Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations."

I suppose we shall soon now hear from the apologists that the definition of "children" skews the results.

75% . . . .

What a sad state we are in today.

Last edited Tue Jun 17, 2014, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

With a stolen gun or unregistered gun and the bullet pierces a house's wall and strikes a child.

Whose fault again?

How about we don't license drivers because gangsters without a license could steal cars anytime anyway. Or why bother with traffic lights or stop signs because gangsters could drive right through them. Is all regulation just hopeless because there are bad guys willing to disregard the rules?

Your anecdote is meaningless unless you mean for nothing to be done, which I find to be morally reprehensible.

You're all worked up in your straw men and moral judgment, you missed my point.

You cite a case which can only be interpreted as an argument against the regulation of guns - then accuse others of "straw manning." Wrong, answering your point is not setting up a straw man and neither is giving a parallel example.

Essentially you are trying to evade responsibility for your own foolish argument

But thanks for telling me what I think.

My argument is about blame.

I don't blame the cars either or the traffic lights or knives or the baseball bats

Too bad you're stuck at a keyboard.

You should be tasked with something more befitting of your powers.

you barely post, then you trot out an NRA talking point, get called on it, and say the equivalent of "I'm just sayin..."

If so, then probably you are correct.

may share some culpability.

But two things.

One: their would be have to be some negligence, proven or not

And b: we're taking about the gun owner, which was in concert with my point.

show us where your priorities really are.

way to be obvious.

With murder implying intent and is a smaller subset of killed....

Here are some fun facts for you:

•82 children under five years old died from firearms in 2010 compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty (sources: CDF, CDC, FBI)
•More kids ages 0-19 died from firearms every three days in 2010 than died in the 2012 Newtown, Conn., massacre (source:CDF, CDC)
•Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers (5,247) wounded in action that year in the war in Afghanistan (source: CDF, CDC, Department of Defense)
•Half of all juveniles murdered in 2010 were killed with a firearm (source: Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite

Swimming pools, which are the most likely cause of accidental death for children under 5.



That being said, I do agree we have a gun violence problem in the US. However, before we decide that the solution to our gun violence problem is "more gun control", why can't we just actually enforce the laws we have? Like sending the 40,000 people who failed background checks to last year to prison? Each of them committed a felony by lying on the NICS form, and the justice department prosecuted only 20 of them. I would think that taking 40,000 felons who want guns off the streets would have a fairly significant effect on gun violence.


I'm actually surprised by your last statistic (that half of juveniles killed in 2010 were killed with a firearm). I would have expected that to be MUCH higher.

Regulation works and it is time that those who fantasize about protecting themselves with a gun recognise that owning a gun means you are more likely to have a family member injured or die from gunshot.

What intaglio asked...

I will elaborate. If background checks are at least the minimum measure to take, then one could equate checking on your kids, keeping an eye on them, playing in the back yard in the pool, with checking on who is buying high powered artillery.

So yes, even though you were trying to be sarcastic, we do need swimming pool control, just like we need gun control measures.

now count as "children" in order to promote a political agenda? If you want to address childhood deaths caused by firearms one first needs a consistent metric to define "child", "adolescent" and "adult".

Or are you just pulling it out of your cloaca?

There is no evidence, based on the report, that there was any effort to filter out adult criminals from the stats. An honest discussion of the issue of firearm deaths involving children would not involve an attempt to classify 18/19 year olds as "kids".

As far as the statistics goes they count as adolescents and hence are counted.

Now stop throwing up ad hom attacks about victims.

No Ad Hom as the report specifically made no effort to filter out criminals involved in firearm violence; referred to them as "kids" which is fundamentally dishonest.

Now remove the ad hominem attack against the victims.

Oh, and the religious right still regards those under 21 as children as do the parents of the victims.

Show me where in the report any effort was made to remove adult criminals from the database; otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to assume the number of 18 and 19 year olds includes some criminals.

The inaccuracy was to declare they are not children - when that is how the statistics are gathered.

You will not admit it because you don't want control and regulation you want to denigrate those who oppose your stand in support of the gun industry and their NRA tools.

The report failed to indicate any attempt was made to filter for criminal activity and referred to adults as "Kids". It is, therefore, reasonable to assume some of the adults were criminals.

I have no problem with regulation; age restrictions, criminal history restrictions, MH restrictions (allowing for due process); TPO restrictions, property owners prohibiting firearms on the premises are all valid. I do have a problem with "studies" that attempt to pump up their numbers in order to alarm people. The problem of firearm death and injury is serious enough without resorting to deception; all that does is invalidate the argument once the dishonesty is exposed.

