Jost, K. (2007, May 25). Gun violence. CQ Researcher, 17, 457-480. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
According to latest data from the CDC firearm-related deaths are still hovering around 31,000 per year.
All injury deaths
- Number of deaths: 182,479
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 60.5
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
- Number of deaths: 42, 031
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9
All poisoning deaths
- Number of deaths: 40,059
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.3
All firearm deaths
- Number of deaths:31,224
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.4
Yes, many other types of death are higher than those caused by firearms. Yes again that you can cherry pick examples of death by other weapons too. However, there is one constant: When firearms are used as personal weapons of mass destruction lots of people are usually killed or injured.
- Virginia Tech Massacre: 32 deaths
- Columbine: 12 deaths
- North Hollywood Shootout: 11 police officers and seven civilians injured
- Fort Hood shootings: 13 soldiers killed
- Arizona shootings: 6 killed and a dozen wounded
- University of Texas: 16 deaths
- California State: 7 deaths
- University of Iowa: 6 deaths
I do think that things like permits, required training, and checks would likely reduce gun-related deaths. However, some apparently think that the inconvenience that comes with these things is not a fair trade for the lives that they might save
Hunters and ranchers should still be able to own a firearm. Civilians without criminal records should have access to firearms for self-defense. These things I’m not against. I think that it should be made extremely difficult–if not illegal–for ANY citizen to have military-grade weapons or accessories. Period. For what it’s worth, I was trained on many of these weapons when I was in the Army and also when I worked corrections. Also, as a civilian I’ve owned more than my fair share of firearms.
Just one guy’s opinion here and I doubt it will change much. Many of the above mass shootings go back to the late 60s. As history shows: The pro-gun lobby will probably keep winning and the bodies will keep piling up.
-BCP
Addendum: I am generally opposed to censorship. However, there have been a few recent inflammatory comments that I felt compelled to deny. Here’s the deal: I’m going to try hard not to be a dick so I expect the same of you. If I deny your comment it probably means that you need to tone it down and re-submit. Alternately, you can just cut out the middle man and flame me on your own blog.
Hi Bob:
Very good article on gun deaths. It really is sad all the lives that are wasted due to gun violence. As a Canadian I have to be careful about what I have to say about US gun laws and the influence of the NRA. I definitely agree with you that there should be more restrictions before someone can purchase a firearm, but this wouldn’t necessarily guarantee there will be a lot less gun violence. In Toronto there is a serious problem with young gang members shooting each other and others who get caught in the crossfire. None of these juvenile gangsters have hand gun permits (which are very difficult to obtain in Canada), but if they have enough money they can easily buy black market guns.
Although I (generally) agree with your initial position, the thing which (IMO) can become confusing from the provided “stats”, is whether the number of listed “deaths” includes those made by LEO (during the course of their job, i.e. “Law Enforcement”). I’m not saying they aren’t (here), only that it is a problem with many of the stated examples provided for providing those numbers.
Openhand – Good point and I’m not sure. If I get time I will dig. (no promises) For that matter, how many times did an LEO have to draw down and kill some nut who was using a firearm? Again: Not sure.
Randy – Yes, that’s part of the problem. That’s why I think some sensible rules might reduce it. However, there’s just too many guns to eliminate the problem.
What I gathered from that its more dangerus to drive your car and we are still alwowed to do that. I’m more like ly to get poisoned than shot (I wonder how many of those are drug over doses?). I’m more likly to injur myself than have you shoot me.
also there are difernent levels of Homicide on of the being Justifed (self defence) was that taken into consideration in the stats?
We totaly outlawed illeagal drugs hows that going?
Also, all those shooting where in gun free zones. I guess the shooter did get the message. Some of shooters used illegaly obtaned guns and most that I know of the killing stopped as soon as the first defender with a gun showed up to the seen.
103 Deaths in the listed shootings. I maintan that number could of been lower if some of the deffenders had had a gun to defend themselves with, but thats an unknown.
Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Josh
Sorry, I forgot to give you the details on the North Hollywood Shootout the bg had on bulit resistant armor, the cops didn’t have asault rifles that could penatrate it. the bg had illegal fully auto asault rifles. It was in a librel city that had all the gun laws you are asking for.
Josh
ps. some day ill learn to spell when im in a hurry.
Josh
Some question about the wiki link.
1. University of Texas at Austin list 1 victum not acurate as the only one to die was the shooter and he shoot him self. Accualy he didnt even shoot at any one just set the gun off to get every one out. I know this I live in Austin. So why is he listed as a victum?
2. This makes me wonder about all the other/majority of them that list one. Are they listing the shooter to make the list look worse? as then the majority would then have 0.
