Democrats’ ‘Gun Safety’ Proposals Won’t Save One Child’s Life

Gun Save Life youth kids nra camp

Courtesy Guns Save Life

By Chris McBride, MD

I am extremely upset over Democrat moves they label as “gun safety” regulations and laws that have minimal or NO effect on the killing of American children.

Why do voters not ask: “Would this proposed legislation have prevented the Columbine event or the Sandy Hook shooting or the Parkland school shooting or the Colorado theater shooting?”  The rhetoric, laws and regulations being argued about today would have prevented none of these massacres.

People who do crazy things with firearms don’t care one iota about any law now on the books or any being proposed.

It is very clear to me that the ONLY way my family members will be safe in any school, shop or restaurant is for someone there to be armed and to stop attackers before they damage the lives and well-being of those in that place.

How do people not recognize that every mass shooting in the USA but one since 1992 has occurred in a supposed “gun free zone”. The perpetrators obtained firearms legally (passing background checks), bought them illegally, stole them from someone else, or possessed them illegally at the time of the shooting.

Laws do not affect the behavior of those who have decided to act illegally.

I am a retired Board Certified pediatrician with 35 grandkids and 5 great-grandkids, and I care enormously about the safety of all of those children, as well as the children of all Americans. It is very clear to me that the ONLY way my family members will be safe in any school, shop or restaurant is for someone there to be armed and to stop attackers before they damage the lives and well-being of those in that place.

It’s not rocket science to know that when seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away.

I learned many years ago to evaluate medical literature. The recent “study” reported by the American Academy of Pediatrics should have embarrassed those who authored it as well as those who allowed it to be published. It is stacked with “statistics” that are intended to mislead and misinform the general public. It should be regarded only as a political statement by a group of supposed professionals intending to promote an agenda that is not based on facts.

None of those who desire to disarm American citizens and neuter the Second Amendment EVER talk about the millions of times every year that firearm owners stop violent criminal events. News outlets are not interest in reporting that “Nancy Williams was not beaten and robbed today because she outgunned her assailant.”  The great number of defensive uses of firearms is reported in unpublished work by the Centers for Disease Control in 1996-98 that is ignored by all those who are intent on disarming Americans

It is unfortunate that most people who want to ban modern semi-automatic weapons have no clue that the main difference between those and “Dad’s hunting rifle” is appearance. I am confident that many of those seeking restrictions in the name of “gun safety” have no idea about the differences between a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol, between a lever action and a semiautomatic rifle, or between a semiautomatic rifle and a machine gun.

I also wonder at how the world’s memory has faded about what occurred in Germany before Adolf Hitler began slaughtering millions of people. The Weimar Republic required gun registration, and Hitler outlawed citizen ownership before he began his mass killing rampage. He said “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms.”

Not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to the means with which to protect ourselves from criminals and tyrants, without it the First Amendment codifying the right to public dissent has not a leg to stand on!

Any proposed “public gun safety” legislation needs to ensure that people can protect themselves and each other from attackers, whether they use firearms or other weapons.  The proposals currently being promoted will affect only law-abiding citizens who choose to be armed for good reasons, including to protect themselves and others from those to whom gun control laws are meaningless.

 

Cris McBride, M.D. is retired from a busy practice in rural Arizona. He purchased his first firearm at age 11 from a Sears catalog for $12. Dr. McBride is adamant about shooting for fun and self defense, and to prevent a tyrannical government from taking away our God-given rights.

This post originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.

comments

  1. avatar Username says:

    They want you disarmed because they want you dead. They want you dead and their voting bloc alive. That simple.

    1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      That is 100% the entirety of it

      1. avatar Baltimore says:

        35 grand kids? Dudes left behind a major carbon footprint!

        But remember. Once the school children start dying, the handy packers are just seconds away. Of course there will still be dead kids but at least not as many, maybe five or ten but not 20. Right? Hope so anyway. Cuz if not then we gotta start claiming somtn else.

