Posted on 01/10/2007 8:17:35 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
There they go again, those hyped-up, twisted, statistics being pimped by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Common Sense, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. Violent crime is up 3-4% across the nation for 2006 and GUNS!-guns are the cause.
Why is it that people get so upset over firearm associated deaths and yet are so accepting of the over half again as many deaths caused by motor vehicles? Both are unnecessary. Both are a senseless waste of life. Both are tragic in their consequences. But somehow in this society, we have come to accept vehicular deaths as a routine part of our existence, yet (the far fewer) firearm deaths are somehow beyond the pale.
In 2004 there were 11,250 homicides caused by someone shooting someone else, and there were 16,603 suicidal deaths by firearms, but in the same period, 43,947 people were killed in vehicular accidents. Looks like to me we need to spend more time worrying about teaching people how to drive than about whether or not they have a firearm-“assault-rifle” or single fire BB gun. Why don’t they go after the reckless drivers, the speeders, the stop sign runners, the red light runners as avidly as they do the gun-owners? Why don’t they propose draconian traffic laws like they do firearm laws?
Though the folks at Brady and the other looney-bin organizations are obsessed by firearms, perhaps they should spend a little time examining the following table constructed from the CDC’s most current data relating all causes of death to the number of deaths by firearms.
[see chart in article website]
The first thing that pops out is that a person has a smaller chance of being murdered by a firearm (11,250) than they do of being accidentally poisoned (19,250), dying from a fall (18,536), or even of taking their own life by some means other than a firearm (15,044). The fact is, the likelihood of being killed by someone using a firearm is one of the least probable life-threatening events.
Funny how you never hear that from the Brady Campaign. Is it possible that the concerns of those who seek to take our inherent right to gun ownership extend beyond saving people’s lives? Like all other Leftist causes the Gun Control Movement is about one thing, “control.” Control of others lies at the very heart of attempts by Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Sarah Brady and their Liberal friends to take away the fundamental right of the people to protect their families and their property. Liberals don’t trust their fellow citizens; they only trust themselves and government (provided they control it).
Those on the Left want to control your speech; for them “freedom of speech” applies only to their “politically correct” agenda and vocabulary. They want to control your thoughts; “hate crimes” are the same as other crimes except that, somehow, what you were thinking at the time you committed the crime makes it worse (I always thought that crime passionnel was a mitigating circumstance. Of course, as anger or hatred is a part of almost every murder or assault, such a law is an absurdity. They want to control your behavior; buckle your seatbelt; bicyclers wear your helmets, smokers-don’t light up, (oh and the latest craze) men sit to urinate, don’t stand (it’s a symbol of male dominance).
Firearm data is hyped by the anti-gun people in order to scare those who are less informed into voting against their own interests. A perfect example of hyping is the report, linked to at the “Common Sense, about kids and guns” website. At Pediatrics (the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), they present what appears to be an alarming statistic, an estimated 1.69 Million children and youths below the age of 18 live in a household in which there is a loaded unlocked gun. Wow, 1.69 Million, that’s a lot of kids at risk; better pass another law.
First, there is no information as to: where these “loaded and unlocked” firearms are being kept (are they out of reach or hidden?), whether or not the children have been properly raised/trained in firearm safety, or exactly how many of the deaths which occur each year happen as a result of those who live in these 1.69 Million homes.
If the numbers on the Brady website are to be believed-and they are rarely so without some caution, but let’s be generous-in the year 2002, 1,830 young people were murdered by a hand gun and another 838 committed suicide. In the same Brady “fact sheet” we are told:
Each year from 1993 to 1997, gun murders were committed by 1,621 killers under the age of 18.
I am assuming that what is meant by this poorly worded “fact” is there were an average of 1,621 murder committed by youths under 18 using a firearm. We’re getting closer, but we just can’t seem to get a handle on how many of those youths in homes where there is a “loaded and unlocked” firearm, are involved in these shootings. Note that the above statistic only states that murders were committed, not murders of youths, so these numbers include all murders committed by youths under 18.
Researching further, the Pediatrics report also states the following:
“Approximately 90% of fatal firearm incidents involving children occur within the home, and according to a study of children and youth aged 0 to 14 years by Wintemute et al8, 40% of firearm incidents involve a firearm stored in the room in which the shooting occurs. Miller et al, found that twice as many firearm deaths among children and youth proportion of people living in households with loaded firearms.”
Again no crime data is provided, so there is no way of knowing if those same households are in high crime areas, or in relatively low crime areas. Using those numbers, the end result for 2002 is 2,401 total deaths possibly caused by those unsecured, loaded pistols. These numbers are of course maximized, and are estimates taken from a large study, but by my calculations, that means that no more than 14 youths living in those houses out of every 10,000 has been killed by a firearm or 0.14%.
Not to seem cold blooded, but if guns represent as monstrous a threat as Brady suggests, wouldn’t we have seen wholesale slaughter out there? The way the Brady Campaign and the rest of the gun control advocates hype the numbers, wouldn’t the expectation be for the numbers to be closer to 14% than to 0.14%? And yes, even 14 deaths per 10,000 are 14 too many, but that is a side issue. The real issue here is gun-owner responsibility, and on that, the NRA is way ahead of the curve.
Burrowing down even further takes one into the realm in which words like racist begin to be thrown about by the race pimps, because the Pediatrics report further refines those numbers:
“From 1999 to 2002, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 32% of Hispanic teens, 17% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 20% of Asian/Pacific Islander teens.”
These numbers speak volumes. The problem is, because of political correctness and the desire to be polite, America isn’t listening. Mention these numbers in public, and you will soon be labled a “racist,” a “hate-monger,” a “bigot,” or some other vile epithet which has nothing to do with facing and resolving the problem.
Now I don’t know the demographics for the general hunting population or for the NRA membership, but I suspect that the bulk of these deaths of youths caused by “loaded, unlocked” guns occurred among the demographic populations in which firearms training and education is very rare, opportunities for children to become accustomed to firearms (except through threat) is limited, and parental supervision is less than optimum.
The whole point is that before we begin tossing around anti-constitutional ideas like “reasonable gun laws,” perhaps we should first examine the data to find the real source of the problem. Using bad data or incomplete data to bolster their causes is a favorite pastime of Liberals. It makes them sound more knowledgeable and authoritative than they actually are.
Meanwhile, following the 2006 election results, I’m buying all the high capacity magazines and “assault rifles” (read “ugly guns”) I can.
Long live the American Republic!
Just an idea, but maybe it's because most people need a vehicle...
The homicide numbers more than likely include those that were done in self-defense. From what I understand, the displaced people from Hurricane Katrina have been kicking up trouble in states like Texas, where Texans have had to defend themselves more. Also, additional states allowing CCW will have an increase in self-defense homicides now that citizens can protect themselves better.
The numbers really need to be broken down more so we see a more whole and clearer picture.
"Just an idea, but maybe it's because most people need a vehicle"
But they don't need (or should be able) to defend themselves?
Certainly, but not anywhere near, if ever, as much as people need a vehicle...that may be why there is not as much consideration given to traffic fatalities/accidents.
Quick, send this story to Mayor Bloomberg and that other rat in Boston!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.