ROBERT COOK, PE, you owe our President an apology: CDC confirms 12 children killed a day by gunsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
From the AP newswire:
"CDC in Atlanta reported that 4223 juveniles were killed by firearms in the US in 1997, the latest year for which statistics were kept."
-- Clinton Bashers suck (@ .), March 12, 2000
OH, CLINTON, MY HEART CRIES FOR YOU!!!!
-- clinton sucks (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
Sure wish someone could doublecheck the CDC statistics. I'm wondering how CDC defines "juveniles" and "chidren" in terms of age categories. If, for example, either definition includes young people over 17 but under 25, wouldn't that significantly skew the statistics?
I used to do statistical research. I'll tell ya, stats can be useful scientific tools, but they sure are tempting if you have an agenda you want to prop up and move forward. My advise is don't trust them when they come from a government agency......
-- Craig (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2000.
Took my own advice:
If you'll add up the data in the four age categories (under 25), you'll get the number reported. Note, however, that you have no other information on which to base an informed decision. For example, how many deaths occured as a result of criminal activity? How many were due to a firearm that malfunctioned? How many were accidental shootings, and how many were deliberate? In and of itself, this reported information is not very useful. Unfortunately, Clinton and his cronies are too eager to (mis)use these data to advance their own political agendas.
I'll reiterate my earlier point. Don't trust statistics until you KNOW what data they are comprised of and how that data was obtained.
-- Craig (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
If you add the numbers for ages 00-14, the total is 630. These are more likely true accidents. The numbers for ages 15-19 (3593) likely represent a high percentage of teenage gang punks shooting both each other and being shot by police. The big cities are full of them, as I can personally attest, having a teen-age stepson with lots of loser friends. He told me that they could always steal a gun whenever they need one.
Don't we in the U.S. have a total population of around 250 million or so? What percentage of total yearly accidents and deaths does this 630 figure represent? I wonder how many people die every year due to mistakes made by medical doctors, or from FDA approved medicines? No big outrcy about this.
I can remember when a local shooting or firearm-related accident wasn't front page, prime time news all over the country. Why now?
-- Flash (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2000.
The interesting thing about the gun death statistics is that both the absolute numbers and the rate per thousand deaths have been faling for almost every category from 1994 through 1997. Assuming that gun deaths are an increasing problem, as some would have us believe, how does this square with actual numbers?
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.
Maybe the current trend is as random as any fashion, and will wane as it waxed given time. Or maybe it's a function of increasing population density, and the opponents of guns view it as they do asbestos -- a poor cost tradeoff, everything considered.
There are both principled and practical arguments on both sides.
On the principled side, guns are admittedly dangerous and serve no really necessary social purpose (even excess game populations can be culled and sold to ex-hunters for less than they'd have spent doing it themselves). However, the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, albeit with the most ambiguous and confusing amendment we have.
On the practical side, guns are involved in a deplorable number of deaths and injuries, which is a Bad Thing. However, there's a zillion guns out there, and nobody has yet to find any way to disarm more than the law abiding victim, with results that invariably obey the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The only known workable answer is to arm everyone. However, this is regarded like legalizing drugs is regarded. When practicality opposes morality, cost is irrelevant except for the rhetoric. Morality wins. The current "gun battle" is a moral issue. Who knows how long this will last.
-- Flint (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
You stated that game animals could be culled and sold to exhunters for less than what they spent doing it for themselves. How much does one bullet cost. If you use more than that, your taking a questionable shot.
You also state that guns are admittedly dangerous and serve no social purpose. Want to convince anyone who has used them to defend their homes from criminals (when the police are to far away/take to long to respond)? But on the other hand, we also have such dangerous objects that "serve no social purpose" such as knives, axes, fire. Should I go on. Guns are no more dangerous than the person using them. The guns I have always been around have never been used in any dangerous way. My dad taught me well. Two simple rules, never aim unless your going to shot and make darn sure what's beyond your target (incase you shot through your target - not miss your target!)
-- me (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2000.
