What Kind Of Violence Kills Americans? [Infographic]

I hope no one uses this data for justification of gun control.

If gun violence is just replaced by other violence in places where gun control is used then nothing has been accomplished except to un-arm law abiding citizens and put them at greater risk for becoming victims of violence.

@Bagpipes100, I tend to agree with you here. If someone wants someone dead, they'll be creative about it. If a gun is available, they'll use it. If that's not available, they'll use something else. On the list, guns seem like the most effient way to go also. :)

---
In space, no one can hear a tree fall in the forest.

Gun control comes in many many flavours. Nobody I've ever spoken to objects to mandatory background checks when purchasing a firearm, for example.

At the end of the day, if you're happy with the current state of affairs in the US, there's of course no need to do anything. But if you're not happy, the question is: what should we do about it? If you're not happy, something has to change... so what's it going to be? I'm insisting on the question, because in the past couple of weeks, all I've heard is people speaking for or against gun control in very general terms, which is useless because more often than not they're just vomiting a well-rehearsed ideologically-based opinion. It's a waste of time.

So, Bagpipes100 and GMarsack: are you happy with the status quo regarding gun deaths in the US? If not, what do you propose specifically?

GMarsack,
The odds of getting caught I believe are almost certain, when it comes to killing someone. So if one is going to kill someone and they know they will get caught, might as well just 'spoon' them to death, I suppose....

I Totally agree with you. I think people should use this data to have the NRA open an office in China and India. After all most deads from guns happen in the most reproductive ages between 15-34. It can be argued that no guncontrol is much better for this earth then guncontrol.
But I do admit that it is damn hard to kill those children at a school when they are in the classrooms and you only have a car. It is opportunity together with rage which kills. It would be much better for the children if there is less access to (half)automatic 'hunting' rifles. I don't think Americans are much more bloodthirsty then Europeans even after you accepted all our unwanted people in The New World. But your number of gunkillings in 1 weekend makes it very hard for us to match these numbers. It is the opportunity and no guncontrol. This said we kill just as many people as you in wars. Nowdays there are already politicians talking about an union between Europe and America, but I will be totally opposed to downgrading when it comes to guncontrol. European policies towards guncontrol have worked well and our number of deads because of this are much lower. It is because we have very few people with access to (half) automatic weapons. :)
If it was up to the NRA soon everyone would have his own drone with guided missiles to hunt deer.

It seems lately popsci has just become a propaganda machine that churns out what is relevant to what is popular at the moment.An this is also a pointless infograph just to scare people If people are going to kill there are going to use what's convenient. Just like that guy in China who cut up several kindergartners.

Though... if a person does slowly enough, no one seems to care, example fast food and pollution in the environment, .... sigh.

This is very skewed data. It does not break it down per year, it does not compare it to other forms of death such as disease or motor vehicle deaths which in comparison with this chart would look worse,In the same time period there has been over 381,039 vehicle fatalities.

So please Pop-sci continue making things look as bad as you want, your readers are not as stupid as you may think.

@ikwilgeen said "But I do admit that it is damn hard to kill those children at a school when they are in the classrooms and you only have a car."

And yet a week after the Sandy Hook incident a Chinese individual killed 16 school kids by running them over in a car.

Automatic weapons make killing people too easy. You should ban them. They have no place in a civilized society.

@suggestivesimon - I honestly do not have a solution to the problem, other than to make people not want to kill other people. My argument was just that if someone wanted to, they could use any means (as Robot pointed out) to kill someone else. I do not think the US current situtation is ideal also as long as there is one person dieing at the hands of another. :(

---
In space, no one can hear a tree fall in the forest.

And when my honey, cooks me that thick steak red steak with lots of mash potatoes and real butter, is it really with love for me??? Hmmmm!?!

What about the men who die from over use of viagra? Nobody would suspect the spouse for killing her hubby, while making love! Yikes!

I don't remember the country (something obscure like Belarus), but I was trying to find out how bad the US is with gun violence per gun and found that we were only slightly above the global average... that is to say that only a very small percentage of guns are used to commit a murder.... something like 1 in 3000. But this other country had outlawed guns completely (i.e. no civilian was allowed to own one) and they had more firearm homicides than the US... not per gun or per capita, but raw numbers.

Guns aren't the problem, and 'gun control' is not the solution. It is a cultural problem and a mental health problem. Legislation will only compound those problems by allowing people to say "oh, the government has it.. I can ignore it now."

It is of interest to note that all the biggest serial killers in our country's history never used a gun to kill their victims. As was said above, if you want to kill someone, you'll find a way.

Anybody ever seen a prison's display of confiscated weapons? People get murdered in prison with toothbrushes. No guns among the inmates at all, yet the murders continue, hundreds of them every year.

It would be interesting to show that infographic with all causes of premature death, such as accidents, lifestyle-choice diseases, etc. Because homicide is way down on the list. The infographic itself is interesting in that there are far more blueish squares at the top (suicide) than brownish (homicide) squares.

It seems funny to me that we as a country want to have this discussion about limiting or banning a constitutionally-specified right (firearms) in the hope that it might save a few hundred or a few thousand lives a year, while ignoring the discussion completely in regards to cigarettes and alcohol.

There are almost as many people killed each year by drunk drivers as are murdered by guns. Yet the country as a whole wants the opportunity to get drunk whenever they so choose. Somehow, the thought of banning or regulating certain lifestyles as become off-limits, simply because they are lifestyle choices. I guess gun ownership is not a lifestyle choice.

