Skip to main content

You've probably heard the gun lobby successfully oppose safe-storage laws meant to keep firearms away from young children with two talking points:

1) too few children die from negligent-discharge accidents each year to justify infringing the Second Amendment rights of Responsible Gun Owners this way, and
2) most of the children that do die from the negligent discharge of firearms die when criminals are the ones negligently discharging firearms.
Accidental Gun Deaths Undercounted
Those of us who regularly read David Waldman's weekly GunFAIL diaries were finding both of those harder and harder to believe, if we ever did.

And now, after Michael Luo and Mike McIntyre at The New York Times got into the drawer where the statistics were kept and started playing with the data, well, #1 is being loaded onto the ambulance and #2 is lying face down in a pool of blood at the scene.

Join me below the fold.

Luo and McIntyre recount many fatal shooting incidents from past years that sound sadly similar to the ones we read of every week (here's the latest installment). In Georgia, an Army sergeant's 2-year-old shoots himself in the head with Daddy's .45, kept under a pillow in a guest bedroom whose door lock didn't catch. A Minnesota 11-year-old decides to take out his 20-gauge before his first gun-safety class, thinks better of it, but fumbles with it as he puts it back and kills his sister in the process. And in a Texas case that stunned even someone who's read all too many of these accounts, a 2-year-old sharing a crib with his 9-month-old brother manages to get a gun out of a nearby dresser drawer,  and ... just go read the whole thing.

The paperwork from that last one is one of the Times' exhibits as to how accidental gun deaths of children are under-counted. Apparently, coroners and medical examiners across the country don't always classify these deaths as "accidents" (they're actually the result of negligence, of course, but that's for another diary). Some jurisdictions call it "homicide", which, in the broadest sense, is a death caused by another whether intentionally or not. Sometimes a death will be considered a homicide even if self-inflicted, as in the case of an Ohio boy whose father momentarily left the gun he was going to go out and shoot with later underneath the sofa cushions he was sitting on while he went out to set up an inflatable swimming pool (The father was later convicted of negligent homicide and endangering a child. Ohio is one of less than 20 states where the law mandates that a firearm be secured properly in the presence of children).

Even within the same jurisdiction, there is no consistency. Bexar County, Texas, found that the death of the 9-month-old above was a homicide; yet a 2-year-old inadvertently shot dead by his older brother in the same county a year later was ruled to have died accidentally.

This confusion inevitably distorts what the National Center for Health Statistics reports. And then the federal government creates another problem when trying to incorporate data on accidents. I'll let McIntire and Luo sum it up:

Another important aspect of firearm accidents is that a vast majority of victims do not die. Tracking these injuries nationally, however, is arguably just as problematic as tallying fatalities, according to public health researchers. In fact, national figures often cited from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web site are an estimate, projected from a sampling taken from hospital emergency departments. Nevertheless, in 2011, the most recent year with available data, the agency estimated that there were 847 unintentional nonfatal firearm injuries among children 14 and under.

More concrete are actual counts of emergency department visits, which are available in a small number of states. In North Carolina, for instance, there were more than 120 such visits for nonfatal gun accidents among children 17 and under in 2010, the most recent year for which data is available.

Based on the 259 accidental shooting deaths of children under 15 in five states the Times reporters studied, some as far back as 1999, they argue that the real rate of such deaths is in fact twice as high due to these inadequacies in compiling the statistics; the five states are MN, GA, NC, OH, CA. In four of those five states, it is demonstrably higher.

Further number-crunching on the ages of the victims, type of gun, and location of shooting yielded some predictable results. Children are most often killed this way at home, with handguns (especially when younger, as children closer to their teens often have been given long guns by their parents). But it also cast doubt on another gun-lobby claim:

In opposing safe-storage laws, some gun rights advocates have argued that a majority of accidental shootings of children are committed by adults with criminal backgrounds. The Times’s review found that was not the case — children were most often the shooters — and that the families involved came from all walks of life.
In one case from Illinois the article cites a convicted felon left his illegally-possessed .38 in another room of his ex-girlfriend's house long enough for a 4-year-old to kill his 2-year-old cousin with it. He got another decade in the big house as a result. But it was still the child who did the shooting.
“Wise would have been a felon in possession even had he possessed the gun in a more responsible way — say, if he had kept it unloaded in a locked cabinet, or if he had kept it unloaded with a trigger lock,” an appellate judge wrote in rejecting his bid for leniency. “More than likely, though, responsible possession would not have endangered the lives of children.”

