Facts, not emotions, must guide post-Newtown debate
I have deliberately waited to comment on the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., for a variety of reasons. Not least was the abundance of wrongly reported “facts” early on that made it difficult for someone hundreds of miles away from the story to feel confident about even the basics of the case; this story was not exactly the news media’s finest hour.
Still more important is the impropriety, in my view, of too soon devoting words at a time such as this to anything other than the victims and their families. They deserve better than to be gathered up as evidence for a policy debate within mere hours of their terrible deaths.
Eventually, though, those of us outside Newtown have to grapple with whether there is something we can do to prevent the evil and the insane among us from committing other such acts of wickedness.
As someone who is generally opposed to making our gun laws stricter, and who believes proponents of gun control have spent years making their case to the public without success, I don’t keep a lot of crime statistics at the ready. Here are some facts I’ve been able to gather that might surprise some of you:
- The steps we’ve already taken — including longer jail terms for dangerous offenders (and, yes, some nonviolent offenders) and smarter policing methods — have resulted in a steady drop in violent crime in the U.S. over the past few decades. In 2010, violent crime reached a 40-year low nationally. The U.S. rate of assault deaths per 100,000 people has fallen almost in half since the late 1970s.
- During the 20th century, the average number of people killed in a mass murder involving a gun was barely higher than the average number killed in a mass murder involving a knife, blunt object or one’s bare hands.
- Along with the generally lower incidence of violent crime, mass killings have also been on the decline: from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the following decade.
- One thing has been consistent about mass shootings for more than a half-century. According to economist John Lott, who co-authored a study of mass shooting in 1999 and spoke with National Review’s John Fund after the Newtown massacre: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
- Schools and shopping malls are common spots. But Lott also noted this fact about the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., earlier this year, per Fund:
[T]he Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.
People who look to other explanations for mass shootings — such as the degradation of the culture, falling religiosity, or gun violence in movies and video games — also have to account for the declining crime statistics above.
It certainly goes against the grain for most of us to look at what happened in Newtown on Friday and conclude nothing can be done. And it is counter-intuitive for many people to believe more guns can lead to lower crime. But if we really are interested in eliminating as many violent deaths as humanly possible — and I know of no one arguing the contrary — we ought to let our policy debate be guided by the facts, rather than the understandable and heavy emotions we’ll all be dealing with for days to come.
(H/t for a few of these links to Ben Domenech’s excellent Transom newsletter. Normally it’s for subscribers only, but today’s edition can be seen for free here.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
482 comments Add your comment
Edward
December 18th, 2012
10:46 am
I find it very odd that Kyle (and others) would stoop to a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc argument to support their twisted and insulting opinions. By that logic we should assume that all white males are suspect since the overwhelming majority of mass shootings has been perpetrated by them. And as to the “god was removed from school” crowd, where was your god when the shootings occurred in the churches and church-ran schools? Is your god so impotent that he can’t enter any school he chooses? Is a god who would sacrifice innocent people one to be worshiped? You people are truly disgusting.
breckenridge
December 18th, 2012
10:47 am
“We’ve kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, ‘Hey, I’ll be glad to protect your children, but you’ve got to invite me back into your world first. I’m not going to go where I’m not wanted. I am a gentlemen.” Bryan Fischer, American Family Association.
In 1927 a mad bomber killed 38 children and 6 adults when he set off 3 bombs at Bath elementary school in Bath Township, Michigan. That was 34 years before God was “kicked out” of our public schools.
But the problem here is the influence that groups such as the American Family Association, Family Research Council and the the fetid roach James Dobson’s Focus on Family have in the Republican party. They’re traitors, dirty filthy traitors, as is any American who lobbies to legislate their religious beliefs.
And no, I’m not a member of the left, just an American who believes in the Constitution.
loco
December 18th, 2012
10:48 am
JDW
Tiberius is able to put his own panties on. No more pull ups for him. Not even at night.
Guess he wants to know about others since he made such a momentous change himself. He is feeling more like a little tike than a toddler these days..
curious
December 18th, 2012
10:49 am
Don’t believe a discussion of the First Amendment is relevant.
