Children accidently shoot someone every 36 hours

[2aguy]

This thread shows that some people care more about guns than children. God bless America.

No....it shows that people aren't going to be steam rolled by paranoid anti gunners who cobble together gang shootings and other nonsense to get guns banned....

Under 100 children a year are killed by accidental gun deaths......out of a country of over 320 milion people....each one is horrible....but more children die in cars....spend your time saving those lives......

The car comparison is ridiculous. Society is set up that people need cars for a mode of transportation.

Then why do the anti gun groups keep using it.....again...I bring it up only because they bring it up so often.....and then they get mad when I do it because I show there numbers don't hold up.....

which groups bring it up, and how do they present it?

Just about every current major anti gun group....

Guns vs. Cars Comparison Is No Accident The Daily Caller

To feign strength, gun control supporters have been pedal-to-the-metal on the subject over time. The Violence Policy Center compared gun-related and vehicle accident deaths in 2011. Michael Bloomberg’s news machine did so in 2012. Mother Jones, the publication once edited by Michael Moore, if that tells you anything, did so in 2013. Last year, the Center for American Progress asserted that “gun deaths are on track to surpass motor vehicle traffic deaths for [people under age 25].” And this year, the ideologically comparable Atlantic repeated that assertion in a hit piece that referred to guns as “America’s Top Killing Machine.”

 

[2aguy]

Most of the 11 that say your number is too high did not include military and police. The Dept of Justice was 1.3 million. And you are probably still counting the CDC which DID NOT calculate the number of DGUs as I have proven several times. And you sure aren't counting the most accurate NCVS which was 108k.

The NCVS was not a gun study...doesn't even count for the list of studies....they don't even use the word "gun" in the whole study......

They surveys 90,000 households about crime. It includes attempted crimes. The questions as I have proven before would lead to any DGUs that occurred. Your favorite survey was only 5,000 with 50 positives. That mere 50 was then extrapolated out to 2.5 million. Start talking about guns right away and you are guaranteed false positives. The NCVS is more accurate.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

The NCVS is not a gun study......doesn't even say guns once in the study.....sort of like having a survey on cars and saying it is a definitive study on cheese.........

In order to have a DGU you have to have an attempted crime. So yes the two go completely together.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

Out of interest, what do the "11 gun studies" say the actual number is?

It isn't just 11 studies actually.....and again, the study brain likes, The National Crime Victimization Study, because the defensive gun use number is so low is not an actual defensive gun use study...they don't even use the word gun in the study, or specifically ask people if they used a gun for self defense...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

Most of the 11 that say your number is too high did not include military and police. The Dept of Justice was 1.3 million. And you are probably still counting the CDC which DID NOT calculate the number of DGUs as I have proven several times. And you sure aren't counting the most accurate NCVS which was 108k.

The NCVS was not a gun study...doesn't even count for the list of studies....they don't even use the word "gun" in the whole study......

They surveys 90,000 households about crime. It includes attempted crimes. The questions as I have proven before would lead to any DGUs that occurred. Your favorite survey was only 5,000 with 50 positives. That mere 50 was then extrapolated out to 2.5 million. Start talking about guns right away and you are guaranteed false positives. The NCVS is more accurate.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

The NCVS is not a gun study......doesn't even say guns once in the study.....sort of like having a survey on cars and saying it is a definitive study on cheese.........

In order to have a DGU you have to have an attempted crime. So yes the two go completely together.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

Out of interest, what do the "11 gun studies" say the actual number is?

Keep in mind.....these are only the studies that have been easily accessible to post......if you go to the links in the thread, you can see what the actual studies were composed of.....and again....these are only some of the studies on this topic.....

The NCVS study is not a gun study, and doesn't claim to be a gun study, or represent itself as a gun study...the reason brain and other people who are opposed to gun rights like it is because it is the absolute lowest number of defensive gun uses.....if you look at all the other studies, they don't go below 760,000...except for the obama CDC research that puts the number between 500,000 and 3 million..........

the studies I post were done by criminolgists, and economists, over a 40 year period, both private and public.....you can make of them what you will....I averaged the non military, and non police defensive gun use studies and that number is 2 million on average per year......which horrifies the anti gun people.......

 

[2aguy]

Most of the 11 that say your number is too high did not include military and police. The Dept of Justice was 1.3 million. And you are probably still counting the CDC which DID NOT calculate the number of DGUs as I have proven several times. And you sure aren't counting the most accurate NCVS which was 108k.

The NCVS was not a gun study...doesn't even count for the list of studies....they don't even use the word "gun" in the whole study......

