Most developed countries have many of the same issues as the US: no prayer in public schools, mental illness, broken families, drug addictions, transgender people, an explosion of pornography and violence on TV and the internet, gay marriage, etc., but they don't have mass shootings on the regular or high child and teen firearm mortality rates.
View attachment 369206
It seems pretty obvious to me that the unique issue that the US has compared to other countries is too many guns and access to them being too easy.
There's no need to disarm law-abiding citizens. There are several gun control measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence and the number of gun deaths in the US. Unfortunately, too many in this country have some sort of weird fetish with guns and apparently love their guns more than they love their neighbors and their neighbors' children.
For starters, some of that stat from age 1-19 is attributable to gang violence
POP Center Problems Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders Page 1
popcenter.asu.edu
Arizona State University notes how about 60% of that statistic comes from gang related homicides involving people who are 15-19.
The breakdown according to "EverytownResearch" (a gun control advocacy org)
65% is homicide
30% is suicide
5% is accidental
So if we calculate the breakdown
39% gang-related homicide
26% non gang-related homicide
30% suicide
5% accidental
The deaths highlighted in red are the ones that could likely be addressed to a degree with gun policy. (gangs aren't getting their guns from the sporting goods store, and for suicides, data from other countries that have implemented gun control policies like the UK have shown that suicide rates are largely unimpacted, and people typically move to the "next easiest" method.)
2 years prior to the restrictions, 7.4...with guns being the method used in ~50% of cases
2 years after the restrictions, 7.5...with hanging and intentional overdose sitting atop the list.
Like I mentioned...
There are measures that could be taken that would potentially prevent some of the two highlighted categories ...however, I have doubts that people would have the patience to let them actually simmer long enough to let the effects come to fruition before trying to immediately throw additional restriction measures at the problem.
People need to make sure they have their heads wrapped around the reality that the proliferation is already extremely high, and that any measures imposed will be on a "moving forward basis", and likely won't significantly move the needle immediately. (it could be 30 years before any noticeable shift in the stats)
So part of the concern would be that some of those measures get implemented, and when the gun death rate doesn't drop by 40 percent by next year, people will take that to mean "we must not have done enough, so we need to crank up the restrictions even more".
I personally have no issues with things like universal background checks, adding more mental health disqualifiers to the background checks, and implementing waiting periods. Simply because I think long-term it'll be a better outcome, but I'm not under any false impression that "we'll be just like Canada & the UK by 2030 if we implement these regulations"
As where, I feel like modern activists and advocates seem to have a diminishing patience level for "how soon until things are the way I want them to be?" It took 100 years for the gun affinity/culture to develop to where it's at today, that's not going to be un-done in a decade.