15 Year Old Shoots and Kills Man Who Was Trying to Kidnap Woman in Wyoming

[Speedy]

Just pulled it out of thin air. But good catch, max, because it is 30k+ per year, not 25k.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

max wrote:
[quote=Speedy]
the 25k gun deaths every year.

and the source of that data?....

[Spock]

Speedy wrote:
the 25k gun deaths every year.

You're a little low according to the latest figures I could find from the CDC.

In 2010, 31,672 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States accounting for 17.5% of all injury deaths in that year.

[Speedy]

Never mind, I realize now that the CDC has questionable stats:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-gun-r...ics-2013-1

"Since there is a lack of funding for independent research, the gun debate has been lacking in unimpeachable statistics that could effect a change in the status quo, and that plays directly into the hands of people opposed to changes to make gun laws more comprehensive.

Even today, the NRA is pushing flawed statistics that are a direct result of this de-funding. Today, they'll cite Center for Disease Control fatal injury report statistics over several decades. The issue here is that the CDC explicitly says that fatal injury reports data from 1999 onward cannot be compared to years prior, because the way the CDC was forced to research incidents of firearms deaths changed drastically after the 1996 de-funding."

Speedy wrote:
Just pulled it out of thin air. But good catch, max, because it is 30k+ per year, not 25k.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

[quote=max]
[quote=Speedy]
the 25k gun deaths every year.

and the source of that data?....

[max]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=max]
[quote=Speedy]
the 25k gun deaths every year.

and the source of that data?....
"Not willing to google it up yourself is the ultimate intellectual laziness. Our propaganda fed parrot is still unclear on the concept.

When I post an argument on somebody else OP, DeusxMac, I do attach the source of data to validate it.

OTOH, my OPs do include an intelligence test, one you fail on a regular basis.
A perfect example why it is needed, despite your pathetic attempts to pass it again and again....

[max]

Thanks, Speedy...

[max]

Interesting numbers, causes of death:
Deaths due to doctors -225,000 (JAMA)
Deaths due to injuries - 180,000
Poisoning - 43,000
Drugs -40,000
Motor vehicles -33,000
Firearms - 32,000
Falls - 27,000
Booze -26,000
Infants -25,000
Firearm homicides -11,000
Doctors' sloppy handwriting - 7,000 (NAS)....

[DeusxMac]

max wrote: When I post an argument on somebody else OP, I do attach the source of data to validate it.

max wrote:
Interesting numbers, causes of death:
Deaths due to doctors -225,000 (JAMA)
Deaths due to injuries - 180,000
Poisoning - 43,000
Drugs -40,000
Motor vehicles -33,000
Firearms - 32,000
Falls - 27,000
Booze -26,000
Infants -25,000
Firearm homicides -11,000
Doctors' sloppy handwriting - 7,000 (NAS)....

So from your two postings in this same thread max, we can conclude that either:
• Your first statement was false; you do, in fact, post in someone else's OP without complete data sources.
• Your first statement was true, and that you and Charlie M. are the same person.

[max]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=max]When I post an argument on somebody else OP, I do attach the source of data to validate it.

max wrote:
Interesting numbers, causes of death:
Deaths due to doctors -225,000 (JAMA)
Deaths due to injuries - 180,000
Poisoning - 43,000
Drugs -40,000
Motor vehicles -33,000
Firearms - 32,000
Falls - 27,000
Booze -26,000
Infants -25,000
Firearm homicides -11,000
Doctors' sloppy handwriting - 7,000 (NAS)....

So from your two postings in this same thread max, we can conclude that either:
• Your first statement was false; you do, in fact, post in someone else's OP without complete data sources.
Actually the only conclusion you can draw from the two postings that you are uncomprehending clown.
I asked Speedy for the source, since nothing out there was close to the original number he provided it. I was not trying to catch him, I was curious to the methodology and the nature of the statistic.
Speedy posted the link. My post was listing that data.
DIRECTLY from Speedy's link.
With two exceptions.
And EACH one of the exceptions was attributed.

Sheesh, you are a perfect example why stupid needs to be weeded from some discussions...