Tuesday, November 15, 2011

How Does a Gun Control Advocate Teach His Kid About Guns? Part II

My boy Alessio, whom I wrote about a couple months ago, has discovered video games. Up until now, he's played only racing games on the computer, both on the Wii and internet free sites.  I've watched him learn how to navigate, use the mouse, write the few words he needs to do searches.  I'd help when he asks or needs it, but I believe in as little interference as possible, always keeping an eye on what's on the screen. Suddenly, what I knew I'd see sooner or later was there, a shooting video game.

As I watched over his shoulder, he thinking I was still reading, I reflected on what it means.  What does he think as he hits the right key to blow away the enemy figure?  Does he feel something? Is there a connection between that simple game and real killing?  If a kid immersed himself in the more realistic video games, and spends hours a day playing, would that cause damage?
I remembered a recent post in which I declared toy guns should be banned. "Ban the sumbitches" is what I said.  The reason I had in mind was the fact that nowadays toy guns often look extremely realistic.  Cops, and others, mistake them for the real thing. People get hurt as a result, and more often than that law enforcement resources are wasted.

But, watching my boy playing that video game, his first, I realized there's something even worse, even more insidious than the relatively rare incidents in which toy guns are mistaken for real ones.  I was watching the very beginning of the inevitable and unavoidable progression that boys go through, video games, toy guns, real guns.

The lessons learned by countless repetitions of shooting and killing on the computer screen are eventually augmented by the BB guns and airsoft weapons young boys play with, and this is then all replaced , in some cases, with real guns. From beginning to end, it's about killing, and for the most part, about killing other humans.  That's sick.

What I saw Alessio doing the other day is sick.  Playing cops and robbers, or whatever kids play these days, is sick.  Shooting at paper targets or animals is sick. But how can I help? What can I do to help my boy?  I don't want to forbid and deny, surely that adds an element of curiosity and intrigue to the whole business.  I certainly don't want to encourage these sick pursuits either. Hopefully, Alessio will grow into a secure young man with enough common sense and rationality that he'll outgrow these childish interests. That's what I'll try to help him with.

What's your opinion?  Would it be better to shield him from the video games entirely?  He's only 7. With a good effort, I could probably keep him away from them for another year or two. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.


  1. I have a six week old daughter. She's getting a pink Ruger 10/22 on her fourth birthday.

    It sounds like you're going to make your boy weak and neurotic if you worry about stupid shit like this.

  2. Will you be putting an obit on your blog for her if she accidentally shoots herself, or another child?

    The stats on guns in the home don't look like this is a good decision on your part.

    But then this would be the target mentality for maturity that you are after, isn't it?

  3. "What I saw Alessio doing the other day is sick. Playing cops and robbers, or whatever kids play these days, is sick. Shooting at paper targets or animals is sick."

    Where do you draw your line? Are squirt guns sick? Is someone shooting rubberbands at someone else sick? Dodgeball, is that sick?

  4. I'm far more worried about car accidents, drownings, falls, and caustic cleaning chemicals. These are far more dangerous for young children, though the don't look as scary as ZOMG GUNS.

  5. If it's any consolation, my parents tried the same silliness that you're attempting. You know what that led to. To borrow from a Bible verse, train up a child in the way that he should go, and in the end thereof, he'll run away from it as fast as he can. Your son will grow up to be the person that he's going to be, and if you try to fight his interests and personality, you'll fail. If, on the other hand, you teach him to be a moral person who achieves good in his life, he may not be a copy of you, but he'll be a worthy citizen.

    I don't understand why you say that it's sick to shoot at paper targets or animals. (You're revealing your dislike of firearms there.) Humans have hunted and have practiced the necessary skills for as long as we've been. It's part of who we are. We've also played cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians or something like that for a long time. Teach your son to control the natural violent impulse. Teach him to know when to use it and when to restrain it.

  6. It's sick because it's about killing.

    In my post I just asked some questions. I didn't hit the esc button and put him back on the racing game.

    Not My Real Name, I'd say the line is somewhere between rubberbands and water pistols, depending on the kid's attitude.

  7. Hahah, really? Water pistols are verboten? I'll admit Mike, that I was just poking a little fun with that post. But now my mind is racing to come up with other goofy things that you couldn't possibly let your kids play.

  8. Mikeb302000,

    So you're admitting here that you don't like hunting. You said that it's sick to shoot paper. I take it that your ultimate point is that there is no reason for private ownership of firearms whatsoever?

