According to the CDC, for all children younger than 15: 54 died from firearm accidents, but almost twice as many died from falls or poisoning. More than 400 children died from smoke, fire or flame; 761 drowned; and more than 2,000 died in car accidents. No children younger than 1 year old died from firearm accidents.
After downplaying the whole business, the author Bob Aldridge, goes on to explain that the small numbers doesn't mean it's not important. There are things we need to do.
There are two ways to prevent children from dying in gun accidents: child-proof the gun and gun-proof the child. Child-proofing guns is fairly easy to do. First, keep guns unloaded and locked in a storage device, such as a gun safe, that no one can access but the gun owner. Second, keep all ammunition in a separate, locked container that no one can access but the gun owner.
What's your opinion? Are there gun owners who actually do this? Wouldn't storing your gun like that eliminate whatever benefit you wanted to have from the gun in the first place? Assuming the gun is in the home for self protection, what possible good is it locked up and separated from the ammo? So, I'm guessing that most gun owners don't do this, please correct me if I'm wrong.
About gun-proofing the child, does anyone who has now, or ever has had an inquisitive five-year-old around the house believe this? Do you really believe the Eddie Eagle type education of young children, instructing them not to touch, works. I personally don't believe it and I would consider it the height of irresponsibility to depend upon such methods.
So, what that leaves us with is keeping the gun loaded, but in a place where the child either can't reach or doesn't know about. Extremely risky behavior.
Children should never handle guns without a knowledgeable and responsible adult supervising. Children should, repeatedly, be taught the following if they encounter any gun under any circumstance without adult supervision: Stop! Don’t touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!
When I was a kid, these kinds of warnings only served to increase the curiosity. How about you?
The pro-gun folks who won't bend on anything no matter how sensible, ask, "well how come the numbers are so low then." Well part of the answer is in the fact that we're talking about deaths. If you add injuries, the number increases. If you add shots fired which accidentally miss, which I think count, the number increases still. If you also add times the kids play with the gun but don't fire it, again by luck or timely intervention, the number increases once again.
What's your opinion? When people who own guns have children, what should they do? I say they should remove the guns from the house entirely. That's the only way to ensure safety for the kids. The only exceptions should be those homes which are frequently broken into by rapists and kidnappers, homes in which the domestic arsenal is the only thing standing in the way of tragedy. All the others should use some common sense and get rid of the guns.
What do you think?
Don't you think it might be a better idea to take the children away from the parents who live in places where there is crime and the parents need to keep loaded guns around? We already have a system set up for child confiscation in this country: Child Protective Services.
ReplyDeleteThe children could be confiscated and returned when the child reaches "the age of reason" (which is somewhere in their mid-30s for most children).
" Assuming the gun is in the home for self protection, what possible good is it locked up and separated from the ammo?"
ReplyDeleteThat is, in part, precisely what Heller struck down as unconstitutional. A decision you disagree with.
Therefore, I must conclude that you do not believe that government should mandate that our guns and ammo be rendered useless for self defense.
This is by far the most bizzare thing I've ever read on your blog...
"What's your opinion? When people who own guns have children, what should they do? I say they should remove the guns from the house entirely. That's the only way to ensure safety for the kids. The only exceptions should be those homes which are frequently broken into by rapists and kidnappers, homes in which the domestic arsenal is the only thing standing in the way of tragedy."
Remove the guns to where exactly? Perhaps the house next door where your children play?
Do you honestly believe that the only families who should have guns in the home are those families who have frequently suffered rape and kidnappings?
What's the criteria.
Say if mom and dad have 4 kids and three of them have already been kidnapped, then the parents should be allowed to have a gun to protect the 4th kid?
It's OK though, they've already begun rebuilding their shattered family since Mommy was frequently raped and is now pregnant.
Who determines what the frequency shoud be?
What if the parents have only one child and both the kid and mommy get kidnapped and then raped?
