# Accidental shootings of children are being undercounted.



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

*Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll*


"And there are far more of these innocent victims than official records show.

A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available.

As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns."

So, the "negligible" number of deaths, as the gun lobbyists describe it, is not nearly as low as claimed.

" The National Rifle Association cited the lower official numbers this year in a fact sheet opposing safe storage laws, saying children were more likely to be killed by falls, poisoning or environmental factors  an incorrect assertion if the actual number of accidental firearm deaths is significantly higher.In all, fewer than 20 states have enacted laws to hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them.

Legislative and other efforts to promote the development of childproof weapons using smart gun technology have similarly stalled. Technical issues have been an obstacle, but so have N.R.A. arguments that the problem is relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded.
Because of maneuvering in Congress by the gun lobby and its allies, firearms have also been exempted from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission since its inception."

Ah yes, the NRA.

"In Bexar County, Tex., for example, the medical examiners office issued a finding of homicide in the death of William Reddick, a 9-month-old who was accidentally killed on May 17, 1999, when his 2-year-old brother opened a dresser drawer while in the crib with him, grabbed a pistol and pulled the trigger.

 But the next year, when Kyle Bedford, 2, was killed by his 5-year-old brother, who had found a gun on a closet shelf, the same office classified the death as an accident."


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Double and triple the number it's still very very low.


----------



## granfire (Sep 30, 2013)

semantics....

The scary part is that there is enough data on children getting shot (and survive) to establish a scientific course of how wounds heal compared to adults....

I think the statistics ought to reflect bonehead gun-keeping (AKA lack of control) in these cases....not whether it is a homicide or accident.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 30, 2013)

2 points.

1 - This needs to be accurately documented. You can't push for fixes if they seem insignificant, and better documentation would help all sides better understand the real scope of the problem.

2 - I don't make a distinction between accidental and intentional when I look at total deaths.  Accident or not, dead is still dead.

If semantics are the issue, if conflicting criteria, etc, correct it, count them accurately, then we can see the true picture.  Numbers I've seen were about 70 accidental deaths a year.  2x that is 140.  10x is 700.  It's still a small number, however if the true number is closer to 10x than 2x it reinforces the need for pushing for more responsible storage and harsher penalties for failure.  If it's 100x than we have a major problem in that the numbers have skewed so badly as to be untrustworthy, by either side.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 2 points.
> 
> 1 - This needs to be accurately documented. You can't push for fixes if they seem insignificant, and better documentation would help all sides better understand the real scope of the problem.
> 
> ...


Even 7000 in a country of 300 million is not a good reason to put limits on a Constitutional right


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Even 7000 in a country of 300 million is not a good reason to put limits on a Constitutional right



Not even _limits_? Like safe storage or the like? This is OK with you?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Not even _limits_? Like safe storage or the like? This is OK with you?



How do you enforce a safe storage law?  If all you care about is punishing a parent after they loose a child I don't think they care about your safe storage laws at that point.

Oh I forgot to answer the question.  Yes I'm OK with it.  1 death is 1 to many but 700 even 7000 isn't enough to limit the constitution


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How do you enforce a safe storage law?  If all you care about is punishing a parent after they loose a child I don't think they care about your safe storage laws at that point.



Don't you know...passing a useless law is DOING SOMETHING.

Its all about DOING SOMETHING...nothing useful but it's "something".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Even 7000 in a country of 300 million is not a good reason to put limits on a Constitutional right





arnisador said:


> Not even _limits_? Like safe storage or the like? This is OK with you?



Reasonable storage and handling.

Not stuff like "Store the bullets in 1 lock box, the magazine in another, the hammer down the street at a neighbors, use triple hex encryption, a 15 minute access waiting period, and oh year, phone the FBI first" type crap.

No, no reason to limit a right.  However, misconduct and incompetence and recklessness should be discouraged.  The guy doing speed draws in his yard for example killed 3 kids last year. Practice that at a gun range with safety controls, etc.  Just an example, and yes, the # is legit.

Kids confusing guns for toys, being able to reach into a dresser and pull out a loaded gun as easily as they'd grab dads socks, weapons left on urinals, or beds, all these are preventable situations.  You don't need more laws, you need more education, and you need people to be responsible.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *you need people to be responsible.



That my friend is the solution to almost all of our problems


----------



## Big Don (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That my friend is the solution to almost all of our problems



Sorry! That is the racist/sexist/bigot answer... You can't expect people to be responsible, what are you, some kind of monster?


----------



## Takai (Oct 1, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Sorry! That is the racist/sexist/bigot answer... You can't expect people to be responsible, what are you, some kind of monster?



Why not? They expect us to be.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2013)

[h=1]More Guns in U.S. homes, More Kids Getting Shot[/h]





> A new study shows that the number of children wounded or killed by  gunshots has been climbing in recent years, and that states with high  gun-ownership rates also tend to have lots of childhood firearm  injuries.
> 
> 
> While such a conclusion may seem obvious, epidemiological  research in this field has been lacking because of pressure from some  members of Congress to limit federally funded gun research for the past  two decades.





> &#8220;Based on our research, we know that there is a clear correlation  between household gun ownership (and gun safety practices) and childhood  gunshot wounds in the home on a large-scale,&#8221; Madenci said


----------



## Big Don (Oct 27, 2013)

arnisador said:


> *More Guns in U.S. homes, More Kids Getting Shot*





> &#8220;Based on our research, we know that there is a clear correlation   between household gun ownership (and gun safety practices) and childhood   gunshot wounds in the home on a large-scale,&#8221; Madenci said


Gee, I'm pretty sure you're one of those who has been heard to screech that correlation does NOT equal causation...


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Gee, I'm pretty sure you're one of those who has been heard to screech that correlation does NOT equal causation...



Correlation alone is not sufficient to establish causation. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to establish causation. Correlation is how we learn what to investigate further to see if there is indeed causation.


----------



## Tames D (Oct 27, 2013)

I believe in being responsible. I keep all my guns in a gun safe. Well, except for the chambered loaded Glock I keep on my headboard at all times. 
Just kidding, I keep it on my nightstand


----------



## billc (Nov 2, 2013)

Hmmmm...just try to get a firearm safety class into grade schools, as they have for fire safety, and the same gun grabbers who want to throw parents in jail will block them every time. 

Here is a look at the issue...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NROChildrenAndGuns051313.html



> My research on juvenile accidental gun deaths for all U.S. states _shows_ that mandates that guns be locked up had no impact. What did happen in states with such mandates, however, was that criminals attacked more people in their homes and crimes were more successful: 300 more total murders and 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in these states. Burglaries also rose dramatically. The evidence also indicates that states with the biggest increases in gun ownership have seen the biggest drops in violent crime.



Here is the paper he did on accidental gun deaths and gun locks...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/whitney.pdf

One consequence from one size fits all laws like the gun grabbers want...



> Jessica Lynne Carpenter is 14 years old. She knows how to shoot. . . . Under the new &#8220;safe storage&#8221; laws being enacted in California and elsewhere, parents can be held criminally liable unless they lock up their guns when their children are home alone . . . so that&#8217;s just what law-abiding parents John and Tephanie Carpenter had done . . . . [The killer], who was armed with a pitchfork . . . had apparently cut the phone lines. So when he forced his way into the house and began stabbing the younger children in their beds, Jessica&#8217;s attempts to dial 9-1-1 didn&#8217;t do much good. Next, the sensible girl ran for where the family guns were stored. But they were locked up tight. . . . [T]he children&#8217;s great-uncle, the Rev. John Hilton, told re- porters: &#8220;If only (Jessica) had a gun available to her, she could have stopped the whole thing. If she had been properly armed, she could have stopped him in his tracks.&#8221; &#8220;Maybe John William and Ashley would still be alive,&#8221; Jessica&#8217;s uncle said.38





> Despite these different combinations, it is difficult to observe any evidence of reduced accidental gun deaths from the safe-storage law. Half the 16 coefficients are negative and half are positive, with the only statistically significant estimate implying that safe-storage laws increase accidental gun deaths. Some of the point estimates do imply a large percentage impact for the two youngest age groups, but the net effect on all four age groups added together is actually very small&#8212;resulting in four more accidental deaths (ignoring the even smaller estimates provided by the regressions with only the fixed effects: six lives saved for those ages 1&#8211;4 years, 12 more lives lost for those ages 5&#8211;9, 12 lives saved for those ages 10&#8211;14, and 10 more lives lost for those ages 15&#8211;19). The differential pattern for different age groups also seems inconsistent with what would be predicted from safe-storage laws.36
> While increases in the accidental death rate from nongun methods for people in an age group is almost always positive, it is never statistically significant.





> VI. Conclusion
> Safe-storage laws have no impact on accidental gun deaths or total suicide rates. While there is some weak evidence that safe-storage laws reduce ju- venile gun suicides, those intent on committing suicide appear to easily substitute into other methods, as the total number of juvenile suicides actually rises (if insignificantly) after passage of safe-storage laws.



And there is always a cost on the other side of the argument of storage laws...but victims on that side are never examined...except by this paper...



> Our most conservative estimates show that safe-storage laws resulted in 3,738 more rapes, 21,000 more rob- beries, and 49,733 more burglaries annually in just the 15 states with these laws. More realistic estimates indicate across-the-board increases in violent and property crimes. During the 5 full years after the passage of the safe- storage laws, the 15 states faced an annual average increase of 309 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults.