I was looking the site and i kind of looks that way, did go through all of them just a few.
Josh
Josh –
Thanks for being civil! And don’t sweat the spelling.
Cherry Picking? Is that what I was doing? I thought I was giving you examples of other incidents of mass murder where people didn’t use guns.
You are citing 30,000 gun deaths without making mention that more than half of that number are suicides. In fact suicide kills more people in the US than assault does.
You are ignoring the fact that in the last 30 years the number of gun deaths has stayed the same despite there being more people (about 75,000,000 more), more guns, and less strict laws. That is actually a per-capita decline.
You are ignoring the fact that we have done everything you have suggested in terms of stricter firearms laws in various jurisdictions around the country and it simply doesn’t work.
Making a rule simply gives the state the ability to punish people for breaking it. People who choose to follow the rules are adequately governed by the rules against harming other people and require no further ‘inconvenience’ or qualification on their liberties. For people who choose not to follow the rules then no amount of rules will make a difference.
NP Bob as we have an honest disigrement and both need to state what they believe in a rational maner.
Josh
Ps. Both of us are coming from the point of view that we want the lest amont of harm to those around us.
Josh
Genius –
You make valid points.
Let’s try a reboot. Rather than fixate on the number of deaths by sledding vs. deaths by handguns I am trying to draw attention to the fact that when a nut comes unglued and uses a firearm, a lot of innocent people die. If ever we start seeing a trend of nuts using baseball bats in mass killings then I’ll have to consider my stance on sports implements. Until then I’m focusing on personal weapons of mass destruction.
I am also indirectly drawing attention to the fact that the gun lobby is spending millions of dollars helping gun manufacturers maintain their ability to make a profit. It’s not just about fighting for the 2nd Amendment rights of John Q. Public. If any one does think that then they are being naive. It’s also about fighting for their continued profit. As a lawyer friend of mine often says: “Just follow the money.”
Let’s go back to your point. Let’s factor out all those other deaths. Heck, for the sake of your argument lets make up a very small number — say 10. Let’s pretend that the number of people wrongly killed in a year is 10 out of that 30,000. And by wrong I mean innocent bystanders like the recent Arizona shooting.
Are 10 innocent lives worth the right for citizens to have access to military-grade weapons and accessories? Personally I say no. (and remember I’m not trying to ban all guns!)
Back in my youth I used to hunt. I know for a fact that one can hunt without a 30 round extended capacity magazine. One can have decent self-defense with a small capacity semi-auto pistol or revolver. If you are in a line of work that requires military-grade weapons you probably already have the training and access to those weapons in the first place.
Part of the problem is states’ rights. This leads to a kaleidoscope of contradictory laws that vary from state-to-state. One state may have very stringent guidelines concerning handguns or other weapons. No problem. The crooks and the legals just drive to the neighboring state and purchase their illicit toy. Yes, this makes it easy to say that the laws don’t work. That “we tried that.” But it’s not that simple.
I will also grant you that many of the laws we do have are not enforced like they should be. Again: another piece of a very complex problem.
I’ve watched this play out for 20 years. What happens is that the gun control pendulum swings back and forth and that’s about it. The politics, pro gun lobby, and fringe left get in the way of anything approaching rational. A nut goes off and kills people using a firearm and things may tighten up a bit. Then, in a few years it swings the other way and everyone is Johnny Rambo with their high capacity magazines. And so it goes.
Last comment: I also know that there are many law-abiding citizens who have a love affair with the gun. They play by the rules, get training, follow safety guidelines, etc. They are shooting enthusiasts and they feel threatened when someone like me starts shooting off their mouth. I get that.
Yet the problem is that there is hundreds of nuts and morons that have no business around a firearm, yet they do. This much I do know: I’ll be back in about year when the next nut comes unglued and mows down the next bunch of innocents.
Take a look see what you think?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html
This is raw data dot compiled by eather side.
Josh
The Second Amendment is for my protection from a tyranical government and for the protection of my right to life and liberty. As soon as the government is alowed to limit my right to own a gun then it will have the right to limit all rights.
Where will it stop.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ”
Benjamin Franklin
Will you say anything about the nuts that kill with other means, or just focus on guns?
Look up the crime stats on Australia when they went gun free.
I want say anymore,
Josh
“military-grade weapons” / “personal weapons of mass destruction” are Brady campaign talking points. These are invented terms designed to cloud the issue.
First of all the ‘patchwork’ of laws was superseded by the “Assault Weapons Ban” so all of the states with lax laws had to contend with the AWB at a minimum. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control schemes, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” It absolutely is that simple – gun control only disarms the people who weren’t a problem in the first place.
