Guns and Kids: A New Yorker Take
A very well-written piece by Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker called The Simple Truth about Gun Control.
Those who fight against gun control, actively or passively, with a shrug of helplessness, are dooming more kids to horrible deaths and more parents to unspeakable grief just as surely as are those who fight against pediatric medicine or childhood vaccination. It’s really, and inarguably, just as simple as that.
Keep in mind that when you have people like former Governor Rick Perry who called the Charleston mass murders an "accident." This idiot is running for President. (He claims he meant "incident." Still an idiot and the irony to that is that we have so many large-scale killings in this country that they are now "incidents.") I note that Hillary Clinton says "this time we have to find answers together." That's great but we've heard that before. At Columbine, V-tech, New Town. Which "incident" will it take?
Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them.
Gun control is not a panacea, any more than penicillin was. Some violence will always go on. What gun control is good at is controlling guns. Gun control will eliminate gun massacres in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine. This is a moral choice; many faith healers make it to this day, and not just in thought experiments. But it is absurd to shake our heads sapiently and say we can’t possibly know what would have saved the lives of Olivia and Jesse.
On gun violence and how to end it, the facts are all in, the evidence is clear, the truth there for all who care to know it—indeed, a global consensus is in place, which, in disbelief and now in disgust, the planet waits for us to us to join.
I weighed in elsewhere but here's what I think could make a difference.
As Mr. Gopnik says, strong gun laws = fewer gun murders. That's one.
Two, don't laugh but make bullets (except for law enforcement) more expensive. A lot more expensive.
Three, make sure there are heavy civil penalties for negligence for those who do not secure their guns in their homes/cars and a gun incident occurs. They don't have to go to jail; they just have to keenly feel the financial pain of their indifference to the power of a loaded gun. When you hit people in their wallets, they tend to pay attention.
It's interesting because Washington State is, indeed, an open carry state but I have never seen anyone do this. (Not saying it doesn't happen, I just haven't seen it.)
To note, from Wikipedia:
The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act limits where a person may legally carry a firearm by generally prohibiting carry within one-thousand (1000) feet of the property-line of any K-12 school in the nation with private property excluded.
Those who fight against gun control, actively or passively, with a shrug of helplessness, are dooming more kids to horrible deaths and more parents to unspeakable grief just as surely as are those who fight against pediatric medicine or childhood vaccination. It’s really, and inarguably, just as simple as that.
Keep in mind that when you have people like former Governor Rick Perry who called the Charleston mass murders an "accident." This idiot is running for President. (He claims he meant "incident." Still an idiot and the irony to that is that we have so many large-scale killings in this country that they are now "incidents.") I note that Hillary Clinton says "this time we have to find answers together." That's great but we've heard that before. At Columbine, V-tech, New Town. Which "incident" will it take?
Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them.
Gun control is not a panacea, any more than penicillin was. Some violence will always go on. What gun control is good at is controlling guns. Gun control will eliminate gun massacres in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine. This is a moral choice; many faith healers make it to this day, and not just in thought experiments. But it is absurd to shake our heads sapiently and say we can’t possibly know what would have saved the lives of Olivia and Jesse.
On gun violence and how to end it, the facts are all in, the evidence is clear, the truth there for all who care to know it—indeed, a global consensus is in place, which, in disbelief and now in disgust, the planet waits for us to us to join.
I weighed in elsewhere but here's what I think could make a difference.
As Mr. Gopnik says, strong gun laws = fewer gun murders. That's one.
Two, don't laugh but make bullets (except for law enforcement) more expensive. A lot more expensive.
Three, make sure there are heavy civil penalties for negligence for those who do not secure their guns in their homes/cars and a gun incident occurs. They don't have to go to jail; they just have to keenly feel the financial pain of their indifference to the power of a loaded gun. When you hit people in their wallets, they tend to pay attention.
It's interesting because Washington State is, indeed, an open carry state but I have never seen anyone do this. (Not saying it doesn't happen, I just haven't seen it.)
To note, from Wikipedia:
The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act limits where a person may legally carry a firearm by generally prohibiting carry within one-thousand (1000) feet of the property-line of any K-12 school in the nation with private property excluded.
