How gun violence affects kids across America
December 2, 2017 11:46 AM Subscribe
John Woodrow Cox has spent the year reporting for the Washington Post on children affected by gun violence. "Did your father die?" For a 2nd grader, gunfire, lockdowns, then the worst violence of all. Almost two dozen kids are shot every day in the US. This 4-year-old was one of them. Twelve seconds of gunfire: school playground shooting still haunts the first graders who survived. He'd been shot at 15. Now, amid Chicago's relentless gunfire, he had one goal: stay alive. The Las Vegas shooting: six teens and the wounds they carry.
I remember after Sandy Hook thinking that America loves guns more than their own children. I mean, when you lose a classroom full of toddlers and still decide that keeping guns (and their constitutional right, they love to talk about that) is more important than making sure it never happens again, there is no hope. I know not everyone feels like that, but the majority do or guns would be abolished by now. I will never understand it. Your country terrifies me.
posted by Jubey at 2:31 PM on December 2, 2017 [13 favorites]
posted by Jubey at 2:31 PM on December 2, 2017 [13 favorites]
I'm in NZ. We had a guy with mental health problems and a FUCK LOAD OF GUNS who lost the plot and killed 13 people in 1990. We made it much harder to get a FUCK LOAD OF GUNS and since then, we haven't had a single massacre. People still have mental health problems and they get help or they don't, but they don't kill multiple people coz they don't have a FUCK LOAD OF GUNS.
Ah, fuck it. America, let's just keep posting this until you sort your shit out: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.
posted by happyinmotion at 3:07 PM on December 2, 2017 [9 favorites]
Ah, fuck it. America, let's just keep posting this until you sort your shit out: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.
posted by happyinmotion at 3:07 PM on December 2, 2017 [9 favorites]
Pro-life + pro-guns = more targets!
posted by BlueHorse at 5:30 PM on December 2, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by BlueHorse at 5:30 PM on December 2, 2017 [5 favorites]
When people say "gun control doesn't work," it's total horseshit.
And look, Canada has plenty of problems with gun violence - this isn't a place where people never get shot. But it's possible to keep a lid on the fucking thing to some degree - that's the point of gun control - you can make it a lot more arduous for people to casually stock an arsenal. This isn't a cure-all - but it cuts down on the possibilities for this sort of thing happening. Why wouldn't you want at least THAT?
Dunblane, École Polytechnique, and Port Arthur were three separate massacres in three countries that prompted public pressure for further gun control.
Again - gun control actually does something. It's quantifiable and provable.
Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2012:
Then there's domestic violence and guns.
You know what happens in Canada when you apply for a PAL (Possession and Acquistion License) (pdf) for firearms?
You need to provide information about "current and former conjugal partners" within the last two years. You can ask for their signature, but if they're not willing to sign your PAL application, they can be contacted about your application. This is a thing.
Does it stop or prevent domestic violence? No. Does it mean it's harder to legally acquire a firearm if there's a risk the owner has a history of it? Yes.
It's not a magical solution. But it's an attempt at preventing or mitigating murderous horror. You can at least try.
Also, just know that the flow of illegal guns into Canada comes from one place.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]
And look, Canada has plenty of problems with gun violence - this isn't a place where people never get shot. But it's possible to keep a lid on the fucking thing to some degree - that's the point of gun control - you can make it a lot more arduous for people to casually stock an arsenal. This isn't a cure-all - but it cuts down on the possibilities for this sort of thing happening. Why wouldn't you want at least THAT?
Dunblane, École Polytechnique, and Port Arthur were three separate massacres in three countries that prompted public pressure for further gun control.
Again - gun control actually does something. It's quantifiable and provable.
Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2012:
Firearm restrictions in Canada and other countries
Canadian legislation classifies firearms into three categories: prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted. Prohibited firearms include assault weapons, fully automatic firearms, and sawed-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted.
Canadian law requires that an individual has a valid license under the Firearms Act in order to own or possess a firearm or to purchase ammunition. There is a screening process that must be completed prior to obtaining a firearm license, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background check, personal references, and a mandatory waiting period (Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2013). Until April 5, 2012, all three categories of firearms were required by law to be registered; in 2012, the requirement to register non-restricted firearms was revoked (Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2013). Due to legal action, the registration of non-restricted firearms is ongoing in Quebec.
As of the end of 2011, prior to the repeal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms, there were approximately 7 million non-restricted firearms registered in Canada. In 2012, there were about 800,000 registered firearms in Canada among approximately 2 million licensed owners. In addition, about 2,400 individuals had their firearms license revoked and about 500 individuals were denied a firearm license, most frequently as the result of a court-ordered prohibition or as a condition of probation. Public service agencies reporting to the Canadian Firearms Program indicated that roughly 32,000 firearms were seized in 2012 (Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2013).
Other countries
In the United States, which has a comparatively high rate of firearm homicide (see Chart 4), firearm regulations are state-specific and therefore vary across the country. Relatively few states place restrictions on the possession of firearms. A license to own a rifle or shotgun is required in four states, while a license is needed to possess a handgun in five states. While eight states require handguns to be registered, only the District of Columbia and Hawaii mandate the registration of long guns. In 2007, there were 89 firearms for every 100 citizens in the United States, the highest rate of gun ownership of any country (Berman et al. 2007).
