School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Vanum Norendum]

It just had to happen on my birthday :|

Well, it's going to coincide with somebody's birthday, that's inevitable.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is the first in a series of essays on the subject of gun violence.

---

The Bath School Massacre (May 18th, 1927)
A Cautionary Tale

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the bomber; at least 58 people were injured. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

- Wikipedia Article on the "Bath School Disaster"

Attacks on schoolchildren are nothing new to America. Indeed, the deadliest such attack took place 85 years ago last May.

In brief, Bath School Treasure Andrew Kehoe, 55, grew disaffected with the toll that school taxes were taking on his personal finances; he believed the Bath School Superintendent Emory Huyck was guilty of financial mismanagement. At some point in 1926, Kehoe decided to blow up the new Bath Consolidated School and began secreting explosives into its basement. It's unclear to what extent his wife Nellie's health may (or may not) have played a role in this decision; she came down with tuberculosis sometime before Kehoe finally acted, but her illness may have started after the plot began.

Nellie Kehoe was discharged from St. Lawrence Hospital in nearby Lansing, MI, on May 16th, 1927. Sometime during the next two days, Andrew Kehoe killed her by striking her on the back on the head with a heavy blunt object; he subsequently burned her body in a wheelbarrow located in the back of his farm's chicken coop. On the morning on May 18th, 1927, Kehoe set his farm and all of its outbuildings ablaze using firebombs made from pyrotol, an incendiary that was commonly sold by as Army surplus after the end of World War I (it was frequently used by farmers to remove stumps and clear ditches); his livestock was tethered inside the buildings in order to ensure its destruction.

At the same time as Kehoe set his farm ablaze, a powerful bomb triggered by an alarm clock went off in the basement of the Bath Consolidated School; a second bomb, set in the building's opposite wing, failed to explode (possibly because it was damaged by the first blast). Rushing from his burning farm to the school in his truck, Kehoe flagged down Superintendent Huyck in front on the school and then used a Winchester rifle to detonate a bomb located in the back of the vehicle, killing himself, Huyck, and three other people (including a 2nd grader who had escaped the school blast).

All told, Kehoe's rampage took the lives of 45 people (including his own) and left at least 58 injured; 38 of those killed were children. The resultant scandal, FWIW, led to a decision to end the sale of pyrotol to the public.

---

Once of the arguments commonly offered by gun rights advocates is that banning guns won't stop murder, or even mass murder; it will simply lead mass murderers to choose different weapons. Critics of this argument often try to ridicule it by citing cases in which individuals go off on stabbing sprees, only to point out that stabbing attacks have a far lower fatality rate than do shootings; they usually wrap such critiques up with a nice ad hominem bow by implying that anyone who thinks that mass stabbings are a danger to the public (or potentially as much of a danger to the public as mass shootings) is either silly or stupid and should not be taken seriously.

All Real Americans™, however, know that stabbing is for sissies and Europeans. Real Americans™ blow things up, and in spite of efforts to deprive Real Americans™ of the means with which to blow up innocent people, said means are still largely available to those who are smart enough and sick enough to spend a great deal of time planning such premeditated mayhem - which, as it so happens, is exactly what killers like Andrew Kehoe or Adam Lanza do.

After, all the standard profile of such an individual is that of a extremely intelligent yet troubled individual who often has an overinflated sense of his own worth; something happens to rock his world, and next thing you know, the perp is planning Something Big™. It may take such a person only a few days to conceive of a plan, or it may take them over a year; usually, the planning tends to run for quite some time as the perp fantasizes about their Grand Exit™ (suicide is almost always part of the passion play). In many cases the planning and methodical, step-by-step progress towards apotheosis is as much a part of the sick enjoyment of the act as its actual execution. While it would be wrong to say that any efforts taken by society to minimize the damage such individuals can do is useless, it should be understood that the modus operandi here is one of a careful and meticulous person who is patient enough to work around most of the obstacles society is likely to throw in their path: You can slow such a person down, and you can limit the damage they can cause; you can also - and this is critically important - increase your chance of discovering what they're up to in time to catch them at it; but ultimately (unless you catch them prior to the deed), you're not likely to stop them from killing someone, and probably a whole bunch of someones. Mostly, then, it's a question of just what kind of mayhem you'd like to see.

Or, rather, what kind of mayhem you wouldn't like to see.

So you may be able to stop school bombings - and school shootings - and a lot of other things; but don't expect that you'll be able to make a significant dent in the number of such events that occur from time to time. The best you can probably do is try to limit their extent and/or the way you feel about them once they've run their course.

[AiliailiA]

While it would be wrong to say that any efforts taken by society to minimize the damage such individuals can do is useless, it should be understood that the modus operandi here is one of a careful and meticulous person who is patient enough to work around most of the obstacles society is likely to throw in their path: You can slow such a person down, and you can limit the damage they can cause; you can also - and this is critically important - increase your chance of discovering what they're up to in time to catch them at it; but ultimately (unless you catch them prior to the deed), you're not likely to stop them from killing someone, and probably a whole bunch of someones. Mostly, then, it's a question of just what kind of mayhem you'd like to see.

The quantity of it is also affected. Particularly by the factor you mention: increasing the chance of discovering their intentions before their meticulous plan is complete.

I wouldn't say that now is a bad time to talk about gun control (when IS a good time? Should we wait two weeks after every mass killing, from respect?). But I do think the legislative response should not be too heavily focussed on preventing mass killings. They're a pretty small fraction of all murders.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is the second in a series of essays on the subject of gun violence.

