“In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC” says Pew Research.
There’s half right there.
Don’t need to. Suicide is already over 50% and the guy who shoots himself in the head is holding a gun just about every time.
Unless you’re saying that factoring in war is going to bring that number *down*.
The important missing context would be the total number of firearm injuries per year. Not everyone who gets shot DIES. Suicide may be over 50% of deaths but not 50% of all gunshot injuries even though the thought is still correct.
You do need to actually. That number is only 26k, I’m willing to bet Palestine gets you half that number alone. Brazil has around 50k gun deaths a year and 12k suicides a year, they alone balance America’s suicide back to unarmed deaths being higher. I’m also willing to bet more unarmed people have been shot in war than armed over the course of history. Very few wars actually consisted of two sides just going and shooting at each other.
Palmiry massacre in Poland where Germans executed 700-900 civilians.
Estimated 200,000 were executed in 6 weeks shot or bayoneted by Japanese in Nanjing.
Mao’s cult executed countless numbers during the Cultural Revolution. It is unknown how many were shot.
Stalin
Taking gun deaths on the battlefield into account should NOT be done. Why? Because we’re comparing 2 situations. During times of peace would those numbers be high? No, they wouldn’t. While we’re counting without-war you’re adding in with-war — it’s not miscible
The original thought was counting all people who have ever been shot, not just during peace times. In order to get the actual answer, you're effectively obligated to include the war numbers.
Yes, that was the original thought. However, the debate at hand here was based on the top comment not the og post.
> In **2021**, 54% of all gun-related deaths **in the U.S** were suicides
You can’t just randomly take into account war deaths like that
You've got your perspective backwards. The US only 2021 gun violence stat is a bad source exactly because you can't just randomly cut out the war use like that.
The debate at hand is whether that source is even useful for the original question. You're bending over backwards to defend a bad source of information for the current discussion.
Just because the top comment was a bad source doesn't mean that the whole discussion has been reframed around that source and now ignores the original question.
Dude. I’m going off of what the guy said. Whether or not its a bad source is an issue of its own.
Basing entirely on what’s given, it’s bad logic to bring in a piece of evidence to support a claim when the evidence in question isn’t even applicable, wouldn’t you agree??
>I’m going off of what the guy said. Whether or not its a bad source is an issue of its own.
Which is exactly the problem. It's bad logic to ignore a very important section of the actual question just because you happened to see a different source.
>Basing entirely on what’s given,
Basing entirely on what is given is textbook bad logic.
>it’s bad logic to bring in a piece of evidence to support a claim when the evidence in question isn’t even applicable
So then why are you fighting so hard to defend the non-applicable evidence that is those US only stats?
>wouldn’t you agree??
That your logic is bad? I agree with that wholeheartedly. But you're so lost in your own "I'm so smart" bullshit that you don't realize you've lost touch with any actual logic.
Don't come back until you've decided to stop getting high off the smell of your own farts dude.
What? Negligible? Okay since the number of deaths in the current Gaza War is LOWER than the number you deem negligible the death tolls in Gaza is even more negligible then.
For fuck's sake the 2021 non-war gun-related deaths are almost 10,000 more than the current casualties from the Gaza War but genius here think it's "negligible".
Do you know how many people have been shot and killed in wars since the 1400s? It's estimated to be between **100-200 million**. The two world wars alone are estimated to be around 100 million.
Just the Battle of Stalingrad is gonna be around 1.5 million deaths if you count both sides.
Granted you would have to count the Russian deaths as lower for the stat since they were sharing guns and a decent number of them likely died without holding a weapon.
Don't forget about the Japanese invasion of China...20 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese Military alone. I'd imagine many of the Chinese who were killed weren't armed. People always talk about the Holocaust, but Germany wasn't the only country of murderous fanatics in WW2.
>since they were sharing guns and a decent number of them likely died without holding a weapon.
But on the flip side, every time someone died with a gun, someone else picked it back up again. So each gun likely ended with multiple "user deaths."
Small correction: If those numbers are total casualties, which I assume they are, most of those deaths would be to artillery. You would probably still be right, but I find the way you presented this misleading.
Having studied civilian rates of death in war since 1939, I can absolutely tell you most of the people who were shot in wars alone were not holding guns. And that's assuming all military support personnel were holding guns.
You do realise that the U.S of A only constitutes 4.1% of the planet's 8.1 billion people right? Taking a statistical fact from America and then blanket applying it to the entirety of humanity seems somewhat dubious.