You believe that he had some weapon that possessed a power “greater” than what a private citizen should have at their disposal. Yet wouldn’t bat an eye at a police officer carrying one. The police rules on when they can use deadly force are really not any different than when a private citizen can use deadly force: to save your life or the life of a third party in the face of a deadly threat. The argument that police officers have to go up against dangerous armed criminals so they should have “military grade” weapons is unconvincing. The “victims” have to face the same threat, but we are going to let them go unarmed – despite them actually being the ‘first responders’ in these sorts of incidents.
Arguing that the police have ‘special training’ doesn’t make any sense. Basic gun safety isn’t particularly sophisticated or difficult. There are lot of people that are successfully operating their “military grade” weapons without mishap or formal training.
This 30 round magazine really seems to be the issue that bothers the gun control proponents. The AWB limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds. It didn’t change anything. The Tucson lunatic had 30 rounds and killed six people. If he had used a six shot revolver (or a pair of them) we would still be talking about gun control.
Gun control is the fleeting hope that by taking away a tool we will suddenly eliminate violent crime and insanity. We have tried it and it didn’t even make things better. When are we going to acknowledge that “self defense” trumps all of this nonsense. Handing a gun to responsible citizen doesn’t make us less safe, it makes us more safe.
We are never going to get to zero crime. We are never going to have a fool proof system that keeps all of the maniacs from hurting innocent people. After the next lunatic shoots a bunch of people next year I am certain you will be back to say I told you so. You will also not have said anything about the people who defended themselves or their families in that year, or about the people that were killed because they didn’t have the tools to defend themselves. You will talk about a rare and spectacular edge case and ignore what is really day-to-day.
Criminals routinely use guns to commit crimes. We know this. We can’t fix it with laws. The only way the victims realistically get a fighting chance is for them to be armed as well.
i was almost finished with a long comment but it got eaten by the internet demons, sadly…. i’ll try again
living in the UK I have a level of objectivity in this issue although I am biased in that I am in favour of gun and weapon control.
Because guns are freely available in the USA the death toll in comparison to other first world countries is hugely higher, that is not in question. Whether those deaths are a result of suicide or mass murder is irrelevant, deaths are higher because it is easier to dish out deadly force. And it is certainly easier to do so with a gun than it is to do so via martial arts training, that is obvious.
I recently blogged about a cctv video showing a brutal knife attacker shot in self defence. Watch this video and decide whether the outcome would have been worse if guns had been easily available? We cannot be sure that the attacker would have used a gun, but if he had, particularly a military grade gun, the outcome would have been more along the lines of Columbine than what it ended up being. For those not watching the video, the shop owner retrieved a gun and shot the attacker.
As guns are readily available in the USA it is easier for death to occur via guns, simple. strict legislation means that it will be less easy for death to occur from guns, simple. The stats bear this out. There are much fewer deaths per capita in the UK compared to the USA.
Sure legislation is a pain in the arse, and you do have to wait….. for the government department to sort it out, But if inconvenience is the price to pay for the saving of innocent lives, it is worthwhile.
This debate reminds me of the CRB check in the UK. This is legislation designed to protect children from abuse in the workplace. It was introduced after Ian Huntley, who worked as a caretaker in a school (janitor) was convicted of murdering two little girls on school property, caretakers often live on school premises in the UK.
For anyone working with kids they have to fill out forms, send them off and wait for ages, it can take 2 or 3 months. Your entire criminal conviction history is presented to the employer, including driving offences. Is it overkill, probably, is it inconvenient, it sure is, but does it save lives, I’m not sure. But what it does do is make the infiltration of schools and other places where kids go much harder for perverts. And that must help protect kids, therefore it is worthwhile.
Similarly, by restricting the ease of obtaining weapons and guns, legislation in the uk, makes it more difficult than in the US for criminals to kill innocent victims, for depressed people to commit suicide, for accidental death to occur from guns. All weapons are restricted, even martial arts weapons. This probably seems draconian to you Americans BUT, and this is a big BUT, it is effective, as mentioned gun death in the UK is a fraction of what it is in the US.
Does it prevent mass murder, nope, if determined enough desperate criminally insane nutters will get guns or knives to kill innocent people, but it is harder to do so. Even our Police are restricted from carrying weapons, there are armed officers but these are only called into operation when required, thereby reducing the death by gun stats further.
We still have hunters, in the UK, and deadly force by self defence is still allowed under certain conditions, but it is controlled to protect the public. While not perfect and not to everyones taste it is what it is and importantly deaths by gunshot are vastly less prevalent in the UK than in the US as a result.
Josh -
Re: 2nd Amendment. Some constitutional scholars think it refers to only a well-regulated militia. There is a debate there too, but I don’t care to have that debate.
