And not one in Windsor last year. Amazing!1,000,000 / 42 = ~24000 gun deaths per year. That probably isn't that far fetched especially when cities like Detroit had 2000+ murders in some years.
And not one in Windsor last year. Amazing!1,000,000 / 42 = ~24000 gun deaths per year. That probably isn't that far fetched especially when cities like Detroit had 2000+ murders in some years.
You must be turning LIBERAL and fundy christian.I think there are 1.2M abortions a year in the US - #1 cause of death by far.
OTB
A wee bit of a demographic difference between the two cities as well.And not one in Windsor last year. Amazing!
Careful, someone will call you racistA wee bit of a demographic difference between the two citys as well.
For instance Detroit’s demographics: 81.6 % Black, 12.3 % White, 1.0 % Asian,
Windsor by contrast: 81.8 % White, 2.4 % Black, 3.4 % Asian
Also a large difference in poverty and educational levels.
What kind of bone headed response is this? Sure, everybody will die at one point or another, so the cause of death is of no significance? It can be safely assumed that a very large proportion of these million deaths would not have occurred if there were not 85 guns in circulation for every 100 Americans. A million people killed by guns in a modern industrialized country that is not experiencing war on its own soil is a staggeringly large number of deaths. There is no way diminishing the seriousness of the issue.So does the number of fatal automobile crashes.
Under 0.0037 percent of the U.S. population is murdered by firearm.What kind of bone headed response is this? Sure, everybody will die at one point or another, so the cause of death is of no significance? It can be safely assumed that a very large proportion of these million deaths would not have occurred if there were not 85 guns in circulation for every 100 Americans. A million people killed by guns in a modern industrialized country that is not experiencing war on its own soil is a staggeringly large number of deaths. There is no way diminishing the seriousness of the issue.
I would hate to be one of those 0.0037% or related to or a friend of one. Even if the number is around 500,000, that is almost double the number of Americans killed by enemy action in WW II and that was a world war. If I heard Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy correctly she said the number is one million. If it is one million that is more than the number of Americans killed in the Civil War where Northern Virgina was a killing field. There has to be a serious flaw in a society where so many are murdered.Under 0.0037 percent of the U.S. population is murdered by firearm.
True enough, however, vast numbers of U.S. Nationals never know anyone who is murdered by firearm.I would hate to be one of those 0.0037%.
Where does this statistic come from? Are you saying less than 1% of all murders in the USA is firearms related or are you dividing firearms deaths against the population of the country? Those are different things.Under 0.0037 percent of the U.S. population is murdered by firearm.
I know, but your number seems to trivialize the issue. You could just as easily say that a really small percentage of people are actually murdered at all.Whobee, you I know, are quite able to tell the difference between "percent of the U.S. polulation is murdered by firearm", and "percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a firearm."
What a stupid response!... If you stop abortions how will you pay for those millions of children born? Will you expand Welfare and create a bigger government bureaucracy, since obviously these women will give up their children?
... but most of your conservative crowd are even against that!
It is both. If it is a member of your family it is a lot of people. From a national perspective and the TERB "run in circles scream and shout," that indeed is the point it is a very small number of people.I know, but your number seems to trivialize the issue. You could just as easily say that a really small percentage of people are actually murdered at all.
The 9,000 people is a lot to me.
However, what Macleans doesn't mention is that the later number includes a) suicides b) fatal acidental shootings (most of which are self-inflicted) c) legaly permissible shootings as well as d) homicides. The actual number of murders by firearm for the last year for which there are figures is the number I gave.A recent Maclean's article now available on their website quotes the following;
Number of US deaths in military action since 1776 including the civil war-580,000. Number of US firearm deaths as of 2008 over the last 40 years, 1,300,000.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/18/tragedy-in-tucson/
Well considering the small numbers killed in 9/11 I guess you don't think that comprised a crisis?Under 0.0037 percent of the U.S. population is murdered by firearm.
Yes, I believe that we can all agree that murder is not a moral good, however, .0037 percent a moral crisis, I think not.
In other words, the US is one of the safest countries in the world because pretty much anyone has access to a firearm.However, what Macleans doesn't mention is that the later number includes a) suicides b) fatal acidental shootings (most of which are self-inflicted) c) legaly permissible shootings as well as d) homicides. The actual number of murders by firearm for the last year for which there are figures is the number I gave.
I just don't buy into the % analysis.A terrorist act of war is rather a different kettle of fish.