2011 Deaths… by….

A reader sent me this.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The future and our choices and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. The last line of the poster must have been cut off:

    1.2 million by abortion

  2. Finarfin says:

    Just a few days ago, I came across the FBI statistics with that information. Something that the poster left out (besides Henry Edward’s great comment), is this:

    hands, feet, fists, etc: 726

    Dianne Feinstein’s proposal to ban the semi- and auto- rifles (with over 900 exceptions), will not work at all, other than to insult the NRA and to make buying more powerful weapons more of a hassle. Murder rates will not change. More lives would be saved by cutting off everyone’s feet. However, you can’t tell these politicians anything, especially when they feel free to use the executive order power liberally.

  3. disco says:

    Henry it’s amazing that any single day in this country sees the murder of 1000 times as many children as perished at Sandy Hook and not a word spoken by the evil man in the oval office

  4. rodin says:

    Henry and disco beat me to it. Compared to these deaths sanctioned by such kathliks as Nancy and Kathleen Herod was something of a piker, wasn’t he?

  5. dominic1955 says:

    Number of people killed is completely irrelevant to bureaucrats. The issue is that hammers, knives and drunks can’t do much to stop His Serene Wun-ness (or any other passive agressive tyrant) to implement queer “marriage”, make us pay for the abortions and contraception of degenerates and all the rest of their “Progressive” agenda.

  6. Blaise says:

    I think one of the problems with that comparison is that it doesn’t tell you how effective the various ‘weapons’ are. What was the number of non-fatal attacks by people with hammers and knives as opposed to ‘automatic weapons’? If someone doesn’t have an automatic weapon and tries to go on a rampage with a hammer is he less likely to kill?

  7. wmeyer says:

    The key, of course, is that the wish to ban guns is not about these tragic deaths. It’s about disarming the citizens. Just another step on the path to tyranny.

  8. Something Mr. Edward’s 1.2 million have in common with the 323 (and perhaps the 650) is that they were all directly intended. I don’t know about the hammers as there’s a lot of construction going on everywhere, and things can get dropped. The 12000 we can acknowledge as malicious stupidity. Most of the 196000, so far as I can tell, are plain stupidity. But the conditional probability on the poster is a lie: or did everyone (or even as many people) who saw a doctor in 2012 meet a semiautomatic rifle in person? The correct comparison is: if you died in 2012, it is 600 times more likely you were a victim of malpractise than of rifle assault. But would you rather meet a doctor, or an unhinged person with a rifle?

    Still, altogether, all these numbers are much too high.

  9. Blaise,

    Please note that the 323 refers to semi-automatic weapons not automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been virtually impossible to own since 1934. All of the recent killings were with semi-automatic weapons. But the media doesn’t really want you to know that.

  10. Supertradmum says:

    1973 to 2013, 50,000,000 recorded legal abortions turn any number of gun deaths into pale, shameful comparisons. The populations of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis St. Paul, Miami, Boston, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Tampa, Washington D.C., San Antonio…..etc., etc., etc.

  11. The Masked Chicken says:

    The word, “kill,” is used equivocally, here. Few set out to kill via medical malpractice. Almost all of the deaths by guns were willed deaths, although some were accidental. Where is poisoning (and overdoses), where are auto accidents, where are falling off of tall things, by they way? This chart is useless, since it doesn’t make a distinction about types of deaths.

    A much better analysis is here (from the CDC):


    It makes distinctions between injury deaths, medical death (subcategories?), drug-related deaths, etc.

    As for firearms, the amount it small (about 1.7% of total deaths), but in terms of deaths within its specific category, it is not so small. The summary for injury-related deaths is:

    Poisoning—In 2009, 41,592 deaths occurred as the result of poisonings, 23.5% of all injury deaths (Table 18). The majority of poisoning deaths were either unintentional (76.4%) or suicides (15.4%). However, 8.1% of poisoning deaths were of undetermined intent. The age-adjusted death rate for poisoning remained the same in 2009 and 2008, 13.4 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population. For unintentional poisoning, the observed increase in the age-adjusted death rate of 1.0% from 10.2 in 2008 to 10.3 in 2009 was not statistically significant. Unintentional poisoning death rates in the United States have increased each year from 1999 through 2008 (data prior to 2009 are not shown).

    Motor-vehicle traffic—In 2009, motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries resulted in 34,485 deaths, accounting for 19.5% of all injury deaths (Table 18). The age-adjusted death rate for motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries decreased 9.8% from 12.3 per 100,000 standard population in 2008 to 11.1 in 2009.

    Firearm—In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide did not change from 2008, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.0% in 2009 from 2008. Fall—In 2009, 25,562 persons died as the result of falls, 14.4% of all injury deaths (Table 18). The overwhelming majority of fall-related deaths (97.0%) were unintentional. In 2009, the age-adjusted death rate for falls did not change significantly.