Hey, I'm a gun nut. I own many and shoot regularly, probably 10,000 rounds a year not counting .22 rounds, maybe 25,000 of those. I regard those who intend to disarm me as my enemies. But as always, I believe that there's a big difference between "know your enemy" and "hate your enemy". And my enemy's beliefs and positions are not total nonsense foisted on the gullible by the evil.
[You stated that game animals could be culled and sold to exhunters for less than what they spent doing it for themselves. How much does one bullet cost. If you use more than that, your taking a questionable shot.]
Very very narrow interpretation, to the point where I have to wonder. How about the cost of all the guns and equipment hunters purchase? Could that money be better spent? How about the cost of land use? How about the "cost" in person-hours spent hunting, and preparing to hunt, and practicing to hunt? How about the cost in hunting accidents, and the costs of poaching? Or the cost of enforcing the season and the licences? How about all the people to whom (unlike myself) these costs are NOT a bargain? It's a mistake to dismiss your enemies as fools.
[You also state that guns are admittedly dangerous and serve no social purpose. Want to convince anyone who has used them to defend their homes from criminals (when the police are to far away/take to long to respond)?]
Crime serves no social purpose either. Generally, those who want to ban guns also want to ban crime, and hope that if guns go away somehow, the criminals will go away too, or at least become much more manageable. I believe that if all guns were to somehow vanish overnight, homicide rates would drop precipitously, if only because the other weapons you mention are harder to use and less efficient. *Causing* the guns to vanish is another question altogether. And certainly we're trying very hard to discourage *all* criminal behavior, though our focus is somewhat misguided.
I think the anti-gun people tend to view other people in general as irresponsible and untrustworthy, and therefore to be protected from themselves. And if everyone is viewed as a potential criminal just waiting for the right opportunity, then it makes sense to reduce the opportunities or make them more difficult to take advantage of.
While I agree that there are irresponsible people, I believe they're in the small minority, and trying to prevent *everyone* from doing what a few will abuse tends to be counterproductive in practice, since it always seems to punish everyone *except* the target population. If I were King, I'd arm everyone and make training in the use of arms a required part of the educational curriculum.
-- Flint (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
Note to self: Don't argue with Flint, I couldn't win. See's both sides of the issue to clearly. Doesn't list to Port or Starboard, even in heavy sea's. Archived 03/12/2000
-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), March 12, 2000.
I always find it interesting to note that people tend to minimize or overlook the role of black market arms in the guns issue. I worked in junvenile probation-parole in the '80's. A very large number of drug related cases involved juveniles who were employed on vessels bringing in contraband narcotics (Gulf Coast). The rationale as given by these youthful employees was: an kid will get juvvie time and records sealed; an adult performing the same function-hard time and a permanent record.Therefore, kids are at a premium for grunt action. Face it. Laws are made for the law-abiding.
The area of concern should be in assessing the culture that admits black market weapons into the broad social environment and WHO is teaching juveniles to use them. I don't down the kids . The gang culture is, and always has been a paramilitary environment. We were just too naive to "get it" when it started to emerge on American soil. By the way, juveniles figure prominently not only in the drug trade, but in international auto theft and ilegal arms marketing. There's big money in all of this. Maybe it's just that entrepreneurial American spirit that brings our economically "disadvantaged" youth into this business milieu.
-- another government hack (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2000.
Prohibition and the war on drugs went so well... why not guns????
-- The Dog (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
Flint you're full of shit again. If you went out shooting every single weekend of the year (which I seriously doubt) you would have to shoot nearly 700 rounds every weekend to use 35,000 a year. Unless you don't have a job I'd say that makes you a lying sack o'shit, again.
-- Hawk (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2000.
Instead of arming everyone, why not just repeal all the restrictive laws and allow responsible citizens to carry weapons as they deem necessary and advisable? We already have an abundance of laws on the books to punish those who use weapons in an unsafe manner. Let's just enforce those we already have.
I am fortunate to live in an area where the city police and county sheriff both support honest citizens carrying guns. My state also allows any law-abiting citizen to obtain a concealed-carry permit after taking a 16 hour course. Compared to where I used to live in Northern Kalifornia, crime is almost non-existant here. It's likely that the probablity of one or more normal citizens having a firearm close at hand is a major factor in the low crime rate. Thanks to Diane Feinstein and her minions, Kalifornia's crime rate continues to skyrocket, even as they pass more and more draconian gun laws.
