Do 'More Guns Lead To More Deaths'?
No, and that good news needs to be front and center in all discussions of gun control, especially after school shootings.
HD DownloadJust days after the school shooting in Nashville that left three students and three adults dead, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D–N.Y.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) got into a fiery exchange captured on video by Emily Brooks, a reporter for The Hill.
"There has never been a school shooting in a school that allows teachers to carry," said Massie. "More guns lead to more deaths," countered Bowman, "more guns lead to more deaths!"
It's understandable that tempers flare and voices rise in the aftermath of such horrific events. When faced with such situations, the urge to do something—to do anything—is nearly impossible to resist.
But is Rep. Bowman right that "more guns lead to more deaths?"
The short answer is no. That's great news, especially since reducing the number of guns in circulation presents not just immense pragmatic challenges but almost certainly insuperable constitutional barriers.
Over the past few decades, the number of guns in America has increased massively, so much so that there are now more guns than people in the United States. Yet federal crime statistics show that firearm homicides dropped about 40 percent between 1993 and 2018, from 7 per 100,000 people to 4.3 per 100,000 people (for nonfatal crimes involving guns, the decline was 71 percent). Violent crime, including homicides, did spike during the pandemic, and while the most recent data is incomplete, it's clear that gun-related violence remains far below where it was 30 years ago despite more guns than ever being out there.
When it comes to schools, the 2020–21 academic year, the latest for which full data is available, did see the highest number of school shootings with casualties this century. There are thankfully too few violent deaths to generate statistically significant conclusions, but the long-term trends show no increase in homicides or suicides among students, staff, and teachers.

Overall, schools are becoming safer and safer, with the government finding that between 2009 and 2020, "the rate of nonfatal criminal victimization (including theft and violent victimization) decreased for students ages 12–18, from 51 to 11 victimizations per 1,000 students." (See Figure 2.)

What about Rep. Massie's contention that there has never been a school shooting in a school that allows teachers to carry? He appears to be correct, though contrary to his claim that there's never been an accidental weapons discharge by a teacher, a January 2023 RAND Corporation study found that educators and school resource officers have been involved in accidental discharges of weapons. On the larger question of arming teachers, RAND found that there is simply no good data on whether doing so would increase gun violence or reduce it across eight categories, including mass shootings and suicides.
What, then, can be done?
Most schools are already gun-free zones or have strict controls on who is allowed to carry while on campus; many have armed officers on campus despite no evidence that such a presence deters violence.
Recent school shootings—like the one last year in Uvalde, Texas, where law enforcement officials not only did nothing to prevent an active shooter but restrained parents trying to rescue their children—underscore that police need better and more effective training. The 2018 school shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida drove home how many red flags school staff, law enforcement, and social workers had ignored.
To simply say that the people in charge of school safety need to do better is deeply unsatisfying, but it might be the best option, especially if the rush to "do something" means trying something that we already know is impossible, ineffective, or both.
Photos: Camden Hall/Newscom; Mickey Bernal/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Mickey Bernal/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; ERIC PAUL ZAMORA/MCT/Newscom; Sun Sentinel/TNS/Sipa USA/Newscom; Giorgio Viera/EFE/Newscom; KatRam / MEGA / Newscom/KRMET/Newscom
Music: "Lullaby No 3 in E Minor" by Ran Raiten via Artlist; "Autumn Pizzicato" by Veaceslav Draganov via Artlist; "Premiere" by ANBR via Artlist
- Video Editor and Graphics: Justin Zuckerman
- Audio Production: Ian Keyser
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Do you want to earn money without investing money. That’s how I started this job and Now I am making $200 to $300 per hour for doing online work from home.
.
.
Apply Now here—————————->>> https://salarycash710.blogspot.com/
It doesn't matter. Gun ownership is simply a question of liberty, does owning a gun violate the NAP?
No more than owning a tire iron or a claw hammer. They’re all just tools.
But is Rep. Bowman right
that "more guns lead to more deaths?"about anything? The short answer is no.Obviously not related to Henry Bowman.
Or Green Arrow knockoff ‘Bow-Man’.
