"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
This is one of the NRA's standard talking points, and occasionally there are cases that seem to validate this statement. For example, you may have seen the recent story where a "55-year-old deli owner and his wife were confronted by a 19-year-old armed robber who burst into the small Tacony shop
and threatened their lives. But the shopkeeper had a weapon of his own,
and returned fire after the gunman shot at him. He struck the would-be robber in the chest, police said, killing him on the spot."*
*from a 2/7/13 story in the Philadelphia Inquirer
That seems like a fairly clear case of "good guy" vs. "bad guy". The article went on to say, "The shooting appears to have been justified, and police sources
said they did not expect the shopkeeper to be charged...Police have not yet released the name of the gunman, but said he had prior arrests." (More on this story in my next post.)
Unfortunately, however, the "good guy/bad guy" distinction is not always so clear. Consider the recent case of Tawana Bourne from Middletown, Connecticut. As noted in a 2/5/13 article on courant.com**, Bourne, age 30, "the mother of two boys, founded a Middletown-based, nonprofit
organization called Healthy Home Healthy Child, which works with parents
on crisis prevention and intervention, according to the Urban Alliance,
a nonprofit Christian organization in Hartford." Sounds like one of the good guys, right?
But good guys can apparently use really bad judgment, as Ms. Bourne did recently while visiting Chuck E Cheese with her 5-year-old son. The little boy apparently pushed another child off of a ride, and the other child's mother scolded the boy. Ms. Bourne advised the other mom to "watch her tone" when talking to her son, and the other woman suggested that Ms. Bourne needed to "watch her kid."
At this point, according to a police statement, Ms. Bourne "allegedly brandished a .380 semiautomatic handgun and chambered a round."
She pulled out a gun and loaded it, at Chuck E Cheese, in front of her 5-year-old son and the other woman's 2-year-old daughter. That's not exactly conducive to an environment "where a kid can be a kid" as the company's slogan goes. (Signs at the front of every Chuck E Cheese advise patrons that they may not bring in any weapons or firearms.)
Fortunately, this time, no actual violence ensued. Ms. Bourne, who had a valid permit for her weapon, was charged with "three counts of risk of injury to a minor and one count each of second-degree threatening and first-degree reckless endangerment."
**http://www.courant.com/community/newington/hc-newington-gun-arrest-0206-20130205,0,7637685.story
My point is this: We don't live in a Hollywood Western, where you can tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys by the color of their hat. A perfectly "good", hard-working, church-going, law-abiding person can make bad choices. She can have a bad day, drink too much, get fired from her job. He can have a fight with his spouse, get a traffic ticket, and/or just be in a really bad mood when that one thing happens that just puts him over the edge. And at that point she may break down and scream at her child or curse out a stranger. Or he may pull out a gun.
The NRA doesn't tell us what stops a good guy with a gun.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
In a 1st grader's backpack: library book, PB&J, and ??
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of writing this blog is how easy it is to find material to write about.
Today, while still reeling from the news of the "too close for comfort" murders in the lobby of the Wilmington Courthouse, I read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer headlined "7-year-old had gun in school." The article describes how the boy, a 1st-grader, brought a loaded .357 Magnum to his Philadelphia elementary school and "was showing it to his classmates about 8:15 a.m. in the cafeteria."
Have you spent any time around elementary school boys lately? I have, and I just keep picturing this scene in my mind: One boy says, “Wait till you see what I have!” He pulls the shiny gun out of his backpack and holds it up for his buddies to admire. “Lemme see!” says one boy, reaching for it. “Is it real?” another asks. “Let ME see it!” cries another. The first boy tries to pull it back out of reach of the others and BANG. There’s the next 48-hour news cycle.
Fortunately, this story didn’t go that way. “Other students reported the incident to a school police officer. The officer escorted the boy to the principal’s office, where school officials searched the student’s backpack and found the weapon,” the article explains. An investigation is underway, and we can exhale, this time.
Last week on Facebook I saw several links to on-line articles regarding "teaching children about guns." (One example: http://fox4kc.com/2013/01/30/
This is one of those cases where it would be wonderful to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to teach children about guns, but none of us live in that world. I would like to see a few key "gun avoidance/safety" rules taught in every school, starting at the preschool level.
