5 ms·

Gun deaths were the leading killer of US children in 2020

36 points by basisword 5y ago

xen2xen1 5y ago
Well, they didn't go outside, so..
car_analogy 5y ago
Gun death, gang-related death, young male-related death.. depending on your policy objective, you choose which characteristic to emphasize, to be targeted by your preferred "solution".
- spoonjim 5y ago
  There is no “solution.” This is a situation 400 years in the making.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Yup. Anyone trying to lump organized crime DIYing their own dispute resolution in with domestic violence can be safely ignored. They're fundamentally different types of crimes with fundamentally different causes. Anyone lumping them together for a purpose other than an ultra-high level overviews has anterior motives and is acting in bad faith in pursuit of them. The policies that will keep drug traffickers from killing each other over what are fundamentally business disputes look nothing like the policies that will keep people from going murder-suicide over a bitter divorce.
  - altacc 5y ago
    Well, something like banning all gun sales & ownership would reduce both so the policies for both really can look the same.
    - bell-cot 5y ago
      However pleasant a thought experiment that might be - the US's long experience with prohibiting alcoholic beverages eliminating alcohol-related crimes and social problems (oops, it didn't), and the War on Drugs(tm) eliminating drug-related crimes and social problems (oops, it didn't) would seem to suggest that "ban all guns" is not the great idea that one might wish.
      - altacc 5y ago
        This is false equivalence. There are many things that used to be widespread in the USA but today are non-existent or greatly reduced. Just pointing to examples of different things is not a coherent argument.
        Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
        I seriously doubt you're referring to anything people have been willing to kill for to get access to throughout the ages like alcohol or weapons. Alcohol and firearms are intimately intertwined in US history, from what sparked our revolution into a hot shooting one as the British attempted to destroy arms and ammunition stored in Concord, Massachusetts to the Whiskey Rebellion which started 16 years later. One should not consider forcing a major social change without considering the consequences, the example of the lasting to this day damage done to the social order of Prohibition of alcohol being an excellent example. For example all but extinguishing the local tavern and replacing it with the speakeasy derived bar, massively damaging respect for the law, giving organized crime it's greatest period to entrench itself in the nation, etc.
    - car_analogy 5y ago
      It would reduce gun homicide or all homicide? Trick question - there is not even any correlation between gun homicide and firearm ownership rate, let alone all homicide: https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-... So even by the myopic logic of taking away rights because the first-order consequences are desirable, it doesn't work out.
      - camgunz 5y ago
        Couple of issues here: - None of the sources in your source do a regression analysis, so there's almost certainly confounding variables. This probably happened because the author was super motivated to make their point, rather than engaging in good faith analysis. - You're the only post narrowing to homicides, everything else in this thread and the OP are about deaths. The post you link makes it seem like broadening to deaths is tricky sophistry, but there are lots of gun suicides, and lower gun ownership rates brings those down. That's not sophistry, that's saving lives. - If you look at one of the article's sources, gunpolicy.org, there seems to be a direct correlation between ownership and homicides [0][1]. Again this isn't a serious analysis, but it's more serious than your link (I actually clicked into some charts), and indicates the opposite conclusion. [0]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/proportion_of_households_with_firearms https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/proporti... [1]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_of_homicides_any_method https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_o... EDIT: Sorry your article does try and take on a study that does perform regression, which finds "For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership [via gun suicide proxy], firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%", but poo-oos it because it finds other correlations, which is an argument against regression analysis, not against gun laws.
        anamax 5y ago
        > there are lots of gun suicides, and lower gun ownership rates brings those down. That's not sophistry, that's saving lives. You mean like in Japan...
    - devwastaken 5y ago
