General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Study Details Gun Injuries Suffered by Children
WASHINGTON Every day in the United States, about 20 children are injured by firearms and require hospitalization, according to new research.
The research said that in 2009, there were 7,391 hospitalizations of victims under the age of 20 and that six percent of those admitted die as a result of their injuries.
This study is a stark reminder of the devastating effects of gun violence, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of the book Gunfight. Too often, we focus only on the number of people who die from gun violence. But so many who escape death also suffer lifelong injuries.
http://www.voanews.com/content/new-study-details-gun-injuries-to-children/1838677.html
Full original article available here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/01/22/peds.2013-1809.abstract
xchrom
(108,903 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)This study encompasses nearly every gang member in America.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But your attempt to re characterize this as "gang violence" is in fact the racist rightwing NRA talking point to deflect from the awful truth about gun culture.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Eye opening. You can see why it was important to get that upper age limit as high as possible. figure 2 is particularly interesting.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)alittlelark
(18,890 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How about just ONE is one too many in any decent society?
hack89
(39,171 posts)For everything that accidentally kills kids? Are you going to start at the top to the list of things that kill and work down or are you going to jump straight to gunz?
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)Under the age of two with white skin, to satisfy the gun nuts.
hack89
(39,171 posts)No need to pad the numbers is there?
kcr
(15,320 posts)At any rate I found the reason for your objection pukeworthy. I think you'd be a tad disappointed to find your "padding" isn't quite as large as you thought was at any rate.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is perfectly clear why they wanted as many older people as possible.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Makes it clear they wanted to include all those gang bangers that you object to that "pad the numbers?" Your claim is beyond weak.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Feel free to discount. They don't count
hack89
(39,171 posts)But really. They are not children if they are a day short of turning 20.
kcr
(15,320 posts)So they're imaginary dead kids? Wow, it's amazing all these children dying the day before they turn 20!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)where huge swaths of 18 and 19 year olds are shooting each other, yet 17 year olds are nearly unharmed.
That's the only arrangement where your definition of "child" would make a difference.
hack89
(39,171 posts)looking at murder victims alone, there is more than a threefold increase in murder victims between the 13-16 age group and the 17- 19 age group. It is almost as if the older you are, the more likely you are to be murdered.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2
Interestingly enough, the same relationship applies to people that commit murder.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Since using the age range 17-19 is exactly the same thing you're complaining about here.
Golly, it's almost like you're busy spinning instead of actually having a methodology disagreement.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the more samples from an age group disproportionately involved in violent crime, the higher the higher the death toll.
Look at the study - there is a massive jump from 15 on. What makes someone more susceptible to gun violence all of a sudden?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Once again, you are doing the exact same thing you are attacking this study for doing.
You're pretending that it doesn't matter that you are not obeying your own arbitrary age lines when it helps you. But it's utterly critical to use those arbitrary age lines in the study in the OP.
I'm sorry, but you aren't so stupid that you can't notice your hypocrisy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because the study shows a massive increase in death and injury after that age. Which means that different factors come into play, one of which is clearly increased criminal activity.
Below 15 has different causes and different solutions. Above 15 has different causes and solutions.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)looked closer at the study and the FBI data.
There is a clear line of demarcation at 15. Shouldn't that be investigated?
Skittles
(153,193 posts)yes INDEED
kcr
(15,320 posts)Different causes and solutions for them, too, I'm sure? Hell, 2! The solution for that? Put the gun on a higher shelf! Problem solved! Dust off the old thinkeroo cap and head on home for the night!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Anything to let some headlines screech OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!
kcr
(15,320 posts)I know. It's a massive inconvenience that anyone wants to care about children. Especially the gang banging ones.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Surely you aren't expecting any actual (rational) discussion?
I mean...it's a GD gun thread...
kcr
(15,320 posts)Crazy talk, for sure.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)there is a clear line of demarcation at 15. How do you explain it?
kcr
(15,320 posts)And those gosh darn gun grabbers care about them for some reason. They think they're human. Go figure.
hack89
(39,171 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)But I don't think that's the case at all, actually. The problem with guns in America are fully intertwined. They are not two entirely separate problems that have nothing to do with each other. And wanting to erase their numbers and pretend they don't exist isn't going to fly.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Because any proposed laws have to be tightly written to address specific issues. Broad, general laws will never pass supreme muster due to the Strict Scrutiny review requirements.
And yes they are two separate issues.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Or am I imagining that there are no impervious walls surrounding communities that no guns can pass through?
hack89
(39,171 posts)As shown through the FBI stats. The reason young kids are being injured is not the same as older "kids".
How do you explain that massive jump in injuries in the 15-19 age group? Isn't time you stop ignoring the question and give it a try?
But then you have the answer already, don't you? It is all about the gunz. That is as deep as you want to go.
kcr
(15,320 posts)You're the one making the claim that the cause behind that jump means their numbers should be eliminated. I'm not. I'm not denying anything.
hack89
(39,171 posts)If you accept that they highlight a separate issue. That is why I changed my view and said I would draw a line at 15.
kcr
(15,320 posts)You still seem to think they should be discounted by drawing the line at 15
hack89
(39,171 posts)A clear line of demarcation.
They should not be discounted. They just highlight a separate issue.
