6 ms·

The rule of thumb is you are still way more likely to be killed by other things before being killed with a firearm. It’s not really that bad. Once you graduate

by xwdv 3y ago

The rule of thumb is you are still way more likely to be killed by other things before being killed with a firearm. It’s not really that bad. Once you graduate from school your risk of being shot dead dramatically lowers and other normal causes of death take the top spot.

wkat4242 3y ago
Yes I know. But being exposed to threatening situations with firearms so often would not leave me unaffected.
blahedo 3y ago
Firearms are the second-leading cause of death in children and adolescents in the US. 15%. [0] [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754
- xormapmap 3y ago
  That doesn't mean the death rate of children due to firearms is high, it could just mean there isn't really anything else that kills children i.e. they mostly have parents looking out for them, don't have to work dangerous jobs, and haven't lived long enough for lifestyle factors to take effect yet.
  - zwirbl 3y ago
    It does mean theres three kids shot dead for every one that drowns.
    - Humboldtsnee 3y ago
      [dead]
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Yep . . . just as I thought. Your source uses ages 0-19 as "children and adolescents." Guess what happens when you lump in those extra two years of 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, who are legal adults? You also lump in a disproportionate amount of street gang-related shootings, which have different causes and different solutions, and make it look like suburban teens are uniquely at risk from firearms . . . when they're not. The vast majority of firearm homicides in this country are suicides, and the next-most involve street gangs and the drug trade, and involve young men with criminal records killing other young men with criminal records using illegally-obtained pistols.
  - picture 3y ago
    Do street gangs wait until you're 18? I don't quite understand how including the two extra years would skew the data.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      It's not just two extra years, it's the year that makes the biggest step change in a person's life, and the year after.
noduerme 3y ago
I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to eliminate private transportation without destroying our economy in the process. To make a strong argument for firearms ownership requires not just downplaying the harm but actually explaining why the public good of an armed populace outweighs the many and obvious evils it inflicts on innocent people. That's a much tougher case to make to someone who's lost a family member to gun violence, but nonetheless it's a case that needs to be made (in my opinion) if we're going to remain an unruly bunch who won't be led down the road to either a right-wing or left-wing police state. [edit: Just to clarify, I think there's an equally strong argument to be made about freedom of movement as a societal benefit, and an individual right, that outweighs the harms caused by humans driving their own cars.]
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated. These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks. And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    False dichotomy, corporations are another (somewhat powerful entity). They don't tend to use direct force either, but there are private militias...defending yourself from a gang or haywire corp is also an important thing. People like to take the big argument, defense from govt, and tear it down from a broad level, and then ignore the many other lethal threats posed. There have been a couple shootings in recent memory, where citizens quickly resolved the matter far faster than law enforcement could have hoped. Situations too, where men armed with axes etc. went on killing sprees in other countries and mostly people were unable to respond. I don't think everyone should bear arms, or even that it should be common, but I do think the right to defend yourself is a pretty inalieable right. If gun ownership can help with that, then by all means...
OhMeadhbh 3y ago
[flagged]
denton-scratch 3y ago
Are you seriously saying that gun-culture is "not really that bad", because the people at greatest risk of being shot are schoolkids?

by xwdv 3y ago

wkat4242 3y ago

Yes I know. But being exposed to threatening situations with firearms so often would not leave me unaffected.

blahedo 3y ago

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death in children and adolescents in the US. 15%. [0] [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754

xormapmap 3y ago
That doesn't mean the death rate of children due to firearms is high, it could just mean there isn't really anything else that kills children i.e. they mostly have parents looking out for them, don't have to work dangerous jobs, and haven't lived long enough for lifestyle factors to take effect yet.
- zwirbl 3y ago
  It does mean theres three kids shot dead for every one that drowns.
  - Humboldtsnee 3y ago
    [dead]
psunavy03 3y ago
Yep . . . just as I thought. Your source uses ages 0-19 as "children and adolescents." Guess what happens when you lump in those extra two years of 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, who are legal adults? You also lump in a disproportionate amount of street gang-related shootings, which have different causes and different solutions, and make it look like suburban teens are uniquely at risk from firearms . . . when they're not. The vast majority of firearm homicides in this country are suicides, and the next-most involve street gangs and the drug trade, and involve young men with criminal records killing other young men with criminal records using illegally-obtained pistols.
- picture 3y ago
  Do street gangs wait until you're 18? I don't quite understand how including the two extra years would skew the data.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    It's not just two extra years, it's the year that makes the biggest step change in a person's life, and the year after.

noduerme 3y ago

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to eliminate private transportation without destroying our economy in the process. To make a strong argument for firearms ownership requires not just downplaying the harm but actually explaining why the public good of an armed populace outweighs the many and obvious evils it inflicts on innocent people. That's a much tougher case to make to someone who's lost a family member to gun violence, but nonetheless it's a case that needs to be made (in my opinion) if we're going to remain an unruly bunch who won't be led down the road to either a right-wing or left-wing police state. [edit: Just to clarify, I think there's an equally strong argument to be made about freedom of movement as a societal benefit, and an individual right, that outweighs the harms caused by humans driving their own cars.]

wkat4242 3y ago
I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated. These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks. And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.
- smaudet 3y ago
  False dichotomy, corporations are another (somewhat powerful entity). They don't tend to use direct force either, but there are private militias...defending yourself from a gang or haywire corp is also an important thing. People like to take the big argument, defense from govt, and tear it down from a broad level, and then ignore the many other lethal threats posed. There have been a couple shootings in recent memory, where citizens quickly resolved the matter far faster than law enforcement could have hoped. Situations too, where men armed with axes etc. went on killing sprees in other countries and mostly people were unable to respond. I don't think everyone should bear arms, or even that it should be common, but I do think the right to defend yourself is a pretty inalieable right. If gun ownership can help with that, then by all means...

OhMeadhbh 3y ago

[flagged]

denton-scratch 3y ago

Are you seriously saying that gun-culture is "not really that bad", because the people at greatest risk of being shot are schoolkids?