Nevada leads in gun deaths, ownership (??!!??)

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
I done told you NV is the promised land!

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071118/NEWS/111180136

Nevada leads in gun deaths, ownership

Owners say responsibility will protect rights to gun ownership

With more guns sold and registered per capita than anywhere in the U.S., Nevada is a gun state - always has been.

It also is the gun-death state. According to the Center for Disease Control, since 2000, Nevada has led the nation with an average of 26 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

War-torn Iraq averaged 32 gun deaths per 100,000 people last year, according to the same study.

At least once a year, an accidental gun death here makes national headlines.

Lives cut short

Northern Nevada's latest gun tragedy came Oct. 28.

Charles Coogan Kelly, 21, of Truckee, Derek Jensen, 23, of Reno, and Nathan Viljoen, 23, of Fallon, were all fatally shot after an argument erupted at the party in a quiet, neighborhood in southwest Reno.

Two 19-year-old Reno men, Samisone Taukitoku and Saili Manu, were arrested the next day on suspicion of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and brandishing a firearm. Their bail was set at $500,000 each.

During his arraignment, Taukitoku was charged on three counts of murder with the use of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and coercion. He is being held without bail. Saili Manu also was arraigned on charges of coercion and assault with a deadly weapon.

Manu remained in custody in lieu of $500,000 cash bail. Taukitoku is accused of using a .380 semi-automatic pistol to shoot world-class snowboarder Kelly, University of Nevada, Reno student Jensen, and former UNR student Viljoen.

Police said Taukitoku, Manu and two teen relatives crashed a party at a Heatheridge Lane home rented by UNR students.

Robert Bell, Manu's attorney, said the pair went to the party to have fun, but when they arrived at the party, fights had broken out.

"Then, shots rang out, and three boys were dead," Bell said. "He's in shock, that's the best way to put it. The public needs to see where the real fault lies. He was not charged with murder."

Three dead from a Halloween party is just the latest case of guns cutting young lives short here.

On June 15, 2006, Zack Warren, 18, was accidentally shot and killed by friend Donald Davis at a house on River Road.

Investigators said Davis was playing with a .45-caliber handgun when he pointed it at Warren and pulled the trigger. The bullet struck Warren in the forehead and he died at the scene. Davis fled the home and was captured eight hours later in a North Carson Street lumber yard.

Sixteen months later, Davis is serving a four-year-plus term for involuntary manslaughter and felony possession of a firearm.



A mother's reaction

Zack Warren's mother, Karen Ryan, of Dayton, said she has thought about gun issues but has spent the time since her son's death focusing on family, keeping them together.

"I haven't been able to move on," she said. "At some point I probably will do some research.

"It's been 16 months but it's yesterday still - the wounds are very fresh."

Gun-control activists said the time to act on accidental gun deaths here is now.

"They don't have any now and they're crying out because of senseless deaths - especially for children," said Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm, of Nevada's nonexistent gun laws.

Based in Washington, D.C., the Brady Campaign was started in the wake of the March 30, 1981, assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, a Republican and a gun owner, was shot and seriously wounded during the incident.

Brady and his wife, Sandy, became outspoken proponents of gun control and in 1994 the Brady Law went into effect in the 32 states (including Nevada) which before did not have any type of background check system in place.

That year, President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime and Control act introducing the first-ever federal assault weapons ban. The sheer mention of 1994 still can make many gun-toting Nevadans cringe.

"Well it was that damn Clinton who tried to violate our rights and take all our guns away," said Carson City resident Jack Healy, who frequents the Carson Rifle Range and believes Nevada's gun regs are doing the job.

"You look at D.C. and New York where they've taken away people's rights to arm themselves - they're doing away with the Constitution. And they're still all getting shot at."

Centers for Disease Control studies showed on the eighth anniversary of Brady Law in November 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. dropped 27 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 28,874 in 1999.

Consequently, in that time and since, the number of gun deaths in Nevada has increased, according to the CDC; but the studies do not take into account the spike in population during the same timeframe.



A common trend?

Local law enforcement officials were reluctant to lump the irresponsible gun owners into one category, especially by age, socioeconomic background or race.

Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong said both old and young can abuse guns, even noting the number of older (over-40) gun users arrested for illegal gun use.

The one commonality he saw was with those who come to his office, register their weapons, pick up locks for them or apply for carry of concealed weapon permits; these "responsible" gun owners he said, "are usually not the ones who pose a problem."

Furlong characterized most guns involved in crimes as unregistered guns used by untrained gun owners.

