You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_je6276a wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Wagamaga OP t1_je62cgx wrote

Recent research offers both bad and good news on the issue.

Two separate studies from the same researcher found that firearms deaths involving preschool-aged children had increased at an alarmingly high rate in the United States in the past decade, but state laws may help curb shooting deaths among young children.

"Firearms are among the top causes of death for American children now, and no other industrialized nation has such high rates of firearm deaths," said researcher Jagdish Khubchandani, a professor of public health at New Mexico State University.

In the first study, published in the Journal of Community Health, Khubchandani and co-author James Price from the University of Toledo tracked changes in firearm death trends in preschool children from 2010 to 2020.

The study found that 1,220 children were shot and killed during that period. Firearm death rates among preschoolers increased by 75%.

About 66% of all firearm deaths in preschool children were homicides, 30% were unintentional deaths and 4% were undetermined, according to the study.

Homicides caused the most firearm deaths among white children, 61%; Black children, 65%; and Hispanic children, 81%.

"The data indicates that the worsening epidemic of firearm violence is not just limited to youth and adults, it is also affecting very young children," Khubchandani said in a university news release. "Our findings show that since the past decade, we have been losing almost 10 children every month due to firearm injuries. To prevent this problem, we will need inter-sectoral approaches, with participation from families, health care providers and policymakers."


fitzroy95 t1_je6alur wrote

and its almost 100% due to Republicans deliberately blocking every attempt to reduce gun violence, and actively pushing to increase gun violence in many states by putting more guns on the street, and in the hands of civilians.


Zealousideal_Word770 t1_je6e8ft wrote

In Iowa we just made conceal carry legal w/o ANY permitting/training requirements. So probably not.


DamonFields t1_je6jtn5 wrote

Republicans will put a stop to any gun laws they can.


Tahh t1_je6q0g6 wrote

For the appx. 1100 firearm deaths that occurred among ages 0-5 between 2010 - 2020:

"Non-Hispanic Blacks comprised 56.4% of all deaths in 2020, a 172% increase from 2010 and the rate for non-Hispanic Whites increased by 15.4% from 2010 to 2020. The majority of the deaths occurred in the South. Almost two-thirds (65.9%) of all firearm deaths were homicides, 30% were unintentional, and 4.1% were undetermined."

This is a very focused, political problem that primarily affects the people the government cares about the least, almost exclusively in places the government will not lift a finger to help. Not much can be done by people not in those locations except point out the problem.


purephase t1_je6vv2n wrote

Bruen is going to end all of it though. It strips the states ability to enact their own gun control legislation.

Which is completely against the whole independent state legislature theory but hypocrisy has never been an issue for conservatives.


cheddarsox t1_je6wz7q wrote

I couldn't read much because if the giant privacy banner with the "manage cookies" button hidden behind my screen controls. Very short article with a lot of possibly vague phrases. Can someone paste the entire thing?


SHALL_NOT_BE_REEE t1_je6x7ux wrote

How exactly are Republicans putting more guns in the streets? A majority of surges in gun sales are a result of talks of gun control. For example right now in Washington guns are selling like crazy specifically because the state just passed an assault weapons ban.

Notably the study doesn’t say anything about assault weapons bans, which are the number one driver of gun sale frenzies.

And one of the countermeasures mentioned in this study is red flag laws, which have very questionable legality. They’re laws that allow a judge to order police to search and seize an individual’s property without a warrant or probable cause.


SHALL_NOT_BE_REEE t1_je6xkkq wrote

Over half of US states have implemented similar laws and so far haven’t seen any consequences. I’d be very interested to see if there’s any sort of correlation between concealed carry laws and gun violence, considering a majority of states in America were either may-issue or no-issue 20 years ago and the homicide rate in America didn’t start climbing until very recently.


monkeyfrog987 t1_je74dym wrote

You haven't seen any consequences?

The assault weapons ban was allowed to expire by Republicans and now every mass shooter uses an AR-15 to carry out the attack.

It's scientifically proven that more guns correlate to a higher increase in gun deaths by suicide, homicide and accidental shootings.

With a state allowed for permittless carry then you can expect those numbers to go up in those states.


fitzroy95 t1_je7e704 wrote

More open carry laws, must issue laws, concealed carry laws etc

all of which support more people carrying firearms in public, concealed or openly.

> A majority of surges in gun sales are a result of talks of gun control.

Indeed, usually driven by fearmongering, scaremongering, propaganda and misinformation from right-wing politicians and corporate media like Fox etc


Brewcrew828 t1_je7hmd0 wrote

It's almost like neither party wants to end violence in the first place. While both parties bicker about banning guns, the culture and environment that produces people who want to murder innocent children still exist. When you want to remove a weed, you pull the roots. The roots aren't guns. It's the society that destroys, degrades, and discriminates against our people. Toxic work environments, unobtainable health care, broken family situations, the classic toxic high school social environment that's spits out kids that are socially destroyed and have nothing left but hate for everyone. You can TRY to ban guns, but that isn't going to fix the actual problem.

