Some recent accidental shooting news

Here in Mass. we have the toughest gun laws in the nation, and the second-lowest firearms fatality rate. And i still pass two gun shops on my commute to work, so there's still plenty of guns.

Impossible.

At least the self-inflicted ones are not quite as unjust as when an innocent victim is hit.

gun manufactures should be required to sell safety boxes with every firearm.

"A recent report from the National Safety Council indicates that accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly.

(snip)

"Firearms-related fatalities fell 40percent between 1995 and 2005, the greatest decrease in percentage of all measured types of accidental fatalities in the U.S.

(snip)

"All this occurred at a time when American gun ownership is a a record high -- more than 290 million guns owned and 47.8 million households having at least one firearm." -- from May, 2007 issue of Outdoor Life. www.outdoorlife.com

It seems that Americans are already buying safety boxes and taking other measures to reduce accidental deaths by firearms. Incidentally, the courts would look unfavorably on any measure which would restrict RKBA; among these are high taxes, fees, "insurance policies," subjective "may issue" tests, and requirements that you purchase additional stuff. A good run-down on the various measures to control guns can be found at: www.georgiacarry.org

Search locally for the Heller brief, submitted to SCOTUS. All these various measures cited above (and more) were tried in apartheid-era Southern states to keep blacks from obtaining arms, and form the foundation for modern-era gun control laws.

Please remember that these incidents are all worth it so we can have our freedoms.

The mis-and accidental use of firearms is a burden we all share as a consequence to the relatively easy access to firearms we all enjoy, so as to be able to defend our freedoms as our founders intended.

Get with the times.

:spank:

Defend our freedoms, just as you said. From whom? Anyone who would deprive us of them.

Or pretending to live there so you have a reason to claim you need a gun.

Remember: The 2nd Amendment was written right after farmers were fighting redcoats with single-shot flintlocks, and before we witnessed the actual consequences of secession and civil war.

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Overtaken by events and the development of institutions which have replaced it. As relevant now as draining Washington's blood out of him to cure his sore throat.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unfortunately, I am forced to live in your utopia of a free fire zone.

At least for now.

Most Americans aren't going to give up their 2nd rights to the first authority figure to scratch them behind the ears and promise them "safety".

"I am forced to live in your utopia of a free fire zone." Better that then a gun-free zone. At least now you have choice of defending yourself.

Even if you're trying to take away mine. ;-)

Scarcity is the only correct course. Treating guns as a so-called right has been and continues to be disastrous. It didn't need to be this way, but Scalia and Thomas are incompetent, to put it politely.

Over 80 million gun owners and rising. Violent crime continues to fall. You don't have the facts to back up your stance.

Instead, we've got a university professor killing and wounding colleagues and teens shot in a church.

Doesn't exactly validate the good times claim.

Mass-punishment is a bogus concept.

Why do people deserve to punished when they have committed no crimes?

You're impressed by news stories, regular, law-abiding behavior doesn't make the evening news.

Why were the responsible users deprived when a few aberrant sods got themselves addicted?

I've been a gun-owner for years and no incidents, my father and mother have been owners for decades, no incidents. There a millions of similar stories.

Plus, opium alters behavior. Guns do not.

I hate to say it but there is very little difference between your position and that of one who wants to ban abortion or gay marriage. Emotion, narrow world view and precious little fact to back it up.

Due to their convenience and efficiency, they present an easy solution to problems which would otherwise take patience, or work, or other personal discipline to resolve.

But their behavior altering property isn't really the point.

It's the damage left in their wake when abused.

Like opium. Access to which is now strictly limited.

It's access they allow people to defend themselves, provide food and security when they could previously not.

"they present an easy solution to problems which would otherwise take patience, or work, or other personal discipline to resolve."

Obviously you've never owned, cleaned, protected or made the adult decision to buy, carry or use a firearm. It requires responsibility and decision-making skills.

"But their behavior altering property isn't really the point."

You have no point. Where did you make a point that could be backed-up? Because my point about 80 million safe and legal owners still stands.

Access to firearms is already limited, to the extent they need to be.

Is because it is illegal ?

Guns don't alter behavior? I think they do alter it profoundly. Due to their convenience and efficiency, they present an easy solution to problems which would otherwise take patience, or work, or other personal discipline to resolve.

Shares, if someone put a gun in your hand would it alter your behavior profoundly? Oh, I'm sure that people who carry a firearm feel some small sense of relief, satisfaction, or confidence, knowing that they are prepared, much the way I felt a sense of relief, satisfaction, and confidence when I replaced all tires on my car, including the old spare.

But do you really think that picking up a gun changes someone from being hard-working, patient, and disciplined into being to a lazy, impatient, undisciplined? I suspect you do.

It's the damage left in their wake when abused.

Like opium. Access to which is now strictly limited.

But it should not be. People should be free to put whatever they want to into their bodies. What you do to your own body is, really, the ultimate freedom.

Now if someone goes and commits a crime while in a drug-induced stupor, that is another thing entirely, and should be punished appropriately. But drug use is an individual decision and should not be illegal.

