JohnRich 4 #1 December 9, 2004 Press release from the National Shooting Sports Foundation: Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003. Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths. Source: NSSF NSC (You have to purchase the report to see it for yourself...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #2 December 9, 2004 Looks like the "Eddie Eagle" program is having a positive effect in spite of HCI's propaganda to the contrary!Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #3 December 9, 2004 Let's hear it for the good guys!witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #4 December 10, 2004 Only 700? I take it all back. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,120 #5 December 10, 2004 They're not gun accidents -- they're people accidents Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 December 11, 2004 QuotePress release from the National Shooting Sports Foundation: Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003. Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. That must be very comforting to the families of the 700 deceased.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 December 13, 2004 QuoteOnly 700? I take it all back. Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 2004..: 700 Accidental firearms death rate....: .3 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 2004: 41,000 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 60 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 68 times higher - while there are fewer of them. Cars are more dangerous than guns! We should be so lucky as to have accidental auto fatalities at the same low rate as accidental firearms fatalities - it would save 40,000 lives per year! Do you think that a 54% reduction in gun accidents over 10 years is a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 December 13, 2004 QuoteThat must be very comforting to the families of the 700 deceased. Meaningless comment ignored. Is that the best response you can come up with, professor? Don't you think that a 54% reduction in 10 years is a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #9 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat must be very comforting to the families of the 700 deceased. Meaningless comment ignored. Is that the best response you can come up with, professor? Don't you think that a 54% reduction in 10 years is a good thing? Sure is, but it's still unacceptable anyway. I'm surprised you pat yourself on the back about 700 unnecessary deaths.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #10 December 13, 2004 QuoteSure is, but it's still unacceptable anyway. I'm surprised you pat yourself on the back about 700 unnecessary deaths. We pat ourselves on our backs for reducing it 54%, not 700 dying. Nice attempt to twist words. Have to do better than that. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #11 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteSure is, but it's still unacceptable anyway. I'm surprised you pat yourself on the back about 700 unnecessary deaths. We pat ourselves on our backs for reducing it 54%, not 700 dying. Nice attempt to twist words. Have to do better than that. Wrong. Gun owners have to do better at using guns safely.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #12 December 13, 2004 QuoteGun owners have to do better at using guns safely. They have. Hence the 54% reduction. Anything else? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #13 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteOnly 700? I take it all back. Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 2004..: 700 Accidental firearms death rate....: .3 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 2004: 41,000 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 60 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 68 times higher - while there are fewer of them. Cars are more dangerous than guns! We should be so lucky as to have accidental auto fatalities at the same low rate as accidental firearms fatalities - it would save 40,000 lives per year! Quote That is the most absurd apples to frogs (not even close to oranges) comparison I've seen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #14 December 13, 2004 QuoteThat is the most absurd apples to frogs (not even close to oranges) comparison I've seen. Funny, I don't see it as that. Maybe mindset is in the minority. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #15 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat is the most absurd apples to frogs (not even close to oranges) comparison I've seen. Funny, I don't see it as that. Maybe mindset is in the minority. I'm with Kallend on this one. Progress is great, but the number still sucks, and is not something to be proud of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #16 December 13, 2004 QuoteProgress is great, but the number still sucks, and is not something to be proud of. A 54% decrease is great progress. Great progress is something to be proud of. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #17 December 13, 2004 QuoteSure is, but it's still unacceptable anyway. I'm surprised you pat yourself on the back about 700 unnecessary deaths. What is it with some people and saying that only perfection is acceptable? What happened to a cost benefit analysis? When did only examining the cost become the way to go? 700 accidents to prevent millions of crimes and allow all the benfits of guns. It's not perfect, but what is? By the way, he's not patting himself on the back for 700 dead. He's patting himself on the back for the 700 not dead that would have been 10 years ago. He's patting himself on the back for 250,000,300 guns that were used safely and resulted in no accidents. He's patting himself on the back for 54% fewer deaths resulting from accidents in an activity/sport/lifestyle that he loves. What would you say to someone who said a 54% reduction in skydiving deaths was pointless? What would you say to someone who made a sarcastic remark about how the 46%'s families?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #18 December 13, 2004 QuoteWrong. Gun owners have to do better at using guns safely. Who are you to tell gun owners what they have to do? Why do you care? It doesn't affect your rights in any way.