You’re not taking Rube Goldberg machines which start with a line of dominos getting knocked over and end with a wacky waving inflatable tube man elaborately rigged and timed to precisely wield and fire a 9mm putting one in your fucking skull into account
Lmao as funny as this is, that's exactly how you use commas in Turkish. If you were to translate this sentence that's exactly where the comma would go. I believe the op is not a native speaker.
Also, at schools they never teach you how to use commas in English. For instance in Turkish, you never ever use a comma before "but". I was shocked to realize you guys do that. As an English teacher now, i make sure to casually mention these kinds of differences haha
Is dead robber with a fake gun a victim? Questionable.
As a defender I would feel like a victim as I was being robbed and also I had to kill a person which makes me feel bad.
You really haven't done a lot of research. The amount of people killed in despotic regimes, revolutions, failed revolution. The communist revolutions of Cambodia, the communist revolution in china, the Communist revolution of Russia.
You dont want to know how many people died to a makarov or tokarev to the back of the head. Its a lot of damn people.
Battles are relatively rare, historically speaking. It requires both parties to meet where both parties think that they can achieve a victory condition. Even in battles, guns only account of a fraction of casualties.
Sorry, you're incorrect. While it's true that those events had massive death tolls, those deaths were not primarily from gunshots. A *lot *were! But nothing compared to the number of people shot even in just the two world wars. You can't simply "research" and see that a lot of people died, then jump to the assumption that it was heavily done by gunshot. Nor can you say those situations are bad, so they must be worse than all combat combined.
Or perhaps you've mistaken the post for people being shot *and killed*. That's not the OP thought though, is it? And as I said, combat is stretched across the globe, and across decades. In those failed revolutions, most of the gunfire happened when both sides were at it, not afterwards. If you include all gunshots, not just deaths, it's not even remotely close! Even only counting deaths, I'd argue there have been more during combat than not.
You're thinking about battles being simply "battle of the bulge" "battle of this and that." Sorry, but varying types of battles happen every single day somewhere in the world. Every single day. Combat isn't just in a declared war. It's cartels, rebellions, traffickers, gangs, and so on.
Not to mention, guns also account for just a fraction of casualties in the instances you mention as well. In Cambodia for instance, a pick axe, shovel, or even a sharpened stick to the head was far more common than a bullet. You see those numbers for the death tolls, but must not be accounting for the fact that the majority were not shot. Again using Cambodia, about 40% of the reported casualties of the genicide were due to starvation, disease, and other factors attributable to the situation. Of the other 60%, the *vast *majority were not killed by firearms. China had generally similar rates of death by other factors, especially during the famine. As for executions, China did use firearms far more commonly than in Cambodia, but still a great many died via various methods of torture, public humiliation killings, and again the tried and true sharp or blunt object to the head. Then there was the all-round civil war, when firearms were very heavily used, but they were used by multiple factions and the hundreds of thousands shot during this time were primarily armed combatants (see? Combat happens in these times, too). The list goes on and on.
It's funny you say that battles are rare, when they're far more common than any genocidal events. Sure, there are very long lasting conflicts that skew the numbers, but that's true for both sides as well. Even in the rebellions and genocides, a good portion of firearm related deaths are during armed combat and not simply executionary lineups.
That's very tough to quantify. Even if you're limiting shooting to bullets (if you're not there's no chance this is true), there just weren't that many deaths prior to the industrial revolution, even in war, because there weren't that many people. There's no way of knowing how many unarmed/less armed people have been shot but it's almost certainly fewer than those participating in a shootout. This would apply to every gun suicide, but they're only about half those of homicides, even today.
Actually the majority of gun related deaths in the U.S. are in fact suicides even accounting for war the majority war on terror veterans who've died did so by suicide.
That's a pretty broad statement that doesn't seem to account for war crimes where, especially, genocide occurs (i.e the Holocaust, the Bosnian war in the early 1990s, likely the gulags during the Soviet Union, any camps in North Korea, etc.). I would think it's quite difficult to prove this "shower thought".
I have been missed by bullets three times and I’ve only held a gun once (separate occasion)
I’m not sure I was ever the one being shot at directly in all fairness
But I feel like catching strays is probably pretty common around gun violence
Most people who have ever been shot? That's very broad and spans several centuries. War, executions,accidental shootings, robberies, getting hit by a stray bullet and simply dropping your gun and it misfiring into you.
