209 publicly-reported accidental shootings by children so far in 2015

[glenn1]

You need ID to vote in Canada as well. They're pretty hardcore up there when it comes to rules and stuff. It's almost like the Nazis won the war. :awe:

voting in Canada.
If I'm not mistaken, Canada's voter turnout is higher than ours. Maybe the cold weather makes people less lazy?

Yeah, those racist Canadians are always trying to keep the poors down and make them jump through hoops for their rights. They don't even protect their rights with a Constitution up there, so they must be really, really racist.

 

[shira]

About 700 drownings per year between 2005-09
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

Wow, you righties are big on false equivalence.

People die eating food. Thousands die in car crashes. Hundreds die drowning in swimming pools or while riding bicycles or engaging in other, normal behaviors of life.

The difference, all you morons, is that all of these other things are intrinsically useful/enjoyable/beneficial/even essential to life. So the benefits from these other activities are huge.

But the benefit of keeping a gun in the home? Oh, gee, I FEEL safer. I can THEORETICALLY defend my family against imaginary bad people. Hundreds of people are injured or killed by CHILDREN with guns they should never have been able to get ahold of, except for irresponsible parents keeping unsecured guns in the home, guns for "defense" of the family. And I haven't even added in the thousands of friends and family members killed by guns in the home each year, shot by adults.

Why should I feel surprised, though? The people who compare gun deaths to deaths in traffic accidents or in swimming pools or from choking accidents are the same people who think the benefits of voter-ID laws outweigh the losses.

 

[Ackmed]

Ahh, here comes the name calling and more lies. There are plenty of documented stories where someone defended their homes from "imaginary bad people". Guns can also be "useful/enjoyable/beneficial", but good try!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If children are present, or will likely be present, firearms should be LOCKED securely where the children cannot access them (unless there's some sort of supervised access with the firearms. E.g., teaching the kids gun safety, how to hunt, target shooting, etc.)

This seems to me to be a very reasonable requirement for gun owners.

I would bet that the majority of responsible gun owners do properly secure their guns. These same responsible gun owners also teach their children about gun safety including the proper way to handle guns and not to handle them unless an adult is present.

I know my father and uncles did so, my brother/cousins/myself have continued this on with their children, and now it's time to teach the next generation.

 

[PokerGuy]

The difference, all you morons, is that all of these other things are intrinsically useful/enjoyable/beneficial/even essential to life. So the benefits from these other activities are huge.

Oh, I see, you've decided to simply determine for everyone else what is "enjoyable", and what they should consider "useful". Enjoy shooting, hunting etc? Nope, shira said that's not enjoyable. Protect yourself or a loved one? Nope, not useful, by shira's decree.

Did you get formal training to get this stupid or does it come naturally?

 

[PokerGuy]

Shira seems to have a valid point - there should be ZERO children who have unsupervised access to their parents' firearms in the house.

Of course everyone would like that number to be zero, just like I'd like the number of kids that get hurt playing soccer to be zero, and I'd like the number of kids assaulted or whatever to be zero. At some point you have to accept that in a relatively free society some people are going to do stupid things and people (including kids) are going to get hurt. Trying to legislate that away by restricting the rights of 300 million people isn't going to fix it.

 

[allisolm]

Corrected.

208 people in 2015 killed or injured when a child in the home accidentally shot them. That's a much more comforting thought.

NOT corrected.

You keep saying "in the home" but the article has nothing to do with shootings "in the home."

"This interactive map tracks every publicly reported incident in 2015 where a person age 17 or under unintentionally kills or injures someone with a gun."

Some of these could have been prevented by better gun safety. Some not.

 

[BoberFett]

Shira, wtf can't you just say that, instead of attempting to abuse only a semi-relevant statistic and attempt to make up numbers from it in order to make a point that I think most gun owners would agree with?? In other words, it's a lot easier to work with a group of people with opposing viewpoints on a subject if you can find common ground without offending that group right from the start.

It's much easier to claim your opponent is obstructing progress when you lay out ridiculous claims and announce your "solution" to solve the problem.

