This map displays the casualties and fatalities in school shootings in the US from 1997-2012. It is based on data drawn from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

This is not a great chart — the size of the circles creates a perceptual problem (each school shooting doesnt cover a 200 square mile area) and the coloring of the legend is not at all intuitive (wait is purple good or bad?) — but even with that, the sheer volume of School Shootings surprised me.

Category: Current Affairs, Digital Media

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

40 Responses to “School Shootings in the US”

  1. As a reminder, our comment policy is here:

    Try not to turn this thread into a clown show please.

  2. DaveF says:

    It’s a stretch to describe some of those as “school shootings” … I didn’t read all of their list, but the 2nd one down:
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=8913900
    was a 38 year old guy shot by police in an “off campus housing facility” after he got in a fight with them.

  3. DaveF

    I stopped after the first 75 or so, and there was a fired teacher who came back and shot the principal, and a janitor who got into an altercation also shot a principal.

    But the vast majority of these are students either shooting or getting shot or both.

  4. jqui says:

    I’d like to see a map of all the shootings in the Democrat run urban kill zones with the strongest gun control laws.

  5. bear_in_mind says:

    Despite the chart’s shortcomings, it’s chilling to see what a cancer gun violence has become in our country. It’s also disturbing to realize how so many fellow citizens have abdicated logic and reason to address the problem.

    I read a thought-provoking article in the NY Times Opinion section by Firmin DeBrabander, published December 16th, that explores the role of firearms in America, their relation to free speech, and implications of continuing down the same path. If you’re interested, the article is posted here:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/

  6. jqui says:

    Let’s assess the chilling facts:

    •There are 315 million people living in the United States.
    •There were 13,636 murders committed in the country in 2009 (most recent data) according to the FBI.
    •Guns killed 9,146 of these people.
    •Rifles killed 348 of these people.
    •Only a fraction of the 348 people were killed with assault weapons.
    •Twice as many people were killed with hands or feet than were killed by rifles.

    For the math challenged, I’ll do some calculations for you:

    •Your chances of being murdered in this country are .0043%.
    •Your chances of being murdered by someone with a gun are .0029%.
    •Your chances of being murdered by someone with a rifle are .00011%.

    This is really how we run a country? We are actually going to ban guns or put a cop in every school in America when these are the real facts? The American people really are sheep if they buy into this fear mongering and propaganda peddled by nitwits and numbskulls. Why didn’t we ban jet airplanes after 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11? Talk about deadly weapons!!!! Instead we spent $1.4 trillion on producing guns, missiles, and bombs to kill more people.

  7. jqui

    Again, I point people to the homicide rate per capita:

    Homicide rate (per hundred thousand)
    Ireland 1.3
    Germany 0.9
    Netherlands 1.0
    Norway 0.5
    United Kingdom 1.4
    France 1.6
    Canada 1.9
    United States 4.8

    We are doing something very different than other industrialized western democracies. What is it?

    Sources:
    Crime Reduction.gov.uk
    UNODC
    FBI Uniform Crime Reports

  8. GGJr says:

    I think we ought to take Ms Laura’s (lack of) logic and apply it to cars as they clearly are the most dangerous “tool” operated by humans in our country:

    from the NHTSA website:
    In 2011, an estimated 2.22 million injuries + 32,788 deaths = 2,252,788 deaths and injuries from a person operating a car inappropriately.

    Which “tool” – a gun or a car – is more dangerous to own and operate in the USA?

    Clearly we need to ban all cars and make people walk everywhere.

  9. bear_in_mind says:

    @GGJr: Automobiles provide a value-added social good, namely, the ability to move products and persons efficiently from one location to another. Markets and commerce is largely dependent upon automobiles for provision of labor, sales, etc., thus a risk-reward calculus is possible.

    What is the value-added social good offered by firearms? How should we structure the risk-reward calculus?

  10. romerjt says:

    to jqui: The most chilling fact is the idea that we should be comforted by your statistics of our chance of being killed. You seem to be saying there is really no problem, as long as your children have such a little chance of being killed by a crazy kid with an assault rifle, hey why complain. I tell you what, let’s take a nitwit vote, the fear mongers vs you.