How do you explain that massive jump at age 15? Or is it irrelevant?
kcr
(15,320 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Why do you think there is a massive jump in gun injuries after age 15? Is the reason irrelevant?
kcr
(15,320 posts)They're gang bangers, so they're a separate issue. Don't agree. The guns that affect them are the same guns. They're coming from the same source. Same issue. The failure to regulate guns adequately is the problem.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Black kids don't count. It is the hoodie excuse.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #129)
kcr This message was self-deleted by its author.
kcr
(15,320 posts)It's not that hard to follow the conversation
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)You can't see the people in the thread claiming the numbers are padded by gang bangers? Seriously? But okay. You're the one budgin into the conversation. I was respondong to Hack89, that's who. See? easy peasy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)A plausible one, for sure, wouldn't you say?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Are you trying to get me to post something you can alert on and get successfully deleted? Not going to give you what you want. Sorry.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you refer to would be a lot lower??
hack89
(39,171 posts)There are plenty of people who cannot legally own guns that are killing others right now. Did you actually think before you posted that?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)That's what it's all about.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) Yes, 19 is a child. Perhaps not to 19 year olds themselves, but they're kids.
2) You seem quite ignorant of gang age demographics. One might get the impression you're going off something other than fact - truthiness, perhaps?
3) You seem to be trying to make an argument justifying the shooting of children - or children and 19 year olds, however you want to frame it. Using of course the perennial gun goon fear of "gangs" (which much like "thug" the rest of us fully understand as a racial dog whistle.) Unsurprising, given your committed rallying for George Zimmerman, I suppose.
While I'm glad your sort are being honest about what goes on inside your heads these days, I do wish you would find somewhere else to do it. I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a discussion area.
hack89
(39,171 posts)There is also huge jump in murder victims and offenders at 16. So yes, I understand the need to get as many older people in the study as possible.
I am pointing out that that demarcation points out two separate issues and therefore two separate solutions. I know your reasoning never gets more complex than "evil gunz" but that says more about you than me.
I like it here - interfacing with calm, polite and logical controllers like you is enjoyable.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The next one of these studies will up the age to 24 or 26....whatever the ACA cutoff is for "kids"
It will include such incidents as injuries during the commission of a felony. LOL
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)locked away and out of reach from children.
hack89
(39,171 posts)If you accept that a 19 year old is a child.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You make a great point, probably not the one you intended.
hack89
(39,171 posts)anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)They can vote, enter into contracts and do everything adults do.
hack89
(39,171 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Hm... funny how you complain so loudly about age cut offs but you have no problem excluding alcohol, in fact, dropping alcohol from the discussion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)What is the number when you take out suicides?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Including people who are not children and people whose injury is intentionally self-inflicted.
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)I see no evidence the authors are "intentionally misrepresenting facts"
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)the transitional stage from childhood to adulthood ..."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/adolescence
pintobean
(18,101 posts)struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)More detailed documentation is available at the link. For example, "INTRODUCTION TO THE HCUP KIDS INPATIENT DATABASE" says "The KID is the only dataset on hospital use, outcomes, and charges designed to study childrens use of hospital services in the United States. The KID is a sample of discharges from all community, non-rehabilitation hospitals in States participating in HCUP. The target universe includes pediatric discharges from community, non-rehabilitation hospitals in the United States.
Pediatric discharges are defined as all discharges where the patient was age 20 or less at admission"
The database does not appear to be designed for study of the spectrum of medical complaints of military personnel
pintobean
(18,101 posts)DragonBorn
(175 posts)Don't soldiers get transferred to civilian hospitals sometimes after being evac'ed from theater?
If a 18 - 19 year old solider was admitted into a hospital for a gunshot they sustained in Afghanistan or Iraq would they be included in this study?
Pediatric discharges are defined as all discharges where the patient was age 20 or less at admission"
The database does not appear to be designed for study of the spectrum of medical complaints of military personnel
The study doesn't seem designed to capture military personnel but does it exclude them? I'd love concrete response because there are plenty of 18 - 19 year olds that got shot during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Serious question.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)injuries in 2009. Hospitalizations due to injuries from assaults were the most frequent (n = 4559), whereas hospitalizations due to suicide attempts were infrequent (n = 270) ... "
The full report is available online
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)By claiming that 18 and 19 year old people are adolescents.
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)the transitional stage from childhood to adulthood ..."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/adolescence
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)How odd. I thought that was legal at 21.
How bout if they rent a car? Oops, 25.
I know! They can run for President! Oh wait....35. Senate? 30. House? 25.
IOW, arbitrary lines are arbitrary.
Physically, we aren't adults until about 25 - our brains are still developing before that.
Adolescence, these years from puberty to adulthood, may be roughly divided into three stages: early adolescence, generally ages eleven to fourteen; middle adolescence, ages fifteen to seventeen; and late adolescence, ages eighteen to twenty-one. In addition to physiological growth, seven key intellectual, psychological and social developmental tasksare squeezed into these years. The fundamental purpose of these tasks is to form ones own identity and to prepare for adulthood.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adolescence
adolescence /ad·o·les·cence/ (ad?o-les´ens) the period between puberty and the completion of physical growth, roughly from 11 to 19 years of age.adoles´cent
http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html
Adolsecents in that link referred various times in the age range between 15-19
http://www.childrensnational.org/departmentsandprograms/default.aspx?Id=370&Type=Dept&Name=Adolescent%20and%20Young%20Adult%20Medicine
The programs provide consultative and primary care to adolescents and young adults between the ages of 12 and 21 suffering from such conditions as acne, eating disorders, gynecological and reproductive health problems, sports injuries, substance abuse, and a range of psychological problems related to developing adolescents and their families.
...
Just for a start.
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)of the American Academy of Pediatrics
I'm inclined to allow the pediatric community determine for itself what articles it considers worthy of professional attention
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Keep grasping.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the talking about a solution that may cause injury to a gun owner.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or maybe you feel the numbers for minors aren't that bad once you take out the 18 and 19 year olds. not that bad as in, "high" but not as high as you thought! yayyyyy!
