Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Leading causes of deaths in the US.....guns near the bottom of the list...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 12:48 PM
Original message
Leading causes of deaths in the US.....guns near the bottom of the list...
From the CDC for 2005, published Dec 2009.

Very interesting stats. Everyone should have a read as it may change some misconceptions....maybe.....


#1 - Salmonella

#96 - Motor Vehicle Accidents

#99 - Accidental Falls

#100 - Accidental Discharge of Firearms

#101 - Accidental Drowning

#105 - Suicide by Firearm

#106 - Suicide by other means

#107 - Homicide by firearm

#108 - Homicide by other instrument

#113 - Complications of Medical Care


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_08.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. The fact that Accidental Discharge of Firearms is above DROWNING is shocking
Sorry, but this doesn't help a pro-gun argument. This is somewhat worse than I would have expected.

(I am not a big anti-gun guy. Just calling this datum like I see it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Really? In what way?
Gun deaths are statistically quite rare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. They should not simply be rare, but obsolete...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Riiigghht....Lets work on those motor vehicle deaths first, they kill more people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. And those accidental FALLS should get some attention too, gotta stop those falls!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. All you have to do is uninvent guns. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think this is about how you frame it-
(like so much else in life). I think it's a really positive sign (purely in light of this data and the RKBA debate- of course I don't find death to usually be a positive thing) that accidental discharge is less common than 99 other ways to die.

I'm sad that there are so many accidental drownings. I'd love to see them both move way down on the list, and interestingly enough I'd bet that both could be reduced greatly by increased supervision of kids by their parents, and by increased education.

To me, it doesn't say "HOLY SHIT that's a lot of gun deaths!"

It says "Holy Shit, that's a lot of drownings."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. The fact that FALLING is above firearms is shocking...
Actually its not, because I understand that guns are really not the big problem that everyone thinks they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #13
55. Stairs embolden falling!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. We should
ban those assault bathtubs with the thing that goes up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. That table doesn't list the causes by frequency of occurrence
The CDC's own WISQARS lists that in 2005, there were 3,582 unintentional drownings, and 789 deaths caused by unintentional discharge of a firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
54. But how often are you around water you could drown in?
The shower? Everybody goes to pools that have clear water instead of ponds like they used to,if they actually go to swim at all. I'll bet the extreme majority of people are virtually never in a situation where they COULD drown. Let alone actually drowning when they are in that situation.
Compare that to the fact that I don't think I know anybody who doesn't have a gun in their house. That means every single person I know is near a gun every single day.

That means in my house there have been about 14,600 gun/day opportunities for somebody to get shot. And about 13 water/day opportunities. So people are around guns 1000 times as much as water. So, on a level playing field there should be 1000 times as many accidental gun deaths just because of opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. And...per capita...how do we compare with Canada and Britain??? NOT well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. While it's interesting to
compare our (American) statistics with those of other countries, I think that there are sooooooooooooooo many differences in the respective situation of any two (or more) countries that controlling for all of those variables- which is the only way to actually know if the removal of guns from their society is what makes the difference- is nearly impossible.

(this part not specifically directed to you, Capt.)

Anybody want to talk about practical ways to decrease firearms deaths and injuries in our own country?

Also (just a mini-rant here) has ANY prohibition of ANYTHING actually worked, EVER, once that thing has been introduced into our society? Is there a reason that I'm missing for ANYONE to actually believe that it would work vis a vis guns? :rant:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. In some sense, true. But Canadians and Brits watch the same programs, listen to the same music...
and play the same violent video games, that a lot of the cultural aspects that people use to blame violence are evened out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. And have 1/10th the population, and 1/10th the population density
.. they also have socialized medicine, less ridiculous attitudes toward drugs.

All of which would, in my opinion, contribute far more to the prevalence of crime than what music or video games a person consumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
51. British pop. density is fairly high...
+60 million in a space approx equivalent to California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. I grant your premise-
there are a lot of similarities. However, during the time I've spent both in Canada and in Great Britain, while American TV shows were available they were certainly not the majority of shows (or even close to it).

Plus, it's not just about the media an individual is exposed to, it's about the context in which that media is understood.

