How Many? Updated

Yesterday I posted a shocking statistic as my Facebook status. Since the Sandy Hook shooting there have been 74 87 school shootings. 74 87. Seventy-four.  Eighty-seven. That averages out to about one a week. And those are just the school shootings. We are currently on target for gun deaths to overtake automobile accidents as the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 15-24 in 2015. WTF people? Seriously? How are we not outraged as a society? Why do we continue to elect people who show no signs of doing anything about it As President Obama said yesterday, “We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it—it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this,” and, “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”


As I raised this question yesterday, people asked what I propose we do about all the mass shootings. Here is my list:

We are the only country in the developed world where this is tolerated or accepted. In fact the U.S. leads the developed world in gun ownership, 88 guns for every 100 people (yes you read that right) as well as 10 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Just to compare, Switzerland was second to us with 45.7 guns per 100 people and 3.84 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Japan was lowest with .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. To be quite blunt, we can do better.

My question is when will we demand our legislators do something? How many people are too many? How many kids? As Bob Dylan said, “The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind. The answer is blowin’ in the wind.”

For those who think that perhaps the answer is the blurring of the lines between church and state as some of my friends have suggested. I humbly submit a post I wrote a while back called, The Bible Trumps the Law of The United States? I originally wrote this piece as it related to marriage equality, however I think it applies here as well.

Related articles:

Behind the Bloodshed

Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

Editorial: Australia’s sensible gun control rules were worth the fight

When We Worship The God of Fear (the idolatry of gun culture)

18 thoughts on “How Many? Updated

  1. Corbin is 12 and enjoys hunting and target shooting. Your provisions would disallow this. Why should he be restricted when he knows gun safety and practices it with no signs of mental illness.

  2. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”tj (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

  3. Fay Spalm says:

    74 school shootings is a woefully inaccurate and inflated number coming from EveryTown (an organization that is vehemently anti 2nd Amendment mind you). Try doing a little research before regurgitating their ignorance on the interwebz.

    • scribblegurl says:

      Even if you only count Columbine/Sandy Hook-style shootings, you get 10. Frankly, the fact that you are willing to accept even 10 as just the cost of “freedom” tells me you are unwilling to look at any reasonable solution.

  4. stillapill says:

    There are age restrictions on owning firearms. There are also background checks regarding mental illness and domestic violence. It is impossible to legally purchase an automatic weapon without government approval. Semi-automatic weapons should not be more restricted than revolvers or other firearms. One can reload any firearm quickly if one is well-trained. By your logic we should put a higher restriction on hammers because they were used as must weapon more often than rifles.

    Which leads me to the conclusion that you really no little to nothing about firearms, but ada regurgitating what you have read on other sites. Do yourself a favor and do your own research. And don’t believe everything you read.

  5. There actually have been 74 school shootings, as the link set forth above in the blog clearly and expressly demonstrates. Nobody alleged they were all just like Sandy Hook. Indeed, the article above links to the data, which expressly states that it includes fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings. There is nothing misleading.

    Remarkably, there have been 15 incidents similar to the Oregon shooting! This should be startling to us as a nation. Instead, we seem only concerned with concepts of radical individualism. The second amendment is important. Nothing in this blog post argues otherwise. It simply advocates for reasonable regulations, many of which are already in place in cities and states throughout this country.

  6. 1. I am not advocating banning all guns. I never said any such thing. Right now gun laws vary from state to state and even town to town. I, and others like me, are simply advocating for reasonable national gun safety laws.
    2. I am aware that cars (drugs, alcohol, etc) all also kill people. To suggest that drugs kill more people so we should concentrate on drugs is like saying donuts make more people fat than candy bars so I should concentrate on donuts and ignore candy as an issue if I am trying to lose weight. Sorry, we need to address both.
    3. This also goes for mental health. People are quick to point out most if not all mass shooters are being treated for depression or some other mental health issue. How does this mean we shouldn’t have reasonable safety laws when it comes to firearms? Shouldn’t we go at it from every angle? As I mentioned above, gun violence is set to overtake automobile accidents as the number one killer of our young people! How are so many people okay with that?
    We must look at every angle we can to change this including the way we treat mental health issues and reasonable NATIONAL gun safety laws.