    2. avatar D says:

      The proposals were not designed to save lives. They were designed to fool their stupid and gullible voters into thinking that they were doing “something.”

    3. avatar enuf says:

      Bullshit.

      They want guns removed from our lives because they have been listening to their own echo chamber for so long that they no longer have the ability to think outside their partisan bubble.

      Yes, they are out to take your guns away, and my guns too, and all the guns .

      No, they are not to slaughter you. The rare violent extremist not withstanding.

      We have plenty on our side who have the same defect, trapped in a partisan bubble.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        The Dem Politicians want more government control over us and to tax us to death.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        They don’t want to slaughter us, they just want to do stuff they know we will not stand still for while armed.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Again with the statistics, logic and data?

    Hey Docs (who visit here), we are dealing with fear in the public, and agenda in the funders. No amount of objective research about how bad people ignore laws will/can persuade.

    How do we deal with fear at the core of beliefs? How do we “prove” to people that fear will not keep them safe, anywhere? How do people not bound up in fear reach those who are?

    1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

      1) open carry
      2) take a noob shooting
      3) talk about guns with non gunnies

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “1) open carry
        2) take a noob shooting
        3) talk about guns with non gunnies”

        Being fully retired, there are no work associates, and darn few “friends” here (most of our real friends are old military buddies, in other states, or other towns here. the neighborhood shows about 100% (that is, “about”) lefty candidate supporters. The only place I talk guns is at the store or range (no neighbors there, yet). The result is we are rigged for silent running about guns.

        As to #3, non-gunnies who could be persuaded are like unicorns. Not enough of them to change the political dynamic, and the unicorns are so spread out in the nation as to be something to turn the political tide.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I’ve often suspected, but now I know: I am a unicorn! I persuaded myself, but still, I think that counts.

          To answer your earlier question, probably we don’t reach the fearful and change their minds. Fear and ignorance are a powerful combination. Even those who know everything we’d want them to know can still cling to the wrong conclusions out of fear. (Just look at our fellow commenter Vlad…although I still suspect he’s a parody.)

          What we can maybe do instead is to undermine and expose the people who prey on those fears. That’s difficult because the whole education/entertainment complex reflexively supports the anti-gun premise, but it’s a premise built on weak foundations. Expose the anti-gun crusaders for the corrupt, venal opportunists they are. Now that they’ve become the establishment, these filthy leftists are highly vulnerable to the same radical tactics they used to get themselves there.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, unicorns do exist, and you maybe even more rare – self determined. The issue is, though, unicorns are rare, and not in sufficient numbers to reverse the slide in rights to firearms.
          When the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not include weapons of war (M-16) for the people of the nation to use in protecting themselves and their states from the tyranny of a standing army, an army equipped with weapons of war, it shows that even the supposed protectors of constitutionally protected rights do not believe the Second Amendment was actually intended to allow the people to engage in war against government.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Being fully retired, there are no work associates, and darn few “friends” here (most of our real friends are old military buddies, in other states, or other towns here. the neighborhood shows about 100% (that is, “about”) lefty candidate supporters. The only place I talk guns is at the store or range (no neighbors there, yet). The result is we are rigged for silent running about guns.”

          Does any of that relate to #1, open carry?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Does any of that relate to #1, open carry?”

          Thinking open carry would scare the horses in the neighborhood, and neighborhood stores. And since my .22 plinker looks like something from Star Wars, I might get laughed at.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Thinking open carry would scare the horses in the neighborhood, and neighborhood stores. And since my .22 plinker looks like something from Star Wars, I might get laughed at.”

          It’s difficult for non-gunners to take your position seriously when doubt and fear cause you to not even exercise your right in the open. In such a neighborhood, it is even more important that the few or one gun person carry every day in the open.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s difficult for non-gunners to take your position seriously…”

          While I understand your position, do you think the snowflakes would take me seriously if I walked about open carrying this?
          http://www.beretta.com/en-us/u22-neos-inox/

          In this?
          https://www.amazon.com/Coyote-Tactical-Holster-fits-Beretta/dp/B00TQ3V9KC/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=beretta+neos+holster&qid=1564365950&s=gateway&sr=8-6

          Notice the holster maker was too embarrassed to even have a photo of a Neos in their holster.

