by Doctor Science
I’ve spent days now starting posts about the Tucson Massacre and then stopping because someone else was saying it better. Examples: Sady Doyle: “The Arizona shooting FAQ”; Esquire: “The Voices in Jared Loughner’s Head Shall Not Be Respected; Julianne Hing: Loughner, Lovelle Mixon, and Our Quest for Narratives; Conor Friedersdorf: Tone Versus Substance and many, many more.
I’m going to just talk about one aspect of the Massacre and the resulting discussion. In brief:
a) we have too many guns, and the guns are too big
b) a major reason for this is that guns are more important as fantasies than as tools
c) in particular, guns have starring roles in our filmed fiction (TV & movies), and those roles are what we think of when we imagine “guns”.
In not-so-brief:
As has become usual for American gun rampages, the Tucson Massacre was instantly followed by cries that what we need is MORE guns. If only MORE people were armed, these things wouldn’t happen, or they’d be stopped sooner.
Doubling-down on firearms seems to be a reflex, immune to considerations such as:
1. The only bystander who’s talked about being armed at the time admits that he almost shot the wrong person before deciding not to fire at all.
2. Plainclothes or out-of-uniform police officers have been killed by other cops — when bullets are flying, cops will tend to assume that anyone with a gun who’s not in uniform is a bad guy. So how would they know the difference between a helpful, armed citizen and the original assailant?
3. An assailant can kill multiple armed, trained police officers before they have a chance to react. Even officers who are on duty can be killed before they can react.
4. Members of the military and police are trained to fire their weapons, and they practice assiduously. I can’t find any estimate of what proportion of the armed public actually trains with their weapons — but I’m guessing it’s low, certainly far lower than the pros would consider acceptable. Yet (as the comments to this article, for instance, make clear) gun rights advocates seem generally opposed to *any* mandatory training or licensing for gun owners — how this squares with the bit about “well-regulated” is not clear to me.
5. Jared Loughner was using a Glock with an extended, 30-shot magazine. Nineteen people were hit, some more than once, so pretty much every bullet hit someone, whether Loughner was aiming at them or not.
6. Loughner was captured and subdued by unarmed bystanders when he stopped to reload.
None of these realistic factors seem to be involved in the thinking of people who say “we need more guns” — even though many of them say they are tough-minded and realistic. There is a picture in their minds of what “more guns” looks like, and it doesn’t correspond to what I see in reality.
In Deer Hunting with Jesus, Joe Bageant (liberal, redneck, former editor of Military History Magazine) says:
But every once in a while, usually when I am experiencing extreme tension, an image zips through my mind that shows me how primitive and deeply rooted the psychological processes and emotions involved in the mechanics of lethality are. The image is that of myself killing somebody. The squeezing of the trigger, the muzzle blast, all in a split second. Then a feeling of relief. I am not alone in experiencing this flash of murderous imagery. Other American men experience the same, I have learned, though it is so deeply embedded in the unconscious that it takes a lot of discussion before they realize or admit that it does indeed happen.
[emphasis mine] What Bageant is describing is a type of psychological defense mechanism. He is dealing with an anxiety (in the general or Freudian sense, including fear, anger, uncertainty, grief) by imagining a violent response — and the imagined response gives a genuine psychological relief, a brief catharsis.
I have nothing at all against fantasy catharsis, I think it can be immensely useful and healthy — as long as you realize it’s a fantasy. When you try to make it the basis of real public policy, though, it’s incredibly dangerous.
IMHO, one of the problems we non-experts have with keeping gun fantasy and reality separate is film. I can’t find the exact link, but I remember some months (year?) ago there being a bloglandia discussion about TV and salience with regard to torture, IIRC. Basically, when most of us think about “getting information from captured terrorists”, the situations and images that come to mind are from movies and TV, especially “24”. TV images are “salient” — they’re what a lot of people (like, say, Supreme Court Justices) have in mind when these issues are discussed.
