"Add in a media frenzy over a VERY rare and unique story (That right there is the exception that proves Mike is barking up the wrong tree. How many children live in houses with guns? How many crimes of this sort do we see? Did THIS crime even occor??)"
Here's what the University of Michigan posted, attributing the stats to the National Safety Council.
- In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
- This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
- The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
- 214 unintentional
- 1,078 suicides
- 1,990 homicides
- 83 for which the intent could not be determined
- 20 due to legal intervention
- Of the total firearms-related deaths:
- 73 were of children under five years old
- 416 were children 5-14 years old
- 2,896 were 15-19 years old
The questions arise, in Weer'd's words, "How many children live in houses with guns? How many crimes of this sort do we see?" I suppose his point is there are millions of households with kids and guns and only about 500 deaths a year. Did I hear that right: "ONLY about 500 deaths a year?" That's not counting the 15 to 19 year-olds because they're presumed to be gang members and druggies. But the truth is at least some of them should be counted with the "children."
My opinion is, I don't care how many households there are with guns and kids, for me that 500 is way too many. How about you?
The next question to arise is, obviously, what can be done about this. I've heard the incredible advice that one should teach the kids to be gun-proof and then one wouldn't have to worry. Here's what the article says about that.
What if I've taught my kids not to touch a gun if they find one?
A number of studies [9], [10], [11], [12], suggest that even kids who are trained not to touch guns can't resist, and that parents have unrealistic expectations about their kids' behavior around guns.
Where does that leave us? We could follow the oft-proffered advice to gun owners, repeated several times in this article. Guns should be kept locked and stored separately from the ammunition. Now, even I can see that's not going to work. There's no point in having the damn gun in the first place if you do that.
I'm sorry to report that we're left with only one solution:
How can I keep my child safe from gun injury?
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the best way to keep your child or teen safe from gun injury or death, is to never have a gun in your home, especially not a handgun.
What's your opinion? Do you think the University of Michigan has an agenda other than children's safety in preparing an article like this? What about the National Safety Council, are they biased against guns and therefore "cooking" the numbers? Do you think the American Academy of Pediartics is up to no good here?
Please leave a comment.
**Thunderous applause** Now this is how one makes a convincing argument. Not only do I feel challenged by your presentation of facts, but I also feel respectful as you are presenting new information, and building your argument on information presented to you. Heck you even gave a rational argument to refute some of our claims.
ReplyDeleteOK let's go!
"Did I hear that right: "ONLY about 500 deaths a year?" That's not counting the 15 to 19 year-olds because they're presumed to be gang members and druggies. But the truth is at least some of them should be counted with the "children.""
Fantastic point, and great numbers Mike. Certainly SOME of the 15-19 category were kids playing with a gun unsafely, or things like hunting accidents ect. Also you forget suicide which is a different discussion for a different day. Very valid point, and I'm sure there's some truth to it. Still I'm glad you accept that gang-related youth violence creates a huge spike in that numbers set, but isn't the demographic we're talking about in this discussion.
Of course my defense of that is that with proper gun safety, and training this can be mitigated on the individual basis (but more on that later)
Still I think you miss the big "Worth it" point, by omitting the speculative defensive gun use statistics.
I mean even the super low number of 100,000 per year as cited by the FBI stats, let's be VERY generous and assume ONLY 10% of the people involved in those documented uses of guns would have befallen serious harm (raped, dead, permanently disabled), that's still 10,000 people, Mike.
So I'm being VERY generous with assuming that 10,000 people were spared life changing trauma and/or death (I think we can compromise that the number is much higher than that, just as we both can agree that some of the 15-19 deaths are NOT suicide or gang-related) So that puts 10,000 to 500.
Even if all things were equal 10,000 dead or forever injured for 500 lives is a shitty trade, but it's a trade I see as quite valid.
That of course is given that all things ARE equal...
"What if I've taught my kids not to touch a gun if they find one?
A number of studies [9], [10], [11], [12], suggest that even kids who are trained not to touch guns can't resist, and that parents have unrealistic expectations about their kids' behavior around guns."
Did you read their cited studies, Mike? All but one of the studies involved allowing children to freely play in a foreign area with toys that included both toy and a real gun (rendered inoperable for the study).
Do you see the problem here? If I was was to present some children a snack cart that contained children's snacks, as well as "nip" bottles of hard liquor, you know what I'd get? A scientific study that could argue that children living in houses with a liquor cabinet will likely die of sclerosis before their teen years.
If you put a gun in a toy box filled with other toys and tell a kid to go play, no training on earth will override that fucked up situation.
"According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the best way to keep your child or teen safe from gun injury or death, is to never have a gun in your home, especially not a handgun." Again the 500 for 10,000 argument comes in here. A good way to keep a gun from saving your life is to not have one.
Here's some really good information on child gun safety.
http://www.corneredcat.com/toc.aspx#Kids
The site is overall a great place to learn about gun safety and gun ownership, as well as conceal carry.
