A Georgia girl has died after her 4-year-old brother accidentally shot her

[Tax Man]

That must have been a rough baseball game that they were going to if she needed to take a gun.
Always keep guns locked up.
Don't leave a gun in you car.
People should not carry guns on a daily basis because it's very dangerous and a yooog responsibility.

And when someone busts into your house and is running down your hall what good will that locked up gun do?

No gun in the car? Carjackers love easy victims.

Shouldn't carry guns on a daily basis because it's dangerous? Tell the cops that.

you are so ridiculous
1. get a dog/lock your doors and windows
...my dogs have always alerted us when someone is just even getting out of cars nearby
...if any one gets even near out doors or window, the dog will alert us
you can have the pistol handy/locked up/etc and still be able to retrieve it in time
..I lived in a ''bad'' hood' for 25 years --and my parents--and we never had anyone break in
2. cops get murdered even though they carry --you are NOT Dirty Harry Mr Tough guy hero
3. if you have KIDS---LOCK you weapons up --if not, keep them on you--it is stupid not to
4. living in a house with a gun increase chances of death
Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death
5. I would like to own an SD pistol.....but I have teenage kids--so I would LOCK it up and/or keep near me-on me
...I am not anti-gun--just pro-common sense
6. those jackass prison escapees got their weapon from an unoccupied house where someone left their weapons
2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape - Wikipedia

4. living in a house with a gun increase chances of death
Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death

Wrong....living in a house with a drug dealer, alcoholic or criminal and a gun increases your chance of death, not owning a gun for self defense....

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

=======

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

The vast majority of these “children” are actually young adults. These are not little kids who accidentally hurt themselves by firing their parents’ gun. Consider these facts: • 76% of these injured “children” were 17, 18, or 19 years old. • 62% of injuries were the result of criminal assaults. • The injuries are overwhelmingly concentrated in large, urban areas

You sure don't know much about firearms!

 

[2aguy]

There are over a million self defense uses of firearms a year remind me when we had 2 dozen MILLION murders?

hahahahhah---who do you think you're dealing with?
like I've said, I've been over this with 2AGuy---and with the research/facts/links
there are NOT a million SD uses per year-----these are not DOCUMENTED facts
I KNOW you will put up a link--but it will NOT have documented each use--not fact

RIDICULOUS!! THINK please with your big head--not emotionally
there are about 15,000 murders per year
so you think for every murder, there are over 50 SD uses???!!!!!!! [ if my math is correct ]
!!!
NO WAY
that means crime is MUCH higher than documented
BULLSHIT

Obama and Clintons check into it said between 600 thousand and 1.5 million uses, are you calling them Liars?

impressive links you have
AND--they SAID------???? hahahahahahahha
no REAL statistics --ACTUAL incidents
??!!!

The problem is that when people deter a crime, they rarely report it.
But we know there are over 1 million successful serious crimes every years, and that almost 4 times as many failed attempts as successful one.
So it is possible or even likely that people prevent over 4 million serious crimes every year, and almost half of them are prevented because of a defensive possession of a firearm.

hey!!!!
so what you are saying is the US crime rate is MUCH higher than it really is
MANY times higher
.....and you know what??? all this BULLSHIT the pro-gunners/2AGuy says about how gun ownership bringing crime rates lower is BULLSHIT
..so when they say the UK with strict gun control has a higher crime rate--you say that's not true at all----guns DON'T help reduce crime

so anyway you look at it, you people have problems with your arguments

but we know there are not that many SD uses

Here....with quotes...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[impuretrash]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

 

[Pogo]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

 

[impuretrash]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

Nobody buys a toaster thinking "gee, I hope I am never forced to use this to make toast but it's better safe than sorry"

 

[Pogo]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

Nobody buys a toaster thinking "gee, I hope I am never forced to use this to make toast but it's better safe than sorry"

Irrelevant. Toasters toast, guns shoot. It's what they do.

 

[impuretrash]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

Nobody buys a toaster thinking "gee, I hope I am never forced to use this to make toast but it's better safe than sorry"

Irrelevant. Toasters toast, guns shoot. It's what they do.

Supposedly, there's more guns in America than people. So if each of them were used for their "intended purpose"...well, you get the idea.

Anyway...nobody yet has suggested a policy that would have prevented that girl's death. So, let's hear some ideas.

