Guns in the states

[Bone_Idol]

To the OP I have not found driving in the US much different than driving in Australia except for the obvious that they drive on the wrong side of the road. Most US drivers are safe and courteous. I have not seen a roadside radar gun or a booze bus since I got here. Petrol is much, much cheaper than in Oz.

You might not notice it, but US motor vehicle death rates per capita are about 3 times as high as Australia. It is not as extreme an example as guns, but I think that it is consistent with a very significant cultural difference. Australians just have a much higher intolerance for the avoidable deaths of innocent people. Say to the Australian populace “(this issue) is causing children to needlessly die” and by and large Australians will say “that’s bad. What can I do to help?” Slow down a bit on the roads, give up the right for everyone to own weapons of war, comply with health guidelines - Australians are fairly inclined to make those small sacrifices, and save the lives.

Americans, including plenty here, are more inclined to say “meh, statistically it is more likely to be other people’s children, probably not mine” and “you can’t take away my freedom”. In fact, the “freedoms” that most animate them are the freedoms that result in people dying. Freedoms that we most value, like healthcare, education, representative democracy don’t seem to be so important.

[Barks_Purrs]

To the OP I have not found driving in the US much different than driving in Australia except for the obvious that they drive on the wrong side of the road. Most US drivers are safe and courteous. I have not seen a roadside radar gun or a booze bus since I got here. Petrol is much, much cheaper than in Oz.

You might not notice it, but US motor vehicle death rates per capita are about 3 times as high as Australia. It is not as extreme an example as guns, but I think that it is consistent with a very significant cultural difference. Australians just have a much higher intolerance for the avoidable deaths of innocent people. Say to the Australian populace “(this issue) is causing children to needlessly die” and by and large Australians will say “that’s bad. What can I do to help?” Slow down a bit on the roads, give up the right for everyone to own weapons of war, comply with health guidelines - Australians are fairly inclined to make those small sacrifices, and save the lives.

Americans, including plenty here, are more inclined to say “meh, statistically it is more likely to be other people’s children, probably not mine” and “you can’t take away my freedom”. In fact, the “freedoms” that most animate them are the freedoms that result in people dying. Freedoms that we most value, like healthcare, education, representative democracy don’t seem to be so important.

And this is why your country is so sexy. The sexy rating is supported by both math and science.

[Yeeper]

So 390 million guns and 290 million registered vehicles yet MVAs cause twice as many deaths (when removing suicides). //

Did you back out the single car crashes that only killed those occupants to make it a fair comparison there buddy??? If you are going to just throw numbers around, at least make them relevant to each other…

You think every “single car crash” was a suicide? Because that’s the only way that becomes relevant. Otherwise it’s still a MVA death that resulted from the dangers and variables of driving.

We’re not talking about removing only single person deaths. We’re talking about the relative risks of the activity as it pertains to how fearful one should be leaving their house. Firearm suicides are intentional. Single car crashes are mostly likely not intentional and as such still need to be included in the numbers because it still portrays the relative undesired/unintentional danger that a person “should” be fearful of

But if you can show me the data for how many of those were single car suicides and that adds up to close to 50% then sure I’ll concede that point.

Ok there buddy??? (Did I use enough question marks?)

[Yeeper]

DSW telling a visiting foreigner that they should keep their heads down to avoid getting shot because it’s likely is akin to telling someone going in the ocean that they’re probably going to get bit by a shark.

Both of the scenarios are possible because shark attacks and mass shootings happen. However the likelihood of both are quite the opposite of what he and you are now suggesting.

Let’s try and break this down into simple terms.

*…keep their heads down to avoid getting shot because it’s likely is **akin *to telling someone going in the ocean that they’re probably going to get bit by a shark.

Did you write

because shark attacks and mass shootings happen. However the likelihood of both are quite the opposite of what he and you are now suggesting.

Are they of similar or equal chance?
Yes ? No ?