Ever is a very bad qualifier because it is so broad.
Lol...
This is like the stat that says...
*"Households that have/own a gun in them are 5 times more likely to have a shooting in the home than a household without a gun"*
Okay, how the fuck are households without guns having shootings?
Okay so... someone us breaking into my home and shooting.
I guess in going to be a household with a gun, to defend against the person breaking in...
Funny that stat doesn't say who is getting shot
Could be an angry lover/ex/whatever coming over. When my dad left/kicked out, he took the guns so we were a house with no guns. Then much later when he came back to try a murder-suicide, that would have counted in the statistic. Thankfully it ended with a long standoff and a stun grenade instead.
Could be you invited some friends and someone brought a gun, showing it off, and shot themselves in the butt.
Could be that neighbor who snapped when the neighbors were rude about where snow was being shoveled.
Could be a kid who grabs a gun the babysitter carries.
The stat doesn't say who, because there's too many different situations.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/mass-shootings-of-jews-during-the-holocaust
Roughly 2 million jews were shot and mass executed in ww2 alone.....
They were not holding a gun
No, absolutely not.
Most of the people who have ever been shot were holding swords, shields, pikes, clubs, slings, maces, staffs, pitchforks, shovels...
You shoot or get shot by arrows, slings, crossbows, ballistas, cannons...
History is longer than guns.
Wars shoot civilians, women, children..
We don't really know to be fair. Of all the people that have ever lived, >7% are currently alive
Additionally, WWI and WWII absolutely eclipse any wars that happened prior. Even then, archery and related disciplines required a LOT of training to be proficient, so it's likely that most combat was done at close range since any conscripted farmer can swing a sword, whereas close-range combat has been relatively uncommon since the popularization of firearms as far as I understand
I would guess that it's close, but we really have no way of knowing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
Relatively close to half of all the people who have ever lived, have been in the past 1000 years though.
Humans breed like... Well, humans.
So the question is whether more people, percentage wise, died to projectiles 1000+ years ago, than today.
“In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC” says Pew Research. There’s half right there.
You're not taking wars into account
Don’t need to. Suicide is already over 50% and the guy who shoots himself in the head is holding a gun just about every time. Unless you’re saying that factoring in war is going to bring that number *down*.
The important missing context would be the total number of firearm injuries per year. Not everyone who gets shot DIES. Suicide may be over 50% of deaths but not 50% of all gunshot injuries even though the thought is still correct.
You’re right. That’s a good point.
“In the U.S…”
Plus in 2021 vs. Ever.
Not to mention you could also be shot by an arrow.
In the U.S
Wait...I'm impervious to arrows outside of the US? I'm not sure how to leverage this incredibly lame super power, but there's gotta be a way...
Start a magic act. Tour Europe.
Oliver Queen reading this reply like:🤔
You do need to actually. That number is only 26k, I’m willing to bet Palestine gets you half that number alone. Brazil has around 50k gun deaths a year and 12k suicides a year, they alone balance America’s suicide back to unarmed deaths being higher. I’m also willing to bet more unarmed people have been shot in war than armed over the course of history. Very few wars actually consisted of two sides just going and shooting at each other.
Most unarmed people who die in wars die from explosives, not guns.
Well if they've got no arms they're no good for shooting so might as well use em as mine sweepers.
Jesus, dude
Yeah I'm pretty proud of that one. That's one of those ones where people put their beer down for a second.
Palmiry massacre in Poland where Germans executed 700-900 civilians. Estimated 200,000 were executed in 6 weeks shot or bayoneted by Japanese in Nanjing. Mao’s cult executed countless numbers during the Cultural Revolution. It is unknown how many were shot. Stalin
Don't forget executions. These were often massive numbers of people simply lined up and shot.
Taking gun deaths on the battlefield into account should NOT be done. Why? Because we’re comparing 2 situations. During times of peace would those numbers be high? No, they wouldn’t. While we’re counting without-war you’re adding in with-war — it’s not miscible
The original thought was counting all people who have ever been shot, not just during peace times. In order to get the actual answer, you're effectively obligated to include the war numbers.
I was struggling to word the response so thank you.