Even police officers will see far more gunfights on TV than they ever will in reality. For most people — including most gun owners — the mental image of what happens when there’s a gunfight in a public place looks like this:
To make it clear that I’m not just talking about other people, this is a scene from the reboot version of Hawaii 5-0, my new fandom and one of the reasons I haven’t been posting here as much recently. (I don’t watch it for the plot.) I may have miscounted, but I believe that in this scene the Bad Guy (gal) takes 10 shots, the Good Guy 2 shots — but none of that dozen hit anyone or anything at all. In fact, the clip ends as the Bad Guy is about to be hit by an unexpected trolley car, so the gunfire is completely without impact in any sense.
It’s been years (decades) since I’ve watched cop shows, procedurals, or other “realistic” TV-shows-with-guns, so I don’t know if this kind of cavalier bullet-spraying is standard for the genre these days, or if Hawaii 5-0 is being as sloppy with its gunplay as it is with its plots — which are not so much “Swiss cheese” (solid but with holes) as “lace” (holes held together with string).
But I wonder if *this* is what people think of when they say “more people should be armed” — what they see in their minds is that everyone will be able to tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys in a nanosecond, and that bullets will either hit what they’re aimed at or will disappear. These images are *salient*, they’re what we have in mind — we have no mental image of the bloody reality.
I’m not sure that the guns we have are too big. I thought one of the reasons Giffords survived is because she was shot with a relatively large powerful weapon. As a result, the bullet made a single clear path through her head were a smaller less powerful gun would have allowed a bullet to enter her skull but then bounce off the exit side causing far greater damage.
Also, this post is probably the ultimate in Bellmore bait.
I’m not sure that the guns we have are too big. I thought one of the reasons Giffords survived is because she was shot with a relatively large powerful weapon. As a result, the bullet made a single clear path through her head were a smaller less powerful gun would have allowed a bullet to enter her skull but then bounce off the exit side causing far greater damage.
Also, this post is probably the ultimate in Bellmore bait.
Turb —
I agree with you about the guns not really being “too big”, but I couldn’t make “fire too many bullets too quickly without re-loading” sound punchy and referential enough.
this post is probably the ultimate in Bellmore bait
I’m just amazed someone else commented first.
Turb —
I agree with you about the guns not really being “too big”, but I couldn’t make “fire too many bullets too quickly without re-loading” sound punchy and referential enough.
this post is probably the ultimate in Bellmore bait
I’m just amazed someone else commented first.
Although for long periods of many years since 2003 I literally responded to almost every comment on ObWi, and naturally, therefore, on most posts, and therefore, naturally, discussed and argued with each and every ObWi blogger — this has come to seem like a very bad idea, particularly in the last two years.
Especially given the recent turnover, and lack of continuity. Which has, as you are aware, been a touch bumpy, and mostly due to, as usual, me.
So for now my policy on commenting on co-bloggers’s threads will evolve as will the situation. I’m new to co-blogging at this blog.
But I have plenty I could say in comments on your posts, Doctor Science: there’s no lack of hooks. Your stuff is always thought-provoking, smart, intriguing, and gives me much to wish to agree with, and as always, there are points I could make that would not agree, but I do desire to not be disagreeable.
That requires getting to know some folks better; this requires greater and closer observation on my part of what’s here.
Only my desire for brevity — and the ultimate brevity is not to comment — my desire to not offend — and the best way to not offend is to not comment — is giving me pause.
I’ll learn as I go. Again.
As always. Every day a new one.
When I have a better sense of what you like in comments, I’ll perhaps comment on your posts more.
It’s not for lack of great interest on my part, or opinions to voice. 🙂
There’s lots I could say about various points in this post. As always.
But I don’t want anyone to feel fired upon.
Although for long periods of many years since 2003 I literally responded to almost every comment on ObWi, and naturally, therefore, on most posts, and therefore, naturally, discussed and argued with each and every ObWi blogger — this has come to seem like a very bad idea, particularly in the last two years.
