need help - please analyze dissect this


PDA






30 cal slob
July 25, 2007, 03:48 PM
Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim.

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)

If you enjoyed reading about "need help - please analyze dissect this" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Chipperman
July 25, 2007, 03:52 PM
:barf:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Not even close.

Brad Johnson
July 25, 2007, 03:52 PM
Google "Choi" and "Kellermann" in reference to gun control research. That should tell you about all you need to know.

Brad

RPCVYemen
July 25, 2007, 04:17 PM
I'll start.

Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004)

Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994)

Note that the statistics are unrelated.

The presentation makes it sound as though "accidental shooting deaths" are "the second leading cause use non-natural death in childhood and adolescence."

The first statistic usually includes all deaths by firearm where the victim is under 21 - including all crimes involving a handgun where the victim is under 21. The second statistic discusses only accidental deaths - or more properly, deaths reported to be accidents.

The overwhelming majority of firearm related deaths of people between 16 and 21 are gang and/or drug related. Most of us would not call victims of gang and or/drug related crimes "accidental" - the deaths are intended by the perpetrator.

The death of any human being is a sad event, and we don't want to diminish the value of any human life. But it should be clear that for most of us, accidental shooting deaths that are truly accidental are a different issue, morally and legally from drug/gang related shootings.

Mike

Chipperman
July 25, 2007, 04:19 PM
If you set the filter to Violence-related injuries only, then firearms come up to the top.

If you include accidents, then motor vehicle accidents, fire, drowning are WAYYYYYYY higher than anything to do with guns. MV accidents kill more than all other causes combined.

Fred Fuller
July 25, 2007, 04:57 PM
Here's a book you need to read:

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Lies%2C%20damn%20lies%2C%20and%20statistics:3003878473:isbn=0871406217:page=compare?used=1

lpl/nc (retired reference librarian)

Tommygunn
July 25, 2007, 07:13 PM
... for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides ...

Keep in mind that most defensive uses of guns don't involve shooting anyone. In something like 98% of the cases of self-defense, the BG flees at the sight of the weapon.
Anyhow, trying to tie in the RKBA to statistics is dicey. Do we lose the right to have a firearm if misuse of them is greater then proper use? Why?
If it IS an "inalienable right," where's the real logic in attaching it to statistical variables that are liable to be different at any given point in time or geographical area????

Juna
July 25, 2007, 07:43 PM
First off, I doubt their statistics, especially coming from the CDC. The CDC, NIH, AAP, ACP, AMA, and most other major health organizations are inherently anti-gun.

Secondly, they're talking about actually SHOOTING someone in your home. The vast majority of defensive USE of firearms does not entail SHOOTING someone. Merely mentioning you have a gun, racking the slide, displaying your gun, or even pointing your gun at an intruder is likely enough to end the scenario either by causing him/her to flee or freeze and wait for LEOs to come--and this SHOULD be considered defensive use of a firearm. Criminal justice statistics state that firearms are used defensively about 2.5 MILLION TIMES A YEAR, which outnumbers murders by far. Check out this documentary (http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/) on the Second Amendment by leading legal scholars from around the country.

Moreover, accidental shooting deaths are at an all time low in recorded U.S. history, according to one of the recent America's First Freedom articles. Children are BY FAR AND AWAY more likely to die in a car, swimming pool, etc. than being accidentally shot by a gun that "just went off". John Stossel did a recent story on 20/20 regarding this, as well. It was within the last 6 months on ABC, and it put a lot of risks in perspective.

If parents are really concerned about risk of accidental death of their children, they should stop driving their kids to school or anywhere else before worrying about guns.

Finally, the RKBA is not contingent upon need, "sporting purposes," crime rates, accidental deaths, or any other "statistics," so all of this is irrelevant.

Blackbeard
July 25, 2007, 07:51 PM
Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence.

Maybe if we bring back polio, typhus and smallpox we can get firearms down to #5.

Red Dragon
July 25, 2007, 08:23 PM
What is the Center for Disease Control doing with firearm related deaths anyway? Since when are firearms injuries or death diseases?

...unless you count "high velocity lead poisoning" (sorry, couldn't resist)

Standing Wolf
July 25, 2007, 09:15 PM
If it weren't for lies, leftist extremists wouldn't have much to say.

BAT1
July 25, 2007, 09:33 PM
The number of doctors: 700,000 Accidental deaths by doctors 120,000 =0.711
The number of gun owners: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year:
All age groups 1500 =.000188
Conclusion: Doctors are approximately 9000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Guns don't kill people, Doctors do!
That is communist, liberal, socialist propaganda. Gun owners protect over 1,000,000 lives a year. :scrutiny:

Hardtarget
July 26, 2007, 12:39 AM
The best comment I ever heard about statistics:

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they show is interesting.
What they hide is critical"
Thats why I don't pay them much attention.

Mark.

Librarian
July 26, 2007, 12:49 AM
Gripe about CDC interpretations all you like, but their data are the best we have available on things like proximal causes of death.

Like other weapons, statistics can be misused.

mnrivrat
July 26, 2007, 01:25 AM
Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed

To tired to get into a lot of this right now, but just skimming the read I doubt the CDC numbers , and as you can see from the above statement ,the second part loses credibility in the face of a selected 3 citys out of how many cities in the US ?

Beagle-zebub
July 26, 2007, 02:48 AM
The simple fact that they chose three cities as a means of representing all of America, and as a guide to determining policy in all of America, is a perfect example of the conflict between urban and rural locales in American politics. Half of the homicides in Pennsylvania happened in Philadelphia, though it only has 12% of the state's population. The distribution of occurence isn't equal, but the penalty that antis want to inflict upon the state is.

Gaucho Gringo
July 26, 2007, 08:13 PM
There are lies, damned lies & statistics.

230RN
July 26, 2007, 08:36 PM
I call it libel against a whole class of Americans.

geekWithA.45
July 26, 2007, 08:57 PM
Analysis:

It is confidently spoken gibberish calculated to fool the innumerate.

It is incorrect and selective (cherry picking) in facts, appeals to discredited studies, and implies logical connections that do not exist.

No further analysis is warranted.

bruss01
July 27, 2007, 11:22 AM
Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence.

That statement sounds wrong to me.

I thought I remembered that kids going face down in 5gallon buckets was more than firearms. I thought I remembered kids drowning in home swimming pools was more than firearms. Something doesn't sound right here.

RPCVYemen
July 27, 2007, 11:36 AM
That statement sounds wrong to me.

Note that "firearms injuries" is not the same as "firearms accidents". Go to the link above, and look at all causes of death between 1 and 21. "Unintentional injury" is first, and "homicide" is second. The vast majority of homicides involve firearms.

But note that if you drill down, the number of accidental deaths of people between 1 and 21 in 2004 due to firearms was 193.

Mike

RPCVYemen
July 27, 2007, 11:46 AM
I got to tell you guy, for people who continually whine that pro's rational and anti's are irrational, less than half of the posts here have even answered the question rationally! Why is that?

The answer is right in the stats themselves, and what have most of us done?


Whine on about the authors of the study
Impugn the politics of the CDC
Say silly things about statistics


Is this an example of our rational domination of the antis?

If we can't show the fallacies in an argument this simple, how do we ever expect to protect our 2nd Amendment right?

This was a simple question and every one of us should have been able to knock it out of the ballpark!

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "need help - please analyze dissect this" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!