Another day, another two horrific shootings in America

cb7893 said:
Again I will happily accept any data which shows the statistical insignificance of non-intentional negligent gun deaths or at least that they are being properly prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Data:

From the CDC, 2017 unintentional deaths by firearms (no indication whether it was negligent), all age groups: 486

From the same data:
64,000 deaths due to poisoning
36,000 deaths due to falls
2900 deaths due to fire
970 pedestrian deaths

Negligent firearms deaths fall between "machinery" (at 572) and "cyclist" (at 345). For context, I would suggest that the state of current mandatory gun safety regulations probably falls between machinery (generally well-regulated by OSHA and other governmental agencies), and cycling (generally unregulated other than general helmet-law and rules-of-the-road regulations).

If you're curious, the same trend holds up during the 2000 to 2017 sample period. Negligent firearms deaths falls between machinery and cyclist deaths, with motor vehicle, poisoning, and falls representing the top three causes of unintentional deaths.

With 3142 counties in the US, that's approximately 0.15 annual deaths per county (or 1 negligent firearms death per 6.46 counties) between 2000 and 2017.

Brief Commentary:

I am not a statistician.

You may access the data above and determine whether negligent firearms deaths would be considered "statistically insignificant" for this sample period. Given that they appear on the CDC's top-20 causes of negligent deaths, I suspect they are not insignificant, but the number and incidence is quite low given the number of weapons in circulation in the US (generally reported as ~300 million) For comparison, the number of registered personal vehicles is around 270 million in the US.

If the overall intent is to reduce negligent deaths, I would suggest a greater focus on improving road and vehicular safety, as these account for 33.3% of all negligent deaths between 2000 and 2017 (including MV, land vehicle-other, pedestrian, and cyclist), while firearms-related deaths account for just 0.5%. Much more room for refinement there, and no clear-cut constitutional restrictions (other than 9th/10th amendment generalities). Looking to Europe, the requirements for a driver's license are much stiffer than they are in the US-- perhaps we should research adopting Europe's more stringent driver licensing laws.

Not interested in arguing for against private firearms ownership on SAF-- just responding to the request for statistics and providing some perspective from a layman.

EDIT NOTE- I initially linked directly to the data output, but it appears the link expired. I have updated the embedded link to point to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Deaths" database. "Negligent Firearms Deaths" are listed under "Unintentional Injury" in the output.
 
@Tbpxece - I saw a similar set of data from the FBI. Firearms deaths were much lower than I anticipated and handguns led the way. Rifles were MUCH lower and assault weapons didn't even rate their own category. Heart disease was the #1 cause of death and I believe the first five were lifestyle issues (lung cancer, diabetes, etc).
 
cb7893 said:
...I know all about “Stop! Don’t touch!...” I remember thinking “why doesn’t the NRA stick to this stuff?”...
Click to expand...

What leads you to believe that they don't? Every single NRA class syllabus includes the first three (3) rules of safe gun handling. They are;
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

There are a host of other safe gun handling rules that NRA also teaches in every basic, intermediate, advanced, and Instructor-level course. The most important additional ones are printed and explained in detail HERE.
Briefly, they are;
  • Know your target and what is beyond it.
  • Know how to use the gun safely.
  • Be sure your gun is safe to operate.
  • Use only the correct ammunition for your gun.
  • Wear eye and ear protection.
  • Never use alcohol or drugs before or while shooting. (This includes a fair amount of legally-administered prescription drugs as well)
  • Store guns so they are inaccessible to unauthorized persons.
  • Be aware that certain types of guns and shooting activities require additional safety precautions.
Additionally, the most important part of any of the NRA Instructor training and certification classes, is safety. NRA certified instructors teach the basic classes to anyone who wants to take them, and as instructors they are expected to get a 100% on each certification exam. 90% is passing (but I can assure you that 100% is expected) and if an instructor candidate gets one or two questions wrong on the exam, they are taken aside and talked to about their answer and why it was incorrect. Before they are certified as Instructors by Certified Training Counselors, they know and live by the syllabus to every word and action.

As for the Stop, Don't Touch thing (for kids), the Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has been around since I was a kid. It is still in widespread use today, in areas where people aren't afraid to talk about guns and gun safety.
 
Last edited:
Also, Charles Vacca (the dead guy in the video who thought it was a good idea to let a 9-year old girl shoot an Uzi pistol on full-auto, next to his head) was NOT an NRA certified instructor.
 
@Tbpxece and @THParent ,

I live in the upper plains and love pheasant hunting, but no longer own a shotgun. I wanted both my sons to learn to be safe and feel comfortable with a gun, because I know how much fun it is to hunt. I enrolled them in hunter safety as required by the Trap club. I would have done it anyway. The last time we were all together at Thanksgiving, we went with cousins to the Nashville Gun Club and spent a couple of hours and a couple of hundred dollars shooting clays. I thoroughly enjoy the hunting/sporting culture even though I can barely hit a bulls a$$ with a bass fiddle.

My point is I don't think an irresponsible negligent person should hide behind the 2nd amendment. and therefore be absolved of criminal responsibility for that negligence. The numbers maybe small but they are real. The numbers don't include firings that are never reported--in cases where no one was hurt or the injuries were minor. There are a number of folks who don't fall into the category of felon, domestic abuser, mentally unstable, denizen of various violent extremist websites who have access to guns and shouldn't. If laws can't be crafted to weed out the irresponsible/negligent buyer befor the fact, at least hold them criminally negligent afterwards.

