School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Checkmite]

I'm sure you'll be able to provide the evidence for your implied claim that high school kids are dropping dead from cardiac arrest and dehydration at the same rate whether before, after, or not at all involved in playing or practicing football.

The offered statistic was 36 high schoolers dead of football from 2001-2011. This gives us an average of 3.6 deaths a year from football.

Here are four cases (1, 2, 3, 4) of high-school age individuals dying of cardiac arrest in the past 12 months. They are the first four cases I found; there are others. 3 of the victims were found dead at home after sleeping; the 4th suffered cardiac arrest while sitting in a car. In each case the cardiac arrest was preceded not by football, but by a state of rest.

 

[Kestrel]

I forget who posted the swimming pool comparison earlier, but I do remember that the qualifier was "children 4 years old and under". I think that is probably true as children in that age category are rarely killed by firearms.

Limiting the query to school age kids under 15 shows that firearms still kill more kids than all forms of drowning.


2010, United States
Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 5 to 14
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24, Y35.0,*U01.4



Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
Deaths Population Rate Rate**
298 41,025,851 0.73 0.72

2010, United States
Drowning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 5 to 14
ICD-10 Codes: W65-W74,X71,X92,Y21



Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
Deaths Population Rate Rate**
259 41,025,851 0.63 0.63

As drowning deaths in swimming pools are a fraction of all drowning deaths, it's incorrect to say that swimming pools are more dangerous than firearms.

 

[GeeMack]

However, assault weapons are the easiest to enact controls on because most sane firearms proponents aren't willing to try to argue that the components and capabilities that make a weapon an "assault weapon" can be defended by the spirit of the Second Amendment.

I'll spare the laughing dog this time, although the silliness of that comment pretty much deserves it. The components and capabilities of an "assault weapon" differ from blued barrel, walnut stock, conservative looking, old man hunting guns in the same way snazzy little sports cars with custom paint jobs, fancy rims, fiberglass fairings, and spoilers differ from their showroom floor, unadorned counterparts. The reason people want to regulate "assault weapons" differently is because they look scary and have a scary sounding name. The "assault weapons" nonsense is an argument cultivated in irrational fear.

 

[Checkmite]

A compromise that does no good, though. It's a cynical ploy to avoid doing anything that would require the hard work to actually cut down on violence, and it does so by going after a small segment of gun owners because they're unpopular - which you proved already by poisoning the well. I'm pretty sure the spirit of the Constitution in general is against picking on a minority because it's possible to do so.

No; when a law is enacted against an object that only a small number of people happen to have, those people do not automatically become a "minority group that is being repressed against the spirit of the Constitution". That's prevaricating.

 

[Checkmite]

I'll spare the laughing dog this time, although the silliness of that comment pretty much deserves it. The components and capabilities of an "assault weapon" differ from blued barrel, walnut stock, conservative looking, old man hunting guns in the same way snazzy little sports cars with custom paint jobs, fancy rims, fiberglass fairings, and spoilers differ from their showroom floor, unadorned counterparts. The reason people want to regulate "assault weapons" differently is because they look scary and have a scary sounding name. The "assault weapons" nonsense is an argument cultivated in irrational fear.

Again, it's not "cultivated in an irrational fear"; it's rather a simple and common rhetorical device.

I've already stated that I personally think controls on semi-automatic weapons make more practical sense.

 

[Kestrel]

I'll spare the laughing dog this time, although the silliness of that comment pretty much deserves it. The components and capabilities of an "assault weapon" differ from blued barrel, walnut stock, conservative looking, old man hunting guns in the same way snazzy little sports cars with custom paint jobs, fancy rims, fiberglass fairings, and spoilers differ from their showroom floor, unadorned counterparts. The reason people want to regulate "assault weapons" differently is because they look scary and have a scary sounding name. The "assault weapons" nonsense is an argument cultivated in irrational fear.

Except for the fact that old guy hunting rifles are not set up to handle quick change 15 to 30 round magazines. For a spree killer, this is a really important point. Victims have a much better chance to run away or rush the shooter.

 

[joesixpack]

Limiting the query to school age kids under 15 shows that firearms still kill more kids than all forms of drowning.

I'm sorry, "Four years old and under" is specifically NOT included in "school age kids under 15" which means from 5-15 years old.

I find it hard to believe that it's so hard to believe that more four-and-under kids die in swimming pools than by firearms, and so far you haven't demonstrated that it's not so.

