I agree. The "students per million", and the number of students per year should both be analyzed. I don't remember the 1989 shooting either.
That doesn't come close to explaining it. If the number of students killed remained constant and the population increased -- yes, students killed per million would go down. You are absolutely right. It would also decrease if the population increased faster than shooting deaths. But even if we assume the most conservative case, that the raw # of deaths/year remains constant while population doesn't, the population increase alone doesn't explain the drop. Here's why: The population of children under age 18 in the United States in 1990 was 64.2 million and 74.1 million in 2010. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/number-of-children/ That website only gives projections after 2010 but let's be ultra conservative and use their 2050 estimate for the end date of the study, which is 2015, and their 1990 stat for 1992, which is the first year of the study. Then .57 deaths per million when there were 64.2 million is .57*64.2 which rounds up to 37 deaths. 37 deaths when there are 80 million is 37/80 = .46 deaths per million. Now look at the chart with this number in mind. The raw number of incidents is also down (see chart before deaths/million).
Yep, but the previous chart (at least on my screen) doesn't detail the values on the Y axis so it's hard to know if the decrease was 20 incidents or 2 from beginning to end. 20 would be something. 2 might be statistical noise. Regardless, the fact that vastly more children die in swimming accidents (to take one example) coupled with the complete and total lack of political movement behind safer pools and more lifeguards (again, as an example) shows that the driver has nothing to do with children and everything to do with guns.
The y-axis was barely visible on my screen so I've enhanced the contrast. Not sure if you can see that either but it's gone from the 30s to a handful. Absolutely.
David Hogg Is Fair Game for Critics The Parkland survivor has chosen to insert himself into an important national policy debate. We who disagree with his views on guns have a duty to speak up against them. David Hogg, the telegenic 17-year-old who survived the shooting in Parkland, is not a crisis actor, an FBI plant, or the secret brainchild of a Soros-backed CNN plot. He’s a political advocate engaged in a political debate, and he should be treated as such. Since the multiple murders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Hogg has emerged as a sort of Schrödinger’s Pundit, whose status within the debate sits contingent upon his critics’ willingness to push back. The game being played with his testimony — by adults, not by Hogg — is as transparent as it is cynical. For ten days now, Hogg has been as permanent a fixture on the nation’s TV screens as anyone bar the president. In each appearance, he has been invited without reply to share his ideas on our public policy. This he has done, emphatically. Among the proposals that Hogg has advanced are that the most popular rifle in America be federally prohibited; that the NRA be regarded as a haven for “child murderers”; that Americans boycott Amazon, FedEx, and the state of Florida; and that Governor Rick Scott take responsibility for the failures of another elected official. In addition, Hogg has held a gun-control rally in New Jersey, slammed the president as a coward, criticized the federal response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico, made comments in support of funding for wind and solar power, taken a pre-emptive stand on Florida’s imminent senatorial election, and suggested that, as a matter of general policy, cops cannot be expected to protect the citizenry if they believe they might be outgunned. For this advocacy — and that’s what it is — Hogg has been feted as a key leader within a “mass movement” that is determined to reform America; he has been praised for his attempt to “force change”; he has been cast, including by himself, as a lion who refuses to back down; and, in some of the more cunning quarters of the left, he has been turned into a walking demonstration of the need to lower the voting age. At no point has anyone hosting him suggested that his relevance is limited to his capacity to describe his experience; rather, he has in every instance been asked to join a public political fight — a fight, remember, that relates to nothing less foundational than the American Bill of Rights. And yet, when other Americans have seen fit to respond, Hogg’s defenders have cast him upon the instant in diametrically opposite terms: As an irrelevance; as a mere “kid”; as a grieving ornament who sits well outside of our national conversation. This is extraordinary. How obvious, one wonders, do his champions intend to make it that they are using him to launder their views? And how clearly must they reveal that, despite their protestations to the contrary, they in fact have no respect whatsoever for his agency? Far from being “mean,” those contending with Hogg’s pronouncements are accepting that he has an opinion, and that it is worth countering. In the last few days, a handful of people have begun to push back against the substance of Hogg’s views, and, in each case, have been met with the insistence that they should simply “ignore him” as they would ignore a tenth-grade book report. Yesterday, I criticized Hogg for his routine incoherence, and immediately encountered a host of apologists who submitted that to engage with his remonstrations was “mean” or “inappropriate” or an example of “punching down.” The political incentives behind this tactic are obvious, but, substantively, the line has it utterly backward. It is condescending to ignore somebody arguing about politics, not to take them on. Far from being “mean,” those contending with Hogg’s pronouncements are accepting that he has an opinion, and that it is worth countering — that is, they are doing exactly what Hogg’s boosters have asked: treating him as the leader of a movement. Could it be, perhaps, that those boosters don’t really mean what they are saying? Or could it be, perhaps, that Hogg has become a liability and that his champions now regret having thrust him into the limelight? One certainly couldn’t blame them if they did, for Hogg is in fact a pretty poor advocate. And