In a thread on the Concealed Carry and Handgun Gear sub-forum of this forum, a discussion got off track from the original post. The thread morphed to a discussion of the number/percentage of persons killed by handguns. Rather than continuing to drag that thread off topic, I am starting this one to continue the analysis. The following image was posted:

Another poster, challenging the information in the image made the claim that "

This led me to look at the numbers in the image and I am challenged to figure out some of the conclusions stated in the image.

- "
" I have tried several ways to get to 1,712 with the numbers given, but so far haven't seen a way to get there.**This leaves 1,712 people in a country . . .**

- "
" Applying this percentage to 312 million gives 32,000 persons, but it is confusing because the previous bullet point refers to a 1,712 persons. There is a reasonable inference by the reader that the percentage stated is related to the previous bullet point.**You have a 0.00010256410256% chance of . . .**

- "
" Applying this percentage to 312 million gives 26.72 persons! It seems that the statistic had two too many leading zeros in it, given that it is stated as a percentage. A value of 0.000856~% would yield 2,672, a more reasonable number. BUT, the non-gang related homicides, per the numbers given, would be 2,112, not 2,672. I don't see where the extra 560 persons comes from using the numbers in the image.**If you are not part of a gang, . . . . you have a 0.000008564102564% chance of death by firearm.**

Finally, the "

- When using and posting numbers provided by others, it is important to do a reality check on the data and to make sure one is using same metric. Compare absolute numbers to absolute numbers and percentages to percentages, etc.

- When applying a percentage (that is stated as a percentage) to a population, remember that the decimal point must be move two places to the left before making the calculation. Example: if a number is stated as 54%, you would multiply the population by 0.54, not 54.

Just a few quick questions:

- Do you find yourself printing a lot?
- Would I be better off getting the 3" barrel?

And lastly, I'm thinking about going with the Glaco king tuck for this carry. Do you guys have any ya or nays about this holster ( i know it's a little off topic but it applies a little.) ]]>

Quote:

The Sig Sauer P938 is an excellent micro-pistol, but it does have an unusual quirk - the guide rod is actually made from two pieces, and if you don't keep an eye on it, it's possible the pieces could separate and the gun may actually eject its guide rod.

Beretta 92fs first gun I ever fired and loved it

springfield XD wasn't a fan

Glock 19 wasn't a fan

Ruger sp101 first revolver fired awesome (only fired .38'S)

Ruger GP100 fired both .38 an .357 awesome experience

I'm not a fan of Poymer frame pistols the couple I have fired felt like toy guns out of the 5 I have fired the Beretta and the GP100 are my favorites. I am planning on heading back to the range and see if there is a CZ75 and a IWI Jericho 941 to try as well. I have read good reviews about these firearms, and I get get either of those in a steel frame as well.

Anyway thought I would put this out there and see what there opinions are and I am planning on carry the firearm as well.

thanks ]]>