By Brian L. Grant MD
Many of us were in a sad mood on December 14, the day of the Connecticut shootings. But further reflection lead me to the unfortunate conclusion that beyond the fact that the carnage in one spot was mainly children and the number in this single incident was high, this was a typical day in America.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we had 31,347 (10.2 per 100,000) deaths by firearm in the U.S. in 2009. That is an average of 86 per day. Of these about 64% are actually suicide, and a small number are accidental.
In the same year, motor vehicle accidents took the lives of 34,485 (11.2 per 100,000 or about 94 per day). Only a few more than were killed with guns. Cars serve a vital purpose and there is unfortunately collateral damage when they collide. Guns are for killing.
Related statistics from Wikipedia describe firearm deaths across many countries in the world.
Our rate per population of gun deaths in the U.S. is roughly 40 times that of the UK and twice that of Canada. Both countries, along with much of Europe, have significant limits on guns. We can’t identify who might engage in slaughter ahead of time without locking up all of us. What we can do is make those predisposed to harm others less lethal by making it a lot tougher to get a gun and limit the types of guns available. This might include limiting access to military and police only on guns capable of shooting many shots rapidly.
As a non-expert on the technical aspects of firearms, I would defer details to those better informed regarding guns and ammunition that ought not be in civilian hands. No hunter or person protecting their home will be meaningfully limited in their purpose by such restrictions. But it might change our landscape regarding gun violence.
We have attempted in this blog to address irrational behavior in a number of areas including the obesity epidemic and our dysfunctional health care system. The recent tragedy may have the positive outcome of shocking society and political leaders into a careful review of the status quo, based upon data and not rhetoric, and hopefully without “shooting” the messengers, as is the habit by those who don’t like what they see or hear.
In the aftermath of the shooting, outspoken gun opponents such as Mayor Bloomberg of New York are being attacked for their opinions, at least as much as their opinions are being challenged.
The political force represented by gun proponents, embodied by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is formidable. Politicians are scared of being on their bad side. Perhaps now more than a few of us, including politicians, will finally say enough and make rational decisions based upon careful analysis. This should include reviewing laws and gun cultures of other countries where freedom seems to coexist with safety and more restrictive gun laws. How many might have the courage to publicly take on the extreme positions of the NRA? Could their political dominance come to an end? Can caring and decent gun owners take it upon themselves to move beyond rhetoric to consider that change may be in order?
It is truly hoped that responsible gun owners will separate themselves from the extremists who see limits on guns at virtually any level as impingement on their freedom and our nation’s values.
One person’s freedom is another person’s burden, or even death, when an innocent is shot with a gun that should not have been available. Competing interests deserve to be heard. We should not be proud of our national record of gun deaths.
For every person who defends themself with firearms reasonably, how many have abused their power and taken a life that could have been preserved? How many murders are the result of open and basically unrestricted commerce in guns? How many suicides would have not taken place if limits were in place? How many people would be served in a positive way by a change, including lives saved?
Indeed, how many actual additional deaths of innocent victims of criminals with guns, as claimed by proponents, would take place? Do international comparisons have relevance, or are we Americans so special and unique that we have nothing to learn from countries like Australia, France, Canada, and Chile, among others? Should we instead emulate Brazil and El Salvador? Even the Mexican drug cartels get their weapons to commit mayhem from north of the border.
We require cars to have all sorts of safety features that have reduced mortality. We license drivers and cars. We have police watching our driving and enforcing driving laws daily. What reasonable limits on access and types of guns and ammunition would balance safety with ownership?
Our constitution has been amended many times including establishing the right to bear arms, allow women to vote, and abolish slavery. What would our founding fathers say about modern weaponry including semi-automatic rifles and their place in the hands of ordinary citizens? Can the constitution stand as it is with respect to guns while allowing meaningful laws to be imposed? The constitution is silent on types of weapons and the government should be allowed to regulate as they already do, and are hired by us to do.
Let me briefly put to rest the concept that we can prevent many firearm deaths by better mental health assessment. The majority of mentally ill are not violent and unless one chooses to define violence as mental illness, the majority of those who shoot others are not mentally ill. The proximate cause of gun deaths are bullets and guns, not mental illness. Other countries with their share of troubled people and criminals have fewer deaths because violence is enacted in less lethal ways, such as with knives or fists.
