So what if they were? It's pretty damn sad for a person young enough to be considered a child to die from gun violence regardless of who they were! A sad societal failure on top of our failure to set them up with life circumstances that made them unlikely to fall in with a gang.
A multi-pronged approach that involves reducing the amount of guns in American is a surefire way to reduce access to guns by children, both in gangs and out.
So a policy stricter than the US can have isn't enough to solve this problem. That's why it's better to aim at reducing accidental underage gun deaths which is much more achievable.
As a Canadian who grew up in a household with a dozen firearms, I never once touched those firearms, and hardly ever saw them until I was taken to the range by my father and taught how to use them.
also, fun fact, when your government spends a hundred years assisting coups of democratic or socialist governments, those counties are going to have a lot of political instability.
The United States has one border with a central America country (Mexico). Please show on the map where it has a border with any south American country?
It seems like their policies do go a big way to solve the problem, as infeasible as they appear to be for the USA.
They have a real welfare system, diminishing social inequalities and with that the feeding ground for crime.
…but it’s also worth pointing out that murder rates are also a lot lower than the US in other developed countries that don’t have Scandinavian levels of welfare transfers.
Also, I don't understand the focus on murder rates. Compare all violent crime at least.
It has a problem with a few small and very violent gangs that occasionally gun down people in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, completely disregarding the safety of the people around them, which is bad but nothing like the gang problems in the US or Latin America.