Taken from page 110 of Private Guns - Public Health by David Hemenway. He quotes the statistical source: Mortality data from CDC WISQARS 2003.
The chart above covers the statistics of children's deaths from firearms, the children being from age five to fourteen, the time period covered 1991 to 2000.
The States designated "high gun" are eleven with a total population of 28.5 million, as follows: Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky.
The States designated "low gun" are five with a total population of 26.2 million, as follows: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Connecticut.
What's your opinion? Do you find the data compelling, as evidence that gun availability increases gun violence? Do you think all of it is negligible, given the tremendous proliferation of guns in America? If you think that, please remember, this chart only covers kids who died. There are also stats on babies under five, there are adult women and men, there are numerous less-than-fatal shootings, some of which leave people permanently disabled.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Consider the source. David Hemenway is a notorious anti-gun "researcher". His "research" usually involves massaging the data to get to his predetermined "conclusion". None of his "data" has survived peer review.
ReplyDeleteWhat ages are his "children"? Some of these people have even included 18-24 year olds as "youth". Then "Youth" becomes "children". They have done it time and time again. They really like to include 19 and 20 year old gang members that use guns against each other in their statistics.
What if I told you that you could get a chart exactly opposite from another source such as the Gun Owners of America? Would that be as reliable? Would you suspect maybe they have an agenda?
If you remember, back in the 50's and 60's Phillip Morris did "research" and determined that cigarettes do not have any real impact on your health. You don't think maybe they had an agenda do you?
You really need to quit running to the anti-gun people for your "data". They simply have been proven time and time again that they are not honest.
Try reading More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, Jr. He started out as an anti-gun researcher but realized that the data just simply did not add up that way. His work has survived multiple peer reviews as well as blatant attacks on his "data" by the anti-freedom crowd. They can not debunk it no matter how they try.
http://gothamist.com/2009/04/16/machete_madness_1.php
ReplyDeleteGrist for your fascist mill, Mikey!
No, I don't find it "compelling" because I know Hemenway is a paid anti-gun shill.
ReplyDeleteAlso Mike, I prefer to go directly to the source and look at the CDC data myself.
For example, from 1999-2005 for children 1-14, both genders, all races, there were 31,424 total deaths from "unintentional injury" (I.E. no homicides or suicides)
Firearms accounted for 1.6% of those deaths. For suicides among the same age group suffocation beat out firearms by 2 to 1.
If you look at all violence-related deaths among the same 1-14 y/o group you find that less than
1/4 (23.3%) died via firearm.
I'm concerned that the criteria for "high gun" and "low gun" states sounds uncomfortably like somebody's cherrypicking their data. A straight comparison of murder and suicide rates against per-capita gun ownership for the entire US would be much more helpful.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I think Mr. Hemenway's conclusion is reaching beyond the data. He looks at this and says "easy access to guns creates more death". I look at it and say "people who want to kill themselves or others choose the best available tool for the job".
A person absolutely committed to suicide will kill himself. Japan proves that, with a ridiculous suicide rate and a legal system that almost totally outlaws weapons of all kinds, not just guns. And anybody who shoots himself is absolutely committed to dying; a bullet in the head isn't a cry for help.
Similarly, criminals don't stop hurting and killing people because they can't get guns. As they have for as long as there've been people, criminals use the best tools available to hurt and kill innocent people. Britain's insanely strict gun control didn't stop their violent crime rate from rapidly increasing; it just drove some criminals to use knives (which Britain is currently trying to restrict).
The bottom line is that some people will kill themselves, and some people will kill others, and they'll always use the best tools available. If you could clap your hands and make every gun in the world disappear, all you'd do is ensure that strong people always had the advantage over weak people. Guns level the playing field, to the point that I know my 5'5" fiancee by herself could have a fighting chance if three big men broke into our house. I wouldn't prefer to live in a world where all she could do was hope the police showed up before she bled out.
I am impressed, Mike. You are on the blog roll...
ReplyDeleteTake care and keep on keepin' on :).
