Gun Control… For “The Children”

3
977
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Pediatricians Call for Rolling Back Second Amendment to Protect Kids

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
October 18, 2012

The American Academy of Pediatrics is calling for “the strictest possible regulation of gun sales, as well as more education for parents on the dangers of having a gun at home” to prevent the death of children, according to Reuters.

The organization released its recommendation to coincide with the AAP National Conference that will be held on October 20-23 in New Orleans. The conference works on the “psychosocial needs of child disaster victims” and liaisons with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.

A statement by researchers published in the journal Pediatrics admits that gun-related deaths among children has dropped since the mid-1990s, but states that the rate “is still many times higher than rates in other wealthy countries.”

Most “wealthy nations” either ban citizen ownership of firearms or impose other restrictions and this is the primary reason the death rate by firearms is significantly lower.

“Most children who get injured or killed from firearms get their firearms from home,” said Dr. Robert Sege from Boston Medical Center.

David Hemenway, head of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, told Reuters the consensus among injury researchers is that the best thing to do for a child’s safety is to keep guns out of the house.

However, if parents are concerned about the safety of their children, they should not allow them to ride bicycles.

In 2009, the NRA-ILA published a report on firearm safety. It rated accidental death from firearms for children as low.

More children died as a result of accidents in motor vehicles (41%), suffocation (21%), drowning (15%), fires (8%), pedal cycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (1.9%), and environmental factors (1.5%). Only medical mistakes ranked lower (1%) than death from firearms (1.5%), according to the study.

Share Button
SHARE
Previous articleEthanol Anecdote
Next articleTata vs. Uncle
Your Libertarian car guy. Er ist weider da...

3 COMMENTS

  1. Back in 1791, when the Second Amendment was enacted, Americans, like the rest of the world, DID procreate, yea, they indeed were “Fruitful” and “MULTIPLIED”! So, having rug rats underfoot is nothing new. The state of the art, in terms of home and personal defense, was either a shotgun or a muzzle loading pistols..indeed, pistols were often sold in PAIRS, as even a practiced musketeer couldn’t reload in less than ten seconds. Every hear of ANY calls to enact laws required firearms to be UNLOADED at the time? Of course NOT! It was understood that a firearm, unless it was loaded, was little more than a metal club or staff! Folks dealt with the specter of carelessness in handling and storing firearms much the same as they did the rest of their lives…with COMMON SENSE. Ergo,, children were attentively WATCHED when they were in a situation where they could harm themselves, and when old enough to pay attention and be expected to follow orders, understand to not mess with “Daddy’s” pistols or musket! Of course, as they children, usually the sons, got to be old enough their fathers TAUGHT them the use of firearms! Hence why the fictional Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) in “The Patriot”, after his #2 son, Thomas (Gregory Smith), is shot in the back by the heinous Colonel Tavington (jason Issacs) while trying to stop the arrest of his older brother, Gabriel (the late Heath Ledger), takes the older two of his three remaining sons, Nathan and Samuel, as he’s grabbed what muskets he could, along with his trusty Cherokee Tomahawk, to rescue Gabriel from the British. When they wait to ambush them, Benjamin quizzes his boys on what he taught them about shooting (“aim small, miss small”) as accuracy in picking off the Redcoats, to effect rescue of Gabriel, let alone survive (the boys are instructed to drop their muskets and run to the safety of their Aunt Charlotte’s farm if their father is killed). Regrettably, if some Dad tried to teach his boys to shoot nowadays, some busybody would wet their pants and sic CPS on them, and, as often happens, if Dad is separated or divorced from their mother, that there’s even a firearm in the house will be enough for the almighty State to deprive him of fatherly contact and supervision of his offspring (but keep those support payments coming!). I recall the shit storm I had to endure some 20 years ago, in wake of my first divorce, as I did give my sons and my daughter from that marriage each a .22 rifle for their 12th birthday, and how, right at the time the daughter. youngest of the three, got a Ruger Mini-14 (which would now be ILLEGAL in the once ‘Golden” State as configured), I was getting primary custody of them, and how that frumpy dyke of a “family court” judge expressed her misgivings that these children were in MORTAL DANGER from this “arsenal”, but as she, at the time, had NO authority to override the children’s stated desire to live with me (they were 15, 13, and 12 at the time, my eldest was 23 and had recently graduated from college). Nevertheless, I HAD to get a gun safe, AND keep ALL firearms unloaded, and CPS would be “notified” that I had guns in mine home. It really concerned her that the court-mandated counselor reported that my daughter, excited at her recent birthday present, SLEPT with her rifle, though if she had been sleeping with some other kid, then that, I suppose, would have been ok? Thankfully, beyond being treated like a gun nut in open court, I heard no more (that was one time I heeded my attorney’s strict advice to STFU) from the court or CPS, and my three kids were all on the high school shooting team (which was discontinued by the San Juan district in 2005 for all schools), with the daughter winning a district shooting title in her junior and senior years!).

  2. Well, it’s always for the children isn’t it? How many children ended up dead, enslaved and in camps after the National Socialists took away the German people’s guns? Registration leads to confiscation and some form of democide almost invariably follows. One of the things that is telling about the whole Ferguson, MO fluster cluck is that no cops were gunned down by “Black Panther” or “Nation of Islam” snipers. If there were a real threat from these groups, instead of agents provocateur trying to create a problem for public display, I strongly suspect there would already be a bunch of dead cops around St. Louis. But that’s not the case, because undercover shit-stirrers don’t shoot their own, now do they?

  3. There are many risks in the world we live in today. It is impossible to eliminate all risk from our lives. (One reason why we have actuaries.) People are able to take actions that will minimize the risks people have to face in their lives.

    Should running water be banned from peoples’ homes? People can drown in the bathtub.

    Should the sale of household cleaners be banned? Someone might be poisoned or otherwise harmed by misuse of a household cleaner.

    Should all homes have no stairs? People can fall while using the stairs.

    Should all homes not be heated? Natural gas, oil, and/or firewood are dangerous when not handled properly.

    Education about the risks in our world and how to minimize our exposure to risk can help minimize the likelihood of a negative result.

    If one chooses to have weapons in the home, it does not automatically mean that everyone in the house will die. I have read many articles in which an armed individual was able to defend themselves and/or others against would be assailants in the home, work or other public areas.

    In many cases, help was far away and would take too long to arrive to make a difference. A properly used weapon can make the difference between one thwarting an attaker or being injured/killed.

LEAVE A REPLY