Comments
Promoting gun locks and safety storage mechanisms might help reduce gun deaths, whether by shotguns and rifles or handguns. Physicians can familiarize themselves with the latest in safety technology and pass this along to their patients. Safety devices include gun locks, lockable plastic boxes, metal lock boxes, security cabinets, and gun safes. One can buy a trigger lock for only $9.99 or spend $1,499.99 to purchase a fire-resistant, 800-pound storage cabinet. The effectiveness of different gun lock and storage mechanisms are obvious, but serve no purpose when the assailant is the gun owner.
TT
#1. Gun Violence Facts and Statistics from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Looks like TT's statement above about gun locks and safety is correct.
#2. Murders and Gun Murders by State
Washington DC has by far the highest per capita Gun Murder rate at 16.5 per 100,000 residents yet gun ownership is supposedly 3.6%, which is lowest in the nation.
Hawaii is next in gun ownership percentage at 6.7% and a Gun Murder rate a 0.5 per 100,000
Vermont has the lowest Gun Murder rate at 0.3 per 100,000 yet gun ownership is 42%
Washington State => Gun Murder rate at 1.4 per 100,000 and gun ownership is 33.1%
===
The 5 states with the lowest population density
Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota
all have gun ownership stats above 50%
Here are the murder rates per 100,000
Alaska 2.7, Wyoming 0.9, Montana 1.2, North Dakota 0.6, South Dakota 1.2
===
The 5 states with the highest population density
Washington DC, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut
average gun ownership stats below 12% (highest at 16.7%)
Here are the murder rates per 100,000
Washington DC 16.5, New Jersey 2.8, Rhode Island 1.5, Massachusetts 1.8, Connecticut 2.7
-- Dan Dempsey
TT
"Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. "
My research shows the above statement is NOT True in regard to murders per 100,000
Here is what I found in regard to state by state gun laws
from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence =>
States that Require Registration of All Firearms (I've added murder rates /100,000)
average of the 2 states = 8.5
District of Columbia 16.5
Hawaii 0.5
States that Require Registration of Handguns
New York 2.7
States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms
average of the 6 states = 2.87
California 3.4
Maryland 5.1 (handguns and assault weapons)
States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles
average of the 6 states = 2.87
California 3.4 (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
Connecticut 2.7 (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
Hawaii 0.5(assault pistols)
Maryland 5.1 (assault pistols)
New Jersey 2.8 (assault weapons)
New York 2.7 (assault weapons)
States that Prohibit Registries of Firearms
average of the 8 states = 2.4
Delaware 4.2
Florida 3.9
Georgia 3.8
Idaho 0.8
Pennsylvania 3.6
Rhode Island 1.5
South Dakota 1.0
Vermont 0.3
-- Dan Dempsey
I've probably had more to do with guns, hunting and slaughtering than you'll ever dream of experiencing. Does that make a big difference in my opinion on the matter?
I guess I prefer a gun cabinet much like my dads. But I really prefer no guns. Guns are dinosaurs. A world without guns would be fine with me. What, after all, is the pleasure of shooting a gun? Again, hunting for the buck once a year culls herds and I can live with that. But hand guns? Assault weapons? Better no guns than all guns.
Let a liberal keep talking and eventually what they truly believe will come out.
I'm done here.
TT
And TT, I know you're still reading. Now I'm done. (I hope.) It has been fun.
List of Countries by Firearm related Deaths
Yes the US has a murder rate far above those of most other nations but the gun suicides are even more troubling.
US rates per 100,000 by guns in 2013
homicides 3.55
suicides 6.70
Total firearm related deaths 10.64
Korea => total 0.06
Taiwan => total 0.87
United Kingdom => total 0.25
Venezuela => 50.09
South Africa => 21.51
Columbia => 28.14
Australia => 0.86
A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.
As of 2007 about 5.2% of Australian adults (765,000 people)[1] own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, security work, and target shooting.
New Zealand => 1.45
New Zealand's gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific and focus mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms.
=========
States with low population density have higher overall suicide rates and generally lower gun murder rates than more densely populated states.
The Data
-- Dan Dempsey
My guess on high murder rates in Central and many South American countries could be tied to corruption from drug cartels. Likely a lot of high homicide rates in US inner cities may also be drug trade related. Follow the money, just a guess.
The big question on US deaths should be centered on "what to do about suicides?"
It would be interesting to examine suicides from poverty, mental health, environmental conditions, etc.
-- Dan Dempsey
And do tell, why is the number of pepole killed by guns tens, or even hundreds of times higher than in pther developed nations that either have strict gun laws, no gun-crazed culture, or both? And what are we going to do to stop the slaughter? Trigger locks? Be serious.