> The impact of safe-storage laws is consistent with existing research in- dicating that the guns that are most likely to be used in an accidental shooting are owned by the least law-abiding citizens and thus are least likely to be locked up after the passage of the law. The safe-storage laws thus manage to produce no significant change in accidental deaths or suicides and yet still raise crime rates because households with low accidental death risks are now the ones most likely to obey the law.


----------



## billc (Nov 2, 2013)

And an actual look at the Times article...

http://bearingarms.com/no-accidental-honesty-in-the-ny-times-latest-hit-piece-on-guns/



> They also failed to report the much larger truth of the matter that regardless of which criteria you use, both the per-capita rate and total number of child gun deaths in every age group is in a steady decline based on the most recent available data from the Center for Disease Control collected between 1999-2010. Further, honest reporters would admit that the documented declines in youth firearms deaths are occurring in a nation where gun ownership and shooting sports participation is on a dramatic rise,  in youth, female and urban shooters.
> In short, this _Times_ article is anti-gun propaganda that purposefully obfuscates empirical data showing child gun deaths from every cause are on a long and steady decline.



Again, if you are concerned about accidental gun deaths among children under a certain age...grade school level here in the states...then the common sense move would be to start incorporating gun safety into their yearly fire safety lectures by the local fire department...that would go a long way to keeping children safe...but that isn't the real goal is it.  The real goal is to scare people into not owning guns by hyping the death of children and then to scare parents with long jail terms if there is a tragedy in their family when a child under a certain age mishandles a gun.    The times I have seen gun safety programs tried in schools they are stopped if the NRA, which has a well developed gun safety program, has any connection to it.  So before they throw out the deaths of children to push their anti-gun agenda...start by supporting gun safety programs in schools...that is if protecting innocent children is the actual goal...

Found this article...this is how they dealt with gun accidents in the 1950s

http://life.time.com/history/gun-control-1956-edition-teaching-firearm-safety-in-indiana-photos/#1



> As LIFE put it in &#8220;Drawing a Bead on Safety,&#8221; all those years ago (citing a statistic that is still appalling today):
> *In 1954 more than 550 U.S. children under 15 were killed in accidents involving the careless handling of firearms, five of them in lake County, Indiana. [In 2010, 606 people were killed by "accidental discharge of firearms," according to the CDC. &#8212; Ed.] This situation shocked Indiana Conservation Officer Rod Rankin, who decided to offer a course in gun safety to any interested child in the county. In the past year 2,500 children from 6 years on, with the approval of their parents, have taken him up on it.*​*Rankin stresses two things: never point as gun at anybody, even in play, and always check immediately to see if the gun is loaded &#8230; Rankin is glad to answer routine questions such as &#8220;How fast and far does a bullet go?&#8221; but tries to discourage ones like &#8220;Have you ever shot anyone?&#8221; and &#8220;If you shoot a man in the head how long does it take him to die?&#8221;*​*Some people think Rankin is starting the kids on firearms too young. But the National Rifle Association points out that four states now permit gun safety courses in grade school and says, &#8220;The earlier a kid learns to respect a gun and what not to do with it the better chance natural curiosity won&#8217;t get him in trouble.&#8221;*​Love or hate the NRA, it&#8217;s hard to argue with a logic that stresses education and safety around firearms.



Read more: Gun Control, 1956 Edition: Teaching Firearm Safety in Rural Indiana | LIFE.com http://life.time.com/history/gun-co...rearm-safety-in-indiana-photos/#ixzz2jUNPWuZr


----------



## billc (Nov 2, 2013)

Another look at the article from Business Week...

http://www.businessweek.com/article...re-are-encouraging-trends-too-statistics-show



> *3. And, by the way, what&#8217;s the overall trend in child gun deaths, accidental or otherwise?* That&#8217;s a question I had early on as a reader of the nearly 6,000-word article. (Actually, I knew the answer and wondered when the_Times_ would get around to revealing it.)
> *Only in the 75th paragraph of a 110-paragraph article does the newspaper acknowledge in an offhand way &#8220;the deep decline in accidental gun deaths shown in federal statistics dating to the mid-1980s.&#8221; Huh? So, even if some accidents are categorized incorrectly as homicides, something good seems to be happening.*
> The _Times_ didn&#8217;t offer any specifics. Why not? They&#8217;re not difficult to find. The Centers for Disease Control website provides one statistical snapshot (PDF): From 1999
> through 2010, child gun deaths attributed to accident, homicide, and suicide all declined (although the absolute levels are still alarmingly high). What&#8217;s more, the reduction in minors killing each other and themselves mirrors a broader and deeper decrease (PDF) in all firearm crime in the U.S. since 1993. I didn&#8217;t notice a reference in the _Times_ to this heartening overall violent-crime trend.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> [h=1]More Guns in U.S. homes, More Kids Getting Shot[/h]



How much money was waisted on that study.  Of course you need a gun to get shot.  That's like saying people driving a car are more likely to have a car accident compared to people sitting in their living room.  You need a car to have a car accident you need a gun to shot someone


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2013)

This just in, More people drown where there is more water.  In other news, a 12 year, $2M government study links over eating to obesity, claims more research is needed as the lead scientist just bought a new house.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How much money was waisted on that study.  Of course you need a gun to get shot.  That's like saying people driving a car are more likely to have a car accident compared to people sitting in their living room.  You need a car to have a car accident you need a gun to shot someone



You not only didn't read the news article on the study, you apparently didn't read my whole post--just the headline the news site gave it. Look at what I actually quoted:



arnisador said:


> Based on our research, we know that there is a clear correlation  between household gun ownership (_*and gun safety practices*_) and childhood  gunshot wounds in the home on a large scale,



(_*Emphasis *_added.) Incidentally, it's also standard science to start from the ground up and prove even the "obvious" rather than assuming that "everyone knows" whatever you happen to believe to be true. Furthermore, the case has been put forth here that dedicated gun-loving gun owners are so very responsible and so well NRA-trained that their guns are safe--in which case one might expect that high-gun areas would have lower death rates and areas where guns are rare would have disproportionately many injuries because people there are less familiar with them--e.g., the notion that pedestrian deaths from cars/trains may be lower where they are more common because people expect them and higher where they are infrequent because people cross a rural road without even looking as "there's never any traffic here". In fact, pedestrian deaths from vehicle crashes are twice the expected rate in rural areas vs. more heavily-trafficked areas, according to the CDC:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm (under *Area Type*)

So, fewer cars=more deaths...despite what is so plainly obvious to you that you chose to use it as an example of something you would _not _have bothered to have studied. In fairness, the CDC uses science and statistics, both of which are banned as forms of witchcraft by conservatives.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2013)

So what part of what I said was wrong?  You can't have a shooting without a gun.  Like duh!!!!! Waist of money.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2013)

As usual, the NRA crowd is being intentionally dense to avoid having to deal with the facts.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> As usual, the NRA crowd is being intentionally dense to avoid having to deal with the facts.


What facts more guns = more chance of an accident?  Duh I'm not avoiding anything I'm saying its a no brainer and was a waist of study funds

By the way I'm not an NRA member


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What facts more guns = more chance of an accident?  Duh I'm not avoiding anything I'm saying its a no brainer and was a waist of study funds



Even the linked article shows that there was more done in the study than the news site's headline showed...and as I've shown, your example that more cars=more car deaths is obvious to you but not fully accurate. To dismiss an entire study because of a news site's headline is willful ignorance of the facts.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Even the linked article shows that there was more done in the study than the news site's headline showed...and as I've shown, your example that more cars=more car deaths is obvious to you but not fully accurate. To dismiss an entire study because of a news site's headline is willful ignorance of the facts.


That's only fair, to focus on such a statistically small thing as accidental shootings of children in order to push an agenda clearly aimed at depriving the law abiding of their rights is a tad ghoulish, don't you think? 
[/rhetorical, I know you don't]


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Even the linked article shows that there was more done in the study than the news site's headline showed...and as I've shown, your example that more cars=more car deaths is obvious to you but not fully accurate. To dismiss an entire study because of a news site's headline is willful ignorance of the facts.



My example wasn't more cars = more death.  My example was you need cars to have car accidents


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2013)

Big Don said:


> That's only fair, to focus on such a statistically small thing as accidental shootings of children



The entire point of this thread is that it isn't as small as you have been told. Science is not a conspiracy theory--really.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The entire point of this thread is that it isn't as small as you have been told. Science is not a conspiracy theory--really.



Said entire point was thoroughly refuted, again and again.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The entire point of this thread is that it isn't as small as you have been told. Science is not a conspiracy theory--really.



Its still very small even with your inflated numbers


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Said entire point was thoroughly refuted, again and again.



Where? Which post(s)?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its still very small even with your inflated numbers



In what other contexts would you declare hundreds of dead kids a 'small' problem? Your defn. of 'small' has been shown to be very flexible--it's however many people are killed by guns.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In what other contexts would you declare hundreds of dead kids a 'small' problem? Your defn. of 'small' has been shown to be very flexible--it's however many people are killed by guns.