When you see someone commit mass murder in a school and want to stop it from happening, you need to ask yourself why they did it in the first place. When you ban the tools, people use another. People will be smashing cars into crowds of people. Mass stabbings actually happen in other parts of the world. Improvised explosives sounds extreme, but it is achievable for someone who wants to kill a lot of people. You can lower gun violence by banning and restricting guns, but you won't be fixing the actual root of the issue. The people that want to do it.


N8CCRG t1_je7iecc wrote

Yup. Concealed carry was recognized as something only criminals would do. It wasn't until the 1970s/80s when the NRA saw gun sales lagging that they made a push to try to promote the legalization of concealed carry (while simultaneously pushing stories of "you and your families are in danger of random acts of violence from those people, you need to 'protect' yourself!").


monkeyfrog987 t1_je7ktet wrote

The 1994 assault weapons ban signed by Bill Clinton included the original AR-15. Yes, there was loopholes in that allowed copies but the original AR-15 was banned in that capacity.

As for the statement that most mass shooters are done with handguns, that could be correct but the most widely known and the ones were discussing here were all with the AR-15.

Hell the Uvalde cops admitted they didn't go in to the school because the shooter had an AR-15.


fitzroy95 t1_je7mtgd wrote

I agree that removing guns from the equation isn't going to fix any of the core, underlying, societal, problems, nor will it ever make violence magically vanish from society.

It will, however, significantly reduce the ability of individuals to murder, threaten, wound and intimidate each other, as well as significantly reducing the suicide rate. people are still going to be able to attack others with fists, with a baseball bat, with knives. But the number of people ending up dead or maimed from those attacks will be significantly lower, and the number of mass shootings carried out in schools etc would drop like a rock.

Some of the volume of gun violence will merely shift to other forms of violence, but far less of that will be fatal, and the overall level of violence in society will almost certainly drop significantly as well.


Pissed_Off_Pacifist t1_je7pka5 wrote

It's that weird "law" part we're struggling with. The government doing anything is communism, you see.


Top_Of_Gov_Watchlist t1_je7qq0y wrote

And that's what I was attempting to clarify from the person who I was directing the comment towards which wasn't the OP.... it wasn't clear what the stats they randomly posted were.

Now feel free to stop commenting to me. You have been rude for no reason.


Tahh t1_je80x3h wrote

I'm a little confused at what you are asking. As I wrote, the data is exclusively for victims ages 0 - 5. Knowing that, what do you mean by justified homicide? I honestly don't really know what a justified homicide is for any age group and I don't think they really distinguish that from other homicides in the stats, but for the topic at hand let's focus only on 0-5.


soundscream t1_je821rn wrote

The Colt-AR15 as it existed was banned, but simply changing to a non-threaded barrel and a non-colapsable stock was all you had to do. Thats like banning red cars with 20inch tires and claiming that blue cars with 21 inch tires are completely different.

My point is the FAWB didn't and wouldn't stop this sort of stuff from happenning.

Uvalde cops were cowards and the ar-15 was an excuse. The ar the person in tennesse had didn't stop those cops from going in.


Lcokheed_Martini t1_je87d40 wrote

“Almost two-thirds (65.9%) of all firearm deaths were homicides, 30% were unintentional, and 4.1% were undetermined”

The researchers appear to have pooled different risk groups together.


monkeyfrog987 t1_je87hkx wrote

I hope you're as adamant about not banning drag, trans, gay people in general, CRT or any of the other things that Republicans want to ban as you are about guns.

If it's not the guns, and banning them won't do anything then the rest of it gets thrown out with the bath water as well.


monkeyfrog987 t1_je87r5o wrote

My only other statement is I love when people that are so deep in gun culture that they think that knowing the technical difference between these guns is the point and they get lost in the weeds.

Point is that we're the only country on the planet that has this problem and that children are regularly dying in places that they should be safe. The fact that the number one cause of death for children and teens in the United States is guns is completely lost on people like you.

Rather have some sort of semantic conversation about style and type instead of the overall thinking that there's a problem with guns in general.


M00n_Slippers t1_je92ngo wrote

Republicans are also holding back affordable or universal healthcare to treat people with mental health issues, actively promoting hate and violence towards gays, trans, minorities and their allies, and opposing anything to help those in poverty including food stamps and free school lunches for kids.

Somehow, even completely removing guns from the equation, it's still Republicans fault.