"There are exceptions to every rule," he said. "You have to take things on a case-by-case basis; but almost every gun involved in a crime either 'disappears' or is not registered here locally, or at least to the person who used it in a criminal act."

Carson Sheriff's Chief Deputy Steve Schuette said more Carson residents have applied for concealed weapons (CCW) permits each year since 2001 - and touts it as "progress."

"With CCW's legal, that portion of the public is better-educated," he said. "I don't know if the general public is doing more to arm themselves, but I haven't seen the amount of general gun (crimes) go up substantially at any one point."

The responsible gun owners are not the population the gun control lobby is pointing their fingers at, said Hamm. In fact, a new tack has been to recruit "responsible" gun users to combat scofflaws.

"We tend to approach the gun problem in Nevada armed, I guess," Hamm said. "You know one of the things we truly believe, the more guns there are the more gun violence there is.

"Older Nevadans who have an open mind about public policy would likely agree that there are more people who are purchasing guns, more people who now have access to guns that are not qualified or are serious about bringing themselves to be qualified - that leads to more accidents and more unnecessary shootings."

In Colorado and Oregon, neighboring pro-gun states, ballot measures to require buyers to undergo a background check before making purchases at gun shows have been approved since 2005.

But don't expect to see stricter laws in Nevada anytime soon, Hamm said.

"Unfortunately, it usually takes a significant (event) for people take notice and enact change," he said. "But Nevada's an interesting case study either way - what's happening now, especially in Northern Nevada, is noteworthy.

"Not too long ago, most people who had guns had great respect for the power and the danger that the weapon entailed. With a more casual public attitude - rap singers and professional athletes going on and on about how cool it is to be armed - more people taking advantage of owning a gun without taking a gun safety class; they don't learn it from their grandfather, they don't learn it from their father - they simply arm themselves."



A solution from gun owners

Recently visiting Carson City's shooting range, a man who identified himself as a Lyon County sheriff's deputy - but refused to give his name - said he's seen "more questionable weapons, more automatics and more careless use, not so much at shooting ranges, but anywhere people go to drink and shoot."

"Look, the majority of the guys out at the (ranges) shooting are great great folks," he said at the Carson Rifle Range on a recent morning while shooting. "They're friendly. They know what they're doing. They help each other out. They're upstanding citizens. Have I seen more automatics? Yes. Have I seen people using weapons they probably don't know how to use? Yes.

"But this is our right. I'm not going to ask anyone to have their rights taken away. I held my first gun when I was 5. I learned how to use it. I learned how to be responsible. I know how to defend myself. It's like, if you don't teach someone how to use a toaster, they're going to get burned."



• Contact reporter Andrew Pridgen at [email protected] or 881-1219.


Nevada Gun Laws

Concealed Carry Weapons

On July 7, 1995, Senate Bill 299 was signed into law, and soon afterward, thousands of Nevada residents took advantage of the law that allowed them to carry a handgun concealed upon them. A steady stream of Nevadans have been obtaining carry of concealed weapon permits ever since. In 1999, Assembly Bill 166 made legal concealed carry possible in more public places.



Registration

Clark County (minus Boulder City) requires registration of handguns only. All other counties have no registration of any guns.



Background Check

All Nevada counties implement the national background check through the Nevada Highway Patrol. By state law, any private party may access Nevada's background check system for the purpose of checking the background of a potential gun purchaser. Currently, the check costs $25.



Open Carry

In Nevada, you may carry a loaded or unloaded firearm on your person without a permit so long as the firearm is fully exposed (known as "open carry"). An example of open carry is when a handgun is carried in an "outside the pants" hip holster. Full or partial concealment (such as a purse, jacket, etc.) is considered concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
for some reason

they reported a recent case in which some no good
thug "gangstas" killed some kids their own age who only dress
gangsta at a kegger party full of underage drinkers and college students.
 
You know, I think whoever wrote that article is playing a little fast and loose with the facts. I could have sworn I had seen statistics earlier ranking Alaska has having the highest gun owning %.

And as for having more gun deaths than other states...going to have to call BS there too. Again, I can remember seeing statistics that didn't show Nevada anywhere near the top of the list.

Guess I'm going to have to do some research...
 
And it turns out I'm at least partially right.

According to this site: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

which uses CDC information from 2003, Nevada is no where near the top in terms of firearm deaths. Its high, but not that high. As it turns out, Washington DC is the highest, followed by Alaska, then Louisiana.

I'm having trouble finding per capita information on gun ownership. I'll keep looking into it and if I find any information I'll make another post.
 
