The Examiner-Enterprise from Bartlesville Oklahoma reports on another tragic accidental shooting death of a teenager. The deaths of young people his age are usually written off as being gang related, as if that makes some kind of difference. But, this one sounds like a straight accident.
A Bartlesville teen is dead following what police believe was an accidental shooting Thursday evening.
Reports indicate Tyler James Teague, 17, was killed when he was accidentally shot at a residence in Bartlesville.
According to a press release issued by the Bartlesville Police Department, the BPD Communications Center received an emergency 911 call at 6:44 p.m. Thursday. The caller reportedly stated that there had been an “accidental shooting” and that his friend was lying on the floor of a garage.
The problem is that accidents, which would be the first class of gun violence to benefit from fewer guns, are only a small drop in the bucket. Suicides are in first place, closely followed by homicides. Only then do we have gun accidents accounting for comparatively few of the total approximately 30,000 lives lost per year.
How people can continue to say that more guns make us safer is mind boggling to me. Are the pro-gun folks so short-sighted that they cannot see the whole picture? I agree with them that in certain circumstances it's good to have a gun, but the furious proliferation that they demand is doing more harm than good. Can't they see that?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Well the good thing about accidental shootings, is they're easily lowered by education. Their numbers have been falling over the years thanks to increased awareness to basic gun safety.
ReplyDeleteOf course with everything nothing can be reduced to zero (I hear cutting bagels is the #1 reason for emergency room visits. I know I drove in one of those m'self)
So personally I think the Eddie Eagle safety rules should be taught to all school-age kids, and to early teens and on, the 4 rules of gun safety should be taught in all public schools.
"How people can continue to say that more guns make us safer is mind boggling to me"
That's because you ignore defensive gun uses. It's more boggling how you can set those numbers aside when you blog.
I second Weer'd's call for the Eddie Eagle program to be taught in schools. Education does drive down accidents.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, gun accidents have become really rare and actually, more people die every year playing golf than engaged in the shooting sports.
Sorry MikeB, I don't demand proliferation, I demand freedom of choice, something you adamantly oppose.
ReplyDeleteOf course folks Like MikeB willfully promulgate ignorance, fear, and lies when it comes to guns when education is what's needed.
ReplyDeleteIn other words MikeB, you are part of the problem. Are you going to take responsibility for your actions, since they contribute to deaths like these?
Every single day people die from accidental shootings in the United States.
ReplyDeleteNot to be a grammar whore, but with the low number of accidental deaths from people improperly using firearms (<700 and decreasing), you can't say with confidence that an accidental death happens "every single day." Sure on average there are 1.75 a day, but that isn't the same thing. Accidental deaths probably happen on only 90% of the days of the year.
The reason to bring this up? Well, it shows how rare accidental deaths actually are. Sure in a population of 300,000,000 there are going to be some, but how many things cause at least 700 accidental deaths in the US?
Swimming Pools
Bathtubs
5 gallon buckets
Stairs
Curbs
Stoves
BBQ grills
House fires
Machinery (tractors, combines, power tools, etc.)
Weather (Lightning, natural disasters, etc.)
Household chemicals
Blunt objects
Pillows and blankets
Ropes and cords
Motorcycles
Bicycles
Walking down the street
Cars
Alcohol
With that list of innocuous killers, why even be concerned with firearm accidents?
The problem is that accidents, which would be the first class of gun violence to benefit from fewer guns, are only a small drop in the bucket.
If they would decrease so much, why have accidental firearm deaths been on the decline even though the number of guns per person in the country has been on an increase?
In spite of my support for firearm education, I don't believe we should teach it in school. I believe we should teach reading, writing, and arithmetic in school. But, if we are going to teach our kids about how to use condoms, how to recycle (and why oil is bad), and about the great contribution gays have made to society (hint: no more than any other group, there are good people and bad people who happen to be gay - being gay doesn't make them good or bad) then we might as well teach them about firearm safety, too.
Frankly, firearm accidental deaths are so low as it is, I highly doubt that they could possibly go much lower. I would like them to, but you are dealing with people who manage to slice their hands open while preparing breakfast (no offense Weer'd, my Mom did that once too, and less than 2 minutes after I said she would - I ain't perfect either, recently I sliced my finger open with a utility knife while cutting vinyl siding, completely avoidable and my fault).