  11. GGJr:

    The correct way to do this analysis with cars would be based upon miles driven.

    What is the equivalent of that for guns ?

  12. Mr.-Vix-It says:

    I would like to know how many of these occurred within a 100 mile radius of a major urban center. My guess is most of them. Common sense would dictate that all guns should be banned within a 100 mile radius of urban centers. How would you prevent guns from coming outside the 100 mile boundary? That is a problem for the gun industry and the authorities to work out. How come we can easily ban cigarettes, a known addiction and far deadlier to the human race, from certain areas without an issue? If guns were also to be made illegal to own or purchase within 100 miles of an urban center, many law-abiding citizens would simply give up their guns so as not to run afoul of the law. There will always be criminals who continue to own and smuggle guns into the boundary just as there are still those idiots who light up where they are not supposed to. Lawbreakers will always be lawbreakers but most people are not lawbreakers. Crime is committed by a very small amount of the population. There is roughly 7 to 8 million incarcerated or on parole or probation, that’s about 2.5% of the U.S. You can argue there is a few million more who are criminals that have not been caught for anything yet (potential first-time offenders) so law enforcement is probably catching at least half of the criminals. We are still talking that at least 95% (and likely more) of the U.S. are law-abiding citizens. Therefore if you pass a law to ban guns within 100 miles of an urban center, you will get rid of many guns but you will likely still have the criminal element. The question is if it will be easier for law enforcement to increase its capture rate if guns are banned within 100 miles of an urban center or if it will make no difference as the law will not prevent criminals from being criminals. How do you prevent people from committing crimes? More jobs? Maybe that would help marginally improve the situation but I have my doubts. Bad people are bad people and it likely is an environment/genetic question (e.g. bad home life/parenting or genetic deficiencies resulting in the inability to perceive right or wrong). Less guns probably won’t prevent people from committing crimes but it should be studied further to see if it makes criminal capture easier for law enforcement.

  13. jqui says:

    In 2009 America’s crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964.

    The homicide rate in particular decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010. From 2000-2008, the year-by-year homicide rate continuously decreased.

    While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it remained at 5.4-5.7 until 2009, when it dipped down to 5.0, and continued to drop in 2010 to 4.8.

    Sixty percent of all homicides are committed by blacks or hispanics living in the urban ghettos created by Democratic welfare policies. These urban kill zones have the strictest gun control laws.

  14. Glen says:

    Appreciate your efforts on your blog Barry, but it just seems like asking for reasonable laws for gun safety is a hot button topic.

    I do own guns (have had them since I was kid) and I would favor a re-authorization of the assault gun ban as a reasonable first step to improve gun safety. I know there’s many other devices in our society which kill people (such as cars), but we have imposed laws to improve the safety of cars, and it’s more than reasonable to have laws regulating the design and use of guns especially given how good guns are for killing people.

    Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Ian Welsh that there are more than just access to guns causing these killing sprees in our country:

    http://www.ianwelsh.net/on-killing-sprees/

    And I think these killing sprees are going to be with us (guns, knives, cars, whatever) until we can fix some of the other problems in our country.

  15. wally says:

    That map is such a sorry reminder of what we so easily brush to the back of our minds.
    We are an advanced country, but not necessarily a very civilized one. In recent years we are getting really shown up in a number of areas by others whom we’ve thought were beneath us. We don’t have the highest incomes or the best health care or the best educated children or the safest society. Even worse, we have a part of our population that wants to keep things that way.

  16. ThatsNotAll says:

    The right to bear arms preceded the establishment of the United States of America. This right was then encoded into our nation’s Constitution.

    If it was necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban the manufacture, transportation and sale of alchohol would it not be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban an individuals right to be armed?

    The court, in McDonald v. Chicago agrees: “the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states”.

    Unilateral removal of guns from society is not the answer.

    Believing guns can be kept out of schools and other gun-free-zones by wishing it alone is magical thinking.

    May I suggest a two pronged approach:

    (1) Implement policies that change the calculation of mass killers who hope to kill large number of unprotected humans

    (2) Teach the history of the 2nd Amendment in schools and develop a generation of Americans who appreciate the power of “arms” to defend freedom & liberty. If teaching “safe sex” is important in schools surely teaching “gun safety” is 1000 times so.

