Why discussion around guns after mass shootings is so complicated

Indiscriminate rampages get a lot of national attention, but they only account for a very small percentage of gun deaths.

M. Spencer Green/AP/File
Chicago police display some of the thousands of illegal firearms they have confiscated so far this year in their battle against gun violence in Chicago, July 7, 2014. The recent mass shooting at an Oregon community college has put the debate over gun violence and gun control into the center of the presidential race. At least some of the Republicans who are running have pointed to Chicago as proof that gun control laws don't work.

When a gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., last week, he seemed intent on inflicting mass carnage on the unsuspecting student body. By the time he turned the gun on himself, nine people were dead.

Another campus shooting just over a week later at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Ariz., appears to be a different story. While details are still spotty, this shooter, appeared to have become enraged during an argument early Friday morning and produced a gun, which he turned on four students before being apprehended by campus police.

While indiscriminate killing sprees like the one in Roseburg garner massive national attention, incidents such as the one that occurred this morning in Flagstaff are much more common.

In 2012, 32,288 people died from gunshot wounds in the United States – that staggering statistic has been around for several years. It and others like it come out after each mass shooting, but, so far at least, statistics haven't prompted much constructive discussion.

The lack of impact from statistics might be caused by cognitive dissonance – the psychological theory that explains how people are more likely to believe more strongly in their beliefs when faced with contrary evidence. Statistics might convince people who already believe what the numbers are supporting, but they are unlikely to change minds. 

For one thing, statistics can be found to support both sides of the debate, as is true with most controversial issues.

For gun rights advocates, low crime rates in Kennesaw, Ga., where gun ownership is mandatory for all heads of household, points to the role that guns can play in deterring crime. In Detroit, the city's police chief came out last year saying that the number of guns in the city likely contributed to the drop in crime. That thinking has prompted calls to ramp up armed security in the nation's schools, churches, and other public places.

Further complicating the discussion, statistics often fail to provide the full context of the data. The figure 32,288 people killed in 2012 is often pulled out in the aftermath of a shooting spree. However, only an estimated 502 – less than 2 percent – of those people were killed in mass shootings, according data analysis conducted by The Oregonian.

Some 64 percent of the 32,288 gunshot deaths in 2012 were a result of suicide by gun, according to research published in the 2015 Annual Review of Public Health.

Media outlets often miss the suicide trend, Newsweek's Mike Mariani reported. The 2013 attempt by Slate via Twitter handle @GunDeaths to track fatal gun violence in the United States resulted in 11,400, about 20,000 less than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports almost annually. In Newsweek's report on gun danger, the missing 20,000 were almost all suicides.

As Mr. Mariani states in his article, “[Mass shooting] events can warp our view of what gun violence in the U.S. really looks like.”

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why discussion around guns after mass shootings is so complicated
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today