U.S. children and teens are more likely to die because of guns than car crashes, drug overdoses and cancer.
it’s a shame guns have so many rights
even protected by god
Welp, I looked it up, and one study focused on 14 and younger, about a thousand deaths by car crash, and one focused on 13 to 19, with about 3000 deaths, so even combined and ignoring the overlap in the age range of the studies and going over the age of 18, 15% more kids in the US are getting killed by guns than car crashes, and that gap is widening each year.
Car crashes, ODs and cancer fatalities among minors are far lower than I thought. Just as an aside.
It might seem low, but when looking at statistics about fatalities, it’s a good idea to keep in mind the many injured and potentially permanently disabled that aren’t included.
Medical professionals can work magic, and that is great. But non-fatal car crash, overdose, cancer, and gun injuries can also be tragic, both short and long term. Diminished mental capacity, loss of limbs or physical abilities, lifelong pain, the list goes on…
I had a friend in high school who accidentally shot himself with a gun when he was a small child. He’s in a wheelchair for life.
I’m not American, I’m Canadian. Talking about the statistics is important but holy fucking shit it’s depressing. Any more than 0 accidental deaths is too many.
Got it. More depressing is that most of those gun deaths are not an accident.
It’s something like 2%, the other 98% are people choosing to shoot other people.
“people choosing to shoot other people” or, for a very substantial percentage, people choosing to shoot themselves
Good point. Almost all US gun deaths are intentional, 54% being suicides and 43% being murders, with 3% being accidents, as of 2021
Just remember guns don’t kill toddlers, toddlers kill toddlers.
Toddlers are lunatics, we’re just lucky they’re so small and uncoordinated
Let’s look at the numbers around NBC’s claim here. 4752 children killed by guns (or toddlers with guns) in 2021. There are 73 million children in the USA. That’s only 0.0065% of children in America killed.
99.99% of children in the USA were not killed by guns in 2021.
I’m convinced that you think you have made a compelling argument for something.
It’s so weird to file 18 and 19 year olds under “children”. Aren’t 18+ already considered adults and their lifestyle is going to be more risky than an actual child in grade school?
If you kept it at actual “minors”, I wonder how this data would look.
It’s kind of like saying that car accidents are a major cause of death in children because they drive too fast.
The article discusses this.
Older adolescents, ages 15 to 19, accounted for 82.6% of gun-related deaths in 2021.
Poking around the CDC website adolescence is defined in multiple ways but generally includes ages 12-19, so might be better described as “teens” even though 18+ is a legal adult. I think it’s being treated here as more of a developmental stage than a legal one.
Digging into it by age, from 2018-2021 firearms made up 2,149 out of 22,545 total deaths (~9%) for the age range 5-14 in the US. Looking at 15-19 this increases significantly to 13,321 out of 46,323 total deaths (~29%). This corresponds to increases in both homicide and suicide by firearm for older adolescents.
Quoting this just to make the point that firearms do have differing impacts on younger and older children, and that extends to race and income level as well. But whether guns are the leading cause of death for an age group or not, the end result is the same: more dead kids.
I’m more interested right now in the obvious agenda.
I’m not saying that child death’s aren’t up or that we shouldn’t do more to protect them but when citing data this way, I get the very strong feeling that it’s being made to look worse than it is on purpose. The majority are from suicides and murder fatalities are extreme in the 18-19 year old bracket.
Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.
The dictionary defines a child as a person between birth and puberty. Or not having attained the age of legal majority.
It’s similar to when a 10 year old gets shot by the police, and then the news conference later has the police referring the 10 year old victim as “a young man” instead of “the child”. Does it not feel like they’re trying to achieve something?
Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.
Honestly, I tried pretty hard to find a good reason and other than the fact that the CDC groups data into <1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 age ranges there’s no real explanation. You could go up to 14, and then get individual year data up to 17/18 whatever the cutoff.
I wouldn’t say it’s totally dishonest because it is baked into the data and the CDC considers them developmentally similar, but I think it also an issue NBC wasn’t too interested in fixing because it makes the article’s argument seem more convincing.
Yeah, it’s misleading. Especially considering the hot topic use of firearms.
Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, we can agree that data should be free of the organization present here. The discussion isn’t helped by this interpretation of the interpretation and it surely needs helping.
It’s the Same Old Same Old “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” authoritarian push to limit the freedoms of the citizenry. Communists, Terrorists, Pedophiles, and Satanists are all coming to get your babies and only Big Brother can save you by restricting your naughty freedoms.
