Although this comment may read like it’s a defense of Ron DeSantis, not to worry, it’s not. But when a media type asks a public official about gun violence and the questioner gets the issue all wrong, I feel compelled to state the facts no matter who ends up looking good versus who looks bad.
On Sunday, DeSantis was interviewed on Meet the Press by Kristen Welker and after he touted his great job on reducing crime, Welker said, “Governor, actually, statistically speaking, the CDC says that the firearm mortality rate is actually higher under your administration then it was under your predecessor’s administration,” and then they started talking over each other.
Welker was correct. In 2017, two years before DeSantis became Governor, the firearm mortality number in Florida was 2,724 and in 2021 it jumped to 3,142, an increase of 15%.
Now, if DeSantis had his shirt together, he might have agreed with Welker’s gotcha’ about the increase in Florida gun deaths, but then he could have pointed out that the national increase in gun deaths from 2017 to 2021 was more than 20%, and in the neighboring state of Louisiana it was 30%.
We don’t have any ‘official’ gun violence numbers from the CDC since 2021, but the Gun Violence Archive, whose annual numbers aren’t that far off from what the CDC gives us, says that in 2022, the gun deaths numbered 3% less than what they numbered in 2021, and from what I have seen so far this year, 2023 might end up outstripping 2022.
But wait one goddamn minute! I thought the increase in gun violence during 2020 and 2021 was due to the Pandemic, or at least this is how the issue was explained by the usual media suspects writing about guns. And not only did overall gun violence get worse during the onset and spread of the virus, but the medical impact of the pathogen, like the medical impact of gun violence, fell disproportionately on the poor and the underserved who always take it in the ass.
Since everyone talked themselves into believing that a public health threat from disease creates a public threat from behavior, maybe someone could explain to me how come the mortality rate from Covid-19 dropped more than 45% from 2021 to 2022, yet the gun violence rate hardly changed at all.
And by the way, I have yet to see or read anything from any of these so-called experts on gun violence who knew ‘for a fact’ that the social stressors created by the Pandemic explained the increase in gun violence demonstrating the modesty to admit that maybe, just maybe, they had no idea what they were talking about.
You see, the problem is that when we talk about something known as ‘gun violence,’ we are talking about a specific type of behavior which, if nothing else, will often produce an injury which is much worse and results in a death much more frequently than any other type of behavior in which someone decides to hurt themselves or hurt someone else.
From 2016 through 2021, here are the numbers for the four most common methods which Americans use to hurt themselves or someone else:
Guns – 251,930
Choking – 122,020
Blades – 17,416
Clubs – 6,647
So, if you want to kill yourself or someone else, you pick up a gun, or some rope, or a knife or a Louisville Slugger. How many studies have you read which are based on interviews with a bunch of individuals who used any of those methods to commit a fatal assault on themselves or someone else? I’ll give you the answer. Try zilch.
How do you come up with any degree of a realistic explanation of violence when you have absolutely no idea why a small percentage of Americans pick up a gun, or a knife, or a piece of rope, or a two-by-four and commit an assault? And please, don’t indulge yourself in thinking that the guy who killed himself by putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger or putting the gun to someone else’s head and pulling the trigger would have been unable to commit this behavior if we just had red flag laws in every state.
And by the way, when we’re talking about homicide or aggravated assault, let’s remember that there are at least two individuals involved, and we don’t know why either of them behaved the way they did which led to one of them getting injured or killed.
Back in the 1960’s Marvin Wolfgang studied more than 600 homicides in Philadelphia (Patterns in Criminal Homicide) by reading notes taken by the cops who investigated each case, notes based on interviews with either the perpetrator, the victim or both. What he learned was that in more than a quarter of these killings, the fatal assault was initiated by the behavior of the victim to which the perpetrator then responded with violence that caused a death.
That was then, this is now. And now we know for a fact that violence increased because of the Pandemic, right? Yea, right.
Oct 30, 2023 @ 16:40:53
But Mike, one thing we think we know is that behavior of people during the pandemic deteriorated considerably, and I don’t know if that has reversed itself. Whether it was punching flight attendants, flipping off motorists, or generally treating each other rudely, that seems to have been a sea change. If as you say, “…that in more than a quarter of these killings, the fatal assault was initiated by the behavior of the victim to which the perpetrator then responded with violence that caused a death.” could it be that more of these bad behavior episodes ended up with sudden lead poisoning, thus leading to a long term upswing in violence?
Oct 30, 2023 @ 17:04:03
Exactly!
These violent events turn on the behavior of two or more people and there seems to be pervasive sense of winning the dispute at all costs up to and including gunfire. In fact, the gunfire may have stemmed from a perceived offense some time ago and it was just now that the shooter had his opportunity. (Especially in the gang context.)
But the offending behavior by one party need not be extreme. It can be a subtle as a “hard look”, dismissiveness, or other perceived instance of “disrespect”. But it is not forgotten, there will be recourse. Win at all costs.
In the days of old, fistfights would result from such offenses. But these days, engaging in a fist fight with a physically superior opponent is a non-starter. “I may have lost the fight, but I got my licks in” is no longer honorable, it’s win at all costs. But what to even up the odds of winning that dispute? Enter the use of firearms. The ultimate equalizer. Stature and ability no longer matter with a gun.
But this gives rise to subsequent quid pro quo and retaliatory gunfire. Indeed, Mondays’ shooting victim is Fridays’ shooter and the end of the gun one is on blurs.
The gun is an impersonal tool. One can shoot and run off and never really see the effect and the blood. Knives get one’s hands dirty and being up close and personal is a necessity. Same for the bat and 2×4.
Add to this the reality that many young people today are without hope and live for the moment only. (This is not to mean that they are hopeless, there is always potential for them, but to them, there is a pervasive belief that there really isn’t anything to aspire to and they will continue to live in poverty, in a rotten place, with a lousy existence.) So, given this belief, why not shoot and up their social street status even if this means that they will be next weeks’ shooting target.
Nov 01, 2023 @ 15:00:17
Well done. Thank you.