Gun Control vs School Shootings in Terms of Child Deaths

[LogGrad98]

Ok, so let's just lay it out there. I posted a rant recently about gun control and school shootings and I thought it would be interesting to see where people stand, in our little forum at least.

The question is, AT WHAT COST IS IT WORTH IGNORING GUN VIOLENCE AND ENSURING THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT INFRINGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM?

Or, what cost is worth maintaining our right to bear arms and keep all guns out there safely out of the hands of the government and firmly in the hands of hobbyist, militarist preppers, mentally ill people, and criminals. The stats show that in republican lead states gun laws tend to get looser after school shootings, and in democrat states they tend to get tighter. But obviously this is a tough nut to crack.

We are also, by far, the worst in the entire world for gun violence and particularly school shootings. The graphs I have seen are ridiculous.

School Shootings by Country 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

Total gun deaths we are similarly among the worst. In fact the only countries worse than use are due to significant gang and drug-related activies.

Gun Deaths by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

So let's just look at child deaths. Firearms are the #1 cause of child mortality in America. How about that?

Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries | KFF

Firearms were responsible for 20 percent of all child and teen deaths in the U.S. for both 2020 and 2021, compared to an average of less than 2 percent in similarly large and wealthy nations. This puts the U.S. far ahead of peer nations in child and teen firearm deaths.

www.kff.org

So, what is the cost we are willing to pay for virtually unfettered access to guns for pretty much everyone? Let's put it in terms of children killed per year, how about that? How many child deaths are you willing to accept annually to keep the right to keep and bear arms completely free and clear of any regulation, other than what is on the books right now, which has been proven to be all but completely ineffective?

This is not a place for "yeah, well, we can't do nothing about it anyway" or ******** excuses like that. No, this is simply about what your 2nd amendment right means to you, put in terms of child deaths. It is a more inflammatory and indirect way to look at willingness to accept stricter gun laws around protecting children specifically. If you have ideas how we can do that, please share. Also, I am making this anonymous so you can feel safe in expressing your opinion, but if you want, tell us why you voted how you did.

 

[Bucknutz]

Just clarifying here, are you wanting an emotional response or a logical one? I think people can answer this both ways. The child deaths pushes the emotional side of humans to answer it in an emotional way.

 

[LogGrad98]

Just clarifying here, are you wanting an emotional response or a logical one? I think people can answer this both ways. The child deaths pushes the emotional side of humans to answer it in an emotional way.

Yeah I did that purposely because we often don't take consequences into the equation sufficiently in my opinion. That is why I added levels that represent both, kind of. Honestly this is a somewhat snarky thread, but I was curious how we would think about this if we consider the consequences of such decisions, which up to now has been about 2.5k child deaths per year that simply didn't need to happen. So in short, vote how you feel best about it. But that is where the discussion begins.

I voted for step #2. I think we need some mandatory laws on the books, not full-on confiscation but way way better application of existing laws and tighten many of them up. I am in favor of mandatory confiscation of guns owned by felons, for example. I think of this in terms of the "1000 guilty men" thing. I would rather see 1000 convicted felons lose their right to gun ownership than see another child killed needlessly, etc.

Yes yes, none of this is a one for one. But somewhere we have to start really taking this seriously. And gun control is merely one side of a many-faceted issue, and that a multi-faceted side of its own.

So vote how you feel best about it, and what would you do about it, if anything. If you could wave a magic wand, what would you change to protect kids from gun violence and reduce gun violence in the country as a whole?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Just clarifying here, are you wanting an emotional response or a logical one? I think people can answer this both ways. The child deaths pushes the emotional side of humans to answer it in an emotional way.

Really? He's rigged the statistics by including suicides and assigning mandatory motives with the different levels. If you support the 2nd amendment then you want 3,000+ children to die.

Banning guns doesn't cause zero kids to die, as most of these are suicides and they'll find another way to suicide. Far more non-suicidal kids die from motor vehicles, and he isn't asking the same question about cars or assigning motives to owning a car.

He's framing an issue in a way that facilitates his moral grandstanding.

 

[LogGrad98]

Here is another interesting breakdown for more context.

Gun deaths among U.S. children and teens rose 50% in two years

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

Homicide was the largest single category of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, accounting for 60% of the total that year. It was followed by suicide at 32% and accidents at 5%. Among U.S. adults, by contrast, suicides accounted for a 55% majority of gun deaths in 2021.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think that you should be able to have guns, though not all guns with huge magazine capacities or silencers or bump stocks etc, but you should be required to take safety training every so often and you should be required to keep them in a safe. If your gun is used to hurt a human then you are responsible for that and face criminal charges. Of course background checks should be mandatory. Maybe even have some kind of aptitude/intelligence testing required to buy a gun. (though that one is definitely more extreme)

Regardless of what is done we will always be world leaders for gun deaths and shootings unless other countries stupidly decide its a good idea to let all of their citizens have guns. At this point the cat is out of the bag and cant be put back. Its too late sadly.