The reality is that if you look at the overall statistics, 99.9999% of children aged 0-18 in the USA are unaffected by gun violence. So I am not compelled to trade any of my freedom for more alleged safety.
deleted by creator
I’m sorry, but the ability to defend myself and my family isn’t a hobby. It’s what gave my mother the ability to fend off a guy with a knife last year. You want her to fight him off with her bare hands in the parking lot? I had a friend who was almost gang raped by three men in an alley. She now carries a giant gun in her purse and you want her defenseless?
Not everyone has the luxury of police around the corner or to see guns as a hobby like you do. Especially the population of “children” you’re referring to. Let me shed some light for you.
The fact is that these stats aren’t a majority school shootings. These homicides are male inner city black ADULT youth who are given the worst cards in life and they have gotten zero attention. This is gang violence politicized.
The pandemic hit this population hardest and the facts show it here. Look at deaths from ALL types of things and it’s gone up in this particular minority population. It’s disheartening because it’s been like this for decades and people are thinking it would be solved if only you could remove the guns.
The appropriate response is (if you’re not already) supporting programs and services that help people who are suffering from poverty and mental health illness. Not making my family and friends defenseless.
Edit - My mother wanted to add that she also peppered sprayed the guy the week before. He came back.
deleted by creator
I honestly want you to enumerate them because discussion helps and is an opportunity to progress the ideas. Just because we disagree, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t share the ideas. I enjoy discussion and I try hard to not be inflammatory or rude.
You should tell me where the “flags” are so I can look back and think on it.
To summarize:
-
The article discusses a CDC report about stats on children which includes adults, and discusses homicides of black inner city adolescents, and suicides of white adolelescents that are on the rise since the pandemic. The loss of life is terrible.
-
Self defense is a right, not a hobby. The potential loss of life is terrible.
-
Between #1 and #2, you and I have to navigate to find a solution that satisfies both of us.
-
We can agree that any life lost to anything is too much.
I wish you the best.
-
deleted by creator
The numbers are just weird in that article.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
I am going to read it again and see where their data is sourced.Ok, it seems that Pew and NBC used CDC stats. Still, NBC is not presenting data in a very informative way.
Any deaths are bad, but I prefer to see the whole picture and not what is cherry picked for a news article.
Of course they not, because its not about the info or the facts, its about the agenda…
Risky lifestyle goes pew pew pew.
They’re dead 18 year olds. If my 18 year old child died, I wouldn’t debate their age or the statistics.
More than 1 accidental death is 1 too many.
I’m not arguing that though. I totally agree that any loss of life is wrong.
And the use of child in your context is different from the use of child in the context of this discussion.
Yes, but only in the US and in war zones. Actually, usually less in war zones.
Nearly two-thirds of the deaths in 2021 were homicides, although unintentional shootings have killed many children. No matter how young the victims, pediatric gun-related deaths have left their mark on nearly every corner of the U.S.
More than 80% of the gun deaths were among males 19 and younger. Black male children were more likely to die from homicide. White males 19 and younger were more likely to kill themselves with guns.
We can see two issues here.
First: Suicide rates are rising sharply among white boys. Why?
Second: Crime is rising sharply for black boys. Why?
Removing guns doesn’t solve the problems leading to suicidal ideation or the problems that lead to homicide. We have the ability to fix those issues without undermining 2A protections. We know that poverty in dense areas is a strong predictor of criminal behavior, and that education is a strong counterbalance to that. We also know that both parties are choking off funding to poor, urban school districts, albeit for different ideological reasons. (Republicans want to cut all public educations. Democrats want to keep school funding local so that property taxes in wealthy areas aren’t funding schools in poor areas, ensuring that wealthy areas have access to better schools.)
Both parties are equally bad, huh?
Democrats want to keep school funding local so that property taxes in wealthy areas aren’t funding schools in poor areas, ensuring that wealthy areas have access to better schools
I’ve seen D’s increasingly propose more state and national funding for schools, exactly the opposite of your claim. That’s in addition to increased state and federal funding for expanding pre-school, for school lunches, for at least some free college
I lived in Chicago. I saw Chicago moving more funding to charter and magnet schools rather than funding schools properly. Charter schools et al. don’t have to take all students, so CPS lost the funding, and still had to take the most difficult cases.
I think that the most rational approach is to, first, eliminate all state funding for private education, charter school, magnet schools, etc., ONLY fund public schools. And second, pool all of the tax revenue state-wide–which means that you also need to make property taxes a state issue rather than a local-school-funding issue–and the divide taxes based on the number of students in each school, with allowances made for differences in costs (e.g., it’s more expensive for a teacher to live in L.A. than it is in Blythe, so there needs to be some kind of allowance for higher teacher pay in L.A. than in Blythe).
