Actually, Guns Do Kill People

[jpak]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/norway-shooting-and-gun-laws_b_910909.html

All Americans join the world community in mourning the horrific loss of life from the Norway terrorist attacks. We can only imagine the void left in the lives of the victims' families. The staggering toll of young lives taken by a gunman at the Utoya youth camp reminds us all, once again, that guns are the enablers of mass killers.

For those who are quick to argue that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," it is instructive that the Norway killer took many more lives with his guns than with his explosives. Violent individuals intent on inflicting multiple fatalities don't choose knives or baseball bats. With few exceptions, they choose guns.

There are some in the American "gun rights" community who will no doubt use this shooting to assert that Norway's strong gun laws don't work, or to support the National Rifle Association's campaign to make it easier for Americans to carry loaded guns on the streets, and into restaurants, coffee houses, bars, college campuses and other public places. Does this mass shooting in Norway suggest that Western Europe's restrictive gun regulations are futile, while America's practically non-existent gun regulations make us safer?

Such a conclusion approaches absurdity, when we consider some well-established facts. Press reports indicate that as many as 70 young lives may have been taken in the Norwegian youth camp massacre. Whereas that number of shooting deaths in a day is treated as a historic event in Norway, it is less than the death toll from guns every day in America -- which is now in excess of 80. Whereas a mass shooting in Norway is an extraordinary tragedy, described by that nation's prime minister as a "national disaster," it is a regular occurrence in America. Within 48 hours of the Norway shooting, there were at least four mass shootings in our country: six dead at a skating rink in Texas, nine wounded during a fight between teenagers at a birthday party in Central Florida, a 15-year-old killed and eight wounded at an outdoor party near Stockton, California, and seven wounded in a casino shooting near Seattle.

<more>

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Considering:...

..."Does this mass shooting in Norway suggest that Western Europe's restrictive gun regulations are futile, while America's practically non-existent gun regulations make us safer?"

Tens of thousands of laws make up our "practically non-existent" laws.
Please detail how a law can **MAKE** everyone safer?

[gejohnston]

2. then there is this blast from the recent past

Whereas that number of shooting deaths in a day is treated as a historic event in Norway, it is less than the death toll from guns every day in America -- which is now in excess of 80.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x441156#441640

Seems to be a standard talking point replacing the equally inaccurate "30,000 a year"

[baldguy]

12. 10.26 gun deaths per 100,000 population in 2001.

You can do simple arithmetic, can't you?

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf

[gejohnston]

14. yeah but

that number includes suicides and justifiable homicides, which are the majority. To suggest that not having a gun would be a good result in either one, would be absurd. Besides, the OP is claiming over 80 per day.

[baldguy]

16. 30,000 ÷ 365 = 82+

Third grade math.

To suggest that a gun death from a suicide or a supposed "justifiable" homicide isn't a gun death is ... moronic, to put it bluntly. Gun violence is a problem (as most sane people agree), therefore all deaths by guns no matter the reason are all part of that problem.

So go ahead - dismiss a certain portion of those human beings who have had their life cruelly TAKEN from them by a gun. Simply because a pathetic & dangerous RW talking point that deems some human beings to be unworthy of life. Simply because your politics gets in the way of your compassion. Simply because you need to promote fear over reason.

It's about time you put your toys away & graduated from the third grade.

[gejohnston]

19. let me rephrase that for you

To suggest that a gun death from a suicide or a supposed "justifiable" homicide isn't a gun death is ... moronic, to put it bluntly. Gun violence is a problem (as most sane people agree), therefore all deaths by guns no matter the reason are all part of that problem.

So go ahead - dismiss a certain portion of those human beings who have had their life cruelly TAKEN from them by a gun. Simply because a pathetic & dangerous RW talking point that deems some human beings to be unworthy of life. Simply because your politics gets in the way of your compassion. Simply because you need to promote fear over reason

This is closer to the truth of what you mean:
To suggest that a suicide or murder by other means is as tragic than a gun death is moronic and is counter to what I civilized thought. Violence is only a problem if a gun is used, even if it is an eighty year old woman saving her own life from knife wielding violent felon. Just because a court of law ruled it "justifiable", does not make it so.
So go ahead-waste your time looking for what you think are "real solutions" that might conflict with my ideology and irrational fears, even though I have to keep repeating to myself, "only a right wing talking point"
"only a right wing talking point"
"only a right wing talking point"

The OP is saying there is 80 murders per day with guns, not all gun deaths.

I graduated the third grade a long time ago. I know basic math. I know critical thinking. You do not know me, anything about me, and you have no right to judge me.

