From: Thomas A Chandler, [EMAIL PROTECTED] April 26, 2000 Clinton's "omissions" on gun accidents by Lance K. Stell, Ph. D. As our President touts his background-checks-at-gun-shows bill to prevent kids from shooting kids and bemoans that "the rate of accidental gun deaths among U.S. children is nine times higher than in the world's 25 other largest countries combined," we should prove that we have learned larger lessons from Bill Clinton than he intended. However forgiving Americans have proved to be, the President should not similarly count on our forgetting his remarkable record for untruthfulness. We should, and we will check his facts -- those he asserts and those he omits. The National Safety Council keeps records on fatal gun accidents in the United States dating back to 1903. The NSC's latest annual report indicates that fatal firearm accidents have fallen to the lowest level ever recorded -- 900 total. For reference, there were 2513 fatal gun accidents in 1974. The NSC's data indicate that fatal gun accidents have been trending down for 25 years. According to the same report, 110 children (ages 1-14) died in gun accidents in 1998. For comparison, 570 in that age group died from burns, 2600 died in car wrecks, 200 suffocated by ingesting objects, and 850 died from drowning. Surely, this is comparatively welcome news about gun accidents. It's only momentarily puzzling why the President hasn't claimed credit for it. A supporter of the President's nostrum might respond, "The comparisons with other causes of accidental death are irrelevant. One-hundred and ten children dying from gunfire is totally unnecessary. Only when no child dies from gun fire will we not need more laws." The argument is based on an immoral premise, namely, that accidental deaths of children are not equally tragic, not of equal concern. The argument implies that car wrecks' killing an order of magnitude more children than gun accidents somehow should concern us less because, by implication, the former are "necessary" or "more necessary." Isn't it strange to parade as "ethically progressive" a view that, in effect, diminishes the tragic death of a child by suggesting the cold, no, callous comfort, that accidental deaths from car wrecks and other causes are comparatively "necessary?" Fixating on gun accidents seems remarkably myopic given the other, comparatively greater, dangers. A political motive may insinuate that mechanism of death matters more than comparative risk. An impartial, ethical viewpoint says the reverse. But now the a supporter of the President's proposal might point out that automobiles are extensively regulated under product safety laws, whereas firearms are not. Thus, it might be claimed that, just as product safety regulation has been instrumental in reducing accidental deaths from car wrecks, similar regulation might well reduce gun accidents. This argument is wrong in every part. Americans have done very well reducing gun accidents without any product safety regulation. Auto-safety regulation can claim credit for a 16% drop in deaths from car wrecks in the decade 1988-1998. During the same period, gun accident deaths dropped 40% without product safety regulation. But let's look a bit farther. If we expand our age group to include children and youths ages 1-24, the National Safety Council data reveal the following: In 1998, despite all the safety regulation, motor vehicle wrecks still took the lives of 13, 376 young people. By contrast, gun accidents took the lives of 537. Guns are dangerous, but they are not unsafe. Indeed, gun accident fatalities are classed as "accidents" not primarily because the trigger was pulled unintentionally, but in the sense that the resulting harm was unintended. But more to the point, the product safety argument is wrong because the overwhelming numbers of deaths associated with firearms are intentional, not accidental. That's what makes them wrongful. In the typical gun homicide or suicide, the firearm performed precisely as its user intended. When a criminal uses a gun to commit homicide, the resulting death is no accident. User failure, not product failure. What the President doesn't tell the American people is that the typical "child" who shoots another "child," is a young adult male, raised in a broken home, who not only grew up lacking responsible adult supervision, but almost certainly is the victim of extensive physical and mental abuse, a school dropout, ethically deranged, perhaps additionally troubled by a diagnosable mental disorder, already well-known to the police for his involvement with illicit drugs and for his extensive record of criminal violence. In short, a cherub when asleep, a predator otherwise. The current "spin cycle" should not make us so dizzy that we forget what we know. Also, now-prevalent web access makes it possible for the average citizen to check the nation's homicide and suicide trends for herself or himself to supply information the President finds it convenient not to mention. The Department of Justice's site contains the nation's homicide rates from 1900 to the present. The data indicate that America's homicide rate has been falling since 1993. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960s." Criminologists have many theories why this has happened. No consensus has emerged. However, this much is clear. The simplistic "more guns, more homicide" hypothesis is flatly at odds with the data. Both the National Safety Council and the Department of Justice can be trusted to disclose accurate data on deaths and their causes. The matter is otherwise with our President's undocumented international comparisons. When facts fit awkwardly with the President's politics, he makes a choice. Unfortunately, we can no longer claim to be disillusioned by his priorities. --30-- Lance K. Stell is Charles A. Dana Professor of Medical Ethics at Davidson College in North Carolina. -------[Cybershooters contacts]-------- Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
