In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Children, Youth, and Gun Violence
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Children, Youth, and Gun Violence
By NICKI FELLENZER
The latest press release from the Brady Bunch was enough to send me running for the vomitorium in a futile attempt to hold down lunch. "A study released [July 18] by the Packard Foundation titled Children, Youth, and Gun Violence," the press release drools, "was praised by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign united with the Million Mom March for its comprehensive research and practical, common-sense solutions to reduce youth gun violence in the United States." And what a report! In the latest edition of its journal, in pages and pages of statistics, numbers, recommendations and conclusions, the Packard Foundation spurts generalities, propaganda and emotionalism from every loaded page. So, let's take aim at this report, shall we? From "The Future of Children website "
"A new report finds that programs to train children and adolescents to stay away from guns, or behave responsibly on their own around guns, do not work."
The only problem with this claim is that it's in no way verifiable - especially not from the research cited. The report breaks down gun deaths among young people by age, geographic location, urban locales, gender, race and intent (homicide, suicide, accident), but nowhere does it say whether or not these young people were exposed to any kind of firearms safety courses or training, or whether or not they have ever been taught to "behave responsibly on their own around guns." Therefore, to say that these programs don't work when no data is presented to indicate whether or not the children were even exposed to them is disingenuous at best - an outright lie at worst.
Additionally, one of the articles in this journal specifically states, "few youth gun violence prevention policies or programs have been evaluated to date." How can an honest person looking to educate the public make a claim that these programs don't work when few of them have even been evaluated? Beats me.
"Some of the nation's leading experts on children and guns authored the report, which recommends that federal and state policymakers place tighter restrictions on gun sales so that guns are harder for youth to obtain illegally. The report also recommends new product safety standards to make guns more difficult for children to fire, and new investments in programs that educate parents about how to keep their children safe from guns."
Well, let's consider the facts, shall we? An estimated 58% of firearm deaths among children and youth under age 20 in 1998 were homicides, while juveniles under age 18 alone accounted for 12% of gun homicides in which the offender was known. Suicide is the second leading cause of firearm-related deaths among children and youth, accounting for 33% of these deaths in 1998. According to the report, firearms remain the leading method by which youngsters end their lives.
The above figures are tragic. But could someone explain to me how tighter federal and state restrictions on gun sales are going to solve the problem? A person intent on committing suicide will do so regardless of whether or not a gun is available to them. There is any number of ways for a person to end his or her life - slicing the wrists, drinking Drano, driving their car off the road, into a tree, into a wall, pills. Do I need to continue?
"Numerous studies have documented a clear association between the presence of firearms in the home and suicides, particularly suicides by adolescents and young adults. One study found that guns were twice as likely to be present in the homes of teen suicide victims as in the homes of suicide attempters or a comparison group of teen psychiatric patients who were not suicidal. Household firearm ownership is positively associated with the firearm suicide rate for 15- to 24-year-olds, even after controlling for education, unemployment, and urban residence."
This is the kind of misleading tripe that the Brady Bunch and their cohorts at the Packard Foundation hope will evoke an emotional response in the uneducated. It does everything but accuse firearms of being responsible for teen suicides. Of course, if I'm intent on committing suicide, I'll use the gun if it's available! Guns quicker, more effective and less painful than other methods. But contrary to what the Sarah Bradys of this world would like us to believe, firearms don't CAUSE teens to commit suicide. The above emotionalism and misrepresentation goes a long way in demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of anti-gunners.
"The rate of non-firearm suicides among 5- to 14-year-olds in the United States is roughly equal to the rate in other industrialized countries combined. However, the firearm suicide rate among children in this age group is nearly 11 times higher. As a result, children in the United States commit suicide at twice the rate of children in 25 other industrialized nations combined."
The only thing the above information demonstrates is that firearms are apparently the preferred choice of those committing suicide. However, let me point out that when you reach such a profound point of desperation, nothing short of a miracle or a mental epiphany will stop you from ending your life. Suicide is a desperate act. Those intent on killing themselves will rarely be deterred by the unavailability of a handgun.
Will tighter restrictions reduce or end suicide? No. They might reduce firearms suicide, but there are far too many other implements available to young people intent on ending their lives, and we could conceivably see the use of other methods of suicide rise.
Ah, but the anti-gunners say suicide success rate is an important consideration! "Given the extreme lethality of firearms, it seems plausible that at least some young people might not have succeeded in their suicide attempts if they had not had access to a gun. Therefore, convincing young people, parents, and the public to keep guns away from youth at risk of suicide should be a high priority."
No, of course, it's much more preferable to have a young person maimed by an unsuccessful suicide attempt, wind up a drooling, catatonic vegetable due to poison ingestion, scarred for life by an unsuccessful knifing or paralyzed by an intentional, but non-fatal car crash! As long as they're not successful in their attempt - and not having access to a gun may facilitate this failure - it's all good to the anti-gunners!