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)legal age for some issues...clearly not all. But once a person hits 21 they are considered legally an adult for all types of voting, license, military etc....it's all covered by that age.
sked14
(579 posts)but at age 16, you're eligible to get a license, at age 17, you're eligible to join the military with your parents permission, at age 18, you're eligible for combat and you're eligible to vote.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)By age 21 all of the various age related, legal hurdles, would have been covered.
I was attempting to discover why they used the age 21 for the study, and I believe that is why.
16 may be old enough to drive, but not old enough to vote or to enter into a contractual agreement.....again, by age 21 all the various legal benchmarks for adulthood would have been met....hence using that age as a benchmark for the study.
sked14
(579 posts)My bad, sorry about that.
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)pdf available here
Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)from alcohol. This does not include psychological trauma from abuse/etc related to alcohol and it's effect on kids.
In 2009, about 10.4 million young people between ages 12 and 20 drank more than just a few sips of alcohol.
As kids get older, they drink more. By age 15, half of teens have had at least one drink. By age 18, more than 70% of teens have had at least one drink.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-occurring-disorders/underage-drinking
20 per day for guns.
Which one are we asking our lawmakers to focus on during campaigns? Probably the one we don't do ourselves and the one they partake of the most out of the two. Which one gets story after story daily even though only a tiny percent cause the issue?
It is not about kids and safety, it is about control - otherwise people would be working harder on the issue affecting them the most out of the two.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Not to mention the drinking age limit? You act as if all that were ignored in favor of guns. No one cares about teens and alcohol deaths? Imagine if MADD had had the pushback that those who are fighting against gun deaths are getting. It's a good thing they didn't. I'm certainly glad there are no amendments guaranteeing thee right to drink behind a wheel.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)No not those children other people took care of those children already. It's this group of children over here that is important.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Unless they're dying by gun violence. And they aren't "gang bangers"
clffrdjk
(905 posts)I am not seeing massive threads detailing how private swimming pools are evil and how their owner's are either idiot inbreds or they use the pool as an escape back to their mothers womb.
I am not seeing a large push for stopping the senseless loss of life on our roads. Both kill more children every year than guns do, and remember guns are built to do one thing how can these other things be so much better at it than guns are? Something is seriously wrong here.
No instead I see a group sifting through a large pile of dead kids looking for any that they might be able to use for their cause. Then plastering their faces and names on signs in order to get a better response. At the same time putting up a curtain to hide the ones left behind, that way they can avoid silly questions like why these kids why not the others why this cause why not others?
Crap I left out alcohol.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Why is it that we don't see massive threads about those things? Hmmm. Why could that be? Gee, so hard to figure out! Because this isn't one of the oldest tricks in the talking point bag, right? Comparing guns to non weapons. No one has ever thought of that, before. Crap, you left out alcohol How could you forget that good old reliable?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Or were you just full of it when you posted this
47. "No, more like think of the children!
Unless they're dying by gun violence. And they aren't "gang bangers""
Clearly the cry "think of the children" must be coming from some where for your little turn about to make any sense.
Now as for your dodges
"Why is it that we don't see massive threads about those things? Hmmm. Why could that be? Gee, so hard to figure out!"
That was a serious question, the playing of the child card is kind of a joke when you look at the numbers and realize that guns, you know the weapons with no other possible purpose than to kill and they kill kids really well according to antigun people, kill fewer children than a bunch of everyday objects.
"Comparing guns to non weapons. No one has ever thought of that, before."
I never claimed to be the absolute first to use that argument, but if it is so old and well used you must be very well practiced at defeating it. Go on tell me why non weapons killing more than weapons means we should ban more weapons.
kcr
(15,320 posts)about the person who walked into a school and slaughtered 20 children with a swimming pool. That's why I'm not joining in in wondering why there isn't the same call to action about swimming pools. My bad.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Because somebody took the time to tell you about them.
Awesome reasoning.
kcr
(15,320 posts)For one thing, you were talking about why they don't garner the same attention. I was explaining to you the reason why.
But let's discuss pools while we're at it, and why it's ridiculous to compare guns to other objects. Pools are nothing like guns. Completely different objects that function completely differently and are used for entirely different reasons. You slap a pool in your backyard, and there it sits for your swimming enjoyment. You can't take it anywhere with you. It isn't going anywhere. You have to keep it filled and maintained and the cost and time of doing so is far greater than it is for a gun. And its primary purpose is for entertainment. Now I know you might say "But guns are, too! I like to go shooting at the range!" But that's not its primary purpose. Someone can't take a pool to the range and use it for pool practice. The pool can't go anywhere. There it sits, doing the only thing it can. Being used for swimming in. Yes, children do die in pool accidents and I'm not discounting them. At all. In fact, that reason is the reason nI decided not to get one. The dangers, for me, outweighed the benefits. And you do see this addressed in the media all the time. Every summer, swimming safety! The notion by gunners that this isn't addressed is false. The fact that it is addressed led me to the decision not to get one. So, you see? No one discounts anything you say. But the reason you don't see massive threads about pools on DU? A man didn't enter a school and blow 20 children away with a pool. Nor do they go into theaters, or workplaces, etc. That's why.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Could you expand on this thought and show me how my conclusion is illogical?
"84. Right. I guess I missed the news story
about the person who walked into a school and slaughtered 20 children with a swimming pool. That's why I'm not joining in in wondering why there isn't the same call to action about swimming pools. My bad."