 

[westwall]

That must have been a rough baseball game that they were going to if she needed to take a gun.
Always keep guns locked up.
Don't leave a gun in you car.
People should not carry guns on a daily basis because it's very dangerous and a yooog responsibility.

And when someone busts into your house and is running down your hall what good will that locked up gun do?

No gun in the car? Carjackers love easy victims.

Shouldn't carry guns on a daily basis because it's dangerous? Tell the cops that.

you are so ridiculous
1. get a dog/lock your doors and windows
...my dogs have always alerted us when someone is just even getting out of cars nearby
...if any one gets even near out doors or window, the dog will alert us
you can have the pistol handy/locked up/etc and still be able to retrieve it in time
..I lived in a ''bad'' hood' for 25 years --and my parents--and we never had anyone break in
2. cops get murdered even though they carry --you are NOT Dirty Harry Mr Tough guy hero
3. if you have KIDS---LOCK you weapons up --if not, keep them on you--it is stupid not to
4. living in a house with a gun increase chances of death
Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death
5. I would like to own an SD pistol.....but I have teenage kids--so I would LOCK it up and/or keep near me-on me
...I am not anti-gun--just pro-common sense
6. those jackass prison escapees got their weapon from an unoccupied house where someone left their weapons
2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape - Wikipedia

4. living in a house with a gun increase chances of death
Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death

Wrong....living in a house with a drug dealer, alcoholic or criminal and a gun increases your chance of death, not owning a gun for self defense....

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

=======

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

The vast majority of these “children” are actually young adults. These are not little kids who accidentally hurt themselves by firing their parents’ gun. Consider these facts: • 76% of these injured “children” were 17, 18, or 19 years old. • 62% of injuries were the result of criminal assaults. • The injuries are overwhelmingly concentrated in large, urban areas

You sure don't know much about firearms!

2A has forgotten more about guns then you will ever know.

 

[westwall]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

Nobody buys a toaster thinking "gee, I hope I am never forced to use this to make toast but it's better safe than sorry"

Irrelevant. Toasters toast, guns shoot. It's what they do.

Yes. They do. And the overwhelming majority (99%+)are used lawfully.

 

[Dana7360]

That must have been a rough baseball game that they were going to if she needed to take a gun.
Always keep guns locked up.
Don't leave a gun in you car.
People should not carry guns on a daily basis because it's very dangerous and a yooog responsibility.

There's an underlying discussion about this that needs to be had, rather than the usual vitriol that generally emerges in dialogue from these incidents.

The problem is that it's more fundamental rather than underlying, it's only underlying as a consequence of a growing lack of understanding of the responsibility that comes with exercising freedom.

Two words that should never be spoken or written absent one another comes in the form of a very fundamental phrase. Liberty-Responisibility. It's a deep discussion, though. One that demands humility.

Threads like this makes a person wanna cry. It's avoidable.

You don't restrict liberty because people make mistakes, bottom line.

Did you know the meaning of the word liberty is a person being able to live in their native nation without being persecuted by the government or the government kicking them out of the nation?

What does that have to do with this situation?

The government isn't persecuting anyone nor is the government trying to kick anyone out of this nation so liberty has nothing to do with this situation and doesn't even belong in the discussion.

 

[mudwhistle]

A Georgia girl has died after her 4-year-old brother accidentally shot her, authorities say - CNN

"Detectives determined that no charges will be filed."

Really? Way to go Mom.

Was the gun the murderer or the 4 year old??
Why don't we ban 4 year olds???

 

[Pogo]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

Nobody buys a toaster thinking "gee, I hope I am never forced to use this to make toast but it's better safe than sorry"

Irrelevant. Toasters toast, guns shoot. It's what they do.

Supposedly, there's more guns in America than people. So if each of them were used for their "intended purpose"...well, you get the idea.

Anyway...nobody yet has suggested a policy that would have prevented that girl's death. So, let's hear some ideas.

Funny you should bring that up, because it was THE hot issue when I joined this site, just after Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide and just before Adam Lanza's 26-victim spree.

Gun violence is a social disease, not a political one. As such "policies" are at best ineffectual. We don't address social ills by throwing laws at them.

