What occupations are the most dangerous?

(Click on figure to enlarge.) Data on how dangerous different occupations are can be found here.  

The Rolling Stone Interview: Michael Bloomberg says he isn't afraid of the NRA, but should we be afraid of him?

Michael Bloomberg's interview with Rolling Stone magazine has already created its share of controversy but really just for his comments about Colorado recalling several Democrat state Senators for voting for gun control.

In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don't think there's roads. It's as far rural as you can get. And, yes, they lost recall elections. I'm sorry for that. We tried to help 'em. But the bottom line is, the law is on the books, and being enforced. You can get depressed about the progress, but on the other hand, you're saving a lot of lives.

But there are other bizarre claims that should be at least as controversial.  Bloomberg isn't asking people just to lock up their guns, he clearly doesn't want people to own guns.

And if you want to have a gun in your house, I think you're pretty stupid – particularly if you have kids – but I guess you have a right to do that. Someday, there is going to be a suit against parents who smoke in their houses or have guns in their houses by a kid. It's not that far-fetched. . . . 

guns are dangerous. The statistics are overwhelming. You're something like 22 times more likely to get killed in your home if you have a gun than if you don't. [Gestures at a staffer.] Let's say Amanda's trying to break in. "Excuse me, Amanda, I've gotta go get my gun to shoot you. Now, where did I put that combination to that lock? And the bullets were where? I don't know what the fuck…how do you turn the safety off?" Are you kidding me? The last thing you want to do when somebody breaks in and puts a gun toward you is try to go for a gun. That's really stupid. I don't know if you're going to get shot one way, but I guarantee you're going to get killed the other way.

About the one thing that is right here is that locking up guns, especially the way that Bloomberg wants them locked up, makes it very difficult to use defensively.  The claim about risks of guns in the home is based on completely bogus public health studies.  A brief discussion on the problems with this claim is provided in my book "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

In addition, requiring that people lock up guns or reduce gun ownership does two things: 1) more criminals are emboldened to break into people homes while the residents are in the dwelling and 2) they are more likely to be successful in committing a violent crime.

Whatever one thinks of the NRA, it is clear that Bloomberg's attack on them isn't very honest.

But the NRA takes no prisoners. Put yourself in the following scenario. You're a Senator or Congressman, a Democrat. I ask you to have background checks. You say, "Mike, I can't be with you on background checks, but my opponent, the Republican, is worse." What the NRA says is, "Babes, we don't care. We're going after you. We're going after your spouse and your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren. Long after you're dead, we'll still be going after you." It's hard to think these guys aren't cuckoo and wouldn't probably do it, when they say that. A rational person would consider all of my views before they make a vote – maybe he won't be happy with my gun position, but I'm so good on the others I'll probably still get his vote. But for the NRA that's not an option.

First, we already have background checks and as far as I can tell the NRA isn't trying to get rid of them.  The issue is a bill last year that Bloomberg supported and that bill included what many believed involved registration and would have affected the private transfer of guns.

Worse, this notion that the NRA appears to be just a smear.  A tougher, objective questioner would have asked for a specific example to illustrate his claim, but Simon Vozick-Levinson wasn't interested in actually questioning him.

Teaching first graders in Missouri about gun-safety

From Fox News:

Missouri schools will be encouraged to teach first-graders a gun safety course sponsored by the National Rifle Association as a result of legislation signed Friday by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The new law stops short of requiring schools to teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. But by putting it in state law, Missouri is providing one of the stronger state-sanctioned endorsements of the NRA-sponsored firearms safety course, which the group says is taught to about 1 million children annually.
The legislation also requires school personnel to participate in an “active shooter and intruder” drill led by law enforcement officers. . . . .

What is the risk of a six year old dying from an accidental gun shot?

Lisa Maxbauer recently wrote a piece in the New York Times worrying about her six-year old visiting homes of gun owners.  Here are some numbers from the CDC for both six year olds and those under age 10.

For other ways of accidental deaths, the numbers are as follows:

From the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Comparing accidental gun deaths from TVs and Furniture and guns

As many children under ten die from accidental falling TVs and Furniture as from guns.

New numbers show a record number of people were killed by falling televisions, furniture, and appliances in 2011.
The report from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission shows 41 people were killed in 2011, an increase from 31 in 2010, and 27 in 2009.
The data shows that the majority of those killed were under the age of nine. . . .

Thanks to Steve Brown for this link.

Accidental firearm deaths for those under age 15 rise back up in 2010

CDC data show number of accidental firearm deaths for children under age 15 has gone back up to 62, a number that it was at in 2008.  The 48 accidental deaths in 2009 was unusually low.  A similar pattern also held for total accidental gun deaths for all ages: 2008, 592; 2009, 554; and 2010, 606.

However, over the longer term, the pattern for accidental gun deaths is similar to other accidental deaths in that is as long as we have data you see a gradual decline, though in recent years the decline in accidental firearm deaths has slowed.

