Bob Herbert: How Many Deaths Are Enough?

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

How Many Deaths Are Enough?
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 17, 2011


snip//

Can we get a grip?

The contention of those who would like college kids and just about everybody else to be armed to the teeth is that the good guys can shoot back whenever the bad guys show up to do harm. An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun.

“On average,” the researchers said, “guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.”

Approximately 100,000 shootings occur in the United States every year. The number of people killed by guns should be enough to make our knees go weak. Monday was a national holiday celebrating the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968.

We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 18, 2011, on page A25 of the New York edition.

[X_Digger]

1. *sigh* correlation != causation..

Citing Branas' epidemiological study as evidence?

He studied 'carrying' a gun in Philadelphia-- a place where your average citizen is hard pressed to legally do so. So who does that leave? Criminals. Gee, being a criminal is dangerous to your health. Who knew?

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
...
This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

Yes, when 90% of lung cancer patients smoked, that was a strong correlation. When you extrapolate from a 6% group and apply it to a general statement, you're treading on thin ice.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Over half of the shooting victims were criminals. N/T

[Euromutt]

9. Especially when you don't "account for the potential of reverse causation"

Which was one of the problems with this study; the researchers "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault." Of course, they didn't mention that in the abstract or conclusions, no, that was buried in the full text, which you had to shell out $30 to read.

[shadowrider]

10. What's a few dollars among friends n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. A few nits to pick...

#1) That statistic includes inter gang violence. Including numbers from gang violence, where both parties are acting unlawfully while armed, is nothing but intellectual dishonesty when applying such a statistic to lawful carriers of firearms. holders of concealed carry permits have been statistically PROVEN to be more law abiding than the general public and even more law abiding than police officers. The statistics hold true that you are more likely to be mistakenly shot by an officer of the law than somebody with a CCW permit... CCWers are engaged in more shootings than officers annually and have a much higher sucessful hit rate.

"Monday was a national holiday celebrating the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "

#2)Marin Luther King advocated CHANGE through nonviolent means. When it came to self-defense he sung quite a different tune. Dr. King was not opposed to self defense or the use of arms to DEFEND one's self. Personal quotes and applications for firearm permits illustrate this. The NRA (a better organization in the 60's through 80's) stood by minorities using firearms to defend themselves from racial violence during the civil rights movement. The racist-roots of gun control run very deep.

"We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns."

#3) While "gun crime" can be linked to firearm related deaths, there is no definitive correlation to violent crime rates or bulk homicides that points to more guns = more crime. Nor is there definitive correlation pointing to more guns = less crime. Most cities and states with the strictest firearm laws also experience the greatest violent crime rates. Ergo, fewer guns is not the answer to the needs you illustrated.

#4) It is pretentious to presume you can significantly curtail suicide by restricting gun rights. Determined individuals will kill themselves - even without a gun.

"That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons."

#5) Why assault weapons? There is no assault weapons problem in america despite being the most popular selling rifles for the past 7 years. In fact, every year the CDC statistics attribute more deaths to "hands and feet" than all rifles combined, let alone strictly assault weapons. Also, consider that the 1994 AWB showed no conclusive impact on crime or homicide rate and even Clinton admitted it was a big mistake. It was a turd... why proposition a new one?

[SteveM]

3. Oh! Gimme that ol' time religion, that ol' time religion!....nt

[DonP]

4. When we lose the Senate and WH he'll still have a job

But then again with their circulation dropping like a hot rock, he may not.

Herbert is an idiot and a New York idealist who follows very closely in the mold of the late Carl Rowan, a 2nd amendment hypocrite if there ever was one.

If Bob gets his wish (which I seriously doubt) it will cost the party passing it any chance in at least the next two national election cycles, not to mention a lot of state and local losses for those that lineup behind it. If folks thought the backlash from the last "Assault Weapons Ban" (and Nov. 2nd 2010) was an electoral nightmare, (not to mention a total failure as a crime fighting idea) imagine what it will look like now.

In '94 there was no internet to speak of to spread the word instantly about what was happening in DC. The NRA was fairly quiet back then, not thinking that it could actually pass, even with the sunset provision. Today they are bigger (4.5 million members), better funded and have lots of friends on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. I McCarthy actually ever got her wish and got her 10 round AWB et. al. out of committee and to a floor vote the NRA membership< might double and the political pressure would be like nothing they had ever seen.[br />
My guess is Dems would be out of all power positions in DC for at least a decade.

With "friends" like Bob we don't need any enemies.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. It is noteworthy that the new, improved AWB (HR 1022) died a bipartisan death.

Democrats and Republicans ran away from it. Only a few die-hards pushed it.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

8. HERBERT

[Euromutt]

11. Does he get just as worked up over victims of motor vehicle collisions?

Motor vehicles are involved in half again as many deaths as guns, and fifty times as many ER visits and hospitalizations. If we're concerned purely about the number of victims, why isn't this a higher priority than guns? And why doesn't the same reasoning--"that means fewer cars"--apply?

[derby378]

12. The old question still awaits an answer...

What is an "assault weapon," anyway?

[DonP]

13. Easy - Any gun Bob don't like - and that's all of them. ntxt