Bottom line you teach your kids where the guns are, and that they should never touch them without supervision (and the important key here is to allow the children to handle the gun in a 100% safe and controlled environment whenever they desire and it's reasonable to eliminate any burning curiosity, and to show that gun's really aren't much more exciting than other things in the house) and keep the guns in a condition where even an errant child will have difficulty getting the gun into a working condition (a gun lock, safe, or even simply keeping the gun unloaded should be enough...if a kid can rack the 18 pound recoil spring on my 1911 to chamber the first round they certainly should know better than to be doing what they're doing)
Before I go I wanted to point out a little weasel-work in the study:
"Where and how safely do families with kids store their guns?
More than a third (35%) of homes with children—that's 22 million children ages 18 and under in more than 11 million homes—had at least one firearm, found researchers in a RAND-UCLA study [6]. But only 39% of these families keep their firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 43% of these U.S. homes with children and guns reported keeping one or more firearms in an unlocked place and without a trigger lock. Nine percent keep their guns loaded as well as unlocked. This analysis is based on data from 1994 interviews conducted in tens of thousands of households by the National Center for Health Statistics."
So 61% of those 22 million kids have guns stored in ways you dictate are unsafe, and 3,385 is the number that results in deaths?
So that's 13,420,000 (THIRTEEN MILLION!) "Unsafe kids" and 3,385 deaths. My calculator doesn't have a screen long enough to show all the zeros after the decimal point before we get to the Sub-1% number. Now that's the number that INCLUDED youth homicide, and suicide. Can we agree that the number might factor into statistical insignificance?
And just to play the Bob card, if you're concerned about 500 deaths, why not look at more prevalent causes of youth death?
http://www.cdc.gov/SafeChild/ChildhoodInjuryReport/Chapter4_8.html
When I moved into my house one of the first things I did was put a gun in the house for personal defense, then I went outside and demolished the pool that was in the backyard.
Why? POOLS ARE DANGEROUS! And unlike guns, they kill LOTS of real-deal children in real-deal accidents.
My sister kept a safety latch on her toilet seat when my niece was a toddler. Why? TOILETS ARE DANGEROUS! And unlike guns, they kill LOTS of real-deal children in real-deal accidents.
Ok, I think I've made my point, Mike.
I'd like to thank you for this very valid and very good point made. It was both respectful and shows the level of intelligence that I know you possess, and certainly is doing a small part (actions speak louder than words, and a single post won't be enough to undo damage for dozens of previous posts and comments) to get me to re-consider your sinister attempts here.
Thanks, Mike!
The question Weerd raised is this: How many crimes of this sort do we see?"
ReplyDeleteCrimes of WHAT sort? Or do you refer to the adult crime of not securing the gun?
It is the adult crime that we should be discussing, not the child's use of the parent's weapon.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAgain, the numbers are absolutely correct but misleading (Big Surprise)
In 1999,
130 kids 0-14 died from poisoning
971 kids 0-14 drowned
2,622 kids 0-14 died in motor vehicle related ways
More kids died from drownings then firearms that year. I don't see you calling for background checks on pools. I dont see you calling for mandatory safety classes, licensing for swimming. I don't see you calling for the abolition of swimming by kids.
Your bias and ignorance is showing again Mike. You aren't interested in saving lives, You are interested in controlling people's lives. In taking away their rights.
Is 500 too many lives to loose, absolutely...you don't show that any law you purpose would have stopped the deaths.
Why don't we hear of drowning deaths more often Mike? Is it because there is no agenda against drowning like there is in the newspapers against firearms.
Why aren't you out there calling for changes in the laws to prevent drownings Mike?
Why don't you present information just like I did showing the relative scale of the deaths unless it is because you have an agenda to take away people rights?
There are nearly 5 times as many deaths from motor vehicles but you aren't calling for their removal from society....why Mike?
Umm, that's the other thread, Muddy, and that guy is dead.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to talk about the article and analysis Mike posted about? Or maybe respond to my comment?
"Why don't we hear of drowning deaths more often Mike? Is it because there is no agenda against drowning like there is in the newspapers against firearms."
ReplyDeleteWell there's that AND that its a ridiculously common way for a child to die. I've lost two cousins to pool accidents myself! I saw like 5 fender-bender accidents on my way to and from work yesterday, none of them made the news, why? Because it isn't news. The sun rises in the east, Weer'd Beard drinks tea and eats lunch, Children die from suffocation, drowning, and auto accidents.
Now a kid gets shot playing with a gun, or gets mauled by an escaped zoo tiger, that's a unique story!
And of course, we gun owners are just paranoid right?
ReplyDeleteNo one is out to take our firearms, there are no plans to confiscate firearms, right?
And in Related News
Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April
By BUTCH HEMAN
Staff Writer
The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.
The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.
If they are searching for a "weapons dealer" do you think they will let people keep their firearms if they aren't the "dealer"?
How many people could prove they have legal ownership of their firearms?
New Orleans Cops are infamous for confiscating firearms, telling people to provide a receipt of legal ownership to reclaim them.
At this point, if I owned any firearms, I couldn't prove it legally.
"Once credible intelligence has been gathered," said Kots, "portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents' wishes.
"One of the techniques we use in today's political environment is cordon and knock," Kots explained. "We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner's body language and position to protect him."
During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons
Isn't this chilling that we have National Guard practicing for this?
Now, tell me Mike should I continue to be polite, should I continue to be respectful when I have people like you advocating the disarmament of America?
