How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

[PhanLord]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[Ocklawaha]

In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle, but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. It's obvious we need to register all hammers, rolling pins and baseball gear... the stuff is deadly, they apparently can go off all by themselves. 

[I-10east]

Everything would be all good if those blasted semi-automatic assault rifles (like an AR-15) and high capacity magazines would be banned; Because surely they put a significant dent in that murder ratio....

[I-10east]

^^^You mean like the conspiracy to tear down the Hart Bridge ramp, in favor of highrises?

[NotNow]

I don't know.  But hundreds have been saved by citizens using guns for their intended purpose.  Millions are protected everyday by public servants who are armed with firearms. 

[Adam W]

In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle, but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. It's obvious we need to register all hammers, rolling pins and baseball gear... the stuff is deadly, they apparently can go off all by themselves. 

In 2011, there were  8,583 homicides by firearms in the USA. That's staggering. Guns are made for killing and they clearly are the most efficient means by which to do it.

No one has every tried to claim that people don't or won't try to kill people by other means. But there is a huge difference between 8,583 homicides committed with firearms and 4,081 homicides committed by: knives or cutting objects, blunt objects, personal weapons (hands, etc), poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, drowning, strangulation, asphyxiation and "other weapons or weapons not stated".

So according to the FBI, in 2011 over twice as many murders were committed by guns than by all other methods combined.

*for the record, the second largest category was knives, clocking in at 1,694 murders and "other weapons or weapons not stated" at 853 murders - and some of those may be guns.

[Pinky]

How many of these killings involved firearms which were legally purchased? 

[Adam W]

How many of these killings involved firearms which were legally purchased?

I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference.

[Pinky]

If the proposed solutions all involve putting more laws in place, then it absolutely does make a difference.

[Ocklawaha]

So the next time someone is raped in the city, you guys are going to be first in line for castration? Seems pretty obvious to me that your 'gun' is dangerous and should be removed immediately. This is essentially the 'logic' of the argument that says if NotNow bought everyone of you a new semi-automatic weapon, you would all immediately become mass killers living in 'compounds.'

We live in a violent society but I have yet to hear of a gun running down to the corner C-store and shooting a clerk of its own accord. Perhaps if we spent 1/2 the effort we expend on eliminating weapons and spent it on proper mental care and counseling we could actually cut the obscene numbers of murders. The root cause is peoples depravity and if that isn't properly addressed, all of the weapons laws or seizures in the world won't make a bit of difference. Even if successful beyond the wildest imagination, eliminating firearms will only change the weapon of choice. China doesn't have a problem with mass murder by firearm, but they have an epidemic of murder by knives.

Actually Stephen, the difference between hammers and bats, i.e.: subspecies of 'blunt object' murders, is no different then the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47 or subspecies of rifles.   

[Adam W]

If the proposed solutions all involve putting more laws in place, then it absolutely does make a difference.

I would argue it makes none whatsoever. The solution is reducing the number of available guns, full stop. That means reducing the importation and sale of all guns. Over time, this would reduce the number of illegal guns. It would never eliminate illegal guns - that is an impossibility - but it would eventually make it much more difficult for a garden variety criminal to obtain one.

Laws do actually work. The argument that we shouldn't pass laws because criminals don't follow them is ludicrous - we outlaw all sorts of other things. We find it reasonable to outlaw murder, for example. Murderers still murder, though.

Such flaws in logic are nothing new to the pro-gun crowd. A similar example would be the "law abiding gun owners are not the problem" argument. No shit. Any gun owner is a law abiding gun owner until he uses his gun illegally - then he's a criminal. Jared Loughner and that joker guy from Colorado were law abiding gun owners until they went psycho and started shooting people.

[Ocklawaha]

This ought to be interesting...

FSU researcher says
guns protect the innocent


By Larry Keough
FSU Communications Group


How does a self-described liberal and member of the American Civil Liberties Union become the academic darling of the National Rifle Association?

The answer is in the research of FSU criminology Professor Gary Kleck, whose findings challenge much of the accepted wisdom about gun use and abuse in America.

The NRA has hailed Kleck's assessment of federal crime statistics as evidence that guns are much more likely to be used defensively than aggressively and are more likely to be owned by law-abiding citizens than by criminals.

"I'm treated as a hero by people I have very little in common with," Kleck says.

While the NRA cites his findings, gun-control advocates counter with research that says the risk of dying from a gunshot increases 2.7 times for people who live in a home where a gun is kept.

Kleck and his colleague, FSU Professor Marc Gertz, surveyed nearly 5,000 U.S. residents.

Based on the 4 percent who responded that they had used guns against criminal attacks, the researchers project that at least 2.1 million private citizens each year use guns to defend themselves against criminals. That's about four times the reported crimes committed with guns annually, he said.

Police officers, security guards and the military were excluded.

Of 213 people who admitted to using a gun when confronted by offenders, about 76 percent said they drew the gun, but did not fire. The other 24 percent said they fired as a warning (one-third) or at their attacker (two-thirds).

