Youth gun deaths in the U.S. have surged 50% since 2019
A 7-year-old boy picks up a handgun during the 2022 National Rifle Association annual convention in Houston. The number of firearm deaths among children and teens in the United States have jumped 50% since 2019. (Photo by)
Firearm-related deaths among children and teenagers in the United States have risen sharply in recent years, increasing by 50% since 2019.
In 2023, firearms remained the leading cause of death among American youth for the third year in a row, followed by motor vehicle accidents, according to the latest mortality data released by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The data shows 2,581 children aged 17 and under died from firearm-related incidents in 2023, including accidents, homicides and suicides, with a national rate of nearly four gun deaths per 100,000 children.
Young people in the United States were killed by firearms at a rate nearly three times higher than by drowning. This means that for every child who died from drowning in 2023, nearly three died from gun violence.
'Every single number is a life lost — is a kid that won't go back home,' said Silvia Villarreal, the director of research translation at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Children, she added, are an inherently vulnerable population, and this vulnerability is even more pronounced among children of color.
Black children and teens in 2023 were more than eight times as likely to die from firearm homicide than their white peers. Since 2015, firearms have been the leading cause of death for Black youth, according to CDC data.
Since 2018, firearm suicide rates have been highest among American Indian or Alaska Native and white children and teens. In 2023, American Indian and Alaska Native youth had the highest firearm suicide rate of any racial group.
Youth gun deaths don't just affect family members, close loved ones and friends; they ripple through entire communities, making it difficult for people to heal, Villarreal told Stateline.
'Communities that have suffered really high-impact losses are never the same, and I don't know if it's possible to be ever the same as it was before,' Villarreal said.
One of the major policies championed by gun control and safety groups to address youth gun violence is safe storage laws, which establish guidelines for how firearms should be stored in homes, vehicles and other properties. In recent years, some states also have proposed and adopted measures to create tax credits for purchasing gun safes.
Twenty-six states have child access prevention and secure storage laws on the books, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control research and advocacy group.
A report released in July by RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization, found that laws designed to limit children's access to stored firearms may help reduce firearm suicides, unintentional shootings and firearm homicides among youth.
This year, lawmakers in states across the country — including in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin — have considered gun storage policies.
Stateline reporter Amanda Hernández can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.
This article was first published by Stateline, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
16 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Shares Medicaid Data With Deportation Officials: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration provided immigration officials with the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients this week, including their immigration status, the Associated Press reported. Newsweek contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for comment on Saturday via online press inquiry forms. Why It Matters During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history. Since returning to office on January 20, the president has overseen widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations across the country. The administration's use of Medicaid data, which could be used to track migrants, has raised questions about data security and federal government power. What To Know Citing an internal memo and emails, the AP reported that two close advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered officials at the CMS to transfer Medicaid data to immigration enforcement personnel at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday. The publication said the order was given after Medicaid employees initially sought to prevent the transfer based on legal and ethical concerns, and that they were given 54 minutes to comply with the renewed request. The information handed over included data from California, Washington state, Illinois and Washington, D.C.—all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to apply for state-funded Medicaid. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY DHS employees' use of the data could affect migrants' ability to apply for permanent residency or citizenship if they have received federally funded Medicaid. Under the Trump administration's direction, the Internal Revenue Service has also been providing information to ICE that could help track illegal migrants. A legal bid to block the order was defeated in May. Last month, the CMS announced a review into Medicaid enrollment to ensure federal money had not been used to fund coverage for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status." The agency said the move was to comply with the "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders" executive order that Trump issued on February 19. What People Are Saying Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in statement provided to Newsweek: "HHS and CMS take the integrity of the Medicaid program and the protection of American taxpayer dollars extremely seriously. With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them. He continued: "This action is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the systemic neglect and policy failures under the Biden-Harris administration that opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hardworking Americans to foot the bill." Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said Trump had "promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries. To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans." California Governor Gavin Newsom said: "This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to continue its hard-line immigration policies. It remains to be seen whether the transfer of data from the HHS to the DHS will be challenged in court.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
CNN's Sara Sidner opens up about losing Ananda Lewis to breast cancer and her upcoming surgery: ‘How am I doing? I don't know right now, honestly.'