Are you guys saying that what Hemenway and Helmke write is biased and unreliable but what Kleck and Lott write is not?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't all this information have to be taken with a grain of salt always considering the writer's interests?
Michael said, "A person absolutely committed to suicide will kill himself."
But how many are absolutely committed to anything? Not most, I would say, which is my point. Guns don't cause anything, but their availability makes all the difference in the world in SOME cases, perhaps many.
But how many are absolutely committed to anything? Not most, I would say, which is my point.
ReplyDeleteThose who shoot themselves to death are committed to dying. Again, a bullet in the head isn't a cry for help. You don't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger because you're kind of on the fence about dying.
Even if you assume that you have a legitimate interest in forcing people to stay alive when they've chosen to die (an assumption I'm uncomfortable with, BTW), you're making an assumption about the influence of the gun that doesn't seem to be supported. To invoke Japan again, an almost complete absence of guns doesn't prevent massive suicide rates. _If_ the presence of guns is a factor in the rate of suicides, it seems like it must be a pretty small one.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteHow many are absolutely committed to killing themselves????
How many suicides are there? There is your answer.
"Are you guys saying that what Hemenway and Helmke write is biased and unreliable but what Kleck and Lott write is not?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't all this information have to be taken with a grain of salt always considering the writer's interests?"
Yep, that's why we use data presented by Kleck and Lott (both of whom are not tied to pro-gun activist groups, unlike the people you cite) as a means to further support data supplied by groups like the FBI, CDC, as well as other data collection agencies, as well as critical readings of bill text and applying that to our real-world experiences with guns and/or crime.
A world different from presenting a deeply refuted study financed by an anti-gun political group that presents a picture direcetly contrary to raw data and simple logic.
Furthermore when asked to justify your your belifs you either doge them, recite dogma, or claim ignorance of the issue.
That's why you're wrong, Mike.
"Are you guys saying that what Hemenway and Helmke write is biased and unreliable but what Kleck and Lott write is not? "
ReplyDeleteNot at all mike, what I said is that I look at the actual data instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of that data.
But yes, anything out of Helmke's mouth is without question biased. He is a proven liar.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteActually, YES.
Kleck and Lott works can be verified and their methods established. Hemenway often tries to keep his methodology hidden, something that no accredited researcher should do.
Helmke is an a proven liar. Repeatedly lying, we've presented the evidence to you repeatedly.
Now with Kleck and Lott there can be arguments on the validity of extending their research, but the research is valid. We can show where people like Hemenway or Kellerman used faulty research methods or conclusions.
Doesn't all this information have to be taken with a grain of salt always considering the writer's interests?To a degree yes. As Weer'd or someone else stated, Lott started as an anti-gun advocate (try saying that 3 times fast). His research lead him to change his mind.
Lott changed his mind on guns. I changed my mind on guns. I know many others who have.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile our humble and "progressive" hoste has pointed out that there is NO data he could be presented with for him to change his mind on the gun issue.
This is what we're dealing with.
I was never anti-gun, but I really wasn't "pro-gun" either.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until I actually began to think about and study the issue that I became a staunch 2A advocate and "gun nut"
One of the big problems with the gun "debate" is that there are so many strong agendas on all sides that it's extremely hard to find reliable numbers or interpretation anywhere. We work with law enforcement statistics wherever possible, but even that can only take you so far.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'd love to be able to say with confidence that gun rights lower crime rates, the best we can say with confidence is that there's no compelling evidence that widespread civilian access to weapons affects the crime rate one way or the other. This is still a bit of a revelation to people who make the completely reasonable but wrong assumption that fewer weapons will mean less crime, and it undermines the strongest case prohibitionists have for taking away our right to choose how we prepare for the unexpected.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWould be interested in your thoughts about the post I have up:
Debunking Availability
I agree that having changed from one side of the argument to the other could lend credibility to your current position, but it's not, in itself, proof that it's the right position.
ReplyDeleteTom Diaz and I myself have changed in the other direction. So what?
"Tom Diaz and I myself have changed in the other direction. So what?"
ReplyDeleteSays a man who openly claims to have owned guns ILLEGALLY.