---

The 2011 Tucson Shooting (January 8, 2011)
Another Cautionary Tale

On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot during a public meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, near Tucson, Arizona. Six of those shot died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll; one of Rep. Giffords' staffers; and a nine-year-old child, Christina-Taylor Green. Giffords was holding a constituent meeting called "Congress on Your Corner" in the parking lot of a Safeway store when prosecutors allege Jared Lee Loughner drew a pistol and shot her in the head, subsequently firing on other people. One additional person was injured in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

- Wikipedia Article on the "2011 Tucson Shooting"

Having utterly pissed off gun control advocates with my last essay, I think it only appropriate to piss gun rights advocates off with this one.

Just as gun control advocates point to incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings and ask, "How many more of these incidents have to happen before we finally act?!?" and then, as a solution, call for everything from the imposition of new restrictions of the sale and possession of firearms to an outright ban on small arms combined with forcible confiscation - assuring us that such measures will "cut down on the incidence of tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT" (they won't), "if not eliminate them altogether" (which such measures more assuredly will not do; the best they can do is mitigate the damage, and then only to the degree that they force the perpetrators of such massacres - who are invariably extremely intelligent [albeit deeply disturbed] individuals possessed of considerable patience - to come up with other, less efficient [if nonetheless equally ingenious] ways of wreaking havoc on innocent victims), gun rights advocates have their own fantasies.

The biggest of these is an even bigger whopper than the one gun control advocates offer us: That arming everyone will nip such massacres in the bud.

To which I say, with all due respect (which isn't much, because so little respect is due those who offer such idiocy to the world as sensible public policy): "Like Hell, it will."

And then I point to the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

In brief, Jared Lee Loughner, a deeply disturbed young man (per the stereotype), appeared at a Saturday morning "meet and greet" conducted by Representative Giffords outside a Safeway store in a suburb of Tuscon, AZ. Armed with a Glock 19 9mm automatic pistol with a 33-round large capacity magazine, Loughner opened fire on the Congresswoman and the small crowd of consituentents who had shown up to see her. 19 people were struck by gunfire before Loughner ran out of ammunition. Loughner then fumbled the magazine he had withdrawn from his pocket in an attempt to reload; a 61-year old woman, Patricia Maisch, snatched the magazine away from the gunman while another (unidentified) bystander struck him with a folding chair. He was then tackled by Bill Badger, a 74 year-old retired U.S. Army Colonel, and Roger Sulzgeber, another 61 year-old.

At this point, Joseph Zimudio, 24, enters the picture. Zimudio was buying cigarettes at Walgreens's, just down the way from the crime scene:



Hearing gunshots, Zimudio - who was armed - ran from the drugstore to the scene of the crime. By this time Loughner was on the ground, and another bystander had wrestled his gun away from him. Zimudio consequently did not draw his piece, but rather joined the other bystanders in securing the shooter. holding his legs to keep him prone.

The shooting occurred at 10:10 AM MST; by 10:15 AM, police were on the scene, followed by paramedics at 10:16 AM.

---

The story of the Gifford shooting is quite well known; I offer it here to remind NSG posters of certain important details.

The most important detail I'd like to point out is this: Unlike other recent mass shootings, the 2011 Tuscon shooting occured in a public area where individuals were legally permitted to carry firearms (ignore for a moment any restrictions involving carrying a firearm within a certain distance of a public official; most people in the vicinity of the shooting probably didn't even know that Congressman Giffords was present, and even if they did, there was no practical way to enforce such a rule anyway). This was therefore an excellent test of the NRA's thesis that an armed populace is the best defense against a crazed shooter.

Yet both then and now, the number of Arizona residents with CCW permits was (and still is) relatively small (today, with 178,482 active permits against an estimated State population of 6,392,017, CCW licensees represent roughly 2.8% of the State's population, or just under 1 person in 36).

This low number is not so much a consequence of any difficulty in getting a CCW license or, for that matter, securing a firearm; it is much more a consequence of the fact that only a relatively small number of individuals want to walk around armed.

And therein lies the problem. Most gun rights advocates who put forward the idea that an armed citizenry is the best defense against mass shootings assume both (a) a greater number of armed citizens than is likely to be present, given the preferences of the general public, (b) optimal positioning on the part of these armed citizens, and (c) full and effective participation by all armed citizens at the scene.

All three factors matter.

If only 2-3% of the population can be bothered to acquire a CCW license, then at best that means that only something like 1 person in 40 will be armed (and this, BTW, assumes that every person with a CCW license makes a point of carrying at all times; the truth is, most people who can carry usually don't, so the actual proportion of the local citizenry who are likely to be armed in any given random situation is probably more like 1 in 80 [or worse]).

To be sure, CCW numbers vary from State to State. To offer some useful examples: In Colorado, like Arizona, 2.8% of the population has the right to carry a concealed weapon; in Wisconsin, the number is 2.5%; in Oregon, the number is 3.8%; in Connecticut, it's 4.9%. Tennessee's 5.9%, Pennsylvania's 6.1%, Georgia's 6.2%, Indiana's 6.5%, Alabama's 7.3%, and Iowa's 8.0% CCW rate are among the highest in the Nation; in no place is the number of licensees even 10% of the overall populace. Beyond this, a number of States allow open carry; yet one still has to wonder how many citizens would actually carry firearms - openly or in concealment - if State regulations posed no limitation.