As for your second concern, please re-read my comments:
Genius -
You should argue that with The International Association of Chiefs of Police. In 1994 their president stated this:
As for those laws, well, they have worked in other countries but they are usually enforced at the Federal (national) level. Again, due to our States’ rights and a plethora of guns on the market, those laws are usually set up for failure from the beginning.
Thus far, handgun bans have failed to have any significant impact on murder rates because of the large number of handguns in circulation prior to the bans. Attempts to outlaw the manufacture and importation of handguns have failed because they stimulate the creation of a black market for guns similar to the black market for drugs (I suppose you think drug laws are stupid too). Laws seeking to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals and nuts have failed to reduce crime because criminals either have guns already or can steal them. Waiting periods and background checks temporarily stop some criminals and nuts from getting guns, but many steal them or get them through the black market.
So, you are right and I am wrong. I think to stimulate the economy and to promote self-defense the government should issue a voucher that’s good for the purchase of one handgun and one bullet proof vest. Think of the jobs this would create! And after we bracketed out the homicides and accidental shootings we’d have a much safer society.
Jon Law –
The reason why your system works is that it is enforced across the board. As evidenced by the mini-debate here, that will never happen in the U.S.A.
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…
Look what happens when you sober up long enough to take sides!
You took a perfectly fine martial arts blog and bogged it down in a debate that can’t be won.
Silly boy.
I will say I like what a certain side is suggesting: Weapons are weapons. There is no such distinction as military weapons. Following that logic it stands to reason that I should be able to carry hand grenades and also have access to claymore mines.
I have an ongoing problem with raccoons getting into my garbage so the mines would take care of that and also help defend me from the criminals.
Hand grenades don’t kill people. People kill people.
Bob, you are a statist. You seem to think that the government should ‘do something’ to solve a problem that it really can’t solve. You continue to ignore any evidence or facts that don’t suit your position and then attempt to start a new line of argument.
A 1994 statement by a politician isn’t proof of anything. In 1994 chief Daughtry got his federal law – and it didn’t make a difference in terms of crime. Crime is actually going down, while firearms ownership is going up and the population is growing.
I think declaring that this issue is easily solved by the application of more laws (which we have tried in the past and it didn’t work) is ridiculous. What you are missing is for all of your paperwork/background check/waiting period/restricted weapon nonsense you are actually putting people in danger. The woman with the dangerous stalker what is she supposed to do after she gets a restraining order? There are people in this world that do need immediate protection from very real threats and firearms provide that in short order. How many lives have been saved by firearms?
@Jane – I love it when someone chimes in with a smug comment when they don’t actually know anything about the subject in question. Your witty remarks certainly banish all facts from consideration, it is like the grown-ups weren’t even talking.
Bob,
Wow! You’ve opened yourself to a new “market” of Google hits with this blog posting!
Two completely different takes on the situation:
First, my understanding is that because of the pervasiveness of gun ownership in the U.S., a **huge** proportion of guns enter the black market through home burglaries. (Yet another reason to use a gun safe…) Any effort to regulate guns (e.g., stricter licensing) would have to address this source of firearms.
Second, in criminology, there’s a concept known as the “age-crime curve”: basically, that offending peaks around 21 y.o. for violent crimes (around 17 for property crimes), and **really** drops of around the late 20s (on average – depends on the offense). Also, for most crimes, the sex ratio of males versus females is from about 2:1 to 10:1 (again, depending on the offense).
A glance at your “mass shootings” list supports this: all(?) males, and most in their teens or 20s.
To this end, about ten years ago I wrote a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheeks song called “Only Women Should Own Guns”: from a risk-analysis point of view, they’re (as a demographic group) the only ones shown to be worthy of carrying…
–GG
Jane – Long time no see! Who said I was sober?
Genius – As do you. You ignore my concerns as well as the concerns of others and stick with your banter. Guns do save lives but they also take a lot of innocent lives. You seem to think that all they do is save lives, period. It’s not that simple.
And Jane has a point btw. You said there is no distinction between military weapons and civilian weapons. You effectively said a weapon is a weapon. Apparently at least one law enforcement officer thinks there is a distinction too, ergo my quote. So why can’t we own high explosives? Stinger missiles? Land mines? Why does the government work to keep those things out of the hands of civilians? Answer: Because some nut could use them to pull off another Oklahoma City, that’s why!
Lastly, no where in any of my posts did I ever say I was trying to ban all guns. That poor women who needs to protect herself would still have access to a revolver and training in my world. You should actually read what I wrote.
Gye – Every now and again I feel compelled to beat my head against a cinder block. As such, my head now hurts so I’m closing this thread.
