How many rapists could he have stopped with this?

[zenith-nadir]

One of my shipmates suffered a tragedy in his family while we were out to sea once. His young son (six, I think) found their loaded shotgun and started playing with it. He shot his eight year old sister and killed her. Blew half her body away. Devastating. The whole ship wept.

Children cannot be supervised 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 365 days a year. All it takes is five minutes and a gun, (or bomb in this case), to be in the wrong place and you have the type of incident that Luke T. is talking about. Additionally, any child under 8 has not concept of the danger or consequences of their actions should they find a gun, (or bomb). To them it is just another toy.

 

[shanek]

Children cannot be supervised 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 365 days a year. All it takes is five minutes and a gun, (or bomb in this case), to be in the wrong place and you have the type of incident that Luke T. is talking about. Additionally, any child under 8 has not concept of the danger or consequences of their actions should they find a gun, (or bomb). To them it is just another toy.

Again, what is the difference between this and kitchen knives or floor cleaners?

BTW, fewer kids per capita are killed with firearms nowadays than there were 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years ago, despite the fact that the number of guns in private hands has increased at a rate greater than population growth:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus047.pdf

 

[zenith-nadir]

Again, what is the difference between this and kitchen knives or floor cleaners?BTW, fewer kids per capita are killed with firearms nowadays than there were 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years ago, despite the fact that the number of guns in private hands has increased at a rate greater than population growth:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus047.pdf

Statistically, three-year-olds who do not have homemade bombs, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 13 guns in their homes are injured less than children who do have homemade bombs, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 13 guns in their homes.

 

[shanek]

Statistically, three-year-olds who do not have homemade bombs, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 13 guns in their homes are injured less than children who do have homemade bombs, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 13 guns in their homes.

That makes the third time you have avoided answering the question.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Yes, weapons, and even other dangerous items such as knives and household cleaners (why people put guns in a separate category I have no idea), should absolutely be kept where children cannot get to them.

Originally posted by shanek That makes the third time you have avoided answering the question.

When kitchen knives and cleaning supplies explode and fire 10,000 rounds of ammunition the there will be an answer to your question...

 

[shanek]

Look at this:

http://www.childstats.gov/ac2002/tbl.asp?iid=27&id=4

Note that the total number of children ages 1-4 who died by "unintentional injuries" in 1999 was 12.6 in 100,000. According to my previous source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus047.pdf

Death rates for firearm-related injuries for children ages 1-4 was 0.3 per 100,000 in the year 2000. They don't have two of the same years recently, but I don't reckon 1999 and 2000 were that far apart.

So, of all of the accidental injuries per capita of children between the ages of 1-4, only about 2.4% of them were firearm-related.

So, again, why the focus on firearms and not the other causes of accidental death in children? Why do you people not want to answer that question?

 

[shanek]

According to this page:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childh.htm

What are the leading causes of fatal injuries?

Overall, motor vehicles, fires/burns, drowning, falls, poisoning.

So, should we go after parents that have cars? Bathtubs and swimming pools? Multistory houses? Cleaning supplies? Firearms didn't even make the top five.

 

[zenith-nadir]

So, of all of the accidental injuries per capita of children between the ages of 1-4, only about 2.4% of them were firearm-related.So, again, why the focus on firearms and not the other causes of accidental death in children? Why do you people not want to answer that question?

So you want to go on a tangent about kitchen knives and cleaning supplies... Okey dokey then...

Lets say you have two homes.

Home #1 = kitchen knives and cleaning supplies.

Home #2 = kitchen knives and cleaning supplies, plus, as in this Staten Island case, three semi-automatic assault rifles, one 12-gauge shotgun, a 30.06 rifle, a .357 rifle, a .45 pistol, tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition and home-made explosive devices.

Which home is more dangerous for an unsupervised 3-year-old? Home #1? or Home #2?

 

[Earthborn]

BTW, fewer kids per capita are killed with firearms nowadays than there were 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years ago

Let me guess: lower birthrate and an aging population?