And finally, if the "furious proliferation that they demand is doing more harm than good", why is it that firearm deaths and injuries have both decreased even though (once again) firearms per person in the US have gone up? Are you just ignoring that bit of data? Crimes committed with firearms are down (unless the FBI is cooking their books). In fact, there is no data that actually shows any correlation between firearms and all of the bad things you talk about. So, maybe, just maybe, a firearm is simply a piece of metal that accelerates a projectile down a narrow tube to a high velocity. And people use them for different purposes. Right now, it appears they are being used less for nefarious purposes in spite of the skyrocketing numbers of them.
A little boy in Kentucky killed he little sister not by having a pillow fight but by shooting her. If it wasn't by accident it must be murder or mansaughter.
DeleteWow! Other people who believe that education is the answer to this issue! No amount of laws, bans, prohibitions, etc. would have nearly as a dramatic effect as EDUCATION. De-mystify firearms and teens like this won't feel the need to experiment with something they don't understand fully (but think they do because they play COUNTERSTRIKE!).
ReplyDeleteMy real question is...why isn't this the main purpose of the NRA...and for all the gun control groups who claim reducing this type of harm is their primary goal, why aren't THEY providing factual education that would actually have an impact?
Both sides of the issue constantly bombard everyone with misinformation and hysterics to try to win people to their side...why not focus on the REAL issue? Back when guns were common, kids weren't suspended for having a 2" pocket knife in a kit in their car, and children would bring their gun to school to go hunting afterward, I wonder how many accidents there were?
CJ have a look at this little Widget:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nra.org/nralocal.aspx It's linked right at the top of the nra.org website. 4 of the 9 things to locate are safety training classes, 2 are places where you can practice shooting, and one link is for shooting sports, which further enforces safe gun handling.
They also created the Eddie Eagle program which is considered bar-none the best safety system for young kids: http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
They also publish numerous books on safe gun handling, be it hunting and shooting, or defensive shooting.
In short, the NRA is VERY active in education. Sadly the school systems have a deeply anti-gun agenda, so even suggestions of adopting a gun safety curriculum (and note, that just like sex-ed you don't have the teachers or students engage in sex, gun safety lessons need not have guns or live fire to be effective) is shut down.
Meanwhile, anti gun groups like the Brady Campain, Violence Policy center, and other groups claim to not be about "banning all guns"...same with MikeB.
If they aren't against banning all guns, they should think it OK that I own SOME guns...show me a link of training they sponsor so if I own a gun, I may do so safely.
...I'll wait!
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that accidents, which would be the first class of gun violence to benefit from fewer guns, are only a small drop in the bucket.
Not only is the number of fatal shooting accidents small enough to border on statistical insignificance, the number trends steadily downward, year after year--while at the same time, the population (both of people and of firearms) increases. Apparently, what we're doing in terms of preventing accidental shootings is working. I agree with the others that we could do still better, by making education more available, but most of the gun-haters recoil in horror at the idea.
That might be starting to change, albeit too slowly--rabidly anti-gun Illinois State Representative Annazette Collins actually had the temerity to suggest gun education.
She got hammered for it, by, among others, Snuffy Pfleger:
That's like saying we might as well sell drugs legally..we don't want access to guns. We have children dying in this city. We're talking about teaching gets kids in grammar school how to shoot guns? That's crazy.
No word on whether he threatened to snuff her.
By the way, Mikeb, your "solution" is "fewer guns." However, since you deny (if rather implausibly) advocating bans, but instead just adding to the regulatory hoops and headaches, what makes you think the numbers will be reduced? The hundreds of millions already out there aren't going anywhere, unless you suggest taking the gloves all the way off--and implementing wholesale confiscation--and we'll fight it out and see which side runs out of live bodies first (hint--gun owners vastly outnumber government thugs).
ReplyDeleteThere's no guarantee that the approach you claim to favor would even stop the number of guns from increasing, rather than simply slow it down some.
Since everyone else addressed the educational and rarity aspects of accidental shootings, I wanted to address this:
ReplyDelete"The deaths of young people his age are usually written off as being gang related, as if that makes some kind of difference."
Well, it does make a difference. When a gang members gets shot, the world is that much better.
