OT- Writer Mark Steyn Compares Gun(g) Ho America To "Civilized" Europe or Why Law Abiding Gun Owners Reduce Crime

On 7 Jan 2004 15:55:06 -0800, jim rozen brought forth from the murky depths:

0.008% sir. Pretty low.

.02%, sir. Roughly 40 times higher, Jim. But the postulate was different, comparing mortality rate between vehicles in auto wrecks.

Man, that's a twist. Where'd the 99%/1% figure come from, the "Book of Thin Air Stats"?

No, your chance of dying in a train/car wreck is 40 times higher than dying in a car/car wreck, though you are more likely to be in a car than a train on any given day.

Actually, the percentage is lower than first expected. I guess they include those folks who drive directly into the _side_ of trains and survive the little thump of being thrown a city block away.

Hmm, don't "percent" and "times" mean different things to you? Comparing apples to oranges to tomatoes comes easily to y'all, don't she, Jim?

I do see what you mean but it wasn't what we were talking about.

--------------------------------------------------------------- Never put off 'til tomorrow |

formatting link
what you can avoid altogether. | Dynamic Website Applications

---------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to
Larry Jaques
Loading thread data ...

A city wide blackout at Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:21:49 GMT did not prevent "Bob Swinney" from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"Modern technology" - labor saving devices since the invention of pointy sticks.

Anyone who believes that getting rid of guns will make for a better world, is advocating the return to the GLory Years of Yore, when Might made Right and to the Victor went the spoils.

Reply to
pyotr filipivich

Now I'm curious, in construction they have so many deaths per work performed/money spent etc. Is there a baseline for deaths per complex product? 100 million guns = 10,000 deaths. 200 million cars = 20,000 deaths. 10 thousand punch presses = 10 deaths. Build a better mouse trap and it's going to kill at least 2% of the buyers.

C
Reply to
CROQ

No comment one way or the other. Just interesting:-

formatting link
Mark Rand RTFM

Reply to
Mark Rand

The most interesting thing is the implied concept that a "firearm death" is somehow more awful than any other form of homicide or suicide. What the numbers seem to show is that in places where firearms are easily available, they are the tool of choice, but where they aren't easily available, other methods are used. No big surprise there.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

About 2% of Shuttle flights break up either during ascent or descent.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:58:04 -0500, Gary Coffman brought forth from the murky depths:

The term was probably coined "for the children!" Other than that, the CDC data seems to be fairly decent.

Riddle me this: Why is an epidemiological society looking into firearm deaths and/or suicide? The term is defined as "That which deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population."

Firearms and suicide are diseases now?!?

Supporting your statement, 98% of suicides in the UK used methods other than firearms since they're less available there.

(And look at those suicide figures. Asia is VERY depressed while most of "civilised" Europe is ahead of the USA in figures, Mr. Steyn.)

Why are suicides included with crimes, anyway? And why aren't new forms of suicide included in reports? Methods such as smoking, drinking, overeating, and "talking on cell phone while driving"? Advanced societies, huh? ;>

-- Vidi, Vici, Veni ---

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Development

Reply to
Larry Jaques

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.