  9. mike - aren't all of the shooter games rated M for mature? As a parent, it is wrong for you to let a 7 year old play this game. You wouldn't sit your son down in front of a porno movie to see what he does would you? Take your responsibility as a parent seriously and control what sort of entertainment you allow your children to partake in.

  10. “It seems to me there’s a progression here, of which we’re in the very beginning. Some kids play video shooting games, some of them graduate to realistic toy guns for “playing,” and some of them go on to own and use the real thing. All of it is about pretend killing. But, what should a gun-control advocate who understands these things and cares for his son’s welfare, do?”

    This arguement is the same as the “Smoking is a Gateway Drug”. Correlation is not causation. Lots of people who smoke weed also smoke crack. The one didnt cause the other. There are a greater number of people that smoke weed that will never smoke crack.

    Video games wont make your kid a killer. Neither will using real guns in a supervised and constructive way.

    So Lighten up dude, let your boy play video games (but only after he has done his homework, chores, and played outside for a while). He’ll be fine so long as he has a father and mother that give him the experiences and context necessary to understand that video games are just that, Games. Real life is a real life and there is a big difference. Despite what some folks belive, most kids understand this quite well.

    I have a boy that is almost 3yrs old. I play Call of Duty and other violent video games, and NO I dont let him watch or play these games yet. In fact we were watching the news last night and I covered his eyes when they were covering the violence in Syria. He is not old enough to understand that kind of instanity.

    When he gets older I will let him play whatever he wants. How old? I dont know but I figure I will know it when he gets there.

    I will also teach him to shoot real guns when he gets older. I will also teach him right and wrong and many other things.

    as to Dog Gone's comment about accidental shootings and kids. Those kinds of accidents are EASY to prevent. Lock your guns up and teach your kids basic gun safety. My mother and father had dozens of guns when I was growing up. My parents did not allow us to use them un-superivzed. I never shot myself or anyone else.

    Also if you look at the numbers of accidental shootings (that result in fatalities) vs other accidental deaths,say drowning (http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm) you are about three times more likely to drown than you are to die by accidental shooting.

    Accidental shootings that result in deaths are relatively rare...probably because they are so easy to prevent.

  11. Welcome Tiger the Dog, you appear to be new here.

    When you reference smoking as a gateway drug being a fallacy, I would take issue with you. Cigarette smoking, no. But there are distinct problems with marijuana, particularly those problems are more acute depending on the age of the user.

    I find neurobiology fascinating, and tend to follow scientific studies in the subject. Other people download music; I download science updates on my ipod.

    So you may perhaps be unaware of the following:
    Daily Pot Smoking May Hasten Onset of Psychosis

    ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2009) — Progression to daily marijuana use in adolescence may hasten the onset of symptoms leading up to psychosis, an Emory University study finds. The study was published in the November issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.
    See Also:
    Mind & Brain


    Plants & Animals

    Biochemistry Research


    Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia
    Delusions of parasite infestation

    The researchers analyzed data from 109 hospitalized patients who were experiencing their first psychotic episode. The results showed that patients who had a history of using marijuana, or cannabis, and increased to daily pot smoking experienced both psychotic and pre-psychotic symptoms at earlier ages.

    "We were surprised that it wasn't just whether or not they used cannabis in adolescence that predicted the age of onset, rather it was how quickly they progressed to becoming a daily cannabis user that was the stronger predictor," said Michael Compton, lead author and assistant professor of psychiatry in the Emory School of Medicine.

    The study also found a gender difference: The female subjects who progressed to daily pot smoking had a greater increased risk for the onset of psychosis than the males.

    Marijuana is the most abused illicit substance among people with schizophrenia, the most extreme form of psychosis, and previous research has shown that smoking pot is likely a risk factor for the disease.

    The Emory study also focused on what is known as the prodromal period, when a person has symptoms such as unusual sensory experiences, which are often precursors to frank hallucinations and delusions. Prodromal symptoms can occur months, or years, before a diagnosis of psychosis. About 30 to 40 percent of prodomal teenagers will eventually develop schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder.

    "The prodromal period is especially important because it's considered to be a critical time for preventive intervention," says Elaine Walker, a co-investigator of the study and professor of psychology and neuroscience at Emory.

    The study also involved researchers from Emory's Rollins School of Public Health and Georgia State University. It was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.

  12. Dog Gone,

    Typcially, you picked on a minor quibble with a minor point and ignored the bulk of the argument that TigertheDog was making.