Again, what is the difference between this and kitchen knives or floor cleaners?

There is of course the difference that kitchen knives and floor cleaners are objects that are necessary in everyday life, while guns may only be necessary in rare circumstances. Also if someone is injured by them, it is usually easier to save that person then with if s/he is injured by a firearm.

Yes, weapons, and even other dangerous items such as knives and household cleaners (why people put guns in a separate category I have no idea), should absolutely be kept where children cannot get to them.

Of course whether that is practical depends on how someone is planning to use them. Someone who collects guns probably wouldn't store them loaded and ready to fire, but instead locks them in a show-case.

People who have guns for defense probably prefer them to be accessible. If an adult can quickly access them, it is accessible for a child.

 

[corplinx]

I hate to say this, but we had more guns than that in my family home as I was going up. And they weren't even in a bunker or something. They were in unlocked gun cases.

None of the guns these people had seem to be illegal except under New York Law where any unregistered gun is illegal.


Once again, 10,000 rounds is not that many. Bullets are cheaper in bulk.

As for the bombs, I can play devil's advocate on that and say it sound like they were made for sh*ts and giggles. They certainly don't sound very powerful from the details. They sound more like what a gun shell reloader might make in his basement with extra powder for the hell of it.

 

[Richard G]

I have a dozen firearms, and several thousand rounds. I live in a suburb. They are all unlocked, and three of them are always loaded.

So what???

I can't defend anyone making bombs though.

 

[shanek]

So you want to go on a tangent about kitchen knives and cleaning supplies...

No, I want you to answer the f*cking question!

 

[shanek]

Let me guess: lower birthrate and an aging population?

Did you not see the words "per capita" in there?

There is of course the difference that kitchen knives and floor cleaners are objects that are necessary in everyday life,

Actually, no they aren't. You can run a household quite easily without them. Most people just don't want to.

People who have guns for defense probably prefer them to be accessible. If an adult can quickly access them, it is accessible for a child.

Not necessarily. There are lots of ways of child-proofing things while making them quite accessible for adults.

 

[Earthborn]

Did you not see the words "per capita" in there?

Does that mean 'related to the general population' or 'related to the population of a specific age' ?

Actually, no they aren't. You can run a household quite easily without them. Most people just don't want to.

The point of course is that they have practical use in everyday life, while guns are only of practical use in rare circumstances.

Not necessarily. There are lots of ways of child-proofing things while making them quite accessible for adults.

Anyone who has ever tried to open a bottle with a child safety cap knows that trying to make something easily accessible for some people and inaccessible for others are technical properties that are contradictory. It is very difficult to incorporate them both in a single product. Not impossible, just difficult.

If you say that they both can be made to work, like NASA can incorporate two contradicting qualities - making the rocket stages both well fixed and easily loosened - with explosive bolts, I suggest you make your solution public. I certainly like to hear it.

An additional problem is that not all kids are the same: something might stop a 4 year old, but preventing a 12 year old from accessing something accessible to adults seems close to impossible.

 

[shanek]

Does that mean 'related to the general population' or 'related to the population of a specific age' ?

To the specified age. For example, the figure on handgun deaths for 1-4 year olds were per 100,000 1-4 year olds.

The point of course is that they have practical use in everyday life, while guns are only of practical use in rare circumstances.

I have chemicals in my kitchen that I rarely use. Some of them will sit there for a year without me using them. At what point do we say a substance gets to be banned because it's not used often enough to matter?

Anyone who has ever tried to open a bottle with a child safety cap knows that trying to make something easily accessible for some people and inaccessible for others are technical properties that are contradictory.

When you try to make it too complicated, you're right. Kids are smart. But children have definite strength and height limitations that can be taken advantage of. And besides, child safety caps can be effective when used properly.

It's really a multiple barriers thing. An adult can, relatively quickly, grab a gun from high up, load the chamber, release the safety, and shoot an assailant; a kid would have to build a ladder, figure out how to load the gun, figure out how to release the safety, etc. And that's without even showing how most kids, with proper parental instruction, will leave guns alone.

