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.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Several”? “Larger number”? Someone can’t count. It was about 50/50 orange to green.
“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.
The author is confusing gun safety with gun control. Also, “Second Amendment militants” – really?
Kestrel9000, counting and math is not a requirement for a reporter.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
So, Michelle, what restrictions on gun rights do you propose as a reaction to this data? Given, of course, that the overwhelming majority of Vermont gun owners have committed no crime, and never will.
Also, if you’re going to invoke domestic violence data as a justification for gun related legislation, don’t you think it would be appropriate – and perhaps, even productive – to present it in another context parallel to the fact that you are a state representative? You do have some involvement with the issue, as I understand it.
-eddie
What about the Shumlin proposal to store guns? That seems pretty reasonable to me. A judge has already ordered someone’s gun be removed, there should be a mechanism in place for it to happen.
I want to know how the very same people arguing to restrict the gun because of suicide also argued to bring forth assisted suicide. Oh wait, forget it. Money. The doctors don’t get paid if you opt for the lead end.
Sounds far more likely. Also consider that there are a number of non hunter gun owners who would be less likely to have or wear hunter orange.
The majority of these gun control folks don’t have any knowledge or positive experiences with firearms. These baloney figures claiming some alarming trend in gun related deaths in Vermont are simply biased. Vermont is still one of the safest states in the country. This is a solution looking for a problem and more righteous ne’er do well people (pediatrician?) trying to tell others how to live. Back off from what you don’t understand and go find a real problem to fix. Why don’t you go out to the range and see what the subject matter is for yourself? You might better understand why some Vermonters are so passionate about this issue of gun control. Safe gun ownership is an issue of great pride and the less the government has to do with it the better.
These people aren’t ‘Gun Safety Advocates’, They’re gun control nuts, plain and simple. They could care less about gun safety, their goal is to disarm all of us. If they don’t like Vermont’s gun laws, they can march themselves right on over to New York because we don’t want them here. Oh, and congrats on a lovely BIASED article as usual, Seven Days.
Gun Grabbers always use the same logic “if no one has guns, no one will get shot”, yet no one of them ever acknowledges the complete failure of gun control that limits law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
Chicago is the poster child for gun control failure… 500 deaths in 2012 and 2400+ shootings!
If Vermont enacts illegal gun control this is what they will bestow on our good state.
And they will cry for more…
Eddie, I don’t follow your comment about context. JCarter1 questioned the veracity of the figures cited by Karen Tronsgard-Scott. I serve on the board of the Vermont Network, of which Ms. Tronsgard-Scott is the Executive Director. I also direct a member program of the VT Network. I wanted to provide a context for her data, which was accurate. As a State Rep, I’m fully in support of the gun storage legislation being proposed by the Governor, and will co-sponsor if given the opportunity. This is a measure with the broad support of my constituents, as indicated by the results of my town meeting survey last year. In fact, I’m pretty sure you indicated that you would support it!
Actually what I questioned were what the actual numbers were. When you say 51% of something that’s not very informative.
51% of a 1000 deaths would be very concerning. 51% of 2 is 1 and that’s an entirely different story. Which is why it’s important to be clear and put things in context. Ms. Tronsgard-Scott used language and %ages to make the issue seem much much worse then it actually is. That is fear-mongering and it makes the validity of the argument and argurer questionable.
I have agreed with the numbers, and for the reasons outlined in my previous comments i’m of the opinion the numbers do not demonstrate the urgent need that is portrayed in this article.
The police have been seizing guns from criminals since day one. Gun Sense is trying to make it sound like it doesn’t happen because they are desperate to find anything they can pass to build momentum for their next piece of legislation. This entire effort is designed to eventually ban all guns.
The Gun Sense people know what they’re doing, and they hope by provoking a vociferous reaction from gun owners they can make the gun owners look like unreasonable fools. After all; “Who wouldn’t support safe storage of guns?”
So in 18 years there had been 225 homicides, 12.5 per year. Half of those were donestic, 6.25, and most involved firearms. So 5? Since it didn’t say all cases. So 5 deaths a year that involved firearms in Vermont over a 18 year span and that’s a problem? I’m not saying its a good thing by any means, however there is so many other things this state should be focused on. Drug use, unemployment, homeless etc…
There is many places that have that many firearm related deaths in a single day or week. The more armed citizens the safer the general public will be, for two reasons. First- criminals will think twice before commiting crimes, because second- when it does happen there is a better chance that a armed honest law abiding citizen will be near by to help the situation.