I believe "liberals" are actually interested in fixing problems, but making the other team look bad is a very close second goal. They want to crown themselves morally superior, so reaching compromise isn't enough. They need to mock and shame their opponents.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

all of these other things are intrinsically useful/enjoyable/beneficial/even essential to life. So the benefits from these other activities are huge.

I'll try to remember that when I'm eating venison (pot roast, chilli, or stew), rabbit, bacon wrapped dove breast, or squirrel stew.

It used to be years ago it was okay to give freshly killed game to needy families but the do-gooders put an end to that practice. Better those families make do on what their government subsidence provides rather than have a healthy meal that includes a protein that is consumed consumed by thousands of people annually without issue.

 

[shira]

Ahh, here comes the name calling and more lies. There are plenty of documented stories where someone defended their homes from "imaginary bad people". Guns can also be "useful/enjoyable/beneficial", but good try!

If you use moronic arguments, expect to be called a moron.

I agree with you, there are plenty of documented stories where someone defined their homes from "imaginary bad people." In fact, almost all of the tens of millions of people who justify keeping guns in their homes for "self defense" are in fact defending their homes from "imaginary bad people" every single day, year in and year out.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/lib.../protect-children-not-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide and accidental death.
• A gun in the home makes the likelihood of homicide three times higher, suicide three to five times
higher, and accidental death four times higher. For every time a gun in the home injures or kills in selfdefense,
there are 11 completed and attempted gun suicides, seven criminal assaults and homicides
with a gun, and four unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.

Think about that. Even ignoring suicides and homicides, you're four times as likely to unintentionally injure or kill someone as to successfully defend yourself with a gun in your home.

Are you a betting man? You like those odds?

 

[BoberFett]

Wow, you righties are big on false equivalence.

People die eating food. Thousands die in car crashes. Hundreds die drowning in swimming pools or while riding bicycles or engaging in other, normal behaviors of life.

The difference, all you morons, is that all of these other things are intrinsically useful/enjoyable/beneficial/even essential to life. So the benefits from these other activities are huge.

But the benefit of keeping a gun in the home? Oh, gee, I FEEL safer. I can THEORETICALLY defend my family against imaginary bad people. Hundreds of people are injured or killed by CHILDREN with guns they should never have been able to get ahold of, except for irresponsible parents keeping unsecured guns in the home, guns for "defense" of the family. And I haven't even added in the thousands of friends and family members killed by guns in the home each year, shot by adults.

Why should I feel surprised, though? The people who compare gun deaths to deaths in traffic accidents or in swimming pools or from choking accidents are the same people who think the benefits of voter-ID laws outweigh the losses.

In a free society, why do you get to tell me what is and is not essential?

Your claim that people use poisonous cleaning products every week holds no water. The government could start a Department of Home Cleaning that goes out to every home and cleans it, ensuring that only authorized government personnel ever come into contact with cleaning solutions. Training, proper handling, all the forms and procedures that make bureaucracy great could be put in place to ensure no youngster ever encounters a cleaning product in the home. It would be a utopia.

Nobody actually needs to drive either. Government could ban private ownership of cars tomorrow and save lives. Only government approved drivers would be allowed on roads. The Department of Transportation already exists, let's put it to work. Only government buses and taxis exist, and fatalities plummet.

You're a typical modern "liberal" in that you believe it's your place to determine what individuals are and are not allowed to choose. Despite your insistence that it's the right who are a bunch of fascists, it's you wants to control what everyone else does, says, and thinks until it matches your approved world view. Once everyone is you, the world will be perfect. 🙄

Sorry, but I'm not interested in trading right-wing authoritarianism for left-wing authoritarianism. God what I wouldn't give for "liberals" to revert to the anti-enstablishment liberals of old.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well then, I can take the attitude that seeing as if these accidental (negligent) deaths to children by firearms are, for the most part limited to those dead children's parents who own and vehemently defend their right to possess their firearms, it's a problem that gun owners themselves should solve.

But seeing as if the solution to the problem for the most part necessitates that gun owners actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, I assume, and quite honestly so, that a solution will never be forwarded for fear that the horrifyingly HORRIBLE slippery slope monster will come-a-calling.

