Guns and kids

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Bowerbird, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. Hate_bs

    Hate_bs New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is the death rate for children?

    It must be high? Since your so fired up about it.

    What is it?

    OMG are you telling me you don't know?

    OMFG are you telling me you don't know, but your fired up about it?
     
  2. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So where have " adamantly advocating strong limits on guns on the grounds of a nearly insignificant statistic about children's deaths"

    Where have I stated one word about limiting gun ownership?

    This is what I mean so many have been prepared for this by the myth of "My cold dead hands" that they will see what does not exist
     
  3. Hate_bs

    Hate_bs New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a BS job. She doesn't know what is the death rate, yet she is moved to take a political opinion on it. That is textbook ingorance at work.
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I have posted statistics on this very thread recently

    Now we have here, introduced mandatory fences around backyard pools to reduce the accidental drowning rate, we have introduced bicycle helmets and made THEM mandatory

    We take child safety seriously - do Americans have the same concerns?
     
  5. Hate_bs

    Hate_bs New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Your statistics are not a death rate.

    The numbers that other people are trying to show you hint at a death rate so low that it is a statistical fluke when it does happen. For instance I have seen in this thread showing that the total number of children killed is about 500-600. When we start talking about children under 13 it starts to get so insignificantly low it is statistically zero.

    If you do a search for accidental death for children you will find that the death rate has been going down for more than 100 years.
     
  6. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I am not a member of the cold dead hands tribe, I am actually highly critical of the position. I believe I started a thread by the name of "Why All of the Chest Beating?" dismissing the arguments that arise from the somewhat militant view of gun ownership.

    My objections to your argument are as I stated before:

    - You called the idea of gun owners being responsible a myth because one one hundredth of one percent of gun owners are associated with fatal gun accidents. I am far more worried about suffering a serious mountain biking accident, or dieing on my one hour trip to see my gf than I am worried being involved in a fatal gun accident.

    - You treat gun accidents as an epidemic, when they are very rare in comparison to other types of fatal accidents.

    - I am not inherently opposed to measures to decrease the odds of such accidents occurring, simply depends on the measures.
     
  7. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Taking a look a these two quotes I have to wonder if you realize how weak they are.

    The first one could be said of anyone at any time in nearly any country. It doesn't actually give any statistic or rate, it simply says that guns can cause problems for kids. Well, so can knives, cars - any number of things. If a kid witnesses a person being hit by a car it can "adversely affect them". Heck, if an adult witnesses a shooting it can adversely affect them. The fact that the quote doesn't mention any statistics, and only mentions children show that it is actually just an emotional piece of propaganda.

    The second is more interesting. It claims that the US has the highest rate of firearm death for children under 15, but every actual number they give is for "children" under 19.

    When people change groups mid-statement it usually means that the initial statistic is too small to be persuasive so they artificially increase the numbers by actually showing a much larger group.

    The fact is that the number of firearm related deaths for children under 14 is so small that it is nearly meaningless. We have far more important risk factors to work on, such as automobile deaths, bicycle deaths, malignant neoplasms, SIDS and several other things that claim the lives of far more children than guns do.

    Child gun deaths will never be zero. Even the UK, with its gun ban has children killed with firearms. The rate of firearm related deaths among children is very low in the US and we would be better served to focus elsewhere if we truly want to help children.
     
  8. German-Dragon

    German-Dragon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People kills People just therefore because one is able to do it. And most can kill only with weapons
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This only shows that you don't know the evidence or what is required to test statistical significance. See, for example, Eber et al (2004, Nonfatal and fatal firearms-related injuries among children aged 14 years and younger: United States, 1993–2000, Pediatrics, 113, pp. 1686–1692). You'll find statistically significant results that of course don't exist elsewhere
     
  10. Bondo

    Bondo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ayuh,.... The Gun Control crowd has to use cherry picked data to claim their restrictions work...

    Funny how the Progressive Liberals are so against Education of the masses....
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rational will harness the results of the scientific process.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have NO 'empirical evidence', just flawed studies and silly-assed opinions...
     
  13. DaveInFL

    DaveInFL Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The numbers in the many reports and studies frequently deviate a small amount because there is some subjectiveness in collecting and compiling the raw data. I would question your sources first because the links I have used are the US Center for Disease Control data directly from the CDC database. The CDC is the primary source of this type of medical statistical data in the US.

    The CDC numbers for firearm injury and death do match the NRA numbers.

    Why? Because the NRA data base is the CDC data base (the National Center for Health Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ ), the NRA has just formatted the data in an excel spreadsheet so everyone can study the numbers. If you had looked at the NRA link you would have seen the source and could have compared the 2.

    The NRA is a 401c4 non-profit and is highly scrutinized regarding its numbers. If you can prove their data base has been falsified, well, you will become the darling of the media overnight. People on the anti-gun and anti-NRA side do direct comparisons of the CDC data base with the NRA spreadsheet all the time, they would love to be able to discredit the NRA.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Opinion? An evidence-based stance stops subjectivity. I can only go by the published evidence. I know it doesn't support your position, but no need to blow a gasket
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why should I do your homework for you?

    If you want to rebut a statement using facts then search for them yourself!!

