As gun debate goes on, 2500 more gun deaths
by Brian Mann on March 7th, 2013
A sign posted in Webster, NY, where a mentally ill man attacked firefighters. Photo from WXXI
This morning, we reported on the growing activism in the North Country that aims to repeal New York’s SAFE Act, passed in January.
Some really strong and passionate arguments are being made in favor of rolling back the law, which was inspired by the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut and Webster, New York.
Meanwhile, here’s an update on gun fatalties in the US since Newtown: 2,506 gun fatalities. That’s after Sandy Hook.
Out of that tally, 80 of the deaths are here in New York state and 43 of the fatalities were children. Again, that’s in three months, since December 12th of last year.
Comments welcome below.
See below. This is an interesting site where you can list stats by state and then look at how they correlate with other statistics. Much more meaningful than a bunch of icons like they have at the Slate site. But it does show the number of deaths since what happened in Newtown.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
The data is in regard to guns in general. Not the assault or high-powered guns, but all guns.
So. Where is this going? And you wonder why some of us think the goal is banning all guns from private citizens?
Kathy: the point Brian M is making is that a lot of people, the majority of them children to look at the NYS stats he posted, are dying because of gun violence. If you can’t come up with any other contribution then “THEY’RE COMING TO TAKE MY GUNS AND THAT’S THE REAL NIGHTMARE!!!!”, you are going to lose that argument. I don’t support banning private ownership of weapons. But you need to come up with a more meaningful contribution to addressing the very real problem Brian M posted about.
If you don’t like the direction where you think this is going, then contribute so you can shape the direction.
The other point to keep in mind is that the numbers of gun related deaths in the US has been dropping over the past several decades. That while gun ownership has remained fairly constant at about a 50% rate in the US. Also, that gun related deaths have been falling in many places while gun sales (as I understand it) have been skyrocketing. So far the only effect of NYS’s new gun law appears to be more guns on the street? What else?
do you think that the citicens will give up their guns up easily if you do you have another thing coming
I think that they should not take guns away. what if some one were to come in to your school or work and start shooting up.. how would you defend yourself? there is no way to if the state takes away our guns.
Assuming you have all seen this:
http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/03/06/states-with-strictest-firearm-laws-have-lowest-rates-gun-deaths-boston-children-hospital-study-finds/fqTVlmioqukwRLHJ84M6jP/story.html
“A study from Boston Children’s Hospital found that states with the highest number of gun laws have the lowest rates of gun deaths due to homicides and suicides.
The research, published online Wednesday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, analyzed gun laws in all 50 states as well as the total number of gun-related deaths in each state from 2007 through 2010. It found that fatality rates ranged from a high of 17.9 per 100,000 people in Louisiana — a state among those with the fewest gun laws — to a low of 2.9 per 100,000 in Hawaii, which ranks sixth for its number of gun restrictions.”
We don’t need gun control so much as stupid control. belligerent control, and ignorance control. Until we get the average a** hole under control, people will die in needless violence. Look around you. Even the most ardent gun fan has to admit that there are a couple of folks they might know, who really shouldn’t have a gun….That neighbor who’s dumber than a rock, the drunk who regularly kicks his dog, or that one guy who’s always so fricken angry…and you know that NONE of the legislation we’ve seen yet will help.
You just have to hope he doesn’t have a gun.
Message for Kathy. Run your opinions past Brian (not NCPR) for validation or don’t bother to contribute at this site.
Bob S,
People are free to express their opinion, and people are free to challenge those opinions.
re: “bob s”
dave,
that was sarcasm, I believe. :)
Bob: She can post whatever she wants (within the guidelines of this site). But guess what? So can I. I was just going on the assumption that she wanted to influence people toward her point of view. I admit I could be wrong.
Just to aggravate some people, this whole gun issue seems to be dragging out into the open all of the John Birchers, Survivalists and Ku Klux Klaners.
They say they love this country but they talk more as though they hate it.
“to a low of 2.9 per 100,000 in Hawaii, which ranks sixth for its number of gun restrictions.””
Could also be the weather! I wish I was in Hawaii today.
“dave,
that was sarcasm, I believe. :)”
Oops! I missed it if so. And I love me some good internet sarcasm!
