34 thoughts on “How Americans are killed…”

  1. This is demonstrably false. 49 people were killed in a single attack by Muslim immigrants in Orlando. I also notice there’s no mention of left wing extremists, but I guess you don’t want to mention the 5 police officers gunned down in cold blood in Dallas, nor the other officers that have been taken out by “Black lives matter” extremists over the last few months.

    • The stats are a 10-year average, so a high number like 49 could easily be washed by 9 years of much lower numbers. Additionally, the killer in that single attack in Orlando was born in New York — he was an American citizen, not an immigrant (and he was only one person).

    • The stats were compiled before the Orlando shooting. So hurray for you, you just go ahead and slap a “Muslim Terrorism” label neatly on that one and pat yourself on the back for ignoring every other genuine threat to the safety and security of your fellow countrymen. Kudos.

  2. There have been at least 93 murders by islamic extremists since the 9/11 attacks; quite a few more than “2 annually” and I hardly see where other causes of death somehow implies that this is NOT a problem.

  3. Oh, it’s a problem. But “being shot by another American” is 100 times bigger.

    If I’m going to be murdered, it’s more likely that it’s going to be by another American. So why are we focusing on the <1% who aren't?

  4. who are you suggesting isn’t “focusing” on the other murders? the vast majority of those “being shot by another american” deaths are drug/gang violence related and are symptomatic of the totally failed “drug war” that causes far greater problems than the drugs themselves and to that end Trump has been talking about inner city violence quite a bit recently; Hillary seems to think that “the problem” is guns and while I disagree with her she IS ‘focusing’ on ‘gun control’ as a means to make a difference on that area.

    This is a big country; we can ‘focus’ on more than one thing at a time. Recognizing one problem does NOT mean that no other problem is being considered.

    The media is largely driven by sensationalism and they exploit major incidents to drive ratings. terrorist incidents are certainly going to get attention when they happen; that doesn’t mean everything else is forgotten.

    • Judging from the response from Congress and many state legislatures, everything else is either forgotten or just not a problem worth anything more than “thoughts and prayers”.

  5. Shows you how stupid Donald Trump supporters are. They’re all barking up the wrong tree. Doesn’t surprise me though.

    • It’s always amusing to see people resort to personal insults instead of constructive debate as if somehow their ‘insults’ equate to an actual coherent rebuttal. There are different opinions about the best approach to solving various problems; calling people “stupid” because they don’t agree with yours is hardly productive. Since you don’t actually state what you consider “stupid” about the “trump supporters” (which I am NOT – I don’t support Trump or Hillary because I think they are both horrible choices) I will comment on “gun control” since it appears that this OP is complaining about the lack of attention to gun control vs. the ‘disproportionate’ attention to islamic terrorism.

      A gun is merely a tool. It is neither good or evil; it is the person wielding that weapon that makes a decision about how it is to be used. It is understandable why some people want to “ban guns” when you see and hear about them being used to cause considerable mayhem by people that shouldn’t have those guns but the news media focuses on “sensationalism” and doesn’t bother reporting on boring mundane stories about people who stop or prevent a crime from even happening because they have a gun. This happens quite frequently and you almost never hear about it happening in the news because it just isn’t ‘exciting’ enough to interest the news media. The very same day as one of the mass shootings (I forget if it was Sandy Hook or the Aurora Theater shooting but it was one of those two) – There was an incident just a few miles from where I live where a 14 year old boy used his fathers AR-15 to stop a hispanic man from raping his 9 year old sister. about 2 years ago in a parking deck in downtown atlanta a very close friend of mine got on an elevator in a parking deck and just before the doors closed 2 hooded men rushed out of an adjacent stairwell with ‘unknown intentions’; my friend is a 4’11” female but she carries a Glock and pulled it immediately; no shots were fired.. the two men backed off and on reviewing the security camera footage at the parking deck these two men both entered the parking deck on foot and exited the parking deck on foot – neither had a vehicle so they were clearly up to some criminal intentions. We’ll never know what they intended to do because that crime never happened due to my friend being ready to defend herself if it became necessary. Arbitrary gun control rules remove guns from the reponsible people that would use them to defend themselves. If gun control measures would actually disarm criminals first then I might consider it but that’s not the world we live in. they HAVE guns and most gun control measures disarm victims; not the aggressors.

      • stories about people who stop or prevent a crime from even happening because they have a gun. This happens quite frequently and you almost never hear about it happening in the news because it just isn’t ‘exciting’ enough to interest the news media.

