The invisible fatality toll; 150,000 US dead in 5 years

Imagine not 4,000+ Americans dead, but 150,000 American fatalities in the last five years.

Thirty or more American deaths on the average day, week in and week out, with no end in sight.

Would that be enough to arouse the citizenry, to demand an end to the killing and bloodshed?

You’d think so.  But the answer is no.

The 4,000 US fatalities in Iraq pale beside the 150,000 Americans killed by firearms in this country over a five-year period.

Wednesday, the first anniversary of the massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech, the media paid a little bit of attention to memorials and observances around the country.

But there is no real outcry and no concerted national effort to end firearms violence, even though 32 — the number of people killed by gunfire at Virginia Tech — is also the number of gun homicides recorded on an average day in the United States.

That’s because many gun-toting Americans seem to think we have a constitutional right to kill each other with firearms, or at least to be free of any sensible restraints that might limit or prevent gun violence.

The New York Times notes that some efforts are underway at the state level, but adds:

Much of the proposed legislation – some 38 states are considering gun-related bills – focuses on cutting off gun access to convicted criminals and the mentally ill and on improving methods to trace guns used in crimes.

Those are good things, to be sure.  But even those modest steps run into strong opposition from gun advocates, who have many state legislators totally buffaloed. Proponents of sensible gun laws are left to celebrate such obvious, minor and often weak improvements as making it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns.

Gun advocates reacted to the Virginia Tech slaughter by proposing that there be more guns in schools, by arming teachers and students.



Here’s the thing:  If more guns made us safer, the United States would already be the safest place on the face of the Earth, instead of being nearer the top of the list for firearms deaths per capita.

The availability and easy access to firearms makes it easier to use them.  And most states make it as easy as possible for anyone, including criminals, to buy firearms.

Yes, there is a criminal background check required — if you buy your gun from a licensed dealer.

Half of the guns sold in this country change hands without background checks, because they are bought and sold privately.

Felons aren’t buying their guns from licensed dealers. They aren’t buying them at gun shows. They’re buying them across the kitchen table, or out of the trunk of a car, from advertisements in the classifieds or on the Internet.  And it’s all perfectly legal, as long as the seller’s main source of income isn’t selling guns.

That’s not a loophole.  It’s a deliberate, huge gap in the law.

The result is that there is no record of who buys those guns, which often change hands a number of times.  Crime guns are often impossible to trace, because there is no paperwork that a background check would provide.

A survey by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE)found overwhelming support, even among gun owners and National Rifle Association members, for the common sense idea of requiring a background check for all gun sales. Law enforcement supports the idea, as you might expect. But a bill to make that the law in Wisconsin didn’t even get introduced in the 2007-08 legislative session.  Despite the poll numbers, it is certain to face strong opposition from the NRA and other gun advocates, who always resist giving the first inch.

We’ve all heard the arguments.

Criminals won’t obey the law even if we pass it, we’re told.  Why, then, do we pass any laws, you may wonder.  In fact, many gun sellers would comply with the law and do the paperwork and background checks if they knew they faced stiff penalties for breaking the law.

If people can’t get a gun, they’ll find some other way to commit murder.  That’s certainly true to some extent.  During the five year period 2001-05, while 59,073 homicides were being committed with firearms, 32,086 non-firearm homicides were recorded.

People do commit murder by stabbing, bludgeoning, strangling, poisoning, or a variety of other methods that don’t require a gun.  But it’s not as easy.  It takes more than a split-second flash of anger or an impulsive action.  And it does not result in innocent bystanders being stabbed, bludgeoned, or poisoned, while innocent bystanders are regularly shot to death.

Arguably, it could reduce the suicide rate as well, or at least require a potential suicide victim to take more time to think.  There were more suicides by firearm (84,636) than homicides by firearm (59,073)during the five-year period.  Again, availabilty makes it easy. (Figures from  National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.  

Gun control — dare we even use the term? — frightens politicians to death.  

Barack Obama had the audacity to say the word “guns” in a negative context in Pennsylvania, and ever since he and Hillary Clinton have stressed their pro-gun stances.

It’s pathetic.

The week of the Wisconsin primary, five students were killed and 18 wounded at Northern Illinois University, which brought the gun issue to the forefront for about five minutes.  Their responses then were instructive.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported:

… both called Friday for what they said were common-sense changes in gun laws, while declaring their support for the right to bear arms.

At a news conference before a rally at the Midwest Airlines Center in downtown Milwaukee, Obama said the nation has to “get a handle on all the violence that’s been taking place and . . . do a more effective job of enforcing our gun laws, strengthening our background check system, being able to trace guns that are used in violent crimes . . . (and) close the gun-show loopholes.”

But asked about gun rights, Obama said, “I believe the Second Amendment means something.”

Weighing in on a long-running debate among scholars, Obama said he believes the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms and was not intended by the framers to simply provide for militias. The senator once taught constitutional law.

“There is an individual right to bear arms. But it’s subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulations,” Obama said.

… Clinton was asked whether the shootings in Illinois were a reason to revisit the gun laws.

“I do support lifting the prohibitions on local law enforcement being able to track guns to gun dealers who have a record of selling guns without appropriate oversight… I do support closing the gun-show loophole. I support reinstating the assault-weapons ban,” the New York senator said.

“I believe strongly people have the right to own and bear arms under the Second Amendment. And I also believe we can reconcile our constitutional rights with common-sense measures that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and people with mental health problems,” Clinton said.

And let’s not forget John McCain:

John McCain did not address the shootings at length Friday. A spokesman for the U.S. senator from Arizona, who was campaigning in Wisconsin, said McCain had extended “our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families at NIU,” while adding that McCain “always has been an advocate for the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”

We began this treatise by comparing the US death toll in Iraq to the firearms death toll in the US — 150,000 in five years, 59,000 of them by homicide.

Just for comparison’s sake, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.