Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
 howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.csuohio.edu!vmcms.csuohio.edu!R1328
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back
Message-ID: <16BB8E4C0.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu>
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:15:50 GMT
Sender: news@news.csuohio.edu (USENET News System)
References: <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> <1r6qqcINN8j4@clem.handheld.com>
Organization: CSU
Lines: 150

In article <1r6qqcINN8j4@clem.handheld.com>
jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
 
>
>In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>> In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
>> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>>
>> >
>> >In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
>writes:
>> >>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>> >>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>> >>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>> >>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>> >>crime.
>> >
>> >What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>> >any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>> >
>> > Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point
>tha
>> there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
>> there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
>> of common incidents.
>>
>> >If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
>> >you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
>> >rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
>> >with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
>> >spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
>> >among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
>> >
>>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>> ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>> I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
>> justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
>> gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
>> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>>
>
>Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related
>unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or
>more negligent persons, not the gun.
>
   Did I say that a child who unintentionally shoots someone is not negligent?
 NO.  I hate to repeat myself Jim, but like I told Joe, I was not attempting
in any way to justify gun control.  You're right, any death is serious.
THAT was my point to Joe who said that "anti-gunners" try to convinve
the country that accidental gun deaths related to children are a serious
problem.  I guess I assumed everyone thought that it was a problem.
No, I don't want to discuss match control.  I don't equate a book of matches
to a loaded 9 millimeter either.  Don't confuse the issue.  And please don't
say that tired old NRA line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Sure, people can kill people without guns.  But easy access to guns makes it
a lot more convenient.  "Guns don't kill people, People with easy access to
guns kill people".
 
>> >>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
>> >>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
>> >
>> >Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>> >
>>  My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
>> departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
>> giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
>> to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
>> had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
>> useful.
>>
>
>Providing false hope, then, is the intent?
>
    Jim, I'm just saying how it is.  I'm not saying if that is a good thing
or not. From the police who I have talked with who run some of these gun
buyback programs, I get the impression that they really think they are
having an impact on the community.  When I ask them if they have an evaluatory
component to the program, they say "well no..."  So, in answer to your
question, no, false hope is not the intent.  I think the intent is to
show folks that police are attempting to do something to curb interpersonal
gun violence whether its effective or not.  Look, if you can't measure
the impact of these programs using some sort of pre-test and post-test
evaluation, what is the point?  It must be symbolic in nature.  The police are
essentially saying "look, if you have a gun lying around and you don't
want it, we'll give you $50 for it...because we care about the community".
If you, I and Joe could think of a way to measure the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of these programs we could become rich and famous.
 
>>
>> >>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
>> >>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
>> >>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
>> >>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
>> >
>> >I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>> >suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>> >students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>> >to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>> >who carry a gun to school daily.
>> >
>>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
>> or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
>> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
>> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>> in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>> to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
>> student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
>> 1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
>> schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
>>
>
>200% increase in California schools, eh?  Gun control is working fine, there!
>>
>>  I didn't anything about gun control, what are you talking about?
 
>> >>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
>> >>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
>> >>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
>> >>were in danger).
>> >
>> >"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
>> >children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
>> >outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
>> >if you believed as they did?
>> >
>>  Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
>> situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
>> act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
>> these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
>> would not let innocent children die.
>> If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
>> did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
>> burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
>>
>So your religion is different.  Does that make it his wrong?  Even assuming
>Koresh actually made that decision, and the verdict is still out on that.
>
> Jim, listen to me, I said I'M NOT RELIGIOUS WHATSOEVER, do you understand?
  Religion has nothing to do with this.  I could care less what religion
they were okay?  To put children in that situation is wrong, pure and
simple.  Difference is good Jim, I am the most progressive and diverse
person in the world.  But, if different is allowing kids to be exposed
to tanks and tear-gas, then yes Jim, DIFFERENT IS WRONG.
 