As for the meat of your post
All these things and pools still kill more children than guns do. The gun with no other use to but to kill, kills fewer than the humble swimming pool. Yet the gun is the evil object that must be gotten rid of, and your answer to why is that well guns made the news.
kcr
(15,320 posts)even though people aren't waking into theaters and schools and colleges and etc and slaughtering them en mass with them is illogical. Yesiree. It makes no sense.
The problem with comparing pools to guns is, how often does one use their pool vs their gun? Like I said, we're comparing two vastly different things. And if you used your gun the way you used your pool, if such a thing were possible? What would happen with the death rates for guns then? Because how do typical gun owners use their guns on a daily basis? Vs how pool owners use their pools? More children die in pools. But they're jumping in them and swimming in them and spending hours in them, often on a daily basis. Vs guns, which are often just spending their time just sitting there. When the deadly occurrence happens? It's usually within that smaller frame of time of its use. For example, kid picks up gun to play with it, blam. Proportionately, time of use death rate, what are the statistics. Not likely to be nearly the same.
And this is the most important part. No one is going to walk into a school/theater/whathave you with their pool. So entirely different subject regarding public safety. Other people's guns have a much different potential regarding my safety than other people's pools do.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)My conclusion is that you (and many others) place more value in gun deaths than you do in deaths by other causes.
The lack of threads on these other causes is evidence supporting my conclusion. You told me your reason for this happening is that you heard about gun deaths on the news. The question is now that you know that more people die from other causes there are only so many options. Will you divert your attention to those others? Will you stop trying to use deaths to explain and promote your antigun desires? Or is your hatred of guns strong enough to support the cognitive dissonance required to continue placing more value in deaths involving guns?
kcr
(15,320 posts)What do you think of the conclusion that some draw that gun enthusiasts don't care about or value the lives of those killed by gun violence? I bet you'd think that's a pretty ridiculous, illogical conclusion. Stating that the arguments that some gun enthusiasts use is illogical doesn't mean they don't think those deaths are less important. Logic does not follow.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)But my answer to your question is this.
Gun people do not value gun deaths any more or less than any other deaths. Consider it this way gun people are doing the same thing about gun deaths as you are about pool deaths, now I know you don't have a pool but what would your reaction be if people were calling for the ban of something you value, enjoy and consider a right. That is where the push back comes from.
Also if my conclusion is true then yes gun people would value gun deaths less than antigun people when compared to antigun peoples over value of gun deaths.
kcr
(15,320 posts)It's about acknowledging that the causes of the deaths aren't the same. Pools != guns. So comparing the two, and the deaths they cause, aren't the same. It doesn't mean you don't care about those deaths. The fact that someone cannot take their pool into a public place and slaughter a bunch of people with it is relevant. The fact that people use their pools differently than they do their guns and so the proportionate risk is different is relevant.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)If you want to talk proportions of use start considering the number of people legally carrying guns all day every day and very soon in every state, and I am not talking about police.
kcr
(15,320 posts)It isn't possible to give equal weight of attention to the causes of all their deaths. But things like mass killings are going to receive more attention. It isn't hard to see why.
Talk about proportion. Consider the number of people who swim. A number a heck of a lot larger than those who carry a gun all day. Then throw in the fact that no one has ever taken a pool into a building and blown 20 babies apart. There you go.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Is my conclusion wrong or right because your last post was basically explaining why I am right.
Alright you go find the number hours swam per year, accurate within reason and I will try to find the number of hours guns are carried each year. Any other stipulations you want to add?
kcr
(15,320 posts)Your contention that people die in pools means people should switch their attention to pools or it means they don't care about people who die in pools couldn't possibly be more wrong. I fail to see how anything I've said has lent any validity to that argument whatsoever.
You seriously think that stat is out there? Good luck finding it!
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Contention.
Remember my conclusion is that you (and many others) place more value in gun deaths than you do in deaths by other causes.
"It's about acknowledging that the causes of the deaths aren't the same. Pools != guns."
"It isn't possible to give equal weight of attention to the causes of all their deaths. But things like mass killings are going to receive more attention. It isn't hard to see why."
How do those two disagree with my conclusion?
"You seriously think that stat is out there? Good luck finding it!"
I don't know if either stat is out there, but are you not curious to find out?
kcr
(15,320 posts)Nothing I've said lends and credibility to your argument. Nothing I've said places any more or less value on deaths. That's your twisted interpretation. Nothing more. Saying guns are not the same as pools somehow means placing unequal value to you. Twisted and illogical and makes absolutely no sense.
I doubt it. How would they find something like that out? I seriously doubt it.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Then there really is no point in continuing. You are so blinded by your views you can't even see when you agree with me.
kcr
(15,320 posts)because you conflate things that aren't the same. You discount the fact that far more people swim. But you think the fact that there are pool deaths should be given equal weight in consideration (has nothing to do with value of lives). Whenever anyone talks about guns and gun deaths, people should stop and consider things like pool deaths, or any other potentially fatal thing because same! Something causes a death. It should be thought of as well. When they're not, because of factors like many more people swim. All deaths the same! So deflect! Distract!
All you're really doing is trying to wave your hands around and say "Look over here!" because you don't want people talking about it. Oh, no ! They're talking about guns! Must deflect and distract!
clffrdjk
(905 posts)You mean death is not death no matter what the cause? Oh you mean that some causes matter more than others yep that totally disagrees with my conclusion.
You discount the fact that far more people swim.
Where have I done that and where have you proven that more time is spent swimming?
But you think the fact that there are pool deaths should be given equal weight in consideration (has nothing to do with value of lives).
Lol so gun deaths matter and must be stopped but swimming pool deaths even though there are more do not? Why are we banning guns again?
Whenever anyone talks about guns and gun deaths, people should stop and consider things like pool deaths, or any other potentially fatal thing because same!