Is getting shot in the USA more or less likely than being killed or bitten by a shark in your mind ?
I am assuming you understand the meaning of the word akin

As for my failed attempt to lighten the mood by suggesting other more frequent but unusual ways to die as a better comparison of relative dangers.
I do apologise, I keep forgetting to use the word fuck when attempting to make a joke to an American.

ttfn

ps Please. Don’t feel the need to respond on my behalf. We have obviously arrived at a point at which neither of us understands the others mental process. Mea culpa.

I’m going to respond because it needs to be said.

Yes, akin…means similar to. As in telling someone something dumb about guns is SIMILAR to telling someone something dumb about sharks (or ANYTHING for that matter).

What I was highlight was how dumb it was to tell someone to be fearful of something that has very little chance of happening. And that it would be equally dumb to tell someone to be afraid of going into the water bc of sharks.

Nowhere did I equate the two risks as being specifically equal. Nowhere did I compare their probabilities. However at a certain point with mathematics you just have to accept both risks are very very low.

I was highlighting how both of those things are quite improbable and even though both (getting shot in a place where guns exist and getting attacked by a shark in the ocean) have a risk or probability >0 it is dumb to be afraid of either because BOTH are very very very unlikely to happen to you.

My point was that telling a visitor be afraid of getting shot in the US was SIMILAR (akin) to telling a swimmer that they should be afraid of getting attacked by a shark.

NOTHING to do with their probabilities as they relate to one another.

The IDEA that someone should be THAT worried about randomly getting shot anywhere in the US is just as fucking dumb as telling my patient they should be THAT afraid of getting bit by a shark at the beach this weekend.

Both are dumb because both are ridiculously low probabilities. Not that one is more probable than the other.

I was comparing the advice given WRT improbable events.

If you’re going to apologize to an American at least spell it their way.

(Caps are not for yelling/volume in my posts).

[Bone_Idol]

Gotta love the LR.

1. MH was correct. “Akin: related, close, near, comparable, equivalent, alike…”

With shooting deaths in the US averaging about 48,000 per year, and shark deaths averaging about 1 per 2 years (the horror year of 2023 notwithstanding, when there were 2, not 36) there is nothing “akin” about the statistics however you try to spin it. You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

Australians have been shot while visiting the US. By cops (that very American pastime), by drug dealers, by idiots in bars, by unidentified strangers. There’s been at least a few dozen instances. It is a valid risk to consider. Even those offering reassurance here are saying to avoid many of the places that a tourist might reasonably want to see. Here’s my tip for anyone visiting Australia: go wherever the fuck you want, you’re not going to get shot. That’s a difference you can’t even imagine.

2. MH offered a light-hearted apology and your response is to say “I can’t spell, and I insist that you spell incorrectly if you are addressing me”. There truly is a sub-class of Americans that value whining about nothing even more than guns.

Here’s a general question on American gun culture. If the chances of an average law-abiding citizen being shot are so low (like the chance of being struck by lightening in the belly of a shark holding a winning lottery ticket) why do many of them want to go everywhere with a gun; whether concealed or open carry?

Here’s how it works when I leave the house. I take my car keys if I want to drive. I take my phone in case I might want to talk to someone or buy something. I might take a snack in case I get hungry. I might take a jacket in case it gets cold (but probably not). Just whatever I’m likely to need.

There are Americans (including a couple who have said as much on this forum) who don’t leave their house without their gun. In case they want to kill someone. They don’t take an umbrella in case it rains. Fair enough. It probably won’t rain. But the gun? The chance to kill someone? ALWAYS. Not an opportunity to be missed.

It is impolite to ask “WTF is wrong with Americans?” So tell me, WTF is right in the thought processes of such a person?

[Yeeper]

JFC 🤦🏻‍♂️

I get that you’re trying to grind this axe here. Nowhere am I going to argue against the existence of a gun problem in the US and that we need to address it.