[baldguy]

20. "...it is less than the death toll from guns every day in America -- which is now in excess of 80."

Reading comprehension starts in the fifth grade, I guess.

[gejohnston]

23. 80, 82.191780822

or since there are actually 365.25 days in a year, 82.135523614. If you smoke pot, do you grow your own? If not, you help financially support a big chunk of that bloodshed both here and Mexico. Think about that the next time you light your bong or cut line of nose candy.
That said, what about the 57.054072553 per day who commit suicide or are murdered each day by other means?
Or (going by DoJ's 1993 National Crime Victim Survey) the 295.68788501 defensive gun uses (mostly by not firing a shot) Current numbers are probably lower, since crime is lower.
Oh, not on your RADAR screen? Not feeling a paradigm shift? Thought so.
Instead, you would rather make personal attacks on me.

[baldguy]

26. Suicide using guns = suicide by ALL OTHERS METHODS.

You don't see a problem there? Of course you don't. Whenever anyone mentions the true figure of 30,000 gun deaths per year in America you try to subtract those deaths from the total. Those people must have deserved to die so they shouldn't count, right? You're perfectly willing to pass judgment on people & circumstances you have no clue about and divide gun victims into those who are worthy and those who are not. But dead is still dead. And their families & loved ones still mourn.

But that really doesn't matter to you, does it? Your concern is to keep the tools used most often to kill easily available to killers. You have to support a RW talking point. A false RW talking point (as if there's any other kind.)

[gejohnston]

28. what right wing talking points are those?

You get you talking points from Republicans like Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarmann.
If you are saying that those suicides would not happen they did not have a gun, you don't know anything about the real issues around suicide and mental health. I am guessing you are not really interested either.

Those people must have deserved to die so they shouldn't count, right? You're perfectly willing to pass judgment on people & circumstances you have no clue about and divide gun victims into those who are worthy and those who are not. But dead is still dead. And their families & loved ones still mourn.

I'm discounting anyone, I mourn for all innocent life lost. Yes, dead is still dead. I notice you still ignore all others and ignore the victims that would still be alive if they had the means to defend themselves.

You are passing judgment, dividing, and projecting on to me.

[baldguy]

29. At least 30,000 people in the US are killed by guns each year. You say it's not accurate.

It is accurate, as is the statement that on average over 80 people are killed by guns each day.

You say you don't discount any deaths, but when you sputter "Yeah, but..." THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. When you say 30,000 people every year and 80 people every day aren't "really" killed by guns you are lying.

And trying to tag all all gun control advocates as Republicans because a couple of old Republicans are sane in the issue is absurd. Helmke retired from his local office over 10 yrs ago and has no influence in today's GOP. And who the hell is Josh Sugarmann? He's never held national office & was never part of the official (or unofficial) GOP leadership at any level.

The anti-gun control crowd=The NRA=the GOP=the radical RW in all meaningful ways. It's all part of the same insane & disgusting soup on the other side. Every anti-gun control talking point is a RW talking point and there are NO CURRENT, NATIONAL GOP POLITICIANS who dare to oppose the NRA. Not One. They have the same sources of funding. They use the same conduits to distribute their propaganda. They use the same damn mailing lists to raise money from their sheeple supporters.

Face it, friend: Your RW & GOP allies are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of justice, the wrong side of morality & on the wrong side of right & wrong. The same is true on the issue of gun control as with everything else.

[gejohnston]

34. that it?

nice emotional rant. You missed the point. Does not matter if they are part of the establishment or not, you missed the point. It is not that black and white. It is not a talking point if it is true.
They are not opposing the NRA, they are opposing about half of the country.

[baldguy]

36. 30,000 is a true & accurate number. YOU are trying to deny it using a RW talking point that is false...

And you're right about one thing: The GOP is never opposing the NRA, but last time I looked they were opposing about 70% of the country instead. There's a ton of cash on the one hand & the needs of the majority on the other. The GOP will always go for the cash - a lot of which come from the NRA.

But again, they're on the wrong side.

[gejohnston]

37. no

I was putting it in context. opposing the country, the GOP and union busting and bringing back the gilded age, yes. The NRA, check out how many Dems they endorsed, including Howard Dean. The world is more complex and nuanced than you give it credit for.

[baldguy]

38. gejohnston: Post #2:"then there is this blast from the recent past"

Whereas that number of shooting deaths in a day is treated as a historic event in Norway, it is less than the death toll from guns every day in America -- which is now in excess of 80.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Seems to be a standard talking point replacing the equally inaccurate "30,000 a year"

Again: Both the numbers are accurate. You have tried here to press your RW Republican talking point that they aren't, but without success.

