The New York Times
A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available.
As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.
This bears repeating since some of our favorite commenters still seem to not get it.
In re-posting this I wondered if in the same way the number of gun deaths could be under-reported.
There is a difference between misclassified and missed. Do you think "gun deaths" are being classified as hearth disease or something?
ReplyDeleteWell, looking at that document in which "homicide" is ticked instead of something more specific related to guns, I wonder. Perhaps the nearly 70% of all murders being committed with guns is also under-reported.
DeleteMikeb, WTF? Did you notice the cause of death?
Delete"Perhaps the nearly 70% of all murders being committed with guns is also under-reported."
DeleteMike, if you look at the illustration above you'll see the check-boxes where the medical examiner chooses manner of death, and then below it, the cause of death is typed out. So there is no suggestion that deaths caused by guns being left out.
Plus, the caption in the article explains it well,
"But the state medical examiner classified her death as a homicide, a common practice for unintentional firearm deaths in which one person shoots another."
For example, a self inflicted accidental death couldn't be listed as a homicide.
I see that in the example provided, but the sloppiness with which these things are often filled out brings into question the accuracy not only regarding murder vs. accidental but about other things as well. Don't you think?
DeleteNo, Mikeb, I don't agree with that. Professionals do make errors, but most of the time, they get things right.
DeleteProfessionals? You mean the clerks who fill out these forms and then get the doctor to sign?
DeleteTwice a small number is still small, and I don't see how gun deaths could be underreported.
ReplyDeleteGee, Doc, is that hole in the body the result of gunfire?
Well, I don't know. There are many things in heaven and earth that are not accounted in our philosophy...
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe CDC data is supposed to be accurate because it is based on it getting data from death certificates which are required to be submitted.
I'm not understanding why you're making a big deal about this. I would call it an inadvertent accurization of data. I tend to think that many "accidents" are actually negligence. So these instances of misclassifying cause of death actually makes the data more truthful.
As we discussed before though, both sets of numbers are going down over time.
Well, first of all, all accidents are negligence. The mechanical failure bullshit is about a frequent as meteorite strikes. Secondly, it's a big deal because this shows how the CDC stats are wrong. There are twice as many "accidental" gun deaths as we thought and there may be a higher percentage of overall homicides done with guns than we thought.
DeleteYou're guessing again, Mikeb.
Delete"There are twice as many "accidental" gun deaths as we thought and there may be a higher percentage of overall homicides done with guns than we thought."
DeleteThe total number of deaths doesn't seem to be disputed in this article. They are showing that "accidental" gun deaths are being classified as homicides, which in my mind and seemingly in the minds of medical examiners is accurate. You also seem to agree that accidents are actually negligent homicide.
Where do you suppose the numbers for homicides are actually being diverted to?
What are you talking about? I never said the total number of deaths is under-reported. I understand that it's simply a case of mis-classifying accidents as murders. The whole point is you guys love to tell us how few accidental deaths there are, Greg even called us histrionic about it. It now seems there are twice as many as we all thought. That's significant. I, and many others, thought you guys were cold-hearted bastards BEFORE, and often appealed to you to stop downplaying the number of deaths by portraying them as a tiny percentage. Now maybe you'll listen.
DeleteMikeb, guesses are not proof. What do you mean by saying that the number of deaths is underreported? Are you saying that people die and the coroner just doesn't notice? Are you saying that the coroner fails to recognize a gunshot for what it is? You're making less sense than usual.
DeleteYou speculated that the number of "gun deaths" could be under reported.
DeleteGreg are you playing dumb again? Haven't you read the stories about this? They made it clear that the folks who fill out these forms often put accidental firearms deaths down as simple homicides. The CDC then counts them in the wrong column. But you knew all this, didn't you?
DeleteWhen you have nothing better to offer, you play dumb and make the discussion as tedious as possible. And you wonder why some of the gun-control bloggers don't accept your comments.
Mikeb, you're making no sense. If a gunshot death gets classified as a homicide or an accident, it's still a gun death. There may be confusion at the margins about the two subtypes, but the total number of gunshot deaths will remain the same.