Re-read Trail’s response to M Hatch.

We’re discussing the risk of getting shot while in or visiting the US. And that risk is basically fucking non-existent!

It doesn’t matter that Aussies have been shot here before. An English tourist was killed and eaten by a croc a couple of weeks ago in Australia. Does that mean it’s now somehow accurate or appropriate to fear monger and use hyperbole to say tourists should realize that they’ll probably be next?

Because that’s exactly what DSW did and I called him out on it.

It doesn’t matter how many have happened or how many exist (gun or crocs or sharks or bolts of lightning etc). What matters is the relative risk and probability of each based on the circumstances.

And saying that doesn’t negate the fact that the risk is greater than 0. But it does mean that the probability is so fucking low it’s a joke to worry about it UNLESS you do things that increase your relative risk.

The only reason I used the shark reference is because people fear monger about that but most intelligent individuals understand it’s such a low probability that it’s not worth the fear or avoiding the water. Much like how the risk of being shot in the US is so low that you shouldn’t worry even in areas where there are a lot of guns or lax gun laws.

The RISKS of each are so low that telling someone to be fearful of them to the point where they are next are similarly dumb.

Nowhere did I fucking say the risks of each individual one were the same. However the relative risks of each fall into the same “Very Low” category that fear mongering and hyperbole around each is just plain fucking dumb and disingenuous for the discussion.

Also his light-hearted apology was met with my light-hearted comment acknowledging the different spellings of words based on region. Notice how I said if he was going to apologize to an American then he should spell it our way. Notice how I didn’t flat out say he spelled it wrong or he should spell it like that in general?

You seriously have such an axe to grind here. Bone, it’s noted. Your disdain for most shit American is duly noted. So much so in fact that it’s not worth engaging with you because you can’t expect unbiased talk.

At least I can acknowledge the existence of a gun issue despite the statistics. What’s wild is that something with such a low probability gets so many people so fucking scared.

[Yeeper]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

[B.McMaster]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

[michael_Hatch]

I can say that of the 29 states and territories (maybe 30) I have visited (at least once) or driven through there were very few sharks.
And you have no need to defend your inability to write (or speak, for that matter) English.
23 other countries do.
fuck’in eh!

(not counting Scotland, N.Ireland, Wales and parts of London where it’s unintelligible)

[Yeeper]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

.00X vs .0000000X 🤷🏻‍♂️

All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.

Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.

[Yeeper]

I can say that of the 29 states and territories (maybe 30) I have visited (at least once) or driven through there were very few sharks.
And you have no need to defend your inability to write (or speak, for that matter) English.
23 other countries do.
fuck’in eh!

(not counting Scotland, N.Ireland, Wales and parts of London where it’s unintelligible)

I dislike so much about America and our culture. Including our dumb linguistics. Which is why i hope my quip about spelling it the American way was taken very lightly. It was an attempt at humour…

[Barks_Purrs]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

Despite what gun-loving fools suggest, encountering the increased risk of getting shot in America (whatever that number is) is entirely unnecessary. Risk of harm + no corresponding benefit= stupid choice.

Another number to consider is the vast number of people who manage to use their brains to go through life encountering a wide array of problems, which they successfully solve without a gun. We shouldn’t forget that number in our calculations. It demonstrates how completely unnecessary gun violence is. We all know someone who has the people skills —it is a parent or teacher or principal or grandmother or grandfather or doctor or nurse. They know how to solve problems without the use of force. They know something that gun zealots don’t.

When I see gun-lovers expend so much energy in favor of guns, I can only conclude that they would not know how to solve problems without guns, and so the idea of guns is soothing to their worried brains. They must think, “what would I do in situation X? I’d need a GUN.” Or a brain. Truly, they would need a gun or a brain, and they choose gun because they don’t think they can use brain power to solve the problem.

[Barks_Purrs]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

.00X vs .0000000X 🤷🏻‍♂️

All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.

Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.

You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!