  17. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    I finally was able to find the article I wanted to cite a couple of days ago.

    The solution to gun violence is clear

    Announcing Wednesday that he would send proposals on reducing gun violence in America to Congress, President Obama mentioned a number of sensible gun-control measures. But he also paid homage to the Washington conventional wisdom about the many and varied causes of this calamity — from mental health issues to school safety. His spokesman, Jay Carney, had said earlier that this is “a complex problem that will require a complex solution.” Gun control, Carney added, is far from the only answer.

    In fact, the problem is not complex, and the solution is blindingly obvious….

    The article goes on to compare the statistics for the US with those of other developed countries, and debunks a lot of the commonly mentioned causes such as mental illness, or pop culture (video games), etc.

    …There is clear evidence that tightening laws — even in highly individualistic countries with long traditions of gun ownership — can reduce gun violence. In Australia, after a 1996 ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons — a real ban, not like the one we enacted in 1994 with 600-plus exceptions — gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent over the next decade. The rate of suicide by firearm plummeted 65 percent. (Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide.)…

    A few hours before the Newtown murders last week, a man entered a school in China’s Henan province. Obviously mentally disturbed, he tried to kill children. But the only weapon he was able to get was a knife. Although 23 children were injured, not one child died.

    [emphasis mine]

  18. Hey You says:

    In a world where males are being feminized by public education; The lack of two parent families and children being encouraged to play violent video games rather than learning to live and interact in the real world.

    If society is so worried about potential violence in our society why not ban violent movies and all video games? If everyone is so willing to trash the 2nd amendment why not make violent talk or acting a jailable offense? We could also institutionalize people who talk a little crazy or threaten violence, who may be suspected of bing paranaoid or who may injure themselves or others. I am sure that the ACLU and civil libertarians will agree that is needed for the greater good.

    Hell, let’s just lock up everyone who doesn’t agree with the current administration.

  19. Yojimbo says:

    Two questions:

    1. This starts in 1997? Why isn’t KENT STATE listed on this map? Wasn’t it a “school shooting”?

    2. Why do you keep deleting comments from James Quinn of The Burning Platform?

    ~~~

    BR: 1. Kent State was 1970

    2. He is aggressively impolite, foul mouthed creep who is no longer welcome here.

  20. wally says:

    The chart begins with 1997, Hey You, so it spans three administrations. The past is how we got to where we are today.

  21. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    @Hey You – “In a world where males are being feminized by public education”

    Do you have substantiation for that assertion?

    @ Hey You – “If society is so worried about potential violence in our society why not ban violent movies and all video games?”

    Other developed countries (e.g., most of Europe) play those same video games and see those same movies. You need to explain why the gun homicide rates of those countries are so much lower than the gun homicides rates of our Great Country.

    @Hey You – ” We could also institutionalize people who talk a little crazy or threaten violence”

    What would be the collateral damage for those who suffer mental illness but do not kill people? In your plan, how would you separate those who “talk a little crazy” and those who “threaten violence”? But the larger question remains, other developed countries also have citizens who suffer mental illness. Why is not their gun homicide rates at the level of the gun homicide rate of our Great Country?

  22. RW says:

    Ah yes, the latest white, right-wingnut meme: “Urban kill zones” created by Democrats and, of course, populated by brown people.

    The calculation of gun violence per capita — as a function of population density — is never cited by folks trotting out this particular mythology because their favorite white, right-wingnut web sites don’t provide the per-capita statistic and the plain reason they don’t provide it is because it gives the ‘wrong’ answers.

    That is, when gun-violence per capita is calculated the “urban kill zone” fantasy largely disappears while southern and western states with weak gun regulation begin rising to the top like blood and tissue-spattered cream.

    For example [PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bLMy)]:

    States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates:
    Louisiana–Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.
    Alaska–Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.
    Montana–Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.
    Tennessee–Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.
    Alabama–Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

    States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates
    Hawaii–Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.
    Massachusetts–Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.
    Rhode Island–Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.
    New Jersey–Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.
    New York–Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.

    Getting the picture now?