Even the pro-gun rights 7th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the tragic failure of Mr. Wise to properly secure his gun, "It is an event almost too painful to recount...."

UNITED STATES v. WISE, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08–2794

It is an event almost too painful to recount:  a four-year-old discharged a gun he found lying around the house, killing his two-year-old cousin. The inaptly named Anthony Wise is the person who left the loaded gun on a window ledge behind a computer. As it turns out, Wise was even extra unwise because he was a convicted felon who could not legally possess a gun. As a result of all this, Wise was charged and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His sentence was enhanced because the judge found that he had also violated an Illinois statute prohibiting child endangerment. Wise was sentenced above the guideline range to a term of 120 months in prison. He contends the enhancement was improper and that the sentence is unreasonable.

Until the week before the incident, Wise was living with Kimberly Terrell, the mother of the slain child—we will refer to the child as Sandy—in her apartment in Venice, Illinois.   Although Wise was not Sandy's biological father, he considered himself to be her father and his name was on her birth certificate. Two days before the day in question, Wise was in the apartment. While there, he placed a loaded gun on a window ledge, a spot where it should have been quite obvious that kids could find it. He later acknowledged, because children were often present, it was not a good place to leave a loaded gun.

On the evening of the incident, Wise and a friend, Anthony Borney, were at Kimberly's apartment. Also in the apartment in the living room were Kimberly's four-year-old nephew, who we will call Danny, and another two-year-old little girl. At some point, Wise and Kimberly went into a bedroom and began to argue, leaving the children in the living room with Borney. Later, Borney left the room. Less than two minutes after he left, a gunshot rang out. In that short time, Danny had picked up the gun, and it discharged in his hands. Borney, Wise, and Kimberly rushed to the living room to find Sandy lying on the floor. She had been shot in the head. Wise picked up the gun and ran from the apartment. He threw it away near a railroad track, where the Illinois State Police subsequently found it after Wise told them where it was. Sandy, sadly, died the following day at a hospital in St. Louis.

[emphasis added]

...Continue reading UNITED STATES v. WISE

Don't all states have laws against child endangerment?


The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment.  We also cover the many positive aspects of gun ownership, including hunting, shooting sports, and self-defense.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:38 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (36+ / 0-)

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by Daniel Case on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:38:12 PM PST

  •  Ouch! Judge Evans does not mince words! (15+ / 0-)
    The inaptly named Anthony Wise is the person who left the loaded gun on a window ledge behind a computer.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:47:55 PM PST

  •  SMH. (10+ / 0-)

    Thank you, Daniel Case.

    It is sad that for some, each of these children's preventable injuries and deaths are only "anecdotes" and statistically "insignificant."

  •  Sad but not a surprise. Children will someday be (6+ / 0-)

    more than a statistic in the debate about gun safety legislation.

  •  I believe that gun owners should be required (8+ / 0-)

    to have insurance the same as car owners. When they realize that there are financial consequences for their poor judgment, maybe there will be less casualities.

  •  There are a whole host of people who are (8+ / 0-)

    neither criminals nor responsible gun owners, something that the NRA's bogus rhetoric fails to distinguish.

    Also, as we saw with Mr. Wise, above, there is a tendency to view gun deaths attributable to "criminals" as the result of an intentional gun attack, which is not at all always the case. Somebody carrying concealed without a CCW permit who is involved in an accidental shooting is logged as a shooting by a criminal, for example.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 04:01:11 PM PST

  •  I read the NYT article. SMH indeed. (12+ / 0-)

    And then I read the NYT picks of the comments. So much rationalization--more deaths occur in pools--though also some pushback on that inept analogy--you can't conceal a pool.

    But one of the best comments came from someone with CPS experience relative to developmental capacities of young children. What ignorant people to believe that a 4-year-old is capable of adhering to an admonition not to use the gun?

    I especially like the study reporting on the actions of boys who find the gun, in which the only child who does the recommended thing by telling an adult about it is mocked by his peers. That sounds plausible to me.

    And one of the commenters told the story of a 24-year-old, a military man, who killed his best friend accidentally by pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger, without checking if it were loaded.

    Is there no end to this self-delusion that all gun owners are "responsible" in all circumstances?

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

    by peregrine kate on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 05:10:32 PM PST

  •  The horror of children being killed by deadly (5+ / 0-)

    weapons misses the gun owner.  They shift to statistics before the organs can be donated. I wonder what the body count would have to be before the RGO registered horror.

    Here's the only horror RGOs would find horrifying.