Hundreds of kids vs 300,000,000 people in the US. = very very small.  Your argument is emotional not factual


----------



## billc (Nov 4, 2013)

The point that the gun grabbers seem to miss about those who support the 2nd amendment...it is horrible when these children are killed and no one on our side wants these deaths either...just to make that clear.  The point is that as horrible as these deaths are, they have to be seen in the light that guns save just as many lives and a lot more lives than they cause, so restricting guns from law abiding citizens isn't going to save more lives, but it will cost more lives...you just won't know those lives could have been saved if the victim was armed because if guns aren't available, because there will be no evidence supporting it...since guns won't be there.  

Much like drugs that are never discovered for illnesses...no drugs, no way to say those lives could have been saved.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 4, 2013)

When are people going to realize that accidents are always going to happen and that the constant smothering of the population with useless legislation is destroying freedom?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> When are people going to realize that accidents are always going to happen and that the constant smothering of the population with useless legislation is destroying freedom?



The point is pretty clear: It doesn't matter that the numbers are wrong and we don't know the scale of the problem, because if you're with the NRA then by defn. accidental gun deaths are _not_ a problem.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The point is pretty clear: It doesn't matter that the numbers are wrong and we don't know the scale of the problem, because if you're with the NRA then by defn. accidental gun deaths are _not_ a problem.


So what are the REAL numbers? Triple them quadruple them its still small. 
2ndly accidents are accidents they are not planned and not expected and legislation won't stop them. 
It's actually a crime in MD to have a traffic accident.  We have a charge for failure to control speed to avoid collision.  Guess what I still do accident reports all the time.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

Also the NRA has nothing to do with how state medical examiners list cause of death.  Despite your attempts to imply otherwise


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The point is pretty clear: It doesn't matter that the numbers are wrong and we don't know the scale of the problem, because if you're with the NRA then by defn. accidental gun deaths are _not_ a problem.



  Accidental gun deaths *aren't* a problem. Far more children are _beaten to death every year by their parents_ than were injured by firearms since 1999 in the original article. If you were truly worried about children, you'd be crusading about educating potential parents and proper parenting. Instead, you're wasting your time crying about the miniscule number of accidental shootings that occur because you don't like and don't understand firearms.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> because you don't like and don't understand firearms.



Ah yes, the NRA at its finest. May I similarly infer that you don't like and don't understand statistics?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 4, 2013)

The NRA is to lib's as the ACLU is to con's.

I guess it all depends on what rights you want to allow others to possess and what ones you want to take away....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The NRA is to lib's as the ACLU is to con's.



That's fair.

The thread was about whether the numbers we're using when we discuss this are correct. Disputing the relevance of the number before its size is settled is what I'm having trouble following.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> That's fair.
> 
> The thread was about whether the numbers we're using when we discuss this are correct. Disputing the relevance of the number before its size is settled is what I'm having trouble following.


So again I ask what's the numbers?  Few hundred?  Few thousand?  10000's?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So again I ask what's the numbers?  Few hundred?  Few thousand?  10000's?



We don't know because of inconsistent reporting standards.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We don't know because of inconsistent reporting standards.



So it could be less?

Whats your opinion how much is under reported?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Whats your opinion how much is under reported?



I'm not in a position to say. Consult the article in post #1.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm not in a position to say. Consult the article in post #1.



So your point was lets post a non-story and then blame everything else on the NRA.:s441:


----------



## Big Don (Nov 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So your point was lets post a non-story and then blame everything else on the NRA.:s441:


Well, duh.
What are you, New?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Whats your opinion how much is under reported?



How could I know the magnitude of what medical examiners are misreporting? That's why more research by those with access to the data and an ability to affect the standards is needed.


ballen0351 said:


> So your point was lets post a non-story and then blame everything else on the NRA.:s441:



Childish. You haven't looked at the actual issue--you simply continue to engage in knee-jerk denial of anything that might seem critical of gun culture.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How could I know the magnitude of what medical examiners are misreporting? That's why more research by those with access to the data and an ability to affect the standards is needed.
> 
> 
> Childish. You haven't looked at the actual issue--you simply continue to engage in knee-jerk denial of anything that might seem critical of gun culture.



Because its a non issue.  Double even triple the number its still such a small %.  You can't stop accidents they are accidents.  You have 100s of millions of guns and 100s of millions of people and at most a few 1000 accidents a year.
But I'll play your silly fear mongering game
Solution teach kids about guns in school insteadof suspending them for eating a ppop tart wrong.


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2013)

Hmmm...some who want more gun control want the CDC to have more power in studying gun deaths...hmmm...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/06/c...trol-data-refutes-new-anti-gun-studys-claims/

The misinformation...



> Firearm-related deaths among children have decreased since the mid-1990s, but new research heralded by gun control supporters claims the opposite. A research abstract entitled _United States Childhood Gun-Violence &#8211; Disturbing Trends, presented during the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference & Exhibitions by physicians Arin L. Madenci and Christopher B. Weldon, claims that from 1997 to 2009, in-hospital deaths of children resulting from gunshot wounds increased nearly 60 percent, and hospitalizations of children for gunshot wounds increased 80 percent.
> _


_


_


> The study in question uses data from several editions of the _Kids&#8217; Inpatient Database__ (KID), which contains information on only pediatric hospitalizations. However, data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that firearm-related deaths among persons aged 0-14 years actually decreased 39 percent from 1997 to 2009, and decreased 45 percent if the trend is carried through 2010, the most recent year for which data are available._
> _One glaring mistake in the study&#8217;s abstract, is that it fails to stipulate what ages it includes in its definition of &#8220;children.&#8221; As longtime readers well know, anti-gun advocates have often exaggerated the number of firearm-related deaths among children by counting deaths among juveniles and young adults ages 15-19 along with those among children. However, firearm-related deaths among all persons ages 0-19 decreased 33 percent through 2009 and 37 percent through 2010._
> _More importantly, the per capita rate of such deaths has decreased to an even greater extent. Among persons ages 0-14, it dropped 44 percent from 1997 to 2009, and 48 percent from 1997 to 2010, while among all persons ages 0-19 it dropped 42 percent through 2009 and 45 percent through 2010._




And the response by the government/democrat/obama/gun grabber media...
_
_


> Some of the media coverage of Madenci and Weldon&#8217;s presentation gives the impression that accidental firearm deaths among children are a growing problem. NBC&#8217;s coverage was typical, highlighting the case of a three-year-old who died tragically after finding an unsecured firearm under his parents&#8217; bed.



The reality...
_



In reality, from 1997 to 2010, the rate of firearm accident deaths decreased 62 percent among children (ages 0-14), 69 percent among ages 15-17, and 62 percent among ages 18-19.


Click to expand...







The CDC&#8217;s data show that the country is trending in the right direction and has been for some time. The fact that this trend is occurring alongside an increase in the number of privately owned firearms should help to divorce some from the notion that more guns inherently mean more gun deaths.


Click to expand...


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/06/c...tes-new-anti-gun-studys-claims/#ixzz2jvV3IQN6



_


----------



## Tames D (Nov 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Because its a non issue.  Double even triple the number its still such a small %.  *You can't stop accidents they are accidents. * You have 100s of millions of guns and 100s of millions of people and at most a few 1000 accidents a year.
> But I'll play your silly fear mongering game
> Solution teach kids about guns in school insteadof suspending them for eating a ppop tart wrong.



I know this has been said before in one way or another, but I'll say it again. Guns are legal, cars are legal, airplanes are legal, trains are legal, sports are legal. People get hurt and killed as a result of these LEGAL things. Why are guns singled out everytime and targeted for banning?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Guns are legal, cars are legal, airplanes are legal, trains are legal, sports are legal. People get hurt and killed as a result of these LEGAL things. Why are guns singled out everytime and targeted for banning?



Are all those things equally well regulated? Is it easier to get a gun license, a driver's license, a pilot's license, a railroad engineer's license, or a pro sports contract?

How often do people playing sports kill numerous people _not _playing or attending a sports event? How often is a child accidentally run over by an airplane? 

And, banning is not what's being suggested. Everything else you mentioned has had _mandated _safety improvements over the years... except guns.

Meanwhile, this thread is about getting the numbers right whether you think the numbers matter or not. I'm surprised that anyone would find it controversial to suggest we should discuss these things with accurate rather than inaccurate data.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 6, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Are all those things equally well regulated? Is it easier to get a gun license, a driver's license,



100% wrong

Drivers license requirements
16 yeas old

Hand gun license
21 yes old

DL
No waiting period

Gun
7 to 10 days however right now due to paperwork back logs you can wait up to 2 months

DL
No restrictions turn 16 go apply

Gun
Severally restricted based on past records, mental health records, age,  

DL
Don't even need a license to buy a car

Gun
Can't buy a gun without a complete background


----------



## Tames D (Nov 6, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Are all those things equally well regulated? Is it easier to get a gun license, a driver's license, a pilot's license, a railroad engineer's license, or a pro sports contract?
> 
> How often do people playing sports kill numerous people _not _playing or attending a sports event? How often is a child accidentally run over by an airplane?
> 
> ...



Are you serious? How do I even respond to this?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2013)

Its taking over a year to get a pistol permit in NY these days. Not even the DMV is that bad....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Nov 7, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Its taking over a year to get a pistol permit in NY these days. Not even the DMV is that bad....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Which is shameful for a few reasons, like, driving not being a constitutional right...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I know this has been said before in one way or another, but I'll say it again. Guns are legal, cars are legal, airplanes are legal, trains are legal, sports are legal. People get hurt and killed as a result of these LEGAL things. Why are guns singled out everytime and targeted for banning?





