http://kidshootings.blogspot.com
I am one of the co-authors on this new blog, which focuses on the widespread problem of children killed and injured by gunfire or getting their hands on guns without permission or adequate supervision.
Somewhere around 3,184 minors are killed each year, according to the most recent data available (2006), and another 17,451 or so are injured.
This means one young life lost every two hours and 45 minutes, almost nine every day, 61 every week.
Of these deaths, 2,225 were homicides, 763 were suicides and 196 were due to an accident or undetermined circumstances. Boys accounted for 2,815 of the deaths; girls for 369 deaths. More than five times as many children and teens,17,451, suffered non-fatal gun injuries.
But statistics hardly do justice for the victims. "Kid Shootings" was created to give a human face to the tragedies, to illustrate the widespread nature of the problem, and to dispel myths about children and guns which are perpetuated by the pro-gun side.
Peace, and Happy New Year's.
It appears that this blog is using "children and teens"--does that mean you are following the standard practice of counting 18 and 19 year old gang members and criminals?
ReplyDeleteThe blog is only for highlighting cases 17 and under. Whether they are gang members or criminals, or not, they can be reported on there.
ReplyDeleteWe will be reporting any and all cases we can find articles for and make time to post, so we'll see how many kid shootings are actually linked to gang activity or crime. It's actually a question I hope to answer.
What myths do you propose to dispel?
ReplyDeleteAre these the myths you're referring to?
ReplyDelete@ Guav: One myth: kids who have gun accidents or who in some other way mishandle guns simply didn't have good training in gun safety, should have been taken out to the shooting range more often, or should have been allowed more access to guns.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases this sort of training can help, but it won't stop the accidents. Case in point, yesterday a boy accidentally shot his brother to death. They and their family LIVED on the grounds of a gun club, where they were caretakers. You would be hard-pressed to find a better case of a child immersed in gun culture. And yet, tragedy still happened.
http://kidshootings.blogspot.com/2012/01/boy-living-at-gun-club-accidentally.html
Guns and kids don't mix, but if a gun must be present in the home, it should be stored out of reach, locked, and unloaded, with the ammo stored separately.
Interesting statistics.
ReplyDelete"Of these deaths, 2,225 were homicides, 763 were suicides and 196 were due to an accident or undetermined circumstances."
The overwhelming majority of these are homicides. Are there that many kid-killers around? Also, the overwhelming majority of these are males.
If I ever get the money I plan on bankrolling a detailed study of gun use incidents. Exactly what percentage of these youth homicides by firearms are by gangbangers?
And about the gun club kid shooting - the kid broke all four rules in the stupidest way possible.
Did you see the story about the Navy SEAL who did the exact same thing to himself? He pointed a loaded gun at his head and pulled the trigger, because he thought it was empty. And that man most certainly qualifies as "highly trained" - but no amount of training can overcome the amazing powers of a fool or an idiot.
Are you going to now start demanding SEALs not be given guns? I'm sure you won't since you are enamored with the power of the state and logical consistency is not one of your strengths.
@ Hank: One goal of the Kid Shootings blog is to explore the issues you bring up. Why so many homicides? Why so many males? When you look at the individual cases instead of just statistics, what patterns emerge? We post any and all timely articles regarding shootings of and by children, so hopefully it will enlighten all of us.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Ogg case, at the gun club, I agree. Obvious lack of following the four rules. And yet, among children around guns, this child more than most should have been careful, given that his family lived on and took care of a gun club. My point is that accidents still happen, particularly among children, as the Kid Shootings page is already illustrating (and not much among Navy Seals, I conjecture).
Although other teens are responsible for many of the homicides of teens below age 18, two-thirds of the murderers are eighteen or older.4 Gang involvement has been associated with many teen murders; in 2002, nearly three-quarters of homicides of teens were attributed to gang violence.5
ReplyDeletehttp://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/319
Get rid of gangs and you can reduce teen homicides by 75% -- without interfering with anyone else.
--------------------------------------------
Major Risk Factors
* Youth active in drug and gang activity, with prior histories of early school failure, delinquency and violence.
* Easy availability of and access to firearms.
* Youth living in neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, social isolation and family violence.
* Youth with little or no adult supervision.