I do think there must be something going on with how we think about this. The murder rates don’t seem to be correlated with gun deaths. So maybe indeed people with more access to guns commit suicide with guns more often? But guns don’t mean more crime or murder that is also shown in the statistics.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
Again, with this nonsense? This constant drumbeat of irrelevant and misleading “data” only reinforces the idea that the anti-gun forces really do want to ban all guns. They will never be honest about it but their intent can clearly be discerned by their actions. By the way, how come DWI isn’t called “car violence”?
The interesting question would be can you reduce suicide by stricter gun control? If so what kind of gun control would reduce suicide? Suicide and possibly accidents seem to be the determinative number. Take places like Montana with low murder rates but indeed high gun death rates, would banning assault rifles lower those accidents and suicides in Montana?
Seems like a stretch. I kind of agree with OL, this is relatively meaningless data except possibly to give us a general feel for the volume, which is interesting for sure, but I am not sure how it relates to the gun debate in the US?
Shaping the direction:
We live in an imperfect world with good and evil. We cannot wipe out evil. That doesn’t mean we don’t resist it. It means there will never be a world without it. We can and should make it better. But it can’t come from more rules, regulations, and laws which controls behavior at the expense of freedom. The reason for more control is because we are seeing the results of “if it feels good do it”. The line has been moved over and over and self-government is becoming a thing of the past.
The Founders certainly understood evil. They understood future generations perhaps better than we do today. The right to bear arms was in regard to the private citizen defending himself. They understood the propensity of a government to become too powerful. As John Dalberg-Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt”. That said, we need to figure out what cornerstones of the Constitution should not ever be touched. Like renovating a home, there are beams you cannot remove.
Additionally, we use conscience, logic, emotions, common sense, and wisdom in dealing with problems. The sign in Brian’s article is a true but emotional statement. We can’t use only emotion in dealing with anything. Emotion motivates us to act. But we need to use the other abilities we have to make good decisions.
The logic re: the gun debate is it makes more sense to have the ability to meet the criminal with the same weapon he is going to have. To limit one’s ability to defend himself, his property, his children is ludicrous.
Again, the data referred to in the article does not refer to the high powered guns but all guns, which infers someone would like to get rid of all guns in order to control behavior. It’s a red flag not to be confused with being uncaring or unconcerned about the death of children from guns.
Guns have nothing to do with suicide and banning them will not prevent anyone from killing themselves if that is their intention. Linking gun control and suicide prevention is another example of the disingenuous tactics anti-gun people use.
“Guns have nothing to do with suicide…”!!??
Yeah, unless someone you love kills themselves with a gun. Then it kinda really does.
No Walker, suicide really doesn’t have anything to do with guns and to suggest it does overlooks the real issue, which is that people who want to end their lives have deeper problems than finding the means of ending them. Banning guns won’t stop the violent mentally ill from mass murder, either. I’m surprised at the simplistic approach some take to this question. On the other hand, anything that helps get guns banned might seem useful to those who want that ban.
Larry, it’s well established that people who attempt suicide using a gun have a much higher chance of actually killing themselves than suicides by other means.
When people fail at attempted suicide, they generally end up getting help. The dead ones, not so much.
“Larry, it’s well established that people who attempt suicide using a gun have a much higher chance of actually killing themselves than suicides by other means.”
This is beyond ridiculous! Are you also going to outlaw tall buildings, rope and gas stoves? Please.
No, Larry, tall buildings, rope and gas stoves are used way less frequently by suicidal people.
You can’t use reductio ad absurdum on gun legislation– it doesn’t work. Almost 20,000 people commit suicide using firearms per year. Jumpers – fewer than a thousand, hanging and other means of suffocation – about six thousand.
Besides, it’s not about outlawing guns, it is about regulating them. We regulate automobiles– see any sign of them being outlawed?
Kathy: Fair enough but what happens if one gets to a situation where one feels more threatened by armed citizens than the government? Particularly in situations like being caught in the crossfire, as so many gun deaths are, where merely arming the victim would make no difference.
kathy how can you honestly write this? you’re a social conservative. by your own admission you’re primarily motivated by social issues. do you think gays should be free to marry? do you think polygamy should be legalized? marijuana?
no, you’re very much into restricting certain kinds of freedoms. which in and of itself is fine — that’s how we all are, except for really hardcore libertarians i guess. but be honest with yourself and everyone else about it.
