Gun Deaths among US Children and Teens Rose 50% in Two Years

[dogs4thewin]

It always amuses me when Americans claim that guns are essential to their survival. It's a classic self-fulfilling prophesy.

It is entirely possible to live happily and safely in a society where guns are rarely seen and not available to the general public.

Come and visit Australia and see what I mean, but - leave your guns behind.


PS: European countries are surrounded by open borders as are African and South American countries. The US is not unique.

OB

At this point the cat is "out of the bag and frankly I think trying to get the guns would cause more violence than it would ever prevent.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While the stats are technically accurate (and definitely indicative of a problem that needs solving), they're misleading in that they're trying to conjure up and elicit a certain image in peoples' heads and the emotional response that goes along with it. That image being "innocent little 9 year old riding a scooter and getting randomly gunned down in some random act of violence because someone had a gun"

(Full disclosure, I'm a person who's a fan of universal background checks, waiting periods, and better upstream vetting for gun ownership.)

And while that situation certainly does happen, that's by no means the bulk of that alarming stat.

When framed in that context, that definitely puts more focus on the guns over all other factors... when you start getting into the nitty gritty of the statistics, it starts to raise some red flags about other problematic indicators that need to be addressed, in conjunction with guns, that create some uncomfortable discussions.

For instance, if it was also disclosed that of those deaths:
Only a small percentage were accidental deaths

A notable percentage were suicides (which doesn't seem to be terribly impacted by gun ownership laws, while guns certainly make suicide "easier", a number of datapoints we can cover - from a variety of countries - will show that when you remove the first easiest method, people will move onto the next easiest method)

A significant percentage are among 15-17 year olds who are involved in things like gang and drug trade activity. (which doesn't exactly conjure up the same sympathetic sentiments in people as the 9 year old riding the scooter)


So while reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion about gun regulations, I think everything needs to be taken into account.

 

[Occams Barber]

At this point the cat is "out of the bag and frankly I think trying to get the guns would cause more violence than it would ever prevent.

The cat may well be out of the proverbial bag in the US but that shouldn't mean you do ...nothing.

I see a once 'can do' country turned into a fatalistic mess.

OB

 

[InChristAlone525]

It always amuses me when Americans claim that guns are essential to their survival. It's a classic self-fulfilling prophesy.

It is entirely possible to live happily and safely in a society where guns are rarely seen and not available to the general public.

Come and visit Australia and see what I mean, but - leave your guns behind.


PS: European countries are surrounded by open borders as are African and South American countries. The US is not unique.

OB

Uhh you just proved my point. The US is not like other countries who have banned guns. Australia is a continent of it's own, it doesn't share borders. And Africa would be a good example of guns in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's amusing isn't it (at least, if it weren't so sad). I'm an American citizen. I've been alive nearly 60 years. I've never owned a gun. I've never been in a situation where I wished I had one. You'd think that some think it's necessary would be an indictment on the USA.

(But, n.b., I'm an old privileged white dude.)

I guess it all depends on where you live.

It's easy for people who live in good neighborhoods to say "why would anyone need a defensive weapon?"

It's also easier for us "dudes" in general to feel safe when walking down the streets at night.

I think of the interview I heard with Ana Kasparian (which, if you're not familiar, is the very progressive co-host of the Young Turks), who changed her tune on her previously "100% anti" gun position after A) she was sexually assaulted in her own neighborhood while walking her dog, and B) after she heard that right-wingers were showing up armed to protests.

One can have an ideological opposition to the concept of gun ownership, while still having the pragmatic understanding of the currently reality of them already being out there.

It was Ice T in an interview who said "The gun culture's already there and it's not gonna change, if there's already guns out there everywhere, do you wanna be the only one without one?" (to the surprise of the interviewer)

 

[InChristAlone525]

So you would protect your guns even if everyone said that was the wrong choice?

No need to reply.

You didn't answer my question. Which house would be more likely to get robbed or worse someone breaking in to kill, murder or rape?

 

[Tinker Grey]

You didn't answer my question. Which house would be more likely to get robbed or worse someone breaking in to kill, murder or rape?

People don't break into house knowing that there is a gun or not. (But so as not to dodge the hypothetical) If however someone actually knew the one house had a gun, they might, all things being equal, break into the house without the gun.

Now, 2 things: 1) I'd venture that this knowledge is never available to the hypothetical criminal, and 2) if such a criminal were determined, the gun wouldn't make a difference. Such a determined criminal would make sure to take that into account. Here's a 3: do you post a sign outside your house saying "we have guns". Do you think a criminal reads signs at 3AM?

You're fooling yourself.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You didn't answer my question. Which house would be more likely to get robbed or worse someone breaking in to kill, murder or rape?

If we go off of the DOJ report (albeit, one that's a little dated at this point), criminals will pick an unarmed target and specifically avoid ones that they think may be armed.


The prisoners (all serial robbers), studied under a grant from the National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Justice Department, were incarcerated in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada and Oklahoma.

