Posted by: maboulette | March 14, 2011

YOUTH and FIREARMS


An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a ...

Image via Wikipedia

The number of children unintentionally shot and killed each year in the United States could fill a commercial airliner. In 2003, 102 children and teens aged 17 years of age or younger were killed by firearms unintentionally – more than 8 children every month, or one child every four days. For this age group, in 2003 an additional 805 youth were killed in firearm homicides, and 377 took their own lives in firearm suicides. More than four times this number of children is treated in U.S. emergency rooms each year for non-fatal gunshot wounds. Taken together, these numbers add up to a Columbine massacre every four days for America’s youth.

After motor vehicle deaths, firearms are the second leading cause of death among all teenagers. International comparisons starkly illustrate the effect of guns on America’s youth.  A 1997 study analyzing firearm deaths for children aged 14 years or younger in 26 industrialized countries found that 86 percent of the deaths occurred in the United States and that compared to the other countries, the firearms homicide rate alone was 16 times higher for American children, the firearms suicide rate 11 times higher, and the firearms unintentional death rate nine times higher.

And while many worry over youth access to firearms, in the wake of decreasing gun ownership and shrinking markets, the gun lobby and firearms industry have targeted America’s youth as young as four and five years old. Their goal is to ensure continued sales and hoped-for foot soldiers for the gun control battles that lie ahead. As an ad from New England Firearms on the cover of Shooting Sports Retailer warned in 1998: “It’s not `who your customers will be in five years.’ It’s will there be any customers left.'” The cover shows a family out in a field shooting, with the parents slowly fading away as a child aims a long gun. A full-page ad from the company warns: “The greatest threat to the firearms business may not be the anti-gunners. It is a future which lacks gun owners and users due to a lack of interest. In effect, [the] greatest threat we face is the lack of a future customer base for the products which we all sell.”  As one writer urged in Gun World in 1998,  “Start ‘em young!”

Advertisements

Responses

  1. So all law abiding gun owners in the US should lose their 2nd amendment right? How about reporting on the millions of crimes that are stopped cold by law abiding citizens who carry legal firearms? OH right that doesn’t fit into your agenda now does it?

    • No, I would much rather come and take your guns away !

    • By the way, show me the reference of millions of crimes that have been stop cold by law abiding citizens who carry legal firearms – in my lifetime I only know of 2.

      • Try doing a google search for “The Armed Citizen”. Or better yet click on the link below – Look along the right hand side for Archives. It would be good to know what and why you stand for something before opening your mouth.

        http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp

      • And some NRA website is suppose to show me that I am wrong about my opinion – I think not!!!

      • You absolutely have a right to your opinion. You have a right to NOT own a gun if you don’t want one. You have a right to NOT defend yourself if confronted by an assailant. What you don’t have is the right to take away or in my opinion, limit my right to defend myself and my family with a gun of my choice. The problem as I see it with the left is that if you guys don’t like something, you feel a need to ban MY right to that item instead of just not participating yourself. Guns, french fries,hunting, health care, taxes,etc,etc. You name it. Why can’t you guys just leave us alone and live your own lives without trying to live mine. I’m an adult, it took me a long time to become one. I don’t need you guys to tell me how to live my life!

      • I am not the one who has any power over your guns so why even respond to my post – I can do nothing about your right to bear arms – which I must point out was written in a time when you needed your gun to hunt food for your families and protect yourself – a gun that I might add was a flintlock and not an automatic weapon.

        Why can’t we leave you alone – but for some programs to work and work well for everyone – everyone must participate. Example healthcare! And everyone has to pay taxes that is the way this great country gets its money to wage wars in countries where we have no business being – but we are because we have to protect the oil. And dont complain about taxes – everyone is paying far less taxes than any other time in history. For some individual during the 50s the tax rate what 50 percent. And if you have 5 children – then I really doubt that your tax rate it that high.

  2. OH and by the way, gun ownership is WAY up since Obama took office, there is no shrinking market…How about trying the truth..OH again, doesn’t fit into your agenda now does it…

    • What is my agenda dude – and what does the amount of gun ownership have to do with Obama? I want to take you guns away – that is my agenda – to come to your house and take your guns and ammo away from you and throw it all away.

      • Come on over to my house and try it. If I don’t get you, my wife will: Dead Eye Peg will not miss. But, just in case you actually make it into the house, the dogs will take care of intruders.

        What a nut case you are.

      • Oh Larry – I am scared!!! You are going to shoot me with you gun!!! You are big and bad!

  3. walkwithme1966
    Posted on March 15, 2011 at 10:40pm
    Every gun in this country should be taken and thrown in the ocean – we would be a much better country with no guns!!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-KF

    tyr·an·ny   /ˈtɪrəni/ Show Spelled
    [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA

    –noun, plural -nies.
    1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

    Maboulette, how many times do we need to have this conversation about the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? You telling me, or anyone else, when, how, where and IF I can defend myself qualifies as tyranny.

    You do not know what is best for me and whether or not I am allowed to own a firearm for self-defense, hunting or even recreational shooting…….period.

    Please publish the source of your info for your article…….it could prove interesting. Wouldn’t be from VPC would it?

    • I am not telling you anything – I am telling you what I feel. You can do anything you want!!

  4. Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

    http://www.a-human-right.com

    • I didn’t say that!

      • That’s exactly what you implied, take the guns and throw them into the ocean. Then in this case the woman wouldn’t be able to defend herself.

      • What you did say is you would (IF it were in your power to do so – making you a tyrant) dispose of ALL guns therein making some people (women) vulnerable prey to criminals.

        You cannot deny the implied consequences of your intentions…..period!

      • Yes, Sam but I am not in any position of power – so why do you care? Because you love your guns so much that one person with a blog who writes about guns – scares you!! And I don’t have a gun and I do not feel vulnerable to criminals. Have you ever had to use your gun to run some criminal off – I doubt it.

  5. Wow…..maboulette. Your stats are incorrect and your thinking is emotionally motivated. Could you be more wrong? You sound like a parody of a gun-control nut.
    common sense and the lessons of history are lost on you…..

    • Nothing is wrong with my stats – if there is, prove it!! Emotionally motivated? So are you – all you gun lovers are emotionally motivated when anyone talks about taking your guns! I have a deal for you – you keep one gun and we throw the others away – deal?

  6. Some would say (and they would be correct) that speech can be dangerous. Sarah Palin says “don’t retreat, reload” and makes a poster, causing a murder in Arizona, and the Wisconsin union protesters make numerous explicit death threats toward Republican legislators and the Governor while they’re damaging and defacing public property.

    To what extent should this problematic speech be controlled, regulated or banned? How seriously should we take the Bill of Rights? Is it something that we should be able to pick and choose from? Is it speech’s volume, intensity and repetitiveness we should gauge? Where should we draw the line when it comes to magazine capacity, or frequency of fire capability? How about just banning everything? A silent and unarmed society is a safe society, right?

    No, principles need to override these details, or at least be given top billing.

    The Constitution and its Bill of Rights define America. There may be ugliness and discomfort associated with adhering to it in its elegant totality at times, but there’s a much greater good that far outweighs those discomforts.

    But if you don’t like it, amend it. Otherwise, there’s lots of places one can go with no citizen-central empowerment principles, not to mention a 1st, 2nd or 3rd amendment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: