America’s guns kill seven of its children a day

[SecularMotion]

[center][/center]

For every U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan during 11 years of war, at least 13 children were shot and killed in America.

More than 450 kids didn’t make it to kindergarten.

Another 2,700 or more were killed by a firearm before they could sit behind the wheel of a car.

Every day, on average, seven children were shot dead.

http://ctmirror.org/americas-guns-kill-seven-of-its-children-a-day/

[flamin lib]

1. Yeah, but fewer died this year than last so it's all OK.

Besides we have a lot of them and can spare a few plus we can always make more.

At least that seems to be the attitude of some shooting enthusiasts.

Guns are important, kids not so much.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. "At least that seems to be the attitude of some shooting enthusiasts."

You might wish to discuss that with them. In the meantime, is there anything
you'd like to discuss with those presently here? Any thoughts on gun safety,
or how the death toll might be lowered? Bueller?

[krispos42]

6. So, to save the lives of hundreds of children a year...

...can I count on your support for a 10 mph speed limit?

[flamin lib]

7. Can I count on your support for mandatory safe storage laws?

My proposal is real, possible to implement and yours is flame bait and assinine.

[oneshooter]

8. Describe for us what"mandatory safe storage laws" would consist of.

[flamin lib]

10. Can't buy a gun unless you buy a gunsafe first to match the gun bought.

Proof of purchase before adding to your gun inventory. Severe penalties for not using the safe storage device, say when your toddler shoots themselves because the gun wasn't secured. Severe penalties if your gun is stolen while not on your person or secured. We can discuss the limits of "severe" but I'd start with two years and /or $50,000 fine. What price for a life?

Enforce the same way you'd enforce the idiotic idea of 10 mph speed limits. People still speed, run stop lights and don't buy insurance but without those laws the commute to work would be a lot more exciting than most of us want to consider.

[pablo_marmol]

15. So clearly you don't give a damn about folks living in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Many of the people who need and deserve the most effective tool of self-defense live in these neighborhoods. And for them, purchasing a decent quality handgun and safe would be a financial hardship that they couldn't handle.

But f*ck 'em --- right?

[flamin lib]

18. If you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the safe. nt

[pablo_marmol]

41. Only a hate-driven individual could come back with that.

Nice to see that you're such a "compassionate" person.

On the one hand you pose as someone who abhors those with no compassion for the poor, and on the other you demand that those in poverty spend money that they don't have on a safe, or do without self-defense.

[flamin lib]

43. You can buy a pistol safe with combo lock

for $39. I f you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the safe.

[pablo_marmol]

44. "If you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the safe."

Doesn't matter how much you swear or repeat yourself, you message still stinks. $39 may not be much to you, but to the urban poor it's a great deal.

[flamin lib]

46. If someone is that poor they should spend their money more wisely than on a gun because they can't

afford to buy the ammunition it takes to learn to use it safely which makes them a danger to themselves and everybody around them.

[pablo_marmol]

47. Blah blah blah......

Perhaps the reason a poor person can't afford a safe is precisely because he needs the $$ for ammo. See how your silly little game works?

We can play this back and forth for weeks -- your message is still entirely inconsistent with compassionate progressivism.

I'm just pleased that it's "flamin libs" like yourself that is driving "gun control" down in flames. The sooner that Democrats turn this tiger their holding by the tail loose, the sooner we stop losing House and Senate seats to the GOP. It really is just that simple.

[oneshooter]

16. So you would have to purchase a $700-1000 safe before being given permission

to purchase a firearm? How very 1% of you. Would you also hold LE to these same standards, both Federal and local/state?

[flamin lib]

17. Haven't shopped for gun safes have you? A very effective pistol safe can be had for under $100.

[Straw Man]

24. Obviously you haven't.

Haven't shopped for gun safes have you? A very effective pistol safe can be had for under $100.

Anything under $100 does not deserve the name "safe." You're talking about sheet-metal cabinets that can be opened in less than five minutes with a crowbar.

[derby378]

36. Unconstitutional. Thanks for playing.

Besides, I don't see you making those same demands on cops, soldiers, and Secret Service agents...

[flamin lib]

38. Please explain how anything here if unconstitutional. Provide links to decisions. nt

[sarisataka]

2. I can't help but notice

in reading the article that nearly every person trying to reduce gun violence among children says gun focused laws are not the answer. We need to change attitudes and reduce violence.

Is that something you, or anyone, wishes to discuss, or is it all about guns?

