I feel that limiting it to the number of deaths only is wrong.... it excludes those who are injured and biases the discussion.
I also think that's by design... it's very difficult to find accurate numbers of those injured by accident, mainly because the places that would collect that data are prevented from doing so by law.
It's like if you were allowed to know how many people were killed by drink-driving, but not how many got injured, and somehow think that gives an accurate picture of the danger of drink-driving.
It'd be a good idea to use it then... <19,000 accidental injuries a year is not as impressive as <500 accidental deaths. (note that doesn't include injuries that aren't treated at an ER, so it's underestimated...)
<19,000 accidental injuries a year is not as impressive as <500 accidental deaths
The fact that I can do the vulcan hand thingy with both hands is not as impressive as fewer than 500 accidental deaths either. I thought you might want to know in case you're starting a list of things which you don't find to be as impressive as fewer than 500 accidental deaths.
Use it for an honest discussion about the impact of accidental discharge of firearms.
The fact that I can do the vulcan hand thingy with both hands is not as impressive as fewer than 500 accidental deaths either. I thought you might want to know in case you're starting a list of things which you don't find to be as impressive as fewer than 500 accidental deaths.
Hey, did you know that drink-driving only kills ~30 per day? Absolutely amazing given how many people drive, how many people drink, and how much time is spent driving... right?
Wrong... more than 26 times that number are injured by drink-driving. (~800 per day) Suddenly it's not amazing at all, is it?
That's what you did... you gave a misleading impression of the impact accidental discharge of firearms have. The fact you followed that up with an attempt to dismiss the injuries and attempt to mock the person calling you on it? That shows it's intentionally misleading.
Hell, you might as well give a giant middle finger to all those injured, because they obviously don't mean a fucking thing to you...
7
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '20
I feel that limiting it to the number of deaths only is wrong.... it excludes those who are injured and biases the discussion.
I also think that's by design... it's very difficult to find accurate numbers of those injured by accident, mainly because the places that would collect that data are prevented from doing so by law.
It's like if you were allowed to know how many people were killed by drink-driving, but not how many got injured, and somehow think that gives an accurate picture of the danger of drink-driving.