But seriously…

Trump has suggested that maybe 10%, maybe 50%, of the teacher workforce be armed, and presumably trained. You’ve already read a lot about how bone headed this idea is, and how a teacher with a gun in a school, even with training, is highly likely to accidentally shoot a student who doesn’t happen to be a spree killer, by accident.

I would add that having so many armed and trained teachers would lead to deadly conflicts that have nothing to do with school shooting attacks. Why, just the other day there was a conflict in a nearby high school where some students got all crappy with each other. The teachers had to intervene, it got tense, and eventually de-escalated. The situation got hot enough that a note went around to the school community so everyone would have an idea of what happened, rather than learning an incorrect story via the rumor mill.

Had these students been citizens on the street, and a cop was present, the cop may well have pulled out a firearm, and upped the stakes. In a certain percentage of cases, that upping of stakes can lead to further escalation. Pretty soon, somebody reaches for their cell phone, the trained and armed cop thinks they are going for a weapon, and BANG, dead citizen. Or, the trained and armed teacher thinks they are going for a weapon, and BANG, dead kid.

Imagine that. The teacher goes out to do hallway monitoring, and comes back with, “well, I killed one of them.” Not good.

Also, just the other day, an actual armed teacher accidentally shot herself in the leg at school. You see, in some Yahooistic communities like Utah, the armed teacher idea has already been floated, and a small number of them are armed. And what you get is accidental shootings.

(Also, all the students are going to know which teachers have the guns. A school shooter, who is already a student in the school, merely needs to approach that teacher with some home work related question, pull out the gun, and BANG, dead teacher.)

So, I think it is pretty clear that if you arm a lot of teachers there will be a lot of trouble. But I don’t think people necessarily know the magnitude of the problem.

Consider the following facts.

There are about 3,300,000 teachers in the US.

If they are armed as Trump suggests, that would amount to between 330,000 and 1,650,000 armed teachers.

If each teacher gets one high quality hand gun and a week of training, this will cost between one half of a billion dollars and three billion dollars out of the gate, and a regular ongoing commitment thereafter.

A force of teachers this large would be greater in size than the United States Marine Corps, by a large margin. There are about 188,000 marines.

If armed teachers ended up killing students at the same rate that armed police officers did, simply because they are the armed enforcers in a community that includes some trouble makers, they would kill about 1,650 students per year at a rate of 50% armed teachers, and about 330 per year at the 10% rate. There is of course no way to be sure of the correspondence between cops killing citizens (for whatever reason) and teachers potentially killing students, but when I sit there and think about it, I realize that there is a wide range of perfectly plausible estimates, ranging from just under a few dozen to several thousands. Remember, the million or so cops that exist are, minute to minute, hardly ever in contact with the general public, or at least, by several tens of meters, while teachers and students are constantly interacting. The entire milliu is different. I would imagine that if half the teachers were armed … oh hell, we might as well run an experiment. Start with bus drivers. Give 10,000 school bus drivers each a Glock in a quick draw holster. for one year. See how that goes.

Anyway, I think you see the point. Just the accident rate alone could make enough carnage to come close to the existing rate of in school spree shootings, without decreasing the number of school shootings. Individual school shootings would be somewhat offset by the fact that a teacher gets to plug the shooter, but this may be offset the other way when savvy school shooters cap the armed teachers at the beginning of the event, and maybe even take their guns. And, the possibility is not small that an entire other kind of armed confrontation, whereby teachers simply start using their guns doing the work of effective hallway monitoring, could cause more carnage than is saved by any effort to scare off potential spree killers.

So, now that I think about it, here is my position on Trump’s proposal. Yes, arm the teachers. But no, they should not bring their guns to schools. They should keep their powder dry, in case things get much worse.

The Minnesota Legislature has a High School Page program. They’ve been running it for decades. Each member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, from across the state (distributed uniformly by population density) brings in a page.

One day I was at an organizing and fund raising event for the opposition to the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. This was a constitutional amendment proposed to make only “one man, one woman” marriage legal, at the constitutional level, in this state. A senior member of the legislature was there, and she told us about the page program. She noted that a poll had been done across the pages about various issues, including a question asking their position on the marriage amendment.

