6 ms·

>All the guns also cause a bunch of small kids to kill their siblings every year. No they don't, unless you're going to quibble about what a bunch is. Numbers

by Jiro 4y ago

>All the guns also cause a bunch of small kids to kill their siblings every year. No they don't, unless you're going to quibble about what a bunch is. Numbers that seem to show lots of deaths to "kids" pretty much always include age ranges old enough to include gang members.

Swenrekcah 4y ago
I’ll admit I didn’t look up those numbers but I read about these things way too regularly. But that’s of course not the main thing about guns and kids in the US like everyone knows.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Statistically speaking, suicide is the #1 cause of gun death in the US, gang activity is #2. School shootings are far down the list. They get a lot of attention but don't account for a large proportion of deaths. Of course, that any of these deaths occur is tragic, which is why the most sensible solution is repeal of the Second Amendment and implementation of a nationwide, federal license requirement to purchase or own a firearm. 120-day grace period. License each gun, turn them in, or go to jail. Let the gangs resort to cutting each other like Japanese gangs.
  - japhyr 4y ago
    That doesn't require a repeal of the second amendment. That just requires a willingness to interpret the full text of the amendment, instead of focusing only on the last four words. School shootings are far down the list as far as fatalities go. But that's a poor way to measure the impact of school shootings. The trauma inflicted by each of these events goes way beyond the number of children killed. Everyone who has heard actual gunshots in their own school building feels life-changing trauma. When a kid in the US says "I'm scared to go to school," you can't tell them they have nothing to be scared of. You can tell them "It's not likely to happen at your school today." That's small comfort.
    - bitwize 4y ago
      The full text of the amendment is pretty clear that "a well-regulated militia" depends upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", it does not limit that right. In order to train farmers and craftsmen into an effective reserve fighting force, they have to have weapons of their own they can practice with. Times have changed, obviously, and civil society no longer depends on citizen firearm ownership. You can put together a Supreme Court to overturn Heller and other decisions on this issue, but constitutional scholars are likely to consider it rickety jurisprudence. Repealing the 2nd would be a full-throated declaration that wielding weaponry is a privilege, not a right. We should probably repeal and replace the First Amendment while we're at it, and tie up some loose ends like Citizens United and the inability of U.S. governments to criminally punish hate speech.
      - r2_pilot 4y ago
        Remember, the Constitution was crafted by men of their time, and they explicitly stated it was not a suicide pact and that future generations were fully allowed to amend it should they find the desire. We can probably find a compromise that greatly reduces gun violence, if only compromise could be made.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > We should probably repeal and replace the First Amendment while we're at it, and tie up some loose ends like Citizens United and the inability of U.S. governments to criminally punish hate speech. I am not a gun nut, and have little interest in owning/shooting guns. I've done it, and found it boring. But my defense of the 2nd Amendment is based on the domino theory that if the 2nd can be ignored, there goes the First and every other "inconvenient" right enshrined in the Constitution. The First is the most important of all those Rights. Thanks for illustrating I am right that the First would be put on the chopping block right after the Second.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 4y ago
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > gang activity is #2 What is that based on? The only people I hear even talk much about 'gangs' is conservative propgandists trying to demonize black and brown people and cities. I'm not saying no gangs exist, but they aren't really an issue (unless you define 'gang' as any association of >1 person > the most sensible solution is repeal of the Second Amendment and implementation of a nationwide, federal license requirement to purchase or own a firearm. 120-day grace period. License each gun, turn them in, or go to jail. It's a politicized judiciary. For centuries, nobody interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way the conservative judges do now, but when the Federalist Society intentionally politicized the judiciary, this is what happened.
    - gedy 4y ago
      > I'm not saying no gangs exist, but they aren't really an issue Sounds like you've never been poor in urban areas?
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        I've spent a lot of time in those areas. Have you? For one thing, talking about them like they are all the same betrays that you haven't. They are as different as any other neighborhoods.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      > I'm not saying no gangs exist, but they aren't really an issue (unless you define 'gang' as any association of >1 person Not too far off. The federal definition is 3+. Gangs aren’t necessarily big.
    - anon291 4y ago
      This is delusional. I am a brown person, I grew up in these areas. Gangs exist. They are a scourge on the areas they blight. Please do not vote
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Maybe where you lived, but not in so many other places.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    NY tried that forced registration trick. Look up the compliance rates for it sometime.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  You'll read about those but not suicides and that is a greater problem.
glhaynes 4y ago
Numbers that seem to show lots of deaths to "kids" pretty much always include age ranges old enough to include gang members. So what if they were? It's pretty damn sad for a person young enough to be considered a child to die from gun violence regardless of who they were! A sad societal failure on top of our failure to set them up with life circumstances that made them unlikely to fall in with a gang.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  It matters because it’s ineffective to pursue the wrong root causes.
  - Teever 4y ago
    Agreed. We should implement policies that prevent guns from getting into the hands of children, regardless of whether they're gang members or not.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      Sarcasm noted. Hopefully you understand a multi-pronged approach is needed.
      - Teever 4y ago
        I'm not being sarcastic. A multi-pronged approach that involves reducing the amount of guns in American is a surefire way to reduce access to guns by children, both in gangs and out.
        1123581321 4y ago
        Sarcasm might’ve been the wrong word. I meant to say I see you reusing whatever words I write to disagree with them.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      That'll be very very difficult. Even very restrictive weapon ownership countries like Netherlands and Sweden have a big violent gang problem. And a policy as strict as they have is just totally unthinkable in the political reality of the US. So a policy stricter than the US can have isn't enough to solve this problem. That's why it's better to aim at reducing accidental underage gun deaths which is much more achievable.