Looking a suicide rates we have another problem besides a surplus of guns. Deep Cultural disfunction . ..
The Legislature has a big problem in providing needed services through adequate funding.
Suicides are occurring at twice the murder rate.
The Legislature failed to fund education in the manner and levels specified by the Supreme Court.
Imagine where that puts funding for needed social services.
-- Dan Dempsey
Thank think of a pistol-loving mom who thought teaching her mentally sick kid to shoot would give him something to be proud of. Instead, he shoots up a school.
Think all of the above and then think drugs. Our own military was handing out drugs FCS. So, are we a corrupt country?
It is still about easy guns in my opinion. Even if you factor in drugs, it is still about easy guns.
I've had students who committed murder and suicide.
Suicides:
A girl with a gun to the head and a boy jumping from an overpass into I-5 southbound lanes. A boy hanging himself.
Murders:
One by stabbing and one by strangulation.
No I do not believe that fewer guns will reduce suicides by much if any. There are plenty of over passes and other ways to end your life. USA has a definite problem with social dysfunction.
-- Dan Dempsey
I don't ordinarily recommend this book to anyone (I read it during a period where I had serious concerns about the possible suicidal thoughts of a mentally ill relative), but for those who want more information, you might want to try "Night Falls Fast -- Understanding Suicide" by Kay Redfield Jamieson. She is a physician who suffers from bipolar disorder. She has both a clinical and a personal interest (she has had bipolar friends who did not survive suicide attempts) in the subject, and she writes well. It is a very hard book to read -- it affected me for months afterwards, and still does, when I think about it, but it might help people to put guns in perspective in the larger context of mental illness (particularly depression) and suicide. If it doesn't affect your thinking (one way or the other) on gun availability -- it certainly will affect it on the way we fund and deliver mental health services.
Jan
Certainly anecdotes are not useful for policy decisions.
Thanks for your wisdom.
Any thoughts on the high US suicide rate. Could it be that other countries do not record some suicides as such?
Certainly suicide rates on many Native American Reservations are much higher than the US average. [I've lived and worked on or near 3 reservations]
I wonder if the US suicide rate in 1814 was similar to 2014 ? (200 years later).
[[ Simpler time = fewer suicides or Fewer mental health services = more suicides ]]
-- Dan Dempsey
Thanks for the information on Kay Redfield Jamison
I'll be doing some reading.
Interesting lady.
-- Dan Dempsey
Suicide Rates Rise Sharply in US in NY Times
“It is the baby boomer group where we see the highest rates of suicide,” said the C.D.C.’s deputy director, Ileana Arias. “There may be something about that group, and how they think about life issues and their life choices that may make a difference.”
-- Dan Dempsey
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not made one comment.
As well, no one has ownership of any post unless he/she wrote it. That would be me.
Dan, I wonder if the layoff-rate and home foreclosures may have impacted those rates 2000-2008. I remember hearing a man on Thom Hartmann calling about the home he'd been paying on for twenty-five years about to be foreclosed. He was older. Boeing is moving part if its production down south and has told its employees - engineers with lots of seniority - that they have to reapply and most will not be moving. I know, old news. But a sign of the times.
Anecdotes have a place. They are a reflection of a bigger picture. We've been through a disastrous time for many, many people. There was a bill authorizing relief for homeowners during the transition between Bush-Obama but the only part that was actually delivered was the $350B for the banks. The homeowners $350B was left on the table if I recall correctly. And it was all political. The average working person has been left behind really starting under Reagan and intensifying under Bush 2000. Pretty sad isn't it?
Perhaps guns provide some people with a feeling of independence and security - the only real ownership they have left. Then again perhaps I'm overthinking it.
I was involved in the writing the section about lethal means restriction, and I can say after reviewing all of the medical and public health literature that it does indeed work.
Making it more difficult for someone with suicidal thoughts to get a gun absolutely reduces suicides.
It works in one of two ways. First, many attempts are impulsive and borne of immediate crisis. If a gun isn't available during that moment of anguish or despair, an attempt isn't made. Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide, so there really is an opportunity to save lives if we can help people with suicidal thoughts get through those acute moments of crisis.