Almost half a million people each year die early due to cigarettes, including 50,000 from second-hand smoke. This includes plenty of people who were smoked around as kids, and suffered a severely shortened life because of it. That's 3 times more than homicides by any weapon. And yet nobody would dare suggest we ban any cigarette with known carcinogenic properties.

If it really is about saving the most lives, then let's go save lives. That means we're going to have to see the very people who are calling for gun control give up their sacred lifestyle cows to save lives. But after all, shouldn't they be willing to sacrifice as much as the rest of us for the sake of saving lives?

The problem with our society isn't guns, nor is it only about the violent games or the media. Those are just additional symptoms of the same sickness. The sickness is a lack of a moral core. This country's framework was devised for people who have a certain moral core, and worked fine for them for generations for that reason. We've come so far off that moral core, that no amount of laws will ever keep everyone safe from each other until we're so regulated that we might as well be in prison. But then again, prisoners still find a way to kill each other too.

@suggestivesimon

Really? Will my satisfaction or lack there of be affected by a new gun ban? If X number of people per capita are murdered in the US now, and X number of people per capita are murdered after a new gun ban is enacted would I be satisfied?

No, nothing would have been accomplished. Is there any reason to believe that the number of murders per year per capita would change with new gun bans?

I have yet to see any data on that. People have posted that gun murders go down after gun bans, but that's worthless data it doesn't address total violence before and after.

Once again, we see it. ikwilgeen talks about "half automatic" weapons. Alfi2009 says that automatic weapons ought to be illegal.

Here is a tip, folks. If it is that painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, it is best to just remain silent.

Ok, automated guns are illegal. I still can buy a super big nail gun! There are lots of industrial tools that can really do a number on people.

BAM! BAM! BAM! NAILED!

@ppardee
You gave us no information at all. You cited some half-remembered, unsourced piece of lore. Contrary to what you believe, gun violence in the US is very very high (an easy introduction to this subject is "List of countries by firearm-related death rate" on Wikipedia and its sources).

@marcoreid
"The sickness is a lack of a moral core."

A moral code is a variable thing. And there is no way to guarantee the same moral code for 300 million + people. I don't think morality is the problem, but even if it were (as you claim) then there is no way to fix it.

So your solution to a sky-high per capita homicide and gun death rates is to change the subject? If cigarettes/alcohol, why not heart disease? And what solutions do you propose to all of these problems?

@Alfi2009

"Automatic weapons make killing people too easy. You should ban them. They have no place in a civilized society."

You've seen too many movies. Fully automatic weapons are extremely inefficient. Most modern militaries (including the US) have converted their standard issue rifles to semi-auto only. The reason is that most soldiers will use full auto at the first opportunity and go thorough all their ammo within minutes. On semi-auto, a soldier is more likely to hit what they are shooting at. Full auto just makes a bunch of noise and while accomplishing very little.

Some soldiers are issued automatic rifles, however the primary use of these weapons is psychological. They use automatic gun fire to intimidate the enemy into taking cover so that friendly soldiers can move to a better position without being shot at.

Automatic weapons are not magical wands of death killing everything by waiving it that general direction. Banning them only demonstrates ignorance and waists efforts on solutions that don't address the underlying cause.

Once humans become cyborgs,
it will be the 'delete key', that will become their
greatest fear, bra ha ha haaaa!

@Bagpipes100

a) Who said anything about a gun ban? The world isn't black and white. Modern laws don't fit in a sentence. We are talking about complex social issues and you're going straight to an extreme scenario to justify your opinion.

b) I asked you a simple question that you are either unable or unwilling to answer. All this ink and these pixels wasted on people saying "no no no" and giving nothing in return. Step up and work the problem instead of getting in the way of people trying to help. What do you suggest to fix this problem?

I shoot, and love to shoot. I don't want a gun ban, but gun acquisition and possession has to be better regulated to ensure: proper education of gun owners (!!), proper control of what guns end up on the street (working with gun manufacturers as well), a mechanism to allow people with mental health issues to be identified and a mechanism to allow high-risk gun owners to be identified. Furthermore, social safety nets have to be put into place so that people don't feel like guns are the only solution to whatever predicament they find themselves in.

@Robot

Automatic weapons are highly regulated, but legal in most states.

democedes,
Oooops, I back my truck over you. So sorry.

@suggestivesimon,

Notice I said moral core, not code. Very different things. The moral core of the US when it first came about revolved around hard work, family, mutual respect, honesty, and various forms of religious worship. That is no longer the moral core of the US. The current moral core involves selfishness, aggrandizement, doing whatever one pleases, and laziness. Particularly in the inner cities, which I spend plenty of time in, and which also happen to have the highest homicide rates.

And if there truly is no way to fix it, as you suggest, then banning guns or anything else will not fix the violence problem.

And no, you can't force people to adopt certain moral ideals. But by not respecting the constitutional principles originally developed, we have encouraged many people away from them. There is a fine line, for example, between helping someone down on their luck and making people dependent and lazy. I've seen far too many people who won't take a pay raise and won't work more hours so that they don't lose a bunch of government benefits.

If you don't understand how lazy our government has made us as a people, you're just one of the sheep, and no amount of typing here will convince you.