Remember, these are high school students, all too young to vote, but since time marches forward most of the time, eligible to vote in a year or two. Remember that this is students from all across the states. The spawn of lefty liberals from South Minneapolis, the spawn of Suburban Priv, the spawn of right wing Trump-loving (had Trump existed yet) farmers from corn country.

What was their preference as a group, with respect to the marriage amendment? 100% against.

“They are coming for us,” the senior representative said. “Doesn’t matter what the Legislature thinks now. This is going to change everything.”

My second favorite story: A young woman from Parkland High School speaking at a public rally in Tallahassee.

“Soon we will be able to vote. And we will vote you out.”

Dear NRA supported politicians. They are coming for you. Might as well step aside now.

You should know that the planning of this event has already been adulterated by either idiotic Americans or smart Russian spies. Watch carefully and pay attention…

One plan is to have a walkout on March 14th, nationally, which is the one month anniversary of the massacare in Parkview. This is being organized by the Woman’s March organization. The walkout would start at 10:00 AM and last for 17 minutes.

There is also a march in March, the “March For Our Lives” March, on March 24th, planned for DC. Details are here.

In addition to this, there is a walkout planned for April 20th, the anniversary of the Columbine shooting, which is considered a sort of inaugural school massacre for our Era of School Massacres. The plans for this walkout are not very clear, but a “change.org” petitioner came up with the idea: “On Friday, April 20th, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting I propose a National High School student walk out. Walk out of school, wear orange and protest online and in your communities”

There is also a walkout of teachers suggested for May 1st. This one is a bit problematic. It is being called by retired psychologist David Berliner. Between now and then, according to the sadly less than lucid professor, teachers have to agree on the gun legislation they want. If they have not received “assurance” that this legislation will become law by May 1st (so that all has to happen at once) then the teachers walk out, apparently forever or until they get the legislation.

There is an internet meme that is a hybrid of those last two. Students and teachers walk out on April 20th, and never return to school. Well, they can return but only after Congress and the President introduce, develop, debate, pass, and sign into law legislation that is suitable and that everyone agrees on, regarding firearms. In other words, on April 20th, the system of K-12 education in the US shuts down forever. Or is this only high schools? Or middle schools plus high schools?

Reality check

And now it is time for a reality check.

First, passions aside, blurting out a plan for a walk out that you’ve not talked out or worked out or even thought out and expecting people to follow it is out and out selfish and dumb. It makes you feel good, makes everybody else pay for your short term pleasure, produces no results.

Second, and we’ve seen this before, people with jobs or who are retired, who are privileged, or are protected, have absolutely no right to demand or suggest or in any way support a plan in which those who are vulnerable, who are victims, who are in the trenches, give up their livelihoods or their educations in order to for them to try, unsuccessfully most likely, to get what you think they should have. Mr. Berliner’s plan is stupid, he is a dit. And whoever is spreading the Internet meme that the students and teachers have to walk out on the alternative date, April 20th, never to return, is probably a 400 pound Russian troll living in Trump’s basement.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think there should be a protest. I suspect the Woman’s March organized event and maybe the March march will come off and be very good. Perhaps a one month anniversary walkout will be good. But please, do not either a) make the victims of this pattern of massacres pay for your political feel-good ya-ya-jammas, and 2) let’s please try to do activism that matters, meaning that is well thought out, does more than just “raise awareness,” has follow-up, has expected outcomes that we can measure, even if roughly, and that is likely to either succeed, or to fail in ways that have positive outcomes.

And this brings me to this. This is your number one go-to activist act. If you want to stop the NRA and the gun nuts, then here is what you do. If you are a Democrat, identify the Democrats that are currently running in primaries or equivalent for any and all offices across the country who have taken NRA money and X them off the list of viable candidates. Do not support them, and yell at anyone who is supporting them. Don’t listen to these politicians’ “Come to Jesus” speeches. They made their bed. Dug their hole. Produced the petard upon which they shall be hoisted. Don’t listen to them, just write them off.