I can thus assume then that gun owners feel that having their own children getting shot by their firearms is at best a chance they're willing to take, or at worst that's it's also OK that other folk's children get killed by their firearms so long as none of their own children and firearms are involved. That's a pretty slick way of having your cake and eating it too.

What, car accidents take lives of children too? How many of them are committed by eight or ten year olds running over other children of their age group? Or stabbings? Point being, we can control these negligently caused deaths because children are much more controllable than adults. But we also need to get a grip on those parent's negligence, which to me is the direct cause of those deaths.

And the direct cause of this lack of control over the negligence of parents are the gun owners themselves who resist ANY method that in their view, impedes their access to firearms, no matter what the deadly consequences are.

Gun owners obviously own this problem. It's on them to solve it, so I guess nothing will ever get done.

Say it ain't so. 😉

 

[Newell Steamer]

If only those children were armed,...

 

[shira]

Well then, I can take the attitude that seeing as if these accidental (negligent) deaths to children by firearms are, for the most part limited to those dead children's parents who own and vehemently defend their right to possess their firearms, it's a problem that gun owners themselves should solve.

But seeing as if the solution to the problem for the most part necessitates that gun owners actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, I assume, and quite honestly so, that a solution will never be forwarded for fear that the horrifyingly HORRIBLE slippery slope monster will come-a-calling.

I can thus assume then that gun owners feel that having their own children getting shot by their firearms is at best a chance they're willing to take, or at worst that's it's also OK that other folk's children get killed by their firearms so long as none of their own children and firearms are involved. That's a pretty slick way of having your cake and eating it too.

What, car accidents take lives of children too? How many of them are committed by eight or ten year olds running over other children of their age group? Or stabbings? Point being, we can control these negligently caused deaths because children are much more controllable than adults. But we also need to get a grip on those parent's negligence, which to me is the direct cause of those deaths.

And the direct cause of this lack of control over the negligence of parents are the gun owners themselves who resist ANY method that in their view, impedes their access to firearms, no matter what the deadly consequences are.

Gun owners obviously own this problem. It's on them to solve it, so I guess nothing will ever get done.

Say it ain't so. 😉

It's called "being a good citizen." Publicizing the dangers of keeping a gun in the home WILL raise the awareness of at least some gun owners, and maybe save a few lives.

But sometimes I wonder if not giving them any information at all might be a more efficient approach. Unfortunately, natural selection takes a long time, and my progeny won't have to patience to wait a million years for gun-owner proclivities to naturally get wiped out of the gene pool.

 

[theeedude]

How many kids were defended from being shot by a parent with a gun? I am really curious.

 

[shira]

How many kids were defended from being shot by a parent with a gun? I am really curious.

Kind of like

"We have guns in our home for self-defense; because we need to defend ourselves against each other."

 

[glenn1]

Kind of like

"We have guns in our home for self-defense; because we need to defend ourselves against each other."

Or maybe we just have them because they frighten you and that's good enough.

 

[shira]

In a free society, why do you get to tell me what is and is not essential?

Your claim that people use poisonous cleaning products every week holds no water. The government could start a Department of Home Cleaning that goes out to every home and cleans it, ensuring that only authorized government personnel ever come into contact with cleaning solutions. Training, proper handling, all the forms and procedures that make bureaucracy great could be put in place to ensure no youngster ever encounters a cleaning product in the home. It would be a utopia.

Nobody actually needs to drive either. Government could ban private ownership of cars tomorrow and save lives. Only government approved drivers would be allowed on roads. The Department of Transportation already exists, let's put it to work. Only government buses and taxis exist, and fatalities plummet.

You're a typical modern "liberal" in that you believe it's your place to determine what individuals are and are not allowed to choose. Despite your insistence that it's the right who are a bunch of fascists, it's you wants to control what everyone else does, says, and thinks until it matches your approved world view. Once everyone is you, the world will be perfect. 🙄

Sorry, but I'm not interested in trading right-wing authoritarianism for left-wing authoritarianism. God what I wouldn't give for "liberals" to revert to the anti-enstablishment liberals of old.

Clearly ammonia and chlorine are harmless:

WARNING: Never mix ammonia with bleach. This causes the release of toxic chlorine gas, which can be deadly.

