From a surprising (to me) source ...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by armedandsafe, Mar 3, 2004.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Do Gun Control Activists Pad Gun Death Statistics?

    Wednesday, March 03, 2004

    By Wendy McElroy

    Last week’s release of police documents and evidence on the April, 1999, Columbine school shootings has sparked many questions — not only on the specifics of Columbine but also on the general issue of guns.

    The answers are unsatisfying on all counts.

    Take, for example, the issue of how many children die each year in gun-related incidents. That question has been prompted not just by the new Columbine evidence, but by the impending Million Mom March on Washington, D.C., planned for Mother’s Day.

    The first anti-gun MMM in 2000 attempted to redirect the focus of Mother’s Day from flowers and card giving to the gun deaths of children. The 2004 event continues this focus as its press release reminds us, "[W]ith memories of the horrible events at Columbine High School … people gathered [in 2000] on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to demand saner gun policies." The release quotes Mary Leigh Blek, the "president emeritus" of MMM, as saying that almost 14,000 children "have died from gun violence" since "our last march."

    Where does that figure come from?

    To begin with, Blek is probably referring to the 2000 MMM event. (In 2001, only about 100 people participated and the event is now virtually ignored.) This means she is stating that almost 14,000 children died from gun violence between 2000 and 2004. The figure is almost certainly an extrapolation from prior data.

    The definitive source for data on injury-death in America, including gun deaths, is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Taking relevant data for 2001, the latest year available, and multiplying the results by four should provide a figure close to 14,000.

    During 2001, the CDC reported a total of 157,078 injury-deaths. On their interactive Web site, if you click "Firearm" under "Cause of Injury," the figure becomes 29,573. For deaths in children, click on <1 as the lowest in the age range and 17 as the highest. Also select the "No Age-Adjusting Requested" option. The figure becomes 1,433. Multiplied by four, this is 5,732, or roughly 40 percent of what MMM asserts.

    The 5,732 includes at least two categories of death that do not clearly belong because they do not clearly support MMM’s anti-gun arguments. That is to say, MMM’s use of death statistics coupled with calls for legislative control as a "solution" unmistakably implies that the cited deaths could have been prevented by gun control. It is misleading, therefore, to include deaths that would probably have occurred whether gun laws and, in some cases, whether guns themselves — were present.

    Maria Heil of the pro-gun Second Amendment Sisters comments on one of the misleading categories: "They [MMM] are not upfront that over half of those deaths are suicides. Suicide is not committed because there is a gun. Studies show that our suicide rate is on par with other industrialized nations, including ones with very strictly regulated guns."

    Guns are merely one of many methods available.

    The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members’ drug use is prevented by drug laws.

    The honest question for anti-gun advocates is, how many children’s deaths were "caused" by a lack of gun control?

    The easiest way to reduce both suicides and gang deaths from swelling that answer is to eliminate teenagers from the data; both suicide and gang membership are overwhelmingly teen rather than "child" phenomena.

    (Moreover, "child" traditionally refers to someone who is pre-pubescent, pre-teen. That’s the image invoked by MMM’s references to "children" and to "playgrounds.")

    Changing the age parameters on the CDC site to register the gun deaths of children between <1 and 12 years old renders the number, 223 for 2001. Multiplied by four, this becomes 892 or about 6 percent of MMM’s asserted figure. Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin.

    The figure of 14,000 child gun deaths closes off the possibility of honest debate. Indeed, the only way to arrive at that number at the CDC site is to include suicides and gang-related deaths, and to define a child as "anyone under the age of 21." In short, MMM has padded the statistics.

    The death of any child is tragic and should not be diminished, but neither should it be used to political advantage. I believe this is what MMM is doing.

    MMM hopes to create a groundswell of public outrage against guns. But, MMM should reconsider the inflation and skewing of statistics on dead children. As a strategy, it looks cruel and heartless and could easily backfire.

    Wendy McElroy is the editor of and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada
  2. SouthernMoss

    SouthernMoss *Admin Tech Staff*

    Jan 1, 2003
    SW MS
    Thanks, Pops. I'm glad some people are taking the time to question these outrageous statistics that all the gun-control folks toss around.

    I've never hear of individualist feminists (or ifeminists) before, so I took a quick look at the web site. Ifeminists appear to be very different from feminists.

    The following statement is included in their 'introduction to ifeminism':

    As the cost of freedom, ifeminists accept personal responsibility for their own lives. They do not look to government for privileges any more than they would accept government abuse. Ifeminists want legal equality, and they offer the same respect to men.

    And here's their position on gun ownership:

    Ifeminism supports the right of individuals to defend against violence. Firearms are a legitimate tool of self-defense. Firearms have been widely referred to as "the great equalizer" because they give individuals who would otherwise make attractive targets the ability to defend themselves against more powerful attackers. Many women (as well as men) have successfully used firearms to ward off attacks against themselves and others, sometimes without ever discharging the weapon.

  3. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Jan 31, 2001
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    Thanks for that one, Armed&safe

  4. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Quite an eye opener on both counts.

    Thanks to both of you!
  5. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    That's why it was a surprise to me. I'd never gone over and looked at their site to see what they are all about. It was a pleasant surprise, indeed. :)

  6. Lowrider

    Lowrider New Member

    Apr 9, 2003
    Washington State
    Also keep in mind that the Klinton administration, for the purposes of gun-control propaganda, defined "children" as anyone under the age of 25. They also included in the gun violence statistics anyone who was killed by the cops.

    So you could have some dude who, at the age of 20, was busted for armed robbery and sent to prison. He spends 4 years in the joint and after getting out at the age of 24 tries to rob a bank and gets killed while shooting it out with the cops. His death would go into the HCI and CDC data banks as a "child" killed by firearm violence.

    It's enough to make you puke.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2004
  7. Smokin Guns

    Smokin Guns New Member

    Jul 25, 2002
    "Gun Culture Members Clubhouse"...
    Didn't know that! Thanks LR!...:mad:
  8. southside

    southside New Member

    Jan 5, 2004
    Good Post I always knew these anti's lied I just didn't know how much. When they spout this BS, the liberal press never questions them on their stats. or where they got them.
  9. Shizamus

    Shizamus New Member

    Jun 27, 2001
    The figure would be astronomical if they included

    the high premeditated death's in the

    abortion clinics ! Doesn't seem to be any

    concern there. :(
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Surprising hearing this from CNN Dec 10, 2007
General Discussion From CNN...a surprisingly balanced story Apr 5, 2007
General Discussion Little Emergency Power Sources Jun 10, 2017
General Discussion What New Energy Source do you think we will see in our future? Sep 13, 2014
General Discussion Cheap or resourceful? May 25, 2014