      We have never lived in a gun free U.S. and realistically never will, regardless of legislation. It's the same idea as the war on drugs - you can make things illegal, you can violate the 4th amendment and make all manner of methods to search, seize, and charge for it. You can make swat drug task forces that bust down doors, shoot first, ask questions later. Yet if I want a dime it can be conveniently delivered at an affordable price any time. This is the same story as prohibition. You can criminalize, poison people, and shoot as much as you want, at the end of the day the geography of the U.S. makes it dumb easy to transport and sell anything. Legal ownership of concealable weapons and automatic firearms is already difficult in a number of states, especially cities with high gun violence. As an individual I have to have the right to protect myself from that harm. Firearms are designed to be equitable protection, it doesn't matter that I'm not 6'5 and a not body builder. I can defend myself just as effectively, especially when criminals aren't playing by the rules and already have firearms anyways.
      - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
        Legal ownership of concealable weapons and automatic firearms is already difficult in a number of states, especially cities with high gun violence. I'm not sure what you mean by "automatic firearms," but what you describe is limited to a very small number of states, albeit some of our most populous. Counterexamples are legion, 42 states have "shall issue" concealed carry, that's like 72% of the population before the COVID flee big cities demographic changes to the extent they're lasting, and so far this year three states are improving that to "Constitutional Carry," a total of half the states in the union! For how we got here, "The American Indian foundation of American gun culture" is essential reading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/21/the-american-indian-foundation-of-american-gun-culture/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
      - altacc 5y ago
        Ah, the grandmother with a gun argument. However there is not conclusive evidence that owning a gun makes you safer. If anything, widespread gun ownership makes you less safe from crime, accidental death and suicide. In almost all other western countries the notion of needing a gun to feel safe is totally alien. The context in which the American gun debate happens is rather unique and the real discussion should be about how to change the context/environment, not just banning guns.
    - anamax 5y ago
      The folks involved in these activities are often dealing in other banned substances, so it's not obvious that banning actually reduces. "but guns are different than drugs". Yes, guns are durable. I don't know how long cocaine lasts, but 100 year-old cartridges are perfectly good. Even if you assume one gun per murder, the required volume is a small fraction of drug smuggling. Oh, and guns are actually easy to make. They're 19th century tech.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      If you tried to implement that on any timeline that could possibly save lives (sure you could boil the frog over a century but that wouldn't save many lives) you'd get something between the Troubles and the breakup of Yugoslavia on a scale that would make either look like a picnic. If you assume starting from the situation as it exists today that's just not realistically possible. The amount of bloodshed it would take would be exceptional. Most of thee people who'd resit you are people who'd made peace with going down fighting and said people are not even the same ones causing the violence that's the problem in the first place. Do Not Want. Not. My. Fight.
    - parkingrift 5y ago
      Yes. We did this in the 70s with the war on drugs and successfully eradicated all drug use in the United States. No one does drugs in the US any longer, not at all. And certainly no one is dying from drug use. How could either of these things happen when we banned them so long ago?
      - hotpotamus 5y ago
        Yep, and San Francisco made laws against theft/shoplifting and clearly there's no theft/shoplifting there.
mrlonglong 5y ago
Well, guns aren't the biggest killer of kids in the UK.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Incidents of drug overdoses and poisonings rose 83.6% between 2019 and 2020, and now are the third leading cause of death in that age group Wait?! What?! This should be the headline. A 1.8x increase in the runner up is f-ing huge. Gun deaths edging out car crashes this year when they're normally neck and neck is irrelevant by comparison.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
caterama 5y ago
Speaking of gun deaths... someone linked to https://www.osha.gov/fatalities https://www.osha.gov/fatalities the other day and I was surprised to see how many fatalities involve workers getting shot, often by co-workers!
- radford-neal 5y ago
  Specifically, in the first 100 deaths, two were shot by co-workers, and one by a shoplifter. For comparison, two were struck by lightning.
akomtu 5y ago
As the midterms are getting closer, both parties are ramping up their rhetoric to enrage (sorry, I meant engage) the crowd. Some time ago I was looking for plain stats on gun related deaths and found a nice table on fbi.gov about crime in 2017. The table presented a simple picture: out of 40k deaths only 5k were of criminal nature (i.e. not a suicide, not self defense) and nearly all of those 5k cases were inter-gang disputes. This left us a couple hundreds of "random crimes", but for a nation of 350 million people, armed to the brows, that's an astonishingly good self restraint. FBI stopped publishing that table after 2017, probably because it revealed an obvious emm.. bias in the numbers. Edit. In the meantime, deer remains the most dangerous animal in the US. It is deer who causes a couple millions of car crashes every year. Yet, nobody is afraid of deers.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Those tables still exist, here's the one for 2019; https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... It's not super useful since roughly half of the homicides aren't categorized though -- and something like 120,000 people are shot every year, it just happens that many of them survive. Let's not be too excited about our 'self-restraint'. Especially when some 4channer just live-streamed another mass shooting. Deer may cause a lot of accidents (more like 1 million than 'a couple'), but they're the size of a large dog.. very few people die in car-deer accidents -- on the order of 200 per year.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    If that's your metric for accidental deaths not worth worrying about, while both the population and its gun ownership have increased by at least one half since 1980, accidental gun deaths keep going down, from around 800 in 1980 to 486 for 2019, the last year the CDC has reported data on all causes of death.
- cafard 5y ago
  > Yet, nobody is afraid of deers. You haven't seen my wife drive along the park near sundown. (Or if you have, you may have leaned on your horn.) Last year, a co-worker was widowed, another co-worker was badly wounded, in both cases by random bullets probably from an inter-gang dispute having nothing to do with them. But inter-gang dispute though it likely was, one man is dead, the other recovering slowly.
dham 5y ago
https://heyjackass.com/ https://heyjackass.com/
- usrn 5y ago
  Gun ownership per state has a slight negative correlation with gun death. There's another variable which correlates highly with it. It's very low in Japan for example.
radford-neal 5y ago
Note that the category of "children" in this headline appears to include some adults (people age 18 or 19). And one suspects that many (most?) of the "gun deaths" in this category were of such adults. Also note that "leading cause" is a meaningless phrase. Depending on how finely you split the other causes, anything could be the "leading cause of death". For example, it seems that in the article "car crashes" are a separate category. If we instead had an "accidental death" category (car crashes, plus drownings, plus accidental drug overdoses, etc.) I suspect that that "accidental death" would be the leading cause.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > Depending on how finely you split the other causes, anything could be the "leading cause of death". In my country there are usually zero gun deaths among children (0-17) (usually here means that they do exist, but are so rare that I think the last one was in 2009) No matter how you fine tune your stats, gun deaths will never be a leading cause for them, while In 2017, nine children and teens were killed with guns each day in America — one every 2 hours and 34 minutes ...
  - radford-neal 5y ago
    Well, yes, you're right. You can't make a category with a count of zero be the leading cause this way. I suspect you're living in a fairly small country, though. More fundamentally, however, we don't really care how many children die of gunshot wounds. Other mechanisms of death are just as worrying. In particular, most gunshot deaths are suicides (for the general population, not sure about children 0-17 in the US). If guns are unavailable, at least many of these children will find some other way to commit suicide. Unless you're in a really small country, I doubt that there have been zero suicides of children 0-17 in recent years. The graph in the paper linked from the article seems rather uninformative, actually. It shows lines for "Firearm-related injury" and for "Motor vehicle crash", both of which are a combination of accidents, suicides, and homicides. Surely to make any useful conclusions you have to look at what these underlying causes were (of which there is some mention in the paper, but not enough to really see what's happening).
egberts1 5y ago
There are accidents, homicide, and suicide. Bunching them up together lets the ones who are trying to control the narrative away from sharply rising mental health issues and toward guns (which actually got diminished when compared against auto accidents and/or strangulations). - https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/u9der0/comment/i5qvp2c/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/u9der0/comment/i5qvp2... - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2672731 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There are accidents, homicide, and suicide. Those are overlapping categories; homicide is broader than just intentional homicide.