Thank you for a well thought out comment. Ita refreshing to read something like this sometimes. Sometimes it feels like everyone is on their own radical side.
I’d also add strickter punishments for the owner of the firearm if it was used in a crime by their child. I have a kid. I plan to buy a gun. If my kid kills someone with my gun, then as far as I’m concerned I’d be directly at fault. In addition to that I think parents should be legally liable for any violent crime their child does. If the parent has the legal authority over their child, they should also be held liable.
My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, …Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life?
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself
I have mixed feelings about this, because I can see that it would applied in a racial manner by law-and-order Republicans. E.g., black parents in a high-crime area have a gun for protection–since cops don’t give a shit–kid steals the gun and shoots someone, and there’s an immediate judicial lynching of the parents.
I’m in favor of locking guns up around kids, but I’m generally opposed to laws that mandate it, both because of costs (a gun safe that’s worth a damn easily costs $1500, and a good one starts at about $4500), and because some people–e.g. women that are being stalked–may need to have ready access to a gun at all times.
I completely understand the concern regarding this being applied in a racial manner. I don’t really know how to get around that, though. Any law that could be abused, will be abused, so we should be very careful, but I personally am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution. I do think that in the example you’ve provided is valid and can and does happen. But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly. Maybe stricter punishments for parents of kids that commit crime could lead to a change where people start taking more responsibility for their children. Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities. I don’t know. I’m glad that I’m not in charge of making those decisions.
Regarding locking guns up and having laws about how to safely store a gun in your own home, I oppose those. I’m willing to accept the risk if the punishment for mishandling them is severe enough. But like I said, I don’t know where that like should be drawn. I think my main point is that I’m for personal responsibility, and we should be encouraging that, instead of removing the choice completely.
But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly.
Yes, it does. But that’s the real solution.
It’s like getting physically fit; you don’t throw out your television and XBox because you’re fat and sit on your ass instead of going to the gym. You change your habits. The television and XBox are not themselves the problem.
Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities.
That seems to be the most likely outcome, esp. since prosecutors have fairly broad discretion on charging. I think that making a case for gross negligence would be a different category though, e.g., you knew your child was directly involved in violent criminal behavior and you knowingly left a firearm where you had reason to believe your child could access it easily then you are guilty of being an accessory. But I’d want that bar to be pretty high.
deleted by creator
That’s a bit of a non sequiter, don’t you think? Can you show me where I said that death was a hobby?
deleted by creator
You could have stopped with, “no, I don’t think”.
BTW, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam demonstrate that a sufficiently motivated populace is fully able to resist a tyrannical gov’t.
deleted by creator
really? so the taliban didn’t just immediately take over?
Who do you think the sufficiently motivated populace was? Are you intentionally being dense?
deleted by creator
Gangs have replaced the family unit in many poor areas. Not because the people are more criminal, but because it’s a self reinforcing loop. Anyone who can leaves the area, single parent households are common because many of the fathers are in jail or killed. This leaves Gangs as both a source of male role models and income for children, which leads to more getting killed or jailed.
Gangs use children for higher risk activities, because they get lighter sentences if caught. Kids that do time are then more dependent on gangs for support as legitimate work is harder to find.
deleted by creator
Gang violence in the three worst cities in America. Usually the statistics include 19yo. When you remove the three worst cities and 19yo, the statics are similar to the rest of the world.
You can’t just remove cities from statistics for better numbers
Uh, well, you can, and do, remove clear outliers in other statistical sets.
No, you normalize the data to account for the higher density of people.
You can’t just ignore the 3 largest cities because they have more people or higher crime rates.
Sure, we obviously have wrong data for 19 yo. Let’s just remove it from the data. And those three cities, clear outliers, 3 cities won’t affect the data noticeably anyway
too many guns
deleted by creator
it’s simple, stupid… you gotta learn to ask the right questions is this life…
more guns + more bullets = more holes in people
only a damned coward would try to wiggle around that…
deleted by creator
Donald O’Biden
more guns
Why the fuck do people feel entitled to carry around literal killing devices on them. They serve no purpose besides murdering someone, and their fantasy of standing up against the government or some shit will literally never happen.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The obvious solution here is to give children grenade launchers. Trust me, I’m an expert.
So let me get this straight. I’m expected to believe more kids are dying from guns than overdose? Based on a “study” that NBC news didn’t even deign to put a citation to in their article?? Iv never met anyone who died of gun violence.Iv And more than 20 who OD’d before turning 18. The verbiage. Not a new study. A “new analysis” of the data that again they dont provide a single citation to. The clear partisan language targeting lack of legislation as the reason for people dying instead of any mention of the real issue. Mental health.
