• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Guns Send over 8,000 US Kids to ER Each Year, Analysis Says

Max Rockatansky said:
Jarhyn said:
ig you want to idolize the dissembly others use here, we will probably just ridicule you......
Click to expand...

Dude, you never stopped. LOL

Meanwhile, the anti-gun mob continues to be dishonest their screams of thousands of "gun deaths" without pausing to clarify that 2/3s of them are suicides....mostly of older white males. I'm surprised you aren't applauding and handing out bullets.

When the anti-gun mob wants an honest discussion on guns, they should prove it by being honest in their data usage.

http://www.sprc.org/scope/age

https://www.sprc.org/racial-ethnic-disparities
Click to expand...
Read my responses to this thread. I think suicides are a pretty big tragedy no matter who they happen to. The fact is, suicides are made easier and more definite with firearms just as much as all the other deaths, because they circumvent the factors that make other methods less successful or which make them less likely to be consummated before the "BAD IDEA" alarm goes off.

My arguments have been pretty agnostic to the circumstances of the death or injury... though the OP statistics didn't include suicides in the data
 
The OP was about children who are wounded by guns. Not older male suicides, domestic violence etc. Recently, in Seattle, there was a proposal that gun owners, by law, had to have safe way to store guns. The gun nuts, as predicable as clock work, went nuts. Totally against this obvious common sense measure. Leaving a gun where a child can find it is a good way to have a child shoot him or her self or somebody else. That also keeps the gun out of the hands of burglars.

Ten years or so ago, there was some TV program that ran a little experiment. Some young boys, 8 - 10 years old watched a lecture about guns, and why they should leave guns alone, explaining most clearly the danger. Left alone in a room with a hidden camera, and a replica gun, they were on the gun like flies on a tuna sandwich. Lectures, common sense and training does not work well with children and guns.

Common sense would cut the rate of accidental shootings with children and guns. The NRA ain't having none of that.
 
ImGod said:
The first thing you have to do is drill data down to define "kid". In most people's minds kid brings up a mental image of ~0-12 years of age. The statistics, however, use kid as anyone under 18 years of age. If you drill that data down by age, race, and location, you'll find the numbers correlate with gang activity in large metropolitan areas of the country. The kids happen to be in the same general demographic as the gangs. So anywhere there is more gang activity there will also be more "kids" being shot and also more "kids" shooting others.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. Most of those gun injuries are gangbangers.
 
RVonse said:
If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.
Click to expand...

Simple test: The number of self-defense killings is greater than the number dead by accidental gunshot.

Now, some of those self-defense cases didn't actually involve a substantial threat to the shooter's life--it's acceptable to shoot a rapist. On the other hand, the accident data includes some murders and suicides that were covered up to the point they weren't detected. And the self defense cases don't count the attackers run off.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
The OP was about children who are wounded by guns. Not older male suicides, domestic violence etc. Recently, in Seattle, there was a proposal that gun owners, by law, had to have safe way to store guns. The gun nuts, as predicable as clock work, went nuts. Totally against this obvious common sense measure. Leaving a gun where a child can find it is a good way to have a child shoot him or her self or somebody else. That also keeps the gun out of the hands of burglars.
Click to expand...

1) The left likes to mandate storage requirements that preclude large numbers of people.

2) Safe storage requirements are problematic for self defense. In this regard I favor a compromise: Make it illegal to have an unsecured firearm in a place children are legally present. (You're not at fault if a teenage burglar breaks in and hurts himself with your gun.)
 
ImGod said:
The first thing you have to do is drill data down to define "kid". In most people's minds kid brings up a mental image of ~0-12 years of age. The statistics, however, use kid as anyone under 18 years of age. If you drill that data down by age, race, and location, you'll find the numbers correlate with gang activity in large metropolitan areas of the country. The kids happen to be in the same general demographic as the gangs. So anywhere there is more gang activity there will also be more "kids" being shot and also more "kids" shooting others.

The areas in question also have the toughest gun laws on the books, with the most restrictions, which for some reason don't appear to be much help for the "kids".

But do something, I guess for the children. Maybe if we incarcerate enough black kids we can get gun violence rates for black kids to go down. Though that seems to be as ineffective as passing more gun laws to date.

But a better place to start when evaluating the issue is the unfiltered source data, which if you drill down, sorts by age groups and individual cities for the entire country. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-preliminary-semiannual-crime-stats-released I've done it before, but you'll likely see the majority of the 8,000+ "kids" are gang members located in 4 or 5 major cities.

My recommendation is that city people should stop shooting each other over controlling drug trafficking territories and routes.
Click to expand...
so it's a locale thing?
 
I realize i'm responding to posts 2½ years old; but I like to participate, OK?