The propensity of, even the well educated, modern “conservatives” to deny the logic of science and applied mathematics/statistics when used to analyze any subjects with which they are convinced that they, and only they, understand the “truth”, might be considered jocular were it not for the damaging effects, upon the Earth and human society, caused by such beliefs. Their insistence that they are correct in all matters of contention and that the biased “liberals” are out to lunch has brought rational discourse and negotiation concerning the very future of spaceship Earth and her flora and fauna to a virtual standstill, not just in Washington D.C. but throughout the US and the rest of the world.
Eric Hoffer’s, (born in NYC 1902 died San Francisco 1983, self educated, laborer, field hand and longshoreman), first and most well known book “The True Believer (1951)” long ago became influential upon my, and many others, concepts concerning the whys and the wherefores of homo sapiens cultural and societal proclivities. Among his voluminous and pithy quotations are such:”A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding, when it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.” “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.” A favorite quotation of mine is “It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.”
No doubt guns are a public safety issue, we do have to admit that.
If you have a society of crazy, violent people, all of them being armed is not a good thing.
Guns will have different impacts on different parts of our society and culture. Its too bad we can’t take a more flexible approach.
What causes gun deaths that we are concerned about? To me the main thing is carrying around a weapon for no good reason. What I mean is why would you ever need to carry a gun in your car going to work or just out driving around or walking around with a gun in your day to day life? People who do this are either very scared for their safety or have bad intentions, both cases are not good situations to be armed.
On the other hand a gun in your home yes for home protection does not cause much harm in general (yes there are suicides and accidents), but in general it does not cause much harm. Guns in the field hunting don’t cause much harm, (yes there are accidents), but in general its not a huge risk.
I would be in favor of gun control that said it is illegal to carry a gun around in your car or on your person. Stop and frisk programs have been very effective at reducing crime in NYC for example.
Just in case no one here has read the constitution. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The power of the military was intended to be in the hands of the people. If we as a people give up our responsibility to maintain a secure nation, we relinquish our FREEDOM to keep and protect a free nation. This is a constitutional republic, where the rights are secured to our benefit with the intention of protecting us from our own best intentions. (We intend to protect ourselves from weapons, but really only transfer the responsibility of protection and give up on the freedom)
If you think that only government can provide the necessary security without breaking laws, you are wrong. You cannot relinquish your responsibility to an establishment that is just as responsible for crime as its citizens.
For example, The fast and furious scandal. The government contributed to illegally providing dangerous drug gangs with guns. That is just one recent thing related to guns. We freak out about children being killed with guns, so beg the government to take our rights away when they just killed many hundreds of children with drones in NON COMBAT ZONES in other countries just this year!
If you want to protect children, take action against unjust killings in other countries. Figure out how to better secure the schools. DO SOMETHING! Restricting guns further via legislation will have little effect.
The only reliable place to go for statistics is fbi.gov. Every agency sends their ucr reports to them and it all goes into a database and at the end of the yr. The public can view how things are going. Everything is broken down and in some cases broken down even further. Crime has gone down and has been going down and gun violence isnt even an issue compared to other crimes and as far as assault weapons used in crimes is like 1%. Dont eat the BS sandwich the media is feeding you. They are in it for ratings and personal agenda. im a die hard american so if something is wrong then lets fix it but not at the expense of the rights of the people. most of these gun murders are done by gangs and woodbe thugs who have no care for the law or what new bill they pass and they dont follow the same procedures as a law abiding citizen would to obtain a firearm. So if it doesnt effect them its not rocket science to figure out that its not going to stop them either. Sure there are a few nuts that pop up but out of billions of people its inevitable that there will be a few. We are only human. Now if the statistics disturb you and you keep looking to find some bs sight of crime stats that show something that fits your needs other than the truth then your words are meaningless as you. You fail to look at the big picture and only focus on one thing and that alone and use propaganda to spread the distorted truth like a disease. Instead facing the criminals on their playing field on their level you want to go after the rights of those who dont rob and rape and do drivebys and live the the life of crime. your clueless
Sounds like you’re not real open to ideas that don’t fit your preconceived notions. Data be damned, eh?
Here’s one very straightforward fact for you. I’m sixty-seven years old, and neither I nor anyone I know has ever needed a gun to face down all those criminals you imagine are just waiting to blow you away. You’re watching too many movies. You’re living in a fantasy world. You’re cluelesss.
