my inteded purpose without ever firing it and further more I think instead of using guns, we should use "Bullets" since they are what is doing what i intended them to do. How many bullets were you using in your calculations?

 

That pesky 1st amendment prohibition on violating the rights of people to freely assemble gets in the way of that.

Disarming gangs would make more sense, and the best way to do that is to eliminate their main sources of income, which is black market drugs and other illicit goods. If they don't have money, they won't buy guns.

 

Haven't we been in a war on drugs for like forever?

 

Yes, and that creates a lucrative black market that keeps gangs expanding and awash in cash. It's no wonder that they are shooting each other, they can't go and resolve their business disagreements in court.

 

You might want to check the wording of the First Amendment, "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". When gangs assemble, it is not peacable. So, the first amendment does not apply. What does apply is the fact the various communities complains about the activities of the gangs, while impeding law enforcement from meaningful campaigns against them.

That would be a very good start, but that would take strong border security. Something that this administraton is not going to allow.