This is an amazingly sensitive topic, but one I’d like to know the inverse option about. One of the arguments of natalism is that the children born today can be the person to solve huge global problems; like cancer. However, with no gun control in America it’s a real possibility that this child will not make it to that point. Is the natalism idea just a statistic game? If Clara from Arizona is meant to cure cancer and she is not able to; is the goal to make someone who can do what Clara did? I don’t really understand why not protect Clara to begin with.
I’m not a natalist, but let’s be real: the number if deaths caused by gun violence miniscule relative to the entire population. That said, 6 out of every 100000 kids die of firearm injuries and is the leading cause of death in children. Gun control is something that need to be improved in the country for sure. I’m just not sure it is a significant threat to “Clara.” A much bigger threat, imo, is the state of education and reliability of information today.