Everyday experience suggests that the number would not be all that large.

Which brings us to the next problem: Positioning. Murphy's Law being what it is, we cannot simply assume that armed citizens will be optimally positioned to swiftly and effectively take down a crazed shooter the minute the nutjob pulls out his gun. But as was the case outside Tuscon on January 8th, 2011, the Good Samaritan With a Gun™ might be barely within earshot and thus only able to arrive after the damage has been done.

Then, too, there is the element of surprise: The assailant always has this going for him; the shock and startlement of being under fire can be counted on to give him several seconds to inflict mayhem upon his victims without any real risk of interruption. Likewise, the first response of those under fire or surprised by fire will likely be to take cover and/or flee. And if studies of combat participation are any guide, the majority of armed citizens within earshot or even under fire will not draw and engage; studies of combat participation by trained soldiers, after all, suggest that it takes quite a lot of effort to get even half of the men in a combat unit to participate in a firefight against a battlefield enemy. Given the attitudes of average citizens about "getting involved" (and concerns about getting in trouble should they actually hit and kill somebody), it seems incredibly unlikely that all that many armed citizens would actually draw and fire upon a shooter even if their own lives were in direct danger, whatever their intentions in becoming CCW licensed and carrying a piece. Indeed, it's likely that Joseph Zimudio was not the only armed person outside that Safeway on January 8th, 2011; he was probably just the only one to take action.

All of which suggests that, rather than go down in an instant hail of bullets, a shooter confronted by armed citizens will probably end up being confronted by a single armed citizen - because that's all there is within earshot of the crime scene and willing to draw and engage the perpetrator. If the battle lasts long enough, perhaps other armed citizens in the area (if any) will be inclined to join in (assuming they know which side to join, that is); but if the gun battle is unfolding in an urban or suburban area, it's far more likely that the police will arrive first - and deal with both shooters. After all, in almost all recent mass shooting incidents, police were on the scene in under five minutes.

This is not to say that a single armed citizen cannot save lives by intervening: The mere fact that the shooter is himself being fired upon will focus his attention on the Good Samaritan With a Gun™, which may well allow other unarmed individuals to take cover and/or escape. But we need to be realistic about public participation in a gunfight: The NRA may want every American to own multiple guns and pack heat constantly, but that's simply never going to happen. It may want every American who carries a piece to be ready to use it at a moments notice to dispatch evildoers, but most will never draw a piece unless they have to, preferring to take cover and/or move away from gunfire if they can. It may want us all to revel in the myth and majesty of the Cult of the Gun™ (because, at its root, the NRA is fundamentally an industry lobby and if Americans are crazy in love with guns, then that's good business for the folks who pay the bills), but that's just not where America is right now and - unless we become a completely insane society - it's probably never where we will be.

An armed citizenry cannot replace the need for a well-trained and well-equipped police force with the ability to respond to firearm violence at a moment's notice; indeed, even as a supplement to such a thing, it's probably not even close to being worthwhile.

---

In a future post, I'll offer some opinions on what can be done to reduce homicide rates in America; for now, focusing on the issue of what we Americans can do right now to reduce the carnage from firearms, let me recommend two things:

• Always carry a cell phone on you. Police response rates are directly related to the speed with which they are alerted to an incident. Know where you are and be prepared to quickly and efficiently call for help.
  
  
• Learn First Aid. Being able to take charge and administer basic survival care for an injured or wounded individual (or self-administer, if you're conscious) is a skill that is always handy and can make you as much of a hero as the person who carries a gun and tries to engage a shooter (and maybe even more of a hero, in that you're much more likely to be able to save someone's life with First Aid than with a gun).

Calling for help and applying First Aid doesn't fit the macho image that the NRA wants all Americans to aspire to; in fact, it sounds distinctly liberal (do true Randian Heroes™ administer First Aid, or does doing so only benefit looters?!?). But it's something that's going to be one Hell of a lot more useful than a gun if you ever find yourself in the middle of a mass shooting (not to mention half a hundred other disasters where a gun won't do you any good at all, like a house fire, an earthquake, a car crash, someone suffering from heat stroke, a bee sting, a heart attack...).

[Vanum Norendum]

It's funny you should say that thing that you said about the knives, because the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man stabbed 22 children.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tacks.html

I think that everyone's too focused on the weapons that these people used. It's easy to see knives or guns or bombs as the scapegoat, but there's probably a deeper issue at play here. There should be more focus on the mental state of the person, and mental healthcare services. This isn't a gun control issue, but a mental health issue.

[Norstal]

It's funny you should say that thing that you said about the knives, because the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man stabbed 22 children.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tacks.html

I think that everyone's too focused on the weapons that these people used. It's easy to see knives or guns or bombs as the scapegoat, but there's probably a deeper issue at play here. There should be more focus on the mental state of the person, and mental healthcare services. This isn't a gun control issue, but a mental health issue.

How is it that everyone missed that no one died in the stabbing and only two people survived in the shooting.

Like did they just go, "STAB = SHOOTING"? There's a remarkable difference.

[Camicon]

Once of the arguments commonly offered by gun rights advocates is that banning guns won't stop murder, or even mass murder; it will simply lead mass murderers to choose different weapons. Critics of this argument often try to ridicule it by citing cases in which individuals go off on stabbing sprees, only to point out that stabbing attacks have a far lower fatality rate than do shootings; they usually wrap such critiques up with a nice ad hominem bow by implying that anyone who thinks that mass stabbings are a danger to the public (or potentially as much of a danger to the public as mass shootings) is either silly or stupid and should not be taken seriously.