    And it does not matter about statistics - THESE ARE PREVENTABLE DEATHS
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps if the NRA could have shown that this program is actually effective they would have had better luck with that. Unfortunately, they could not, so save your crocodile tears......

    How,exactly could they show how effective it was if hoplophobes like you wouldn't let them implement it?

    The Eddie Eagle program has been used by police departments effectivly all over the US.....they know something you don't?
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Then my apologies if It seemed that I included you in the "cold dead hands" group

    But you have to admit my experiment worked - it triggered the expected response, which is interesting

    See to a non-American this is huge cultural divide between us, and one I cannot fathom personally although it's genesis fascinates me. The whole attitude and belief about guns. There are automatic triggers where certain topics are never discussed and child accidents seem to be one of them

    If we had a child death rate like that you can bet your bottom dollar we would be doing something about it - our drowning rate was FAR fewer than that

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...e=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2006&num=&view=

    Majority were not even in backyard pools but we introduced compulsory fencing of pools just the same because they represented PREVENTABLE deaths

    But America it seems cannot start the conversation when it involves guns.

    Please note that nowhere in those statistics for Australia does it mention death by gunshot of children - that is because our rate is extremely low and mostly consists of the occasions family suicide
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    IT does not matter ir it were only 2 children per year - THESE ARE PREVENTABLE DEATHS


    And I knew when I started this thread that instead of getting a debate over what to do about it I would get every excuse under the sun about why nothing should be done - and those excuses are the same old tired myths that are trotted out on every gun thread

    I just wanted to see if there were a couple of people here willing to go past "my cold dead hands"

    BTW here is some more statistics (and I will keep posting as I find them) and this time there is a suggestion of what to do that does not include removal from "cold dead hands"

    http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp
     
  19. DaveInFL

    DaveInFL Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read the study, out of date and irrelevent. The study covers 1993 through 2000. Those were peak years but even in that period the authors admit the trend was decreasing incidents. Since 2000, firearm incidents for the 0-14 age group have dropped tremendously.

    Firearm deaths in the 0-14 age group are now so small as to be statistically meaningless.

    In 2007 (last year of data) there were 397 deaths 0-14 all causes,
    2006 there were 408,
    2005 there were 404,
    2004 there were 358.

    Thats out of a population of more than 60 million people age 0-14.

    Accidental shootings in that age group were under 100 for each year.

    A small change can make a big statstical change. 54 accidental deaths in 2006 versus 65 in 2007 is 20.4% increase, sounds like there is a problem but in a population of 60,000,000 it is statstically insignificant.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But clearly destroys the 'not significant' comments previously stuttered!

    And you've made the error straight away! That there is a statistically significant risk from firearm-related accidental death is matter of fact.
     
  21. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Those aren't necessarily preventable deaths - or at least not ones that would be preventable by public policy or regulation.

    Consider your pool fencing example - did the fencing prevent every drowning death? Of course not. The only way to prevent every single death by drowning in a pool would be to eliminate every pool. The fencing may reduce the number of deaths, but it won't prevent them completely.

    The same is true of any public gun policy. The many of those deaths couldn't be prevented by any policy short of a total elimination of firearms. Just a ban won't be enough as the UK has proven. Every single legal and illegal firearm would have to be eliminated to eliminate gun deaths - and even then, many of the deaths would still occur, just using different means.

    So, what policies do you propose to eliminate these "preventable" deaths?
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Dave always remember that there are lies, (*)(*)(*)(*)ed lies and statistics

    The numbers might match but the presentation does not

    From your original post

    http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/228875-guns-kids.html#post1060772088

    613!

    SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN!

    That is an awful lot of grieving families and here we would be so het up about that we would be banging on politician's doors all over the country. Why does it not upset Americans so much? Well they have juxtaposed that statistic with a larger one so it appears "insignificant"(and I REALLY wish you people got The Gruen Transfer" show over there so you can learn for yourself how advertising manipulates)
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No pool fencing did not stop the deaths but it did reduce them. I remember the time before pool fencing - Did you know that we can tell how damaged the brain will be by the type and amount of Diarrhoea? I can still remember the smell of irreversible brain damage

    See for me, child deaths are not statistics

    Yes, there are easy methods of reducing deaths - we have a program here called "Do the five"


    http://kidsalive.com.au/

    Is not even one life worth it?
     
  24. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Even with the prevention techniques, the number of children drowning in pools hasn't reached a lower number than the number of children dying from guns. Yet there are far fewer pools than guns.

    The rate of children dying from guns is about as low as it could possibly get with anything short of an absolute eradication of firearms. Most of the deaths that would be preventable couldn't be prevented by any public policy, other people involved would have had to step in.

    One thing that would be effective in preventing some of the deaths would be gun education at public schools - an idea that outrages the liberals among us. Teach children about gun safety early and they are less likely to have an accident. Most families with guns are good about this, but that doesn't help the child from a gun-free family that encounters one.

    Do you have any suggestions on policies that would reduce the tiny number of childhood gun deaths any further?
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry sport.living live in a foam rubber cocoon ,afraid to go outside doesn't appeal to me..you can't keep everyone safe all of the time
     

Share This Page