Says AztecRed:
ReplyDeleteWell, it does make a difference. When a gang members gets shot, the world is that much better.
Actually, Aztec, that's a point I had meant to make, but then got sidetracked.
Let's, in fact, take it a little further, and tie it in with another of Mikeb's favorite villains: Badger Guns, in Wisconsin. One brilliant critic of Badger Guns vilifies the owner, apparently, for his lack of psychic powers, because he allegedly does not prevent felons from taking target practice on the range.
Undercover officers also observed felons, who cannot legally possess or use firearms, practicing their shooting skills on Badger's firing range.
So what does this have to do with Aztec's point? Simply that when one gangbanger kills another, the world is, as Aztec says, a better place. The tragedy is when an innocent bystander gets caught in the crossfire. Given that set of realities, it's clearly better for the thugs to be decent shots, so they can more efficiently take each other out, with less likelihood of clumsily cutting down an innocent child or mother.
By the way, it would seem that we are in agreement with the late, great Col. Jeff Cooper, who said:
Our men in the Los Angeles area tell us that the radical rise in the murder rate in the L.A. basin should be viewed with due reference to the Good Riddance factor....A certain amount of subjective guesswork is involved, of course, but the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition.
It's great fun to see the panty-soiling horror that statement inspired among the citizen disarmament advocates.
Still bent on the language thingie.
ReplyDeleteSome guy points a gun at his buddy and pulls the trigger.
That's not an accident.
It is negligence.
Gee Officer, I don't know what happened. All I did was put the key in the ignition, start the car, put it in gear, steered it towards a bus stop full of kids and hit the gas.
It was an accident.
Words matter.
"Given that set of realities, it's clearly better for the thugs to be decent shots, so they can more efficiently take each other out, with less likelihood of clumsily cutting down an innocent child or mother."
ReplyDeleteA good example is the recent bar shooting in Toledo. You had a drug dealer and buyer shooting at each other at point blank range. Over 30 shots fired between the two of them and they didn't even hit each other.
I saw something about that, Aztec, but didn't know the details. 30+ shots at close range, without a hit? There are blind people who can shoot better than that (and I'm not kidding, or even "exaggerating," as Mikeb likes to say).
ReplyDeleteI just read that there were up to 5 gun men. That helps put the 30 shots into perspective. Still amazing that no one was hit.
ReplyDeletekaveman is absolutely right, most of these are negligence not accidents. Which means the rest of you must be right about education being the answer.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that's where I get off the boat. Eddie Eagle and all the rest is a wrong direction for us. Isn't it obvious that we're going in the wrong direction?
It reminds me of what you guys say about one more law. We have too much gun violence, so you want to put more guns in there and try to educate the owners.
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteIsn't it obvious that we're going in the wrong direction?
Um, no, actually--I've already mentioned that unintentional shootings have trended steadily downward for years--while the numbers of both guns and potential gunshot victims have trended upward. Sounds as if we're going in just the opposite of "the wrong direction." That becomes even more obvious when one considers the fact that violent crime has also trended steadily downward for year after year (there was a bit of a bump in 2006 and 2007, but last year, we were back to lower than 2005 levels). That downward trend has gone on for decades.
Tell me, Mikeb, how that is "the wrong direction.
Which means the rest of you must be right about education being the answer.
[ . . . ]
We have too much gun violence, so you want to put more guns in there and try to educate the owners.
We're right about education being key, but gun education that involves guns is wrong? Does not compute.
Besides, I'm not very familiar with the specifics of Eddie Eagle, but I thought the central theme was teaching kids to not play with guns. The slogan:
Stop! Don't touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.
What about that would you have changed?
Yeah but I think we all know how MikeB feels about people being killed and hurt with guns.
ReplyDeleteWould be a shame to do something to reduce that number!
"Sorry, that's where I get off the boat. Eddie Eagle and all the rest is a wrong direction for us. Isn't it obvious that we're going in the wrong direction?"
ReplyDeleteMikeB, have you seen the Eddie Eagle course? I think you are assuming since it was developed by the NRA it is a gun handling class but it is not--see what the media and anti-freedom people do to you :)
The Eddie Eagle program teaches kids that if they find a gun that they should not touch it, get away from the area and should tell an adult. This short course saves lives. It is not the "wrong direction" at all. It does not even suggest children only use guns safely under the supervision of an adult or anything like that. It is the opposite of gun handling.