Tames D said:


> Are you serious? How do I even respond to this?



You chose the comparison, Senator.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Drivers license requirements
> 16 yeas old
> 
> Hand gun license
> ...



In most states at 16 years old you can only get a limited license due to the graduated driver's license laws. There is required supervised driving time and a variety of restrictions on when, and with whom, you can drive.  Can we try this with guns? In many cases there _is_ a mandatory waiting period during which you have only a Learner's Permit. For a DL you do generally need at least a limited physical exam--see previous link and note that at a minimum there will be eyesight restrictions. (In NYS I generally had to read an optometrist's chart to get my DL issued or renewed.) Certainly it is the case that there are age-based restrictions.

But the big thing is you have to take a safety knowledge test and a practical test. Can we get that for guns?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In most states at 16 years old you can only get a limited license due to the graduated driver's license laws. There is required supervised driving time and a variety of restrictions on when, and with whom, you can drive.  Can we try this with guns? In many cases there _is_ a mandatory waiting period during which you have only a Learner's Permit. For a DL you do generally need at least a limited physical exam--see previous link and note that at a minimum there will be eyesight restrictions. (In NYS I generally had to read an optometrist's chart to get my DL issued or renewed.) Certainly it is the case that there are age-based restrictions.
> 
> But the big thing is you have to take a safety knowledge test and a practical test. Can we get that for guns?



Sure.  Can we get an IQ test and photo ID for voting?


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 7, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Sure. Can we get an IQ test and photo ID for voting?



  I'd much prefer an IQ test for breeding!


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In most states at 16 years old you can only get a limited license due to the graduated driver's license laws. There is required supervised driving time and a variety of restrictions on when, and with whom, you can drive.  Can we try this with guns? In many cases there _is_ a mandatory waiting period during which you have only a Learner's Permit. For a DL you do generally need at least a limited physical exam--see previous link and note that at a minimum there will be eyesight restrictions. (In NYS I generally had to read an optometrist's chart to get my DL issued or renewed.) Certainly it is the case that there are age-based restrictions.
> 
> But the big thing is you have to take a safety knowledge test and a practical test. Can we get that for guns?



So your claiming 16 yr olds don't have licenses and don't drive?  Restrictions or not you still can go drive a car at 16 legally.  You can't own a gun until 18 and a handgun until 21.  
There is no back ground check for driver license.  There is one every time I buy a gun.  Even if I justbought one last week.  
No wwaiting period to buy a car.  I'm a cop and own a bunch of guns if I go buy a new one tomorrow I still have to go through the waiting period.  
You are required to attend classes here to get a gun permit, hunting license, CC permit.
I can't buy certain types of guns made right here in the US here anymore no such restrictions on cars produced here


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2013)

Don't need a DL to purchase a car...just one to drive it away.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

You do not need a drivers license to drive a car, just to drive it on the government roads.  Farm kids drive all the time on their property.
You don't need to insure or register your car either, just to drive it on government roads. Again, farm kids drive old cars on family farms all the time.
They don't even need to be 16. I know 1 family where the kids drive an old Buick between the house and barn and fields, one is 14. Wears lifts on their shoes to reach.

If I go to a car dealer and buy a car, I can pay cash, walk out soon as the paperworks done, usually an hour or so.  In Erie County NY, if I buy a gun, I'll get to pick it up in 18-24 months as the wait is that long.

When I was in Boy Scouts, I had easy access to guns.  Shot all the time at camps in NY and TN.  I didn't have a permit. Hell, the only ID I had was a bit of paper that said I knew which end of the knife to whittle with.  Funny how none of us stabbed, shot or speared each other all those years.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Restrictions or not you still can go drive a car at 16 legally.  You can't own a gun until 18



Just as you can get a restricted-rights DL at 16 in most states, you can own a gun at any age in most states...also with restrictions. And that's for licensed sellers; for unlicensed sellers the age can be as low as 16 (VT) and for long guns any age at all (5 states, incl. NY). See here. You can also use one under supervision at a younger age; hunting with a gun is usually allowed at as young as 10. You don't understand the relevant law in the U.S. if you think you have to be 18 to legally own and/or use a gun.



> I can't buy certain types of guns made right here in the US here anymore no such restrictions on cars produced here



You're proving my point. Cars made and sold here must meet stringent safety, fuel efficiency, and other standards. Can we get safety standards for firearms? To reduce the likelihood of accidental shootings by young children?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Can we get safety standards for firearms? To reduce the likelihood of accidental shootings by young children?



You mean, like the stuff that's been on the books for years already that you're ignorant to?

http://smartgunlaws.org/design-safety-standards-for-handguns-policy-summary/
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5573


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2013)

He wants "gun idiot" stuff like bio-ID, rings that unlock the trigger and other "suicide if you ever need to use a gun" laws Bob....

Cars and guns are entirely different animals when it comes to safety design.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You're proving my point. Cars made and sold here must meet stringent safety, fuel efficiency, and other standards. Can we get safety standards for firearms? To reduce the likelihood of accidental shootings by young children?



Again you have clue what you speak just like the fools that  passed our gun laws.  
I can't buy a normal AR15 here anymore.  I can buy an AR 15 H-bar model.  What's the difference you might ask?  The H-bar has a beefier barrel so I can shoot more rounds more accurately and the barrel won't heat up as fast so I can just keep shooting and shooting and shooting.  You know why the H-bar is legal and the regular AR isnt?  Because Colt firearms company spent millions to convince our legislature that an H-bar is a hunting gun.  
So tell me how that law is making us safer?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Cars and guns are entirely different animals when it comes to safety design.



I didn't choose the comparison.

But we don't have federal gun safety standards--just a patchwork of state laws here and there. Guns are specifically exempted from the federal CPSA. That'd be good to address.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So tell me how that law is making us safer?



Can you point me to which law this is? Your state only, I gather?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I didn't choose the comparison.
> 
> But we don't have federal gun safety standards--just a patchwork of state laws here and there. Guns are specifically exempted from the federal CPSA. That'd be good to address.


Yes you did you said its easier to get a gun license then a drivers license which is false


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes you did you said its easier to get a gun license then a drivers license which is false



That simply can't be!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes you did you said its easier to get a gun license then a drivers license



As usual, you're making stuff up and attributing it to me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

He twists and turns like a twisty turny thing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Are all those things equally well regulated? Is it *easier to get a gun license, a driver's license,*.



Did I?  That's how it sounded


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2013)

Just received info. on gettin a concealed carry permit...you need:

--21 years old

--have a current Illinois F.O.I.D card

--submit a complete concealed carry license application

--successfully complete 16 hours of firearms training including classroom and range

The fees:

--150 dollars for the application

--280 dollars for the 16 hour class

Now...since the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right...you know...like voting...and certain people complained about requiring a photo I.D....provided for free...I repeat...for free by the state...

I am now waiting for those same people to start howling about how wrong it is to charge a fee, and to require a photo I.D. to exercise a constitutionally protected right...you know, the way they did with voter I.D....


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> arnisador said:
> 
> 
> > Are all those things equally well regulated? Is   it *easier to get a gun license, a driver's license,.*
> ...



It sounds different if you don't edit it to take it out of context and don't change my question mark to a period.



Tames D said:


> I know this has been said before in one way or  another, but I'll say it again. Guns are legal, cars are legal,  airplanes are legal, trains are legal, sports are legal. People get hurt  and killed as a result of these LEGAL things. Why are guns singled out  everytime and targeted for banning?





arnisador said:


> Are all those things equally well regulated? Is  it easier to get a gun license, a driver's license, a pilot's license, a  railroad engineer's license, or a pro sports contract?
> 
> How often do people playing sports kill numerous people _not _playing or attending a sports event? How often is a child accidentally run over by an airplane?
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

billc said:


> I am now waiting for those same people to start howling about how wrong it is to charge a fee, and to require a photo I.D. to exercise a constitutionally protected right...you know, the way they did with voter I.D....



How many voting deaths per year?

This sounds like a reasonable question...until you think about it. You have the right to freedom of assembly, but getting a permit for your parade can still be an expensive, time-consuming hassle. Your fourth amendment rights will cost you an expensive lawyer to enforce often enough. Misuse of voting rights is very, very rare--completely negligible, by the standards you yourself apply when misuse of firearms is the issue. (If several hundred dead children per year is "negligible" to you, how is under 10 people voting twice a problem?) And of course, ultimately, voter ID laws are explicitly championed as a voter suppression mechanism. Voter ID laws don't solve an extant problem other than that they help Republicans get elected. It's false equivalence to say that all constitutional rights, no matter how different they might be, should be handled in exactly the same way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It sounds different if you don't edit it to take it out of context and don't change my question mark to a period.



So what was the point you were making if you were not saying gun license is easier then DL?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> As usual, you're making stuff up and attributing it to me.



Pot, kettle...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So what was the point you were making if you were not saying gun license is easier then DL?



That in choosing to compare licenses for guns with licenses for driving Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, *Tames D* was making a senseless comparison.

