Friday, June 20, 2014

Guns Kill Children

Slate

Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. Murder-suicides are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun.
Crucially, these deaths are not offset by defensive gun use. As one study found, for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are “four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” A study of adolescents in California found that there were 13 times as many threatening as self-defensive uses of guns. Of the defensive encounters, many arose in confrontations that became hostile because of the presence of a firearm.
In the overall suicide rate, the United States ranks roughly in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations. However, we are the exception when it comes to suicides among children between the ages of 5 and 14, with an overall rate twice the average of other developed nations. This stark difference is driven almost exclusively by a firearm-related suicide rate that is 10 times the average of other industrialized nations.

15 comments:

  1. "We use random-digit-dial telephone survey data collected from approximately 5800 California adolescents, aged 12 through 17 years, between November 1, 2000, and October 31, 2001."

    The image of the responses from cold calling over 5,000 12 to 17 year olds and asking about their gun use makes me think of Robert Deniro's terrorist watch list video when he mentioned that most of the names came from high schools and colleges.
    And then of course, we come to the part of them asking people who cant normally legally possess a firearm if they've used one recently, and if so, was it for good, or evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you know from my many negative comments about the supposed number of legitimate DGUs there are, I don't go for telephone surveys.

      My common sense tells me that there are far fewer DGUs than many claim and that the conclusions in the Slate article are right.

      Delete
    2. We do know from proper surveys (not auto dial telephone surveys) that less than 30% of people aged 18-28 own a gun. That will dictate voting patterns and effect gun laws in the future.

      Delete
    3. "That will dictate voting patterns and effect gun laws in the future."

      Possibly, time will tell. Keep in mind however, that up till now, legislation has been moving in the direction of more individual freedoms, not less. One has but to look at the recognition of gay marriage and the beginning of decriminalization of drug use.
      The number of states allowing law enforcement to discriminate against those who wish to carry firearms for self defense in steadily decreasing. Most through the legislative process, though some through the courts. Illinois has had this happen in a decision citing SCOTUS's Heller decision. California and Hawaii are more recent examples, though I'm not sure where in the process Peruta is sitting right now.

      Delete
    4. Of course you know(?) that young people notoriously do not vote. So you think the vote will be the same 20 years from now?

      Delete
    5. Voter turnout unfortunately also seems to be declining over the long term. Much like the oft mentioned percentages of gun ownership in the US. It's interesting that both seem to be declining.
      Voting in the military has always been highly encouraged. My unit voted in the 2004 elections by absentee ballots, from our mobilization station in New Jersey.
      I always encourage anyone I talk to to participate in the process. This is one activity where the more that participate, the better the outcome.

      "For example, in the United States 2008 presidential election turnout was 64%.
      Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies.[1] This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. During this same period, other forms of political participation have also declined, such as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meetings. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations.[61] At the same time, some forms of participation have increased. People have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns."

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Trends_of_decreasing_turnout

      Delete
    6. ss, I find it difficult to accept your comparing gun rights to homosexual rights and the war on drugs. For one thing, most of us do not want to eliminate your gun rights, we want to raise the bar a good bit as to who qualifies. For another, the attitudes against homosexuals are about hate and bigotry. The attitudes against gun owners are about saving innocent lives.

      The similarities between gun rights and the right to get loaded on drugs legally completely escapes me.

      Delete
    7. Mike, there is no real comparison beyond that they are rights of the individual. During my time in the military, I've watched it progress from homosexuality from being just illegal, to don't ask, don't tell, to completely ok. And as a leader, I've had to deal with soldiers upset with these changes.
      What chemicals a person is allowed to put in their body is pretty arbitrary. Marijuana is currently on a slow progression from being totally evil, as I'm sure you saw in "Reefer Madness", to medically prescribed in some states, to now completely legal in two states.
      Interestingly, just recently the courts in Minnesota determined that someone who is legally prescribed pot in a state that allows medical marijuana cant legally use it in the state.
      Legislators and even the courts are moving in a similar direction with the rights of people to possess and bear arms.

      Delete
    8. Point is they will be future voters and vote their leanings against guns. It's a fact younger people don't vote in high numbers, it's also a fact those same people will vote as they get older.
      64% was a bigger than normal turnout compared to the last 30 years, so how can you say participation is going down?

      Delete
    9. "Legislators and even the courts are moving in a similar direction with the rights of people to possess and bear arms."

      That's a shallow observation. Just beneath the surface there's a world of difference. Legalizing drugs and accepting homosexuality are the result of a gradual enlightenment in our society. This is not what's happening with the expanded gun rights. That's driven by the gun manufacturers, the NRA and the gun rights fanatics, all who push their self-serving and DETRIMENTAL policies. This has absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment and advancement.

      Delete
    10. "It's a fact younger people don't vote in high numbers, it's also a fact those same people will vote as they get older."

      I personally think that people should be active in the political process no matter what side of the issues they support. I also think that you mistakenly equate not owning a gun as being synonymous with supporting more restrictive gun rights. While I'm sure there is a percentage of people that don't own guns because they support laws restricting ownership, there is likely a percentage of people who don't own guns and just don't care how their elected officials vote on this issue.

      Delete
    11. Keep deluding yourself that people will support something they don't agree with.

      Delete
  2. "Legalizing drugs and accepting homosexuality are the result of a gradual enlightenment in our society. This is not what's happening with the expanded gun rights."

    So you're suggesting that the same enlightened people who are able to ignore the intense lobbying against gay rights and the legalization of drugs are somehow incapable of shielding themselves against the lobbying efforts of gun rights groups?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How ridiculous. More guns is not enlightening our society, or progressing towards a more safe, peaceful, inclusive society as social issues are. Same old BS from gun loons, human rights are the same as property rights.

      Delete
    2. The gun rights movement has been enjoying a good run. It's days are numbered however.

      Delete