Quantcast
View Post
Ganoncrotch said:
sc94597 said:

Except the chances of being attacked by a bear is much higher in rural country than being part of a mass shooting. Nobody said anything about being killed by a bear, but if you live in, say Alaska, you are more worried about bears, individual human criminals , and other wildlife, than mass shooters. 

In terms of individual deaths caused by guns it's 11,683 in 2017 so far and 2 to bears. Injuries from guns is just under 24 thousand people this year so far.

You might be worried about a bear... but you're literally 6000 times more likely to die to a gun than a bear in USA. Heck as per http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/food-allergy/peanut/how-many-people-die-each-year-from-peanut-allergies.htm you would be saving more lives if you took your gun into a store and started unloading into peanut products as they are 35-50times more likely to take a life during 2017 than a bear.

The discussion wasn't about guns in general. It was about mass shootings. But again, you should look at the distribution of homicides, and not just the averages. In the county I grew up in the murder rate was less than 1 : 100,000, there were two-three murders in the entire county of 300,000 people per year and two were usually drug related. 

Compared to that the bear attacked my grandmother's cat, throws trash all over the place, destroyed tons of property over the years, etc. A bear was more of a nuisance to our lives than murderers. It isn't all about being murdered, because in most places the chances of being murdered are minimal. Even in place with higher murder rates, unless you are a drug dealer you don't have to worry too much. 

Once we start talking about indiscriminate mass-shootings the probabilities decrease even more, when talking about rural areas with low population densities.