More Americans Have Died From Domestic Gunfire Than All Wars In U.S. History – Is That True?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, March 6, 2025 13:54
VIEWED: 2096
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

NIKI2

Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:39 PM

Try this one on for size:

Quote:
More than 1,38,171 people have died in the most devastating war fought by Americans. Which war, you ask? World War I? World War II? The Civil War?

None of the above. This number is from the war being fought on the streets, in the neighborhoods, private homes, schools, and work places of the United States of America. Deaths by gunfire. Domestic gun deaths perpetrated by criminals, the mentally ill; enraged husbands, angry children, and some by unfortunate accident or suicide. And the number only reflects gun death statistics since 1968.

And, stunningly, this number exceeds the number of casualties in all the wars in U.S. history by 212,994. Impossible to believe? It is a claim made and proven:

PBS commentator, Mark Shields, made the claim on December 21, 2012, just a week after the Sandy Hook shootings, and during the PBS NewsHour with Judy Woodruff and Mark Gerson. From the show’s transcript:
Quote:
— since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the — all the wars, all the wars of this country’s history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years.

Given what seemed to be a hyperbolic statement – more than all wars in U.S. history? – Pulitzer Prize-winning and fact-checking website, PolitiFact, decided to investigate Shield’s claim. Putting their iconic “Truth-O-Meter” to work, they came up with some startling facts.
\
In considering all gun deaths in America since 1968, not just homicides, they gleaned their figures from databases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI:
Quote:
“The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We’ve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC.”

The compilations they extrapolated from that research led to the figures for each of the year-increments in the chart below, with 2011 clearly lower because it only reflects FBI figures, with more complete statistics to come …but even with that, the total gun deaths trump wartime dead.:

War deaths were compiled using a comprehensive document prepared by the Congressional Research Service, as well as the website icasualties.org. The war dead statistics were arrived at by combining “all war-related deaths, not just those that occurred in combat,” which makes the fact that these numbers are dwarfed by domestic gun deaths all the more shocking:

Simple arithmetic tells us Mark Shield’s statement is correct: gun deaths in America since only 1968 exceed the casualty totals of all U.S. wars by 212,994 deaths. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/more-americans-have-died-from-
domestic-gunfire-than-all-wars-in-u-s-history-is-that-true/

Caveat: As usual, nobody is saying "take away your guns", if you pro-gun folk can hold that thought for thirty seconds. I'm saying hey, maybe we should try to MINIMIZE how many people die by some REASONABLE LIMITATIONS on guns and their ability to kill as many HUMANS as possible in a very short time...you know, like you try to do in a war? Like maybe weapons of war shouldn't be wielded by every Tom, Dick and Harry running around?

Just a thought...

KWICKO

Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:49 PM

Hell, you don't even have to go back 50 years for the gun deaths to outstrip ALL our war deaths since the Revolutionary War.

Boy, it's a good thing we're not a violent society or anything!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NIKI2

Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:41 PM

And our good friend Pizmo ("G") offered this one in another thread: "Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period."

Wow.

HERO

Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Boy, it's a good thing we're not a violent society or anything!

Your right. We've sure had a lot of gun deaths. Or have we?

Are those numbers high?

Lets ask the Center of Disease Control.

2010:

Gun Deaths- 31,672

Car Deaths- 33,687

Wow, safer to own a gun then a car, especially when you consider that there are SO many more guns out there then cars.

Poison- 42,917

Careful what you eat. For the record, guns are safer then poison.

Oh: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Unintentional Fall- 26,009

Wow, just walking along minding your own business is nearly as dangerous as guns. Imagine, just walking along and whistling a song is nearly three times more dangerous dangerous then serving in Iraq and Afganistan combined.

I can see why you are so concerned...being nonviolent can kill you.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NIKI2

Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:17 PM

That is truly pathetic; in other words, cars, which the vast majority of people need to function in our society; poison, which is intended for no reason other than to harm or kill other living things; and falling, which mankind has done since we first walked upright; are all more dangerous than guns. Gawd, you should HOPE so!

If you're trying to say deadly things can be deadly if used wrong, that's certainly valid. Ergo are you are agreeing with our point that maybe making some effort to minimize having these deadly things in the hands of those who misuse them or are careless about them is a good idea? If so, thank you. Yes, in a dangerous world we should probably keep cars out of the hands of children, maybe implement laws and seat belts and such to try and keep the harm to a minimum...we should put warning labels on poisons and not allow just anyone to buy deadly poisons, and probably have warnings on ladders and hand rails on stair cases. Yes, that's the sort of thing a sane society should do.

If you're trying to make some other kind of "point", yours is not an argument, it is silly, mindless ranting. Just like another, your "response" is a non-response which illustrates you, your mentality and the mentality of those who think like you, and nothing more.

It's also, by the way, not Mike's right, Mike IS right. Not only can you apparently not reason, you have a bad grasp of English.

Can none of these people come up with rational, intelligent responses?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:40 PM

No matter how you slice it, 30,000+ deaths a year by guns is a big number, a ridiculous number. I thought it was about 8,000 per year, but that's only for gun murders. That leaves over 22,000 accidental and suicide gun deaths which is very sad and hard to comprehend. You really never hear about those.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:43 PM

"Hero", why did you have a problem with 9/11, exactly?

After all, it killed only a tenth of what guns do, so that's hardly any people at all, and certainly not something you'd want to go to war over or change any laws to deal with.

Right?

Or are you just saying you'd have been perfectly okay with it if they'd just used guns to pull it off?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NIKI2

Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:31 PM

Wow...I just got that; so less than 1/3 of the gun deaths each year are for murders--one might call them the "intended" purpose the gun was purchased, while more than twice as many are accidental or suicidal deaths. That doesn't take into account the number of times guns killed someone for "protection" (anyone got verifiable figures?), so I assume it's kind of a rough estimate.

Not a good tally for the guns, if you ask me. If someone wants to argue on the guns' behalf for the number of times guns were used but didn't kill anyone, for protection, you'll have to come up with some numbers. Now, wait, make that rhetorical, one use for protection would outweigh 20 or more for murder, accident or suicide to gun advocates, I'm sure. Don't bother.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:00 PM

You know I don't think the car accident deaths is worth dismissing entirely. Basically the amount of death and injury caused by our current road/car system is entirely unacceptable in my view.

Sadly enough, modern cities and modern society have entirely evolved around individual's car ownership and use. Another so called coup for free market forces, but its a stupid, dangerous, polluting, resource wasting system that actually increases personal social isolation and stress for individuals.

KWICKO

Friday, April 12, 2013 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Wow...I just got that; so less than 1/3 of the gun deaths each year are for murders--one might call them the "intended" purpose the gun was purchased, while more than twice as many are accidental or suicidal deaths. That doesn't take into account the number of times guns killed someone for "protection" (anyone got verifiable figures?), so I assume it's kind of a rough estimate.

Here ya go. Just happened to have it handy

Guns are used for self defense in less than about 1% of all gun deaths. Rifles for even far fewer than that - and that includes ALL rifles, of which assault rifles are a small subset, according to gun nuts, so those would be even fewer.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

1 2 NEXT PAGE