In an emotional interview with TheGrio's Natasha S. Alford, CNN anchor Sara Sidner reflects on the loss of Ananda Lewis, the mental toll of breast cancer, and the health disparities Black women continue to face. After a week filled with deep loss and reflection, CNN anchor Sara Sidner spoke with TheGrio's Natasha S. Alford about something far more personal than the headlines she usually covers: her ongoing battle with breast cancer and the recent passing of her dear friend, Ananda Lewis. In a raw and heartfelt moment, Sidner described the 'tornado of emotions' she's been experiencing as she grieves Lewis—who also battled breast cancer—and simultaneously prepares for her own reconstructive surgery. 'How am I doing? I don't know right now, honestly,' she admitted to Alford when asked how she was doing. 'I can't really explain the tornado of emotions that is swirling around in my body right now. Losing Ananda Lewis after having sat with her just a few months ago and talked about our decisions for our health and knowing that part of her decision was a bit of a trust of the traditional ways of medicine in this country. Sidner pointed to the stark racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes. According to the American Cancer Society, Black women are about 40% more likely to die from the disease than white women. This harsh reality is due to factors like late-stage detection, other health conditions that complicate the disease, and inadequate access to care. She continued: 'Knowing that we both took these different paths and that she was at peace with hers and that I'm at peace mine, but losing her was just a reminder of not only the deadliness that cancer can still med out, but also that it does it to black women more than their counterparts.' 'Having that light be turned off… is just a reminder of our mortality—and a reminder that my fight with this disease is not over.' Sidner shared that while she has completed some phases of treatment, her journey is ongoing. A major reconstructive surgery still lies ahead, and long-term medication will be part of her life for years to come. The emotional toll, she said, is just as real as the physical one. 'I think that's probably one of the hardest things about this particular kind of breast cancer, but cancer in general is you're always wondering is it gonna come back- when does it come back?' Sider reflected. 'There's a mental component of this that I think everyone has to recognize and deal with and try to make sure that there's no shame or blame that goes on both in your own mind and in your community.' Sidner's openness reflects the same themes of truth-telling and healing she explores in her latest CNN story, airing Sunday at 8PM ET on The special is called 'The Simril(l)s: A Family in Black and White' and follows one family—Black and white descendants linked by slavery—as they confront painful history and begin a conversation about reparations. More must-reads: Judge blocks Trump's election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach 7 iconic fictional (but real in our hearts) fathers we love, in honor of Father's Day Key moments from the fifth week of Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial
Atlantic
16 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Senator Who Failed America on Vaccines
It's easy to forget that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s assault on vaccines—including, most recently, his gutting of the expert committee that guides American vaccine policy—might have been avoided. Four months ago, his nomination for health secretary was in serious jeopardy. The deciding vote seemed to be in the hands of one Republican senator: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. A physician who gained prominence by vaccinating low-income kids in his home state, Cassidy was wary of the longtime vaccine conspiracist. 'I have been struggling with your nomination,' he told Kennedy during his confirmation hearings in January. Then Cassidy caved. In the speech he gave on the Senate floor explaining his decision, Cassidy said that he'd vote to confirm Kennedy only because he had extracted a number of concessions from the nominee—chief among them that he would preserve, 'without changes,' the very CDC committee Kennedy overhauled this week. Since then, Cassidy has continued to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt. On Monday, after Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Cassidy posted on X that he was working with Kennedy to prevent the open roles from being filled with 'people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' The senator has failed, undeniably and spectacularly. One new appointee, Robert Malone, has repeatedly spread misinformation (or what he prefers to call 'scientific dissent') about vaccines. Another appointee, Vicky Pebsworth, is on the board of an anti-vax nonprofit, the National Vaccine Information Center. Cassidy may keep