Seeking a Forest among the Trees
Recently, I have repeated on several occasions a very unscientific experiment. While not statistically significant, the results have proven quite interesting. Following the intensive news coverage related to recent shootings in Buffalo, NY and Uvalde, TX, I asked friends and acquaintances:
“What are your impressions as to the numbers of deaths from ‘Mass Shootings’ generally and ‘School Shootings’ specifically over the last decade, or so?”
Given ubiquitous media coverage and what the President describes as an “epidemic,” I was not surprised when the responses were consistently “Thousands” and “Hundreds” respectively, but are those impressions consistent with the reality?
Mother Jones reports that between 1982 and 2022 the total number of fatalities from mass shootings — which the outlet defines as three or more victims, excluding the shooter — was 1034 (as of June 1, 2022). Admittedly, roughly 600 of those have occurred since 2012, the year that included shootings in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT.
Over the forty-year period, the average number of deaths annually is 26, but that number increased to an average of 55 over the most recent decade. Over the same four-decade period, it should be noted that the overall incidence of violent crimes has decreased significantly.
Each such death is tragic, and there has been a notable increase in mass shootings over the past decade. However, the long-term average is similar to deaths by lightning strike (i.e. approximately 27 annually). Even given the recent uptick, an individual is nearly 4.5 times more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed in a mass shooting (i.e. 243 estimated annual incidents versus 55).
As to school shootings specifically, NBC reported recently the number of cumulative deaths since 2012, inclusive of Newtown, CT and Uvalde, TX, as being 94 (or an average of 8.6 deaths annually). Children have a significantly greater chance of dying from all of the following: Automobiles, Drowning, and Poisoning/OD. In fact, more than 4,000 children and teens die annually in automobile accidents.
Both as individuals and as a society, we should endeavor to avoid senseless premature deaths. There are many things that we can do individually and collectively to improve safety for ourselves and others. However, we do a disservice to ourselves and to all concerned when we refuse to look at situations from a rational perspective.
Proponents of “reasonable” gun regulations acknowledge that many such proposals (e.g. Expanded Background Checks and “Red Flag” Laws) would have offered no material or effective deterrent to most mass shooters, including the shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde. Additionally, many proposals have the potential for unintended adverse consequences (including a false sense of security). Advocates acknowledge that such regulations almost certainly will not stop mentally deranged and suicidal individuals, who are intent upon killing others and who are willing to die in the process.
Of the more than 40,000 firearm-related deaths annually, greater than half arise from suicides. Roughly 3% arise from accidental shootings or law-enforcement activities. This leaves approximately 43% as homicides. Of the total, 0.1% are related to mass shootings (55/40,000). Recently, it has been noted that “110 persons die daily” in the United States from firearms. That equates to nearly 50 homicides daily. Eliminating every single “mass shooting” death does not give rise to so much as a rounding adjustment on these totals.
When the overall numbers do not change materially (or even increase) after the imposition of new regulations, what then? When the “reasonable” regulations “fail” to significantly reduce firearm-related deaths, do we then move on to impose increasingly “less reasonable” regulations and restrictions? What would it take to effect a material reduction in such deaths?
There are an estimated 390,000,000 firearms in the United States. America has more guns than people. Obviously, most of those guns will never be used to kill another human being, and most gun owners will never use their gun(s) illegally against another person. Nevertheless, it would be necessary for the rights and privileges of law-abiding citizens to be curtailed dramatically and materially infringed in order to effect a significant decrease in gun deaths.
It goes without saying that murder and assault by firearm are already criminal acts; therefore, the criminality of the acts apparently offers no effective deterrent to those who are intent upon doing harm to others. In order to effectively reduce access to guns by criminals and madmen, it would be necessary to dramatically reduce the access to guns by all citizens (particularly since criminals and madmen are among the least likely to comply with such laws). Such a scenario does not give me comfort or cause me to feel “safer.”
Ultimately, the desired objectives would require wholesale reductions in the number of firearms, which are generally available to or accessible by the public. This would mean restricting by regulation, confiscation, and prohibition nearly all guns with regards to nearly all individuals. While most often unstated, prohibition is the ultimate objective of many proponents, who advocate for “gun control” or the more recently adopted “gun safety.” For such persons, the only “safe” access to guns is no access at all.
Do you think that it cannot happen here?
Canada, our Europhile neighbor to the north, has proposed eliminating the sale and transfer of ALL handguns this year and seeks to impose mandatory buybacks (i.e. confiscation) of existing guns. Many persons, who see Canada as an appropriate model for the United States, will eagerly encourage America to follow suit — in the pursuit of “safety” and “security.” Of course, they will not acknowledge that perfect safety is impossible or that perceived security is often illusory.
We are not likely to hear the word “prohibition” immediately. The political classes are less candid and more cagey than that, especially given the adverse consequences of a prior decade-long social experiment in constitutional “Prohibition.” Therefore, the scheme will be insidious. The takings will be incremental with the hope that the losses will be hardly noticed (until it is too late) and with the expectation that any opposition can be fended off more easily (as compared to wholesale prohibition in the near term).
Are we, therefore, to be made “safe” from all but the state and “secure” from all but government?
As our rights and privileges as citizens erode or are usurped by the state, we become weary through constant vigilance. Over time, the costs of defense mount, and with each unsuccessful campaign, it becomes harder to remember with clarity all that was lost. Future generations almost certainly will have no appreciation for something that they likely never knew existed. It becomes increasingly difficult to summon the will to fight so as to protect or to recover rights, which were formerly deemed natural and inalienable.
As individuals and as a people, we are thereafter at the mercy of the self-serving political classes. We are afforded only such privileges as they deem appropriate, and only then in return for conformity, compliance, subjugation, and submission. We can only hope that our masters will be just and benevolent. What is the likelihood that will be the case as to a dependent people, who have no effective means of defense?