* Prior witnessing of violence
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesHF.htm
Early School Failures -- Hey teach the parents to actually teach their kids before they go to school and you'll have less of a problem.
Poverty, social isolation and family violence -- solve those problems and how much will homicides be reduced by?
The issue has already been studied Baldr. Maybe if you researched the issue instead of spouting platitudes, you would know that.
Bob S.,
ReplyDeleteSee, it's too easy to blame the gun. MUCH harder to come up with tough, real, solutions.
Greenmeanie,
ReplyDeleteI know that :) Just making sure that everyone besides those deliberately ignoring that fact know it.
There are solutions to violent crime that don't involve restricting people's rights.
I think it is very telling that people like Baldr do not push for those solutions.
You're wrong, Bob and Green. I do push for those solutions (even if I don't say much about it here), but keeping guns out of the hands of those who would abuse them is also part of the solution.
ReplyDeleteBaldr, I've never heard that myth before, but it does seem to me that it's likely to be the case in a good portion of accidental deaths. Certainly not all though. However, in a country with 307 million people with 200 million guns, 196 accidental deaths is statistically insignificant.
ReplyDeleteObviously every death is a personal tragedy, and I don't mean to minimize that, but in such a large population, 196 kids will accidentally die from pretty much anything--not everyone survives childhood. Kids fall down stairs, drink bleach, get into bicycle accidents, drown in pools, and dozens of other things.
All accidents are preventable by nature, and I dont doubt that some of those accidental deaths could have been prevented by more secure gun storage. But I don't think the problem is significant enough to warrant any legislation. Accidental gun deaths are at an all time low, even though we have more guns now than ever.
That huge drop in accidental deaths, since there are no laws regarding safe gun storage, can only be a result of widespread gun safety training and awareness and of parents taking common sense measures on their own. And it seems to be working.
"...and to dispel myths about children and guns which are perpetuated by the pro-gun side."
ReplyDeleteWhat myths are those? That the majority of those deaths are gangbangers is hardly a myth.
"That huge drop in accidental deaths, since there are no laws regarding safe gun storage, can only be a result of widespread gun safety training and awareness and of parents taking common sense measures on their own. And it seems to be working."
ReplyDeleteJust think of how many more could be prevented if the gun control advocates weren't blocking safety training measures at every step.
@ RuffRidr: We aren't blocking safety training. I don't know why you assume so.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I am also curious as to what RuffRidr is referring to.
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to the constant opposition of introducing Eddie the Eagle and other related curriculum into our schools. Everybody claims to agree that we need to do something to reduce child gun accidents in the home, so why the opposition?
ReplyDeleteI'm not generally opposed to the Eddie Eagle message as much as I am the messenger. I think others on my "side" feel the same.
ReplyDeleteThink of it this way: The tobacco lobby funds anti-smoking programs for kids, with good messages. Would you have them come to a school to advise kids not to smoke, or have a group from the American Cancer Society do so? The alcohol lobby funds anti-drinking programs for kids, with good messages. Would you have them advise kids not to drink, or would you go with a group like MADD?
It's nice of the NRA to offer a program, and have a cute mascot to do so, but it's hypocritical to advocate for child safety with Eddie Eagle at the same time the NRA vehemently opposes and even tries to role back legislation that would protect them, such as child access prevention laws or doctors advising children's families about guns. PAX is an organization, for instance, that teaches much of the same message but doesn't have a conflicting economic interest.
Baldr, has Ceasefire come up with a similar gun safety program? If so, what efforts to date have their been to try and get this introduced into school curriculum. I just find it very ingenuous to be critical of the Eddie the Eagle program solely because of who created the material. Especially so since no where in the material itself is the NRA referenced. It makes one think that organizations like yours are less interested in reducing accidental deaths than they claim to be.
ReplyDeleteI dislike drugs, alcohol and cigarettes—and have a severe dislike for the alcohol and tobacco industries—but I would want whichever program was most effective. If the American Cancer Society's program was best, I'd want that, but if Phillip Morris' program kept more kids from smoking, I'd want that. Personally, I think results are all that matters in this regard, not the messenger.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that Eddie Eagle and the programs you're referring to say the same thing to kids: If you see a gun, don't pick it up and play with it, go tell an adult. Does it really matter who teaches them that?