why, pray, would he be otherwise? Suffering through a terrible crime gives a person no special insight into its causes, and Hogg has no special insight into its causes — or, frankly, into anything else. He’s ignorant about basic civics; he’s liable to backward reasoning; and, unable as he is to synthesize the evolving talking points upon which he relies, he has increasingly come across as slippery. In perhaps his most embarrassing moment thus far, he shifted from arguing that the cop on duty who stood outside and did nothing while his classmates were slaughtered was correct to demur (not a great message, all told) to making the opposite case when he sensed an opportunity to lay the blame at the feet of Governor Scott — who, of course, had nothing to do with running the sheriff’s department responsible for failing to save his classmates. Demosthenes he is not. Even worse has been Hogg’s attitude toward those who have had the temerity to disagree with him. Here, one suspects, he has been let down by those around him, the loudest of whom have evidently led him to believe that our complex political discourse can be circumvented by the blunt issuing of demands. The gun debate in America remains intractable, consisting not only of difficult legislative questions, but of elaborate constitutional, sociopolitical, historical, and criminal inquiries, too. For some reason, David Hogg has come to suppose that he can slice through this reality by issuing threats: Give me what I want, or I’ll stop using FedEx; give me what I want, or I won’t go back to school; give me what I want, or Florida’s economy gets it. And, by the way, I’m going to outlive you… 12 This, suffice it to say, is not how republics work, and whether he likes it or not, Hogg lives in a republic. There is no Angry Victim clause in our constitutional text. David Hogg is an American, and he should speak as often and as loudly as he wishes. Moreover, if CNN believes that its present monomania will serve it well in the long run, it should continue to give him a platform. But there must be no inoculation for either party, nor must those who agree with the gun-control agenda attempt to shield its purveyors from rebuttal. Hogg did not choose to be involved in a school shooting; that, sadly, was beyond his control. But he has now chosen to play pundit on a topic of import to millions. And, in a free and robust nation, once that line is crossed, all bets are bound to be off.
Another example of how false information continues to push a narrative. The Ft. Hood gunman was able to kill so many because no one was allowed to carry a firearm other than the MPs, who had to go and find the assailant and take him out.
Not trying to change the debate or open a new can of worms but speaking of the children... interesting how Roe v. Wade is "settled law" while the Second Amendment -- which is above the law -- is an outdated relic. Especially since there are over 100 X as many abortions *per day* as were killed in the Florida school shooting.
First Thanks to Tsing Tao for starting this thread. It's helped me realize that if we had the will it is not impractical , though it would be expensive, for the U.S. to rid itself of military weapons in civilian hands, all semi-automatic handguns, all other handguns with barrel lengths so short as to be easily concealed , and all semiautomatic rifles that can fire more than a few rounds without reloading. Of course it would be impossible to do this in a short time, but it is doable over say a ten year period. Of course we all realize that ridding ourselves of these types of firearms means getting the number down to virtually zero; not absolute zero. But what really stands out to me, having participated in this thread, is how easily we could rid ourselves of just military weapons in civilian hands that have absolutely no purpose beyond military. Such would in no why inconvenience anyone except those wishing to wreak havoc. These weapons are entirely devoid of useful purpose in our society. This is easy to do and we should begin as quickly as legislation can be passed. A ban on bumpstocks should naturally be included. As an additional measure, I favor adopting Canada's gun laws. But that is another issue altogether. The only way uniform, universal background checks, including private transfers of ownership, can be enforced is if there is a way to track these transactions and connect them to specific firearms. A national data base of all fire arms owned, including both serial numbers and owner's identification information, would be needed. I favor this as well. A compromise, however, would be strict registration and universal, uniform background checks and waiting periods for all ownership transfers, commercial and private, of semiautomatic firearms only. Non-semiautomatic firearms bought from dealers would be subject to background checks but no registration would be required for these firearms. Without serial number registration connected to a specific owner there is no practical way to enforce universal back ground checks for private sales. By the way, none of what I have suggested here violates our Second Amendment as interpreted by D.C. v Heller. (Those wanting virtually no restrictions on gun ownership usually resort to one rejoinder: "But that would violate the Second Amendment." I find these folks woefully uninformed. They obviously haven't read Heller in its entirety, or if they did, they didn't understand it.
I'm not sure anyone else on the other side of the argument than you would agree that it is not impractical if we had the will, unless you mean if everyone magically had the will to turn their firearms in at the same time. Of course, if everyone woke up one morning and decided peace and love were the way to go, they could ride their unicorns in to their local police department and hand over all of their guns. But the reality is that some legal owners of firearms just might turn their stuff in, and most would not. Certainly those with illegally owned firearms would not. At that point you bring up that, over time, the illegal firearms would deteriorate or something and eventually no one would have guns. The real world just doesn't work that way, and even if it did, you're asking folks to disarm themselves and live among criminals for "some period of time" - fat chance. I sure as hell wouldn't do it.