Especially given the recent turnover, and lack of continuity. Which has, as you are aware, been a touch bumpy, and mostly due to, as usual, me.
So for now my policy on commenting on co-bloggers’s threads will evolve as will the situation. I’m new to co-blogging at this blog.
But I have plenty I could say in comments on your posts, Doctor Science: there’s no lack of hooks. Your stuff is always thought-provoking, smart, intriguing, and gives me much to wish to agree with, and as always, there are points I could make that would not agree, but I do desire to not be disagreeable.
That requires getting to know some folks better; this requires greater and closer observation on my part of what’s here.
Only my desire for brevity — and the ultimate brevity is not to comment — my desire to not offend — and the best way to not offend is to not comment — is giving me pause.
I’ll learn as I go. Again.
As always. Every day a new one.
When I have a better sense of what you like in comments, I’ll perhaps comment on your posts more.
It’s not for lack of great interest on my part, or opinions to voice. 🙂
There’s lots I could say about various points in this post. As always.
But I don’t want anyone to feel fired upon.
This, though:
Uses of “we” always bother me, absent clear cites as to whom one is authorized to speak for. I’m a non-expert, and yet I don’t sign on to agreeing that I have this problem.
But how to disagree agreeably about such points?
My first recourse: ask.
And note that I’ve always found first person most useful when not speaking in my capacity as, oh, an elected official in a legal election, or similar capacity.
But that’s me, and no one else, and we all must choose our own style. That’s a we I’m comfortable with.
I tend to get stuck on points such as this before I can jump to substance.
That’s, again, me, not we, nor “most of us.”
This, though:
Uses of “we” always bother me, absent clear cites as to whom one is authorized to speak for. I’m a non-expert, and yet I don’t sign on to agreeing that I have this problem.
But how to disagree agreeably about such points?
My first recourse: ask.
And note that I’ve always found first person most useful when not speaking in my capacity as, oh, an elected official in a legal election, or similar capacity.
But that’s me, and no one else, and we all must choose our own style. That’s a we I’m comfortable with.
I tend to get stuck on points such as this before I can jump to substance.
That’s, again, me, not we, nor “most of us.”
I have read a lot on guns (esp. concerning history) and have seen some real ones in (museum) displays but my practical experience with firearms is nearly nonexistent. I think I can see when the presentation in movies is total crap (but that’s almost the default option).
My violent fantasies rarely center on firearms (apart from heavy artillery). Clubs and axes give far more relief 😉
I tend to agree with Michael Moore here. It’s not the guns themselves that are the primary problem but the mentality that is at the same time violent and fearful.
Semiautomatics with oversized magazines are a multiplier. Firearms would be abused (occasionally) even if only single-shot versions existed (or only crossbows) and the penalty would be the Slow Death.the question is one of balance.
—
[rant]
One occasion where I have the urgent wish for instant violent retaliation is when again and again the old canard is brought up that Hitler seized all guns and thus made his reign of terror possible often bolstered with two official and reputable looking reports giving an overview of German gun legislation that to call distorted would be a grand understatement. The people bringing that up notoriously refuse to accept evidence to the contrary (like direct quotes/links from/to the actual laws) often claiming it to be fraudulent. That’s what one can naturally expect from a freedom-hating government like the German one: doctor all editions of the Reichs/Bundes-Gesetzblatt in order to hide its nefarious deeds in past and present. But they can’t fool clear-thinking American patriots with that.
[/rant]
I have read a lot on guns (esp. concerning history) and have seen some real ones in (museum) displays but my practical experience with firearms is nearly nonexistent. I think I can see when the presentation in movies is total crap (but that’s almost the default option).
My violent fantasies rarely center on firearms (apart from heavy artillery). Clubs and axes give far more relief 😉
I tend to agree with Michael Moore here. It’s not the guns themselves that are the primary problem but the mentality that is at the same time violent and fearful.