    1. Improper storage of a gun - loss of physical possession of the gun - no matter the outcome - loss of privilege gun ownership for many many years.

    2. Improper handling of a gun - gun discharged inappropriately - no matter the outcome - loss of privilege gun ownership for many many years.

    Limiting of gun kill speed
    Limiting of gun ownership speed.

    If the first 2 really did result in loss of the privilege of ownership for years and years, it would be all the RGOs could talk or think about. It would keep their heads in the game, greatly reducing child body count.

    Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

    by 88kathy on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 05:41:57 PM PST

    •  This is constructive (0+ / 0-)
      The horror of children being killed by deadly weapons misses the gun owner.  They shift to statistics before the organs can be donated. I wonder what the body count would have to be before the RGO registered horror.
      Yep, those gun owners aren't like us. They don't value human life, bloody lot of savages that they are.

      Somehow I doubt this standard would be getting upvotes if it were applied to other civil rights. Like say, "How many molested children will it take before you First Amendment absolutists accept warrantless wiretapping and unfettered access to your online communications? I don't want to hear about how millions of other people don't commit such heinous crimes using the internet, these are children, not statistics, you monster.".

      •  Welcome New User (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, coquiero


        If you have questions about participating in diaries published by the Firearms Law and Policy Group please refer to the DailyKos FAQ, or send a Kosmail to founders Glen the Plumber, OregonOak, or LilithGardener.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 06:49:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you find (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, TheFern, coquiero
        1. Improper storage of a gun - loss of physical possession of the gun - no matter the outcome - loss of privilege gun ownership for many many years.

        2. Improper handling of a gun - gun discharged inappropriately - no matter the outcome - loss of privilege gun ownership for many many years.

        Limiting of gun kill speed
        Limiting of gun ownership speed.

        horrifying?

        Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

        by 88kathy on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 08:15:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

          I find it horrifying that front-pagers are uprating comments that would be HR'able if applied to any other societal group. You're basically making the claim that firearms owners are mainly sociopaths, unmoved by the death of children. This contributes nothing to the discussion outside of letting people feel superior to others that disagree with them and allowing the dismissal of counter-arguments based not on the merits of the counter-arguments themselves but on a fallacious impression of the character of the people making the counter-arguments.

          Nobody here would stand for it if someone were posting about how "Muslims aren't terrorists...   until they are.". It would not get upvotes. "There are more moderate Muslims than fundamentalists" would not be a square on a bingo card. But apparently when it's in regards to a group most people here don't like, it's perfectly okay to judge millions by the worst one or two percent that can be found (or in the case of the GunFail series, the worst that can be found that can be associated with that group even if they don't actually belong to it).

          But I wasn't entirely correct about your comment. It is a little bit helpful. It helps show who isn't being entirely honest when they say they're not against firearms ownership or firearms owners. So thanks for that.

  •  Okay, does anyone see how weaselly this is worded (0+ / 0-)
    In opposing safe-storage laws, some gun rights advocates have argued that a majority of accidental shootings of children are committed by adults with criminal backgrounds. The Times’s review found that was not the case — children were most often the shooters
    (emphasis mine)

    No. Nobody says the majority of accidental shootings of children are committed by adults. What's said is that people with criminal backgrounds do not store firearms safely, which leads to kids getting shot. These are firearms that are almost always loaded and they're stuffed between mattresses, behind doors, in the back of a closet or sometimes just left lying around. They're not in a lockbox or a gun safe. They're not cleared and emptied before storage. The article is attacking a claim no one has made.

    •  Why do we have to wait for someone to get shot? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, TheFern, coquiero

      Why isn't any unsecured gun in a home with children charged as child endangerment?

      Did you intentionally leave off the last part of the quoted sentence?

      and that the families involved came from all walks of life.
      It is interesting that Daniel focused on the case of Mr. Wise. If you start reading David Waldman's GunFAIL series you'll see plenty of examples where no charges were filed in the first place, yet here with someone already known to the criminal justice system, it seems that it was straightforward to add an extra layer of charges that include child endangerment.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 07:27:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was pointing out where they were attacking (0+ / 0-)

        a claim that hasn't actually been made. The article is arguing against a strawman of their own making in saying that pro-RKBA folks claim it's criminals accidentally shooting children.

        Why do we have to wait for someone to get shot? Why isn't any unsecured gun in a home with children charged as child endangerment?
        How can someone be charged for doing something if the cops don't know about it? Oh I know, the call will be for "safe storage" laws, but how do you enforce such a thing?

