[url=http://www.lizmichael.com/gunsdont.htm] Guns Don't Kill 13 Children a Day[/url]

This is an old saw, oft repeated by anti-gun types and enthusiastically broadcast by the liberal media. People have heard it so many times, most probably believe it's true. It's not. As you might suspect, the statistic is contrived and distorted. It was last sighted in prominent statements by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill dusted it off and wheeled it out for an appearance on NBC's TODAY show on March 2 while lobbying for legislation to mandate trigger locks and smart guns. He insisted that "every single day there are 13 children who die from guns in this country." Hillary reprised the statistic on April 27 when she claimed that "every day in America we lose 13 precious children to gun-related violence."

Apparently, the original source is a 1997 study published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It found that 4,205 personas up to and including the age of 19 were killed in that year in firearm-related fatalities. Divide that number by 365, and you get an average of 11.5 per day. Somehow, the Clintons rounded that up to 13.

But the use of the term "children" is the most manipulative element of this emotionally charged claim. It conjures up images of thousands of 6-year-olds lying prostrate in a pool of blood, with a handgun alongside. My American Heritage Dictionary defines a "child" as a person between birth and puberty ... An infant; a baby".

According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott Jr., fewer than 3 percent of young people killed by guns are under the age of 10. The great majority are virtually adults between the ages of 17 and 19, and most of those are gang members, not young children who are victims of household mishaps. "Trigger locks would do nothing to stop gang members from using guns," say Lott.

According to the actual NCHS data, 86 percent of all firearm-related fatalities among young people was in the age group between 15-19. Of those, about a third --- 1,135 of 3,576 --- were suicides. Tougher gun laws wouldn't prevent those intent on committing suicide from using some other means.

If you confine the field to just those 14 years of age and younger --- a more accurate notion of what we think of a "children" --- the numbers are much less dramatic (which is precisely why Bill, Hillary and gun-control advocates in general use the broader definition). Instead of 4,205 firearm-related fatalities in 1997, the number drops to 629. Eliminating suicides, it's down to 502. That come to 1.4 per day, a far cry from 13. This is still disturbing, and every one of those deaths remains a personal tragedy, but it's not nearly as sensational a figure to throw around for purposes of inflaming public opinion.

The Second Amendment, like the other articles in our Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are reasonable arguments to be made for some restrictions on the personal possession and sale of firearms and other weapons. A compromise will surely be struck between the intractable positions of gun-rights hard-liners and would-be gun-confiscating zealots. Some of the gun-rights people may tend towards paranoia, but at least they believe what they say. When anti-gun propagandists willfully spread bogus statistics, it undermines what remains of their credibility.

I recognize that gun-controllers instinctively seek to influence public opinion through appeals to emotions, but they shouldn't have to lie in the process.

Thanks TT.

I'm e-mailing this to a bunch of people right now!

[wave]

Anybody know how many kids are killed each day by cars?  By other sources?

So we're supposed to rejoice that guns are used to kill *only* 1.4 children a day?

Whew!  That's a relief!  [rolleyes]



A quick peek on the net shows that:


[url]http://www.safechild.net/for_professionals/educators_guns.html[/url]

You can argue undoubtedly exact the numbers, but the more important questions are:  

Why is this happening?  

Who are the idiots involved?

What should we do about this?

How many people on this website, let alone out there in the real world, *do not* own and use gunsafes or other secure methods of storing their weapons?

check out this link from the Mayo clinic

http://secure.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=7BE6C7FC-693C-4499-8372760D4E82717F

Out of that 1.4, how many are justifiable homocide? If some 14 year old gets popped while doing a violent crime that shouldn't be counted either.

If I remember correctly, more children under age 6 die from [b]drowning in buckets of water[/b] than die from handguns.

IMO, gun owners are losing the battle of perception among the general public.  Hundreds of kids injured or dying, with guns involved, don't help.

We have a job to do if we want to counter the negative images of guns and gunowners.  The question is what?

For instance, is it really possible that every AR15.com member and gun owner doesn't own and use a gunsafe?