And let me be more specific. Don’t go on facebook and say “no NRA politicians! Yahhhahgr!” No. Say that, but then name them. Name the names. Look up all the people running for all the offices in your particular poltical catchment. Your state house, your state senate, your federal congressional district, your US senate, your governor, all of it. Look them up. Find the ones who are NRA funded now or in the past. Then name them. If you only do that first part, your facebook or twitter friends will think you are a good person. But if you do that second step as well, you may well find yourself facing a difficult decision. You may find politicians that you didn’t know were taking NRA money, maybe one or more that you liked, that you voted for in the past, that you were planning to vote for this year. Then you have to decide if you have what it takes to engage in this act. You probably do. You are probably fed up. Then, without fail, name the name(s). Let your socially networked friends know that you mean business, and who is in on this NRA thing.

If you just say you don’t want to support NRA candidates, that is not good enough. You have to find them, name them, end them.

Then, in November do not vote for any Republican no matter what they’ve done with the NRA. The Republican Party is the party of guns and of the massacres of children in our schools. Throw the bums out. Throw every one of the bums out. If a Democrat that takes NRA money got through the process and is running in the general election, and this may be the hardest part, don’t vote for them either. That last part might be hard, but you should seriously consider it.

Walk out if you want. March if you must. Protest peacefully with impunity. But in the end, vote for life and not death.

And please, to not ask our teachers to give up their jobs to make you feel like you did something, and do not ask our students to give up their educations to make you feel all juicy-lucy. That is not OK for you to do.

V is for victory over the gun nuts. V is for voting them out.

The answer that comes from the anti-safeguard lobby, those who mainly want guns to be unregulated with respect to ownership, safety, use, or disposition, is that such laws would not have stopped the tragedy that prompted the conversation.

They may be right (but see below). But they have missed the point. The problem is, the people who suddenly want to do something about senseless gun deaths have also missed the point.

About 33,000 times a year, in the United States, a bullet fires out of a gun, penetrates a human, and kills them. The number of times that a bullet leaves the gun and penetrates a human and only wounds them is considerable.

Since the difference between being dead and being alive is mostly random (with respect to the variables at the scene) and partly a function of the excellence, and presence or absence of, trauma specialists, it is worth noting that about 50,000 times a person is shot in some manner in the United States. But when working with gun relates statistics, we tend to focus on death, because in most cases, as tragic and horrific as a death may be, it will usually have one good feature: The data point representing it is well behaved. An embarrassing accidental discharge of a firearm resulting in a minor injury is unlikely to be reported at all. But when you are showing off with your Glock and a bullet is fired through the wall of your apartment and the toddler next door is blow away, that data point is going to exist and it will be carefully examined, verified, reported, and curated.

Of the ~33,000 killed each year, only a tiny percentage (but see below) of those individuals are killed in any kind of mass shooting, including school shootings.

In other words, the sad and macabre fact is that if we were given the choice of eliminating school shootings as they currently happen, vs. all the other shootings, we would be foolish to pick ending just the school shootings. We would be better off with the Watership Down alternative. Stop the carnage overall, but pay the price of a few of our children for that freedom from violence.

But you might be thinking, “Those 33,000, they were criminals shot by good cops, and gang member shooting each other, so who cares?”

Stop thinking that.

The statistics on gun violence are hard to get a handle on for several reasons, but what I’m going to tell you here is close to the actual reality and verifiable. I’ve included some sources below. These numbers are based on estimates from the last few years of available data.

Over the last five or six years, 33,000 people in the US died of a gunshot per year. Most of them, ~21,000, killed themselves intentionally (suicide). Of the rest, about one tenth of a percent were cops killed by gunfire in the line of duty (most cops who die in the line of duty are killed accidentally in car accidents, etc.). About 2% were citizens killed by cops. About 24% were murdered in the usual ways.

The number of times per year a person dies because of a simple accident, like the gun goes off while being cleaned, or in a hunting accident, is probably just over 300 (a little less than once per day). The number of people killed each year, on average, in a mass shooting roughly similar. This is about three quarters of one percent of the total gun carnage.

If we wanted to reduce the gun carnage as quickly and efficiently as possible, we might do things that reduce the largest of these numbers: suicide. We immediately realize that this is a mental health issue, and by the way, mass shootings may often be a mental health issue as well. Heck, considering that homicide is often an extension of day to day interpersonal violence which can go even worse, maybe a lot of those 11,000 shootings are also mental health issues. Putting it another way, if we could wave a magic wand and make all the mental health issues go away, assuming most suicides are in this category, then the number of dead per year would drop to a few thousand instead of a few tens of thousands. That would be great. So lets do that.