All Real Americans™, however, know that stabbing is for sissies and Europeans. Real Americans™ blow things up, and in spite of efforts to deprive Real Americans™ of the means with which to blow up innocent people, said means are still largely available to those who are smart enough and sick enough to spend a great deal of time planning such premeditated mayhem - which, as it so happens, is exactly what killers like Andrew Kehoe or Adam Lanza do.

After, all the standard profile of such an individual is that of a extremely intelligent yet troubled individual who often has an overinflated sense of his own worth; something happens to rock his world, and next thing you know, the perp is planning Something Big™. It may take such a person only a few days to conceive of a plan, or it may take them over a year; usually, the planning tends to run for quite some time as the perp fantasizes about their Grand Exit™ (suicide is almost always part of the passion play). In many cases the planning and methodical, step-by-step progress towards apotheosis is as much a part of the sick enjoyment of the act as its actual execution. While it would be wrong to say that any efforts taken by society to minimize the damage such individuals can do is useless, it should be understood that the modus operandi here is one of a careful and meticulous person who is patient enough to work around most of the obstacles society is likely to throw in their path: You can slow such a person down, and you can limit the damage they can cause; you can also - and this is critically important - increase your chance of discovering what they're up to in time to catch them at it; but ultimately (unless you catch them prior to the deed), you're not likely to stop them from killing someone, and probably a whole bunch of someones. Mostly, then, it's a question of just what kind of mayhem you'd like to see.

Or, rather, what kind of mayhem you wouldn't like to see.

So you may be able to stop school bombings - and school shootings - and a lot of other things; but don't expect that you'll be able to make a significant dent in the number of such events that occur from time to time. The best you can probably do is try to limit their extent and/or the way you feel about them once they've run their course.

As you point out, most mass murders are preceded by a long period of planning, giving the perpetrator plenty of time to get their hands on some dangerous weapons, or to make their own. Take away guns, they'll move to bombs (blueprints and step-by-step instructions easily found online. Ingredients found by the bagful at your local Wal-Mart). Arguing for increased firearm restrictions, while citing mass murder as the primary motivator (increase restriction, decrease mass murder), is foolish.

Decreasing mass murder would take a more extensive, and expensive approach, which is a comprehensive overhaul of the American healthcare system, specifically with regards to mental health.

No, the primary motivator for increasing restrictions on firearms shouldn't be prevention of mass murder, it should be prevention of "passion killings". Situations where individuals let their emotions get the better of themselves, and with easy access to deadly weapons, act on an impulse and start killing (or trying to kill) people. Even here, a lack of firearms won't prevent these heat-of-the-moment acts of violence from ever occurring, but they will reduce the severity of the incident. Without any planning stage, the perpetrator has no opportunity to get a deadly weapon. Without a gun, they may be reduced to a knife, a brick, a piece of wood. And it is possible, upon realizing that they will actually have to grapple with their target and physically overcome them, greatly increasing their risk of being injured and greatly lowering their chances of success, that they might rethink what they are doing. Whereas, if they have a gun with them, all they have to do is grab, point and shoot. They don't need to think about it. All it takes a twitching a few muscles in their forearm for half a second, and BAM, they've shot their gun.

Firearm restrictions don't prevent mass killings. Hell, they don't even prevent mass killings committed with guns. Firearm restrictions don't prevent anything. What firearm restrictions do, what they have always done, is reduce the severity of stupid, everyday, senseless violence. Turning potential homicides into a three-hour visit to the hospital. Turning a lethal domestics into slammed doors and a sleep-over at a friends house. Turning a roadside shooting into a "scream-until-I'm-redder-in-the-face=than-the-other-guy" match. These are things that happen far more than they should in America, the stupid heat-of-the-moment killings, and they are a direct result of a dangerous gun culture and lax firearms regulations.

[Vanum Norendum]

It's funny you should say that thing that you said about the knives, because the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man stabbed 22 children.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tacks.html

I think that everyone's too focused on the weapons that these people used. It's easy to see knives or guns or bombs as the scapegoat, but there's probably a deeper issue at play here. There should be more focus on the mental state of the person, and mental healthcare services. This isn't a gun control issue, but a mental health issue.

How is it that everyone missed that no one died in the stabbing and only two people survived in the shooting.

Like did they just go, "STAB = SHOOTING"? There's a remarkable difference.

There were other stabbings that killed people too. The fact that this kind of stuff even happens at all is what we should actually focus on though, not the particular weapon that was used. The mental health of the person is in question seems to be a common factor in many of these kinds of incidents. Focusing and blaming the weapon is just an emotional knee jerk reaction to something awful that happens, and I understand that, but I think it's just the wrong way to go. Talking about the weapon used is easy, which is why everyone's doing it, but I think there's a much deeper issue here that needs to be addressed.

[Forsher]

While it would be wrong to say that any efforts taken by society to minimize the damage such individuals can do is useless, it should be understood that the modus operandi here is one of a careful and meticulous person who is patient enough to work around most of the obstacles society is likely to throw in their path: You can slow such a person down, and you can limit the damage they can cause; you can also - and this is critically important - increase your chance of discovering what they're up to in time to catch them at it; but ultimately (unless you catch them prior to the deed), you're not likely to stop them from killing someone, and probably a whole bunch of someones. Mostly, then, it's a question of just what kind of mayhem you'd like to see.

