Guns Kill

It seems like almost every day there's a tragic story involving mass shootings or some form of "gun violence". Shootings in movie theaters, schools and churches. These horrible acts strike fear in the hearts of the public. These stories are heartbreaking, especially when we have almost instant access to the life stories of everyone involved and frequently, videos of the attacks. It feels personal to a lot of us. 

Along with these new stories, there's always a fight between those calling for gun control and those who believe more guns would help thwart potential future attacks. In the last week, I've seen a lot of stories about how guns kill and America is so far behind the rest of the world on this issue. Even as a fairly right wing conservative who would own a gun if he felt he could do so responsibly, it's hard not to feel like we're doing something wrong as a country that's contributing to these attacks. The statistics thrown out by the news and activist groups are quite alarming. 

Before changing my mind and joining the anti-gun movement, I decided to do some research to see if this is in fact as bad as it sounds, or if it's just emotional response to emotional stories. I found that the CDC puts out extremely detailed information on the causes of deaths and injuries year by year and it's fascinating. I spent hours reading about how people die in our country. It's a bit morbid, but I think it's good information to have and could help you avoid joining the statistics. Every year in America roughly 2.5 million people die, here are the top 10 causes of death. 

Number of deaths for leading causes of death (2013 CDC)

• Heart disease: 611,105
• Cancer: 584,881
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
• Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
• Diabetes: 75,578
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

The CDC estimates that almost 260,000 of those deaths are preventable. I would argue that it's significantly more than that. Cigarettes alone cause 480,000 deaths per year (including 41,000 deaths from second hand smoke). Obesity, unhealthy diets and lack of exercise cause even more deaths than cigarettes (there's definitely an overlap). Overall there were 821.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2013, the worst since 2005, but significantly better than any year from 1940-2004. 

If I understand correctly, only two of the top 10 causes are not heavily influenced by obesity or smoking: accidents and suicide. The majority of accidents are from falls, drugs, car accidents and alcohol abuse. 

In 2013 there were 35,369 deaths as a result of car accidents (1/3 estimated to involve alcohol). This is significantly better than the average from 1962-2008. There were 46,471 deaths from drugs (0 from Marijuana)  and 29,001 from alcohol. 41,149 deaths were by suicide (21,175 from self inflicted gunshot wounds), a significant increase. Suicide, drug poisoning and older adult falls are the only categories that saw an increase in deaths since 2005. 

While that's all fascinating (at least to me), let's move on to gun violence. In 2013 there were 11,208 (3.5 per 100,000) homicides by gunshot. In terms of non-fatal injuries, in 2013 there were 62,220 injuries by gunshot (with intent to harm). That's less than half the amount of "Assault/Cut/Pierce" attacks and is not in the top 20 causes of injuries. Compare that with the roughly 2.3 million injuries as a result of car accidents (source: NHTSA). 

My takeaway from all these numbers is that there are a few major issues that need to be addressed to make our country safer, in this order:

1. Obesity: In addition to causing hundreds of thousands of deaths it increases insurance costs for private insurance purchasers (i.e. those of us not getting insurance from the government) by $1140 (heart.org) and costs our economy up to $250 billion. Only 20% of adults meet the federal guidelines for physical fitness.
2. Smoking: There's nothing redeeming about cigarette smoking. Not only does it kill hundreds of thousands of smokers a year, it also kills those who live around smokers. If you want something to go away, tax it. Cigarettes are already heavily taxed & smoking rates have gone down significantly, so why not tax it more? 
3. Drunk driving, distracted driving and overall vehicle safety: Up to 1/3 of car accidents are caused by drunk driving, killing and injuring millions. 17% of car accidents involve distracted driving. Car accidents are the leading cause of death for teens. They drive faster than adults, are less likely to use seat belts, and are more likely to be under the influence of alcohol. Technology is definitely contributing to accidents (e.g. texting and web surfing while driving), but it's also a big contributor to the decrease in car accidents and there's reason to expect huge improvements in the future. Features like blindspot detection systems, lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control and collision prevention systems like the autopilot feature on the Tesla model S promise to make driving safer for everyone. 
4. Drugs: The war on drugs is much derided and rightfully so. Marijuana is a relatively safe drug (safer than cigarettes and alcohol), drug dealers are not safe. People say that it's a gateway drug and it's true that many people move to heavier drugs, but that likely has more to do with the people than the drugs. Legalizing marijuana and having it sold by licensed stores, takes away the interaction with the drug dealers who push harder drugs. It can also provide quite a bit of tax revenue. T
5. Suicide: More people die in the US annually (41,149 in 2013, plus nearly 500 non-fatal injuries) from suicide than car accidents and the numbers are increasing. Clearly we need to get more serious about helping those with mental health issues. This could also help avoid future violent attacks and mass shootings. 

