What the anti gun crowd is excited about today

[RX8er]

Their graph looks like a bunch of bullets flying with tracers.

I want to know if they calculated out all the lost years for those that might have dies from other causes like drug overdose, car accidents and the likes...

[TheCytochromeC]

I don't like graphs whose axises are not clearly labeled.

I don't think the graph has any meaning at all, as near as I can tell. If you play around with some of the "filters", you even get arcs below the baseline. It simply makes no sense.

Well, since they aren't labeled I tend to label them myself. You see, the x-axis is lifespan in years, as clearly labeled. Since the axis ends promptly at 100 years, it is safe to say, according to the data provided, that no one will ever live to be over 100 - particularly because they'll be shot. I've determined the y-axis is the individuals' desire to eat cream-cheese danishes. I find the results astounding...

[RX8er]

It is a a group of young folks in Oregon: http://www.periscopic.com/our-company/#/connect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I decided to send them an email:

From: RX8er
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 2:17 PM
To: 'emerge@periscopic.com'
Subject: Gun Deaths / Lost Years

Nice chart and I understand the intent but I’d be interested to see the data and chart where you don’t calculate from a possibility standpoint. Why not remove those years that statistically won’t be there as a result of a death from another form. You could easily take those years out that might include a death from drug overdoses, knife, car accidents, accidental deaths and suicide. The CDC has this data and will give a more accurate representation. I think it would also be a good idea to compare this chart against those other types of deaths and suicide using a side by side model. There are a whole lot more years lost to most, if not all other types of deaths than by gun deaths alone.

I don't know if the data is even available, but I would also like to see how many years were saved because of a gun. For example, when someone shoot a bad guy robbing a store or a cop shoots a gang member. That surely has to improve our society as a whole.

Thanks,
Brian

[jimlongley]

It is a a group of young folks in Oregon: http://www.periscopic.com/our-company/#/connect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I decided to send them an email:

From: RX8er
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 2:17 PM
To: 'emerge@periscopic.com'
Subject: Gun Deaths / Lost Years

Nice chart and I understand the intent but I’d be interested to see the data and chart where you don’t calculate from a possibility standpoint. Why not remove those years that statistically won’t be there as a result of a death from another form. You could easily take those years out that might include a death from drug overdoses, knife, car accidents, accidental deaths and suicide. The CDC has this data and will give a more accurate representation. I think it would also be a good idea to compare this chart against those other types of deaths and suicide using a side by side model. There are a whole lot more years lost to most, if not all other types of deaths than by gun deaths alone.

I don't know if the data is even available, but I would also like to see how many years were saved because of a gun. For example, when someone shoot a bad guy robbing a store or a cop shoots a gang member. That surely has to improve our society as a whole.

Thanks,
Brian

I have asked them to also graph, as long as they are using possibilities, the number and length of lives saved.

[Dreamer42]

Ditto on abortions. New graph: Millions of abortions - ONE BIG RED DOT. Timeline on lost years?????? More importantly on the abortion issue: How many babies were murdered and was one of them a US President? Found the cure for cancer? AIDS? Who knows what could have been? We'll never know because they were legally killed for the sake of convenience.

- Dreamer42
NRA
MVPA
USAR Engineers 10 yrs.

[RX8er]

So I got a fairly quick reply. I am still crafting / mulling over my reply.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for contacting us.

I appreciate your interest in data about other types of death. We have looked into many of those you mention:
Suicide: Suicide by guns are about 3x the rate of gun homicides. The majority of suicides are committed with guns, specifically amongst men.
Vehicle accidents: About the same rate as gun homicides.
Knife homicides: Far less than gun homicides. Only about 2,000 compared to over 9,500.

We haven’t found a definitive source on accidental deaths. The remarkable thing about accidents is that typically if there is even a small number of deaths caused by a particular thing, say a car or a crib, heavy regulation is imposed on that product. That’s why we have building codes, mandatory seatbelts, car seats, and blinds without loop drawstrings. Unfortunately, the same regulatory standards don’t hold true for guns.

All this said, our visualization does take into account all other types of death, including death by other types of homicide (knives, poisoning, etc.). We project the deaths based on World Health Organization data that includes every type of death based on age and sex. So, for instance, someone in our visualization who was killed at age 23 by someone using a gun could possibly be killed at age 24 by a knife. It’s all statistics.

Our data also contains the number of felons who were killed. This number is very small – about 800 of almost 10,000. And we’ll never know if those prevented a crime, as the data doesn’t say there was a crime being committed when the felon was killed.

All in all, we feel our visualization is a very robust and accurate representation of the data. Thanks for your input, and if you have specific data you feel could benefit it, please do send it along.