      2. avatar SGSG666 says:

        I’ve talked with “non-gunnies” in my driveway. They all seem to think firearms are sold at the grocery store as they just want to make them “harder to get.” So I asked if it would’ve taken any of the school shooters another 6 months to a year to get a gun and then shoot up the school, you would’ve felt satisfied with that? Stumps the panel. Then I threw them out of my driveway.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I agree. #1 often leads to #3 naturally and sometimes #2. I think that open carry is one of the most effective things to do day to day; for many reasons.

  3. avatar tdiinva says:

    Why are we focused on a handful of white suburban kids death when we ignore the literally thousands of black kids who die from gang violence? Now that is actual racism.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Why are we focused on a handful of white suburban kids death when we ignore the literally thousands of black kids who die from gang violence?”

      Uuuuuhhhh, uuuummmmm, like what color dominates among mass killers? What color dominates among the anti-gun mafia?

      Take a close look at the color of the people pushing disarmament. These folks are racist, as you mentioned, because they are only concerned about the safety of their kind, and the places where their kind congregate. Cain’t nobody do nothin’ ’bout crime, but much can be done to keep people with guns out of nice places the anti-gunners frequent.

      There are few people of color represented among the anti-gunners, just like there are few people of color defending the Second Amendment. No idea why it works that way.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” there are few people of color defending the Second Amendment ”

        I’m not so sure about that. True, in the media you almost never see anyone of color standing for the 2A. There are a few, but they are rare.

        On the grassroots level, my evidence is anecdotal. The range where I do most of my shooting is run by the state. It’s inexpensive, and frankly, just a nice little range to shoot at. Several years ago it was white, male and fairly advanced years. Year by year, however, it has become steadily darker, more female and younger. I’d say that old and white are not even a majority any more, though it is still predominantly male.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Apropos of nothing….my LGS/range is a vanilla milkshake. It is apparently not by design, but because it is small, unadvertised, and family run. Anyway, we had a most unhappy moment one afternoon, regarding color. The range is open to the public, but rather strict about scheduling. Walk-ins are welcome, with the understanding that lanes may not be immediately available. Sorta understandable when you think about it; or so we (I?) assumed.

          On Saturday afternoon, a family of six arrived, ready to money into noise and spent copper. The RSO informed the lead person that there were no openings the rest of the afternoon, but they were welcome to visit and get on the stand-by list. The leader was incensed that the range claimed to be open to the public, but required reservations; false advertising. No amount of courtesy was sufficient to mollify the family lead. They stormed through the store, and out the door. We probably gained a reputation as intolerant of other than OFWGs.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s likely biased by location but most gun owners and people at the range where I live are black and Hispanic. Whites are clearly the minority. It seems the same for my neighborhood and surrounding hoods. However, there is one local chain of ranges where “all of the white people” seem to go almost exclusively. Of course, there whites are the majority it seems.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Of course, there whites are the majority it seems.”

          Yeah, the community here is largely non-POC.

          Read something last month, or so, that “White” is the largest minority, when breaking the communities by “White” and “People of Color”.

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Well, “we” aren’t.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Of course they won’t and the Commiecrat’s really don’t care because that’s not what it’s about,what it’s about is for them to realize their goal they have to eliminate from “We The People”,the right to civilian ams.

  5. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    I teach (Boy) Scouts USA ages 14 to 17 to safely shoot semi-automatic 22 pistols and 4 H kids 8 to 18 to safely shoot 22 rifles.

    THIS IS REAL GUN SAFETY. THIS WILL SAVE LIVES.

    1. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      Thank You for your service.