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #19 December 13, 2004 QuoteThey're not gun accidents -- they're people accidents Wendy W. Exactly. A gun is not going to jump out of it's box, load itself, aim, and pull its own trigger. A person has to do all that. Without the person, a gun is just a useless hunk of metal. Accidental gun deaths are caused by the same thing most accidental deaths are caused by...human error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdweller 0 #20 December 13, 2004 Let me start by saying a 54% reduction in gun accidents is very commendable, yet I think we can all agree that more work is still needed. as too the following analogy: __________________________________________________________________________ Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 2004..: 700 Accidental firearms death rate....: .3 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 2004: 41,000 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 60 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 68 times higher - while there are fewer of them. Cars are more dangerous than guns! ___________________________________________________________________________ If you take into account the amount of time spent in cars as compared to the amount of time that guns are used, or in other words the amount of time where accidents can occur in cars as compared to the amount of time where accidents can occur with guns, the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns would not hold up. The frequency at which cars are used is so much higher then the frequency of gun use. Hence the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns to me seems flawed. In any rate the reduction of gun accidents is defiantly a good trend. I hope this trend continues.------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #21 December 13, 2004 Quote Exactly. A gun is not going to jump out of it's box, load itself, aim, and pull its own trigger. A person has to do all that. Without the person, a gun is just a useless hunk of metal. Accidental gun deaths are caused by the same thing most accidental deaths are caused by...human error. Good point, and along those same lines most of these accidents are cause by people that are inexperienced in handling weapons. Like the people that don't own them, the ones that borrow them from a friend or rent one at a shooting range. A good example, if you look at the military, and where the training accidents involving firearms are concerned, the majority of them come from non combat-arms units, ie support units. Not to take anything away from those soldiers we need them and they are great at what they do, but they don't handle their weapons often enough to be as comfortable with them as the grunt in the infantry battalion who always has a weapon at his side.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #22 December 13, 2004 QuoteLet me start by saying a 54% reduction in gun accidents is very commendable, yet I think we can all agree that more work is still needed. as too the following analogy: __________________________________________________________________________ Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 2004..: 700 Accidental firearms death rate....: .3 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 2004: 41,000 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 60 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 68 times higher - while there are fewer of them. Cars are more dangerous than guns! ___________________________________________________________________________ If you take into account the amount of time spent in cars as compared to the amount of time that guns are used, or in other words the amount of time where accidents can occur in cars as compared to the amount of time where accidents can occur with guns, the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns would not hold up. The frequency at which cars are used is so much higher then the frequency of gun use. Hence the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns to me seems flawed. In any rate the reduction of gun accidents is defiantly a good trend. I hope this trend continues. Correct analysis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,121 #23 December 13, 2004 QuoteCorrect analysis. It would be fun to put the stats with regards to murder by car and murder by gun beside those numbers. And then compare purpose of a car and purpose of a gun. I think one would quickly see what a stupid comparison the first stat is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #24 December 13, 2004 No, incorrect analysis. How are you defining use of a gun? Every time it's pointed at someone and fired? Well, then that's not an accident, is it? I would consider use of a gun to be anytime it is available to be used for protection. For many guns that is 24x7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #25 December 13, 2004 QuoteNo, incorrect analysis. How are you defining use of a gun? Every time it's pointed at someone and fired? Well, then that's not an accident, is it? I would consider use of a gun to be anytime it is available to be used for protection. For many guns that is 24x7. My parachute is available 24x7 to save me if I fall out of a plane. Considered on that basis, parachuting is an extremely safe activity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tunaplanet 0 #14 December 13, 2004 QuoteThat is the most absurd apples to frogs (not even close to oranges) comparison I've seen. Funny, I don't see it as that. Maybe mindset is in the minority. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat is the most absurd apples to frogs (not even close to oranges) comparison I've seen. Funny, I don't see it as that. Maybe mindset is in the minority. I'm with Kallend on this one. Progress is great, but the number still sucks, and is not something to be proud of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #16 December 13, 2004 QuoteProgress is great, but the number still sucks, and is not something to be proud of. A 54% decrease is great progress. Great progress is something to be proud of. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #17 December 13, 2004 QuoteSure is, but it's still unacceptable anyway. I'm surprised you pat yourself on the back about 700 unnecessary deaths. What is it with some people and saying that only perfection is acceptable? What happened to a cost benefit analysis? When did only examining the cost become the way to go? 700 accidents to prevent millions of crimes and allow all the benfits of guns. It's not perfect, but what is? By the way, he's not patting himself on the back for 700 dead. He's patting himself on the back for the 700 not dead that would have been 10 years ago. He's patting himself on the back for 250,000,300 guns that were used safely and resulted in no accidents. He's patting himself on the back for 54% fewer deaths resulting from accidents in an activity/sport/lifestyle that he loves. What would you say to someone who said a 54% reduction in skydiving deaths was pointless? What would you say to someone who made a sarcastic remark about how the 46%'s families?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #18 December 13, 2004 QuoteWrong. Gun owners have to do better at using guns safely. Who are you to tell gun owners what they have to do? Why do you care? It doesn't affect your rights in any way.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #19 December 13, 2004 QuoteThey're not gun accidents -- they're people accidents Wendy W. Exactly. A gun is not going to jump out of it's box, load itself, aim, and pull its own trigger. A person has to do all that. Without the person, a gun is just a useless hunk of metal. Accidental gun deaths are caused by the same thing most accidental deaths are caused by...human error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #20 December 13, 2004 Let me start by saying a 54% reduction in gun accidents is very commendable, yet I think we can all agree that more work is still needed. as too the following analogy: __________________________________________________________________________ Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 2004..: 700 Accidental firearms death rate....: .3 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 2004: 41,000 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 60 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 68 times higher - while there are fewer of them. Cars are more dangerous than guns! ___________________________________________________________________________ If you take into account the amount of time spent in cars as compared to the amount of time that guns are used, or in other words the amount of time where accidents can occur in cars as compared to the amount of time where accidents can occur with guns, the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns would not hold up. The frequency at which cars are used is so much higher then the frequency of gun use. Hence the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns to me seems flawed. In any rate the reduction of gun accidents is defiantly a good trend. I hope this trend continues.------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #21 December 13, 2004 Quote Exactly. A gun is not going to jump out of it's box, load itself, aim, and pull its own trigger. A person has to do all that. Without the person, a gun is just a useless hunk of metal. Accidental gun deaths are caused by the same thing most accidental deaths are caused by...human error. Good point, and along those same lines most of these accidents are cause by people that are inexperienced in handling weapons. Like the people that don't own them, the ones that borrow them from a friend or rent one at a shooting range. A good example, if you look at the military, and where the training accidents involving firearms are concerned, the majority of them come from non combat-arms units, ie support units. Not to take anything away from those soldiers we need them and they are great at what they do, but they don't handle their weapons often enough to be as comfortable with them as the grunt in the infantry battalion who always has a weapon at his side.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #22 December 13, 2004 QuoteLet me start by saying a 54% reduction in gun accidents is very commendable, yet I think we can all agree that more work is still needed. as too the following analogy: __________________________________________________________________________ Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 2004..: 700 Accidental firearms death rate....: .3 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 2004: 41,000 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 60 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 68 times higher - while there are fewer of them. Cars are more dangerous than guns! ___________________________________________________________________________ If you take into account the amount of time spent in cars as compared to the amount of time that guns are used, or in other words the amount of time where accidents can occur in cars as compared to the amount of time where accidents can occur with guns, the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns would not hold up. The frequency at which cars are used is so much higher then the frequency of gun use. Hence the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns to me seems flawed. In any rate the reduction of gun accidents is defiantly a good trend. I hope this trend continues. Correct analysis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #23 December 13, 2004 QuoteCorrect analysis. It would be fun to put the stats with regards to murder by car and murder by gun beside those numbers. And then compare purpose of a car and purpose of a gun. I think one would quickly see what a stupid comparison the first stat is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 December 13, 2004 No, incorrect analysis. How are you defining use of a gun? Every time it's pointed at someone and fired? Well, then that's not an accident, is it? I would consider use of a gun to be anytime it is available to be used for protection. For many guns that is 24x7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #25 December 13, 2004 QuoteNo, incorrect analysis. How are you defining use of a gun? Every time it's pointed at someone and fired? Well, then that's not an accident, is it? I would consider use of a gun to be anytime it is available to be used for protection. For many guns that is 24x7. My parachute is available 24x7 to save me if I fall out of a plane. Considered on that basis, parachuting is an extremely safe activity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