I'm not changing the subject, I'm just saying that people yelling loudly about saving lives by controlling guns need to take their heads out of the sand and look at all the other ways that we can save even more lives. But they don't because they are hypocritical. They want to limit others in their freedoms while not losing any of their own. As such, they'll never convince anybody and their cause won't go anywhere.

You want my solutions? It's actually really simple, but probably not one you'll agree with... get the federal government out of everything and return it to what it was meant to be, under the original intent of the Constitution. Let each state regulate its citizens as outlined under the Constitution. Let people make their choices and have their consequences. This world has never been, nor will it ever be, perfect. People will hurt and kill others. There is no way to stop that, there never has been, and there never will be. Learn to accept it.

Anyone who still believes in the delusion that every problem can be fixed (by force or legislation or coercion) needs to go seek help. History has shown repeatedly that the biggest killer of all is governments. We call ourselves an advanced species, yet we still can't seem to learn that one basic premise.

I think we should all be using phasers, and quantum torpedoes; just sayin.

Besides, I said automated, not automatic, yuck, yuck, lol.

"... there must be 50 ways to kill you lover....", oh leave leave, yea that's what I meant to type.... lol.

What's needed is not LESS guns but more DEFENSIVE weapons in mankinds arsenal to defend against those who use guns fiendishly (terrorists, mass-murders, etc).

We actually have a new defensive weapon that can make a dramatic difference in being able to stop mass-murderers without ADDING to the problems in the world as do MORE guns.

Keep in mind that the 20 kids were killed with a stolen gun from the mom of the mass-murderer. This often happens that a relative steals a family gun and then uses it for mayhem.

But new defensive weapons are NOW at our disposal including this one:

http://www.businessinsider.com/maul-long-range-taser-2011-7

This new defensive weapon has the capability of turning things on it's rear and giving schools, theaters, etc a much better chance at a reasonable cost (compared to putting armed guards at high cost) compared to other methods.

For all the following reasons these new defensive weapons make the most sense to get more control of our schools, etc:

1) These 'defensive only' guns are designed to incapacitate bad people--not kill them. This allows schools to paralyze the offending fiends and disarm them before they do further harm.

2) The guns won't kill innocent bystanders (our children in the schools) in the CROSSFIRE. Everyone knows crossfire can kill as many innocents as the fiend(s) who sought to kill in the first place. These will prevent that. Of course there is always the potential for harm but it's dramatically lowered.

3) Disarming the fiends allows society to pick the brains of captured mass-murderers instead of being in the dark why the fiends did it and then later commit suicide as they usually do before being captured.

4) The guns -- if stolen--CANNOT be used as a mass murderer weapon by those that would steal the 'defensive' weapons--unlike typical 'offense' guns (especially large clip semi-automatics) which CAN be used against others (especially on the black market). The TASER clips (5) are not sold to the general public so once discharged cannot be used again--basically making them a disposable defensive weapon only.

5) Having trained school personnel that are familiar with guns trained to use them and having 3 or 4 of these per school would allow multiple SIMULTANEOUS defenses against an assailant and a better chance of stopping them compared to just ONE securuity personnel . Most security personnel are uniformed and are usually the FIRST target of any would be mass-murderer.

6) The costs would be lower than hiring a full-time security personnel and the response by properly trained and equipped school personnel would be FASTER than the local police responses and Swat teams.

7) The implementation of a nationwide program utilizing these defensive weapons would provide a substantial check on fiends thinking of committing mass-murders. And this not only includes at our schools--but at theaters, stadiums, churches, etc.

8) These also would be a deterrence to terrorists because if they are everywhere then they know they can be stopped just like the good Americans who stopped the terrorists on flight 91.

Violence is still deeply imbedded in human nature/DNA, or whatever you want to call it. Until that changes, guns won't be disappearing anytime soon. Three hundred years from now, we will probably still have guns, but they will be called something else and probably won't fire bullets anymore. Violence has been a part of humans for thousands of years, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.

As for the best solution to prevent the average person from killing someone...well I'm not qualified to provide a good answer for that so I honestly don't know. But one thing's for sure, you don't need a military grade assault rifle to defend yourself in your own home, and that of course is just my opinion. If and when the country I live in becomes a place like it was 2000 years ago, then I suppose having a military grade assault rifle would be justified. It would be nice to live in a world where you don't need weapons to defend yourselves from other humans, but we don't live in a world like that yet, maybe some day.

I agree with gizmowiz's points, defensive non-lethal weapons are a good idea. Weapons that incapacitate, and don't kill; using light, sound, and electricity weapons instead of bullets. The USA has a lot of weapons like these, but it's not widespread amongst police yet....and that makes me think of another issue...if criminals are using really big badass guns, would a taser, sound, or light weapon be enough to combat that...I suppose it might depending upon how good it is...may not do much if tons of weapons that fire bullets are still in circulation....can't really ban guns...would anger too many american citizens. I suppose you could try and ban gun use, but it would have to be done slowly over 100 years or something. You'd have to wait for generations of people who are opposed to it to die off. Small incremental changes over a long period of time might do the trick. People won't notice until it's too late. They'll slowly be re-educated. Sounds kinda evil though lol...not sure if I agree with this, but it's an idea...would have to question if people are smart enough to realize what's going on.

Cookiees453,
It may be useful to have in your home, some high powered audio pain inducing device you switch on, as you notice an intruder in your home, after you have just put on your ear protection.

The bad guy is force to leave the house!

@marcoreid

Thanks for taking the time to write your comment.

