In 2007 there were about 53,000 deaths of children aged 0-19. The firearms related deaths of children that year breaks down as follows:
Accidents: 138
Suicide: 683
Homicide: 2,186
It’s not clear to me that those majority of gun owners aren’t safe.
How does the relative proportion of gun deaths to overall deaths among children tell you anything about the safety of gun owners?
Why aren’t non-fatal firearms injuries relevant to assessing the safety of gun owners?
It something only kills .02 out of 100,000 it tells me that we don’t have a serious problem here.
Who says they aren’t relevant? Feel free to do some digging and find those statistics yourself.
Yep, the Eddie the Eagle program apparently has little to no effect.
When I was 10 we found a stash by the tracks and hid it under a rock and they were gone after a ek. UNDER A ROCK!!! I was smart enough to realize that one of us had stolen the group stash for personal use. I could never prove who did it but my buddy Raj started shaving the next year, shaving his palms.
Because I know the pain of lightning wit that is ignored… golf clap. Well done, sir, well done.
Now where are these numbers coming from?
What happened to your contrast of numbers killed in accidents versus total numbers of child deaths?
You’re not familiar with my posts here on this subject, are you?
Don’t you have a serious problem if it kills at all? Isn’t any move in mitigating the harm of others a good move?
Agree with this, and I’m a gun owner. I do believe I’m safe and responsible, but am also extra-alert when my guns are out.
To answer your first question, no. I do understand that it provides no comfort to know that accidental deaths of children via firearm are so exceedingly rare for those parents who have lost their child. But 138 deaths out of a total of 53,287 indicates to me that we don’t have a serious problem with children dying from accidental gunshots. As for your second question, again, no. But I’m generally going to answer no to the suggestion that “any move” is a good move.
I picked these particular numbers up from the National Center of Health Statistics from our friends at the Centers for Disease Control.
I never made any promise to look up the numbers killed in accidents versus the number of deaths. You are free to do so. While I’m familiar with your general ideas about the subject of gun control I have not memorized or read everything you’ve written about the subject.
Oh. I was thrown because you said that 53,287 kids died, so it doesn’t make any sense to change the denominator to 100,000.
Check me if I’m wrong, but your logic is as follows: of the kids who die, 0.26% of them died from gun accidents. Therefore gun owners are safe.
Does that really make sense to you?
By what standard do you decide that 0.26% of all child deaths reflects something that is safe?
Consider this, for example. 14,570 child deaths are caused by perinatal conditions. Imagine, hypothetically, that these deaths were entirely eliminated. Now, 0.35% of all child deaths are due to firearms. Have gun owners suddenly become 35% more risky?
Or perhaps it is stupid to use the overall number of all child deaths as the denominator in considering whether gun owners are safe or not.
Consider this, for example. The number of accidental deaths of children was 11,560. Thus, 138 of 11,560 accidental deaths was due to firearms, or 1%. Suddenly are gun owners 4 times more risky than we thought before? Is 1% over or under our criterion level for deciding whether gun owners are risky or not?
Or perhaps it is stupid to use the overall number of child deaths as the denominator in considering whether gun owners are safe or not.
Consider this, for example. Zero child deaths were due to anthrax. Therefore, gun owners are more dangerous than anthrax. Or 5* kids died due to open abandoned wells. Therefore guns are more dangerous than open wells.
Or perhaps it is stupid to use the proportion of deaths relative to the overall number of child deaths as a gauge of riskiness.
*I actually couldn’t find any reported child deaths due to abandoned wells, so I made up this number for the sake of example.
I’ve posted just recently on the number of firearms injuries to children. In 2011, there were 2,886, according to the CDC WISQARS database.
You’re more likely to be hit by lightning. Using the “if even on life is saved” rationale leads to some pretty silly results.
We can argue whether or not guns are worth having but what seems pretty clear is that guns are used in self defense more frequently than they cause accidental injury.
So when you do your cost benefit analysis you have to factor in things like suicide (which is far more lethal when a gun is used) and homocides (guns are more lethal than mere strong-arming or a switchblade) to make a case for more gun control.
The vast majority of gun homocides are committed by people who are not legally allowed to own guns (felons, domestic abusers, etc.). Passing laws that would make it illegal for law abiding people to own guns (or some subset of guns) does not really affect the number of gun deaths very much.
Of course, this is not clear at all.
The estimates of defensive gun use are bookended by Hemenway from the Harvard All Guns Are Bad Institute and Kleck from the Florida State When You Pry Them From My Cold Dead Hands Foundation.
Hemenway (from the ALl Guns Are Bad Institute) estimated defensive gun use at 100,000/year. But that estaimate was done at a time when crime was higher than what it is today so lets just cut his number in half and call it 50,000 defensive gun uses per year.
The CDC estimates about 700 gun deaths per year. I think it is pretty clear that there are more than 700 defensive gun uses per year. Shiii–it Kable has probably linked to at least that many youtube videos of defensive gun use.
Of course guns also cause injury so lets check and see how many accidental gun injuries there are every year.
The CDC estiamtes between 14,000 and 19,000 accidental gun injuries per year (I don’t know what sort of injuries we are talking about but if fewer than 5% of gun injuries result in death, I suspect that they might not all be the result of a bullet hitting flesh (perhaps some are the result of the spur of a hammer hitting someone on the forehead when they shoot a big gun at the range or the butt of a stock hitting someone who isn’t holding a shotgun the right way).
They’re safe enough. Even when you add adults into the mix the number of deaths via accidental shooting is negligible. If you can demonstrate that they’re unsafe, well, go ahead.
Given your inability to respond to the rest of my points, at the very least we’ve demonstrated that your conclusions are not well founded. The bottom line: stating the proportion of accidental firearms related deaths among all children’s deaths is a very stupid method for evaluating gun safety.
Okay. No skin off my nose.
Did you know that Wyoming is the safest state? Of all the people in the US who die, the smallest number comes from Wyoming.
Did you know that there’s about 21 times more students enrolled in college in the US than the UK? We are much smarter here than they are over there.
Awwww…it’s so cute when they play by themselves in the sandbox.