No. The analysis tends to focus on the impact on risks. For a significant minority education is useless. Already summed it up with 'bounded rationality' and shown the gains from passive regulations such as seatbelt rules. In your efforts to support your comment (and note that you haven't actually achieved it as you referred to child data), you've referred to evidence where we have multiple cases of regulatory reaction to risks.
The site went down and I was unable to revise my post, so let me do so now. The lifetime odds of dying due to intentional discharge of a firearm is 1 in 4613 The lifetime odds of dying due to unintentional discharge of a firearm is 1 in 15,565. The lifetime odds of dying due to a fall from stairs is 1 in 2739. The lifetime odds of dying due to an unspecified "fall" is 1 in 490. http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm To tie these statistics to children, you might want to check out: Population-Based Study of Fall Injuries in Children and Adolescents Resulting in Hospitalization or Death. Would you care to explain why the much less prevalent injury due to firearm misuse is horrific and the much greater instance of fall related trauma other isn't?
Isn't going to help you! You've shot yourself in the foot by referring to multiple data where risk rates are such that regulatory frameworks are used. You've also gone for data quite incapable of backing up your claims (e.g. your figures will be skewed by workplace incidents that children of course do not face) At least you're trying now (but you still can't back up your original statement, demonstrating perhaps how you're prepared to make conclusion that is based on unsupported opinion?)! However, the damage has already been made. You've referred to how a health and safety response will refer to multiple issues and appreciate that education is often an insufficient reaction (e.g. education and seatbelt regulations were used side by side to ensure significant desired effects)
First, 613 is the number of accidental firearm deaths of the entire population, not just children. That really isnt the issue that you want to talk about, the issue for you is your view of the pointlessness of firearms. You would see even a single death due to a firearm as avoidable and a waste because it appears you believe there is no reason for people to own a firearm. I'm guessing that is your attitude based on the posts of yours I have read. Perhaps I am wrong. But given the attitude that there is no reason to own a firearm it is understandable to believe one death is one too many and should not be tolerated. I have a different attitude about firearms. Your attitude is not unique to you, mine is not unique to me. Obviously the attitude within the USA regarding firearms is very different from the attitude within Australia. The cultures are different. It should be very clear to you that what you call "tired and debunked myths" are not tired or debunked, they are held by millions of Americans and have been for centuries. Now, until and unless you are willing to talk honestly about those cultural differences, then you are wasting your time with this type of OP. ---- Your Duke link is broken and I could not recover it. The National Self Defense Survey is one of several surveys on the subject of firearms used in self defense. Some surveys are performed by ther govt, some are anonymous, some do not anonimize survey participants. The numbers vary with good reason, but all show a high use of firearms in self defense. The lowest numbers come from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a survey run by the US Dept of Justice, in which data is not anonymized and it relies on voluntary cooperation by the population. NCVS grossly underreports incidents because of these aspects and other reasons (which I can list if you really want to know and don't want to google for yourself), but it consistently shows near 200,000 incidents annually of civilian use of a firearm to stop a crime. That number is inferred because the survey never asks if a person uses a firearm in selfdefense.
I am sorry Dave but that is not true http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final Resource Book Updated 2009 Section 1.pdf And I am sorry because you appear intelligent enough to be able to follow the logic and that will shake what you have always believed - don't be afraid you won't end up anti-gun but you will have different reasons for defending gun ownership - and that is OK But the current myths have to go And one of them is the diminution and dismissal of the rates of child injury. No, it is the issue because unlike other members I have had to deal up close and personal with trying to save people with gunshot injuries. I made the mistake of writing my experience on an international nursing board and found to my horror that many nurses in the USA have more experience with gunshot than battle ground medics do And even then I do not want to take American guns away But I will and do destroy the myths surrounding gun ownership You are wrong - ask yourself why do countries like Switzerland and Canada have a higher gun ownership rate but lower firearm injury rate? Some of the answer HAS to be cultural - and that is what I am aiming at - those bloody myths and ONE is that if you talk about the negative side someone will take your guns away Shrugs - Australian mate - I live in a Western country mining town that has a large indigenous population and a BIG rodeo every year. There are actually, compared to the rest of Australia, a lot of guns around here - our gun injury rate - well we had ONE the other day.............been YEARS since the previous one though But what they do not show is what would have happened if there were no guns at all. Why are there not more people being killed by armed criminals in Australia or England? If a firearm is so necessary we should be seeing more people injured than currently are. Yes we have hold ups and sometimes the criminals resort to things like dirty blood filled syringes because there is not the availability of guns. Again I challenge this as a myth - and what I really want people to do is LOOK at these and question them themselves, if they stand the test of logic, fine.......but if they do not then think of other reasons why - and that reason could simply be that America is so far down the gun ownership track that it will never jump off of it - then fine accept that But do not diminish the heartache that over 600 child deaths a year cause
Another study http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html So, the question becomes HOW DO WE REDUCE THIS ACCIDENT RATE WITHOUT ALTERING GUN OWNERSHIP?
