Guns are now killing as many people as cars in the U.S.
Source: Washington Post
By Christopher Ingraham December 17 at 11:43 AM
For the first time in more than 60 years, firearms and automobiles are killing Americans at an identical rate, according to new mortality data released this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, the age-adjusted death rate for both firearms (including homicides, suicides and accidental deaths) and motor vehicle events (car crashes, collisions between cars and pedestrians, etc) stood at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people.
The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950. In the late 1960s, for instance, there were well over 25 motor vehicle deaths for every 100,000 people in the United States. Since then, that rate has fallen by more than half.
Over the same period, gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.
One way of illustrating the shift in gun and auto deaths is to look at state-level data. In 2005, gun deaths outnumbered vehicle deaths in just two states, Alaska and Maryland, plus the District of Columbia. By 2014, gun deaths were greater in 21 states plus D.C.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wonkblog-guns-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Cue Lee Greenwood.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Our former governor says and did pass the strictest gun laws in the country. Something wrong with these stats.
maxsolomon
(38,648 posts)but you knew that.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)The ten states with the most per capita drunk driving are all Red States. My current home state of South Carolina ranks #3. Alabama is in the top ten, as is Montana, Wyoming an Mississippi. The number one state for drunk driving is North Dakota. According to this article, 10.3 of every 100,000 people in that state die because of drunk driving every year.
I would expect Red States to dominate any death-by-gun list, and they probably would, if they didn't do so much drinking and driving.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)As a society we have enacted legislation/standards to make cars safer...not so much with guns so this is really no surprise.
trillion
(1,859 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)All bullets should cost $5,000 because that way there will be no more innocent bystanders.
maxsolomon
(38,648 posts)A lifetime limit on Ammunition!
hack89
(39,181 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)I will leave a note for my great great great grandchildren to keep an eye out for that.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) 
Initech
(108,659 posts)Love that bit! 
Rafale
(291 posts)Interesting since there are so many more guns and gun owners now than in previous years. Also the number of miles driven per year leveled off beginning in 2008. Maryland does have one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country now; grist for the mill. Good article. Appreciate the post.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Gun deaths appear to have come down some.
Bottom line: cars are getting safer all the time.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Maybe the RW and the NRA should consider why not.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Users being injured or killed in an accident tend to be pretty rare.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... court of law, but the NRA has bought or scared off too many legislators to allow that to happen. Some day, though, some beautiful day!
lark
(26,068 posts)I know the NRA doesn't want gun stats shown, but it seems to me to be a daily occurrence that someone is shot accidentally. It could be the gun owner him/herself who gets hurt or it could be an innocent bystander, but it seems to be happening frequently from the reports i see, and I'd bet theirs lots not being reported. If some gun crazed person shoots themselves accidentally, that's their choice, but when a small child shoots/kills themselves or someone else because a loaded, unlocked gun is left around, that's what's heinous and happens way too frequently.
Too many stupid irresponsible people in this country have lethal toys and are dangerous to themselves and others.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)In Fiji, a few years ago, the government was very alarmed at the high suicide rate among women. It turns out that the suicide rate for young, recently married women was extraordinarily high (sorry, don't have the numbers). About two thirds of the women were killing themselves by eating pesticide, and the other third by hanging. The government commissioned a study on how to reduce the suicide rate, the conclusion of which was "we need to reduce access to pesticides".
Of course, there is more to this story. It turns out that in the Fijian population, women generally marry to men from other islands. When they get married, they leave the family and friends that they've lived with their whole lives, and move into a village where they are a stranger.
But by all means, let's worry about the pesticide, because that's how 2/3's of the women are killing themselves.
Of course, a real apples to apples comparison would be "what is the rate at which people are accidentally killed by cars vs accidentally killed by guns", or "what is the rate at which people are accidentally killed by doctors vs accidentally killed by guns", but those statistics don't paint the right picture. It's so much easier to just conflate all of the "gun deaths" together as a scare tactic, which is just as intellectually dishonest as what the Republicans do on other topics.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Now if we could just make the number of car accidents smaller, since they are usually not accidents.
2/3 of the gun deaths are suicides. A large step at reducing that number is proper secured storage of the guns.