Perhaps we should require all guns be kept wrapped in tinfoil...

And opium was once an over-the-counter medicine.

Why were the responsible users deprived when a few aberrant sods got themselves addicted?

Are you actually advocating making people's personal choice about what they put in their bodies to be controlled by the state, too?

Why is anyone deprived from putting whatever they want to into their own bodies?

Man, if the war on drugs is your justification for a war on firearms, you are just completely lost in this debate.

I'll believe gun violence is falling when I see fewer stories and with fewer victims.

Anecdotes do not make statistically rigorous analysis, and the statistics say that violent crime continues to decline in the US.

Remember: The 2nd Amendment was written right after farmers were fighting redcoats with single-shot flintlocks, and before we witnessed the actual consequences of secession and civil war.

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Overtaken by events and the development of institutions which have replaced it. As relevant now as draining Washington's blood out of him to cure his sore throat.

You continue to make the assertion that because the United States experienced a failed rebellion that no rebellion since that time will ever be necessary or successful.

And you continue to have no evidence to make that assertion.

There have been countless people who have successfully resisted oppression using firearms since the American Civil War, both on a personal and collective scale, and numerous examples have been provided to you in the past.

Yet you continue to hold to the belief that no one can resist oppression with a firearm.

The moment you fill your hand to combat some sort of oppression you subjectively perceive yourself to be suffering, civilized society will wash its hands of you. And normally, many men with badges will confront you with many guns from many directions.

The moment you fill your hand to combat some sort of oppression you subjectively perceive yourself to be suffering, civilized society will wash its hands of you. And normally, many men with badges will confront you with many guns from many directions.

Obviously, Shares, a single individual does not a revolution make. As I have explained many times before, revolutions usually proceed along a bell curve. Initially, only the hot-heads are eager to take up a cause of rebellion. If the movement gains popularity, you reach some criticality where the movement has enough popular support to sustain itself. At the opposite end of the curve, you will find people who do not resist no matter how egregious the oppression.

Again, you continue to assert that armed resistance against oppression is no longer possible, and yet you have no basis from which to make your claim.

People are engaged in armed resistance against oppression at this very moment, and there are countless more who should and would if they had the means to do so, but thanks to people like you, don't.

Shares, do you think the people of Vietnam were right or wrong in resisting the occupation by the United States?
Do you think the people of Afghanistan were right or wrong in resisting the occupation by the Soviet Union?
Do you think the people in Tiananmen Square were right or wrong in resisting oppression by the Chinese government?

Rebels with guns just become nouveau oppressors.

If the Tiananmen protestors had had guns, they would have lost the PR war in addition to being crushed.

Same for the present day Iranian protestors.

I notice you ignored my questions, so I will ask them again:

Shares, do you think the people of Vietnam were right or wrong in resisting the occupation by the United States?
Do you think the people of Afghanistan were right or wrong in resisting the occupation by the Soviet Union?
Do you think the people in Tiananmen Square were right or wrong in resisting oppression by the Chinese government?

Rebels with guns just become nouveau oppressors.

You seem to be making the assertion that because some rebellions turn out worse new governments than what was had before that no rebellion could turn out a better government than what was had before. You have no basis from which to make this assertion.

If the Tiananmen protestors had had guns, they would have lost the PR war in addition to being crushed.

Who can say?

Same for the present day Iranian protestors.

Who can say?

Again, you continue to assert that armed rebellion is not possible, yet modern history is replete with examples that show it is.

complacency and lack of understanding of the history of human civilization on this planet are astounding...you feel safety in 50 years of relative peace...wake up.

Are horrible books and inflammatory radio personalities worth the right of free speech?

Please give us a list of rights you think we can do without.

The others don't have the same biological downside.

"The others don't have the same biological downside."

A bad politician can send you to war, cancel your health benefits, raise your taxes and ruin your life. Or just declare a pogrom against your ethnic, religious group.

A inflammatory radio personality can inflame your neighbors against you. Remember Rwanda?

Scared? Voting and speech a little too much for you now? Given your attitude about the 2nd, I'm assuming you're eager to relieve yourself of the responsibility of these scary rights.

I do understand.

Hmmm, I guess what you call fear, I call responsibility.

You don't want responsibility for your rights, that's why you want someone to take them away.

My way is more difficult but it's worth it. Give it try someday.

for real? Words have started more wars than anything else so should we limit the 1st amend.? Just do us a favor, admit you have lost and pick up your marbles and go home

It almost always comes down to bad training or just flat out stupidity.

The problem people will always be a part of our society. The only way fix that is with a full police state. I'd rather not.


A guy killed himself by accident on my property, with a chainsaw. Stupidity, and bad training.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x271260

Let me quote the salient points-

slackmaster provided the WISQARS data..



benEzra provided a nice couple of graphics..

