US Gun Deaths.

1. Aramax
   April 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm

   Wow... according to this there are no suicidal black men.

   Impressive.

2. Becki
   April 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm

   Perhaps they might want to balance out the story with Lives Saved, e.g. this story from last week:
   http://cbs4.com/watercooler/local_story_112222213.html

3. dep
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm

   Lets see the same breakdown for Iraqi civilians at the hands of our would-be liberators...

4. Dave
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm

   I'd like to second what Becki said, and perhaps another balance to the story would be the number of deaths due to vehicular accidents. According to info from that same source (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) 120 people die every day in car crashes, yet it's pretty rare to hear any noise about that.

5. Terry Austin
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm

   It's telling that gun-grabbers insist on talking about *gun* deaths, but not total death rates, especially when comparing other countries. It's like they think that being murdered with a gun somehow makes you more dead than being murdered in some other way.

6. Sid
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm

   The most telling thing about this piece is that most of the deaths were suicides. Without a firearm, these people would have sadly just picked another way to off themselves, perhaps one (like jumping off a building or filling their apartment with gas) that endangered others.

   Sad incidents involving twisted sickos do occur, but the liberty engendered us by our Constitution and the freedoms thereby prtected are well worth it.

   Occasional gun violence gets a lot of airplay in this country, but the reality is that a lot of criminals think twice before invading homes or assaulting someone. There are lots of Bernard Goetzes out there, so be careful about whom you threaten with a sharpened screwdriver!

7. Jimbo
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm

   NYT is nothing but a propaganda machine. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

   I agree with Dave, CARS are the number one killer. Has been that way for years, but yet they keep talking about Cancer or Guns or Drinking.

8. Steve H.
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm

   How does this compare to the UK? I can't imagine 81 people per year being killed with guns in the UK, but does anyone know the real number?

9. Jason
   April 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm

   Wow dep--I was pro-Iraq and pro-gun before your comment. The relevance and eloquence of your comment has completely changed the whole of my thinking, and thus my entire understanding of the universe. If there was a Nobel Prize for blog commenting, you would most certainly be a front-runner.

10. Becki
    April 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    It amazes me that the gun control supporters jump on stories like the VT massacre, or compile sets of statistics like the NYT piece referenced and think that it somehow supports their ideas. The only guns "controlled" in the VT tragedy were in the hands of the killer.
    A simple thought experiment: Imagine yourself on that campus on that terrible morning. Wouldn't it perhaps be preferable, empowering and quite probably life-saving if you - or one or more of your trusted buddies was carrying a firearm, or perhaps had one stashed in the car - because the VT authorities hadn't overturned the 2nd amendment to the constitution and declared the campus to be a "gun-free zone"?

11. Jim
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    I don't know about England, but Canada which outlaws guns has a comprable murder rate to the US, just it has more stabbings and other methods than guns.

    guns in no way lead to violence, it's the people that use them that casue violence. Guns are nesasary for the protetion of individuals, and outlawing them would be a disaster.

12. Jim
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    I fully support any legislastion that would ban any zone (except maybe where alchohol is served) from being gun-free zones to those that can legally own firearms, especially college campuses. the VT masacare could of been prevented if students and faculty could legally carry guns on thier person.

13. artschild
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Actually, it's a bit ignorant to say that a person who committed suicide by gun would have managed by another means. What makes gun suicides unusually risky is that they are highly successful with a minimal amount of planning and minimal commitment (all it takes is being committed for the amount of time it takes to pull the trigger). Most other means take more work and/or time. Guns make suicide into something that can be accomplished in the space of a relatively brief (though extreme) impulse.

14. L.B. Jeffries
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Well, I guess this means I shouldn't own a gun because of my high probability of shooting myself or a black male with it.

15. strawdog
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Jim, please
    Guns are far from outlawed in Canada.
    http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm
    Death rate by gun is far less in Canada than U.S.
    http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-003-XIE/0040482-003-XIE.pdf

16. strawdog
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    This data is alittle old, but paints the picture. Looks like Japan has it right. No guns, no gun deaths. Funny how that works.

    Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

    Homicide Suicide Unintentional

    USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

    Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

    Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

    Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

    England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

    Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995)

17. strawdog
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    * Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

    Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

18. Becki
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    In other words data provided by way of organizations with an anti-gun agenda.
    So I guess you haven't done that thought experiment then.

19. Ted
    April 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    I'd love to see the stats to back up the claim that Canada has a comparable murder rate to the US.

    Canada has not outlawed guns. Gun control is stricter, and there are less around than in the US.

    There are like, more people in New York City than in all of Canada.

    What's overwhelming is only one woman out of those 17. Does this mean that violence against women is a myth?

20. Jason
    April 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    Gun control only inhibits those who wish to follow the rule of law. I have a concealed weapons license and WOULD NEVER take it where I could not. Why? Because I DO NOT want to lose my license.
    If I wanted to kill people, I would seek out a place that would not allow people to have guns so I could kill more without having to deal with an armed civilian. In essence, gun free zones empower criminals and impede the law abiding.

21. Terry Austin
    April 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    As is typical, the gun-grabbers cite gun suicides, while pretending that no other form of suicide exist. As usual, the gun-grabbers lie because the truth proves them wrong.

    Real scientists who have researched suicide have found that the only thing that really matters is whether or not the person is serious in their intent. When guns are not available, they *will* choose another method, and there are several that are just as effective. Pills, of various sorts, are commonly available, as is carbon monoxide, and jumping from heights. Does committing suicide with a gun somehow make you more dead than a 20 story fall? Or do guns emit evil mind control rays that force otherwise normal people to commit suicide?

    According to one study, as many as one in six police involved shootings are deliberate suicide - "suicide by cop" - and that included only deaths where the victim left some kind of suicide note - "I'm going to force the cops to kill me."

22. Becki
    April 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    What the hell was "neat" about gun-deaths anyway?
    Or was the post meant to put forward the lefty gun control agenda?
    Anyhow - nice to see that for once a politically charged post at this site resulted in a comments section not dominated by "progressives".

23. strawdog
    April 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Beki
    Statistics Canada has no anti gun agenda.
    The sources sited by guncontrole.ca are unbiased. Statistics compiled from Centre for Justice Statistics; FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada Homicide Survey; Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice (Kwing Hung) June 2001
    All this data shows is how many guns there are in Canada and how many people died gun related deaths.
    Ted, Canada's population is roughly 31 million, comparable to California.

24. strawdog
    April 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    Sorry Ted
    33 million
    http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm

25. donna
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Just a technicality, but wouldn't "gun grabbers" be those who HAD guns, not those who oppose them?

    You're most likely to be shot by yourself or someone you know, not in some random shooting incident.

    Nobody wants to grab your gun, people. We would just ask that you use them safely and nicely, and play well with others in discussions, instead of calling them names. K?

    And before you go flaming me, we own several guns and the NRA sticker is on my car. K?

    Now shut up.

26. Becki
    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    It must be nice and cozy in that mindset of yours, knowing that all you have to do to protect yourself against a man with a gun is to call the authorities. What struck me about much of the video footage shown after the VT campus was "secured" by police was the sad and impotent pointlessness of all of the firearms the cops were armed with. If the victims had had some of that firepower then perhaps 31 of the 32 might still be alive.

    As the cliche goes - if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. You simply cannot ban anything, it doesn't work.

    And re: your "statistics". I don't give them any credence. Perhaps if they were broken down into the US states that allowed concealed carry laws and those that didn't I'd be willing to bet you might just find that most of the gun crime happens in the "gun control" states.

    When mass killers meet armed resistance; 3 different stories:
    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed- resistance.html

    Penn and Teller on Gun Control:
    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/penn-teller-on-gun-control.ht ml

27. ted
    April 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Oops, I just checked the population for New York City - says 8 million. Guess I grossly underestimated the population, or I was thinking of some stat about a much larger suburban area - like including a lot of the area around.

