Right-wing gunmen

Pretty much *everybody* (including Mr.Barry) is well aware of that, I think.
Shaneberry is also almost certainly aware that kengreen's question about whether the gov is barring the trans community from purchasing guns is referring specifically to regulations that affect *only* trans people (to which the answer, I'm fairly certain, would be "no").

    He's just having a go at fascists supporters. 

You got me. I want trans people to have human rights and civil liberties.... I'm guilty as charged

I would like to know where the llama angle came in.

Because I've just been watching a lot of llama vids lately.

The original 'carl energy' reference made it even more ambiguous. It's a shame you edited it.

I didn't want to make him ask wtf is Carl. 

The NUMBER ONE cause of death among children and adolescents in the US is firearms.

Today President Biden's Twitter account tweeted this:

Guns are the #1 killer of kids in America.

More than car accidents and more than cancer. We can't let that become just another statistic.

Let's ban AR-15-style firearms and other assault weapons.

Thank goodness for the new Community Notes feature that lets people debunk misinformation by adding helpful and informative context to tweets.

Under Biden's tweet it says

According to the CDC, accidents are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.

The claim that guns are the leading cause of death for children would only be true if children under 1 are excluded and 18 and 19 year olds are counted as children.

with four link sources.

Snopes says:

The claim that guns were the leading cause of death for U.S. children in 2020 and 2021 is true only if the selected age range is 1-19 years old. This range excludes infants under one year old, who have a unique risk of age-specific causes of death. Similarly, capping the age range at 17, instead of 18 or 19, also alters the result, as children aged 17 and under have a greater risk of dying of vehicle-related injuries.

Defining the parameters of kids as past their first birthday up until their twentieth birthday isn't what comes to mind when people think of kids. It's misleading.

Actually, this is untrue.
Australia is a great example of how they "went back": there was a change in the law regarding the legality of certain types of guns. The government then had massive buyback campaigns which very effectively removed a significant percentage of those weapons from circulation - from 1996 to 1997, 650,000 were purchased and destroyed.
It wasn't perfect, of course, but it was effective enough that gun crimes dropped drastically -- gun homicides went down about 42%, and gun suicides down by 57%.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

The headline of the article link says:

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

With the removal of guns we would expect an immediate reduction.

Here's the suicide rate. Do you see a plummeting post 95 compared to 95? I don't. No reduction at all.

1995: 13.2
1996: 13.2
1997: 14.8
1998: 14.4
1999: 13.2

Here's the murder rate. Do you see a plummeting?

1992: 1.73
1993: 1.89
1994: 1.80
1995: 1.98
1996: 1.95
1997: 1.98
1998: 1.80
1999: 2.05
2000: 1.91
2001: 1.81
2002: 1.89

---------------

Not saying it didn't help, because there are so many other factors, but the headline is too confidently assertive. It's a boner, frankly. "Rates stayed the same, but then seven years later dropped, must be because of the buyback years ago" is too much of an assumption. I can't trust Vox as an objective media source anymore. And I also can't trust posters to be correct when they post a link and make an assertion without carefully looking at what the link says:

Australia's gun buyback program took place from late '96 to late '97. Since then the suicide rate has been consistently lower than in previous years.

False.

The headline of the article link says:

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

With the removal of guns we would expect an immediate reduction.

Here's the suicide rate. Do you see a plummeting post 95 compared to 95? I don't. No reduction at all.

1995: 13.2
1996: 13.2
1997: 14.8
1998: 14.4
1999: 13.2

Here's the murder rate. Do you see a plummeting?

1992: 1.73
1993: 1.89
1994: 1.80
1995: 1.98
1996: 1.95
1997: 1.98
1998: 1.80
1999: 2.05
2000: 1.91
2001: 1.81
2002: 1.89

---------------

Not saying it didn't help, because there are so many other factors, but the headline is too confidently assertive. It's a boner, frankly. "Rates stayed the same, but then seven years later dropped, must be because of the buyback years ago" is too much of an assumption. I can't trust Vox as an objective media source anymore. And I also can't trust posters to be correct when they post a link and make an assertion without carefully looking at what the link says:

False.

Was there a reason you stopped at 2002?

Suicide rate in 2021 was 12.0, which isn't a massive drop but is statistically meaningful.

But murder rate in 2021 was 0.82 which is less than half what it was in the years you found.

The lower suicide rate in 2021 is due to the gun buy back 25 years prior? What kind of logic is that? We can't know for sure. The rate fluctuates. In 1993 it was 11.9.

Yes, after not going down, Australia's murder rate has been going down, but is it due to advancements in technology like more CCTV and improved police tracking methods to catch criminals? Yes, it is. But also other factors. No one can say for sure the extent to which it was the gun buy back.

Today President Biden's Twitter account tweeted this:

Guns are the #1 killer of kids in America.