        And that's actually a question, not a "it can't be done", so apologies to anyone trying to fill out their bingo card.

    •  Elsehwere in the article ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, TheFern, coquiero

      ... there is wording that may be more reflective of what you say the NRA said:

      The rifle association’s lobbying arm recently posted on its Web site a claim that adult criminals who mishandle firearms — as opposed to law-abiding gun owners — are responsible for most fatal accidents involving children. But The Times’s review found that a vast majority of cases revolved around children’s access to firearms, with the shooting either self-inflicted or done by another child.
      Emphasis mine.

      OK, I'll stipulate to that. But that, to me, is just a stronger argument for legal mandates for safe storage, either directly or indirectly. If criminals (or those with a criminal background, like Mr. Wise) are disinclined to store their weapons safely, not because they're irresponsible generally but because their criminal pasts make them more likely to need the weapons for self-defense than most law-abiding people do, then legally mandating that law-abiding gun owners store their weapons safely is another way to separate the good guys from the bad.

      Consider one of my suggestions for a simple, easy-to-understand gun regulation that I don't think many people on either side of the issue would argue with: it should be illegal to carry a handgun tucked in the front of your waistband.

      No one who can legally carry needs to do this. Only criminals need to do this, because it makes the weapon much easier to dispose of in case law enforcement might find it, and with no holster involved there's no other way to tell someone who had no legal right to carry a firearm was carrying a firearm. Some people with CCW permits nevertheless think this makes them look edgy and cool. There is no reason to carry like a criminal if you're not one. Besides, it increases the risk of blowing your nuts off (as we've seen a few times this year at GunFAIL) or temporarily derailing your NFL career.

      Similarly, there's no reason for a law-abiding gun owner to store their guns like a criminal because they have a much lower likelihood that Big Joey will show up because he thinks you're the one who snitched in exchange for the deal you got. Safe-storage laws should not necessarily prescribe safes or trigger locks or anything like that, IMO—all that's needed is to say something like "firearms in a house in which children under 12 may be expected to regularly be present must be stored in a manner that effectively makes it unlikely that those children will be able to carry or discharge the weapon, while those children are present" and let human creativity and the free market find a solution (much like the way that limiting cardholder liability to $50 for charges on a lost or stolen credit card rather than mandating any specific security measures, much as the banks and cardissuers complained about it when the Credit Card Fraud Act was passed, actually turned out to be the most effective way to reduce the incidence of credit card fraud and nobody would change it now).

      How would you enforce this? I'd trust most gun owners, but if something like this was reported to social services, it should result in a home visit, perhaps with a police officer in tow, with an emphasis on correcting the situation a la restaurant inspections rather than writing citations (but for repeat offenders, naturally, the situation would be different, just like restaurants).

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)
        If criminals (or those with a criminal background, like Mr. Wise) are disinclined to store their weapons safely, not because they're irresponsible generally but because their criminal pasts make them more likely to need the weapons for self-defense than most law-abiding people do, then legally mandating that law-abiding gun owners store their weapons safely is another way to separate the good guys from the bad.
        The "good guys" have all ready separated themselves from the bad, snarky memes notwithstanding. And this is where you're going to run into a problem. Once again, the focus shifts from criminal behavior to adding another layer of restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners.
        How would you enforce this? I'd trust most gun owners, but if something like this was reported to social services, it should result in a home visit, perhaps with a police officer in tow, with an emphasis on correcting the situation a la restaurant inspections rather than writing citations (but for repeat offenders, naturally, the situation would be different, just like restaurants).
        Unfortunately a Massachusetts politician has an idea.
        The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.

        The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.

        The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.

        "We need the ability to enforce the state law," the selectman said.

        http://swampscott.patch.com/...

        Also, the Massachusetts law carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison, so they don't seem to be interested in citing people like restaurants violating health codes.

        See, this is part of the problem you're dealing with. You may have good intentions going into this, but the politicians you're trusting to enact these ideas don't want to stop there. They're on record as not wanting to stop there. Firearms owners are not idiots, despite the popular perception here. We've gotten used to hearing, "Nobody wants to take your guns, stop being paranoid" followed up by "We're just going to make it incredibly expensive, invasive and difficult to be a gun owner and also hope you ignore all the people who do say they want your guns taken". It's like listening to the Right tell us that they're not going to outlaw abortion.

        •  I'm not responsible ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... for the Massachusetts law (ten years sounds like a rather extreme sentence to me absent tragic circumstances like those that got Mr. Wise his time; and really—using the police to actively enforce it? A large outlay of manpower and money that's probably not worth any benefit). Lumping my ideas with that is like lumping gun owners like yourself with all the people who make GunFAIL every week (Yes, I know there's a difference, and yes, I agree some people on this site don't care).

