Want a Bullet Little Girl?

One of the greatest tools that allows the pro-gun lobby – aka the National Rifle Association – to make outrageous claims without much in the way of contrary government evidence is the absence of the relevant statistics and research. At every step of the way, from states all the way up to the federal level, the NRA has successfully sponsored legislation to make sure the government doesn’t keep any records that could threaten their lobby. “Prior to 1996, the Centers for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.

“In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget — the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995 — at a time when the center was conducting more studies into gun-related deaths as a ‘public health phenomenon,’ according to The New York Times. The NRA and some pro-gun Congressmen perceived this as more of an attack.

“Here's an excerpt of a 1997 article in Reason about the fight to kill gun science:  Since 1985 the CDC has funded scores of firearm studies, all reaching conclusions that favor stricter gun control. But CDC officials insist they are not pursuing an anti-gun agenda. In a 1996 interview with the [New Orleans] Times-Picayune, CDC spokeswoman Mary Fenley adamantly denied that the agency is ‘trying to eliminate guns.’…

“The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association… As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters.” BusinessInside.com, January 13^th.

Aside from the obvious statistics from folks who intentionally pull the trigger with the intent of killing, or perhaps the collateral damage from an exchange of gunfire where innocent bystanders are killed, there are numbers of accidents every year where children are killed by accident, and we really don’t precisely how many that might be. Kids playing with guns that aren’t locked up properly.

“A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. [Many child] killings [that should be so recorded are] not recorded as accidents. [More] than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available [were not labeled “accidental”]… As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.” New York Times, September 28^th. Eight states! And even these records were misrecorded for political reasons. Idiosyncrasies? I don’t think so. The “accident” box on the autopsy remains blank; instead the death is often labeled a “homicide.”

The Times continues: “The National Rifle Association cited the lower official numbers this year in a fact sheet opposing ‘safe storage’ laws, saying children were more likely to be killed by falls, poisoning or environmental factors — an incorrect assertion if the actual number of accidental firearm deaths is significantly higher… In all, fewer than 20 states have enacted laws to hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them.

“Legislative and other efforts to promote the development of childproof weapons using ‘smart gun’ technology have similarly stalled. Technical issues have been an obstacle, but so have N.R.A. arguments that the problem is relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded.

“Because of maneuvering in Congress by the gun lobby and its allies, firearms have also been exempted from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission since its inception… Even with a proper count, intentional shooting deaths of children — including gang shootings and murder-suicides by family members — far exceed accidental gun deaths. But accidents, more than the other firearm-related deaths, come with endless hypotheticals about what could have been done differently.”

We all know that in the “big gun” states, particularly in the west and mid-west, any politician foolhardy enough to suggest limits on personal weapons, be they military assault weapons, oversized magazines, background checks for all buyers and safety rules to protect children, will bring down the multi-million dollar campaign wrath of the NRA, and the NRA has been wildly successful in unseating Republicans and Democrats alike in key elections.

You are so much more likely to die in the U.S. from a domestic bullet, for which there is little control, than you are to be killed by a terrorist, for which we have spent hundreds of billions to prevent. “Of course we should dedicate significant resources and effort to stopping terrorism. But consider some hard facts. In 2001, the year when America suffered an unprecedented terrorist attack -- by far the biggest in its history -- roughly 3,000 people died from terrorism in the U.S.

“Let's put that in context. That same year in the United States:

• 71,372 died of diabetes.

• 29,573 were killed by guns.

• 13,290 were killed in drunk driving accidents.

“That's what things looked like at the all-time peak for deaths by terrorism. Now let's take a longer view. We'll choose an interval that still includes the biggest terrorist attack in American history: 1999 to 2010.

“Again, terrorists killed roughly 3,000 people in the United States. And in that interval,

• roughly 360,000 were killed by guns (actually, the figure the CDC gives is 364,483 -- in other words, by rounding, I just elided more gun deaths than there were total terrorism deaths).

• roughly 150,000 were killed in drunk-driving accidents.” The Atlantic, June 10^th.

Remember that the Second Amendment, has never been interpreted as a mandate without limits. It reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Remember the Reagan-era Brady Law passed after an assassination attempt? How many of the above deaths could have been prevented with reasonable gun control – simple common sense rules that would allow Americans to keep guns in a prudent environment?

Could it be that NRA-sponsored legislation and opposition to legislators with reasonableness on their mind might just be responsible for vastly more domestic deaths than all the events of terrorism perpetrated on our soil… combined? And we know that the NRA has grown to be so powerful that no one has surfaced with the remotest ability to contain this exceptionally dangerous organization. Are having heavily unregulated gun ownership and sales more important than the lives of our children?

I’m Peter Dekom, and “gun crazy America” is how most of the rest of the world views us.