I'm a little confused as to why he's even granted an opinion. *Maybe* Massie has some claim to an opinion about violence in a neighboring state, a state with similar population and socio-economic concerns, but Bowman's at least 2 States away from relevance.
Get the fuck out and don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way, you fuckin' townie.
But what if I’m just looking for an excuse to disarm my political enemies?
While I don't have numbers in front of me, and the numbers are likely impossible to acquire being how opaque police departments are, I'd wager that kids are more likely to be harmed by Officer Friendly the school resource officer than by a shooter.
I have seen the numbers - and you are absolutely correct. The students harmed by SROs vastly outnumber the students harmed by active shooters.
How many are killed by SROs? Don't agree with them but your argument and sarcs are laughable.
Didn't Tavistock treat something like 5,000 kids in the past 2 yrs.? I mean, I know that I've seen that CPS gets around 1,500-2,000 complaints a year against teachers and admins. Seems like, after a summer of #defundthepolice if 2,000 kids were being unilaterally harmed on par with genital mutilation or sexual assault by SROs, every year, year-over-year in a "that's just how public education is done" manner, we would've heard about it.
Just seems weird, in the "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" sense, to ignore the actual and relatively openly documented harms done to kids in order to advance the narrative you admit you can't substantiate. Especially after, again in the same years, it's been repeatedly demonstrated that some groups of people imagine police are shooting thousands of people in the street while other groups of people are more realistic about it being closer to hundreds or even dozens.
>>What, then, can be done?
only fair answer is to arm everybody.
I haven't noticed any church shootings over the past couple or so years. Shooters like to target places that offer the least chance of [armed] resistance. You're not likely to go down in infamy of some deacon puts your lights out as soon as you get started.
Meanwhile "gun free zones" are nothing more than foolish virtue signaling; and galleries for psychopaths.
No such thing as a gun free zone. I carry anywhere and everywhere unless metal detectors are mandated. I've walked past countless "no guns allowed beyond this point" signs. This includes the Spokane County Gun Show. Ironic...
Good. Someone needs to.
Same. Absent an airport or federal building level of security. Recently traveled through Illinois and noticed how the “no firearms permitted” signs on the rest areas just didn’t work!
Well, the deacons weren't there at the Christian school in Nashville, nor was God.
And if armed deacons were there, it doesn't speak well of their own trust in God to protect children.
Wow; I nominate that for dumb comment of the month [Christians have as much right to protect themselves as anyone].
Do you really want to see an end to school shootings, or are they just too useful for you?
Almost. The fair answer is to give those who want to arm themselves the ability to do so without worry of legal consequences.
As it is, shooters can be fairly certain that people who follow the law will be unarmed in gun-free zones.
You don't need to arm everybody to take that certainty away. Heck, you don't need to arm anyone for that matter. Just allow people to be armed. The fact that a law abiding person could be armed should be enough to incentivize shooters to choose a different target.
In the early 1990s Idaho simplified concealed carry laws. Of course, the papers predicted it would turn into the Wild West. After the Coeur d'Alene Press ran a story that one in four adults in Kootenai county were approved for concealed carry, Kootenai county's crime across the board decreased. Correlation doesn't equal causation but can indicate it. As one police officer interviewed stated "I doubt one in four are actually carrying but if you're a criminal would you take that chance?"
And in 2016, Idaho eliminated the permit requirement.
I still keep a Washington permit because I work in WA, and drive across the border 5+ times a week.
I live in ME and go to NH regularly. Both are constitutional carry states.
I do make sure to leave everything at home if I'm going to MA. That state (commonwealth technically) has got some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Even before constitutional carry, in Maine you could drive around with a loaded gun in plain view. I knew a guy who pulled a dumbass move and tried that in Mass. Spent a year in jail for it.
Ever see the bumper sticker that was [and likely still is] popular in NH? LIVE FREE OR LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTES.
Clarkston or Spokane?
I’ll honk when I drive by. Live right across the border in NW MT. Eye and dental surgeons are in Spokane Valley, and tend to fly out of there, instead of Missoula, thanks to SWA.