As for homicides. The report grudgingly admits, "Even without firearms, American children are more likely to die in homicides than their counterparts in other industrialized nations." But.
We have to place the blame on guns somehow, folks, so in the next sentence, the article goes on to say, "However, guns worsen the violence."
WOW! Now that's an objective and unbiased statement! Despite the fact that children can be killed by cars, bathtubs, plastic bags, knives, poisons or baseball bats, GUNS worsen the violence! Why didn't I see it before? A drowning death at the hands of a raving lunatic mommy is much preferable to a gun death, because "guns worsen the violence!" Somebody please explain to me how being held down in a bathtub by your own mother while you desperately struggle not to breathe the water, your little lungs burning and your terrified eyes staring pleadingly at the woman who gave you birth through the water is so much more preferable, because the act isn't perpetuated by a firearm?
The report recommends, among other things, stricter controls on gun sales. According to federal statistics, guns sold by 1.2% of retailers account for more than 57% of the weapons that are later traced by ATF after being recovered by law enforcement following a crime. In other words - a little more than one retailer out of every 100 has a little better than 50% chance of selling a gun that will be used in a crime. Well, THERE'S a reason to put an even tighter chokehold on legitimate businesspeople trying to make a living!
Never mind that since it's already illegal for minors to possess and carry firearms, those who do are breaking the law by purchasing them from dealers on the streets or stealing them. In nations where guns are completely outlawed, gun crime committed by adolescents is on the rise. According to Reuters, in Britain, where handguns have been completely outlawed, youths apparently carry guns as fashion accessories. But these are facts that don't really matter to gun controllers.
Desperate to disarm the law-abiding public, these people recommend yet tighter restrictions on legitimate gun sales! Is that going to stop illegal activity? No. But it will sure make more making criminals or suspects out of more law-abiding citizens! What a GREAT idea! It won't stop gun violence, but it will make it harder for us to defend ourselves against it. Along with tighter regulation of gun sales, the report also recommends safe gun designs and product safety regulations for guns.
Yes, why don't we mandate "smart" technology, which will make the guns so expensive to manufacture, that no one would be able to afford them, except for the very wealthy? After all, only the wealthy should be allowed to protect themselves and their families, right?
Why don't we make "smart" guns impossible to be used by anyone but the registered owner? That should make the wife or husband whose spouse has been incapacitated by an invader and who can't use said gun to protect him or herself feel much better about their safety!
Why don't we make trigger locks mandatory? That way the home invader can laugh at you while you desperately fumble with your weapon trying to unlock it so you could use it properly! Yes, those scenarios are definitely preferable to teaching children about firearms safety.
The report also asserts parents must take responsibility to protect children from guns, by either not having them in their home, or by storing them locked, unloaded and separate from ammunition.
How about dismantling them and scattering the parts about the house, so your children (and you) can play hide-and-seek if they want to use the gun? That should give home invaders, possible rapists and murderers plenty of time to slaughter you while you go hunting for the parts to put your gun back together.
Think I'm exaggerating? Let's put it this way: if you really think a murderer or rapist will wait for you to grab your keys, unlock your safe and load your gun and shoot him, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Do these people honestly believe that leaving the family defenseless against attack is the best way to protect children from gun violence?
"Storing guns safely in homes could reduce the risk of gun injury and death to children, and could deter theft, which is a common source of guns used in crimes. Surveys show that more than 70 percent of Americans support laws requiring gun owners to lock up their guns," says Kathy Reich, policy analyst at the Packard Foundation and editor of the report. "Some oppose safe storage because they believe it makes guns less accessible for self-defense purposes. But such concerns must be weighed against the risk to children, and children's safety should come first."
The utter lunacy of the above statements makes me wonder how anyone can take these people seriously. Rather than teach your children about firearms safety, they want you to make yourself (and them) more vulnerable. Rather than protect your family against assailants, they want you to become a willing victim. Rather than take responsibility for your children and teach them common sense, they want you to voluntarily accept defenselessness and render your tool of self-defense useless, because the majority of Americans seem to favor laws that would allow the government to invade your home and ensure you're complying with the "lock up your guns" laws. How else would you enforce said laws?
"This report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the phenomenon of youth gun violence," said Reich. "It shows that the death and injury toll among children and youth from gun violence is unacceptable. Public opinion may be sharply divided regarding adult ownership and use of guns, but hopefully we can all agree on the need for some common-sense measures to keep kids safe from gun violence."
I hate to tell you this, Ms. Reich, but ANY death and injury among children and youth is unacceptable. Making everyone defenseless "for the children" does not constitute "common sense." But your paranoia regarding firearms is duly noted.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/index.php?section=TAKING+AIM...