Moral code or core, I can see your distinction, but my point still stands. If you truly believe that restoring society's moral core is the only way to solve gun violence, and you recognize that it can't actually be changed, then ... *shrug*

"There is a fine line, for example, between helping someone down on their luck and making people dependent and lazy." Yes, but there are many fine lines in society that we constantly straddle, why are you suddenly afraid of fine lines?

You're right. I don't agree with your solution. What you propose is the Wild West. It has been tried, and it failed.

I feel that all of your arguments past this point are invalidated by these facts:
- Guns are indeed not the only way that people die. That's why there are speed limits, food additives that are deemed unsafe, regulations regarding medication, limits on electromagnetic emissions, and a host of other regulations that save lives. Why should guns be different?
- "People will hurt and kill others. There is no way to stop that, there never has been, and there never will be. Learn to accept it." Many (almost all) other societies around the world have found ways to have gun-related death rates at levels lower than the US. We can't eliminate the problem, as you say, but we can surely improve it. Why can't this great nation, with all its resources, improve this aspect of society?

I'm not a gun owner, but I do see valid reasons for owning one. If you take the guns away, other weapons will be used. What's next? Chuck Norris won't be allowed kick people, after all he's killed MILLIONS! MILLIONS I SAY!!!

@Igot1forya

You gave me a brilliant idea. We could literally disarm the country. Without arms, people can't use weapons of any kind.

It's not about taking all guns away...its about keeping them out of the hands of mentally unstable psychos. Japan has some of the most strict requierments for getting a gun, multiple tests, drug screen, psych screen....and guess what it works. Also, something I haven't seen mentioned much in the comments, most of the deaths by firearm seems to be suicide which means there are deeper issues that need to be addressed for it is sad that we need more control to protect people from themselves. The only real info I have learned from this chart is that americans are sniveling cowards.

What came first the gun or the bullet that fits in the gun? Guns don't kill people, bullets do???

Ron Bennett

Look these guys hate the Second Amendment, including the AGW guys at Popular Science. You will notice that whenever these gun death charts are shown they NEVER tell you how many were done with legal registered weapons. You can bet it's a small percentage, because if it were a significant percentage that would be in the first sentence. Liberalism has ruined the United States and will continue to do so until everyone recognizes that liberalism is a form of insanity. Liberalism since the sixties has caused this country to lose it's moral compass, things aren't better they are much much worse and it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I fear the politician that fears my registered weapon. What does he want to do to me, that I might decide I need a weapon to defend myself?

@beyond9

@beyond9
It's not about money being more valuable than children's lives, it's about freedom being valuable to a good life. You're not looking to restrict people making money off of something that someone, I assume you think it'll be you or someone with the same exact twisted beliefs, deems excessively violent or pervasive, you're looking to restrict the freedom of them to produce it and for me or anyone else to access it. You're looking to rob freedom away from me and any children you claim to want to protect because you somehow believe the scientifically disproven non sequitur that there is a causal relationship between entertainment media and active acts of violence among members of the society. Oh, and btw, you can look it up. Crime rates started declining rapidly twenty years ago(When video games first started becoming mainstream, fancy that.) and are at their lowest levels EVER. Explain that one.

If these things can CAUSE one to become violent and sociopathic, how exactly have you made it through the Internet to this website without watching or playing a violent video game, movie, show, or other entertainment media? Either you've never seen a violent video game, movie, or tv show, have and are now a homicidal maniac, or you've experienced these mediums miraculously unscathed from the psychological barrage and brainwashing that ensued. Please, if it's that last one, explain to us how you pulled it off because, if the threat is bad enough to warrant maiming freedom, it couldn't've just been the fact that you could tell the difference between fact and fiction and are sane. It definitely couldn't be that since most people are sane and can tell the difference between what's real and what isn't.

Beyond the fact that such inhibited freedom is disgusting and vile, I find it insulting that you think myself and other people are dumb enough and weak enough that we need your totalitarian rules to be enforced on us. I don't need a babysitter telling what I can and can't see or do. If you feel so feeble-minded that you can't keep from committing acts of violence because you saw someone get shot on tv, then you go ahead and stay away from those types of media and stay away from the general population, but leave everyone else out of it. I want no part in it.

Oh yeah, and while I do like the idea of ensuring gun owners have appropriate facilities to safely store their weapons and the idea of weapons recovery programs, any further limitations on the ownership of firearms goes against the point of the second amendment, which is that in the case of someone threatening the life of another, such as a school shooter but extending as far as our own government in the most extreme cases, as outlined by the founding fathers, citizens will have access to the means to defend themselves. If someone actually had a gun, as the second amendment allows, to protect themselves at Sandy Brook, there may have been a lot less dead bodies instead of the killer having no opposition while everyone waited for the guys with guns to drive over. We also can't forget the fact that someone who doesn't care about laws against homicide isn't going to care too much about your gun laws, so the only thing these tighter laws will do is make it less likely that a law-abiding citizen will have the means to defend themselves or others against an armed assailant.

Oh, and let's just take a minute to acknowledge the fact that school is hard enough without making children feel as if they're in prison with trained guards always present and watching their every move. There are a lot more productive things law enforcement officers can be doing, trust me. I went to a high school that, after having a bomb threat during both my freshman and then sophomore years, felt it was necessary to place armed state troopers wandering the halls every day, have dogs come in and sniff the building regularly, limit us to an individuality crushing dress code to avoid bullying over clothes, and no longer allowed boys to carry a bag for their books. Girls just used their purses, so I tried my own man purse and was promptly disciplined for wanting to avoid having my books knocked out of my hand while simultaneously making it easier to transport the books I was supposed to be learning from. Whatever happened to fostering optimistic, independent, and diverse young minds? Now, people like you just want kids to feel like a closely watched number and have a harder time focusing on any actual learning number because you're afraid and paranoid.