Well yea they are the same or do you value one more than the other? So why are we banning guns again? It obviously is not because they kill.
Something causes a death. It should be thought of as well. When they're not, because of factors like many more people swim.
You didn't even want to try and compare the factors, you can't claim them as facts now.
All deaths the same! So deflect! Distract! All you're really doing is trying to wave your hands around and say "Look over here!" because you don't want people talking about it. Oh, no ! They're talking about guns! Must deflect and distract!
What I am really trying to do is get some honesty out of you, it is proving incredibly difficult.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Well, yes. Some causes matter more than others in that they do deserve different consideration. Why should we consider pools the same way we consider guns, when they do not cause death the same way? That would make no sense. The manner of death and how they impact society aren't the same. It doesn't mean the lives affected aren't valued the same or that no one thinks it's as important. It's the whole no one has walked into a school with a pool thing. People have considered how pools have impacted society. It's why there are life guards. Its' why people put fences around pools, and give swimming lessons. Why insurance companies charge more, etc. But because no one has walked into a school, they haven't been featured in the news the same way. Getting it now?
Yes, gun deaths have to be stopped. The fact that other things cause death doesn't mean we have to put up with guns and gun deaths. There is no other use for guns. They are weapons and that is their only use. We don't have to throw up our arms at the argument that pools/cars/hammers/pencils/ferrets/every other damn thing can cause deaths too, so society has to put up with gun deaths and do nothing about it. Because all deaths are the same.
You know what? A woman in a super market dropped a can on her foot. She got an infection and died. Her death matters, too. Still need to address the issue of guns and gun deaths! So sorry.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)The second half raises one of my earlier points. Guns with as you say no other use but to kill, kill fewer people than several things that were built for some other purpose. It is your hate for guns that makes you value gun deaths more not the deaths that make you hate the guns.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Not even remotely does the first half of my post prove your point. Even a tiny little bit.
The rest of your post is just utter word salad nonsense. Value of life death all equall blah blah blah. Because you're just not getting it. Never mind other causes of death do get consideration and measures of caution and regulation and control are taken against them too. Never mind that, gun deaths and what to do about them are not to be considered. No! Look over here, pools! Don't you care about them! Pools are dangerous too. All deaths equal.. All deaths equal..
clffrdjk
(905 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)And even with all the laws on alcohol it is still outdoing everything else when it comes to harming kids.
Any new proposals to help out? Like laws that all alcohol has to be locked up, can only be sold with a permit after a check and you can only own so much at one time? Special tracers in each bottle so if someone drinks we can trace it back to where they bought it from? Police to look into each home to test and make sure it is properly stored? Banning it?
More laws is not the answer, getting to the root of the why's of people doing such things would be a good place to start.
And betting you would find alcohol involved in more shootings than some would like to admit, which goes back to causes (since one alters the mind and the other does not).
It's not about fixing, it is about controlling others when less than one percent of people with guns does something bad. It is feel good measures that don't address the problems but make people think they are doing something.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Your claim was that no one cared about that other thing. I pointed out that they did indeed.
But I've heard all the talking points before. Get to the heart of the problem! But ignore the guns themselves, of course! And point to every other thing under the sun, like cars, bathtubs, pencils, hammers, food, drink, anything that that doesn't really compare because all those things have uses other than weapons. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I was referring more to the generic ' no one ' as it relates to DU.
How many threads a day do you see about alcohol related stuff (except in the lounge maybe where people talk about their favorite brew - alcohol porn! Oh my!).
If you talk about guns like you do alcohol you are a nut, nra member, a humper, etc - lord knows there are sport shooters, hunters, competition shooters, etc who happen to like using guns for the enjoyment of them.
kcr
(15,320 posts)When was the last time someone went into a room and blew twenty children to bloody bits in their classroom with a bottle of merlot? When was the last time someone went into a mall doing the same thing? Was it a bottle of vodka that man used to kill that texter with in the theater? Just why is it do you think so much attention is being paid?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Measures have been taken to reduce alcohol consumption and risks with teens. Gun control seems to be the only issue where the anti crowds only defense is "well this is worse!!!!!" (Like a little kid arguing with his/her parents). If that's all you have, you must know you're on the losing side.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)is that, unlike with alcohol, there are more than a few who want to remove that right altogether and only allow people who work for the government to have guns.
Add in that percent wise people with guns are not all out shooting up folks like some would have you to believe. Less than one percent of people with guns do so - so the problem is not ownership, it is a minority of people that own them.
We have tons of gun laws on the books already. But like with everything else in the world, from pools to cars to whatever, you will always have a subset where bad things happen (kids get hurt in pools all the time, car accidents, etc).
New laws, if they make some sense, are not the problem. Problems come in when you want the majority who are responsible to have to give up something because of what a few do - not to mention the bigotry that is promoted by bashing the many based on the few -something the right does well with muslims and we decry, remember after 9/11? We said that tactic was bad then but turn around and use it now with guns. Either it is the wrong way to do something or it is not. Why won't people even try to be consistent on those values?
We all want less violence - whether by gun, knife, beatings, rape, etc. Focusing on the tool used by a small fraction of one group and claiming it is the problem makes no sense. But it is easy and people can use their hate to fan flames and ignorance. Something we condemn on principle when used by the right but grab and hug the same principle on other things.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Anymore generic right wing talking points you want to open?
Guess what, it's a lot easier to kill a classroom full of kids with a gun than it is a knife.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)We should pay no attention to our gun culture's impact on youth in the inner cities. Suburban, upper middle class children are all that should be counted.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That should go without saying: gang-effected youth are probably the most at-risk segment of civilian society. Transcends racial lines, too...
