Accidental shootings of children are being undercounted.

[Big Don]

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

Pot, kettle...

 

[arnisador]

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]

Pot, kettle...

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

 

[Tames D]

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]

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]

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’ 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]

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]

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



It isn't.



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?

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]

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]

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

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What is galling is his dishonesty about it.

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

 

[arnisador]

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]

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 — 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

[h=4]5-14 years of age[/h]

• Number of deaths: 5,279
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.9

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2010, tables 10, 11 [PDF - 3.1 MB]

[h=4]1-4 years of age[/h]

• Leading causes of death
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries)
  • Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities

[h=4]5-14 years of age[/h]

• Leading causes of death
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries)
  • Cancer

Source: Deaths: Leading Causes for 2009, table 1 [PDF - 2.5 MB]

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]

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

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

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?