Every year, almost 3,200 children and teens die from gunfire, and another 17,450 are injured.
And Statistic of the Month
The firearms used by American youth ages 19 and younger in 90% of firearm suicide attempts and completions, and in 72% unintentional firearm deaths and injuries, were stored in the residence of the victim, their relative, or their friend. On average, 68% of suicides for youth ages 15-24 are committed with guns.
-- Grossman, DC, Reay DR, Baker SA. “Self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries among children and adolescents: the source of the firearm.” Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, August 1999;153:875-8; American Association of Suicidology, Washington, DC, 1998.
And while you're at it--check out this blog post:
Gunfire Deaths in Children vs Pro-Life A Political Double Standard
Come on, why don't you go there and point out how better gun laws aren't the answer?
Afraid for showing yourselves up for being ignorant &%$£s!
Laci, when have you ever restrained yourself from using foul language? Why don't I want to visit Kid Shootings? It's run by Baldr Odinson, that's why. The other link that you gave goes to a site that doesn't appear to have a comments section, so you may be asking for the impossible on that one.
ReplyDeleteQuite frequently.
DeleteOn the other hand, Greg, when have you shown that you can be intellectually honest?
Don't you criticise myself and Dog Gone for being "prigs"?
Don't you also claim to know about the English language (and Chaucer). I also remember your taking me to task for using the term "git" to describe you using the original meaning.
The original use of these terms was in no way considered "foul", in fact, they were used in polite society.
I could write a book on how you are intellectually dishonest as you then go on to use the source fallacy--the blog is written by Baldr Odinson, it must be incorrect.
To be quite honest saying you are intellectually dishonest is being exceedingly genourous to your intellectual abilities, Greg,
For that matter, so is calling you a fuckwit.
They don't want to visit and leave comments because having hundreds of stories a month of gun violence and children is a bit too inconvenient to their "more guns for more people is good" argument. Victims, in general, are inconvenient for them, but especially children.
ReplyDeleteThe blindingly horrifying statistics are a bit too hard for people to grasp. But when you see and read articles on the individual shootings, the tragedies go beyond "numbers" and hit you hard with the fact that too little is being done to prevent the shootings and access of guns to minors.
By the way, Greg, I'm not the only blogger there. Currently there are two other bloggers contributing from other organizations.
Laying aside the faulty appeal to emotion, do you allow comments there? Do you allow comments on New Trajectory? Are comments moderated? Do you allow comments that differ from your own position?
DeleteI don't see the point of visiting a site that forces the discussion about articles to follow only the author's opinion. I also don't see the point of wallowing in scant news stories that don't give enough detail to determine the causes of the events. (Don't say it's just guns--life is more complex than that.) The fact that you call the information there horrifying tells me what I need to know about the editorial opinion to be found.
I don't know if you'll comprehend this, but try to understand that I recognize freedom to be dangerous. It would be meaningless if it weren't. I value it nonetheless.
"The blindingly horrifying statistics are a bit too hard for people to grasp."
Delete-----
Not really. According to the CDC's preliminary figures, there were 600 accidental deaths attributable to firearms in the U.S. in 2010. Six times as many people accidentally drowned. Fifty-eight times as many were killed in motor vehicle accidents. Homicide actually dropped out of the "Top 15" this year.
What does allowing comments or not have to do with anything?
DeleteThis blog about child victims is doing a wonderful service. As Baldr said it's a terrible blow to the nonsensical argument that guns do more good than harm.
Try visiting it, Greg.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I'd like to point out, when you write that you "recognize freedom to be dangerous" it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to justify the 3000 dead and 17,500 injured children a year. Sorry, but your "freedom" is too deadly and needs better regulation. I don't feel that those numbers are acceptable or justifiable.
Moonshine, feel free to advocate for safer swimming or motor vehicles. I'll join you.
ReplyDeleteYour shallow argument that advocating for fewer firearm deaths of children is somehow unimportant because other things kill people is specious. To use an analogy, that's like saying we shouldn't find a way of reducing strokes because more people die of heart disease. Apparently you feel, like Greg, that 3000 kid deaths and 17,500 kid injuries from gunfire is acceptable, or that 100,000 shootings in America is acceptable.
Here's an idea: how about trying to find a way of reducing these numbers, for a change, instead of selfishly wallowing in your fetish.
No, we just don't trust you. You call for reason, but what we see in your proposals points at a total ban on private ownership of firearms. You're not an advocate for greater safety and responsibility. You want to take guns away.
DeleteI've never called for a total gun ban, nor think it's a possibility. And if you think you are a mind-reader, you are dismal at it. Your paranoia is showing, Greg.
DeleteBaldr, I'm sure you recognize one of the common arguing techniques of the pro-gun crowd. The accuse us of wanting a total ban on guns and then argue against that as if we really said it.
DeleteThe is an example of the intellectual dishonesty I've accused Greg of before.