When you advocate the removal of our rights...expect a little resistance. Be thankful that so far it is nothing but harsh words.
Are you sure you are on the right side of this issue Mike?
Didn't you once take this oath?
I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI went back to dig into the statistics a little more.
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14
88 59,955,370 0.15
Homicide/Legal Intervention Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14
283 59,955,370 0.47
Suicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14
103 59,955,370 0.17
Accidents and Unintentional Deaths account for only 18.6% of the firearm deaths for 0-14.
While homicide accounts for 59.7% of all the deaths, don't we already have enough laws on the books about killing someone, with our without a firearm?
For 16 to 19, the numbers are:
Unintentional:96
Suicide:894
Homicide:1,598
Unintentional deaths for that age group....only 3.71% -- a very low percentage of the deaths are accidental. Compare that to the number of kids 16-19 that day from unintentional poisoning - 246. Over 2.5 times as many "kids" die from accidental poisoning then from firearm accidents. 2.5 times Mike
Accidental drownings - same age group - 299 --3.11 times as many kids die from drowning then from firearms. Yet what do you focus on? What does the University focus on?
Why don't organizations like the Pediatrics association put these numbers in context?
What is your agenda Mike? To save lives or to get rid of guns?
What is your agenda Mike? To save lives or to get rid of guns?
ReplyDeletei've begun to suspect mike's agenda, on at least some level of his mind, might be the intersection of those two sets.
Bob said again, "There are nearly 5 times as many deaths from motor vehicles but you aren't calling for their removal from society....why Mike?"
ReplyDeleteI'll answer again, lest we have another onslaught of accusations that I don't answer and that I keep dodging.
We're not talking about cars, that's why. We're talking about guns and the connection between the lawful gun owners and the problems caused by the criminals. We're talking about the famous "flow" theory. We're talking about gun availability and its role in gun violence.
We're not talking about cars or swimming pools or poisonous chemicals or knives or any of the other dangerous things that you rightly point out are more likely to kill you.
Why? You ask. Well, it's in my About declaration which you should have subscribed to before coming on board. What interests me, among other things, are guns and the connection between the lawful gun owners and the problems caused by the criminals, the famous "flow" theory, gun availability and its role in gun violence.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteSo let's talk about guns.
How about answering some of the questions that I've repeatedly asked.
1. Do we have a right to life?
2. Do we have a right to survive?
3. Do we have a right to defend ourselves?
4. Do we have a right to use tools to defend ourselves?
See, this is where I disconnect from your philosophy Mike....in a big way.
You say:
We're not talking about cars, that's why. We're talking about guns
I say we aren't talking about guns; we are talking about basic human rights. Rights that you want to deny people. I can't see where you have justified doing that on the basis of what you've put forth.
the connection between the lawful gun owners and the problems caused by the criminals.
You readily admit the problem are caused by criminals but continue to push for restrictions that affect only the law abiding. That is wrong Mike and what worries me is that you know the laws, the restrictions, the increased cost won't impact the criminals. This is has been covered time and time again. Information, statistics, anecdotes, studies have been presented to prove this and still you push for restrictions on our rights.
You deny obvious comparison to other rights, the right of free speech and child pornography is an example. People use cameras for legitimate purposes and a very few use them for the horrible crimes of child pornography. Yet the price we pay as a society for the freedom to speak, the freedom to publish is the misuse of that equipment. How is that different from firearms?
You can deny all you want, call them silly comparisons but they are valid. You can say we are only talking about "guns" but we aren't and I'm beginning to believe that you know that.
We're talking about gun availability and its role in gun violence.
See again how you put on blinders Mike? You don't talk about violence and crime in general. How much sense does it make to focus on trying to reduce just gun related crimes. If you reduced gun related crime and violence 50% you've only reduced total crime by 5%. If you reduce crime and violence in general by 10% you get an impact that is DOUBLE that of gun related crime & violence.
Which does it make sense to focus on?
Why? You ask. Well, it's in my About declaration which you should have subscribed to before coming on boa
I went back and looked for your declaration. All I saw was about you abandoning America to live in Italy but continuing to exercise rights you want to deny others. These rights are prior to the Bill of Rights. Your right to free speech is seriously curtailed in Italy isn't it? Your right to keep and bear arms also curtailed?
So, if you want to discuss it- expect me to keep bringing up inconvenient truths.
What interests me, among other things, are guns and the connection between the lawful gun owners and the problems caused by the criminals, the famous "flow" theory, gun availability and its role in gun violence.
And we talk about this, we ask what measure can be taken and you dodge for the most part.
We tell you there are laws, we tell you the numbers cited by anti-gun people like you are biased. We provide evidence to show the problem has been addressed over and over again.
You ignore the truth that such a small percentage of firearms are used in crimes and violence. Why? Can you control human nature? No law can enforce morality, ethics. Short of a complete ban and confiscation; nothing more will stop the problem.
Is that what you advocate? Let's have the truth out Mike.
Is citizen disarmament your goal Mike?
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the best way to keep your child or teen safe from gun injury or death, is to never have a gun in your home, especially not a handgun.
