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.
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.
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.
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.]
I think you’re missing the nuance here. If I can protect myself using a weapon, I don’t need to vote for mass surveillance to protect me. The ability to engage in shootouts with the police isn’t what prevents the formation of a police state. The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.
Precisely. Policing in any country is always a mix of public service and protection racket. A police monopoly on protecting people from other people, or society from itself, leaves no safety for anyone.
It's ironic that some of the most vociferously anti-gun people in the US are also the ones with the clearest view of the police as an armed gang. But absent armed police and without the right to protect themselves, what do they think will fill the vacuum?
People don't agree on whether there is a positive or negative correlation between security and safety; whether increased security makes the society more or less safe. Some people also think that everyone interested in security (including the police, the military, and people buying guns for self defense) is inherently suspicious.
Trust makes the society safe. When there is a lack of trust, careful security measures can be used to compensate. But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.
> But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.
The stoic natural rights theory on which the US is founded definitely tips the balance towards self-defense over the collective. It’s the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
The hard part is stopping the self-defense at armed individuals. And not escalating from armed individuals to armed gangs. From armed gangs to criminal organizations capable of challenging the state. From criminal organizations to regional warlords replacing the state. And from regional warlords to conquerors establishing a new state.
Since 1900, if a movement used violence in their methods for change they had a success rate of 25%; movements with non-violence had success 40% of the time. Further, most movements who did use violence to have a 'change of government' were much more likely to end up with authoritative government.
Other than the obvious confounding factors, I feel this has to have some cherry picking or selective interpretation of what is a non-violent movement. Almost always there's some non-violent action preceding a violent movement, the question is at which stage they get quashed, fail to become much bigger, and then people have to resort to violence.
The recent surge in violence as DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes -- has blurred the line between criminal violence and state violence. That renews the argument for self defense.
In other words, as the state declines to protect you, you have a better claim on the natural right to protect yourself.
I think the issue is that it's such an easy web-search, your failure to do it and instead make a "simple request" appears to present an implication that the phenomenon in question doesn't exist, i.e. gaslighting.
The assertion for which you asked evidence is not a correlation between prosecutorial policy ("fully prosecuting criminals") and crime rates, but rather the existence of the policies themselves. So, there's no need for a "study": the prosecutors put it down in writing (and those policies then get reported by the media).
For the record, I support some of these prosecutorial reform efforts, but through legislation which eliminates things like "add-on charges", not by prosecutors selectively deciding who will and won't get them.
But, since you asked, here's just a few -- and I'll make the "simple request" to you to do the "hard work" of a web-search if you want more than these: try Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, etc.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg announces he is directing his staff either not to prosecute, accept "community diversion" in lieu of prosecution, or at least not to seek any jail time, for a slew of offenses, including e.g. armed robbery:
And while anecdotal, here's evidence of the implementation of that policy, a letter from Union Pacific railroad to the DA's office, complaining that when their agents apprehend criminals robbing trains, they are not fully prosecuted:
I appreciate you taking the time to do this, explain that the existence of these policies itself is not in doubt, and clarify the difference between asking for proof of their existence versus proof of their effects on society. Because I had started to respond, but I decided it was bad for my mental state to engage further.
It sounds like you and I are actually quite close in belief that systemic reforms are necessary but that undertaking them by prosecutorial fiat is a mistake. You'd probably appreciate this analysis:
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...
As someone who moved to the US and finds the gun culture absolutely bonkers, I get the gun culture and why they had it in the constitution.
I don’t get the obsession behind open carry though. What good is people walking around in shopping malls with large semi automatic rifles on their back?
Almost no one actually does this, and most sane gun owners think those people are attention whores at the very best, dangerous nuts at worst.
This is a phenomenon I've head described as "nutpicking." Take the absolute worst of a demographic and then go "why are you all like THAT?"
Claiming US gun culture is all about going to the mall open-carrying a semiauto rifle is on the same level as claiming gay men all prance around in assless chaps and leather. No, they don't, and it shouldn't be any mystery why claiming that is so offends people.
I'm going to plus one psunavy03's comment here. I own firearms, but they're locked in a gun safe. I pull them out every now and again, drive them to a gun range, fire them, clean them and then put them back in the safe.
And I believe this is the experience of the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US.
It occurs to me I haven't seen any estimates for how many people open carry on a daily basis. (You would think SOMEONE would collect that data SOMEWHERE.)
The states are sort of (in)famous for how many people own firearms, but I assert the number of people who open carry on a daily (or weekly) basis is much smaller than the number of people who own firearms.
I'm going to stop short of accusing nojvek of nutpicking, but encourage them to look around. The stats I've seen are that one in three Americans owns a firearm. If you were walking around and one out of three people were open carrying... well... I think that would be a little unusual unless you were in a gun show or at a shooting range.
Gun-culture in America can be weird, but it's often portrayed as being weirder than it actually is.
[Edit: also. how did we go from cable modems to guns so quickly?]
I only mention because when I was in Texas for the first time in my life, when I entered Target for shopping in Houston area, I saw 4 men walking in with big guns strapped to their back.
I was kind of freaked out but everyone else operated as if it was normal.
I found that pretty jarring. Was only there for a few days but almost everyday I saw someone with a gun on them on the streets.
Yes my sample size is low, but it’s still a strong memory in my mind.
More to the point, none of the few nutjobs who insist on doing this has ever actually carried out a mass shooting. At least not to my knowledge. Generally, if you find yourself around someone who's carrying openly, you can be sure you're less likely to be shot than you would be just walking around a random mall by yourself.
I always thought it had more to do with a sense of personal agency than reasoned expectation of using a firearm to protect myself (or someone around me) from harm.
Firearms can, in many situations, allow you to enforce your will over that of other people who may be intent on harming you or others.
The thing I never quite understood is why so many of us believe they'll encounter those situations walking to train station in the urban core.
So in one sense, I think I can understand the thinking behind it but at the same time think people are mistaken for how often you'll need to shoot someone while walking home in the city or in the burbs.
That being said... I worked part time as an agent for a bail bondsman to pay for college and frequently carried large sums of cash with me through bad neighborhoods. I open carried with the approval of the sheriff's office and municipal police departments largely as a reminder that I could shoot back. But I never had to. The last person a potential criminal wants to shoot at is their bail bondsman... I never drew, aimed or fired my firearm in two years of working that job. In many ways I think it was like part of a "costume" that communicated I had the weight of social convention on my side.
@nojvek -- also... are you seeing people in shopping malls open carrying or are you seeing news articles on TV or online talking about people in shopping malls open carrying? Also, my personal experience is you're MUCH more likely to see someone open carrying at the feed store in the rural parts of the country than at a proper shopping mall in the urban core. (I don't have enough experience with the burbs to render an opinion.) Though there are places in the exurbs and rural America where you probably want to have a firearm to defend yourself against animals or people with foul intent.
