Firearms Accidents Even Rarer Than Hen’s Teeth

[Hoopla Phil]

"Unintentional firearms deaths have been falling steadily since 1981 and fell off the table in 1993 as the graph plainly shows. The question is why? For the period 1981 to 1998 (the last year data is available) unintentional shooting deaths have dropped by a stunning 54 percent. Contrast this with unintentional poisoning over the same period that increased by 123 percent. Or how about unintentional drowning? Over the same period people drowned accidentally at a rate more than double accidental shooting deaths. What is going on here?"
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/paul-raynolds/firearms-accidents-even-rarer-than-hens-teeth/

The graphs alone speak volumes. . .

[rl6214]

1. but but but

Guns are meant to kill :sarcasm:

[Logical]

16. I am pro-gun, but they are meant to kill. What else Target shooting?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Mine are for preserving human life.

Otherwise, they would all be broken, I guess.

[spin]

31. Target shooting is a valid purpose for a firearm ...

and indeed many firearms are designed for this sport. True, they are still deadly weapons but such firearms were not designed primarily to kill.

For example, I own a S&W Model 41 target pistol.

Smith & Wesson Model 41
The first choice in a .22 pistol

In Gunslinging, I expressed my unequivocal view that the .22 rimfire is the best gun for someone wishing to develop real skill at shooting. I now introduce the best .22 pistol for target and general use.

Why the Model 41 is the best
The Model 41 (hereafter M41) isn't cheap, but darn it's worth it! It's not as purpose-built a pistol as the Benelli, Walther or Hammerli Olympic pistols, but it more than holds its own in the matches and feels very similar to a 1911-style auto. Did I mention it costs less than half the price of one of the Olympic jobs?

***snip***

The M41 is simple, accurate, reliable and versatile. This year (2008) is its 50th anniversary in production. If the $1,000 price tag is a bit steep, buy a used one in good condition. You can't really wear it out, and Smith & Wesson or a competent gunsmith can easily fix anything that ails it.
http://www.squidoo.com/sw41

[SheilaT]

2. And to think that two stories got posted within

minutes of this one. One is an "accidental" shooting in Memphis, woman dead, the second an "accidental" shooting of a two-year old in Vermont. Hen's teeth are something I hear about a whole lot less often than I hear about these kinds of "accidents".

[Hoopla Phil]

11. And you've found the key to the difference between

reality and supposition. Congratulations.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Of course you are going to hear about them here.

First, in a nation of 310 million people even rare events can happen daily.

Second, it is now possible to search the nation's news media via the internet looking for such events. Certain DU posters who are dedicated to showing guns in the worst possible light do exactly that, and post the stories. They completely ignore all the rest of the gun owners who had nothing happen.

[AndyTiedye]

3. They Stopped Collecting Data in 1998?

:wtf:

[petronius]

5. It looks like the CDC changed their coding methods in 1998, so there's a break in the data

But unintentional death data are available through 2007 at least...

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

[wtmusic]

4. And why do you think data is no longer available?

Might have something to do with the NRA lobby forcing the CDC to abandon gun safety studies under the threat of funding cuts. So we know very little about what's happened in the last decade.

Gundies are funny.

[petronius]

6. CDC firearms-related data is still available, and CDC is not prohibited from

conducting or funding research related to firearms.

It looks like the most recently available data for all causes is through 2007 - perhaps the author of the cited article got confused by the coding change in 1998...

[wtmusic]

15. Oh really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?_r=1

[petronius]

18. Yes, really. It's despicable when politicians play funding games,

but the reality is that the agency is not prohibited from collecting, archiving, and distributing firearms related data, and it continues to do so...

[wtmusic]

19. The reality is that funding for firearms-related accidents has been cut by 75%

attributable 100% to the NRA lobby.

(AKA, politicians playing funding games.)

[petronius]

20. The reality is that CDC continues to do what it's supposed to do, and anti-rights organizations

complain about NRA-oppression when data doesn't support the positions they want it to...

[wtmusic]

21. What is it you don't get about funding being slashed by 75%?

Did you read the article, or just kneejerk when facts threatened your worldview?