    Why can't you address the main idea of the comment? Could it be that you have no answer?

  13. also these other related articles from science daily:
    Related Stories
    Psychotic Illness Appears to Begin at Younger Age Among Those Who Use Cannabis (Feb. 8, 2011) — Cannabis use appears to be associated with an earlier onset of psychotic illness, according to a meta-analysis of previously published ... > read more
    Daily Consumption Of Cannabis Predisposes To Appearance Of Psychosis And Schizophrenia, Study Finds (Mar. 26, 2009) — A study carried out in Spain has analyzed the characteristics of the psychosis provoked by the continuous consumption of cannabis. The research was carried out with a sample of 92 patients with ... > read more

    Long-Time Cannabis Use Associated With Psychosis (Mar. 2, 2010) — Young adults who have used cannabis or marijuana for a longer period of time appear more likely to have hallucinations or delusions or to meet criteria for psychosis, according to a new ... > read more

    So while marijuana is probably not a gateway drug for hard drugs like cocaine or heroine, it is used by some 85% of people who also use cocaine and heroine. The correlation appears to be one of a predisposition to drug use.

    Interestingly, cigarette and alcohol use among kids also correlates to marijuana use, with cigarettes and alcohol appearing to act as gateway drugs to use of marijuana.

    The age at which one uses legal drugs like alcohol, or nicotine in cigarettes makes a big difference in the safety of that use and in legal versus illegal behavior.

    The same could be said of violence, and certainly the depiction or glorification of violence at different ages.

  14. From the Michigan Public Health Institute:

    Accidental Firearm
    Fact Sheet
    In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Unintentional injuries are usually caused when children play with guns or are hunting.>

    Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S. But of this two percent, children and adolescents are involved in 55% of these deaths. The majority of the injuries occur to children playing with or showing the weapons to friends. The easy availability of firearms is believed to be the number one risk factor for unintentional firearm deaths."

    While I would agree with Tiger that these are largely preventable deaths, there is no legal requirement that guns be secured properly - trigger locks, gun safe, etc. Therefore gun deaths of children which were preventable do not appear usually to result in prosecution of criminal negligence.

    They should. Clearly children are disproportionately in danger of gun accidents.

    Recently under the guise of being anonymous, a person I believe to be Andrew Rothman wrote that he planned to give his daughter a pink firearm on her fourth birthday.

    I wrote something pretty harsh in reply. The reason is that to give a child of that age a pink gun blurs the distinction between a toy and a serious weapon. It is also extremely questionable that a child of that age has the ability fully to make distinctions between fact and fiction, realistic fantasy and reality. Children do not possess the same judgment with a dangerous weapon that adults do.

    I have no doubt that Mr. Rothman loves his child and is not intending to put her at risk. But it is not necessary to have a weapon be pink for it to appeal to girls or women. Rather making something that color tends to trivialize it, not feminize it.

    It suggests to me that this man needs to learn a lot more about what is age appropriate, what is safe, and most of all about gender differences in children. He has some screwed up ideas about the opposite sex.

  15. Dog Gone,

    In your infodump, you failed to point out one key point:

    "The easy availability of firearms is believed to be the number one risk factor for unintentional firearm deaths."

    Is believed to be is one way of saying, we just don't know. It's another way of saying, we're letting our biases form our conclusions.

  16. Gee Greg, maybe instead of viewing this stuff as an info dump, you should instead read more of it, instead of cherry picking a sentence out of context.

    What it means, taken in the full context of what has been written is that this is a preliminary conclusion based on accumulated evidence and data, but that the authors here were not prepared to make an even more definitive statement.

    It does not mean what you claim, when you write:"Is believed to be is one way of saying, we just don't know. It's another way of saying, we're letting our biases form our conclusions."

    That would be a bit more of that intellectual dishonesty on your part, that ignores the facts supporting the statement. There aren't a lot of facts disproving any of it.

  17. GC: No. This gets into a discussion of the meaning of correlation vs. causation.
    When scientists or MDs or other professionals use terminology such as " is believed to be the number one risk factor for...", they are talking about correlation.

    And while correlation is not causation, correlation is quite telling and plays an important role in everyone's life. For example, many people believe cigarette smoking causes cancer and other health problems. In fact, medical science cannot state this. What they can state is that there's a strong correlation between smoking and cancer and other health problems. Medical researchers know that some small population (~5%) will experience no associated health issues regardless of how much they smoke. Yet, you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor who would tell you it's ok for you to smoke.