Interestingly, when my state first passed it's "right to carry" law a few years ago, the state police and metropolitan police in the capital city were against it. Subsequently, after a couple of years of significantly diminishing crime, both agencies are now supporters of the law.
I don't think that this is a moral issue. At the core of it are those who wish to disarm America, so that they have total control over our lives. They aren't concerned about crime, or they would do something about it. Passing laws which are only obeyed by honest citizens does nothing to stop criminals. Having effective control of our national news media, they feed the masses an endless barrage of propaganda that plays on the average citizens fears, while at the same time promising them a "quick fix", if we will only let them take away all those nasty guns.
Regarding the idea that guns serve no social purpose, I disagree. They facilitate personal security, as well as the safety of the home and family. They also reduce the probability of takeover by a tyrannical government. This is why we have the Second Amendment, that the Collectivists and NWO types want so badly to be done away with. The wise people that founded this republic thought that it was necessary to explicitly state the people's right to keep and bear arms. It's so sad that collectivists that control our country today have been able to twist the law into their current interpretations.
I'm glad to hear that you have a shooter's background. Like you, I also learned about firearms and how to respect them at an early age. I like to shoot, but not to kill. Shooting another human being is one of the last things that I would ever want to do. However, if it ever becomes necessary to protect my, or another's life, I believe I will do what is necessary. I think that people like myself are MUCH LESS likely to ever shoot someone than the average person. I have actually heard several anti-gun friends, as well as my teenage-punk step-son say "I wish I had a gun right now, I'd shoot... (whoever they were mad at, at the moment). None of these people has grown up with guns, nor know how to use them.
It's fine with me if others desire to have gun-free lives. The problem is that they want to force me to do it also. As long as I behave responsibly, whether or not I own a firearm should be none of their business, and most decidedly not Bill Klinton's, or Diane Feinstein's, either.
Thanks for hearing me out.
-- Flash (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
The 2nd amendment is clear to me. The independant clause is a stand alone modified by the dependant clause. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rest of the amendment simply tells us the main reasion we were not to have our firearms rights taken away. If a person reads the other writings of the time they will find a very paranoid bunch of people trying to insure the freedom and liberty of the future citizens of this land. The idea is a sound one used by the United States of America in its own defence. If both I and my enemy own guns, we can be assured that the threat of death might deter us from attacking each other, much like the USA and the Soviet Union and their atomic bombs. One must also look deeper and understand that it wasn't my neighbor that sparked this, but my government, and that if the threat posed by my firearms and my neighbors firearms were sufficient, than the government would only bother me and/or my neighbors if it was a big enough problem to risk the type of confrontation that could come from two reasionably equaly armed opponents. Guns are to aid us in securing our libertys in the face of a tyranical government. Ours or someone elses makes no differance. The fact that our constitutional rights have faded in the face of civil rights and we now seem to live in a democracy instead of a republic is sufficient proof that the framers were right. Life is risk and anything worth having comes with some cost and risk. I am willing to take the risk. Are you?
B.T.W. I only own one gun and it hasen't been fired in over ten years. It was my fathers or I wouldn't have it. Its a 22 caliber rifle for those of you who are interested.
-- Just passin through (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2000.
Partly true. That's actually the amount I *buy* each year. But my wife is also an avid shooter, though our interests are somewhat different. She's into competitions with moving and popup targets, shooting while moving, presenting and returning, etc. She shoots mostly 40 S&W but some 9mm. I'm more into target shooting, and mostly I use one or another of my collection of .22 pistols. We shoot every weekend we're healthy enough to do so, and one evening each week as well (the actual competitions). Since there's a range a mile from where I work, I shoot on my lunch hours often enough. If anything, I underestimated the number of rounds we shoot between us.
