> >On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:37:34 GMT, R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu wrote: > >>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children >> ages 14 and under. > >From the rkba archive, "rkba.004": > >   "Total firearm deaths for children (<1 through 14) at 587 (1988) is >    one of the SMALLEST causes of deaths in children. Cars, falls, >    burns, drowning, food ingestion are all much larger cause of >    deaths (7,988)." > >So, firearms are the 6th leading cause, after drowning and choking on >food (at least for 1988).   Sorry Charles...According to the National Safety Council, ACCIDENT FACTS,1991 "In 1990, gun accidents were the fifth-leading cause of accidental death for children ages 14 and under."   >> I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental >> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents. >> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths? > >The difference is that a rational person would address the leading >cause _first_, and address the lesser causes later. >  That thinking is so screwed up, I don't even know how to respond to it. A rational person would concentrate on motor vehicle deaths, and not attempt to affect childhood falls, drownings, gunshot injuries, etc.???????????????? So this so called rational person, (using your definition), if he or she were attempting to affect the leading causes of deaths for adults aged 25 through 64 would only worry about cancer, and would not try to decrease LESSER CAUSES such as heart disease, injuries, stroke, suicide, liver disease, chronic lung disease, homicide, HIV infection, or diabetes.  Oh, okay Charles, that makes a lot of sense.  I tell you what Charles, I'll call the Heart Foundation and suicide hotlines and tell them that they are not acting rational and that they can all go home because they are addressing the LESSER CAUSES of death.  And you call your local police homicide department, liver foundation and diabetes foundation and tell them to stop addressing these lesser causes. Please, quit wasting my time with this silly shit Charles.   I've got an idea Charles, why don't you start a talk.politics.caraccidents group or talk.politics.fall group?  This is talk.politics.guns.  Don't confuse the issue.  Just because a social problem may not claim as many victims as another, we should not try to address it?  I don't agree. I'm not posting to t.p.g to debate the supposed severity of causes of childhood deaths. I am really getting frigging sick of having to respond to the irrational statements of people who assume that someone who wants to discuss youth gun violence or unintentional youth gun deaths is trying to make a political issue out of it.     >> I assumed that any humane >> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents >> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends. > >A "humane person" who keeps a firearm in the house with a 10 year old >would also teach this child how to safely handle the firearm; >Ignorance is our greatest enemy. >  Again Charles, you tend to confuse the issue and take things out of context for your own purposes.  The statement that you responded to above is actually in reference to a previous post by another person who, like you, expressed concern over making youth gun violence a priority.  I guess, maybe Humane person and Rational person could be interchangeable huh? Both would be defined as "a person who only addresses the social problem that causes the greatest number of childhood deaths."  If that is the case, I'm extremely glad that I am inhumane and irrational.   >>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence >                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >What _other_ sources of information do you have which confirms their >data?  These folks are well known for misrepresenting the facts. >Perhaps you can verify their data with the Uniform Crime Report... > Sorry Charles, the FBI Uniform Crime Report is WELL known for misrepresenting the facts.  But if you insist, according to the 1990 UCR, "Firearm murders of youngsters 19 and under increased 125 percent between 1984 and 1990"   Is the National Center for Health Statistics good enough for you?  They state that "Every day, 12 American children ages 19 and under are killed in gun accidents, suicides, and homicides.  Many more are wounded".   Or how about the National Pediatric Trauma Registry?  They say "Gunshot wounds to children ages 16 and under nearly doubled in major urban areas between 1987 and 1990."   Do you also doubt the American Academy of Pediatrics Charles???  They state that "Gunshot wounds among children in urban areas increased 300% from 1986 to 1988."   Charles, I hope you don't need to be convinced that youth are increasingly victims of gun injuries and that they have easy access to guns.  If you don't realize this fact, (I don't care if you go by CDC or FBI data, or if you go into the homes, schools, and streets where these kids are and take a poll by yourself), I'm not going to bother to try to convince you.  Its obvious that you have ruled out any idea of discussing this issue in a sane fashion and that you are so focused on trying to make this a gun control and political discussion.  I really don't want to do that.   >> or the Centers for Disease Control. >         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >They have firearm statistics?  Are firearms a disease? >  Charles, it's obvious that you know nothing about the CDC. They don't just study cancer and heart disease.  I've got news for you, interpersonal gun violence IS an epidemic.  In 1984, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop declared that gun violence is as much a public health problem as cancer, heart disease, or auto accidents.   >> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths. > >In "the lives of youths" or in their schools?  I know a number of >youths who have firearms present "in their lives".  Is is quite >appropriate to teach children to safely handle firearms (this is a >"presence", right?).  What are you trying to say?  This innuendo >reminds me of listening to Bill Clinton.   WHO THE F**K SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TEACHING CHILDREN TO SAFELY HANDLE FIREARM CHARLES??? In the future, if you are going to post to t.p.g and jump into a previous discussion, please read the entire posting, not just 1 sentence that you decide to respond to. What the hell are you saying here??? You're wasting time and space trying to make a political and gun control issue out of a discussion that isn't. > >> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that >> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year. > >I wouldn't trust their statistics without *independent* verification. > >> The CDC estimates >> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once >> in 1990. > >Based on CPHV statistics?  Based on UCR?...  Based on what? > >> The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key >> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access >> to guns in their home. > >Therefore?...  What is the purpose of this claim? > Charles buddy, I'm getting really tired of this.  Do you live on the planet Mars???  As a physicist, I realize that you probably don't come into contact with many youth, but I REALLY think you need to make a trip to your local urban high school and discover the joy of guns in schools.  In addition spend a few minutes talking to these kids.  Ask them if they have ever heard gunshots in their neighborhoods, whether they know anyone who has been shot, whether they know anyone who has a gun, whether they have ever held a gun, and whether they themselves have ever been shot.   Believe me Charles, THAT will be your *INDEPENDENT* VERIFICATION.