Best,
Kim

Periscopic :: Do good with data
503-295-7946
@krees, @periscopic
New address: 235 NW Park Ave. Unit A, Portland, OR 97209

[sjfcontrol]

Posted this once before -- deja-vue

So, for instance, someone in our visualization who was killed at age 23 by someone using a gun could possibly be killed at age 24 by a knife. It’s all statistics.

It's not a graph, it's a "visualization"...

[RX8er]

Posted this once before -- deja-vue

So, for instance, someone in our visualization who was killed at age 23 by someone using a gun could possibly be killed at age 24 by a knife. It’s all statistics.

It's not a graph, it's a "visualization"...

What she was trying to answer is my question. Did they factor out the lost years that would have been lost if a person was not killed by a gun but instead, statistically killed by some other means? I think she missed the mark. I have been working on my response for a while, just don't know if there is a point to all this. This is rough draft so it might not flow correctly right now.

Kim,

Thank you for your quick reply. My point is not to argue any one side of facts just that I feel the chart is not a valuable as it could be if it was compared against the other forms we discussed earlier. It is a very popular thing right now to bash guns or show how bad they are, when in reality, there are other things much worse in this world or even the US that should be talked about but are not. I am a firearm owner and one who believe in their second amendment rights that those rights should not be infringed upon. You are from a state that allows Open Carry, does this make your state less safe or have more homicides?

There are far more vehicle accidents (32,367 in 2011) than there were gun homicides so I am not quite sure I understand your point of "about the same rate"? Also I’d like to point out that according to http://www.suicide.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, a high percentage of people who attempted suicide but failed using a firearm said they would have used another method if the firearms was not available. It is a matter of what would be quicker and less painful.

You are correct that the same regulatory standards do not apply as they are very different industries. Firearm manufacturing is a very heavily regulated industry with many standards that must be met. We have mandates around firearms; you have to be 21 to purchase and the ATF has several more on the website so no need in repeating. I am curious what standards you feel should apply that do not already? Banning or outlawing guns just does not work.

I like to use California as an example. According to the same data you have, FBI's crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220. This is roughly 68% of all murders in the US and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people. I find it funny though, and the reason I quote it, is California was named the state with the strongest gun control laws by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Do more gun laws or gun control really work? Another interesting fact is that when Australia created their very tough gun laws and outlawed them, without very difficult licensing to own, the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued to decline, a trend that began in 1969 and in no way can be contributed to the change in laws. In many polled, it is considered the great failure of Australia and a government plan, even when the "statistics showed" gun violence and murder rates should have "drastically fallen" when the plan was completed. No guns means far less murder correct, or at least lowered by the same amount they cause?

Should parents be held accountable with jail time when they let a child drown in a swimming pool because they failed to properly secure their pool. Or, a child operated a motor vehicle incorrect or outside of the laws and killed themselves or someone else. An 18 month old hang themselves on the blinds is an example of the laws and regulation that passed but still happens to this day. When a parent leaves prescription medication that a teen girl takes to commit suicide, how do we ban or outlaw or regulate this? Should all medication be locked up in a medication safe? The firearms side of things have been vilified compared to other situations that kill our children, and sometimes at a much higher rate. Why are they not trying to ban swimming pools or automobiles? I have a distant family member that left their 14 month sit on the counter while lunch was being prepared. This child fell off and was killed. It was written off as a tragic accident but should we ban counters or have thrown someone in jail?

There are many unsafe things that can and do kill. Firearms are just an easy target and unless you compare those deaths to other forms of deaths in your chart, you are not painting a complete picture.

[kimrees]

Hi RX8er,

I'm happy to reply to your concerns here in an open forum.

Sorry, I meant to say that there are about the same number of deaths caused by gun operators as there are caused by car drivers. (I word it this way so I don't get the old "guns don't kill people" rhetoric.) That number includes suicides... from each instrument. I also want to point out that cars are used for far more manhours than guns are. Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically). If you were to compare the number of deaths related to each on a per hour use, I'm certain the rate would be extremely different. We can debate this obtuse car vs gun argument for days, but it's merely propaganda rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the deaths that children suffer from guns are largely homicides and not accidents. And I agree that it's not necessarily a gun issue. Children aged 6 and under who are killed by a family member are most often killed by something other than a gun. Does that mean we should say guns are safe and everyone who passes a background check should have them? Personally, I don't think so. That's just my opinion.

At any rate, if you'd like another chart, send me some data and I'll send you an invoice. :)

Cheers.
Kim

[RX8er]

Hi RX8er,

I'm happy to reply to your concerns here in an open forum.

Sorry, I meant to say that there are about the same number of deaths caused by gun operators as there are caused by car drivers. (I word it this way so I don't get the old "guns don't kill people" rhetoric.) That number includes suicides... from each instrument. I also want to point out that cars are used for far more manhours than guns are. Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically). If you were to compare the number of deaths related to each on a per hour use, I'm certain the rate would be extremely different. We can debate this obtuse car vs gun argument for days, but it's merely propaganda rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the deaths that children suffer from guns are largely homicides and not accidents. And I agree that it's not necessarily a gun issue. Children aged 6 and under who are killed by a family member are most often killed by something other than a gun. Does that mean we should say guns are safe and everyone who passes a background check should have them? Personally, I don't think so. That's just my opinion.