ReplyDeletesee, this is why pediatricians should stick to practicing medicine on children and not pontificate outside their field of expertise.
the best way to keep your child from car injury or death is not to become Amish. even they die in car crashes, and may suffer disproportionately from it if by some mischance they have to try to drive without the training and practice needed to do it well.
the best way to keep your child from dying of syphilis is not to inculcate them into the wonders of abstinence only (since that evidently worked so well for the parents...) and ban all prophylactics and porn from the house. they'll encounter the idea of sex soon enough anyway.
the best way to keep your child from dying of gunshot is to teach them how to shoot. a similar approach also works well for preventing them from dying of poisoning on the drain cleaner in the cupboard, incidentally.
"gun proofing" children?
ReplyDeleteI am trying to figure out what this means.
Is that like "the vow of abstinence" approach to teen age sex?
Can we get the opinion of an expert?
What would Bristol Palin say?
Nope, Micro, just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteA version you might be familiar with is allowing children to have wine at a family dinner. The idea being that the child learns about alcohol (and the responsible use of it)from adults who are knowledgeable of the issue rather than learning from a bunch of other children in an uncontrolled environment.
As Nomen points out this is the method for just about every other piece of household safety. We don't hide drain cleaner or radiator fluid in obscure places hoping our kids won't find them and imbibe. We don't lock the household oven in a safe to prevent burns, and nobody is proposing Thumb-printing/blood DNA locks on cars to prevent teenage driving (maybe from outside theft, but they never claim "For the Children" which is the issue at hand)
Nope, you teach your kid not to run with scissors, to cut things away from themselves, lest the knife slip, to stay away from the hot stove, to know what poisons are and where they live, and that if they see a strange container (or wild berries ect) always assume it's poison.
(That reminds me of when I started learning about edible wild plants, and I realized that most of the "poison berries" were in fact safe for human consumption. My parents were smart, lest a young Weer'd discover that deadly nightshade is quite a different thing than wild wintergreen, despite both being a red berry that grows wild.)
So the idea is that #1 your child will never FIND a gun, as they know what it is and where it is (hence why the cited studies where guns hidden in toyboxes and playrooms have worthless results)
and if they otherwise encounter a gun outside of the reasonably safe environment of their home, they have the training to handle it safely, and know what is dangerous behavior.
BTW the term comes from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Proof-Children-Massad-Ayoobs-Handgun/dp/0936279052
(can be found for cheap if you look)
I also found this article illustrating these principles.
http://www.gunlaws.com/kidgun.htm
Now for Mike:
"We're not talking about cars or swimming pools or poisonous chemicals or knives or any of the other dangerous things that you rightly point out are more likely to kill you."
I'll pretend that makes the least bit of sense (It really doesn't. If we want to talk about keeping children safe we should be talking about car seats, water safety, poisons, and choking hazards, not guns. A child is most at risk from a gun if they can take the cartridges out and choke on them, than for a bullet striking them)
So if we ONLY want to talk about guns, and not keeping children safe, I'll repeat my point.
500 children deaths, for 10,000 deaths because they were denied personal defense. What number do you choose? (Especially given the above comments about teaching kids respect and responsibility with guns to further lower that number...tho of course that 500 is a statistical insignificance when it comes to gunnie homes with children in them.
So if you want to talk JUST about guns, there's my rebuttle.
But beware what that turns your argument into, as you're disregarding leading causes of child death for the sake of an anti-gun argument.
Either way you're in a bad spot, but at least your logically arguing your point rather than slinging bunk data, logical fallacies, and insults.
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteHow it is any different from "drown proofing" children?
You teach children how to swim, you teach them how to use survival flotation skills and when to use them, you teach kids when to swim and when not to. You teach children what to do around water and what not to do.
Gun proofing children is the same idea. You teach kids how to safely handle firearms, you teach them when not to handle firearm, when to tell an adult and what to do when they find a firearm. You teach them the dangers of firearms and teach them respect for firearms.
This is not a new idea. Firearms have been around for a couple hundred years now and only lately has the idea of them being too dangerous to be in the same household as kids developed. It's ridiculous to think that that generations of kids couldn't learn how to safely handle firearms when history shows the opposite.
Why is it (as a rule, with some exceptions like Nomen) the left tries to ridicule that they don't understand?
Instead of doing the research, checking out programs like the NRA's Eddie Eagle program....you try to belittle it.
Microdot, how do you feel about the gun control issue? About people like Mike trying to restrict people's rights, their ability to protect themselves?
We've asked several times for the other readers of Mike's blog to chime in and few do.
I would be really interested in hearing from more people on this issue.
Somewhat related, (for Microdot, not Mike, who doesn't want to talk about saving lives)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EWZuG-2Uk
Not sure if it's bogus or not, but it illustrates the the idea.
Laws like mandatory pool fencing are all well and good, but nothing is perfect. A fence is still a nice thing (as are my gun safes) but that's not the only avenue of defense, best to have a child who knows how to swim AS WELL as restricting access to the pool.
Of course nobody's life has ever been saved by a personal swimming pool...hence why I destroyed mine and had it removed.
Werd says:
ReplyDeleteDo you want to talk about the article and analysis Mike posted about? Or maybe respond to my comment?
No, not at all. I'm not into participating in or watching your droning dueling matches.
It's so boring to watch you and Bob constantly spar with Mike on this same, tired issue.