Can dad have a gun to protect his...uh...oh wait, nevermind, his family is already gone.
But since dad now lives alone with no kids in the house, he can get a gun as some sort of government approved consolation prize?
What is the "tragedy threshold" a family must endure before you think it's OK for them to have a gun in the house?
"About gun-proofing the child, does anyone who has now, or ever has had an inquisitive five-year-old around the house believe this? Do you really believe the Eddie Eagle type education of young children, instructing them not to touch, works. I personally don't believe it and I would consider it the height of irresponsibility to depend upon such methods."
ReplyDeleteWell given that I grew up in Maine where most homes had guns, and nobody ever thought of locking them up, this appeared to have worked just fine, and that was pre eddie eagle.
The Eddie Eagle program has only helped:
http://blog.robballen.com/2008/02/07/p2120-brimming-with-pride.post
This also works VERY well
http://www.corneredcat.com/Kids/disarming.aspx
Think of it this way, did you play with knives against your parents wishes? Maybe you did. But maybe if Mom and Dad let you help with the cooking knives weren't something that were worth punishment for sneaking and disobeying.
Same with matches, every child is excited by fire, and we all know playing with matches is dangerous. So my dad let my play with matches in safe ways, lighting the grill for dinner, starting camp fires or the wood stove. Feeding the fire to keep the house warm was on of my chores, it was exciting at first, then became a pain in the ass, so I didn't feel the desire to play with fire, as I had to work with the stuff as part of my chores.
Maybe I'm biased, I'm not a criminal...
Of course also comes the question of what you mean by "Loaded".
The author gives two options "Loaded" or "Gun locked, ammo locked separately"
hardly realistic.
Of course I keep most of my guns locked up and unloaded. They're sporting and collecting guns, so there is no need, they'll be loaded when I'm ready to shoot.
My carry gun, for safety reasons I keep locked in the safe, but fully loaded (rechambering a round can damage it, and defensive ammo is expensive)
With these guns the difference is little for kids. You need to open my safe, and I will forbid any kid to play in my armory.
Now I also know people who keep a pistol safe in their nightstand or under their bed for home defense. That also allows for storing the gun fully loaded.
By Mass law I need to keep my home defense gun with a trigger lock on, and it is unloaded, but the magazines are stored in the same box. Once our law is struck down (which is should be in the next 6 months) that lock comes off.
To ready my HD 1911 one needs to properly insert a loaded magazine, then rack the slide and 20 pound recoil spring to chamber the first round, then properly engage the grip safety and pull the trigger.
Can a 5 year old kid do that? Honestly I doubt it. Hell my wife has a little trouble with it and needs to use this ergonomic trick
http://www.corneredcat.com/RunGun/rack.aspx
But I'm sure some youngster might manage to somehow do it if left to their own devices long enough. Hence gunproofing children, being a good parent, and disarming their curiosity.
Of course when they become bigger and stronger such a simple "safety" device as storing the gun with an empty chamber vanishes, so then comes proper firearm handling and safety.
Its very logical, and your numbers cited PROVE it works, how else could there be so many houses with guns, and you admit (and I agree) that many of these houses (tho I suspect not enough)have a gun that can be readied for home and personal defense, only 54 children could be cited.
That's nothing. How many of those teen-aged children didn't have an accident, but were "Playing" with a gang?
Heck I bet more "Children" died from auto-erotic asphyxiation!
IT's a statistical insignificance.
Shows it's working.
kaveman and Weer'd Beard have good ideas but I still like confiscating the children.
ReplyDeleteThere is NO Amendment that guarantees you the right to reproduce and keep your reproductions.
My gun is a defensive weapon. It is completely useless if it's unloaded, locked up, with the ammo somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, mikeb makes some funny statements without doing even the slightest amount of research.
ReplyDeleteWell part of the answer is in the fact that we're talking about deaths. If you add injuries, the number increases. If you add shots fired which accidentally miss, which I think count, the number increases still. If you also add times the kids play with the gun but don't fire it, again by luck or timely intervention, the number increases once again.
