

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Rob Lamontagne, 202-822-8200 x110, press@vpc.org
Monterey County's young people
suffer a murder rate that leads all California counties and is nearly three
times the overall state rate for the same age range, according to "Lost
Youth: A County-by-County Analysis of 2009 California Homicide Victims
Ages 10 to 24," a new study analyzing unpublished California Department
of Justice Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data released today by the
Violence Policy Center (VPC).
The study, available at https://www.vpc.org/studies/cayouth.pdf
and funded by The California Wellness Foundation, uses the most recent data
available to rank California
counties by their homicide rates for youth and young adults ages 10 to 24.
The study finds overwhelmingly that firearms, usually
handguns, are the weapon of choice. The study also shows that there are vast
disparities between groups: in California,
young African-Americans are more than 14 times more likely to be murdered than
young whites.
Josh Sugarmann, VPC executive director and study co-author
states, "Comparing county by county the
homicide rates for youth and young adults in California shows the continuing,
urgent need for tailored, localized approaches to reducing youth homicide that
integrate prevention and intervention while engaging local leaders and
community stakeholders."
TOP 10 COUNTIES BY YOUTH HOMICIDE RATE
The top 10 counties with each county's corresponding
homicide victimization rate for its population of Californians ages 10 to 24
are:
1) Monterey
County, 31.24 per 100,000
2) Alameda
County, 20.69 per 100,000
3) Kern
County, 19.98 per 100,000
4) Contra
Costa County,
19.17 per 100,000
5) Tulare
County, 15.31 per 100,000
6) Los Angeles
County, 14.61 per 100,000
7) San Joaquin
County, 13.86 per 100,000
8) Stanislaus
County, 13.49 per 100,000
9) Merced
County, 12.87 per 100,000
10) Solano
County, 12.59 per
100,000
-State overall rate for 10- to 24-year-olds: 10.48 per
100,000.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study states that "homicide,
and particularly gun homicide, continues to be one of the most pressing public
health concerns in California among youth and young adults ages 10 to
24."
According to the Violence
Policy Center,
"effective violence prevention
strategies must include measures that prioritize preventing youth and young
adults from accessing firearms, especially handguns."
The study recommends further research into "the identification of the make, model, and
caliber of weapons most preferred by this age group as well as analyses
identifying the sources of the weapons" and an "expansion of comprehensive violence
intervention and prevention strategies that include a focus on the
psychological well-being of witnesses and survivors of gun violence."
BACKGROUND FOR MEDIA
The study contains a detailed analysis for each of the top
10 counties, including: gender; race/ethnicity; most common weapons;
victim to offender relationship; circumstance; and location. (To help
ensure more stable rates, only counties with a population of at least 25,000
youth and young adults between the ages of 10 to 24 were included in the
study. The selected counties account for 99 percent of homicide victims
ages 10 to 24 in California and 98 percent of California's
population ages 10 to 24 for 2009.)
STATEWIDE COMPARISONS
The study's statewide findings include more detailed
information, broken down by a number of factors.
GENDER, RACE, and ETHNICITY
Out of the 803 homicide victims ages 10 to 24 in California in 2009:
-90% were male and 10% were female.
-56% were Hispanic, 30% black, 10% white, 3% Asian, and one
percent were "other."
Overall, black victims were killed at a rate more than 14
times higher than white victims. Hispanic victims were killed at a rate
nearly four times higher than white victims. Asian victims were killed at
roughly the same rate as white victims.
WEAPON USED
Firearms, especially handguns, were the most common weapon
used to murder youth and young adults. Of the 794 homicides for which the
murder weapon could be identified, 84 percent of victims died by gunfire.
Of these, 76 percent were killed with handguns.
RELATIONSHIP
For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship
could be identified, 45 percent were killed by a stranger. Thirty-two
percent were killed by someone they knew. An additional 23 percent were
identified as gang members. Black and Hispanic victims were more likely
to be killed by a stranger than white or Asian victims.