    Drug-induced mortality In 2009, a total of 39,147 persons died of drug-induced…

    So, about 75% as many people died from firearms as from drug overdoses. Now, many people die, each day, but what we really need to be comparing are the elements within the subgroup of PREVENTABLE NON-ACC death, not total deaths or accidental deaths.

    This chart is bad science. Abortion is the leading preventable non-accidental cause of death, by far.

    The Chicken

  12. The Masked Chicken says:

    Should read:


  13. LisaP. says:


    The number of deaths caused directly by medical mistakes is huge, but the number of injuries and illnesses and medical conditions caused by medical mistakes is much larger.

  14. acardnal says:

    The Chicken wrote, “Abortion is the leading preventable non-accidental cause of death, by far.”

    And Obamacare is going to pay for it with your and my tax dollars.

  15. Joseph-Mary says:

    I think it is 1.2 milliion surgical abortions. We do not have a count on the chemical ones.

  16. MichaelJ says:

    I really do not think anyone would really use a meme to try and build a logical argument for or against anything, but it does serve to illustrate (and I believe that this is its intent) the idiocy and even hypocricy of what is being proposed.

    The proposal put forth by the current administration is to ban “assault rifles” with the stated intent of “protecting lives”

    Given the numbers presented by this meme, we can rightly conclude that the stated purpose of the ban is spurious. Why then, does the administration wan to ban “assault rifles”?

  17. albizzi says:

    Only 12000 deaths by drunk drivers in 2011? This means that the cars are muuuch more dangerous than the drunk drivers.

  18. Kaneohe says:

    Do you really think that there were only 323 deaths by firearms in 2011?
    Try this number: 8,583.


    [Is “firearms” the equivalent of what is pictured in the graphic. Good grief. Think before posting.]

  19. AvantiBev says:

    The poster is not including handguns and shotguns but semi automatic rifles. Despite the stellar community organizing that has been done in the city of Chicago, (yes, tongue firmly in cheek), fatherless boys in men’s bodies (aka “gang bangers”) are still murdering one another and bystanders at an alarming rate. They also use the older variety of weapons: bats, bricks, knives, etc. Unlike many American women, I am a Roman Catholic not an animist. I am not interested in the thing used to kill as I believe knives and guns possess no will of their own. But I am VERY interested the free will choice of the murderer and why he has come to view life so cheaply.

    My colleague Brad brought the wrong guy home from a gay bar one warm summer night in 2003. He was found dead 2 days later: stabbed multiple times and strangled with his bathrobe belt. I wonder what Biden would say to a petition to ban knives, gay bars and bathrobes. I am SURE I would hear loud and clear from gay relatives / neighbors that I was blaming the wrong things.

  20. acardnal says:

    AvantiBev wrote, “I am not interested in the thing used to kill as I believe knives and guns possess no will of their own. But I am VERY interested the free will choice of the murderer and why he has come to view life so cheaply.”

    Perspicacious, logical and correct.

  21. Kerry says:

    Anyone who want to seize the weapons has only to amend the Constitution and then collect the guns. Everything else is posturing. This is just a national “Look! Shiny objects!!” say the dims. If one believes that tools designed to accurately propel small pieces of metal out of steel tubes at high velocities cause malevolant behavior, lease give me another example of an inanimate object with this capacity. Glass bottles come the closest. And if one wants to discuss ‘deaths by’ numbers, then why leave out the ‘deaths prevented by’ numbers? Oh, and Kaneohe . There were no deaths by firearms in 2011. None. Not “by firearm”. By crazy people. Very emotional people. Angry people. Drunken people. There is also no such thing as ‘gun violence’. If this existed, we would have heard the stories of ‘guns murdered by other guns’. I think the hoplophobes are frightened by tools they do not understand, and cannot imagine anyone who is not crazy, or toothless, or or some kind of fanatic, actually enjoying both the competence and skill of handling a weapon, and having the confidence and means to defend one’s home, life and loved ones. I never want to endure the trauma and horror of a criminal having his way with my wife.

  22. JKnott says:

    wmeyer says:
    10 January 2013 at 1:50 pm
    “The key, of course, is that the wish to ban guns is not about these tragic deaths. It’s about disarming the citizens. Just another step on the path to tyranny.”

    That’s it in a nutshell. The evil just continues to escalate. Thank God for our Catholic Faith.

  23. Cecily says:

    It’s obvious. We need to outlaw motor vehicles, hammers, and knives. Oh, and doctors.