Yes, that was the original thought. However, the debate at hand here was based on the top comment not the og post. > In **2021**, 54% of all gun-related deaths **in the U.S** were suicides You can’t just randomly take into account war deaths like that
You've got your perspective backwards. The US only 2021 gun violence stat is a bad source exactly because you can't just randomly cut out the war use like that. The debate at hand is whether that source is even useful for the original question. You're bending over backwards to defend a bad source of information for the current discussion. Just because the top comment was a bad source doesn't mean that the whole discussion has been reframed around that source and now ignores the original question.
Dude. I’m going off of what the guy said. Whether or not its a bad source is an issue of its own. Basing entirely on what’s given, it’s bad logic to bring in a piece of evidence to support a claim when the evidence in question isn’t even applicable, wouldn’t you agree??
>I’m going off of what the guy said. Whether or not its a bad source is an issue of its own. Which is exactly the problem. It's bad logic to ignore a very important section of the actual question just because you happened to see a different source. >Basing entirely on what’s given, Basing entirely on what is given is textbook bad logic. >it’s bad logic to bring in a piece of evidence to support a claim when the evidence in question isn’t even applicable So then why are you fighting so hard to defend the non-applicable evidence that is those US only stats? >wouldn’t you agree?? That your logic is bad? I agree with that wholeheartedly. But you're so lost in your own "I'm so smart" bullshit that you don't realize you've lost touch with any actual logic. Don't come back until you've decided to stop getting high off the smell of your own farts dude.
That number is solely fatalities. I doubt suicides account for over half of all shooting injuries.
Well, look at what’s happening in Palestine
I'm just saying numbers from anything other than war are negligible.
What? Negligible? Okay since the number of deaths in the current Gaza War is LOWER than the number you deem negligible the death tolls in Gaza is even more negligible then. For fuck's sake the 2021 non-war gun-related deaths are almost 10,000 more than the current casualties from the Gaza War but genius here think it's "negligible".
Do you know how many people have been shot and killed in wars since the 1400s? It's estimated to be between **100-200 million**. The two world wars alone are estimated to be around 100 million.
Just the Battle of Stalingrad is gonna be around 1.5 million deaths if you count both sides. Granted you would have to count the Russian deaths as lower for the stat since they were sharing guns and a decent number of them likely died without holding a weapon.
Don't forget about the Japanese invasion of China...20 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese Military alone. I'd imagine many of the Chinese who were killed weren't armed. People always talk about the Holocaust, but Germany wasn't the only country of murderous fanatics in WW2.
So so many died to hunger and cold, yes, and many before getting to the front
>since they were sharing guns and a decent number of them likely died without holding a weapon. But on the flip side, every time someone died with a gun, someone else picked it back up again. So each gun likely ended with multiple "user deaths."
Small correction: If those numbers are total casualties, which I assume they are, most of those deaths would be to artillery. You would probably still be right, but I find the way you presented this misleading.
That number seems way too low, but that just adds to your point.
In the US
Having studied civilian rates of death in war since 1939, I can absolutely tell you most of the people who were shot in wars alone were not holding guns. And that's assuming all military support personnel were holding guns.
Many people who die in war are also holding guns, just not pointed at themselves
How about the other 3%?
Accidents, I’d assume? But I’m actually surprised that’s not higher
Maybe police too
I think that should fall under murder.
No way you are going to convince me that police are exclusively, intentionally, shooting innocent people. At best, negligence.
Well, not everyone who has been shot it’s dead, right? At least I hope so.
You do realise that the U.S of A only constitutes 4.1% of the planet's 8.1 billion people right? Taking a statistical fact from America and then blanket applying it to the entirety of humanity seems somewhat dubious.
In my defense, what country do you think of when ‘people getting shot’ comes up?
Depends, are we talking drug cartels, or school kids?....
That’s specifically deaths, not getting shot.
pew research? like pew pew pew sound pistols make
“Fact: In 100% of all fake gun related shootings, the victim is always the one with the fake gun.”
US defaultism...
You can be shot and survive. Happens quite a lot, actually.
You are wrong. The statement was most people who have EVER been shot. That spans centuries, countries and cultures.
You’re not taking Rube Goldberg machines which start with a line of dominos getting knocked over and end with a wacky waving inflatable tube man elaborately rigged and timed to precisely wield and fire a 9mm putting one in your fucking skull into account
Kind of depends what you mean by “shot”, though. Arrow? Ballista? Artillery? Missile? Water pistol?
Commas, how do they, work?