But while we are busy shoring up our approach to mental health, lets look at other ways to address the gun carnage.

Let’s start with the largest number, suicide.

When I bring up reducing gun carnage by addressing suicide, I often get push back from poorly informed libertarian-thinking people who are angered that I would want to take this basic right away from people. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should be able do to it. What about someone with a terrible, painful, disease who just wants to end it? What kind of monster am I to deny them of this right?

The other push-back is this: If someone wants to commit suicide, and you “take away the guns,” they will still kill themselves.

Let me tell you right now, that most of the time, when you hear either of these arguments, you are hearing from someone who, because they’ve had this conversation with people like me before, knows they are lying. They are simply trying to seed doubt, to dampen the anti-gun argument, because they are anti-protection. For all I know, they may even like the carnage. Certainly, they are willing to ignore basic facts in order to not have to be restricted in any way in the pursuit of their dangerous hobby (or business, in the case of those who trade in these weapons of death and mayhem).

Many people who attempt suicide are young and very few are sick and in pain. A large percentage of those who attempt suicide with something other than a firearm fail. Most who attempt suicide with a gun manage to kill themselves. Most people who attempt suicide and fail then get mental health care and they do not ever end up killing themselves. Across all age groups, 90% of those who make an attempt of suicide and survive never end up committing suicide. A large percentage of suicides are impulsive. It is estimated that 71% of the time, the suicide is decide on in less than one hour before the act.

OK, now, I’m going to take a break and go unload the dishwasher or something while you put those facts together and see what you come up with.

… tick … tick … tick … tick …

A partial but important solution to reduce the gun carnage is to first reduce the number of available guns, but also, to firmly secure the guns that to exist. Lock them up, and lock up the ammo in a separate place, and make the use of a gun for anything something that requires more thought, and not something that can be easily done by a non gun owner by simply grabbing an available firearm from Dad’s dresser drawer or a neighbor’s coffee table hidy-hole.

In the US, in the majority of households that have both children and guns in them, the guns are not stored safely away, and are often loaded and unlocked. A minority of US gun owners with children in their homes store the ammo separately and keep it all locked up.

May people who kill themselves with guns decide at the last minute to do so, and their access to the guns is unfettered. Often, this is a young person living in a household where an adult has a loaded firearm readily available, “just in case.”

The reason to have a firearm readily available and loaded is this: If someone comes into your house that you did not invite, you get your chance to shoot them to death. Yay. But what happens far more often is that your child or some neighbor or some other person in your household decides to kill themselves, and they use your gun to do it. Or your teenager offspring sneaked out of the house to party and is sneaking back in through the bathroom window, so you wake up, groggily grab your gun, and start shooting. Or as happened a while back to my neighbor: you are a recluse living in what the neighborhood kids mistake for an abandoned house, one of the kids sneaks into the house on a dare, and you grab your gun off the nightstand and blow him away.

What needs to happen instead is that it is required by law that you not be a knucklehead. You should be required by law to keep your gun unloaded and locked up, and the ammo also locked up at a different location. You, yourself, since you have the key or combination and know where everything is, can easily put it all together and eat a bullet any time you want to, so don’t worry about that right being taken away from you. But hopefully the extra work you need to go through to do so will allow your forebrain to catch up to your limbic system and call off your own suicide. More importantly, your hobby as a gun owner will not as easily allow someone else to use your gun to die or to kill. The total number of suicide deaths would go down dramatically, and we will have tackled the largest number among those cited above.

The next biggest group of gun deaths is homicide. Having guns more secured would probably reduce this as well. Just as suicide can be impulsive, and thus, aided by having loaded guns laying around, some homicides are impulsive as well.