    It's telling that gunloon organizations simply cannot point to any studies or research that support their beliefs.

  18. Tiger addressed a comment to an earlier one of mine, writing:
    as to Dog Gone's comment about accidental shootings and kids. Those kinds of accidents are EASY to prevent. Lock your guns up and teach your kids basic gun safety. My mother and father had dozens of guns when I was growing up. My parents did not allow us to use them un-superivzed. I never shot myself or anyone else.

    Also if you look at the numbers of accidental shootings (that result in fatalities) vs other accidental deaths,say drowning (http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm) you are about three times more likely to drown than you are to die by accidental shooting.

    Accidental shootings that result in deaths are relatively rare...probably because they are so easy to prevent.

    When you have children as 55% of accidental deaths, considering the range of ages of the remaining 45%, that is a huge percentage of children who die.

    To claim that other hazards exist doesn't alter that this is one hazard about which we can do much more than we do. They AREN'T being prevented. THAT is the problem.

    Tiger makes some very good suggestions; I'm not sure that he is taking into consideration however the neurological differences specific to different ages as children and teens mature. Figuring you'll just guess is pretty imprecise without that information when addressing a deadly weapon.

    I believe that there is a lot more that we need to learn about how violence in entertainment - of all kinds - transfers into behavior.

    Again, a thorough reading however of the material I quoted, addressing the social learning theory of criminal behavior does address what predisposes kids to crime, including very specifically violence. I'm not going to try to encapsulate an entire field of study, but it is closer to supporting MikeB's position than Tiger's.

    Although I do heartily agree with Tiger that good involved parents are important. It does not always outweigh the influence from other sources, including peers who glorify violence.

  19. Jadegold,

    I'm well aware of the difference between correlation and causation. I know that the link between smoking and disease was at first only one of high correlation. But correlation does not imply causation. It merely suggests the possibility.

    Could it be that in the case of firearms injuries and deaths, other factors are also involved? Do the studies take into account training in the use of firearms? Do they include data on the educational levels of those who are injured versus those who aren't? How about economic factors?

    Dog Gone presents volumes of information, but as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. Unless you can show me that there is a one-to-one relationship between firearms ownership and firearms misuse, you're not going to convince me to give up my rights. My argument is not based on data; it's based on the rights of the individual. Rights aren't quantifiable, and neither are human beings, at least not fundamentally.

  20. GC, you may wish the volumes of data were irrelevant, but they are very pertinent and applicable.

    You write:"My argument is not based on data;"; no your entire position is based largely on emotion, not rational conclusions from data.

    When you write:
    "Unless you can show me that there is a one-to-one relationship between firearms ownership and firearms misuse, you're not going to convince me to give up my rights."

    Your rights are not absolute; they co-exist in balance with other rights.

    So long as the ownership of guns correlates to gun violence, it is absolutely NOT essential to demonstrate a 1 to 1 correlation. It is only necessary to show sufficient cause for that regulation; our gun violence stats, accidental, homicide and suicide, as well as threat of gun violence in stalking and domestic violence and other crime more than meets any REASONABLE basis for that.

  21. GC: I'm unsure you fully understand the distinction between correlation and causation.

    For example, DG has provided a number of references that demonstrate strong correlations between gun ownership and gun misuse.

    I'll add a famous one: Dr. Kellermann's 1993 study showing guns in the home associated with a 2.7x greater risk of homicide.

  22. Jadegold,

    Kellerman's study has been the subject of much criticism about his methods. You say that the correlation between gun ownership and gun misuse is strong, but I call it weak, given the number of gun owners in America. That number varies, depending on the source, but about 1/3 of American households have a gun--around 100,000,000. The number of injuries and deaths also varies by source, but the combined number is under 300,000 from all causes. I do have to wonder if the same people aren't injuring themselves over and over, in a manner similar to the way that divorce statistics are skewed by some people having serial marriages, but even if each injury or death is a unique event, the number of injuries and deaths is small, compared to the total number of gun owners.

    Dog Gone,

    Please explain to me how any argument about social policy or human affairs doesn't ultimately come down to emotion. Facts and logic tell us how to achieve the goals that we want, but they cannot choose those goals for us.

    I can draw rational conclusions from data, but only about those data. What set of data is the important one? What should I do with my conclusions? The answer to those questions comes from our desires. As I said in another comment, you cannot justify human existence on facts and logic alone. We have the right to exist because we want to do so. We have the right to choose the course of our lives because we want to do so.