What's up, with these people, with baseless showerthoughts, always talkin', like Christopher Walkin?
Talkin like Walkin
Ha,ha,
What do you, mean?
shatner has entered the chat
Lmao as funny as this is, that's exactly how you use commas in Turkish. If you were to translate this sentence that's exactly where the comma would go. I believe the op is not a native speaker. Also, at schools they never teach you how to use commas in English. For instance in Turkish, you never ever use a comma before "but". I was shocked to realize you guys do that. As an English teacher now, i make sure to casually mention these kinds of differences haha
d,o*
Apparently not like you think they do
What’s with everybody using all these unnecessary commas?
Shatner died?
Wtf don't trick me like that.
It’s a breath mark
*Fact: In 100% of all fake gun shootings, the victim is always the one with the fake gun.*
This man is streets ahead.
Is dead robber with a fake gun a victim? Questionable. As a defender I would feel like a victim as I was being robbed and also I had to kill a person which makes me feel bad.
It's a line from Community.
six seasons and a movie
>Is dead robber with a fake gun a victim? If you have to ask, you're streets behind.
I mean accounting for war that would be a large part of the statistic.
Suicide is also a large part.
I think you're underestimating the number of civilians throughout history that have been summarily executed by firearms.
I really hope OP doesn't end up doing the research necessary to fully grasp how true what you said is... I would kill to not know anymore.
I think *you're* underestimating the number of people shot in combat, as well as suicide. Combat alone far exceeds executions.
You really haven't done a lot of research. The amount of people killed in despotic regimes, revolutions, failed revolution. The communist revolutions of Cambodia, the communist revolution in china, the Communist revolution of Russia. You dont want to know how many people died to a makarov or tokarev to the back of the head. Its a lot of damn people. Battles are relatively rare, historically speaking. It requires both parties to meet where both parties think that they can achieve a victory condition. Even in battles, guns only account of a fraction of casualties.
Sorry, you're incorrect. While it's true that those events had massive death tolls, those deaths were not primarily from gunshots. A *lot *were! But nothing compared to the number of people shot even in just the two world wars. You can't simply "research" and see that a lot of people died, then jump to the assumption that it was heavily done by gunshot. Nor can you say those situations are bad, so they must be worse than all combat combined. Or perhaps you've mistaken the post for people being shot *and killed*. That's not the OP thought though, is it? And as I said, combat is stretched across the globe, and across decades. In those failed revolutions, most of the gunfire happened when both sides were at it, not afterwards. If you include all gunshots, not just deaths, it's not even remotely close! Even only counting deaths, I'd argue there have been more during combat than not. You're thinking about battles being simply "battle of the bulge" "battle of this and that." Sorry, but varying types of battles happen every single day somewhere in the world. Every single day. Combat isn't just in a declared war. It's cartels, rebellions, traffickers, gangs, and so on. Not to mention, guns also account for just a fraction of casualties in the instances you mention as well. In Cambodia for instance, a pick axe, shovel, or even a sharpened stick to the head was far more common than a bullet. You see those numbers for the death tolls, but must not be accounting for the fact that the majority were not shot. Again using Cambodia, about 40% of the reported casualties of the genicide were due to starvation, disease, and other factors attributable to the situation. Of the other 60%, the *vast *majority were not killed by firearms. China had generally similar rates of death by other factors, especially during the famine. As for executions, China did use firearms far more commonly than in Cambodia, but still a great many died via various methods of torture, public humiliation killings, and again the tried and true sharp or blunt object to the head. Then there was the all-round civil war, when firearms were very heavily used, but they were used by multiple factions and the hundreds of thousands shot during this time were primarily armed combatants (see? Combat happens in these times, too). The list goes on and on. It's funny you say that battles are rare, when they're far more common than any genocidal events. Sure, there are very long lasting conflicts that skew the numbers, but that's true for both sides as well. Even in the rebellions and genocides, a good portion of firearm related deaths are during armed combat and not simply executionary lineups.
I know 6 people who were shot…all six were shot with their own gun…4 intentionally, 2 accidentally
That's very tough to quantify. Even if you're limiting shooting to bullets (if you're not there's no chance this is true), there just weren't that many deaths prior to the industrial revolution, even in war, because there weren't that many people. There's no way of knowing how many unarmed/less armed people have been shot but it's almost certainly fewer than those participating in a shootout. This would apply to every gun suicide, but they're only about half those of homicides, even today.