36 points by basisword 5y ago

Well, they didn't go outside, so..

Gun death, gang-related death, young male-related death.. depending on your policy objective, you choose which characteristic to emphasize, to be targeted by your preferred "solution".

spoonjim 5y ago
There is no “solution.” This is a situation 400 years in the making.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Yup. Anyone trying to lump organized crime DIYing their own dispute resolution in with domestic violence can be safely ignored. They're fundamentally different types of crimes with fundamentally different causes. Anyone lumping them together for a purpose other than an ultra-high level overviews has anterior motives and is acting in bad faith in pursuit of them. The policies that will keep drug traffickers from killing each other over what are fundamentally business disputes look nothing like the policies that will keep people from going murder-suicide over a bitter divorce.
- altacc 5y ago
  Well, something like banning all gun sales & ownership would reduce both so the policies for both really can look the same.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    However pleasant a thought experiment that might be - the US's long experience with prohibiting alcoholic beverages eliminating alcohol-related crimes and social problems (oops, it didn't), and the War on Drugs(tm) eliminating drug-related crimes and social problems (oops, it didn't) would seem to suggest that "ban all guns" is not the great idea that one might wish.
    - altacc 5y ago
      This is false equivalence. There are many things that used to be widespread in the USA but today are non-existent or greatly reduced. Just pointing to examples of different things is not a coherent argument.
      - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
        I seriously doubt you're referring to anything people have been willing to kill for to get access to throughout the ages like alcohol or weapons. Alcohol and firearms are intimately intertwined in US history, from what sparked our revolution into a hot shooting one as the British attempted to destroy arms and ammunition stored in Concord, Massachusetts to the Whiskey Rebellion which started 16 years later. One should not consider forcing a major social change without considering the consequences, the example of the lasting to this day damage done to the social order of Prohibition of alcohol being an excellent example. For example all but extinguishing the local tavern and replacing it with the speakeasy derived bar, massively damaging respect for the law, giving organized crime it's greatest period to entrench itself in the nation, etc.
  - car_analogy 5y ago
    It would reduce gun homicide or all homicide? Trick question - there is not even any correlation between gun homicide and firearm ownership rate, let alone all homicide: https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-... So even by the myopic logic of taking away rights because the first-order consequences are desirable, it doesn't work out.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      Couple of issues here: - None of the sources in your source do a regression analysis, so there's almost certainly confounding variables. This probably happened because the author was super motivated to make their point, rather than engaging in good faith analysis. - You're the only post narrowing to homicides, everything else in this thread and the OP are about deaths. The post you link makes it seem like broadening to deaths is tricky sophistry, but there are lots of gun suicides, and lower gun ownership rates brings those down. That's not sophistry, that's saving lives. - If you look at one of the article's sources, gunpolicy.org, there seems to be a direct correlation between ownership and homicides [0][1]. Again this isn't a serious analysis, but it's more serious than your link (I actually clicked into some charts), and indicates the opposite conclusion. [0]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/proportion_of_households_with_firearms https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/proporti... [1]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_of_homicides_any_method https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_o... EDIT: Sorry your article does try and take on a study that does perform regression, which finds "For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership [via gun suicide proxy], firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%", but poo-oos it because it finds other correlations, which is an argument against regression analysis, not against gun laws.