The NRA's Eddie the Eagle "Gunsafe" program teaches young kids: "If you see a gun, STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an adult."
I don't know anything else about this program, so I can't condone it or object to it overall. I do agree with critics who say that any such lessons for kids should be presented by school teachers or local law enforcement personnel, not by a pro-gun group.
But, to me, the message is completely appropriate. It is simple, direct, and worth repeating. Starting in preschool, teach young children: "If you see a gun, STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an adult." As children get older, we can begin telling them why and what could happen if they don't.
The article in today's paper goes on to say, "Monday's incident marked the second time in a week that a Philadelphia student had brought a loaded firearm to school. A 7-year-old boy found a loaded revolver in his book bag Thursday....."
If you see a gun, STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an adult.
Tell your children, your grandchildren, the kids next door. We never know when the next incident will be too close for comfort.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Too close to home this morning!!!
*"WILMINGTON — Two women were shot to death when a gunman opened fire at the New Castle County Courthouse this morning, state police said. Three others were wounded, including two Capitol Police officers.
Wilmington Mayor Dennis Williams reported one of those killed was the shooter’s wife.
The shooter was killed by Capitol Police officers, according to state police spokesman Sgt. Paul Shavack. The shooter was in his late 20s to early 30s Police are still trying to determine his identity and the identities of the victims.
The shooting began around 8 a.m. when the gunman was stopped by Capitol Police at a security checkpoint inside the front door."
My friend A. posted on FB that she parks at the courthouse and walked by the crime scene moments before the police tape went up.
I noticed that in the comments posted on the website under the story above people were already jumping into their respective corners and spitting out their talking points. One man shared the tale of how, due to his metal knee brace, he is never made to go through security at the court house, and when he pointed this out to the security people, offering to lift his shirt, etc., the security people laughed. This is a valid point about a potential lack of security. However, he immediately followed this story by writing, "SO DON"T YOU DARE, POLITICIANS, make this out to be another crusade about law abiding citizens and our guns because this is nothing more than relaxed security....... I'm sorry this had to happen, but don't dare blame this on anyone but yourselves." In fact, the story above clearly states that "The shooting began around 8 a.m. when the gunman was stopped by Capitol Police at a security checkpoint inside the front door." In this case, it appears that security prevented the man from entering the building, but the carnage then took place in the (publicly accessible) lobby.
One post went directly to the NRA mantra, "I guess the bad guy didn't care about laws or it being a gun free zone... The only thing that stops a bad good with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Several people posted comments suggesting that more people should be carrying guns for self-protection, and one person even wrote "Shooter was shot by an armed passerby," another statement clearly contradicted by the story ("The shooter was killed by Capitol Police officers".)
In response, someone wrote, "Nobody but you would think nuts with guns should be walking into courthouses with judges,juries, victims and witnesses all together in the same room. Very moronic nutty argument."
Talking points, insults, and false claims; there has to be a better way to respond.
And while I don't think irony is particularly useful at this time either, while we're waiting for all of the facts to come out, I'll end with this: "Wilmington Police Chief Christine Dunning, attending a roundtable on gun violence with Vice President Joe Biden and other law enforcement officials in Philadelphia, declined comment on the shooting and deferred to officials on the scene in Wilmington."
Comments?!?!?
*All news details from: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130211/NEWS01/302110044/5-wounded-NCCo-Courthouse-shooter-dead
*"WILMINGTON — Two women were shot to death when a gunman opened fire at the New Castle County Courthouse this morning, state police said. Three others were wounded, including two Capitol Police officers.
Wilmington Mayor Dennis Williams reported one of those killed was the shooter’s wife.
The shooter was killed by Capitol Police officers, according to state police spokesman Sgt. Paul Shavack. The shooter was in his late 20s to early 30s Police are still trying to determine his identity and the identities of the victims.
The shooting began around 8 a.m. when the gunman was stopped by Capitol Police at a security checkpoint inside the front door."
My friend A. posted on FB that she parks at the courthouse and walked by the crime scene moments before the police tape went up.