[manofthewoods]

Best place to visit where guns are highly restricted…
Mexico

Nothing to worry about there (except maybe if you’re a news reporter)

[Yeeper]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

.00X vs .0000000X 🤷🏻‍♂️

All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.

Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.

You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!

Exactly. And if you’re not hanging out with gangs, buying drugs, or walking the inner cities of Baltimore or NOLA at midnight it’s even lower. Almost like there’s data normalization around specific situations that alter the relative risk.

Did you intent to prove my point?

[Sanuk]

What weirds me out as a Canadian is when you go into a pharmacy in America and there is a security guard (who sometimes looks a bit sketchy) carrying a handgun. Makes the pharmacy not seem particularly safe.

I lived in the Philippines for about a year and security guards is the number 1 profession in the country. There are armed guards in the entrance to every mall and in any business that is heavy on cash, which is almost all of them. Armed guards at McDonald’s, Starbucks, banks, drug stores. They have had a history with Muslim extremism in the south but for the most part, it is simply because of robberies. Having those guards made you feel less safe, as if you were walking into a gun fight that was going to erupt if someone decided to rob the place.

My wife is Filipina and it was her first observation in Canada, no armed guards.

[Barks_Purrs]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

.00X vs .0000000X 🤷🏻‍♂️

All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.

Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.

You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!

Exactly. And if you’re not hanging out with gangs, buying drugs, or walking the inner cities of Baltimore or NOLA at midnight it’s even lower. Almost like there’s data normalization around specific situations that alter the relative risk.

Did you intent to prove my point?

I switched sides. I am no longer worried about the risk of shootings because I don’t think I am personally at risk. Let’s convince the rest of these fearful sheeple to think like us!

While it is sad to consider domestic murders, gang violence, suicides, school shootings, road rage shootings, mall and concert shootings, shootings at churches and stores, accidental shootings, I am just thankful that I’m probably okay.

I don’t even know those people, you know? Their deaths are the price I’m willing to pay for my freedom.

I think we need to spend more time and energy advocating about the low risk to me and you. It’s a good use of our time. If we can maintain the status quo or at least keep the risk of harm to us low, then I think it’s worthwhile.

[Yeeper]

You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.

I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.

Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

They are both statistically zero - correct?

.00X vs .0000000X 🤷🏻‍♂️

All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.

Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.

You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!

Exactly. And if you’re not hanging out with gangs, buying drugs, or walking the inner cities of Baltimore or NOLA at midnight it’s even lower. Almost like there’s data normalization around specific situations that alter the relative risk.

Did you intent to prove my point?

I switched sides. I am no longer worried about the risk of shootings because I don’t think I am personally at risk. Let’s convince the rest of these fearful sheeple to think like us!

While it is sad to consider domestic murders, gang violence, suicides, school shootings, road rage shootings, mall and concert shootings, shootings at churches and stores, accidental shootings, I am just thankful that I’m probably okay.

I don’t even know those people, you know? Their deaths are the price I’m willing to pay for my freedom.

I think we need to spend more time and energy advocating about the low risk to me and you. It’s a good use of our time. If we can maintain the status quo or at least keep the risk of harm to us low, then I think it’s worthwhile.

If this flippant sarcastic approach to the difficult conversation is how you need to manage your emotions and interact with people who hold different views than you then Godspeed. I hope it works out well for you.

[B.McMaster]

Another number to consider is the vast number of people who manage to use their brains to go through life encountering a wide array of problems,

And a vast number of people with brains go through life with the attitude of: Its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. (this is for MANY items - not just guns)

Sorry you have an issue with a gun. Other don’t and they feel its a tool - no different than any other tool used properly.

You don’t like guns - we all get it.

How many of your “smart people” smoke or are overweight?

Please don’t respond about the gun without also responding about smoking and overweight.

[jimatbeyond]

I’m a big fan of wine, liquor, and gambling.

How many people die because of them every year?