DO need to look into getting a WA CCW license because we are through there so much. Have them for MT and AZ, both now Constitutional carry states, for ease of buying guns. I was ready to a-ply for a WA license several years ago, but they had a budget crisis, and that is where they (conveniently) cut back.
Good and concise presentation of actual data that deflates a long running gun control narrative; that more guns = more gun violence, and anything that can be done to reduce guns in circulation is the driving agenda.
Meanwhile, gun ownership continues to rise, often in response to demands for gun control. Both Obama and Biden deserve a lot of credit for this.
Largely depends and where and by whom those guns are possessed, because I’ve never seen any sort of weapon going around and acting on its own initiative.
Look. Give the gun grabbers a break. I mean, can you blame 'em? It's not so easy to run roughshod over an armed populace.
That does complicate their plans a mite.
The decline in violent crime from the early 90s has been attributed to Roe v Wade - see "Freakonomics". It will be interesting to see whether we experience a serious uptick in violent crime in a generation or so in those states who have grossly restricted abortion since Dobbs.
As far as more guns not leading to more shooting, I think it's quite likely - we may have long since passed a kind of saturation point for gun violence. But simply restricting observations to the US past and present isn't enough. It is also a fact that the US has a far higher rate of gun deaths than any other Western-based democracy and it is unacceptable to do nothing about it, offer hopes and prayers - in practice a euphemism for "fuck off".
Certainly, the right KBA per Bruen, etc. is not to be infringed but that is not the same as saying that nothing should be done about gun violence. As a matter both of politics and morality, if you advocate for a policy or principle which has known undesirable consequences, even as merely side effects, it is incumbent on you to address those consequences, not just shrug your shoulders and talk about your liberty. After all, when someone else is shot to death, their liberty has been infringed on to a far greater extent.
So by all means allow licence-free concealed carry, don't ban "assault weapons" (which as we all know statistically are but a small proportion of the firearms used in killings) - but you still need to devise methods to reduce firearms deaths within this liberty framework, and if you refuse even to try, you're not really interested in liberty at all, only in guns.
The decline in violent crime from the early 90s has been attributed to Roe v Wade – see “Freakonomics”.
This has been debunked multiple times. It's a just-so story.
Yeah, it doesn't even make sense in anything except "the ice cream sales causes theft" mentality. Yes, you can string a series of correlations together and assert causation but, so unburdened by honesty and obligation to pursue useful resolution, you could also just say that anyone under the age of 18 can't be murdered or be convicted of murder and watch murder rates plummet as well.
Not surprised shrike still brings up debunked narratives. Doubt he even read the actual book, just saw headlines. And now it is fact.
Fuckwit, I read the book when it came out, and later was lucky enough to hear Levitt and Dubner speak at a dinner in MOMA sponsored by Goldman Sachs.
And before you cretins confidently declare that a study has been debunked, you need to keep up with research.
Here's a 2020 paper supporting the original hypothesis: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25863
And before you cretins confidently declare that a study has been debunked, you need to keep up with research.
You mean like the *fact* that, despite a drop in violent crime, there are more inmates and more inmates on death row than there were in the 90s or in the 70s before Roe. The correlation in the paper isn't bunk, your reading comprehension, critical/analytical thinking skills, and general awareness of reality, including your own narrative(s) are.
The US has a high propensity for long custodial sentences. And obviously, one would expect that as states slow down their rates of execution, the number of inmates on death row will rise. This is assuming that your stats are right, of course, which is by no means a given.
As for the rest, it's drivel as usual. I note that you don't actually address the paper itself.
it is unacceptable to do nothing about it, offer hopes and prayers – in practice a euphemism for “fuck off”.
but you still need to devise methods to reduce firearms deaths within this liberty framework, and if you refuse even to try, you’re not really interested in liberty at all, only in guns
Keep telling me what i “need” to do and then claim i’m not interested in liberty.
The vast majority of gun deaths are due to black on black violence, followed by black on non-black violence.
Black americans have the highest rates of single motherhood and incarcerated fathers by a LARGE margin.
The way I'm helping curb gun violence in america is to advocate fror eliminating all welfare for single moms. What are YOU doing?
