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.
Accidental shootings of children are being undercounted.
- Thread starter arnisador
- Start date
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:
(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
Sr. Grandmaster
So what part of what I said was wrong? You can't have a shooting without a gun. Like duh!!!!! Waist of money.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Last edited:
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Sr. Grandmaster
My example wasn't more cars = more death. My example was you need cars to have car accidents
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
Sr. Grandmaster
Said entire point was thoroughly refuted, again and again.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Its still very small even with your inflated numbers
Where? Which post(s)?
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
Sr. Grandmaster
Hundreds of kids vs 300,000,000 people in the US. = very very small. Your argument is emotional not factual
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.
Much like drugs that are never discovered for illnesses...no drugs, no way to say those lives could have been saved.
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Sr. Grandmaster
Also the NRA has nothing to do with how state medical examiners list cause of death. Despite your attempts to imply otherwise
pgsmith
Master of Arts
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.