You also have no idea what you're talking about with NASA. NASA is incredibly important. Overpopulation of the planet is already becoming an issue and, naturally, as it worsens, the rate or reproduction increases. Children will someday be subject to war or systematic genocide due to a lack of resources and space. Someday, whether you like it or not, we either need to limit the population to levels about 66% of what they are now, begin bringing resources from space here, or colonizing hospitable extraterrestrial environments, man-made or otherwise. How are we supposed to do that without a space program, smartypants? That's just one thing NASA will do for us, beyond everything else they've already done. Even if it wasn't necessity in its purest form, NASA is cheap as hell compared to how much we spend on being better at killing people. It costs $1,000,000,000 more than NASA's ENTIRE budget JUST to provide air conditioning for TEMPORARY tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total cost of keeping troops is about $20,000,000,000. That figure comes from Steve Anderson, a retired brigadier general who was Gen. Petraeus' chief logistician in Iraq. NASA's TOTAL budget is just $19 billion. That's just for keeping troops cool, which is probably one of the cheapest things the military does. Lets not forget how much money we spend on developing and manufacturing military technology so that we can be better at killing. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. I'll get you started. Here's my source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/air-conditioning-military-cost-nasa_n_881828.html

Look, you don't seem like a bad person, but posting this vitriol numerous irrelevant posts, especially when it's this misguided, is wrong. Protecting kids is a fine and noble effort, but you need to think these things through and look at actual facts before you convince other uninformed people to believe the same ludicrous stuff that you're spouting here.

P.S. Why in the hell does everyone keep blaming EVERY SINGLE THING except for the killer when it comes to these things?

There are so many comments that are not based on reality or facts that I decided to comment when I normally won't.
1.) How to help prevent these mass murders. Banning "gun-free zones" and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools. "Gun-free zones" become “a magnet” for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.
It is no accident that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves. People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.
We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.
About 75 percent of the time when these attacks occur, the killers themselves die at the scene. Even the times when they don’t die, it seems pretty clear their intent was to die, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to commit suicide, pull the trigger, and shoot themselves at the last moment.
But in their warped mind, what they want to do is commit suicide in a way that will get them attention, so people know who they were when they were here. It’s a pretty sick idea, but if you read the documents that they leave, the diaries and the video tapes, it is pretty clear that these guys know that they get more attention the more people they can kill
As more and more guns are being carried, thanks to CCW laws being passed by the individual states; violent crime rates are dropping. Switzerland requires fully automatic weapons to be kept in citizens' homes. Virtually no gun crime. Israel, where real assault rifles are openly carried in public, and pistol packing citizens are everywhere; has NO mass murders in its "Gun free zones"; because all of those are protected by armed guards - not police officers or soldiers, either! There are special courses given to all of these guarde; and mant are former combat soldiers. When children go on school outings, they are accompamied by armed teachers and parents.
2.) Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.
Japan, known for its lack of gun violence, is known for its high suicide rates. Knives (seppuku) and hanging being the prefered method. Their murder rates are achieved by swords, knives, and strangulations. The Yakuza DO use guns to make a point.

Perhaps we need to outlaw weapons, put metal detectors at all the doors, have a police officer in the school and frisk everyone coming in the building. Then we will feel safe.

Is this science related? Please, give us a story about the Fiscal Cliff.

I love it when people talk about the Constitution. I carry it with me and have read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. It was one of my favorite (and most challenging) courses in law school. So, that said, here goes:

@marcoreid: What you're referring to is the original Articles of Confederation as adopted by the 13 colonies. It provided for an extremely weak central government and the very people who drafted and adopted it found quickly that it did not work. The Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1787, less than 10 years after the Revolution ended. It provides for a stronger federal government with built in checks and balances against its glut and abuse. Our problem is that so many of those checks have either been eroded or ignored. The 2nd Amendment is the final, last ditch check and balance the citizenry has against a tyrannical government. I should strenuously point out that I do NOT recommend using your weapons against our government. We're nowhere near that stage.

@sugestivesimon: The so-called "wild west" was much less wild than it is portrayed. There was certainly more vigilante style justice, and I (as an aspiring attorney) much prefer a battle in the court room than in the court yard, but it was, for the most part, a relatively peaceful existence.

@beyond9: Apart from the Constitutional problems with point number 1 in your long, disjointed comment, I challenge you to point to a single incident in the last 10 years where an automatic weapon was used in a murder. Not only are they insanely hard to get legally, they aren't particularly good at hitting what the shooter is aiming at (as noted by a previous poster).

------------
ignorantia legis non excusat

Newtown was an anomaly. School shootings happen from w/in committed by one of their own. An armed guard would be just another staff member a school shooter would pass by on his way into the building with two or three hundred other students. An armed guard may stop an active shooter ( it didnt at Columbine where two officers were full time staff), but it will do little to prevent them. Gunhuggers like to say, gun control doesn't work since people will always find a way to kill people if that's what they want to do. To certain point, I agree. However, gunhuggers want to facilitate that mentality by making more weapons more available. This wildly misguided position begs three questions:
If people are just going to do what they want to do, why do you we limit anything? Since guns don't kill people, people do, why then the opposition to people being screened as part of the buying process? Why is your solution always going to be "more guns"?