The way I’m helping curb gun violence in america is to advocate fror eliminating all welfare for single moms.
Why do you think that will work?
No welfare for single mothers would reduce the incentive for women to have kids out of wedlock, or the like, and incentivize them to require commitment for sex, bringing the fathers into the upbringing of the kids, and likely reducing adolescent and young adult male crime.
Are you interested in liberty, or just guns? And - as any literate person would know - the "you" in context is not a personal "you". AFAIC all you need to do is keep breathing, and consume calories. But feel free to ignore my recommendation 🙂
Hey just try to enforce gun laws (by locking up repeat offenders) in Chicago. You will immediately be opposed, as did a “coalition of Black legislators” in 2015 for promoting a “recipe to lock up more Blacks and Latinos.”
You must therefore blame the guns they use to kill one another.
but you still need to devise methods to reduce firearms deaths within this liberty framework, and if you refuse even to try, you’re not really interested in liberty at all, only in guns.
The firearms deaths--and every other category of unjustified homicide--will be reduced when would-be victims carry, present, and use arms against those who try to attack them. Liberty and guns, floor polish and dessert topping. Dummy!
Sanford Dummy Reel
https://youtu.be/moYdbNXBwvk
"Yet federal crime statistics show that firearm homicides dropped about 40 percent between 1993 and 2018, from 7 per 100,000 people to 4.3 per 100,000 people (for nonfatal crimes involving guns, the decline was 71 percent)."
and that is just if you fall for the gun grabbers' trap of talking about it in terms of "gun related." homicides. you take the bait right up front that HOW they were killed makes any difference. if you go broader to look at all homicides and suicides, you learn that all the access to guns has any influence on is what box is getting checked on the death certificate.
guns have never been the problem. broken people are the problem. anyone who really wanted to save any lives would try to find and address the reasons people are getting broken. (or, maybe for starters, why so many warning signs that they are broken keep getting missed.)
It would help then if all the people who scream "it's not the guns!" ever gave a shit to do anything about mental issues, etc. etc. that they always blame.
But...*crickets.*
The ‘mental issues’ are almost 100% the product of democrat policies in medicine and education. This is why before your kind got their hooks into those things that these shootings were far more rare. Guns are tools. You have to have someone willing to commit mass shootings, and kill defenseless children. Like a far leftist tranny activist.
It isn’t conservatives or libertarians pumping all these drugs into kids and institutionally emasculating young boys through the government schools. That’s you, and your fellow travelers. Most gun deaths are 100% YOUR fault. You create mass murderers.
"The ‘mental issues’ are almost 100% the product of democrat policies in medicine and education."
All the more reason for opponents of democrat policies to raise the issue, and present an alternative. But instead? Crickets...
What, then, can be done?
More assault fire extinguishers.
"guns" is an emotional issue - no amount of hard fact will change anyone's mind. I find it sad that fearmongering about guns is still a tactic used by politicians.
"police need better and more effective training."
Not just "No!" but "HELL no!" The Uvalde police had just a few weeks before completed extensive training on responding to multiple shooting incidents. Not only did they fail to follow their own policies during the non-response, they failed to follow their recent training. This is the fix that the Feds always insist on when they take over local departments with egregious civil rights violation records. It does not work, it has never worked and it never will work! This is the excuse police chiefs always float when their totally corrupt departments fail to meet even minimal standards of decency and competence - we need better training! This is the "punishment" handed out to violent criminal cops who murder innocent bystanders until recently: administrative leave and refresher training. Enough is enough!
Of course not silly. See all the guns and how deaths have gone to zero? Clearly they're making us safer.
No, you dumb bitch. It’s you people. These deaths are your fault.
“Most schools are already gun-free zones or have strict controls on who is allowed to carry while on campus; many have armed officers on campus despite no evidence that such a presence deters violence.”
The reference source incudes:
“It [the 2021 JAMA study] was limited by the availability of public data and the inability to measure deterred shootings, among other factors, but researchers found that, controlling for other factors such as location, school type and region, the data showed “armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries” during school mass shootings.”