    • Your not advocating banning all guns? Which ones do you advocate banning because they all fire bullets.

      Whats your idea of reasonable gun laws and please tell me how they would of prevented any of the school shootings, Chicago gang banger shootings, NY city shootings or other shootings you can think of? Just a fact both of these citys have the strictest gun laws in the nation by far.

      • Venus says:

        She said nothing about banning all guns. Why can’t you understand her well-written comment? She did not say anything about banning guns or taking them away! I get sick and tired of people putting words in other people’s mouths. If you’re the law-abiding gun owner that you say you are, you should not be afraid of a few reasonable restrictions – which are NOT the same thing as banning guns or taking them away! I know that if I wanted to buy a gun, I could easily pass a background check and I would have no problem registering it and insuring it, just like I do with my car. We all do this with our cars, but nobody accuses anyone of coming to take our cars away. Stop accusing people of saying that about guns!

  7. scribblegurl says:

    First, I support you in this. I agree with you. Except for one thing. I take antidepressants. I am not mentally ill. I have a chemical imbalance in my brain so that I do not make/use neurotransmitters in the right amounts, so I have had major depressive disorder since I was 7. I am not a danger to myself or others, but by your proposed restriction, I would be prohibited from owning a gun. I do not own a gun now, but I used to. And I never used it against myself or anyone else, though I did actual need it once to defend myself against an intruder at 2:00 in the morning when I was home alone in Dallas. Just because someone takes antidepressants or has depression or anxiety or PTSD, or a host of reasons why perfectly nice human beings take antidepressants, does not mean that person is mentally ill or a danger. And you not only do them a disservice, but you hurt them when you attach a stigma like this to their condition. It makes me feel ashamed whenever anyone calls me mentally ill or says that because I take a medication to balance out my brain chemicals, I am broken/defective/sick. It’s a condition of my body, just like diabetes is for some others. And you’d way rather someone who IS on antidepressants be able to own a gun than have that person go off of them to be able to purchase one. A person on antidepressants tends to be a happier, more well-balanced human than one who needs them but isn’t taking them. So do you propose banning gun ownership for anyone who has ever once in their life taken antidepressants, even if they only took them for something like to stop smoking? (The antidepressant I currently take is also used to stop smoking, and some others are used for off-label purposes, like to help adults who wet the bed not to do that, as well as a host of other reasons…you’re into tricky territory with this one.) Mainly, it hurts me enough to make me want to cry to find myself labelled a dangerous/imbalanced/crazy person just because I take antidepressants, so I must be defective/dangerous and can’t be trusted.

    • Scribblegurl,
      Please forgive me. It was never my intention to offend. I value your friendship and your insight. Perhaps the position could be amended regarding antidepressants. Maybe something like:

      Stricter background checks including for mental health and domestic violence. If someone is on antidepressants and is considered by their doctor to be a danger to themself or others for example, they should not be allowed to own a gun. Nor should anyone in their household unless they can demonstrate that they are inaccessible to the person who is receiving treatment.

      I do not think everyone who takes antidepressants is dangerous or broken beyond repair. I do think that keeping guns out of the hands of people who are statistically more likely to harm people with them is a good thing. Not just for society as a whole but also for that individual. I find it quite distressing that a person who should never have been allowed to possess a firearm ends up shooting people in a time of distress and then must pay the price for their actions when they ought never to have been able to access a gun in the first place.

      Scrib, I love you and I care about you. I hope that you will continue to visit and comment. You are valued here.

      • scribblegurl says:

        I thank you for your kind words and understanding. And I agree with the way you would amend the anti-depressants thing. I agree that people who are a danger should not have access to firearms, and people with serious mental dysfunction/illness would definitely fall into that category. But then, I think there are a lot of people walking around in public who shouldn’t be. Our mental health care system is sorely lacking and nowhere near what it used to be. 😦

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s