By Freedom States Alliance
, Working to Prevent Gun Violence
-
December 08, 2008
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
OPINION: A Nation Gone Gun Crazy: Young Children Shooting Machine Guns
Time to Ban Bathtubs, Toilets, Pools and Lakes!
Using the same logic that the fear mongers and freedom haters at the "Freedom" States Alliance uses, we should immediately ban the sale and possession of every container that can hold more than 2 inches of water. That may sound extreme, but what you are about to read will hopefully help to provide you with some insight on just how dangerous guns are not when compared to other things that we consider "normal" and "fun".
In 2005, the last year with full data available, the CDC reports 404 firearm related deaths total for children under the age of 14, that is inclusive of the 75 that were unintentional. Also in 2005 there were 1,748 non-fatal firearm related injuries. I will grant to anyone that these numbers are too high and something needs to be done to reduce that number, I just vehemently disagree with the anti-rights gun control groups out there as to what that something should be. I believe that education is the road to fewer firearm accidents and that when children know what a gun is and how dangerous it is, they are less likely to want to play with it or do something that will cause injury to them or others. By that same token, the gun control groups say that there should be no guns in the home, or if they are in the home that they need to be locked away in a place that the children cannot access them in any way. The problem with this method is that if somehow the children do get access to the gun they are far more likely to be so curious about the firearm that they will want to investigate further and that is when the accidents will happen.
During that same year there were 856 fatal drownings of children age 14 or younger and 2,780 non-fatal drownings or water incidents where a child was hospitalized for injuries from being in water but did not die. Now correct me if my math is wrong, but that means that more the twice the number of children died that year from drowning than did from firearms, and an even more applicable comparison since 810 of the 856 drowning deaths were unintentional, that rate is over 10 times higher than the unintentional rate of death by firearms. Also 1,032 more children were injured in water in the U.S. than were injured by firearms.
I have 3 children of my own and don't want them to be hurt or die in any way, but I have to be realistic in how I view the world. I cannot protect them from everything, so the only thing that I can do is help to prepare them for they might face in the world. My kids may come in contact with a gun outside of my control and I want to know that they will understand that real guns are not toys and do the right thing, which is to leave the gun alone and tell an adult (who hopefully knows what the hell they are doing since so many people are afraid of firearms these days). I also know that my job as a parent is not to remove all the risk in life, but to help my children learn how to manage risk, and to make the most sensible decision in every situation.
By the way, I think I may have inadvertently just made the case for the Brady Campaign Against Bodies of Water or the Bathtub and Pool Policy Center. Oops... sorry Home Depot, you may have to start doing background checks on everyone who wants to buy a tub or an above ground pool, and we'll have to watch for those straw bathers out there.
Matt
- mobilemarvel
December 10, 2008 2:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apples V Oranges?
Matt, firearm incidents and drowning incidents are not the same thing, and can't simply be compared as equals.
If you look at the age breakdowns of fatalities you'll see a pattern. (excuse formatting)
Age Firearm Drowning
0 7 74
1 11 197
2 14 174
3 12 89
4 25 58
5 13 32
6 13 31
7 7 21
8 13 26
9 16 19
10 12 17
11 28 25
12 38 19
13 70 41
14 125 33
Total 404 856
Even you wouldn't suggest that 0-1 year olds are likely to misuse a firearm. If you extend the range by just 2 years the firearms hit the lead. Clearly the drowning problem is with the 0-3 year olds, the same group who are rarely killed by guns. Basically around 10 years the guns take over.
Any rational look at these disparities will show that clearly these are 2 different issues at play, so to try and equate them is just plain wrong.
- Pottering
February 9, 2009 3:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, It is Apples vs. Oranges
Pottering,
You miss my point on this. It has nothing to do with the specific breakdown of ages, simply with the fact that the argument that whoever wrote the article above is making can be easily applied to small children and... Anything! Small children have a high mortality rate regardless of what the actual cause of death is. Before I go any further, I want to make sure that everyone knows I am not speaking simply from some callous statistical standpoint with no real horse in the race, so to speak. I have three children, all under the age of 5 years, so this very much concerns me.
I am simply making the argument that if we decide we need to ban guns, or even restrict their use by people who have small children then we need to ban just about everything we do in life. There is no way to ensure a child will make to their 18th birthday no matter what you do, but we can, as an intelligent people, make decisions that will assist and aide them in getting there. I argue that while many people say keep guns away from kids at all time, this is dead wrong, literally! I would hypothesize that most of the firearm related deaths of children could be avoided with education and familiarization. My four year old (almost five) knows that Daddy has four guns, he knows what they are and how they work, and he knows not to touch them. Through arduous training and discipline, my son knows that he is not to touch ANY gun unless Daddy gives the okay first, including toy guns. This way we avoid even the common mistake where a child picks up a small polymer gun thinking it is a toy and ends up a tragic headline. I will work with my other, smaller children on this when their comprehension skills can handle it.
I want to stress that I do NOT believe that all people should have guns. Frankly speaking, there are many people who should not. What I do believe is that, in America, we have the freedom to evaluate ourselves, determine our level of capability, and decide from there whether or not we should be owners of firearms. That includes the ability to train our young ones, or the ability to find help from someone who can.
I want to close by saying that any death of any child is tragic, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. This was not meant to be a direct comparison of numbers, but rather a direct comparison on the futility of anything, including laws banning guns or swimming pools or bathtubs or toilets, other than training and education to prevent as many child deaths as possible.