[Hoopla Phil]

22. The data is still collected and still available. You just don't' like it.

LMAO!!!

[Logical]

25. +1

[petronius]

23. I've seen the article; it's not the first time it's been posted

CDC is collecting firearms data (it's a major source, in fact), and it's not prohibited from funding basic research. You apparently don't like that the data threatens your worldview, and that 'research' intended to bolster that worldview doesn't get cash.

Of course, there's nothing to stop the Brady group from funding research if they aren't happy with the federal supply...

[DonP]

24. You'll have to ask Nancy Pelosi about that

Are you suggesting that Pelosi is in the pocket of the NRA? Or have you forgotten who has been in charge of funding bills since 2006 until a few months ago?

[one-eyed fat man]

30. what are you smoking???

"The reality is that funding for firearms-related accidents has been cut by 75%"

What a completely ignorant thing to say. Who would be paying people to have accidents? You have to underwrite accidents and fund them? Even the Joyce Foundation can't be that ignorant!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. funding for firearms-related accidents

Have you reread this?


I, personally, think we should stop funding firearms-related accidents - and accidents of all kinds.
Accidents happen enough without government funding.
Hell, some government funding is probably an accident.

[lawodevolution]

13. Just like how the Brady campaign and VPC are coaching the mentally insane to shoot up playgrounds

Schools and public events Because if they can't get more members soon, they will go bankrupt.

And this theory is more plausible.

[cleanhippie]

14. Or it might NOT have anything to do with that at all.

[CreekDog]

7. yes, most people are murdered with firearms on purpose

but thanks for playing! :rofl:

[LAGC]

8. Do you really think that if we somehow magically got rid of all guns...

...that the murder rate would change?

People intent on doing harm will always find a way.

[pnwmom]

9. How many teeth do hens have? n/t

[frebrd]

10. Actually, I believe each chick has.....

an "egg tooth" made of calcium on the outside of its beak. It loses it shortly after hatching. So I guess all hens have "teeth" briefly.

[lawodevolution]

12. It's an evil NRA plot to take funding and potential members away from the Brady campaign by

Teachin gun safety and yes the anti gun groups fight solidly against gun safety, because child gun accidents are the bread and butter of anti gun groups.

[Logical]

26. There are maybe 100 a year. 5 times more drown.

[russ1943]

27. The graphs speak irrelevant outdated mini chapters.

The unintentional firearm shootings discussion on this board is seldom based on facts that are relevant.
This OP dated 4/15/2011 links to an article Posted on April 13, 2011 by Paul Raynolds and as the OP notes, states the last year data is available was 1998. That is, if not an outright falsehood, a serious distortion. Mr Raynolds clearly identifies WISQARS as his source.
WISQARS has the relevant data for unintentional firearm (5%) deaths available thru 2007 and importantly, the data for unintentional firearms injuries (95%) are available thru 2009. The lengthy discussion regarding the statistics of fatalities (less than 5%) ignores the more relevant statistics of the 95% of unintentional non fatal unintentional firearms victims.
What does the more relevant most RECENT data tell us?

Unintentional firearms deaths and non fatal injuries are increasing;
NON FATAL
INJURY DEATHS TOTAL
2006 14,678 + 642 15,320

2007 15,698 613 16,311

2008 17,215 * 17,215

2009 18,610 * 18,610

[lawodevolution]

32. You're trying to show a trend using 4 years of data. Typical deceptive tactics.

[russ1943]

33. Facts

# 32 lawodevolution
You are simply amazing.
Again you tell me what I’m “trying to do”.
What I’ve done is exactly as I described; The “more relevant most RECENT data tells us that Unintentional firearms shootings are increasing.
Nowhere have I tried to show nor have I used the word “TREND”.
The readers can easily determine who has used “deceptive tactics”

[guardian]

29. OMG!!

I see in your chart that drownings are on the rise. Quick let's ban WATER! Especially those 'high capacity' bathtubs.