Walker,
I think that is great that you agree with our point. Your chances of being killed with an assault weapon are very slim. There is no need to restrict law abiding citizens from practicing their 2nd amendment RIGHTS. There is no need to spend hundreds of billions on keeping and maintaining databases with every law abiding gun owner. (look up fusion center)
You were fortunate enough to live in an areas with little threat of violence. You were fortunate enough to have most of your rights for the 67 years of your life. You lived in the best part of our economic bubble.
Let me tell you that not everyone is as fortunate as you Mr. Walker. Some of us live in neighborhoods with little money, barely making it, and working 2 jobs. Some of us have to go home, walking to our cars or bus stops in bad neighborhoods where there are criminals trying to rob you, and with police departments getting cuts left and right. Some of us will be living for another 60 years, when maybe the situation we are living in changes to mass unemployment, crime, and civil unrest.
You can’t predict the future and neither could our founders, but the founders knew that whatever happens; as long as we defend our rights, we would always have our freedom.
Taking your own responsibility for yourself is what it means to be a truly free. If we lose our ability to keep our responsibility, we have lost everything.
I don’t see how our founders could make the 2nd amendment any more clear. I don’t know how it could be deemed any less important being 2ND ONE in the list. Please do some research about what America was supposed to become. The declaration of independence was the promise. The constitution was the means to get there.
Look up the “fast and furious gun walking scandal” I’m not sure if you understood what I was talking about there.
Walker,
Thats was actually pretty funny but then I realized I never mentioned what I do for a living. I can respect the fact you chose not to carry. I can also respect those that lawfully chose to carry.They may save my life one day and if that time ever come I hope they do. You just never know. you may live in a very nice area where doors can go unlocked and crime is something rare. Others dont have that luxury. People need to understand how both sides live to get that full picture. What you see as “living in a fantasy” is another persons reality. I live in a pretty decent area but down the street is a different story and section 8 housing just opened up down the street so now we are getting the occasional break ins and 2 houses down the poor lady was still home. Luckily they ran but there is always the what ifs. So now a patrol runs through the neighborhood but heres the reality check. If someone is in your house and the individuals are not the running type then 911 isnt going to help you. You may become another statistic. However, the way you chose to defend yourself is your choice. Me personaly, if someone is coming into my house to cause harm to my family that I love, I will freaken destroy you
“I don’t see how our founders could make the 2nd amendment any more clear.”
Well they could have left off that “A well-regulated militia being necessary” part.
I appreciate and share the concern over tragedies that take the lives of innocents. We know the media and politicians will always attribute these tragedies to gun violence. The gun is not violent. The loss of life at the hands of those that chose to take it is mislabeled by many including the media. It is violence perpetrated by the individual. The gun, knife, tire iron, rope are the simply the instrument. What we find ourselves trying to understand is how we can we stop the violence. The answer is not the misguided solution of regulation that tramples our second amendment. The answer is not to further erode our Freedom and Liberty by meaningless regulation. I believe the church, not just Catholic, has a role. Our government continues its assault on the morals’ of mankind. Our elected officials, special interest groups, demand that we drop all references to God. How can mankind be pro-life without God? I thought I would share a couple quotes from our history.
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions”. Ronald Reagan
“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” Ronald Reagan
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. John Adams
The good news is “We the People” have the means necessary to turn the page. We must educate the electorate of the evils the Marxist approach will bring upon us. We find our government leading us in the direction of social justice and Marxism. We must educate the electorate that our individual rights are granted to us by God not government. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges this and tells us when government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and institute new government. It is my opinion the time has come to alter our government. The Democratic platform in this last election chose to remove God from their platform. This is not my grandfather’s democratic party. The just powers are only derived from the consent of the governed. We must withdraw our consent of this government. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government does not teach us to respect life Our God does. Our government is thrusting tyranny upon us. It is “We the People” that must change it. To do this we must turn to God. This is my prayer. It is imperative the Christians’ of our great nation stand together with God to stop the carnage. The church must become an integral part of instituting the moral high ground. It would bode well for all Americans and Christians to refocus on what the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights means to our Republic. Without God none of this matters. This is why the church must stand to defeat the moral decay in our country. Pray for peace!