NickB79
(20,329 posts)That finding was reported Monday by two Princeton economists, Angus Deaton, who last month won the 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, and Anne Case. Analyzing health and mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from other sources, they concluded that rising annual death rates among this group are being driven not by the big killers like heart disease and diabetes but by an epidemic of suicides and afflictions stemming from substance abuse: alcoholic liver disease and overdoses of heroin and prescription opioids.
A trigger lock or a gun safe doesn't do much good when the person set on committing suicide is the one holding the key.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The RW, NRA, and GOP won't let them.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)
No one will hold their breath...
guns are pretty simple devices. How do you make them safer while ensuring reliability?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Things roughly analogous to lane departure warnings, auto-braking, etc.
Most of these don't contribute to a firearm working more reliably, but could eliminate some undesirable discharges. If the technology worked, I'd buy it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)it needs time to mature but I am sure people would use it. It would not have a significant impact on gun deaths but it won't make things worse.
hack89
(39,181 posts)no surprise given our fucked up health care system.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)On a positive note, it looks like car accident deaths are going down. I think that is probably because the car making industry has been producing safer vehicles and many states now have seat belt laws. I think changes in gun industry and gun laws could also make a difference in lowering gun deaths.
Hal Bent
(59 posts)Yes, and such will occur the day after the National Hockey League awards a new franchise to Hell.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)and I dont mean the cars
happyslug
(14,779 posts)2/3 of gun homicides rates are suicides. In societies with limited access to firearms, hanging is the perferred method of suicide followed by pesticides. Thus a ban on firearms will reduce firearm homicides but total homicides will stay about the same.
What is needed is better ways to get in contact with people thinking about suicide, but that requires money no one wants to spend.
Actual murders and other crimes involving firearm has dropped since the 1960s, the suicide rate has stayed about the same.
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)now why is that so hard to do with guns? just don't bend over for the NRA
bananas
(27,509 posts)Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book accusing car manufacturers of resistance to the introduction of safety features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money on improving safety. It was a pioneering work, openly polemical but containing substantial references and material from industry insiders.
Exhibit featuring the book at Henry Ford Museum, Detroit
<snip>
Government response
The book has continuing relevance: it addressed what Nader perceived as the political meddling of the car industry to oppose new safety features, which parallels the debates in the 1990s over the mandatory fitting of air bags in the United States, and industry efforts by the ACEA to delay the introduction of crash tests to assess vehicle-front pedestrian protection in the European Union.[4]
Industry response
Nader claims that GM responded to his criticism of the Corvair by trying to destroy Nader's image and to silence him. It "
1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, 'questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits'; (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time; (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships; (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him; (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and (6) conducted a 'continuing' and harassing investigation of him."[5]
On March 22, 1966, GM President James Roche was forced to appear before a United States Senate subcommittee, and to apologize to Nader for the company's campaign of harassment and intimidation. Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy.[5] It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights, leading to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, among other things.[6]
Former GM executive John DeLorean asserted in On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors (1979) that Nader's criticisms were valid.[7][page needed] Former Ford and Chrysler President Lee Iacocca said the Corvair was 'unsafe' and a 'terrible' car in his book, Iacocca: An Autobiography.[8]
<snip>
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)is that he taught my generation that the guy (or gal) that washington (gov, corporations and their lobbyists) hates the most....is the most valuable to the american voter....Clinton has shown her willingness to be smeared over and over and do the right thing for no money....(she did not receive a pay check while getting smeared by the insurance lobbyists, GOP and the AMA for reintroducing national health care) she started out for children and education, went to bat for national health care....made it rain for New York after 911 and improved relationships with other countries as SOS......all while being the most hated person in politics....she's proven her value to the voters...they need to support her....the more people stand up to fight for things like wage equality, marriage equality, access to health care, education, national security and foreign policy that makes sense....the environment...housing ,gun control etc, she's proven she can withstand the washington machine and get things done....that's why she's the most valuable politician she can stand up to the GOP. Cheers, Maggie
NickB79
(20,329 posts)And that gun deaths were cut in half from 1993-2000, and remained at 1967 levels for the past 15 years.
