about it.

A fact which, in itself, if plenty disturbing.

I don't know the number, 60 or 66% of those gun incidents are suicides.

We have about 11,000 gun murders a year. Suicides are about half and the rest are accidental shootings. 90% of suicide attempts by gun result in death, as opposed to 5% of attempts by pills. Those are the two most common methods.

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

but they won't kill you. I'm sure you meant pills.

And, yeah, if you are serious about suicide, a gun is pretty foolproof.

make you want to go for the pills.

5% is an interesting statistic though considering all these celebrities who accidentally off themselves.

On edit; You could say that all smoking deaths are suicides. Totally preventable.

AND WE WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT PARANOID, DELUSIONAL GUN NUTS

In 1965, 45% of Americans smoked, now it is 20%. The people who are dying of smoking now started smoking in the 1970's and 80's or earlier. The percentage of high school students who smoke is under 20. Again, we have made major strides, very unlike guns.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_smoking

it is no longer considered cool or normal to smoke and I want the same for gun nuttery

I think people make assumptions about gun owners that are simply not true.

BTW - about 10 times more people die of tobacco related causes than gun related causes every year.

Typically in their twenties. People die from lung cancer much later in life. My grandfather was in his 90s when it killed him. It was an agonizing, painful death, but he had a long, productive life before he died. That said, I don't go near cigarettes or guns.

Once we've tackled tobacco and guns; a healthy lifestyle is going to involve a lot less meat in our diets.

Are you all in; or just avoiding the easy ones?

feel free.

Tell me, what is easy about doing away with guns? This country is filled with armed lunatics ready to overthrow the govt over an assault weapons ban. There is nothing easy about it. Don't worry. Guns will remain. and we'll continue to have the most violent society in the industrialized world. There is no danger of our becoming a civilized nation. Some woman writing on the internet isn't a threat to you. You're aligned with a multi-billion dollar corporate lobby. When did human lives every matter more than profits in this country?

Your point about meat is a non-sequitur. It doesn't kill children or young men in their twenties. In fact, humans have lived perfected well for millennia eating meat. The point is the overall health of one's diet.

You people really can't come up with a logical argument can you? But then you don't need to. You've got capital on your side.

I was just curious. I don't have any guns either. I've never liked guns myself. I didn't particularly care to go to the range when I was in the army.

I think we're gonna win this gun battle (the end result being more restrictions on gun ownership).

Perhaps my comment was out of place, but I think that will be the next health issue that comes down the pike: our eating habits. I was just curious as to how willing other people are going to be about taking on corporate farming (particularly beef) once we've got the gun nuts whipped into submission.

I certainly wasn't trying to upset you.

The food pyramid, school lunch regulations to match, educational programs in all the schools, etc. You can't force moderation, but they have done a good job of doing what they can, within the bounds of what's reasonable.

I had to learn the nutritional guidelines in high school, in the early 80's, and even then schools here were required to serve lunches that went by the guidelines. In college 8 years ago, one of the degree requirements was a "Health" course, built around the latest FDA guidelines.

You can say that perhaps it hasn't made a dent, but imagine how much worse it could be! I eat well myself, and put what I know to good use cooking for my family.

by groups of people that benefit from 'their food' providing the best nutrition.

I'm not trying to hijack a gun thread to discuss nutrition, but the same problems exist with food that we have with cigarettes and guns.

The people who are supposed to be protecting us from bad health decisions are in the pockets of the corporations that profit from our bad health decisions.

I only brought it up initially because there was discussion of tobacco and guns being killers; the last I heard heart disease is the number one killer in this country. Yet we spend a lot of money subsidizing the beef industry.

read the stats!!!

Assuming for argument's sake that's the case, let's subject guns to the same regulation and liability exposure that tobacco faces.

I am sure that.s not what you want for guns though. Neither do I actually.

But making gun manufacturers liable for their products in some way does make sense.

people are still dying from the tobacco culture of years past - when it seemed like everyone smoked, when it was considered cool and normal - go see ARGO to see what it was like in 1979. But people got FED UP WITH IT because it is well known that CIGARETTES WILL KILL YOU. Now, cigarette smokers are seen for what they are - ADDICTS - they can still smoke but it is very expensive and you have to find your little areas where you can indulge. Well, people are now FED UP WITH THE GUN CULTURE and THAT WILL BE CHANGED TOO.

