Accidental shootings of children are being undercounted.

[ballen0351]

We don't know just what the numbers are but we would surely disagree about what is 'very small' regardless.

Emotional argument not factual. Look at the real numbers compared to the number of homes with guns and kids. Like I said very small

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Or we can ignore the reports from the CDC, FBI and DOJ, and instead go by the FUD claims generated by biased organizations like the Brady Campaign who make claims such as this one:

• Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S.[SUP]9[/SUP]

The Citation is this

[SUP]9[/SUP]National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (2007 (deaths) and 2008 (injuries)), http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html. Calculations by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2009

Oh look. WISQARS. Looks familiar. But aren't they unreliable?

But lets look at their data. I've been looking at 2010 which is the last complete year currently in the system.

The premise is "Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S"

So, lets look at this by year:

	firearm deaths	vehicle deaths	Population
2007	3,067	6,703	82,749,431
2008	2,966	5,464	83,118,264
2009	2,811	4,933	83,280,391
2010	2,711	4,442	83,267,556

I think cars are still killing more people, but hey! Look, despite there being more people, more guns and more cars, the dying from them is decreasing.

Now Homicides are listed as the #2 cause of death, age 1-19.


So lets drill down more.

10,822 homicides. How many firearm related? 71.5% or 7,780.



34,680 Unintentional Injuries. 19,664 motor vehicle related. Next on the accident list is drowning at 3,916.

Malignant Neoplasms 7,718.

So while the claim of the Bradys is technically accurate, it depends on how you group your data. If the claim of the NYT is correct and there are misreportings in the system, the firearm rate may increase of decrease somewhat and change the tally, but death by auto is still more likely.



The Brady FUD claim is as I said, technically correct. But your kid is more likely to die in a car accident or equally likely to die from a tumor than a gunshot, and all are statistically low probability occurrences.


Again, correct my numbers if they are wrong.

 

[arnisador]

Emotional argument not factual. Look at the real numbers compared to the number of homes with guns and kids. Like I said very small

You're seriously disagreeing with me about the fact that you and I might disagree about what constitutes 'very small'?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:scratchy: I refuse to know just what the numbers are but we would surely disagree about what is 'very small' regardless.

Fixed that for you.

Emotional argument not factual. Look at the real numbers compared to the number of homes with guns and kids. Like I said very small

The only argument they have left is the emotional :s125ne. They are allergic to facts, unless the facts back up their predetermined results. Anything contrary is ignored, avoided, ridiculed and insulted. To do otherwise would be to allow for the possibility there might be another valid opinion, or that they might be incorrect. Pompous arrogant control freak nannies can't do that.

I've posted data from -3- sources, all of whom are considered valid by anyone with an IQ over rock. The nannys can accept it or stuff it. Doesn't change the facts, or the results. Who was it who said you repeat an experiment and look for being able to repeatedly get the same results?

CDC - gun injuries and deaths are declining, and are not a significant risk.
DOJ - gun injuries and deaths are declining, and are not a significant risk.
FBI - gun injuries and deaths are declining, and are not a significant risk.

Who else is a valid government source?

 

[ballen0351]

You're seriously disagreeing with me about the fact that you and I might disagree about what constitutes 'very small'?

If you can't be honest about what the numbers show that's your problem.

 

[arnisador]

If you can't be honest about what the numbers show that's your problem.

'Honest' seems to mean that I have to hold your opinion.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

'Honest' seems to mean that I have to hold your opinion.

Or us to hold yours it seems.

 

[ballen0351]

'Honest' seems to mean that I have to hold your opinion.

If you honestly believe 1.5% of all children's deaths being from gunfire is anything other then a small issue then so be it but my goodness you must want all pools banned and cemeneted in, mandatory swim lessons, and mandatory life vests to be worn at all times under the age of 5.

 

[Tgace]

Don't you know...the solution to all of our problems are in legislation and confiscation.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tames D]

Don't you know...the solution to all of our problems are in legislation and confiscation.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

That's not the answer... that is the problem. But I know that you know that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:scratchy:

More Guns in U.S. homes, More Kids Getting Shot

Now the OP here should know that opinion pieces by "a Boston medical student and his advisor" are not really valid here, by his own statements, so this shouldn't even be given any consideration, but lets look at it anyway.

From the link:

The number of children wounded or killed by gunshots has been climbing in recent years

With nearly 7,500 children wounded and 500 killed each year, they found that the big problem is actually handguns.

As we established back in post 86 this is just FUD.
Here are the death rates for 0-14, from 2000 through 2010 from the CDC, who are the same source the articles authors allegedly used. Obviously, they deviate significantly from the actual data. The "The number of children wounded or killed" has in fact clearly been in a downward trend, and the casulty rate given is significantly lower than the authors claims.



The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the world's largest, on-going telephone health survey system. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/
So the authors source information is.....telephone surveys.
How, reliable.

 

[ballen0351]

So an average of 393 children deaths per year by gunfire Yeah like I said small

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, it depends on how you define "children". I'm using the 0-14 age range, while liberals might use a different age, like say 0-26.

 

[arnisador]

If you honestly believe 1.5% of all children's deaths being from gunfire is anything other then a small issue

I believe it's worth looking at something like that, yeah.

 

[arnisador]

So an average of 393 children deaths per year by gunfire Yeah like I said small

Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.

 

[donald1]

It's ashamed when see no other way to shoot and kill others father, son, friend, all kinds of people get affected and children too...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I believe it's worth looking at something like that, yeah.

Yes, look at it, and if there are sane options to make things safer, then by all means, go for it. I'm all in favor of mandating all cars have 4"x6" backup cameras with a minimum of 180 degree POV. The question there is, works for the new cars, what about the old cars, and who foots the bill to retrofit them all? You can mandate all the locks, magazine restrictions, feature restrictions, etc that you want. The number of lives you're going to save numbers in the teens. The amount of money you'll spend, and the number of lives that might end up at more risk far exceeds the ROI here. If some law was passed that put a friends life at 5% greater risk, while having a .01% chance of saving another friend, where do you draw the line? You have a greater chance of having a heart attack from your next pizza slice than you do of getting shot. What is is about guns that has you so emotionally afraid?

Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.

I think our definition of small is fitted to math concepts. Is 1.5% not small? Is there anyone here who might be an expert at the maths who could clear this up perhaps?

 

[ballen0351]

Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.

Which your OK with? The Govt telling you what toys you can and cant let your kids play with? However guns are not TOYS so your points not relevant and Toys are not Constitutionally protected Guns are

 

[ballen0351]

I believe it's worth looking at something like that, yeah.

So look Bob has posted the numbers over and over you have yet to comment on them hmmm I wonder why?

 

[Big Don]

Toys are recalled as choking risks at much, much lower rates. Your defn. of 'small' is fitted to your love of guns.

Because a-holes and lawyers scare people, oh, that is what you're trying to do, are you a lawyer?