However, that doesn't mean that in order for studies like the one we're discussing aren't more useful in terms of pointing at potential courses of action when they have the ability to differentiate between subsets when such differentations are valid and useful. You wouldn't apply the same strategies to gang-effected 17-to-19-year-olds with criminal history as you would to 5-to-7-year-olds. Obviously.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)But I'm not in the business of ranking life importance, I'll leave that up to the racists and conservatives.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I wouldn't care to differentiate along those lines...only when it makes sense because you need different solutions for different groups. As I said, you'd take very different steps to protect a grade school kid than you would a 17-year-old at risk from gang involvement.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)people should be taken seriously.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wouldn't be shooting each other?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If you want to solve gang violence, you need to address its causes which have nothing to do with the availability of firearms. I'm not willing to give up my guns because we, as a society, are incapable of instilling respect for human life in our youth.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Most shootings are tragic, maybe even all.
But if don't include legal adults in the data, far fewer kids and adolescents are injured or killed.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)With all their liberal "facts" and "research". Everyone knows that the American Academy of Pediatrics is just a front group for Obama to steal our guns.
What a sick mind you have with your justification, "well if you don't count the older murder victims it's not that bad".
Repulsive.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Many people will read "children and adolescents" and not think 18 and 19 year olds.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)And your firearm fetish has impaired your humanity. "Fuck those dead 18 and 19 year olds, they're just there to pad the statistics".
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)And I won't apologize or be bullied by gun fetishists, sorry.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)kcr
(15,320 posts)when they don't have to and have nothing to apologize for.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Gun nuts don't control the debate anymore just because they have firearms. I'm sick of it. I'm also sick of gun nuts who minimize death and discount facts so that they can keep their toys.
I'm sorry if that offends you, please feel free to put me on ignore.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)I have nothing more to discuss with you.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)but stand up for gay marriage, right to choose, and right to own a gun (which some only want those in power to own because they don't trust their fellow citizens)?
Am I a 'gay nut' because I think people should have the right to marry? Or am I just a progressive person who feels we little people should have rights?
Calling people nuts is an attempt to discredit arguments, which is usually because you don't have facts and logic/principles on your side so appeal to emotion. Like the rw does with trying to pain all muslims as terrorists.
A shameful way to debate an issue.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Thank you! Thank you for standing up for the oppresesed masses like gays, minorities, the poor, and of course Smith and Wesson.
The modern day gun nut is truelly the freedom rider of our times.
Wont somebody please think of the gun manufacturers and gun gun lobby?!?!?!?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)maybe not something you give much thought or weight to but some of us try to be consistent on that principle.
DragonBorn
(175 posts)I don't really consider 16 - 19 year olds to be children, their teenagers. This is just trying to tug at emotional heartstrings by deeming them children.
How much would you want to bet most of the "children" in the 16 - 19 year group where gang members or other criminals.
Another good question to ask is if this details injuries sustained during a criminal act. If you get shot by the cops for robbing someone or waving a gun around well you shouldn't be lumped in a study with two year olds. It's conflating the data of good shoots / bad shoots / accidents.
Let me know how many of those injuries where gang shooting, police shootings, or justified citizen shootings and then we can have an honest conversation.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)
I bet you would think differently if that 17 year old was your child.
Given that the rest of your post borders on racist, I'll assume you didn't take that into consideration.
DragonBorn
(175 posts)I'm a minority. So get your weak slanderous accusations and veiled personal attack out of here and actually fight my opinion if you have a disagreement.
Zimmerman cannot be every anti-gun persons go to example. It happened once, and was a miscarriage of justice but its would be like white people claiming black men are allowed to murder white people with impunity because OJ got off. Every thread I go to there's the "Zimmerman example".
I was 16 once. I grew up in a shitty neighborhood with actual gangbangers and shootings. Do you think 16, 17, 18 and 19 year olds who get shot by the police should be included in a study about firearm injuries for children without any distinction? Or what about teenagers that get shot justifiably by a citizen? Should those been included on a study with 2 year olds? I think it disingenuous and is made to appear that these 16 -19 year olds got shot by accident when in fact they could have been shot by the police for being a threat.
I anxiously await what will be a well thought out response.
kcr
(15,320 posts)that 16-19 year olds aren't minors more weight. Or your opinion that what happened to Zimmerman happened only once. Or that teens shot by police shouldn't count. Why not? You want them to fight your opinon but you aren't arguing it very well.
DragonBorn
(175 posts)Or didn't read what Forgo wrote which if your responding to a reply you probably should to get the full context.
Given that the rest of your post borders on racist, I'll assume you didn't take that into consideration.
Forgo insinuated that I'm racist. I posted that I'm a minority in response to that. If you could show me where I stated that being a minority granted my opinion more weight I would love that. Did you even read my post or did you just ignore his slanderous remark because I don't know how you assumed what you did if you read my comment.
I'm a minority. So get your weak slanderous accusations and veiled personal attack out of here and actually fight my opinion if you have a disagreement.
Please tell me of all the other Zimmerman's out there who shot and killed someone unjustifiably and walked. If this happens so often then why is Zimmerman the constant example for anti gun posters?
Or that teens shot by police shouldn't count. Why not?
So we should lump justifiable shootings by police into a study about children injured via firearm and make no distinction? That's disingenuous and I think you know that.
I mean if we are going that route we might as well include all the 18 - 19 year old children who got shot in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean they're children too, right?
kcr
(15,320 posts)I stand my response to you.
spin
(17,493 posts)
child n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states....emphasis added
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/child
The Law Dictionary
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/child/#ixzz2rdhYsAmz
What is CHILD?