My guess is that if you could bring the Framers of the constitution, specifically James Madison, from 1791 (my daughter is learning about the constitution in school right now. Its been fun for me to learn along with her) into the future and see the kind of guns/firepower available to almost every tom dick and harry in the US and show them the statistics of how many people die due to this right that we have then I think that the Framers would prefer to replace the 2nd amendment with something else.
They would probably be horrified with what they had done.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah I did that purposely because we often don't take consequences into the equation sufficiently in my opinion. That is why I added levels that represent both, kind of. Honestly this is a somewhat snarky thread, but I was curious how we would think about this if we consider the consequences of such decisions, which up to now has been about 2.5k child deaths per year that simply didn't need to happen. So in short, vote how you feel best about it. But that is where the discussion begins.

I voted for step #2. I think we need some mandatory laws on the books, not full-on confiscation but way way better application of existing laws and tighten many of them up. I am in favor of mandatory confiscation of guns owned by felons, for example. I think of this in terms of the "1000 guilty men" thing. I would rather see 1000 convicted felons lose their right to gun ownership than see another child killed needlessly, etc.

Yes yes, none of this is a one for one. But somewhere we have to start really taking this seriously. And gun control is merely one side of a many-faceted issue, and that a multi-faceted side of its own.

So vote how you feel best about it, and what would you do about it, if anything. If you could wave a magic wand, what would you change to protect kids from gun violence and reduce gun violence in the country as a whole?

I also voted for step 2 but had a hard time deciding between 2 and 3.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think that you should be able to have guns, though not all guns with huge magazine capacities or silencers or bump stocks etc, but you should be required to take safety training every so often and you should be required to keep them in a safe. If your gun is used to hurt a human then you are responsible for that and face criminal charges. Of course background checks should be mandatory. Maybe even have some kind of aptitude/intelligence testing required to buy a gun. (though that one is definitely more extreme)

Regardless of what is done we will always be world leaders for gun deaths and shootings unless other countries stupidly decide its a good idea to let all of their citizens have guns. At this point the cat is out of the bag and cant be put back. Its too late sadly.

My guess is that if you could bring the Framers of the constitution, specifically James Madison, from 1791 (my daughter is learning about the constitution in school right now. Its been fun for me to learn along with her) into the future and see the kind of guns/firepower available to almost every tom dick and harry in the US and show them the statistics of how many people die due to this right that we have then I think that the Framers would prefer to replace the 2nd amendment with something else.
They would probably be horrified with what they had done.

Yeah, I agree here. Also, I purposely didn't list any of them as "NO GUNS ANYMORE ANYWHERE" as even in Australia and other countries with stricter gun laws, you can still own guns. It is just a much stricter vetting process that leads to gun ownership, including training, classes, practice with instructors, and registration of all guns owned by the citizenry. Germany is not a lot different. They also have strict vetting rules, including psychological evaluation and proof of expertise and need to own a gun. Why can't we require a psychological evaluation here as well?

Gun laws in Germany

You must understand gun laws in Germany if you own a gun. Here's a guide to gun control laws for civilians and the German police, and stats on gun crime.

www.iamexpat.de

Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PJF]

Mentally unstable people find guns regardless of the laws. No new laws would change that in any way.

 

[fishonjazz]

I also think another thing that would help and doesn't have anything to do with guns or gun laws would be to change the culture.

Don't allow video games like call of duty and grand theft auto. Don't allow movies like John wick. Dont allow movies that glorify violence.

But we are talking about freedom of speech again so that's a no go.

Basically the freedoms we have (free speech, right to own guns) make it impossible to give us more freedom to not get killed by each other.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

View attachment 17251

So with the laws we have now, there were 60 gun related homicides. The option above showing "the laws we have are fine" is next to 1,001 - 3,000 dead kids.

 

[fishonjazz]

Mentally unstable people find guns regardless of the laws. No new laws would change that in any way.

If you say "mentally unstable people can go to walmart and buy a gun and also can get them illegally" then that gives more options that "mentally unstable people can only get their guns illegally"

Making it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them is the goal.

By your logic we should sell guns to 3 year olds since a 3 year old could aquire a gun by illegal means.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

most of these are suicides and they'll find another way to suicide.

I really disagree with this.

I think if suicide can be done through a spur of the moment, impulsive decision, it's a lot more likely to happen than if it has to be something more than a simple pull of a trigger.

From below: "Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk. Handgun ownership is associated with both elevated and enduring risk of suicide by firearm, with rates of suicide by any method being higher among handgun owners"

Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk. Handgun ownership is associated with both elevated and enduring risk of suicide by firearm, with rates of…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

 

[PJF]

If you say "mentally unstable people can go to walmart and buy a gun and also can get them illegally" then that gives more options that "mentally unstable people can only get their guns illegally"

Making it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them is the goal.

By your logic we should sell guns to 3 year olds since a 3 year old could aquire a gun by illegal means.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

I was going to put a laughing emoji and then I realized you are seriously asking if this was my point ^

 

[fishonjazz]

I was going to put a laughing emoji and then I realized you are seriously asking if this was my point ^

Your point was that the mentally ill can get guns anyways so it's pointless to make it harder for the mentally ill to get guns.
I agree, that kind of thinking deserves a laughing emoji.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I really disagree with this.

