Posted on 11/26/2001 8:55:36 AM PST by butter pecan fan
Safety Expert Gavin de Becker has found in researching his books, The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift that:
Researchers at familyeducation.com have collected the following statistics on kids and guns:
Centers for Disease Control and National Safety Council statistics suggest almost all! Their statistics find almost nobody under age 15 killed by gunshot in the U.S.; in other words, "child gun deaths" mainly mean kids in their late teens!
Some of the "Children" Killed By Guns
It really sickens me the way gun-grabbers skew numbers for their benefit. Just read Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" for the REAL meaning of statistics and how they are mis-used.
Let me guess. A 24 year-old is considered a "child" in this statistic.
Because, silly, that doesn't allow us to demonize guns, and thereby disarm the entire population. If we go after behavior, and not objects, then we would have to admit that guns really aren't the problem, behavior is. And then we would have to condemn such behavior, and then people might feel bad.
So it's just much easier to go after the guns. /sarcasm
Utterly false; debunked years ago. The number correlates to over 27,000 "children" ayear being shot, withnearly 5,500 children a year being killed. CDC reports nothing like this.
The majority of fatal accidents involving a firearm occur in the home.
The majority of fatal accidents involving cars occur on the roads. Totally irrelevant to anything.
Gunshot wounds are the single most common cause of death for women in the home, accounting for nearly half of all homicides and 42 percent of suicides.
Who in the heck is out compiling numbers of "deaths in the home"? Without stating what percentage of deaths occur "in the home" as opposed to everywhere else, this means nothing at all.
An adolescent is twice as likely to commit suicide if a gun is kept in the home.
This is twisted lawyer speak. This statistic seems to want to correlate suicide by any means with gun ownership. Means nothing at all.
More teenage boys in America die from gunfire than from car accidents.
Not likely. almost all "Teenage boys" who are killed by gunfire are gang bangers. Hardly the type who legally possess guns.
Gunshot wounds are now the leading cause of death for teenage boys in America (white, African-American, urban, suburban).
Again, unlikely.
"Child gun deaths" being "common" (or a disproportionate share of gunshot fatalities) - the Left says it all the time. It's just not true. According to the National Safety Council, only 869 children under 15 died in 1994 in the U.S. of gunshot wounds, whether as homicides, suicides, or accidentally inflicted.
Such children made up fewer than 2.3% of all gunshot fatalities that year in the U.S. (1994 is the latest year for which statistics are available.) (To keep some perspective, with Powerball having had 13 people win $12.4 million each in 1998 and an additional 79 win $100,000 each - plus numerous other state lotteries with similar numbers of winners - the odds of a "child" in America being fatally shot is about the odds of his mom winning a major lottery prize.)
Anyone 15 or older hardly fits most Americans' definition of a "child"; at that age, the person is old enough to drive a car on a learner's permit - and within a year, drive by himself. At age 16 in most states, any crime anyone does will be tried in adult court. So the liberal myth of large numbers of "child" gun deaths is just that - a myth. For those most Americans think of as "children," when they do die, it's very unlikely to involve a firearm in any way. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1990 (latest statistics), only 1.3% of deaths of children age 1-4 involve guns - and only 3% of deaths of children age 5-9 involve guns.
The speaker, a woman, kept giving these unbelievable statistics regarding "children" and guns.
Finally, on courageous young woman stopped her and asked, "can you please define children".
The speaker said a child was a newborn to 21.
The audience literally collectively gasped.
The speaker tried to regain control but she lost all credibility.
After that, the audience did little more than whisper amongst themselves.
Gun control fanatics use any and every trick to inflate their numbers and hide the circumstances of "childrens" deaths (ie. gang and drug related).
Don't believe their numbers and ask them lots of questions.
Gavin De Becker, the messiaha of beat up boys in America who claims most women are victims of attacks by men when we know that is a lie because women repeatedly are allowed in our culture to slap men, on TV and wherever.
Gavin makes rules with statistics while statistics can be tweaked by cultural response to assaults and firearms usage. Since culture views shot kids as bad, it will be reported. Since culture views deterred attacks with guns as good, it never is reported. How many kids were saved by a guns in the home? No one really knows and Gavin ignores it. How many women were saved from abuse when their men did not slap them back after beings slapped by them? We will never know it but it is quite usual, probably much more usual than men beating women because those get reported.
Secondly statistics are not a good reason to make a law or advocate a position since stats are just stats, not true analytical evaluation of a phenomenom. Airplane accident statistics do not tell whether planes are safe or not, only the laws of the air and their verified predictive abilities tell whether planes are safe.
Inherently Guns are safer than planes and cars because they are not self propelled devices and hence are definitely more controlable. What next? Ban cars because most people die driving their own cars? So the government should drive cars because then we would not die from what we own? What a stupid reasoning. This reasoning is even stupider when we realize we own cars to make money, not defend our own lives, hence we kill ourselves for no reasons at all in cars, according to De Becker ans socialites. Beware.
Gavin de Becker as a safety expert is a total a$$. He is no engineer, he is a crytal ball watcher, because, when he was beat continuously by his dad, he "learned" to survive by instinctively predicting when he was going to be hurt, treated like a beast, he is still a beast and has not come out from his reliance on predictive abilities at the expense of analytical look back and true repent. In fact he survived by sheer luck but still insist in his insanity that his instinct and predictive psychic abilities saved him... "sure, Gavin, nice Gavin, why don't you go out and take some fresh air Gavin"
Last but not least, it is abuse and not ownership that should be punished, Gavin better get his a$$ out of my sight if I crossed it, because it is enough that he has removed reasonable doubt against men like me in favor of women, that I am sick and tired of him removing reasonable doubt from a gun owner but not someone piercing their nose abusively with rings.
Oh, and I might add, why was Gavin beat up all the time? He did not have a gun to kill his attacker, that is why, and now he tries to tell us to live a successful life like he did when we know he is lucky because 99% of people that lived his life never actualy lived it.
Gavin is another false prophet, with false cures, without repent, just like his dad, never repenting, abusing the people the way his dad did. He is a psycho selling dangerous cures to people.
"Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media.
In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642.
More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings.
The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence."
(from "Gun Control: Myths and Realities," Cato Institute commentary by David Lampo)
This is twisted lawyer speak. This statistic seems to want to correlate suicide by any means with gun ownership. Means nothing at all.
This statistic is probably the most interesting to me of the lot. Most of the others seem to be pure fluff, but there might be some meaningful information here. Is anybody familiar with the book named, its author, and particularly the source of this particular statistic?
The opposite is true for a telephone or electricity. Amish have lower suicide rates.
What %criminal gang members chosen by the lax nature of juvenile law to be on the front lines that are our streets in our other war, the drug WAR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.