I'm not trying to bait you, just clarify what is being talked about. The 1994 assault weapons ban included AR-15s, which are not assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire weapons (which the government classifies as machine guns) and AR-15s are semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger fires one round). Different laws apply to the two categories. So, if you say you want assault rifles banned, to me that means we are talking about select fire weapons (which is what you also included in your definition you posted). Those are already pretty much banned and have been for decades. Passing a new law banning them would be meaningless. If you say you want AR-15s banned, that is a general assault weapons ban (this is what causes confusion, because assault weapons and assault rifles have different definitions). Anyway, all this is just to say I am not trying to get you or win or anything of that nature, I just enjoy talking about the subjects I post about. To me, it isn't a competition, just a free exchange of ideas. The numbers are driven by different groups contained within the general population and it is those living in or proximate to the gang life that are driving the gun deaths, while the motor vehicle deaths are more evenly distributed and have multiple causes including reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, and the ubiquitous nature of motor vehicle travel in the United States. A middle class kid from the suburbs is much more likely to die in a car crash than by gun violence. A gang banger from the inner city is more likely to die by gun violence. The fact that so many of that second group are dying that in total they have overtaken the numbers from all motor vehicle crashes is a reflection of both the violent nature of street gangs and the constant improvement in motor vehicle safety (fatalities way down since the 70s, though sadly with a big spike in 2021 and 2022).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...e-children-and-young-adults-than-car-crashes/ “As the progress made in reducing deaths from motor vehicle crashes shows,” Lee and her colleagues wrote, “we don’t have to accept the high rate of firearm-related deaths among U.S. children and adolescents.”
Crossing Lines — A Change in the Leading Cause of Death among U.S. Children Lois K. Lee, M.D., M.P.H., Katherine Douglas, M.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2200169 Injuries are the most common cause of death among children, adolescents, and young adults between 1 and 24 years of age in the United States; indeed, injuries are responsible for more deaths among children and adolescents than all other causes combined.1 For more than 60 years, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of injury-related death among young people. Beginning in 2017, however, firearm-related injuries took their place to become the most common cause of death from injury (see graph).1 This change occurred because of both the rising number of firearm-related deaths in this age group and the nearly continuous reduction in deaths from motor vehicle crashes. The crossing of these trend lines demonstrates how a concerted approach to injury prevention can reduce injuries and deaths — and, conversely, how a public health problem can be exacerbated in the absence of such attention. Between 2000 and 2020, the number of firearm-related deaths among children, adolescents, and young adults increased from 6998 (7.30 per 100,000 persons) to 10,186 (10.28 per 100,000 persons), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).1 Research has shown that most injuries can be prevented by means of the manufacture and appropriate use of safe products and the implementation of policies reducing product-related danger and the occurrence of hazardous situations — the principles of harm reduction. Since the 1960s, continuous efforts have been directed toward preventing deaths from motor vehicle crashes. As a result, there has been a substantial reduction not just in fatality rates, but in rates of serious nonfatal injuries associated with motor vehicle crashes, among people of all ages. In 2000, motor vehicle–related injuries resulted in 13,049 deaths among young people (13.62 per 100,000 persons). Twenty years later, there has been a nearly 40% decrease, with 8234 motor vehicle traffic deaths (8.31 per 100,000 persons) recorded in 2020.1 Injury and fatality data are of little use without research to uncover important trends, disparities, and associations. Such research is critical to developing, implementing, and evaluating injury-prevention initiatives. Although substantial federal funding has been devoted to research on motor vehicle crashes, the firearm industry and gun-rights organizations, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), have been effective at keeping federal dollars from financing firearm-related research. Between 1996 and 2019, little federal research funding was appropriated for firearm-injury prevention, owing in large part to the Dickey Amendment.3 One takeaway from ongoing success in improving motor vehicle safety may be the importance of a system that tracks firearm-related injuries and promotes the type of continuous reduction in injury rates that has been seen for motor vehicle crashes, including among children. At the federal level, such an approach could involve establishing an agency whose mission is to prevent harm caused by firearms. Eliminating tort protections that have been carved out for the firearm industry could encourage manufacturers to reduce harm. Successful negligence claims against insured manufacturers might give the insurance industry more incentive to help reduce gun violence — and perhaps to create a gun-focused organization analogous to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to advocate for beneficial regulations and policies. Federal and state laws, such as strong child-access prevention laws, which hold firearm owners liable if a child gains or could gain access to a firearm, could reduce related injuries and deaths among children.5 All cost-effective programs and policies that reduce injuries among children deserve support from researchers and policymakers, but we may want to prioritize those that could generate increasing benefits over time. As the progress made in reducing deaths from motor vehicle crashes shows, we don’t have to accept the high rate of firearm-related deaths among U.S. children and adolescents. Preventable deaths among young people not only are associated with tremendous medical costs, but take a great personal toll on families and communities. To reverse the trend of increasing firearm-related deaths among U.S. children, experts and policymakers should be intentional in their efforts to develop and implement a multipronged scientific strategy centered on continuous improvement.
Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries Matt McGough, Krutika Amin, Nirmita Panchal, and Cynthia Cox Published: Jul 18, 2023 https://www.kff.org/mental-health/i...earm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
None of that counters anything I said. You understand that, right? We have reduced the penalties for gun violence, especially as it relates to youths. As a consequence, youth gun violence has increased. We have also made safer cars, resulting in fewer traffic fatalities. Increased youth gun violence (which is highly concentrated in inner city gang disputes) and decreased traffic fatalities (among all ages) have made the lines cross for a specifically chosen age range. Not surprisingly gun violence in very high in ages 14-25 (gang banging is a young man's game). It is a bit disingenuous of the article (and perhaps of you in posting the article) to compare what is mostly unintentional deaths (traffic fatalities) to what is mostly intentional deaths (gun violence). Making cars safer by adding seatbelts and airbags and blind spot sensors and reverse cameras helps reduce traffic fatalities. Making guns safer might reduce the small number of accidental shootings, but most of the gun deaths are people intentionally killing each other or themselves. It isn't a technology problem, it is a behavior problem.
If the attitude towards children and young adults killed in car crashes were simply attributing it mostly to young or bad drivers (which is very true), and the response was to not care so much, improvement would not have been drastic as it has been. Fortunately, that wasn't the attitude. Instead, the focus was on studying the problem and coming up with solutions, which has proven to be very effective.
Not surprised, killer kyle and his enabling maga followers pushing out the misinformation (rittenhouse outed himself in a daily caller interview shortly after killing two people, and he was 17 which in WI is an adult). What he does do accurately is compare himself to mass murderers...
It has been confirmed that the shooter in Burnsville, MN had was not supposed to legally have firearms. The Governor has said that how he was able to get those will be a focus of the investigation. This goes back again to that we need better tracking of firearms and liability. Most of these weapons used by gangs and like the shooter in Burnsville started out legally and then at some point were either stolen or resold. We need to get a better sense of how that is happening and reduce the amount of firearms going to people who shouldn't have them. Also we already have liability laws for negligence for example bartenders are liable for serving someone who does appear intoxicated and can be held culpable if that person commits a DUI. We also require people to have insurance to drive and vehicle ownership is tracked through VIN numbers.
The folly of trying to arm teachers to defend against school shootings aside... they spent money on this foolish plan instead of on school meals...
everyone should know how to handle a gun. if they need to teach that in school, I'm all for it. Spoiler does not mean everyone needs to own, or carry, a gun
Philly is gangland. They should have had this celebration away from the city. I hope the Ramadan folks are ok.
