Of course correlation does not equal causation. But it's even worse with this graph. During the "Assault Weapons Ban" (a ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles having certain cosmetic features), the rate of handgun homicides drops relatively precipitously during the first 5 years, 4.8 to 3.0 = 37%. There is a similar decline in homicide rate BY ALL CAUSES (guns, knives, feet and fists, blunt objects, poisoning, etc.). However, the weapons that were banned, so-called "assault rifles" are part of the group of "other guns" (which includes all long guns, ALL rifles and shotguns, but excludes handguns). The homicide rate for this group including the "assault rifles" declined during the same period from 1.0 to 0.8, or 20%. So the homicide rate for the guns NOT banned (handguns) declined TWICE AS MUCH as the decline for the group including the guns that WERE banned. The explanation for that is going to read like a Ninth Circuit opinion concluding that the "right to bear arms" does not include the right to concealed carry, and may not include the right to open carry. I'm just sayin'...

The 1994-2004 AWB is an interesting example, because it's one of the few times the CDC actually DID a study.  They found that the AWB had no effect on gun crimes either positively or negatively.  Keep in mind Columbine happened in 1999 and the shooters used:

    Intratec TEC-DC9
    Hi-Point 995 Carbine
    Savage 67H pump-action shotgun
    Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun
    99 explosives
    4 knives

The Highpoint 995 was a ban-compliant firearm under the AWB, sold with 10 round limit detachable magazine.
Some gun control advocates have argued that a magazine ban will be effective, but as seen with the Columbine
tragedy, Harris just brought more (13) magazines to compensate for the limits he had. Harris fired 96 shots,
before killing himself.

The ban was ineffective.

Apples and oranges.  The two have completely different applications and require different degrees of skill to use (guns are much simpler to operate than a car).  There are also fewer vehicles owned and operated daily than guns.  347 million guns vs. 253 million cars and trucks.  More of a population means higher likelihood of causing death.
You could look at the stats as:  Firearms are designed to be lethal.  Cars are designed to be safe modes of transportation.  Are cars really as lethal as guns?  If so, maybe the safety engineers need to go back to the drawing board!
Finally, the title states:  Deaths Caused by:  Motor Vehicles   Firearms.
"Caused by" is a misleading and loaded phrase."  Should say "Involving".  Cars and guns don't cause death.  People using them do.  Except Christine.   

Agreed with all that but where's the numbers? The motor vehicle is easy to find from the NHTSA because they collect that shit. No one collects gun violence statistics.

Agreed with all that but where's the numbers? The motor vehicle is easy to find from the NHTSA because they collect that shit. No one collects gun violence statistics.

What data are you specifically wanting to see?

What data are you specifically wanting to see?

Pretty much everything I already mentioned related to how safe is it to own a gun and how dangerous is it to own a gun. In Epidemiology, we can correlate everything bad with smoking. I doubt the same could be said about gun ownership beyond what seems common sense.

Pretty much everything I already mentioned related to how safe is it to own a gun and how dangerous is it to own a gun. In Epidemiology, we can correlate everything bad with smoking. I doubt the same could be said about gun ownership beyond what seems common sense.

If you're focusing on the guns and not the circumstances of the people who use them, the numbers you are looking for are meaningless. 

All firearm deaths                                                              2011                    2010
• Firearm deaths by suicide:.......................................... 19,766..................19,392
• Firearm deaths by accident:........................................8 51......................606
• Firearm deaths caused by LEO (non-accidental):.............258...................... 412

• Firearm deaths by homicide (total):...............................11,101..... .............11,078
• Firearm homicides (gang related and included in total):......8,880 (80%)...........8,862 (80%)
• Firearm homicides (non gang and included in total):...........2,220 (20%)...........2,215 (20%)
• Firearm deaths of self defense*
and undetermined intent:........................................... ..4,224....................4,656

• Total number of legal US firearm owners (Est): 52,000,000 households


2,220 gun-related deaths are actual non-gang-related murders.  That's 20% of the total.  Murder is illegal. 
The majority of gang members are minors, felons or have convictions for violent crimes and drug abuse.  Owning guns for this group is unlawful for the majority.

Those are verified stats.  Now, how do you intend to use the data?. 

By asking why over and over again until you get the real reason why people die from firearms. Do these statistics explain if firearms are safe or dangerous? What statistically verified conclusions can we make from this data? If I was to just look at the numbers, I would have to conclude that firearms kill people which we all know if false.