    Looking at the link for those stats, it still shows a suicide by gun rate much higher for men all the way across. You have to wonder when the info is presented like that just what the agenda, and what stats are being bent. For instance, the younger female category shows a whole bullet, when the words indicate that the number should be at the most half a bullet. Then you have to start to wonder why the division into age groups. Why not consider the population as a whole? Or is it more effective to keep hammering the point home with different age groups?

    Gotta love these politicized threads. It's like marching in the Neatorama army - left, right, left, right.

28. shecky
    April 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    The most interesting thing about this post is how incredibly defensive gun advocates are regarding an article that doesn't make much editorializing about gun violence. Nothing about gun grabbing at all.

    Before you all start wetting your pants, I'm a gun owner and enthusiast. At the same time, I have no problem seeing statistics on gun violence in the US, and no problem with the article.

29. marco
    April 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Perhaps every American should carry a gun for a year and we'll see what happens (hopefully from a great distance).

    FWIW: Women often have higher *attempt* rates for suicide - men are just far more successful at it - often 4 times as much.

    "Lies, damn lies, and statistics...and damn gun statistics." – Some Guy

30. Britt
    April 24th, 2007 at 12:10 am

    The idea of guns being used by humans against other humans unsettles me.

31. lb
    April 24th, 2007 at 9:37 am

    i dont live in america so i dont know how it feels, but it amazes me how people defend their rights to guns. just throwing it out there but if you never had guns and other people (criminals) didnt have guns then you wouldn't need one to protect yourself. I mean you wouldn't miss it if you never had it.
    I must say that the break down of the NYT stats is kind of artificial, seeing as its by race and all. If a guy is half black and half white, is he the 'nearly' 6 black men murdered or 'nearly' 7 white men suicides? these vague facts just make the statistics a whole lot less credible.

32. MrBinky
    April 24th, 2007 at 11:08 am

    There's a lot of strange "logic" going on in these comments. People act like the students at VT constantly felt unsafe because they weren't legally allowed to carry guns, and that they were all preoccupied with their desire to carry guns. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a student who'd say "If only VT wasn't a gun-free zone, then I would have had my gun with me and everything would have been fine!"

    Why is there no mention that the guns used at VT were legally purchased and owned? Surely the neatorama readers present here would never break the law and kill people, but that's not a valid argument to suggest that all people who legally purchase guns do so for self-defense! The counter example is right in our faces!

    It is my opinion that we'd be better off with no guns. Then, murderous people wouldn't be able to get guns (or at the least it would make it MUCH more difficult) and perhaps there would be less incidents of legally owned/purchased guns (and less guns in general) being used for murder. Is that logic so far-fetched? Would school shootings of the past have been so "effective" if the killers didn't have guns?

33. Becki
    April 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    So - if you ban guns then do you also ban the police force from having guns?
    I too would like to live in a world where criminals didn't have guns, but like a lot of things in life that's an unrealistic wish - or even aspiration.

    Madmen like the VT killer, or hard core professional criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns. You just have to ask yourself whether you want to try to live in that ideal world without guns - while the criminal element cheat - or live in the real world and level the playing field.

34. MrBinky
    April 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Also, there is no way you can conclude that "violence against women is a myth" because more men are murdered with guns than women. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that question is full of ignorance and is painfully oversimplifying things.

35. MrBinky
    April 24th, 2007 at 11:23 am

    No, I don't want to ban the police from having guns. Don't try to paint me out to be stupid because I disagree with you.

    You seem to view life as a constant battlefield where you're always endanger... I feel when average people need to think this way it means America is in a very poor state. Why do you feel this way? Do you feel threatened when you walk down to the corner store? I would never want to engage in a gun fight. I think filling the streets with guns in the hands of paranoid people will only lead to more unnecessary death.

    I also disagree with the notion that the VT killer would definitely have procured guns in a different matter. Do you think the columbine killers would have gone through other criminals to get their guns if they couldn't swipe guns legally purchased by their parents? This is all speculation and could be argued forever, but I'd like to think that raising these questions will at least cause people who are "pro-gun" to consider an alternate point of view.