CIRCUMSTANCE
The overwhelming majority of homicides of youth and young
adults were not related to any other felony crime. For the 618 homicides
in which the circumstances between the victim and offender could be identified,
82 percent were not related to the commission of any other felony. Of
these, 68 percent were gang-related.
LOCATION
For all races except for Asian victims, the most common
homicide location was a street, sidewalk, or parking lot. Among youth and
young adults for homicides in which the location could be determined, 56
percent occurred on a street, sidewalk, or in a parking lot. Fifteen
percent occurred in the home of the victim or offender. Eleven percent
occurred at another residence, and seven percent occurred in a vehicle.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration. Founded in 1988 by Executive Director Josh Sugarmann, a native of Newtown, Connecticut, the VPC informs the public about the impact of gun violence on their daily lives, exposes the profit-driven marketing and lobbying activities of the firearms industry and gun lobby, offers unique technical expertise to policymakers, organizations, and advocates on the federal, state, and local levels, and works for policy changes that save lives. The VPC has a long and proven record of policy successes on the federal, state, and local levels, leading the National Rifle Association to acknowledge us as "the most effective ... anti-gun rabble-rouser in Washington."
"I don't know how a DC jury would convict," said one resident who was not selected to serve on the jury.
The trial of Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent in protest in early August, began Monday, weeks after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office failed to secure a felony indictment.
Dunn, who is now facing a misdemeanor assault charge, has become a symbol of public resistance to and disdain for President Donald Trump's deployment of masked federal immigration agents to the streets of US cities.
DC residents who were not chosen to serve on the jury for the trial expressed deep skepticism that the latest attempt to indict Dunn would end any differently than the first.
"How is that an assault?” one DC woman asked of Dunn's sandwich throw, which was caught on video. Before hurling the sandwich, Dunn screamed at the agents and called them "fascists."
Another person who was not selected to serve on the jury told CNN that they "don't know how a DC jury would convict."
The trial is expected to be quick. The judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, called it "the simplest case in the world" and predicted a two-day trial.
Dunn's lawyers have argued in court that the Trump administration's prosecution attempts amount to "a blatant abuse of power."
"The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical—were it not for the
unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn," Dunn's lawyers said. "Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it."
"He should have died in The Hague," said one journalist.
Dick Cheney, a chief architect of the US invasion of Iraq and broader "war on terror" that has killed millions of people since its inception, has died at 84, his family announced in a statement Tuesday.
Cheney was best known for his central role in the administration of former President George W. Bush, under whom Cheney served as vice president.
An unapologetic advocate of preemptive war and torture in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Cheney was widely regarded as a war criminal who should have faced international prosecution.
"He should have died in The Hague," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response to the news of Cheney's death.
Cheney's family said he died "due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease."
"While the Loss and Damage Fund sits almost empty, oil and gas companies are investing more than $60 billion each year into new exploration," said one campaigner.
The fossil fuel industry is "racing toward climate breakdown with its foot on the accelerator," said one official at the German environmental rights group Urgewald on Tuesday as the group released its Global Oil and Gas Exit List.
The report shows that as world leaders prepare to meet in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate summit, any discussion they have there regarding a green transition is being undercut by massive expansion in oil and gas extraction and production, including in the fracking and liquefied natural gas (LNG) industries.
Four years after the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated that no new oil and gas fields have a place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C—marking global energy experts' public endorsement of warnings that had come from climate scientists for years prior—96% of fossil fuel firms are exploring and developing new oil and gas resources, said Urgewald.
Short-term expansion is up 33% since 2021, when the IEA issued its warning, with fossil fuel giants planning to bring 256 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent (bboe) into production in the coming years.
Five companies account for about one-third of global short-term expansion: QatarEnergy (26.2 bboe), Saudi Aramco (18.0 bboe), ADNOC in the United Arab Emirates (13.8 bboe), Russian state-owned entity Gazprom (13.4 bboe) and US firm ExxonMobil (9.7 bboe).