It's easy to post a page full of anecdotes from Google, but the fact remains that firearm accident rates are at their lowest rate in over 100 years, and continue to trend downward, in spite of the fact that the number of firearms in circulation continues to grow.

following surprising feature: a significant fraction of the incidents involve teens shooting other teens and toddlers injured by adult's negligence in handling or securing a weapon

Individual citations of news events represent anecdotes and not a statistically vigorous study of the event under discussion.

The simple fact is firearm accident rates are STATISTICALLY at a 100-year low and continuing to trend downward, in spite of the fact that the number of firearms in circulation continue to increase.

Annual numbers of NICS background checks usually executed as part of a firearm purchase:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_checks_total.pdf

about 13 or 14 nonfatal firearm injuries per fatal firearm injury; your graph shows a decline in fatalities by a factor of 6 or 7. It's likely that much of the decline in that graph represents, not a lower firearm injury rate but rather: (1) increased numbers of hospitals, (2) better emergency transportation, and (3) improved medical knowledge over the last century -- many people who would have died from firearm accidents a century ago can now be transported quickly to facilities where competent professionals have a chance to save their lives

the graph shows a rate of about 0.5 per 100,000, corresponding to about 1275 events. This must be something like the number of fatal firearm accidents for 1992, not the total number of firearm injuries: the numbers don't fluctuate that much year to year, and National Center for Health Statistics data show rather over 1400 accidental firearm fatalities for 1995, while (as I've noted above) currently the number of injuries is running 12 to 13 times that

your graph shows a decline in fatalities by a factor of 6 or 7.

The graph does not indicate fatal accidents, merely accidents in general.

Presumably this includes both fatal and non-fatal firearm accidents.

Having found the source for the graph, it does appear to be for fatalities.

I have not been able to locate any citations for the number of firearm injuries annually.

:)

Now, if you want to say guns and ammo should never be mixed, then I think we can find common ground.

more examples.

Then in the summer, you could look for swimming pool accidents.

Might be a good career.

mark

Drive-by shooter from Syracuse sentenced to 15 years in prison
By Jim O'Hara / The Post-Standard
February 03, 2010, 12:51PM

Syracuse, NY - One of two men convicted in a drive-by shooting that deflated a child’s swimming pool moments after a little girl left the water was sentenced today ...

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/drive-by_shooter_sentenced_to.html

As far as I can tell, WISQARS only goes back to 2000.

And when I ran a query on unintentional firearm injuries, not fatalities, it seemed to show that over 2001-2008 the rate has been pretty constant, though it has been increasing since 2006.

rate has been declining may merely reflect advancements in medicine, increased numbers of medical treatment facilities, and improved emergency transportation

If someone accidentally (say) gut-shot you in 1910, when the country was mostly rural, you'd likely get tossed into a wagon or over a horse and bounced for a few hours to see Doc -- or you'd wait while somebody rode off to find Doc and bring him back to you. Those hours of unchecked internal bleeding alone could be fatal. Blood types weren't discovered until 1901 and blood banks didn't appear until the 1930s; blood has a finite shelf life and requires refrigeration, so banking was impracticable in most of the country before New Deal brought rural electrification; before 1950, blood was stored in easily-broken glass bottles; so in the early 1900s in rural America, transfusions were uncommon and risky. X-rays were discovered in 1895 but nevertheless required some time to spread; depending on where you were in 1910, Doc may still have been probing the bullet wound to attempt to find the projectile; and (of course) bullets can follow tortuous and irregular paths in the body. Doc (if worth his snuff) knew about anaesthetic aseptic surgery but (like as not) he was a GP and not a surgical specialist, so there were a bundle of opportunities for little mistakes (like unfavorable little scalpel slips and nicks) that reduced your odds. More important is the subsequent treatment of infection: the sulfa drugs (the first antibiotics) weren't discovered until the 1930s and penicillin did not become widely available until after WWII. So even if the bullet didn't produce massive hemorrhage, and even if Doc did a bang-up clean and careful job snipping and stitching, surviving your gut wound depended largely on your own immune system; your abdominal cavity was likely to be well-seeded with pathogens from your perforated gut, and Doc couldn't do much about any raging infection except try to control the fever and keep you hydrated

Similar comments apply to a host of other firearm injuries. I know a man who was shot through the cheeks; this (of course) caused serious dental damage, requiring substantial work. In an earlier era, resulting absesses may well have been fatal, though perhaps not immediately

I think basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

Fewer and fewer children have the advantage that I did, of a parent who is an expert on firearms. Most parents are not qualified to teach basic gun safety - How to safely pick up and inspect a weapon, how to safely unload the most common types of weapons, etc. I learned all that at age 10, and have never had a problem with a firearm.

Offer basic gun safety in public schools, using qualified instructors and dummy guns. Allow parents to opt their kids out just as is done with sex ed and drug ed. I believe it would save lives.

And no law ever written can stop that.


In other news: Air! Still free, but for how much longer?! Details after the station break...!

"and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly."

"fatal accident rate"

Do feel free to provide (if you can) an unambiguous high-quality source of historical statistics on accidental firearm injury by age group