- mobilemarvel
February 9, 2009 10:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for agreeing, then disagreeing
You first agree that it was apples V oranges, but then go on to say "I am simply making the argument that if we decide we need to ban guns, or even restrict their use by people who have small children then we need to ban just about everything we do in life.". You are trying to make an apples V apples argument when you have conceded that it is apples V oranges.
Guns are NOT "just about every thing we do in life", not by a long shot. Calling for restrictions on guns does not equate to a need to call for restrictions on everything. The stats I produced show that incidents of drowning and firearm fatalities vary greatly according to age, clearly differing factors at play. Yet you appear to want to lump them together.
I'm glad your kid has been taught not to touch guns, sadly we've seen incidents where parents haven't been so cautious.
You write that "This was not meant to be a direct comparison of numbers, but rather a direct comparison on the futility of anything, including laws banning guns or swimming pools or bathtubs or toilets, other than training and education to prevent as many child deaths as possible", but you did provide a direct comparison of numbers. Nobody is claiming that bans/restrictions/whatever can totally eliminate fatal incidents but you appear to think that unless such things achieve a complete solution then they are a waste of time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Pottering
February 10, 2009 4:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Purpose of My Reply...
Wow! There is so much here to take issue with. Unfortunately I don't write for a living so I don't have countless hours to continue to do research and write on this. I want to address a few things you said specifically and then I have to move on.
I am not, nor was I ever trying to compare specifically, as I said before, the issues of childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries. I used that specific statistic to make a broader point that applies to all of life for everyone, whether they are a gun owner or not. It is the fact that personally responsibility is the only thing that will prevent tragedies, and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen... even for non-gun owning families. Life happens, and when we decide as a people to restrict freedom for safety, we have given up the only thing that matters. I could have used the statistics for many other types of childhood injury or death which actually are higher and more closely mirror the age dynamic of firearms deaths for children, but my point was never direct comparison. My point was that no matter what you do... ban guns, swimming pools, anything built higher than 4ft above ground level (as last I checked more children are injured or die in falls than by guns), ban everything you can think of that kills children and children will still die due to tragedy.
Again, I risk sounding callous in writing this, but I believe that personal liberty is more important to our society than any notion of "public safety." For without personal liberty, there is no freedom, and without freedom, who the hell wants to be alive anyway? I would recommend that anyone who is more concerned with preventing the so-called "needless deaths" within the United States pack up their belongings and move to Europe. For instance, in the United Kingdom, they are so concerned with preventing "needless deaths" that they have already outlawed guns, any form of self-defense whatsoever, even if someone is trying to kill you, and they are well on the way to banning knives as well. Don't ruin my country, move to somewhere that they have already given up on their personal freedom for the false pretense of safety.
You stated that I think "unless such things achieve a complete solution then they are a waste of time." While you are partially correct, I do need to correct you on one thing: Any of those kinds of laws are not only a waste of time, but a surrender of liberty for the sake of some people's peace of mind. I am not willing to accept that. Peace of mind will not keep me safe from some piece of crap gangster or junkie who wants to impress his ghetto friends or score another hit of smack from killing me when I won't give him what he wants. In this world, as long as there is evil, I will use the most effective means of keeping that evil from hurting myself or my family. These useless social pariah will never give up the tools that they use to take advantage of good honest people, and therefore I will not give up mine. Not to mention gun bans only make things worse, see: United Kingdom and Australia.
That is really all of the time that I have to address this issue. Maybe this time you can see my actual point instead of fixating on the numbers.
P.S. The numbers do show that gun deaths and injuries of children is at an all time low and is in the BOTTOM 5 things that injure or kill our children.
- mobilemarvel
February 13, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your logic is confused
You say", "I am not, nor was I ever trying to compare specifically, as I said before, the issues of childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries. I used that specific statistic to make a broader point that applies to all of life for everyone, whether they are a gun owner or not. It is the fact that ", and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen... even for non-gun owning families.".
You did compare childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries, that is a fact, so don't try and tell you didn't.
You go on to state, "and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen". Tell us something we don't know.
With or without personal responsibility tragedies will happen, we all know that. How best to avert tragedies is what we should be investigating. Whether the costs of avoiding tragedies are outweighed by other considerations is a matter for conjecture.
Public safety does not necessarily mean a loss of personal liberty as you infer. Our personal liberties are already infringed in a number of ways.
Self defense is NOT outlawed in the UK as you postulate, that's just hyperbole on your point to try and make a case. Stick to the facts, please.
You go on to make the argument that "Any of those kinds of laws" are a surrender of liberty simply for somebody else's peace of mind. That is breathtakingly arrogant. Believe it not the vast majority of those wanting stricter gun laws want them, not simply for peace of mind, but for actual results, ie Australia's 1996 gun laws instituted to limit the possibility of firearm mass murder and none since.
You sate that "Not to mention gun bans only make things worse, see: United Kingdom and Australia.". Well now I know why you said upfront "I don't have countless hours to continue to do research". I'm from Australia and I challenge you to provide any factual evidence that our gun laws have made things worse. Over to you.
- Pottering
February 14, 2009 9:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too Easy
First thing I Googled. Take it for what it's worth. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
Sure, firearm mass murder is down in Australia, but every other form of violent crime is up.
Since our liberties are already infringed, we should put up with MORE infringement?
Yeah the Brits can defend themselves. I think pointed sticks are still legal.
Lastly, you're from Australia. Enjoy your gun free Utopia and quit dinking with my freedom.
-RedFish
- RedFish
February 16, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.