Reprise: Brady Campaign on topic of firearm accidents

[Euromutt]

Reposting lawodevolution's material from this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x341060 :

The Brady Campaign's claim:


compared to firearm accident death rates:


So does the Brady Campaign's claim hold water? Let's have at it again, without saying anything with which the mods can take issue.

[Euromutt]

1. Let's look at RaleighNCDUer's complaint

In this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=341060&mesg_id=341094

RaleighNCDUer's argument is that firearm accident death rates are not necessarily representative of trends in unintentional shootings, since trauma medicine has made significant strides, thereby potentially reducing incidents that in the past would have been fatal, to non-fatal in the present day.

That's a reasonable objection; let's see if the evidence backs it up.

From the CDC's WISQARS, number and rate of non-fatal injuries, caused unintentionally with firearms:

2000: 23,237; crude rate 8.21
2001: 17.696; crude rate 6.21
2002: 17,579; crude rate 6.11
2003: 18,941; crude rate 6.46
2004: 16,555; crude rate 5.65
2005: 15,388; crude rate 5.11
2006: 14,678; crude rate 4.87
2007: 15,698; crude rate 5.15
2008: 17,215, crude rate 5.68

Certainly, over the past decade, the trend in non-fatal injuries inflicted unintentionally with firearms seems to be, on aggregate, downward. While there is an upward trend over the last two years for which data is available, the spike (thus far) is still lower than anything prior to 2004. In other words, there seems to be no evidence that the drop in fatal firearm accidents is merely the result of fewer unintentional shootings resulting in fatalities while the number of unintentional shootings remains stable. Rather, it seems the number of unintentional shootings overall--both fatal and non-fatal--are coming down.

Which makes sense, considering a higher percentage of privately owned firearms are now handguns, which have been manufactured as "drop-safe" for the past two to three decades, and more newly manufactured long guns are incorporating safety features older models lacked. Combine that with more widespread safety training (not least via NRA-certified instructors), and the downward trend is no mystery.

[russ1943]

13. Brady, correct.

A second thread inquiring; So does the Brady Campaign's claim hold water?
First let’s determine just what their claim is. As best I can determine the Facebook statement consists of two remarks; (1) Too many accidents with guns -- & (2) Googling “gun accident” brings up an alarming number of stories of kids, teenagers and adults shooting themselves or others unintentionally. They then (apparently, I don’t do “Facebook”.) list some examples stating “Here’s just a few from the past week”.

Yes, their claim(s) holds water.

1.Realistically the only two other positions are, either there are just enough gun accidents, or there are too few. Neither of those positions are defensible. 2.Regarding the second remark about Googling “gun accident” it is difficult to say whether the number is alarming but it isn’t wrong that Google will generate numerous stories about gun accidents.
Since I don’t do Facebook, someone else who does will have to provide the information as to whether or not there actually are a few from the past week provided. On their blog at http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?cat=33 they list five.
With a known average of just over 320 non fatal unintentional firearms injuries AVERAGE per week (for 8 years 2001-2008) it seems reasonable a few would appear in a Google search.
The facebook remarks by Brady posted in the OP, do not say anything contrary to all the data posted in these threads attempting to rebut that strawman.
Since Euromutt commendingly recognized and sourced additional (appropriate) information it can clearly be demonstrated that if you look at the most recent information available there has been a recent INCREASE in unintentional firearms injuries.

[lawodevolution]

15. They leave out important information which is dishonest.

The important information being the trend toward fewer accidents. Their members are left with an impression that the accident rate is increasing out of control. This is a form of lying.

[Euromutt]

16. Shorn of context, arguably yes

The definition of propaganda is "information disseminated for the purpose of influencing opinion." The information in question is not necessarily false, and indeed, it is more effective if it is demonstrably true, but what makes propaganda propaganda is all too often what is not being said, but which the reader/listener/viewer is invited to conclude himself based on the incomplete information provided.

The implication of the Brady Campaign's claim that there are "too many" accidents involving firearms (a truism, since in principle every accident is too many, whether it's with motor vehicles, power tools, playground equipment, swimming pools, household chemicals or indeed firearms) is that this "too high" number can only be due to gun laws being insufficiently stringent, and therefore, gun laws need to be tightened.

The problem is that, as we can see from the CDC data I posted, rates of unintentional injury from firearms do not correlate with changes in firearm legislation. The lapsing of the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "high-capacity" magazines in the second half of 2004, for example, was not followed by an immediate uptick in unintentional shootings (indeed, the numbers continued to drop for the next two years). Pointing to a handful of anecdotes is not a sound basis for determining public policy.

Besides, the number of results a Google search turns up isn't indicative of much of anything. Searching for various conspiracy theories turns up plenty of results, but that doesn't mean there's any validity to them; it just means a lot of people choose to spend their time talking about them.

And yes, as I noted, there has indeed been in increase in unintentional firearm injuries from 2006 to 2008, but as I also noted, the uptick has by no means erased the drop of the preceding years, and when newer data becomes available, it may well turn out to have been a brief blip.

[lawodevolution]

2. Here's the CDC data on death rate again

Edited on Sun Sep-26-10 06:06 AM by lawodevolution
Date; total accidents; the rate per 100,000; us pop
 2007, 613, 0.2; 301,290,000
2006, 642, 0.22; 298,360,000
2005, 789, 0.27; 295,560,000
2004; 649; 0.22; 292,892,000
2003; 730; 0.25; 290,210,000
2002; 762; 0.26; 287,700,000
2001; 802; 0.28; 285,000,000
2000; 776; 0.28; 281,400,000
1999; 824; 0.30; 279,000,000
1998; 866; 0.31; 275,800,000
1997; 981; 0.36; 272,600,000
1996; 1134; 0.42; 269,400,000
1995; 1225; 0.46; 266,300,000
1994; 1356; 0.52; 263,100,000
1993; 1521; 0.59; 259,900,000
1992; 1409; 0.55; 256,500,000
1991; 1441; 0.57; 253,000,000
1990; 1416; 0.57; 249,500,000
1989; 1489; 0.60; 246,800,000
1988; 1501; 0.61; 244,500,000
1987; 1440; 0.59; 242,300,000
1986; 1452; 0.61; 240,100,000
1985; 1649; 0.69; 237,900,000
1984; 1668; 0.71; 235,800,000
1983; 1695; 0.73; 233,800,000
1982; 1756; 0.76; 231,700,000
1981; 1871; 0.82; 229,500,000
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

[jazzhound]

3. Kick, due to the importance of the data. NT

[proteus_lives]

4. Kick to those who refuse to listen.

[spin]

5. K&R because this important info is being un-rec. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. K&R, as some would prefer this data not be seen n/t

[virginia mountainman]

7. K&R To help spread the word...

Against the supporters and followers of a failed dogma.

[oneshooter]

8. K&R Because it pisses the anti-gun people. n/t

[Bold Lib]

9. kick. recommended it this morning.

[cleanhippie]

10. Kicking to fight willful ignorance.

[lawodevolution]

11. What does a high recommend do?

[Bold Lib]

12. Puts the thread on the Greatest Threads list located on the home page.

[benEzra]

14. Some more good news that is NOT being celebrated by the gun-control lobby...

Violent crime is down again...


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html


Crime declines (violent and nonviolent), by category:


http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/crime_091310.html


And rifle crime decreased too. The sky isn't falling after all.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

[lawodevolution]

17. I wonder why

They used number of offenses rather than rate per 100,000. The population increases each year so that even if the number of offenses was not changing, crime rates would be going down

[SteveM]

18. K & R.