          Gun owners aren't idiots, but I think more idiots are buying guns than once did (especially with looser restrictions on concealed-carry, which had to have been part of the idea) and I'm pretty sure that a reasonable person like you would agree that buying a gun doesn't make you any smarter. I incorporate both the linked article in this comment of mine (which elaborates on this in and of itself) and the column that got Dick Metcalf fired from Guns & Ammo (again, see my comment there as well) as evidence that there are people in the RKBA community worried about where things are going.

          I understand the logic of the abortion comparison insofar as the lack of trust there is the same and very real (and I've never seen any of the antis try to meet us halfway the way I believe I'm trying to do) but honestly they're not the same thing because the same risks to third parties are not involved. If botched abortions caused some women in a neighboring house to miscarry, then you'd be on more solid ground.

          •  Apologies (0+ / 0-)

            If I came across as lumping your ideas with theirs, it was not my intention. I merely mean that those trusted to implement such policies aren't always completely honest about their intentions and are often prone to overreach, ie. the Massachusetts law.

            ten years sounds like a rather extreme sentence to me absent tragic circumstances like those that got Mr. Wise his time; and really—using the police to actively enforce it? A large outlay of manpower and money that's probably not worth any benefit
            Ten years is the maximum penalty. The problem becomes that a person can be prosecuted if it can be proven that anyone under the age of 18 can access a firearm if it's not in the course of a break-in. How will the standard be applied? Well it could only be invoked if there's someone under 18 in the home on a regular basis. Or it could be invoked if some out-of-town relatives surprise you with a visit and have their kids in tow. And there are more than a few folks around here who would be perfectly fine with the less forgiving application of the standard.
            Gun owners aren't idiots, but I think more idiots are buying guns than once did (especially with looser restrictions on concealed-carry, which had to have been part of the idea) and I'm pretty sure that a reasonable person like you would agree that buying a gun doesn't make you any smarter.
            True enough. I've personally said many times that I would like to see a minimum standard for competency and knowledge required for the purchase of firearms. The system used by the Czech Republic is actually a pretty good example of what I think would work.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Now the problem with implementing something like this in the US comes in with the politics around the issue (again). Even someone like myself who would like to see this implemented also realizes that there are an awful lot of people who would take that system and try to rig it to become a barrier to ownership because their primary focus is not safety or reducing risk or saving lives but rather their personal crusade against something they believe has no place in a "civilized" nation.

            I understand the logic of the abortion comparison insofar as the lack of trust there is the same and very real (and I've never seen any of the antis try to meet us halfway the way I believe I'm trying to do) but honestly they're not the same thing because the same risks to third parties are not involved./blockquote>

            The lack of trust is exactly what I'm talking about. Plus there's also the slander and sensationalism, but right now mainly the dishonesty. If I was going for risk to third parties, I'd discuss the parallels between this issue and post 9/11 policy towards Muslim citizens or the WWII era treatment of Japanese citizens, where both groups were singled out supposedly with the "greater good" in mind based on the acts of a small minority out of a large number of people.

  •  negligent, not accidental gun deaths (3+ / 0-)

    There is no such thing as an accidental gun death, there are only negligent gun deaths and purposeful gun deaths. Calling it an accident falsely implies that no one is to blame. If a firearm was involved the owner of the firearm is always at fault.

    •  Children can't legally own guns (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

      without their parents permission.

      If a firearm was involved the owner of the firearm is always at fault.
      It really is that simple and this bears repeating as many times as is necessary until we start to reflexively place responsibility where it belongs.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 07:03:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Laws and policy not based on facts (5+ / 0-)

    Thank you for a great diary Mr. Case.

    As you might have already noticed, here in America, we do not formulate our laws and policies based on facts, science, data, statistics, and measurable outcomes.  We base our laws and policies based on what is desired by the corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

    You may have noticed how the science of climate change is decried as a hoax, and the policy of the country is to produce and use more petroleum and coal.  Though the incidence of voter fraud is demonstratively small, we make laws to stop people from voting so there can be no voter fraud  

    And yeah, sure children get killed from all the guns we have lying around ready to be misused, but what the country really needs is to sell more guns and ammo

    Sadly, our law-makers will not develop a sudden urge to pass laws that protect our children from guns - they have no money to contribute to politicians, and they do not vote.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 06:22:50 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site