Over the same period, gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)
And what happened as we near 2000? The US had the lowest unemployment rate since the 1960s AND the most people employed since the 1960s. People were secure in their jobs and economists were fearing an outbreak of strikes as pressure for increase in pay was building. Then we elected Bush who proceeded to decrease employment.
Notice the increase in the 1970s, that is when wages stagnated for non unionized people, which was followed by decrease in unions and wages for unionized people in the 1980s. That lead to high unemployment rates starting in the 1970s that lasted till.the late 1990s.
All this shows the best way to decrease crime is to increase employment, including employment of "discouraged" workers who are NOT counted in the U3 unemployment rate that everyone cites. In the late 1990s you not only saw a decline in the U3 unemployment rate, but also the U6 rate which includes discouraged workers. Thus employment is the key to reduce not only crime but suicides.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)"If guns and automobiles cause the same amount of deaths, why isn't the left talking about car control too."
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The end is nigh, gun fetishists.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)
Turbineguy
(40,030 posts)time to stop licensing cars.
Blackjackdavey
(267 posts)Obviously it's time to start requiring liability insurance for gun owners.
NickB79
(20,329 posts)You did see that the charts show we're at the same level of gun homicides since 1967, right?
The NRA could offer cheap liability insurance with every membership, get millions of new members, and become even more powerful.
Talk about unexpected consequences!
Turbineguy
(40,030 posts)I'm reading that gun violence causes $250 billion per year in economic harm. That's about $66,000 per gun sold. Once you start buying liability insurance, liability would be recognized. So yeah, you could buy a cheap policy and be on the hook for the rest. Florida got around this by passing a law. If you are an innocent bystander in a gunfight and you get shot, you're on your own. You (or your family) can't sue.
NickB79
(20,329 posts)Liability insurance is specifically exempt from paying out when a criminal act is performed. That's why insurance won't pay out if you, say, burn down your house for the insurance money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance#Insurable_risks
In other words, liability insurance does not protect against liability resulting from crimes or intentional torts committed by the insured. This is intended to prevent criminals, particularly organized crime, from obtaining liability insurance to cover the costs of defending themselves in criminal actions brought by the state or civil actions brought by their victims. A contrary rule would encourage the commission of crime, and allow insurance companies to indirectly profit from it, by allowing criminals to insure themselves from adverse consequences of their own actions.
It should be noted that crime is not uninsurable per se. In contrast to liability insurance, it is possible to obtain loss insurance to compensate one's losses as the victim of a crime.
Mandated liability insurance on firearms would have no impact on the harm done by the illegal use of firearms in the commission of a crime, which would compromise the vast majority of the $250 billion dollar amount you stated. And that's even assuming someone who's apt to commit a violent crime with a firearm would bother to get liability insurance in the first place. If someone were caught in the crossfire of two criminals exchanging gunfire, as in the example you gave, and the shooters by some miracle had insurance, liability insurance wouldn't pay out anyway.
Liability insurance on firearms would mostly just cover acts such as accidental shootings.
Blackjackdavey
(267 posts)Right. That is why liability insurance should be required -- it won't have an impact on criminal violence, as you stated, but insurance companies would then have a vested interest in studying the issue of safety, they would mandate their findings, folks would have a vested interest in being less negligent where their gun ownership is concerned and then there would be fewer accidents and suicides (i.e. less easy access.) Frankly, it may be the only regulation needed as the insurance companies would probably take care of the rest, allowing the government to focus on criminal acts of violence.
hack89
(39,181 posts)my neighbors swimming pool raised his premiums. If I own certain types of dogs my premiums would go up. Insurance companies understand the risk right now - and they don't care.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)lark
(26,068 posts)If they have to pay for deaths the way car insurance does, it'd definitely hurt them.
But, there's also injuries which are far, far more frequent. They'd lose their profit margin immediately and bet then they'd want laws about gun locks. Hell, they'd demand laws like that. lol
hack89
(39,181 posts)secondly, many accidents are self injury or involve family members so there would be no insurance claims.
lark
(26,068 posts)Way more people are killed by people they know than by strangers, family would have to be included.
hack89
(39,181 posts)there is a good reason the insurance company doesn't care about my safe full of guns but would raise my premiums in a heartbeat if I put in a pool or bought a "dangerous" dog.
cstanleytech
(28,454 posts)If I was going to bet though I would lay money down on mandatory seat belt laws being the largest reason for the reduction as they started coming into effect during the mid 80s with the other reason being better trauma care.