[HardWorkingDem]

34. Talk about "juking" the stats.....

Get this....the fly in the ointment here is the link goes to a piece about "UNINTENTIONAL"....in other words, let's forget about the 18,000 murders of one year because those damn things were "INTENTIONAL"....

How rich....

[Bold Lib]

35. It's about accidents, not intentional shootings. If it included intentional

shootings and was billed as accidents then THAT would be "juking" the stats as you put it. Perhaps you just miss read the title.

[HardWorkingDem]

37. It is a creatively written piece....

to make a particular point of view and underplay the cost (economic and physical) of gun play in the US.

[Bold Lib]

43. Do you have a different set of stats to put forth, have evidence that the stats

given were collected improperly, or maybe you just don't like them?

[Euromutt]

36. "18,000 murders of one year" with firearms? When did that happen?

I'm looking at the statistics http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm and there's never been a year in which 18,000 firearm homicides took place. Admittedly, 1993 came close with just over 17,000, but that was 18 years ago. So it's not like the number of firearm homicides routinely even approaches 18,000.

Moreover, the issue with intentional firearm homicides is that the bulk of homicides (over 90%) are committed by people with a prior history of violent and criminal behavior. These are people who are generally already prohibited from possessing firearms, but even if they're not (yet), it's not like they'd obey gun control laws if they were.

As a result, to justify imposing increased gun control measures on legal gun owners, anti-gun advocates (at least, those honest enough to acknowledge that an infinitesimally small percentage of murders are committed regular, generally law-abiding people) are forced to focus on unintentional shootings as presenting the putative threat to public health and safety that additional restrictions must address. If it turns out that unintentional shootings aren't that much of a problem either, comparatively speaking, then what rationale is left?

[HardWorkingDem]

38. From the linked to article in the OP.....

This is from the article linked to....

"Well, let’s talk detail. Shooting deaths peaked in 1993 at 39,595. Yet, 18,940 (48 percent) of these deaths were suicides. Another 18,571 (47 percent) were homicides."


In the US, there were almost 25,000 murders in 1993.

[Euromutt]

40. Fair enough

I can't fault you for citing a statistic cited in the OP article. However, the point does remain that that statistic is from eighteen years ago, represents the highest number of firearm homicides in one year ever recorded, and is not representative of the number of firearm homicides of recent years.

[russ1943]

39. In 1993

As HardWorkingDem responded in his post #38 he is simply quoting from the article referenced and linked in the OP. Paul Raynolds is a regular poster on a pro gun site titled “The Truth About Guns” and immediately lies about the fact that he’s using data which he says is “the last year data is available”. Data from WISQARS which he identifies as his source, has information for Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries thru 2009 and Unintentional Firearm Deaths thru 2007.

As Mr Raynolds has already demonstrated either his ignorance stupidity or the intentional
deception, I can understand your reluctance to simply accept his article’s statement regarding the number of shooting homicides as having peaked in 1993 at over 18,000.

You can however still rely on his WISQARS source. WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1981-1998 http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate9.html
Is the link covering the time frame for the year in question.
As Mr Raynalds says in 1993 homicides did peak at over 18,000.

The answer is ....................1993

[Euromutt]

41. So, eighteen years ago, depending on one's source

As you can see, I posted a link in my earlier post to the DoJ's Bureau of Justice statistics, which lists the number of firearm homicides for that year as 17,075 (as I also noted in my earlier post). There's little reason to assume the WISQARS data is more correct than the DoJ's, though I acknowledge the WISQARS data does exist.

Point remains that this is an 18 year-old statistic which represents a historical high point (or low point, depending on one's point of view); it is not representative of "typical" levels of firearm homicide in the United States, and certainly not of recent years.

[petronius]

42. Is it possible that WISQARS and DoJ are using different definitions of homicide?

WISQARS states that justifiable homicides are not identified, which leads me to believe that they're included (and, the 18,571 statistic also includes 318 'legal interventions').

On the other hand, DoJ uses what appears to be a narrower definition: "Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. ... Justifiable homicides based on the reports of law enforcement agencies are analyzed separately."