The second way it works is that for those who do still make an attempt, the method that is substituted is less likely to be fatal. Guns are fatal in 85-90% of cases. Just as one example of a less lethal means, medication overdoses are fatal less than 10% of the time. Therefore, if someone intentionally overdoses rather than uses a gun, they are far more likely to survive, short-term and in the long-run.
One of the problems we face, however, is that many gun owners store their guns loaded and unlocked, putting themselves and everyone who lives or visits their house at risk. And, too many people do not believe that suicide is preventable, and some even believe that we should not intervene, that a suicidal person has a "right" to die at their own hands. We need to do a lot of work reversing these mistaken beliefs and changing behavior around gun storage.
If you want to support an organization doing amazing work in suicide prevention, please check out Forefront at UW. They will be implementing many aspects of the state plan as well as continuing their own amazing, cutting edge work in this field. www.intheforefront.org
thanks
I get hunting. I have no issues with hunting and the guns that go with hunting. And everyone I've ever talked to feels the same way--hunting is fine as long as you're engaging in responsible hunting practices and they are using the hunting guns to hunt animals and not people. And, I get the need to carry a rifle if you're walking to school in the wilds of Alaska where bears frequently come out and try to eat you (true story from a friend of mine).
But I've always been confounded by the folks who want to carry around a gun in a non-wild outdoor place. I.e., in the middle of a city or a town. Who needs a big gun on your belt walking around at the mall or sipping coffee in Starbucks? I don't get it. Is it for decoration? Or to make a statement (e.g., my [whatever] is bigger than your [whatever])? I've always suspected that there is some sort of fantasy life that these people have where they are living in the OK Corral and they feel like at some point, there will be a shoot-out over the ownership of someone's horse that they will win. And at the end of which they will be patted on the back and everyone will go back to their business, leaving the dead body to kind of disappear like it does in the movies. Or, the alternate fantasy that they will be the one-in-a-million person who somehow is in the right place at the right time when a mass murderer open fires in a movie theater and they magically don't get shot but they get to shoot the killer and become a hero. Because other than these scenarios, I don't get the desire or need to carry a gun in civilized society.
North End Parent
No Treading
Drinking COOLAID
I cannot believe that so many people are fine with the mass shootings happing all too frequently now. With the horrific shooting last week in SC, the two other mass shootings, that also happened last week, have been less talked about (only one person died of the 20 shot, but that was only due to bad aim and not the desire of the shooter).
I don't like thinking about my kid getting shot at school. This is not a concern that anyone in a reasonable country should have, and it is not happening in other places around the world. Why are we okay with this?
I thought a room full of shot children might finally change this, but it didn't. Now people want to arm teachers. I am fed up.
The problem with all the shootings, I am sure, is that we just don't have enough guns out there. NOT.
-rambo
I like that juxtaposition of "stupid" and "civilized." I personally do not want to live in the Wild West with everyone having a gun.
Touche
Yes, that is something Nancy Lanza forgot. So did the Padgetts of Troutdale, Oregon, the Fryberg family of Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Reyes family of Sparks, Nevada.
One of the problems we face, however, is that many gun owners store their guns loaded and unlocked, putting themselves and everyone who lives or visits their house at risk. And, too many people do not believe that suicide is preventable, and some even believe that we should not intervene, that a suicidal person has a "right" to die at their own hands.
It's so weird to me how some Americans see logical and sensible risk reduction as "the enemy." Jon Holzwarth of Lake Stevens claims his firearms are ALWAYS locked up, so why didn't he frisk the neighbor tot for weapons before letting him in the house to shoot his kid? Or it could be that Jon Holzwarth lied, and campaigned against I-594 because no legislation should save others from his stupidity and negligence.
How is removing firearms from mentally ill people like Joel Reuter and Ian Stawicki a violation of the Second Amendment? How do schizophrenics, suicidally depressed teens and felons participate in a "well-regulated militia" to keep the US populace safe from government tyranny?
A lot of people, gun owners or not, rely on "optimism bias" to blind themselves to the danger they are to other people (e.g. Mrs. Elizabeth Rachel Dove of Gresham, Oregon: "as long as I'm using my phone camera to video my kid while I'm driving, that shows I'm a loving and responsible parent. I just don't understand how the three high school students I struck with my car in a crosswalk don't see that about me!") and a whole lot of people cling to statistically inaccurate myths: many frontier towns of the Old West had sheriffs who enacted and followed strict gun-surrender policies; "the bogeyman" who tries to kill you is more likely to be someone you know than some stranger (the surviving boy of Honorario D. Yango's house learned this a truly horrible way); and there must be a galactic load of cognitive dissonance in the head of the person who remembers the details of the murder of four Lakewood police officers and who believes "a good guy with a gun will always stop a bad guy with a gun." More optimism bias: "Nothing bad can happen to my adolescent's developing brain while s/he's being medicated with pharmacological antidepressants", there won't be any terrible interactions with inconstant hormone levels or brain development AT ALL!"
