richard-795963:

How about you tell me everything you know about the NRA's gun safety programs. If you can't come up with anything, then you obviously haven't done any research on the subject.

Gun safety, including owning firearms in homes where there are children, is very much a concern of the NRA.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/29/da_considers_charges_in_shooting_death_of_boy_at_gun_show/

OK hmd, why don't you check that link out where an 8 year old boy shot himself in the head with a fully automatic UZI at an NRA sanctioned event?????

And just to put the icing on the cake the NRA member father of the boy is suing the gun show promoters.

I repeat emphatically "NRA mentality is killing children"

24,000 deaths over 8 years is 3000 deaths per year. About 65,000 kids are killed each year by drunk drivers. Why don't we just make it illegal to drink alcohol in this country and we could save the lives of 65,000 kids each year? Seems like we are wasting our time with gun control when alcohol is a bigger problem.

(Yes, obviously I'm being sarcastic in a sense. I know another prohibition won't stop drinking and driving. I'm just trying to intentionally sound as dumb as those who think that making it illegal to own guns will some how solve a problem. Gun saftey is about training not abolishing, same with alcohol which I stand by saying is a bigger and far more dangerous problem)

O.K. That was inexcusably stupid and careless. I won't argue that. However, that was ONE incident.

If, as you write, the NRA mentality is killing children, the number of children killed by the millions of gun owners in this country would be astronomically higher.

Usually I avoid trolls, but because it's the first post on this article, .... one point of clarity:

The NRA and its members lead this nation in gun safety programs designed for people of all ages. Anybody who disputes this fact is uninformed, by choice or otherwise.

"About 65,000 kids are killed each year by drunk drivers" Do you deliberatly missate "facts", or just make them up? Out of approximately 32,000 TOTAL motor vehicle deaths annually in the US, 65,000 are kids killed by drunk drivers????????

More BS from anti-gun MSNBC and AP.

"Children 19 and under". What a pant-load. Get a clue: 18 is adulthood!

Guns are inanimate objects.

Check and see how many children (younger than 18) were killed on the roads between 1999 and 2006.

Meanwhile:

ACCIDENT

PERCENT

(1) Motor vehicle (MVA)
37.5%

(2) Poisoning
19.5%

(3) Falls
16.3%

(4) Drowning
3.0%

(5) Fires, Burns,Smoke
2.6%

(6) Medical/Surgical Complication
2.2%

(7) Forces of nature
1.8%

(8) Firearms discharge
0.7%

Other (transport)
2.6%

Other (nontransport)
13.9%

I would like info on suburban areas?? How many kids have died in sub-urban schools due to school shootings??? IMO it seems that most kids killed in mass shootings is in suburban areas. So, where guns are more likely people know better than to do a mass shooting.

As far as the NRA, they are the ones that do the MOST training for concealed weapons permits, hunter's education, gun safety, and they are the ones that lobbied to have it illegal for convicted felon's to have any firearm. Who can you say that the NRA is killing kids. The father of the kid that pulled the tigger and the dumbass who had a LOADED Uzi at a gun show is a freaking IDIOT. I am sorry for your loss but you have to also aim your anger at the right person who was dumb not at everyone. Thats like being mad at a race of people bc someone of that race stole your car.

So they kill themselves...What's the problem one less gun nut

The article states: "Not surprisingly, murders involving firearms are more common among city youth."

It is a sad indictment of American society that it is not surprising that youths anywhere in the USA use firearms or any other weapon to commit murder.

About 65,000 kids are killed each year by drunk drivers. Why don't we just make it illegal to drink alcohol in this country and we could save the lives of 65,000 kids each year? Seems like we are wasting our time with gun control when alcohol is a bigger problem.

It wasn't the alcohol that killed those kids. It was the drunk driver that used a car to kill. Just as a speeding can kill after being in a high speed chase. Are we supposed to eliminate law enforcement, or high speed chases, or cars?

Why don't we just make it illegal to drive cars and it would save 65,000 kids each year.

"This debunks the myth that firearm death is a big-city problem," said lead author Dr. Michael Nance of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "This is everybody's problem."