More than car accidents and more than cancer. We can't let that become just another statistic.

Let's ban AR-15-style firearms and other assault weapons.

Thank goodness for the new Community Notes feature that lets people debunk misinformation by adding helpful and informative context to tweets.

Under Biden's tweet it says

According to the CDC, accidents are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.

The claim that guns are the leading cause of death for children would only be true if children under 1 are excluded and 18 and 19 year olds are counted as children.

with four link sources.

Snopes says:

The claim that guns were the leading cause of death for U.S. children in 2020 and 2021 is true only if the selected age range is 1-19 years old. This range excludes infants under one year old, who have a unique risk of age-specific causes of death. Similarly, capping the age range at 17, instead of 18 or 19, also alters the result, as children aged 17 and under have a greater risk of dying of vehicle-related injuries.

Defining the parameters of kids as past their first birthday up until their twentieth birthday isn't what comes to mind when people think of kids. It's misleading.

Snopes gave the very good reasons why that age range was used. Thus, NOT misleading.

Not misleading? Why then did the twitter community upvote the note enough to be there. I'm glad it's there to explain how "kids" is defined.

Not misleading? Why then did the twitter community upvote the note enough to be there. I'm glad it's there to explain how "kids" is defined.

"The twitter community"--that is pathetic. For your own sake, get a life.

Those sourced community notes are akin to sourced edits of Wikipedia. It’s democratic. Improves understanding. A counterbalance to political propaganda.

Those sourced community notes are akin to sourced edits of Wikipedia. It’s democratic. Improves understanding. A counterbalance to political propaganda.

You have got to be kidding. Why not just quote fortune cookies?

As for propaganda, that's pretty much your bag.

All politicians should have their feet held to the fire, including your hero Joe Biden.

Here’s an example of the good it does:
————————

The White House deleted a tweet crediting President Joe Biden for a forthcoming increase in monthly Social Security payments following a fact-check noting that the increase was automatic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/11/02/white-house-deletes-misleading-tweet-giving-biden-credit-for-social-security-check-raise/amp/

The White House account claimed, “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in ten years through President Biden’s leadership,” but a note was later added pointing out that the increase is due to a law President Richard Nixon signed in 1972 tying Social Security payments to the consumer price index, which tracks inflation.

Street beefs in the hood push up the numbers at the higher end of the age scale.



Is an 18 year old a child? Is a 19 year a child? Is a human under one year old not a child? If you say yes to all, the Biden stat is true.

Enough Biden supporters downvoted the community note it is no longer there. I was thinking the tweet would be deleted, so bad it looked with the attachment.  ‘Twas not to be. ㅠ ㅠ

Let trump, abbott, and desanctimonious scream and holler about illegal immigrants--the real killers are part of their base.

Old white men and guns appear to be a volatile mix.

Even though they are the majority of the population, whites are responsible for one in five gun homicides. For Asian Americans, the number is so low it can be rounded down to zero.

Meaning it is not just the existence of guns and availability of guns, but cultural problems at play.

Out of wedlock births. 

Sociopathic music that glorifies killing.

Kids raised by single mothers are fourteen times more likely to end up murdering.

Most black kids are born out of wedlock.

Most white kids are not born out of wedlock.

Hardly any Asian kids are born out of wedlock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers.

Mississippi is a red state and it has a high murder rate. Right wingers are the real killers, right? That was the logic used earlier. But check out who within the state is doing the killing:

Missouri is another red state discussed in an earlier thread. A lot of it is rural, yes, but it also has the big city St. Louis.

"Homicide Suspects"

I suspect L I of being a murderer and a cryptocurrency scammer. I should make a chart....

Speaking of which, great source, L I. I checked out @UnbiasedCrime on Twitter. It's much as I expected - breathless documentation of black Americans committing crime, peppered with anti-immigrant hysteria, jabs at Democratic politicians, retweets from right-wing crackpots, conspiracy theories, memes and caricatures of black people, and highly credible statements from the likes of Yeonmi Park about how Chicago is more dangerous than North Korea.

Anyway, unlike our site's famously high-IQ excavator of data, I was curious enough about @UnbiasedCrime's stats to take a look at the source for the St. Louis graph. I don't want to shock anyone, but @UnbiasedCrime might not be an entirely good faith actor. They left out the 77 homicides where race was listed as "unknown". So according to the St. Louis PD, at the end of 2022 there were 225 outstanding homicide suspects and 62% of them were classified as black, not 95%.

As L I would say... Wow, that's a big difference.

Might also be worth noting that "suspects" ≠ "convicted murderers", the previous year's homicide clearance rate was 55%, and 6.5% were ruled as "justifiable". Just some factors that some people would consider before using language like "who is doing the killing."

But anyway, thank you for elevating the discourse on Waygook.org, L I. You've set a great example for others.