Posted on 11/26/2001 8:55:36 AM PST by butter pecan fan
If you had any independent thinking skills you would realize those statistics are misleading, if not entirely fabricated.
In 1994, every day, 16 children age 19 and under were killed with gun...
Simple arithmetic leads to a number of 5,840 children and young adults were slain by firearms. There are several problems with this statistic. One, this is much more than the figure reported by the US DOJ and the UN WHO. Two, this figure does not distinguish accential death from deliberate homicide. Three, it does not distinguish between children and adults. Anyone over the age of 18 is legally an adult, and including them into a figure for the deaths of children is inaccurate.
If you actually were an independent thinker, you would realize you are being fed a line. If you separate 17 - 19 year olds from your figure, the number of firearm related fatalities drops more than order of magniture. Clearly, something different is going on with this other age bracket.
You can't.
I'm not trying to be flippant, but you simply cannot
ever be absolutely certain about anything in the future.
You and your loved ones may never have need of a
firearm. Your house might be broken into tomorrow.
Your children could live a crime free life well into
their retirement years, or they could be attacked
before they get to an age where they start shaving.
Though you cannot be certain, you can play the odds.
Odds are that having a gun in your home that is
responsibly stored around well-parented children will
never cause unintended, unjustifiable harm to anyone.
Were this not true the U.S. population would be
millions of people short of where it stands now. There
are currently over 200 million privately owned firearms
(not just handguns, but all guns) in the U.S. today,
many of them decades old. If guns were inherently as
dangerous to have around as fear-mongers would have us
believe the herd would have been culled quite a bit by
now.
As mentioned by other posters on this thread, the
numbers you cite in the thread starting post have been
de-bunked for years. The information you posted is not
information to be discussed, it is disinformation fit
only to be dissected. The numbers you present are the
progeny of warped minds, non-causal links, outright
fraud, an abuse of the plain meaning of words in the
English language ("is"=is) and they represent little
more than another rehashing of tired propaganda.
I would gladly discuss the real numbers of
accidents/suicides/homicides/defensive-gun-uses if you
chose to post them, but you did not.
And before you place a research burden on me, remember;
I did not start this thread, you did.
Should I even dignify this with a response?
I have never participated in this forum prior to joining nearly two months ago, under the screen name "butter pecan fan."
I have been accused several times now of being a troll or disruptor, because:
a) I'm a relative newbie (although with more than 500 references to my participation, I've participated here probably ten times as much as quite a few of the old farts), and
b) no, I'm damn well not just going to agree with every single damn thing you say just because you want me to.
I'm not your damn dittohead, "EPluribus".
And incidentally, unlike some here who hold conservative values because their daddy did, I hold conservative values because I take the time, effort and honesty to look at the facts on both sides of the issue, and I consistently find, after letting the liberals have their best shot, that truth actually does point in a conservative direction. I don't have to hype it up. I don't have to just parrot untested "facts" to myself and others. The truth is not always as knee-jerk black-and-white on every issue as some here would like, of course, but that's life.
I would think that people who actually think and examine both sides of a question would be valued. Obviously not.
BTW, it was YOU (a week ago) who basically "pushed me over the edge" into deciding that I'd like to purchase a handgun, by posting some of the transparently empty anti-gun propaganda... now I just need to come up with the budget for what I want... 8-)
I personally like the SIG-Sauer P239s, and the Kahr 9mms. Their P9s are very light in weight (being mostly polymer construction instead of steel) but they seem to have some slide lock problems. I'm not sure whether Kahr has corrected this, perhaps they have. I especially like the K9s and perhaps most of all the little MK9. Hope to get out and try these at an indoor range sometime soon.
But they're all too darn expensive for me right now.
and
If you actually were an independent thinker, you would realize you are being fed a line.
I've spent many hours researching firearms issues so far and, yes, a lot of what I've read has been propaganda. Most of it on the side of the anti-gun crowd, but (this might shock you) pro-firearms people are not completely immune from shading or distorting the truth, either.
