““It’s clearly a tragedy, but it’s not something that’s widespread. To base public policy on occasional mishaps would be a grave mistake.” – Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America Executive Director Emeritus quoted in One Week in April, Four Toddlers Shot and Killed Themselves [via nytimes.com]
And how many toddlers drowned, were burned, choked on something, ingested posion, pulled furniture over on themselves, were in a car crash, or were abused or neglected in the same period? How many of them died? Is anyone demanding that we “do something” about those tradgedies?
All tragedies, all preventable, all not a reason for gun control.
I was going to ask how many toddlers drowned at home during the same week, as well. My guess is probably at least 10 times more kids died from drowning in the family pool that week, yet you don’t hear anyone screaming for Pool Control.
Be careful telling a liberal the truth, their heads might explode.
All the more reason to tell them the truth.
Being blunt about it, in most of these tragic cases there is an unmarried boyfriend or a single baby mama involved. Occasionally like with the little boy finding the handgun in has fathers backpack it is parental misunderstanding of how curious and resourceful a small child can be. More laws cannot make it better because in most of the situations the parent is already violating the law. Also, people today don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the force of a proper slap on the hand when a child grabs for something like a purse, and an abusive injury.
“in most of the situations the parent is already violating the law”
Logic and reason are dismissed by the statist, the end justifies the means.
Plus you already have to be unfamiliar with logic and reason to be a statist in the first place. Life is very simple for them; ‘other people who have money need to give it to me’ is what it all comes down to.
But but but if it saves just one youngun”…BTW is Pratt behind Trump now that Ted Cruz is(probably) gone?
Oh, for bog’s sake. Can we get some competent paid advocates, or at least competent people writing for them? The anti-care-bear there played right into the anti’s hands. “See, they don’t care about the children.”
Better: “Four toddlers accidentally killed is a tragedy, for any reason. That’s why we provide and promote gun safety programs for responsible, peaceful gun owners, and citizen gun ownership so responsible, peaceful gun owners and their kids don’t get killed by predators, thugs, terrorists and crazies.”
If there’s a follow-up question: “We want to protect the thousands of children saved among the successful defense using guns – around 50,000 each year, with as few accidents as we can mange.”
Depending on the opportunity…
“We think the 10’s of thousands of toddlers accidentally killed in medical errors are a similar tragedy. We’re pleased that the people involved in medicine – like he CDC – are investigating accidents and misuse of the dangerous tools they use, so that like us, they can save the people they save, with as few accidents as they can mange.”
Depending on the opportunity…
“The gun industry works on gun safety as a matter of course, both effective use, and resistance to accidents of all kinds. For example, modern guns have devices that prevent firing even if the trigger is pressed – precisely to reduce accidents. The fact is, with a modern gun you have to deliberately do three things, and violate two principles of safe handling to have an ‘accident.'”
1 – Steal the emotional argument.
2 – Inject the facts – trade-off of accidental deaths for defensive lives saved – on the back of the emotion. Yes, it feels wrong doing this. Do it anyway. It works.
3 – Rope in an analogy, ideally one they’re familiar with and have some affinity for. In this case CDC.
4 – Make the other arguments in terms of that analogy – “dangerous tools”, “gains from saved vs. costs of accidents.”
5 – If you can sneak in a claim that the BGs have no analog for, better. So the “safety program” factoid. Where’s the “safe drug handling for patients” program?
“Maybe the CDC would report lower numbers if there were a ‘safe drug handling’ training program, like the programs we have with guns.”
The analogy doesn’t have to be perfect. Indeed, AIR the largest cause of accidental, by which we mean “acceptable”, deaths from medical accidents is something other than patient misuse of their own drugs. It doesn’t matter. Patient drug handling is the better analogy because it’s about individuals using dangerous tools themselves to their own benefit. Using that analogy vs. for example “surgical errors” is better because it includes the claim that citizens with guns are using dangerous tools, themselves, to their own benefit, without saying it out loud. Better.
Patients’ drug handling not being the top cause doesn’t matter because our Friends have set the bar: if accident with this stuff kills at least 4, Something Must Be Done. Besides, their possible response is untenable. “Patient mishandling of their own meds is minor. Other causes are bigger.” “Oh, so they don’t matter? I thought as few as 4 accidents means something must be done? Or don’t you care about those dead kids, now?”
It’s propaganda, people. I’d rather argue good numbers, valid programs, and fundamental principles. Agitprop sound bites in the mass media aren’t that. So, play the game that’s being played.
I care about the children. Let’s pass a law making it illegal for anyone under the age of, say, 5 years old to shoot themselves. OK, all taken care of, next question? If they have no solution other than “pass a law”, why are we even listening?
Children are accidentally killed with guns occasionally. Children are killed by medical mistakes by the thousands every year. And the AMA wants to investigate the health crisis caused by what?
Comments are closed.