Wow, "this is everybody's problem" sounds like a statement coming from the Department of Health, or someone on the Administration. The below link provides the TOP 10 CAUSES FOR CHILDREN'S DEATHS. So, I suppose Dr. Nance could conclude that:

• "ALL THE TOP 10 CAUSES FOR CHILDREN'S DEATHS ARE EVERY-BODY'S PROBLEM."

And here are the TOP 10 causes for Children's deaths:

1. Car accidents
2. Drownings
3. Fires
4. Running in front of a car
5. Bicycle accidents
6. Poisonings
7. Falls
8. Suicides
9. Sudden infant death syndrome
10. Birth defects

Source: http://www.qualityhealth.com/childrens-health-and-parenting-articles/common-causes-death-children

This Associated Press Article was probably a direct feed from this Administration and is probably a precursor to this Administrations attempt to draft more comprehensive firearms legislation. Guess the Administration has to draft comprehensive legislation on the TOP 10 REASONS for Children's deaths as well. So where is the research paper on what is killing adults.

Many people are missing the real point to this article. The data includes 18 & 19 y.o. in the group of "children" for a specific reason. Typically 18 & 19 y.o. would be included in the group of "young adults" instead of children. But if the doctor was to compare young adults in urban vs. rural settings, there would be a very definite disparity in the percentage of homicides as compared to accidents/suicides. Just as there would be a significant difference in the children of both settings.

Since there is a spike in the number of gun homicides in urban settings in the young adults that far outpace the rural fatalgun accidents of young adults, the doctors wouldn't want to present that data. Instead, the data for the 18-19 y.o. was "borrowed" to aid in elevating the children's data. Without the regrouping of the data the numbers would have been significantly skewed. Add to this that the doctor did NOT include the number of gunshot injuries where the victim survived. Had that data been included, it would have greatly changed the picture and the percentages of the urban vs rural scenarios.

If the data for survivable and deadly gunshot injuries, as well as the normal age groupings, were included and compared, the doctor would not have been able to support his position. The doctor seems to have a definite agenda.

Education is always the answer, not prohibition. Afterall, the only reason there are accidental deaths are because people don't know how to use guns responsibly. Sure people get a hold of them and intentionally do bad things, but you can blame society as a whole because of a few bad apples. And I'm sure any responsible gun owner has this same philosophy when it comes to drugs too. Right? Afterall, drugs don't kill people, people kill people. That's why so many NRA members are in favor of legalizing drugs. It's all about personal freedom and teaching citizens how to be responsible for their own decisions.

Gee, if only all gun owners were as responsible as you there Jim...unfortunately most aren't. Most would think that keeping their guns unloaded in a gun safe with trigger locks on them is an impediment to their constitutional right. Well, impediment or not, that would certainly cut down on all those unfortunate accidents when children 'play' with guns they should never have had access to.

Jeff-1667763:

You write as though you or someone else has surveyed "most" gun owners in this country to determine how they handle and store their guns and then made the results publicly available and that you've read and understand the results as published. Is that the case?

Gee, if only all gun owners were as responsible as you there Jim...unfortunately most aren't. Most would think that keeping their guns unloaded in a gun safe with trigger locks on them is an impediment to their constitutional right.

Ah, I see we have here a typical anti-2nd Amendment type argument - Broad generalizations based on emotion and personal bias and backed by absolutely zero factual content.

On a somewhat related note - the FBI has announced the violent crime rate in the United States dropped once again in 2009, making it three years in a row the rate has decreased.

How could that be possible? I mean, with the increase in private firearm ownership and concealed carry licenses issued shouldn't the streets be running with the blood of the innocent and shouldn't that violent crime rate be skyrocketing?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37313771/ns/politics/

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/index.html

Gee, I wonder where Jim lives? There is nothing 'left-wing' about caring about children dying needlessly of gun shots. Does he use various media for his news?

I think he does not or he refuses to see the problem before all our noses.