I THOUGHT that if I reposted some statistics here it might serve as a basis for some intelligent discussion, as well as an analysis into some of the finer points of the information (specifically, the claims that firearms presence increase risk of adolescent suicide and the rather disturbing reported tendency of many, if not most, young boys who encounter a firearm by accident, to simply pull the trigger and see what happens).
Obviously, if someone posts something here which contains ANY information NOT deemed to be "100% conservatively kosher" without CLEARLY labelling it, "BARF ALERT - EVERYBODY SLAM THIS ARTICLE", then there are SOME who will be highly offended.
It must just take too much effort to actually look at some of the claims made and discuss why they are or are not valid. Oh, and it offends some who desperately fear the masses will be misled into damnation by anything NOT clearly labelled "BARF ALERT."
Fortunately, there are some here who are willing to actually think about and discuss the issues, and consider whether there be any actual truth in a claim made by anyone labelled "the opposition."
My personal feeling has been that truth is arrived at by a careful investigation of claims and counter claims made on each side of an argument, and discovering WHY claims are invalid, thus leading (would you believe it?) to a greater certainty and confidence in one's own position, but, hey, I guess such an approach is out of fashion. Not to mention dangerous, since somebody such as yourself might actually learn something new.
Or somebody such as myself, who has already invested many hours into researching the issues and who, yes, knows that certain portions of the article posted are quite invalid but who still has questions about some of the finer points.
I THOUGHT that some of the infinitely wise people here such as yourself might be able to make a contribution to share a bit of your vast store of wisdom with those in need of it, as well as sources for your conclusions. But I guess I was wrong.
It's just too darn hard for me not to hit the reply button on the various personal attacks...
The one which caught my attention was the one about twice as many suicides. I would love to know how that one was obtained. I would just about bet it is phony. I remember many years ago when the old saw about being 30 times more likely to be killed by your gun than to kill a criminal was put out by a leftist professor. (they are now claiming 51 to 1)
Some people checked and found out he had used some incredibly naive (perhaps stupid) methodology. He simply took the number of deaths and divided it by the number of people who killed criminal with a gun.
The main reason I suspect the suicide statistic is phony is I doubt that any government agency keeps any such records. What I would bet is that someone cherry picked a certain city, county etc., where that figure just happened to be true for a limited study by some individual, then interpolated it.
Another reason I suspect it is phony is that it just doesn't make sense. If a person really wants to commit suicide there are literally thousands of possible ways and many of them much less painful or messy.
One thing I really disagree with you on is that I don't think I have ever seen statistics put out by a reputable pro gun group that was slanted. In fact I am often irritated that they seem so reluctant to use some that are clearly true but not absolutely provable.
I have weighed the stats from both sides and find that the pro-gun stats are infinitely more credible than the anti.
The anti stats speak to emotion while the pro stats speak to reason. I tend to favor reason.
Well, with this I can't disagree in principal. Everybody has their take on a subject, but that doesn't make them right.
I THOUGHT that if I reposted some statistics here it might serve as a basis for some intelligent discussion, as well as an analysis into some of the finer points of the information (specifically, the claims that firearms presence increase risk of adolescent suicide and the rather disturbing reported tendency of many, if not most, young boys who encounter a firearm by accident, to simply pull the trigger and see what happens).
Removing weaponry to prevent suicide is just treating the symptom.
Obviously, if someone posts something here which contains ANY information NOT deemed to be "100% conservatively kosher" without CLEARLY labelling it, "BARF ALERT - EVERYBODY SLAM THIS ARTICLE", then there are SOME who will be highly offended.
It's just that we've seen the whole "twenty kids per day lose their lives" claim, which seems bad at first, but then you look more closely at the numbers and realize that young-adult street gang activity makes up the brunt of the figure. Then you wonder what these people are tying to push off. They said twenty children a day, not less than one child per day, plus nineteen and three-quarters gang-bangers shooting each other.
It must just take too much effort to actually look at some of the claims made and discuss why they are or are not valid. Oh, and it offends some who desperately fear the masses will be misled into damnation by anything NOT clearly labelled "BARF ALERT."