For some reason, Nevadans seem to have a habit of saying things like "We have the highest number of [enter horrible event/statistic here] in the nation." Teen suicides and pregnancies seemed to be the most popular "horrible event".

Saw it all the time when I lived there. I hardly see that kind of thing at all happening here in Oregon. I'm not quite sure why it is, and I'm wondering if the reporter was giving into that habit.
 
Gun ownership numbers seem pretty impossible to get. States vary so widely in utility and registration laws that it seems a statistician's nightmare to tr yto sort out all the factors and apply any kind of formula for extrapolating the numbers.
 
I have at least one gun

no gov't agency knows about.
so yah, lots of gun out here not on ccw or store bought
so who knows?
 
The actual stats cited by the reporter may be wrong, but looking at the map, it does look like the states with the highest number deaths due to firearms are pro-carry states, or at least there's a pretty strong correlation.

That surprises me. Some of the states with really horrendous RKBA stances have very, very low rates. Check out Massachusetts, New York, and some of the other north eastern states. I would not have guessed that Arizona would have had almost 5 times the rate of death due to injury by firearms of Massachusetts.

Can anyone speculate as to why this is true?

Mike
 
Suicide by firearm versus suicide by other means? Slitting your wrists or taking pills isn't quite as reliable as walking into a handgun range, renting a pistol, and putting it to your temple.
 
Simple, more firearms = more firearms accidents. Even if the accident rates (accidents/owners) in pro-gun states were half the others, if there's 10x as many guns you're still going to have 5x more accidents with them.

Nothing wrong with it, you see the same sort of thing with cars, chainsaws, kitchen knives, ladders, buckets, etc, etc.

I.E. it's because they are anti they have lower rates versus the total population.

More guns = more gun related accidents
More guns = more gun related deaths (calm down, it's true, logically)
More guns =/ more total crime (don't confuse the above with this)
 
The actual stats cited by the reporter may be wrong, but looking at the map, it does look like the states with the highest number deaths due to firearms are pro-carry states, or at least there's a pretty strong correlation.

Around half of all firearms deaths are suicides. Where firearms are more prevalent, they tend to be used more often in suicide. Where they aren't, suicide rates stay the same but choice of method changes (as an example, Australia saw a decrease in firearms suicides after severe firearms restrictions were enacted but this was offset by an increase in hangings).

I would not have guessed that Arizona would have had almost 5 times the rate of death due to injury by firearms of Massachusetts.

Mass has a firearms suicide rate of 1.68 from 1999-2004. It has a firearms homicide rate of 1.29 over the same period. Arizona by contrast has a firearms homicide rate of 5.99 and a firearms suicide rate of 9.27 over the same period.

Obviously, there are likely some additional issues in the Arizona/Mass. comparison given the high homicide rate; but for a better comparison you can look at a similar New England state with "lax" gun laws like Vermont. Firearms suicide rate is 7.69. Firearms homicide rate is 0.84 (even less than Mass, though the overall firearms death rate is higher due to the skew from firearms suicides).
 
for a better comparison you can look at a similar New England state with "lax" gun laws like Vermont. Firearms suicide rate is 7.69

Interesting - I don't know much about the north eastern states. Vermont having a much higher rate of suicide than MA surprises me.

Mike
 
The media, all of them is just "stoking the boiler" for another AWB, registration etcetera... and they are getting a lot more help from some LE agencies... We're experiencing it here locally too.
 
I don't want to get on the wrong side of Nevada's Chamber of Commerce but the reporter might be mistaken in saying that "At least once a year, an accidental gun death here makes national headlines." I don't recall ever seeing a headline in the New-York Times or any other national newspaper about an accidental gun death in Nevada. Please don't feel hurt or slighted.

Nevada also doesn't make a good showing in the number of deaths by firearms. It's #7 among all the states, with 17.3 deaths-by-firearms per 100,000. The nation's undisputed leader is the District of Columbia, with 31.2 deaths-by-firearms per 100,000.

But if the writer wants Nevada to catch up to Washington, D.C., in the race to have the most deaths-by-firearms he's on the right track. The District has the most stringent gun control laws in the U.S.: there are no legal handguns in Washington, D.C., and long guns (rifles and shotguns) are strictly controlled and must be kept disassembled. So no law abiding person (other than law enforcement on duty) in the District of Columbia has any functioning firearm. It should be obvious, then, that only the cops and the criminals must be killing people with guns.