Last but not least- and this is personal belief, I don't have stats to back it up at my fingertips- I don't believe that many of the cultural aspects people blame violence on are at all valid. I am a huge fan of action movies, zombie/horror/psycho movies, violent video games, martial arts, and both edged and projectile weapons. I played dungeons and dragons for years. Hell, before that I even played imaginary games with my friends that usually involved sticks (we grew up in the rural northeast) becoming swords and guns.
Yet, I've never once had an uncontrollable or even particularly strong urge to commit a violent act against another.

I know that my experience isn't that of everyone, and that my anecdote doesn't mean anything statistically. However, I honestly believe that the massive numbers of people who participate in so-called violent games and media and do not "snap" speaks volumes about the lack of connection.

Track these violent events back, and I betcha you'll find abuse and/or neglect by a family member(s) at the root. By and large, however, Americans appear to me to have a proclivity for sticking their heads in the sand, and to be unwilling to accept that the causes of these horrible events are 1) closer to home than we like to admit and 2) more under our control to fix than we like to admit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoNothing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Actually, I want to know
Do you have the stats? I only seem to be able to find reliable statistics about accidental deaths in the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Here is a link. Since the gun ban in Britain, HANDGUN crime has RISEN!
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm


So much for a gun ban working.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Firearms shows up three times on that list.
They are too convenient and efficient to be allowed to proliferate as they presently are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. interesting that you make that conclusion, because it just wrong.
Edited on Thu Feb-04-10 01:16 PM by rd_kent
It shows up 3 times because it needs to be shown that accidents, homicides and suicides are different categories. Your obtuseness is really becoming quite boring.

You have a better chance of falling down and killing yourself than you do being killed by a firearm. Should be stop the proliferation of falls now, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I recognize that they pose a threat in three categories. Making the problem rather urgent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Only in your head, shares, only in your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. I don't think that's particularly relevant,
though I do see the emotional value in presenting it that way. And as an opinion, of course, it's perfectly valid.

Without accompanying numbers of deaths, however, your statement has no relation to fact.

For all we know, the number of all three categories of firearm deaths is 1/10th of the number of deaths of the #50 cause. Or #19. Or #99.

To be fair, it could also be 10x the number of deaths from #99. We just don't know.

All that the fact that firearms show up three times on the list indicates is that they're tracking at least three different ways to die by firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Here ya go, have a look for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Thanks for the link!
You know that I support your point in this though, right? I didn't want that post misread as being directed at you- it was meant toward Shares' ridiculous notion that firearms showing up three times is at all relevant to anything.


:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. A versatile implement of death. True? Or just emotional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Dude, you really make no sense sometimes
You can break out the hard numbers here...


http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html



enjoy having your ignorance replaced with knowledge. You can thank me later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I already possess the knowledge that bullets entering your body are bad for your health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. So is falling down and drowning and driving a car, whats your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Those only parallel the "accidental" category. And they all give you a fighting chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. As usual, you make no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. People can't commit suicide by drowning or vehicles?
Edited on Thu Feb-04-10 02:12 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
One cannot murder others using a vehicle or drowning?

So those items can be reported as (...gasp) suicides, homicides, or accidental deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Drowning does not give you a fighting chance.
Most people live after being shot by another person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. Perhaps you advocate letting everyone buy body armor.
What are feelings on body armor?
I just picked up a nice full length IIIA vest myself this past week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Then, as luck would have it, shot in the head. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. You wacth too many movies.
Edited on Thu Feb-04-10 02:57 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
Wounds to extremedies are WAY less likely to be fatal with medical attention.
Wearing body armor typically decreases the risk of a fatal gunshot wound by over 60%
Getting shot in the head is unfortunate - but much harder to achieve than in HALO or CS.

The torso is 5X as large of a target as the head and is much less maneuverable than a head (or any other extremedy).
In fact, many experienced shooters, especially professional shooters, only aim center of mass (chest).
A great majority of inexperienced shooters will pull handgun shots low in anticipation of the recoil.
If you are around firearms alot (competition, hunting, LEO) body armor is cheap insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Ooooh that's a tricky one.
It's both! True and emotional!