Brewcrew828 t1_je9fnyl wrote

Did you even read what I wrote? Especially my response to the other reply to this comment. I suggest you do. I'm no fan of the Republicans, either.

As I said, neither party wants or is even trying to fix the actual problem.


soundscream t1_jeacn1w wrote

yes, but you don't have to go through a federal background check to buy weed at a dispensary and the ATF hasn't decided to enforce the T part of their name there, but you try to go around the background check for a firearm and they'll be at your door shooting your dogs in no time.


soundscream t1_jealgax wrote

Not from a gun store. Private sale, yes. Noone in thier right mind risks an FFL and a visit from the atf to sell a gun. He'll, if I owned a gun store I wouldnt sell a personal firearm to a friend w/o check just to make sure the feds don't show up. Your point is valid that there are ways around that check but using those avenues have strict lanes to stay in and I can't see a state passing a law that any ffl dealer would lean on to get around it.


M00n_Slippers t1_jech96e wrote

Most of the democratic party would actually like to do something about it, but unfortunately Republicans are in charge and a couple of Democrats are just corporate stooges and will vote for whoever pays them the most, such as Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema. People are like, "Democrats had the majority in the House before, why didn't they do anything then?" Because it was a very slim majority, and some of those democrats were corporate trash, even if they ran as Democrats. I wouldn't describe the whole party like this, but even just 2 or 3 was enough to stop so much stuff going through. I don't consider myself a democrat. Until a few years ago I had voted for republicans just as often as democrats, but you can't be wishy washy about this and sit on the fence and say 'they are both bad' because that attitude just make it worse and muddies the waters. That's what the Republicans count on. You've got to choose a side. Fence sitting doesn't fix anything.


Brewcrew828 t1_jecmcg0 wrote

I don't have to choose a side of the fence to sit on.

The waters are already muddied. Neither party would bring anything of substance to this country even if they had a majority, as I have already said.

There are only two reasons I would vote. One is to protect my ability to defend myself, my friends, and family. The other is to cut down the federal government and return more power to the states. I've held those beliefs since high school 8 years ago. I voted for Trump his first term and the only reason I did it was for the Supreme Court nominations. The minute we get a liberal Supreme Court is the minute my first issue becomes crippled by the opinions of people who know nothing about my way of life or the people who live in my area.

I vote when my interests are at risk.

You said that the Democrats want to change this country? How EXACTLY do they want to do that? So lets say they address the issues that I've outlined. What else comes along with that? My ability to defend myself will be stripped from me. Millions of people will be paintbrushed by the Democrats never ending need to push everything through at a federal level spitting in the face of the founding fathers and directly neglecting the 10th amendment. Those are only the things that I care about. You can ask someone who actually supports Republicans for more, and yes, their opinion is still valid because they live in this country too, and chances are they don't live in your state. You already know the issues with the Republicans, I don't need to point that out to you.

To choose either is to punish this country. I'll have no part in it. I'd rather have status que than see the hell hole either side would create.


M00n_Slippers t1_jectoo2 wrote

Wow, okay. I see you've clearly chosen the Republican side. You can pretend you're a fence sitter but you're on the side of guns, book bans, anti-women and lgbt rights, and so-called 'states rights' AKA the ability to be racist and homophobic without anyone to stop you. You made yourself out to be moderate but you're clearly not, my mistake.


Brewcrew828 t1_jecvvxr wrote

You clearly haven't read anything I've said.

Not everyone who doesn't agree with you is for everything you're against.

I told you that I didn't need to tell you the problems with the Republican party. You have stated all the things wrong with the Republican party.

Wanting to protect myself from having my second amendment rights from being infringed and wanting to be protected from the Federal government under the 10th amendment IN ALL APPLICABLE CASES doesn't make me a Republican supporter.

I'm a Libertarian with extra steps.

The people need to be able to be accurately represented. People in California live and believe differently than in Texas and the only way this Country functions is when both are left to represent themselves with what is left to them under the 10th.

That doesn't mean I'm supporting any of the things you are talking about and I would never cast a vote towards any of that. I will, however, still respect those states' decisions with how they want to be represented in their own state.

It's none of my business what some other people in another state think, believe, or how they vote. Just like I think it's none of my business what someone does in their bedroom with whoever they choose. That doesn't mean they can't think differently and to force them into submission is un-American.


r-reading-my-comment t1_jee8akn wrote

Well regulated militia- one that has military grade arms.

This is blatantly obvious from our 18th-19th century FEDERAL laws, which did things like requiring American males to be able to arm themselves with a rifle or musket in a short period of time. Hell, you could even buy cannons… that’s artillery.

Now find me a federal law that requires a U.S. militia member to be trained, or that limited their access to guns. One from back in the day.