The next time I order program materials from the NRA, I'll order some extra Eddie Eagle materials and send your way.
If teaching kids to NOT touch or play with guns is the wrong direction, then logic dictates that you believe that teaching kids TO touch and play with guns is the right direction.
ReplyDeleteThe only other alternative is to shield kids completely about what firearms are and what they do.
That way, if and when they do come across a gun, they will educate themselves through normal curious experimentation.
Sounds great, huh?
I was wrong about the Eddie Eagle Program. I was thinking of gun handling education, but now that you've mentioned it I remember hearing about the Eddie Eagle ideas of "don't touch" and "get an adult."
ReplyDeleteMy beef with the education programs that I thought we were talking about is that they further the gun culture, they might tend to teach young people that owning guns is normal, which in spite of what some of you say, is far from the truth and not what most Americans believe.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThere you go being insulting again.
You've clearly stated that we gun owners aren't "normal". How is that to be viewed as anything other than a personal insult?
65 million people, that is the number of "not normal" American's you've just thrown under the bus -- contrary to your claims of not making personal attacks.
Even more people believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
If you are that far out of the main stream.....should you really be calling others "not normal"?
Says Mikeb, once again, presumably, with a straight face:
ReplyDeleteMy beef with the education programs that I thought we were talking about is that they further the gun culture, they might tend to teach young people that owning guns is normal, which in spite of what some of you say, is far from the truth and not what most Americans believe.
Tell me, Oh, Final Arbiter of What Constitutes Normality, how you define "abnormal." Does that mean less than 50% of the population? Is it "abnormal" in the U.S. to be black, or Muslim?
I've heard pretty much identical rhetoric condemning sex education in which homosexuality is discussed. To paraphrase you, Mikeb:
. . . [it] will further the [gay] culture, [it] might tend to teach young people that [homosexuality] is normal, which in spite of what some of you say, is far from the truth and not what most Americans believe.
Sound familiar, Mikeb? Are you comfortable being grouped with people who object to young people being taught about things you consider to be "abnormal," because such education might lead them to ways of thinking you believe are unhealthy?
Ah--moderation is back, I see.
ReplyDeleteMust protect readers from seeing any double-plus ungood comments, eh, Mikeb?
"they might tend to teach young people that owning guns is normal,"
ReplyDeleteKinda like how sex ed teaches young people that sex is normal.
"My beef with the education programs that I thought we were talking about is that they further the gun culture, they might tend to teach young people that owning guns is normal, which in spite of what some of you say, is far from the truth and not what most Americans believe."
ReplyDeleteGee, Paul Helmke spends an awful lot of time complaining about "gun owners with little or no training" and then he goes on the complain that those who do spend the time and money to become proficient with their weapons and compliant with the law are "furthering the gun culture."
Sounds just like you MikeB.
In your eyes, we will be demonized regardless of what we do.
kaveman, That sure does sound like a lose / lose. If you don't train, you're irresponsible, if you do, you contribute to the wrong direction.
ReplyDeletebeowulf, You lost me on that 1984 reference.
By the way, I don't think I've felt it necessary to delete any comments of yours. I may be wrong about that, but if I have they've been few and far between, and that's in spite of the relentless antagonism you aim at me. Now that I'm putting both your names into my general impression of our relationship over the months, I think you provide much substance in your remarks, which I respect.
No evaluation study shows that Eddie Eagle or any similar program reduces inappropriate gun use. Children who participate in these programs were no less likely to play with guns than those who had not.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, several studies have shown that while these children might be able to tell you what to do if they saw a gun, when left alone with real guns they picked them up and readily played with them.
Instead of encouraging parents to acknowledge the dangers of guns in the home, these programs put the responsibility on the children themselves. That is not where the responsibility for firearm safety belongs!
To quote from a study published in the journal Pediatrics:
"There is no evidence that safety lessons are retained by children at the critical times when they confront a loaded weapon. Indeed, the combination of the high stakes involved, death or disability, and the propensity of children to forget rules while playing or upset makes this type of safety education a dubious approach at best."
Cathie, Thanks you very much. I've read about those studies. But, like most of the gun control issues, all it takes is a little common sense and some honesty to understand this about kids.
ReplyDelete