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By NICKI FELLENZER
The latest press release from the Brady Bunch was enough to send me running for the vomitorium in a futile attempt to hold down lunch. "A study released [July 18] by the Packard Foundation titled Children, Youth, and Gun Violence," the press release drools, "was praised by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign united with the Million Mom March for its comprehensive research and practical, common-sense solutions to reduce youth gun violence in the United States." And what a report! In the latest edition of its journal, in pages and pages of statistics, numbers, recommendations and conclusions, the Packard Foundation spurts generalities, propaganda and emotionalism from every loaded page. So, let's take aim at this report, shall we? From "The Future of Children website "
"A new report finds that programs to train children and adolescents to stay away from guns, or behave responsibly on their own around guns, do not work."
The only problem with this claim is that it's in no way verifiable - especially not from the research cited. The report breaks down gun deaths among young people by age, geographic location, urban locales, gender, race and intent (homicide, suicide, accident), but nowhere does it say whether or not these young people were exposed to any kind of firearms safety courses or training, or whether or not they have ever been taught to "behave responsibly on their own around guns." Therefore, to say that these programs don't work when no data is presented to indicate whether or not the children were even exposed to them is disingenuous at best - an outright lie at worst.
Additionally, one of the articles in this journal specifically states, "few youth gun violence prevention policies or programs have been evaluated to date." How can an honest person looking to educate the public make a claim that these programs don't work when few of them have even been evaluated? Beats me.
"Some of the nation's leading experts on children and guns authored the report, which recommends that federal and state policymakers place tighter restrictions on gun sales so that guns are harder for youth to obtain illegally. The report also recommends new product safety standards to make guns more difficult for children to fire, and new investments in programs that educate parents about how to keep their children safe from guns."
Well, let's consider the facts, shall we? An estimated 58% of firearm deaths among children and youth under age 20 in 1998 were homicides, while juveniles under age 18 alone accounted for 12% of gun homicides in which the offender was known. Suicide is the second leading cause of firearm-related deaths among children and youth, accounting for 33% of these deaths in 1998. According to the report, firearms remain the leading method by which youngsters end their lives.
The above figures are tragic. But could someone explain to me how tighter federal and state restrictions on gun sales are going to solve the problem? A person intent on committing suicide will do so regardless of whether or not a gun is available to them. There is any number of ways for a person to end his or her life - slicing the wrists, drinking Drano, driving their car off the road, into a tree, into a wall, pills. Do I need to continue?
"Numerous studies have documented a clear association between the presence of firearms in the home and suicides, particularly suicides by adolescents and young adults. One study found that guns were twice as likely to be present in the homes of teen suicide victims as in the homes of suicide attempters or a comparison group of teen psychiatric patients who were not suicidal. Household firearm ownership is positively associated with the firearm suicide rate for 15- to 24-year-olds, even after controlling for education, unemployment, and urban residence."
This is the kind of misleading tripe that the Brady Bunch and their cohorts at the Packard Foundation hope will evoke an emotional response in the uneducated. It does everything but accuse firearms of being responsible for teen suicides. Of course, if I'm intent on committing suicide, I'll use the gun if it's available! Guns quicker, more effective and less painful than other methods. But contrary to what the Sarah Bradys of this world would like us to believe, firearms don't CAUSE teens to commit suicide. The above emotionalism and misrepresentation goes a long way in demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of anti-gunners.
"The rate of non-firearm suicides among 5- to 14-year-olds in the United States is roughly equal to the rate in other industrialized countries combined. However, the firearm suicide rate among children in this age group is nearly 11 times higher. As a result, children in the United States commit suicide at twice the rate of children in 25 other industrialized nations combined."
The only thing the above information demonstrates is that firearms are apparently the preferred choice of those committing suicide. However, let me point out that when you reach such a profound point of desperation, nothing short of a miracle or a mental epiphany will stop you from ending your life. Suicide is a desperate act. Those intent on killing themselves will rarely be deterred by the unavailability of a handgun.
Will tighter restrictions reduce or end suicide? No. They might reduce firearms suicide, but there are far too many other implements available to young people intent on ending their lives, and we could conceivably see the use of other methods of suicide rise.
Ah, but the anti-gunners say suicide success rate is an important consideration! "Given the extreme lethality of firearms, it seems plausible that at least some young people might not have succeeded in their suicide attempts if they had not had access to a gun. Therefore, convincing young people, parents, and the public to keep guns away from youth at risk of suicide should be a high priority."
No, of course, it's much more preferable to have a young person maimed by an unsuccessful suicide attempt, wind up a drooling, catatonic vegetable due to poison ingestion, scarred for life by an unsuccessful knifing or paralyzed by an intentional, but non-fatal car crash! As long as they're not successful in their attempt - and not having access to a gun may facilitate this failure - it's all good to the anti-gunners!