THParent said:
Also, Charles Vacca (the dead guy in the video who thought it was a good idea to let a 9-year old girl shoot an Uzi pistol on full-auto, next to his head) was NOT an NRA certified instructor.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all surprised.
 
Just a limited followup since I provided the data you requested and some unsolicited commentary (to which you responded). I'm not arguing.

cb7893 said:
My point is I don't think an irresponsible negligent person should hide behind the 2nd amendment. and therefore be absolved of criminal responsibility for that negligence.
Click to expand...
If a crime was committed with a firearm, I've never heard of a successful 2A defense absolving someone of that crime. Is that a thing now?

cb7893 said:
The numbers maybe small but they are real. The numbers don't include firings that are never reported--in cases where no one was hurt or the injuries were minor.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine) Correct. These are unintentional death numbers, which is what you requested. And yes, I also agree that they are both small and real.

cb7893 said:
There are a number of folks who don't fall into the category of felon, domestic abuser, mentally unstable, denizen of various violent extremist websites who have access to guns and shouldn't.
Click to expand...
I agree. So have the bulk of state legislatures (and the US Congress) that have passed laws barring many types of criminals, minors, impaired individuals, certain employees, etc. from firearm possession. It is abundantly clear that enforcement is a problem.

cb7893 said:
If laws can't be crafted to weed out the irresponsible/negligent buyer befor the fact, at least hold them criminally negligent afterwards.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, they are.

cb7893 said:
I thoroughly enjoy the hunting/sporting culture even though I can barely hit a bulls a$$ with a bass fiddle.
Click to expand...
Consider me the opposite, lol. I'm glad there is someone who can enjoy that culture. It's definitely not my culture. Not sure if I can hit anything with a bass fiddle, but I can hit enough with an M4 or M9 to satisfy the USAF each year.

That's as far as I want to go on this one. I appreciate the response and hope the data I provided was useful.
 
CB, you responded to a question that wasn't asked...
Yes, I've heard of Marion Hammer. She is not many people's favorite lobbyist (even among gun rights supporters). That said, banning the sale of some firearms is not promoting taking personal responsibility.
 
raimius said:
CB, you responded to a question that wasn't asked...
Click to expand...

Tbpxece asked the question, which is quoted in my comment. I answered by giving an example of an NRA lobbyist who advocates an absolutist political position based on an absolutist interpretation of the 2ns Amendment. These advocates seem fear a slippery slope of creeping abrogation of gun owner rights. The result seems to be negligence not being punished enough to serve as deterrence. These cases give ammo from the crazies who really want to ban/confiscate your gun.

raimius said:
That said, banning the sale of some firearms is not promoting taking personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Over the years I have read your posts and considered them thoughtful. If you are suggesting that I advocated "banning the sale of some firearms", then I think you have me confused with someone else.
 
The question asked was whether you had seen the 2nd Amendment successfully used as a defense against a criminal charge, not whether people advocate extreme positions on it.

Which laws do you think Ms. Hammer (or any gun rights org lobbyist) prevented that would have enforced personal responsibility?
 
raimius said:
The question asked was whether you had seen the 2nd Amendment successfully used as a defense against a criminal charge, not whether people advocate extreme positions on it.

Which laws do you think Ms. Hammer (or any gun rights org lobbyist) prevented that would have enforced personal responsibility?
Click to expand...

If I may, perhaps stand your ground law? I am not a big fan of stand your ground law, but I don’t like the idea that our first reaction should be retreat when threatened.
 
MemberLG said:
If I may, perhaps stand your ground law? I am not a big fan of stand your ground law, but I don’t like the idea that our first reaction should be retreat when threatened.
Click to expand...
I can perhaps see the argument, but I don't think it should be legally required to retreat from an illegal attack (it is quite often smart, but I don't think we should jail people who do not retreat as their first option).
 
To be clear, all I'm talking about is one approach to reducing the number of guns in irresponsible hands. Nothing more nothing less. Despite the President's and the NRA's platitudes about prior restraint, there is no due process to make that happen. Until such time as one exists, I believe there should be strong sanction against negligence after the fact. That may serve as incentive to receive proper training or at least being more careful, like not drinking before driving.

I promise I'm done.
 
Devil Doc said:
The tox report on the Dayton killer showed positive for cocaine, alcohol, and an antidepressant. It seems most of these killers are on psych meds.

https://www.kiiitv.com/article/news...ting/503-520f9e8f-d653-4f56-84e1-3b3a8d11e17c
Click to expand...

I would be cautious trying to assume causation from potential correlation. There are innumerable confounding factors between those variables (psych meds, murderers).

A frequent example I like to use is: the amount of ice cream sold is directly correlated to the number of swimming pools open. Those two variables have nothing to do with each other, it is another unmentioned variable (in this case weather, increased heat) that is the true causative factor.
 
Yet, anyone who commits a mass murder is indeed nuts even if not medicated. But, they may enjoy ice cream occasionally.

Just trying to keep up. How am I doing?
 
@kp2001 just going from memory of the reporting on the mass killings in last 15 or so years. Not all medicated nut jobs are killers but most 17-28 year old mass murderers seem to be medicated nut jobs.

I’m all in on the ice cream analogy. I bought a little ice cream yesterday for my wife’s birthday. By the time we got home and consumed it, the pool was closed.
 
I knew it!

Buying ice cream causes pools to close. It didn't used to be that way. There was a time when you could actually eat ice cream at the pool. The good ol' days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top