I don’t recall a large market for these type weapons before 1970. In fact most weapons were WW2 surplus and fully automatic versions were required to be registered by the GCA of 1968. Even then, they were primarily souvenirs.
Assault type weapons became popular after Vietnam primarily due to their compactness, high rate of fire, and appearance.
Our problem is that anyone without a record and legally purchase that weapon even if they’re crazy.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
10:50 am
An appropriate moniker for “loco”.
CC
December 18th, 2012
10:55 am
“NRA stalwart as Sen. Manchin talks about restrictions on assault weapon”
Why don’t you use this opportunity to explain to us what an “assault weapon” is?
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
10:58 am
CC @ 10:55 am
You do not know? Then learn.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
11:09 am
How ironic that it is MarkV suggesting someone learn about something.
Partisay
December 18th, 2012
11:26 am
Funny how this article failed to mention the main part of this mass shooting and almost all mass shootings in the last few years, as well as the crux of the argument for tighter gun controls: assault weapons. How can you write an article on this subject without mentioning them? I think if you ask most liberals, very few would want to ban all guns – just assault weapons, or at least limit their firing capabilities.
Terrence
December 18th, 2012
11:27 am
Short of educating the kids within an enclosed fortress, there is no way we can protect them 100%. Even with twelve foot concrete walls topped with barbed wire, incendiary devices or homemade bombs could be hurled over the walls during recess.
Reality sucks.
Preventing an armed intruder could be facilitated with a secured corridor, two entrances–one exterior with video camera, another video camera within the secured corridor. The visitor is buzzed into the corridor where armed security waits. If the intruder takes out the security guard or forces the security guard to allow access, it’s caught on tape. He’s denied access through the second security door. He’s trapped within the secured corridor. He can’t get out and he can’t get in. He’s a sitting duck waiting for law enforcement to arrive.
political arsonist
December 18th, 2012
11:32 am
a republican appealing for use of facts rather than emotions!!! audacious!!! this is the party that survives only by keeping ignorant rednecks emotionally frothed up over gun control, god, gays, illegal immigrants, terrorism, and womens reproductive parts. the gop only survives in deep south rural uneducated areas. the more intelligent the electorate (ie. fact based rather than religion based myths), the less votes for republicans
to appeal to this moran constituency to consider facts is totally laughable – sound like something noot would say
yuzeyurbrane
December 18th, 2012
11:39 am
Kyle, it is obvious which side you are on. Your article is one of advocacy against stricter gun controls. This can be deduced simply by the way you cherry-picked your facts. To provide you with the other side of the issue for the fact based discussion you claim to want, I suggest you read today’s NY Times editorial on the issue as well as several over media articles relating the pertinent experiences in Australia and the United Kingdom, and include it in your future “objective” fact-based articles.
Politico
December 18th, 2012
11:55 am
CC
Check out the DoDs definition and the NRA’s, not one in the same. And other organizations even differing definitions and opinions as to what constitutes an “assault weapon”
Sure you knew that. Yeah right…….
hahahahaahaha
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
12:01 pm
political arsonist: [The GOP] is the party that survives only by keeping ignorant rednecks emotionally frothed up over gun control, god, gays, illegal immigrants, terrorism, and womens reproductive parts
————————
And yet this latest shooting occurs in the bluest of blue states…and the one before that? Oregon. And the one before that? Colorado. And the one before that? Virginia.
These blue state folks just don’t know how to behave.
CC
December 18th, 2012
12:03 pm
“You do not know? Then learn.”
Just as I suspected . . .
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 18th, 2012
12:03 pm
Semi-autos and high capacity magazines were available before the gun-control effort began in the 70s. Why no mass shootings before gun control?
You’ll need to explain that before attacking the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.
iggy
December 18th, 2012
12:13 pm
Once again the liberals attack the symtom of “the issue” and ignore the cause.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
12:13 pm
How ordinary for Tiberiues to write stupid posts.
