Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL XXXVIII (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  evidently (8+ / 0-)

    you did not read the recent NY Times article n this very subject

    And there are far more of these innocent victims than official records show.

    A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available.

    As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The problem with statistics like the ones you quoted as they are guesstimates as there is no real reporting system in place to collect the data

    •  Even assuming the NYT story is correct.... (0+ / 0-)

      Twice the number I linked is still only 0.4 per 100,000, meaning that accidental daaths of children from cars, strangulation, drowning, poisoning and fire are all still significantly higher.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 06:22:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what? (5+ / 0-)

        You seem to argue we should do nothing to address needless gun violence?

      •  well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, WakeUpNeo, coquiero

        The fact that they took a fairly large sample and found the reported numbers to be useless indicates they are useless.
        They could be 10 times as large, would that move you to show some concern?

        The point is that the numbers are useless because there is no real data collection on any of these "causes", they are all estimates.

        But we do something about them though, don't we?

        We have seat belts and car seats and laws to ensure they are used, we vet   cribs and toys for safety, and have childproof packaging.

        If a parent hung a noose in a child's crib, they would be seen as irresponsible...but leaving a loaded firearm around is just an another "accident"

        •  Leaving a loaded firearm is irresponsible (0+ / 0-)

          However, judging by the mortality rate, it would seem that your noose scenario happens more often.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 08:18:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd like to see more about these rope deaths ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo, coquiero

            What constitutes a rope-related death? Does the rope have to be directly related, or somehow involved? Was the the rope the only risk factor involved?

            There's a difference between accidentally strangling yourself with one that was lying around the house, or letting a child do so, and having one break on you while you're climbing or swinging across a gorge.

          •  you are being obtuse (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, coquiero

            As the Times article pointed out, many, many of these incidents are reported not as accidental deaths, but as homicides.

            Go back to the chart you are quoting from and note that while 138 incidents were reported as accidents, 2186 were reported as homicide, add them together, then recalculate.  

            •  No, I am being consistent. (0+ / 0-)

              GunFAIL lists accidents.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 12:16:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  B-b-b-but ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                One of the points of the Times article was the huge inconsistency of how such incidents are classified ... Even in the same jurisdiction, one toddler shooting another was ruled an accident, while a similar unintentional shooting death of an older child caused by another kid playing with a gun a year earlier was ruled a homicide for statistical purposes. If all these were classified as accidents, the article seemed to argue, the rate would be at least twice what it is officially.

                •  And even at twice the rate.... (0+ / 0-)

                  Motor Vehicles, strangulation, drowning, poisoning & fire are responsible for far more accidental deaths than firearms.

                  Even if that article is correct, even assuming tgeir most dire of senarios, 0.4 deaths per 100,000 is an extraordinarily low rate.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 04:15:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Would you be so sanguine about this if ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... every person who personally knew a child who died this way was likely to support restrictive gun laws as a result?

                    You have a stake in lowering this count that the numbers can't show you.

                    •  I don't have to 'lower the count'. (0+ / 0-)

                      The count is already extremely low.

                      Which is why these anecdotal diaries exist.
                      And why you are trying to steer the conversation to hypothetical appeals to emotion.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 10:19:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site