As for guns the only comparable way to get such a reduction might be with mandatory gun safety rules such as mandatory safety courses every 2 or 3 years as well as stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime and i dont mean another 5, 10 or 20 years but rather life without any chance of parole ever.
Yes, its harsh but I would rather such assholes not be allowed to hurt some innocent cashier at a 7 eleven.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Remembering how liability insurance actually works....
Blackjackdavey
(267 posts)roamer65
(37,945 posts)Because if I get shot by one and live, I am suing their fucking pants off. They won't have dime to their name when I am done with them.
I have also told my family if I am killed by one, take the shooter to the cleaners.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Make sure not just anyone can legally get behind the wheel of a potentially deadly weapon, maybe a license that has to be renewed, a test they have to pass, insurance, that kind of thing... Public safety is important ya know.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
tclambert
(11,191 posts)The answer is we need more cars.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)A suicide is a choice. The choice of one free individual to take their own life. To have control over their own body, and their own fate. Our party has in the past, supported Right-To-Die positions, as it should.
Only when a gun is involved, people lose their minds! No! People don't have the right to use a gun to end their life, only if they get permission from a doctor, or someone... right?
Or is it more about making the "danger" of guns look big bad and scary in an effort to institute the criminal seizure of guns? After all, no one should have a gun - they might choose to kill themselves!
The attempt to lump these numbers together into one pool and scare people with them, and then support the rights of one individual to opt for death at their time of choosing is disingenuous, transparent, and ridiculous. We see what you are doing.
Blackjackdavey
(267 posts)Guns are the most readily accessed, most lethal method of suicide. If a teenager impulsively raids his father's and mother's medicine cabinet after getting dumped by his girlfriend that day at school and takes an overdose, he can be treated at the emergency room, recover and get another girlfriend later on. If he impulsively raids the gun cabinet... he's dead.
Township75
(3,535 posts)How there should be mandatory waiting periods for women and counseling and review boards. Except that it shouldn't be said.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Blackjackdavey
(267 posts)you would be surprised, shocked actually, at how many parents bring their kids for suicide assessments where we learn that the kid is allowed to keep his favorite rifle, or whatever, under his bed. Even after the assessment. I'm not kidding.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Trade in those "ifs" and "ands", you would have a good start.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)An automobile accident is just that, an accident.
So gun deaths actually far outstrip car deaths, even if you deduct suicides.
Game. Set. Match.
EX500rider
(12,552 posts).....when no one claims with a straight face that jumping off a bridge is "bridge violence"
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
Initech
(108,659 posts)
EX500rider
(12,552 posts)Initech
(108,659 posts) Stargleamer
(2,714 posts)141 deaths per 100,000. http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2012/11/10/who_smokes_more_americans_or_europeans_106403.html
I am not trying to undermine the anti-gun message of the OP, only calling attention to how much smoking devastates.
"Where you headed, Johnny Smoke?":
olddad56
(5,732 posts)maybe if a person dies from second hand smoke, the smoker should be charged with murder.
MJJP21
(329 posts)I am certainly no fan of the NRA and what I found interesting is the chart showing a flat lining of gun deaths from around 1999 despite a known increase in gun sales. If you are trying to make a case for more gun control this chart doesn't do it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Which hovers around 31% or so.
Source: http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
It appears that this is historically low and continuing to decrease.
EX500rider
(12,552 posts)....or might mean less people willing to say they own guns in a poll.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Doubly humorous since the cars are NEVER designed to kill.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)We better make alcohol control a national priority. Or we could just accept that gun control is about being scared of an irrevelant threat and not analysis of the relative danger compared to other activities.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Fits the graph better.
the_phantom_dennis
(28 posts)which is why I do not own a gun.
roamer65
(37,945 posts)I was in a head on, higher speed collision and walked away from it without injury. Idiot wasn't watching and came into my lane at about 65 mph.
Couldn't have said that 40 years ago.
As far as gun laws, they are now way too lax and need to be significantly tightened.