U.S. children and teens are more likely to die because of guns than car crashes, drug overdoses and cancer.

  • Hardeehar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s so weird to file 18 and 19 year olds under “children”. Aren’t 18+ already considered adults and their lifestyle is going to be more risky than an actual child in grade school?

    If you kept it at actual “minors”, I wonder how this data would look.

    It’s kind of like saying that car accidents are a major cause of death in children because they drive too fast.

    • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article discusses this.

      Older adolescents, ages 15 to 19, accounted for 82.6% of gun-related deaths in 2021.

      Poking around the CDC website adolescence is defined in multiple ways but generally includes ages 12-19, so might be better described as “teens” even though 18+ is a legal adult. I think it’s being treated here as more of a developmental stage than a legal one.

      Digging into it by age, from 2018-2021 firearms made up 2,149 out of 22,545 total deaths (~9%) for the age range 5-14 in the US. Looking at 15-19 this increases significantly to 13,321 out of 46,323 total deaths (~29%). This corresponds to increases in both homicide and suicide by firearm for older adolescents.

      Quoting this just to make the point that firearms do have differing impacts on younger and older children, and that extends to race and income level as well. But whether guns are the leading cause of death for an age group or not, the end result is the same: more dead kids.

      • Hardeehar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m more interested right now in the obvious agenda.

        I’m not saying that child death’s aren’t up or that we shouldn’t do more to protect them but when citing data this way, I get the very strong feeling that it’s being made to look worse than it is on purpose. The majority are from suicides and murder fatalities are extreme in the 18-19 year old bracket.

        Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.

        The dictionary defines a child as a person between birth and puberty. Or not having attained the age of legal majority.

        It’s similar to when a 10 year old gets shot by the police, and then the news conference later has the police referring the 10 year old victim as “a young man” instead of “the child”. Does it not feel like they’re trying to achieve something?

        • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.

          Honestly, I tried pretty hard to find a good reason and other than the fact that the CDC groups data into <1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 age ranges there’s no real explanation. You could go up to 14, and then get individual year data up to 17/18 whatever the cutoff.

          I wouldn’t say it’s totally dishonest because it is baked into the data and the CDC considers them developmentally similar, but I think it also an issue NBC wasn’t too interested in fixing because it makes the article’s argument seem more convincing.

          • Hardeehar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, it’s misleading. Especially considering the hot topic use of firearms.

            Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, we can agree that data should be free of the organization present here. The discussion isn’t helped by this interpretation of the interpretation and it surely needs helping.

          • Hardeehar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry, but the ability to defend myself and my family isn’t a hobby. It’s what gave my mother the ability to fend off a guy with a knife last year. You want her to fight him off with her bare hands in the parking lot? I had a friend who was almost gang raped by three men in an alley. She now carries a giant gun in her purse and you want her defenseless?

            Not everyone has the luxury of police around the corner or to see guns as a hobby like you do. Especially the population of “children” you’re referring to. Let me shed some light for you.

            The fact is that these stats aren’t a majority school shootings. These homicides are male inner city black ADULT youth who are given the worst cards in life and they have gotten zero attention. This is gang violence politicized.

            The pandemic hit this population hardest and the facts show it here. Look at deaths from ALL types of things and it’s gone up in this particular minority population. It’s disheartening because it’s been like this for decades and people are thinking it would be solved if only you could remove the guns.

            The appropriate response is (if you’re not already) supporting programs and services that help people who are suffering from poverty and mental health illness. Not making my family and friends defenseless.

            Edit - My mother wanted to add that she also peppered sprayed the guy the week before. He came back.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s the Same Old Same Old “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” authoritarian push to limit the freedoms of the citizenry. Communists, Terrorists, Pedophiles, and Satanists are all coming to get your babies and only Big Brother can save you by restricting your naughty freedoms.

          The reality is that if you look at the overall statistics, 99.9999% of children aged 0-18 in the USA are unaffected by gun violence. So I am not compelled to trade any of my freedom for more alleged safety.

      • partizan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course they not, because its not about the info or the facts, its about the agenda…

    • moistclump@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re dead 18 year olds. If my 18 year old child died, I wouldn’t debate their age or the statistics.

      More than 1 accidental death is 1 too many.

      • Hardeehar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not arguing that though. I totally agree that any loss of life is wrong.

        And the use of child in your context is different from the use of child in the context of this discussion.