(PAX doesn't exist anymore, by the way. It's now called the Center To Prevent Youth Violence)
@ RuffRidr: Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation has done school programs, mainly as one-time activities and presentations, as well as having a presence at various events.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA doesn't have to be referenced for it to still be hypocritical of them. And we don't have to have a standing program to me any more sincere.
According to the website:
ReplyDelete"The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program …. Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present … The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members."
Although I may disagree with the organization formerly known as PAX on many things, if they have programs that teach kids not to pick up guns they find or teach safe gun handling practices that are as impartial as the Eddie Eagle program, then I would not oppose their programs simply because I don't see eye to eye with the larger organization's goals.
That would seem almost immature to me.
Do I find it hypocritical of the tobacco industry to fun anti-smoking school programs? ABSOLUTELY! But that's not going to make me oppose them teaching those programs. Any program—regardless of it's source—that is effective in getting kids to not smoke gets my support, because I don't want kids to smoke. Opposing a program that was effective because I didn't like who was behind it while claiming to be interested in steering kids away from tobacco would make ME a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteCeasefire certainly does not have to have their own firearm safety program, but neither should they oppose existing effective programs if their goal is to save children's lives. It's possible to be completely sincere about something but still let politics get in the way of it.
Shouldn't our "sides" be coming together in the areas where we DO agree? Nobody wants a 6 year old kid to pick up a gun they find and accidentally shoot themselves. If we can both agree on that, then why can't we work together to minimize the cases where that happens?
You'll find similar mission statements from the no-smoking or no-drinking programs from those lobby groups, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of a story my mother once told me. She grew up in Hot Springs, Arkansas, back when the mob ran the town and there were casinos there. One of the mob bosses, who was known for directing massive violence and corruption in large cities on the east coast ran casinos there. He would donate large amounts of money to schools in the town and throw lavish birthday parties for school kids, my mom included. Did those acts make him a good person, or absolve him of his crimes? No doubt the schools he donated to benefited, but should they have taken the money?
Obviously this is a bit of an aside from the topic at hand, but the basic premise is the same: do the ends outweigh the means? Should the NRA be praised for a good program built on blood money? Or be considered sincere? Should they use the program to give their organization a good light despite the conflict of interest? I think not. It is better to go with an organization with no vested economic interest or conflict in goals.
Baldr says:
ReplyDelete"Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation has done school programs, mainly as one-time activities and presentations"
I'm really not trying to be offensive when I say that this does not impress me at all. The NRA does dozens of these across the country every week.
And then:
"It is better to go with an organization with no vested economic interest or conflict in goals."
So are you saying it is better to go with nothing at all? That is effectively what you are doing when you bring CeaseFire or PAX into the discussion as alternatives. I'd agree that CeaseFire could maybe grow into an alternative if they used their resources to build the program. But right now the effort is definitely not there.
"You'll find similar mission statements from the no-smoking or no-drinking programs from those lobby groups, too."
ReplyDeleteOh, I know! Total hypocrisy. But I've actually worked with them before, regardless.
"Did those acts make him a good person, or absolve him of his crimes?"
Nope.
"No doubt the schools he donated to benefited, but should they have taken the money?"
Absolutely. It's the difference between SOME good coming out of the mobster's activities or NO good coming out of his activities. Why would any sane person choose the latter?
Here's my anecdote. A friend of mine, a tattoo artist, was contacted about doing some artwork for a cigarette campaign which would utilize tattoo art. Like me, he hates cigarettes and the tobacco industry, and his initial reaction was to reject the offer immediately. But he realized that regardless of what he did, they would still get their tattoo style artwork and still run their campaign, so he did the best he could to mitigate those end results—he took the job and donated the entire considerable proceeds to an anti-smoking organization and a local animal shelter.
Sure, refusing the job might have been more consistent with his values, but nothing tangibly productive would have come out of his consistency.
"Should the NRA be praised for a good program built on blood money? Or be considered sincere?"
But I'm not asking, or expecting, you to do either of those things. I'm also not suggesting that you advocate their programs over other programs you like better.
What I am saying is that there's a difference between refusing to advocate something and actively obstructing it. Opposing the Eddie Eagle program is hypocritical and inconsistent if your stated goal is to teach as many children as possible about the dangers of firearms.
In my opinion.