insisting that he is doing all he can to stand up for vaccines. But he already had his big chance to do so, and he blew it. Now, with the rest of America, he's watching the nation's vaccine future take a nosedive. So far, the senator hasn't appeared interested in any kind of mea culpa for his faith in Kennedy's promises. On Thursday, I caught Cassidy as he hurried out of a congressional hearing room. He was still reviewing the appointees, he told me and several other reporters who gathered around him. When I chased after him down the hallway to ask more questions, he told me, 'I'll be putting out statements, and I'll let those statements stand for themselves.' A member of his staff dismissed me with a curt 'Thank you, sir.' Cassidy's staff has declined repeated requests for an interview with the senator since the confirmation vote in January. With the exception of Mitch McConnell, every GOP senator voted to confirm Kennedy. They all have to own the health secretary's actions. But Cassidy seemed to be the Republican most concerned about Kennedy's nomination, and there was a good reason to think that the doctor would vote his conscience. In 2021, Cassidy was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump on an impeachment charge after the insurrection at the Capitol. But this time, the senator—who is up for reelection next year, facing a more MAGA-friendly challenger—ultimately fell in line. Cassidy tried to have it both ways: elevating Kennedy to his job while also vowing to constrain him. In casting his confirmation vote, Cassidy implied that the two would be in close communication, and that Kennedy had asked for his input on hiring decisions. The two reportedly had breakfast in March to discuss the health secretary's plan to dramatically reshape the department. 'Senator Cassidy speaks regularly with secretary Kennedy and believes those conversations are much more productive when they're held in private, not through press headlines,' a spokesperson for Cassidy wrote in an email. (A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) At times, it has appeared as though Cassidy's approach has had some effect on the health secretary. Amid the measles outbreak in Texas earlier this year, Kennedy baselessly questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine. In April, after two unvaccinated children died, Cassidy posted on X: 'Everyone should be vaccinated! There is no treatment for measles. No benefit to getting measles. Top health officials should say so unequivocally b/4 another child dies.' Cassidy didn't call out Kennedy by name, but the health secretary appeared to get the message. Later that day, Kennedy posted that the measles vaccine was the most effective way to stave off illness. ('Completely agree,' Cassidy responded.) All things considered, that's a small victory. Despite Kennedy's claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer, he has enacted a plainly anti-vaccine agenda. Since being confirmed, he has pushed out the FDA's top vaccine regulator, hired a fellow vaccine skeptic to investigate the purported link between autism and shots, and questioned the safety of childhood vaccinations currently recommended by the CDC. As my colleague Katherine J. Wu wrote this week, 'Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization.' The reality is that back channels can be only so effective. Cassidy's main power is to call Kennedy before the Senate health committee, which he chairs, and demand an explanation for Kennedy's new appointees to the CDC's vaccine-advisory committee. Cassidy might very well do that. In February, he said that Kennedy would 'come before the committee on a quarterly basis, if requested.' Kennedy did appear before Cassidy's committee last month to answer questions about his efforts to institute mass layoffs at his agency. Some Republicans (and many Democrats) pressed the secretary on those efforts, while others praised them. Cassidy, for his part, expressed concerns about Kennedy's indiscriminate cutting of research programs, but still, he was largely deferential. 'I agree with Secretary Kennedy that HHS needs reform,' Cassidy said. Even if he had disagreed, an angry exchange between a health secretary and a Senate committee doesn't guarantee any policy changes. Lawmakers may try to act like government bureaucrats report to them, but they have limited power once a nominee is already in their job. Technically, lawmakers can impeach Cabinet members, but in American history, a sitting Cabinet member has never been impeached and subsequently removed from office. The long and arduous confirmation process is supposed to be the bulwark against potentially dangerous nominees being put in positions of power. Cassidy and most of his Republican colleagues have already decided not to stop Kennedy from overseeing the largest department in the federal government by budget. Now Kennedy is free to do whatever he wants—senators be damned.
