New data on child deaths released--How involved are guns really?

[mnischalke 0]

RATE OF ACCIDENTAL FIREARM FATALITIES AMONG CHILDREN DROPS DRAMATICALLY . . . From 1987-2000, the unintentional injury death rate for children 14 years old and under saw an overall decline of 39% according to a new study by the National SAFE KIDS Campaign. The most significant drop during this time frame was in the unintentional firearm-related death rate which fell 72%. Other impressive declines were seen in the bicycle-related injury death rate (60% drop), and in the death rate from fire and burns (56% decline). Motor vehicle accidents, the leading cause of unintentional fatalities for children 14 and under, saw a 16% drop in the death rate. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for this age group, with more than 5,600 children killed in the U.S. annually. In 2000, firearms were involved in 86 accidental deaths. For the full report visit the Safe Kids website.

Quote

From 1987 to 2000 the motor vehicle occupant death rate among children ages 14 and under declined just 16 percent.

The death rate among children ages 5 to 9 declined even less; just 1 percent. Motor vehicle occupant injury remains the leading cause of injury-related death among children.
While the airway obstruction death rate decreased 24 percent for children 14 and under, there has been no progress for airway obstruction injury among infants under age 1.

The unintentional childhood drowning death rate declined 32 percent from 1987 to 2000. Despite this decline, drowning remains the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 14 and under.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[newshooter12 0]

you know the one thing that a lot of studies leave out is the size of the population of the age group they are comparing. Percentages are pretty much useless. While I'm happy fewer people were killed according to that data, how do you get less then 100% of a child? Let alone have xx% of a kid die.
Sorry, just venting. I hear anchors and reporters at my station say %s about people stories. It just confuses the average viewer/reader.
matt

[Iflyme 0]

To quote one of my favorite bands, XTC, "melt the guns"...

[mnischalke 0]

ummm, right. That would cure everything, huh?

Well, using that logic in relation to this post, we should melt the cars first (28% of accidental deaths of children 14 years and younger). Evaporate all the water second (drowning--16%). Then, crush anything smaller than a fist (airway obstructions--14%). Cut off every child's legs (pedestrian--12%). Extinguish all fires and disable all ignition devices (fires and burns--10%). Chop up every bicycle (3%). We can then melt the guns about the same time we bottle up anything poisonous and send it to space (poisoning--2%, firearms--2%). After all that, we can negate the effects of gravity since falls are on the list too (1%).

I appreciate your input. Very useful information. Thanks.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Actually, I know how to solve the entire problem: Spay and neuter every human being so in 14.75 years there'd be no children to die accidentally.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[vmsfreaky1 0]

So guns are used more deliberatly on young children?

Statistics are a waste of time IMO, university drilled that point home.

Guns however are just meant to kill ppl....statistics are non harmful usually.

Laterz (with a nice west london accent)

[vmsfreaky1 0]

To quote one of mine Midnight Oil "Put down that weapon..."

[MC208B 0]

another quote "peace through superior firepower"

[FallRate 0]

To quote the greatest orator of all time: "The..."

FallRate

[fasterfaller 0]

Quote

To quote one of my favorite bands, XTC, "melt the guns"...

Thats the only thing you can ever say about guns .

[Luv2Fall 0]

The old saying "Guns don't kill, people do" holds just as true today. None of my civilian guns ever got out of the vault and killed people on their own. Having said that, I do believe there are people who shouldn't own them.

Guns aren't the only instruments used in either intentional or accidental deaths...............cars, planes, knives, bare hands, chains, screwdrivers, bricks, ice picks, drugs, baseball bats, ropes, pillows, alcohol, sharpened edges of credit cards, razor blades, kitchen utinsels "ms?", rocks, motorcycles, boats, water, electricity, broken bottles, boxing, tire irons, wire, fireplace pokers, everday belts one wears, boots/shoes laces........and the list goes on indefinitely.

Human responsibility - not gun eradication.

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

Actually, I know how to solve the entire problem: Spay and neuter every human being so in 14.75 years there'd be no children to die accidentally.

We have a winner.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[base704 0]

http://www.vhemt.org/

You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Well, using that logic in relation to this post, we should melt the cars first (28% of accidental deaths of children 14 years and younger). Evaporate all the water second (drowning--16%). Then, crush anything smaller than a fist (airway obstructions--14%). Cut off every child's legs (pedestrian--12%). Extinguish all fires and disable all ignition devices (fires and burns--10%). Chop up every bicycle (3%). We can then melt the guns about the same time we bottle up anything poisonous and send it to space (poisoning--2%, firearms--2%). After all that, we can negate the effects of gravity since falls are on the list too (1%).