36. Miss Cellania
    April 24th, 2007 at 11:36 am

    Disagree all you like, but please, we don't even want the appearance of personal attacks.

37. Becki
    April 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    I've lived in both the UK and the States. I feel a lot safer actually in the States than in, say England because of the presence of guns. That may sound counter-intuitive, but the simple possibility that the guy might have a gun prevents untold instances of trouble from even starting. That applies across the board - from bar room brawls to armed theft/assault.
    An armed society is a polite society. Or words to that effect...

38. Britt
    April 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    The impression I'm getting is that, without guns, the United States is unsafe. In England you might feel safer because of other things, but safer in the States because of guns. I have no idea. The longest I've been in the States at one time was approximately 6 weeks, and I felt as paranoid as ever. I feel safer in Canada. Nothing is unnerving like being pulled over by a State trooper who keeps his hand on his pistol the entire time. For me, anyway.

    I'd rather live in ignorant bliss than have to deal with the worry of who's going to shoot me. Guns have little to no chance of escape when used, which is why they're an asset to police officers, but to the common citisen? Nobody -needs- a gun. You can argue the need for self-defence, but guns aren't the end-all-be-all.

    They're a privilege, not a right, and like most destructive things, need to be respected.

39. ted
    April 24th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Good point, Britt, although I've never felt unsafe when travelling in the USA.

    MrBinky,
    My "violence against women is a myth" comment was supposed to be oversimplifying, because in my opinion, this statistical representation is an oversimplification.

    For one thing, the stats don't indicate the gender of the shooter, except in the suicide cases. Some of the stats are not complete people, but they use complete images - skewing our perception unless we read the text carefully.

    And isn't it odd that they used pictures of lipsticks for these graphs?

    Seriously though, I recall an activist a few years complaining about an increase in the murder rate: 49% of murders were female victims. She didn't seem to mind that 51% were male victims. We need to cut down on all murders, regardless of whom they're happening to. Do stats like this really contribute anything to our understanding of the problem?

40. marco
    April 24th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    Lipsticks?

41. rek
    April 25th, 2007 at 1:40 am

    The gun crusaders are just as likely to pull out their own biased sources as anyone. The above-linked CBS story, if you read it, champions an elderly woman for holding up a truck full of -gasp- trespassers (only one of who was even charged). Wow, that's great. But shouldn't you pull your gun on every stranger you see, just in case?

    Gun control figures and gun-related murder rates are blank canvas for both sides to paint whatever picture they want. It's pointless to compare the numbers from two nations with the expectation that the people are the same. Consider that in the past two or three years with Toronto's over-sensationalized "gun problem", the total overall murder rate was still only in the double digits each year. That's less than 100 people murdered (in various ways) in an urban population of over 2.5 million. New York City's murder figure has been hovering around 600/year for the past 6 years -- 3.25 times as many people, killing each other roughly 6 times as often. What does this mean for the gun issue? Nothing. Americans are just more violent and more prone to murder than Canadians. Doubt it? The number of murders in New York City over the past 6 years is on par with the number of murders in the entire nation of Canada in 2005 -- not by proportion, a 1:1 comparison.

    Liberal access to guns, controlled or not, just makes it easier for people who are likely to use them to kill to do so. Having a gun doesn't mean you'll just start killing people (or committing other crimes). Without guns flowing like water, Americans would pick up the slack and stab each other more, nut cases would take bombs to school, and postal workers would throw sarin gas balloons.

42. Jimbo
    April 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    The Right to bear arms and freedom of speech should be connected. Take them both out but not just one.

43. rek
    April 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am

    The right to bear arms and a woman's right to choose should be connected. How about that for ridiculous baiting, James?

