The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Although suicides account for the majority of gun deaths in the United States—60% in the latest data—by and large American adults are unaware of this. In our survey, only one-fourth of Americans correctly answered that gun deaths by suicide outnumber deaths resulting from mass shootings, murders other than mass shootings, and accidental gun discharges. This is no better than guessing at random from among the four choices given.

The most common answer to the question, “As far as you know, which of the following is responsible for the most gun deaths in the United States?” is “murders other than mass shootings,” with one-third of American adults believing this is the leading cause of gun death. One-quarter think “mass shootings” are the leading cause of gun-related deaths. Fourteen percent believe that “accidental discharges” of guns account for more gun deaths than the three other categories offered in the question.

None of the groups we are able to examine in this survey showed a high awareness that suicide is the leading cause of gun-related deaths. There are, however, some differences in levels of knowledge about gun-related deaths:

NegativeApproach wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:59 amThe Anti-gun movement is doing a great job with branding and strategy. They're just as deceitful as the rest of Washington.

Those without a gun in their household are most likely to think that mass shootings are the leading cause of gun deaths.

CDFingers wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:21 am Here are accurate numbers from fivethirtyeight

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

CDFingers

But experts say those living with mental illness are rarely violent, and social contagion is the biggest risk factor for gun violence

. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence

featureless wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:20 pm

CDFingers wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:21 am Here are accurate numbers from fivethirtyeight

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

CDFingers

Not accurate. 538 quotes Mother Jones as the source for mass shootings. There's a shit ton of bias built into anything put out by them, unfortunately.

A comprehensive report by USA Today tracked all mass killings from 2006 through 2017 in which the perpetrator willfully killed 4 or more people. For mass killings by firearm for instance, it found 271 incidents with a total of 1,358 victims.[30] Mother Jones listed seven mass shootings, defined as indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed,[31] in the U.S. for 2015.[32] An analysis by Michael Bloomberg's gun violence prevention group, Everytown for Gun Safety, identified 110 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which at least four people were murdered with a firearm, between January 2009 and July 2014; at least 57% were related to domestic or family violence.[33][34]

CDFingers wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:10 am It's pretty tough to claim that a mass shooting is not felt as a threat by many folks. Mass shooting: someone you don't know. Domestic shooting: someone you know. In each case, you're shot. That makes some people fearful. And some of them vote. There's your problem.

Many gun owners don't want to acknowledge that guns provide a legitimate source of fear for some folks. I mean, you go to hear your favorite country singers and some clown from a top floor hotel room starts machine gunning folks. Now, tell me all kinds of fear is not generated in all kinds of people from that. It is legitimate. It doesn't matter what the 'numbers' are about it.

When we read "gun deaths" we don't think about suicides. No one is afraid when the guy across the street shoots himself in his bath tub. But if some idiot shoots up a bar everyone's scoping the exits for six or eight weeks afterward. Numbers don't mean squat when fear is involved.

Perception is often mistaken for reality. This is how the press makes its money.

Guns are different from most all instruments of death in that guns can deal death at a distance. Yeah, same with archery which never happens. Why? Archery is difficult and guns are totally easy. It's totally easy to kill dozens of people using bump stock weapons from a high vantage point. That's legitimately scary shit. If we as gun owners do not understand that viscerally and let that guide the policies we support, we continually will be whining at all the gun laws being made in an effort to assuage fear in the non gun owning public.

What policies shall we support? None that deal with guns. We should support policies that work to prevent humans from wanting to shoot other humans. Anything else will fail because fear.

Teach children. So simple. "Here's how you negotiate differences." We humans never will ever be a non tribal, non violent, non aggressive and non territorial species. But we all can learn to channel those urges properly. I'm a Giants fan, yet I've never killed a Dodgers fan. I was taught properly.

CDFingers

awshoot wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:44 am It is worth noting that alcohol causes 88,000 deaths per year. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

This is 2x the gun death numbers (and 6-7x the gun murder numbers).

Aside from being fun to drink, potable alcohol has no legitimate use. Firarms are fun to shoot plus they can be used for utilitarian purposes like hunting, pest control, and self-defense. Firearms have more legitimate uses than alcohol and are far safer. One wonders why nobody is talking about banning alcohol. ;-)

VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:48 pm There's little/no doubt that people who are anti gun/anti 2A are convinced, by these skewed stats, that guns are wiping thousands off the face of the Earth and any rational person would work to get rid of firearms before they kill again. The ignorance is running crazy - people really think they are statistically at huge risk of being shot down in the streets or mass murdered by someone when the truth is that they are far more likely to die of cancer or some other horrible disease because they are a morbidly obese smoker that drinks too much and doesn't exercise.

My question is that who or what is responsive for this agenda of mis/dis information? How have so many come to the wrong conclusion and what can be done about it? I have members of my family that are rabidly anti gun and yet have never experienced nor even know anyone who has experienced gun violence. My Wife's family lost her brother to gun violence and yet they all still own firearms and are pro firearm...they all shoot and they support others who own and operate firearms.

Where is this agenda coming from that wants to vilify gun ownership and gun owners and make people believe they are at extreme risk when they aren't?

VooDoo

awshoot wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:54 pm There are several reasons I like the alcohol statistic in the context of gun prohibitions:

1) The vast majority of antis enjoy alcohol (not so of tobacco) yet it has no functional value. Sure it can be used as a disinfectant, but such alcohol does not need to be potable.
2) Beer, wine, and liquor are ONLY valuable because of their enjoyment potential and millions of people enjoy them safely and legally. A few people abuse it or use it illegally, and our laws address those people.
3) We know what happens with alcohol prohibition -- prohibition solved none of the ills of alcohol abuse and in fact, created new more intractable problems.

Guns are safer than alcohol, have utilitarian uses beyond simply being fun, and like our previous experiment prohibiting alcohol, prohibition will cause its own set of nastier problems.

Eris wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:09 pm While i agree with you, the difference between alcohol and guns is that you can't use alcohol to kill other people intentionally. I think that's what anti-gunners really care about - the fact that guns enable *intentional* killing.