“It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions…”
Gee, that’s great. I’m sure that the parents of dead children will take comfort in the idea that the individual responsible will be held accountable. Er, unless he turns out to be crazy.
Time to hold the gun manufacturers liable– accountable for their actions.
“This is why the church must stand to defeat the moral decay in our country.”
If it’s up to “the church” to defeat the moral decay, we’re all in deep trouble!
Walker, this is not even close to a legitimate argument. We have babies having babies growing up without a father. The moral deterioration of America is the problem. Take a look at the bigger picture. The moral decay of America will lead to its destruction. Without God and family core values that teach us to respect all life it means nothing to take it. The gun manufacturers statement is not well thought out on your part. Again, the gun or it’s maker are not violent. It is the loss of God in the lives of American’s that has lead us to this place in history. Our individual rights are granted by God not government. The government intervention in the moral high ground removing God from our lives at every turn will be our downfall. “We the People” must work to return morality to society. Thou shall not kill is not being taught to our children to teach their children. This government has become destructive and it is time for replacement. Flush the System!
“Without God and family core values that teach us to respect all life it means nothing to take it.”
Hoosier, I am an atheist. Trust me when I say that killing a person is not meaningless to me. It does not take a belief in a supreme being to recognize the validity of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Your entire premise is wrong.
Walker, I will pray for your lost soul. From your own words here its obvious you are searching for answers. The fact you give validity to words of God, in your heart you know. Let God lead you and you will find peace. Your logic is misguided. Flush the System!
Good luck with that!
And you might want to check out the article on the Golden Rule before you go assuming that it has anything to do with the Christian god.
Walker, I can see you are searching for peace in your life. Try the Bible it can’t hurt. You have questions so try this site. It is self-evident you have proven my point. It’s obvious you have love in your heart. Work with God to pass it on to others. What I’m saying is with God as our guide we can work to bring peace to all that seek to find it. It must be this way or we will suffer at the hands of the evil that seeks to destroy us. God is the shining light. Let His light shine across the land. “We the People” will win our country back but only with God at our side. Pray for peace!
The English Standard Version translates it well: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” By ending the “rule” with the “Law and the Prophets,” Jesus has condensed the entire Old Testament into this principle. This was something the Jews of Jesus’ day would have known by their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, as Moses wrote: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18). Again, we see even here the implication that people are naturally self-lovers due to sin (Jeremiah 17:19), so it gave the audience a place to start in how they should treat others: how they want to be treated.
As good as the Golden Rule is in its command to treat others, it also reminds us how selfish we really are! Jesus’ audience could relate to this command (as the Jews of Moses’ day could) because people universally demand respect, love, and appreciation whether they deserve it or not. Jesus knew this and used it to show how His people should treat others: how they themselves wanted to be loved, respected, and appreciated. This rule to treat others with such high regard is also the second in the greatest of commandments, followed only by the command to love God Himself (Matthew 22:39).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html#ixzz2NRbzulAe
Flush the System!
Boy, do you not get it!
Oh, to the contrary. Again, I will pray for you and remember God loves you as he does the all His children!
Flush the System!
“Well they could have left off that ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary’ part.”
You couldn’t be any more wrong. The power of the military needs to be in the hands of the people. FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY!!
I pretty much completely summed up this argument in my posts. Did you read what I said? I dont see anything I said being refuted. It is amazing how some people get caught in a haze. Get off the medication, and throw away your television. I can tell all the damage these things are doing to society, and its sickening.
Gee, American, it’s amazing the assumptions you make. I haven’t had a TV in over ten years, and I’m on no medication at all. If everyone found your arguments convincing, there wouldn’t be a debate on this stuff.
So let’s see…
If the power of the military needs to be in the hands of the people, then people should have tanks, jets, choppers, missiles, bombs, the works, right? If not, then what do your words actually mean?
Yes, a well-regulated militia (NOT INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE) can have tanks, jets, choppers, missiles, and bombs, IF NEEDED. What good would it be bringing pea shooters to a tank fight? The ability to protect your state cannot be infringed. The power of the military (at least the ability) needs to be in the hands of the people. Turn off your NPR leftist radio. They are feeding you lies.
Ah, there’s lies enough all around!
“Yes, a well-regulated militia (NOT INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE) can have tanks, jets…”
Then it sounds like that should apply to firearms too.