I noticed that in the comments posted on the website under the story above people were already jumping into their respective corners and spitting out their talking points. One man shared the tale of how, due to his metal knee brace, he is never made to go through security at the court house, and when he pointed this out to the security people, offering to lift his shirt, etc., the security people laughed. This is a valid point about a potential lack of security. However, he immediately followed this story by writing, "SO DON"T YOU DARE, POLITICIANS, make this out to be another crusade about law abiding citizens and our guns because this is nothing more than relaxed security....... I'm sorry this had to happen, but don't dare blame this on anyone but yourselves." In fact, the story above clearly states that "The shooting began around 8 a.m. when the gunman was stopped by Capitol Police at a security checkpoint inside the front door." In this case, it appears that security prevented the man from entering the building, but the carnage then took place in the (publicly accessible) lobby.
One post went directly to the NRA mantra, "I guess the bad guy didn't care about laws or it being a gun free zone... The only thing that stops a bad good with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Several people posted comments suggesting that more people should be carrying guns for self-protection, and one person even wrote "Shooter was shot by an armed passerby," another statement clearly contradicted by the story ("The shooter was killed by Capitol Police officers".)
In response, someone wrote, "Nobody but you would think nuts with guns should be walking into courthouses with judges,juries, victims and witnesses all together in the same room. Very moronic nutty argument."
Talking points, insults, and false claims; there has to be a better way to respond.
And while I don't think irony is particularly useful at this time either, while we're waiting for all of the facts to come out, I'll end with this: "Wilmington Police Chief Christine Dunning, attending a roundtable on gun violence with Vice President Joe Biden and other law enforcement officials in Philadelphia, declined comment on the shooting and deferred to officials on the scene in Wilmington."
Comments?!?!?
*All news details from: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130211/NEWS01/302110044/5-wounded-NCCo-Courthouse-shooter-dead
Sunday, February 10, 2013
My last post shared some statistics on the amazing reduction in automotive-related deaths we've experienced over the last several decades. Think about it: way more people, more cars, more miles driven, more in-car distractions, and significantly FEWER deaths.
How can we take the lessons learned from this and apply them to the problem of gun violence?
Clearly, there are some different challenges here, since the whole purpose of a gun is to cause injury or death. But, as I noted in a post last week, an alarmingly high number of gun deaths are the result of accidents. Are there ways we can reduce the number and mortality of gun accidents, the way we have with car accidents?
Let's start with children; in fact, let's start with the very youngest children. When a baby is born, her parents are not allowed to leave the hospital by car without having the baby in a car seat. Some hospitals will accompany the new parents to their car to ensure that the car seat is installed correctly. Many hospitals, OB/Gyn practices and pregnancy support groups offer prenatal classes specifically on this topic. And this emphasis on child-car-safety certainly doesn't end when the baby is born. When my kids were tiny I read all about car seat selection and use in parenting magazines, heard lectures from safety experts at our monthly "Mom's Club" meetings, and went to the local police HQ to have a trained officer check whether our seat was installed correctly (and when we got a new car seat, I went back again.) At each well-baby visit, the pediatrician reinforced the importance of strapping the baby securely and completely into the car seat EVERY time we traveled anywhere.
Do new and prospective parents get the same lectures about gun safety? Do obstetricians bring it up with the moms-to-be? Do hospital nursery attendants ask new dads about whether they have guns in the house, and if so, where are they kept and are they out of reach? Do pediatricians' offices have funny-but-serious posters on the wall like the one that shows a bunch of children in adult clothes and hats with seat belts that don't fit, followed by the tag-line, "Children are not just small adults"? If not, why not?!?
Just as importantly, when you drop your four-year-old (or 6 or 8 or 10 year old) off at your friend or neighbor's house so you can run some errands in peace, do you make it a point to ask some key questions?
Do you have any guns in the house?
Where are they stored?
Is the storage location locked?
Are any guns kept loaded?
Where is the ammunition stored?
I admit I have never asked these questions, even of friends and relatives who I know are hunters and presumably do keep guns in the house. I suppose I was embarrassed to bring it up, afraid a friend would think I didn't trust her or I was questioning his parenting skills. I didn't want to seem like a nag, especially towards someone providing free babysitting!