They surveys 90,000 households about crime. It includes attempted crimes. The questions as I have proven before would lead to any DGUs that occurred. Your favorite survey was only 5,000 with 50 positives. That mere 50 was then extrapolated out to 2.5 million. Start talking about guns right away and you are guaranteed false positives. The NCVS is more accurate.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

The NCVS is not a gun study......doesn't even use the word guns once in the study when questioning the respondees.....sort of like having a survey on cars and saying it is a definitive study on cheese.........

In order to have a DGU you have to have an attempted crime. So yes the two go completely together.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

Out of interest, what do the "11 gun studies" say the actual number is?

 

[Brain357]

The NCVS was not a gun study...doesn't even count for the list of studies....they don't even use the word "gun" in the whole study......

They surveys 90,000 households about crime. It includes attempted crimes. The questions as I have proven before would lead to any DGUs that occurred. Your favorite survey was only 5,000 with 50 positives. That mere 50 was then extrapolated out to 2.5 million. Start talking about guns right away and you are guaranteed false positives. The NCVS is more accurate.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

The NCVS is not a gun study......doesn't even say guns once in the study.....sort of like having a survey on cars and saying it is a definitive study on cheese.........

In order to have a DGU you have to have an attempted crime. So yes the two go completely together.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

Out of interest, what do the "11 gun studies" say the actual number is?

It isn't just 11 studies actually.....and again, the study brain likes, The National Crime Victimization Study, because the defensive gun use number is so low is not an actual defensive gun use study...they don't even use the word gun in the study, or specifically ask people if they used a gun for self defense...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Yes 11 studies say your 2 million is too high. And again the cdc did not estimate DGUs as I have proven several times.

 

[Brain357]

The NCVS was not a gun study...doesn't even count for the list of studies....they don't even use the word "gun" in the whole study......

They surveys 90,000 households about crime. It includes attempted crimes. The questions as I have proven before would lead to any DGUs that occurred. Your favorite survey was only 5,000 with 50 positives. That mere 50 was then extrapolated out to 2.5 million. Start talking about guns right away and you are guaranteed false positives. The NCVS is more accurate.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

The NCVS is not a gun study......doesn't even say guns once in the study.....sort of like having a survey on cars and saying it is a definitive study on cheese.........

In order to have a DGU you have to have an attempted crime. So yes the two go completely together.

And again 11 gun studies say your 2 million is too high.

Out of interest, what do the "11 gun studies" say the actual number is?

Keep in mind.....these are only the studies that have been easily accessible to post......if you go to the links in the thread, you can see what the actual studies were composed of.....and again....these are only some of the studies on this topic.....

The NCVS study is not a gun study, and doesn't claim to be a gun study, or represent itself as a gun study...the reason brain and other people who are opposed to gun rights like it is because it is the absolute lowest number of defensive gun uses.....if you look at all the other studies, they don't go below 760,000...except for the obama CDC research that puts the number between 500,000 and 3 million..........

the studies I post were done by criminolgists, and economists, over a 40 year period, both private and public.....you can make of them what you will....I averaged the non military, and non police defensive gun use studies and that number is 2 million on average per year......which horrifies the anti gun people.......

The ncvs is a crime study. You have to have an attempted crime in order to have a dgu. So it does include DGUs. It also surveyed 90k households making it far more accurate. No gun study even comes close. Your favorite takes 50 positives and extrapolates to 2.5 million. So ridiculous.

 

[syonidv]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

 

[Brain357]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

 

[RandallFlagg]

According to a study published earlier this week by Everytown For Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, 79 children have unintentionally shot someone with a handgun during the first four months of 2015. These shootings have resulted in 24 deaths and 56 injuries. If such first-quarter figures were calculated to cover an entire year, there would be an accidental shooting every 36 hours.

Children accidentally shoot someone every 36 hours new study finds - Living - HeraldTimesOnline

Wow! We should probably ban children, right? I believe that your study is full of it....more children drown each year than are shot. Nice try.

 

[syonidv]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

 

[Brain357]

According to a study published earlier this week by Everytown For Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, 79 children have unintentionally shot someone with a handgun during the first four months of 2015. These shootings have resulted in 24 deaths and 56 injuries. If such first-quarter figures were calculated to cover an entire year, there would be an accidental shooting every 36 hours.

Children accidentally shoot someone every 36 hours new study finds - Living - HeraldTimesOnline

Wow! We should probably ban children, right? I believe that your study is full of it....more children drown each year than are shot. Nice try.

I have no doubt the numbers are correct. So that is why we have life guards, and life jackets and fences around pools. That however is not a reason to ignore this issue:

 

[RandallFlagg]

According to a study published earlier this week by Everytown For Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, 79 children have unintentionally shot someone with a handgun during the first four months of 2015. These shootings have resulted in 24 deaths and 56 injuries. If such first-quarter figures were calculated to cover an entire year, there would be an accidental shooting every 36 hours.

