4 ms·

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

by 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.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  At 18 it's easier to obtain guns/ammo and gang membership is more common in 18-19 year olds than, for example, 5-6 year olds.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > are gang members waiting for someone to turn 18th birthday before commencing in gang related murder? I wonder how many "undocumented" gang members would claim to be minors to get tried as a child instead of an adult. Remember the fastest 14 years old in Sweden? [0] [0] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422000/Just-old-think-migrant-children-Alarming-pictures-shed-light-growing-scandal-amid-asylum-crisis.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422000/Just-old-th...
mbauman 4y ago
This is not true anymore. For ages 1-17, there were 2,571 firearm deaths in 2021. That's now ahead of motor vehicles (2,348). Source: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520 https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520
- taxyz 4y ago
  I'll add some nuance here and its possibly a separate debate on its significance but according to that data, total firearm deaths surpass vehicle deaths but if you look at the split between homicide suicide its like 60-40 homicide-suicide. We would be talking about motor vehicle deaths a lot differently if half that number were kids stealing their parents keys to run into a wall at 100mph. Here is another bit from the NEJM using CDC data from 2016: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 Whats interesting is that the gun deaths were higher in 2016 than they are now (roughly 2900). What this suggests is that firearms becoming the leading cause of deaths is not because of a rise in firearm deaths but because the number of vehicle deaths have been dropping off as well - which should be evident based on how little people drove over the last few years. Edit: also alarming that the per capita rate is increasing as overall gun deaths are still on the decline. That can't be good (if our youth population is declining that rapidly).
  - mbauman 4y ago
    Going back in time isn't going to change the more recent figures. Nor are factually incorrect statements about motor vehicle deaths. From 2018-2021, firearm deaths went up from 2.5 to 3.3 to 3.7 per 100k 1-17 year olds. During the same time, motor vehicle traffic deaths also went up from 2.8 to 3.1 to 3.4 per 100k 1-17 year olds. https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520 https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520
- aeternum 4y ago
  https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-population-holding-a-drivers-license-by-age-group/ https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-po... Could just be because people are waiting to get drivers licenses.
908B64B197 4y ago
> As another commenter mentioned this includes a lot of gang stuff I wonder what these stats would look like for legal vs illegal weapons. The fact that nobody seems to be publishing these figures should be a pretty good indicator of what they would tell us...
- mbauman 4y ago
  ... or maybe — just maybe — they are figures that are impossible to determine in any sort of comprehensive or reliable manner. It's not a conspiracy.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > impossible to determine Not really. For homicide cases the weapons are often recovered.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Take what you can get reliably, use it as a sample and try and extrapolate out making adjustments if the sample population differs from the overall population. This is SOP in god knows how many fields.
    - MrJohz 4y ago
      > making adjustments if the sample population differs from the overall population. This feels like a step you can't just handwave away as step three of three. To quote the meme, it's a bit of a "draw the rest of the fucking owl" situation. Extrapolation is hard, and there are very good reasons not to do it willy nilly. Where it is standardised in other fields, it's usually because researchers have already figured out good ways to extrapolate the data and proven the the extrapolation appears to be valid (and even then, usually only within limited bounds).
- FullyFunctional 4y ago
  Which if any fraction of the “illegal” weapon didn’t start out as “legal”? Thus the distinction is pointless.
mbauman 4y ago
> I’ll update this comment when I find the source So... you gonna update your beliefs in light of the changing landscape? We have the source; you probably heard it when it was true, but things have gotten worse. Or are you just going to seek alternative ways of supporting your pre-existing beliefs? Everything is politics, indeed.

by taxyz 4y ago

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.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
At 18 it's easier to obtain guns/ammo and gang membership is more common in 18-19 year olds than, for example, 5-6 year olds.
908B64B197 4y ago
> are gang members waiting for someone to turn 18th birthday before commencing in gang related murder? I wonder how many "undocumented" gang members would claim to be minors to get tried as a child instead of an adult. Remember the fastest 14 years old in Sweden? [0] [0] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422000/Just-old-think-migrant-children-Alarming-pictures-shed-light-growing-scandal-amid-asylum-crisis.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422000/Just-old-th...

mbauman 4y ago

This is not true anymore. For ages 1-17, there were 2,571 firearm deaths in 2021. That's now ahead of motor vehicles (2,348). Source: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520 https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520

taxyz 4y ago
I'll add some nuance here and its possibly a separate debate on its significance but according to that data, total firearm deaths surpass vehicle deaths but if you look at the split between homicide suicide its like 60-40 homicide-suicide. We would be talking about motor vehicle deaths a lot differently if half that number were kids stealing their parents keys to run into a wall at 100mph. Here is another bit from the NEJM using CDC data from 2016: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 Whats interesting is that the gun deaths were higher in 2016 than they are now (roughly 2900). What this suggests is that firearms becoming the leading cause of deaths is not because of a rise in firearm deaths but because the number of vehicle deaths have been dropping off as well - which should be evident based on how little people drove over the last few years. Edit: also alarming that the per capita rate is increasing as overall gun deaths are still on the decline. That can't be good (if our youth population is declining that rapidly).
- mbauman 4y ago
  Going back in time isn't going to change the more recent figures. Nor are factually incorrect statements about motor vehicle deaths. From 2018-2021, firearm deaths went up from 2.5 to 3.3 to 3.7 per 100k 1-17 year olds. During the same time, motor vehicle traffic deaths also went up from 2.8 to 3.1 to 3.4 per 100k 1-17 year olds. https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520 https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D332F520
aeternum 4y ago
https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-population-holding-a-drivers-license-by-age-group/ https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-po... Could just be because people are waiting to get drivers licenses.

908B64B197 4y ago

> As another commenter mentioned this includes a lot of gang stuff I wonder what these stats would look like for legal vs illegal weapons. The fact that nobody seems to be publishing these figures should be a pretty good indicator of what they would tell us...

mbauman 4y ago
... or maybe — just maybe — they are figures that are impossible to determine in any sort of comprehensive or reliable manner. It's not a conspiracy.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > impossible to determine Not really. For homicide cases the weapons are often recovered.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Take what you can get reliably, use it as a sample and try and extrapolate out making adjustments if the sample population differs from the overall population. This is SOP in god knows how many fields.
  - MrJohz 4y ago
    > making adjustments if the sample population differs from the overall population. This feels like a step you can't just handwave away as step three of three. To quote the meme, it's a bit of a "draw the rest of the fucking owl" situation. Extrapolation is hard, and there are very good reasons not to do it willy nilly. Where it is standardised in other fields, it's usually because researchers have already figured out good ways to extrapolate the data and proven the the extrapolation appears to be valid (and even then, usually only within limited bounds).
FullyFunctional 4y ago
Which if any fraction of the “illegal” weapon didn’t start out as “legal”? Thus the distinction is pointless.

mbauman 4y ago

> I’ll update this comment when I find the source So... you gonna update your beliefs in light of the changing landscape? We have the source; you probably heard it when it was true, but things have gotten worse. Or are you just going to seek alternative ways of supporting your pre-existing beliefs? Everything is politics, indeed.