I think if suicide can be done through a spur of the moment, impulsive decision, it's a lot more likely to happen than if it has to be something more than a simple pull of a trigger.

From below: "Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk. Handgun ownership is associated with both elevated and enduring risk of suicide by firearm, with rates of suicide by any method being higher among handgun owners"

Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk. Handgun ownership is associated with both elevated and enduring risk of suicide by firearm, with rates of…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

I cannot disagree with what you are saying here. It is likely that some would indeed be saved if there were no firearm in the house, but sadly a portion would still go on to end their lives.

 

[LogGrad98]

I also think another thing that would help and doesn't have anything to do with guns or gun laws would be to change the culture.

Don't allow video games like call of duty and grand theft auto. Don't allow movies like John wick. Dont allow movies that glorify violence.

But we are talking about freedom of speech again so that's a no go.

Basically the freedoms we have (free speech, right to own guns) make it impossible to give us more freedom to not get killed by each other.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

I hear what you are saying. However the last I read about it, the causal link between violent games and movies to gun violence is pretty tenuous. For the millions that consume that stuff, a very very marginal fraction actually engage in violence of that nature, and most studies suggest that they would anyway, even without it. I think one thing we do not adequately address is mental health. It is a crisis in our country, and we do not adequately assess or treat mentally ill teens or children, and the same for adults. Somehow that needs to be part of the equation, even if it is a mandatory psych screening to even own a gun, something like that would help, imo. But we need to incorporate that into health and well-being check-ups by our regular doctors, where they refer folks for psych screening and insurance is required to cover it (like in literally every single other developed nation, another area we are so far behind it is stupidly comically tragic), and those records could be voluntarily used to assess fitness to own a firearm.

I have no problem with much higher bars for owning guns, period. Background checks need to include references and even school behavioral records maybe. But the free-for-all we have now is stupid.

I bought a HK45 a few years back, in California, supposedly some of the strongest gun laws in the country. I went into my local dealer/shooting range guy, he was a great guy. He knew me from mostly there at the range. He had what I wanted in stock. I filled out all the forms, he threw in a nice hard case for it, as it is freaking expensive, and a few other minor accessories. Gave me a few hundres bucks off the price, so better than I could even find on placed like Bud's Gun Shop online. Brand new, out of the box, never fired. I added 2 boxes of different ammo, etc. All the fixings you might say. And while I completed the mandatory background check for Cali, he wrapped up my gun, handed it to me, and said "if there are any issues, I will let you know". No waiting, no nothing, took it home that day. I was happy to wait, but he just handed it to me, so I took it. I imagine if he didn't know me he wouldn't risk his license, but when I asked him about it another time he said they are so backed up on background checks that for good customers he just back-dates it, or something like that, and submits it and he has never had a problem with it, with good customers.

Yeah, these things could be much tighter with no other cost than inconvenience. If we cannot suffer some minor inconvenience to help curtail child deaths, then we have a true sickness as a society, imo.

 

[LogGrad98]

My guess is that if you could bring the Framers of the constitution, specifically James Madison, from 1791 (my daughter is learning about the constitution in school right now. Its been fun for me to learn along with her) into the future and see the kind of guns/firepower available to almost every tom dick and harry in the US and show them the statistics of how many people die due to this right that we have then I think that the Framers would prefer to replace the 2nd amendment with something else.
They would probably be horrified with what they had done.

To talk to this more fully, this is exactly why they gave us an amendment process for the constitution. They knew the times would change, hell, look at the changes they had just enacted themselves, and that we would need different sections, additions and even subtractions, based on recent trends and changes in society and in the nation as a whole. Look at the civil rights amendments for example. None of the founders would imagine blacks would be freed, but we enshrined that in the constitution anyway. But then we act like anything that even remotely suggests adjusting the bill of rights to better protect the citizenry is blasphemy of a religious nature and people spontaneously clean their guns for emotional support at the very thought that they might have to *gasp* register the gun with the state, like we do already buying new guns in many states. Oh noes! As if not registering it would completely derail any attempt at forced confiscation and the state would just go away. To reiterate, no one's personal arsenal will allow them to stand against the might of the American military, so that argument is moot and stupid to boot. Mootpid? Stupoot? Just look at the branch Davidians and how that turned out. It is asinine to not at least engage in the conversations without just crawling under a desk and screaming "muh rights, muh guns!!" over and over.

 

[Mongoose]

We should also ban cars, buses, airplanes, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, knives, large bodies of water, and every form of recreation since they are unnecessary and they contribute to deaths as well.

 

[fishonjazz]

We should also ban cars, buses, airplanes, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, knives, large bodies of water, and every form of recreation since they are unnecessary and they contribute to deaths as well.

None of those things exist just to kill. You can do other things with guns like target practice and whatnot but the reason they were created is to kill.

Cant say the same about anything you listed. There is the difference.