My point here remains: I think it's worth encouraging states to report consistent data on accidental firearm deaths so we know the scope of the problem...well, for those of us who do consider that sort of thing a problem.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Pot, kettle...



No. I'm not saying that people here have said things that they have not. There's a difference.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> That in choosing to compare licenses for guns with licenses for driving Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, *Tames D* was making a senseless comparison.
> 
> My point here remains: I think it's worth encouraging states to report consistent data on accidental firearm deaths so we know the scope of the problem...well, for those of us who do consider that sort of thing a problem.



Senseless comparison?? Really. Deaths are deaths. Car, plane, train, gun etc. I seem to recall you saying that one death is too many (I may be wrong). Why is an accidental car crash any less of a death than a gun accident? Still hurts the loved ones. Why not ban cars?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Senseless comparison?? Really. Deaths are deaths. Car, plane, train, gun etc. I seem to recall you saying that one death is too many



Accidents can be reduced but not eliminated. Jarts were banned for 3 deaths and I though that was an overreaction.



> Why is an accidental car crash any less of a death than a gun accident?



It isn't.



> Why not ban cars?



a.) The suggestion is not to ban guns.
b.) Planes, Train, Automobiles, Guns: One of these things is not like the others.

Your comparison is senseless. No one on the gun-control is suggestion that the same solution must be applied to every type of problem, no matter how different they might be. Safety standards for cars and driving are in place, though--how about matching that on guns, if this everything-is-the-same approach is what you like?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

Because, Blue.  That's why.  He's not calling for a ban on guns.  He just wants to make it so damned difficult for anyone to legally have one that they are banned by default, because no one could ever possibly meet all the requirements, they would be made functionally useless, and cost so much that only the government that is so trustworthy could have them.  But it would still be technically legal, so hence not a 'ban'.  Just like how in China on paper they are an incredibly free society.

As to the numbers of deaths, actual accidental child deaths are at a level that makes then statistically irrelevant.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0


> Using these death records as a guide, along with hundreds of medical  examiner and coroner reports and police investigative files, The Times  sought to identify every accidental firearm death of a child age 14 and  under in Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio dating to 1999, and  in California to 2007. Records were also obtained from several county  medical examiners&#8217; offices in Florida, Illinois and Texas.





> In all, The Times cataloged 259 gun accidents that killed children ages 14 and younger.



8 years.
259 accidental deaths in children 14 and under.
33 (rounded up) deaths per year.

Now, to pull some information from one of those unreliable sites:


> Among those 1-14,  fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause  of  unintentional injury-related death  behind  motor vehicle crashes.


There were 726 drowning deaths in children 14 and under in 2010 ALONE.
There were 1,225 motor vehicle related deaths in children 14 and under in 2010 ALONE!
Accidental Firearm related deaths by comparison were 62 in children 14 and under.

Now again, this is from that unreliable biased website that only counts when it supports the fearmongerer positions.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars

Now, I might be an idiot, but even an idiot can see that if accidental fire arm related deaths are being misreported by a factor of 10, that 620 is still less than 726 and less than 1,225.

Meanwhile there are 100 million legal gun owners who every day don't have accidents.  
The "Opps I dropped it and Timmy took it in the head" fears are unfounded as guns in the real world don't go off like they do in the movies.
Accidents are rare. If they weren't there would be more accidents at gun shows, scout camps, and gun ranges.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Accidents can be reduced but not eliminated. Jarts were banned for 3 deaths and I though that was an overreaction.



I love Jarts.  The irony here is you think banning jarts for 3 deaths is an over reaction, yet fail to see that most of the useless ideas like gun locks, and other feel good measures are just as much so.

But here's a simple question:  What safety measures ARE currently required of gun manufacturers regarding guns?  Surely if you are seeking a solution, you know what is already being done, right?

Please cite some references to current requirements of gun manufacturers by state and or federal authorities.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Accidents can be reduced but not eliminated. Jarts were banned for 3 deaths and I though that was an overreaction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I still take offense to "your comparison is senseless" claim. You can put every precaution in place to prevent injury or death. But that will never completely prevent injury or death. That's just wishful thinking. Like I said, death is death. If you find that to be a problem, then ban everything that causes death (good luck on that). Again I ask... Why single out guns?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

Guns aren't being singled out. The FDA is about to ban added trans fats because of their association with a variety of serious health problems. I support seat belt laws--they restrict your freedom to not wear them but save many, many lives. There are fence laws in many places for inground pools. In what sense are guns being singled out for attention? Guns are singled out by the gunophiles. That they're mentioned in the Bill of Rights is a valid point. So is your freedom to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances, but good luck getting an appt. with the president.

We're funding cancer research. We're working on pollution and global warming. Guns are not getting extra attention--they're getting an extra defense from those who don't want to see the problem addressed. You think they're singled out? That's your bias. You see it here more often because guns are more on-topic, and get a larger response, at a martial arts site than the latest news in kidney transplants.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 8, 2013)

Where does petitioning the gvt equal talking to the Pres? Bad analogy IMO....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Guns are not getting extra attention--they're getting an extra defense from those who don't want to see the problem addressed.


Poppycock.  We'd all love to see the problems addressed.  Let us know when someone with -realistic- and -reasonable- solutions offers one up.  Not useless emotional feel goodism.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Guns aren't being singled out. The FDA is about to ban added trans fats because of their association with a variety of serious health problems. I support seat belt laws--they restrict your freedom to not wear them but save many, many lives. There are fence laws in many places for inground pools. In what sense are guns being singled out for attention? Guns are singled out by the gunophiles. That they're mentioned in the Bill of Rights is a valid point. So is your freedom to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances, but good luck getting an appt. with the president.
> 
> We're funding cancer research. We're working on pollution and global warming. Guns are not getting extra attention--they're getting an extra defense from those who don't want to see the problem addressed. You think they're singled out? That's your bias. You see it here more often because guns are more on-topic, and get a larger response, at a martial arts site than the latest news in kidney transplants.



I appreciate your attempt but not buying it. You have an agenda that I don't agree with.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I appreciate your attempt but not buying it. You have an agenda that I don't agree with.



What is galling is his dishonesty about it.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 8, 2013)

> _Guns are not getting extra attention--they're getting an extra defense from those who don't want to see the problem addressed._



Heavens Forbid!! Defending a Constitutional Right?? How non-progressive!!

:shrug:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I appreciate your attempt but not buying it. You have an agenda that I don't agree with.



Fewer accidental deaths? You're disagreeing with that? In fact, in this thread I was just asking that we find out how many there are. Congress has blocked the CDC from investigating gun deaths for a long time but it's opening up now.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

Big Don said:


> What is galling is his dishonesty about it.



You really do know only one tune, don't you?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Heavens Forbid!! Defending a Constitutional Right?? How non-progressive!!



When you start campaigning for slander, libel, and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to be legal, we van talk about this. Otherwise, all your constitutional rights are further regulated by law and court decisions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

Going back to the numbers (See Post #86)

There were 726 drowning deaths in children 14 and under in 2010 ALONE.
There were 1,225 motor vehicle related deaths in children 14 and under in 2010 ALONE!
Accidental Firearm related deaths by comparison were 62 in children 14 and under.

and the claim in the OP


> A New York  Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that _*accidental  shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate*_,  because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the  authorities.



So the NYT is suggesting that based on the official CDC count for 2010, that lets see, 62 x 2 is carry the eleven, divide by bleem, oh crap, this is too hard...hold on....(typing sounds)
124!

So, the NYT is suggesting that there were not 62 accidental deaths, but at least 124 in 2010.

While going from 62 to 124 is a 100% increase in deaths (which sounds horrifying), it's still an insignificant number of deaths compared to drowning, motor vehicle accidents, and several other causes.

Now, I'm only referring to deaths here.  The OP was about shootings, not killings.

USA Today chimed in: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/


> In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were *injured* by firearms &#8212;  three times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in  Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.



Lets look at this for a moment.
USA Today claims that while 15,576 children and teens were injured by firearms, that only 5,192 US soldiers were injured in Afghanistan.
According to http://icasualties.org/oef/ in 2010 there were 499 US KIA.  This is smaller than the 62 child deaths listed by the CDC or the estimated 124 by the NYT.
The same site lists US wounded at 5,246, close enough to the USAT estimate.  
Referring back to the CDC, they show [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14,161[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] accidental injuries by firearm total. 
The CDC however lists 595 children aged 0-14.
Both CDC numbers are below the NYT ones.

By comparison, there were [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]     119,476 injuries by dogbite, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]220,377 by bike, and a whopping [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]491,479 by over exertion.

So the solution is clear.  We need to outlaw dogs, bikes and gym class.  Because all are significanly more dangerous to kids than a gun.



[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Now, onto USA Todays other claim


> Nationally, guns still  kill twice as many children and young people than cancer, five times as  many than heart disease and 15 times more than infection, according to  the New England Journal of Medicine.



The CDC lists 380 firearm related deaths, intentional and accidental, for 14 and under.
Cancer:  1,324 (2010 rate)
Heart Disease:  371 (2009 rate)
Infection: n/a
This is however not an apples to apples comparison as firearms are more akin to knife and cars than medical conditions such as cancer.

But unless math has changed, I don't think 371x5 = anywhere near 380. 



> [h=2]Mortality[/h] [h=4]1-4 years of   age[/h]
> 
> Number of   deaths: 4,316
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 26.5
> ...