True, because a firearm can be a versatile implement of death.

Emotional, because it doesn't acknowledge that they are used for other means all the time, all over the country. Also because it implies a moral judgement of a "versatile implement of death," which of course, referring to an item, cannot possibly have any inherent morality. The gun isn't anything. The user is everything.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. The user is everything, and having guns available makes that too deadly a crapshoot to tolerate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. But why is it that you only
feel this way about guns?

In all honestly, you believe that by removing firearms we will see a decrease in the number of violent deaths/assaults/attacks?

A significant enough decrease to justify the increased risk to victims, who will be the first to be disarmed? And who, even in the world you propose without guns, are still at risk from younger/stronger/faster/meaner/insert-your-adjective-of-choice attackers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. Everyone is observing the policy in the UK and Australia.
Gun lovers will spin those as a failure, and gun haters will spin those as a success.

Time will tell, but the crackdown in those jurisdictions is meaningful.

If for no other reason than by their looking at the USA experience and saying No Thanks Yanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. As usual, you are wrong. Her are some hard facts for you, shares.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm


Since the handgun ban, handgun crime has actually RISEN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. You should probably move then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. Murder versus accident versus suicide. Three different deaths, categorically speaking.
But the people that want to take our guns (boy I wish there was an easier way of saying that) don't really care about the deaths. They only have the wherewithal and aptitude to blame inanimate objects for what is, in actuality, the choices and actions of irresponsible people. To the people that want to take our guns, it's all about firearms stoking their hoplophobia - it was never about making society a safer place. There are dozens of actions to be taken that could make society a safer place that don't involve stepping on the rights of a nation. Only a fool would miss the forest for such a tree.

You can't stop someone who wants to kill themselves. Take guns away from them and they kill themselves via other means.
Bridges, car exhaust, drugs, razor blades, etc ... these are suicides & changing the tool does not change the outcome.
Once again, the people that want to take our guns don't care about the deaths - only the guns.

Murders (homicide) might drop a little bit... but there's two factors working against blaming gun proliferation for this.
1) Criminals don't obey laws. If they want guns they WILL get them. Prohibition has never succeeded against the motivated.
2) People have been committing homicide since the beginning of time. Motivated criminals don't need guns to murder people.
Once again, the people that want to take our guns don't care about the deaths - only the guns.

Accidental deaths are about the only category that could make any meaningful difference by eliminating forearms. But the ultimate truth is that you cannot legislate stupidity out of society. There are over 100 ways you are more likely to die than an accidental gunshot - this data shows the event is so uncommon as to be "rare". I would tend to believe that firearms provide many more DGUs than accidental deaths. So by removing guns you would curtail accidental deaths but disproportionately increase other injuries & death by stripping effective self defense measures. All this in the name of fighting something that is by all standards a rare occurrence. Real progressive of you.

Are you understanding this... or should I type slower for you next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
47.  "Gun control " is less about guns and more about control. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. For hoplophobes, it's all about the guns. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Salmonella? Really? Hmmm. I'll have to be less lax about food prep and storage. I will
Edited on Thu Feb-04-10 01:16 PM by GreenPartyVoter
also be checking up on my kids' vaccines. Some of those diseases on the list, they shouldn't even be there. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Actually, you're wrong in how this report is presenting. Table C shows the
top 10 causes of death. Table D shows it in graph form. All of the numbers in your post are just that numbers of a different type of death.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_08.pdf

Diseases of heart 1 Malignant neoplasms 2 Cerebrovascular diseases 3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 4 Accidents (unintentional injuries) 5 Diabetes mellitus 6 Alzheimers disease 7 Influenza and pneumonia 8 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 9 Septicemia 10
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. What? The only numbers in his post are the ranking #'s of the causes. n/t
Edited on Thu Feb-04-10 01:34 PM by burrfoot
**Edit: Unless I'm reading it wrong too, which is entirely possible. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong :evilgrin: **
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
60. The OP lists 113 selected caused of death, the ones with a '#' were the selected 50.
From the report:

Developed for use with ICD10, the List of 113 selected causes of death (6) shown in Table A is used to select 50 rankable causes (denoted by the symbol #) from which the leading causes presented in Tables 1 and 2 are derived.