I suppose the reason he and the others keep doing it is because they realize how callous and self-centered they sound opposing what we really do suggest.
"3000 kid deaths"
ReplyDelete-----
Perhaps you could share your source? CDC's preliminary 2010 data only shows 621 homicides in the age range of 1 to 14 years.
This number was published in a report by the Children's Defense Fund:
Deletehttp://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns.html
Wow moonshine found a way to reduce the number by over 2000 deaths... good job!
ReplyDeleteMooneshine must be a conservative. His way to reduce the number of deaths is to lie like a tea partier about slavery.
DeleteFrom the most recent CDC data I could find, since you like that source:
The United States child homicide rate, 2.6 per 100,000 for children less than 15 years of age, is five times greater than the combined rate of 25 other industrialized countries.8
and here is the footnoted source:
CDC. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm related deaths among children–26 industrialized countries. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 1997;46:101–5.
In 2005, firearms were the mechanism of injury in approximately 84% of homicides and 46% of suicides among children and adolescents aged 5-19 years.5
and here is that footnoted reference
CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Office of Statistics and Programming. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Online at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/. Accessed October 8, 2008.
It's not 'either-or'. Getting rid of the guns and eliminating the gun culture would dramatically reduce ALL of the different kinds of gun violence. That would include the kids who were killed in the mass shootings of the weekly - multiple murder / suicides occurring EVERY WEEK - that we have in this country. It would dramatically reduce the firearms suicides which is responsible for such a large loss of life among kids and young adults as well.
There is just no spin you can put on this that justifies the guns and the gun culture. NONE. NADA. ZIP.
You cannot successfully just push the stats off on criminals generally or on gangs. There are plenty of people who either have not been caught and convicted who do violent things with guns - the 40% of the families of law enforcement who experience domestic violence, much of it gun related is an example.
But we post stories here all the time of those events. The drunken dumbass in Wassilla who got into a shoot out with his wife because they both mistook each other for a home intruder comes to mind as a prime example. NOT apparently a gang member, or criminal.
The dangers to yourselves and to the rest of us with how you keep and use firearms far outweighs what is arguably not even legitimately or properly categorized as a right.
And yet, there are hundreds of millions of guns and about a hundred million gun owners in this country. Why aren't we all dead? If firearms and their owners are as bad as you claim, there should be no one left alive. The situation looks much more to be one in which a tiny percentage of gun owners commit the vast portion of irresponsible acts and crimes. Your proposals are collective punishment against all of us for the actions of a tiny few.
DeleteTo me it seems up to the 18th birthday should be counted as a kid. Above that is adult.
DeleteAlthough, I suspect that Baldr counts the next age group which probably goes up to or past 18 as kid deaths. I bet the best solution to reducing those deaths would be to stop criminal gang activity.
ReplyDeleteSo, was Meleanie Hain a gang member?
DeleteIndeed, let's address the problem of teen gangs, but not in place of sensible gun control. Those "kids" should not have such easy access to guns.
DeleteIn other words, let's use any excuse to take away guns? No thanks, and no deal.
DeleteNo. Not 'any excuse'. Reasonable basis for regulation and limitation.
DeleteIt's not up to either of us individually.
However you cannot justifiably have so little regard for the life of others and then claim a greater value for your own.
You do anyway, but we've already established beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are intellectually dishonest and an unethical fuckwit.
Anonymous, the Kid Shooting blog only reflects ages 17 and under. The numbers I cited came from the reference below, and might include up to age 19:
Deletehttp://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2010-report.pdf
Gangs are responsible for many shootings, but as the blog shows, most shootings reported in the media are not directly linked to gang activity, and some of those that state that the shooter was a gang member, the reason for the shooting wasn't actually gang-related (such as accidental shootings, or jealous rages over a girlfriend).
DeleteBaldr Odinson,
DeleteThat site also names times when the police have to shoot a teenager in the commission of a crime.
Dog Gone,
It's not that I have no regard for human life beyond my own. I just don't believe that your solutions will work here. You can't get rid of American guns, practically or politically, and even if you disarmed good citizens, criminals would still have weapons. You point to Europe time and time again, but Europe has a different history with firearms from America's. There are also too many guns in this country for your proposals to take anything less than several generations to be taken out of circulation. We can't stop drugs or illegal immigrants from crossing our borders. What makes you think that we could keep guns from flowing this way?
If you would focus on things that actually work--policing techniques, safety programs, etc.--you'd have my support. But your efforts to disarm private citizens is misguided and wrong.
"most shootings reported in the media"
ReplyDelete-----
So, there is room for agreement on media bias? [hopeful grin]
I don't think they do enough reporting, if that's what you mean by media bias. Laci and my co-blogger Penigma both have expressed concerns about the main stream media in fact being too conservative, and in the examples to which they've pointed, they were correct.
Delete