      - anamax 5y ago
        > there are lots of gun suicides, and lower gun ownership rates brings those down. That's not sophistry, that's saving lives. You mean like in Japan...
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    We have never lived in a gun free U.S. and realistically never will, regardless of legislation. It's the same idea as the war on drugs - you can make things illegal, you can violate the 4th amendment and make all manner of methods to search, seize, and charge for it. You can make swat drug task forces that bust down doors, shoot first, ask questions later. Yet if I want a dime it can be conveniently delivered at an affordable price any time. This is the same story as prohibition. You can criminalize, poison people, and shoot as much as you want, at the end of the day the geography of the U.S. makes it dumb easy to transport and sell anything. Legal ownership of concealable weapons and automatic firearms is already difficult in a number of states, especially cities with high gun violence. As an individual I have to have the right to protect myself from that harm. Firearms are designed to be equitable protection, it doesn't matter that I'm not 6'5 and a not body builder. I can defend myself just as effectively, especially when criminals aren't playing by the rules and already have firearms anyways.
    - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
      Legal ownership of concealable weapons and automatic firearms is already difficult in a number of states, especially cities with high gun violence. I'm not sure what you mean by "automatic firearms," but what you describe is limited to a very small number of states, albeit some of our most populous. Counterexamples are legion, 42 states have "shall issue" concealed carry, that's like 72% of the population before the COVID flee big cities demographic changes to the extent they're lasting, and so far this year three states are improving that to "Constitutional Carry," a total of half the states in the union! For how we got here, "The American Indian foundation of American gun culture" is essential reading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/21/the-american-indian-foundation-of-american-gun-culture/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    - altacc 5y ago
      Ah, the grandmother with a gun argument. However there is not conclusive evidence that owning a gun makes you safer. If anything, widespread gun ownership makes you less safe from crime, accidental death and suicide. In almost all other western countries the notion of needing a gun to feel safe is totally alien. The context in which the American gun debate happens is rather unique and the real discussion should be about how to change the context/environment, not just banning guns.
  - anamax 5y ago
    The folks involved in these activities are often dealing in other banned substances, so it's not obvious that banning actually reduces. "but guns are different than drugs". Yes, guns are durable. I don't know how long cocaine lasts, but 100 year-old cartridges are perfectly good. Even if you assume one gun per murder, the required volume is a small fraction of drug smuggling. Oh, and guns are actually easy to make. They're 19th century tech.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    If you tried to implement that on any timeline that could possibly save lives (sure you could boil the frog over a century but that wouldn't save many lives) you'd get something between the Troubles and the breakup of Yugoslavia on a scale that would make either look like a picnic. If you assume starting from the situation as it exists today that's just not realistically possible. The amount of bloodshed it would take would be exceptional. Most of thee people who'd resit you are people who'd made peace with going down fighting and said people are not even the same ones causing the violence that's the problem in the first place. Do Not Want. Not. My. Fight.
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    Yes. We did this in the 70s with the war on drugs and successfully eradicated all drug use in the United States. No one does drugs in the US any longer, not at all. And certainly no one is dying from drug use. How could either of these things happen when we banned them so long ago?
    - hotpotamus 5y ago
      Yep, and San Francisco made laws against theft/shoplifting and clearly there's no theft/shoplifting there.