Sorry, you didn't change shit. All criminals favor gun control. Always have, always will. Just because you're not actively engaging in a crime now doesn't change the stripes on your back.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou've probably have seen this at OneUtah, but I thought it appropriate to show to your readers.
You, and many other anti-freedom folk say you are doing this for the kids, are you really
According to the CDC WISQARS, 724 children aged 0-17 died due to firearm related accidents between 2000 and 2005.
According to the CDC WISQARS, 1,056 children aged 0-17 died due to bicycling accidents between 2000 and 2005. - 1.458 times as many as firearms.
According to the CDC WISQARS, 1,570 children aged 0-17 died due to accidental poisoning between 2000 and 2005. - 2.168 times as many as firearms.
According to the CDC WISQARS, 4,793 children aged 0-17 died in pedestrian/traffic accidents between 2000 and 2005.- 6.620 times as many as firearms.
According to the CDC WISQARS, 6,042 children aged 0-17 died due to accidental drownings between 2000 and 2005. - 8.345 times as many as firearms.
Are you going to ban private pools and the unregistered transfer of private pools? How about bathtubs? Many children die because of parental neglect - those parents leave 5 gallon buckets around where children may find them and drown.
Accidents happen, it is a shame when ANY life is cut short, but firearms are some of the safest
Mike (and Skye) are going to ignore my comment regarding the CDC data I assume?
ReplyDeleteWeer'd said, "Just because you're not actively engaging in a crime now doesn't change the stripes on your back."
ReplyDeleteDoes that count for you, too? You know, that time you ran into the post office for a few seconds and decided not to disarm in the car. Or that time one of your pals invited you fire some really exciting but prohibited weapon.
Or is it really black and white?
"You know, that time you ran into the post office for a few seconds and decided not to disarm in the car."
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't because that never happened, Mike. I even blogged about it. Went 12 hours with no gun for 15 mins in the post office.
I've been to the PO one other time since that day.
Nice try at casting aspersions. I do take it as a direct insult that you would consider that I'd engage in a federal felony in such a flippant manor.
Weer'd, Are you saying you never fired an automatic weapon? Are you claiming to never have committed the slightest infraction with your guns? You never turned a blind eye when someone else did? C'mon, man. Get real for a second. The only penalty will be that I get to say I told ya so. I told ya it's not all black and white, that's all.
ReplyDeleteThe down side of continuing with this stubborn denial is worse. I'll have to nickname you something like "Robot Man" or how about "Straight Shooter?" But in that case, the unspoken accusation is truly terrible. You who can't admit to the simplest thing, you who have never even seen a shot-up road sign, call other people names.
"Weer'd, Are you saying you never fired an automatic weapon? Are you claiming to never have committed the slightest infraction with your guns? You never turned a blind eye when someone else did? C'mon, man."
ReplyDeleteYep, Fired an M-16, and an AK-47. Both were legally owned by a Class 2 SOT, manufatuer of NFA firearms and supressors. 100% legal done compleatly above the boards.
As have the rest of my conducts with firearms, and everybody I keep company with.
I practice what I preach, unlike you, Mike. I understand your desire to make me into a moral relatavist like yourself, but we are not at all alike.
Not only do I not violate firearms laws because it sets a good example, but even a minor infraction will cost me far more than I'd ever care to pay.
So I don't do it. I advocate others to do it. And I advocate people who choose to violate the law and give the community of firearms owners like myself, who are also lawful (not always because they are moral, but because they don't want to loose their guns, their rights, their life savings, and years of their life to court battles and jail time) a bad name.
Is this why you don't support enforcing the laws? You were lucky you were never sent to prison, and would hate to see a criminal like youself suffer that fate?
Remember Mike the crime you ADMIT to have committed (assuming it was JUST one offense, but it's likely multiple) would render you a fellon, likely cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Years in court battles and at LEAST one year in Prison, and that's just on federal charges. The state charges can vary even more.
Are you accusing me of crimes because like in your other posts you want an innocent person like myself to share the guilt of a criminal like you?
The plot thickens!