  23. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    Maybe a solution exists in a gun organization that is less extreme than the NRA. For example, in Newtown the discussion involves the change in the types of guns being purchased and used.

    People in the rural, hilly areas around Newtown, Conn., are used to gunfire. In one woodsy stretch, southeast of downtown, the Pequot Fish and Game Club and the Fairfield County Fish and Game Protective Association, where members can fish in ponds and hunt pheasant, lie within a mile of each other, and people who live nearby generally call them good neighbors.

    But in the last couple of years, residents began noticing loud, repeated gunfire, and even explosions, coming from new places. Near a trailer park. By a boat launch. Next to well-appointed houses. At 2:20 p.m. on one Wednesday last spring, multiple shots were reported in a wooded area on Cold Spring Road near South Main Street, right across the road from an elementary school.

    Yet recent efforts by the police chief and other town leaders to gain some control over the shooting and the weaponry turned into a tumultuous civic fight, with traditional hunters and discreet gun owners opposed by assault weapon enthusiasts, and a modest tolerance for bearing arms competing with the staunch views of a gun industry trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has made Newtown its home.

    The place that witnessed one of the worst mass killings in United States history on Friday, leaving 20 schoolchildren and 8 adults dead, is a bucolic New England town comfortable with its firearms, and not an obvious arena for the nation’s debate over gun control. But the legislative battle right here shows how even the slightest attempts to impose restrictions on guns can run into withering resistance, made all the more pointed by the escalation in firepower.

    “Something needs to be done,” said Joel T. Faxon, a hunter and a member of the town’s police commission, who championed the shooting restrictions. “These are not normal guns, that people need. These are guns for an arsenal, and you get lunatics like this guy who goes into a school fully armed and protected to take return fire. We live in a town, not in a war.” …

    I view the NRA as an extremist organization, its promotion of absolute gun rights over any common sense regarding the ownership and usage of guns is going to be its downfall.

  24. jqui says:

    Thanks for the state rankings. The urban kill zones are Democrat run shithole cities overwhelmingly occupied by blacks and hispanics.

    http://247wallst.com/2012/06/11/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2/2/

    Chicago – 500 murders
    Detroit – 344 murders
    Philadelphia – 330 murders
    Baltimore – 196 murders
    Atlanta – 88 murders
    Birmingham – 54 murders
    Memphis – 117 murders
    Oakland – 104 murders
    St.Louis – 113 murders

    Just these nine Democrat run urban kill zones account for 14% of all the homicides in the country.

    Newark NJ homicide rate of 32 per 100,000
    Camden NJ is 85.7

    Getting the picture now?

  25. call me ahab says:

    seize all the guns . . . and exterminate all the brutes

    only then can we have a peaceful society

    h/t – Joseph Conrad

  26. jb.mcmunn says:

    A few thoughts:

    1. I recall seeing a map of school shootings for 2012. What struck me was that the demographics of school shootings were very different from those of the general population. They are not happening very much in states like those listed in RW’s post. It’s been blue states far more than red states by about 2:1, and the places are urban, affluent, and well-educated, like Seattle, Minneapolis, Newtown, Pittsburgh, College Station, etc. Unfortunately I can’t recall the link.

    2. California recently released its latest firearm stats. The anti-gun people will not like them:

    “Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

    Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General’s office.

    During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

    Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

    Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime.”

    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/507…s-increase.htm

    3. The humble little .22 killed Robert Kennedy, wounded Reagan, and severely disabled James Brady.

    4. There is a hue and cry for the government to “do something” but (1) despite 4 decades of trying, it hasn’t made a dent in drug abuse and (2) how do you address a problem if you don’t know what the root causes are? I guess you do it the way Mencken described: you come up with solutions that are “clear, simple, and wrong”.

    5. Since this is a financial blog I’d like to mention that some of the blue state pols might be facing a little problem with gun control legislation back home.

    For example:

    Ruger employs 1,200 people in MA.
    S&W employs 1,400 in CT.
    Mossberg is also located in CT.
    Sig Sauer has 600 employees in NH.
    Springfield Armory is in IL .
    Remington has 1,000 employees in NY. Bushmaster – the infamous weapon used in Newtown – is made there.
    Federal Ammunition has 1,000 employees in Minnesota.
    Magtech Ammunition is also made in Minnesota.
    Colt has factories in CT and FL.