We had a sad day. Let us hope that we will honor the memory of all victims of violence in the U.S. with meaningful change consistent with both our respect for liberty and for human life.
“According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we had 31,347 (10.2 per 100,000) deaths by firearm in the U.S. in 2009. That is an average of 8.6 per day. Of these about 64% are actually suicide, and a small number are accidental.
In the same year, motor vehicle accidents took the lives of 34,485 (11.2 per 100,000), only a few more than were killed with guns. Cars serve a vital purpose and there is unfortunately collateral damage when they collide. Guns are for killing”
Regulatingbanning or restricting something based on its potential to harm or kill sounds like a good thing. If that’s true then it would make sense the conversation should be about smoking and not guns since it resulted in 443,000 deaths annually or 1,213 deaths per day compared to the average of 8.6 for firearms. Tobacco is for killing. (Including deaths from secondhand smoke) according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
The simple fact of the matter is that violent crimes (despite the way the media makes it look) have been falling for decades. I did a quick look at the USA-wide stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/) for 1996 to 2008 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173) and the 2008 levels of violent crime are HALF of what they were in 1996. Despite what the media would like you to think (to keep you glued to their information) … we are all SAFER than we have been in a long time.
“Our rate of gun deaths in the U.S. is roughly 40 times that of the UK and twice that of Canada. Both countries, along with much of Europe, have significant limits on guns”
Well, singling out Canada for sake of time, some reasons could be that they have a population that is only 11% the size of ours, with approximately the same amount of land area, have a GDP per capita that is 9th in the world (USA is 14th) (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita ), spend 3.5% of what we do on the military (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_spending) and culturally pride themselves on being more polite?
“What we can do is make those predisposed to harm others less lethal by making it a lot tougher to get a gun and limit the types of guns available.”
There already too many guns in circulation in the US think this would have any meaningful impact. We have the most guns per capita in the world at 88 per 100 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) . The shooter in the latest massacre just grabbed is mom’s gun. The assault weapons ban that went into effect in 96 had the Columbine shooting in 99. The “assault” weapons ban is feel good legislature that didn’t solve what it intended to which is most likely why it wasn’t renewed in 2004.
“This might include limiting access to military and police only on guns capable of shooting many shots rapidly.”
This might have worked when the constitution was being written but again. The ship has already sailed and there are already too many guns in circulation to make this even remotely feasible. Not to mention smuggling guns in from other countries that doesn’t have as strict measures. The “War on drugs” has been going on for how many years? How many billions of dollars are spent on it and we can’t even keep drugs out of our highest security prisons? If people want something they are going to get it so you might as well try to reduce the impact of a crazed shooter.
“Our constitution has been amended many times including abolishing slavery. What would our founding fathers say about modern weaponry including semi-automatic rifles and their place in the hands of ordinary citizens?”
Let’s look at their wording …
Amendment II (1791)
“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.”
It means exactly what it says, that the people’s individual right to be armed will be respected and that the resulting armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Our founding fathers were careful to construct this sentence in such a manner that there could be no other reasonable interpretation besides the obvious. Anybody with even the most limited understanding of the English language will agree.
Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insidiously, removing power form the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control (banning automatic firearms)
Or look at quotes to better frame why they put it in the constitution…
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
Everyone is deeply saddened by the latest school shooting and its provoking deep emotions and many knee jerk solutions that have shown to not do what they intend. The best solution that I can think of is more security at our schools and places where these incidences show a high occurrence. The latest shooting was in a no gun zone and the first thing the school did was call people who had guns. The shooter ended his life without fight once the people with guns showed up. Why does it not seem logical to have someone at the school with a gun? Does having a “off duty” police officer at the school turn it into an armed camp? It’s what our airlines have done to fight people with harmful intentions and has worked successfully without killing by standards (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_marshal). This is the most feasible argument being made that has the least amount of potential negative consequences and it could go into action almost immediately and doesn’t take 20-30-60 years to feel it’s positive effects.