And now you're using the equally RW tactic of bringing up irrelevant distractions that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. There's no talk of unions anywhere in this thread. If anything the same sheeple who are anti-gun control are anti-union, too.

Because Fox tells them so.

Now show me ANY current national GOP figure that opposes the NRA. Go ahead.

[gejohnston]

39. you opened the door.

when you said GOP agenda most of the country opposes. That is what most of the country opposes. Like I said, he said 30,000 murdered with guns. Murdered as in shot by someone else. That is not the true statistic. If I have to explain how misleading and dishonest that was, you will never get it.

[baldguy]

40. Another lie.

"Death toll" is the exact phrase the OP uses. That phrase does not equate to "murder", and never will no matter how much RW spin you try to put on it. 30,000 people each year are killed by guns, more than 80 each day. That's the little inconvenient fact that you're running away from.

If I have to explain how misleading and dishonest your lies are - how misleading and dishonest ALL RW talking points are - then you will never "get it".

[gejohnston]

41. by comparing it to a mass murder, he tried to put in the mind of readers

the idea that ours were of murder also. Deception by omission. I lied about nothing. I am not running from anything.
Since I do not watch Faux or get mailers from the GOP, I have no idea what is and what is not RW talking points.

[baldguy]

42. Being obtuse is another hallmark of conservatism.

The entire point of the article in the OP was that an unusual, one-in-a-generation tragic massacre in Norway is a daily occurrence in the US. Typically, the are 10 gun deaths per year in Norway. That T-E-N - not each day, each YEAR - for the whole country.

The US has about 60 times the population of Norway - BUT WE HAVE 3,000 TIMES THE NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS.

John Stuart Mill had it right all those years ago, didn't he? The NRA counts on it.

[gejohnston]

43. OK if that was his point, but I am not a big fan of

Calling me conservative? If you were to say that to someone who actually knows me, they would laugh their asses off.
lawyers or propagandists, the OP is both.
So those other deaths are not equally as tragic to you?

I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea that some think liberal and pro gun is mutually exclusive. But John Locke and Thomas Paine was a left wing as you get. You realize that JFK was a life member of the NRA, don't you? You realize the NRA endorsed Howard Dean? Yeah the endorse a lot of crazy Republicans too.

[baldguy]

46. The NRA and the GOP are all part of the same RW soup. And you're wallowing in it.

And bringing up ancient history doesn't change that fact.

If the NRA so so liberal, as you say, there should be a ton of GOPrs who hate them and oppose them. But I'm still waiting for that list from you. I won't be holding my breath, though. There aren't any. Because the NRA and the GOP are the same thing. So you just keep going spouting RW talking points from the NRA & carrying water for the Republican Party (like trying to discount the 30,000 gun deaths each year). Your words expose you.

[movonne]

3. guns on the street,bars,colleges,political meeting, etc...guns do

not make us safe...we have many,many nuts in this country that can get a gun license with no trouble.. does not make us safe...if you have a gun on you at all times and someone pisses you off it is so easy to shoot now..you would not do this if you didn't have a gun with you...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Please...

...detail legislative or court precedent acknowledging a "right to safety" as in a guarantee to be free of assault on one's person or property.

[spin]

6. Gee that's strange ...

There are probably 10,000,000 citizens in the United States that have carry permits.

You would think that with that many people running around with concealed handguns, there would be far more instances in which an individual got pissed off and blew someone away.

Surely the magnitude of the problem would have caused at least a couple of the states that passed "shall issue" concealed carry to revoke the law.

But for some reason there is no major movement to stop civilians from carrying concealed.

Could it be that despite all the predictions of blood flowing in the streets and a return to the "Wild West", allowing citizens to carry concealed has not caused any major problems?

[gejohnston]

7. the type that would, most likely could not or would not get a

license. Of course there is always the one in a million chance.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

[drpepper67]

13. Or

If you know you are carrying a gun and you know that if you escalate the situation in any way, it will go badly go for you in court, so you walk away.

Going out of your way to avoid a bad situation is more common with people LEGALLY carrying guns.

Now for the people who didn't go through a background check and pay hundreds of dollars for their permit, I don't think they very care much and probably are likely to shoot you for pissing them off.

The difference is what happens then?

Do you just lay down and die because you have no way to defend yourself?

Yes?

And that's ok with you?

[ileus]

15. and you do not do this if you have a gun on your person.