DeleteGreg, you're being purposeful obtuse again to drag the thread into the mud of tedium. I'm not questioning the total number of gun deaths, and you fucking know it. I'm pointing out that there are twice as many accidents as we used to think which makes all your bullshit about what a small percentage the accidents are compared to the total number of guns half a valid. And I thought it was pretty invalid before.
DeleteMike, the purpose of your repost was to draw question to overall "gun deaths" being under reported. That's what you said.
DeleteMikeB: "In re-posting this I wondered if in the same way the number of gun deaths could be under-reported."
Mikeb, you haven't proved that the number is twice what is quoted. You have claimed that. But even if that were true, twice is 1,200, not 600. That's still a tiny percentage of total gun owners.
DeleteTS, that was definitely not the "purpose" of my post. It was an aside, a quip. The purpose of the post was captured perfectly in the title. But you knew that didn't you? You're imitating Greg now and it's a drag - you're usually better than that.
DeleteAlways nice to see two lawbreakers disregard deaths as just another number.
ReplyDeleteSo Anon, I've actually been bestowed with the official "lawbreaker" title like Greg? For cool.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about TS. Why are you so paranoid?
DeleteI'm sure Sarge supports the first amendment too, making him equally a "law breaker" in your mind.
DeleteTS,
DeleteContinued lies from a proven criminal. Keep playing your games, you are losing and everyone is laughing at you. I love it.
Why haven't you called the cops on me? You even have "proof".
DeleteYou say that showing sympathy to someone who commits a crime is in itself a crime. Not only that, but not agreeing that it is a crime (because of free speech), is also a crime.
DeleteYeah sure, they're laughing at me.
Unlike you and Greg, I don't threaten people with legal action just because they are coward liars. Where is Greg's letter from his attorney suing me for liable?
Delete"You say that showing sympathy to someone who commits a crime is in itself a crime."
DeleteA perfect example of a cowards lie. I never said that, but keep lying we all need a good laugh. You two criminal liars provide plenty of hilarity.
Steve, I said that you committed libel. But you're not worth my time.
DeleteI never said I would sue you for libel. In fact, I specifically said I wouldn't, sue you therefore there is no need to blackmail me by withholding proof of my crimes from the police. If you have evidence of me committing crimes, do your civic duty and take it to the police. Don't let me get away with it. It's that simple.
DeleteRegarding what Greg said, all I saw in the thread that kicked this whole thing off is him saying he felt for the guy who assaulted the drug dealer. You took that to be a threat crime. All I did was say that what Greg said is not a crime, and is in fact protected under free speech- and now you call me a criminal too.
Greg caught in another lie. Another lying criminal excuse to not respond to his criminal statements.
DeleteGive it up TS, you still want to play your silly lying games, I'm not playing with a criminal liar like you. Get me charged with a crime.
Steve, you repeatedly call me a criminal, despite having no evidence to back that up. That means that you have committed the tort of libel. The fact that your opinion is worthless means that there's no point for me in pursuing the matter.
DeleteWhat do you mean by "get me charged with a crime". Are you saying if you made bogus reports to the police they might charge you with a crime?
DeleteYou two cowards are proving everything Steve says, you are nothing but coward liars. On with your misdirection, lies, and changing the subject instead of responding to the proof.
DeleteI've responded to the "proof". Why don't you take it to the police and see if they share my response or yours?
DeleteYou responded with lies. Respond with true facts, but I know you cannot.
DeleteSteve, point to one lie. Just one. Show where it occurs, and show facts that are contrary to the statement being made.
DeleteI did, and Mike has pointed out your lies many times. Will you leave now? You said you would when proven you lied, that has been done many times.
DeleteAs I've said to your side many times, claims are not the same thing as proof. You have that confused. Proof involves showing evidence and linking that evidence together with logic.
DeleteKeep trying. It's fun to watch you fail.
Your own words prove you are lying when you try to defend yourself. Which proves you are a liar.
DeleteNext lie.
By the way, Mike, in the title of your post, you meant to say, "under reported by 50%". To say they under reported by 100% means they reported zero child accidental gun deaths.
ReplyDeleteI hate to question the Math Master on anything to do with math, but are you sure about that? Doesn't my title simply mean what was reported was half of the true figure? If the true figure is 100, say, and you put it at 50, that's an under-reporting by 100% not 50%. Yes or no?
Delete