Its NBC news. I dont expect real journalism from these guys.
I wonder how many children would have died if there were no firearms in private hands???
Removed by mod
Gun homicides committed on 17-year olds 2018-2021 = 1,659
Gun deaths for ages 1-19 2018-2021 = 15,803
Source: https://wonder.cdc.gov/Deaths-by-Underlying-Cause.htmlSo even if we disregard your rampant disrespect for the lives of children, you have successfully described (at most) a little over 10% of child gun deaths, so I’m sure the families of the other 90% will totally agree with you.
Shut up!
But what about the drag queens??
Firearms have no place in a household. Anybody who defends it is just a closeted gun nut.
i don’t remember guns being able to pull the trigger, i thought somebody else had to do that
somebody
Yup. But you know who doesn’t shoot kids? The people that don’t have guns.
You know who doesn’t have guns? Adult gang members. They make the kids carry them, so the adults don’t catch a heavy charge.
You don’t need to have a gun to get someone killed. You just have to convince a kid to pull the trigger for you.
Know who else doesn’t have guns? Adult gang members
In countries where it’s almost impossible to get one
Yeah remember when Adam Lanza killed 26 people (mostly kids!) with a ball peen hammer? Or how sometimes kids accidentally stab their friends to death with their dad’s chef knife they found unsecured. I hate it when that happens.
To be completely fair about it, we have to remember that the overwhelming majority of minors killing and being killed with guns are directly involved in criminal gangs. Accidents are rare; school shooting deaths rarer still. Adult gang members are calling on these kids to commit violent acts on their behalf. These kids killing and being killed with guns are doing exactly what is expected and demanded of them by the “role models” in their lives.
It is rather disingenuous to blame the guns when their “mentors” are putting them in their hands and demanding they use them.
Gun violence is a symptom, not the disease. Trying to solve it by taking away the guns is like trying to cure tuberculosis with Robitussin. It hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, can’t work. At best, it masks a symptom while the disease spreads. You need to eradicate the infection to cure the disease. If we want to tackle kids killing and being killed, we have to target the conditions that lead to them to associate with the violent, criminal gangs that actively seek these murders.
You are using the tired old fallacious gunnit claims about gun deaths only being “gang killings”, which even the article in question thoroughly refutes.
Trying to solve it by taking away the guns is like trying to cure tuberculosis with Robitussin. It hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, can’t work.
Funny how it works in almost all other countries (and certainly in all other rich Western countries) but the US though.
the overwhelming majority of minors killing and being killed with guns are directly involved in criminal gangs.
Citation needed.
majority of minors killing and being killed with guns are directly involved in criminal gangs. Accidents are rare; school shooting deaths rarer still.
Just imagine living in a civilized country instead, where those things basically don’t happen.
Indeed. We desperately need universal healthcare and measures to address wealth and income inequity.
Meth can’t smoke itself!
Aside from natural disasters that tends to be true for a lot of things that kill people. And I’m pretty sure we still talk about those.
Almost like we put outrageous exceptions on guns vs all other kinds of dangerous tools we use.
It’s hard to trigger a gun that does not exist.
Not many are being shot from walking around saying “bang”.
It’s a shared experience. It’s like a lot things in life. Crack doesn’t smoke itself and wives don’t beat themselves up. It’s almost like their are more complicated things than useless reduction rhetoric of a mindless fool.
You’re exactly right. And notice how instead of trying to eradicate crack from the earth, instead we’re treating people that abuse it and trying to stop people from doing so in the first place.
The same is said for alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Don’t get me wrong - harsher restrictions need to be put in place. But as you said, it’s complicated.
Even though a lot of gunnits certainly behaves that way, guns aren’t actually drugs and can’t be compared to drugs in any shape or form.
Gladius was the one who compared them to drugs. I was just following their analogy.
Thanks for agreeing. It makes my life easier.
So I’m going to explain this to you like you’re the 5 year old I assume you are.
Guns don’t pull their own triggers. That’s correct. It is because they are what people call an “inanimate object.” What is an inanimate object? Glad you asked.
And inanimate object is something that does not and cannot move on it’s own. Such as, a pitcher of PBR, or an unused toothbrush.
Now, with this new knowledge, we can arrive at the point where we understand how a gun cannot pull its own trigger. And not only that, but we csn understand how not only thinking so is wrong, but to think anyone would think it’s even possible… is wrong as well.