Gun violence is horrible, but it would seem that the attention it receives is disproportionate to the actual severity of the problem. It's extremely unlikely that you'll be shot and even less likely that you'll be shot randomly. Still, guns are powerful devices that can be deadly, not unlike cars. Before you can drive a car, you have to pass tests to show that you know the laws, why shouldn't that be the case for guns. A simple background check that can weed out violent ex-cons and people who have suspended drivers licenses for driving drunk and the like makes sense. I don't see why we force gun shops to do similar background checks and don't hold gun shows or private owners to the same standard. It also makes sense to have a short waiting period before one can buy their first gun. Why not have a simple test to show that the potential gun owner knows how to be responsible and safe? 

Some states already have laws like this and if I understand correctly getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon is significantly more difficult and holders of these permits are far less likely to commit violent crimes. Hopefully I'll link to sources for that later. I can make the case that there's no need for further restrictions. Why should buying a gun be more difficult than buying a car, they can both be used as weapons and it's probably easier to cause mass casualties with a car? The reason I don't take a hardline position like that (even though it has merit) is that we all gain by having reasonable safety requirements. Responsible gun owners have the most to lose by allowing irresponsible people to own guns. 

Guns are not inherently dangerous. They don't up and kill people on their own. Ignorant people and those with agendas want to ban guns and many gun owners see any new restrictions as a step towards the government taking away their guns.  

The good news is we have an excellent crop of politicians running for president in the 2016 election, so we have nothing to worry about. Oh wait, what? I wish I could run for president this election (I was planning on it, before I realized the minimum age was 35, not 32), the other candidates are so ridiculous that it's not inconceivable for a no-name random person to come in and win the election. Ok, maybe I'm not the most stable or responsible person, but I'd still take my chances against the circus candidates. 

Seeing that I won't be running for president, maybe I'll have time to write some new posts that actually have something to do with living in Israel. 

Flying safely with a toddler

I'm sure most of you know that airlines typically allow children under two to fly for free (or 10% fare internationally). What I didn't know, until recently was that not only is it impractical to carry a baby for a whole flight, it's also unsafe (for your child and other passengers). To quote the FAA (link http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/):

"Did you know that the safest place for your child on an airplane is in a government-approved child safety restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap? Your arms aren't capable of holding your child securely, especially during unexpected turbulence. "

The statistics on passengers injured in turbulence are not so alarming, but it does happen and small kids in their parents arms are at the highest risk. The FAA is worried enough about the dangers of turbulence that it mandates seat belts for adults, why not for kids? One theory that I've seen is that they're afraid that parents will not want to pay for seats for their kids, so they'll drive instead. Driving is always significantly more dangerous than flying, so they don't want to encourage that. The NTSB also recommends child safety seats for children under two years old http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/Children.aspx. In other words, all the experts in safety say it's necessary, ignore them at your (and your kids and other passengers) own risk. 

Once I became aware of this, I purchased a seat for Matis on every flight we've taken. You would think that considering the recommendations from the FAA/NTSB and that the airlines are getting money for a child who could fly for free, they'd be prepared to deal with passengers who bring car seats. You would be wrong. At least if you're flying on KLM, Air France or Delta. 