The quantity of it is also affected. Particularly by the factor you mention: increasing the chance of discovering their intentions before their meticulous plan is complete.

I wouldn't say that now is a bad time to talk about gun control (when IS a good time? Should we wait two weeks after every mass killing, from respect?). But I do think the legislative response should not be too heavily focussed on preventing mass killings. They're a pretty small fraction of all murders.

Even if someone's using ammonia for bombs (it's possible, somehow) only a certain kind of person can really actually get away with using that for bombs. The same applies for anything used for bombs. Look at how drug producers are tracked down (by the paper trail of ingredients).

[Vanum Norendum]

The quantity of it is also affected. Particularly by the factor you mention: increasing the chance of discovering their intentions before their meticulous plan is complete.

I wouldn't say that now is a bad time to talk about gun control (when IS a good time? Should we wait two weeks after every mass killing, from respect?). But I do think the legislative response should not be too heavily focussed on preventing mass killings. They're a pretty small fraction of all murders.

Even if someone's using ammonia for bombs (it's possible, somehow) only a certain kind of person can really actually get away with using that for bombs. The same applies for anything used for bombs. Look at how drug producers are tracked down (by the paper trail of ingredients).

Don't drug producers get caught producing the drugs first, and then the paper trail comes after the arrest during the investigation?

[Alien Space Bats]

This is the third in a series of essays on the subject of gun violence.

---

The Other Shoe
a/k/a the Greater Half of Gun Violence

As I write this, it is Monday afternoon. The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre took place just over 72 hours ago.

According to the Chicago press, various shooting incidents over the weekend left 2 people dead and 16 people wounded, including four teens.

In North Carolina last Friday night, a man shot and killed his wife and his mother-in-law; the couple's children hid in the basement as the shooting took place. Police arrived and arrested the husband, who currently awaits arraignment.

On the same night in Nevada, a murder-suicide on the Las Vegas Strip left a hotel patron and a vendor dead at the hotel's concierge desk. Other guests in and near the Excalibur lobby, where the shooting took place, took cover under tables in the restaurant and game room for 10 minutes until the scene was secured. Las Vegas was busy this weekend with the National Finals Rodeo in town, so the Excalibur was packed; there was also a holiday cheerleading party at the hotel, so many of those on hand were teenagers.

On Saturday morning in Birmingham, AL, a man entered St. Vincent's Hospital carrying a gun. Police were called to the hospital, where they confronted the man; he then opened fire, wounding one officer and two hospital employees before he was shot dead in turn by the wounded officer's partner.

On Sunday night in San Antonia, TX, a man opened fire on another man at a Chinese restaurant called China Garden; fleeing the scene, he was spotted and pursued by an off-duty sheriff's deputy into the Santikos Mayan Palace 14, a nearby multiplex theater. Multiple shots were exchanged, sending theater-goers running for cover and/or the exits before the shooter was hit by the deputy. Neither the original shooting victim or the shooting suspect were killed, and the off-duty deputy was unharmed.

Also on Sunday evening, two police officers in Topeka, KA were shot and killed while investigating a suspicious vehicle. The shooter was later cornered in a nearby house; after a two-hour standoff, a SWAT team fired tear gas into the house in preparation for an assault. The shooter charged out, firing at the officers surrounding the building; he was killed in the exchange of fire that followed. No one else was hurt.

This is a partial list of shooting incidents over the weekend. Tallying just the casualties listed, we have 10 dead and 21 wounded: Barring any more massacres this week, we should exceed both the Sandy Hook death toll before the tragedy's one-week anniversary; we've already beaten its casualty count (assuming we haven't already; see below).

But, hey: This is just a typical weekend in America. Seriously.

The CDC published the following statistics for the United States in 2011:

• Deaths due to assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 11,101
  
  Not included in the above total are:
  
  
  • Deaths due to legal intervention (i.e., firearm discharge by police): 258
    
    
  • Deaths due to the discharge of firearms with undetermined intent: 222
• Deaths due to intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 19,766
  
  
• Deaths due to the accidental discharge of firearms: 851
  
  
• Injuries due to firearms (with unspecified intent): 32,163

Judging from the forgoing statistics, 2011 saw an average of 31 non-accidental fatal shootings each day, with 88 firearm-related injuries. So the count shown above is most likely off by a factor of two or three; in all likelihood we passed Sandy Hook in body count by the time the sun rose on Saturday morning (Friday and Saturday nights see higher-than-usual firearm activity) - and if we didn't, we probably got there well before midnight the following evening.

According to the CDC, homicides of all kinds rank as the 5th leading cause of death for persons under the age of 45, and the 3rd leading cause of death for individuals in their late teens and early 20's (ages 15-24).

Interestingly enough, there's a pattern to this violence (surprise, suprise...):



According to an article in The Atlantic Monthly, 60% of all firearm homicides occur in the 50 largest metropolitan areas (shown above), while only 27% of all firearm suicides do. Firearm homicides are a disproportionately urban problem, while firearm suicides are a disproportionately rural and suburban one.