Percentage who avoided a target due to knowing that the target was armed: 74%

Percentage who attempted to find out ahead of time if their potential target might be armed: 81%

The report also went on to say:
In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals' fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.

Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."


Your "average criminal" has a different mindset than that of your "crazed mass shooter". The latter often doesn't care if they live or die (and often have plans to just off themselves anyway at the end of the event if they don't get shot by police). The "average criminal" doesn't have death wish and specifically seeks out situations where they know they have the advantage.

 

[InChristAlone525]

I guess it all depends on where you live.

It's easy for people who live in good neighborhoods to say "why would anyone need a defensive weapon?"

It's also easier for us "dudes" in general to feel safe when walking down the streets at night.

I think of the interview I heard with Ana Kasparian (which, if you're not familiar, is the very progressive co-host of the Young Turks), who changed her tune on her previously "100% anti" gun position after A) she was sexually assaulted in her own neighborhood while walking her dog, and B) after she heard that right-wingers were showing up armed to protests.

One can have an ideological opposition to the concept of gun ownership, while still having the pragmatic understanding of the currently reality of them already being out there.

It was Ice T in an interview who said "The gun culture's already there and it's not gonna change, if there's already guns out there everywhere, do you wanna be the only one without one?" (to the surprise of the interviewer)

Thanks. It seems people are just having emotional reactions to the headlines. They go Oh my word!!! we need to ban guns! Not realizing you are taking them away from law abidizing citizens not criminals.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thanks. It seems people are just having emotional reactions to the headlines. They go [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] we need to ban guns! Not realizing you are taking them away from law abidizing citizens not criminals.

I think a lot of the proposals people make are ones that I could philosophically (at least partially) agree with in a pre "cat's out of the bag" situation.

But once there's already 300 million in circulation, that sort of changes things.

It'd be like if we tried to pass strict drinking laws to curb DUIs and drunken fights after we've already bought everyone a 50 year's free supply of whiskey, and kindly pleaded with everyone to turn their whiskey back in. They kinds of people who it wasn't going to be a problem for anyway (the social drinker who enjoys 1 or 2, but can take it or leave it) will gladly turn theirs in, the alcoholics and rowdy drinkers are going to keep theirs.

 

[Occams Barber]

I haven't found any 2022 data. I assume it isn't yet generally available.

The graph below suggests a broad upward trend starting in 2015.

View attachment 340174

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate

@iluvatar5150

Apparently the release of 2022 crime data was delayed by an FBI system change. It wasn't released until late October and comes with a few provisos. This graph is from the FBI Crime Data Explorer.

There was a reduction in the homicide rate, from 6.8 in 2021 to 6.3, in 2022.

https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think a lot of the proposals people make are ones that I could philosophically (at least partially) agree with in a pre "cat's out of the bag" situation.

But once there's already 300 million in circulation, that sort of changes things.

It'd be like if we tried to pass strict drinking laws to curb DUIs and drunken fights after we've already bought everyone a 50 year's free supply of whiskey, and kindly pleaded with everyone to turn their whiskey back in. They kinds of people who it wasn't going to be a problem for anyway (the social drinker who enjoys 1 or 2, but can take it or leave it) will gladly turn theirs in, the alcoholics and rowdy drinkers are going to keep theirs.

Except that with guns the people who do not mean to cause problems would not all turn theirs back in due to the people who DO plan to cause problems, but the people who have no plans to be violent would not be violent anyway unless in self defense.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Yet Americans accept these childrens' deaths while protecting their guns. Skewed priorities in my view. It is child sacrifice in the 21st century. We could demand guns be well regulated in America per our constitution. Yet obstinance persists. Skewed priorities. I wonder how soon we'll see an American leader cry to the masses like Kim Jung Un, pleading for Americans to have more babies to sacrifice?

It is interesting to note how 66% of white childrens' deaths were suicide while 84% of the black kids' deaths were homicide.

Not all Americans. Some of us have been banging our head on the wall of this debate and trying to get change for decades. I just went to a meeting to vote on if we were going to defy our state’s demand that schools not be gun free zones and incur a fine of $5k a day or if we are going to permit open and concealed carry of guns by the public in schools.

Spoiler alert: we didn’t go with the first option.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Not all Americans. Some of us have been banging our head on the wall of this debate and trying to get change for decades. I just went to a meeting to vote on if we were going to defy our state’s demand that schools not be gun free zones and incur a fine of $5k a day or if we are going to permit open and concealed carry of guns by the public in schools.

Spoiler alert: we didn’t go with the first option.

5k a day for not complying sounds like a LOT like counties cannot afford NOT to comply. For the record I do not support schools being "gun free zones, either. Reason being the people who mean harm with guns do not care and the people who do not mean harm with guns would not do anything with them to harm anyone other than in defense of themselves or others.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

5k a day for not complying sounds like a LOT like counties cannot afford NOT to comply. For the record I do not support schools being "gun free zones, either. Reason being the people who mean harm with guns do not care and the people who do not mean harm with guns would not do anything with them to harm anyone other than in defense of themselves or others.