Using WISQARS, one finds that since 2001 the rate of firearm deaths and injuries for children (age 0-14) has remained unchanged. This inspite of the fact that the number of guns per person in this country has increased. So, either kids are becoming worse shots and not hitting a random target (which is a contradiction), or the amount of "playing" with guns by children is actually declining (steady rate of death and injuries divided by increasing rate of firearms/person). Furthermore, for injuries, 80% of them occur in the 10-14 age. Looking at each year of age for 0-14 year olds, you can see that "accidental" deaths take a step jump from about 20 to 46 at age 12 (possible gang relation) and increase from there. Meanwhile injuries take a step jump from about 200 to 600+ at age 11 and increase from there. Since I think we can all agree that there are very few gang members that are less than 5 years old. So, I would postulate (based on the limited research above) that the number of children (under 14) injured or killed by firearms that are not involved in gang activity is less than 250 per year.
Basically, if you are going to argue that guns should be removed from the homes of children based on the accidents, then you need to justify why cleaning supplies, knives, bicycles, and stairs shouldn't also be banned. None of these objects are necessary. Humans lived hundreds of thousands of years without knives, water is a pretty good cleaner when mixed with elbow grease, bicycles were only invented in the 1800s, and stairs were unheard of 7000 years ago.
Ensuring safety is an impossible task. The human body is adapted to take in unsafe bacteria and viruses, get sick (an unsafe state), and develop immunities to it (a safer state than before). In other words. Nature confronts dangers head on. If you're so irresponsible that you allow children to play with loaded firearms unsupervised because they have access to them, no law in the world is going to change that behavior. Seat belt laws are supposedly there to make us "safe." Yet comparing states that have them to next door neighbor states that don't have them, you find compliance rates are the same: around 66%. Some group of the population (in this case 33%) are too stupid, ignorant, or obstinate to put on a safety belt, regardless of the law. Our legislation of safety has FAILED.
So how about this suggestion. Whatever legislation is propsed that is suppose to increase safety (whether seat belt laws or reduction in crime) A) have an explanation in the law of the benefit that society is going to get with definitive statements (i.e. this law will decrease gun crime by 10% over the next five years) and B) have a cost analysis (to society) to show how much this benefit will cost. Then, every five years, we do a study (it can even be a government study) that is peer reviewed. If the study does not show that the benefit has occurred in proportion to its cost (so if the cost was estimated at $1 million and a reduction in crime of 10%, but only a 3% reduction occured because only $300K was spent it would still be good), the law is automatically repealed. BECAUSE IT WAS INEFFECTIVE.
You would have a few things happen. 1) Less legislation would get passed, since the public would balk when presented with the cost of many of their "safety" suggestions. 2) A lot of laws would get repealed simply because they are ineffective. 3) There would be an increase in corruption in the cost analysis and 5 year study programs. Personnally, I think the benefits of 1) and 2) outweigh the cost of 3).
When people who own guns have children, what should they do? I say they should remove the guns from the house entirely. That's the only way to ensure safety for the kids.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Statistically the kids are much more at risk of death from drinking any number of household cleaners around the house, or drowning in a bathtub.
Why the focus on guns and removing them from the home when the CDC data shows that there are a ton of things in the home that parents should be more worried about?
My opinion:
ReplyDeleteHaving a gun is a decision not to be taken lightly. Neither is having children.
If you choose to have both, it becomes your responsibility to protect that child from your firearms.
I believe this means making sure that the child does not have access to firearms or ammunition without adult supervision. There are various ways to accomplish this, but a degree of reality must be considered as well: Children are curious, and many go through a phase of being budding Houdinis...so the sock drawer or top shelf in your closet is NOT a safe place. If a gun is for 'self protection', it should be carried in a safe manner. If it's hidden away for use somewhere else, it's not going to be much more good than if it were locked up more safely somewhere. And yes, I believe many of the more responsible gun owners do this.