Within these metropolitan areas, cities face an even greater rate of firearm homicide than their surrounding metro areas do:

Cities with the Highest Rates of Gun-Related Homicides (per 100,000 people)

Rank	City	City Rate	Metro Rate	City/MetroRatio
1	New Orleans	62.1	24.1	2.6
2	Detroit	35.9	9.3	3.9
3	Baltimore	29.7	10.3	2.9
4	Oakland	26.6	7.1	3.7
5	Newark	25.4	3.3	7.7
6	St. Louis	24.1	7.2	3.3
7	Miami	23.7	6.3	3.8
8	Richmond	23.1	7.4	3.1
9	Philadelphia	20.0	7.8	2.6
10	Washington, D.C.	19.0	5.5	3.5

In contrast, here's what the firearm suicide map looks like:



What's even more interesting than the urban-rural divide between murder and suicide, however, are the various correlations with different kinds of gun violence. Population size and density are inversely related to firearm suicide rates (but not murder rates); poverty rates are strongly correlated with both kinds of gun violence. Income inequality is correlated with murder alone; unemployment, however, is not correlated with gun violence in any way (at least beyond the degree suggested by the usual correlation between poverty, income inequality, and unemployment).

Affluent cities suffer less overall gun violence than poor ones; the negative correlation between firearm suicide and affluence is especially strong. Higher education levels also reduce gun violence overall, although the obvious link between affluence and education undermines this finding a bit. Blue-collar economies suffer higher levels of gun violence across the board than do knowledge-based and creative economies; this, too, could be tied up with economic outcomes, given the higher compensation levels paid to those who work in such economies.

The facts help explain some of the politics behind gun control. Since the 1980's, Republicans have not only increasing abandoned America's cities as a potential source of votes, but have actually adopted a political stance that is openly hostile towards cities and their interests. On this weekend's Sunday news shows, that fact got discussed, albeit indirectly; virtually all those appearing on such shows openly acknowledged that gun control is a issue that divides urban America from rural America. Urban America wants gun control; it badly wants to stop the carnage. Rural America hates and fears gun control, and couldn't give a good God-damn if the Nation's cities drown in blood, so long as its gun rights remain untouched.

The fact that firearm suicide is a problem for rural America may offer some hope for new legislation; yet even here, there is cause for cynicism. The NRA and its political allies will undoubtedly face severe criticism in the wake of Sandy Hook over the fact that the shooter essentially stole his mother's firearms; then, too, liberals - eager to try and get some kind of political win on this issue following a decade of steady defeat - may try to draw a greater link between mental health issues and gun violence. Both of these facts play into the one rich seam of political opportunity running through the Republican opposition to gun control: The fact that it's their constituents who are largely the ones killing themselves with their own handguns.

Thus, we may actually see movement on rules demanding safer storage for firearms; we may see efforts to increase spending on mental health as well. These would be welcome changes from a liberal perspective, but they may also end up becoming a trap: If the reaction to Sandy Hook and other recent shootings is legislation aimed at making rural and suburban Americans safer while ignoring the needs of America's cities, then this will simply be one more example of our cities getting shafted by politics as usual, which treats urban lives as cheap, and urban death as hardly noteworthy. That's because I almost can guarantee you that once Republicans take a deal that reduces the suicide rate in rural America, they'll walk away from any changes to our gun laws that might close the floodgates against the arms that are generating widespread slaughter in our cities, whose inhabitants they would largely just as soon see dead - if not demand those floodgates be jammed opened further, for the sake of greater gun industry profits, and at the cost of more urban lives.

Thus, the need to look squarely at the elephant standing in the middle of America's room (to enlist another metaphor in this debate): If our response to Sandy Hook is to make affluent rural families safer from tragedy while completely ignoring the ongoing carnage in our Nation's cities, then we will have failed a great moral test as a Nation - and we liberals, who are left in this neo-Randian era as the only voice for the disadvantaged, will have failed right along with the rest of the country.

If not more so: For we of all people really ought to know better. After all, we tell ourselves constantly that rich people aren't the only people in America who deserve to live a better life, so why in the fuck can't we walk our own talk?

[AiliailiA]

How is it that everyone missed that no one died in the stabbing and only two people survived in the shooting.

Like did they just go, "STAB = SHOOTING"? There's a remarkable difference.

There were other stabbings that killed people too. The fact that this kind of stuff even happens at all is what we should actually focus on though, not the particular weapon that was used. The mental health of the person is in question seems to be a common factor in many of these kinds of incidents. Focusing and blaming the weapon is just an emotional knee jerk reaction to something awful that happens, and I understand that, but I think it's just the wrong way to go. Talking about the weapon used is easy, which is why everyone's doing it, but I think there's a much deeper issue here that needs to be addressed.

OK then, what are you proposing to do about mental health?

Mental illness is pretty expensive to treat. Are you suggesting free consultations for every US citizen? Just for the young men who typically act out their mental illness? Compulsory treatment? What?

Or ... as is more likely ... you're just saying "blame the person not the gun" and don't intend to do a damn thing about the problems.

[AiliailiA]

Even if someone's using ammonia for bombs (it's possible, somehow) only a certain kind of person can really actually get away with using that for bombs. The same applies for anything used for bombs. Look at how drug producers are tracked down (by the paper trail of ingredients).

Don't drug producers get caught producing the drugs first, and then the paper trail comes after the arrest during the investigation?

Some pretty big producers do get caught by their buying patterns (they have lots of cannon-fodder between them and the street dealers).

Maybe not so much in the US since there's a domestic chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry etc. The purchases for illicit drug production are more easily hidden (eg, by buying chemicals stolen from a legitimate manufacturer by an employee).

[New Chalcedon]

The Tea Party has now officially (as officially as the Tea Party ever does anything) decided who to blame for the massacre....


......the teachers.

Seriously.

Apparently, the correct response to this is to enact right-to-work (for less) in the schools across America right now, because the teachers' unions created the problem.