        So you have anything to say these types of incidences happen more than 11,000 times a year?

        Arbitrary gun control rules remove guns from the reponsible people

        No it doesn’t. There isn’t any single proposed gun legislation that prevents a responsible person from owning a gun.

        • It’s not even CLOSE to that… Some reports suggests that it happens over 2 million times a year such as this study – http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20Crime-%20The%20Prevalence%20and%20Nature%20of%20Self-Defe.pdf while the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number at around 67,740 times a year. Certainly a much lower number but quite a bit more than “11,000 times a year” – the true number is somewhere between those two.

          Just the other day the Minnesota Mall knife attack was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder using a gun defensively. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/19/jason-falconer-man-who-took-down-minnesota-stabber/

          and news flash: criminals don’t obey laws. they don’t care about “gun free zone” signs. you can make guns illegal and criminals will rejoice because they no longer have to fear getting shot and killed by their victims.

          • That study suffered from several fatal methodological flaws, including its reliance on only 66 responses in a telephone survey of 5,000 people, multiplied out to represent over 200 million American adults. The authors of that study themselves stated that in up to 64% of their reported defensive gun use cases, the guns were carried or used illegally, including cases where the victim was actually the aggressor.

            I guess you admit your statement:”Arbitrary gun control rules remove guns from the responsible people” is BS because now you revise your line…

            you can make guns illegal and criminals…

            And no politician is advocating making guns illegal. Military weapons, yes, but basic guns (handguns for protection and guns for sport) are not on any list to be banned.

            BTW, the guy in Minnesota was an off-duty cop.

            Keep trying.

            • the AR-15 is NOT a “Military Weapon” – it is a civilian version of the M-16/M4 but it does NOT have the ability to fire fully automatic or three round bursts. There have been frequent calls to BAN the AR-15 over the years so your claim that they “ONLY” want to ban “military weapons” is false.

              Yes, he was a cop, that does NOT negate the fact that he was a concealed carry permit holder and used the gun defensively to stop the lunatic in the mall which is something you specifically attempted to suggest “rarely” happens. He also works teaching gun safety classes at a Gun Range.

              and I revised nothing; those were quotes from two entirely seperate posts. I don’t see where there is a law saying that I have to use the exact same phrase every single time I post a comment.

              • I didn’t say “only”. (Nice try, but your need to invent a lie fails again).

                An AR-15 is considered an assault rifle.

                It makes a difference that he was a cop because cops often do carry their guns when not on duty (which makes them different than your average conceal/carry) plus it makes for a better chance that when they shoot, they’ll actually hit the target. And once again, you need to invoke a lie to try to give yourself a point.

                I didn’t say it rarely happens, I asked for actual numbers. That’s not making an assertion “rarely” or otherwise. (I don’t consider 11,000 annually rare.) However your “proof” was discredited (as much of your points), so I’m still waiting for those numbers.

                Two different quotes, but both are incorrect as they are either flat out lies or are fallacies in the context of the debate.

                Perhaps you should stop trying.

              • You specifically stated: “And no politician is advocating making guns illegal. Military weapons, yes, but basic guns (handguns for protection and guns for sport) are not on any list to be banned.”

                who is lying?

                and I gave two specific studies both of which gave numbers well above “11,000” per year – the lowest estimate was 6 times that. Where exactly did you give YOUR statistics that provides a lower number?

            • the ONLY reference to ” 64%” in the entire survey is this paragraph:

              “Finally, we asked if Rs had reported these incidents to the police, or if the police otherwise found out about them; 64% of the gun-using victims claimed that the incidents had become known to the police. This figure should be interpreted with caution, since victims presuma- bly want to present their use of guns as legitimate and a willingness to report the incident to the police would help support an impression of legitimacy. Rs who had in fact not reported the incident to the police might have wondered whether a “no” reply might not lead to discom- forting follow-up questions like “why not?” (as indeed it does in the NCVS). Further, it is likely that some Rs reported these incidents but did not mention their use of a gun.”

              That is hardly making the claim that “up to 64%” of respondents “carried their guns illegally” – Some MIGHT have been however that is only one possible explanation for why they didn’t report the incident to the police. The number 64 does not appear anywhere else in the entire study.