Ask American gun lovers why they own a gun and the most common response is "Because I CAN!" What does this even mean? Some are hobbyists and/or like to go target practicing. Do they think stamp-collecting and archery ought to be protected in the Bill of Rights?

The Second Amendment is obsolescent and has become quite perverse. I realize there are other countries with many guns — though NONE come anywhere close to the U.S.A. — but do any of these have this stupid and obscene obsession? Has another country enshrined them in a Bill of Rights?

Nobody even knows what the Second Amendment is for. Protect us from the modern version of the British Redcoats? Who would that be anyway? The Democratic pedophiles doing business in a pizzeria basement who needed to be AR-15'ed? The Senators and Congressmen who needed to be taken out on the Sixth of January?

My viewpoint seldom coincides with Dr. Z's, but he hits it on the nail here:
DrZoidberg said:
...
Simply put, Finland is flooded with illicit guns.
...
But even so, making them illegal makes a huge difference. Because it changes behaviours of people. If everybody knows that only criminals and cops have guns, civilians aren't going to be randomly shot. If a person doesn't have a neck-tattoo they probably won't be carrying a pistol.

Finland is low on crime in general.
It doesn't matter. It's always good that guns are illegal.
Click to expand...

It sounds like Finns have adult attitudes about guns, though laws also helped. Grow up, America!

steve_bank said:
You have a much higher risk of death and injury from aggressive and DUI drivers than a firearm.

I am not dismissing gun related risks, I am saying it is selective moral outrage.. Guns are an easy police low risk target for the left.

On the flip side abortion is an easy low risk target for mobilizing conservatives..
Click to expand...

When I was young there were over 50k annual deaths from auto accidents in the U.S.A. IIRC. That's a lot. This high death rate was a big deal! And, contrary to Mr. Bank's weird perspective, it was NOT a political issue. That death rate is much lower now, thanks to seatbelts, drinking laws, air-bags, etc. etc.

And now we have this huge number of deaths ... from GUNS! Solution should be much simpler than the auto death problem.

Here's Sean Penn showing the way from one of my favorite movies: "This is how it's done. This is how you put a gun down." (Ooops. Sean Penn is speaking Italian(?) in this clip. Maybe a better Googler can find the English version on-line. Any Italians(?) to confirm I've rendered Penn's words properly?)

ETA: I found an English-language clip of that scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8dL1mgBLc
It opens with Nicole Kidman complaining that she can't put her gun down. About the 0:50 mark Penn shows her how to do it.

Tom Sawyer said:
So, the main arguments about the positive effects of guns don't hold up. They give all of the negative side effects without offering any of the potential benefits to offset those side effects.
Click to expand...

Correct. Guns are bad — it's not complicated. America needs to grow up.

Jarhyn said:
No matter how much you enjoy seeing poor kids fight over drug money, the facts are the same: if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns.
Click to expand...

Yes. One marvels at their stupidity that this has to be explained to American adults. And, even if explained, they still don't get it.

Gun Nut said:
Old age kills 100% of people that have not already been killed by something else.
What do you want to take away from people to prevent that?
Click to expand...
Hunh?? :confused: "Don't bother giving your kid antibiotics, ma'am. He's probably going to die in 70 or 80 years anyway." Did this meme come from FoxNews, NRA, or what?

RVonse said:
If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.
Click to expand...

I've taken the liberty ( :) ) of highlighting a word Mr. Vonse likes to use.

But what does "liberty" mean? I have the liberty of walking around, letting my kids play outside, and even getting angry without fear of getting shot. Lots of countries have that liberty, But the U.S.A. has LOST that liberty

I ask why guns are liberty, and get referred to the Second Amendment. It's a circular argument. As a thought experiment, I'd like the gun nuts to write an essay on how they would feel if the Second Amendment were rewritten so instead of being about guns it was about the liberty to walk down Main Street juggling balls and waggling one's penis. To listen to gun-nut prattle, it would then be penis-waggling that would be the quintessential American liberty.
 
Good to see that our usual pro-gun sages have been able to conclude that gun deaths and gun wounds on kids has nothing to do with the FACT that the US is by far the most gun-saturated country on the planet, at almost DOULBLE the saturation of #2 (Falkland Islands).
No, it's about gun laws being ineffective, and gangbangers liking to shoot each other.
So what we need is more guns, less gun laws, and lock up (or shoot?) all the gangbangers.

This Country has gone stark raving STOOPID all right.
 
Elixir said:
Good to see that our usual pro-gun sages have been able to conclude that gun deaths and gun wounds on kids has nothing to do with the FACT that the US is by far the most gun-saturated country on the planet, at almost DOULBLE the saturation of #2 (Falkland Islands).
No, it's about gun laws being ineffective, and gangbangers liking to shoot each other.
So what we need is more guns, less gun laws, and lock up (or shoot?) all the gangbangers.