More kids die in buckets, toilets, swimming pools, and cars, than from guns.

DScott:

"For instance, is it really possible that every AR15.com member and gun owner doesn't own and use a gunsafe?"

by that, i assume you're one of those brilliant thinkers who support the use of mandatory "trigger safety locks".

whatever happened to having a firearm ready for use in case of defending your life or that of your family's?

we can not child proof the world, we can however educate, and disipline children about firearms.

i.e. tell our children,

1. this is a gun, it will hurt / kill any one of us if the trigger is pulled. etc, etc. etc.

2. and if you see it, leave it alone. if not, you're in trouble, big time.

that's how i grew up, my parents had guns. and told me about them. i knew what would happen if i pulled the trigger on one.

however, my parents didn't have to worry about that, because, if i was caught with one, without their knowledge, you could bet i was gonna get a ass whipping!

I don't own a gunsafe. Never have owned one. Number one reason is that there are no children in my house. So yes, it is conceivable that some members of AR-15. com do not own a gunsafe.

Thanks for the article TT.  

It just goes to remind us how those statistics are manipulated to prove any point.  I wish I had statistics as to how many times Bill and Hillary used statistics to twist reality.

Though this is one of the more sad and tragic topics the liberals try to defunk w/ their own personal agenda, it is, as TT exclaimed, pretty much old hat.  It is right on par w/ their history of focusing on issues which are some of the smallest problems in society and magnifying them to ASStronomic proportions.  As once can see w/ the [sarcasm]SENSIBLE[/sarcasm] nature of the AWB, a very small problem has been miraculously transformed into a social epidemic.  

It's reminiscent of how the media handled the "rash" of school shootings over the past couple of years.  They'll focus in on a hot issue, thus creating a seeming rise in that particular type of crime, when in reality, it's not increasing in frequency, just frequency of reporting.  After the embers cool on that band wagon, the Topic De Jour seemingly ceases to occur.  All that really happened is that a newer, more shinny band wagon rolled up to the curb in front of the news station, and everyone hopped on that for the duration of the ride.  

It's not surprising that after the "guns killing kids" fire cooled down, that the Klintons, along w/ other flaming libs, would stoke the coals and try to rekindle the fire.  They'll gladly cite and twist old data, and pull on America's heart strings to further some personal agenda that I can only assume is rooted in a desire for power, because any moderately intelligent person could devote a minimal amount of time in research to supply contrasting (i.e. CORRECT) data.  

I hope you didn't spend an inexorable amount of time researching your post, TT, and if my thoughts are correct, you probably came up w/ you data in under two hours, and more likely only one hour.  

It's sad that so many people place so much stock in what politicians say, and yet their statements can be refuted so easily, and on the internet ta boot!

You've got to hand it to them though.  They're smarter than we think.  They know that can't win in legitimate debate over these issue, so they fall back on their famous appeal to emotions tactic.  "If I can't prove you wrong, at least I can try to make people FEEL like I've proven you wrong."  Even if they have to lie about it.  

I had a very similar conversation about safe storage of firearms with a non gun-owner co-worker yesterday.  He has a toddler and another baby on the way and he asked me if I would get offended if a parent came to my house with a child and asked if I had firearms in the house and if they were secured.

My answer to him was that I would not be offended, as I understand the parent's concern, but I would answer a bit differently.  "I have made my home as safe as reasonably possible for a young child to be in.  I have secured all the drano, bleach and cleaning supplies.  I have no buckets in or near the house.  The bathtub is empty and I don't plan on driving with your child anywhere.  In the same vain, I have also secured all my tools that are not in my immediate control."

He then understood that accidental deaths by
"normal" household items are more prevelant than firearms.  However, it does not prevent me from securing my "stuff" if little ones come over for a visit.

Being unmarried and without children, I do not run in the same circles as my coworkers who have children and the chance of a child coming over are pretty slim.  But, I did have a conversation with my g/f, whose sister-in-law would come over unannounced with her kids.  I had my g/f tell her sister-in-law that she is welcome to come over with her kids, but she is to call first.  Gives me time to secure things and hide, if need be.