But you're right, I don't shoot them all myself. I shoot all the .22, and my wife shoots all but a few larger rounds (I'll shoot a clip now and then to keep in practice). But it's our hobby, and we're quite active. When I said I was a gun nut, I meant it.
-- Flint (email@example.com), March 12, 2000.
4223/280,000,000 = essentially 0 percent, idiot.
You want to overthrow the Constitution for that? What doofus, ignorant, stupid, mental midgets all you bleeding hearts are.
Anyway, so what? Evolution in action.
-- A (A@AisA.com), March 13, 2000.
I believe the CDC defines juveniles as up to 21. Most the those deaths are young gang bangers shooting each other. True firearms accidents are at an all-time low.
Within our media-whipped, amoral society, there is a lot of violence. Prohibitions always help two classes: criminals and tyrants. We have plenty of prohibitions, so organized crime is alive and well, and so are the Emperor's storm troopers. Yet even within our warped empire (certainly can't call it a constitutionally limited republic any more) the least violent crime happens where the law- abiding populace is best armed. Our most crime-prone areas are where the victims have been disarmed.
Those who would rule us know all this and more. Look at the attack on .50 BMG guns. No crimes have been committed with them, but they are one of the latest evil guns. Now I want one :-) BTW, the most frequently used "assault weapon" in America is an evil black aluminum BASEBALL BAT! How about that?
Our founders knew well why all of us must be armed. And they wanted the government to have NO standing troops. Free men own guns, slaves don't. That's the bottom line. Which are you?
"...an armed society is a polite society."
-- Hamilton Felix (Skagity2k@hotmail.com), March 13, 2000.
I'm sorry that I didn't get to answer you earlier. I just made it back. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me in my post. I don't "hate" anyone and try hard to not have "enemies". But, there seems to be a difference in perception. Maybe I should have said it differently in my original post.
To a hunter, the cost is no different than the cost would be to a sports nut that goes to all the games. At least with the hunter, if they use their game, the game offsets most of the costs, or at least the majority of the cost. If your like my dh, he has used the same gun for 25 yrs. His camo is about the only thing that we have replaced (equipment wise, other than shells, of course). Couldn't argue the fact he needed a new set of camo, the other one was over 15 yrs old (birthday gift.) The only cost we have in his hunting is replacing however many rounds he shoots and the gas to get him there (15 min. away). We don't have license costs or ground costs because it's a family farm. Everything included, we spend less than $100/yr in his hunting. We spend twice that for junk food in 6 months :-( This year he used half a box of bullets while hunting, he brought home an equal number of game. As for practice, groundhogs in the hayfields are excellent for keeping him up to speed. So, like you, we have very little cost involved. His hunting improves our budget a lot more than it has ever hurt it.
In your list of questions, you left out a couple. How much is it worth to do something you love and enjoy? How much is it worth to pass down to your children skills that your father/grandfather taught you? How much would the equivalent weight of meat be when purchased at the store? Bargains are not what people look for anymore. Look at what they spend on entertainment. I know people that spend more on videos, concerts, games, and the like in two weeks than we do in a yr on hunting. I try not to think anyone's a fool, except when they prove it to me themselves.
How does law enforcement and accidents count against the hunter? Does it count against the people injuried at concerts, games, or drivers driving down the road? When you start saying that the government can do anything more efficient than the citizens, well, I wouldn't hold my breath. How many times have they every done anything on time and on budget?
I would dearly love to see a time when we don't have to worry about criminals, but I can't see that ever happening. Human nature is tooooo predictable. :-( As for getting all the guns from the criminals, well........they are criminals. I don't think crime rates would drop all that much. Guns are the weapon of choice right now. Do away with guns and criminals would just switch to a different weapon of choice. The only way that homicide rates or any crime rate would actually drop would be for there to be a decrease in the number of criminals. That would be the only way crime rates (of any kind) would actually decrease and stay down. But, I do agree that we're trying to discourage criminal behavior, on the surface that is. The only way to discourage it at the root of the problem would be to start encourage kids to have "morals" (for want of a better word) and to start getting the younger generation to not be as "criminally inclined." The only problem with this is that adults are going to have to grow up first. Take a long look around, kids are feed violence and all sorts of things on a daily basis. Plus, parents are too absorded in their own little world of making money and having time for themselves to actually make much of an effort to sit down to a single meal a day as a family unit at the dinner table. Parents aren't parents anymore, they're babysitters for the government. We no longer have parents that are authority figures. This is where the problem lies, unfortunately. No discipline and no respect are what we are instilling in our kids. Change this and we might have a chance.
