8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

The second amendment to the United States constitution reads, in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The only explicit intent of this amendment is to facilitate the security of the State through the arming of a well regulated militia. There is absolutely no good reason to allege that it's intent is to protect free speech.

As usual, Obssesso Boy, you have no argument. You cannot support your "argument."

There a very good logical reason to view firearms involved in an accident as significantly different from accidents which involve things which were not intended to do gross bodily harm, as is the intent with firearms. So, in the example used by another member of skateboards, accidents involving skateboadrs which will result in gross bodily harm or death are of a very low order of probability. Even when not used properly, skateboards in and of themselves cannot reasonably be considered to be uniformly dangerous, and accidents involving skateboards are very unlikely to result in gross bodily harm or death. On the other hand, firearms are designed and manufactured with the intent of causing gross bodily harm and possibly death, and accidents involving firearms, especially those resulting from situations in which the firearm is improperly handled, have a much higher order of probability of resulting in gross bodily harm or death than is the case with skateboards--higher by many orders of magnitude.

Therefore, to compare firearms to skateboards, or to compare firearms to fire extinguishers, is incredibly stupid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense there are any numbers of things we allow our young people to do that place them at the same or greater risk of harm or death then using a firearm on a gun range.

Motorcycle riding, rock climbing, any number of sports such as football come to mind where the risk of a bad outcome is equal or must more then at a firing range.

And the only fall back you can give is that a firearm is a tool design for killing and my reply is so what?

It's not a "fall back," it's a basis for pointing out how incredibly stupid it is to compare firearms to skateboards or fire extinguishers.

Once again, your command of English is pathetically poor. One assumes you are attempting to claim that an accident which involves rock climbing, the riding of motorcycles or playing football entails a risk of a "bad outcome" which is equal to or greater than the risk of a bad outcome in an accident at a firing range. There is no good logical reason to assume this, nor do you present any evidence that this were so.

2005 -

Under 24 killed by firearms - 7,145
under 24 killed by accidents not transport or gun related - 7,009
under 24 killed in transport accidents - 20,915

Firearms kill more kids than anything but autos and disease.
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age%20of%20Deaths%20113%20Causes%202005.html

The death statistics are interesting.

2005 - US deaths
Total killed by motor vehicle accidents - 45,343
Total killed by guns, (murder, suicide, accidental, undetermined) - 33,946

It looks like cars are a hell of a lot safer than guns.

Uhm . . . the statistics you present make it appear that automobiles are far more dangerous than firearms. You need to restate your proposition. More importantly would be a comparison of how many automobiles are owned by Americans as compared to the number of firearms owned by Americans, and, to refine it further, to compare the number of firearms owned per capita to the number of automobiles owned per capita. It is entirely possible, in fact, highly probable, that there are firearms owners who own many, many more firearms than they do automobiles.

At any event, the statistics you present are not conclusive about which is more dangerous--automobiles or firearms--because there is no basis upon which to compare the prevalence of automobile ownership to firearms ownership.

Wrong figures in my earlier post -
Under 24 killed in transport accidents is 13,628
20,915 is all accidental deaths not just transport



Corrected figures -

Under 24 killed by firearms - 7,145
under 24 killed by accidents not transport or gun related - 7,009
under 24 killed in transport accidents - 13,628

I just assumed most people use a car every day and not a gun. I could be wrong, I guess.

Oh, i don't disagree with you . . . i was just pointing out that for the pointy-headed gun nuts around here, if you don't explain things like that, they'll look at the raw numbers and claim that guns are safer.

One of the most idiotic arguments of the gun nuts is the personal protection argument, because it implies that the mere possession of a gun assures that the person possessing the firearm will know how to safely and effectively use it.

With automobiles, the mere possession of an automobile is not a basis upon which to assume that the person possessing that automobile will know how safely and effectively to operate the automobile. But with automobiles, you are required to demonstrate a minimum competence in order to obtain a license to operate the automobile, and that requirement is ubiquitous. There is no ubiquitous requirement that the owner of a firearm demonstrate the ability to safely and effectively operate the firearm.

Ok,

#1, you need to exclude suicide and murders. We should only be looking at accidental gun deaths (that number is closer to 1,000 if I remember correctly)

#2, there are 300,000,000 guns in the USA; how many cars?

#3, if this is about children, why are you looking at 24 year olds?

What is the source of your 300 million figure for firearms? How many firearms are, on average, owned by firearm owners? A more reasonable comparison would arise from comparing the number of firearms owners to the number of automobile owners.

Parados' figures looked at those under the age of 24 years, not solely at people 24 years of age.

You may have a cogent argument that Parados' figures are not conclusive, or even that they are misleading. However, you haven't presented any such argument.

Hey fat boy, did you hear about the Heller decision by the USSC?

Apparently that "militia" requirement isn't a real requirement at all. Or, are you planning on spinning that too like you do to make everything else fall into your twisted "logic"?

I think you're a thief. A petty one at that.

