March 3, 2004
400,000 MOTHERS CAN'T BE WRONG (via The Wife):
Do Gun Control Activists Pad Gun Death Statistics? (Wendy McElroy, March 03, 2004, Fox News)
Take...the issue of how many children die each year in gun-related incidents. That question has been prompted not just by the new Columbine evidence, but by the impending Million Mom March on Washington, D.C., planned for Mother’s Day.Posted by Orrin Judd at March 3, 2004 5:49 PMThe first anti-gun MMM in 2000 attempted to redirect the focus of Mother’s Day from flowers and card giving to the gun deaths of children. The 2004 event continues this focus as its press release reminds us, "[W]ith memories of the horrible events at Columbine High School … people gathered [in 2000] on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to demand saner gun policies." The release quotes Mary Leigh Blek, the "president emeritus" of MMM, as saying that almost 14,000 children "have died from gun violence" since "our last march."
Where does that figure come from?
To begin with, Blek is probably referring to the 2000 MMM event. (In 2001, only about 100 people participated and the event is now virtually ignored.) This means she is stating that almost 14,000 children died from gun violence between 2000 and 2004. The figure is almost certainly an extrapolation from prior data.
The definitive source for data on injury-death in America, including gun deaths, is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Taking relevant data for 2001, the latest year available, and multiplying the results by four should provide a figure close to 14,000.
During 2001, the CDC reported a total of 157,078 injury-deaths. On their interactive Web site, if you click "Firearm" under "Cause of Injury," the figure becomes 29,573. For deaths in children, click on <1 as the lowest in the age range and 17 as the highest. Also select the "No Age-Adjusting Requested" option. The figure becomes 1,433. Multiplied by four, this is 5,732, or roughly 40 percent of what MMM asserts.
Note that CDC defines 'children' as people 17 years old and younger. Thus gun deaths of 15, 16, and 17 year-old hardened gang-bangers killed by rival gangsters are included in this category.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at March 3, 2004 7:16 PMPerhaps she got the figures from Michael Bellesiles.
Posted by: ratbert at March 3, 2004 9:16 PMIf I recall correctly, that figure also includes suicides by gun, which I think form the majority of 17-and-under gun deaths. If you were remove suicides and crime-related deaths from the annual total, the remaining deaths would be 25% (or less) of the present figure.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at March 3, 2004 9:50 PM> the new Columbine evidence,
I've been living in a cave, I guess--what new evidence is she talking about?
Posted by: at March 3, 2004 10:22 PMEven with the downwardly revised numbers I don't think I will be able to convince my wife to let me keep a deer rifle in the house. Sigh.
Posted by: Jason Johnson at March 4, 2004 11:34 AMAdvocacy groups always pad their figures, even ones that I like and agree with.
For instance, many years ago, some group against hunger claimed that "x" number of children were at risk of starving in the US.
It turns out that the figures were based on a survey they'd conducted, and anybody who answered that they'd gone to bed hungry even ONE TIME per year was counted as "at risk".