I agree with you on how anti-gun people view everyone. Unfortunately, one other thing I've noticed is that a lot of them are people who have either never been exposed to guns or have only been exposed to the criminal side of gun use. This is another of the "I'll do as I please and don't you critize me, but I'll tell you what you can do" philosophies. Anti-gun folks would be the first to have "an old billy fit" if someone told them they couldn't have this or that because it was in the best interest of "the children". So, to me, that's a cop out. There are some people that are irresponsible and, like you, I think they are in the minority.
You know, other than a few things (as in the perception of the above about government being more efficient cost wise), I guess I do agree with you on most things (that I've read over the last yr). Maybe we should nominate you for "King", you would be an improvement (and I mean that as a compliment.) :-)
-- me (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2000.
I concede that all you say is true, but you are still viewing "costs" too narrowly, purely in terms of dollars spent. And that really isn't the way that I am trying to view cost, or really just a small part of it.
Consider opportunity cost. Could the money spent on hunting by all hunters be better spent on something preferable? Could their time be better spent elsewhere? Could hunting lands be better used for something else? Would we as a society be better off if the money, energy, and focus currently devoted to hunting were rather devoted to, say, picking up litter (or whatever)?
Consider the (liberal viewpoint, anyway) human cost. Do we really want to be drowning in tools that are very dangerous, easy to abuse, and grease the skids of many criminal activities? Would we be better off if the money currently spent punishing crime were instead spent preventing its causes, or at least trying to make it more difficult?
Consider the moral viewpoint. While we must eat, is it good for our immortal souls to *enjoy* killing living creatures? What do Heaven's gatekeepers think about this? Is there something disturbing about those who kill for entertainment, as a hobby?
Everything has costs, both direct and indirect. There is *always* the cost of NOT doing something different, which may be "better" in some way. As Heinlein wrote, "Free tail is the most expensive kind."
-- Flint (email@example.com), March 13, 2000.
ROBERT COOK FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
-- NewFaces (CouldOnlyBe@Better.com), March 13, 2000.
After wading through all this Info.pro&con,I still come to the same Conclusion.The fault lies with none other than the breeding Human Idiots infesting this Planet.As far as the "Kiddies"bumping each other off,they provide a Service to Society.You bleeding Hearts should concentrate on how many Young and Old get killed during our Warmongering all over the World.
-- mats (%%%@***.+++), March 13, 2000.
No. I can't really say that I'm looking at it too narrowly. When you start saying liberal views than you are going to another ballcourt. Hunting has opportunity values that are unsurpassed by what a liberal view allows. Could the money be spent on something "preferable"? Definitely, where should we spend it as a society? Videos? TVs? VCRs? The Mall? (and I could go on......). Could they spend their time better somewhere else? Yep, infront of the tv, vcr, computer, etc.... Hunting lands being used for something else? Well, where I live, the public area hunting lands cannot be used for anything else. The terrain is too rough, no one in their right mind would try to farm it. Now if we look at other public lands, maybe. But my understanding is that public lands are used for a variety of activities, but these activities are only enjoyed by those that wish to exert themselves a little, such as nature enthusiasts. If you look at hunting on private lands, most are already being used as either retreats for peace and quiet or are already used as farms. So, no they can't be used in anything more useful. The simple act of hunting keeps a balance and preserves the health of the environment. The benefit of this is too diverse to actual be given a dollar amount. (Not to many animals, nor to few) Now, for that last question. Money. Nope. The money spent be all but a few goes back into the family budget under food - or at least in most of the families I know. Government spent money? Well, I'm not going there. Most of the time, they are there own worst enemy when it comes to being wasteful. Energy and focus? Well energy wise, I'd say on average, most hunters are in better physical shape than the rest of us are. A valuable aspect of hunting is exercise and coordination. More people would do well to spend several hours walking anywhere, let alone in an obsticle course like the woods. If you are talking about the time practicing or otherwise preparing to go, well, with today's society, more likely than not the person would be