From: [d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com] (Dan Day)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: election day, tuesday 11/8/94
Date: 13 Dec 1994 22:06:26 GMT

In article <3cgdu3$[i--l] at [covina.lightside.com]> [m w t] at [lightside.com] (Mark Thompson) writes:
>
>Has there been at least one child who has been killed by a gun in the 
>house?  Yes.  Would that child be alive if the gun wasn't around?  
>Probably.  Assertion proven.  Oversimplistic?  Yes, but I have better
>things to do than to gather statistics of things that *I* consider
>to be obvious based on anecdotal evidence.

Thereby demonstrating the sad decline in the quality of public education.
"Anecdotal evidence" is a contradiction in terms, and what is "obvious"
is seldom what it appears.

Based on press coverage (which I'm sure is what you really mean when
you say "anecdotal evidence", I'm sure you're under the impression that
accidental deaths of children due to guns are a big problem.  Guess again.
In 1988, for example, a grand total of *5* children under five years old
died in handgun accidents in the entire US.  *9* died while driving (yes,
*driving*) a motor vehicle.  *21* died due to electrocution.  *59* died
due to ingestion of poison.  *117* died due to falls.  *250* died due to
suffocation.  *381* died in swimming pool drownings, another *375* drowned
in bathtubs.  *432* died in residential fires caused by adults who fell
asleep while smoking.  *459* died due to being hit by cars.  *720* died
due to being in cars involved in accidents.

Guns are about the *least* safety risk for small children.  Let's look
at it another way, shall we?  When you pro-rate the risk for those homes
which have the risk factor in question, we find that although swimming
pools kill 76 times as many small children as do handguns, it turns out
that since there are far more handguns than residential swimming pools
the actual risk ratio is *3122:1*.  Yes, that's right, the swimming pool
in the back yard is three thousand times as likely to kill a small child
than is the handgun in the dresser drawer.

Sources for statistics:  _Accident Facts_, 1989 Edition, National Safety
Council.  _Vital Statistics of The United States_.  Centers for Disease
Control, "Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report".  National Swimming Pool
Institute.

Tell me, was any of this "obvious based on anecdotal evidence"?
So why does the "anecdotal evidence" give the wrong impression?  Because
for some reason whenever a child is killed by a firearm, the national
press feels compelled to make a big stink about it for days on end,
every single time, yet they very seldom bother reporting the other types
of accidental child deaths, which occur more than five hundred times more
often.  No *wonder* people have an overinflated belief about the risk
of a firearm in the home, and an unjustified complacency about most other
common household risks.

Now that I've jumped all over you, let me say that I know that all you
said was that firearms were "a" risk.  However, I hope I've made clear
that, relative to most other things people take for granted and don't
worry about, it's a trivially small risk.


>>        Fine by me.  Don't like guns? Don't buy one....but
>>        please leave my rights alone.
>
>If I remember right, the first post suggested that women buy guns to 
>protect themselves.  I advise that they do more harm than good.

Of course, you have not supported this advice with anything resembling
actual evidence.  Once you look at the evidence that *is* available,
you may very well change your mind.  I know *I've* seen precious little
evidence for your position, and I've looked.

>Is my stating my beliefs infringing on your rights?  No.  

No, but very often people who choose not to have guns for themselves
feel compelled try to make that choice for everyone else as well.
If you're not in that camp, I salute you.
-- 
"Don't tread on me"