@woodrob12
i guess you can consider me a "gunhugger" as to your questions
Why do we try to limit things? We do it especially after great tragdies like Newton, to give us false beliefs that we did something constructive to prevent it. Because if we did try to prevent the next one then we essentially created the next one....and there will be a next one.
Most responsible "gunhuggers" have no problem with background checks. But the thing is most are scared of having some kind of "gun owners list" because these lists have often lead to mass murder of these people before tyranny, also concerns over privacy. Not that i have the biggest issue with these things but it is a concern. Also some/most are afraid that these bacakgrond checks might become more and more restrictive, evetually leading to onyl a select few who would pass a background check.
Our solution being mroe guns is jsut our perspective, most non-gun owners see guns as tools of death and destruction, other see them as tools of defense. So if tools=defense more tools=more defense. Andd logical argument can be made for this point

(1) Consider that even the darkest squares on this board represent only .001% of the country's population, and you realize that America does not have a widespread violence problem.

(2) The 15-34 gun homicide rate is heavily concentrated among ethinic males in areas of urban decay (with strong gun control laws).

(3) Suicide and guns is an issue of convienience. Japan's suicide rate (much higher) with few (almost no) gun suicides is evidence of method choice in a societal issue. Taking away guns would only change suicide method, not attempts.

(4) As for specifics of gun control policy, a repeal of the 1934 machine gun ban would be appropriate for a free society as well as the abolition of "gun free zones." Further, universal reciprocity and issuance of CCWs (as is done with driver's licences) would also be appreciated along with repeal of all local restrictions, like those in DC, CA, NY, CN, NJ, and IL.

A society without banned firearms and universal CCW (after state approved training) seems most in line with a free people enjoying maximium liberty. Continued background checks for firearm purchases is acceptable, since it only impeads those who should not have their 2nd Amendment rights (those not of sound mind or proven felons whose rights have not been restored).

It would be good to know just how many of these suicides and homicides the perpetrator was on prescription drugs for anti depression and anti psychotic conditions. Most of the mass shooters were on these drugs. It is over due to take a close look at these chemicals that lead to homicidal and suicidal behavour.

The article forgot to mention the effects of prescribed psychiatric drugs which have been involved in most cases of gun violence. Prescribed psychiatric drugs are involved in most of the perpetrated violence and accidental deaths in the U.S. So called anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and other neuroleptics are the common denominator.

Only the idiots at wapo would even remotely consider suicide as violent crime.

@alfi2009 - Automatic firearm sales have been regulated since 1934 and effectively banned since 1986. Only idiots and morons bitterly cling to the notion that you can just go out and by an automatic weapon.

@democedes - Wrong The US military still issues selective fire rifles. The automatic mode has been replaced with a burst fire mode. The automatic firing M16 was replaced with the SAW. It has been common practice in the USMC to pick your target and make your shot for the entire existence of the Corps. It's obvious your knowledge of military firearms and tactics comes from something other than serving. First off automatic fire is far more effective than you claim and the effect is not just psychological. If you believe that deploying a machine gun is for nothing more than a fear factor you're an idiot. When you've actually deployed a machine gun let me know.

TexThinker

Interesting that abortion is not listed! Is this not a violent death?

The NRA and their membership are like spoiled teenagers that want all the rights and privileges to driving a car without any responsibilities for their actions or obligations towards maintaining the car. Since the NRA has has captured our legislative process and demands unrestricted access to firearms they have to be held accountable for for the unintended consequences of such policy. Handguns need to removed from our society and all long arms need to registered with the federal government. Since the result of NRA policy is arming the emotionally disturbed, mentally ill and the criminally insane with firearms firearm owners should pay for their right and privilege of brandishing firearms with a .005% tax of their income per gun per year with the revenue going to support mental health care in America. When our founding fathers framed the Second Amendment they were dealing with King George, rural communities and single shot muskets not densely populated urban settings with automatic weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. Knowing and understanding the base and evil nature of men they would all be thinking differently today. Wake up people the NRA exists to support gun industry profits. It is delusional paranoia being fostered on you buy the gun industry and the NRA and that causes you to fear the government you elected.

Gun control solutions won't do much, and it is not feasible to achieve an improvement through all of the Soviet-style restrictions itemized by @beyond9. The core issues are mostly within the realm of mental health, a culture that glorifies "gangsters", and a continuous decline in what I would call "emotional maturity" over the last 30 years.

Mental Health: State mental hospitals were emptied beginning in the 60's and 70's in favor of a more humane approach that turned all but the most disturbed people into outpatients or non-patients. The trend has increased over the years and there is usually no place to go unless you are rich. If you are admitted to a facility, they put people on suicide watch for 24 to 72 hours, give them medication, and refer them to a doctor. There are no real stop-gaps to catch someone who is a candidate for distrubed violent behavior. Adam Lanza's mother was trying to do it herself and according to news stories was struggling with how to care for her son effectively. Case in point.

Culture: Many liberals who call for gun control are reluctant to criticize or even recognize the impact of blatant encouragement to violence in rap music. Obama bragged about listening to Jay-Z, Lil' Wayne, and Ludicris to Rolling Stone in 2010. Which is the stronger message to young blacks - his iPod playlist or his stance on gun control? This will not be fixed until people vote with their pocketbooks and leaders like Obama have some kind of consistent principles. You can't make laws that limit the free speech of rap musicians.