mrlonglong 5y ago

Well, guns aren't the biggest killer of kids in the UK.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>Incidents of drug overdoses and poisonings rose 83.6% between 2019 and 2020, and now are the third leading cause of death in that age group Wait?! What?! This should be the headline. A 1.8x increase in the runner up is f-ing huge. Gun deaths edging out car crashes this year when they're normally neck and neck is irrelevant by comparison.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

caterama 5y ago

Speaking of gun deaths... someone linked to https://www.osha.gov/fatalities https://www.osha.gov/fatalities the other day and I was surprised to see how many fatalities involve workers getting shot, often by co-workers!

radford-neal 5y ago
Specifically, in the first 100 deaths, two were shot by co-workers, and one by a shoplifter. For comparison, two were struck by lightning.

akomtu 5y ago

As the midterms are getting closer, both parties are ramping up their rhetoric to enrage (sorry, I meant engage) the crowd. Some time ago I was looking for plain stats on gun related deaths and found a nice table on fbi.gov about crime in 2017. The table presented a simple picture: out of 40k deaths only 5k were of criminal nature (i.e. not a suicide, not self defense) and nearly all of those 5k cases were inter-gang disputes. This left us a couple hundreds of "random crimes", but for a nation of 350 million people, armed to the brows, that's an astonishingly good self restraint. FBI stopped publishing that table after 2017, probably because it revealed an obvious emm.. bias in the numbers. Edit. In the meantime, deer remains the most dangerous animal in the US. It is deer who causes a couple millions of car crashes every year. Yet, nobody is afraid of deers.

mikeyouse 5y ago
Those tables still exist, here's the one for 2019; https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... It's not super useful since roughly half of the homicides aren't categorized though -- and something like 120,000 people are shot every year, it just happens that many of them survive. Let's not be too excited about our 'self-restraint'. Especially when some 4channer just live-streamed another mass shooting. Deer may cause a lot of accidents (more like 1 million than 'a couple'), but they're the size of a large dog.. very few people die in car-deer accidents -- on the order of 200 per year.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  If that's your metric for accidental deaths not worth worrying about, while both the population and its gun ownership have increased by at least one half since 1980, accidental gun deaths keep going down, from around 800 in 1980 to 486 for 2019, the last year the CDC has reported data on all causes of death.
cafard 5y ago
> Yet, nobody is afraid of deers. You haven't seen my wife drive along the park near sundown. (Or if you have, you may have leaned on your horn.) Last year, a co-worker was widowed, another co-worker was badly wounded, in both cases by random bullets probably from an inter-gang dispute having nothing to do with them. But inter-gang dispute though it likely was, one man is dead, the other recovering slowly.

dham 5y ago

https://heyjackass.com/ https://heyjackass.com/

usrn 5y ago
Gun ownership per state has a slight negative correlation with gun death. There's another variable which correlates highly with it. It's very low in Japan for example.

radford-neal 5y ago

Note that the category of "children" in this headline appears to include some adults (people age 18 or 19). And one suspects that many (most?) of the "gun deaths" in this category were of such adults. Also note that "leading cause" is a meaningless phrase. Depending on how finely you split the other causes, anything could be the "leading cause of death". For example, it seems that in the article "car crashes" are a separate category. If we instead had an "accidental death" category (car crashes, plus drownings, plus accidental drug overdoses, etc.) I suspect that that "accidental death" would be the leading cause.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Depending on how finely you split the other causes, anything could be the "leading cause of death". In my country there are usually zero gun deaths among children (0-17) (usually here means that they do exist, but are so rare that I think the last one was in 2009) No matter how you fine tune your stats, gun deaths will never be a leading cause for them, while In 2017, nine children and teens were killed with guns each day in America — one every 2 hours and 34 minutes ...
- radford-neal 5y ago
  Well, yes, you're right. You can't make a category with a count of zero be the leading cause this way. I suspect you're living in a fairly small country, though. More fundamentally, however, we don't really care how many children die of gunshot wounds. Other mechanisms of death are just as worrying. In particular, most gunshot deaths are suicides (for the general population, not sure about children 0-17 in the US). If guns are unavailable, at least many of these children will find some other way to commit suicide. Unless you're in a really small country, I doubt that there have been zero suicides of children 0-17 in recent years. The graph in the paper linked from the article seems rather uninformative, actually. It shows lines for "Firearm-related injury" and for "Motor vehicle crash", both of which are a combination of accidents, suicides, and homicides. Surely to make any useful conclusions you have to look at what these underlying causes were (of which there is some mention in the paper, but not enough to really see what's happening).

egberts1 5y ago

There are accidents, homicide, and suicide. Bunching them up together lets the ones who are trying to control the narrative away from sharply rising mental health issues and toward guns (which actually got diminished when compared against auto accidents and/or strangulations). - https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/u9der0/comment/i5qvp2c/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/u9der0/comment/i5qvp2... - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2672731 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> There are accidents, homicide, and suicide. Those are overlapping categories; homicide is broader than just intentional homicide.