How oridnary for cc to be unable to look up the now expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) for assualt weapons definition.
CC
December 18th, 2012
12:27 pm
MarkV:
You can’t describe or define an assault weapon. I wouldn’t accept what Feinstein picked out of a catalog as exactly definitive either.
Blowhard.
carlosgvv
December 18th, 2012
12:35 pm
CC
Looks like your mommie doesn’t care if you skip homeschooling and spend the day posting here.
Oh well. The world will always need ditch diggers.
jbgotcha
December 18th, 2012
12:37 pm
Kyle is a partisan hack, plain and simple. Just thought I’d point that out to those who don’t see it.
CC
December 18th, 2012
12:47 pm
“Oh well. The world will always need ditch diggers.”
Even were I young, I’d not follow in your footsteps, but I’ll bet you dig nice ditches!
You are gainfully employed, right? Don’t tell me you’re still living in your Mom’s basement and looking at your “Hope” and “Change” posters!
amx
December 18th, 2012
1:17 pm
I guess Lil b never heard of Whitman in the Texas bell tower or the person who shot up the Luby’s cafeteria in Texas. Too much gun control in Texas?
amx
December 18th, 2012
1:19 pm
If a lot of people having guns lowers the crime rates, then why isn’t the crime rate in the US the lowest in the world?
iggy
December 18th, 2012
1:23 pm
amx. Partly because many dead home invaders ie dullards, didnt think before they kicked in the door.
CC
December 18th, 2012
1:37 pm
amx:
“If a lot of people having guns lowers the crime rates, then why isn’t the crime rate in the US the lowest in the world?”
You’re blaming an inanimate object (or objects) for crime rates? A GUN does NOTHING until a human causes it to fire. Credit the culture of violence perpetrated by TV, movies, electronic games, rap music (IF you choose to call it music) and the cheapening of all human life by the proponents of killing the unborn. Like so many, you choose to assign the blame to the blameless in order to ease your conscience.
tiredofIT
December 18th, 2012
1:41 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 18th, 2012
9:34 am
tiredofIT, the “Bush did it” excuse is growing so old.
Neither party has a good record on reducing the size and scope of government.
It is liberals like you, however, that have disarmed our populace and enabled the slaughter of our innocents.
++
You just can’t get right. I have a carry permit. You guys are so high and mighty and that’s your problem.
Rick C
December 18th, 2012
2:46 pm
CC, none of those things are any more directly responsible than guns are.
iggy
December 18th, 2012
3:27 pm
Shoot first, ask questions later.
MarkV
December 18th, 2012
4:03 pm
CC @ 12:27 pm
“You can’t describe or define an assault weapon.”
Funny, they could not, and they did. And it was not Feinstein, but the professionals.
Edward
December 18th, 2012
8:10 pm
People like CC defend guns by saying the guns aren’t responsible, people are. Then he goes on a rant blaming video games and rap music. Yeah, hypocrisy is strong in the GOP.
mad as hell
December 18th, 2012
9:34 pm
”””””””’ article in today’s NY Times talks about the difficulty the little Connecticut town of Newtown has had with controlling firearms within it’s own town borders. Apparently, there are two “legal” firing ranges, and several ad-hoc ranges that have become the subject of controversy and to no-one’s surprise the support of gun-rights group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which seems to be located right there in Newtown.
So what has left me speechless? This quote from the article made by one of the owners of one of the ad-hoc firing ranges:
“Guns are why we’re free in this country, and people lose sight of that when tragedies like this happen,” he said. “A gun didn’t kill all those children, a disturbed man killed all those children.”
There’s the mindset of the opponent to reasonable gun laws. That somehow we’re free (to be terrified to send our kids to school or go to the mall?) because GunZ! And the second part (my emphasis) that the guns did not kill those kids, that a crazy person did…that line of thinking just has to come to an end. Those kids were killed by a gun that could shoot quickly and efficiently, the way a soldier in combat requires, there is no other justification for those weapons. “”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171097/-I-am-just-F-in-speechless
How many second amendment wackos here agree with the sicko quoted above?