44. Becki
    April 26th, 2007 at 10:34 am

    http://images.mysanantonio.com/opinion/cartoons/nacho/large/2007_04_22 _nacho.jpg

45. Terry
    April 27th, 2007 at 1:15 am

    In 2004, there were nearly 61 million children age 14 and younger in the
    United States. This age group made up 21 percent of the total U.S. resident
    population in 2004.
    Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every
    age from 3 to 14 years old (based on 2002 figures, which are the latest mortality
    data currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).
    In 2004, there were a total of 42,636 traffic fatalities in the United States.
    The 14 and under age group accounted for 5 percent (2,157) of those
    traffic fatalities. This age group accounted for 4 percent (1,638) of all vehicle
    occupant fatalities, 9 percent (246,000) of all the people injured in motor
    vehicle crashes, and 8 percent (214,000) of all the vehicle occupants injured
    in crashes.
    Every day in the United States, an average of 6 children age 14 and younger
    were killed and 673 were injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2004.
    In the 14 and under age group, males accounted for 56 percent of the fatalities
    and 47 percent of those injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2004.

    Statistics from NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

    These automobiles are licensed and registered , as are the drivers . They are manufactured under strick goverment controls and regulations , also sold with govermental input , yet there were 42,636 deaths that occured with the assistance of these machines . Where is the outrage over these deaths .

    With that said , firearms are far more regulated than any car .

    Now for a question ;
    If I register my guns and obtain a license for them , shouldn't I be allowed to carry them any place that a car is allowed ?

46. rek
    April 27th, 2007 at 2:24 am

    Are cars designed to kill? Is the sole purpose behind the ownership of a car to drive it over someone in the street? Are most traffic injuries and deaths intentional?

47. matt
    May 21st, 2007 at 7:12 am

    Why do we need guns? When the "Founding Fathers" decreed all citizens have the right bear arms is that the be all end all discussion on guns for eternity? Just because it was right more than 200 years ago doesn't mean it's right today. 200 years ago the country was under constant threat from OUTSIDE powers, like the British, French, Natives, Spanish...citizens didn't arm themselves against eachother but together against foreign threats. Last time I checked, I don't think the Canadian Army was eyeing Buffalo too closely. Who is looking into the death by guns in 1776? 20,000 British, 3000 French, oddly 4 white male suicides and 6 year old Billy Bob bustin a cap in 4 year old brother Jimbo's noggin while playing with Daddy's gun. In my opinion it is an outdated policy that does much more harm than good.

48. Lew Dabney
    September 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Nothing could be more disgusting, embarrassing, shameful and childish than America's love affair with guns. You'd thinl we were still settling the prairies. The UK--to answer one question-- sees about 70 homicides a year. The US counts 30,000 by guns! Guns are designed to kill. Who the hell needs 'em? When will we ever grow up?

49. Tango
    January 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Another telling detail is that those who seek to disarm the law-abiding refer to "gun deaths" and crank out these shocking and horrific numbers... yet they intentionally fail to mention that, in addition to the suicides, the disarmers include:

    deaths of criminals at the hands of other criminals, and

    the deaths of criminals in the act of committing crimes from the lawful use of force (self defense / justifiable homicide) by law enforcement officers and armed citizens.

    Oops. Little tiny detail that suddenly takes away the image of little Johnny and Janey getting mowed down by unattended "guns gone wild".

50. Locke
    March 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    im a little undecided on the topic, i dont see the need for semiautomatic weapons owned by citizens, u cant use those for sport, the only real use is crime

    guns shold never be outlawed though im definite on that

    RIP NIU

51. bob L
    May 11th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    I came home this afternoon and realized it was hiding.
    Sure enough, when I walked into the bedroom, it chased me around the house, firing every round in the chamber... and when it went empty it threw itself at me, barely missing... yessirree, my gun was completely out of control... yep we must control guns.

    The reality is this.. i have a rifle sitting in my closet collecting dust because it has no feelings, no agenda, no passions, greed, jealousy or anything else that makes humans flawed. My rifle has never been fired in haste or in anger, because its OWNER controls himself.
    Think of it this way.... When a murder by gun goes to trial, the gun is never sentenced to prison.

52. eagletal
    July 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    When all governments destroy all weapons, guns, bombs, warplanes etc., Then I'll consider giving up my weapons.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT