The BBC recently ran a story that explains much about why the rest of the industrialized world has long been puzzled and horrified at U.S. policies toward guns. The story reported that, in the space of twenty-four hours, two young American children had been shot by their young siblings. In Las Vegas, a two-year-old girl was in critical condition after being shot by her four-year-old brother. She later died from her wound. In Gray Court, South Carolina, a four-year-old was shot in the stomach by his three-year-old brother. He was expected to survive.
The Las Vegas shooting occurred in the children's home after the four-year-old boy found a 9mm handgun. The South Carolina shooting happened when the kids and their father were staying at the home of a family friend, when the three-year-old found the gun under a bed. In Vegas, it was the second gun tragedy within a week involving a young child. A five-year-old boy died after shooting himself in the head with a handgun he found in his father's car.
These tragedies are not isolated events, at least in America. In 2006 alone, 31 American kids under the age of 10 were killed in unintentional shootings and 187 were injured. The numbers increase substantially with older children. Indeed, the unintentional gun death rate for children under 15 is nine times higher in the U.S. than the combined rate in 25 other industrialized nations.
When kids accidentally shoot kids, who is to blame? The first culprit is the irresponsible gun owner who would leave a loaded gun accessible to children. In America, this behavior is shockingly common. According to one study, an estimated 2.6 million children live in homes where at least one gun is stored either unlocked and loaded, or unlocked with the ammunition in the same location as the gun. These guns are like ticking time bombs. Generally speaking, the problem is not with rifles and shotguns used for sport. They are more likely to be stored unloaded and locked up. The bigger problem is handguns, bought primarily for self-defense.
Why would so many handgun owners put their kids (and other kids) at such risk? Consider how handguns are marketed in America. The core marketing appeal is to fear - the fear of being unarmed when faced with an armed attacker. Some years ago, a particularly infamous Beretta ad showed a Beretta semiautomatic pistol and a bullet for the gun sitting unsecured on a nightstand table. Next to the gun were a photo of a woman with two young children and a clock showing the time as 11:26 p.m. The headline read, "Tip the odds in your favor." The text addressed those who are "considering a handgun for personal protection."
The ad was a transparent attempt to exploit the entirely understandable fears of single mothers and it went so far as to depict the completely unsecured storage of a pistol next to its unsecured ammunition in a house with young children! The irony of all this is that when Beretta and other gun makers are sued for failing to install safety devices to prevent accidental shootings involving children, their response invariably is to blame the gun owner for leaving guns unsecured, precisely the conduct encouraged by the industry's fear-based marketing.
The problem is that the legitimate fear of criminal attack leads too many gun owners to the conclusion that it is not enough to possess a gun; they need immediate access to their gun. Some years ago, the National Rifle Association published a poster posing this question to women considering buying a gun: "Should you shoot a rapist before he cuts your throat?" The question, of course, supplies the answer. If the issue of gun ownership is framed so that the only relevant consideration is whether you should be able to shoot an attacker as he approaches in your bedroom, then it makes perfect sense to have a loaded handgun in the nightstand. No time to mess around with unlocking a trigger lock and loading the gun. But this framing of the issue ignores the other risks created by the loaded gun in the nightstand, like the risk of children shooting children. That risk is not confined to the children of gun owners, as shown in the South Carolina shooting.
Despite the gun industry's fear-based strategy for selling handguns, every major handgun manufacturer warns its consumers to store their guns locked and unloaded, with the ammunition and the gun stored in different locations. These warnings represent the gun industry's implicit recognition that the benefits of immediate access to handguns in resisting attack are outweighed by the risks of unsecured guns.
When children are shot because these warnings are ignored, gun owners should be legally accountable, as they are now in eighteen states. Under the threat of legal liability, some years ago major gun manufacturers began to design their guns with internal locks to prevent access by children and other unauthorized users. All guns should be required to have such locks.
Yes, in the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court last year found a constitutional right to have handguns in the home for self-defense. In that same ruling, the Court also suggested that "laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents" are entirely compatible with that right.