2.Back Right to Work legislation for the public sector. Teacher’s unions have helped cement much of this in place.

What a bunch of fucking douchenozzles. Really. Words fail me at this latest asshattery from the Right.

[Dunroaming]

Who was more mentally disturbed---the boy with autism or the mother who had 4 guns including an assault rifle, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. If she only had a pistol for personal protection would this massacre have taken place?

[AiliailiA]

*snip, so there's plenty for everybody*

According to the CDC, homicides of all kinds rank as the 5th leading cause of death for persons under the age of 45, and the 3rd leading cause of death for individuals in their late teens and early 20's (ages 15-24).

And I'd just like to take this opportunity to mention that young adults (15 to I think 22, but relevant enough) are three times as likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. The media paints a very different picture ...

Interestingly enough, there's a pattern to this violence (surprise, suprise...):

Reposting and spoilering the pics you had in your post, since I can't work out the byzantine forum handling of pics and I want them near to each other for those interested enough to open the spoilers:

)

What's even more interesting than the urban-rural divide between murder and suicide, however, are the various correlations with different kinds of gun violence. Population size and density are inversely related to firearm suicide rates (but not murder rates); poverty rates are strongly correlated with both kinds of gun violence. Income inequality is correlated with murder alone; unemployment, however, is not correlated with gun violence in any way (at least beyond the degree suggested by the usual correlation between poverty, income inequality, and unemployment).

Right, but those maps look remarkably similar to me.

Affluent cities suffer less overall gun violence than poor ones; the negative correlation between firearm suicide and affluence is especially strong. Higher education levels also reduce gun violence overall, although the obvious link between affluence and education undermines this finding a bit. Blue-collar economies suffer higher levels of gun violence across the board than do knowledge-based and creative economies; this, too, could be tied up with economic outcomes, given the higher compensation levels paid to those who work in such economies.

There is simply heaps in that post. I may return to reply again, but I won't pretend to answer it all, nor expect anyone else to do so.

Firearms being an enabler of suicide (quick, relatively reliable) are one of the weakest reasons I can think of to restrict ownership of guns. Maybe a bit stronger reason to restrict access to guns: gun safes, out-of-home lockups, trigger locks even ... because when they hit their thumb with a hammer trying to get the lock off, they might remember the fun of being alive ... but not to me a strong reason. People quite simply have the right to take their own lives. There are better ways than shooting themselves (and law willing there would be) but protecting people from themselves isn't a good reason for gun control.

I recognize that you aren't taking a position For or Against gun control, but given the thread you're posting in and your focus on guns, of course my reply will focus on gun control. Further replies probably will too.

[Forsher]

Who was more mentally disturbed---the boy with autism or the mother who had 4 guns including an assault rifle, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. If she only had a pistol for personal protection would this massacre have taken place?

Three days later, when he'd got the guns for himself?

[AiliailiA]

Who was more mentally disturbed---the boy with autism or the mother who had 4 guns including an assault rifle, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. If she only had a pistol for personal protection would this massacre have taken place?

I'm comfortable with ascribing blame to the 20 year old (with or without autism and with or without mental health disorders).

Not comfortable blaming one of his victims. Like parents are responsible for what their adult children do?

Just a bit too Old Testament for me.

[Alien Space Bats]

Right, but those maps look remarkably similar to me.

The same 50 metropolitan areas are marked on both; the difference is in the color, with blue tones representing higher violence rates. Thus, on the suicide map, note the high rates across the interior (the so-called "Red" States).

FWIW, firearm suicides are 75% more common than firearm homicides (19,000+ vs. 11,000+ in 2011), so if both were distributed the same way geographically in accordance with overall rates of firearm violence, yellow areas on the homicide map would be green on the suicide map, green areas would be blue, etc.

Instead, the major urban areas in the Midwest, Northeast, Pacific Coast, and Florida generally have the same color on both maps - which suggests a much lower suicide rate than the National average (the solid yellow across New York and New England is a great example of this). OTOH, in the more rural interior, the blue shift is quite profound, indicating a much higher suicide rate than the National average.

I recognize that you aren't taking a position For or Against gun control, but given the thread you're posting in and your focus on guns, of course my reply will focus on gun control. Further replies probably will too.

Actually, my greater point is that I expect the NRA to try to deflect the conversation in the coming weeks towards mental health and storage, both because these were the precise issues at stake in the Sandy Hook shootings, and because it fits in with the Republican agenda of helping rural and suburban America while inflicting maximum damage on the Nation's cities. "Fuck the Cities!" is virtually the battle-cry of today's GOP.

[New Chalcedon]

ASB, how does expanded access to mental health services not help the nation's cities? The general beneficence of it aside, I'm pretty sure that most of these deranged shooters would benefit from it.

I'll happily concede that the NRA's motives for pushing this as action are as self-serving as they come - but do I care why they propose something, on the rare occasions that they're proposing a helpful something?

[Alien Space Bats]

ASB, how does expanded access to mental health services not help the nation's cities? The general beneficence of it aside, I'm pretty sure that most of these deranged shooters would benefit from it.

I'll happily concede that the NRA's motives for pushing this as action are as self-serving as they come - but do I care why they propose something, on the rare occasions that they're proposing a helpful something?

It depends on who the money goes to and who gets to decide where it gets to be spent. If it goes to the States to be spent at their discretion, then it won't end up in the cities.