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    Your first mistake was to assume voters think.

  7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I think it is your right to protect your own life, especially when folks like “Spatacus” Booker won’t. (I’ll note that the movie Spartacus sacrificed himself, as did his comrades; not some distant no-matters left to the free malice of others. Spartacus Booker can discuss my protection detail when he dispenses with his.)

    A grandfather’s love shouldn’t be limited to watching them die when trouble comes. Nor a parent’s, not a teacher’s, nor adult, competent students.

    Guns are being banned from kids who die getting their classmates away from whack jobs the bans didn’t stop.

    Banned from their teachers, who can’t stop the horror coming. Banned by people who insist that eleventy-billion warnings, threats n craziness n the time bomb has to remain among its targets.

    Banned by people who mock “thoughts and prayers” when that’s all they have left us.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Banned by people who mock our thoughts and prayers when they’ve taken all other options away.

      That is a powerful statement.

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Thanks, but I really, mostly got lucky. But yeah that one is burning in on me as well. Stumbled on some truth, there…

        The folks who point out we pro-people need to make the emotional point also, aren’t wrong. (A I R you’ve made this point, Ing.)

        I find the most hook-y emotional pro-people riffs are onto what the anti-people do, with small, direct words. Stated plainly, their stories are horrible and carry the impactful big-think payloads. Like “mocking thoughts and prayers.” Why would they do that?

        “Mothers against only some violence”, is another.

        “Leaving a kid only the choice to stand in a doorway so his friends can get away … and he did.”

  8. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

    Gee, I wonder why dems want us defenseless?
    Meanwhile, in North Carolina: https://www.theepochtimes.com/illegal-immigrants-drive-child-sex-crime-charges-in-north-carolina-2_3006558.html

    1. That information should be sent to President Trump. It fortifies the reason for both “the wall” and the need for immigration reform. He should have the person who compiled the statistics on the rapes and attacks on females with him when he gives speeches around the country, to make people realize that what he has been saying all along is the truth.

  9. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Why do voters not ask: “Would this proposed legislation have prevented the Columbine event or the Sandy Hook shooting or the Parkland school shooting or the Colorado theater shooting?”

    The answer to this is simple: Like similar lifestyle oriented social movements, the gun-control movement is primarily interested in symbolism. This is why the movement’s adherents are so fixated on banning scary looking black rifles that are functionally identical to more mundane designs. Because of this fixation, people who strongly identify with movement dogma tend to be impervious to outside criticism (from us). The gun-control movement is about feelings and not facts. They want what they want.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      “Lifestyle oriented social movement…”

      That’s good. Bang on. And a great stopping assertion when they go off into the irrelevant.

      “What’s that, you’re not a lifestyle-oriented social movement? Great, let’s talk outcomes n results.”

      And hit them on every evasion. “Oh, that dealer ban in Ill sn’t symbolic?” (Not a “ban”, but go with me. – ed)

      “Sputter, sputter, outcomes, for the children…”

      “Well, we don’t know that it’s saved anybody. We do know it’s eliminated about half the dealers. So how many to make it a ban?/2/3? 3/4? Your murder, death, kill bans do way less than that — just sayin.”

      “But, let’s do talk outcomes: What good could we do with that same effort, used better. For the children, of course.”

  10. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    The left wants to control virtually every aspect of our lives and that can’t happen with an armed population. What must be remembered is that resisting a despotic government is not attempting to establish something new, it would be an attempt to re-establish the Constitution and if anybody thinks there is actually a better way to govern they can live in another country and see how well they function, Like England, or anywhere in the EU where your firearms record is stored in Brussels no matter the city in which you reside. I didn’t use the word country because the EU intends for that designation to disappear and the language differences to be classified as “states”. Or Russia and its vast freedoms Or someplace like China where your internet is really controlled. Oh, and we can’t forget the countries such as France, South Africa, and others where the PROSECUTION can appear verdicts to get 2nd and 3rd bites at the apple. You know, double and triple jeopardy.

