It’s a shame that you took my “broken homes” comment as an insult against single parents. I was raised by a single parent and hadn’t realized that term was applicable. “Unstable families” is what I meant to portray.

My comment was intended to be an encouraging remark, a reminder that being a kind, loving parent can change the country for the better, even if the legislation we push for is not passed or the candidates we vote for are not elected.

“Broken homes” was meant to describe families that have an abusive, drug using, etc. parent or some other characteristic that causes the child to be raised in a less than loving and stable environment. I hope we can agree that that is not the best environment for raising a child and that that child is less likely to be as emotionally stable or successful as a child raised in a stable home. I didn’t think I was at risk of offending anyone with that comment, especially since the type of people who read this blog seem to be the those that are concerned about their children’s well being and are privileged enough to have computer access and the time to read blogs and thus likely wouldn’t fall into that category.

I disagree that my comment is as absurd as the statement you compared it to. The color of your skin (physical appearance) should have no impact on violent tendencies (unless you’re implying that it does?), while how you are raised and your childhood upbringing would likely influence your behavior (environment). Of course, not every abused, lonely child is going to end up as a mass murder, but I hope we can agree that there is likely a link.

Just because something may not be possible to achieve (every child being raised in a healthy, happy home), doesn’t mean it is not a solution or movement in the right direction. A man raised to respect women is unlikely to commit rape. A child raised to respect life and to healthily deal with anger is significantly less likely to hurt others. There are many issues in this country that stem from cultural problems and cannot necessarily be fixed with government legislation.

Again, my comment was intended to be an encouraging remark, a reminder that raising kids in a loving home can have an immensely positive impact on this country.

While trying to contribute in an encouraging and caring way, I apparently manage to insult and unintentionally “mom shame”. This was a good reminder that we live in an era that individuals are easily offended and that I must be more aware of the language I use.

___

Cassie:

There is so much research about the “best way” to reduce gun violence, and this is not on the list. -L

Thank you, Erinkate. Although some of the links actually are worth clicking, but not for the reasons she’s leading you believe. The CNN link, for example (3) includes the following:
“the raw numbers of gun violence paint a chilling picture of America’s intimate relationship with firearms.”

“U.S. leads world in guns per capita”

“In the U.S., guns are used in homicides more often than in many other countries”

“U.S. gun violence kills significantly more people than terrorism — even factoring in 9/11”

“Nearly 70% of homicides were committed with firearms from 2007 to 2011”

“Firearm deaths among leading causes of death”

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/

Thank you for so thoroughly and thoughtfully rebutting the arguments of Carrie G. that were sourced by less than unbiased or truthful sources, that would victim blame instead of reaching for real solutions and that reek of privilege.

I also appreciate you consolidating the info for groups that may help us to Action. I have long been a MomsRising member and I am so grateful for them (and for you) for elevating the discussion and amplifying the voices of those who need to be heard so that we can make a better future for our kids.

Thank you Anne, we’re grateful for your caring too.

I’d like to point out to our readers that crimereasearch. org is a pro-gun website founded by gun advocates, with a board of directors that includes Ted Nugent and Sheriff David Clarke. Their goal is to sell more guns, and therefore I discount their conclusions.

A better group to consider is the non-partisan Doctors for America in addition to the sources here.
https://www.drsforamerica.org/issues/gun-violence-research-ban

I’d also like to say that on a personal level, I’m really disturbed that there’s an attempt to minimize the impact of gun fatalities in this country, especially when the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, want common sense legislation with a proven impact on safety and public health.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

Do you know how many children died in fires before we started putting chemicals in pajamas by law? Not many. How many children get a finger pinched in a stroller before that stroller is recalled? Not many. How many people get sick from lettuce before we recall all lettuce and start looking at how to avoid that happening again? Not many.

But here we are looking at tens of thousands of actual preventable deaths — 46 children and teens shot EACH DAY — and trying to argue that we shouldn’t do a thing to fix the problem? I just can’t buy that.
https://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics

“Stay away from bad areas” is not a solution. It is a privilege for those of us who have the means to live elsewhere, and it is not nearly an answer to a huge problem.

It also implies that lives taken by gang violence, domestic violence, or suicide are somehow less important than others, and not worthy of consideration in the same way as mass shooting victims. A child shot in gang violence or a mother shot by an abusive husband does not deserve any less consideration than a student shot in their high school.

If you look at the total number of mass shootings since Sandy Hook alone, in which four or more people were murdered, there have been at least 1,607 mass shootings, with at least 1,846 people killed and 6,459 wounded. Every one of those 1,846 people was a parent, a sibling, a spouse, or a friend to someone.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

When there are fewer guns, there are fewer suicides. This is proven over and over again. When there are fewer guns there are fewer domestic homicides. There are nearly 1000 domestic homicides a year caused by firearms, and yet we’re not passing laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-guns-domestic-violence/gun-laws-targeting-domestic-abusers-tied-to-fewer-homicides-idUSKCN1BT2N9

The US has the most homicides per million people — that’s 6 times more than Canada, nearly 16 times more than Germany. That’s unacceptable.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

Of course all of this indicates a public health epidemic, but congress, with support of millions from the gun lobby, has forbade the CDC being able to research and report on the impacts of gun control on death and injury since 1996. That’s as unconscionable as the corn refinery lobbyists paying to hide facts about the impacts of HFCS on our health.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/

More than 100 medical and public health groups, including the AMA have urged Congress to end the ban on gun violence research. Even the current HHC Secretary supports researching gun violence as a public health epidemic
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/374075-trump-health-chief-supports-cdc-research-on-gun-violence

Mass killings in the US are most often carried out with handguns, most often legally obtained. The solution to that: creating laws that will increase public safety.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

Comparing cars (used for purposes other than killing) to guns (designed specifically for killing) is a logical fallacy, but since you brought it up, let’s discuss how auto fatalities have decreased over the years: Through the implementation of safety standards like airbags and ALB technology on the manufacturing end; then requiring drivers tests, requiring insurance, lowering speed limits, cracking down on drunk driving, and passing seat belt laws on the legislative end. These common sense changes have saved in the range of 17,000 American lives a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

So call it an epidemic or not — it doesn’t make the problem any less of a moral failing, and any less worthy of implementing solutions that can save thousands of lives.

When we look cancer rates in America, we don’t blame the victims, and we certainly don’t say, “well just say away from inner cities or living near power plants and you’ll be fine!” We do research, we institute protections, we ban products that cause cancer, we support victims and their families, we push for more prevention, and we save as many lives as we can. That’s who we are.