We absolutely should. ...by teaching kids to be safe and parenting them better. Not by banning everything. Lets offer gun safety class in public school, as an example. -'see a gun? tell an adult. heres why-' -'never point a gun at anyone or you could kill them' -and all the other stuff they *wont* learn about guns from TV. Abstinance is not an effective education platform for sex or drugs... so why do we think it works for guns? Classes geared toward young adults in HS could focus on -'lock your guns up so kids cant get em' Seriously, whose *not* going to elect to take gun class? We're missing a very lucrative safety education opportunity by pretending guns are just gonna go away somehow.
I certainly wouldn't argue that vpc.org is a neutral site. I think it's obvious that neither is gunfacts.info.
Unfortunately gun safety programs do very little to reduce child firearm mortality. This has been studied by the American Academy of Paediatricians and this is the conclusion they came to. Most years, we have zero child deaths from firearms and Australia is NOT gun free
Both sources are listed, are they not? You might note that according to NCVS, less than 4% of violent crimes are perpetrated with a firearm in the first place. NCVS didn't take statistic on that in 2005, they started in 2007 apparently (page 12) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Quite honestly I don't spend a lot of time looking into DGU's, because no one has any idea how many there actually are. The site presents facts based on sources, and links to those sources. You're one to complain about cherry picked sources though, with your whole "guns more likely to kill you than your attacker in a self defense situation".
The American Academy should be more concerned with the 500,000 to 1 million people they kill per year due to incompetence than the 400 who die because they have irresponsible parents. How many 100k did Australian hospitals kill this year from incompetence?
I have done my own research but this was not my original claim so it is not up to me to defend its validity
Guns are not sex / drugs Sex we are all wired to do. Some countries have very restrictive policies on sex for adults, some don't. Drugs, people self medicate and harm themselves. FTR most countries have very prohibitive policies on Drugs, whether they work or not, for the record I am more of a legalise drug person myself. Guns are primarily used to kill others not yourself. For whatever reason though, americans are very sensitive about this issue.
Good lord you can't even read a chart. The red line is per 100k of fatalities, the blue line is number of firearms per 100k.....over time. It's all there on the freaking chart.
You sourced this so please explain why the red dotted line representing child deaths starts at over 39,000 I have never seen that number quoted in relation to child deaths adult deaths maybe but total adult deaths have not fallen as low as this graph suggests
Hello Newman. gunfacts presents facts from studies and sources and clearly indicates sources. It does not offer an opinion on those sources, or even analyze them. It merely lists the facts that the studies themselves claim. Are you going to entertain me with some of your Salon links today by any chance?
Interestingly when one goes to the gunfacts website it is unclear whether they actually support this graph or are criticising it http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/children-and-guns/
Did you notice that the graph has two x axes, and that the left axis is for child death rate? The right axis reflects the number of handguns per 100k population.
Ok, on the front page Shooting The Bull, by Gun Facts author Guy Smith, teaches you to spot political lies in real time while exposing the long and lying history of the gun control industry (and it is an industry — just ask their former employee Barack Obama). Shooting the Bull serves two purposes. First, it catalogs the common canards of politicians and activists. Readers will recognize how they have been psychologically scammed by special interests and deceived by elected sycophants. The second purpose of Shooting the Bull is to document the deceits peddled by the gun control lobby. Each chapter is devoted to at least one major initiative proffered by anti-gun activists, exposing their falsities through dissection of their motives, methods and inconvenient facts. Is this neutral pro or against? now the topic we are discussing:- http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/children-and-guns/ read it, is that pro neutral or against? You are being that deliberately deceitful it falls into the category of being an idiot because you think most normal people would listen to your bullshit. I don't mind if people want to argue less control and regulation on guns, by all means, but if you do it in a manner such as this you are just an idiot that belittles your cause. One would hope that some people on your side of the fence on this argument can recognise pro / neutral and anti gun websites?