You and Bob are so righteous in defending the 'rights' of gun-ownership- you are like those grand knights of feudal times riding their steeds into glorious battle for 'the righteous cause.'
It's 'fun' to watch your twin charge and counter-charge as you and Bob maneuver to valiantly defend the 'kingdom' from the barbarian rascals.
And remember this old adage: 'lances don't kill, knights do!'
Bob and Weerd, books and theories, instructional pamphlets...conditioning programs...all of these things do not begin to address human nature and common sense.
ReplyDeleteSure, when I was a kid, I had an air rifle. I had knives, I was in the Boy Scouts.
But I was never in an environment which allowed me access to real guns.
I had common sense enough to know not to point my air rifle at something I could damage or hurt.
I never was compelled to stab someone with my scout knife, I learned to respect the knife and tools.
I must say that you have managed to clutter every argument with enough flotsam to obscure the real issue.
Mike is absolutely right when he talks about the fascination children have with forbidden objects. Can you remember being say 7 years old and finding a razor blade?
You can theorize about a best case scenario of "gun conditioning chldren", but in real life a theory is a theory and a dead kid is a dead kid.
I know that you will accuse me of resorting to the dreaded emotionalism syndrome, but I don't think so here, this is reality.
Awww Muddy, Cowardice masquerading a cajones. When you want to play with the big kids you're always welcome. Until then have fun in the sandbox!
ReplyDeleteMicro, your statements are correct, but I think you take them to an illogical conclusion. Obviously you didn't wound yourself or your siblings/family when you found the razor. I never drank Drain-O, tho I always knew where it was. Never burned my house down with the stove, never butchered myself or others with kitchen knives, never burned down the house with matches, ect ect ect.
Same goes for guns, given that parents keep them as an open issue, not a hidden taboo, and allow responsible, supervised access to them (no different than any of the above dangerous household items...I can give examples of each that I used as a young kid, so I wasn't too concerned with misusing them) couple that with some basic safety/common sense rules is the exact reason why even the numbers cited in the above story show that approximately 0.0005% (maybe I'm off by an Oder of 100 or so, doesn't matter) of children living in homes with unsecured guns get shot...and that includes gang violence and suicide.
So very legitimate points, Micro, but I think your fear of the unknown is carrying you away.
books and theories, instructional pamphlets...conditioning programs...all of these things do not begin to address human nature and common sense.
ReplyDeleteare you assuming there's some part of human nature that specifically freaks out when handling firearms?
Sure, when I was a kid, I had an air rifle. I had knives, I was in the Boy Scouts. But I was never in an environment which allowed me access to real guns.
you sure seem to be assuming firearms are somehow magical and make people freak out who wouldn't otherwise.
I had common sense enough to know not to point my air rifle at something I could damage or hurt.
I never was compelled to stab someone with my scout knife, I learned to respect the knife and tools.
then why would you think you would have acted any less responsibly, been any less safe, with a single-shot .22 rifle?
most kids are perfectly safe and responsible with such a firearm, if given appropriate and competent training. same as you should have received before you were allowed that air rifle, or those knives. it's not difficult training; the boy scouts could easily provide it.
Mike is absolutely right when he talks about the fascination children have with forbidden objects.
yes, and this is why weerd, bob, and i all want guns to not be forbidden objects to kids. no more than air rifles, pocket knives, drain cleaner, ...
you need to teach kids how to deal with such dangers, not just "stay away, that's forbidden". same thing with guns.
Can you remember being say 7 years old and finding a razor blade?
"finding"? they weren't hidden away, i knew perfectly well where they were stored. i never played with them, because i knew they could cut me.
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteI had common sense enough to know not to point my air rifle at something I could damage or hurt.
Having been a Scout leader for many years, I can confirm that many kids do have that common sense. And the training, the instruction you received reinforced that common sense for you and taught others the sense of that idea.
RULE 2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
Sound familiar, probably heard a variation of it from your ADULT leaders....or would you rather kids learn how to handle firearms from other kids?
I never was compelled to stab someone with my scout knife, I learned to respect the knife and tools.
I would bet one of the ways you learned to respect a knife was by using it. Not by hearing horror stories, but by learning it is a tool that you can control. Again, common sense was reinforced by training and instructions from your adult leaders, correct?
Maybe from seeing someone make a mistake and get corrected also?
But it was actually handling a knife, not learning that knives could be dangerous and having all the knives in your house removed as Mike is suggesting, right?
This is reality also - Brimming with pride
...Anyway, I was working on pulling it apart when I heard my oldest daughter yell "Daddy! I found a gun!!! I'm leaving the room!" I almost broke my leg going to check it out. I was scared that I had inadvertently left the shotgun or my carry piece on the bed. Luckily for me, it was just the gun case for the .22, but she knew enough to not get near it. There is so much pride in me right now that I wanted to share with all of you because there's a very, very important lesson here.
Even if you hate guns and think they should be wiped off the face of the Earth, you should teach your children what to do if they find one. Even at only 5 years old my daughter knew not to touch what she thought was a gun. The very first thing she did was tell an adult. The next thing she did was leave the room. Would your child do the same?
Your children should know this. It should be repeated to them every time you think about it. If you're a gun owner, make sure you sit with your sons and / or daughters and let them see your firearms when you clean them. There is nothing wrong with obsessing over safety with them because as this example shows, it will take hold in their little minds....