by Jiro 4y ago

Swenrekcah 4y ago

I’ll admit I didn’t look up those numbers but I read about these things way too regularly. But that’s of course not the main thing about guns and kids in the US like everyone knows.

bitwize 4y ago
Statistically speaking, suicide is the #1 cause of gun death in the US, gang activity is #2. School shootings are far down the list. They get a lot of attention but don't account for a large proportion of deaths. Of course, that any of these deaths occur is tragic, which is why the most sensible solution is repeal of the Second Amendment and implementation of a nationwide, federal license requirement to purchase or own a firearm. 120-day grace period. License each gun, turn them in, or go to jail. Let the gangs resort to cutting each other like Japanese gangs.
- japhyr 4y ago
  That doesn't require a repeal of the second amendment. That just requires a willingness to interpret the full text of the amendment, instead of focusing only on the last four words. School shootings are far down the list as far as fatalities go. But that's a poor way to measure the impact of school shootings. The trauma inflicted by each of these events goes way beyond the number of children killed. Everyone who has heard actual gunshots in their own school building feels life-changing trauma. When a kid in the US says "I'm scared to go to school," you can't tell them they have nothing to be scared of. You can tell them "It's not likely to happen at your school today." That's small comfort.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    The full text of the amendment is pretty clear that "a well-regulated militia" depends upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", it does not limit that right. In order to train farmers and craftsmen into an effective reserve fighting force, they have to have weapons of their own they can practice with. Times have changed, obviously, and civil society no longer depends on citizen firearm ownership. You can put together a Supreme Court to overturn Heller and other decisions on this issue, but constitutional scholars are likely to consider it rickety jurisprudence. Repealing the 2nd would be a full-throated declaration that wielding weaponry is a privilege, not a right. We should probably repeal and replace the First Amendment while we're at it, and tie up some loose ends like Citizens United and the inability of U.S. governments to criminally punish hate speech.
    - r2_pilot 4y ago
      Remember, the Constitution was crafted by men of their time, and they explicitly stated it was not a suicide pact and that future generations were fully allowed to amend it should they find the desire. We can probably find a compromise that greatly reduces gun violence, if only compromise could be made.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > We should probably repeal and replace the First Amendment while we're at it, and tie up some loose ends like Citizens United and the inability of U.S. governments to criminally punish hate speech. I am not a gun nut, and have little interest in owning/shooting guns. I've done it, and found it boring. But my defense of the 2nd Amendment is based on the domino theory that if the 2nd can be ignored, there goes the First and every other "inconvenient" right enshrined in the Constitution. The First is the most important of all those Rights. Thanks for illustrating I am right that the First would be put on the chopping block right after the Second.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > gang activity is #2 What is that based on? The only people I hear even talk much about 'gangs' is conservative propgandists trying to demonize black and brown people and cities. I'm not saying no gangs exist, but they aren't really an issue (unless you define 'gang' as any association of >1 person > the most sensible solution is repeal of the Second Amendment and implementation of a nationwide, federal license requirement to purchase or own a firearm. 120-day grace period. License each gun, turn them in, or go to jail. It's a politicized judiciary. For centuries, nobody interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way the conservative judges do now, but when the Federalist Society intentionally politicized the judiciary, this is what happened.
  - gedy 4y ago
    > I'm not saying no gangs exist, but they aren't really an issue Sounds like you've never been poor in urban areas?
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      I've spent a lot of time in those areas. Have you? For one thing, talking about them like they are all the same betrays that you haven't. They are as different as any other neighborhoods.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    > I'm not saying no gangs exist, but they aren't really an issue (unless you define 'gang' as any association of >1 person Not too far off. The federal definition is 3+. Gangs aren’t necessarily big.
  - anon291 4y ago
    This is delusional. I am a brown person, I grew up in these areas. Gangs exist. They are a scourge on the areas they blight. Please do not vote
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Maybe where you lived, but not in so many other places.
- int_19h 4y ago
  NY tried that forced registration trick. Look up the compliance rates for it sometime.
ipaddr 4y ago
You'll read about those but not suicides and that is a greater problem.

glhaynes 4y ago

Numbers that seem to show lots of deaths to "kids" pretty much always include age ranges old enough to include gang members. So what if they were? It's pretty damn sad for a person young enough to be considered a child to die from gun violence regardless of who they were! A sad societal failure on top of our failure to set them up with life circumstances that made them unlikely to fall in with a gang.

1123581321 4y ago
It matters because it’s ineffective to pursue the wrong root causes.
- Teever 4y ago
  Agreed. We should implement policies that prevent guns from getting into the hands of children, regardless of whether they're gang members or not.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    Sarcasm noted. Hopefully you understand a multi-pronged approach is needed.
    - Teever 4y ago
      I'm not being sarcastic. A multi-pronged approach that involves reducing the amount of guns in American is a surefire way to reduce access to guns by children, both in gangs and out.
      - 1123581321 4y ago
        Sarcasm might’ve been the wrong word. I meant to say I see you reusing whatever words I write to disagree with them.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    That'll be very very difficult. Even very restrictive weapon ownership countries like Netherlands and Sweden have a big violent gang problem. And a policy as strict as they have is just totally unthinkable in the political reality of the US. So a policy stricter than the US can have isn't enough to solve this problem. That's why it's better to aim at reducing accidental underage gun deaths which is much more achievable.