Defenders mostly drew guns to deter attackers who had a knife, stick or weapon other than a firearm.

"This study shows that armed victims are willing to use guns to thwart attacks, especially when assailants possess non-firearms," Kleck says. "In incidents involving gun-carrying attackers, they have the option of using their gun if they have to."

Though 18 percent of the armed citizens were confronted by an attacker with a gun, most of the criminals did not fire, Kleck says.

Only 3 percent of the survey's reported incidents involved an exchange of gunfire.

Most of those who used guns succeeded in protecting themselves and their property. If they were injured, it was usually before they used a firearm, Kleck says.

Kleck says the policy implication of his research is: Don't take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
"Instead of targeting particular types of guns, we should target certain types of individuals from possessing guns," says Kleck, author of the 1991 book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America."

Wonder how long it will take for this guy to be tossed under the bus for not walking in lock step? 

[Adam W]

So the next time someone is raped in the city, you guys are going to be first in line for castration? Seems pretty obvious to me that your 'gun' is dangerous and should be removed immediately. This is essentially the 'logic' of the argument that says if NotNow bought everyone of you a new semi-automatic weapon, you would all immediately become mass killers living in 'compounds.'

We live in a violent society but I have yet to hear of a gun running down to the corner C-store and shooting a clerk of its own accord. Perhaps if we spent 1/2 the effort we expend on eliminating weapons and spent it on proper mental care and counseling we could actually cut the obscene numbers of murders. The root cause is peoples depravity and if that isn't properly addressed, all of the weapons laws or seizures in the world won't make a bit of difference. Even if successful beyond the wildest imagination, eliminating firearms will only change the weapon of choice. China doesn't have a problem with mass murder by firearm, but they have an epidemic of murder by knives.

Actually Stephen, the difference between hammers and bats, i.e.: subspecies of 'blunt object' murders, is no different then the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47 or subspecies of rifles.   

No one is claiming guns commit crimes on their own. Guns are a very efficient way to commit crimes, however. And gun crimes are a real problem in the USA. Although knife crime may be an issue in China, it's worth noting that it's probably not an "epidemic" such as you describe, given that their intentional murder rate is almost 5 times lower than ours:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc

I certainly agree that mental health care is important. And I think it is something that is desperately needed and I would support funding for it. But the world's best mental health care is never going to make much of a dent in gun crimes. Because a) oftentimes mental health issues become apparent after something goes wrong, b) mental health problems rely on the person with them seeking treatment, but most of all....

c) the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by crazy people.

You might reduce the occurrence of the occasional mass shooting (again, doubtful...you're more likely to reduce the number of suicides by firearm). But you're not going to stop most gun murders.

[Pinky]

Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase. 

[Adam W]

This ought to be interesting...

FSU researcher says
guns protect the innocent


By Larry Keough
FSU Communications Group


How does a self-described liberal and member of the American Civil Liberties Union become the academic darling of the National Rifle Association?

The answer is in the research of FSU criminology Professor Gary Kleck, whose findings challenge much of the accepted wisdom about gun use and abuse in America.

The NRA has hailed Kleck's assessment of federal crime statistics as evidence that guns are much more likely to be used defensively than aggressively and are more likely to be owned by law-abiding citizens than by criminals.

"I'm treated as a hero by people I have very little in common with," Kleck says.

While the NRA cites his findings, gun-control advocates counter with research that says the risk of dying from a gunshot increases 2.7 times for people who live in a home where a gun is kept.

Kleck and his colleague, FSU Professor Marc Gertz, surveyed nearly 5,000 U.S. residents.

Based on the 4 percent who responded that they had used guns against criminal attacks, the researchers project that at least 2.1 million private citizens each year use guns to defend themselves against criminals. That's about four times the reported crimes committed with guns annually, he said.

Police officers, security guards and the military were excluded.

Of 213 people who admitted to using a gun when confronted by offenders, about 76 percent said they drew the gun, but did not fire. The other 24 percent said they fired as a warning (one-third) or at their attacker (two-thirds).

Defenders mostly drew guns to deter attackers who had a knife, stick or weapon other than a firearm.

"This study shows that armed victims are willing to use guns to thwart attacks, especially when assailants possess non-firearms," Kleck says. "In incidents involving gun-carrying attackers, they have the option of using their gun if they have to."

Though 18 percent of the armed citizens were confronted by an attacker with a gun, most of the criminals did not fire, Kleck says.

Only 3 percent of the survey's reported incidents involved an exchange of gunfire.

Most of those who used guns succeeded in protecting themselves and their property. If they were injured, it was usually before they used a firearm, Kleck says.

Kleck says the policy implication of his research is: Don't take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
"Instead of targeting particular types of guns, we should target certain types of individuals from possessing guns," says Kleck, author of the 1991 book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America."

Wonder how long it will take for this guy to be tossed under the bus for not walking in lock step?

Kleck's "research" has been pretty thoroughly discredited. For example:

http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national-rifle-association-continues-to-feed-its-readers-demonstrable-lies-and-distortions/