Research: A Global Study on Homicide, 2011

25. December 2012 · 1 comment · Categories: Research, Statistics · Tags: , , , ,

We will be gradually updating our website with reports and research related to gun violence both within the U.S. and across the world. This is our first entry of this sort in which we’ve summarized a UN report on murders across the world.

Photo by Mateusz Stachowski.

Photo by Mateusz Stachowski.

You can download the pdf here of the global study on homicide, commissioned by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in 2011. This study seeks to provide a global overview of homicides by using a comprehensive collection of cross-national and time series homicide statistics. The statistical evidence and analyses in the study are meant to increase our understanding of the trends and patterns of homicide. The goal is to use the data to help develop effective policies that would curb lethal violence and its side effects.

Two conclusions the authors determined regarding firearms based on the data:

  • A significant body of research indicates that firearm availability predominantly represents a risk factor rather than a protective factor for homicide.
  • Countries in the Americas show a strong correlation between homicide rates and the percentage of homicides by firearms.

Things to note before reading study

  • For the purposes of the study the term “homicide” refers to “intentional homicides” in which the perpetrator intended for their actions to cause death or serious injury. This EXCLUDES: deaths related to crimes of passion, deaths related to negligence or recklessness by the perpetrator as well as deaths that were considered justifiable such a self defense.
  • The term “The Americas” refers to a region of multiple countries in both North America and South America. The data from the United States is included in the data for this region. When referring to Northern America, they mean Bermuda, Canada and the United States. More »

Parents Against Gun Violence Respond to NRA Statement

21. December 2012 · 2 comments · Categories: Uncategorized

On Friday, December 21st (just after a a Pennsylvania man shot and killed three individuals, wounded three State Troopers, and then killed himself) Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, delivered a prepared statement regarding the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. A complete transcript of the statement is available here, but the video of LaPierre’s remarks better reflects his disposition, and the mood in the room.

Parents Against Gun Violence have issued our this response to the NRA statement:

“NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre identifies violent video games and inadequate mental healthcare as contributing factors to school shootings, and concludes with a call on Congress to place armed guards in every school in the country. He says ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’ Unfortunately, the armed campus police force at Virginia Tech were unable to stop Seung-Hui Cho from shooting 59 people there; the armed school police officer Neil Gardner was unable to stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from killing 13 at Columbine. And at Fort Hood, 40,000 American soldiers were unable to stop one man with a handgun before he had shot 42 people. The idea of armed guards protecting schools is not a new one; it has been tried and it has proven ineffective against well armed murderers. We are not opposed to guards in schools, but we believe a more comprehensive solution is necessary.”

Below is the video of the NRA statement:

Refining the Terms and Criteria of a New Assault Weapons Ban

21. December 2012 · 1 comment · Categories: Informational · Tags: , , , , , , ,

On an episode of Meet the Press that aired Sunday, December 16th, two days after the Newtown shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced that she would bring a new assault weapons ban to the floor in 2013. Feinstein was one of the authors of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

The rationale behind such a ban would be to reduce access to the types of gúns that would make it easy for one person to kill many people quickly. The 1994 ban placed restrictions on firearms that had certain characteristics of military weapons—for example, rifles with bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and pistol grips. Some gun enthusiasts derided the 1994 ban as a “cosmetic ban” because it prohibited certain guns that looked dangerous, while allowing other, equally deadly weapons to remain legal.

Whether you support Senator Feinstein’s bill or not, it’s important to understand what she proposes to ban, and it would be easier to assess the relevance of such a ban if the bill logically differentiated among weapons based on their capacity to kill. Most Americans know enough about guns to have formulated at least a vague opinion about what should and shouldn’t be legal. Through popular television programs, movies and video games, even people who have never fired a gun have developed some notion about the difference between, say, an M-16 and a snub-nosed revolver. But there are a huge variety of guns sold on the civilian market in the U.S., many of which are not well understood by the general public. This overview, while not comprehensive, is designed to clarify the significant differences between various types of firearms, with an emphasis on the weapon’s potential to kill many people quickly.

Much of the recent debate about which guns to ban has emphasized differences between handguns and rifles. That distinction is more complex than it might seem. We think of handguns as smaller weapons that shoot smaller bullets1. But some pistols have the same caliber, rate of fire and capacity as military rifles. At close range, specialized handguns can be as effective as rifles, either when used for hunting or when used to inflict mass casualties. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot 49 people (32 fatally) at Virginia Tech, armed only with handguns.

A semiautomatic handgun with a high-capacity magazine. Photo © Matt Valentine

A semiautomatic handgun with a high-capacity magazine. Photo © Matt Valentine

Rather than focus on the size of the gun, I’d like to highlight two more relevant factors that make some guns more lethal in mass shooting scenarios than others, which are A) rate of fire and B) capacity. Any gun can be deadly, but all other things being equal, a gun that can fire rapidly for a sustained period without needing to be reloaded clearly has the potential to kill more people than a gun that can only be operated with frequent pauses. More »

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Announces Legislation Plans on “Meet the Press”

19. December 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

Below is a clip from “Meet the Press” in which Senator Dianne Feinstein announces she will re-introduce a bill related to gun ownership when Congress reconvenes.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama’s Memorial Address on the Newtown shooting

18. December 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags:

The full-length video of President Obama’s Memorial Address to the Newtown shooting is below.

The transcript of the speech can be read here.

Mission Statement

11. December 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

The Newtown, CT, killings of Friday, December 14, 2012, constitute the second worst mass shooting in US history, and have the dubious distinction of doubling the death toll from the Columbine High massacre. At the same time, they form part of a pattern: mass killings are on the rise in the US; five of the 11 deadliest killings in the US have happened since 2007.  And children in the US are threatened not only by high-profile, headline-grabbing incidents of mass violence.  Over 31,000 people in the US died from firearms-related incidents in 2009, 1,337 of them children.  A 1997 study by the Centers for Disease Control found that “the homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher” than that for children in 25 other high-income countries combined.

This is unacceptable.  As parents, as a coalition of adults who care for children in one of the richest, most developed countries in the world, we have to stand up and say that we can do better as a society.  Every one of our children deserves the right to graduate from high school, to choose a career, to have their own children, to grow old.

We are conservatives, liberals and moderates, gun owners and non-gun owners. What unites us is a conviction that there are many common-sense policies that can reduce gun violence, and especially the risk of harm to children.  For too long, the debate has been captured by a polarized, all-or-nothing struggle.  It is time for the debate to change.

Hours after the Newtown, CT, killings, a coalition of parents and concerned adults across the US started informal discussions on Facebook.  The outcome is this group.  We are committed to:

  • Advocating a re-centered debate, focused on policies that scientific evidence and reasoned dialogue show have the greatest potential to reduce firearm-related deaths among children.
  • Finding and disseminating scientific, peer-reviewed research on the causes of gun violence and gun accidents, and on how to reduce both.
  • Advocating for policy change.  We will focus on the kinds of policies that we believe can build support across the political spectrum, policies supported by evidence and debate.

If you share our goals, we invite you to join us.  We are hopeful that there are tens of millions of American parents and other concerned adults who can find common ground for dialogue, and practicable policies that can make our country safer. Let’s talk about what policies have the greatest chances of reducing the likelihood of a tragedy like the Newtown, CT, shooting from ever happening again. And then let’s demand that our elected representatives make these changes.

If you are interested in this group, please find us on Facebook, or email admin [at] parentsagainstgunviolence [dot] com.

Newer articles »