More broadly, I simply see the whole situation as a trap: Democrats want to do something, while Republicans only want to help rural and suburban voters. My concern is that we will agree to compromise by only helping rural and suburban voters, because that will be doing something.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The WBC rejected my offer. The Bible Knowledge Pie Slam will not happen.

[Norstal]

How is it that everyone missed that no one died in the stabbing and only two people survived in the shooting.

Like did they just go, "STAB = SHOOTING"? There's a remarkable difference.

There were other stabbings that killed people too. The fact that this kind of stuff even happens at all is what we should actually focus on though, not the particular weapon that was used.

No, not if you're for gun rights.

You can't make that argument if you're for gun rights. It is illogical. It does not matter if stabbing people leads to death. The fact that you're comparing the shooting to the stabbing means that you have to accept that the stabbing incident produced less severity than the shooting one. I don't care if your family have to die in a fire for you to accept it. I don't care if the world ends tomorrow. Pound this into your head: stabbing is not shooting. Stabby is less lethal than shooty.

If you can't accept that shooty is less hurty than stabby, then you're arguing against gun rights in that guns don't protect people. Since we already have knives in our homes anyway, we don't need guns. I personally do not want to give gun-control activists more reasons to place restrictions. Because guns kill. Because guns are effective. Because of this guns are NEEDED MORE than knives or other sharp weapons. If you argue that the weapons doesn't matter, then it wouldn't matter to ban guns and to allow knives to exist.

So don't do that if you're for gun rights. Now, if you're for gun-control, then you're free to ignore my argument.

The mental health of the person is in question seems to be a common factor in many of these kinds of incidents. Focusing and blaming the weapon is just an emotional knee jerk reaction to something awful that happens, and I understand that, but I think it's just the wrong way to go. Talking about the weapon used is easy, which is why everyone's doing it, but I think there's a much deeper issue here that needs to be addressed.

Yes, but that's moving goalposts. Like Ailiailia said, mental illness treatments are expensive. And there's no telling if the person was already being treated or not.

Another reason why you have to make the distinction between guns and other types of weapons is that guns require different kind of care. You can't just leave guns lying around the place. If the weapon doesn't matter, then why not just leave guns lying like knives? It's stupid.

[Alien Space Bats]

While I'm pointing out holes and oversights in everybody's arguments, I'd might as well demolish the idea that people "use" guns 60,000 to 70,000 times a year to "protect themselves".

The study claiming this is bunk. Its methodology completely sucks, in that respondents were asked how often they "used" a gun to "protect themselves" without any definition of terms. Thus, a deliveryman in Detroit who has a CCW and straps on his holster and piece every day before he does his rounds can claim to be "using" his gun 200 times each year (i.e., the number of days he wears his gun to work) regardless of whether he ever actually draws the piece or even lets any other living person know he's carrying one.

I'm reminded of the famous childhood joke about the ward against elephants.

FBI statistics tell us that there are roughly 200 shootings a year in which self-defense is claimed. To me, this is a far better baseline for determining how often people use guns to protect themselves; allowing for missed shots that chase assailants off, displays of a gun that lead a potential assailant to back away, and other similar clear cut examples of meaningful gun "use" in self defense, I think it's safe to say that the number of incidents in which a person is killed and wounded every year through unjustified firearm assaults is massively greater than the number of cases in which a person successfully wards off danger with a gun - and probably does so by a full order of magnitude.

[Northern Dominus]

While I'm pointing out holes and oversights in everybody's arguments, I'd might as well demolish the idea that people "use" guns 60,000 to 70,000 times a year to "protect themselves".

The study claiming this is bunk. Its methodology completely sucks, in that respondents were asked how often they "used" a gun to "protect themselves" without any definition of terms. Thus, a deliveryman in Detroit who has a CCW and straps on his holster and piece every day before he does his rounds can claim to be "using" his gun 200 times each year (i.e., the number of days he wears his gun to work) regardless of whether he ever actually draws the piece or even lets any other living person know he's carrying one.

I'm reminded of the famous childhood joke about the ward against elephants.

FBI statistics tell us that there are roughly 200 shootings a year in which self-defense is claimed. To me, this is a far better baseline for determining how often people use guns to protect themselves; allowing for missed shots that chase assailants off, displays of a gun that lead a potential assailant to back away, and other similar clear cut examples of meaningful gun "use" in self defense, I think it's safe to say that the number of incidents in which a person is killed and wounded every year through unjustified firearm assaults is massively greater than the number of cases in which a person successfully wards off danger with a gun - and probably does so by a full order of magnitude.

And you can throw stats, figures, studies, and all other manner of empirical data out in the public sphere, and it won't change a thing to stop the onslaught of fools like Louie Gohmert or every firearms fetishist from wailing that if only the public was armed etc. etc.

That's because facts and figures fall short when dealing with the Cult of the Gun. Among many other asinine and rather dangerously ignorant things, the Cult of the Gun believes that the firearm is a holy religious icon, and that any attempt to offer a different perspective on the status of firearms or any notion that not all firearms should be available to the public.

That's the problem that this country faces; the fact that the firearm has been elevated into a position of almost untouchable significance thanks to a cult-like devotion to it, and the mutation of the 2nd Amendment into a monster that is doing more harm to the right to own and bear arms than the Brady Bill ever did. It's a sign of immaturity on the part of some segments of the population and the laziness of a lot of the rest, for if they all stood up and demanded better fireams control measures, the NRA and all other firearms fetishists in the Cult of the Gun wouldn't really have much of a say in the matter afterwords.