And clearly dishwashing detergents are harmless:

Consumer Reports is urging that households where children younger than 6 years old live or visit avoid liquid detergent pods, warning that the youngsters may mistake them for candy or toys and bite them or otherwise become exposed to the chemicals inside.

"When curious kids find their way into regular liquid laundry detergent, the result is often nothing worse than an upset stomach. Laundry detergent pods are presenting more serious symptoms. Along with vomiting, lethargy, and delirium, some victims have stopped breathing," the non-profit group said.
Since the products went on the market in 2012, there have been growing reports of children being sickened after being exposed to the highly concentrated detergent inside the packets. Many of those children were hospitalized and some needed to be intubated. Two children died.

"The product is a convenient, often effective way to do the laundry -- and it's a serious health hazard for young children," Consumer Reports wrote in announcing its recommendation.

Last year, 11,714 reports of incidents involving kids aged 5 and younger and laundry detergent pods were reported to poison control centers nationwide. In the first six months of this year, there were more than 6,000.

That was based on a two-minute web search. I'm sure I can find many other household cleaners that are totally harmless.

But you have your outrage and certainty. Who needs facts?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, those racist Canadians are always trying to keep the poors down and make them jump through hoops for their rights. They don't even protect their rights with a Constitution up there, so they must be really, really racist.

Did you bother to read what we allow as id for voting? Last week I used a personal cheque and my hydro bill as id to advance vote in our federal election. No fuss, no muss, no bother. I was in and out in less than 5 minutes. No need for 'official' or picture id.

And I'm guessing that's supposed to be a joke re Canada's constitution?

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html

 

[Genx87]

That is it, we need to regulate cleaning supplies now. If it can just save one kid it is worth not having clean clothes.

 

[Ackmed]

If you use moronic arguments, expect to be called a moron.

I agree with you, there are plenty of documented stories where someone defined their homes from "imaginary bad people." In fact, almost all of the tens of millions of people who justify keeping guns in their homes for "self defense" are in fact defending their homes from "imaginary bad people" every single day, year in and year out.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/lib.../protect-children-not-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf

Think about that. Even ignoring suicides and homicides, you're four times as likely to unintentionally injure or kill someone as to successfully defend yourself with a gun in your home.

Are you a betting man? You like those odds?

What was my moronic argument? You really think you're is good? Really? Even so, lowering yourself to name calling will have you fitting right in here. Another gold star for you today, you're really doing well!

Four times as likely to kill "someone"? Your link shows children, not "someone". I have a zero chance of killing someone unintentionally because mine are all locked up. Even when I leave them in my vehicle, all locked up. None of my kids or other guests can get to a gun in my house, or my vehicles. I have taken numerous classes, and some very high end classes on how to operate a weapon. All different types, concealed and not. I have been trained by military and other government agencies how to do so. I'm very confident in my abilities to handle my weapons. Confident, but not arrogant or careless. That is where trouble starts.

So yeah, I'll take those odd. Odds have been in my favor for a long time.

 

[DrPizza]

Wow, you righties are big on false equivalence.

People die eating food. Thousands die in car crashes. Hundreds die drowning in swimming pools or while riding bicycles or engaging in other, normal behaviors of life.

The difference, all you morons, is that all of these other things are intrinsically useful/enjoyable/beneficial/even essential to life. So the benefits from these other activities are huge.

But the benefit of keeping a gun in the home? Oh, gee, I FEEL safer.

See my previous post.

Now, Fuck you.
(And now, use the forum search tool to see how many posters I've said that to in the past decade plus.)

My advice above was not to piss off the other side and create a complete divide. Find some common ground. But your suggestion that swimming pools are more "intrinsically useful/enjoyable/beneficial/even essential to life than guns?" Fuck you. VERY few people in this area of the country own swimming pools. Schools, even businesses in the area close for the first day of hunting season - in many parts of Pennsylvania, it's treated like a holiday. In your overzealous efforts to stereotype gun owners, you're demonstrating a huge amount of ignorance. My sons, my friends, and hundreds of people I know, spend far more time engaged in hunting activities and shooting related sports in a year, than time spent on swimming in a decade. In our local high school, the number of kids on the trap team (shoot shotguns at moving targets) greatly outnumbers the kids on the swim team - and many on the swim team are ALSO on the trap team. You don't enjoy shooting a gun? Who gives a shit. You think that your lack of enjoyment is a point of argument to say that owning and shooting guns isn't found to be enjoyable for a very significant number of adults (and youth)? That's horrible reasoning.