  11. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    [insert text here]

  12. avatar George Washington says:

    What I learned from the article was Hitler was a smart man 😉

  13. avatar Thinker1 says:

    The excuse is safety. The goal is to disarm the law abiding.

    “But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.”

    __ Snyder

    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

    ― Ayn Rand

  14. avatar Tec's Dad says:

    If they want to save children then ban abortion…again the hypocrit democrit platform

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      They go to great lengths to point out how it is not killing a human…just a mass of cells…a parasite
      Yet…if found on any other planet…even the dem/lib scientists would agree that it is LIFE…
      just sayin’….

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Yet…if found on any other planet…even the dem/lib scientists would agree that it is LIFE…”

        Absolutely !

        Good insight, will use it as often as possible.

  15. avatar Darkman says:

    What is needed is a lot less talk and Helluva Lot more Action. Words against an Enemy who cares not. Is akin to pissing on a forest fire in an attempt to put it out. As long as people with evil intent are allowed prosper in their attempt. Evil will always stand a chance of success. Keep Your Powder Dry…

  16. avatar Rad Man says:

    35 grandchildren? Just wow.

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      Busy, busy, busy…

  17. avatar enuf says:

    “The Weimar Republic required gun registration”

    No, it did not.

    It was the Treaty of Paris in 1919 that forced Germany to do that and much more. That treaty, forced upon Germany by the victorious allied nations, was a critical factor in bringing about World War 2. Which is why such punitive measures were rejected out of hand for the end of WW2 and why we Americans began planning the rebuilding of Germany long before we beat the Nazi war machine into ruin.

    In any case all the outside efforts to disarm the people of Germany failed miserably. There were armed uprisings (by Socialists/Communists) put down by the German army and civilian militia groups before Hitler took power. Obviously lots of people had guns and ammunition, scoffing at the law and the Treaty of Paris.

  18. avatar Ark says:

    “Why do voters not ask: “Would this proposed legislation have prevented the Columbine event or the Sandy Hook shooting or the Parkland school shooting or the Colorado theater shooting?” ”

    Because it’s not about prevention, it’s about punishing you.

  19. avatar daveinwyo says:

    Which would be worse?
    Given instant medical care on scene.
    One shot from a gun or one slice from a Katana?
    No head shots, just center mass.
    A Katana wielded by a moderately trained user can slice from shoulder to sternum, bisecting the heart, lungs and arteries.
    One bullet MAY hit the heart, or not.
    The left should be worried about what they wish for.

    1. avatar PosseMan says:

      You think they’re going to be content and stop their disarmament march with just firearms?! In the words of that great philosopher Nelson, “HA-Ha!”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “In the words of that great philosopher Nelson, “HA-Ha!” ”

        Is that Nelson, or Nilsson?

        1. avatar Someone says:

          Nielsen. I think that the great philosopher was Leslie Nielsen. ;-p

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Nielsen. I think that the great philosopher was Leslie Nielsen. ;-p”

          I was thinking Harry Nilsson, poet and songster from the ’60s (“Everybody’s Talking At Me”)

  20. avatar million says:

    Looking at Lott’s data on mass shootings (4 or more fatalities), since 1998 it’s 89% occurrence in a GFZ. There were 3 in non-GFZs in 2017 (Vegas was one).

    1. avatar Vorkon says:

      How was Vegas not a gun-free zone? Were weapons allowed at the concert? And while I’m unsure about the hotel’s policies for its rooms, I’m fairly certain they were at least restricted in some way, and I know for a fact they’re prohibited on the casino floor.

      Are you only talking about government-mandated gun-free zones? I think it’s safe to say that private locations where the owners prohibit guns are definitely applicable when you’re argument is that gun-free zones make people less safe. If potential defenders are unarmed, it doesn’t matter who told them to be unarmed.

  21. avatar The SGM says:

    Their actions and comments are geared toward a sympathetic argument resulting in your sympathy for the injured and your vote. All of their arguments and resulting legislation and campaign slogans are only to gain sympathy and your support; if you fall for it you are just a pawn in their playbook.
    Make them explain what their ideas and or legislation will do, specifically how will it have prevented this or that shooting and any shootings in the future; additionally how will it prevent illegal weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. Bet they can not answer.

  22. avatar 2WarAbnVet says:

    I Remember when the left used to scream, “If it saves just one child’s life, we have to … (do whatever political correctness demands at the given moment, usually take guns away from law-abiding citizens),”
    Now the left is telling us, “We don’t care how many children’s lives are destroyed by sexual predators, we have to placate the LBGT fringe at any cost.”

  23. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    The Author is a complete Moron.

    Guns kill nearly 1,300 children in the U.S. each year and send thousands more to hospitals

    Handguns and other firearms cause the deaths of more children in the United States each year than the flu or asthma, according to a comprehensive new report on gun violence and kids.

    Each day in the United States, an average of 3.5 people under the age of 18 are shot to death and another 15.5 are treated in a hospital emergency department for a gunshot wound. Between 2012 and 2014, an average of 1,287 children and adolescents died each year as a result of gun violence, making firearms second only to motor vehicle crashes as a cause of injury-related deaths. Another 5,790 were treated for gunshot injuries in U.S. hospitals.

    Here’s another way to look at it: In the United States, a gun is the cause of death in more than 1 in 10 deaths of people under the age of 18.

    The number of child fatalities related to guns is far higher in the U.S. than in any other high-income country. Another study has reckoned that the U.S. accounts for 91% of all the firearms-related deaths of children under 14 in the world’s 23 richest countries.

    The new analysis, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, represents an unusually comprehensive look at the toll that guns take on children. It draws from federal databases of injuries and deaths, hospital records, and an effort launched in 2003 to track violent deaths and the circumstances surrounding them in at least 17 states so far.

    The majority of the nearly 1,300 children killed in gun-related incidents each year are boys between the ages of 13 and 17. In homicides, which represent an average of 53% of annual gun-related deaths among children, African American youths are the most likely victims.

    Indeed, African American children were found to have the highest rates of death-by-firearm — 4.1 per 100,000 between 2012 and 2014 — of any ethnic group counted. That’s a major reason why the annual rate of homicide fatalities for African American children (3.5 per 100,000) was nearly twice as high as the rate for Native American children (2.2 per 100,000). Black children’s rate of firearm-related fatalities was four times higher than the rate for Latino children (0.8 per 100,000), and roughly 10 times higher than the rate for white children and Asian American children (each 0.4 per 100,000).

    Between 2010 and 2014, the states with the highest rates of firearm-related homicide among children were largely concentrated across the South (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana. Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee). Other states near the top of the list included four in the Midwest (Illinois, Missouri, Michigan and Ohio), two in the West (California and Nevada), and three in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania).

    The new analysis also discerned an alarming rise in gun-related child suicides, which from 2012 to 2014 accounted for 38% of firearms deaths of children each year. Victims were most likely to be white or Native American.

    Between 2010 and 2014, Montana, Idaho and Alaska had starkly higher rates of such suicides than the other 47 states and the District of Columbia.

    Dr. Garen Wintemute, a gun violence researcher and emergency physician at UC Davis, noted that the hike in gun suicides by children “mirrors a steady increase in suicide among adults.” He called the trend particularly concerning.

    On average, 6% of yearly firearms deaths involving children were unintentional, the report found. These accidents occurred most often at home, at the hands of another child.

    Among children under 12, 150 are killed with guns each year and another 279 are treated in hospital emergency rooms for non-fatal injuries. Most of these younger children appear to be “caught in the crossfire,” either as innocent bystanders to community violence or during incidents of intimate-partner violence and family conflict, according to the report.

    “These are preventable injuries,” said Katherine A. Fowler, an analyst in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Violence Prevention and senior author of the new study. She cited many strategies that could lessen the toll of firearms on children, including street outreach initiatives, school-based efforts to teach deescalation and emotion management, safe gun storage practices, and suicide-prevention programs.

    “Ensuring that all children have safe, stable, nurturing environments remains one of our most important priorities,” Fowler added.

    The findings prompted Vermont pediatrician Dr. Eliot W. Nelson to write an editorial reminding colleagues that despite legal controversies and push-back from parents, it is “both reasonable and wise to ask and talk about firearms as part of our injury prevention guidance” to parents.

    In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared that “the safest home is one without firearms” — a position that may put pediatricians at odds with parents “who are part of a widespread and deeply rooted social gun culture in our country, especially in rural states,” Nelson acknowledged.

    Pediatricians would do well to point out to gun-owning parents that even kids who have been taught otherwise sometimes mishandle guns, he wrote. Physicians should discuss adolescents’ impulsiveness, risk-taking and unpredictability, and explain how those factors make it important to lock up guns and store them safely all the time, not just when a child is distraught.

    “We cannot ignore the magnitude of this ongoing public health crisis,” Nelson wrote. “We do need to try to engage those gun owners.”

    Wintemute, who was not involved in the latest research, praised the study for synthesizing data from a variety of programs that track rates and circumstances of injuries and violence in the United States.

    “It would be extremely unwise to prevent such data from being collected or used for their intended purpose,” Wintemute said. “They provide significant public health benefits.”

    Advocates for gun violence research worry that gains made during the Obama administration might be reversed under President Trump, who received strong backing from gun rights groups. However, Trump’s 2018 budget proposal includes unabated support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System, one of the databases used in the new study.

    [email protected]

    1. avatar jwm says:

      You’re repeating verbatim garbage stats spewed by a site with an anti gun agenda.

      You truly are a low iq victim of the left.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        to jwm

        Quote———————You’re repeating verbatim garbage stats spewed by a site with an anti gun agenda.————————quote

        Your reading comprehension is about zero. Advocating locking up guns so kids do not blow their brains out or those of their playmates is far from being anti-gun. As a matter of fact its “pro-gun” because the more child deaths and cripplings we have the more the anti-gunners want to ban or severely restrict gun ownership. Have you wife read my post to you and explain it too you. I am sure as a women she will have no trouble understanding it and even advocating it. “DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN”.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          But you are not advocating for locking up guns, Drac. You are advocating for locking up gun owners who don’t do what you want.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to Someone

          quote—————-But you are not advocating for locking up guns, Drac. You are advocating for locking up gun owners who don’t do what you want.—————–

          Actually the original above post does not advocate locking gun owners up because it was not my post but a post I copied complete with the original authors name and place of employment. But if it had been my post then yes I would advocate locking gun owners up who do not obey safe storage laws otherwise why have the law in the first place.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Why do you continue owning these evil death machines, Mr. Vlad Tepes? Please disarm yourself. For the children.

      If you go first, I’ll follow.

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        We have warning signs about “DO NOT FEED THE BEARS”. A fed bear is a dead bear.
        Don’t feed the TROLL.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        to ING

        Quote————–Why do you continue owning these evil death machines, Mr. Vlad Tepes? Please disarm yourself. For the children.————-quote

        Please lock unattended guns up. “DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN”

    3. avatar Mike H says:

      “Handguns and other firearms cause the deaths of more children…”

      Anyone making it past this statement without the understanding that what follows is unmoored from reason whether it’s cherrypicked, truthful or not, has bought into a strawman.

      None of the information that follows that statement has a bearing on the article it’s responding to because none of it presents an example of legislation that would prevent any death by firearm be it intentional or accidental.

      We’ve been waiting for years… decades for someone to show us an example of such magical legislation – or even just miraculous rhetoric – that would fix society’s ails, but its truly talented intellects and sages, such as yourself, continue to fail us.