This Country has gone stark raving STOOPID all right.
Click to expand...
country? check your sources
 
Swammerdami said:
I realize i'm responding to posts 2½ years old; but I like to participate, OK?

Ask American gun lovers why they own a gun and the most common response is "Because I CAN!" What does this even mean? Some are hobbyists and/or like to go target practicing. Do they think stamp-collecting and archery ought to be protected in the Bill of Rights?

The Second Amendment is obsolescent and has become quite perverse. I realize there are other countries with many guns — though NONE come anywhere close to the U.S.A. — but do any of these have this stupid and obscene obsession? Has another country enshrined them in a Bill of Rights?

Nobody even knows what the Second Amendment is for. Protect us from the modern version of the British Redcoats? Who would that be anyway? The Democratic pedophiles doing business in a pizzeria basement who needed to be AR-15'ed? The Senators and Congressmen who needed to be taken out on the Sixth of January?

My viewpoint seldom coincides with Dr. Z's, but he hits it on the nail here:


It sounds like Finns have adult attitudes about guns, though laws also helped. Grow up, America!



When I was young there were over 50k annual deaths from auto accidents in the U.S.A. IIRC. That's a lot. This high death rate was a big deal! And, contrary to Mr. Bank's weird perspective, it was NOT a political issue. That death rate is much lower now, thanks to seatbelts, drinking laws, air-bags, etc. etc.

And now we have this huge number of deaths ... from GUNS! Solution should be much simpler than the auto death problem.

Here's Sean Penn showing the way from one of my favorite movies: "This is how it's done. This is how you put a gun down." (Ooops. Sean Penn is speaking Italian(?) in this clip. Maybe a better Googler can find the English version on-line. Any Italians(?) to confirm I've rendered Penn's words properly?)

ETA: I found an English-language clip of that scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8dL1mgBLc
It opens with Nicole Kidman complaining that she can't put her gun down. About the 0:50 mark Penn shows her how to do it.

Tom Sawyer said:
So, the main arguments about the positive effects of guns don't hold up. They give all of the negative side effects without offering any of the potential benefits to offset those side effects.
Click to expand...

Correct. Guns are bad — it's not complicated. America needs to grow up.

Jarhyn said:
No matter how much you enjoy seeing poor kids fight over drug money, the facts are the same: if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns.
Click to expand...

Yes. One marvels at their stupidity that this has to be explained to American adults. And, even if explained, they still don't get it.

Gun Nut said:
Old age kills 100% of people that have not already been killed by something else.
What do you want to take away from people to prevent that?
Click to expand...
Hunh?? :confused: "Don't bother giving your kid antibiotics, ma'am. He's probably going to die in 70 or 80 years anyway." Did this meme come from FoxNews, NRA, or what?

RVonse said:
If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.
Click to expand...

I've taken the liberty ( :) ) of highlighting a word Mr. Vonse likes to use.

But what does "liberty" mean? I have the liberty of walking around, letting my kids play outside, and even getting angry without fear of getting shot. Lots of countries have that liberty, But the U.S.A. has LOST that liberty

I ask why guns are liberty, and get referred to the Second Amendment. It's a circular argument. As a thought experiment, I'd like the gun nuts to write an essay on how they would feel if the Second Amendment were rewritten so instead of being about guns it was about the liberty to walk down Main Street juggling balls and waggling one's penis. To listen to gun-nut prattle, it would then be penis-waggling that would be the quintessential American liberty.
Click to expand...
hehe it's about locale
 
none said:
Swammerdami said:
...
RVonse said:
... Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.
Click to expand...

I've taken the liberty ( :) ) of highlighting a word Mr. Vonse likes to use.

But what does "liberty" mean? I have the liberty of walking around, letting my kids play outside, and even getting angry without fear of getting shot. Lots of countries have that liberty, But the U.S.A. has LOST that liberty

I ask why guns are liberty, and get referred to the Second Amendment. It's a circular argument. As a thought experiment, I'd like the gun nuts to write an essay on how they would feel if the Second Amendment were rewritten so instead of being about guns it was about the liberty to walk down Main Street juggling balls and waggling one's penis. To listen to gun-nut prattle, it would then be penis-waggling that would be the quintessential American liberty.
Click to expand...
hehe it's about locale
Click to expand...

Sprechen Sie Englisch, bitte? Is your point that in one ghetto locale, blacks are shooting each other? In another locale, Karen and her millionaire husband are out in their front yard with AR-15s protecting their gated community from the black hordes? In yet another locale, Jimmy Bob is packing some ammo to go rescue a pizzeria?

I'm okay with banning guns in all these locales. I'm okay with disarming America's deranged police too. Let 5% of them carry guns and shout "Armed police!" like I see on British TV.