Table 1 starts on page 21 (and runs through page 57, broken down my sex, race, and age) of the report and titled, "Table 1. Deaths, percentage of total deaths, and death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in selected age groups, by race and sex: United States, 2005"

Table 2 begins on page 58.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Im not following you.
It has, listed in order of highest occurrence, causes of death.

You can break it down here....

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html


to get the hard numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
61. See above reply. You're mis-reading the report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
32. I'm going to ask this, purely out of curiosity-
does somebody go around giving an unrec to every single thread in this forum?

Not placing any judgement on it- people can rec/unrec whatever they like- just observing that it seems to happen literally all the time, and generally REALLY soon after the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. I have noticed that too. All gungeon threads get automatic unrecs...
immediately upon posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. K&R...I like interesting gun posts so I'll cancel out the un-rec. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
46. Extremely misleading, IMO.
If 1,000,000 people die every year of age related diseases like cancer and heart disease, but 30,000 die from being shot, saying that 30000 is only a small percentage of total deaths is true, but dying of diseases of old age is not something we could potentially stop.

Exclude the elderly and recheck the results. From the article:
Age differences
In 2005, the leading causes of death varied substantially by age group (Table 1). However, there were some general similarities by broad age group in the pattern of leading causes. For the population aged 144 years, the leading cause of death was unintentional injuries. Homicide and suicide were also important causes of death in this broad age category: Homicide was consistently one of the top five causes of death in the population aged 134 years, and suicide was a top five killer in the 1044 age group. The proportion of deaths due to unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide combined ranged from 31 percent to 75 percent in the age groups among those 144 years.

----
I mean really, if 20,000 infants died every year, and 10,000 died from eating poisoned toys from China, would you say poisoned toys from China are not much of a concern since those 10,000 deaths are only a tiny fraction of the total?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #46
56. You think that unintentional injuries are all caused by guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Yes, that's precisely what I said. Only using different words and meanings somehow.
Seriously where in the heck did you get THAT as the point of my post? Just because unintentional injuries are the leading cause of deaths in that age group didn't imply anything about them being gun-related, although many are. But homicides are in the top 5 causes of death and most of those are done with guns. So instead guns being a negligible percent of deaths as the original post seemed to claim, they are represent a high percentage of deaths among people who aren't dropping dead simply due to old age.

But even beside that point, as others have noted, the table the original post referred to isn't even ordered by frequency. Table C shows that, not Table A. Salmonella isn't the leading cause of death in the US and gun deaths probably are not nearly as low on a frequency list as they are on Table A.

Check Table 1 near the end instead. In lower age groups, accidental death, homicide, and suicide top practically every list. That table doesn't break out gun deaths, but in my experience, most homicides and suicides involve guns, making them a top contributor to deaths among people who are dying early deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-05-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. There is no need to speculate all the information is available.
The exact number of gun deaths is available and has been dropping fairly consistently for many years. Factoring in suicides would imply that the people wouldn't have committed suicide if a gun hadn't been available. A portion of them wouldn't have but it would be impossible to determine what that percentage would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #46
63. Very fair question.
But, we have to add in more data. About half those gun deaths are suicides. Of the deaths that are reported as 'accidents', you can be sure a goodly portion are also suicides, misreported for insurance purposes.

As with some of your people who died of heart disease, that would have died from old age anyway, many of the firearms deaths would have committed suicide anyway. Changing the available tool makes little difference, looking at Japan, where firearms are practically illegal for civilian possession, yet the suicide rate is higher than ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
52. You're looking at Table A, which isn't ordered by number of deaths
There's no way in hell that measles (#13) and malaria (#16) cause more deaths than motor vehicle collisions. The leading causes of the death, ranked by frequency, are in table C though it's worth noting that firearms only occur in that list in that they form (a very small) part of the "unintentional injury" class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
62. Not exactly,
Sorry. Although I think rd kent is to be complemented for finding a site Ive referenced numerous times.
The site and link provided by rd kent http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf is misleading and it just isnt what rd kent says it is, although it is understandable how it can be misunderstood.