So, someones full of prunes here, and it's looking to be the anti-gun fear mongerers.
Unless the United States Center for Disease Control is an invalid source?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 9, 2013)

Selling freedom for safety....where have I heard something about that before?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Nov 9, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Selling freedom for safety....where have I heard something about that before?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


One of Arni's "sensible" suggestions?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 9, 2013)

We just need to make a certain percentage of lawful owners criminals, like NY did with the 'sensible' magazine restrictions and 'reclassification' of certain guns, make it harder for people with low pull strength to use (ie the old, and the infirm), make it take longer to ready, introduce 'safe storage laws' that require storing unloaded with the rounds in a seperate room, and requiring trigger locks that render the weapons more likely to malfunction.  Then we can pat ourselves on the back and say "Good Job".  The 2 people saved will be well worth the effort, the jail industry will thrive because of all the new criminals created, and the health care system will see an influx of hundreds of new patients thanks to the disabling of a legitimate means of self defence while criminals will see a safer work environment.  It'll be as fixed as Healthcare.gov and the insurance system is today! 

But I stand firm in saying that the fear based, emotionally charged and misguided war against a constitutionally protected right is one of those seeking power and control, not of one for any real concern for children or their well being.  The US today, even with the recent spikes in violence is still a mostly safe nation. I do not leave my house worried I might get shot. I don't avoid Starbucks because they allowed legal carry.  I have had more arrows strike my homes (3 in 10 years in fact) than bullets.  

But Arni wanted the numbers looked at.  There on post #98 ARE the numbers, from the source, the CDC. Screenshots and all.
Not from an anti gun fear factory like the Brady group (where USA Today got their FUD from).


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Selling freedom for safety....where have I heard something about that before?



Usually someone is misquoting Benjamin Franklin when you hear that.

It's also not an all-or-nothing situation. We have improved car safety considerably but the govt. still lets me own them and they function in the intended manner.


----------



## billc (Nov 9, 2013)

> It's also not an all-or-nothing situation. We have improved car safety considerably but the govt. still lets me own them and they function in the intended manner.



The problem that you don't realize is that too many elements of the government don't want Americans to own guns in any configuration and use "common sense" gun laws as a bludgeon to intimidate and punish people who want to own guns...just look at how "common sense" laws on gun magazines are used to punish law abiding citizens when they are caught with one too many bullets where before they were completely within the law and now face criminal prosecution.



> still lets me own them



This attitude is also the problem in the gun debate, the government doesn't have a say in wether we can own guns, and we need to fight the belief that they allow us to own guns every step of the way.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> the govt. still lets me own them.



And theres the problem right there...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 9, 2013)

Core difference. I believe I have rights.  Others believe the government grants permissions.  The later are the ones at the core of the anti-gun movement.

Still waiting someone to dispute the numbers I posted, since the OP was all about the numbers in question.

*cricket* *cricket*


----------



## Big Don (Nov 9, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Core difference. I believe I have rights.  Others believe the government grants permissions.  The later are the ones at the core of the anti-gun movement.
> 
> Still waiting someone to dispute the numbers I posted, since the OP was all about the numbers in question.
> 
> *cricket* *cricket*



The United States Constitution SAYS we have rights. Those who disagree with the constitution...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The United States Constitution SAYS we have rights. Those who disagree with the constitution...



Nothing says those rights aren't subject to legislation and judicial decision. Try using your Freedom of Speech to slander. Congress has indeed made a law regarding--limiting--your freedom of speech. Is that OK?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Nothing says those rights aren't subject to legislation and judicial decision. Try using your Freedom of Speech to slander. Congress has indeed made a law regarding--limiting--your freedom of speech. Is that OK?


Really, "Congress shall make no law..."
"Shall not be infringed..."
Kind of sounds like they aren't subject to legislation and judicial decision...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Really, "Congress shall make no law..."
> "Shall not be infringed..."
> Kind of sounds like they aren't subject to legislation and judicial decision...



So..slander, libel, and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre should all be legal as forms of speech?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> So..slander, libel, and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre should all be legal as forms of speech?



WTF are you talking about? Your circular arguments and outright lies about your antigun agenda do not impress anyone sane, or halfway intelligent.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

We can't all be in the same IQ range as you, *Big Don*.

You were saying Constitutional rights can't be modified. But apart maybe from the 3rd amendment, they all are. You're a hypocrite--you claim to be making your defense based on the Constitution but only with respect to your own pet amendment.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Meanwhile, this thread is about getting the numbers right whether you think the numbers matter or not. I'm surprised that anyone would find it controversial to suggest we should discuss these things with accurate rather than inaccurate data.





arnisador said:


> That in choosing to compare licenses for guns with licenses for driving Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, *Tames D* was making a senseless comparison.
> 
> My point here remains: I think it's worth encouraging states to report consistent data on accidental firearm deaths so we know the scope of the problem...well, for those of us who do consider that sort of thing a problem.





arnisador said:


> Fewer accidental deaths? You're disagreeing with that? In fact, in this thread I was just asking that we find out how many there are. Congress has blocked the CDC from investigating gun deaths for a long time but it's opening up now.




So. Any comment about the ACTUAL NUMBERS POSTED?  Or does your silence indicate your acceptance of what was posted as final proof that the anti-gun agenda is just a bunch of fearmongerers?

opcorn:


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 9, 2013)

The only time limits are placed on an individuals right is when by exercising that right infringe on someone else.  You can't slander someone because it effects others.  You can't disturb the peach because it effects other.  Me buying owning and carrying a gun effects no body.  That's the difference.  But Mr Science guy what about Bobs numbers since that's what your problem is your upset about the numbers


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The only time limits are placed on an individuals right is when by exercising that right infringe on someone else.  You can't slander someone because it effects others.



Slander is a crime (not just a tort) in many states, meaning it need not cause any such infringement to lead to punishment.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Slander is a crime (not just a tort) in many states, meaning it need not cause any such infringement to lead to punishment.


If it doesn't effect anyone its not a crine .  no victim no crime.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> "In Bexar County, Tex., for example, the medical examiners office issued a finding of homicide in the death of William Reddick, a 9-month-old who was accidentally killed on May 17, 1999, when his 2-year-old brother opened a dresser drawer while in the crib with him, grabbed a pistol and pulled the trigger.
> 
> But the next year, when Kyle Bedford, 2, was killed by his 5-year-old brother, who had found a gun on a closet shelf, the same office classified the death as an accident."



If the inconsistencies are that these incidents are sometimes listed as homicide, and other times as accidents, then here is a simple solution: Just count deaths, and ignore accident or homicide as a distinguishing point.


CDC lists 585 accidental injuries 0-14, but cite it as being unreliable due to a small sample.  We will instead go with the more reliable number cited for 0-18, which is 2,313 (Unintentional Non-Fatal Firearm Injuries See Post #98).
We now have to add in Homicides and Suicides. This number is somewhat higher because I am going from 0-18, adding 4 more years to the limit.
Firearm Death Rates, age 0-18 = 1,970. This number includes homicides and suicides for the year 2010.

We are looking at a combined total of 4,283 people, ages 0 to 18 that were injured or killed in 2010 by firearms, out of a population of 78,682,322.

Would anyone care to refute, debunk or validate these numbers?
My source is the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/

I will accept silence from the anti-gun position as acceptance that these numbers are in fact valid and that they acknowledge their accuracy and validity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2013)

Some additional rates, 0 to 18 year 2010, All Intents

Drowning: Fatal = 1,025 / Non Fatal = [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5,306[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Falls: Fatal = 133 / Non Fatal = [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2,724,572[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Poisoning: Fatal = 745 / Non Fatal = [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]149,392[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Cut / Piercing: Fatal = 151 / Non Fatal [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]= 528,954[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Fire: Fatal = 722 / Non Fatal = [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]130,977[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Transportation Related, All Sources: Fatal = 3,735 / Non Fatal = [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]896,487[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Again, Source is the US CDC.


2,313 Unintentional Non-Fatal Firearm Injuries
1,970 Firearm Deaths

The FUD argument would of course be to point out the obvious: You're more likely to die from being shot than stabbed.  They might also mention that water is wet as if it were some huge breakthrough. 4,283 people, ages 0 to 18 that were injured or killed in 2010 by firearms, out of a population of 78,682,322. In that same year, more people were killed or injured in falls, poisonings, fires, auto accidents, drownings and stabbings. All of these occur far more frequently than any risk of being shot.  Poisonings and drownings account for 1,770 deaths, a mere 200 less than firearms, yet injuries from both outweigh firearm injuries by a factor of almost 67X!  Yet how many hours of training are required of new parents before they can give their children baths, or train them in proper storage of toxic household chemicals and prescription drugs? Zero.  Where are the calls for mandatory parental training? A 5% return in injury reduction would save and improve far more lives than a 50%! reduction in firearm injuries would. Yet the FUD are silent. If they were truly concerned with helping the children as they claim, they could easily help more by focusing on those, rather than the fear laden control agenda they push.

The numbers are there. The silence from the FUD speaks loudly.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2013)

:s414:


----------



## Tames D (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If it doesn't effect anyone its not a crine .  no victim no crime.



Prostitution is a crime. Who is the victim? One is willing to pay and the other is willing to provide a service for payment.


