Kids and Guns - Statistics

familyeducation.com ^ | unknown | familyeducation.com

[butter pecan fan]

Kids and Guns: The Facts

Each year, there are 34,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. How many of those deaths are children, and has that number increased in the last few years? Here are the facts.

Safety Expert Gavin de Becker has found in researching his books, The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift that:

• Everyday, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover –- 15 do not.

• The majority of fatal accidents involving a firearm occur in the home.

• Gunshot wounds are the single most common cause of death for women in the home, accounting for nearly half of all homicides and 42 percent of suicides.

• An adolescent is twice as likely to commit suicide if a gun is kept in the home.

• More teenage boys in America die from gunfire than from car accidents.

• Gunshot wounds are now the leading cause of death for teenage boys in America (white, African-American, urban, suburban).

Researchers at familyeducation.com have collected the following statistics on kids and guns:

• Twenty-nine percent of high-school boys have at least one firearm; most are intended for hunting and sporting purposes.
  Six percent say they carry a gun outside the home.
  The National Institute of Justice, 1998

• From 1980 to 1997, gun killings by young people 18 to 24 increased from about 5,000 to more than 7,500.
  During the same period, gun killings by people 25 and older fell by almost half, to about 5,000.
  The US Department of Justice

• There are about 60 million handguns in the United States.
  About 2 to 3 million new and used handguns are sold each year.
  US Senate Statistics

• Nearly 500 children and teenagers each year are killed in gun-related accidents.
  About 1,500 commit suicide.
  Nearly 7,000 violent crimes are committed each year by juveniles using guns they found in their own homes.
  Senator Herb Kohl, sponsor of the safety lock measure.

• In 1994, every day, 16 children age 19 and under were killed with guns and 64 were wounded in this country.
  National Center for Health and Statistics, 1996

[butter pecan fan]

Thanks Fixit for the link. A useful new way to search.

[Liberal Classic]

Nowhere in this thread, as far as I'm aware, have I "argued for change". Discussion and fact-finding is NOT arguing for change. Nor have I personally taken the position of the author of the articles referenced.

Yes, this was an obvious assumption on my part. What else am I suppsed to think?

[Liberal Classic]

I in no way disparage or dishonor your service of our country - on the contrary, I respect, admire and appreciate it, and hold you in high esteem as I do any member or former member of our armed forces - but that alone doesn't qualify you to understand the dynamics of societal behavior in the way that civilians (including adolescents) handle firearms.

What qualifies you to make an assessment of this article as being worthwhile? A couple of hours in the library reading, excuse me performing secondary research? Do you have practical experience with handling firearms? I did not cite myself as an authority on weapons or the law, but I think I have as much credibility on general topic of firearms and firearm safety as anyone. I handled firearms as an adolescent. Many of us around here have. Kids and guns is no boogy-man. I could shoot before my tenth birthday. By then I could kill an animal, dress it, cook it, and eat it. Weapons in general and firearms in particular aren't exactly new things. We don't need so-called "experts" to tell us we can't have them.

The reason we are suspicious of articles like this is because they are all begging the question of firearm ownership. Whether you agree with gun control or not, the people from Handgun Control and the Violence Policy Project feel it's their duty to see legal ownership restricted. I don't like them because they purport to be experts on the subject, experts on sociatal behavior, yet don't see to care that I and the rest of society have been ticking along fine with them. People like me tell them "it's not the guns that are the problem, its people" yet they presume to know better.

So, if you want to talk guns, fine. Please make you intentions known. Why bait people into an argument? You deserve any flames you get.

[Liberal Classic]

Taken point bby point:

Researchers at familyeducation.com have collected the following statistics on kids and guns:

Who are these researchers? What are their credentials? Who owns the Learning Network, Inc?