Even though my children are now 10 and 12, I vow, going forward, to start asking these questions. Simply asking the question may raise the other person's awareness of the issue. People who don't have young children of their own may have simply not even thought about the possibility of a child getting hold of a gun. And a gun owner who does have children should be able to assure you that the maximum precautions have been taken. If she can't give you that assurance, you both have something to think about.
What else can be done to reduce the odds of a child being shot accidentally in someone's home? Please comment and share your ideas!
How can we take the lessons learned from this and apply them to the problem of gun violence?
Clearly, there are some different challenges here, since the whole purpose of a gun is to cause injury or death. But, as I noted in a post last week, an alarmingly high number of gun deaths are the result of accidents. Are there ways we can reduce the number and mortality of gun accidents, the way we have with car accidents?
Let's start with children; in fact, let's start with the very youngest children. When a baby is born, her parents are not allowed to leave the hospital by car without having the baby in a car seat. Some hospitals will accompany the new parents to their car to ensure that the car seat is installed correctly. Many hospitals, OB/Gyn practices and pregnancy support groups offer prenatal classes specifically on this topic. And this emphasis on child-car-safety certainly doesn't end when the baby is born. When my kids were tiny I read all about car seat selection and use in parenting magazines, heard lectures from safety experts at our monthly "Mom's Club" meetings, and went to the local police HQ to have a trained officer check whether our seat was installed correctly (and when we got a new car seat, I went back again.) At each well-baby visit, the pediatrician reinforced the importance of strapping the baby securely and completely into the car seat EVERY time we traveled anywhere.
Do new and prospective parents get the same lectures about gun safety? Do obstetricians bring it up with the moms-to-be? Do hospital nursery attendants ask new dads about whether they have guns in the house, and if so, where are they kept and are they out of reach? Do pediatricians' offices have funny-but-serious posters on the wall like the one that shows a bunch of children in adult clothes and hats with seat belts that don't fit, followed by the tag-line, "Children are not just small adults"? If not, why not?!?
Just as importantly, when you drop your four-year-old (or 6 or 8 or 10 year old) off at your friend or neighbor's house so you can run some errands in peace, do you make it a point to ask some key questions?
Do you have any guns in the house?
Where are they stored?
Is the storage location locked?
Are any guns kept loaded?
Where is the ammunition stored?
I admit I have never asked these questions, even of friends and relatives who I know are hunters and presumably do keep guns in the house. I suppose I was embarrassed to bring it up, afraid a friend would think I didn't trust her or I was questioning his parenting skills. I didn't want to seem like a nag, especially towards someone providing free babysitting!
Even though my children are now 10 and 12, I vow, going forward, to start asking these questions. Simply asking the question may raise the other person's awareness of the issue. People who don't have young children of their own may have simply not even thought about the possibility of a child getting hold of a gun. And a gun owner who does have children should be able to assure you that the maximum precautions have been taken. If she can't give you that assurance, you both have something to think about.
What else can be done to reduce the odds of a child being shot accidentally in someone's home? Please comment and share your ideas!
Friday, February 8, 2013
Amazing reduction in annual deaths....from cars
Yesterday I wrote about the Facebook post that says,
"Give up your car because others drive drunk? No.
Then why give up your gun because others commit crimes with them?"
The lack of equivalence in these two statements annoyed me, but the post did get me thinking about the similarities between motor vehicle deaths and deaths due to guns.
As my friend B. wrote on Facebook: "...drunk drivers still kill more people every year than crazed mass shooters. It is illegal to drive drunk, but that doesn't stop people from doing it."
And it's not just drunk driving that causes fatalities. Many people are killed on the roads each year because of drivers who are too sleepy, inattentive, or aggressive; because of those who fail to maintain their vehicle properly and those who fail to adjust their driving to poor road or weather conditions; those who fail to yield to cyclists, pedestrians or other drivers; even those who, just that once, neglect to check their blind spot.
Like a gun, a car can cause injury or death in a split second.
Car accidents and fatalities have been around as long as cars have, and we certainly haven't given up our cars as a result.
But guess what? We have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the number of fatalities, both in absolute terms and relative to the population and number of miles driven*.
Any idea which year had the highest number of motor vehicle deaths? 1997? 1988, maybe?