It seems contrary to conclude armed security does not deter school shootings based on studies that admit the limitation that they cannot assess deterred shootings, doesn’t it? The Nashville killer is only one of many such killers that chose their softer target based on less security than other potential targets. Don’t those count as deterred shootings?
Although it might seem that way, the researchers were perfectly correct to word their conclusions in the way you are objecting to. Failure to find an “association” limits the range of conclusions you can draw, but does not eliminate all possible conclusions.
So what would such a study look like? Review of all school shootings with a comparison of schools with security [experimental group] vs. no security [control group]? Would it be that hard to do, without confounding with "other factors?"
In what settings have mass shooters been deprived of achieving their goal vs where they have been successful in killing as many as possible before they are killed or surrender?
JAMA being JAMA, I rather doubt they would want to draw any such "possible" conclusion because guns are just plain bad, in their view.
Maybe it's time for gun manufacturers to step up and offer free gun safety training as a prerequisite to purchase a firearm. No govt interference, just them taking a bit more responsibility than just letting obviously broken down people buying firearms at will.
The "prerequisite" part will pose a few problems. As it should.
We have a right to keep and bear arms; the learning how to use them is on the consumer, not the seller. Any such requirement would have to be via government mandate [on either the seller or the buyer] and that will be an infringement.
I highly value, and have sought out and received training, all of which has been very beneficial to me in terms of safety and ability.
In order to get a CCW I hade to complete some nominal training, but no where near enough to achieve any level of proficiency. Again, that is on you, not the sellers or the government.
"Any such requirement would have to be via government mandate "
Not necessarily. I think safety locks on firearms aren't mandated, or at least existed long before any mandates came into effect. Child proof caps on medicine also existed and were used before there were government mandates. Let's not dismiss the manufacturers' desire for the safe use of their products.
I agree with you that gun makers aren't likely to get into the gun safety training business. More likely are enhanced safety devices, a built in breathalyzer, GPS to disable firing in the vicinity of a school, and other value adding features. Not long ago, cars were valued mostly by their glass, steel and rubber. Now it's their electronics. I imagine firearms will eventually take the same route.
"Now it’s their electronics. I imagine firearms will eventually take the same route."
I respectfully disagree, that is wishful thinking. A gun is by its very nature a mechanical device; optics such as red dots etc. are add ons that do not effect their functioning in any way. If you try to retrofit or create a combination I highly doubt it will be reliable, and an unreliable gun is a paperweight.
"A gun is by its very nature a mechanical device;"
So were cars until recently.
" I highly doubt it will be reliable, "
Maybe not. But the issue under discussion is safety, not reliability. To follow the car analogy, they're safer today than ever before.
Why? How is that going to reduce gang and drug related gun deaths, which the bulk of the gun homicides are. And doesn’t do anything for gun related suicides either, which are similarly prevalent.
"How is that going to reduce gang and drug related gun deaths, "
It might reduce collateral damage. Proper training will help any gun owner to accurately shoot and kill the intended target and no one else.
Agree on the training, at the owner's initiative. You cannot force people to learn or to become proficient [though the Marine Corps does a damned fine job at that, you still have to be willing to sign up beforehand].
Nice how the article failed to mention that the Nashville school had armed staff. Whoops.
1) US has the highest number of guns per capita than any other nation.
2) US has extremely high gun related violence. Has it gone down? Yes. But we outrank some countries you would think would be more violent than the US.
3) Economic inequality and poverty are the main drivers behind violence. The US is pretty bad on that level. Are we horrible or the worst? No.
4) there are entrenched of countries that have a lot less guns, are happier, are better off on average economically, have better Healthcare, and therefore a lot less violence.
Arming everyone does not solve the problem of gun violence.
"Arming everyone does not solve the problem of gun violence."
Tell you what; come at me with a weapon and you will find out first hand.
Sarait has a good recipe for arepas
WTF is this?
David Grossman has an excellent school violence prevention program patterned after fire prevention efforts. His program focuses making a school or business less inviting to a mass shooter, identifying potential mass shooters while they are still in the planning phase and a violence detox program that appears to work.