Automobiles ARE more dangerous than firearms

http://www.purewatergazette.net/oddsofdying.htm

1 in 77 people will die in a transportation accident

1 in 4317 will die by an accidental firearms discharge
1 in 214 will die by a suicide involving a firearm
1 in 328 will die by a homicide involving a firearm

Citing the Heller decision does not alter the objection to your stupid argument about the second amendment having been promulgated to protect the first amendment right to free speech. It is one of your most stupid arguments, and you continue to fail completely to support that idiotic argument.

I haven't said that automobiles are not more dangerous than firearms.

However, your contention suffers from the same lack of precision as does the contention advanced by Parados. Your statistics are meaningless because they do not tell us the frequency with which people operate automobiles as compared to the frequency with which people operate firearms. Absent such a means of comparing the relative dangers of operating automobiles as compared to operating firearms, it's all just so much gas.

Unless and until either you or Parados can supply a meaningful and verifiable comparison of the use to automobiles to the use of firearms, neither of you have made a case.

300 million is frequently cited as being FBI data, but it does include all firearms (including those owned by law enforcement).

A frequently used number for civilian owners is between 200-250 million.

Another frequently used number for firearm owners is between 40-50% of households.

I would imagine a larger number of households own cars.



And I understand that it was <=24 years of age, what I was asking is why it's not <=18 years of age, which is when a person is considered a 'child'.

There is no statistic that would show the frequency of use for firearms that I can find (and I have a hard time believing that such a number exists with any level of accuracy).

Maybe you can find some stats on the quantity of ammunition manufactured/sold. But I wouldn't know how much of that was stockpiled vs. used for practice/comeptition/etc.


What I do know is that the average person has more to fear from automobiles than they do from firearms. That is a fact.

Let's clarify things here somewhat.

It has been said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. While amusing, it points to the fact that statistical evidence is routinely abused: either from the ignorance of the person using statistical evidence, or a willingly disingenuous use of statistical evidence by said person.

I am assuming that both you, MP, and Parados are using your statistics in good faith. However, statistical evidence does not exist in a void. Posting a statistical citation doesn't "prove" anything, and can only reasonably point to a valid conclusion or trend if that statistical evidence is presented in a proper relation to all the factors which effect the circumstances under discussion.

For example, one must ask how many people use firearms each day, for what part of the day they use them, and in what circumstances they use them--and then compare that to the use of automobiles. So if one determines that people use firearms, on average for a few minutes a day, then a valid comparison would be to attempt to determine how many automobile-induced fatalities would occur if automobiles were on average only used for a few minutes each day.

Frankly, i doubt that there can be a plausible statistical basis upon which to compare the use of automobiles and firearms. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the United States operate or are passengers in automobiles each day, and often for prolonger periods of times. Additionally, a reasonable argument can be made that there are more automobiles being operated on average each day than there are sufficient thoroughfares upon which to operate them. So it should surprise no one that there are tens of thousands of automobile-related fatalities each year--without even considering the effects of drug use, alcohol use, cell phone use, the use of cosmetics in conjunction with automobile mirrors, the consumption of food and drink while operating automobiles or the effects of fatigue on those operating automobiles--when one considers how ubiquitous automobiles are, and how much time they operated in comparison to the total waking hours of those who operate automobiles.

Can you assert that firearms are equally ubiquitous? Can you support such an assertion? Can you assert that firearms are operated for a period of time equivalent to the time people spend operating automobiles? Can you support such an assertion.

Statistics are meaningless without context, and even with context, the use of statistics can be reasonably criticized severely for have little or no basis in reality. I consider a comparison to the use of automobiles to the use of firearms as having, in the examples provided in this thread so far, to have no basis in reality.

I agree--anyone alleging to have the information would be, in my never humble opinion, suspect.



However, it is a fact devoid of context, in any discussion of the relative safety of automobiles and firearms. Saying that automobiles are more dangerous than firearms is to make an absolute statement about the nature of automobiles, when, in fact, the only plausible statement that can be made is that given the number of automobiles in this country and the frequency and duration of their use, as compared to the frequency and duration of the use of firearms, people are at greater risk from automobiles than firearms.

However, the risk is a matter of comparing tens of thousands of incidents, without the context of frequency and duration of use, and does not alter the undeniable fact that firearms are also lethal to Americans in their thousands each year. One can reasonably say that i am more at risk (by a small order probability) of gross bodily harm or death from automobiles than is the case with firearms. Once cannot say, however, that the risk of gross bodily harm or death from firearms is negligible, nor have you provided any reasonable basis to assert that automobiles are by their nature absolutely more dangerous than firearms.

Evidence? I been around firing ranges all my life and that a long long span of years and never happen to had witness one person being harm and I had been at sporting events where young people play and had indeed watch then being carry out as a result and I had witness young people and others who had been harm or kill in motorcycle accidents with my own eyes.

People are always very aware of safety at ranges and any behavior that might reduce that safety margin is always ended in a matter of minutes both by the gun range safety person and the other shooters

Sorry but gun ranges, from spending over 50 years visiting them is about as safe as watching TV in your own living room.