If you had meant to say only some of the 18 - 19 year old adolescents* were criminals you would have said so

[hr]
* check the definition of adolescent, 18 - 19 y.o.s have not yet completed their physical or mental development

But, yes, his implication was clear and deliberate and accurate. The misuse of the "child" label by the gun controllers is also clear and deliberate.

18 year olds are legally adults. They are subject to all the rules, restrictions, laws, and privileges that come with it.

as to "legal" definitions of adult remember that those definitions change with the political tides. In some places and/or times 12 year olds are/were legally adult. Not too long ago on the UK you were not legally adult until you were 21.

The alternate phasing of the misread post is, "So adult criminals of 18 and 19 years of age now count as "children" in order to promote a political agenda?"

There was no misunderstanding.

You claim, falsely that the wording meant one thing when it said another.

That is a lie and you are persisting in issuing lies.

I will let the obvious stand as is. If you want any further help in understanding your error, just ask.

I did see this, however:

"In the developed world, 87 percent of children younger than 14 killed by firearms live in the United States. More American children and teenagers died from gunfire in 2010—a single year—than U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2001. Is this truly the culture we want for our children?"

I find that statistic to be appalling. How many dead children do you find to be an acceptable number?

ETA: I see now where you got the 18 and 19 year old reference. It does not stipulate whether this figure included persons involved in criminal actions.

18 and 19 are adults, not kids. The report is attempting to include them in order to beef up the numbers. There is no indication any effort was made to exclude those involved in criminal activity. This, coupled with the attempt to classify adults as "kids" creates a credibility problem with the report.

Nice strawman, by the way. I never said I found any number "acceptable"; that's you trying (and failing) to put words in my mouth.

This is one reason the pro-control side fails to pass any meaningful legislation. Including adults in stats for children; accusing people of a position they have never taken and proposing laws that impact weapons least used in criminal activity.

So the CDC's research into basal cell carcinoma, being divided into three particular data sets (0-5 infant, 6-18 child, 19+ adult) is "beefing up the numbers" (for, as you state, it's not valid to place 18 year old into the children's category) is part of what nefarious plot, and creates a credibility problem?

Me? I think I'll go with the medical and CDC research rather than a biased, non-sourced editorial.

... deaths of children in the US (10s of millions in a relatively safe environment) vs combat troops in Afghanistan (10s of thousands in an unsafe environment)

Clear enough now?

Besides 'guns bad'? Any that educate about safety? The line taken by gun control reminds me of the line taken by fundies pushing abstinence over education.

except there is literally no evidence at all that absence works here or anywhere else. On the other hand, every single, solitary first world nation, except us, has both gun control and vastly lower murder rates. Our murder rate is over double the next nearest developed country. To find European countries with higher, or as high of, murder rates one has to look at former Warsaw pact nations.

Why do gun control groups fail to educate in favor of arguing the impossible?

"The point is, the US isn't going to amend the constitution"

You don't need to amend the constitution. Laws can prevent individuals from owning guns and they are perfectly constitutional. If they weren't you couldn't stop ex-felons from owning guns.

as having serious mental issues that may lead to them attacking others from legally buying or owning firearms.

That doesn't mean that gun ownership should be illegal for the 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation as 99.9% are honest, sane and responsible.

Gun control advocates often focus on tragedies caused by firearms and totally ignore the fact that firearms are often used for legitimate self defense and save lives. In a high percentage of defensive gun uses, no shots are fired as the attackers flee when they realize their victim is armed.

If many gun control advocates would finally realize that banning and confiscating firearms is impossible in our nation today, perhaps gun owners and gun control advocates could join to insure as much as possible that only responsible, honest and sane people can legally buy and own firearms. We might make some significant progress if only gun control advocates would ban the use of the word "ban."

I thought that our Congress would pass some much needed improvements to our national gun laws after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. As soon as Dianne Feinstein pushed for a new assault weapons ban, I knew no progress would occur. I was right.

"That doesn't mean that gun ownership should be illegal for the 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation as 99.9% are honest, sane and responsible."

Who the fuck said that?

"...totally ignore the fact that firearms are often used for legitimate self defense and save lives."

Bullshit. You are more likely to be killed by your own gun than use it in a defensive manner.

"...perhaps gun owners and gun control advocates could join to insure as much as possible that only responsible, honest and sane people can legally buy and own firearms."

A universal background check was supported by more than 80% of the population. It still failed in congress, so this is bullshit.

for legitimate self defense.

media largely ignored this CDC report ordered by President Obama. To be fair it didn't support either side of the gun control debate.

