6 ms·

Firearm-related deaths increased a lot. As the article mentions, that is a big category that encompasses suicide, homicide, accidents, etc. Clicking through t

Firearm-related deaths increased a lot. As the article mentions, that is a big category that encompasses suicide, homicide, accidents, etc. Clicking through to a supplementary pdf provides a figure that breaks firearm deaths down by subcategory, sex, and race. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2201761/suppl_file/nejmc2201761_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2201761/suppl_fi...

mhb 4y ago
For ages 1-19.
- Philorandroid 4y ago
  That's the age range defined in the article, is it not?
  - mhb 4y ago
    Yes. Just noting. I also wonder how many people would classify 17-19 year olds as children or adolescents.
    - nessbot 4y ago
      According to the AAP[0], even up to 21 would count. [0]https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics?autologincheck=redirected https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172...
      - stametseater 4y ago
        If the cutoff was 18 , 21, or even 25 I wouldn't bat an eye. But a cutoff of 19 suggests manipulation of the statistic to achieve a desired outcome. 18 - Old enough to vote, join the army without parental permission. 21 - Old enough to drink and buy cigarettes. Also the age used for numerous firearm purchase/carry laws, when that age isn't 18. 25 - Popularly claimed to be when the human brain reaches maturity, or something like that. 19 - ....has "teen" in the word?
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        Yes, the standard is 19 because that's when you stop being a teenager. It's a pretty common range.
        stametseater 4y ago
        That's the most arbitrary of those four age ranges, set by a fluke of English terminology and not aligning with any laws or social norms.
        layer8 4y ago
        It aligns with the WHO definition of adolescence (10-19).
        achenatx 4y ago
        then you would expect the groups to be 1-9 and 10-19
        layer8 4y ago
        If you look at their 2018 publication [0], they actually do that, distinguishing between younger children (1-4), older children (5-9), and adolescents (10-19). [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754
        trilbyglens 4y ago
        My guess is that 19 is when a cohort is 100% out of school. If you cut off at 18 you'd miss many highschool seniors, and therefore lots of school shooting deaths.
        Philorandroid 4y ago
        That would require an incredible slant towards exclusively 18-year-olds being killed in school shootings, and an exceptional overestimation of just how many school shooting deaths there are per capita for it to make that kind of difference.
    - Philorandroid 4y ago
      It got a cocked eyebrow from me when I saw the range too, "children and adolescents" makes me think "up to 15-16". I wonder if there's a breakdown by age range?
    - dclowd9901 4y ago
      You say this like the conclusion I’m supposed to draw is that it doesn’t matter that they died from firearms.
      - taxyz 4y ago
        I think the conclusion is that the group definition matters: a group of people age 1-19 is different than 2 groups. 1-17 and 18-19. If you use 1-19, firearms are the leading cause of death, if you use 1-17 they are not. In almost every other context we consider 18-19 adults.
        rolph 4y ago
        this looks like something peculiar happens when you age up to 18. suddenly adult privledges, and expectations are now part of your life, and if you can make it past year one adulthood, this window is passed
      - throwuwu 4y ago
        That age range would probably make KIA the leading cause of death for “children” during the Vietnam war.
        dclowd9901 4y ago
        Sure, but we’re not in the middle Of a large scale land wars at the moment.
  - INTPenis 4y ago
    I guess that includes a lot of young gang members in troubled areas.
- taxyz 4y ago
  Came here to point this out. Unfortunately everything is politics. As another commenter mentioned this includes a lot of gang stuff and suicide when someone is old enough to purchase a gun. I’ll update this comment when I find the source but I believe if you use the definition of minors that we usually use elsewhere (under 18) firearms are not the leading cause of death.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    I'm surprised that by expanding like that it changes the stats that much - are gang members waiting for someone to turn 18th birthday before commencing in gang related murder?
    - function_seven 4y ago
      No, but the window of gang-related violence doesn't really start until, say, 14†. Or some other age >> infancy. So it looks like a tiny change in range when you're going from 0-17 to 0-19, but the peak of the curve already lies near the end of those ranges, so the effect is similar to comparing the range of 14-17 vs. 14-19. † I chose this somewhat arbitrarily, but the idea is the same. The "natural" bottom of the range isn't 0, it's older.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        That's true, I imagine there aren't a lot of 6 year olds doing drive-bys, but given the other major cause of death is motor vehicle accidents I'd expect that too to rise at the same age as inexperienced drivers gain independence behind the wheel for the first time.
    - mbauman 4y ago
      It doesn't change the stats that much. Guns and vehicles are both deadly. In rates per 100k, FA=Firearm, MVT=Motor Vehicle Traffic: 1-17 FA 1-17 MVT | 1-19 FA 1-19 MVT 2019 2.5 2.8 | 4.3 4.2 2020 3.3 3.1 | 5.6 4.7 Motor vehicles are also more deadly to 18-19 year olds than younger children, as you might imagine.
rob74 4y ago
> that is a big category that encompasses suicide, homicide, accidents according to the document, there were more than twice as many homicides as suicides, and other causes (including accidents) were vanishingly few.

mhb 4y ago

For ages 1-19.