It is true, there are 613 ACCIDENTAL firearm deaths. The number you cite is total (accidental, homicide, suicide, etc) firearm deaths. The problem is not accidental firearm discharge, it is criminal use of firearms. You are not the only person who has to deal with firearms. You see only one side (injuries). You don't see the self-defense side. Its simple reality that there will always be firearms. As I wrote in an earlier post to you, AUstralia has a gun ban and it has had no effect on gun related crime. Your own govt compiled data is clear. Suicide has gone down, but all other firearm related crimes - murder, assualt, armed robbery, etc - are completely unchanged. The firearm crime rates in Australia are flat before and after the ban/buyback. Thats pretty strong evidence that firearm restriction laws are not effective. People will not give up their firearms even in Australia. Why? Because there are benefits to firearms that people will not give up. It is academic to argue for a world without firearms. As to firearm deaths in England, there is no clear universal consensus as to firearms and crime internationally. Switzerland has a massively high firearm ownership rate, yet low crime. Mexico has a virtual ban on firearm ownership yet tens of thousands of murders a year. You can argue whichever side you want and there will be a country to fit your arguement. Some countries even fit both sides. Within the US, states have taken a wide range of positions regarding firearms. The consensus reached over the past 50 years seems to be that the more restrictive the firearms control, the more crime. Firearm laws have eased considerably, firearm ownership has increased dramatically, yet firearm deaths of all types have steadily dropped.
That is something that many organizations have been dealing with, notably the National Rifle Association. You don't like the NRA, but it is strongly in their interest to reduce accidental death and injury. Normally, I might not have a problem with mandatory firearm training for everyone in the nation. Unfortunately, I don't trust the govt to mandate these types of things particularly when it comes to firearms. In the past, the anti-gun crowd has promoted these types of mandates under the guise of "safety" but when they are implemented the bar is set so high that the mandate becomes a gun ban. New York City and Washington DC are the current prime examples. Technically, you can get a handgun in those cities, but the cost and hurdles are so burdensome and time consumming (intentionally) that few people manage to complete the process. And that is a major problem here. The firearm community has learned through bitter experience that the anti-gun side cannot be trusted. Their agenda is a gun ban. They change their methods, but the ultimate agenda for them is the same. Its at its worst now because Obama and his top leadership are openly gun ban proponents. If the NRA ran the training program, I would support it. Never the govt.
The truth is you do personally have interest in gun inside the USA. It bothers you so much that you harp about it.
Academic research has shown sampling methods used were faulty and highly biased by researchers political views.
1) the assumption is that all guns should be always treated as if they are loaded. If you teach that fact, then you don't have gun accidents. 2) Some manufacturers do put safety locks on the guns themselves. The problem with that idea is the millions of gun already out there. Most of us who have guns and children, lock our guns up. There are gun safes on the market that have combination locks that open fast.
You should see my thread "Concealed Carry Restrictions". Amusing. The fear of black helicopters is so overwhelming that people reject the idea of requiring a test of competency before being awarded a concealed carry permit. The "chest beaters" that bother me most are the ones who say they own guns for a war with the government. An amusing position. However it is a position and vocalized idea that makes all gun owners look like paranoid militia members. That is because Australia has very few guns, few guns, lower probabilities of deaths associated with firearms. However, that is beside the point, the important point is an overall X rate. Australia has a lower firearms related suicide than the US, which is meaningless should they have an overall higher suicide rate than the US. As for kids and accidental shootings, it depends entirely on what you believe is the best way to mitigate that issue. As small as it may be.
Is that not the first rule of safe gun handling? Assuming it is loaded at all times? I like loaded chamber indicators, not for the safety aspect, but saves me the little bit of time and effort to check if I have one in the chamber before putting it in the glove box or conducting a drill.
Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8 )
The evidence shows that guns do not have perfect substitutes (i.e. other things being equal, gun ownership is associated with higher suicide risks). A lower firearms relates suicide rate would therefore be meaningful even if overall higher suicide rates exists. That would merely reflect the other variables that impact on suicide risks
Yet, there are "gun control posterchildren" nations that have higher suicide rates than the US. Why is more important than how. Your argument is largely irrelevant.
No, you don't have an argument. You're basically saying 'there are several factors that impact on suicide so we can ignore firearms'. Its nonsensical! The empirical evidence, by definition, isolates gun effects and finds significant effects on suicide risk
Of course, which is why Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US. Why is more important than how. I don't entertain arguments of how, I couldn't careless. I do care about getting those who need help, the help they need before they decide to take their own life.
Again, that only informs us of the other variables at play. We know, however, that guns are important determinants of the suicide rate. Given guns do not have perfect substitutes, we actually have a case of 'how' and 'why' going hand in hand. You'd have to ignore the empirical evidence to suggest otherwise. Not a good idea!
We have more than correlation. We have multiple testing of the suicide link, using regression methods to ensure 'ceteris paribus' is maintained and hypothesis correctly isolated. You're clearly unaware of the evidence. That's no excuse, however, for making false claims
Of course, it is the presence of guns as to why Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States. We all know how prevalent firearms are in Japan.
Again you make crass error. No one has said "its only guns that determine suicide rates". We do know, however, that the 'more guns=more suicide' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We also know that the evidence finds that gun control has successfully reduced suicide rates. You're merely ignoring the evidence