One sad news story from a few months ago had a white guy pushing his black wife's wheelchair so they could participate in a BLM protest. But the guy carried an AR-15. (Why? I dunno: because he COULD, I guess.) The guy shouted at some asshole and the asshole shot him dead. I'm not sure I blame the asshole: I don't think I'd like an AR-15 wielder shouting at me. I guess I'm un-American: I've never exercized the liberty of shouting at assholes while brandishing an AR-15.
 
Swammerdami said:
none said:
hehe it's about locale
Click to expand...

Sprechen Sie Englisch, bitte? Is your point that in one ghetto locale, blacks are shooting each other? In another locale, Karen and her millionaire husband are out in their front yard with AR-15s protecting their gated community from the black hordes? In yet another locale, Jimmy Bob is packing some ammo to go rescue a pizzeria?

I'm okay with banning guns in all these locales. I'm okay with disarming America's deranged police too. Let 5% of them carry guns and shout "Armed police!" like I see on British TV.

One sad news story from a few months ago had a white guy pushing his black wife's wheelchair so they could participate in a BLM protest. But the guy carried an AR-15. (Why? I dunno: because he COULD, I guess.) The guy shouted at some asshole and the asshole shot him dead. I'm not sure I blame the asshole: I don't think I'd like an AR-15 wielder shouting at me. I guess I'm un-American: I've never exercized the liberty of shouting at assholes while brandishing an AR-15.
Click to expand...
Sanskrit is more than a language, unfortunately I cannot offer a translation for "geopolitics"
disarm
 
I won't be around to know, but I think our great-grandkids will be hassling over this, and in their day, the Bushmaster will be low-tech. "Oh, for the Bushmaster days!" The GOP will propose a bill to put the New Testament and a row of handguns on the U.S. flag, just so we don't forget that 'Merica stands for Bible and guns guns guns guns guns. Plus guns.
 
ideologyhunter said:
I won't be around to know, but I think our great-grandkids will be hassling over this, and in their day, the Bushmaster will be low-tech. "Oh, for the Bushmaster days!" The GOP will propose a bill to put the New Testament and a row of handguns on the U.S. flag, just so we don't forget that 'Merica stands for Bible and guns guns guns guns guns. Plus guns.
Click to expand...

that's hyperbole
 
Among TFTers, none wrote "that's hyperbole" about the following:
ideologyhunter said:
I won't be around to know, but I think our great-grandkids will be hassling over this, and in their day, the Bushmaster will be low-tech. "Oh, for the Bushmaster days!" The GOP will propose a bill to put the New Testament and a row of handguns on the U.S. flag, just so we don't forget that 'Merica stands for Bible and guns guns guns guns guns. Plus guns.
Click to expand...

Same-sex marriage is legal; so is weed. Those facts would surprise someone from decades ago. The Iron Curtain came down, suddenly and unexpectedly.

I'd guess that America might even come to its senses about guns in 10-15 years or so. IF we manage to overcome the stupidization caused by social media. (Some experts view the stupidization caused by Facebook, etc. as an existential threat, not just to American democracy, but to civilization itself.)
 
I hope you're right, but with guns, I think the trend is dumber & dumber. As recently as the 90s, the Right was willing to go along with assault weapon bans. Now, and with our present ultra-ultra-right SCOTUS, they want any/every weapon this side of shoulder-held missile launchers to be sold at WalMart. Sanity would tell you that some arms should be military use only. If they're meant to spray out a hail of bullets on one pull of a trigger, we're insane to make those household commodities. But we have to weigh the rights of devoted gun collectors with the rights of Americans to shop or watch a movie or attend school in peace.
And by the way, why not sell missile launchers at WalMart? Second Amendment, etc.
 
ideologyhunter said:
And by the way, why not sell missile launchers at WalMart? Second Amendment, etc.
Click to expand...

I've wondered about this myself; is there a court decision which explains it?

"Right to bear arms" — no specific mention of weapon types included or excluded. I can understand large cannons or howitzers not qualifying: they can't be "borne" by a single man. But what about a flame-thrower, or shoulder-held rocket launcher?

Serious question: Why aren't the ranters who need their AR-15s ranting about their need for flame-throwers and rocket launchers? Just because they can't afford them?

Contrariwise, why do the judges or legislators who find that the Second Commandment* doesn't apply to those weapons, outlaw AR-15s also?

Is there some threshold? "A flame-thrower can take out 30 innocent lives before police prevail, while the AR-15 maniac will probably only get 20."

* - Freudian slip? No, I write "Commandment" to poke fun at the gun-loving morons who prattle as though their cherished Second Whatever was inscribed by God's Finger on Mt. Sinai.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Where's the demand for mandating tempered glass in tables?
Click to expand...

You'll have a valid question when children are around guns as often as they are around tables.
Don't worry though Loren - if your argument holds, that day will soon come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom