Gun storage scare
About 1.7 million U.S. children live in homes that have loaded and unlocked guns, according to what is described as the first comprehensive survey of gun storage in homes across the country.
I wonder how they define child in this case? If you have kids, you should make certain your firearms are inaccessible to them. More stats:
The study, published Tuesday in the journal Pediatrics, found that 2.5 percent of children live in homes with loaded and unsecured firearms. Estimates from the early 1990s had put the percentage at 10 percent. The new results suggest a decline, but that doesn’t mean there’s cause for celebration, said Catherine Okoro, a study author.
[snip quote by gun-fearing hysterical person]
The study is based on a 2002 telephone survey of about 241,000 adults and is the first to provide data on gun storage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, its authors said.
Nationally, 33 percent of adults said they kept firearms in or around their home. The highest percentage was in Wyoming, where 63 percent said they had firearms. The lowest percentage was reported in the District of Columbia, where 5 percent reported having guns at home. The district has long-standing bans on handguns and semiautomatic weapons.
A little more than 4 percent of the respondents nationally said they keep guns loaded and unlocked, and 2.5 percent reported having loaded, unlocked firearms in homes where children lived.
Alabama had the highest proportion — 7.3 percent — of homes in which children lived and guns were kept loaded and unlocked. The next highest states were Alaska (6.6 percent), Arkansas (6.6 percent), Montana (6.4 percent) and Idaho (5.2 percent). At bottom was Massachusetts, with 0.3 percent.
Bring on the politics:
Okoro said she hoped the survey results will be used by state public health officials as they work on intervention programs to prevent firearm deaths.
About 1,400 children are killed by firearms each year, according to CDC estimates. It’s not known how many of those are killed by guns left around the house, the researchers said.
Well, when I go to the CDC site and download the data, accidental firearm deaths for children (age 10-14, none occur at a younger age according to their data), there were 34. In ages 15-24, there were 210. So, using the anti-gun Monica Lewinsky test*, there were 244 unintentional firearm deaths of children. Seems the unintentional firearm deaths would be a good place to start to determine how many of those are killed by guns left around the house. That is, if you were actually interested in that instead of scoring political points. It’s a far cry from intimating 1,400 might be comparable. And locking up the guns would only prevent those unintentional acts.
*Bonus points if you get the reference.
September 6th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Have you found a reference for the states mentioned as having the highest rates of unlocked guns? Be interesting to see if there’s a correlation or, I suspect, not one.
September 6th, 2005 at 10:42 am
No time now but the CDC does offer its data by state.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:24 am
When the average is less than 1 per year per state, it’s pretty hard to get statistically significant results.
If you break down the 1400 per year figure, which counts all the under-18 gangbangers who were shot [1], you’ll naturally see a huge correlation to urban populations, since that’s where the gangbangers live. The states with the highest percentage of urban population tend to also be the ones with the strictest gun laws. Has anyone more reputable than John Lott tried to statistically separate the effect of more urban poor from the effect of gun laws?
[1] One fast way to tell a liberal for a conservative: is a dead 16-year old gangbanger a benefit to society or a terrible tragedy?
September 6th, 2005 at 11:53 am
MArkM
Why does it only include those under 18. My understanding has always been that 19 year olds were included in these figurs as well since they also are “teenagers”
But I agree, its pretty hard to gather anything from a number of less than 1 per yer per state. And, as I said at Alphecca this morning, if the number really was 1400, there would be 3.8 kids shot accidently a day (with 3.4 shot “at home”). If that really were the case – and these were really accidental, don’t you think you would be hearing a lot more about it? Now, when was the last time you actually heard a news report about this kind of thing? Sure, they happen on occaision, but not 3.8 a day.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:55 am
You got me there. Between logic that sucks, numbers that are going down on us in a hurry and a journalist who completely blew it, I see absolultely no connection between that 24 year old child Monica Lewinsky and any of those other 24 year old children killed by guns every year.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:59 am
It was a rebuttal to the claim by the Brady Bunch that thousands and thousands of kids were dying every year from gun violence. However, when one looked at the numbers, it included 24 year-olds. At the time of the cigar incident, Monica Lewinsky would have been considered a child. We have a winner.
September 6th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Additionally, just because a gun is unlocked does not neccessarily mean that it is accessible. I keep a loaded (magazine loaded, chamber clear) unlocked pistol in the house where it is accessible to my wife and myself, but is totally inaccessible to our kids. When our kids were under 3 years old I still kept a round in the chamber. Now I keep the chamber clear because my 4 year old could possibly, one in a million chance, get to the darn thing. It is actually impossible for him to chamber a round, and I dry fire the thing whenever I touch it, just before I put it back.
Next year I’ll start using a quick access gun safe.
September 6th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Of all the deaths reported I wonder how many were truly “accidental” per se such as hunting accidents, blowing your big toe off while cleaning a rifle etc…? You could probably whittle those stats down the a few dozen or so of the “kid found a gun and shot his friend while playing cowboys and Indians” deaths.
September 6th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
I was under the impression dry-firing was not recommeded because of long-term wear on the firing pin or hammer.
Also: I wonder how many of those 1200 intentional child shooting deaths would have resulted in death if the shooters weren’t armed with guns.
September 6th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
BH, in modern firearms, dry firing is typically not an issue (in fact the glock must be dry fired in order to take it apart). In older single actions, it can be.
September 7th, 2005 at 11:17 am
I was told that dry firing the kimber is ok, but that allowing the slide to slam down on an empty chamber is questionable.
September 7th, 2005 at 11:18 am
oops, multiple post… in fact, the kimber manual explicitly reads that you should NOT ease the hammer down, as this can wear out the “match grade trigger” or something.
September 7th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Personally, I have questions about the methodology.
I wasn’t called about it – but no matter who they SAID they were, I would hardly discuss my theoretical firearms possession and storage with Said Random Unknown Person.
And… I don’t know many gun owners who *would*. So I suspect that you’ve got a huge bias, right there, of people who *do* have guns and aren’t going to announce that to someone on the phone.
“Yes, I’m calling you at random, do you have a firearm, or other valuable property easily accessable in your house? Would you mind giving me your address, VISA number, and pin, while we’re at it?”
September 8th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Of course, the bias could go both ways. Would you want to admit to a stranger that you were totally defenseless if a gang came knocking on your door?
September 8th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Some of the worst guns to dry fire are .22s. Poorly designed .22s can allow the firing pin to hit the barrel outside the chamber and peen it over in no time flat.