Wish I would have known about these statistics a few days ago. My brother's ex-wife, a liberal California lawyer who's always on Facebook, posted the following statement, "There is no reason for a private citizen to own a non-hunting type of weapon." My Facebook response to her started off with, "Sorry to have to disagree with you on that point, (name), but I believe there is a very strong reason that private citizens should be able to own non-hunting types of weapons - it's called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." At one point in my post I referenced the fact that, according to the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Health Statistics, in 2009 (the latest year for which final statistics were available), there were 34,485 motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries resulting in death vice 31,347 firearms injuries resulting in death, of which firearms homicides were 36.7%, or approximately 11,505 firearms homicide deaths. From that, I concluded that an individual is approximately three times more likely to die of a motor-vehicle traffic-related injury than in a firearms homicide, and asked if we should therefore demand that all law-abiding drivers give up their cars because some drivers act irresponsibly and/or illegally when they drive. Her response - none.
Anyway, the statistics I found seem to match fairly well with the statistics the OP referenced. There are approx. three times as many deaths from motor vehicles as from firearms, but no one's calling to ban cars & trucks. Wonder why that is?
