US surgeon general declares gun violence a public health crisis
US surgeon general declares gun violence a public health crisis
The U.S. surgeon general is declaring gun violence a public health crisis, driven by a growing number of injuries and deaths involving firearms in the country. Dr.
I hope I can ask this without leading to a bunch of religious fervor about pro or anti-2A. For the record I support having some rights to guns, but as long as anyone claims 2A is a reason we can't have sensible legislation about guns, then I'm against 2A entirely. I say that in effort to establish I'm not asking in bad faith.
Violent crime is at an all time low, according to many articles. So how is gun violence at an all time high? Is there an excess of non-criminal gun violence? Like perhaps suicide is at a high? Police shootings making up the difference? Is there gun violence showing up in hospitals that isn't being reported to law enforcement? Is there a different standard of what constitutes gun violence between the healthcare and law enforcement communities?
I read the article and a couple of linked ones, but I couldn't find any answer. At first glance it doesn't seem like both things can be true, but I'm going to assume instead I'm just missing part of the picture, so what is it?
It's suicides. Almost 60% of gun deaths are suicides.
Gun deaths reached their last peak in the US around 1975. At that time the rate between homicide and suicide was about 50/50. So it's not like suicides were very low with guns, guns are probably the most quick and effective way to kill yourself and if you want to be dead, using a gun is the gold standard. Still, from 50% to 60% is a very significant change. It's also important to note, there is more variability in gun homicide than there is in suicide (though there is still a little bit of a positive correlation), so in times of low violent crime the disparity grows.
Thank you, genuinely. I'll see if I can confirm that explanation independently, but that gives me an angle to research.
If you compare the US with countries with very strict gun laws, e.g. Europe, you'll probably find that the difference between their low gun violence rate and the high gun violence rate in the US is related to the easy access to weapons in the US.
It's also related to the general inequality in the US compared to Europe, especially economic. It created a lot of desperation in the US. But half the country is also not willing to do anything about that, because that's "socialism" or whatever. And round and round we go.
Sure but that isn't the point of my question, and treads perilously close to the area I'm trying to avoid. I'm not interested in the political decision here, but the facts that purport to underlie it.
I can't argue in favor of this action citing facts that not only seem to be bullshit, but also threaten to undermine the narrative that people don't need guns for protection because violent crime is so low.
Here we have the surgeon general saying gun violence is so bad it's an emergency. How is that going to play with people who hoard guns out of xenophobic paranoia over their own safety?
Things can be better than they used to be, and still not be good or acceptable.
Absolutely. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been done. But the article states the reason for it is an all time high gun violence and I'm just having trouble reconciling that with all time low violent crime.
If this is a tool that can be effective in addressing gun violence, I'm 100% for it. But I can't fucking stand bullshit. If you can't build a case for taking action without lying to people, stay at the drawing board until you work it out.
That said, just because something trips my bullshit meter doesn't mean it's a lie. So I'd be remiss not to seek out a better understanding. I'm damn sure going to be called out on it myself if I defend it to more right-leaning folks in my life, so my own reputation is on the line and I'm not going to be caught repeating bullshit when I argue so hard to get them to check their facts.
I imagine it's stuff like these 2 articles linked in the op
https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence-science-health-covid-mental-20f5e2cb5fb50ff747fe316fdc4db5c4
https://apnews.com/article/violence-mass-shootings-summer-b004331ee7d3da95bce6646547f8d43f
The study shows gun violence rising, and that does include suicides. Though its most likely spurred on by the mass shootings mentioned in the second link. Taking those together explains the proposed measures.
That makes sense. So you're suggesting that maybe the number of violent crimes has gone down but the number of victims per crime has gone up? It doesn't seem like there are enough mass shootings to account for that big of a difference, but I can see where it would contribute. Suicides seems to be the leading candidate for now.
What constitutes violent crime? I would assume crimes that don't involve guns have gone down enough to make up the difference.
That's definitely part of the question.
Not all violent crime is gun violence.
You used to have 20,000 violent crimes a year, 500 of which were violent gun crimes. Now you have 5000 violent crimes a year and they're mostly gun violence, then violent crime would be at an all time low while gun violence was at an all time high.
I'm completely making this up, but that's how I read it.
Could be. I just picture guns to be involved in a much larger proportion of violent crimes.
Minutes later reports people threatening to shoot him because guns are not dangerous.
Permanently Deleted
Mom! Mom! Shuddap Mom! New copypasta dropped.
I'm going to take this as sarcasm. If it's not, I'd recommend you see a doctor asap.
Gun policy can be a politically divisive issue and is likely something we will hear frequently about in the lead up to the 2024 presidential election. As such, the candidates have differing views on gun policy. President Biden makes gun control a principal issue in his administration, using executive orders, legislation, and public calls on the gun industry to help achieve his goals of reducing the amount of gun violence in the United States.
Former President Trump has not maintained a consistent stance regarding gun policy since 2016. At times, he opposed background checks, assault weapons bans, and red flag laws. However, while in office Trump pledged his support of red flag laws, banned bump stocks, and voiced support for universal background checks.
You can learn more about all the candidates' positions on gun policy here: https://ace-usa.org/blog/election-2024/gun-policy-overview/
Okay? I think it's been a fucking problem for a while but okay. Yay election years!!!
The headline for this story was corrected to reflect that the surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, had declared gun violence a public health crisis, rather than a public health emergency. The surgeon general does not have the power to declare a public health emergency.
OP might want to update the title of this post.
Done. Thanks for the info.
Guns don’t kill people. I do.
Guns are the tool used for people to kill people. It's a lot harder to drive a screw in without a screwdriver.
.... I kill people ch ch with guns.
Nail guns ftw
What constitutes violent crime? I would assume crimes that don't involve guns have gone down enough to make up the difference.
Knives and pipe bombs will replace the guns if need be.
Wealth inequality is the real problem that's causing a spike in violence, not guns per se.
I highly doubt that a knife or pipe bomb could have killed 60 and wounded more than 400 from a Vegas hotel room. Guns are the most effective tool people use to kill other people and it's designed for just that.
That being said, yes, economic inequality is absolutely an important cause of much crime and desperation in the US. But half of the population also won't do anything about that, because less inequality is "socialism" or whatever. And round and round we go.
Trying to encompass guns under his field and jurisdiction of control is a pretty sleazy sidestep of intent of the position. It's not really his job.
It is if we're acknowledging the mental health component.