> stats can be manipulated to show a great deal of
> things that aren't true. That's why I want to know
> exactly where this 40,000 number comes from. I
> mean other than D=D pulling it out of his ass. If
> you go to Everytown.org they say "100 deaths" a
> day. But this also the same group that had a
> Tzarnev brother on the list of gun victims a
> couple years ago.
> Which is how they barely get to their 100 a day
Well, it is a death so it counts. But serves as an example of why aggregate stats like that largely are worthless.
CDC data vary somewhat at the margins depending on which specific source but not significantly. 2017 numbers from WONDER (latest final numbers available) are 39,836 total.
That breaks down as follows:
Category / # / Age-adjusted rate / %
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 23,854 6.9 60%
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 14,542 4.6 37%
Accidental discharge of firearms 486 0.2 1%
Legal intervention 616 0.2 1.5%
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent 338 0.1 <1%
Blabblering about 40,000 deaths and "4X!" nonsense tells you nothing. It's like presenting cancer mortality numbers without noting distinctions in types, between male/female, smokers vs non, etc. They way that it's typically done is to reference 40,000 deaths!!! to make the numbers appear as large as possible as dumbshit here does and then launch into some emotional blather about a gun in the home or accidental shootings of children which are entirely unrelated to 99% of the total. Even within the groupings above there are significant distinctions by location, race, sex, etc., that make them N/A other than where they may apply more directly. e.g., Not distinguishing that stats for children killed mostly all are black male "children" aged 15-19 involved in gang and other criminal activity shooting each other in a very few neighborhoods in certain urban locations.