  24. JonPatrick says:

    I’m guessing that as usual with the Left, this is a long term strategy, just as they did with same-sex “marriage”. They will submit a bill that closes the “gun show loophole”, bans “assault weapons”, and large magazines. The bill will fail this time. In the meantime they are working to get public opinion on their side by (1) getting the various faith communities on board to oppose “gun violence”. This will undoubtedly include our Catholic bishops who will jump at the chance to receive positive publicity for a change. (2) Driving a wedge between the NRA leadership and its members by portraying the former as “extreme” and in the pockets of the gun manufacturers. They will also work through the Justice Department to make gun imports more difficult, to lean on gun retailers, better background checks, etc.

    No doubt they have the 2nd amendment in their sights (pun intended). They have already shredded the 10th and are making good progress on eliminating the 1st. Pretty soon that whole pesky Bill of Rights can be neutered.

  25. The Masked Chicken says:

    Before anyone lambasts me (or Chicken basts me!), I have no dog in this fight. I would much rather see wars fought with laughing gas, but, alas, such is not the case. There have always been weapons and they have been used either defensively or offensively. Part of the problem, here has nothing to do with guns, but a failure in medicine. We cannot, as yet, predict who will stay sane and who will not among lifes difficulties. If we could, we could remove guns from just the insane. That would be ideal. Unfortunately, we are left with the dilemma of letting most people have access to guns and hope that they won’t become insane or criminal, or we can ban weapons from most people and hope that neither a war nor insanity nor criminals stike at our doorstep. Given that the potential loss of life is much higher in the latter case than the former, banning guns makes about as much sense as banning chewing gum. Some kids will put it under the desk. The vast majority will not.

    There is, logically, no more sense in banning guns because a few will misuse them, then there is in banning cars because of drunk drivers.

    I really wish the administration would shut up. They are useless. Guns do kill (they are secondary causitive agents directed by a human mind – until telekinetics become a more advanced practice, human minds do not directly kill people), but so do many things. The reasoning for keeping guns is not difficult. It is identical to the reason for keeping cars – both serve a purpose that is difficult to achieve, otherwise. Almost all secondary agents can be misused, just as men can be tempted to evil. That is no reason to exterminate the entire human race. That would stop gun violence!

    All this being said, the Second Amendment is vague. It does not define the precise connection between militia and the bearing of arms. In the Ferderalist era, many men brought their own weapons to the militia, so individual ownership was assumed. Although some of the original Signers of the Constitution lived long enough to see the establishment of a National Army that provided weapons, the Constitution does not specifically state which of the two scenarios it has in mind. This issue has bounced back and forth for years.

    Personally, I see guns as primarily defensive. If a war ever comes to U. S. soil, the military will be hopeless blocked by the sheer size of the country. Imagine having to fight WWII on American soil. America is much larger in land mass. Citizens, well-trained, will be a secondary line of defense. In this regard, England, that short-sighted country, will rue the day they supressed almost all means of self-defense.

    One the other hand, guns can be scary. I wish there were chemical sensors that could detect crazziness and diable guns.

    The Chicken

  26. dominic1955 says:

    First things first, again, the administration does not give a hoot about human life. They are the kind of people who think abortion is a “right”. Given the chance, I doubt they’d have much compunction about liquidating their political opponents as well. Gun control is about control-its that simple.

    The Second Amendment was written in a time when no one thought you had to spell out such simple concepts beforehand in minute detail. Do free persons have the individual right to own, possess, sell, use, etc. firearms? Duh, yes, of course they do. The Founding Fathers were not big on the Government as savior, or nanny or none of the rest of that socialist/totalitarian crap. Its hard to tyrannize an armed free people.

    Guns in the hands of the people gives them a chance against tyrants at home and abroad. Should any foreign power be stupid enough to invade the U.S. in a convential land war, they will be utterly destroyed-first by our organized armed forces and secondarily by the millions of armed people who are quite skilled with their own firearms. Most other armies are made up of vast numbers of conscripts-the numbers might be impressive but they are very unskilled by comparison to either our army or our citizens.

    Considering the totalitarian pipedreams behind the howls for gun control, I think it is worth the risk. Life is risky, after all. If one sits there and ponders on all the ways they could die this day, we would want to do nothing but sit in a dark, padded room. If it comes to a crazy, I’d rather have a gun to protect myself from this threat rather than the police-who are minutes away when seconds are vital. Even more so than the government, which given the right situation, would just as well see me dead than protect me anyway.

  27. acricketchirps says:

    Kerry: There is also no such thing as ‘gun violence’. If this existed, we would have heard the stories of ‘guns murdered by other guns’.

    Ha! The deplorable plague of gun on gun violence!

  28. Supertradmum says:

    I cannot discuss this in Malta. Except for one young man, the people I have talked with about this, and they bring it up, are totally against civilians having guns. I have tried to explain the importance of the constitution and the fact that we do not usually trust governments, but these ideals are too alien.

Comments are closed.