Yet another reply that is both useless and meaningless. If you really care about informing people about a drop in gun-related child deaths, refrain from stooping to the usual "ban buckets" arguments.

I know your original post in the thread was both documented and rational. Kudos on that. You were only responding to the "melt the guns" comment, but you'd be better off ignoring the post completely. When you start talking about banning or eliminating all the other things, in this case, including water and children's legs, it makes you look like a total moron. I doubt you are one, but that is the way it looks, however sarcastic you are being.

Some of us are always willing to get into a rational debate on the issue, but the silly analogies don't contribute at all to the conversation.

[beemertec 0]

Quote

Some of us are always willing to get into a rational debate on the issue, but the silly analogies don't contribute at all to the conversation.

I am certain Mike was being sarcastic in his post, but if someone posts that we need to get rid of guns based on the report that was posted, then Mike is right. We should get rid of the things that kill the most children and work our way down the list.

I think we need to look at the bigger picture, which says the deaths are down and figure out why. Gun related deaths are not down because there are less guns. My theory is gun related deaths are down do to parents educating their children about guns and proper storage of the weapons i.e. guns and ammo locked up in seperate locations. When I was growing up I did not know any of my friends that were killed or injured from a gun and we all had guns in our houses. We grew up hunting and shooting sporting clays, etc. We also knew never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and don't kill anything you don't intend to eat. Education is the key to reducing gun related deaths, just like proper drivers education and a real driving test would reduce automobile fatalities.
Just my .02 (well, maybe that was .03 worth)

Blue Skies
Steve
Ok, so it's pink, but I'm secure in my manhood, and I still look cool coming in under it!

[jfields 0]

I know Mike was being sarcastic.

But I was just pointing out the problems with the "ban ...." retorts that are often used by pro-gun folks, including Mike on occasion. While sarcastic this time, they've been thrown around so often that it gets mind-numbing. The senseless rhetoric gets piled on so deep that it is very easy to write off the whole pro-gun lobby as "those fucking moronic gun nuts", while actually having some justification for doing so.

However, that doesn't further the communication or bring up any new approaches that might help with the problems. The goal of the gun lobby should be to work toward compromises that would safeguard the privilege of owning firearms, while improving public safety. I'm on the opposite side of the argument, but I'd be happy to work toward that middleground as well. Where I see a problem is the unwillingness of the gun lobby to make any small step away from their "free, unfettered, unlimited rights to own any damn thing we want according to our second amendment rights, god-damnit" mantra.

I agree with you that the big picture is important. That is why the quality of the discussion need to be raised up a notch and nudged into more productive avenues.

[beemertec 0]

I agree with you on finding middle ground. I think a lot of pro-gun people fear a complete banning of guns a little at a time. At the same time extreme anti-gun pepople want exactly that. I own guns, and I have no problem with some degree of gun control.
I am for background checks. I have a concealed weapons permit and it took about 1 month to get it. I think the instant background checks are fine for buying a gun as far as convenience is concerned, but I personally like the cool down period some states have. I have my guns registered and I do not have a problem with that. I do have a problem with some anti gun advocates trying to push the ban of semi-automatic weapons. My shotgun that I use for sporting clays is a semi-automatic and although I could use an over and under for this sport I like the reduced recoil of the semi-automatic.
Bottom line: In my opinion resistration and background checks are fine. Bans on particular types of guns are not.

Blue Skies
Steve
Ok, so it's pink, but I'm secure in my manhood, and I still look cool coming in under it!

[Steel 0]

thanks Mike. When I started to read this thread all I could think was its a shame that even in the skydiving community we have a bunch of left wingers repeating this same obviously inconsistent anti-gun retoric. But atleast thanks to your post I realized not all the skydivers are lacking in common sense.