[flamin lib]

11. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I got that. Register every person who has a gun. Background every person who buys a gun. License every person who buys a gun. Test and periodically retest every person who has a gun. Have local law enforcement involved in vetting people who buy guns.

I got more, and it all involves people before guns.

[sarisataka]

14. Some of those ideas have merit

but not one will reduce violence

As much as I find the google dump shallow I always read the linked article. Here are whet those battling violence said:

Jennifer Rauhouse, executive director of Peer Solutions, an Arizona-based organization that looks to prevent violence from occurring, said gun violence was a manifestation of other issues, such as child abuse, sexual abuse and bullying.

“If we don’t get to the heart of the question of gun violence, we’re doomed,” said Rauhouse, who founded the organization.

It’s not enough to react after a shooting, she said. Steps have to be taken to prevent that sort of violence from occurring in the first place.

Eli Chevalier, a high school senior and member of Peer Solutions *** “People won’t turn to drugs and violence if they have respect and equality in their lives and in their relationships,” Chevalier said.

“There is too much access. It’s easier for a child to buy a firearm in Baltimore than it is to buy a pack of cigarettes,” Cohen said. “The less guns that are available, the less gun deaths we are going to have, but that doesn’t solve the problem.”

They all recognize the guns increase the tragedy but do not cause the problem. Is a child killed by stabbing a "victory" because he wasn't shot?

[flamin lib]

19. Well, I guess nothing can ever be done to decrease violence with guns.

Just like speed limits don't eridicate speeding, stop signs won't prevent all intersection collusions and insurance requirements won't force everybody to have liability coverage. Guess we should just give up on traffic control because it doesn't work. Oh, wait! It does!

Will somone use a knife or a club? Yes. Will as many people die by knife/club as by gun? Oh hell no.

[sarisataka]

27. I am wondering where I advocated

no control on guns at all- oh that's right, I didn't. Did I point out that if your fairy godperson lets you wish all guns out existence tonight, we will still have a violence problem tomorrow- yes I did.

Will somone use a knife or a club? Yes. Will as many people die by knife/club as by gun? Oh hell no.

I find this attitude of tell the survivors to be grateful their loved one was not shot, only stabbed or bludgeoned to be morally bankrupt. The victim is no less dead and the canard the 'with a gun more would have died' is belittling the life lost to non-gun homicide.

[flamin lib]

28. And I am wondering where I belittled a life lost. Oh, that's tight, I didn't!

Guns make killing easy. Make killing more difficult and there will be less killing.

[sarisataka]

29. I see a bigger picture

Where gun violence is a subset of violence.
If you reduce gun violence you have made a change to one form of violence and a small change to overall violence.
If you focus on causes of violence, you reduce all forms of violence including a proportional amount of gun violence.

I prefer the larger payoff of the second option. Note that it does not preclude using some gun control as a means of reducing violence, it just does not put the entire effort into gun control.

PS check your spelling

[flamin lib]

30. OK, let's hear some discussion. nt

[sarisataka]

31. Go for the low hanging fruit

on gun control. UBC, safe storage requirements and accountability to the owner for misuse of guns. Most of this is in place and widely supported. Note, the second someone says AWB or magazine limits or for a start, the proposal is DOA. The first two have debatable benefit but much less support and the last reveals that there s a icy slope just ahead.

Gun use is a valid early target. MADD has shown the way to success. Have a focused, teen & YA targeted ad campaign to change the attitude that guns make you tough and solve problems. That demographic thinks of immediate gratification and needs to be repeatedly reminded that actions have consequences.

Another educational/ad campaign targeted at a step younger audience teaching that violence is the worst solution to conflicts. Equality is a better route to empowerment than domination.

Invest money into youth programs and community activities. These have shown past successes in bringing groups together to compete and bond in athletics rather that posture and fight out of boredom.

Last, most expensive and most difficult is investiture in the social safety net. We need to limit how far people can fall to a level higher than despair. When people pass that level those who would prefer to be law abiding will turn to crime.

To bring it home, Democratic losses at the top, gun control level, where they have the least effect cascade down, preventing success at promoting the lower level polices. It is the base policies where we will have the greatest success at the reduction of violence and helping the most people.

These are just sample ideas. I'm sure more savvy people can come up with far better than my simple brainstorm.

[flamin lib]

35. Make this an OP and let's talk.

[sarisataka]

37. No problemo

[acalix]

34. No problem with gun control.

But knives, blunt objects and fists kill more than all rifles. The problem is handguns.

So why go after "assault weapons" and not handguns?

[flamin lib]

39. Where did I go after rifles of any type? Go argue with yourself elsewhere. nt

[blueridge3210]

4. Still having an issue

with studies that want to classify 19 year olds as "children". Any innocent killed is a tragedy, but these studies need to reclassify older teens as something besides "children".

[ManiacJoe]

5. The numbers are not high enough that they need to be inflated?!?!?!

A News21 investigation of child and youth deaths in America between 2002 and 2012 found that at least 28,000 children and teens 19 and younger were killed with guns. Teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 made up over two-thirds of all youth gun deaths in America.

Yes, let's include the 18-19 year old adults in the mix so that the numbers can be inflated.

[ileus]

9. The could get a few more thousand by bumping up the age to 21.

[Jenoch]

12. While it is still not acceptable,

I am quite certain the majority of the teens 15 to 19 killed with guns is because of criminal activity.

[acalix]

13. Already been addressed.

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2014/jun/27/brady-campaign-prevent-gun-violence/do-average-nine-children-day-die-united-states-gun/

[flamin lib]

20. Yeah, 10 a day is fully acceptable. nt

[blueridge3210]

21. Not what was said.

But, you knew that didn't you. Get back when you want to have an honest discussion, okay? Thanks.

[flamin lib]

22. Here's the deal, every time someone posts about gun violence

gungeoneers respond with some version of "that's irrelevant because".

We have 15000 homicides a year but that's irrelevant because homicides are down since 1960.

Nine or ten children are shot every day but that doesn't matter because the Brady campaign counted 18-19 year olds as children to make the number look worse.

Instead of discussing the issues presented people here would rather attack the message or the messenger.

[blueridge3210]

23. Here's the deal.

No one has said "That's irrelevant". They have disputed the numbers in this case; Politifact review their initial ruling and found the overall number to be in error and also noted that by counting 18 and 19 year olds as "children" a misleading (at best) picture of the situation is created.

If Brady wants to be taken more seriously they need to put up numbers that are more accurate. When an advocacy group begins with a false premise it is difficult to engage in an honest debate as their motives are called into question. When someone points out that the numbers presented are inaccurate someone jumps in with the straw man argument of "Well, okay X # of kids killed are okay, then", which was never said. You are then, in fact, attacking the messenger. If you want to discuss the issue please stop making false statement regarding what other people have said.

[flamin lib]

25. Nobody in this group is interested in discussing gun violence. Period.

If they were there would be some discussion regardless of the "accuracy" of numbers presented even when the source clearly gives the criteria. Instead the thread goes on in excruciating detail to, as you just said, not take the issue seriously.

[blueridge3210]

32. I'm certainly not going to "discuss" anything

with someone who makes false claims about what I have said. That probably goes for a number of other people as well. Once you go down that road you have created a "self-fulfilling prophecy" regarding other's unwillingness to engage in discussion. Should you decide to engage in honest debate instead of one based on falsehoods I'm sure people would be willing to accommodate you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. What's to discuss?

Grabbers want what they want and if they have to use misleading statistics, strawman arguments and ad hominem complaints then that is what they are going to do until everyone agrees to give them their fantasy world. And then when their fantasy world doesn't give them their expected result they'll find evermore demand even more control over people's lives until they're killing more people through enforcement than the original cause for concern ever did.

During Prohibition the Chemists War poisoned 10,000 people. That's ten thousand murdered by their own government to supposedly stamp out the scourge of alcohol. The War on Drugs is supposed to save our children from the evil of marijuana by tossing flash bang grenades into baby cribs. Now we have militarized goon squads roaming our streets because supposedly criminals have become so dangerous yet the only people being killed are harmless teenagers.

Anyone pretending the war on guns won't end the same way the as war on alcohol and drugs is probably too naïve or dishonest to be given a moment of serious consideration. Nobody can be that naïve after nearly a century of watching this crap and those who do know better apparently are content to become just that evil.

[Eleanors38]

40. IIRC, accidental gun deaths below age 14 are 62/yr.

No one wants to see kids die for ANY reason, but the gun death rate is falling, even as the number of guns in civilian hands has surged to over 300,000,000. Something is working.

[acalix]

33. if it's such an epidemic...

Why does the Brady campaign need to inflate the numbers?

[deathrind]

26. There should be no such thing,

As a "Tragic Accident" when a child can get a hold of a gun and hurt or kill themselves or someone else because the firearm owner left the firearm laying around in the house. It should at least be a mandatory charge of negligent homicide maybe then people would take more care / precautions in storing firearms.