Semiautomatics with oversized magazines are a multiplier. Firearms would be abused (occasionally) even if only single-shot versions existed (or only crossbows) and the penalty would be the Slow Death.the question is one of balance.
—
[rant]
One occasion where I have the urgent wish for instant violent retaliation is when again and again the old canard is brought up that Hitler seized all guns and thus made his reign of terror possible often bolstered with two official and reputable looking reports giving an overview of German gun legislation that to call distorted would be a grand understatement. The people bringing that up notoriously refuse to accept evidence to the contrary (like direct quotes/links from/to the actual laws) often claiming it to be fraudulent. That’s what one can naturally expect from a freedom-hating government like the German one: doctor all editions of the Reichs/Bundes-Gesetzblatt in order to hide its nefarious deeds in past and present. But they can’t fool clear-thinking American patriots with that.
[/rant]
I didn’t actually watch the clip, but I can certainly testify that gunfights in current film and television are fantastic in the ways you describe. Any character, good or bad, who has been fetishized or touted with marksmanship abilities always makes completely preturnatural shots–cf. White Collar, NCIS–while a general hail of gunfire mostly doesn’t hit anyone (cf. everything, but the most absurd example is this clip from Leverage, in which cardboard boxes act as adequate shields from gunfire! It’s like Ender’s Game up in there). It ends up being a sort of Dream It, Be It philosophy of guns–if you are a good guy with some enigmatic and/or superish capabilities, or a bad guy with SUPER ENIGMATIC and/or SUPER AWFUL EVIL capabilities, you will always hit what you aim at. Otherwise, bullets are irrelevant, or serve to make the extraneous look dumb. End scene.
I admit I’m conflicted on this front. On the one hand, that is bad, for the obvious reasons and the reasons you detailed. On the other hand, it really does make for some great TV (less so movies, for me–I think I hold TV and movies to different standards, at least within genres). I can think of several angles I could take regarding policy or political ethics on this, but really all I want is to have a fairly non-violent society AND keep my kitschily, arrealistically violent entertainment. Sigh.
I didn’t actually watch the clip, but I can certainly testify that gunfights in current film and television are fantastic in the ways you describe. Any character, good or bad, who has been fetishized or touted with marksmanship abilities always makes completely preturnatural shots–cf. White Collar, NCIS–while a general hail of gunfire mostly doesn’t hit anyone (cf. everything, but the most absurd example is this clip from Leverage, in which cardboard boxes act as adequate shields from gunfire! It’s like Ender’s Game up in there). It ends up being a sort of Dream It, Be It philosophy of guns–if you are a good guy with some enigmatic and/or superish capabilities, or a bad guy with SUPER ENIGMATIC and/or SUPER AWFUL EVIL capabilities, you will always hit what you aim at. Otherwise, bullets are irrelevant, or serve to make the extraneous look dumb. End scene.
I admit I’m conflicted on this front. On the one hand, that is bad, for the obvious reasons and the reasons you detailed. On the other hand, it really does make for some great TV (less so movies, for me–I think I hold TV and movies to different standards, at least within genres). I can think of several angles I could take regarding policy or political ethics on this, but really all I want is to have a fairly non-violent society AND keep my kitschily, arrealistically violent entertainment. Sigh.
Regarding bullets penetrating one side of the skull, and then bouncing around inside, this can happen, yes. Two points:
1. 9mm is not particularly ‘big’.
2. Most shots are not to the skull.
Believe me, if you’re going to get shot, you’re almost certainly going to be better off if it’s a smaller, lower energy round. Almost every time.
Beyond that? Can’t think of anything else I haven’t already said.
Oh, wait, one thing:
I will agree that movies, and TV, are a major reason why we have so many fantasies about guns. But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this:
Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
And that’s the fantasy that’s driving most of the demands for limiting ownership of an object that is almost never used for that purpose. You’d be on better statistical grounds if you thought about running people over every time you looked at a car…
Regarding bullets penetrating one side of the skull, and then bouncing around inside, this can happen, yes. Two points:
1. 9mm is not particularly ‘big’.