I agree that most gun related murders are gang related. Do we just say good riddance or do we try to focus the gun control energy toward reducing gang violence? To do this, we have to have data. I personally support the efforts of http://cureviolence.org/ that treats gang violence like a contagious disease and if you use practiced CDC methods to treat the spread of the disease, you greatly reduce gang related gun violence. Most of the gun control energy is focused on the mass shootings which we all know is only a fraction of the gun violence that occurs in the country.

The 1994-2004 AWB is an interesting example, because it's one of the few times the CDC actually DID a study.  They found that the AWB had no effect on gun crimes either positively or negatively.  Keep in mind Columbine happened in 1999 and the shooters used:

Agreed. It totally contradicts the previous graph I showed where they try to correlate the AWB with reduction in handgun deaths. Totally spurious.

Here's another beauty. Is Hawaii's low rate because of gun control laws or is it because of our missionary culture? If gun control laws, why do so many mass shootings occur in California? Can we extrapolate that gun violence can correlate with political leanings? (No)

By asking why over and over again until you get the real reason why people die from firearms. Do these statistics explain if firearms are safe or dangerous? What statistically verified conclusions can we make from this data? If I was to just look at the numbers, I would have to conclude that firearms kill people which we all know if false.

I agree that most gun related murders are gang related. Do we just say good riddance or do we try to focus the gun control energy toward reducing gang violence? To do this, we have to have data. I personally support the efforts of http://cureviolence.org/ that treats gang violence like a contagious disease and if you use practiced CDC methods to treat the spread of the disease, you greatly reduce gang related gun violence. Most of the gun control energy is focused on the mass shootings which we all know is only a fraction of the gun violence that occurs in the country.
Agreed. It totally contradicts the previous graph I showed where they try to correlate the AWB with reduction in handgun deaths. Totally spurious.

Here's another beauty. Is Hawaii's low rate because of gun control laws or is it because of our missionary culture? If gun control laws, why do so many mass shootings occur in California? Can we extrapolate that gun violence can correlate with political leanings? (No)

Hawaii became a US territory in 1898 and a state in 1959.  The islands did not "grow up" in the US the way settlers on the mainland did.  Revolutionary War, Civil War, US-Mexico war, wars with Native-American tribes, game larger than boars, predators of livestock, pests of crops, and so on were all reasons the firearm was an essential tool for over 278 years when the settlers landed at Plymouth Rock.

The culture here developed without guns, so the attitudes are different.  However, what I think is a larger factor is the family culture.  The family unit on the mainland has been under assault for decades, making room for the "alternative lifestyle".  Single moms, single dads, two moms or two dads, no parents because they are in prison or the kids removed and placed in foster care, divorce, etc.  In Hawaii, the family structure provides the support everyone depends on.  That is what helps keep crime low -- not just "gun crime", but all crime.

If you're focusing on the gun, you're not focusing on the problem.  The problem is crime and violence.  Fix that, and the violent gun problems are solved as well.

Exactly, yet gun control advocates try to correlate our strict laws with our low gun violence rate. Totally spurious. We need more data to counter this.

Exactly, yet gun control advocates try to correlate our strict laws with our low gun violence rate. Totally spurious. We need more data to counter this.

People will try to use stats to support their decision anytime they can.  Their hope is it won't be scrutinized too closely.

I learned a few rules over the years, like when the raw numbers don't sound significant, use percentages.  I always get suspicious when anyone uses percentages to support their point.

People will try to use stats to support their decision anytime they can.  Their hope is it won't be scrutinized too closely.

I learned a few rules over the years, like when the raw numbers don't sound significant, use percentages.  I always get suspicious when anyone uses percentages to support their point.

73.18% of americans are suspicious of percentages...

73.18% of americans are suspicious of percentages...

Seven-fifths of adults have problems understanding fractions.

And the other .5 can't use decimals!

I heard that 75% of all statistics are made up.

You have to admit that this is hilarious.



So is this...

That chart is a POS as it does not differentiate between firearms death by accident. suicide, or homicide.

Further, using a whole state for a statistic,and ignoring the possibility of huge concentrations in urban areas is absolutely meaningless.  Compare Chicongo to greater Illinois and see how it looks.

That chart is a POS as it does not differentiate between firearms death by accident. suicide, or homicide.