That insight leads me to suggest the equally obvious solution to the District's notorious problem with deaths by firearms. No one could fault the District of Columbia's efforts to stop crime. It has tried hard. But even though it has banned guns it has failed miserably to prevent deaths by firearms. It takes no great intelligence, therefore, to realize that the best way to reduce the number of those deaths is to abolish the District's police department. Then there will be fewer people shooting other people and the firearms death rate will be reduced. I don't expect any thanks for this suggestion. I offer it as a humanitarian gesture in the spirit of helping out Mayor Adrian Fenty and Attorney General Linda Singer.

Now perhaps the reporter might want to do an investigative report on three phenomena I've noticed.

First, the number of law suits in any area seems to be directly proportional to the number of lawyers in that area. The way to clear our courts, therefore, is to do away with lawyers.

Second, the higher the literacy rate in any area the more stupidity is written and read. We therefore can improve the general intelligence of our great nation by closing all schools.

Third, murders are committed only by people who violate laws prohibiting murders. We therefore can reduce the number of murders by repealing all laws against murder.

Please ask the reporter if I can fill in for him when he goes on vacation?
 
That surprises me. Some of the states with really horrendous RKBA stances have very, very low rates. Check out Massachusetts, New York, and some of the other north eastern states. I would not have guessed that Arizona would have had almost 5 times the rate of death due to injury by firearms of Massachusetts.

Can anyone speculate as to why this is true?

I'm from MA, and I'll take a stab at speculation.

I attribute the generally low rate of firearms deaths (and probably crime in general, too??) to the education and economic status of most of the people in this state. In short, we lack the poverty and lack of education that fuels the criminal behavior that leads to crime and gun deaths in the first place.

Boston has one of the highest concentrations of Universities anywhere. Moreover, a very high number of people in the Boston area go on to higher education, and, in turn, on to professional jobs. There are a LOT of high tech and biotech companies in the area, and many jobs of all levels that go along with that. Consequently, there really are very few slums to be found anywhere around Boston. You basically have suburbs which start immediately at the edge of Boston and continue out across half of the state. Some of the towns are wealthier than others, but none are known for violence or being dangerous by any means.

The great exception is the inner city parts of Boston - Dorchester and Mattapan. Murder is high, crime is high, and gang activity is rampant. I don't know enough about the economic or educational aspects of those areas to properly assess, but the gist I get is that it is poor and education is low.
 
And once again one or our more erudite members, Robert Hairless has very succintly pointed out the quickest and easiest ways to solve many of societies social ills. Very well put. May I also add the we could decrease the number of deaths from auto accidents by banning motor vehicles and we could put a huge dent in the toll taken by substance abuse by outlawing alcohol and narcotics. (oops, I forgot. We tried banning ETOH once and our reward was Al Capone, organized crime and the 1934 gun control law. And since drugs are already illegal I cannot fathom why lives could possibly continue being destroyed by them).

As has been stated before.... lies, damn lies and statistics. They serve no useful purpose in the political arena, they only muddy the waters and obfuscate the obvious.
 
Centers for Disease Control studies showed on the eighth anniversary of Brady Law in November 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. dropped 27 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 28,874 in 1999.

That's an excellent illustration of the logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc--"After this, therefore because of this."

In the very same period the number of states with right to carry laws increased significantly. By the reporter's logic, greater gun availability in more states should have resulted in an increase in the number of gun deaths. But, as the CDC studies showed, the result was that decrease noted by the reporter.

The number Right to Carry states continued to increase after November 2001 and so has the number of guns owned by individuals, and the violent crime rate has continued to decline:

More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.1 (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.2) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,3 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.4

The reporter would benefit from reading sources other than David Hemenway and the Brady Campaign. Here's an NRA analysis for perspective: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18
 
According to the Center for Disease Control, since 2000, Nevada has led the nation with an average of 26 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

War-torn Iraq averaged 32 gun deaths per 100,000 people last year, according to the same study.

Any bets on CNN ever admitting that Iraq is just about as safe as Nevada, then?
 
Any bets on CNN ever admitting that Iraq is just about as safe as Nevada, then?

My thoughts exactly.

With more guns sold and registered per capita than anywhere in the U.S., Nevada is a gun state - always has been.

There is one catch. Some states dont require any registration at all, i.e. Indiana. I am sure there are plenty of others.
 
more automatics and more careless use, not so much at shooting ranges, but anywhere people go to drink and shoot."

I need to find one of these drinking shooting places where everyone has automatics. Sounds like a FINE time. The reporter quoted this moron as a "source"? :rolleyes:
 
Whenever I see Nevada in any headline, I wince. Then I look to see if it's Reno or Las Vegas. Then reading this story, I wince again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top