Beneficial? I've wondered if the insurance companies have been giving bribes to someone in the DEC to help keep deer numbers slightly lower than I think the land can support. Without hunting, there would be a lot of ecological problems, given the lack of predators. Certainly there would be a lot more vehicle/deer interactions. And, hunting provides a lot of meat - venison is generally considered healthier than beef. Licensing fees, etc., go to support maintaining a lot of public lands for the enjoyment of everyone, not just hunters. Essential? I don't think you can truly make that claim about anything other than food, water, shelter. But, as an experiment, you go 1 month without anything but a car, bike, and swimming pool, I go 1 month with just a gun, and I think I'm going to eat a heck of a lot better - unless you sell the car to buy food. (And, I'll still probably eat better.)


P.s., I really don't mean the first 2 words to you - I'm just trying to make a point. You're generally a respectible poster on a variety of topics, but your approach on this particular topic is confrontational and antagonistic. Again - it should be a requirement that's enforced that gun owners, with children present, should have their firearms securely locked.

 

[NesuD]

Don't go using logic. It's not going to work.

I read his post there is no danger of logic there.

 

[Venix]

Clearly ammonia and chlorine are harmless:



And clearly dishwashing detergents are harmless:



That was based on a two-minute web search. I'm sure I can find many other household cleaners that are totally harmless.

But you have your outrage and certainty. Who needs facts?

Do you just read the first sentence of every post and skip over the rest? He obviously knows that household cleaning products are poisonous. That's basically the entire premise of his post.

I will attempt to explain: You dismissed the high number of poisoning deaths as unavoidable because of how often cleaning chemicals are used in the average household. BoberFett retorted by explaining that we could easily ban poisonous chemicals for private use and create a Department of Home Cleaning to manage these dangerous substances. This would save children's lives by almost completely eliminating poisoning deaths. I don't understand how someone could read his post and come to the conclusion that he thinks household cleaners aren't poisonous.

Your thread title is still wrong. Please fix it. Your data source is not a list of "accidental shootings by children in the home."

 

[shira]

What was my moronic argument? You really think you're is good? Really? Even so, lowering yourself to name calling will have you fitting right in here. Another gold star for you today, you're really doing well!

Four times as likely to kill "someone"? Your link shows children, not "someone". I have a zero chance of killing someone unintentionally because mine are all locked up. Even when I leave them in my vehicle, all locked up. None of my kids or other guests can get to a gun in my house, or my vehicles. I have taken numerous classes, and some very high end classes on how to operate a weapon. All different types, concealed and not. I have been trained by military and other government agencies how to do so. I'm very confident in my abilities to handle my weapons. Confident, but not arrogant or careless. That is where trouble starts.

So yeah, I'll take those odd. Odds have been in my favor for a long time.

Oh, I see, if the odds were four to one that one of your children would be unintentionally be injured or killed by one or your guns, THAT would make a difference. But if it's just four to one you might unintentionally injure or kill ANY member of your family with a gun in the home, then let's call the whole thing off?

Is that what you're arguing?

See, it's because of arguments like that that I would refer to you as a moron. Any NON-moron would understand that although the OP specifically talks about accidental shooting deaths by children, the overall issue is guns in the home for "self defense" (and they wouldn't state "I enjoy target shooting" as a counter-argument, because that's specifically NOT a "self defense" justification for keeping a gun in the home, and non-morons know how to keep their subjects straight). Just as any non-moron wouldn't compare deaths from home swimming-pool accidents or while driving a car (inherently beneficial activities) with accidental deaths caused by guns in the home kept there for "self defense." Because non-morons understand the concept of "cost" and "benefit," and that the losses suffered by engaging in highly beneficial activities are not remotely comparable to the losses suffered while defending oneself against ghosts.