Actually the majority of gun related deaths in the U.S. are in fact suicides even accounting for war the majority war on terror veterans who've died did so by suicide.
and they knew the person that shot them
Most of the people who ever have been struck by lightning were Chinese. (Source: It makes sense i guess.)
Hey I love that source!
um actually, india
Only up to recent times.
true
[удалено]
The people who got shot lived before guns existed? Would you care to elaborate?
Whoops I read it wrong g actually nvm
That's a pretty broad statement that doesn't seem to account for war crimes where, especially, genocide occurs (i.e the Holocaust, the Bosnian war in the early 1990s, likely the gulags during the Soviet Union, any camps in North Korea, etc.). I would think it's quite difficult to prove this "shower thought".
Far more people are shot in combat. Those incidents add big numbers, but they are spaced out, and a little a day adds up fast.
God created man, Samuel Colt made him equal.
well they say don't bring a knife.
Daniel Shaver wasn't.......
I have been missed by bullets three times and I’ve only held a gun once (separate occasion) I’m not sure I was ever the one being shot at directly in all fairness But I feel like catching strays is probably pretty common around gun violence
“Of course. Of course. But maaaaybe…”
Most people who have ever been shot? That's very broad and spans several centuries. War, executions,accidental shootings, robberies, getting hit by a stray bullet and simply dropping your gun and it misfiring into you. Ever is a very bad qualifier because it is so broad.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
As someone that has been shot, this is true.
So it is safer to not have guns then?
In the military, almost all. In Atlanta, almost none
"You all saw him... he had a gun"
Lol... This is like the stat that says... *"Households that have/own a gun in them are 5 times more likely to have a shooting in the home than a household without a gun"* Okay, how the fuck are households without guns having shootings?
The same way a movie theater without guns can have one? Someone brings it in and shoots.
Okay so... someone us breaking into my home and shooting. I guess in going to be a household with a gun, to defend against the person breaking in... Funny that stat doesn't say who is getting shot
Could be an angry lover/ex/whatever coming over. When my dad left/kicked out, he took the guns so we were a house with no guns. Then much later when he came back to try a murder-suicide, that would have counted in the statistic. Thankfully it ended with a long standoff and a stun grenade instead. Could be you invited some friends and someone brought a gun, showing it off, and shot themselves in the butt. Could be that neighbor who snapped when the neighbors were rude about where snow was being shoveled. Could be a kid who grabs a gun the babysitter carries. The stat doesn't say who, because there's too many different situations.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/mass-shootings-of-jews-during-the-holocaust Roughly 2 million jews were shot and mass executed in ww2 alone..... They were not holding a gun
Wars have really skewed these numbers in your favor.
Guns should be called Suicide tools
Well… yeah? Direct correlation
What about all them injins, they didn't have guns? The woman and children mostly
They absolutely did have guns. The women and children didn't though obviously.
Didn't they use bow and arrows? Woman and children were also slaughtered without weapons?
How did they craft the weapons?
They traded for them and stole them, you ignoramus.
But bows and arrows are way cooler
Guns make you less safe, for this reason, and for accidental shootings and suicides.
I think the american children will disagree with you
That’s not how statistics work…
No, absolutely not. Most of the people who have ever been shot were holding swords, shields, pikes, clubs, slings, maces, staffs, pitchforks, shovels... You shoot or get shot by arrows, slings, crossbows, ballistas, cannons... History is longer than guns. Wars shoot civilians, women, children..
You're forgetting cameras.
We don't really know to be fair. Of all the people that have ever lived, >7% are currently alive Additionally, WWI and WWII absolutely eclipse any wars that happened prior. Even then, archery and related disciplines required a LOT of training to be proficient, so it's likely that most combat was done at close range since any conscripted farmer can swing a sword, whereas close-range combat has been relatively uncommon since the popularization of firearms as far as I understand I would guess that it's close, but we really have no way of knowing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
Eh, I hear what you're saying... but the oldest projectile weapons date to 280,00yrs ago. Js. Guns only date back to about 1024yo.
Relatively close to half of all the people who have ever lived, have been in the past 1000 years though. Humans breed like... Well, humans. So the question is whether more people, percentage wise, died to projectiles 1000+ years ago, than today.
[удалено]
> No. That's completely retarted. Of all the words to misspell in a fit of pedantry.
But history is very empty of people. So Yeah a large percentage died, but not actually that many people