Vermont’s high rate of suicide with firearms was the dominant theme of a well-attended and well-mannered forum held Monday night in Burlington City Hall.

Organized by advocates of gun-safety measures in a state with few firearms regulations, the event took place 50 yards from the site of a fatal shooting almost exactly two years ago. Josh Pfenning, 35, died on November 10, 2011, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound while camped in City Hall Park during the Occupy Burlington protests.

The way in which Pfenning died is not unusual in Vermont. With the exception of Pennsylvania, Vermont has the Northeast’s highest per-capita rate of gun-related deaths, most of which take the form of suicide, said Eliot Nelson, a pediatrician at Fletcher Allen Health Care.

Vermonters are far more likely to kill themselves than one another, noted Sean Ackerman, a Fletcher Allen resident in child psychiatry. The state suicide rate stands at 16 deaths per 100,000 residents and the homicide rate is 1.6 per 100,000, he said, adding that more than half of suicides are carried out with firearms.

Kevin J. Kelley is a contributing writer for Seven Days, Vermont Business Magazine and the daily Nation of Kenya.

22 replies on “Vermont Gun-Safety Advocates Focus on State’s Suicide Rate”

  1. I don’t need to read the report, its all pretty clear to me. 62 murders over the course of 18 years.. or around 3.5 per year. So 3-4 people out of 630,000 / year on average.
    To answer your question I would have to see a number higher then 3 per year and also an increase year over year to deem it problematic. Neither apply here.
    In 2009 there were 0 gun related deaths, in 2010 there were 2 total (DV and non-DV) and in 2011 there were 4 total. Over the past three years that we have data for there have been an average of 2 gun related homicides / year and that includes non- DV related. Now since we know half of those are DV related, we can also see that the year over year average for the past 3 years is 1 per year.
    I’m not saying that it’s not a tragedy because it is. It
    would be nice if the number were zero. But in reality that’s never going to occur and to imply that gun related domestic violence deaths is some huge problem that is getting worse is simply a false statement.

  2. I recommend that you read the report. Between 1994 and 2011 there were 212 adult homicides in VT. 108 of those were DV related. Firearms were the weapon of choice in those homicides, used in 62 of the murders (57%). The next closest was stabbing, with 16 deaths resulting (15%). Per capita rates are what determine prevalence, so while the numbers may seem small – the prevalence is an issue. How high would the number need to be for you to deem it problematic?

  3. So when we relate those to the FBI statistics, of the 7 homicides in Vermont in 2010 3.5 were domestic violence related and 1.75 were gun related. I’m not sure how 2 / year gun related deaths in VT, with a population over 600,000, constitutes a “problem with firearms used to kill in
    domestic violence.” It actually looks like quite the opposite. Very few gun related deaths…

  4. This data comes from the Vermont Domestic Violence Fatality Commission report (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/ass…
    Between 1994 and 2011, 51% of all Vermont homicides were domestic violence related.
    57% of Vermont’s domestic violence related homicides were committed with
    firearms and 82% of the suicides associated with domestic violence homicides (i.e. murder/suicides) were committed with firearms.

  5. In 2010 the state had 7 murders, two were gun related according to the FBI, in 2011 there were 8 homicides with 4 being by firearms. So I’m inclined to believe that Mrs. Tronsgard-Scott and her anonymous group maybe mistaken on her numbers. As to the reporting seriously… wtf? You couldn’t ask her what group she is the director of? Mrs T-S roughly half of 225… really you are spouting statistics but don’t know the actual total? Is it 112 or 113… or is it more like 20???
    Good thing this is a blog because really, it’s shoddy.
    And Dr. Ackerman… what exactly is your problem here. So we have a suicide rate of 1.6% or 0.0016 people out of 100 will kill themselves… You know what, under our constitution we are guaranteed the right to life… by definition you are also guaranteed the right to death. So, 1.6 people exercised that option. Cut them some slack. It’s crazy to me that liberals are so busy trying to run peoples lifes for them that they won’t even let them die in peace. Run your own life.

  6. Although it only shows a segment of the audience and then only a portion of the clothing of those visible within it, based on what one can view from the photo, it would appear that it might not have been exactly a 50/50 percentage of orange to green; not when one factors in whatever percentage of those who were wearing neither of the symbolic colors. Not having been present in person, one would have to guess at 40/40 or so orange to green and then 20 percent in more neutral or, rather, less symbolic colored clothing, possibly?

  8. The author is confusing gun safety with gun control. Also, “Second Amendment militants” – really?

  9. “If you want to protect yourself, you won’t have a gun in your house.”
    If you want to “protect yourself,” odds are pretty solid that you’re not suicidal, too.

Comments are closed.