Children accidentally shoot someone every 36 hours new study finds - Living - HeraldTimesOnline

Wow! We should probably ban children, right? I believe that your study is full of it....more children drown each year than are shot. Nice try.

I have no doubt the numbers are correct. So that is why we have life guards, and life jackets and fences around pools. That however is not a reason to ignore this issue:

I would suggest to you that "lifeguards, lifejackets, and fences" would have done nothing to prevent the number of children that drown in the home each year - usually something as ridiculous as a bucket:

In Home Danger CPSC Warns of Children Drowning in Bathtubs Bath Seats and Buckets More Than 400 Deaths Estimated Over a Five-Year Period CPSC.gov

Shall we ban all buckets and bathtubs?

 

[Brain357]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

 

[Brain357]

According to a study published earlier this week by Everytown For Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, 79 children have unintentionally shot someone with a handgun during the first four months of 2015. These shootings have resulted in 24 deaths and 56 injuries. If such first-quarter figures were calculated to cover an entire year, there would be an accidental shooting every 36 hours.

Children accidentally shoot someone every 36 hours new study finds - Living - HeraldTimesOnline

Wow! We should probably ban children, right? I believe that your study is full of it....more children drown each year than are shot. Nice try.

I have no doubt the numbers are correct. So that is why we have life guards, and life jackets and fences around pools. That however is not a reason to ignore this issue:

I would suggest to you that "lifeguards, lifejackets, and fences" would have done nothing to prevent the number of children that drown in the home each year - usually something as ridiculous as a bucket:

In Home Danger CPSC Warns of Children Drowning in Bathtubs Bath Seats and Buckets More Than 400 Deaths Estimated Over a Five-Year Period CPSC.gov

Shall we ban all buckets and bathtubs?

That is why there are baby tubs and warnings in buckets. Again no reason to ignore this issue.

 

[RandallFlagg]

OK...we won't ignore the issue. Teach children gun safety - and practice it in the home - as us old folks taught our children and you'll never have a problem. DO YOUR JOB AS A PARENT. There. End of discussion.

 

[Brain357]

OK...we won't ignore the issue. Teach children gun safety - and practice it in the home - as us old folks taught our children and you'll never have a problem. DO YOUR JOB AS A PARENT. There. End of discussion.

That was one of my suggestions. And if someone lets a gun get in the hands of a child they need to be prosecuted.

 

[syonidv]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

 

[Brain357]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

 

[2aguy]

...

If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

And again...the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on guns.....it is not a study on using guns for self defense.......that is why the number is so out of range with all of the other studies....but that is also why it is embraced by anti gun groups...it is the only study they have that supports their position, again, even though it has nothing to do with the defensive use of guns.........

So if we take the lowest, government study estimate conducted by the clinton Department of Justice....the number was 1.5 million.......now compare that to 505 accidental gun deaths each year..........

 

[2aguy]

I have to admit, even if we take a low-end estimate of 800,000 violent crimes prevented (this number still seems really high to me, but supposing it's legitimate) we're looking at ~3,500 violent crimes prevented by civilians per accidental child shooting in 2015 (the projected total number of shootings, going by the numbers in the OP).

I'll just say that if we trust both numbers to be even remotely accurate, I don't see how anyone can reasonably stack 3,500 against 1 and come out with a "not worth the risk" assessment. Maybe 30:1 I could see tipping the scales, but we're more than two orders of magnitude away from that.

Having said this, the US does have ridiculously high crime rates by OECD standards, and it's not folly to hypothesize that at least some of the difference is attributable to US citizenry being armed to the teeth. I emphasize 'some'. Americans are inherently more violent and rebellious than most western nations--it just seems to be part of your culture, guns or not--and you have a particularly stark divide between the haves and the have-nots, with a sprawling underclass. Suffice it to say I could believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of elevated rates of violent crime in America.

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

These are just those involving children. There are about 500 accidental deaths each year total. And again there are 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are about 40% of the population so the most lives they could possibly be saving is 4000. And the number is certainly less than that as many armed defenders are themselves killed. Meanwhile about 8500 of the homicides are with guns.

The point was to draw attention to the issue and offer suggestions to save lives. Banning guns is not the only thing that can be done. If guns are stored properly kids can't get them.

Actually brain, in 2013 there were 8,454 gun murders...which is going down......and no matter how well you store guns, alcohol, drug abuse and criminals in the home will lead to children accidentally finding guns......

And in a country of over 320 million people....under 100 children a year die from accidental gun deaths........that is a pretty good stat considering 90 million homes have guns in them........