Well, with that logic, might as well get rid of airport security too and the TSA as a whole. And allow guns in government buildings, hospitals, and everywhere else they’re currently banned.

For that matter, under that logic, why even have police? Good people won’t need them and bad people won’t follow their authority.

Let’s just rely in untrained “good people with guns” to weed out the “bad people with guns.” I’m sure that will work out fine. As we all know, the cure for drowning is more water, so clearly, what we need here is more guns.

 

[InChristAlone525]

Well, with that logic, might as well get rid of airport security too and the TSA as a whole. And allow guns in government buildings, hospitals, and everywhere else they’re currently banned.

For that matter, under that logic, why even have police? Good people won’t need them and bad people won’t follow their authority.

Let’s just rely in untrained “good people with guns” to weed out the “bad people with guns.” I’m sure that will work out fine. As we all know, the cure for drowning is more water, so clearly, what we need here is more guns.

Hey I'm old enough to remember being at the gate to await the arrival of my Dad coming home from a trip. It was 'knife wielding terrorists' who changed that. Ones that we apparently had all the passports of and knew who they were because they floated down among the rumble completely unscathed (that was seriously what they told us on the news). Anytime freedoms get taken away society seems to just get worse. What happened to the good ol days! In my town we didn't even lock our door during the daytime. We were never robbed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not all Americans. Some of us have been banging our head on the wall of this debate and trying to get change for decades. I just went to a meeting to vote on if we were going to defy our state’s demand that schools not be gun free zones and incur a fine of $5k a day or if we are going to permit open and concealed carry of guns by the public in schools.

Spoiler alert: we didn’t go with the first option.

Well, my philosophical opinions on this aside, I'm not a fan of the "pay the fine, do what you want, law be damned" approach to dissent.

As the old saying goes "Punishable by fine = Legal for a price" which always tends to just favor the outcome of "people with money get to do whatever they want"

I don't think anyone (whether they're on my side or the opposing side) should be able to buy their way out of abiding by a law they don't like. There's a process for all this stuff. Legislature drafts a bill, passes it, it goes to the Gov. Gov can pass it or veto it, if Vetoed, legislature can override the veto if they have the votes.
(it's the same reason why I don't like prosecutors and officials who say "I'm not going to take up cases filed under this statute I disagree with")


If it was going in the other direction and your legislature had a win on the topic of guns...everyone has to register their firearms and turn over their assault weapons, if they don't, it's a $100 day fine.

Some billionaire pro-gun guy (or multibillion conglomerate) comes in and says "We'll pay fines on behalf of people that don't want to follow this rule", I'd imagine that you'd be none too pleased.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well, with that logic, might as well get rid of airport security too and the TSA as a whole. And allow guns in government buildings, hospitals, and everywhere else they’re currently banned.

For that matter, under that logic, why even have police? Good people won’t need them and bad people won’t follow their authority.

Let’s just rely in untrained “good people with guns” to weed out the “bad people with guns.” I’m sure that will work out fine. As we all know, the cure for drowning is more water, so clearly, what we need here is more guns.

so does that mean you are OK with people having guns as long as they are trained? Civilians can get training and if they are smart they train anyway, Shooting ranges ECT

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Hey I'm old enough to remember being at the gate to await the arrival of my Dad coming home from a trip. It was 'knife wielding terrorists' who changed that. Ones that we apparently had all the passports of and knew who they were because they floated down among the rumble completely unscathed (that was seriously what they told us on the news). Anytime freedoms get taken away society seems to just get worse. What happened to the good ol days! In my town we didn't even lock our door during the daytime. We were never robbed.

Well, there it is. The great American right to gladly forfeit safety for all in exchange for the freedom to die.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Well, my philosophical opinions on this aside, I'm not a fan of the "pay the fine, do what you want, law be damned" approach to dissent.

As the old saying goes "Punishable by fine = Legal for a price" which always tends to just favor the outcome of "people with money get to do whatever they want"

I don't think anyone (whether they're on my side or the opposing side) should be able to buy their way out of abiding by a law they don't like. There's a process for all this stuff. Legislature drafts a bill, passes it, it goes to the Gov. Gov can pass it or veto it, if Vetoed, legislature can override the veto if they have the votes.
(it's the same reason why I don't like prosecutors and officials who say "I'm not going to take up cases filed under this statute I disagree with")


If it was going in the other direction and your legislature had a win on the topic of guns...everyone has to register their firearms and turn over their assault weapons, if they don't, it's a $100 day fine.

Some billionaire pro-gun guy (or multibillion conglomerate) comes in and says "We'll pay fines on behalf of people that don't want to follow this rule", I'd imagine that you'd be none too pleased.

Our over-arching goal was to incur the fine and join the lawsuit by other schools who are doing similar and force a judicial decision instead of a legislative one. If it was simply a bribe in the form of a fine to be able to continue to ban guns on school property, I’d have agreed with your stance. However, having hit the wall with legislative actions, we were wanting to go another route.