[ileus]

5. I always worry what my guns are out doing by themselves unsupervised..

[Common Sense Party]

8. My gun often gets liquored up and then gets behind the wheel.

He hasn't killed anyone yet, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

[ileus]

10. A drunk gun behind the wheel....it could kill thousands.

[petronius]

18. I sat my guns down for a long, serious talk after the Norway story broke

I wanted them to understand that I respected their needs, and they themselves hadn't done anything wrong, but they were old enough to know that there are certain standards of behavior that I expected them to conform to. Fortunately, they're good eggs - never ran with a bad crowd, never really acted out except for the occasional testing of boundaries (which often as not was as much my fault as theirs)...

[PavePusher]

25. You owe me a very large mouthful of Gin & Tonic....

and where do I send this keyboard?

Well played, indeed...

[Hoopla Phil]

35. Wish I could recommend that post! Excellent.

[baldguy]

27. And I'm sure every gun owner as as conscientious as you.

Oh, right...

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Yes, guns do kill people.

Yes, guns do kill people.

In capable hands, they can kill a lot of people.

In capable hands in a place where victims can neither fight back nor run away, they can kill even more people.

I'm not going to allow the actions of a mass murderer to be used as an excuse to infringe on my rights.

Especially when it has just been demonstrated that in spite of gun laws that rival nearly anything seen in the United States, including a requirement of 39 hours of training prior to purchasing a handgun, and 30 hours for rifles and shotguns, and licensing, none of it mattered at all on Utoya.

[DWC]

11. I am saddened by the loss of innocent life

any where, any time, for any reason, by any method. 1 or 2 or 6 or 13 or 80 or ... - the number per incident does not matter. But the only ways a tool can kill people are

1. Unsafely used by the human operator causing injury or death to him/herself and/or others, or
2. Used by the human operator with the intent to cause injury or death to him/herself and/or others.

It is impossible for a gun or any other inanimate object to kill people without outside manipulation.

Just like any double edged sword, a gun can be used for good or evil depending on whose hand is holding it.

Semper Fi,

[bellcrank]

17. If my guns didn't have that -ability-, it would be pretty pointless to have them.

Thugs and gangbangers are gonna have guns regardless of how many 'feel good' laws you might get passed and I for one have no interest in depending on beany flips and hickory switches to defend my family against them.

[aikoaiko]

21. Dennis A. Henigan is an asshat following in a series of asshats from the Brady Bunch Center.

Yes, a man with guns and explosives killed people even with strict gun laws in place.

Guns do not kill people.

This is a failed propaganda slogan which will continue to fail.

[Kennah]

22. Wonder if any of those murderous guns had a human accomplice we could get on accessory charges?

[SteveM]

33. Yeah, but they are secondary, for "research" purposes to prove a point. nt

[piedmont]

24. In a nation 60 times larger than Norway, it's not surprising that combining suicides...

justifiable homicides, and murders gives a large number. I would bet the number of car crash fatalities in the US is also much higher than in Norway.

As for this point: "For those who are quick to argue that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," it is instructive that the Norway killer took many more lives with his guns than with his explosives. Violent individuals intent on inflicting multiple fatalities don't choose knives or baseball bats. With few exceptions, they choose guns."

You know what they also choose with almost no exceptions? Places with high densities of unarmed victims. Schools, malls, skating rinks, and other "gun-free" zones. Damn near every time.

[oneshooter]

30. So does the fact that he took as long as nine years plaining and preparing for this

horrific attack mean anything?

[iverglas]

45. Canada is a gun-free zone

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why would-be mass murderers select schools for their acts so disproportionately.

And now that we think about it, aren't we constantly being told that the Columbine killers really wanted to blow things up and only used guns as a back-up when that didn't work?

Well, here we are. It doesn't work. If you want it to work, you gotta have some lots bigger bombs. And a gun or two really is a whole lot easier.

[SteveM]

31. Ah, the GOP's institutionalized presence on HuffPo, dutily cited here. nt

[SteveM]

32. For the record, my guns have not killed anyone, and neither have I. nt

[ProDem4]

44. What you should learn from this is.

The Police cannot protect you.

And if begging for you life is suitable to you, fine.

It's not for me, I choose to not be a victim.

If the Norway shooting took place in a concealed carry state, It would have been over in a couple minutes

instead of 90 minutes.

[michreject]

47. I certainly hope so

Or else I wouldn't carry one.

[DWC]

48. Actually, Guns Do Not Kill People

or any other living creature for that matter.

I seriously doubt anyone will deny the fact that a gun is a weapon.

From Wikipedia:

"A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems...

weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.”

Lions and tigers and bears and people kill people. Tools and instruments, ANY tools and instruments, of their on accord do not.

Semper Fi,