According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, eight children are killed by guns in the United States every day.
Our community knows all too well that these numbers aren’t just statistics.
The numbers represent mothers, fathers, grandparents, neighbors and teachers with children in their lives who are forever changed by the long-term effects of gun violence.
Most unintentional shootings of children occur when adults leave loaded guns where children can get them.
More than 1.5 million children younger than 18 live in homes with loaded, unsecured guns, leaving them many times more likely to be killed than in safer homes.
About 1 of 3 handguns are kept loaded and unlocked in homes, cars and other locations.
A recent survey found that 70% of gun owners reported feeling at least somewhat comfortable disclosing ownership to their physicians if asked.
Patients may be more receptive to questions about firearm access when risk has been discussed.
Clinicians may find asking these questions: If there is a firearm in the home. Is it loaded? Is it locked? Are little children ever in the home?
The study found:
• If just 10% more gun owners in households with children had locked up their guns, 50 more teens and children would be alive today.
• If 20% had locked up their guns, 99 more would be alive today.
• If 50% had, 251 more kids would be alive today.
The most appropriate method of safer storage of firearms may vary with firearm type and intended use.
Gun owners need to consider securing this lethal means.
DR. FREDERIC JONES
After a week of working 12-hour days analyzing Charleston's flooding issues and talking with community groups, Dutch experts reaffirmed much of the city's ongoing efforts Friday, but they also floated some new ideas.
It isn’t easy to change a mindset. But Charleston has a rare opportunity to do just that in the wake of the recent presentations by the gifted professionals who make up the Dutch Dialogues.
In three standing-room-only sessions, the public got an interim peek at a new, workable approach to the waters that surround us.
Guided by principles that have proved successful in Holland and elsewhere, the workshops explained that the way to manage torrential rains and tidal inundations is to slow the water as it falls, store it when it hits the surface, then discharge it after the storms and the tides ebb.
The Dutch would have our city working like a sponge. Depending on topography and population density, there are any number of aesthetic, effective ways to do this.
Given the daunting nature of the challenge, what a relief to know that this is possible. The final report, refined and specific, will be unveiled Sept. 26 at the Gaillard.
After four major floods since 2015, and in light of rising seas, some here have adopted a negative stance. They tend to look the other way, resigned to what they see as inevitable, or overdevelop while they can.
But now we have an alternative, a positive path, a workable way to save Charleston.
“You have a beautiful city,” declared David Waggonner, as he introduced last week’s workshops and the talented Dutch/Waggonner & Ball team.
“We are not here to solve the problem for you. We are here to help. You have to do it for yourself.”
Why would we not?
Chairwoman of Groundswell
Cost of economy
The July 10 Post and Courier editorial, “A healthy economy at midsummer,” includes a couple of cautions such as, “Investment in plant and equipment has slowed this year,” indicating that less of the corporate tax reductions are being invested to make those corporations more sustainable in the future.
It also states, “The declining labor share of national income, a trend that has been underway since the 1970s, shows no signs of a rebound. The distribution of incomes still disproportionately favors those who earn a living from financial transactions over those who provide their labor.”
But nowhere do you mention the cost of this healthy economy in the growing national debt, estimated to increase anywhere from $500 billion to $1.5 trillion, and even more if the individual tax cuts are made permanent.
It stands to reason that if you add that much money to the economy, it should be doing well, but who will pay for our economy’s current health?
Tupelo Bay Drive
"Fifteen dollars may sound good in places like San Fran, but not back home," Cunningham said, in explaining why he voted against his fellow Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage.
The July 19 Post and Courier led with the story about U.S. Rep. Joe Cunningham voting differently than most Democrats, saying, “US representative breaks with Dems.”
Unfortunately, this is news when it should be commonplace. Rep. Cunningham got elected to serve the conservative 1st Congressional District in part because he convinced enough Republicans that he would be their voice in Washington.
From his website: “I’m
running to put my neigh-bors and my community first. To be a true represen-tative and not simply a rubber stamp on anyone’s agenda.”
The opposite of what he promised has been the case.
According to the website propublica.org, which tracks how lawmakers vote, in more than 450 votes during his time in office so far, Cunningham voted the same as liberal Democratic congresswomen Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez an average of 85% of the time.
During this same period, his votes matched the four S.C. Republican congressmen, Joe Wilson, Jeff Duncan, Ralph Norman and William Timmons, an average of 39% of the time.
His record looks more like a rubber stamp than representation of the district to me.