Emotional Maturity: For many reasons, an increasing need for immedate graficiation and feedback has been hard-wired into each successive generation. Much of this is driven by technology and its cultural impacts. There is not really a place to lay "blame". What's missing is psych research and education beginning in elementary schoool regarding coping skills that apply to anger, rage, diappointment, depression, etc. Kids who cannot master the basics should get extra focus from parents, teachers, and counselors. I don't think it is easy to do this without it becoming a politicized, ideological mess (given the state of our schools and the polarization of the NEA), but it needs to be done.

Normally, I wouldn't stoop to ad hominem attacks, but, nswanberg, you're an idiot. Sadly, you and a bunch of other idiots elected the current administration. The protections codified in The Constitution keep us citizens of the Republic rather than serfs of the federal government.

All this is beside the point. This crap isn't what Popular Science is supposed to be about, although it is certainly what the Washington Post is about. I'm pretty much a "two strikes" guy. One more piece of blatant non science or tech related prattle, and my very long term subscription is over.

"All this is beside the point. This crap isn't what Popular Science is supposed to be about, although it is certainly what the Washington Post is about. I'm pretty much a "two strikes" guy. One more piece of blatant non science or tech related prattle, and my very long term subscription is over."

I believe this is an open forum. Your anger proves my points.

Yes, that is what I see here. More "popular" less "Science".

An interesting view appears when you remove the data for 0-14 year olds and only look at the fist, second, and third causes. What you see is that people are mostly killing THEMSELVES except for those 15 to 34.

Why have you all got it wrong ?
It starts at the top!
You heard right!
When the morals of man are removed there is no one that will comply with love for their fellow man.

The only answer left is to kill the other human being for the desire of one's own lusts!

Who do you blame then?
Did the government remove the book of morals from the schools?
You better believe they did and now they are concerned about guns killing!
No blame the establishment! Get to the root of the problem!

And now they want to bring in antiquated anchient religion into the schools where they all support radical Islamics! And not only will we get gun killings.
You can name the next eppisode of how to kill us innocent people. They must know what to expect next, Why all the Fema coffins?

reddit.com/r/politics/comments/15mizo/comparing_gun_murders_in_the_7_most_populous/

I don't think anybody's mind will be changed by any dialogue.

The FBI, Secret Service, FEMA, and Homeland Security have all published reports on school violence. Read their reports.

The FBI analyzed the data from the 1994 'ugly gun' ban and magazine restriction. They concluded they had no effect. More folks are killed with knives/fists than "assault weapons."

Besides, as in Columbine, would anybody be happier if the Newtown shooter had used a shotgun and a pistol?

Sure we can ban gun private ownership and censor all games/books/movies. That's been done in Soviet Russia.

Yes, if we armor schools, the 'quiet loners' will shift to other softer targets. If we ban and confiscate all guns, they' ll shift methods. Just watch tv or movies for dozens of ideas.

Yes, more childen are killed by cars or poor healthcare, or suicide, but aside from the odd government action (Waco) or religious cult (Jones?), those deaths are distributed by time and place and therefore generate little press.

Improve mental health? People either self-refer or they are mandated care based on overt behavior. 'Quiet loners' raise no flags. Screen everybody? The science isn't there. Given a relatively small ill population (say 15 million) in a large population (312 million), the type 1-type 2 errors are huge.

If you take the time to read the studies, there are things that can be done.

The reality is the US culture is undergoing rapid, massive changes that we don't fully understand. Read the old Harlow studies and the recent CDC ACE study.

Given the demand to do something now, I predict we'll pass a law or two, declare a victory, and simply stick our collective heads in the sand. Looking at actual facts is too hard and takes too long.

Few people can argue that the same qualities that make a gun ideal for defense (mainly, the ability to stop an attack quickly from a safe distance and with a reasonable degree of certainty) also makes it ideal for use in crime and suicide.

But, the thing that makes a hammer good at hammering a nail also makes it good to smash your finger with, or crack someone's skull with. The difference is that you have to get too close for it to be a good defensive tool, and thus is not very reliable. As a tool of suicide it is more likely to cause extreme pain than death.

The graphic just proves that some tools are better than others to do a specific job. So what? Will not having the best tool really prevent anyone from finding another suitable tool?

If you don't have a gun, then a knife may do for defense or crime, but again it makes you get too close and thus is more likely to be turned on you. For suicide it makes a very poor tool, so perhaps getting your car up to 120 MPH and crashing into a concrete pillar will be more attractive. For mass murder, a pipe bomb might do better. But there's always an alternative method of accomplishing something.

The big question is whether disadvantages of alternate tools will discourage a murderer or person bent on committing suicide from going through with it. I think the answer is probably no, it will just cause inconvinience.

One thing I do know for sure, though, since criminals do have guns, a knife isn't a very good defensive tool. Neither is pepper spray or even a Taser - They all make you get WAY too close, they generally only allow one or two tries before you get shot, and are not dependable, so I chose a gun for defense. As they say, don't show up at a gunfight with a knife, and definitely not with pepper spray or a Taser.

Well, Timothy Mcveay used fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rented a U-Haul truck, he killed 168 people. Where's the outrage in what he did, outlawing those combinations? If a person has his mind on committing a heinous act against mankind he will find away....

