One in 500,000 is one too many! Think of the children! Specifically, think of the felonious children! Implementing an assault weapons ban, closing the gunshow loophole, limiting handgun purchases to one-per-month, and whatever else the Brady Campaign or VPC can think up... would guarantee a "zero in 500,000" gun death rate!
Errrr. *cough*.... nevermind. Gun control advocates don't ever claim a metric for "proving" that gun control works, because any statistical metric would be doomed to failure. That's why they don't care about statistics, because it doesn't help their cause nearly as much as heart-wrenching anecdotes about the streets running red with the blood of innocent children.
Good post.
Don't get cocky kid.
Interesting, but you can drop most dangerous statistics down to near zero with similar techniques. Middle-aged people who own Volvos with no history of traffic violations and only use their cars for commuting 30 miles a week are exceedingly unlikely to get killed in a traffic accident.
Most people who are over 34, not felons, live in the those population-dense areas (e.g., Chicago), etc. are less worried about themselves getting shot and more worried about their kids, who wouldn't be eligible for CCW permits even if they were legal there.
The fact that the people who tend to be the most vocal CCW proponents are the least likely to actually need to use a firearm in self-defense is curious. Being overweight, for example, would be a vastly more hazardous health risk than being unarmed.
Do you have specific sources easily available? I believe you, but I'd like to use this data with something stronger than "Chris says..."
Sevesteen, you have to go through the CDC mortality reports, and the FBI crime stats reports. They are updated regularly and can be found on their respective websites.
Two things Steven:
1. Correlation is not causation
2. Statistics are non-deterministic
Stephen: Fear of the unknown is common--Small-town elderly fear getting mugged more than inner city youth, even though the youth are statistically far more likely to experience it.
sevesteen, I'm not sure about that. The people in urban areas who are actually getting robbed or shot ought to have more invested in a solution than folks in smaller towns.
I find the arguments on the pro-CCW side of things more rational, but the uncompromising and condescending tone it's often delivered with seems to be coming from an emotional place I don't understand at all, assuming the goal is to persuade undecided people or (God forbid) people who don't currently agree with your position.
Chris, love the blog BTW. I did some shooting for the first time after reading it for a while and I would have an expensive 1911 habit if I lived somewhere else.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res...s/
firarmscu.htm
"During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994."
It's been coming back down, but it was over 30,000 in 2006, with 16000 of the gun deaths being suicide.
Hmmm, I was working off different numbers. Thats what I get for following a link from google and a magazine article rather than finding the original.
Of course as a percentage, this is even more favorable.
I ran almost exactly this same statistical analysis slightly over three years ago while I was still in Scotland. My raw data matched Prince Wally's more than yours, but it ends up pretty much the same way.
Once I discovered that the Left was lying like filthy weasels about gun control, I started to wonder what else they were lying (or just incredibly ignorant) about.
A lot, it turns out.
That is why I'm here now, that is why I hang out at Kim's.
Thanks for the work.
"Of the remaining 10,000 to 18,000, somewhere between 60% and 80% (depending on the year) are one felon killing another (according to the FBI)."
Where did you find this item? It sounds plausible, but I've never seen it elsewhere. Got a link?
PN-NJ, the articles of John Lott, the book more guns less crime, and numerous quoted references from FBI sources.
Note, that isn't a hard number, because that stat isn't directly tracked; it's an estimate.
Is one in 500,000 just the zero mark? I seems remarkable that 600 people a year are killed by meteorites...
No, one in 500,000 is the actual statistical estimate.
YOull see the 1-in-300,000,000 for measles.
Aglifter.
No, 600 per year aren;t killed by meteors....but once every 10,000,000 years, 6 billion are killed 
One person was hit and injured by a football sized meteorite during the twentieth Century ... it doesn't take a planet killer.
That adjusted death by firearm number isn't complete. Attitude also effects it.
I tend to get into trouble because I don't ignore bad things happening to other people, I tend to act.
As a result a friend's Parole Officer once forbade him from talking to or being with me ... he had examined MY record, and decided, quite correctly, that I was a trouble magnet of some kind.
Its not per year, its over a lifetime; and I think they count all objects falling from space and//or a great height.
"The people in urban areas who are actually getting robbed or shot ought to have more invested in a solution than folks in smaller towns."
Unless ideology or charatcer traits make them more fatalistic and accepting of the problem, rather than proactive about finding a solution. By your reasoning, people on welfare would be the ones most worried and proactive about finding a job- and yet they (as a group) demonstrably are not.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