My interest was in the section on defensive gun uses and the report does not deny that they happen.

Gun control advocates often wish to avoid the issue of DGUs as it shows that while firearms can and do cause tragedies, they can also save lives. Therefore firearms are neither good or bad, it all depends on whose hands they are in. In my opinion that is why we should focus primarily on passing laws that would help insure that firearms are owned by honest, responsible and sane individuals.

Universal background checks.

And if you say those won't work 100% of the time, I would like to add... D'uh.

However, no laws work 100% of the time, but that mean we should have no laws?

It eill not stop felons from owning guns however.

safety improving regulation of guns requires an amendment?

fire in a theater is 1st amendment case law, there is 2nd amendment case law too. There are damned few new federal laws or regulations that could pass a constitutional challenge...almost none...The thousands in place have established a constitutional line...can you think of any?

Is the whole problem about raging hormones?

Maybe the solution has been right under our noses - condoms for guns!

In not being proactive instead of borrowing fundie logic.

How's this for a plan...

Guns are fucking dangerous, so if you can't prove you know how to handle a gun safely, you don't get to fucking own one. You need to go through actual training, and not some bullshit 4-hour course over an afternoon. You have to prove you can hit a target while under a stressful situation, like the tactical training course that cops have to go through. You have to prove you are mentally fit to own a gun. Once you prove that, you get a gun license, one that has to be renewed ever 4 years. You can't buy guns or ammo, except in person, and the person doing the selling has to check to make sure your license is still valid.

If you buy someone a gun and they didn't go through this course, like say a five-year old child, and they kill someone, you get charged with felony murder.

Dangerous that people buy/do. Oh, then there is the pesky constitution and voluminous case law and the Martial law and the 90+% of the population who would laugh at the suggestion. ..

Oh, then there is the pesky constitution

Precedent setting, binding case law that has established perimeters and defined the second amendment then you shouldn't try to dream up solutions to anything. Anyone who would make such a demonstrably false, or ridiculously simplistic statement such as this:

"Gun control laws are constitutional."

truly hasn't a clue.

Now, how about getting specific? What new gun control laws are you proclaiming to be constitutional? We aren't talking about the thousands already on the books, nobody in their right mind would state that, 'no gun laws are constitutional', and nobody has made such a silly statement here.

Oh, and almost every ridiculous statement/suggestion you made in your post #14 is provably constitutionally impossible. .asked and answered at least 80 years ago and irreversibly established. ..even the most ignorant of gun control fanatic legislators would acknowledge the complete futility of even suggesting such silliness.

Naww, nobody is making any efforts to silence pro-gun voices.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

The only thing that has happened is gun laws have been loosened in pretty much every state.

i cant argue with them anymore...

people are gonna die because we are stupid, period

It is either because nobody has penned a bill that could clear the legislative process or there are no more new laws that could pass constitutional challenge.

There is the option of amending the constitution, then passing new laws. ..

Liberal interpretation of civil rights and liberties belong to liberals/Democrats, right here on DU is exactly where pro civil liberties movements should be seen. The fact that a vocal minority here would re-write the constitution tomorrow, doesn't negate the vast majority of DU members who vote in polls in GD time after time that they do not favor amending the 2nd amendment....Every poll I have ever seen (maybe 10) on du2 and du3 results have been almost exactly the same...no to changing the second amendment.

Why else would they have this agenda of trying to make the noble and innocent gun 'seem' dangerous?

children are a well regulated militia...ask the Supremes

xchrom

I for one have never understood why children under the age of 18 should have access to weapons at all... I know - i know - if you learn how to treat firearm - you tend to be Wise enough not to put yourself or others in danger when you are older - but the fact remain - that children should not have aces to weapon...

Back home - we had a gun - who I saw one time - when I was 7 year old, it was at least around the time I was starting school - and me and my brother was sit down and was told to never play around with it - if we ever was to discover where it was... We was told to put it back - and forget where it was - this was in the early 1980s - so I guess it was different times then than today - but it was the only time I saw the gun - a black, very hard and heawy clump of metal by the way - and it was rather cold... Anyway - I never saw the weapon again - and I was not really ever trying to discover where it was - as I had other things to discover than weapons - like my foster brothers large quantity of comic magazines...

And I have never really had any need for a wepon either - the only time I might have had the need for it - I was glad I do not had it near me - as I could have ended in far more problems than I could have sorted out on my own....

Diclotican

And lets them "play" with it?

Idiots.

Proper storage and proper handling are always required.