-934

I'm sure we'd all agree that parents should be responsible for their children, especially if they're under 14.

So who is it that allows access to guns when these hundreds of kids are getting hurt or killed with firearms?

We should care about that as gunowners, because the media (and the public) are influenced by those images and support legislation that further erodes our rights.

Forget about all the ways kids can die, that's not the issue here- unless I've accidentlly stumbled upon buckets-and-toilets.com or something.

One other thing, all the training in the world isn't going to help other people's kids if they find  your guns.  

Finally, anybody want to take a poll on "How many AR15.com members have had their guns stolen?"  Wanna know how many had safes?  Or, in one case, had guns stolen from an unlocked safe.  

Weapon safety and security is our responsibility, is it not?  Leaving a weapon unattended and unsecured is irresponsible, for a lot of reasons.  

Why does that idea bother some of you?

At an early age I taught my kids safe firearm handling.

I repeatedly reinforce those lessons.

I have taught them the appropriate steps to take if one of their friends displays a firearm when they're visiting friends.

Despite my trust and confidence in my children, I still have all of my firearms secured in a safe. My nightstand pistol is also in a small rapid access safe.

Unless you confine your shooting to rimfires, firearms in general and ARs in particular are not a cheap hobby. We discover that very early on in the game. Plunking down a few hundred for a safe should be considered part of the start up cost of firearms ownership.

I know I'm just splitting hairs here but I feel like the terminology we as pro-gunners use is extremely important. We should not be duped or lulled into adopting anti-gunners terminology/rhetoric.

First of all GUNS have never killed anybody, no, not even children. PEOPLE use GUNS to kill people. Guns do not kill, guns are a tool, just like a shovel is a tool. No shovel will ever dig a hole in the dirt without a person behind it. I can certainly use a shovel to kill a person almost as easily and effectively as I can a gun.

I'm 38 and I've never seen any gun fire on it's own, every single time a gun fires there is a person involved.

Other terminology that comes to mind.....

assault weapons
high capacity magazines
cop killer bullets

These are just a few examples I believe we should strive to not include in our vocabularies.

It ought to say stupidity kills X# of people a day...

I concur. Thanks!!

TT [wave]

You had me nodding and I'm betting countless others with the ability to reason right up until this point.

This is clearly incorrect, and I will leave it to not only you, but also the others who hold this false notion to come to that conclusion yourselves.

The 2nd and all the other cosmic, universal truths contained, enumerated and codified in the righteous documents known as the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights are definitely, positively ABSOLUTE.

[LOLabove][ROFL2]

A gun safe is a great idea if you want each and every one of your firearms locked away out of your reach.  I personally want at least one or two specific weapons that I can grab when that something goes bump in the night.  

I have a personal responsibility to educate my children about firearms, to teach them that guns are not toys, that if misused they will cause pain and death, but also if used appropriately they can give enjoyment to the owner and provide a degree of defense against aggression from certain misguided elements of our society.  

A gun safe is a good storage choice but it shouldn't take the place of doing your job as a parent.  Educate your children, take responsibility for your actions and teach them responsibility for theirs.

all guns are kept in a relatives house upstate(both of ours, as im in NYC).
All of the guns have locks on them, cable locks(no trigger locks), all in carry cases (no safe), and in an attic.

There is also a 5 year old in the house who has been taught the basics of gun safety.
When he sees us downstairs cleaning the guns or whatever, he is welcome to stop by and check em out, fondle em or whatever- under our supervision. He's never tried to get to em in the attic, or anything undesired.

Just so everyone is on the same page... Lets Define:

assault weapons = mobile belt feed weapons, M60, M240, M249 etc.
high capacity magazines = Drum conversions (any other mag is standard capacity.)
cop killer bullets = Police issue ammo, and I'd like to quote the stats on that but don't have them presently.

ALSO = Juvenile - when quoting from insurance stats that can include people up to but not including 26 years of age. - So in some states it is possible for a Cop killed in the line of duty to be a child statistic...

(not meant to hijack thread)