The way statistics can be sliced, diced correlated etc makes for an occasional mistake, that is understandable.
Ive been interested in statistics regarding deaths by firearms and occasionally post here about some I think are relevant. The Table A, on Page 3, from where the statistics rd kent posted, arent what they seem.

Look at Page 1 where it states;

In 2005, the 10 leading causes of death were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Alzheimers disease; Influenza and pneumonia; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia. They accounted for about 77 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States.

It is simple enough to GOOGLE Salmonella to see that;

Three pathogens, Salmonella, Listeria, and Toxoplasma, are responsible for 1,500 deaths each year, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5no5/mead.htm
.

Approximately 600 deaths are caused by Salmonella infections in the U.S. every year.. http://www.about-salmonella.com /


Each year approximately 40,000 cases of salmonella (salmonellosis) are reported in the United States; many more go unreported. Unfortunately,600 US patients die annually. http://diseases-viruses.suite101.com/article.cfm/salmon...


Read more at Suite101: Salmonella Poisoning: Symptoms, Causes and Treatment http://diseases-viruses.suite101.com/article.cfm/salmon...

Salmonella infection is responsible for approximately 600 deaths in the US each year. http://www.mahalo.com/answers/diseases-and-conditions/h...

At about 600 deaths in the US annually there is no way that that cause of death could be the Number one cause of death in the US!

It would take too much time to fully explain why this is listed the way it is and I cant claim to fully understand it myself.
I do understand that the National Vital Statistics Reports U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics System are a credible reputable source for statistics regarding deaths from a variety of causes although it can be difficult to find the pertinent data.

These Deaths: Final Data Reports are issued periodically and revised routinely.
The 2006 Volume 57, Number 14 April 17, 2009 Deaths: Final Data for 2006 at; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
Is the most recent Report with the statistics, data and charts germane to the fireams discussion.

Tables 18, 19 20 and especially Table 29s six pages are the ones Ive referenced and linked numerous times in the dungeon previously.

Injury mortality by mechanism and intent
In 2006, a total of 179,065 deaths were classified as injury-related (Table 18).
Motor-vehicle trafficIn 2006, motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries resulted in 43,664 deaths, accounting for 24.4 percent of all injury deaths (Table 18)..
PoisoningIn 2006, 37,286 deaths occurred as the result of poisonings, 20.8 percent of all injury deaths (Table 18)
FirearmIn 2006, 30,896 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 1820), accounting for 17.3 percent of all injury deaths that year.. Mortality patterns vary considerably by state (Table 29).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. OP
Thread titled Leading causes of deaths in the US.....guns near the bottom of the list...
Note , causes of DEATHS in the US and then .GUNS..



OP then posts selected items from Table A. List of 113 selected causes of death, with his first/top entry
#1 Salmonella. At this point the OP demonstrates his lack of common sense.
Does anyone really think Salmonella is the number one cause of death in this country?

Downthread the OP, instead of recognizing his error when questioned, defends his OP with his post #24 saying his OP has listed in order of highest occurrence, causes of death, and links another site as if it will support his statement.
The site linked makes no claim that Salmonella is #1 cause of death, I cant find salmonella anywhere on the linked site. Also nowhere is the word firearm(s) anywhere to be found on his referenced site. In other words, the site referenced to support his OP fails to support any of his claims.
When asked about how we compare on a per capita basis with Canada and Britain, OP changes the subject in his #28 and again #49 from this threads title (that he named, deaths and guns) to a reference to crime; Since the gun ban in Britain, HANDGUN crime has RISEN , from causes of deaths and guns to CRIME? From deaths, to crime!

Also at the site the OP linked;
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
It shows for the most recent year at the site 2008/09, the number of homicides in England/Wales have declined to its lowest of the ten years provided.

All the while the OP is criticizing and insulting those questioning him while making erroneous statements. Saying for example in # 12 You have a better chance of falling down and killing yourself than you do being killed by a firearm.
What kind of supporting statistics do you have that allows you to make that statement?
There are about 70% more people who die from firearms than do from falls.
Check WISQARS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC