Another perspective on our gun violence.

“No other high-income country has suffered such a high death toll from gun violence. Every day, 120 Americans die at the end of a gun, including suicides and homicides, an average of 43,475 per year. Since 2009, there has been an annual average of 19 shootings in which at least four people are killed. The US gun homicide rate is as much as 26 times that of other high-income countries; its gun suicide rate is nearly 12 times higher.”

Gun control opponents have typically framed the gun violence epidemic in the US as a symptom of a broader mental health crisis. But every country has people with mental health issues and extremists; those problems aren’t unique. What is unique is the US’s expansive view of civilian gun ownership, ingrained in politics, in culture, and in the law since the nation’s founding, and a national political process that has so far proved incapable of changing that norm.”

The numbers are astounding. Boy, I sure hope all these lives lost to bullets were worth it.

31 thoughts on “Another perspective on our gun violence.

  1. No, it’s not another perspective, it’s the same, shallow, simple-minded perspective as always.

    As long as we focus on the gun and not the person, we’ll never make progress.

    Gang shooting, workplace shootings, domestic shootings, suicide-by-cop shootings, and sexual dysfunction shootings have different causes and routes to prevention, and lumping them together prevents that.


    1. All those problems are not unique to the US.

      What is unique is our obsession with guns.

      The common factor is easy, unfettered access to high powered weapons.

      The 2nd Amendment is killing us, literally. The gun lobby and its monomaniacal focus is the manufacturers best friend.

      In addition, of course, is our patchwork healthcare system that treats mental health as an afterthought.

      So the “same, shallow, simple-minded perspective” describes the gun lobby perfectly. “Regain your man license” may have cost a manufacturer a lot, but the appeal is still there.

      The bright side is that the tide is turning ever so slightly. And when people get fed up with having to look around at the stores, churches, schools, concerts, offices, parades changes will come about whether you like it or not.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. If you could completely prevent mass shootings, how much of the homicide problem would you solve?

        About 0.1%

        Those shootings gat a lot of attention, but they aren’t the big problem and we aren’t really trying to solve them until we start enforcing NICS violations and effectively populating the database. I
        ve pointed out many times that we could have stopped many of these shootings simply by prosecuting the mentally ill when they commit crimes. Most have warned us with previous lesser crimes that were not prosecuted.

        So fix that first before you harass me.


        1. Harass you?

          Don, are you looking for victim status?

          Trying to ascribe more “harassment” than dead Americans is rather shallow-minded.

          The sincerity of the gun lobby was exposed as a fraud when SS mental disability was not considered as a possible factor to control gun ownership.

          At least own up that, like John, you consider 45,000 deaths OK so long as you are not inconvenienced.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. How many mass shootings have been committed by SSI disability patients?

            Is that a solution in search of a problem?

            The problem is that once the camel’s nose is in the tent, it’s hard to keep the rest out. What bureaucratic classification are you going to strip of their rights next? People who decline vaccinations? How about people with unpopular opinions on social media?

            Absent any indication that people with those disabilities are a significant problem, what is the justification for taking away their rights?

            The police had been called to the Parkland shooters home 39 times, on one occasion committing assault with a deadly weapon in the presence of the police, yet he didn’t get onto the NICS database because of liberal leniency programs.

            So, maybe fix that before taking the rights of a group THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM.


          2. Gun lobby script.

            The facts are simple. 45,000 people die in America via guns. About 1/2 are self-inflicted and easy access makes the impulsive choice so available. But even the rest of those deaths are an anomaly.

            We are in the category of Third World countries. Smith was boasting about being better than Russia. What’s next, Guatemala?

            Americans don’t want to have to arm themselves to go shopping, see a movie, attend services. You refuse to acknowledge that we have a problem few others have because we arm ourselves or allow easy access to high powered weapons designed only to kill humans.

            But keep it up. Many of the mass shooters have bought their guns legally. And despite what your constant hammering of random gun deaths are no big deal, they are. Just like terrorism is so effective by injecting fear and uncertainty into daily life, so do these mass shootings. All the more reason to sell more guns and ammunition. Good for the economy.

            Countries have buckled under terrorism, however. You might get your wish of a trashed democracy after all…thank you.

            With any success at all, the gun lobby can increase the gun deaths in NYC and bring them up to Louisiana status. Wouldn’t that be a nice bragging point at the next gang meeting.

            I think the obsession with guns is our national sickness.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Yada yada yada

            That’s just anti-gun boilerplate.

            You didn’t answer ANY of the substantiative questions.

            You harp on taking guns from people on SSD who need help with their finances, but you can’t identify any cases where such people have done anything to warrant stripping them of Constitutional rights.

            You live in a world spun by your hoplophobia but you won’t address reality.

            What is the justification for stripping people of their rights if they are doing no harm?


          4. Attack the messenger much?

            The point of bring up the SS Mental Disability was simple. If you are so mentally incompetent to qualify for a disability, it better be more than balancing a checkbook or you are scamming the system. It was an effort to start somewhere about the mental health problems with mass shootings.

            Who said I wanted to strip you of your right to own a gun? That is a lie you have stated over and over.

            Yada, yada, yada indeed.

            Like I said, keep up the gun lobby script, it will bite you or more likely your grandchildren. The majority want a safer, more responsible and sensible understanding of the 2nd.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Well, if these SS Disability folks are dangerous enough to justify stripping them of their rights, you should have no trouble showing us examples of harm they did.

            If we take their rights with no basis other than your suspicions, how long would it be before you start confiscating guns from Tea Party members or NRA members?

            I have posted many examples of mass shootings by Incels. Should we ban them from gun ownership?


          6. Confiscating guns. Who said anyone was going to take guns?

            You are screaming fire in a crowded theater, which has been the mantra on the right for decades. Obama was going to take your guns after a couple of dozen children were slaughtered. Instead, the gun lobby made sure to make a fortune off of a non-existent threat through fund raising and the AR-15 became super popular. Getting man licenses, don’t you know, seemed to be big selling points.

            Like I posted before, the gun lobby has saturated our country with high powered weaponry. Meanwhile we have a very high gun violence rate compared to the other industrial nations. They all have the same issues with mental illness, ethnic strife, disgruntled folks, gangs, drugs, etc. The difference is that are more mature regarding gun ownership. People can own guns in various ways, but permitting, registration and a sense of responsibility are common.

            You dismiss thorough, localized background checks, training, permitting, registration, limits, firepower, etc. So that is your position and that of the gun lobby, which, for now, has considerable power. But I think that is changing and as younger, fed up Americans get into power, you will see some changes. Many you may not like. But then stacking up 45k dead bodies a year are not exactly a bragging point and people don’t like it.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. More boilerplate to change the subject, you can’t provide any cases to justify taking rights away from people with SS Disability who need help with their finances.

            Do you see why no one trusts you when you talk about ‘common sense gun control?’ You see no need to justify giving your prejudices force of law.

            You use the opposition to those arbitrary edicts as examples of the “gun lobby” being unreasonable, but you can’t establish that there is a problem at all.

            Would you be agreeable to chemical castration of all gay men because some people, without proof, suspect they might be inclined to pederasty?

            Do you see where making law without evidence leads?


          8. So by your logic, a person is certified insane and delusional can get a gun because he has never shown to shoot people before.

            Give everyone a gun, then cull out the murders (after burying the victims).

            You agree that some folks should not have guns, but those who are declared unstable enough to actually receive SS money are fine until they kill someone.

            Why not give guns to paroled gang members if they can show they personally have never shot anyone?

            I am afraid you are using the boiler plate gun lobby points. You have evaded completely why other industrial countries with the same litany of problems with gangs, drugs, hooligans, ethnic strife do not have the same number of gun deaths, suicides included, and random mass shootings.


          9. And you can’t explain why we have so many gun deaths over any other industrial country…by huge margins.

            So are ducking the issue.

            I have already explained about the need for those declared mentally incompetent to at least be checked out. I believe I said “possible” restriction, but you ignored that.

            If you have desire to answer my question, which I understand, then that in itself is telling.


          10. We don’t.

            Russia has far fewer guns, strict gun control, and far more firearms homicides than we do,

            Are people on SS Disability declared mentally incompetent?


          11. Again, you have not provided any examples of the classification in question misusing firearms.

            Certainly, schizophrenics should be barred from possessing firearms, There are thousands of cases of unprovoked violence by schizophrenics,

            But extending that ban to a blanket surrender of rights to include other groups who simply need help with finances and such, absent any evidence of increased risk of violence is not justified


          12. I wrote “possible”. It would be no big deal to flag recipients, then they could easily appeal.

            By receiving disability for mental illness, you are declaring a disability so severe you can’t work at any occupation. So we should start with that. And if further investigation says you are competent, then perhaps you don’t need the payments.


  2. RE: “The numbers are astounding. Boy, I sure hope all these lives lost to bullets were worth it.”

    People die in all sorts of ways. I’m OK with 43,475 gun deaths per year if that is the cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment.

    I think there must be ways to lower the number, but none that would compromise the 2nd Amendment is acceptable to me.


  3. “I’m OK with 43,475 gun deaths per year if that is the cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment.”

    You might want to send thank you notes to the families for sacrificing their children, spouses and relatives so you can feel OK. It’s the least you can do…truly.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. About 60% of those deaths are suicides, so, do people have a right to end their own lives?

      I know it’s tragic when they do in some cases, (in others it makes sense,) but do they have the right?

      If so, do you have the right to limit them to less effective means that may leave them only maimed, or forced to wait, knowing they have started an irreversible process, while drugs take effect?

      How much control over other people’s choices do you demand?


    2. RE: “You might want to send thank you notes to the families for sacrificing their children, spouses and relatives so you can feel OK. It’s the least you can do…truly.”

      No thanks. If I ever decide to become an old women I’ll let you know.


      1. RE: “Well, at least you were honest about others making sacrifices so you are not inconvenienced.”

        I think it is dishonest — or possibly hysterical (related to hysterectomy) — of you to characterize my comments in such a way.


        1. I just said what you seemed to indicate.

          “ “I’m OK with 43,475 gun deaths per year if that is the cost of preserving the 2nd…”

          A lot of dead people might not have appreciated your view point. You might want to pass that phrase onto the next mass shooting victims’ relatives and friends.

          Stand up for your beliefs is the least you should do…after the thank you cards.


          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “I just said what you seemed to indicate.”

          Yes, that is called making inferences. The point is that inferences are not statements of truth or fact. Hence it is dishonest to characterize others based on the inferences you make about them.


          1. Well, what did you mean to say with that sentence?

            “I’m OK with 43,475 gun deaths per year if that is the cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment.”

            If you say I made an inference and I am dishonest, then can you back that up?

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s