    How are those blue state reps going to vote on gun control?

  27. jb.mcmunn says:

    Erratum:

    “I recall seeing a map of school shootings for 2012.”

    It should be mass shootings, not school shootings.

  28. bear_in_mind says:

    Anyone can slice-and-dice U.S. firearm statistics sixty ways to Sunday, but those attempting to minimize the wanton murder of twenty 6 year-old children sound like you’re justifying their slaughter as “collateral damage” — why, so you can continue your righteous battle to bear whatever munitions you damn well please?!

  29. speaking of ‘Reference Points’..

    http://www.sportofdistraction.com November 5, 2005
    By D. Garcia
    Format:Paperback
    In PUBLIC OPINION, we have 1 of the foundational texts in the forming of present day public relations. According to all I’ve read on Walter Lippmann, he was the most influential pundit of his era, so to read his assessment of the public’s opinion & what it’s worth & how it must be tamed, we (the readers) are being given access to the core elements that lead to what we know today as government & business propaganda.

    Lippmann was part of the Creel Committee, whose job it was to sell the idea that America should get involved in World War I to the American people…so the importance of peeking into the thought processes behind that campaign of pro-war propaganda is a priceless opportunity.

    If you wish to understand what those in power actually think of the public’s importance in a democracy (or democratic republic), make sure you read this book…twice!
    http://www.amazon.com/Public-Opinion-Walter-Lippmann/dp/0684833271/ref=pd_sim_b_3

    First published in 1962, this wonderfully provocative book introduced the notion of “pseudo-events”—events such as press conferences and presidential debates, which are manufactured solely in order to be reported—and the contemporary definition of celebrity as “a person who is known for his well-knownness.” Since then Daniel J. Boorstin’s prophetic vision of an America inundated by its own illusions has become an essential resource for any reader who wants to distinguish the manifold deceptions of our culture from its few enduring truths.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/0679741801/ref=pd_sim_b_3

    needless to say, I must have ‘missed’ the, respectively, 90th, and 60th, Year ‘Retrospectives’ on these Works..

    I wonder Why?

  30. DeDude says:

    And as gun nuts panic and try to fight fire with fire by putting guns into schools, these numbers are destined to increase dramatically.

    The experience within households is clear. Those who live in homes that have firearms are a lot more likely to be shot than those who live in homes without guns. So as people arm up in response to fear of the extremely unlikely (0.00001% or whatever, help us out jqui) event of being attacked and killed by armed intruders in their homes; they also increase drastically their chance of the much more likely event of being shot and killed by someone in their household (by accident or intent).

    As politicians in redneck states respond to school shootings by brining guns into schools, the same experience will be repeated. The effects on shootings by intruders from the outside will be minimal and dwarfed by the increase in accidental and deliberate shootings from the weapons now being introduced into the schools and classrooms. Does anybody really think that little boys will miss any opportunity to take a look at that gun in the teacher’s desk? No matter how many precautions and safety measures you use to lower the chance of this, it’s a given that with millions of little boys going to classes over 200 days a year, gun deaths in schools from teacher’s guns will become a regular events (you know the one in a million chance multiplied with hundreds of millions).

    Yes an armed criminal or lunatic is usually neutralized faster and more effectively by another armed person. However the collateral damage of trying to bring such a “neutralizer” faster to the scene of a shooting, can easily be much higher than the damage of waiting for trained and equipped police officers to arrive. On the other hand there is no collateral damage from universal and affordable (mental) health care or sensible controls on weaponry in the civilian population – so those steps are “no brainers” that can be implemented without need for further studies (even if they are not going to be 100% effective at stopping the problem).

  31. CB says:

    That is a surprising number of school shootings and maybe that awareness will start a shift in public perception and attitudes.
     