@beyond9 and @aldensol

does popsci pay you? or international bankers (aka our govt)? or is that distinction gone already?

everyone here sees through you.

YOU'RE HERE FOR US WITH EYES TO SEE

@fromo1946

yes the factual points you made are so true! as long as you don't ask a single question or do any research at all.

hush, hush. sleep my pretty...

@suggestivesimon, et al.
To answer your earlier question: Yes the Status Quo for gun control laws is acceptable. The federal laws are a fair balance between pragmatic functionality and fear based “safety”. I say “fair” because the ban against sawed-off shotguns is difficult to enforce – tipping the scale towards fear. They have little use to the average user, so it doesn’t bother me much.
The results aren’t too bad either, because the US does not have a “gun” problem; we have a cultural problem. I don’t mean violence in entertainment – it’s mostly full of sound and fury but would result relatively little casualties in “real life.” Our cultural problem is a problem with courtesy, consideration for others, and manors. The US has slightly higher total murder rate (gun violence alone is a silly thing to look at since violence is violence) than Europe, and is even with Europe on total violent crime (assault, home invasion, rape, etc.), but Europe has a lower instance of road rage. I suspect that there is a correlation. If one is inconsiderate of others while operating a heavy machine, how can one be expected to be considerate while doing anything else. Just look at the recent interaction between the two houses of Congress and between Congress and the President – no one’s goals were too different from each other that consensus could not have been reached, but all considered it a political faux pas to be seen as cooperating with the “enemy.” I believe that the underlying cause of this zero-sum attitude across the country is a lack of respect for others and their opinions. As long as we have our addictions to the idea of “if you’re not for me, you’re against me,” and to the desire for quick fixes (these attitudes are connected), we will continue to have problems. Rap music, TV, movies, and video games are not the problem; at worst they give inspiration HOW to misbehave, but they cannot generate the desire to misbehave. I shudder to think of what potential tools people would use if they used the news for their inspiration – especially if we took away guns as an option. The idea that we can treat the symptom with gun control without removing the reasons for the violence is extremely dangerous!

According to the FBI late last month, for the years 2005-2011, deaths by firearms were one fourth (1/4) that of hammers, clubs, hands and fists. This article is just a rather obvious manipulation of facts by the gun-control crowd. In Chicago, which is gun-control heaven, well over 500 people were killed, and well over 4100 other people were wounded, every one of them by illegal guns. Guns control is not about guns, it's about control. A citizen has a gun, a subject does not.

Being Canadian ,I have a question.Your NRA says Guns dont kill people,People kill people.I,m also ex millitary.My Question,Why was I issued a rifle when I became a soldier?Why was,nt I issued a hammer? rope? piece of pipe?By the NRA,s logic there should be no difference if I had carried a Pumpkin into battle or a rifle.Think,if that retard had been carrying flowers instead of a assault rifle and a handgun a lot of parents would,nt be grieving today.

If they control all guns then psychos will use home made bombs, various toxic agents and various terrorism acts. A man, woman or child who wants to kill will do so if opportunity presents itself.I, myself have seen many plans online for various devises of mayhem i.e.bombs,improvised waepons of various sorts, plans to build your own rocket launchers, rapid fire and automatic rifles etc...Banning guns will be like prohibition.
Outlawing anything merely keeps honest people honest.the dishonest will always find a way.Maybe this would decrease the number of school shootings but it will not decrease school violence.Does it really matter if they die by shooting or another means?No.
Congress must know this but they are still pushing gun control.
The american people are on the whole becoming more violent and less sensitive.I recall a recent experiment where a college student put a lifelike plastic turtle in a road way and watched how many cars swerved to hit it rather than avoid hitting it or stop to help it.The results were abysmal.Something like 90 percent hit the turtle.
Everyone says violent t.v.,movies,games and media in general are not to blame.But I disagree.I think just as popular media(and culture)tell us what we want to eat, wear, drive, smell like and what size we should be to be popular and accepted, it also has been showing us that violence is not as bad as we think and desensitizing us to it's outcomes, that is, until it happens to us.

If congress really wants to control guns or the death they cause they should....no...need to start in media and popular culture.
In the writings of the "art of war" it is written that a subjugated populace will always rebel.
We have been being subjugated for decades,little by little.

We need to wake up.The problems are ours to fix.

To bill i am.

You were also taught as a military man to kill with a variety of objects including your hands.
So are you dangerous because you have hands?access to objects for improvised munitions and weapons?
Or is any man just the sum of his parts?
A rifle or hand gun is only as deadly as the hand that wilds it.and that hand as deadly as the man behind it.A general can kill thousands, millions with a word.a soldier merely tens or thousands(not withstanding the resources at his disposal.).
A hammer is only a tool till it is wielded in anger.
A man is not dangerous till he is enraged.

@phillip_faugno

I concur with most of your points, but I must disagree with your opinion of pop-media. Shakespeare’s works were once “pop-media” as was Beowulf as was each of the books of the Old Testament. There are violence in each of these, sometimes pretty graphically; how are these “virtuous”, while modern pop-media with its violence is harmful? If the violence in any one of these mediums did not/does not make people violent what makes the modern media capable of doing so? I do not think that this is a cause of the problem, merely another symptom. Perhaps, my suggestion above as a cause is a symptom as well, but I do think that if we were to treat the systemic lack of consideration, we would be making in-roads to treating the third-order symptom of the violence in our society.