We live in a culture of death and violence that glorifies and fetishizes guns. That needs to change and until it does, nothing in the big picture changes. You can see it in the gun-fetish apologists who infest this board, some of whom will jump on this post faster than you can say white on rice, just as the same element jumped on Bob Costas' MNF commentary as a "gun control rant" even though he never once mentioned anything about gun control at all.

This produces a paranoid public some of whom actually believe these yahoos who tell them the answer to guns is more guns, and then you end up with a mother going to a baseball game with a baseball cap, two toddlers and a freaking loaded gun, and then we're supposed to act surprised when the inevitable happens.

It's a sick society. The infatuation with guns and killing and destroying things has to end, and it has to come from within. The values are depraved and they need to be jettisoned.

 

[Pogo]

A Georgia girl has died after her 4-year-old brother accidentally shot her, authorities say - CNN

"Detectives determined that no charges will be filed."

Really? Way to go Mom.

Was the gun the murderer or the 4 year old??
Why don't we ban 4 year olds???

Good idea. From now on a child's age will jump from three to five. It'll be like one of Rump's buildings with the fake floor numbers.

 

[Pogo]

>> Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that since 9/11 not a single American has been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from the countries on this list. The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist. In 2014 88 Americans were shot dead, on average, every day: 58 killed themselves while 30 were murdered. In that same year 18 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks in the US. Put more starkly: more Americans were killed by firearms roughly every five hours than were killed by terrorists in an entire year.<<​

From the same article this line is less relevant but I like its train of thought:

>> To hide behind the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an act of fallacious sophistry. Toasters don’t make toast, people make toast. True. But toasters exist to make toast: guns exist to kill people. <<​

Unfortunately in the instant case, the instrument did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your toaster analogy is dumb. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 100% of all toasters have been used to make toast whereas only a tiny fraction of the guns in the US have been used to kill a person.

That's what the function of both is whether they get used or not.

My toaster is sitting in the kitchen idle right now. Not making toast. Until it does.
The gun in the OP story was sitting idle in the car, not killing anyone. Until it did.

In both cases the instrument does what it's designed to do.

Nobody buys a toaster thinking "gee, I hope I am never forced to use this to make toast but it's better safe than sorry"

Irrelevant. Toasters toast, guns shoot. It's what they do.

Yes. They do. And the overwhelming majority (99%+)are used lawfully.

Nobody brought up "laws" here Evelyn Woodn't.

 

[koshergrl]

That must have been a rough baseball game that they were going to if she needed to take a gun.
Always keep guns locked up.
Don't leave a gun in you car.
People should not carry guns on a daily basis because it's very dangerous and a yooog responsibility.

There's an underlying discussion about this that needs to be had, rather than the usual vitriol that generally emerges in dialogue from these incidents.

The problem is that it's more fundamental rather than underlying, it's only underlying as a consequence of a growing lack of understanding of the responsibility that comes with exercising freedom.

Two words that should never be spoken or written absent one another comes in the form of a very fundamental phrase. Liberty-Responisibility. It's a deep discussion, though. One that demands humility.

Threads like this makes a person wanna cry. It's avoidable.

You don't restrict liberty because people make mistakes, bottom line.

Did you know the meaning of the word liberty is a person being able to live in their native nation without being persecuted by the government or the government kicking them out of the nation?

What does that have to do with this situation?

The government isn't persecuting anyone nor is the government trying to kick anyone out of this nation so liberty has nothing to do with this situation and doesn't even belong in the discussion.

What the fuck are you yammering about? Do you know? If you want to talk about..whatever it is that you're spasming about, you should start a thread about it.

 

[koshergrl]

Son shoots home invasion suspect in the head while sisters hide in closet at SW Houston home

 

[JoeB131]

Oh my goodness, look at this precious little girl. What a travesty.

Yes, it is. But since we won't change our gun laws, I can't waste a lot of emotional bandwidth on it.

 

[Blues Man]

If you're going to carry , the gun should be on your person not on the console of a car

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The wider picture is that you cant take your kids to baseball practice without carrying a gun. Imprisoned by the thing that supposedly makes you free.

 

[Blues Man]

Oh my goodness, look at this precious little girl. What a travesty.

Yes, it is. But since we won't change our gun laws, I can't waste a lot of emotional bandwidth on it.

What gun law would prevent a parent from being stupid?

Parents kill their kids intentionally and unintentionally via negligence all the time and their kids die with far more frequency by other means than by guns being unattended