    Eventually the obvious health hazards of smoking cigarettes has been generally accepted. This despite intensive corporate lobbying, pervasive marketing and media placement, and falsifying data on health studies. It became so obviously detrimental to society that actions were finally taken to discourage it (it only took about 50 years.) Cigarettes are not illegal but just heavily taxed, banned from most public places and generally socially discouraged but not totally outlawed. People still have the “right” and “freedom” to smoke cigarettes where it causes less potential harm to others.
    When the health hazards of guns everywhere becomes as blantantly obvious maybe we can try similar methods of control over the next 50 years? It seems fairly effective (if slow.)

  32. RW says:

    Oh, okay, got the picture now: Locale, political party and race are the key variables and since all the worst states for per-capita gun deaths are predominantly white, rural and Red they must be rural kill zones* created by Republicans and overwhelmingly occupied by whites. Right?

    *I’m assuming shithole may not be the preferred term but by all means correct me if I’m wrong: I can go with Republican run shitholes if it really matters.

    I’m just trying to follow the logic here. Don’t want to get too pinko and such by suggesting that poverty rate plus gun ownership or access rates (ease and cost of ownership) might be better predictors of per-capita gun deaths on a state-by-state, county-by-county and city-by-city basis than any other variable set.

    NB: Given the importance of the question and the importance of analyzing violent deaths more generally one would think information on potentially relevant variables would be nationally and systematically available in databases such as CDC’s WISQARSTM but there are significant gaps and holes; e.g., only 16 participating states in the NVDRS program consistently provide violent death data to CDC

    The evidence is mounting that this ‘surprising’ lack is largely because there are significant political and monetary interests who, like the tobacco companies before them, suspect what the answers would be and prefer the questions not be answered with the result being lack of funding for research and, where that proves an insufficient barrier, outright intimidation of researchers themselves; e.g., “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA,” claims Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (ajc).

    Now that’s not a pretty picture.

  33. ThatsNotAll says:

    The right to bear arms preceded the establishment of the United States of America. This right was then encoded into our nation’s Constitution. If it was necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban the manufacture, transportation and sale of alchohol would it not be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban an individuals right to be armed? The court, in McDonald v. Chicago agrees: “the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states”. Unilateral removal of guns from society is not the answer. Believing guns can be kept out of schools and other gun-free-zones by wishing it alone is magical thinking.

    May I suggest a two pronged approach: (1) Implement policies that change the calculation of mass killers who hope to kill large number of unprotected humans. (2) Teach the history of the 2nd Amendment in schools and develop a generation of Americans who appreciate the power of “arms” to defend freedom & liberty. If teaching “safe sex” is important in schools surely teaching “gun safety” is 1000 times so.

    ~~~

    BR: King George agrees with you that there were rights “Pre-constitution” (I’m not sure what rights you believe from that era are enforceable)

    And No one is suggesting a “Unilateral removal of guns from society” — you appear confused and irrational when you make that argument.

  34. joerocker says:

    Are you all a bunch of scared women? Freedom is messy. Freedom can be dangerous. Stay at home, in your “veal cage”, getting fattened up on corn if you want “safety”, except you’re more likely to die there of a heart attack then from some crazy guy with a gun outside.

    The difference between a slave and a citizen is the citizen can defend himself…citizens can arm themselves. Free men are armed, slaves are disarmed. I don’t know how else to say it. Give up your means to defense/offense, and you will become slaves. Take a look at history, disarming is the first step towards end of freedom. You may not mind now because you agree with what “they’re” taking away from others…but believe me, some day, you will disagree, but by then, it’ll be too late.

    Freedom involves risk. So, let’s “man-up” and end this banning nonsense…stop being frightened pussies…

    ~~~

    BR: Yeah! Man up! And teach those pussy 6 year olds of yours to learn how to take a bullet like a man!

  35. garyb says:

    -Robbers rob banks. ===> Hire armed guards
    -Airports pose terrorist thread ===> Hire armed guards
    -People hate IRS ====> Hire armed guards for all Federal buildings
    -Tempers flare in civil and criminal judicial hearings ====> hire armed guards and install metal detectors for all state court houses
    -Political figures at risk ====> Hire armed secret security personnel

    -Lots of school shootings ===> OMG! Don’t hire armed guards; they’ll offend our delicate scensibilities

  36. RW says:

    Who let the trogs out?