  23. What we identify as moral rights change and evolve over time. A good example is slavery; the Bible approves it, our Constitution included it. Subsequently we now accept as obvious that for one person to own another is abhorrent.

    Did we suddenly develop a new innate right?

    No, our perception and agreement of moral right led to changes in our civil rights. Civil rights are the legal / political rights we have by consensus.

    I find Greg that you don't properly distinguish between the two. They are related, clearly; but they are not the same, nor are they absolute and immutable. Never have been, never will be.

    Simply 'wanting' anything is not sufficient for it to be either a moral or civil right. To suggest otherwise indicates a lack of understanding of either moral or civil or legal rights. They are not the same,and they are frequently not identical. Rather they change over time.

  24. GC: Actually, Kellermann's studies are endorsed by the scientific and medical communities. There is no honest or objective criticism of Kellermann.

    BTW, Kellermann's methodology is the same as was used to establish a link between smoking and cancer/health issues.

  25. I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops with my boy. I'll keep you posted.

  26. Jadegold,

    I note that you've ignored the numbers that I presented. Just how is it that there are so many guns and gun owners in this country and so few deaths and injuries? If Kellerman were right, the country should have been depopulated by now.

  27. “It's sick because it's about killing.”

    Well, human beings have been killing since we evolved from earlier primates. And we still do it – by the millions – every day. Killing is just about as normal, natural and common among the human species as having sex.

    What's “sick” is your perverted denial of human nature. And your obsession with brainwashing your child.

  28. Mikeb302000,

    Here's a couple of questions that I imagine you've heard before:

    Do you eat meat (including fish)?
    Do you use leather?

    If you answer yes to either of those, you are involved in the killing of an animal. The only question then is why you aren't willing to do the act yourself.

    I do hope that your answer to both is no. At least then, you'd be consistent.

  29. Kellerman's study was excellent. As a statistician and epidemiologist, I have read the study. It is sound. Idiots say "it's correlation", but so what? You cannot do a designed experiment about this, so this is a stupid and idiotic comment. You have nothing but correlational evaluations. In the Kellerman case, he did a very nice case-control study.

  30. Of course children should be exposed to guns. In my own case, I am a rabid gun-control advocate. In high school, I was in Rifle Club, and took my gun to school (pause to allow this to sink in) on Wed so that we could go to the police rifle range and shoot in the afternoon. I got up to Marksman 2nd Class when the NRA cared about shooting. Today, I am opposed to most types of gun ownership.

  31. There is a continuum of strength of evidence. Beginning with observations and single cases, continuing through retrospective evaluations, up to case-control and other epidemiological studies, and ending with randomized controlled trials, you get stronger and stronger evidence. In today's world, the NIH and other federal agencies know that case-control and other studies are the best you can do in certain areas, and these are currently considered highly appropriate and reasonable ways of doing certain types of research. With case-control studies, you gather evidence more slowly. The evidence is unmistakable at this time - having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of a death by shooting from 3-10X. You can whine and piss and moan, but this is truth.

  32. POed Lib,

    Given your history with guns, I have to wonder why you went wrong.

    In the Kellerman study, what gun owners did he look at? Were these gun owners from across the nation or just from one city or region? Did he take into account educational levels of the owners? Did he account for criminal activity or substance abuse? Did he enquire as to the time each owner spent learning how to operate a firearm safely?

    You see, there are ways to make gun ownership safe. I follow them, as do many others.

  33. I had a lot of (or some) exposure to guns when I was younger, like POedLib. I'm strongly in favor of gun control now, which is not to be confused like you guys love to do, with hating guns and wanting to ban them.

    That was pretty funny to ask POedLib what went wrong. The fact is there are many of us who are secure enough and intelligent enough to have made a decision about guns at some point. It's with you guys that something went wrong.

    Glen is being purposely dickish to describe killing as a natural part of being human and therefore I'm fucked up for denying this. Killing and pretend killing is sick. I could describe exactly what I mean by "sick," but I think you get it. I'm against violence and killing. No I don't eat meat or use leather, although I'm not too strict on the shoes.

  34. Dog,

    I don't know what comment you're talking about, where, but you should know by now that I sign my REAL NAME to everything I post.

    For what it's worth, my only daughter is nine, not about to turn four, and I'm not considering buying her a rifle with a pink stock.

    I did consider doing so a couple years ago, but settled on a regular old wooden-stocked rifle, because I wanted her little brother to be able to shoot the same gun when the time came.

    And she's a great shot, as well as an enthusiastic and safe shooter.

