TexasCHLforum.com

I'm too lazy to go dig through the sources to confirm and/or get more detail, but I was looking at http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/d ... terrorized" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which gives a lifetime risk of being murdered of 1:210, and http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/envir ... derway.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which shows a lifetime risk of dying from assault by firearm of 1:325. Considering the latter might also include justifiable homicides, (and possibly even wartime deaths) taking those numbers together leads one to infer that the odds of being murdered using something other than a firearm are higher that I might have thought.

Anybody bored enough to analyze their sources for more information?

interesting find. People will still have anxiety from all the media hype.

fecnik wrote:interesting find. People will still have anxiety from all the media hype.

And yet, amazingly, the 1:5 chance of dying from heart disease won't get them off their butts.

Assuming a 78 year lifespan, that's 1:390 for any given year. That means your risk of dying from a heart attack this year is only slightly lower than your chance of ever being killed by a firearm. (Of course, this assumes an even distribution with regard to age; realistically, your chance of death by firearm probably peaks in the "grunt soldier" years, while your risk of heart disease continues to increase throughout your lifetime.) You're also three times more likely to die in a car wreck than to be killed by a firearm, but that won't convince them to drive more carefully.

The interesting one for me was the 1:325 for assault with a firearm. I wonder how much it depends on where you live. The larger cities world wide seem less safe in that regard but the ratio may not change because of the population density within each city.

One would also expect that the risk of dying from a Tsunami in Denver, CO would be less than in Tokyo

KD5NRH wrote:

fecnik wrote:interesting find. People will still have anxiety from all the media hype.

And yet, amazingly, the 1:5 chance of dying from heart disease won't get them off their butts.

Assuming a 78 year lifespan, that's 1:390 for any given year. That means your risk of dying from a heart attack this year is only slightly lower than your chance of ever being killed by a firearm. (Of course, this assumes an even distribution with regard to age; realistically, your chance of death by firearm probably peaks in the "grunt soldier" years, while your risk of heart disease continues to increase throughout your lifetime.) You're also three times more likely to die in a car wreck than to be killed by a firearm, but that won't convince them to drive more carefully.

People aren't killed by firearms - they're killed with firearms by the people who misuse them.

If you think that's a small point, consider how you would react to a newspaper article that reported a death in a DWI wreck as "man killed by motor vehicle," or a stabbing victim as "woman killed by knife." If those are intellectually jarring, why is "killed by a firearm" different? Because you've been programmed to accept it by repeated and consistent exposure to the phrase in countless reports over time.

This is subtle linguistic programming that we're subjected to every day. It has a strong impact on the subconscious of folks who aren't aware of it.

There's a topic for your next barbecue that should keep conversation moving.

KD5NRH wrote:

fecnik wrote:interesting find. People will still have anxiety from all the media hype.

And yet, amazingly, the 1:5 chance of dying from heart disease won't get them off their butts.

Assuming a 78 year lifespan, that's 1:390 for any given year.

dont forget to eat your cheerios!


Like i said before, it usually takes something drastic (most of the time bad) to happen before that said person will do anything about it.

Excaliber wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

fecnik wrote:interesting find. People will still have anxiety from all the media hype.

And yet, amazingly, the 1:5 chance of dying from heart disease won't get them off their butts.

Assuming a 78 year lifespan, that's 1:390 for any given year. That means your risk of dying from a heart attack this year is only slightly lower than your chance of ever being killed by a firearm. (Of course, this assumes an even distribution with regard to age; realistically, your chance of death by firearm probably peaks in the "grunt soldier" years, while your risk of heart disease continues to increase throughout your lifetime.) You're also three times more likely to die in a car wreck than to be killed by a firearm, but that won't convince them to drive more carefully.

People aren't killed by firearms - they're killed with firearms by the people who misuse them.

If you think that's a small point, consider how you would react to a newspaper article that reported a death in a DWI wreck as "man killed by motor vehicle," or a stabbing victim as "woman killed by knife." If those are intellectually jarring, why is "killed by a firearm" different? Because you've been programmed to accept it by repeated and consistent exposure to the phrase in countless reports over time.

This is subtle linguistic programming that we're subjected to every day. It has a strong impact on the subconscious of folks who aren't aware of it.

There's a topic for your next barbecue that should keep conversation moving.

Right on Excaliber!!

Excaliber wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

fecnik wrote:interesting find. People will still have anxiety from all the media hype.

And yet, amazingly, the 1:5 chance of dying from heart disease won't get them off their butts.

Assuming a 78 year lifespan, that's 1:390 for any given year. That means your risk of dying from a heart attack this year is only slightly lower than your chance of ever being killed by a firearm. (Of course, this assumes an even distribution with regard to age; realistically, your chance of death by firearm probably peaks in the "grunt soldier" years, while your risk of heart disease continues to increase throughout your lifetime.) You're also three times more likely to die in a car wreck than to be killed by a firearm, but that won't convince them to drive more carefully.

People aren't killed by firearms - they're killed with firearms by the people who misuse them.

If you think that's a small point, consider how you would react to a newspaper article that reported a death in a DWI wreck as "man killed by motor vehicle," or a stabbing victim as "woman killed by knife." If those are intellectually jarring, why is "killed by a firearm" different? Because you've been programmed to accept it by repeated and consistent exposure to the phrase in countless reports over time.

This is subtle linguistic programming that we're subjected to every day. It has a strong impact on the subconscious of folks who aren't aware of it.

There's a topic for your next barbecue that should keep conversation moving.

I never regret having taken that Logic class or having read Language, Truth and Logic and How to Lie With Statistics several times apiece.

around 30,000 folks are killed with handguns yearly. Over half are suicides. 1000-2000 are accidental. 10-12k are homicides. These numbers are fairly consistent the last many years (there was a distinct, large and mostly unpublicized decrease in handgun deaths in the mid/late 90's).
Anyway, of the 10-12k handgun homicides about 2/3rds are "criminal on criminal."
These data can easily be confirmed by looking at FBI and CDC data. Or you can read the nearly 300 page report by the national academy of sciences which is available for free online.

Anyway, the point is that most of us are highly unlikely to be murdered by a handgun(in fact, pretty unlikely in general)
Unless you engage in risky behavior (selling meth and crack while illegally carrying a gun would be a good indicator that you are in the "population at risk") then you're fairly safe. Yeah, I have my CHL too just in case, but I also wear my seat belt, exercise, etc as well...

Be careful with statistics:

"statistics are like bikinis: what the reveal is enticing but what the conceal is vital"

"He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost. For support rather than illumination"