You mean the ones who think their right to breathe air trumps your right to pollute your lungs.

That's a pretty serious addiction -- convincing yourself that something that can kill you is what you want to do. Kinda like the alcoholic with liver disease saying he wants to drink.

folks.

I'll gladly set you on fire.

And you're posting fail.

Not often you see the "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit these days.

What else might we have to look forward to? Personally, I'm hoping for "I'm rubber, you're glue." A classic!

How many people die from guns. We're supposed to pretend they aren't deadly weapons to make you feel better.

Who ever said they are not deadly weapons? And so what if they are? Lots of things are deadly. At least they are honest about it.

List of preventable causes of death

...in 1980.

Ironically my thesis was handed in on the morning of Dec 8, 1980, about 12 hours before John Lennon was killed.

Or didn't we keep track until 1960? If that is the case then what if we only included wars since 1960?

It has been estimated that 120,012 men were killed in action during the American Civil War. A further 64,582 died of their wounds. However, the greatest danger facing soldiers during the war was not bullets but disease. It is believed that 186,216 soldiers died of a variety of different illnesses during the conflict. Large numbers of the soldiers came from rural areas and had not been exposed to common diseases such as chicken pox and mumps. Living in unhealthy conditions and often denied properly medical treatment, soldiers sometimes died of these diseases. For example, 5,177 soldiers in the Union Army died of measles during the war.

The main killer diseases were those that resulted from living in unsanitary conditions. Union Army records show that a large number of its soldiers died from diseases caused by contaminated food and water. This included diarrhea (35,127), typhoid (29,336) and dysentery (9,431). Drinking from streams occupied by by dead bodies or human waste and eating uncooked meat were the cause of large numbers of deaths. Regular soldiers who had been trained to be more careful about the food and water they consumed, were far less likely to suffer from intestinal disease that volunteer soldiers.

Large numbers of soldiers died from tuberculosis (consumption). Official records show 6,497 soldiers died of the disease in the Union Army. However, a much larger number were discharged because of poor health and died later. It is estimated that smallpox killed 7,058 Union Soldiers. Another 14,379 died of malaria. Although the exact number of Confederate Army deaths from malaria is not known, there were 41,539 cases in an 18 month period (January, 1862-July, 1863) in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

So the situation is a lot worse than it looks.

I would like to make some points though, one being that measles is deadly for adults and it was probably really bad for the military guys in the Civil War since, as you indicated, unsanitary conditions along with insufficient medical attention and poor sleeping conditions as well.

Then, there probably aren't any good compilations of how many people died from gunshot injuries that were not related, directly, to the Civil War. I live out in the wild western territories and a lot of people settled their grievances with guns, and a lot of people went to the grave that way (an many unaccounted for) so I am guessing that perhaps as many civilians in our history were killed that way even if they weren't in any of the wars prior to the data that is presented here.

Just a couple thoughts that came up while I was reading your comment.

Not uncommon deaths. Plane crashes, sinking of ships an submarines, buildings burning and collapsing, ordnance explosions, bayoneting, swords, being smothered in collapsed trenches and caves, etc. These are ways people die in war.

But I still don't even get the point. Why the comparison? Does dying from one thing or another make you less dead? Is it the violence factor? Is it the presumed involvement of a firearm or a weapon? Or is it simply that people think that it is some kind of profound statement that guns are capable of killing? Really? You don't say.

I honestly don't get it. Someone please clue me in. I admit my ignorance and turn the other cheek to your open hostility and derision. But please let a clueless dolt know what the relevance of the comparison is.

Go after guns and not tobacco because? Tobacco only causes 10 time more preventable deaths than guns - is that not enough????? Guns are used in crimes and self defense and hunting and other violent activities and the good liberal is after all a pacifist? Is that it? Where is it written that liberals are pacifists - I'm NOT - and I will be the first to say so, but that does NOT mean I am a criminal or an advocate of violence.

for you..



http://theobamadiary.com/

I mean for the data.