  37. joerocker says:

    Hey BR…

    Quit the leap you took there…I don’t remember suggesting that THEY should/shouldn’t have done anything. I’m talking about YOU making knee-jerk, emotional reactions.

    How about the 10s of thousands of kids killed by mom and/or dad driving the family car? Should we ban driving? How about distraction? This shooting is statistically insignificant as a “child killer”. The GUY who did the shooting was a mental case, so do we now start locking up EVERYONE with “tendencies”? This was horrific, it was a tragedy, but you don’t handcuff everyone because one guy likes hitting people. How about take away EVERY cell phone because some people can’t figure out that you don’t use while driving? You hate guns…OK, fine…don’t buy any. I hate fat women in bikini’s, I’m not looking to ban bikini’s. < Don't you see what freedom means? It's YOU getting to choose for yourself...not someone telling you what you can and can't have. Do you still live at home with mom and dad? Why have "the government" play the same role? Let adults make their own choices. And yes...SOME will be bad choices. You deal with the consequences. IF it becomes a REAL statistically relevant problem...OK, we can talk about restrictions then. But it's not, it doesn't happen often enough.

    If you want to be honest...minorities are the REAL threat to "public safety" if you go by the raw numbers. Ban minorities and you'll have a MUCH safer town/city/state/country. But you won't consider that as a solution. I won't consider taking away our guns as a solution.

    You want you and yours to always be safe? Stay home. It's simple. But make sure it's a good neighborhood...the darkies like to "invade" your privacy too...and the only thing that can stop them once they've kicked in the door is a nice 12ga. So...good luck. Because you don't believe in guns and won't buy one.

    Just for the record, I'd have allowed teachers to CC in schools. Not mandatory, volunteer basis. Because I believe in freedom. Not lawlessness...freedom...you need to understand the difference. Sometimes something happens enough that there has to be a law against it...murder, theft, we all know what they are. But the other 99% of laws are for control, that's all. Usually to give one an advantage over another.

    garyb,

    When does it stop? When there's "security" every 50ft? Security on every corner? We ARE all a bunch of scared women looking for "government" to save us from the "bogymen" out to get us...

    ~~~

    BR: You live in a society with other people, your rights end at the tip of the next guy’s nose.

    I don’t hear any solutions from your side of the argument — we can do better than disingenuous rhetoric (No, I dont hate guns, no guns are n0ott he same as disease or auto accidents, no, the gummint isnt coming to get you) and a mantra “leave me/leave my guns alone” on an endless loop. Its tiresome.

    The original question that started this was simple: What can and should we do about this?

  38. rj chicago says:

    Barry:
    Re: School shootings – here in Chicago – this is just about an everyday occurrence.

    You might be too young to remember but for me this horror of school shootings started in the late 80′s when a psychotic by the name of Laurie Dann went roaming through the northern shore of Chicago and started shooting away in a local school killing I believe it was 4 people before she turned the pistol on herself.

    The map will not show this horror as this tragedy precedes what it shows in its limited time frame.

    May the souls of those who were killed by Dann rest in peace.

    I am reminded that as we lose the ability of our civil society to exact the rule of law the only law of the land is that exacted by the strong and violent on the weak and peaceful!!! Thuggery rules the day at many levels of our society – running I might add to the top of the heap with our Federal Justice Dept.

  39. radicall says:

    jqui If you look at your chance of being killed in a terrorist attack , it is even more miniscule than guns. Why are we spending so much money on Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI all looking for terrorists

    We haven’t been attacked since the Pearl Harbor – yet we spend hundreds of billions on Defense.

    A Lot of people die of disease and hunger – if just the number of people dying a certain way was the criteria – we would spend a ton more on disease prevention/cure and providing food for the poor/homeless

  40. GGJr says:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/assault-weapon-deaths-statistics/2013/01/03/id/469982

    FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles
    Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 05:24 PM
    By Stephen Feller

    Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, Democrats have made reinstatement of the assault weapons ban a major priority for the 113th Congress despite the fact that relatively few murders are killed with weapons that would be banned.

    From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles, which is what the ban likely would have the most effect on, reports Breitbart.

    There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

    “While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded rifle.”

    So all hammers and clubs need to be confiscated, and their owners dragged behind their pickup trucks until they repent – right?