In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:   > >In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes: >>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully >>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic >>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and >>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level >>crime. > >What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on >any of these things?  Evidence, please? > > Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point tha there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types of common incidents.   >If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps >you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the >rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps >with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners >spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death >among children in the U.S. is a serious problem. >  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among 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? I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  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.   >>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the >>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good. > >Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good. >  My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were useful.     >>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or >>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are >>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often >>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge. > >I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I >suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of >students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun) >to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students >who carry a gun to school daily. >  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths. 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.  The CDC estimates that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once in 1990.  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.  California schools reported a 200% increase in student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between 1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".       >>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news >>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours >>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they >>were in danger). > >"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the >children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were >outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door >if you believed as they did? >  Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is would not let innocent children die. If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.