Japan, which in contrast typically has a very low rate of firearm-related homicide (see Chart 4), has had strict gun control legislation in place since the end of World War II. The possession of firearms by private citizens was banned in 1946, although exceptions are allowed for firearms used for hunting following a laborious application and registration process. Citizens can be automatically disqualified from receiving an exception for a number of reasons, including being under 18, having declared bankruptcy, having certain specified health problems, having violated the law, or being reasonably expected to cause harm to his or her self, others, or property (Umeda 2013).
Then there's domestic violence and guns.
You know what happens in Canada when you apply for a PAL (Possession and Acquistion License) (pdf) for firearms?
You need to provide information about "current and former conjugal partners" within the last two years. You can ask for their signature, but if they're not willing to sign your PAL application, they can be contacted about your application. This is a thing.
Does it stop or prevent domestic violence? No. Does it mean it's harder to legally acquire a firearm if there's a risk the owner has a history of it? Yes.
It's not a magical solution. But it's an attempt at preventing or mitigating murderous horror. You can at least try.
Also, just know that the flow of illegal guns into Canada comes from one place.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]
I survived being shot in 2014.
These are articles about shooting victims--humans who are navigating a horrific world, humans whose stories are raw and profound and are worthy of being told.
What's profound about these articles is that our stories are never really told. Shooters' stories are told. Family members' stories are sometimes told. Politicians' and criminologists' and law professors' stories are told. But people who actually were shot or saw someone else get shot? Not told--not fully told. We might get a three-minute puff piece on Today about how brave survivors are in the days after a shooting. But no one follows up. No one examines how victims' stories unfurl, how complicated and messy and wonderful and awful and big that experience is.
It is like we become unimportant as soon as the news media can report an accurate count of how many of us there were.
And then along comes John Woodrow Cox. And he writes the most agonizingly beautiful and accurate pieces of journalism about what it is to survive a shooting. He exercises restraint in how he depicts us. The pain is neither overstated nor understated. It just is accurate. We feel understood. We email the articles to each other. We say things like "finally, someone gets it," and "I hope people actually read this," and "it's just nice to see an article that's about us and not the guns or the shooters for once."
So when I see this thread, I am flooded with optimism. These are deeply personal articles about people like me. This is a place filled with deeply empathetic, smart, kind people. While I know on any threads like this there will be plenty of comments about gun policy (and probably a few world-weary jokes), I figure that at least some of the comments will focus on the stories that Cox has so painstakingly told, stories of people like me.
And then I read the comments. None of the comments talk about the shooting victims. None of the comments talk about the stories Cox has so carefully told.
And look, I don't think everything needs to be about shooting victims. I am all for conversations around policy change, trust me. But these articles were all about shooting victims. And still--nada.
[Mods, I know that this probably goes against the note regarding focusing comments on the issues at hand, not the other commenters. I value the tone of discussion around here a lot, so if this is inappropriate, please do feel free to delete--I am not going to be offended by that at all.]
posted by suncages at 10:28 PM on December 3, 2017 [9 favorites]
These are articles about shooting victims--humans who are navigating a horrific world, humans whose stories are raw and profound and are worthy of being told.
What's profound about these articles is that our stories are never really told. Shooters' stories are told. Family members' stories are sometimes told. Politicians' and criminologists' and law professors' stories are told. But people who actually were shot or saw someone else get shot? Not told--not fully told. We might get a three-minute puff piece on Today about how brave survivors are in the days after a shooting. But no one follows up. No one examines how victims' stories unfurl, how complicated and messy and wonderful and awful and big that experience is.
It is like we become unimportant as soon as the news media can report an accurate count of how many of us there were.
And then along comes John Woodrow Cox. And he writes the most agonizingly beautiful and accurate pieces of journalism about what it is to survive a shooting. He exercises restraint in how he depicts us. The pain is neither overstated nor understated. It just is accurate. We feel understood. We email the articles to each other. We say things like "finally, someone gets it," and "I hope people actually read this," and "it's just nice to see an article that's about us and not the guns or the shooters for once."
So when I see this thread, I am flooded with optimism. These are deeply personal articles about people like me. This is a place filled with deeply empathetic, smart, kind people. While I know on any threads like this there will be plenty of comments about gun policy (and probably a few world-weary jokes), I figure that at least some of the comments will focus on the stories that Cox has so painstakingly told, stories of people like me.
And then I read the comments. None of the comments talk about the shooting victims. None of the comments talk about the stories Cox has so carefully told.
And look, I don't think everything needs to be about shooting victims. I am all for conversations around policy change, trust me. But these articles were all about shooting victims. And still--nada.
[Mods, I know that this probably goes against the note regarding focusing comments on the issues at hand, not the other commenters. I value the tone of discussion around here a lot, so if this is inappropriate, please do feel free to delete--I am not going to be offended by that at all.]
posted by suncages at 10:28 PM on December 3, 2017 [9 favorites]
suncages - thank you for sharing.
posted by ChuraChura at 7:44 AM on December 4, 2017
posted by ChuraChura at 7:44 AM on December 4, 2017
« Older although my voice was very unlike the soft music... | Nearly 20% of NYC's sexual misconduct reports... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by smallerdemon at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2017 [9 favorites]