              The number 66 and 5000 do not appear at all in the study so there is no clue about where you pulled your claim that the results are based on “66 responses in a telephone study of 5000 people” – the closest match to your statement that I found was in the “methods” statement which specifically states the following:

              “The present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the subject of armed self-defense. It was carefully designed to correct all -of the known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys which critics have identified. We use the most anonymous possible national survey format, the anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey. We did not know the identities of those who were interviewed, and made this fact clear to the Rs. We interviewed a large nationally representative sample covering all adults, age eighteen and over, in the lower forty- eight states and living in households with telephones. 4 2 We asked DGU questions of all Rs in our sample, asking them separately about both their own DGU experiences and those of other members of their households. We used both a five year recall period and a one year recall period. We inquired about uses of both handguns and other types of guns, and excluded occupational uses of guns and uses against animals. Finally, we asked a long series of detailed questions designed to establish exactly what Rs did with their guns; for example, if they had confronted other humans, and how had each DGU con- nected to a specific crime or crimes.”

              if you read that entire section it certainly appears that they talked to quite a bit more that “66 people”. So where exactly are you pulling this claim from?

              • You were the one that said people wanted to make guns illegal. But if you want to throw words into statements, then you lied when you said they want to make ALL guns illegal. Either that or you’re just prone to saying stupid things.

                64% of the gun-using victims claimed that the incidents had become known to the police. This figure should be interpreted with caution, since victims presumably want to present their use of guns as legitimate and a willingness to report the incident to the police would help support an impression of legitimacy.

                The authors couldn’t back up their numbers with actual evidence and had to state their research has flaws. Put married couples in a room and ask if any of them cheated, more likely they will all say ‘no’, but more likely some of them did. The authors couldn’t confirm if the respondents were telling the truth or not. It’s really that simple. You’re twisting like a pretzel to make the report legit, when it’s been discredited over twenty years ago.

                Which leads me to this: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc

                That link further explains the issue of “positive social desirability response” plus it covers the rest of the flaws of your article.

                As for lower numbers… I never stated I had lower numbers (although you will have imagined I did). My question was about what your numbers were. I had no numbers, just a baseline for comparison sake that I took from the original chart. But if you’re going to use the NRAs numbers of 2.5 million, then I have to call your bluff, because I can’t find any reliable source to back that up and it appears, neither can you.

  6. Tangentially related to the OP and the discussion forming in the comments:


    When you sort the list by total # of deaths / 100K capita, you get:

    1. Honduras
    2. Venezuela
    3. Swaziland
    4. Guatemala
    5. Jamaica
    6. El Salvador
    7. Colombia
    8. Brazil
    9. Panama
    10. Uruguay
    11. United States

    All corrupt 3rd world countries with the largest drug trafficking and insanely high crime rates… and then there’s us. The closest 1st world country is Finland at #22 with less than 1/3 our rate. Mexico with all it’s drug cartels clocks in at #16 with 75% our rate.

    We’re obviously doing something wrong.

    Also separate but interesting: Just 3% of Americans own nearly half of all guns, survey finds

    Let’s start with what we all have in common. We want to be safe, we want the shooting to stop. Forget about left/right, Hillary/Trump, pohtaytoe/pohtahtoe. Objectively, when examining policies past and present, here and elsewhere, what has proven most effective? Whatever that is, we should try it for a little while and see if things get better.

    • We certainly agree that we want senseless killings to stop and it’s a worthy discussion that often gets bogged down in biased rhetoric; well intentioned people often disagree about the best approach to solving an issue. I can pretty easily cite hundreds of cases where people used a firearm to stop a crime and that should NOT negate the fact that there are hundreds of cases where criminals used guns to cause harm to innocents.

      It is worthy of note that the statistics that are often used by advocates of various positions are often misleading; even the statistics you reference above in your article comparing death rates between countries is very flawed. One specific comparison can be made between the US and the UK

      The figures stated in the article reported the “total number of gun deaths in US” – not just murders and suicides but all deaths that involved a firearm including cases of self defense and police shootings that resulted in the deaths of criminals.

      Right next to that are the ‘comparable’ figures for the UK which is derived from a compilation of “homicide rates”, “gun assisted Suicide rates”, “unintentional gun deaths” and “undetermined causes” but conspicuously absent are all deaths from government use of a firearm and self defense use of firearms in those totals. to further complicate this comparison is the fact that the numbers used by the WHO in compiling the “homicide rate” is based on the number of CONVICTIONS for homicide and not the actual number of people killed. Both numbers are far too high but using this as a basis for comparison is pretty misleading.