----------



## billc (Nov 10, 2013)

> Where are the calls for mandatory parental training? A 5% return in injury reduction would save and improve far more lives than a 50%! reduction in firearm injuries would. Yet the FUD are silent. If they were truly concerned with helping the children as they claim, they could easily help more by focusing on those, rather than the fear laden control agenda they push.



Bob...please...liberals are bad enough without people giving them more ideas....!!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2013)

Just to add more numbers, here are reports for ALL firearm related injuries and deaths, from all sources, age 0 to 18 for about a decade. I've also included bb/pellet gun injuries as well which is recorded separately. 

I am surprised by the lack of commentary regarding the numbers posted as the OP was very clearly interested in getting them right and putting the problem in proper perspective.  While I can see differences in reporting to possibly mis-categorize a suicide as a homicide or an accident, a death is a death, and I doubt that the CDC would mis-classify a suicide by gun as drowning. 

These numbers show a very clear image. Despite the population and gun ownership increasing over the past decade, and despite the number of firearms in general circulation also increasing dramatically, the incidents of injury and death by firearm has remained constant, and in fact decreased. In short, the claims of the anti-gun rights people are clearly lies, fed by their need to control and feel superior.  

As always, my source is the CDC. My data is clearly posted and defined, and meets professional requirements.  I await qualified refutation or independent verification of my data, findings and conclusions, and welcome correction from valid sources.  This wouldn't be USA Today, the NY Times, The Brady Campaign or anyone who cried about being afraid to goto Starbucks because they might get shot. 

The crickets below are free. Please do not confuse them with the pretzels in the Lounge.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2013)

billc said:


> Bob...please...liberals are bad enough without people giving them more ideas....!!!!



Bill, "Liberals" don't need me giving them ideas. They are full of ideas on how to step on the throat of freedom, reduce independence, punish free thinking, and pleasure themselves at the cost of others.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Prostitution is a crime. Who is the victim? One is willing to pay and the other is willing to provide a service for payment.



Society is the victim and its also not a crime everywhere


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Society is the victim



!!! Who knew you were a liberal?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> !!! Who knew you were a liberal?



Having laws for the betterment of society doesnt make you a lib or conservative it makes you a member of society


----------



## Tames D (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Society is the victim and its also not a crime everywhere



In what way is society the victim? And if that is the case, why isn't society a victim where it's legal?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2013)

> Originally Posted by :scratchy: *arnisador*
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, *this thread is about getting the numbers right* whether you think the numbers matter or not.



:hmm:


:wuguns:


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

Tames D said:


> In what way is society the victim? And if that is the case, why isn't society a victim where it's legal?



Because  as a society decided we don't want that type of behavior so a violation of that behavior is a violation against "the state" or society so "the state" is the victim or in other words the people of that society are the victim.  And in locations where its legal that society decided they are OK with it.  

Every crime needs specific elements to be a crime.  For example the old stand by you cant yell fire in a theater.  Well actually you can and its not a crime unless you meet specific elements.
Here if I walked into a theater and yelled fire and i was alone its not a crime.  If i yelled fire and everyone in the theater laughed and though it was funny its not a crime.  The elenents of the crime require A. Other people to witness the crime B.  People to be disturbed or bothered by the act
So you walk in yell fire and some one screams and runs out thats now a crime


----------



## Tames D (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm still not sure how a man and woman who agree to have sex in exchange for money makes a victim of me, you, our neighbors, the guy that works at pizza hut etc. In what way are we victimized? Please explain.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I'm still not sure how a man and woman who agree to have sex in exchange for money makes a victim of me, you, our neighbors, the guy that works at pizza hut etc. In what way are we victimized? Please explain.


Because you live in society and that society made that law.  You don't have agree with it.  As a member of society you can change the law by voting or convincing others to agree wwith your position.  I'm not surewhat you don't understand.  
I for example don't want hookers and johns walking around my neighborhood.  So I'm OK with it being illegal.  I've also talked to and interacted with many woman that are prostitutes and if I really needed to pick a victim of the crime I'd pick them.  Most had poor childhoods with molestation, and are severely addicted to drugs and alcohol.  Its not like "pretty woman" or high priced call girls for the majority of these woman.  The last brothel we raided had over 20 woman all smuggled in from Latin america and were here illegally and were sex slaves for the MS13 gangs out of northern Virginia.  The woman had no choice and got little to no money.  So we used the laws against prostitutiin as a means to get these woman out of that house and get then help.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

Bringing it back to Guns we as a society could infact ban all guns if we wanted .  All we would need to do was change the Constitution.  As it sits now the society has decided the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Bringing it back to Guns we as a society could infact ban all guns if we wanted .  All we would need to do was change the Constitution.  As it sits now the society has decided the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



False. It _is _infringed. Some people--say, felons--aren't allowed to own them; others must get permits.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> False. It _is _infringed. Some people--say, felons--aren't allowed to own them; others must get permits.



Yes we have been violating the Constitution since it was signed


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes we have been violating the Constitution since it was signed



So...we agree that you were wrong? That it is indeed infringed, as all other rights are, by law and judicial decision?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> So...we agree that you were wrong? That it is indeed infringed, as all other rights are, by law and judicial decision?



No I agree we violated the Constitution.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No I agree we violated the Constitution.



Some people are ok with the Constitution being infringed, as long as it makes them feel good.  Some people like to creatively interpret it. Some people are idiots. I personally think those who would violate it are traitors and should be given a short drop and sudden stop.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 11, 2013)

I like the way Arni is steering well clear of the CDC numbers Bob posted.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2013)

The NYT told him to believe they are wrong. Why would he talk about wrong numbers?  There are also data at the FBI and DOJ that he could bring to the discussion, if he were truly interested in discussing the topic he started, rather than slinging insults like a net-troll. But why would he do that?  He might find he is wrong, and you know how that is.

So, I'll bring the data he is afraid to bring. 

According to the FBI, (Weapons: Table 20) there were a total of 12,996 murders in 2010, of which 8,775 were done by firearms of any type. They are involved in 20.6% of aggravated assaults (Aggravated Assault Table). 


> In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.
> When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2010 estimated violent crime total was 13.2 percent below the 2006 level and 13.4 percent below the 2001 level. Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation&#8217;s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

The Guardian, a UK newspaper did a study like the NY Times. However they used the FBI stats among others.  Their Conclusion?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state




> In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.





> Just like the UK, the United States has seen a long-term decline in crime, with firearms offences seeing a steeper fall than other crimes



As stated earlier, gun ownership has increased. The US population has increased.  Crime, and Gun related incidents have, -decreased-. 

But what about the US Department of Justice? http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf


> The report, by the department&#8217;s Bureau of Justice Statistics, painted an encouraging picture of long-term trends at a time of divisive political debate over guns and legislation to regulate them. Firearms-related homicides declined 39 percent between 1993 and 2011, the report said, while nonfatal firearms crimes fell 69 percent during that period. . . . Less than 1 percent of state prison inmates who possessed a gun when they committed their offense obtained the firearm at a gun show, the report said.


 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-violence-down-semi-automatics-a-minor-issue/

So.  The CDC, The FBI and the DOJ all say the same thing:  Crime, and Gun related incidents have, -decreased- and the trend is downward. Even as gun ownership soars!

In school year 2008-09, there were 1,579 homicides of students aged 5-18, of which -17- took place at school.  Kids in schools today already suffer through unlawful random searches, little privacy, TSA level screenings, aren't allowed book bags, or must use clear bags, are not allowed to goto their lockers, and more.  How much more do we inflict to save 1 more life?



> Simply re-running the same &#8220;we gotta do something&#8221; legislative effort may be emotionally satisfying for liberals or politically inviting for proponents, but it isn&#8217;t solving much of anything.


Just pass them some lotion and a box of tissues already. 

Since this is about accidents and not murder, lets look at the DOJ report, specifically TABLE 9 "Nonfatal firearm and nonfirearm violence, by injury and treatment received, 2007&#8211;2011"
In this 4 year period there were a reported 2,218,500 firearm related non-fatal incidents. That's an average of 554,625 per year, all ages.  Of those 510,700 were listed as injured (127,675 avg), of which 148,300 (37,075 ave) were listed as serious.



> In 2007-11, about 23% of all nonfatal firearm victims were physically injured during the victimization. About 7% suffered serious injuries (e.g., a gunshot wound, broken bone, or internal injuries), while 16% suffered minor injuries (e.g., bruises or cuts). Of the nonfatal firearm victims who were injured, 72% received some type of care, with about 82% receiving care in a hospital or medical office. The victim reported that the offender had fired the weapon in 7% of all nonfatal firearm victimizations. The victim suffered a gunshot wound in 28% of these victimizations


  DOJ Report.



> According to the NCVS, an average of about 22,000 nonfatal shooting victims occurred annually from 1993 to 2002 (not shown in table). From 2002 to 2011, the number of victims declined by about half to 12,900 per year.


 DOJ Report

Again, we see studies by government agencies saying the same thing that 2nd Amendment respectors have been saying all along.  Gun fearing liberals and control mad progressives continue to choose to be ignorant of data and conclusions by qualified agencies so that they can continue to push worthless fear laden feel goodism.

