Posted on 03/01/2002 2:51:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Re-read the post. The chart and the data culled from the paragraph you corrected were from different years.
I certainly noticed that different years might be involved. However, I'm nonplussed by the thought that the ratio between the two would change so much in a few short years.
By the way, the ratio drops considerably (to less than 5 and 2, respectively) if non-accidental gun deaths are taken into account.
This study is a crock of bull dung!!! Guns were readily available when I was young, there were no gun safes, there were no restrictive gun laws! Yet the number of children killd by guns was very, very rare...
Do you know the statistics on how many children were killed by guns in your youth? I ask, because you appear to be relying on memory. Considering the change over the last few decades in the news media's emphasis, and in public perceptions, I wouldn't rely on personal memory as a basis.
Of course, we still have the junk science conclusion that essentially says that there are more household drownings in homes with swimming pools. It ignores the offsetting benefits, which may include children being better swimmers, and having fewer drownings overall. (Or housholds with guns having far lower risk of violent crime by others than their neighbors without guns.)
Pretty sharp!
When LEO's tracked back to the home of the deceased business baron, they found other firearms present (Which can't be true, this occurred in the PRMass, remember, which, doesn't have a problem with ownership of firearms, especially pistols and revolvers, as nobody can own them other than the privleged few, and then only if they have been deemed "safe" by the PRMass.
The above referenced media flack took this info, took his VPC "handbook for fanning the flames", and came up with this "substantiated account". Being the PC lib that he is, he neglects to say where these "chilrun" were killed, or what the area where these "chilrun" were killed was really like (you can say "the day after", sure you can).
He neglects to mention, however, that many more US children die where bathtubs are present, or the ever popular bucket and mop scenario, or more "chilrun" die where there is more auto/truck traffic..and so on ad infinitum
These "studies", "papers" etc, would be ludicrous, if it were not for the fact that most are simple plagiarism of the agitprop of the gun-grabbers, if not written by them outright, and "given" to a "front group" that would, in most cases be believed by the public (physicians,professors of law, etc). though it is not really plagiarism when the groups freely disseminate these lies, accepted as Gospel by the grabbers.
Just once I would like to see ONE story, honestly written, about someone who used a firearm in defense of themselves, their family, or an unarmed stranger, who was being attacked with deadly force. Just ONE story, accurately reported, by one of the major media, or a Medical Journal, or some other outlet of this ilk. Fahgedaboudid!!
It doesn't matter how often defensive use of a firearm saves lives, prevents assault or rape, or the sheer sight of a sidearm stops violence before it ever happens, the perp gets scared and leaves. The media will NEVER report the story, and if they do, will ALWAYS make the disclaimer "no charges, as yet, have been filed aginst the owner of the firearm in this case", to leave the impression that the defensive user is somehow a criminal. They always stop just on this side of the line from libel, though, the agitprop machine is very careful with that. No way would they risk exposure in open court for the lowlives they are, nor ever be put in a position where (shudder) cross-examination might reveal the truth.
What a joke.
Keep the Faith for Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC FROM THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER BOTH FROM WITHIN, AND OUTSIDE HER BORDERS.
Greg
And it's written and reported through the lens of Big LIBERAL media.
You might like to read Post #52, where D Joyce posted the press release.
Greg
Don't act as if you knew the years were different, when you were furiously tapping away at your calculator using the wrong figures from the wrong year. You didn't have all of your facts, admit it.
Use all the big words you like, it doesn't hide the fact that you're an intellectual piker. It doesn't matter how "nonplussed" you are about hard data that you doesn't fit your agenda. The facts are there, and the data is available to anyone who bothers to research it, which you haven't bothered to do.
By the way, the ratio drops considerably (to less than 5 and 2, respectively) if non-accidental gun deaths are taken into account.
Well gee, isn't that special. The chart had to do strictly with accidental death, so now you want to add all causes in the gun column and compare that to accidental death statistics and pretend you have an argument.
OK we'll play your silly non-scientific game anyway.
In 1997, the total number of children, ages 0-14 killed by firearms (all causes) was 629 or 1.7 per day.
National Center for Health Statistics, 1997
Even using all causes for guns (accidental and otherwise) many fewer children are killed by guns than accidental death by fire, autos and drowning.
Gee, I don't see many leftists getting nearly as hysterical over pools, matches and cars.
It's now official. Hard sourced date wins, specious anti-gun newbies from California (who read without comprehension while being short on facts) LOSE
Exactly!
Excellent. Mr. Newbie Knowitall doesn't have a case for defending this bogus study, but like all fact-twisting gungrabbers he doesn't let that stop him from trying to invent one. Maybe his lame apologetics for this lame "study" would get a better reception over at the VPC site.
This says it all here - this creep isn't a scientist, she's a professional propagandist. I think people are getting very tired of hearing this garbage from the "researchers" and the media. It won't go anywhere.
Check it out if you like. I know that in the early 60's there were very few gun deaths among children, only a few were attributed to hunting accidents, not carelessmess by gun owners.
It's kinda funny, we had better things to do with otu money ten, we didn't spend much money trying to prove that guns were evil. Why don't the outlaw cars? The dreaded Automobile kills FAR more children every year than guns!
Indeed. I just got a copy of the study, and it will take some time to digest it.
I'll post what I find.
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.