A fair number of homicides involve violent criminals shooting at each other and killing either the other bad guy, a cop, or an innocent bystander. Some, perhaps many, of those guns are stolen. They are stolen from gun owners who did not secure their guns. You might say, “a determined criminal can yada yada yada… so it does not matter.” But you are wrong. Properly secured houses are burglarized far less often than improperly secured houses. Properly secured and hidden items in the house are stolen less than items left around in obvious places. When a criminal breaks into any home, one of the first places they check for stuff are the obvious places people are known to keep their loaded guns. The criminal wants to take that gun right away in case the home owner shows up, and because it has real value as a stolen item.

So, once again, properly locked up deadly weapons would reduce those numbers. I’ll even suggest this: Of those 300 or so accidental discharges per year (some of which result in death), a good number are little kids finding your boy-toy (gun) and pulling the trigger. That can’t happen with properly secured firearms.

“But it is not enforceable” you lament. “You are legislating what people do in their own homes and you can’t enforce it anyway” you cry out from your Libertarian perch!

Bull. First, any time there is a criminal act involving a gun, it is possible (not always, but often) to trace back the source to see if that was ever a properly secured gun. Every time there is a suicide there is an investigation. Frequently, it will be possible to determine if the gun was improperly stored. A set of widely known best practices with an accompanying law can and will be enforced sufficiently that there will be deterrence against sloppy gun storage.

Second, having a law and accompanying training, information, learning, and a general cultural shift towards being smart rather than stupid about something, does and can work even without a lot of enforcement. When seat belts were first deployed by regulation, a lot of people balked at the idea. They didn’t want the restrictions, the wrinkles, the trouble. Two things happened early on in the history of seat belt adoption. First, there were many apocryphal scare stories about how if you wear a seat belt in certain kinds of accidents, you would actually die instead of live. Second, they started making cars that automatically put your seat belt on for you (remember those?). Tensions rose.

But then a third thing happened. Laws requiring the use of seat belts started to spread. Once there is a law about something, that aspect of an event (an accident or a crime) is automatically addressed by investigators. It became routine for the seat belt wearing status of an accident victim to be reported. Then the news started to regularly report whenever a fatal accident happened and the person was not wearing their seat belt. Over time, the reporting seemed to indicate that mainly reckless youth and drunk-out-of-their-mind drivers were the ones not wearing their seat belts, and thus dying. In other words, foolish people were making foolish decisions and suffering the ultimate consequence, in such a way that all can see and all can learn and all can quietly eschew that behavior. Seat belt compliance continues to rise, and many lives are saved.

That is what we need with guns. We need a decade of reporting on how Uncle Joe effectively killed his niece by having a loaded gun around that she used to kill herself at the age of 14, and how he got fined or jailed for his role in her death and, worst of all, had his permit to own a gun revoked. We need a decade of reporting about how this or that wanton criminal was convicted of homicide, but that the owner of the stolen gun he had used had never secured that gun, so it was easily taken from his home by a burglar, and the original gun owner was held partly liable for that act, and fined and his gun rights taken away. We need a decade of stories distributed by suicide prevention groups about all the kids who lived because Dad and Mom had their weapons secured. All that.

So again, regulations requiring proper storage of firearms and ammo will reduce a good portion of the next largest parts of the gun carnage.

The cops kill nearly a thousand people a year. Why? In part because there are so many guns out there that the cops are constantly on edge. In the old days, it was rare for a cop to pull their gun. Now, they have their guns out frequently. In fact, when a cop walks over to pretty much anybody these days, they have their hand on the gun so they can pull it out instantly if needed. The other day, a community resource cop, a cop who’s job it is to sit with kids and read them stories and talk about safety and stuff, felt the need to be heavily armed in the classroom, with a gun designed to be discharged instantly (no safety) just in case. When a kid grabbed that gun and fired it in the classroom, it made me wonder if something was wrong with our system…

The point is, if guns were routinely secured, and their sales better regulated, and yes, this would take a few decades but this will matter to future generations, there would be fewer illegal guns in circulation, and fewer legal guns in criminal hands, and that would cause a down-cycling of how many people carry guns around out of fear, and that would make it less likely for those 50 cops that get murdered by gun a year to be killed, and then maybe the cops would not shoot 1000 people a year.

Which brings us to the mass shootings. The mass shootings, including the ones in school, happen (apart from previously discussed mental health issues) because we have a culture in which we eschew any regulation on guns. Anybody who wants to be a school shooter can easily get the guns, partly because there are so many, partly because we don’t regulate guns very effectively. We have no problem as a society allowing people to own thousands of rounds of ammo and dozens of assault style weapons.