Yes, his program makes room for arming school staff and employees but there's more to it than handing out guns at a teacher's meeting. Should the organization decide to allow guns, there is psychological testing for identifying those capable of carrying a gun. There is training on such things as situational awareness, de-escalation and yes there is training on when to shoot as well as when not to shoot.
Reducing violence is a lot more than just passing another useless gun law law largely ignored by prosecutors then patting ourselves on our backs for a job well done. It requires capable people committed to reducing the violence in all forms.
^ this. Much better than platitudinous nonsense like "Arming everyone does not solve the problem of gun violence" that only reflects for foregone attitude.
"does not solve the problem of gun violence”
I think gun violence is not the problem but a symptom of a wider problem. I'm not sure what this wider problem is but I doubt more guns in the hands of more people is going to solve it.
The Grossman program, whether it's arming teachers or fitting students with bullet proof vests, also misses the mark of addressing root causes.
Allowing school staff to pack heat has been the MANDATED policy in the entire state of Utah for 15 years. It’s worked GREAT!
No mass shootings. One self-inflicted accidental shooting (in the leg) that I’m aware of.
Shooters want gun-free zones. They avoid schools where EVERY adult might be armed.
Moreover, this policy is low/no cost vs. hiring an army of armed school guards.
Yelling in someone's face that close while moving your hands erratically is enough of a threatening presence to warrant being shot on its own, even when you are *not* threatening to send gunmen to kick in that person's door like this idiot is.
As the following incidents show, having armed staff at schools does not ever lead to problems:
Sagemont School | Weston, Florida
March 5, 2020—A school security guard unintentionally shot a school maintenance worker in the eye while showing him his gun in the school parking lot.
Saint Josaphat Parish School | Milwaukee, Wisconsin
April 5, 2019 — A janitor’s gun unintentionally discharged. One student was bruised by falling debris caused by the bullet hitting a wall.
Blountsville Elementary | Blountsville, Alabama
March 22, 2019 — A substitute teacher unintentionally discharged a gun in a first grade classroom. One student was sent to the nurse’s office after being struck by a fragment.
Seaside High School | Seaside, California
March 13, 2018 — A teacher unintentionally fired a gun in class. One 17-year-old boy suffered moderate injuries when fragments from the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling and lodged into his neck.
Bay City Western High School | Auburn, Michigan
November 11, 2016 — A sheriff’s deputy unintentionally discharged his gun while alone in a classroom. A teacher in an adjacent classroom was hit in the neck, though the bullet didn’t break the skin.
Westbrook Elementary School | Taylorsville, Utah
September 11, 2014 — A teacher placed a weapon on top of a toilet paper holder and the gun unintentionally discharged, hitting the toilet and injuring the teacher when fragments of the bullet and shattered toilet hit her leg.
Concordia Lutheran High School | Tomball, Texas
January 21, 2020 — A teacher brought a handgun to school and made threatening statements about his colleagues.
Aurora West College Preparatory Academy | Aurora, Colorado
April 3, 2019 — A school administrator was arrested after bringing a gun to school and using it to threaten other staff members.
W.T. Chipman Middle School | Harrington, Delaware
December 5, 2018 — A middle school wrestling coach got into an argument with a 13-year-old student during practice. The coach tried to choke the victim, and pulled out a handgun and pointed it at the student in the restroom.
Dalton High School | Dalton, Georgia
February 28, 2018 — A teacher barricaded himself in his empty classroom and fired a shot out of the window.
Lithia Springs High School | Lithia Springs, Georgia
August 17, 2017 — A high school teacher was injured by a self-inflicted gunshot in a classroom.
Also tend to know jack squat about guns.
Cliche – Gun control is about control, not guns.
^ this is 100% correct.
That is a point of virtue; just ask Tony, if he-she-it ever shows up around here again.
Not just Tony.
If you don’t train you are unqualified, if you do train you are an overcompensating ammosexual fetishist.
Haven’t seen him around. Is he finally gone?
Agree re training; and I'll take "overcompensating ammosexual fetishist" for $600.
Me either, though I've long suspected that he enjoys the abuse he receives here. Go with being a masochist.
Maybe he had a fatal rectal rupture. Or finally took my advice and drank a bottle of Drano.