The other prong is education. As good as the intent of the 'Eddie Eagle' program, it still creates a level of mystery. The best education I've seem was a police officer who had an agreement with his children: They could examine his guns any time they requested, but they had to ask him, and he had to be there. When asked, he would bring out what they wanted to see, ensure it was unloaded, and let them examine it and show them how they worked. When they were done, they were put safely away. The children's main comment on it? "Those are heavy!" No mystery, an understanding that they were to be respected and not played with, and some safer kids.
Consider: would you rather pretend firearms don't exist, or deal with the possibility, due to the number of guns in this country, that they'll stumble across one either outside or in someone's home at some point in their young lives?
Freakonmics' analysis shows that children have a much higher chance of drowning in a home swimming pool than being accidentally shot, but if all it takes is a little education, isn't it worth it?
Weer'd mentioned kids playing with matches. That's a good point. I and many kids I knew played with matches much more than was safe. Some of us got burned a little and learned a lesson. If we'd come from homes like Weer'd's or Mike W.'s, and played with guns in the same way, the results might have been much worse than a few burned fingers and maybe a sleeve or two.
ReplyDeleteI reject totally all these rationalizations for keeping kids and guns in the same house.
Mike W. said it right. If you're gonna keep guns you gotta keep 'em loaded and accessible. So, just teach the kids not to touch, just like we do about matches. Good luck.
Reputo's got all the stats down, including that one about gun deaths going down while gun ownership is going up.
ReplyDeleteFatWhiteMan mentioned something the other day on another thread which all you stat boys conveniently leave out. One of the reasons the mortality rate goes down is the continually improving trauma care that's available. Not only are the machines and procedures always improving but the availability is spreading too.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteSince you refuse to discuss YOUR storage and safety practices here, I've posted about this at my place.
Feel free to stop by and let me know what you think.
I really would be interested in knowing if you live what you preach.
im not going to knock anyone who does so, but i know myself well enough to know that i just wouldnt be comfortable having a gun in my house with my child..
ReplyDelete"About gun-proofing the child, does anyone who has now, or ever has had an inquisitive five-year-old around the house believe this? Do you really believe the Eddie Eagle type education of young children, instructing them not to touch, works. I personally don't believe it and I would consider it the height of irresponsibility to depend upon such methods."
ReplyDeleteIt has been shown that Eddie Eagle does work but only a fool would depend upon it. We do not depend upon fire-retardant clothing to be the only protection from fire that our children have but instead it is one of many layers of protection. We would rather our children not be exposed to fire at all but if they are, then we like that extra bit of protection that might keep them from becoming a torch.
Likewise with firearms, responsible gun owners do not play a 10 minute Eddie Eagle video for the kids then open up the safe. No, we try all means to protect our children. Eddie Eagle is good repetitive training for the unexpected. Say you leave a gun out my mistake or your kids are at someone else's home and find a gun in the attic. Maybe Eddie Eagle program will remind them to leave it alone and get away from it.
One other method of gun proofing your child is to expose them to guns in a controlled manner. Let them see it while you are with them. This, it is argued, can remove some of the curiosity that could cause them to investigate on their own.
As for storage, you do have to balance the safety of your children with the need for access. When I was single and newly married, my carry gun was in the nightstand drawer if it was not on me. When my first born was able to crawl, I moved it to a high shelf. When she was able to walk, it was locked up. Even if you need a gun at reach, you don't need every gun you own at the continual ready, if you do you either don't have enough guns or you need to move. The bulk of your collection can be locked in a steel cabinet or safe. The gun you carry daily, when not on your person, can be kept in a small easy reach safe that is secure but can be readily opened by you but not curious hands. There are several products on the market that can accomodate.
Best option for a house with kids, where you still want to have the firearm available for self-defense, is a quick open safe. These are a small steel box, essentially, that have a combination on the top that's activated by hitting buttons in a certain sequence. Kind of like you would with trumpet valves. Hit the right sequence, the door flies open and you have access to the firearm. You have to practice to make sure you get the sequence right, even under stress.
