TR> Guns and children mix into a very lethal situation. Teenage boys are
 TR> now more likely to die of gunshot wounds than from all natural
 TR> causes combined.
 RT> Would like to see your source for this.  What I have shows that
 RT> even if you are including suicide which runs at a rate of 10.8  Adding
 RT> the two, homicide and suicide equals 48.3 which is below the accidents
 RT> and adverse effects at 55.5.
There is probably the problem with the numbers. Accidental deaths with
gunshot wounds would also be included. That would easily justify the numbers,
regardless of the statistical year. My source listed gunshot wounds and made
no distinction or breakdown of type.
My source was noted as (Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime
Reporting Program). There is also a person's name and year, I suppose the
name of the statistician (McEnery, 1996). I don't know the year of your
information, but that would also make a big difference. The statement was an
extraction from a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Publication (Volume III, November 2, 1997).
 TR> Homicides by kids with guns has tripled since 1983, so, where do we
 TR> go from here?
 RT> Another by-product of our illustrious War on Drugs.  BTW, the stats
 RT> that I have show that the deaths and the death rate for injury by
 RT> firearms show that the deaths in 1980 were 33,780 for a rate of 14.8
 RT> and in 1992 were 37,776 for a rate of 14.9. (I don't have that
 RT> breakout by age.)  Not much change.  This means that if your stats are
 RT> accurate then the death rate for all people other than kids must have
 RT> improved.
This would be a true statement, the death rate for people other than kids did
improve. My source was the same as listed above. I might be able to guess,
but I'm very curious about your statement, "Another by-product of our
illustrious War on Drugs." I would rather not make a lot of assumptions about
this statement, could you explain?
 RT> Although this is a start for a good plan, why is there no mention of
 RT> education about firearms, firearms responsibility or firearms safety
 RT> and why am I not surprized?  It sounds to me like a political exercise
The study I read indicates a major objective of removing guns from the hands
of kids, not teaching them how to use them or firearms safety. I think that I
know your premise of thought on this subject, but look at this from another
perspective. This is not a laughing matter, but bear with me for a moment.
The police in my city have joked about this subject on a regular basis. Why
not take all of the gangbangers to the range and teach them how to kill each
other more efficiently. There are entirely too many wasted rounds and too
many innocents involved in their shooting situations (i.e. drive-bys, etc.).
If we are able to qualify them with their weapons and bring their accuracy up
over 80%, there would be many less gangbangers for us to deal with and many
less innocents killed and injured. One negative aspect of this additional
proficiency with weapons would be more police officers killed in the
shootouts the gangbangers have with police. Some of the above could be
classified as dark, police humor. It should be obvious that we really don't
want dead bodies littering the streets every morning.
This study did not address the kids you would address with firearms safety
and responsibility. Your audience would be good kids, not gangbangers and
dope dealers. If you were the teacher, I doubt very seriously that you would
wish to teach proficiency to gangbangers and dope dealers. If I am correct
about you, you would be diligent and dedicated to teaching firearms safety,
responsibility, and proficiency for all of the RIGHT and LAWFUL reasons.
Please correct me if I am wrong. On this premise, I would agree with you and
support your actions.
Tom Rightmer - Victims' Rights Advocate
... Aunt Em. Hate Kansas. Hate you. Took dog. Dorothy.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------