This word has two meanings in law: (1) In the law of the domestic relations, and as to descent and distribution, it is used strictly as the correlative of parent, and means a son or daughter considered as in relation with the father or mother. (2) In the law of negligence, and in laws for the protection of children, etc., it is used as the CHILD 197 CHIROGRAPH opposite of adult, and means the young of the human species, (generally under the age of puberty,) without any reference to parentage and without distinction of sex. Miller v. Finegan, 26 Fla. 29, 7 South. 140, 6 L. R. A. 813....emphasis added
Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/child/#ixzz2rdfD3eIA
Which of course leads to the legal definition of the age of puberty.
Legal Definition and Related Resources of Puberty
Meaning of Puberty
The age of fourteen in males and twelve in females. The earliest age at which persons are capable of begetting or bearing children.
Puberty Alternative Definition
In civil law. The age in boys of fourteen ans in girls of twelve years. Ayliffe, Pand. 63; Hall, Prac. 14; Toullier, Dr. Civ. tom. 5, p. 100; Inst. 1. 22; Dig. 1. 7. 40. 1; Code, 5. 60. 3; 1 Bl. Comm. 436.
Legal Definition and Related Resources of Puberty
Meaning of Puberty
The age of fourteen in males and twelve in females. The earliest age at which persons are capable of begetting or bearing children.
Puberty Alternative Definition
In civil law. The age in boys of fourteen ans in girls of twelve years. Ayliffe, Pand. 63; Hall, Prac. 14; Toullier, Dr. Civ. tom. 5, p. 100; Inst. 1. 22; Dig. 1. 7. 40. 1; Code, 5. 60. 3; 1 Bl. Comm. 436.
http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/puberty/
A nineteen year old is not a child.
I rest my case.
In passing I remember once when my grandmother who was in her late 90s was watching a parade and an army drill team passed by. He said, "Look at all those children."
kcr
(15,320 posts)No? Well, then.
spin
(17,493 posts)But I'll play the game.
ADOLESCENCE, persons. That age which follows puberty and precedes the age of majority; it commences for males at fourteen, and for females at twelve years completed, and continues till twenty-one years complete.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adolescence
The article was titled New Study Details Gun Injuries Suffered by Children. If the title would have been New Study Details Gun Injuries Suffered by Children and Adolescents I would not have bothered to reply.
kcr
(15,320 posts)are just really putting a bur in the saddle of so many here.
spin
(17,493 posts)from firearm related injuries is tragic enough that the statistic does not need to be emotionally enhanced by leading the readers to believe the figure applies to youth under the age of 15.
The fact that many of those injured are young adults who are old enough to legally drive or join the military is also important in finding a solution to the problem. Properly securing firearms in the homes of young children will help prevent many injuries in this age bracket. Many of those injured in the age bracket from 15 to 20 were involved in gang activity often involving the illegal sale of drugs. To reduce firearm injuries in this group will require a different approach. Perhaps we need to end our War on Drugs which we lost decades ago. Perhaps we need to better enforce our laws involving the straw purchase of firearms which end up smuggled into the inner streets of our cities.
By expanding the definition of children to included all youth under age 20, gun control advocates weaken their argument. We end up discussing the definition of the word children more than addressing the important central issue as illustrated in this thread.
kcr
(15,320 posts)or gang violence and activity. But as to the matter of gun violence? it isn't a separate issue. They're the same guns, from the same source. Guns flooding our society and the lack of regulation is affecting them, too. To be sure, those other factors aggravate the situation. But pretending the issue is separate so we should discount it is wrong. It's especially egregious to claim including them is "padding" the numbers, as some claim in this thread.
spin
(17,493 posts)firearms in our nation. The larger problem can be broken down into several unique and distinct problems.
!) How do we improve our existing gun laws to better insure that firearms are sold and owned only by responsible and honest citizens who have training in firearm safety?
2) How can we make sure that firearms in the home are securely stored to prevent access by young children?
3) How can we reduce gang violence in most of our large urban areas and even many of our small towns and rural areas?
4) How do we improve our mental health services to better treat mental illness which can and does cause some people to commit suicide with a firearm or occasionally to run amok and commit a mass murder?
5) Can we better address the issue of domestic violence in our society which often leads to gun violence?
6) The abuse of alcohol harms our society in many ways and all too often gun violence is tied to drunkenness. Can we find ways to reduce the abuse of alcohol?
Many gun control advocates feel the solution to gun violence is to make firearms difficult and expensive to purchase and some feel the best approach is to ban and confiscate almost all firearms in our nation. They will point out the fact that many other developed nations have extremely strict gun laws and only a few citizens are allowed to own one. In such nations gun violence is not a serious issue.
Unfortunately our nation has well over 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands at this time and an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners. The simple political reality is that passing draconian gun laws at the national level is simply impossible at this time. A new assault weapons ban couldn't pass in the Democratically controlled Senate despite the tragic shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.
It seems both sides of the issue are unwilling to sit down and politely listen to each other. If this were to happen by some miracle, I feel we might find some areas of compromise on the issues I listed above and perhaps we could pass some much needed improvements to our national gun laws and find ways to help those in need of mental health care. Perhaps we might also be able to reduce the level of domestic violence somewhat.
One of the first things we could do is to come to agreement on the terms we use to describe the problems. One such example is the term "assault rifle."
Assault rifle
***snip***
The term assault rifle is a non-direct translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack" . The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[4] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularize the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[5][6][7]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 metres (980 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s....emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
I can't list the number of threads I have seen on DU which broke down in an argument over what an assault rife was, but I do know that if I had a dollar for each one I could buy one or maybe two AR-15s tomorrow.