I'll keep calling ******** on them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

So I guess what we take from this is the numbers are very small kinda like we have been saying all along.  Interesting........... Or well duh! However you want to look at it


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So I guess what we take from this is the numbers are very small



We don't know just what the numbers are but we would surely disagree about what is 'very small' regardless.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We don't know just what the numbers are but we would surely disagree about what is 'very small' regardless.



Emotional argument not factual.  Look at the real numbers compared to the number of homes with guns and kids.  Like I said very small


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

Or we can ignore the reports from the CDC, FBI and DOJ, and instead go by the FUD claims generated by biased organizations like the Brady Campaign who make claims such as this one: 



> Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S.[SUP]9[/SUP]


The Citation is this


> [SUP]9[/SUP]National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based  Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (2007 (deaths) and 2008  (injuries)), http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html.  Calculations by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2009



Oh look.  WISQARS.  Looks familiar.  But aren't they unreliable? 

But lets look at their data.  I've been looking at 2010 which is the last complete year currently in the system.

The premise is "Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S"

So, lets look at this by year:



firearm deathsvehicle deathsPopulation20073,0676,70382,749,43120082,9665,46483,118,26420092,8114,93383,280,39120102,7114,44283,267,556



I think cars are still killing more people, but hey!  Look, despite there being more people, more guns and more cars, the dying from them is decreasing.

Now Homicides are listed as the #2 cause of death, age 1-19.


So lets drill down more.

10,822 homicides.  How many firearm related?  71.5% or 7,780.



34,680 Unintentional Injuries. 19,664 motor vehicle related.  Next on the accident list is drowning at 3,916.

Malignant Neoplasms 7,718.

So while the claim of the Bradys is technically accurate, it depends on how you group your data. If the claim of the NYT is correct and there are misreportings in the system, the firearm rate may increase of decrease somewhat and change the tally, but death by auto is still more likely.



The Brady FUD claim is as I said, technically correct.  But your kid is more likely to die in a car accident or equally likely to die from a tumor than a gunshot, and all are statistically low probability occurrences.  


Again, correct my numbers if they are wrong.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Emotional argument not factual.  Look at the real numbers compared to the number of homes with guns and kids.  Like I said very small



You're seriously disagreeing with me about the fact that you and I might disagree about what constitutes 'very small'?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> :scratchy: *I refuse to* know just what the numbers are but we would surely disagree about what is 'very small' regardless.



Fixed that for you. 



ballen0351 said:


> Emotional argument not factual.  Look at the real numbers compared to the number of homes with guns and kids.  Like I said very small



The only argument they have left is the emotional :s125ne.  They are allergic to facts, unless the facts back up their predetermined results. Anything contrary is ignored, avoided, ridiculed and insulted.  To do otherwise would be to allow for the possibility there might be another valid opinion, or that they might be incorrect.  Pompous arrogant control freak nannies can't do that.  

I've posted data from -3- sources, all of whom are considered valid by anyone with an IQ over rock. The nannys can accept it or stuff it. Doesn't change the facts, or the results.  Who was it who said you repeat an experiment and look for being able to repeatedly get the same results?

CDC - gun injuries and deaths are declining, and are not a significant risk.
DOJ - gun injuries and deaths are declining, and are not a significant risk.
FBI - gun injuries and deaths are declining, and are not a significant risk.  

Who else is a valid government source?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You're seriously disagreeing with me about the fact that you and I might disagree about what constitutes 'very small'?


If you can't be honest about what the numbers show that's your problem.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If you can't be honest about what the numbers show that's your problem.



'Honest' seems to mean that I have to hold your opinion.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> 'Honest' seems to mean that I have to hold your opinion.



Or us to hold yours it seems.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> 'Honest' seems to mean that I have to hold your opinion.



If you honestly believe 1.5% of all children's deaths being from gunfire is anything other then a small issue then so be it but my goodness you must want all pools banned and cemeneted in, mandatory swim lessons, and mandatory life vests to be worn at all times under the age of 5.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2013)

Don't you know...the solution to all of our problems are in legislation and confiscation.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tames D (Nov 12, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Don't you know...the solution to all of our problems are in legislation and confiscation.....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



That's not the answer... that is the problem. But I know that you know that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

:scratchy:





arnisador said:


> *More Guns in U.S. homes, More Kids Getting Shot*



Now the OP here should know that opinion pieces by "a Boston medical student and his advisor" are not really valid here, by his own statements, so this shouldn't even be given any consideration, but lets look at it anyway.

From the link:


> The number of children wounded or killed by gunshots has been climbing in recent years





> With nearly 7,500 children wounded and 500 killed each year, they found that the big problem is actually handguns.



As we established back in post 86 this is just FUD.
Here are the death rates for 0-14, from 2000 through 2010 from the CDC, who are the same source the articles authors allegedly used.  Obviously, they deviate significantly from the actual data.  The "The number of children wounded or killed" has in fact clearly been in a downward trend, and the casulty rate given is significantly lower than the authors claims.



The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the world's largest, on-going telephone health survey system. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ 
So the authors source information is.....telephone surveys. 
How, reliable.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

So an average of 393 children deaths per year by gunfire  Yeah like I said small


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

Well, it depends on how you define "children".  I'm using the 0-14 age range, while liberals might use a different age, like say 0-26.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If you honestly believe 1.5% of all children's deaths being from gunfire is anything other then a small issue



I believe it's worth looking at something like that, yeah.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So an average of 393 children deaths per year by gunfire  Yeah like I said small



Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.


----------



## donald1 (Nov 12, 2013)

It's ashamed when see no other way to shoot and kill others father,  son,  friend,  all kinds of people get affected and children too...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I believe it's worth looking at something like that, yeah.



Yes, look at it, and if there are sane options to make things safer, then by all means, go for it.  I'm all in favor of mandating all cars have 4"x6" backup cameras with a minimum of 180 degree POV. The question there is, works for the new cars, what about the old cars, and who foots the bill to retrofit them all?  You can mandate all the locks, magazine restrictions, feature restrictions, etc that you want.  The number of lives you're going to save numbers in the teens. The amount of money you'll spend, and the number of lives that might end up at more risk far exceeds the ROI here.  If some law was passed that put a friends life at 5% greater risk, while having a .01% chance of saving another friend, where do you draw the line? You have a greater chance of having a heart attack from your next pizza slice than you do of getting shot. What is is about guns that has you so emotionally afraid?



arnisador said:


> Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.



I think our definition of small is fitted to math concepts.  Is 1.5% not small? Is there anyone here who might be an expert at the maths who could clear this up perhaps?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.



Which your OK with? The Govt telling you what toys you can and cant let your kids play with?  However guns are not TOYS so your points not relevant and Toys are not Constitutionally protected Guns are


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I believe it's worth looking at something like that, yeah.


So look Bob has posted the numbers over and over you have yet to comment on them hmmm I wonder why?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.



Because a-holes and lawyers scare people, oh, that is what you're trying to do, are you a lawyer?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Which your OK with? The Govt telling you what toys you can and cant let your kids play with?  However guns are not TOYS so your points not relevant and Toys are not Constitutionally protected Guns are



And recalls are typically conducted when an item does something it's not intended to do...like a part break off and choke a child...or a spring in an engine fails causing a stall..etc.

Guns typically always do exactly what they were designed to do. You put a bullet in it, you pull the trigger, it fires. 99.999% of all modern weapons will only fire when someone pulls the trigger. Probably one of the most functionally well designed items made by man. 

Arni (if he would be honest about it) wants to control humans...not items.....


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Which your OK with? The Govt telling you what toys you can and cant let your kids play with?  However guns are not TOYS so your points not relevant and Toys are not Constitutionally protected Guns are



You're moving the goalposts again. Is it that the number is small overall, or that the number is irrelevant because of the 2nd Amendment?

And yes, I'm OK with potentially dangerous toys being recalled, which is usually not due to the direct influence of the govt.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So look Bob has posted the numbers over and over you have yet to comment on them hmmm I wonder why?



He's well aware that I have him on ignore.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Because a-holes and lawyers scare people, oh, that is what you're trying to do, are you a lawyer?



You're increasingly out of the reasonable zone, dude.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Arni (if he would be honest about it) wants to control humans...



Look, we can't all be indifferent to human suffering. What kind of world would that be?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> He's well aware that I have him on ignore.



Would someone repost so Arni will allow himself to discuss the topic he brought up and can stop himself from being stuck with just liberally insulting people?

As to "having me on ignore", only consciously. You can see everything I post.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You're moving the goalposts again. Is it that the number is small overall, or that the number is irrelevant because of the 2nd Amendment?


Im not moving anything its both.  I vedry small number and its a protected right 


> And yes, I'm OK with potentially dangerous toys being recalled, which is usually not due to the direct influence of the govt.


  You used toy recalls as your reason for Govt intervention now you say its not Govt intervention at all so how is it relevant to your point?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Would someone repost so Arni will allow himself to discuss the topic he brought up and can stop himself from being stuck with just liberally insulting people?
> 
> As to "having me on ignore", only consciously. You can see everything I post.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You're increasingly out of the reasonable zone, dude.



So, you aren't a lawyer, that narrows it down


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Would someone repost so Arni will allow himself to discuss the topic he brought up and can stop himself from being stuck with just liberally insulting people?


You say that as if the only reason he is ignoring those numbers is because he is ignoring you. Phrased more simply: You give him entirely too much credit.


----------