I don't know what the source of that data was for the original claim, but I don't find it a terribly extraordinary one. I'd be happy to see proof either way.

 

[GeeMack]

Again, it's not "cultivated in an irrational fear"; it's rather a simple and common rhetorical device.

... designed to instill fear based on the cosmetic appearance of something. Hence, an irrational fear.

 

[zeggman]

Well no guys, unfortunately I've been informed by all sorts of blogs over the last couple of days that speculating whether the shooter had to be mentally disturbed to kill a couple of classes full of first-graders is actually unfairly scapegoating mental illness and the autistic, so we must drop that line of inquiry.

Since the gun lobby has described speculation that guns are responsible the same way and told us we must drop that line of inquiry, we're left with having to "do something" that involves not suggesting the school shooter was mentally disturbed or that guns had anything to do with it. Any ideas?

Improved security.

If a crazy with a stolen gun can't get into your school, he can't shoot kids in the classroom.

If the playground isn't visible from the street, he'll have a harder time shooting kids on the playground.

If your goal is to protect the kids, take those actions which will directly protect the kids.

That is your goal, isn't it?

 

[NoahFence]

... designed to instill fear based on the cosmetic appearance of something. Hence, an irrational fear.

You think cosmetics is the only difference between an AR-15 and say, a 30-30?

 

[joesixpack]

You think cosmetics is the only difference between an AR-15 and say, a 30-30?

Well, one is an actual gun, the other is a bullet caliber.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm sorry, "Four years old and under" is specifically NOT included in "school age kids under 15" which means from 5-15 years old.

I find it hard to believe that it's so hard to believe that more four-and-under kids die in swimming pools than by firearms, and so far you haven't demonstrated that it's not so.

I don't know what the source of that data was for the original claim, but I don't find it a terribly extraordinary one. I'd be happy to see proof either way.

I didn't see the original post. Since we were talking about school shootings, I assumed the swimming pool comment was about deaths of school age children. But apparently it's just a random gun lobby talking point that doesn't relate to the subject at hand.