So far we've had 3 flights between Detroit and Tel Aviv, each with at least one stopover and on every single flight the cabin crew tried to make us check our car seat (which is FAA approved). I even called the airlines and confirmed with the check-in staff each time and was told "if it's FAA approved, you can use it on the plane". Yet, every time we tried to get on the plane, we were told that we had to check it, b/c the seats were too small, or not given a reason at all. We insisted each time and after waiting for approval from the crew chief (or something like that) we were allowed to bring it.  

I wish I would have seen this earlier, but the FAA site says clearly:

"If an approved CRS, for which a ticket has been purchased, does not fit in a particular seat on the aircraft, the airline is responsible for accommodating the CRS in another seat in the same class of service."

Which leads me to a long story. 

On our Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris in June, the flight attendant had us switch the car seat from rear facing to forward facing because the back of the seat was touching the seat in front of us. Turns out this is actually the FAA recommended way for a kid as heavy as Matis. We complied and it fit, snugly. This was fine until a couple hours into the flight when Matis woke up and wanted to stretch his legs out, which was impossible without kicking the seat in front of him. The first time this happened the lady in front of us turned around and yelled at us. We apologized and tried to find a way to adjust him so that he would be able to sit normally without bothering anyone. Unfortunately, there was just not enough room and the next time he kicked her seat, the lady in front of us yelled at us and told us to move to different seats. 

I called the flight attendant, but it was during meal service and it took a while for her to get to us. During this time the lady continued to yell at us, despite our apologies and call for help. I don't blame her for being upset, nobody wants to have their seat kicked, but she was plain nasty. This whole time, Nehama was talking to her, trying to explain what was happening. If the lady wasn't taking up all our time yelling, we probably would've taken Matis out of the car seat in the meantime, but honestly at that point I didn't mind her getting kicked. 

When the FA came, we showed her that there was no way for Matis to sit normally without kicking the seat and asked her what we could do. Initially she told the lady in front that the baby has to be in his seat, so if you can't deal with the kicks we'll have you switch seats with someone else (I'm not sure who would volunteer for that change). The lady refused to be moved and yelled at the FA too. 
The FA then told us "you have to stop your son from kicking her". Again I showed her that he wasn't kicking, just trying to sit straight and asked her how we can stop that. She said "I don't know, but he can't be kicking her the whole flight". 

At this point we took Matis out of the chair and held him. I asked the FA if she could take the car seat away so at least we could use the seat, she said no. I said, ok, we'll hold him for the next five hours, if that's what we have to do. She agreed that that's what we should do. Nehama asked her if they would refund our ticket since we couldn't use the seat and she said "No, the airline did nothing wrong, the problem is not our seats, it's your son's feet.". 

She later came back and offered to move a different passenger from the row in front of us to business class, so the other couple could move over one seat and have no one sitting next to them. Then we'd be able to use the car seat. The couple refused to even move over one seat, but the other person agreed to move to business class. We had to move to car seat to the aisle seat (it's supposed to be in a window seat so it doesn't block you from getting out in an emergency), but at least we could use it. 

I wonder what would've happened if an adult passenger was kicking the seat in front of him, or if he was too tall or fat to sit in the seat without bothering passengers around him. I doubt he'd be treated with such disrespect. Congratulations Air France, you can bully an 18-month old.  

This whole experience was so bad and we were dreading the flight so much that we stayed in Detroit for an extra week. I contacted Air France, KLM and Delta before our return flight (they were all part of it for some reason I don't fully understand) to make sure nothing like this would happen again. They gave me the same advice as usual "if it's FAA approved, you can use it on the flight". That's great, but then why did they tell me at the gate that I had to check it and when they finally gave in to my complaints they said "bring it at your own risk, we can't help you with it". 

I know that commercial air travel is accepted as a torture we must endure if we want to travel, but I still expect more when paying $1,000+ for a toddler to fly. 

P.S. I held off on posting this until I received a reply to the complaint I made with Air France, which I received today. Their response was to quote back everything in my complaint and say "I understand". They ended by saying that the FA was wrong and I should have received better service. Um, thanks?