2. Most shots are not to the skull.
Believe me, if you’re going to get shot, you’re almost certainly going to be better off if it’s a smaller, lower energy round. Almost every time.
Beyond that? Can’t think of anything else I haven’t already said.
Oh, wait, one thing:
I will agree that movies, and TV, are a major reason why we have so many fantasies about guns. But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this:
Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
And that’s the fantasy that’s driving most of the demands for limiting ownership of an object that is almost never used for that purpose. You’d be on better statistical grounds if you thought about running people over every time you looked at a car…
The only way I’m going to avoid responding to this post and comments is the same way I’ve been avoiding responding to various other posts: avoiding reading the comments or looking at the post again.
I’m weak, weak, weak on many things. Easier to stifle by averting eyes. For me, for now.
Biting tongue! Ow! Could we have some tooth-control laws, pliz?
The only way I’m going to avoid responding to this post and comments is the same way I’ve been avoiding responding to various other posts: avoiding reading the comments or looking at the post again.
I’m weak, weak, weak on many things. Easier to stifle by averting eyes. For me, for now.
Biting tongue! Ow! Could we have some tooth-control laws, pliz?
I grew up with guns. My father kept a locked and loaded GI .45 in a desk in the den where we all sat watching t.v. and talking every night. It was for self defense. He told me once – and only once – to never touch that piece unless odered by him to do so or in an extreme situation in which he was absent and my mother or siblings were at extreme risk of bodily harm from home invading bad guys. You what? I never did so much as sneak a touch of the piece. Never even crossed my mind. He also trained me in fire arm safety, maintainance and, finally, marksmanship. By the time I was ten I could hit a cofee can with seven out of seven shots from the .45 at about 50 yards and do the same (8 out of 8) at 250 yards with an M1 Garand.
I own guns today. My wife and I each have a .357 magnum revolver and we have a couple rifles. The revolvers are for self defense and the rifles for meat and sport.
I think that only a fool would not pick up a gun to defend a woman or a child or himself. To rely on the police is stupid and cowardly. They will usually get there in time to draw a chalk line around your body.
That being said, I have had extensive training. My wife has also had some training. We are both able to remain cool under stress and threat of physical harm. We have both seen what happens when bullets meet human flesh. We have absolute respect for the power of guns and the reality of severe injury and death. We are not swayed to violent fantasy by risible fetishized scenes of gunfights in the movies.
I agree that way too many morons own guns. I dread hunting season because the whole county is turned into a free fire zone with drunken slobs shooting at anything that moves; including horses and people. In the cities armed nihilistic stoned youths fantasize about gaining “respect” via murder. Ill bred children with defunct parents play with guns and get hurt.
Yet, I am not for gun control for the same old reasons you’ve heard ad nauseum. I know blackmarkets. Criminals will always obtain guns there just as people obtain cannabis though it is also prohibited. I believe in the second ammendment (and all the others).
The problem is not guns. It is the quality of the people the have them in their hands and it is also our culture itself.
I grew up with guns. My father kept a locked and loaded GI .45 in a desk in the den where we all sat watching t.v. and talking every night. It was for self defense. He told me once – and only once – to never touch that piece unless odered by him to do so or in an extreme situation in which he was absent and my mother or siblings were at extreme risk of bodily harm from home invading bad guys. You what? I never did so much as sneak a touch of the piece. Never even crossed my mind. He also trained me in fire arm safety, maintainance and, finally, marksmanship. By the time I was ten I could hit a cofee can with seven out of seven shots from the .45 at about 50 yards and do the same (8 out of 8) at 250 yards with an M1 Garand.
I own guns today. My wife and I each have a .357 magnum revolver and we have a couple rifles. The revolvers are for self defense and the rifles for meat and sport.
I think that only a fool would not pick up a gun to defend a woman or a child or himself. To rely on the police is stupid and cowardly. They will usually get there in time to draw a chalk line around your body.