Well, articles favorable to gun control by custom around here deserve "barf alerts." When in Rome.
Fortunately, there are some here who are willing to actually think about and discuss the issues, and consider whether there be any actual truth in a claim made by anyone labelled "the opposition."
The actual truth is that a firearm is a tool. Nor are firearms the leading cause of death in this country. They are way down at the bottom, next to drowning and falls from height.
My personal feeling has been that truth is arrived at by a careful investigation of claims and counter claims made on each side of an argument, and discovering WHY claims are invalid, thus leading (would you believe it?) to a greater certainty and confidence in one's own position, but, hey, I guess such an approach is out of fashion. Not to mention dangerous, since somebody such as yourself might actually learn something new.
I am in danger of learning something new? What arrogance. How many guns do you own, and what is your experience with weaponry? If you have little, then what business do you have telling me what to do?
The people who push for gun control are invariably people who have no experience with firearms. People who push for design changes in firearm construction know nothing about what the customer wants. People who push for gun control act as if they fear guns, and you fear what you don't understand. So, I think you should learn something new.
Or somebody such as myself, who has already invested many hours into researching the issues and who, yes, knows that certain portions of the article posted are quite invalid but who still has questions about some of the finer points.
Hours of research? Were you in the armed forces? Are you a policeman?
I THOUGHT that some of the infinitely wise people here such as yourself might be able to make a contribution to share a bit of your vast store of wisdom with those in need of it, as well as sources for your conclusions. But I guess I was wrong.
Are you an "independent thinker" or are "infinitely wise?" You are quick on the draw, if you'll excuse the expression.
I would too, but I think it's probably been "cracked" by another poster who suggested, in essence, that a number of adolescents attempt suicide and fail - that they are more likely to succeed if they have access to a firearm.
I would just about bet it is phony.
That's possible as well, though for now i'm favoring the "success" theory.
The main reason I suspect the suicide statistic is phony is I doubt that any government agency keeps any such records.
Some academic could have done some kind of survey. Again, it's hard to know without the source, which i don't have at present.
One thing I really disagree with you on is that I don't think I have ever seen statistics put out by a reputable pro gun group that was slanted. In fact I am often irritated that they seem so reluctant to use some that are clearly true but not absolutely provable.
I agree with you that this by and large seems to be the case. Some of the VPC "stats" are particularly egregious. The problems I've noticed on the pro-gun side definitely seem, so far to me, to be fewer and less severe. However, I've noted at least a few questionable things there as well.
The ONLY positive kids-and-guns info I found quoted a govt study that found, among many other things, that kids who owned a legal gun seemed LESS likely to commit a couple different types of crime than kids who owned either illegal guns, or no guns at all. The presentation I saw made it sound (it seemed to me) as if this conclusion was the major focus and result of the study, and that this part was more extensive and conclusive than it was.
The study compared 3 things: street crime, gun crime and drug use. I would say that statistically, there was really not terribly much difference in the latter two categories: 1 percent vs. 0 percent for gun crime and 15 pct vs. 13 pct for drug use, out of a sample of 1000. The street crime figures were more significant, 24 vs. 14 pct.
Anyway, all of this does reflect parental engagement.
The actual study is at:
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf ...
The same people are probably more determined to kill themselves and would possibly find even more deadly means if there were no guns. (Believe it or not, many people shoot themselves in the head and survive). For example driving your car into a bridge abutment at 100 mph.
I have seen many reports that girls fail at suicide at a far greater rate than boys. It is also true that girls tend to use drug overdoses.
I can't quote the studies but am certain it has been determined over and over that the reason girls don't succeed as often as boys is that they really aren't determined to succeed.
Despite the previous statements, I still don't even think the statistics are accurate because just about anyone who really wants a gun can get one, and as I said even if they are, they are meaningless.
Removing weaponry to prevent suicide is just treating the symptom.
I'll agree with that, and what's more, it's well said.