ReplyDeleteBut even that's not an ideal option, because it depends on batteries, and has to be operated under stress and probably in darkness (fortunately, most of them can be done entirely by feel with practice).
It's a good solution for most people, but I don't think any means it's a prescription for everyone, which is what government mandates give you.
FatWhiteMan mentioned something the other day on another thread which all you stat boys conveniently leave out. One of the reasons the mortality rate goes down is the continually improving trauma care that's available. Not only are the machines and procedures always improving but the availability is spreading too.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why whenever possible (as in this case), I included injuries as well (while proper care can be the difference between a death and an injury, no amount of medical care turns a gunshot wound into a miss with no one hurt). CDC only has injury data back to 2000. However, once again if deaths AND injuries are steady (which is what the CDC shows) and guns per person are increasing (which every gun ownership survey that attempts to determine how many firearms are in the US shows), then overall the ratio of accidents (which resulted in death or injury) to guns is DECREASING.
Even if you count all of the incidents where no one was hit, the ratio is still decreasing. The definition of an accident is that it is unintentional, therefore non-sentient targets are just as likely (or more so since they are far more numerous) to be hit as a person. So while incidents where no one was hurt are 100 or 1000 or even 1000000 times the number of people injured or killed, since all targets are equally likely to be hit in an accident, if deaths and injuries are not increasing, then overall incidents are not increasing either.
As I stated before, once you correct for gang activity (which is criminal and therefore shouldn't be counted as accidental) the number of accidents for children is negligible (I estimated 250 per year). Which coincidentally, falls within the measurability error of the CDC's injury studies. In other words, since the CDC doesn't count every injury (deaths are a lot easy to count) but rather uses sampling to arrive at their numbers, any efforts that we made to decrease the injuries would not be detectable in the CDC's numbers. So, while we may see deaths decrease, as FWM and you and others (including myself) have pointed out there are lots of other explanations for that decrease than your safety law du jure.
im not going to knock anyone who does so, but i know myself well enough to know that i just wouldnt be comfortable having a gun in my house with my child..
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Pro-gun folks aren't going to bash you for your choice, or force their own choices upon you.
The anti-gunners are the ones who would deny personal choice.
I don't understand the big deal about guns and kids. Just take the kid shooting. They'll either learn to hate/fear guns or love them so much they want to learn how to safely handle them themselves.
ReplyDeleteEither outcome is a good way to keep them safe. The kids who are afraid of guns will never touch them and the kids who love guns will know how to safely handle them.
AztecRed describes it very nicely. A kid growing up in a very pro-gun home would be pretty safe under the AztecRed plan, I must admit.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I'm with Slyde.
I guess gun owners generally find some way to justify keeping the guns and non gun owners find it unacceptable. I wonder if any gun owners get rid of their guns when they start a family.
I'm with Slyde too!
ReplyDeleteif you don't want a gun in your house, don't get one.
MikeB you are NOT with slyde, as you instead say "I am not comfortable with a gun in my house so NOBODY should get one."
HUGE difference.
Did I really say, "I am not comfortable with a gun in my house so NOBODY should get one?"
ReplyDeleteNow, if you mean that's what YOU understand my overall attitude to be, fine, but if you say I actually said that, I'd ask you to prove it.
For someone who calls other people "liar" at every opportunity, you're pretty loose with your remarks, Weer'd.
Point taken.
ReplyDeleteI'll amend my comment, and hope for a prompt response.
Slyde's statement is of personal choice and responsibility. Guns are a big responsibility, if you don't want to take that on, don't own guns.
I 100% agree.
MikeB, you don't make such statements. You preach gun control, restrictions, bans, and dictate terms like "No house with children should have guns".
And since you make no statement about why those claims are reasonable, nor choose to defend them, you might as well be taking them all away.