That being said, I have had extensive training. My wife has also had some training. We are both able to remain cool under stress and threat of physical harm. We have both seen what happens when bullets meet human flesh. We have absolute respect for the power of guns and the reality of severe injury and death. We are not swayed to violent fantasy by risible fetishized scenes of gunfights in the movies.
I agree that way too many morons own guns. I dread hunting season because the whole county is turned into a free fire zone with drunken slobs shooting at anything that moves; including horses and people. In the cities armed nihilistic stoned youths fantasize about gaining “respect” via murder. Ill bred children with defunct parents play with guns and get hurt.
Yet, I am not for gun control for the same old reasons you’ve heard ad nauseum. I know blackmarkets. Criminals will always obtain guns there just as people obtain cannabis though it is also prohibited. I believe in the second ammendment (and all the others).
The problem is not guns. It is the quality of the people the have them in their hands and it is also our culture itself.
BTW, the 9mm is a medium cal round. Giffords is alive because the shooter used full metal jacket rounds instead of hollow points and because of sheer luck and excellent medical care. With handguns the larger the caliber the better (as far as lethality goes).
BTW, the 9mm is a medium cal round. Giffords is alive because the shooter used full metal jacket rounds instead of hollow points and because of sheer luck and excellent medical care. With handguns the larger the caliber the better (as far as lethality goes).
Rule of thumb:
Most deadly: large caliber, slow speed, ‘soft’ projectile.
Small*, fast and hard pass through and make less of a mess.
I guess, if the congresswoman had been hit not point blank but from a few meters away, she’d be dead.
*diameter
Rule of thumb:
Most deadly: large caliber, slow speed, ‘soft’ projectile.
Small*, fast and hard pass through and make less of a mess.
I guess, if the congresswoman had been hit not point blank but from a few meters away, she’d be dead.
*diameter
I can’t help but think that the whole “self-defence via gun” is a fantasy situation and that the reality of situations in which this is applicable is in single digits (opinion).
Confronting a person with (presumable) less to lose that yourself with a gun can only escalate an already bad situation.
Not related:
Reminds me of a case in which a man wakes up at 5 in the morning to see his car driving off. He picks up his gun and shoots dead the driver – who turns out to be his daugter who had an early appointment she neglected to tell him about.
I can’t help but think that the whole “self-defence via gun” is a fantasy situation and that the reality of situations in which this is applicable is in single digits (opinion).
Confronting a person with (presumable) less to lose that yourself with a gun can only escalate an already bad situation.
Not related:
Reminds me of a case in which a man wakes up at 5 in the morning to see his car driving off. He picks up his gun and shoots dead the driver – who turns out to be his daugter who had an early appointment she neglected to tell him about.
Norway (Sweden too iirc) requires signal red clothing for hunting season*. Even sober and experienced hunters have made fatal mistakes (better get not caught drunk carrying a firearm in those countries!).
*That’s close to be a national event in the areas I know esp. due to the very strict quotas on big game.
Norway (Sweden too iirc) requires signal red clothing for hunting season*. Even sober and experienced hunters have made fatal mistakes (better get not caught drunk carrying a firearm in those countries!).
*That’s close to be a national event in the areas I know esp. due to the very strict quotas on big game.
But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this: Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
what’s the purpose of a militia ?
is it:
[ ] to round up and plink all the coffee cans in the territory
[ ] to assemble in convention centers and stroke each others firearms
[ ] to point their weapons at other people in order to coerce
But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this: Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
what’s the purpose of a militia ?
is it:
[ ] to round up and plink all the coffee cans in the territory
[ ] to assemble in convention centers and stroke each others firearms
[ ] to point their weapons at other people in order to coerce
You forgot: performing the Miles Gloriosus (Plautus) twice a day.
You forgot: performing the Miles Gloriosus (Plautus) twice a day.
Brett: But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this:
Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
And that’s the fantasy that’s driving most of the demands for limiting ownership of an object that is almost never used for that purpose.