At any rate, if you'd like another chart, send me some data and I'll send you an invoice. :)

Cheers.
Kim

Hi Kim, thanks for joining up. You beat me to my full reply. I hope that you will stick around and provide us statistically challenged some facts. Oh, and I don't think I can afford your service.

[philip964]

Was the Mall shooting that was stopped by a CHL in Oregon? How does one factor people saved by guns? How many would have died had the CHL not pulled his gun and caused the active shooter to take his own life.

Should police have guns? I'm sure some of those loss years are due to the police defending themselves.

The vertical axis seems to have no purpose other than to spread out the trajectories of the pretty lines.

I think the NRA needs to hire Kim, to do their graphics.

Plot homicides and other violent crimes vs. gun freedom.

Plot politicians and views on gun control vs. number of full time armed security protection.

[sjfcontrol]

Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically).

Really? Let see, there are some 200-300 Million firearms in the U.S., yet according to your site, in 2010 (for a full year) there were 9595 firearms deaths. Assuming that each was with a different gun (worst case), that means that less than a whopping 0.005% of the firearms in this nation were used as "instruments of killing".

Seems that the vast majority of gun owners are misusing their "instruments of killing", otherwise a lot more people would be dead.

[steveincowtown]

Hi RX8er,

I'm happy to reply to your concerns here in an open forum.

Sorry, I meant to say that there are about the same number of deaths caused by gun operators as there are caused by car drivers. (I word it this way so I don't get the old "guns don't kill people" rhetoric.) That number includes suicides... from each instrument. I also want to point out that cars are used for far more manhours than guns are. Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically). If you were to compare the number of deaths related to each on a per hour use, I'm certain the rate would be extremely different. We can debate this obtuse car vs gun argument for days, but it's merely propaganda rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the deaths that children suffer from guns are largely homicides and not accidents. And I agree that it's not necessarily a gun issue. Children aged 6 and under who are killed by a family member are most often killed by something other than a gun. Does that mean we should say guns are safe and everyone who passes a background check should have them? Personally, I don't think so. That's just my opinion.

At any rate, if you'd like another chart, send me some data and I'll send you an invoice. :)

Cheers.
Kim

Kim,

Thanks for your reply on this public forum.

Could I interest you in doing the same type visulation for Cancer deaths, Deaths from cars, or even the common flu? These all kill far more people in the US than crazy folks who happen to use guns as their weapon of choice. These statistics are all readily available, and I don't even think you would have to invoice me for much. In fact if you will do these "visulations"'as well, and link them to the current one I will gladly offer $1000 for your time.

Cancer killed roughly 2200% more people than those subject to "gun violence" (which in and of itself is a misnomer, my guns are no more violent than the hammer or the chain saw I happen to own).

You seem to be smart and well spoken, I would love to see your talents used for a worthwhile cause.

There are so many better battles to fight than a fight against our Constitution.


Best regards,

Steveincowtown

[jmra]

So Kim, what would the graph look like if we took the criminals who died out of the picture and only left the victims. Take out every person whose death was directly related to their own criminal activity. Of course this would include suicide as it is a criminal act to take any life including your own. Of course we all know that if a person in bent on killing themselves the absence of a gun is not a deterrent. There are always pills, knives, bridges, ropes, etc,...

Then let's use statistics to estimate how many people did not die as a direct result of each of those criminals death. Those should be considered hours saved. I believe we should also calculate how many potential deaths have been prevented by use of firearms as a means of self defense where the criminal was not killed but instead sent to prison for 20 years. This also be considered hours saved.

I would be very interested in seeing this graph.

[jimlongley]

Hi RX8er,

I'm happy to reply to your concerns here in an open forum.

Sorry, I meant to say that there are about the same number of deaths caused by gun operators as there are caused by car drivers. (I word it this way so I don't get the old "guns don't kill people" rhetoric.) That number includes suicides... from each instrument. I also want to point out that cars are used for far more manhours than guns are. Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically). If you were to compare the number of deaths related to each on a per hour use, I'm certain the rate would be extremely different. We can debate this obtuse car vs gun argument for days, but it's merely propaganda rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the deaths that children suffer from guns are largely homicides and not accidents. And I agree that it's not necessarily a gun issue. Children aged 6 and under who are killed by a family member are most often killed by something other than a gun. Does that mean we should say guns are safe and everyone who passes a background check should have them? Personally, I don't think so. That's just my opinion.

At any rate, if you'd like another chart, send me some data and I'll send you an invoice. :)

Cheers.
Kim

So who did you invoice for the chart you published?