Want to declutter the issue Microdot? It is simple.
Do we have a right to life?
Do we have a right to survive
Do we have a right to defend our lives, our family, our property?
Do we have a right to keep and bear arms?
I'm tired of hearing people mealy-mouth the issue and say "yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms but we are going to impose so many restrictions it is impractical or financially prohibitive for most people to exercise it".
When you or anyone else starts to impose the same restrictions on your right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to worship or not as you choose; then come back and talk to me about reasonable restrictions.
This is getting ridiculous in the lengths that gun banners are going to deny people their basic human rights.
1. Do we have a right to life?
ReplyDelete2. Do we have a right to survive?
3. Do we have a right to defend ourselves?
4. Do we have a right to use tools to defend ourselves?
Yes, Bob, you have all those rights.
You could do us all a favor and stop asking such obvious and rhetorical questions and then complaining so much about my not answering them.
My problem is with the guns. If you think your building up to a slick and winning argument by getting me to agree to the fourth right and then switch "tool" for "gun," I think that's just silly. We're way beyond that, aren't we?
"My problem is with the guns."
ReplyDeleteWhy? You've just said in this thread alone you don't care about youth deaths (ie: you choose to talk about guns killing children, but not swimming pools, auto accidents, poisonings, suffocation, drowning ect that are far more prevalent and dangerous than guns)
You don't ever address or acknowledge the lives saved by guns, and you have admitted people have a right to defend their lives, and even admit you would defend your own family's lives if they were threatned.
So why exactly do you have a problem with lawfully held guns? (I know we see eye-to-eye with unlawfully held guns)
Oh I also forgot that you don't care about murder rates either, as 90% of murders don't use guns.
ReplyDeleteSo why are guns the big deal, Mike?
On the other hand I care about the above issues, Mike, and because of this among many other actions I take, I keep guns in my home and on my person.
Weer'd, The 500 to 10,000 or whatever that wild ratio you came up with is bogus. The 500 was a hard statistic of dead kids. Your number started out as a wildly high figure of defensive gun incidents, one which I don't believe for a minute. Talk about needing to take stats with a grain of salt, this was a great example. Then you figured how many MIGHT have resulted in death if the defensive shooter had not been armed. Too much guess work for any kind of comparison. But what you come up with is not just children under 15, which is what you would have needed to compare to the 500, it's men women and children who MIGHT have been killed, right?
ReplyDeleteNow, as poor an example as that was, I understand your point. It's the same one we've been looking at for months. Do the defensive gun incidents make up for the violent gun crime? I say no.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWould you say that defensive gun uses stop 500 rapes a year?
Would you say that defensive gun uses stop 500 assaults a year?
How about home invasions? Car Thefts? Muggings? Robberies?
How many lives have to be saved for firearms to be acceptable?
How many stories like this from Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self Defense blog do you need to see?
Yakima, Washington
From the January 22, 2009 Tri-City Herald:
YAKIMA -- A robbery suspect was shot dead by an armed civilian late Monday, the first incident of justifiable homicide city police said they could recall in recent memory.
Franklin McWain, 33, died at a hospital from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. An autopsy was performed Tuesday.
A police news release said the shooting occurred in the 800 block of North Second Street about 11 p.m. Monday.
According to the release, a 27-year-old Yakima man told officers he was waiting outside a residence for a friend when he was approached by McWain.
The man, identified as Michael Valadez, 27, said McWain struck him on the head with a stick and demanded money. Valadez told police he was struck several more times before firing two shots at McWain. Valadez had a valid concealed weapons permit.
Ferris, Texas
From the February 7, 2009 Waxahachie (Tex.) Daily Light:
FERRIS – The Ellis County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a shooting incident that occurred before noon in the 200 block of Newton Road near Ferris.
Sheriff Johnny Brown said the homeowners were in the process of moving when they returned to the residence to pick up another load of belongings. En route, they observed two male suspects coming out of the residence.
As the two suspects went to drive away in an SUV later identified by authorities as stolen, the male homeowner exited his pickup to ask them what they were doing.
The suspect vehicle then struck the homeowner’s pickup and the homeowner, who suffered slight injuries.
“The homeowner opened fire on them at that point,” Brown said.
The suspect vehicle then struck another vehicle that the homeowner’s wife had exited before going out into a field and coming to a stop.
“The passenger got out and ran. The driver-suspect was transported by air ambulance with gunshot wounds,” Brown said.
Read the blog, read the newspapers and see that defensive gun uses are a daily occurrence.
How many people have to use firearms to save their lives, their properties before stop trying to take away that right?
The 500 was a hard statistic of dead kids.
ReplyDeleteand 305,872,493 is a hard statistic of living people. see, i can quote even bigger numbers than you! but absolute numbers don't really mean much; rates mean more.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYes, Bob, you have all those rights.
Now, if I have those rights; what gives you or anyone else the right to interfere with me exercising those said rights?
Many states regulate and control even less then lethal methods such as TASERS, Pepper Spray, even knives. Why add more?
If I misuse my firearms, then I answer to the existing laws.
If I sell or give my firearms to prohibited people, I answer to the existing laws.