(Bonus lesson: This is also known as a bad faith argument! But don’t use these. They’re easily to spot and make you look incredibly foolish)
Now that that is out of the way-
It’s because of the fact that people are dying in record numbers- DESPITE guns not being able to pull their own triggers- that it is suggested that stronger laws need to be placed on the PEOPLE that are firing them at one another, instead of the guns themselves, which as we just learned, are inanimate objects that are incapable of firing themselves.
Savvy?
Your trusted mentor puts a gun in your hand and tells you to kill a rival. You do it, and your mentor praises you for it.
Is the problem the gun? You? Or is it the gang mindset learned by your mentor and shared with you?
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs, whose leaders are actively seeking these murders. Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs
CDC numbers say that is patently untrue (scroll up to see the comment posting actual data), so where are you getting that from?
I swear so many of these people can’t tell the difference between reality and what they see in TV and movies. QAnon even posted previously that were living in some giant movie production so these people must have taken that to heart.
Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
If only there were other countries on earth that had both criminals AND stricter gun laws where we could see if reducing the number of guns saves children’s lives despite not eradicating criminal activity. And only if, I don’t know, social scientists had analyzed it systematically.
Oh, wait.
Among comparably large and wealthy countries, Canada has the second highest child and teen firearm death rate to the U.S. However, Canada generally has more restrictive firearm laws and regulates access to guns at the federal level.
If the child and teen firearm mortality rate in the U.S. had been brought down to rates seen in Canada, we estimate that approximately 30,000 children’s and teenagers’ lives in the U.S. would have been saved since 2010 (an average of about 2,500 lives per year). This would have reduced the total number of child and teenage deaths from all causes in the U.S. by 13%.
If the problem was just “guns”, we should expect to see their unarmed crime stats be similar or even greater than US numbers. Canadian violent crime stats are lower across all categories, not just the “gun” categories.
Canada has a vastly superior social safety net. They address poverty conditions far better than the US. Gangs thrive in poverty, so when Canada attacks income inequity, they greatly reduce their gang problems relative to the US. Their social programs - including a universal healthcare provision - reduce their crime rates across the board.
The single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun deaths (and all forms of criminality, violent and non) in the US would be to adopt Medicare for all.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Even so, the child firearm mortality rate in the U.S. (3.7 per 100,000 people ages 1-17) is 5.5 times the child and teen mortality rate in Canada (0.6 per 100,000 people ages 1-19).
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
I reject your claim that Canada is our closest peer in anything but geographical proximity.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe. Neither Canada nor Europe have areas with economic conditions comparable to our high crime areas. Nations like Mexico and Brazil have areas economically similar to our high crime areas, and similar crime rates.
But let’s set all that aside for a moment, and look at the math. 48,000 people die to guns in the US per year, 2/3rds are suicides. Absolutely perfect gun control can save a maximum of 48,000 people, and it certainly won’t be perfect.
Conservative estimates put the number of lives saved from universal healthcare at 335,000 per year.
Now, the politics: gun rights have been steadily expanding for the past 30 years. CCW permits have expanded from fewer than 1 million to more than 30 million. A majority of states have adopted permitless “constitutional carry”. The last time a significant gun control measure passed was 1994, and it sparked an event known as the “Republican Revolution” in 1996.
If you think “perfect” gun control has a chance at being adopted in the US, “you’re not approaching this issue honestly”. The only thing that a serious push for gun control will certainly accomplish is to drive the country toward the GOP, which opposes universal healthcare.
The options in front of you are a Quixotic attempt at saving a small fraction of 48,000 people that will prevent us from saving 335,000 people; or, push for universal healthcare and similar social programs that will save an order of magnitude more.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
If you need to create scenarios that are provenly not common just to make your point, you don’t have a point.
If you don’t recognize the simplistic motivations behind gang violence, you should consider yourself exceedingly fortunate.
Check your privilege.
Your claim is a blatant lie. That is a fact. Your feelings have made you concoct a blatant lie which you have repeated countless times in this thread.
You’re entirely wrong, but you already know that, don’t you? You clowns just love your distractions from the truth.
Please show your proof for this statement.
“… the simplistic motivations behind gang violence …”
Considering they won’t have proof to offer, this should be enough to satisfy my point:
And yet, the zip codes with the highest rate of gang activity are consistently the zip codes with the highest homicide rates, and there is a strong social correlation between murderers and victims.
I wonder why all these non-gang members go to areas of high gang activity to kill and be killed. I guess they’re just trying to frame innocent, hard-working criminals.
The “mentor” scenario which you have dreamed up and repeated ad nauseam in this thread, does not provide an actual explanation for by far the majority of gun deaths mentioned in the article.
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs,
This is a blatant lie, and it does not get more true just because you repeat it countless times.
The problem is the free and unchecked availability of guns.
your ignorance isn’t important