    Your numbers above, by the way, are a predictable combination of old, deceptive, and just plain invented.

    In 2000, there were 174 people from 0-18 who died of accidental gunshots -- but 18-year-olds are adults. Make it 0-17, and the number was 150 -- in 2000.

    By 2008 (the last year the CDC has complete data), though the number of children in the country increased a little, the number of shall-issue "concealed carry" states increased a lot, and the number of guns in private hands increased by a ton, that raw number had fallen to 98 -- down by more than 36%, which took it from "really tiny" to "even tinier."

    (Don't take my word for it. Go look at the CDC's fatal injury report system, WISQARS, for yourself.)

    Your claim that "Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S. But of this two percent, children and adolescents are involved in 55% of these deaths" is pure fantasy.

    In 2000, when 150 children died of accidental gun wounds, they represented 19.3% of such deaths, in a year when children were 25.7% of the population. In other words, children died of accidental gun injuries at a rate 37% lower than adults.

    (Contrast this with drowning, for example, where children were over-represented by 33%. Gun owners are provably better at keeping their kids safe from guns than parents in general are at keeping their kids safe from swimming pools, bathtubs and five-gallon buckets.)

    Again, go look at the numbers yourself. Then post your retraction and apology.

    You also wrote "...there is no legal requirement that guns be secured properly...."

    You're wrong, again. In Minnesota, it's MN Stat. 609.666. Even the Illinois branch of the Bradyites has published that "More than half of the nation’s states have some kind of child access prevention law...."

    One last thing: when you wrote, "It is also extremely questionable that a child of that age has the ability fully to make distinctions between fact and fiction, realistic fantasy and reality. Children do not possess the same judgment with a dangerous weapon that adults do."

    It is extremely questionable whether you actually believe that the father intended to hand over the rifle for the child to keep in her room with her Barbie dolls, or whether you are purposefully painting such an absurd picture.

    As always, facts are a bummer, huh?

    Andrew Rothman

  35. Andrew, Thanks for coming by. I didn't follow that bit between you and Dog Gone or Laci or whoever you think accused you of being anaonymous. I appreciate your comments and the way you sign your real name.

    I hope you realize though that there are facts on both sides of the argument. And in most cases, like the truly incredible numbers you quoted, they are disputable.

    One fact I like to remember, perhaps we can agree on it, is that too many unfit people have guns and it wouldn't be impossible for us to do something about that.

  36. That was me.

    If he was NOT Anonymous, then my apologies.

    However Andrew Rothman was still responsible for falsely accusing me of 'stealing' to use his words, an obit on someone. Andrew apparently completely missed the link and attribution at the beginning, along with the statement that this might inform some interested readers about an event that would concern them. This despite a clear REQUEST to pass the word and 14 different buttons to pass along that specific post.

    When I replaced that particular obit with one I had from the STrib, complete with permission from the author on behalf of the STrib, he continued to insist that I was stealing that obit, when clearly that was not the case.

    So,if the comment was not by Mr. Rothman directly, he appears to have been responsible for the idea and for misinforming the individual who DID comment.

    As to the stats I quote, I took them from the Michigan University Public Health project paper, and while those stats may differ, from the CDC, I have yet to see the study they did be discredited by any source, like a peer review. So on that basis I stand by my source, as it seems consistent with the stats I see from the media on shootings of kids on a fairly frequent basis in the news.

    You may recall that MikeB; you alerted me to the false statements made by Mr.Rothman.

    I hope he continues to post here, so his facts can be challenged more directly.

    As to the pink gun idea - I stand by my comment that a four year old cannot make the same distinction as an older person about guns and toys. And YES, I do think the idiot posting as anonymous might be dumb enough to keep such a firearm -unloaded - with his daughter's toys.

    And yes, I still think the idea of any firearm being pink to make it feminine is stupid, and that it trivializes what a firearm is intended to be. And it is an insult to women.

  37. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  38. Simple English for you Andrew?

    YOU missed the link and attribution on the obit you accused me of stealing.

    You have given other people the false impression that I have stolen intellectual content. Some of them have commented here under the pseudonym Anonymous.

    I have not stolen intellectual content. Not with the first obit, and not with the second.

    Care to own up to your mistake?

  39. Owning up would include an apology, and correcting your mistake to those you misinformed, btw.

  40. Andrew, I was trying to do a cut and paste to quote something, and accidentally deleted your comment.

    Please resubmit it.

    As to little pink guns, for kids, it confuses the difference between toy and weapon.