Interesting Fact in the Gun Control Debate

[First Thought]

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers -some of which were accidental .

The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in a combat zone like Iraq."

Australian Shooter - The magazine for sporting shooters

 

[Contradiction]

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine:



Australian Shooter - The magazine for sporting shooters

Firearm Death Rates in Washington, DC

Its commentary on the above letter.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers -some of which were accidental .

Wouldn't that be 1320 per 100,000?

 

[Tucker Case]

Wouldn't that be 1320 per 100,000?

I've been trying to figure out how they got 60 per 100,000 myself.

Firearm Death Rates in Washington, DC

Its commentary on the above letter.

Well, there is one glaring calculation issue there. She only used 12 months of data when the e-mail stated it used 22 months of data.

She should look into the final 10 months of 2006 and add the total homicides to the total fatalities rate and then divide by the population.

Granted, the calculations for the firearms rate in Iraq makes no sense, taking away credibility, but the rate she got for DC is disingenuous anyway.

 

[WI Crippler]

rofAnother interesting fact in the gun control debate is that using shoddy math does not help the cause for one's argument. There is plenty of room for robust debate in favor of the right to bear arms that doesn't require piss poor adjustments of numbers and facts.

 

[Contradiction]

I've been trying to figure out how they got 60 per 100,000 myself.



Well, there is one glaring calculation issue there. She only used 12 months of data when the e-mail stated it used 22 months of data.

She should look into the final 10 months of 2006 and add the total homicides to the total fatalities rate and then divide by the population.

Granted, the calculations for the firearms rate in Iraq makes no sense, taking away credibility, but the rate she got for DC is disingenuous anyway.

Actually I agree. Although I found it interesting to note that D.C does not break the top 5 worst cities....so I am wondering why they chose it as an example.

Personally I don't think the comparison is an accurate summation of the facts. Soldiers wear flak-jackets and drive around in armored vehicles and from what I have read most die from roadside IED as opposed wounds from a gun fight. Personally it seems to me that they are using a strawman argument against tight gun control regulation.

 

[First Thought]

rofAnother interesting fact in the gun control debate is that using shoddy math does not help the cause for one's argument. There is plenty of room for robust debate in favor of the right to bear arms that doesn't require piss poor adjustments of numbers and facts.

I was waiting to see how long it took someone to catch this. Someone at the bar I work in was passing this around on little sheets of paper. Since I live in Texas and work at a country bar, everyone was super excited about this tidbit of information. Turns out it really doesn't stand up to 3rd grade level math...

 

[StandUpChuck]

I was waiting to see how long it took someone to catch this.

:rofl I'm sure.

 

[Councilman]

Would you like to know how successful Australia's gun control law was back when it was enacted in 2001?

In the first12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
========================================================
If you are one of the many stupid utterly people who think restricting gun ownership is a good thing you know nothing about the facts.

Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Gun-control-restricts-those-least-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes--42507652.html

University Study Confirms
Private Firearms
Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

I have personally stopped two crimes with a firearms one a gang assault with a legally concealed pistol, the other a home invasion with a rife.

Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment need to learn the facts before the shoot their mouths off.

 

[DasTränegras]

Sounds about right. Well done.

 

[First Thought]

:rofl I'm sure.

Anyone with a rudimentary background in math could see it was horribly incorrect. I was merely hoping to stimulate discussion on the gun debate.

 

[phattonez]

rofAnother interesting fact in the gun control debate is that using shoddy math does not help the cause for one's argument. There is plenty of room for robust debate in favor of the right to bear arms that doesn't require piss poor adjustments of numbers and facts.

I just had an idea. The first post said 2112 deaths, not firearm deaths. I guess we just have to assume that their number is right.