It's just that we've seen the whole "twenty kids per day lose their lives" claim (snip)
Yeah, I know. But there are other things in what I posted besides that stat, if that one's even in there.
Well, articles favorable to gun control by custom around here deserve "barf alerts." When in Rome.
Again, IMO a "barf alert" elicits ridicule rather than discussion. Perhaps I *should* have been more clear up front about the specific points I most wanted to discuss, however. However, I was also interested in some more general comment as well, which, happily, a number of people have provided.
BTW, as far as I could tell through my search (and my previous perusal of the bang list), this is the first thread here specifically on KIDS and guns.
The actual truth is that a firearm is a tool. Nor are firearms the leading cause of death in this country. They are way down at the bottom, next to drowning and falls from height.
Thanks for mentioning this, as it sparks my memory that one of the (relatively few) invalid statistical presentations on the PRO-gun I've seen recently had to do with the proportion of drowning deaths and how much more dangerous a swimming pool is to children than a firearm. The point may have been valid, but the scale appeared to be WAY off, since I'm nearly certain they attributed drowning deaths from ALL sources (lakes, rivers, streams, bathtubs, community swimming pools, residential swimming pools, buckets, etc.) to residential swimming pools alone.
I am in danger of learning something new? What arrogance. How many guns do you own, and what is your experience with weaponry? If you have little, then what business do you have telling me what to do?
I didn't tell you what to do, although I did suggest you might learn something new by considering and discussing an issue.
If you disagree with that, then my point is well made.
As for arrogance, well, you started that exchange by making the ludicrous claim that I am "not an independent thinker."
>snip, snip, snip<So, I think you should learn something new.
I'm doing my best on that.
Hours of research? Were you in the armed forces? Are you a policeman?
No and no. Are you? Were you? Even if you are/ were, it doesn't mean you can't learn something new from some genuine, honest research and examination of facts and statistics.
Are you an "independent thinker" or are "infinitely wise?" You are quick on the draw, if you'll excuse the expression.
If I were infinitely wise, I wouldn't put myself in the category of possibly being able to benefit from the wisdom of others around here, would I?
As far as being quick on the draw, maybe, since I tire quickly of people who jump up to accuse me of various things just because I don't quite fit their cookie-cutter mold. And if pushed, I do tend to push back.
Oddly, while in elementary school I was philosophically a genuine pacifist... :-)
Jeepers. I would have thought heart attacks, or stroke, or anvils, or something.
Wow, do you really think us all to be so short sighted and ill-informed? Did you really think that we have never discussed kids and guns before?
Check this link for just a sampling of the hundreds of prior threads on FR that have discussed kids, guns and suicide.
Don't assume that just because your searching did not turn up any prior threads that none exist.
To which you replied:
I'll agree with that, and what's more, it's well said.
Thank you. In my opinion the issue of gun control is one of treating the symptom, generally speaking. Banning fireams does not remove the impetus for homicide or suicide. It stands to reason if there are no guns that there will be no gun deaths, but does this end homicide or suicide? But really this is just removing a tool people use in the employment of crime. It does nothing to reduce criminal tendancies, or address the root causes of crime or suicides. The reasoning goes with no guns, there will be fewer opportunities to steal and kill. To me, this seems to be relying on the laziness of criminals, figuring that if they do not have firearms that they will give up crime as too inconvenient. If someone is determined to steal or kill, will the not find a way?
Why take all of our firearms away, when the thing to do is to take away the people who would steal and kill. Lock them up, separate them from the rest of us.
I wrote:
It's just that we've seen the whole "twenty kids per day lose their lives" claim (snip)
To which you replied:
Yeah, I know. But there are other things in what I posted besides that stat, if that one's even in there.
Yes, but all of those statements are designed to elicit an emotional response. They are calculated to raise alarm at the thought of happy little children being needlessly slaughtered. It is an example of pursuasive writing, not scientific fact but statistics cited for the specific purpuse to covey a point of view. I am not swayed.
I wrote:
Well, articles favorable to gun control by custom around here deserve "barf alerts." When in Rome.