An additional problem is that not all kids are the same: something might stop a 4 year old, but preventing a 12 year old from accessing something accessible to adults seems close to impossible.

Well, of course as they reach their teenage years it becomes harder to stop them. But it's also the case that as they get older more of the parental involvement has an effect on them. My dad's guns were hanging up in the open and the ammo unlocked in the closet. I could have gotten the guns at any time, loaded them, and fired them. I didn't, because of the way my father taught me about guns.

 

[rockoon]

I see a lot of presumption in this thread that can be summed up in one single statement:


"Guns are bad, mmkay?"


Saying it, however, doesnt make it true. Saying that guns don't serve a practical purpose doesnt make that true either.

How quickly some people jump to judge another. I'm sure that smug little superiority complex of theirs makes them all warm and fuzzy for a few moments. One has to wonder exactly how safe their home is for a child.

Do they shrug off how unsafe their home is by noting that how they endanger the wellfare of another "serves a practical purpose?" This cop-out can be used to justify such acts as slavery, genocide, and invading Iraq.

Do they find comfort in pretending that their ◊◊◊◊ doesnt stink? I realize that this is probably what humans do best.

The simple fact is that so far there has been no evidence at all presented here that these children were unreasonably endangered in any way. Why following the logic presented here, the police endangered the children by entering the home complete with their sidearms. Need we be reminded what sometimes happens when the FBI gets involved?

"Guns are bad, mmkay?"

And don't even get started on bombs.. many homes are rigged to blow up in one hell of an explosion.. but of course, natural gas pipes and oil tanks "serve a practical purpose" so that makes it ok, right?

The fact that something might blow up is not evidence that a child was unreasonably endangered .. mmkay?

Electricity clearly endangers the life of a child. How come so many people have electricity in their home? Because it 'serves a practical purpose?' - T.V. and Nintendo?


I do not have any guns in my home. Instead I have in my home what is arguably the most lethal weapon ever developed. If I had kids I would encourage them to use it. Most schools require kids to carry this weapon to class. Most teachers will freely hand out this weapon to any child who forgot theirs. Making sure the school is stocked with this weapon is a primary budgetary concern of many school districts. This weapon is completely unregulated.

As they say.. the pen is mightier than the sword.

Pens are bad, mmkay?

 

[shanek]

The simple fact is that so far there has been no evidence at all presented here that these children were unreasonably endangered in any way. Why following the logic presented here, the police endangered the children by entering the home complete with their sidearms. Need we be reminded what sometimes happens when the FBI gets involved?

Or even local cops, like that Durham, NC police raid of a high school where THE COPS WERE POINTING GUNS AT KIDS' HEADS???? (And not finding the first trace of drugs or weapons?)

The fact that something might blow up is not evidence that a child was unreasonably endangered .. mmkay?

True, or you would unreasonably endanger a child every time you fired up the gas grill.

 

[shanek]

BTW, 1,000 children per day are treated for dog bites in the emergency room, far more than are inured or killed by firearms. I have a dog. Am I unreasonably endangering my two kids?

 

[Earthborn]

At what point do we say a substance gets to be banned because it's not used often enough to matter?

I don't know.

Banning stuff is not my thing anyway.

And that's without even showing how most kids, with proper parental instruction, will leave guns alone.

Of course that's not really relevant. Whatever you do, most kids will not kill themselves with guns. It is important what can be do to protect those few that might.

It is also difficult to ensure that parents give proper instruction. Making them solely responsible for that is likely to put many children at risk.

But it's also the case that as they get older more of the parental involvement has an effect on them.

Yes, but they are also entering the age when they are most likely to want to kill themselves. So while some kids are less likely to shoot themselves, others become more likely.

 

[rockoon]

BTW, 1,000 children per day are treated for dog bites in the emergency room, far more than are inured or killed by firearms. I have a dog. Am I unreasonably endangering my two kids?

Man.. I totally spaced out on the whole pet issue.

How dare people with children also have a family pet! I say raid their homes and arrest these folks for reckless endangerment!