Also, our gun culture stops us from asking important questions or taking important actions at key moments. The most recent mass school shooting, one of the worst ever, was apparently carried out by a guy who was known to be a gun nut, known to be threatening others, known to be hanging around the school he did not attend in a threatening manner.

Why did no one bother to check out this situation, to discover his gun cache, to stop him before he killed all those children? I do not know, but I’ll toss out a guess for you to consider. Our pro-gun culture, especially in rabidly pro-gun states like Florida, where any person can murder any unarmed person if they “feel threatened,” fetishizes the gun and all the freedom it implies to a greater degree than fear of the gun and all the killing it can do imbues caution in our actions. Maybe nobody wanted to look like they were anti-gun.

So, sensible regulation of gun sales, ownership, and storage will probably reduce the number and severity of school shootings from several different angles, including changing the culture of expectations surrounding the gun fetish, and including access to massive arsenals.

The final remaining argument against my position that guns need to be responsibly sold and owned, is this: If someone invades my home, I want my gun loaded, freely available, and by my side right along with my freedom!!!

That might sound to some like a reasonable statement, but in fact, it is ignorant yammering.

I know that the person who truly believes this now, in 2018, is a nonredeemable gun nut so I don’t mind offending you. Such individuals need to be forced to do the right thing and jailed when they fail. But for those watching form the sidelines, it is a bogus argument. Having guns readily available for self defense in the home rarely works as a self defense strategy, but often leads to wounding or killing of household members, in the case where the gun is actually deployed as a killing machine. Often that is totally separate from the context of a home invasion. But even when there is a home invasion, the chances of the gun owner or a family member being killed or injured might actually be higher than the chance of the invasion being thwarted or the invader killed or wounded. The statistics are hard to analyze here, but at the very least, the chances are very close or overlapping.

But that is not the main point I want to make. The point is that playing fast and loose with guns is immoral and bone-headed. It is how we kill our children, not how we protect them. You think you are protecting your home and family, but actually, you are endangering them AND you are endangering everyone else.

But you can still have your cake and eat it too, if you must. In order to address home invasions in a way that also allows you to play with your big gun, simply follow these two procedures.

1) Lock the damn guns and ammo up.

2) Secure your home with an alarm system that will warn you that someone is breaking in. It need not be a fancy expensive system. Anything that makes lights go on and noises happen when someone is trying to get in. Also, do the other things you can do to reduce the chance of a robbery to being with. You can find out what those are from your local police department, or google it. Yes, “a determined thief will break in anyway yada yada yada” but the truth is that if you are the low hanging fruit, you are asking for it, and if you make it hard, you will be better off. You have to be an idiot to allow someone unfettered access to your home in such a way that your only recourse is to reach over to your night stand, grab your gun, and start shooting.

Or, perhaps you are not an idiot. Perhaps you are just waiting for a chance to kill someone, so you arm yourself and make it easy for someone to break into your house. Leave around clues that you have great prescription drugs ready to steal. Then lay in wait. There is that, and perhaps some version of it is not terribly uncommon. People who think that way …

But wait, now were are back to the mental heath fix, so we’ve got that covered as well.

One more thing, something I hinted at above, and if you’ve gotten this far into my rant, you get to hear all about it. School shootings are small part of the overall gun carnage. And, mass shootings in general may be the most difficult of all the gun related violence to actually address with laws, regulations, and tactical responses. Since gun death is large (33,000 a years) and mass shootings in schools is small (a couple of hundred a year) then the school shootings may seem unimportant in the long run, even if they are very shocking when they happen.

So, since that idea is totally wrong and misguided, I want to propose a thought experiment. Suppose we lived in a society with very few guns, and not much gun violence overall. In this imaginary place, we’ll call it Nacirema in honor of the Anthropologists who are known to have worked there and the Naciremas who live there, mental health care is widespread and effective, and many of the problems that cause mental health problems, whatever they may be, have been addressed by ensuring a healthy and fair economy for all, great health care and nutrition, effective early childhood care, and all of it. It is rare for someone to die because of a gun shot.