I mean I just can't stand people who are so not able to look at the whole picture and therefore say such idiotic things like, "if we limit wingloading it will be worth it if we just save one life." I mean get real. don't you realize if you ban skydiving you will save plenty more? And there are people who would love to ban it but that is obviously not what you want done. I mean there are tons of statistics that support that if you lower speed limits, there will be less deaths on the highways. Are these anti-gun people in favor of lower speed limits too.
But what is most funny of all is that if you look closer at the gun statistics you will actually find the opposite. Over all there is no question that if you look at states/districts with stricter gun laws that these places have very significantly higher gun violence statistics.
Its funny how left wing thinking is consistent all the way across. Lets tax them higher so we can take there money and spend it where it will be better spent because we know better than them. Lets limit there capability to own there guns and protect themselves because they are too stupid to know enough to keep from hurting themselves. And then lets break them down into separate groups of victims we take care of them because they are just not able to take care of themselves.
Ok so I have to deal with Elitists everyday in normal life. But damn it I thought the skydiving community was better than that.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[jfields 0]

Steve,

I think it is okay for people to own guns *responsibly*, but many people don't care at all about either their own safety or of those around them. If it takes some laws (existing, new, revised, whatever) to steer people onto the path of responsibility, then I'm fine with that. No system can ever be perfect, but it could be a lot better than it is.

When I wanted a drivers license, I had to go to drivers ed. I had to know some basics and watch the gory "idiot drivers getting hit by trains" videos. I also had to physically demonstrate my aptitude before getting the license. It ought to be at least as hard to buy a handgun as to get a drivers license.

If inadvertent child gun deaths are down, as Mike's link says, that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that the number should be zero. It doesn't change the fact that guns are used overwhelmingly to murder. The self-defense role is valid, but miniscule in comparison to the offensive criminal one in which innocent people die.

The "only criminals use guns for evil and they don't obey gun laws anyway" argument is also flawed. It totally discounts the "honest citizens" that are always touted in the second amendment discussions, that go legally buy a weapon, buy ammunition, then go and murder someone. They are then lumped with all the other criminals as people that would have done it anyway and excluded as reasons for increased gun control.

Things do need to get much stricter. A pro-gun person that is able to see the big picture and be openminded about the future should agree. A nation with better-enforced and stricter gun laws would be much safer. Keeping guns out of the hands of those who can't handle them actually goes a long way to preserve the ability of the responsible folks to continue owning and using firearms.

[billvon 3,070]

>"if we limit wingloading it will be worth it if we just save one life."

We do limit wingloadings. I don't let my students jump high loadings, and Lisa doesn't let a 39 jump wonder buy a Stiletto 97. Thank god she's not a gun dealer or there would be an NRA picket outside her business.

>Its funny how left wing thinking is consistent all the way across.

As is right wing thinking. As far as I can tell, in right wing thinking there is no room for compromise. If anyone proposes so much as a requirement to sell guns with trigger locks (not even to _use_ trigger locks, mind you, just to sell them with guns) it's the end of the world. "A gross violation of our rights! What, are you going to ban cars next?"

I think most people see the middle ground - which is that the right to own a gun is guaranteed to most people. People can lose that right, and some do not have it at all (children.) Laws that prevent such people from misusing guns, while not preventing other people from getting or using guns, may make sense. Blind opposition to any such law, no matter how sensible, makes no sense. Neither does blind support of any law, no matter how silly.

[Jib 0]

While I doubt many would argue that the existing laws should be better enforced, the thing I love most about the argument that we need stricter gun laws is that they don't really apply to felons, e.g. it's illegal to make them register a gun they can't have. They will have zero effect on people have PROVEN they are more likely to commit crimes. So, who are you going to enforce these stricter laws against? It must be the ordinary Joe who snaps and decides to murder someone. There's really no way to stop someone set on irrational behavior, let alone detect him. So, I guess what we need to do is take away the rights of everyone in case someone loses it; so, they turn to a knife, car, poison... I know since "many people" don't care about their own safety [have a death wish?] we should go into their houses at night and make sure they aren't violating the stricter gun laws. Who's houses? The people who registered their weapons, of course, because we know where they live. Oh, but that would violate the Constitution. [meant to be sarcastic]

Quote

The "only criminals use guns for evil and they don't obey gun laws anyway" argument is also flawed. It totally discounts the "honest citizens" that are always touted in the second amendment discussions, that go legally buy a weapon, buy ammunition, then go and murder someone. They are then lumped with all the other criminals as people that would have done it anyway and excluded as reasons for increased gun control.

There is no way to own a gun "*responsibly*" under that scenario. Your argument presumes that there are no honest men and we all are predisposed to evil. We mind as well throw everyone in jail now, just in case. It worked for more than one dictator (as did taking guns from the people). It also ignores both the deterrent effect of guns on crime as well as their use in non-lethal crimes. If someone is indeed irrational enough to murder, than he will find a way and if they're going to murder a child, it really doesn't take a gun purchased legally or not.