Philorandroid 4y ago
That's the age range defined in the article, is it not?
- mhb 4y ago
  Yes. Just noting. I also wonder how many people would classify 17-19 year olds as children or adolescents.
  - nessbot 4y ago
    According to the AAP[0], even up to 21 would count. [0]https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics?autologincheck=redirected https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172...
    - stametseater 4y ago
      If the cutoff was 18 , 21, or even 25 I wouldn't bat an eye. But a cutoff of 19 suggests manipulation of the statistic to achieve a desired outcome. 18 - Old enough to vote, join the army without parental permission. 21 - Old enough to drink and buy cigarettes. Also the age used for numerous firearm purchase/carry laws, when that age isn't 18. 25 - Popularly claimed to be when the human brain reaches maturity, or something like that. 19 - ....has "teen" in the word?
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Yes, the standard is 19 because that's when you stop being a teenager. It's a pretty common range.
        stametseater 4y ago
        That's the most arbitrary of those four age ranges, set by a fluke of English terminology and not aligning with any laws or social norms.
        layer8 4y ago
        It aligns with the WHO definition of adolescence (10-19).
        achenatx 4y ago
        then you would expect the groups to be 1-9 and 10-19
        layer8 4y ago
        If you look at their 2018 publication [0], they actually do that, distinguishing between younger children (1-4), older children (5-9), and adolescents (10-19). [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754
      - trilbyglens 4y ago
        My guess is that 19 is when a cohort is 100% out of school. If you cut off at 18 you'd miss many highschool seniors, and therefore lots of school shooting deaths.
        Philorandroid 4y ago
        That would require an incredible slant towards exclusively 18-year-olds being killed in school shootings, and an exceptional overestimation of just how many school shooting deaths there are per capita for it to make that kind of difference.
  - Philorandroid 4y ago
    It got a cocked eyebrow from me when I saw the range too, "children and adolescents" makes me think "up to 15-16". I wonder if there's a breakdown by age range?
  - dclowd9901 4y ago
    You say this like the conclusion I’m supposed to draw is that it doesn’t matter that they died from firearms.
    - taxyz 4y ago
      I think the conclusion is that the group definition matters: a group of people age 1-19 is different than 2 groups. 1-17 and 18-19. If you use 1-19, firearms are the leading cause of death, if you use 1-17 they are not. In almost every other context we consider 18-19 adults.
      - rolph 4y ago
        this looks like something peculiar happens when you age up to 18. suddenly adult privledges, and expectations are now part of your life, and if you can make it past year one adulthood, this window is passed
    - throwuwu 4y ago
      That age range would probably make KIA the leading cause of death for “children” during the Vietnam war.
      - dclowd9901 4y ago
        Sure, but we’re not in the middle Of a large scale land wars at the moment.
- INTPenis 4y ago
  I guess that includes a lot of young gang members in troubled areas.
taxyz 4y ago
Came here to point this out. Unfortunately everything is politics. As another commenter mentioned this includes a lot of gang stuff and suicide when someone is old enough to purchase a gun. I’ll update this comment when I find the source but I believe if you use the definition of minors that we usually use elsewhere (under 18) firearms are not the leading cause of death.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I'm surprised that by expanding like that it changes the stats that much - are gang members waiting for someone to turn 18th birthday before commencing in gang related murder?
  - function_seven 4y ago
    No, but the window of gang-related violence doesn't really start until, say, 14†. Or some other age >> infancy. So it looks like a tiny change in range when you're going from 0-17 to 0-19, but the peak of the curve already lies near the end of those ranges, so the effect is similar to comparing the range of 14-17 vs. 14-19. † I chose this somewhat arbitrarily, but the idea is the same. The "natural" bottom of the range isn't 0, it's older.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      That's true, I imagine there aren't a lot of 6 year olds doing drive-bys, but given the other major cause of death is motor vehicle accidents I'd expect that too to rise at the same age as inexperienced drivers gain independence behind the wheel for the first time.
  - mbauman 4y ago
    It doesn't change the stats that much. Guns and vehicles are both deadly. In rates per 100k, FA=Firearm, MVT=Motor Vehicle Traffic: 1-17 FA 1-17 MVT | 1-19 FA 1-19 MVT 2019 2.5 2.8 | 4.3 4.2 2020 3.3 3.1 | 5.6 4.7 Motor vehicles are also more deadly to 18-19 year olds than younger children, as you might imagine.

rob74 4y ago

> that is a big category that encompasses suicide, homicide, accidents according to the document, there were more than twice as many homicides as suicides, and other causes (including accidents) were vanishingly few.