I live in an isolated, rural county. People die here from gunshots all the time. Most are 'accidental' a few are intentional. Not long ago, a doctor was shot while driving on a state highway during gun deer season. A 'hunter' pointed a high-powered rifle in the direction of the highway and fired. He has never been apprehended.

Even more to the point as well as recent, a 14 year old boy blew his head off removing a shot gun from a gun cabinet. His father was standing right next to him. They are examples of Jeff's comment. Most shooters around here keep their guns loaded--all the time, even in their trucks. They will tell you 'what good is a gun if it's not loaded?' Never mind that kids have access to those loaded guns.

You write as though you or someone else has surveyed "most" gun owners in this country to determine how they handle and store their guns

Uhh hmd, this very article is un-arguable empirical evidence that all your rhetoric about crime prevention is moot as just as many kids are killed in rural areas by irresponsible gun ownership.

richard-795963:

Your statement makes no sense. I never said anything about crime prevention. Are you sure you're responding to my post or something else?

How about doing some interpretation of the numbers in the article. Make sure you don't leap to any conclusions in doing so. If you stick with that criteria, you'll see that all the article is saying is that about as many children in cities are killed by a combination of illegal use, carelessness, and insecure storage of firearms as are children in rural areas.

The article is slanted. I don't know any "kids" eighteen or nineteen years old. By definition they are adults. So why did they get tagged as "children", or as tagged above, "kids"?

Jeff-1667763
Gee, if only all gun owners were as responsible as you there Jim...unfortunately most aren't.

Really? And this tidbit of information is based on...........?

Jim: People are not socialists if the do research that finds that gun deaths per 100,000 of the population (childhood) is about the same in rural and urban regions of the country. The researches said their findings suggests that there needs to be attention given to gun safey in rural areas. That makes sense to me. Jim, socialism is an economic system and it does not have anything to do with public health research. As to the list of causes of deaths among children please consider that any cause of death of a child that is preventable is a cause of concern. You see we don't just research the worst cause and ignore all the other reasons. Understanding the children die from suicide and accidents and homicides from firearms is very important. The NRA can use that research to refine and improve their safety programs, such as the Eddy Eagle program, which was a great safety program for children and parents. Be assured that other groups are studing child deaths on playground equipment, car accidents, drowning and so on. Just because a group discusses/researches firearm deaths does not make them socialists, liberal media or any of the other charges you laid out. It means they are doing their job and that they are concerned about the safety of children everywhere. We should welcome their input and learn from it. It is not a personal attack Jim. Oh, by the way, I am not a socialist either, even though I voted for President Obama, and I will vote for him again. I am a Life Member of the NRA and I have been shooting rifles since the age of 6.

Benny, This article presents findings from a flawed study reaching conclusions that are then suspect. The study period was limited to eight years. No trend analysis over a period of twenty years to forty years. The study included adult age citizens and called them kids. We the readers cannot begin to credibly comment on the findings because there is no data presented.

What does the historical empirical data show? Is there an increase in rural gun deaths per 100,000? If so, does it correlate to an increase in illegal drug distribution? There are many, many more questions that should be asked.

In this case I must second the thought that the article appears to support a socialist anti gun agenda. Yes, socialism is an economic system. But economics touches almost every aspect of our life. I have heard many times from the center left how guns negatively affect our economy and therefore needs to and should be more controlled and/or eliminated).

this very article is un-arguable empirical evidence that all your rhetoric about crime prevention is moot as just as many kids are killed in rural areas by irresponsible gun ownership.

That is not what the article said. The article stated that the percentages of rural and urban deaths were similar - about 4 deaths per 100,000 children.

But what this really tells me is that there are people who have "cherry picked" data to present credible support for their agenda.

I don't think the AP has a pronounced stance on any of that.

Hmm.

I am trying really hard, but I cannot recall a single pro-Second Amendment article from AP.

Or MSNBC, for that matter.

Maybe someone can enlighten us?

Ghost rat, they can’t do that because the statistics won’t show the way they want them to.

I too would like to see the results of a study like this one where they excluded 17-19 year olds from being included as "children". You're right about the 18-19 year olds not being children, they can even vote, but I think 17 year olds aren't really children either.