Name an issue with firearms and there is already an existing law to cover it, right?
So what does more laws, more restrictions do but interfere with my right to defend my life?
Maybe it isn't firearms that is the issue, but simply control.
So what do you care about Guns for, Mike?
ReplyDeleteHonest question. I'm totally confused now.
"My opinion is, I don't care how many households there are with guns and kids, for me that 500 is way too many. How about you?"
ReplyDeleteYes, those 500 deaths are sad, but they have nothing to do with me. I have NO obligation to change my behavior or concede my natural and constitutional rights because a few hundred children die each year from gun deaths.
Liberty involves risk Mike. I will not give up my rights in the name of "public safety" nor compromise those rights away "for the children."
I have to say I'm glad to see some honesty from you in your interpretation of the numbers. (I.E. most are gang / crime related)
Weer'd - I like this comment you made.
"But only 39% of these families keep their firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics."
I'd say the other 61% are smart enough not to listen to Pediatricians for advice on guns. I mean hell, I don't go to my dentist for advice on car repair.
Most folks keep a gun at home for defensive purposes. Keeping it locked in the manner recommended above makes it totally useless for that purpose.
Bob said, "Read the blog, read the newspapers and see that defensive gun uses are a daily occurrence."
ReplyDeleteI say, do the defensive gun incidents outnumber the incidents of gun violence? No, not by a mile.
You were good enugh to provide us with some numbers in this post. Care to provide some numbers to refute that? Otherwise you're speculating in the face of presented data.
ReplyDeleteStill, why Guns, Mike? I'm curious given your string of comments why you're concerned about them at all.
I say, do the defensive gun incidents outnumber the incidents of gun violence? No, not by a mile.
ReplyDeleteand i say you're pulling that assertion straight out of your nether regions, with neither evidence or support for it anywhere to be had. now, please prove me wrong.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Weer'd. You say that defensive gun uses don't outweigh the gun crimes but don't provide any evidence.
I am starting to get the idea that you simply want to consider firearms in isolation from everything else.
The impression is of a man who has put blinders on to every other consideration or factor but firearms. Sorry but the world doesn't work that way, nothing exists in isolation.
You said this on another post:
How many messed up family situations are there out there, many of whom are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights too. That's the problem.
So, instead of trying to get the firearms out of the messed up family situation, why not address the messed up family situations?
Let's focus on education. Wouldn't getting kids through high school, into college or a tech school be more of a benefit then taking away firearms? Give people the education needed to start their own businesses besides drug dealing and see what happens to the rate of violence - even gun violence.
Let's focus on family. Reverse the trend of single parent families, absentee fathers and neglectful mothers. Be it because they are working too many hours, involved in drugs or alcohol, or simply not there; study after study has shown parents are some of the best ways of preventing kids from getting involved in crime.
Let's focus on illegal drugs. Remove the profit margin and the incentive to commit crime from using drugs. Control the drug trade and watch the violence levels fall.
Let's focus on the justice system. Get rid of the disparity in sentencing for certain drugs, get rid of mandatory sentencing. Fix the problems with innocent people going to jail. Fix the fact that people come out of jail with NO more education or skills then they went in with. Wouldn't that go a along way to reducing crime?
Let's focus on the causes of poverty...those things above and see if that doesn't reduce the crime rate. If it doesn't reduce the crime rate, it will at least make the crimes happen on a grander scale....think of the difference between someone running a 3 card monte game and Madoff's Ponzi scheme. (that was a joke).
Stop looking at the issue in isolation Mike, Consider that the vaunted "flow of guns" is less then that of drunk driving, that fewer kids die from firearm accidents then they do from drowning.
Look at the whole picture Mike, including the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is one that will not be given up without a fight. Are you willing to start that fight?
"Why guns?" Weer'd keeps asking. Well, the truth is I'm much more passionate about the death penalty. It's only since I started talking to you guys that I became so interested in guns. You brought it out of me.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point, Weer'd? Are you getting back into that pseudo-psychology again? I thought you gave that up along with the mind reading.
No psychology, Mike. Confusion. You talk about Murder with guns, we mention that other tools are more common...you say you don't want to talk about those....so how can you care about murder?
ReplyDeleteYou talk about childhood accidental death and guns, we point out that children who live in gun owning home (where the gun isn't stored in a completely useless state) who die from gunfire is a number many times less than 1% of the case. And that things like drowning, suffocation, poison, and auto accidents kill vastly more children. You say you don't want to talk about those things...so how can you care about accidental death?
You say that defensive gun use is exceedingly rare when compared to violent crime with guns. We show you numbers, statistics and news stories where people defended their lives with guns. You dismiss them out-of-hand with no support to your side. We point out that defense is more common than offense, and that offense is more often carried out with a non-gun weapon. You dismiss that...so how can you care about violent crime?
You talk about the "Flow" of guns...we point out that that number is exceedingly small, and use numbers that are very sympathetic to your cause. You dismiss those with zero support...so how can you actually believe your theory?
What I'm saying, Mike, is that I care about gun crimes, I care about violent crime, I care about accidental death, I care about illegal transfers of firearms.