Panic, anguish, despair, negligence, PTSD, chemical imbalances in the brain can all lead people to do irreparably stupid and harmful things. If it weren't for panic, anguish, despair, PTSD, illegal drug trade, violent psychopaths, and negligent people who can't keep their guns away from "the bad guy", most of the firearms would be with hunters, farmers, security personnel, gun ranges and law enforcement, and I'd be mostly okay with that... (thinking of Derek Carlile of the Marysville Police Department, he has a history of not following sensible gun safety rules).
But it could just as easily be any combination of the US culture of fear, income inequality, pervasive racism, pharmacological disasters escalating the homicide victim statistics.
-- Durned Ferner
"Um, how about gun control for police, they seem to be the ones doing all the killing lately."
NO WAY completely inaccurate.
I appreciate those who make statements based on reality.
Please check murder rates in any heavily urbanized city. The number of persons killed by police is extremely small in number in comparison to total homicide victims.
-- Dan Dempsey
Touche
By only allowing some officers to be armed — like a firearms unit in every police force in Britain and cops who patrol security-sensitive places like airports, for example — the logic goes, there's less of a risk of gun violence overall.
A New Zealand police commissioner wrote in an editorial in 2009:
I have no doubt that carrying handguns would compromise officers' ability to do their regular work, because when you carry a weapon, your primary concern is to protect that weapon. If this was balanced by a clearly demonstrable increase in personal protection, it would be a price to consider paying. But the protection offered by a firearm — particularly a pistol — is more illusory than real.
This has actually worked out quite well. The UK and New Zealand fare rather well compared to other countries when it comes to violent crime. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world:
Of course, the article goes on to add that criminals have fewer guns as well. Why not America? Also, another article included Ireland and Norway. We have a culture of guns. I think North End Parent and Durned Ferner summed it up pretty well.
So I would recommend focusing on what is possible vs what is impossible. Life behind bars for crimes committed with guns is a good start and would most likely end all the gang banging. Mandatory training for those who want to carry a gun with or without a CWP. Now what to do about all those pesky police shootings?
Mentally ill people(MIP) are possibly the top threat and many MIP can and do buy guns. Like the cafe racer shooter. His family begged for help, but there was nothing anyone could do. I think the bartender used a bar stool and helped save several customers, had he had a gun things could have turned out much better.
Touche
=======
Here is an article from the Washington Post
5 countries where police officers do not carry firearms — and it works well
In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. Police are only equipped with firearms in special circumstances. It's a strategy that seems to work surprisingly well for these countries. Police officers there have saved lives -- exactly because they were unable to shoot.
Firearm related deaths per 100,000
country : homicide, suicide, : unintentional , undetermined
U Kingdom : 0.04 , 0.18 : 0.01 , 0.02
Norway ...: 0.04 , 1.72 : 0.02 , 0.00
Iceland ..: 0.32 , 1.25 : (not available)
New Zealand 0.26 , 1.14 : 0.05 , 0.00
USA .....: 3.55 , 6.70 : 0.16 , 0.09
======
Guns per 100 residents
88.8 -- USA
6.6 -- UK
31.3 -- Norway
30.3 -- Iceland
22.6 -- New Zealand
4.3 -- Ireland
=================
USA has about 3 times the per capita guns more than either Norway or Iceland.
Here is the total of firearm deaths per capita for
10.64 -- USA
1.78 --- Norway
1.57 --- Iceland
USA has about 6 or 7 times as many firearm deaths per 100,000 population
-- Dan Dempsey
There's an undercurrent of racism in liberals' thinking on this. They apparently feel more comfortable if rural people (a whiter population) have guns but want to disarm the urban population (a less white population). This is unacceptable to me.
Civil rights for all.
Touche
Thanks for sharing!!!
Donate Online For Old People
Support a senior citizen
donation for old age people
how to donate for old age homes
charitable old age homes