To which you replied:
Again, IMO a "barf alert" elicits ridicule rather than discussion.
Um yeah. When in Rome. There are people who are willing to talk about gun control, but you must be willing to survive slings and arrows. If I go over to Democratic Underground and start threads that have objectional (to them) topics I am going to get flamed.
BTW, as far as I could tell through my search (and my previous perusal of the bang list), this is the first thread here specifically on KIDS and guns.
Around here, any general call to make law "for the children" is suspect as an appeal to emotion. We are inundated with emotional appeals to make law for the children, ban cigarettes to protect kids, get rid of guns to protect kids, etc. The real world just cannot practically be made safe for children. This is the parent's job, to keep their kids from harm, and not that of the government.
I wrote:
The actual truth is that a firearm is a tool. Nor are firearms the leading cause of death in this country. They are way down at the bottom, next to drowning and falls from height.
To which you replied:
Thanks for mentioning this, as it sparks my memory that one of the (relatively few) invalid statistical presentations on the PRO-gun I've seen recently had to do with the proportion of drowning deaths and how much more dangerous a swimming pool is to children than a firearm. The point may have been valid, but the scale appeared to be WAY off, since I'm nearly certain they attributed drowning deaths from ALL sources (lakes, rivers, streams, bathtubs, community swimming pools, residential swimming pools, buckets, etc.) to residential swimming pools alone.
Sure. There are different kind of fatalities that can occur with firearms. A mehcanical flaw can cause injury, accidental discharge, criminal misuse, etc. The statistic "20 kids per day" was equally overbroad, especially in the inclusion of criminal-gang aged adults in the figure seriously slews the figure to make it look far more dramatic that it would be otherwise.
Taken in relation to other accidental causes of death, firearm relate accidents aren't any more or less common. The majority of deaths due to firearms are due to criminal activity, which we've both agreed aren't caused by the guns themselves. If the ultimate goal is to save lives, it is logical to spend limited resources on those things that cause the most fatalities. Reduction of 1% fatalities from accidental discharges of firearms will save a handfull of lives per year, whereas reducing automobile fatalities by %1 will save orders of magniture more.
That's why we scoff at these statistics. They are calculated to bring an emotional response about guns, making them seem more dangerous than they really are. A firearm is a tool, it has no will or life of its own. A person must wield it. The most firearm related fatalities involve criminal acts, so it stands to reason to restrict the criminals themselves, not to curtail gun ownership by otherwise law abiding people.
I wrote:
I am in danger of learning something new? What arrogance. How many guns do you own, and what is your experience with weaponry? If you have little, then what business do you have telling me what to do?
To which you replied:
I didn't tell you what to do, although I did suggest you might learn something new by considering and discussing an issue.
To the contrary. The whole business of gun control revolves around making new laws that affect me directly. Discussing is all well and good, but let's be honest as to what the ultimate goal. You are arguing for change. It's your responsibility to prove a change is needed, while all I have to do is defend the status quo.
You wrote:
As for arrogance, well, you started that exchange by making the ludicrous claim that I am "not an independent thinker."
Nope, sorry. I was responding to your flame in message number 41, which which you wrote:
...and who shows ANY evidence whatsoever of being an independent thinker rather than just a "YEAH, BABY, ME TOO!" dittohead who just automatically SECONDS every single damn thing that is said in this forum.
That is the comment to which I was alluding.
I asked:
Hours of research? Were you in the armed forces? Are you a policeman?
To which you replied:
No and no. Are you? Were you? Even if you are/ were, it doesn't mean you can't learn something new from some genuine, honest research and examination of facts and statistics.
You talking to a Marine Corps veteran. And if you have little experience with firearms, pretty much you are arguing from authority. I don't suggest that I am an authoritative expert on weaponry and the law, but I have been around firearms my entire life. I've hunted since I was young, and I still own a number of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I shoot regularly. Are you personally acquainted with the people responsible for these figures? Were you involved in the research? The actual research, not a few hours of library reading. What you call research is just becoming familiar with the reading material. Obviously, this material agrees with your own personal bias, and so you present it as fact. But do you know it is fact? Would you bet your professional reputation on it? Your life?