Not for this purpose since they have to have adult hunting licenses over 16 right?

"Children" nineteen and younger are taking the fight to our enemies in foreign countries at this very moment.

Ghost Rat -

As my statistics professor told us "Figures don't lie but Liars do figure." People can use data to paint any picture they want.

Children have to start paying "adult" prices at the ripe old age of 12. They are not of majority age until reaching 18. In certain legal situations they can be held accountable at 13-14. The only time 19 is considered to be a "child" is the purchase of alcohol and in some states tobacco.

I did some digging: check out this page from the government:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

You're 3-4 times as likely to die in a car.

Even better:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleAllVictims.aspx

Broken down by age.

let's ban cars/trucks and save 50,000 people each year

Wow, only a half page down for that absurd argument to raise it's head.

Let's ban water too, because people drown. The issue is INTENTIONAL homicide/suicide.

The issue is INTENTIONAL homicide

Which, according to the FBI, decreased 7.2% over the course of last year. An impossibility according to the logic of the anti-gun campaign because more guns must equal more crime.

Unfortunately if someone is going to commit suicide they will do it weather they have a gun or not

Source???

Source???

Why don't you ask the Chinese who are leaping to their deaths in the workplace:

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100524/another-foxconn-employee-jumps-his-death-id-10114428.html

Richard

Suicide by:Males (%)Females (%)

Firearms
56
31

Suffocation
23
19

Poisoning
13
40

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml

Here is the link.

Guess even without guns, people will find a way when suicide is involved. Suicide is a mental issue, not a gun control issue.

Johnny, not to mention the easiest way to commit suicide: overdose (may fall under poisoning). All you need to do is swallow a lot of aspirin. If you have aspirin or other medication: overdose. There was a guy like 20 years ago who tried to kill himself by drinking a mixture of chemicals (toilet cleaner, ajax, house cleaner, etc.).

Looks like Richard abandoned his post!

Per the FBI stats, there are over 16,500 HOMICIDES EVERY YEAR in the United States and GUESS where MOST of them take place? In the CITIES!

Not surprisingly, murders involving firearms are more common among city youth. But gun suicides and accidental fatal shootings level the score: They are more common among rural children.

Did you even READ the article speedy, your ranting is pointless as it states clearly in the article more murders are committed in urban areas.

Didja read the title of the article, Richard??

Where Is The NRA And No Comments From Them ? Hmmm. Also Where Are The Spine Less Lawmakers. Counting The NRA's Donation.

Where is the Brady campaign? No comments from them regarding the fact that allowing private firearm ownership and concealed carry licensing is not resulting in a skyrocketing violent crime rate?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37313771/ns/politics/

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/index.html

The NRA is already doing what it can by leading this nation in gun safety programs. While everybody else is making "comments", the NRA is actually doing something.

Guns do not kill children.

Exactly, children get a hold of a gun and shoot themselves or another child to death but it's the BULLETS fault!!!

Nor does the Constitution or the USSC.

Of course, reality is always troublesome to the wishfully-thinking liberal/neo-Socialists.

What part of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" do the gun nuts and NRA not understand? You guys love to leave that part out of the 2nd amendment. Why did they preface it with a reference to militias if what they really meant is that every moron with a GED should be able to walk around with enough firepower to take out a small city?

But then again, since you people are more likely to kill yourselves or your family members with your firearms, I say have all the fire power you want and the thinking people will just sit back and let natural selection take its course.

What part of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" do the gun nuts and NRA not understand? You guys love to leave that part out of the 2nd amendment. Why did they preface it with a reference to militias if what they really meant is that every moron with a GED should be able to walk around with enough firepower to take out a small city?

I am pretty sure that the SCOTUS disagrees with your point of view and I am pretty sure they have a little more authority than someone ranting on newsvine.

Suzanne in Miami
What part of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" do the gun nuts and NRA not understand? You guys love to leave that part out of the 2nd amendment. ?

Good question.