sitting on their duff vegetating, otherwise. Most people don't exert themselves enough to break a sweat. If they do energize themselves to go get a workout, they are paying someone to let them go to the "gym". The woods is one of the worlds greatest gyms, it can even get you to use muscle that those fancy machines forgot about. (And it's FREE) As for focus? Well, at least my children are spending time with us, learning things about nature, survival, independance, self reliance, and alot of other things that some kids never learn. Yeah, I suppose there are other things society would rather people do besides hunt. Society, as a whole, doesn't always impress me with its wisdom. Hunters, for the most part, do. The benefits that offset any arguement against hunting ususally place the individual first, instead of last. What's best for society may not always be best for the people. Look at the benefits instead of the cost. Exercise, coordination, survival skills, independance, teaching your children about their hertiage, teaching them about their environment in general. The kids are also being the main object of attention. The best thing that I can think of to do for society's sake, is to not be dependant on society to take care of my family and to make sure my children don't become problems to society. Hunting skills help children understand a lot of their interconflicts. Dad used to say that hunting to guys was what washing dishes used to be to women. You could solve the worlds problems when you have the solitude to "hear" yourself. (Personally, I think he must have done a lot of sitting and thinking instead of hunting, but don't tell him I said that ;-)
The liberal viewpoint. This is one that could be solved with your suggestion earlier. We are spending to much time, money, and effort on "trying" to catch the criminal because we are providing the criminal with the perfect target. Defenseless humans are always going to be the object of criminal activity. An armed society is a polite society. Younger people need to be taught self respect, respect for their elders, and a few other things that require not one dime, except of course, someones (their parents, perferably) time. The liberal viewpoint is what is causing the cost, not decreasing the cost. Dangerous tools are always going to be around. But then again, the mindset of the user determines just how dangerous that tool becomes. I'm not responsible for, nor have any way of changing, a criminals mindset, neither can anyone else for that matter. But to decide to rid society of dangerous tools, well have fun, because there goes the power tools, knives, pitchforks, baseball bats, screwdrives, tire irons, log chains, gasoline, vehicles (where should I draw the line for the dangerous tools?) The necessity for "dangerous" tools have never changed, nor will they in our life times. It's not the tools that has changed and needs taken out of our dangerous hands, it's society that has changed.
Moral viewpoint. This one comes closest. But, having been raised on a farm, still doesn't work. There are pets and there are meat animals. People don't worry about where that chicken, pork, or beef came from that they just bought at the store or do they just not realize that a short while ago that too was a living, breathing animal. Animals are by and large, in their own habitat, a food source. Humans are just another preditor. On the other hand, we are a backhanded benefactor. Money received from hunters help preserve a lot of our environment. You, yourself, admitted that culling is necessary. If someone is killing an animal as a hobby, I have major questions, but I know very few hunters that don't use what they have taken as a valuable addition to their pantry. I, for one, know what its like to wonder whether or not the money is going to stretch from on pay to the next pay. One thing can upset an applecart as far as our household budget. Because of this, anything taken, becomes a valuable addition in our freezer.
Everything does have costs, but there are also benefits. Now, as to how decides which is greater, herein lies the problem.
Sorry this is so long,
-- me (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 2000.
I agree wholeheartedly! Punks shooting other punks represent natural selection in action. I actually read a reference to this in a recent article about declining gang activity in Phoenix. One of the factors cited was that for a while a lot of punks killed each other. Amazingly, there was soon a significant reduction in gang violence!
In Arizona, punks are more likely to shoot each other than ordinary citizens, since ordinary citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons and have demonstrated their proficiency to shoot straight in order to obtain a CCW permit. An increasing number of women are obtaining CCW permits, too! And, they often shoot straighter than a lot of men, and certainly straighter than most punks.
-- Flash (email@example.com), March 14, 2000.