Quote

The self-defense role is valid, but miniscule in comparison to the offensive criminal one in which innocent people die.

When you live in an area where it takes police 20+ minutes to come or where crime is prevalent, you're right; it's better to be innocent and dead than have a gun to defend yourself from the "offensive criminal." That way you don't have to worry about being sued by the criminal's family when you kill him.

On the other hand, it may not be a bad idea for people to understand exactly what a bullet does to understand its power (like a drunk-driving video) for those who have never been exposed to it.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Jib 0]

Quote

I think most people see the middle ground - which is that the right to own a gun is guaranteed to most people. People can lose that right, and some do not have it at all (children.) Laws that prevent such people from misusing guns, while not preventing other people from getting or using guns, may make sense. Blind opposition to any such law, no matter how sensible, makes no sense. Neither does blind support of any law, no matter how silly, doesn't make sense either.

I think I owe beer. Aside from trrigger locks specifically, I think I agree with Bill.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[jfields 0]

Jib,

You are pretty much missing the entire point of what I said.

Quote

the thing I love most about the argument that we need stricter gun laws is that they don't really apply to felons, e.g. it's illegal to make them register a gun they can't have.

If we don't sell them guns, they wouldn't have them. But putting any restrictions of the flow of weapons is seen as a violation of the prior gun owner's "rights".

Quote

we should go into their houses at night and make sure they aren't violating the stricter gun laws

I didn't say that, and you know it. The unavoidable Nazi Germany analogies will be next.

Quote

There is no way to own a gun "*responsibly*" under that scenario. Your argument presumes that there are no honest men and we all are predisposed to evil.

Nope. I didn't say that at all.

Quote

It worked for more than one dictator (as did taking guns from the people).

I knew that was coming. Like clockwork....

Quote

it's better to be innocent and dead than have a gun to defend yourself from the "offensive criminal."

The scenario is really fairly improbable. Guns were used to kill people about 45,000 times between 1997 and 2001 and there were only 880 justified firearm uses for self defense in the same time. (FBI stats) So it would probably behoove your argument just to drop the whole self defense issue, because you'd be a lot safer if no private citizens had guns. But that isn't what I'm pushing for.

You've hit all the usual pro-gun requirements. Let's try something novel:

List some ways that people could own guns more responsibly, and what incentives we could give gun owners to use their weapons safely. You can also feel free to toss out some suggestions on how to more accurately screen potential gun owners to keep the guns out of the hands of those who would (or have) misused them.

Instead of harping on the same issues of gun owner's "rights", be a part of the solution. Contribute to the discussion of how to make the country safer from mis-used firearms. I'm not (and haven't been) talking about banning guns, so drop the rebuttals to that. This is about *everyone's* rights, namely, the right not to get shot. How do you propose we safeguard that right?

[Luv2Fall 0]

I really don't, at the moment, know of any other safeguards to insure continued or new gun ownership.

I'm a strong advocate of owners keeping their guns secure in a gun vault/safe. Simply put...........keeps guns out of children's hands and out of would be criminals/thieves.

At risk of sounding "Anti-2nd", I think the "instant checks" used for buying guns should fall a little more in line with the process used when apply for a Concealed Handgun Permit...........sounds unfair and/or Un-American but something else has to be done, unfortunately. Yes, this would fuck-up purchasing guns a gunshows....................what would be the use of having anymore gunshows?

Ideally, I feel that most individuals should be able to purchase firearms without checks and carry without permits...............but, unfortunately, that isn't reality anymore as people/society has changed.

The criminal element will always have access to guns and that being the case - bans are out of the question as we still have a right to defend ourselves with equal force. Much tougher penalities should also be put into place realtive to using firearms while committing crimes, having firearm accessible to children, etc.

We can put a lot of things in place, but that would not guarentee compliance ie, trigger locks, gun safes, evidence of training to own as one must present this evidence to carry (or at least in my State).

I have been rambling and have not done a good job presenting my point, but I think you know where I'm coming from.

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

Yes, this would fuck-up purchasing guns a gunshows....................what would be the use of having anymore gunshows?

If you have a carry permit (as I do), an extensive background check has been done on you within the last 5 years. If I find a good deal at a gun show - dammit, I should be able to walk with it.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."