Then, suddenly, there is a mass shooting at a school. Then another. And then more. After a few years, we realize that a few hundred children are being killed each year, but never before did this happen.

Pause for a moment and substitute my thought experiment with the alternative thought experiment of your choice. Every year, we learn, 300 Nacirema children are killed in exploding school buses. Or, High School football stadiums built by a particular contractor start to collapse, killing dozens of student at a time to add up to 300 a year. Or a mad poisoner is operating in the school cafeteria to the tune of 300 deaths a year.

This should be obvious but in case it is not: a few hundred victims per year of mass shootings, many in schools, is not made less horrific or smaller because others happen to die at the muzzle of a gun.

Selected resources and other posts:

The Truth about Suicide and Guns

CDC on Homicide Data (various links, start here)

CDC on Suicide Data (various links, start here)

Guns and Suicide

Gun violence by the numbers

How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner?

Various WaPo pages on number of people shot dead by cops.

US police shootings: How many die each year?

Causes of Law Enforcement Deaths

A selection of my posts on gun violence and related topics (This blog has recently been re-worked, so only those posts I’ve gotten around to re-tagging are on this list. Use the search bar at the top of the page to find more.)

Did you hear about the other kid that died, this morning? It was in Ohio. A young man pulled out a pistol in a waiting area of a school, where four or five kids were sitting at a table, waiting for a bus. He pointed the pistol at them, and to the horror of various onlookers who later described the scene, walked towards the kids at the table, pulling the trigger again and again. One of the children slumped down on the table and started his process of dying. Another tried to hide under the table but he was shot anyway. One kid ran away and called the police, even though a bullet notched his ear. As of this writing, two kids are in the hospital in critical condition, and two in serious condition, and one is in the morgue.

We can ask why these things happen, why these kids did these things, but there is another question that must also be asked, and that is often left unaddressed until long after the shock and horror of the incident wears off for the news junkies, bloggers, and other voyeurs. This question is: Where did the guns come from? It is extremely unlikely that these weapons were legally owned by these children. They got the weapons from somewhere. It is extremely unlikely that anyone who might have owned these weapons legally would have loaned them out to the children. Most likely they got the weapons by taking them from where they were stored, against the wishes of the owners.

It is hard to find information on where the weapons that children use to kill themselves and each other come from. It is generally felt that in the case of suicides, the weapons are from the home, and they were not properly secured. In the case of “school shootings,” there is an old (but still relevant) study¹ that tells us where the weapons are generally from.

During July 1, 1992–June 30, 1999, a total of 323 school-associated violent death events occurred in the United States, resulting in 358 deaths … To guide prevention efforts, CDC examined school-associated firearm violent death events committed by students in elementary and secondary schools in the United States and determined the sources of the firearms used in these events. The findings indicate that, among the incidents for which data are available, the majority of the firearms used in these events were obtained from perpetrators’ homes or from friends or relatives.

The study was able to include 128 events. Thirty-four of those events were suicides carried out in the school. Twenty six of those guns came from the child’s home, four from a friend or relative, and two were stolen. Ninety four of the events were homicides, and of those, 22 used guns from home, 26 from a friend or relative, with a higher percentage from various other sources including purchased, stolen, or taken from the victim, with 27 unknown.

A high percentage of these events involved multiple victims, the predominant gun type was a handgun, the shooters were mostly male, and most were over 15 years of age and white. Most were never charged with a crime, gang membership was almost never a factor, and drug or alcohol use was usually not associated with the event.

The law should provide for penalties for those who fail to secure firearms that are then used by kids to kill themselves or each other. There is no good reason that a firearm in a home can’t be secured. Anyone who has an unsecured firearm in their home right now is committing a crime, in my view, technically illegal or not. Such individuals have a misguided perception of what that firearm is for, and how to use it. School shootings such as today’s are rare, but suicides among young people are not. You would not leave a ten foot deep open pit in your front yard, you wouldn’t leave your car unlocked and running out in front of the store while you shop, you wouldn’t leave your pills and sharp things next to the baby’s crib. Why is your gun not locked up?

Here’s the local news reports on the incident:

_____________________________

¹Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths — United Stats, 1992-1999. MMWR 2003;52:169-172.