(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) Vice President Kamala Harris incorrectly claimed that gun violence was the leading cause of death for children in a tweet posted Sunday.
“Gun violence is the leading cause of death for our nation’s children,” the tweet read. “Congress must have the courage to act and pass commonsense gun safety laws, including an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.”
Congress must have the courage to step up and pass commonsense gun safety laws. pic.twitter.com/J0Naa8WHW8
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 16, 2023
A 2020 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that firearm-related deaths aged for children aged 0-17 was 2,281; the number of deaths in vehicle accidents for the same ages was 2,503.
In fact, children were 27 times more likely to die in automobile accidents than as a result of accidental gun deaths, according to Breitbart.
The report also indicated that the chances of unintentional suffocation were 10 times more likely than accidental gun deaths.
Separately, the CDC also reported 620,327 intentional abortions for the year 2020, according to Pew Research Center, although that number is likely to have decreased since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Despite Harris’s claim that additional gun regulations offered the solution for gun violence, evidence showed it had little impact, and might even exacerbate the problem.
Harris’s home state of California, which implemented background checks and “assault weapon” bans in the 1990s, led the nation in homicides in 2021.
Even some Democrat politicians have realized that gun-control measures were not working in their own districts, such as St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones.
“Chicago has strict gun laws as well but that doesn’t deter gun violence,” Jones wrote in private texts that were leaked to the public. “It’s about investing in the people.”
Nonetheless, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of Oregon’s strict gun-control laws, claiming they were constitutional.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun fell in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”
Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote, although the Second Amendment makes no specific reference to “self defense” and mentions only the “security of a free State.”
That did not stop Immergut from attempting to reimagine the Bill of Rights.
“The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms,” the judge incorrectly claimed.
The decision followed the Supreme Court’s decision on the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen case, which required courts to base their decisions on “America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