Further, using a whole state for a statistic,and ignoring the possibility of huge concentrations in urban areas is absolutely meaningless.  Compare Chicongo to greater Illinois and see how it looks.

Yeah, take a look at the "PoliticsThatWork.com" website. It's a total leftist propaganda shill. Might as well cite Moms Demand Action or the Brady Campaign for some "objective" statistics re firearms. That site also has graphs that conclusively show that the greater the union membership the higher the average state income, the more "undocumented immigrants" the higher the median state income, Republicans are less educated, if Trump wins (May 2016) we're screwed, etc. etc. etc.

That statistical chart re "gun deaths" also (besides not distinguishing between suicides, accidents, and homicides) does not account for "justifiable homicides", either by law enforcement or civilians, so the rapist who is stopped in the act by a woman bearing a firearm shows up in that chart as a statistical contribution to how "bad" firearms are. And the number of "justifiable homicides" is not negligible.

Yeah, take a look at the "PoliticsThatWork.com" website. It's a total leftist propaganda shill. Might as well cite Moms Demand Action or the Brady Campaign for some "objective" statistics re firearms. That site also has graphs that conclusively show that the greater the union membership the higher the average state income, the more "undocumented immigrants" the higher the median state income, Republicans are less educated, if Trump wins (May 2016) we're screwed, etc. etc. etc.

That statistical chart re "gun deaths" also (besides not distinguishing between suicides, accidents, and homicides) does not account for "justifiable homicides", either by law enforcement or civilians, so the rapist who is stopped in the act by a woman bearing a firearm shows up in that chart as a statistical contribution to how "bad" firearms are. And the number of "justifiable homicides" is not negligible.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone reads what's posted...

If you're focusing on the guns and not the circumstances of the people who use them, the numbers you are looking for are meaningless. 

All firearm deaths                                                              2011                    2010
• Firearm deaths by suicide:.......................................... 19,766..................19,392
• Firearm deaths by accident:........................................8 51......................606
• Firearm deaths caused by LEO (non-accidental):.............258...................... 412

• Firearm deaths by homicide (total):...............................11,101..... .............11,078
• Firearm homicides (gang related and included in total):......8,880 (80%)...........8,862 (80%)
• Firearm homicides (non gang and included in total):...........2,220 (20%)...........2,215 (20%)
• Firearm deaths of self defense*
and undetermined intent:........................................... ..4,224....................4,656

• Total number of legal US firearm owners (Est): 52,000,000 households


2,220 gun-related deaths are actual non-gang-related murders.  That's 20% of the total.  Murder is illegal. 
The majority of gang members are minors, felons or have convictions for violent crimes and drug abuse.  Owning guns for this group is unlawful for the majority.

Those are verified stats.  Now, how do you intend to use the data?. 

That chart is a POS as it does not differentiate between firearms death by accident. suicide, or homicide.

Further, using a whole state for a statistic,and ignoring the possibility of huge concentrations in urban areas is absolutely meaningless.  Compare Chicongo to greater Illinois and see how it looks.

Preaching to the choir. We need to have better statistical analysis to counter this spurious data.

Preaching to the choir. We need to have better statistical analysis to counter this spurious data.

There's already plenty of "better statistical analysis".

Not going to get into statistics, studies, etc.  You don't feel comfortable in carrying, fine, don't.  Up to you.  There are people that believe what they believe and are only 1) going to look for data, opinions, etc that backup or confirm their beliefs and 2) even if the information is overwhelmingly against them, they are stuck with their beliefs.  All of that is fine as well, just don't expect others to give up their rights to self-defense just because you aren't comfortable with it. 

Back to Millennials, they don't know shit.  So many have these grand ideas of how the world should work all before actually contributing or actually living in the real world.  Yup, free college education seems like a grand idea until you're the one paying for it to benefit little shits who don't even appreciate the privilege of that opportunity and feel that it is a right. . .

There are people who don't care what other people think and do what they want, and there are those who make decisions. Ideally, decisions are made based on established data and not just on personal experience. You can do what you want and I can do what I want and if our wants conflict, then there's chaos. If millennials don't want to be involved in the decision making process, then that's their choice.

As I said, I think people should carry if they want to yet still believe the CCW people are nuts. There's consequences for any decision. I guess I could decide not to pay my taxes to the government but how will the military buy more cruise missiles? MOABs don't grow on trees.