<p>That is absolute nonsense. The statistic you quote is the ratio of deaths of kids under 10 by residential swimming pool PER RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL to the deaths of kids under 10 by accidental gunfire PER GUN.</p>
<p>But that is not the proper comparison. The proper comparison is a child going to play at a household with one or more guns versus a child going to play at a household with access to a swimming pool. Households with guns typically have more than one gun, as we can easily see when we realize that there are many more guns than households, and half of households have no gun.</p>
<p>Moreover, the Levitt article is citing deaths of children under 10. But in that age group, the majority of drowners are under age 5. The proper comparison is accidental gun deaths to accidental drownings from age 5-10 (or 5-15, whatever), if you’re talking about sending a kid over to a friend’s house. You’re not sending little 9-month-old Johnny to crawl over to Billy’s house to play.</p>
Since ER used a parent’s car apparently, there can be lawsuits for that, at least for the injured victims. But maybe for the ones who were shot, too, since he shot from the car. </p>
<p>Whether or not a parent is liable for the actions of their adult son doesn’t stop people from suing them.</p>
<p>And while I havent read the blog linked, I dont think ER was likely to be a mental health advocate. His disorder and that of someone diagnosed as Bipolar are quite different.</p>
<p>Agree, CF–absolute nonsense. My swimming pool can’t just up and go kill people. In fact, its intention is not to kill people–it is for positive recreational activities. By fluffy’s contorted logic, we should ban lakes and puddles because people can drown in those too.</p>
<p>fluffy, we agreed last night that we want to reduce deaths. There are plenty of commonsense ways to reduce GUN deaths. Your distractions don’t help make a case for your position.</p>
<p>Since we are here talking about guns, do you agree that we should try to reduce gun deaths? </p>
<p>We went through the stats on another thread, and fluffy is right, by what I remember. The chances of anyone, not just a gun owner, being <em>accidentally</em> killed by a gun are minuscule. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be important to know how many of the gun deaths are committed by criminals and crazies? Guns don’t have intentions any more than swimming pools do. Or, “just up and go kill people” either. But, this debate is not changing any minds anytime soon. His parents are calling for restrictions on the mentally ill. Of course, that wouldn’t have made a difference in this case since he officially wasn’t somehow. Sigh. </p>
<p>When I went to college, it was not unusual to see mentally ill, “something wrong” former students in the area. I think their parents paid to keep them there where,yes, they had some semblance of a normal life most of the time. So, yes, I could see parents financing that lifestyle. The alternatives are often worse. </p>
<p>Since we pretty much all agree that keeping criminals and crazies from using guns to kill people is impossible, why not focus on “accidental” deaths? Let’s start with children. It’s only BECAUSE of unsecured guns that hundreds of kids die in gun accidents each year. Is there any disagreement on the benefits of avoiding these entirely preventable incidents? We have consumer product safety standards for almost everything else that can be found in a home. Why not guns? Oh, right–the pro-gun lobby.</p>
<p>I think it is understandable why the parents did what they did: set their son up in a situation most likely to increase the chances that he would meet a girl. They probably hoped some young woman might marry him and take care of him and take him off their hands. That all makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Netting everything out, and regardless of the fact that there is no <em>legal</em> obligation to do so, the responsibility (and sadly, burden) for monitoring the lives of the mentally ill must fall to their families, and most specifically, their parents. There is no one else in a better position to do it.</p>
<p>"^ Yes. I know that. Bullets have gunpower. Whoa.
A powerful explosive in small amounts? Really?
Do you know how a gun works and why a bullet has the velocity it does?
Do you know how dangerous a bullet is if you set it on fire?"</p>
<p>Oh god, no, I don’t know any of this. I’m not some gang-banger thug from the hood who thinks guns prove my manhood, and I’m not some white-trash cling-to-my-guns type straight from Deliverance. I’m absolutely fine not knowing anything about guns and gun culture. I don’t need to know anything about Honey Boo Boo either. </p>
<p>“Many” gun owners are careless? How many? As I linked earlier, your kid is 100 times safer going to a house with a gun than a house with a pool. Ban the pool!"</p>
<p>What part of per-capita gun deaths in W Europe / Australia versus the US is unclear? </p>
<p>The US has a subculture of Bubba McRednecks who cling to their guns and for some godforsaken reason we indulge their macho fantasies and pander to them in the laxness of our gun laws — and we have way more per capita gun deaths, whether it’s shootings in the hood, shootings in movie theaters (etc) by disturbed people, or accidental kids-killed-when-playing. </p>
<p>How would does one decide who would be “allowed” to own a gun? The discussion is open, so lets have a prescription. We could have a mental health diagnosis registry, but I don’t think I’m in favor of that. Maybe we could do it by income, which would exclude a lot of the “low-lifes” being referred to, but wouldn’t have stopped the crime that is being discussed. Or we could “back-door” that concept with a huge tax like we do on cigarettes and alcohol.</p>
<p>California has two pages worth of gun ownership restrictions (which, remarkably, includes anyone who has renounced his citizenship). There is some overlap of the restrictions, but a few more could fit on the paper with no trouble. </p>
<p>Like Ross Perot, I’m all ears about how to restrict gun ownership to the responsible. Everyone agrees that it would have been better if Rogers had not been able to buy a gun. How to get there is the question.</p>
<p>I simply do not understand how people can make statements like this regarding people about whom they know almost nothing. </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that being “in denial” does not square with having recently called the police about one’s own son. </p>
<p>It seems like the drive to blame the parents is too strong to be denied. Because, you know, if this was caused by something THEY did, then it won’t happen to MY kid. Whistling in the dark.</p>
<p>This morning I saw a couple of photographs of Elliot’s father on the TV, apparently taken once he got the terrible news. It’s hard to clearly describe the look of absolute despair in his face. Of course we have all seen the agony and anger in Mr. Martinez’ face, grieving over the death of his son Michael, who very much resembled his father.</p>
<p>Consolation, they did not know how sick he was and their concern was depression. They called the police in fear that he might be suicidal. His mental health care if you want to call it that was spotty at best including a 6-moonth stint on mood elevators and multiple therapists as a child with no confirmed diagnosis of anything. The mom called him a special needs child when asking for more child support and the dad said that was news to him. I definitely think there was an element of denial going on along with the simple fact that it’s impossible to know what someone might do tomorrow and no-one looks at their kid and sees a future mass murderer. But, I don’t blame them one bit. No-one could know.</p>
I was thinking this earlier. This is the same thing that happens after other tragedies (most recently the Newtown massacre thread and then the follow-up about Adam Lanza’s father’s interview). Everyone likes to reassure themselves that it couldn’t happen to them, for one reason or another. It also makes people feel better, to think that all of this discussion could make a difference. Which, of course, it won’t. It will happen again. Our society won’t make the necessary changes so that it would be far less likely. </p>