      • Unless you believe a grossly disproportionate number of gun deaths in the US data are due to justified homicide vs. other countries, i fail to see the point of your reply.

        The statistical categories of data provided in the footnotes of the wikipedia chart are consistent and not misleading.

        I also have no idea what article you are referring to in your US/UK comparison.

        • the UK Home Office only registers a “homicide” in their statistics when someone is convicted of the crime. the FBI records a “gun related death” at the time of the death and that statistic does NOT distinguish between murder/accident/suicide/self defense or other justified shooting – these are very clearly NOT the same and the US Homicide Conviction rate is much smaller than the number of homicides that actually occur just as it is a much smaller number in the UK. Both of these numbers are legitimate numbers but since they are not based on the same standards then it is misleading to blindly compare the numbers.

          the numbers provided in YOUR link from wikipedia are cited in the sources of the article and you can follow those links to read the details behind the citations regarding how the numbers are derived.

      • Not sure what you are reading. All countries listed have the deaths categorized, the big caveat is that the years used varies.

        • did you actually look at the SOURCES cited in the wikipedia article? every country has numbers generated from a source and those sources are cited in the article. you can check them yourself and they are clearly reporting different numbers between the US and the UK figures.

            • There is a discussion of this topic here on the Home Office site where it explains the homicide rate and why the rate is based on when a homicide is “recorded by police” vs. when the actual homicide took place. – It even gives a specific caution about using these figures for comparisons of annual homicide rate because the numbers are often skewed when serial killers are finally caught (such as the specific case mentioned for Dr. Harold Shipman which skewed the results by 172 in one year for murders that took place over a number of years. – The figures compiled by the WHO in the source document are pulled from the Home Office homicide rate.


              • First: How and where did you get that link from the Wiki page in question?

                Second: One instance does not make a trend. Besides, the count is for total homicides, not instances. Averages work that issue out, plus the year used in the Wiki chart doesn’t use the year in question. You like to talk like you’re big on details, yet you gloss over the details that destroy your argument.

                Third: “recorded by police” has nothing to do with a conviction and recording the actual homicide. When they talk of conviction they speak to resolving the homicide, which has nothing to do with the overall count. It may shift from homicide to suicide, but that has less to do with a conviction and more to do with charging a suspect. If they don’t convict, the homicide still counts as a death. There are no categories for zombies.

  7. I’ll concede that I picked a bad example because the Orlando shooter was the American son of Afhan Muslim immigrants, a distinction I’m sure makes a world of difference to his victims’ families. And of course HJ is correct about how averages work. However, I reject the false premise that this post appears to perpetuate that people on the right side of the political spectrum are more dangerous than Muslim immigrants, a premise that many of you apparently ARE willing to accept. I still note that there is no mention of Left-wing extremists. I guess to the Left there are no extremists among them. Sorry I disturbed your little left-wing groupthink wasp nest.

    • I reject the false premise that this post appears to perpetuate that people on the right side of the political spectrum are more dangerous than Muslim immigrants

      If you mean right wing terrorism vs islamic terrorism, I may have to agree. The fact that being extremely right wing implies a fundamentalist ideology and fundamentalism is the what drives radical Islam, so essentially they are the same.

  8. So if we are talking priorities to assess risks to lives, then what about?
    (a) drunk drivers
    (b) texting/distracted drivers
    (c) heart disease
    (d) cancer

    I’m guessing the above four dwarf the above 9 like those illustrations of the Sun compared to the earth compare their size difference.

  9. Blah blah blah blah Trump! Blah blah blah blah, Hillary! You stupid blah blah supporters, you just blah blah blah blah. And don’t get me started on all the blah blah blah blah blah. How anyone could be moronic enough to vote for blah blah, is beyond me. When you get right down to it, blah blah is as blah blah does. Why can’t we all just blah blah blah blah? Don’t any of you have even one scintilla of blah blah blah?

  10. Islam is not a religion of peace. Read the Qur’an. Various verses call Muslims to war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule. What is it with white progressives and their self-loathing? You want to live in a Islamic majority, then move to Pak. Go self “flagellate” somewhere else.

    • If that is what you are reading you are not reading the real Qur’an.

      BTW, Islam means peace. Are you suggesting people like Ali or Jabbar gravitated toward that religion because of what you think it says or maybe they did because it preaches what it means?

      The question you should be asking is: why do conservatives have such a need to fear something?

Comments are closed.