4 ms·
Babies aren't wielding guns. They say right up front that 83% of deaths are ages 15-19. If you're looking at causation, it makes sense to look at 2-19 vs. 0-17
by Spooky23 3y ago
Babies aren't wielding guns.
They say right up front that 83% of deaths are ages 15-19. If you're looking at causation, it makes sense to look at 2-19 vs. 0-17, as the driving behavior of recklessness, etc doesn't change at 18.
Long story short, the younger and dumber you are, the more likely you are to die of an accidental gun death. And not shockingly, access to weapons drives mortality. Poorer and minority people in more permissive states have high mortality.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Rebelgecko 3y ago>Babies aren't wielding guns. These stats are for victims, not perpetrators. You don't have to wield a gun to be killed by one (except for suicide) >Long story short, the younger and dumber you are, the more likely you are to die of an accidental gun death The age gap for accidental gun deaths isn't as dramatic as it is for intentional ones. The median age is like 35. That said, accidental gun deaths are a tiny slice (like 1% and declining) of overall gun deaths, so IMO it's more productive to focus on the much bigger slices of the pie. Just to make the rate more concrete, accidental gun deaths are ahead of deer but way behind things like drowning and choking.
- Spooky23 3y agoIt’s hard to know as certain interest groups prevent research. Many of the tragic deaths beyond criminal activities perpetrated by minors center around young kids getting access to guns and accidentally discharging them. Playing games with statistics doesn’t help anyone. If accidental deaths are declining in proportion, is that because of less incidents, or a larger divisor of total gun deaths? Unlike with accidental gun deaths, we do things to help prevent deer accidents, drowning and choking.