There is no right to render children defenseless against guns.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
That's why where children are in the house you expose them early and often and teach the fact that a gun is a weapon, not a toy. Its only intent is to kill. My daughter is 2 and I'll have to start taking regular trips to the range so I can start to expose her to me cleaning a pistol and/or rifle and educate her early and simply. Other than that, if its really important that you have a gun next to the bed, you unlock it each night and lock it each morning. I'm willing to bet the above cited examples were unattended children (and guns).
Perhaps we should start suing car companies too. After all, those advertisements of cars speeding through deserts and city streets encourage people to drive recklessly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
"Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?
Introduction
Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner's gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)
The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)
Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.
Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.
Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.
Refutation
First we need to understand how the ratio was derived."
to get more of this information, go to:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
From a statiscal viewpoint, they are indeed "isolated events". Accidental gun deaths do not even make the top 10 on the CDC's list of accidental deaths and injuries. However, they are indeed tragic.
Dennis A. Henigan wrote:"Indeed, the unintentional gun death rate for children under 15 is nine times higher in the U.S. than the combined rate in 25 other industrialized nations. "
Since unintentional gun death rate for children under 15 is 0.09/100,000, (according to CDC) that factoid translates into a differntial equivalent to 0.00008%, thereby establishing the validity of the adage about the 3 types of lies: 1.) Lies; 2.) Damn lies; and 3.) Statistics.
Dennis A. Henigan wrote: "In that same ruling, the Court also suggested that "laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents" are entirely compatible with that right. "
Yet the Court struck down the safe storage provisions contained in the DC law as unconstituional.
Those allowing lethal weapons fall into the hands of children should be prosecuted with manslaughter.
Absolutely.
Instead, they suspend kids for using the word 'gun'.
I suggest that when guns were commonplace, when children and adults alike grew-up with guns, learned to use them, to respect them; learned they were merely tools -- and not toys, then child safety wasn't a pervasive problem.
In that regard it can more truthfully be argued that YOUR position on guns is what endangers children, while more childhood exposure, experience and education mitigates the danger. But the truth, of course, rarely supports the "Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!" arguments so popular in influencing the gullible.
and within the last 100 years we left the farms and went to the cities and suburbs.
Thus compressing & condensing all forms of evil - murder, assault, rape, etc. The "view out the front door" may have changed. The need for defense of family & self, home and hearth did not!
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
"Why would so many handgun owners put their kids (and other kids) at such risk?"
Comparing the number of 'toddlers' (apparently toddlers have been reclassified to any child under 10) injured or killed by unintentional gun fire with the number of children living in homes where guns are present, the 'risk' Dennis Henigan is making such a stink over amounts to 218/2.6 million (according to his cited study) , or 0.00008% risk factor.
This should come as no surprise however, as the Brady Campaign routinely supports bans on rifles responsible for
....less than 3% of all annual homicides. Way to go after the 'significant' problems, Dennis.
It's reassuring however, that even with such a low risk factor, the Brady Campaign is stepping up and supporting and sponsoring a vast array of gun safety programs and educational classes aimed toward promoting awareness toward the dangers inappropriate use of firearms pose.
Oh, wait.....no they don't. Why not, Dennis? Why is it that one of the largest anti-gun organizations in the US whose mantra is safety for The Children(tm) doesn't spens one dollar for gun safety education??
OT- Anyone notice the "divide and conquer" tactics Paul and Dennis have been recently using; posting on the same day or close to it? It won't work, Dennis. I'll gladly take the extra time to debunk both and Paul in the same day.
Rather:
How many kids leave this world in accidents because mom or dad are texting or impaired while driving a vehicle.
Better outlaw cars, or cell phones, or texting, or drinking while driving...hmmnn.
How many kids leave this world because parents left dangerous substances within reach?
How many kids leave this world because they do not have health insurance?
31 kids is 31 too many - but this is a nation of over 300 million people. Do the math .
Please focus on what will save the most kids - health care..
Harold
Motor vehicle = 1125
Suffocation = 1030
Drowning = 651
Falls = 78
Poisoning = 61
Natural/environmental = 59
Struck by or against = 55
Firearms = 31
Fire/burns = 348
Fire/burns in residence = 332
Transport other than land = 32