Another example is the differences between a magazine and a clip. I noticed recently that some talking heads on TV have started to say "magazine clip." One California lawmaker hilariously described a 30 round magazine as as "thirty magazine clip. "If you wish, you can read the reaction from the gun rights crowd by doing a search for "Beware the 30 magazine clip".
In my opinion, gun control advocates would greatly improve their arguments for gun control if they would simply learn a little about the subject. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand and properly use firearm terminology. Would you let a mechanic repair your car if he didn't know the difference between a carburetor and a fuel injection system?
Which goes back to my view that emotionally expanding the definition of the word "child" to include every individual under the age of 20 is unnecessary and merely leads to weakening the argument that we need to better protect both children and young adults from firearm violence and accidents. Merely reading the posts in this thread show that what could have been an interesting debate on how to solve this problem quickly degenerated into a discussion over semantics.
kcr
(15,320 posts)We're talking about one year. You can call that semantics if you like. I think quibbling over one year, as if that makes any difference, is nonsense. Those making a claim that it s padding the statistics, and claiming that they aren't children or adolescents have no argument.
As to the rest of it, I don't care. Some people get into it, and argue about whether something is a clip or not. It's the same thing. Quibbling over nonsense You seem to get into that, so I'm no surprised you think the argument over that one year means something when it doesn't. It's meant to be deflection and nothing more.
spin
(17,493 posts)important and disagree with expanding the meaning of the word child to cause a more emotional impact.
I've found over the years that gun control advocates love emotional arguments while gun rights advocates prefer facts. Gun control advocates often know little or nothing about firearms and are unwilling to learn. Gun rights advocates often own firearms and are very familiar with firearm technology and terminology.
I just offered some free advice to gun control advocates which if it were taken would enable them to avoid much of the ridicule which I have heard expressed by gun owners over the years.
To be taken seriously in any debate you have to have a good grasp of the subject.
I would love to see the level of the debates on gun control here on DU increase. I am even willing to change my views on the subject when I find an argument that makes more sense than mine. Many years ago I posted on mostly pro-gun sites where everybody largely agreed with me on gun control. Unfortunately most of these sites were so ultra conservative that I rarely agreed with the views expressed on other topics.
Then I discovered DU. I now had a chance to test my views on gun control with some of the most intelligent liberal and progressive posters on the internet. I learned a lot about gun control and have modified by original views over the years as I considered some very good arguments from gun control advocates. I could also participate in other discussions on different topics and not have to constantly read far right viewpoints which differ greatly from mine.
But like I said, my advise is free and you and others can take it for what it is worth.
kcr
(15,320 posts)False. Claiming that statistics are being padded as some are in this thread? Wrong. 19 years olds are adolescents. NO definition changing going on here.
Gun control advocates love to use emotional arguments? Is that right? Well, given how you're twisting facts left and right here, that's not surprising you would view things through such a filter. I'm sure all kinds of distorting goes on to fit that world view of yours. Let me guess. There were emotional arguments used after Sandy Hook, right?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Guns are here to stay, they're out there and it's stupid to think we should repeal the Second Amendment (or any amendment) and the will isn't there among citizens to do it:
Thus, the smart people in the room, concerned citizens who don't care for guns and concerned citizens who support gun ownership, should try to get together on creating policies that make sense.
-- The DU gun ownership supporters on DU commonly, if not universally, support these efforts:
-- Universal Background Checks;
-- Mandatory training tied to gun/ammo purchases and CC/OC permits;
-- Safe storage guidelines and incentives;
-- Gun safety awareness training in public schools and through other institutions;
-- Closing loopholes as they exist in various states.
The debate, sadly, is often dominated by extreme voices, but really most people belong to neither extreme.
It's high time we work together and quit with the insults and dramatics.
:rantoff:
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Too many opportunities from BOTH sides to dismiss the data based on a priori assumptions.
I'd like to be able to slice it by age at a yearly level, as well as whether a criminal act precipitated the injury, etc.
The reason I suggest that, is that the injury rate SEEMS vastly too high considering the accidental death rate, which has been declining. If we could slice up the data better, we could perhaps show something like; the death rate hasn't declined due to fewer shootings, but rather because of improved medical care.
Can't tell too much from this data, as presented.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)...whenever the topic of gun violence/harm comes up?
Why doesn't anybody care about THAT??!!
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Every 22 minutes in the U.S., an injury from a shopping cart sends a child to the emergency room, according to new research that finds voluntary safety standards fail to protect kids in the grocery store.
Between 1990 and 2011, about 530,500 children under age 15 were hospitalized due to a shopping cart-related injury, which translates to more than 24,000 children a year, or 66 children each day, according to the new study by Nationwide Childrens Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, published in the January issue of the journal Clinical Pediatrics.
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/01/27/health/shopping-cart-injuries-send-66-kids-to-nations-ers-each-day-study-finds/
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)wow. those are more dangerous that i thought!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Safe storage of guns should be mandatory, whether that storage be containment in a safe of some type, or trigger locks, or biometric locks of one kind or another. This doesn't need to be enforced by any kind of inspection or infringement of anyone's Constitutional protections. It can be enforced by penalties. Leave your gun unlocked and unattended or otherwise stored in an irresponsible manner and have someone killed by accident with it or during the commission of a crime? Get charged as if you held the gun yourself and pulled the trigger in anger.
Seems as though I'm not to be believed though because I kept a loaded gun at my bedside when a rogue murdering ex-cop abandoned his vehicle half a mile away from my house in the fucking mountains after killing two civilians in cold blood.
It's all good. You've got an agenda to push... no need to stop for anyone else... You go on with your war... by the way, are you winning?