Guns kill a lot of young people in the United States. Not just in school shootings or horrific “accidents” between toddlers that tend to garner the most media attention, but in every day shootings in communities around the country that result in the deaths of thousands of children and teenagers. In 2010, 6,201 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 died by gunfire. Guns were a close second to the leading cause of death among this age group, car accidents, which took the lives of 7,024 young people that year. But, while car accident deaths among young people have been steadily declining over the past decade, gun deaths have remained relatively unchanged. And, as described in a new Center for American Progress report released Friday, if current trends continue, gun deaths will surpass car accident deaths among young people sometime in 2015: How can we explain these numbers? For car accident deaths, these numbers represent a significant victory. Deaths of young people as a result of car accidents have dropped dramatically in the last two decades, from a high of more than 12,000 deaths among this age group in 1990. This decline is not an accident: billions of dollars have been spent on public health and safety research to understand motor vehicle accidents and how to prevent them from becoming fatal. This research has resulted in design innovation, changes to cars and roadways, and new laws that have led to a significant and steady decline in such fatalities among all age groups, including young people. There was no silver bullet for reducing vehicular death: airbags, seatbelt laws, anti-lock brakes, better signage, and tough drunk driving laws all contributed to it. But, in combination these measures have saved tens of thousands of American lives. For guns, these numbers represent an enormous failure. The United States has experienced a dramatic decline in violent crime over the last two decades, yet the rate of gun violence, particularly among young people, has barely moved. Why? We don’t know. Unfortunately, since the early 1990s, very few public health researchers have been trying to find out. Restrictions on such research imposed by Congress have had a substantial chilling effect, which has resulted in the almost total abandonment of this issue by our nation’s public health research institutions. Without this research, policymakers, legislators, community leaders, and parents are left without much direction regarding how to best protect children and teenagers from gun violence. As we approach that morbid milestone next year when gun violence kills more American children and teenagers than car accidents, it’s time to start approaching this problem in the same manner as we addressed car accident deaths. We know how to do this –-through a combination of public health research, technological innovation, legislative change, enhanced enforcement, and transforming cultural norms we were able to make motor vehicle transportation safer while at the same time preserving American’s unique car culture. We can do the same thing with gun violence by adopting laws and policies designed to prevent gun deaths while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Chelsea Parsons is the Associate Director for Crime and Firearms Policy at the Center for American Progress.

Attempting to host a productive debate on climate change policy can be hard when one of the people debating said policy does not believe climate change exists. But that is exactly what NBC’s “Meet the Press” attempted to do on Sunday, with host David Gregory moderating arguments between Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ and Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the vice chair of the notoriously anti-climate change House Energy and Commerce Committee. Gregory did manage to get a few policy statements out of Blackburn, including one in which the Congresswoman stated that EPA regulations on carbon emissions must look at the social benefits of carbon dioxide pollution. From her comments: BLACKBURN: David, one of the things we have to remember is cost/benefit analysis has to take place. … And it is unfortunate that some of the federal agencies are not conducting that cost/benefit analysis. They’re focused on the outcome. … Now, you know, when you look at the social cost of carbon, and there is a lot of ambiguity around that, what you also need to be doing is looking at the benefits of carbon and what that has on increased agricultural production. A lot of good studies out there about that, and scientists and biologists have done that study. CO2 in small doses is most certainly good for plants. But the concentrated levels that are causing climate change do not seem to be boding well for the agricultural industry as of late. The debilitating drought in California — which many scientists, including Nye, link to climate change — has caused production problems for a slew of fruits and vegetables, and water scarcity that has left 500,000 acres unplanted. In August, the Obama administration estimated that the social cost of carbon is $43 per ton of carbon emitted, a figure Republicans have tried to roadblock. The “social cost of carbon” (SCC) is the formula used by federal regulators to calculate how carbon pollution harms public health, the environment, property value, and other issues. Government agencies use that cost to decide how to construct any regulation that touches on carbon emissions — from microwave efficiency standards to infrastructure construction to transportation. The Obama administration does not currently use so-called “benefits of carbon” to construct regulations, however, which is what Blackburn has suggested. The most recent “good study” she is likely citing comes from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — an industry group of coal electricity producers — and says that energy production from fossil fuels over the last 200 years has doubled life expectancy and improved the quality of life for people around the world. It is not terribly surprising, however, that Blackburn would recommend that regulations move away from solving the climate crisis. Members of Blackburn’s E&C committee last month voted 24-20 against an amendment that would have stated conclusively that climate change is occurring and is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Those twenty-four E&C members — all Republicans — have accepted about $9.3 million in career contributions from the oil, gas and coal industries, according to analysis by the CAP Action War Room. Blackburn herself has accepted $287,393. “The President should realize that Congress has taken action” on climate change policies, Blackburn said. “We have said no.” Tags:Bill NyeClimate ChangeClimate Change DeniersMarsha BlackburnMeet The PressNBC Close Like Climate Progress on Facebook About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | State Notices | Reuse Policy | RSS | Donate © 2005-2014 Center for American Progress Action Fund

Monhtly Meeting

Next monthly meeting Wed. Feb. 19 @ 7PM. Don't forget about our Soup Supper Sat. Feb. 22 from 5:30 to 7:30PM @ the American Legion Hall. Guests Sheila Simon, Judge Erika Sanders, Dr. Josh Berger, Steve Dasenbrock, Karen Luchtefeld, & Doug McCain.