Actually, it was way back in 1972. That year 54,589 people were killed via motor vehicles. That translated to 26.0 deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S., or 4.3 deaths per 100 million miles driven.
But it has been all downhill since then, and in this case, that is a very good thing.
In 2011 there were 32,367 motor vehicle deaths. While that is still a huge loss, it is the lowest number of deaths in SIXTY-TWO years, going back to 1949. The reduction in terms of population and miles driven is even more astonishing: 10.4 deaths per 100K people, or 1.1 deaths per 100 million miles driven.
Clearly, much of this reduction can be attributed to improved safety features in vehicles, starting with seat belts in the 1960s and 70s, followed by airbags in the late 80s and into the 1990s, with anti-lock brakes and I don't know what all in between.
But there must have been other factors at work as well. For example, in just the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, the number of motor vehicle fatalities per 100K people in the U.S. dropped by 27%, while the number per 100 million miles driven went down 30%. And that was in spite of the exponential increase in the number of cell phones and all the potential driver distraction they introduce. Someone else can delve into the specific factors at work here, but I assume they include things such as increased attention to the problem of drunk driving (in terms of both more roadblocks on Saturday nights and more peer pressure against excessive drinking), increased seat belt use, and maybe even the huge demographic block of baby boomers getting old and mellow.
I assume you can see where I'm going here. While I continue to believe that fewer guns in society will provide the greatest reduction in pain and suffering, there are clearly many steps that can be taken to reduce the number of deaths that result from the guns that we have now.
Tomorrow I will float some specific ideas along these lines. Please comment below to share your ideas as well.
*All stats on motor vehicle deaths from Wikipedia; see website for specific references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
"Give up your car because others drive drunk? No.
Then why give up your gun because others commit crimes with them?"
The lack of equivalence in these two statements annoyed me, but the post did get me thinking about the similarities between motor vehicle deaths and deaths due to guns.
As my friend B. wrote on Facebook: "...drunk drivers still kill more people every year than crazed mass shooters. It is illegal to drive drunk, but that doesn't stop people from doing it."
And it's not just drunk driving that causes fatalities. Many people are killed on the roads each year because of drivers who are too sleepy, inattentive, or aggressive; because of those who fail to maintain their vehicle properly and those who fail to adjust their driving to poor road or weather conditions; those who fail to yield to cyclists, pedestrians or other drivers; even those who, just that once, neglect to check their blind spot.
Like a gun, a car can cause injury or death in a split second.
Car accidents and fatalities have been around as long as cars have, and we certainly haven't given up our cars as a result.
But guess what? We have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the number of fatalities, both in absolute terms and relative to the population and number of miles driven*.
Any idea which year had the highest number of motor vehicle deaths? 1997? 1988, maybe?
Actually, it was way back in 1972. That year 54,589 people were killed via motor vehicles. That translated to 26.0 deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S., or 4.3 deaths per 100 million miles driven.
But it has been all downhill since then, and in this case, that is a very good thing.
In 2011 there were 32,367 motor vehicle deaths. While that is still a huge loss, it is the lowest number of deaths in SIXTY-TWO years, going back to 1949. The reduction in terms of population and miles driven is even more astonishing: 10.4 deaths per 100K people, or 1.1 deaths per 100 million miles driven.
Clearly, much of this reduction can be attributed to improved safety features in vehicles, starting with seat belts in the 1960s and 70s, followed by airbags in the late 80s and into the 1990s, with anti-lock brakes and I don't know what all in between.
But there must have been other factors at work as well. For example, in just the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, the number of motor vehicle fatalities per 100K people in the U.S. dropped by 27%, while the number per 100 million miles driven went down 30%. And that was in spite of the exponential increase in the number of cell phones and all the potential driver distraction they introduce. Someone else can delve into the specific factors at work here, but I assume they include things such as increased attention to the problem of drunk driving (in terms of both more roadblocks on Saturday nights and more peer pressure against excessive drinking), increased seat belt use, and maybe even the huge demographic block of baby boomers getting old and mellow.
I assume you can see where I'm going here. While I continue to believe that fewer guns in society will provide the greatest reduction in pain and suffering, there are clearly many steps that can be taken to reduce the number of deaths that result from the guns that we have now.
Tomorrow I will float some specific ideas along these lines. Please comment below to share your ideas as well.
*All stats on motor vehicle deaths from Wikipedia; see website for specific references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Can we compare drunk driving to gun crimes?
Today I saw this post on Facebook:
"Give up your car because others drive drunk? No.
Then why give up your gun because others commit crimes with them?"
I felt annoyed when I read this. The main reason is because this is what is known as a false equivalency, a kind of logical fallacy where one implies that two things are the same, when they really are not.
I don't give up my car, because I need my car to get around. I use it most every day, often several times a day. Most people who own guns for self-defense probably use them rarely, if ever. The purpose of a car is to provide transportation, whereas the purpose of a gun is to cause harm. Etc., etc.
However, I also felt annoyed because on some emotional level this false comparison rings true. The pain we feel when someone dies in a car accident is very much like the pain of losing someone in a gun accident or at the hands of a criminal with a gun. We think, "If only...." If only she had taken a different road. If only he hadn't tried to answer that text. If only the gun had been unloaded, or out of reach, or in the locked case.
After thinking about this comparison, I did some quick research. (How DID we ever get along without the internet?!?)
Tomorrow I will post some interesting statistics and some ideas on how comparing gun violence to motor vehicle fatalities might actually provide some useful strategies for reducing gun deaths.
"Give up your car because others drive drunk? No.
Then why give up your gun because others commit crimes with them?"
I felt annoyed when I read this. The main reason is because this is what is known as a false equivalency, a kind of logical fallacy where one implies that two things are the same, when they really are not.
I don't give up my car, because I need my car to get around. I use it most every day, often several times a day. Most people who own guns for self-defense probably use them rarely, if ever. The purpose of a car is to provide transportation, whereas the purpose of a gun is to cause harm. Etc., etc.
However, I also felt annoyed because on some emotional level this false comparison rings true. The pain we feel when someone dies in a car accident is very much like the pain of losing someone in a gun accident or at the hands of a criminal with a gun. We think, "If only...." If only she had taken a different road. If only he hadn't tried to answer that text. If only the gun had been unloaded, or out of reach, or in the locked case.
After thinking about this comparison, I did some quick research. (How DID we ever get along without the internet?!?)
Tomorrow I will post some interesting statistics and some ideas on how comparing gun violence to motor vehicle fatalities might actually provide some useful strategies for reducing gun deaths.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
There's no doubt that the killings in Newtown, Connecticut hit people extra hard because so many of the victims were innocent children; 12 girls and 8 boys, all first-graders, ages 6 and 7, were murdered that day.
I couldn't help but think of my sweet 6-year-old nephew, carefree in his own 1st grade classroom as the tragedy unfolded. The pain was deep because the families we saw on TV in the coming days could have been us; their grief could have been ours.
Mass killings like the one in Newtown dominate the news for days. But here's the news the many people probably don't realize: Sweet, innocent children die from gun violence every week in this country.
In fact, in the 6 weeks following the murder of 8 boys in Newtown, another SIXTEEN boys lost their lives to guns. That's right: in the course of just six weeks, twice as many boys were killed by guns than the number who were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.
I am not referring to a prediction, or a statistical average, but actual deaths. The online journal Slate has been collecting data from news reports on all gun deaths (at least, all of those reported in the news) since the mass shooting on December 14th. Their data is updated daily and is available free to anyone interested. Visit their website for the data and an interactive summary that allows you to see the deaths by date, gender, and age group; a simple click on each "person" provides name, location, and a link to the detailed news story:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
These sixteen boys were children, all under age 13. In fact, more than half of them were YOUNGER than the boys who lost their lives in Newtown: two were 5, two were 4, one was 3, three were 2, and one was only a year old.
Maybe you are thinking (hoping, even?) that you can ignore THESE deaths, because they are not the type that "could happen to anyone." Maybe you're thinking, "This must have happened in bad neighborhoods, right?" Think again.
It's true that 4-year-old Aydan was a victim of a drive-by shooting in a rough part of Kansas City. His dad was buckling him into his car seat as they prepared to leave a relative's house when Aydan was killed. But out of the 16 boys who died from guns between December 15th and January 26th, Aydan was the ONLY one killed by a stranger.
Three boys, one-year-old Jonah and five-year-olds Jacob and Max, were all killed by family-members in murder-suicide attempts. Jacob's dad had been depressed; Max's dad was a cop; both succeeded in killing themselves as well as their sons. Jonah's 20-year-old mother lived through her attempt. Nine-year-old Zephania was killed, along with his parents and two of his sisters (ages 5 and 2) by his fifteen-year-old brother using a military-style assault weapon.
Those four deaths could likely all be attributed to some sort of mental health problem in the family. That is not the case, however, with the remaining 11 cases. In just six weeks, eleven boys under the age of 13 were killed in gun accidents. These are perhaps the most tragic to consider.
Can we really stand to relive the horror of Newtown every month?
I couldn't help but think of my sweet 6-year-old nephew, carefree in his own 1st grade classroom as the tragedy unfolded. The pain was deep because the families we saw on TV in the coming days could have been us; their grief could have been ours.
Mass killings like the one in Newtown dominate the news for days. But here's the news the many people probably don't realize: Sweet, innocent children die from gun violence every week in this country.
In fact, in the 6 weeks following the murder of 8 boys in Newtown, another SIXTEEN boys lost their lives to guns. That's right: in the course of just six weeks, twice as many boys were killed by guns than the number who were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.
I am not referring to a prediction, or a statistical average, but actual deaths. The online journal Slate has been collecting data from news reports on all gun deaths (at least, all of those reported in the news) since the mass shooting on December 14th. Their data is updated daily and is available free to anyone interested. Visit their website for the data and an interactive summary that allows you to see the deaths by date, gender, and age group; a simple click on each "person" provides name, location, and a link to the detailed news story:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
These sixteen boys were children, all under age 13. In fact, more than half of them were YOUNGER than the boys who lost their lives in Newtown: two were 5, two were 4, one was 3, three were 2, and one was only a year old.
Maybe you are thinking (hoping, even?) that you can ignore THESE deaths, because they are not the type that "could happen to anyone." Maybe you're thinking, "This must have happened in bad neighborhoods, right?" Think again.
It's true that 4-year-old Aydan was a victim of a drive-by shooting in a rough part of Kansas City. His dad was buckling him into his car seat as they prepared to leave a relative's house when Aydan was killed. But out of the 16 boys who died from guns between December 15th and January 26th, Aydan was the ONLY one killed by a stranger.
Three boys, one-year-old Jonah and five-year-olds Jacob and Max, were all killed by family-members in murder-suicide attempts. Jacob's dad had been depressed; Max's dad was a cop; both succeeded in killing themselves as well as their sons. Jonah's 20-year-old mother lived through her attempt. Nine-year-old Zephania was killed, along with his parents and two of his sisters (ages 5 and 2) by his fifteen-year-old brother using a military-style assault weapon.
Those four deaths could likely all be attributed to some sort of mental health problem in the family. That is not the case, however, with the remaining 11 cases. In just six weeks, eleven boys under the age of 13 were killed in gun accidents. These are perhaps the most tragic to consider.
- 3-year-old Ryder shot himself at his uncle's house the day after the Newtown murders
- 2-year-old Brennan killed himself with his grandfather's gun
- A 2-year-old named Sincere grabbed a gun off a table and killed himself on Christmas day
- 10-year-old Alfreddie was killed celebrating with family, also on Christmas day; in the early reports, relatives were too upset to say who pulled the trigger
- 8-year-old Easton was shot and killed by a family member while visiting his father
- William, age 12, was hanging out with his 12-year-old cousin in early January; the cousin was excited to show William the new shotgun he got for Christmas, but didn't realize it was loaded; he pulled the trigger and William died.
- 12-year-old Steven loved to hunt and was proud of his hunter's safety certification, but he accidentally shot himself in his house
- 2-year-old Travin was shot and killed by an 18-year-old family member who was "playing" with a handgun
- Jamarcus, age 4, was riding in the backseat while his father was driving. He somehow got hold of his father's gun and shot himself dead.
- And James, age 12, was accidentally shot while out hunting with his father, uncle, and teen brother.
Can we really stand to relive the horror of Newtown every month?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)