Here's the answer: In the times when this was written, "regulate" meant 'well-timed'.

That's why there are so many old-fashioned clocks that say "regulator" on them.

Now a question for you:

Why do you ignore the second part of the statement? You know...that bit about "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"???

Here's something else to chew on:

Guns have been a part of the American way of life since the beginning. Remember, the shooting started that day in April when the Colonists sought to prevent the British from....wait for it....

confiscating guns!

So you agree that accidental gun handling kills people each year? Then why the hell isn't it mandatory for you idiots to lock your damn guns up so kids can't get to them? Even one kid dying a year isn't worth the risk of you leaving your gun loaded where they can get to it. It ought to be part of the damn permit process that you have a safe place to keep it and if you are caught without it locked up you should lose your permit. That or your kids, cause obviously you're a terrible parent if you leave loaded guns laying around.

Jeff-1667763
So you agree that accidental gun handling kills people each year? Then why the hell isn't it mandatory for you idiots to lock your damn guns up so kids can't get to them?

I agree that the misuse of many things causes harm.

If you really cared about human life, you'd be bitching about the 43,000 needless deaths every year on the roads.

And cars aren't even supposed to be harmful!

Oh, Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.

Look how well that's working!

I say you're a terrible parent if you buy your kid a car.

Jeff 1667763:

Still trying to read around that foot in your mouth I see.

Your position puts a value on a child's life that is beyond what our society does. If society took your position, the first time a child was electrocuted, we'd have outlawed electricity. But we didn't because the benefits of using electricity outweigh the value of one child's life. The same goes for cars, bath tubs, swimming pools, balconies, etc., etc., and so forth and so on.

The reality is our society is willing to sacrifice the lives of some of our people, children, adults, seniors, for convenience.

About the only thing you've written here with which I can agree is that when a gun is not in use it should be kept in such a way that persons who should not handle firearms, children included, cannot access them. That I won't argue. I wil add, however, that if this were not being done on a very large scale, the child death rate from accidental firearm discharge would be astronomically higher than it is today and increasing exponentially. But it's decreasing, largely through the efforts of the NRA.

Then why the hell isn't it mandatory for you idiots to lock your damn guns up so kids can't get to them?

For the same reasons that they don't lock up hospitals, health care, bath tubs, and cars.

But those urban hunters never have accidents in the rural areas. I'm sure all of the reported incidents in the rural areas were the local residents. Any incident involving an urbanite would have waited until he returned to the city before seeking attention and reporting the incident.

Surely a medical doctor is qualified as a statistician since he/she is required to report gunshot wounds. I'm sure their frustration with dealing with the treatments had nothing to do with this report.

Perhaps freedom is an ideal they are unable to truly fathom... and live up to. Ideals can be difficult for some folks.

"Liberals want gun ownership abolished". That doesn't stand to reason, JGM. How about responsible gun ownership instead of any doofus with a couple of bucks buying an AK47?

I'm no liberal and I can't see the harm in having the same requirements for gun ownership as for a drivers license.

There's no Constitutional right to a car.

If you were really a Marine, you'd know that.

What a great idea! Really.

I agree, but uninformed parents can't teach their kids. It wouldn't hurt to teach them something important like this TWICE.

Even if their parents are buffoons who ride around with "you'll have to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" bumper stickers. Maybe they could seek parenting help from Sarah Palin on how to get your skank daughter a $30,000.00 a year gig telling other kids not to get off like she does.

What does that have to do with gun safety? As far as I know, Sarah Palin has been pretty much on top of teaching gun safety to her kids (at least I hope so).

Sunnybunny let's just hope for the sake of Sarah Palin's kids that she teaches them gun safety better than she taught them about contraception.

I would bet that most nail gun owners are more careful with a loaded nail gun than many gun owners are with a real gun

unchained

That would be a bet that you would lose. Your are watching to many cartoons and have gotten them confused with reality.

Lets' see - what's the statistics? I wonder how many people walk the streets with a loaded nail gun in their belt, compared with the number who carry loaded pistols? Where would I find that information, so I can learn who wins the bet?