From their website:
Learning Network is built on a strong foundation of assets from the international media company, Pearson plc (NYSE:PSO), as well as educational properties from leading educational publishers and technology companies. Learning Network has business offices in San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Chicago, and Paramus, NJ. For more information, call 1-888-816-1999 (8 AM - 5 PM, Pacific Time; 11 AM - 8 PM, Eastern Time), or visit learningnetwork.com on the Internet (America Online Keyword: Learning Network).

Who is Pearson, Inc?

Twenty-nine percent of high-school boys have at least one firearm; most are intended for hunting and sporting purposes. Six percent say they carry a gun outside the home. -- The National Institute of Justice, 1998

Do all these boys live like Pippi Longstocking? Or do they have parents?

From 1980 to 1997, gun killings by young people 18 to 24 increased from about 5,000 to more than 7,500. During the same period, gun killings by people 25 and older fell by almost half, to about 5,000. -- The US Department of Justice

Any explanations for an upsurge in youth violence in the 80s and 90s? Must have been due to the '86 ban right?

There are about 60 million handguns in the United States. About 2 to 3 million new and used handguns are sold each year. -- US Senate Statistics

THERE'S SO MANY GUNS!

Nearly 500 children and teenagers each year are killed in gun-related accidents. About 1,500 commit suicide. Nearly 7,000 violent crimes are committed each year by juveniles using guns they found in their own homes. -- Senator Herb Kohl, sponsor of the safety lock measure.

Accidents involving teens and children. How old is a teen, 19? Also, those violent crimes committed with guns found in homes, are those the fault of the guns? Is this a new phenomenon? Would safety locks be effective? How many people would actually use them, and if made mandatory, how would the law be enforced?

In 1994, every day, 16 children age 19 and under were killed with guns and 64 were wounded in this country. -- National Center for Health and Statistics, 1996

19 is not a child. 19 is an adult.

[George Smiley]

DeBecker saw his mother shoot his father when he was a child.

He's subtly anti-gun.

In The Gift of Fear he lists possession of firearms as a predictor of future violent behavior.

I thought it was a fairly interesting book up to that point.

After that my opinion of him declined considerably.

[George Smiley]

Re your #38- I concur with your observation.

I don't think you're either a moron or a troll.

And there are a lot of folks here who will discuss issues honestly and without namecalling.

However, you are bringing in links to sites which are decidedly anti-gunownership in their biases.

If you poke the hornets' nest, expect to see some flying insects.

John Lott, in addition to More Guns, Less Crime, has published papers on the effectiveness of self-storage laws, and I think I also saw one on suicides.

His stuff has been rigorously peer-reviewed multiple times, (despite all the vituperation that gets heaped on him).

[butter pecan fan]

Do you have practical experience with handling firearms? I did not cite myself as an authority on weapons or the law, but I think I have as much credibility on general topic of firearms and firearm safety as anyone. I handled firearms as an adolescent.

In answer to your question - yes. I've handled shotguns, rifles, revolvers and pistols. My dad gave me a shotgun when I was around 12, and I fired my first pistol at 14 or 15. Incidentally, that occasion was rather much like the study on what boys do when they find a gun - one day when everyone was out, I found the pistol in a drawer I had no business being in, and I loaded it up with ammo, went outside and tested it out. As far as I know, my dad never knew I had used his pistol.

But again, I consider practical experience with handling firearms to be of only limited value (I won't say NO value, but limited value) when it comes to evaluation of some of the societal issues. For that you need actual research. And yes, I know people lie with statistics, and often do, but statistics properly done will reflect the truth.

[butter pecan fan]

However, you are bringing in links to sites which are decidedly anti-gunownership in their biases.

Well, this is because of the way I often handle processing an issue.

To oversimplify a bit:

I find all the information I can, pro and con, and examine both sides to see if they hold up.

When I have a working hypothesis (for example, "I should not only purchase a pistol [which I don't currently own] but should also help push for a concealed-carry law in my state"), then I go out and look for the strongest critics of my tentative conclusion that I can find. Then I listen directly to what they have to say (rather than just listen to what their opponents claim they say, which is often different, sometimes subtly, sometimes not).