I suspect that the real number is for drowning, but some idiot changed it to swimming pools to make it sound better. (As I recall, more two and three year olds drown by falling into buckets than swimming pools). Just like the talking point about ladders being more dangerous than firearms for elderly persons changes the broader category of falls to ladders.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~
However, assault weapons are the easiest to enact controls on because most sane firearms proponents aren't willing to try to argue that the components and capabilities that make a weapon an "assault weapon" can be defended by the spirit of the Second Amendment.
~~~

And yet. The spirit of the Second Amendment would seem to be: no infringement of the right of people to possess firearms with militia effective features. The very features the AWBs concentrate on removing, even the shoulder thing which goes up.

 

[NoahFence]

Well, one is an actual gun, the other is a bullet caliber.

Shows you what I know...

Something like that....

 

[zeggman]

Limiting the query to school age kids under 15 shows that firearms still kill more kids than all forms of drowning.

Maybe so. As one who previously provided statistics for children 5 and under, and said 300 died every year in swimming pools, I think the correct number may be only 250:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04142.html

For children 5 and under, motor vehicle accidents is the leading cause of death; drowning in swimming pools is second. I don't know where "firearms" deaths for this age group rank.

My response was to someone who waxed indignant that I was callous enough to express the opinion that the death of 20 children could be considered part of the price of freedom. I pointed out that a multiple of that number die every year in swimming pools, also (IMO) part of the price of freedom.

I have never argued, nor have I seen anyone argue, that drowning deaths kill more children than firearms. I can't dispute your figures, since (like Joe the Juggler) I find them unintelligible.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm sorry, "Four years old and under" is specifically NOT included in "school age kids under 15" which means from 5-15 years old.

I find it hard to believe that it's so hard to believe that more four-and-under kids die in swimming pools than by firearms, and so far you haven't demonstrated that it's not so.

I don't know what the source of that data was for the original claim, but I don't find it a terribly extraordinary one. I'd be happy to see proof either way.

And how many four-and-under kids have died in mass shooting?

Exactly, so why does it matter how many die in swimming pools by comparison? Four-and-under kids aren't even on the radar.

For that matter, why are we limiting this to "children"? As far as I know all the victims at the mall, theater, Sikh temple, and VA Tech were adults. The shooting earlier this year in Ohio was a high school. Is our goal here to stop only mass shootings which affect children, but not necessarily ones which kill adults?

And why are we limiting this to assault weapons? The Sikh temple and Congresswoman Giffords' event where shot up by handguns if I remember right. Columbine was shotguns, wasn't it? VA Tech was just a hunting rifle? Can't remember the theater shooter's weapon of choice at the mall. The Newtown shooter and the theater were assault rifles I believe.

But what is all this arbitrary sub-categorizing for? What does it matter how many less-than-four-year-olds die in pools when none of them are dying in these mass shootings? What does it matter specifically how many were killed by assault weapons rather than firearms in general? Shouldn't we be talking about the age ranges of the people actually being victimized, and the weapons actually being used to victimize them, rather than using little statistical tricks to rhetorically "gotcha" each other?

 

[joesixpack]

I didn't see the original post. Since we were talking about school shootings, I assumed the swimming pool comment was about deaths of school age children. But apparently it's just a random gun lobby talking point that doesn't relate to the subject at hand.

I suspect that the real number is for drowning, but some idiot changed it to swimming pools to make it sound better. (As I recall, more two and three year olds drown by falling into buckets than swimming pools). Just like the talking point about ladders being more dangerous than firearms for elderly persons changes the broader category of falls to ladders.

I believe I've actually seen the statistic before in the book "The Science of Fear", the author of which was not a gun nut by any stretch. I don't know if he originated it or not. As to this conversation and it's appropriateness I can see how you might think it irrelevant, but it didn't strike me as inappropriate as part of the point the particular poster was making, which may or may not have been tangent to the discussion. I'll see if I can find it now.


ETA, I see that zeggman has spoken for himself, after I went through all the effort to find the original quote. Oh never mind my work, I wasn't doing anything but sitting here anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I feel horrible as well.

Please though don't fall for propaganda, there is nothing "high-power" about .223/5.56.

It's a higher velocity .22, not even permitted for taking deer under most states DFG rules.

Don't fall for propaganda?

Puhleese.

I'm not surprised the more extreme gun defenders on the forum don't like hearing anything except 'the little angels are gone'. They want to think the kids all had itty bitty little punctures, their cherub faces merely looking asleep, perhaps no more than pools of ugly blood on the floor.


Here are some hunting pics of exit wounds using .223 rounds (warning, they aren't pretty little cherub images):

From a forum post: ".223 ballistic tip from a 14.5" went through the whole length of the body and made an exit hole the size of my fist."

.223 Remington images are 2/3 down the page.

Another forum post image: "For coyotes I use a CZ 527 Varmint in .223 This last saturday I shot this coyote witha 50gr ballistic tip"

 

[zeggman]

I didn't see the original post. Since we were talking about school shootings, I assumed the swimming pool comment was about deaths of school age children. But apparently it's just a random gun lobby talking point that doesn't relate to the subject at hand.

I suspect that the real number is for drowning, but some idiot changed it to swimming pools to make it sound better. (As I recall, more two and three year olds drown by falling into buckets than swimming pools). Just like the talking point about ladders being more dangerous than firearms for elderly persons changes the broader category of falls to ladders.

If it's a random gun lobby talking point, I arrived at it independently.

While I resent being characterized as an idiot (isn't that a TOS violation?), I didn't change it to swimming pools to make it sound better. I reported the relevant number. Obviously even those who favor passing lots of laws banning stuff to "protect the children" will not be idiotic enough to advocate filling up every lake, pond, river, creek, and ocean a child might have access to. OTOH, filling up every backyard pool would be doable.

I have no idea whether you're someone who advocates taking away guns as the solution to this problem. My argument is that it would be easy to enforce a ban on backyard swimming pools -- you can see who has one just by checking Google maps. Backyard pools cause more deaths of children than spree killers, by a sizeable multiple. If your concern is to protect the children, you should be in favor of the rational public policy that will save the most lives.

I'll repeat that I neither own nor want to own a gun.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet. The spirit of the Second Amendment would seem to be: no infringement of the right of people to possess firearms with militia effective features. The very features the AWBs concentrate on removing, even the shoulder thing which goes up.

As has been asked, so where then do you draw the line?

Bazookas?
Machine guns?
RPGs?
Tanks?
Grenades?

I do agree that people using the argument, "You don't need assault weapons to hunt" miss the point of the 2nd Amendment.