Nils Bartsch, head of oil and gas research at Urgewald, said the largest fossil fuel companies in the world "are treating the Paris Agreement like a polite suggestion, not a survival plan."
The analysis comes a decade after 195 countries signed the legally binding Paris Agreement, committing to develop and implement national climate action plans to draw down fossil fuel emissions.
"With 256 billion barrels of new projects on the table, this is not a transition—it is defiance," said Bartsch.
The Paris Agreement also included a demand for wealthy countries to contribute funds to help the Global South mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency, and annual UN conferences have addressed climate finance, but the industry is still spending about 75 times more on oil and gas exploration than governments have pledged to the UN Loss and Damage Fund, according to the report.
On average, companies listed in the Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) spent an average of $60.3 billion over the last three years on oil and gas expansion.
“Brazil is showing an alarming level of climate hypocrisy—presenting itself as a climate leader at COP30 while allowing oil and gas expansion right at the summit’s doorstep, threatening one of our most fragile ecosystems."
The US has pledged just 17.5 million to the Loss and Damage Fund, while two of its biggest fossil fuel companies, Chevron and ExxonMobil, have spent $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion on oil and gas exploration, respectively, in the last three years.
"While the Loss and Damage Fund sits almost empty, oil and gas companies are investing more than $60 billion each year into new exploration, exacerbating the problem the fund is meant to alleviate. This is financial and moral negligence. Regulators and supervisory authorities need to start treating this as a risk, not a footnote," said Fiona Hauke, oil and gas researcher and financial regulation expert at Urgewald.
The report was released a week before world leaders are scheduled to meet in Belém, Brazil for the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), even as state-owned fossil fuel company Petrobras begins drilling in Foz do Amazonas Basin in the fragile, biodiverse Amazon rainforest.
Petrobras was named in GOGEL as the 15th largest fossil fuel exporter worldwide, currently spending $1.1 billion annually searching for new reserves, as Brazil prepares to host a meeting that is meant to focus on implementing emissions reduction plans.
“Brazil is showing an alarming level of climate hypocrisy—presenting itself as a climate leader at COP30 while allowing oil and gas expansion right at the summit’s doorstep, threatening one of our most fragile ecosystems,” said Nicole Oliveira, executive director of the Arayara International Institute in Brazil.
GOGEL also pointed to oil and gas expansion in the US under the Trump administration, with the US overtaking China as the number-one developer of gas-fired power even as a recent UN and World Bank report found that nine out of 10 renewable energy projects are cheaper than even the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives.
The US is home to the largest LNG export developer worldwide, Venture Global, as companies are planning an export capacity of around 847 million tons per year—a 171% increase from current operational capacity.
Urgewald noted that even TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné recently acknowledged that the LNG sector is "building too much."
"Analysts warn that if current plans proceed, the world could face an oversupplied gas market within five years, with far more capacity than global demand can absorb," reads GOGEL. "Yet despite industry leaders acknowledging the risk, investment continues."
"US fracking companies are producing far more gas than they can sell domestically," adds the report, noting that the country is turning to Mexico as an export platform. "Now faced with a flood of excess gas, companies are racing to build new LNG facilities to liquefy their surplus and push it onto countries around the globe."
Pablo Montaño, director of Conexiones Climáticas, Mexico, said new LNG projects "are not for the benefit of Mexicans."
"They will import fracked gas from the US, liquefy it in Mexico and send it straight to Asia. Gas liquefaction is an incredibly dirty business," he said.
Despite clear warnings from energy and climate experts, said Cathy Collentine, Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign director at the Sierra Club in the US, "fossil fuel expansion continues to put communities and the climate at risk."
"Under the Trump administration," she said, "we are seeing a disregard for both to do the bidding of Big Oil and Gas."