Nor do I automatically assume, even if I find that half of what one side says is BS, that ALL of what they say is BS.

If my working position on the matter weathers an all-out assault by the strongest critics, then I have a very high degree of confidence that the conclusion I've arrived at is entirely correct. Time consuming, but often worth it.

That's a simplification, of course. What usually happens is that both sides have at least some points which turn out to be correct, and I arrive at a synthesized, hybrid, more detailed conclusion.

For example, "Guns should be entirely legal for law-abiding citizens - but highly illegal for persons with a prior conviction in a, b, and c. Having a gun in your home for self-defense is a good idea - unless any member of your family shows symptoms of d, e, or f. Children can handle guns safely - if the parent does g, h, and i."

If you poke the hornets' nest, expect to see some flying insects.

Yeah, well, I do seem to have this rather unhealthy habit of mistaking the damn things for pinatas... most people have their minds made up, thank you very much, and really aren't too interested in a fresh look at the pros and cons of any issue. Rock their boat, and suffer the consequences.

There are some places where I just have to smile and just keep my damn mouth shut... as my father in law said, never talk religion or politics. But what's a guy to do when he's somewhat addicted to both? Carry a fly swatter and some snuff for the hornet stings, I guess. :-)

John Lott, in addition to More Guns, Less Crime, has published papers on the effectiveness of self-storage laws, and I think I also saw one on suicides.

This is interesting news, since I'm interested both in handgun storage and firearms and suicide. Thanks for the tip!

[butter pecan fan]

Forgive the caustic responses you may have heard from many of us, but, as some have pointed out, we have heard all the statistics before. We can usually even identify the study, its author(s), and dates of publication from just a single statistic from the study. As such, whenever we hear any of these discredited "facts" our sensitivity and courtesy filters are turned off.

Thanks for the kind post. I guess my "problem" is that I haven't "heard all the statistics before."

I will say this - I have already learned a number of things via this thread.

[Liberal Classic]

But again, I consider practical experience with handling firearms to be of only limited value (I won't say NO value, but limited value) when it comes to evaluation of some of the societal issues.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I think that the practical experience have had owning and handling firearms passed down from father to son, actually do count. There do exist cultural traditions regarding the carriage of weaponry, and firearms are no different. You don't have to be highly educated to know what part firearms have played in American history. You don't have to be an expert to realize if you mishandle a gun, someone is going to get hurt. What evaluation of the impact of firearms is really needed? It is not like these are a new invention, or the unfortunate results that occur through misuse. Everybody knows what they do. The right course of action is to simply punish wrongdoers. I don't need some expert to evaluate my guns out of society. And frankly, that is what some people want.

It's no secret that a firearm is a weapon. Like any tool, it can be used properly, or misused. I reject that there is some secret tragedy lurking behind firearm related tragedies, that needs to be brought forth through statistical analysis. I also reject you have to be an expert to see whether the general ownership of weapons itself is deleterious or if is the bad actions of people that brings harm.

[Castlebar]

This statistic is probably the most interesting to me of the lot. Most of the others seem to be pure fluff, but there might be some meaningful information here. Is anybody familiar with the book named, its author, and particularly the source of this particular statistic?

If most of the others seem to be pure fluff, then why did you post them as if they were just uttered by the burning bush?

[butter pecan fan]

If most of the others seem to be pure fluff, then why did you post them as if they were just uttered by the burning bush?

Sorry - I guess I should have heavily edited instead of posting the whole article...

[butter pecan fan]

Just some further background on Kleck, he began his studies to prove a causal relationship between guns and crime. He is personally anti-gun even today. He is a professional researcher though and acknowledges his views do not jibe with the results of his research. These facts, to me, make his research all the more credible.

I'd like to read some more of Kleck's stuff, as well as more from John Lott. You confirm the impression I have so far about Kleck (having not read his stuff directly) - the above sounds like the likely ring of truth to me.

[George Smiley]

I'll see can I dig you up some links.