Accidental shootings of children are being undercounted.

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

the govt. still lets me own them.

And theres the problem right there...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

:s414:

 

[Tames D]

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]

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....!!!!