Because of this I care for the rights of good people to own guns, and have them close at hand if they so desire...and I'll show you numbers, studies, and stories all day to support this, because numbers, studies and Stories are why I changed my mind on this issue in the first damn place.
You don't want to discuss any of the above issues...but you do want to discuss guns, and the restrictions of them (often referencing one of the above issues you don't want to discuss).
So how can this be? You appear to care about guns a great deal, but I can't figure out why.
Can you help me?
So, I dismiss pertinent information, out of hand, and I offer zero support. Is that right, Weer'd?
ReplyDeleteI said I don't want to discuss accidental deaths of kids (I don't think I said exactly that, but...) so that means I don't care about that?
You said, "We point out that defense is more common than offense, and that offense is more often carried out with a non-gun weapon. You dismiss that...so how can you care about violent crime?"
Are you saying that defensive use of guns is more common than offensive? I don't think anybody believes that, Weer'd, not you and not the guys who spend their days compiling those stories. Yet, here you are throwing it out like you've said it many times and I keep "dismissing" it, and then you conclude that I don't care about violent crime.
Weer'd, you're becoming a real drag with your spinning and twisting and your use of obfuscation and most of all with your illogical conclusions.
"Weer'd, you're becoming a real drag with your spinning and twisting and your use of obfuscation and most of all with your illogical conclusions."
ReplyDeleteIronic, since you didn't actually answer my question in any way. And that was the 3rd time I've asked it.
"Are you saying that defensive use of guns is more common than offensive? I don't think anybody believes that, Weer'd, not you and not the guys who spend their days compiling those stories. Yet, here you are throwing it out like you've said it many times and I keep "dismissing" it, and then you conclude that I don't care about violent crime. "
More Irony, as I have presented numbers (you have presented none), and Yes indeed we ALL belive that...why because it's TRUE.
Also note again that you only ranted at my question, but didn't actually address it.
This post was very good, as you presented data, logic, and studies. I refute that, but at least we're discussing the issue outside of subjective emotions.
I said I wouldn't use this post as a sole reason to dismiss my claims that you have crossed over to the sinister side of the gun-ban group because it didn't show a greater trend.
These badgering answers are showing this wonderful post as an anomaly of somebody who would prefer the world to be more ignorant than knowledgable.
So AGAIN Mke, Why do you care so much about guns?
Maybe you'll answer it this time....I have my doubts.
Are you saying that defensive use of guns is more common than offensive? I don't think anybody believes that, Weer'd, not you and not the guys who spend their days compiling those stories.
ReplyDeletewhy do you think we lie about that?
why are you surprised that we take offense at you calling us liars without presenting any sort of evidence that we are?
why do you call us liars when you have no evidence to show that we are? do you really think that will accomplish anything other than to smear mud on your own reputation?
Nomen said, "why do you think we lie about that?
ReplyDeletewhy are you surprised that we take offense at you calling us liars without presenting any sort of evidence that we are?"
As far as I remember, only Weer'd has called people "liars" around here. I've made a point of avoiding that word because it's too inflammatory and counterproductive to discussion.
I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt and thinking of some of these remarks as spinning, exaggeration, nuancing, and of course good old hyperbole.
we say --- weerd and myself at the very least --- that defensive firearms use outweighs criminal use in the USA. we're convinced of this based on the data we've seen.
ReplyDeleteyou say you don't think anybody believes this. by implication (and a pretty strong one), that we don't believe it.
in other words, you think we're saying things we think are false, or at least unfounded --- even as we keep pointing out the evidence.
how is that not a direct implication that you think we're lying?
(oh, yeah, and blogger won't take myopenid.com again today. that's because blogger sucks ass.)
Notice how he didn't even bother to address the issue of defensive gun use, or even claims we've made that might be untrue or hyperbolic.
ReplyDeleteMike knows what he's doing, he knows he's wrong, and he's marking time and avoiding anything that might shed light on any real issues.
Low.
I mentioned it on a more recent thread, but I'll elaborate here. I must admit to not paying enough attention because I thought we all really did agree on the ratio between defensive and offensive use of guns.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at it this morning, I can tell you there's rarely been a case in which a bigger grain of salt is needed than when reading about all the supposed defensive incidents.
The 90-year-old lady we discussed yesterday, is that one? What about all those times the "defensive" use is really one of abuse or bullying or outright aggression? I suppose you count all those too. Or are you saying only cops do that, not gun owners?
The point is, the stats on killed and wounded are hard verifiable numbers, while these so-called defensive acts are a bit more nebulous and subjective.
Besides, didn't Weer'd recently quote the FBI saying that there were 100,000? (See I am paying attention once in a while). Well, that number which is a far cry from some of the other nonsense going around the internet, and a much more realistic one, is more or less about the same as the Brady numbers for killed and wounded.
So where's that leave us?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet's say it is 100,000 defensive gun uses. No bullying no abuse - which are against the law.
Research Russ Martin, a former DJ here in Dallas to see what happens if a person brandishes a firearms during a domestic issue.
Let's say it is 100,000 or what every number exactly matches the number of crimes.
Wouldn't that show if you remove the firearms, crime would DOUBLE?
Even if crime didn't double, do you have any doubt that some crime is prevented by a person having a firearm?
Take away that firearm and crime increases, right?
Isn't the goal to decrease crime and violence, not increase it?