What this position ultimately suggests is that I am a dangerous criminal. That my guns are a present danger to the community. You personally may not share the opinion, but many on your side would demand I relinquish my weapons, or go to prison. I am no criminal, I don't even have any outstanding parking tickets.
In conclusion, please do not argue from authority. The authority you cite may not be considered credible in all circles.
1) You seem to either misunderstand or assume my position on the issue of gun control. Whatever the case, you are falsely stating my own personal position. You do this several times:
* let's be honest as to what the ultimate goal. You are arguing for change.
* Obviously, this material agrees with your own personal bias, and so you present it as fact.
* What this position ultimately suggests is that I am a dangerous criminal. That my guns are a present danger to the community. You personally may not share the opinion, but many on your side would demand I relinquish my weapons, or go to prison.
Nowhere in this thread, as far as I'm aware, have I "argued for change". Discussion and fact-finding is NOT arguing for change. Nor have I personally taken the position of the author of the articles referenced.
I suspect that I'm about to argue for change, though not of the kind you quite obviously expect. There is a very good likelihood that I'm going to get involved in arguing and agitating for the passage of a concealed-carry law in the state in which I reside.
If you had read some of my posts in this thread which are not addressed directly to you, perhaps you would have better understood my position.
I was responding to your flame in message number 41, which which you wrote:
...and who shows ANY evidence whatsoever of being an independent thinker rather than just a "YEAH, BABY, ME TOO!" dittohead who just automatically SECONDS every single damn thing that is said in this forum.
That "flame" was not directed to you, but to a moron who had first flamed me by glibly labelling me a troll - apparently without bothering to read any of my numerous previous posts in this forum. I did not flame you in any way, since I was defending myself from attack, and was not even speaking to you. You responded, in effect, by jumping into the conversation and flaming me. Therefore my position that "you started it" stands.
You talking to a Marine Corps veteran. And if you have little experience with firearms, pretty much you are arguing from authority.
As you yourself have noted, hands-on experience with firearms does not
suggest that I am an authoritative expert on weaponry and the law.
You ask:
Are you personally acquainted with the people responsible for these figures? Were you involved in the research? The actual research, not a few hours of library reading.
No, I'm not, which is why I'm reading the research which addresses both sides of an issue and trying to discover the nuances of what is correct and incorrect.
What you call research is just becoming familiar with the reading material.
It would appear that you are not very familiar with methods of research. Reading what has previously been published is known as "secondary research," and it is an integral part of gaining understanding of an issue.
Since others have done research and published the results, reviewing the range of their research and determining what of it is valid is one of the most efficient (and accepted) means of learning something about the subject.
In conclusion, please do not argue from authority. The authority you cite may not be considered credible in all circles.
Again, you mistake my interest in discussion and fact-finding for an "argument against your personal position."
Arguing from authority is making an argument based on the fact that Person A has credibility because he is a such-and-such, and Person A says thus-and-so, therefore thus-and-so must be true. A perfect example is, "I am an ex-Marine. Therefore what I say about firearms policy and adolescent firearms suicide and so on must be true, because I've handled guns, and I've served my country as well."
I in no way disparage or dishonor your service of our country - on the contrary, I respect, admire and appreciate it, and hold you in high esteem as I do any member or former member of our armed forces - but that alone doesn't qualify you to understand the dynamics of societal behavior in the way that civilians (including adolescents) handle firearms.
Not only have I NOT argued in this thread for a specific position, my focus has been exclusively on the facts (and on whether or not such-and-such facts are true) - not the supposed "authorities" behind them. Your assessment, therefore, that I was "arguing from authority" is doubly incorrect.
I hate to leave it at that, because there is so much in your post I agree with. Suffice it to say, if you reread your post and note the substantial amount of stuff I haven't challenged, well, we agree on those things.
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.