As for homicides. The report grudgingly admits, "Even without firearms, American children are more likely to die in homicides than their counterparts in other industrialized nations." But.
We have to place the blame on guns somehow, folks, so in the next sentence, the article goes on to say, "However, guns worsen the violence."
WOW! Now that's an objective and unbiased statement! Despite the fact that children can be killed by cars, bathtubs, plastic bags, knives, poisons or baseball bats, GUNS worsen the violence! Why didn't I see it before? A drowning death at the hands of a raving lunatic mommy is much preferable to a gun death, because "guns worsen the violence!" Somebody please explain to me how being held down in a bathtub by your own mother while you desperately struggle not to breathe the water, your little lungs burning and your terrified eyes staring pleadingly at the woman who gave you birth through the water is so much more preferable, because the act isn't perpetuated by a firearm?
The report recommends, among other things, stricter controls on gun sales. According to federal statistics, guns sold by 1.2% of retailers account for more than 57% of the weapons that are later traced by ATF after being recovered by law enforcement following a crime. In other words - a little more than one retailer out of every 100 has a little better than 50% chance of selling a gun that will be used in a crime. Well, THERE'S a reason to put an even tighter chokehold on legitimate businesspeople trying to make a living!
Never mind that since it's already illegal for minors to possess and carry firearms, those who do are breaking the law by purchasing them from dealers on the streets or stealing them. In nations where guns are completely outlawed, gun crime committed by adolescents is on the rise. According to Reuters, in Britain, where handguns have been completely outlawed, youths apparently carry guns as fashion accessories. But these are facts that don't really matter to gun controllers.
Desperate to disarm the law-abiding public, these people recommend yet tighter restrictions on legitimate gun sales! Is that going to stop illegal activity? No. But it will sure make more making criminals or suspects out of more law-abiding citizens! What a GREAT idea! It won't stop gun violence, but it will make it harder for us to defend ourselves against it. Along with tighter regulation of gun sales, the report also recommends safe gun designs and product safety regulations for guns.
Yes, why don't we mandate "smart" technology, which will make the guns so expensive to manufacture, that no one would be able to afford them, except for the very wealthy? After all, only the wealthy should be allowed to protect themselves and their families, right?
Why don't we make "smart" guns impossible to be used by anyone but the registered owner? That should make the wife or husband whose spouse has been incapacitated by an invader and who can't use said gun to protect him or herself feel much better about their safety!
Why don't we make trigger locks mandatory? That way the home invader can laugh at you while you desperately fumble with your weapon trying to unlock it so you could use it properly! Yes, those scenarios are definitely preferable to teaching children about firearms safety.
The report also asserts parents must take responsibility to protect children from guns, by either not having them in their home, or by storing them locked, unloaded and separate from ammunition.
How about dismantling them and scattering the parts about the house, so your children (and you) can play hide-and-seek if they want to use the gun? That should give home invaders, possible rapists and murderers plenty of time to slaughter you while you go hunting for the parts to put your gun back together.
Think I'm exaggerating? Let's put it this way: if you really think a murderer or rapist will wait for you to grab your keys, unlock your safe and load your gun and shoot him, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Do these people honestly believe that leaving the family defenseless against attack is the best way to protect children from gun violence?
"Storing guns safely in homes could reduce the risk of gun injury and death to children, and could deter theft, which is a common source of guns used in crimes. Surveys show that more than 70 percent of Americans support laws requiring gun owners to lock up their guns," says Kathy Reich, policy analyst at the Packard Foundation and editor of the report. "Some oppose safe storage because they believe it makes guns less accessible for self-defense purposes. But such concerns must be weighed against the risk to children, and children's safety should come first."
The utter lunacy of the above statements makes me wonder how anyone can take these people seriously. Rather than teach your children about firearms safety, they want you to make yourself (and them) more vulnerable. Rather than protect your family against assailants, they want you to become a willing victim. Rather than take responsibility for your children and teach them common sense, they want you to voluntarily accept defenselessness and render your tool of self-defense useless, because the majority of Americans seem to favor laws that would allow the government to invade your home and ensure you're complying with the "lock up your guns" laws. How else would you enforce said laws?
"This report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the phenomenon of youth gun violence," said Reich. "It shows that the death and injury toll among children and youth from gun violence is unacceptable. Public opinion may be sharply divided regarding adult ownership and use of guns, but hopefully we can all agree on the need for some common-sense measures to keep kids safe from gun violence."
I hate to tell you this, Ms. Reich, but ANY death and injury among children and youth is unacceptable. Making everyone defenseless "for the children" does not constitute "common sense." But your paranoia regarding firearms is duly noted.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/index.php?section=TAKING+AIM...
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878