Something to think about when you hear about these claims of sudden auto exceleration

From the Associated Press:

Accidents in which drivers mistakenly hit the gas instead of the brake tend to involve older female drivers in parking lots, a new government study has found. One of the study's most striking and consistent findings was that nearly two-thirds of drivers who had such accidents were female. When looking at all crashes, the reverse is true — about 60 percent of drivers involved in crashes are male, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study noted. Another finding: Gas pedal accidents tend to occur more frequently among drivers over age 76 and under age 20. The age disparity showed up in both an analysis of more than 2,400 gas pedal accidents in a North Carolina state crash database and an analysis of nearly 900 news reports of such crashes. In the state database, accidents were almost equally likely to involve drivers under 20 as over 76, but in news reports about 40 percent of accidents involved elderly drivers — four times as many as young drivers. . . .

"Firearms accidents [as a percent of all accidental deaths] are at an all-time low"

Accidental deaths general fall over time. What this is saying is that accidental gun deaths have been falling at a faster rate.

No one blames "our nation as a whole" for the tragic accidents that claim the lives of children, and adults, involving automobiles, swimming pools, poisonings, suffocations and falls, all of which rank far higher than firearms as causes ("Collateral damage," July 25). In fact, less than 1 percent of fatal accidents in the home are the result of firearms, according to the National Safety Council.
Let's not demonize firearms or lawful firearms owners in the search for answers to the unfortunate accidental deaths of three city-area children. Let's instead remind the public that such accidents are rare and can be prevented by taking steps to ensure that guns cannot be accessed by children or other unauthorized persons. Place unloaded guns in locked storage. Store ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms. If a gun is kept in the home for protection, make sure only authorized persons can access it. Quick-access lock boxes are suitable for this. . . .

I don't really think that trying to convince people to lock up there guns makes a lot of sense from a safety campaign because it ignores how much harder all this makes it for people to use guns defensively.

One small way that California is planning on getting out of its financial problems

Brett Decker, the editorial page editor at the Washington Times, tells me that there are a lot of studies indicating that these cameras actually increase accident rates -- people who know where these cameras are slow down suddenly and there are rear end crashes. From the Sacramento Bee:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is counting on lead-footed California drivers to help dig the state out of its latest budget hole.

Buried in the details of the governor's spending plan released Friday is a proposal to raise nearly $400 million by allowing cities and counties to install "automated speed enforcement systems," also known as speed cameras.

The devices could be attached to existing cameras that monitor red light violations, and would track speeders by license plate. The tickets would come in the mail.

Infractions would result in fines of $225 for going up to 15 miles an hour above the limit, and $325 for more than 15 mph. The state's share of the take, an estimated $337.9 million, would help pay for trial court operations and court security. Local governments would keep 15 percent, an estimated $59.6 million, of the total $397.5 million collected. . . .

"To the extent drivers choose to curb their tendencies to violate speeding laws, there would be significant benefit to public safety in the form of fewer accidents and injuries to drivers," the department said. . . .

The "safest" large cities in the US?

This is fairly arbitrary, defining safest based on violent crime, workplace deaths, fatal crashes and natural disasters. Why assume that a robbery is as bad as a murder or an aggravated assault is as bad as a murder? Most violent crimes involve aggravated assaults that, not murder, will drive that part of the ranking. Why include work place safety but not accidental deaths of other types? The list of the top forty cities is available here. Thanks to Craig Newmark's website for the tip.

Fewer 16 Year Olds Driving

I suppose what caught my notice in this New York Times piece is that kids had become terrified of driving. The caption under the picture reads: "Kelsey Sheffer, 16, of Bethlehem, Ga., says she lost the motivation to pursue a full license after she saw accident sites with a police officer. For now, her mother is happy to shuttle her around." It is true that youth have had higher accident rates, but you get some rough idea of the risk from the higher insurance premiums: "it now costs 80 percent to 100 percent more to add a 16-year-old to a family’s auto policy." The lack of subsidies for Driver's Ed training (with many schools no longer subsidizing the training) is also mentioned as a reason for the drop. I think that what bothers me most about the tone of the piece is the lack of understanding of trade-offs. Surely, reducing accidental car deaths is good, but it is not the only consideration. There are benefits to teenagers driving, just as there are benefits to adults driving. What is the cost in parent's time driving their kids around? What are the forgone opportunities of the kids because they can't be involved in certain activities? This seems like one topic that could benefit from some rigorous research.

Now we can add dog leashes to the list of items that take more young lives than guns

To the list of plastic water buckets and bathtubs, now we can add dog leashes. A new CDC report notes how dangerous leashes and bungee cords are:

At least 82 youths have died from the so-called "choking game," according to the first government count of fatalities from the tragic fad.

In the game, children use dog leashes, bungee cords wrapped around their necks or other means to temporarily cut blood flow to their head. The goal is a dreamlike, floating-in-space feeling when blood rushes back into the brain. . . .