      Back to the drawing board, Vladdie.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        To Mike.

        You need to have your wife read my post and explain it too you. The post has everything to do with the article that is as obvious as the nose on your face. Safe storage laws are implied here that is obvious its just that your reading comprehension is so low you missed it by a good country mile.

        I WILL NOW SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU IN PLAIN ENGLISH. HERE IS A QUOTE FROM MY OWN POST PLEASE READ IT.

        Quote——————————Pediatricians would do well to point out to gun-owning parents that even kids who have been taught otherwise sometimes mishandle guns, he wrote. Physicians should discuss adolescents’ impulsiveness, risk-taking and unpredictability, and explain how those factors make it important to lock up guns and store them safely all the time, not just when a child is distraught.———————-quote

        NOW WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?????????

        1. avatar Mike H says:

          My state has safe storage laws yet still clocks at the top of your list. Also, you presume I don’t safely store my weapons. (Not that it’s yours or anyone’s business) If my pediatrician were to talk to me about it, I would tell him to kindly fuck off and then go find another pediatrician. So, tell us again what law solves the problem or go the way of the pediatrician who had the temerity to be a busybody? Tik tok, puddin. We’re still waiting.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to Mike

          quote—————————-My state has safe storage laws yet still clocks at the top of your list. Also, you presume I don’t safely store my weapons. (Not that it’s yours or anyone’s business) If my pediatrician were to talk to me about it, I would tell him to kindly fuck off and then go find another pediatrician. So, tell us again what law solves the problem or go the way of the pediatrician who had the temerity to be a busybody? Tik tok, puddin. We’re still waiting.———————–

          First you mouth off and tell me my original post had nothing to do with the subject at hand. When you were made a fool off by your own post now you start discussing what I posted all along.

          In response to your attempt to save face let me say I do not know what State you live in but if the safe storage law in your State does not have draconian penalties that are strictly enforced than the law would be ineffective. If it does have harsh penalties you are making a fool of yourself since you are implying that the law is ineffectual. No law is fool proof but if we ascribe to your Far Right Wing nonsense then we should also not have laws against murder, torture or the rape of children either.

          Try again you failed miserably this time too.

        3. avatar Mike H says:

          Wat? That’s it!? That’s your masterpiece legislation? Wait! I love it! We’ll call it:

          “The Vlad Tepes (More) Draconian Safe Storage Act”

          Let’s vote!!

          I concede our interaction to your intellect, superior legal acumen and, most important, your unparalleled powers of logic and persuasion. Truly, if we’d all just listened to you at the outset, none of society’s ills would befall its children.

          Have you, at any point asked yourself if, by haunting these pages, you are having any positive impact on anything? I know TTAG readers might be the only people on Earth who maybe sometimes listen to you, but for all the noise you generate here, I can’t imagine you looking in the mirror and telling yourself, “gee, I really did some good there!” BUT! Before you engage in that kind of introspection, maybe you should have the national suicide hotline handy.

    4. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      And yet they are right on board with 2,000+ abortions per day…so it depends on WHEN you kill…right?
      A fetus, on any other planet…LIFE…but just a parasite here on Earth.
      Go figure.

    5. avatar Someone says:

      No, the author is a doctor, you are a moron. A badly lying moron.

      Guns kill exactly zero people. Just like knives and boots don’t kill people. People use guns to kill. Sometimes other people (usually blacks), mostly themselves (usually whites).

      How old were the “children” counted in the propaganda “studies” you cited? 19? 21?

      We all know that crime is only a pretense for gun grabbing. The real reason is to get us, the people, good and defenseless and therefore powerless.

  24. avatar Joe says:

    Unfortunately, there are enough stupid voters in the United States that keep re-electing gun hating representatives back to Congress. Apparently, the Second Amendment does mean much to Americans enough to remember which ones will disarm them-because they all self-righteously believe “it can’t happen here”. That, and idiotically believe that voting for a Republican will keep them safe from having their guns taken from them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email