This is true of any object, pretty much. Most knives are not used for stabbing people, but it’s still illegal to carry certain types and sizes of blades concealed on your person. Most pseudoephedrine is not used to make crystal meth, but I still have to show a driver’s license when I buy cold medicine. And so on.
It’s not a very useful insight, and certainly implies nothing about how policy should proceed as a result.
That said, I’m certainly not in favor of widespread gun bans or anything like that. I don’t own one, but if someone wants one in their house or on their person for self-defense I have no problem with that. PROVIDED that that ownership is accompanied by proper licensing and training.
I wouldn’t say I “grew up around guns” like avedis did — despite the fact that my father was in the Army, we never, ever owned one. Frankly, I think dad’s Vietnam service (and PTSD) kinda put him off having them around. My grandfather, though, who raised poultry, kept a .22 rifle on the porch for dispensing with cats, raccoons, foxes and anything else that might raid the henhouse or tear up one of his rooster. (Grandpa was also into cockfighting. The joys of having West Virginia roots.) And, like avedis, it was made explicitly clear to me as a child: DO NOT TOUCH THIS UNDER PENALTY OF A GOOD WHIPPING.
I can’t help but think that the whole “self-defence via gun” is a fantasy situation and that the reality of situations in which this is applicable is in single digits (opinion).
I tend to agree. Ohio instituted CCW licensing about five years ago. Since that time, in the Greater Cleveland area, I’ve heard of exactly two successful defensive gun uses, and only one of them was with a concealed handgun and took places on the gun owner’s porch. He shot and killed one potential assailant and drove the other off. The other incident involved a shotgun and a home invasion. Again, two intruders — one ran away and the other caught a few pieces of shot in the face.
On the other hand, two CCW permit holders in the last two years have murdered people in cold blood. In the first case, a cop was killed during a traffic stop. In the second, a parking garage attendant was gunned down by an irate customer right in front of a bunch of families. That victim ALSO had a CCW permit, and never even got a chance to fire his gun.
Brett: But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this:
Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
And that’s the fantasy that’s driving most of the demands for limiting ownership of an object that is almost never used for that purpose.
This is true of any object, pretty much. Most knives are not used for stabbing people, but it’s still illegal to carry certain types and sizes of blades concealed on your person. Most pseudoephedrine is not used to make crystal meth, but I still have to show a driver’s license when I buy cold medicine. And so on.
It’s not a very useful insight, and certainly implies nothing about how policy should proceed as a result.
That said, I’m certainly not in favor of widespread gun bans or anything like that. I don’t own one, but if someone wants one in their house or on their person for self-defense I have no problem with that. PROVIDED that that ownership is accompanied by proper licensing and training.
I wouldn’t say I “grew up around guns” like avedis did — despite the fact that my father was in the Army, we never, ever owned one. Frankly, I think dad’s Vietnam service (and PTSD) kinda put him off having them around. My grandfather, though, who raised poultry, kept a .22 rifle on the porch for dispensing with cats, raccoons, foxes and anything else that might raid the henhouse or tear up one of his rooster. (Grandpa was also into cockfighting. The joys of having West Virginia roots.) And, like avedis, it was made explicitly clear to me as a child: DO NOT TOUCH THIS UNDER PENALTY OF A GOOD WHIPPING.
I can’t help but think that the whole “self-defence via gun” is a fantasy situation and that the reality of situations in which this is applicable is in single digits (opinion).
I tend to agree. Ohio instituted CCW licensing about five years ago. Since that time, in the Greater Cleveland area, I’ve heard of exactly two successful defensive gun uses, and only one of them was with a concealed handgun and took places on the gun owner’s porch. He shot and killed one potential assailant and drove the other off. The other incident involved a shotgun and a home invasion. Again, two intruders — one ran away and the other caught a few pieces of shot in the face.
On the other hand, two CCW permit holders in the last two years have murdered people in cold blood. In the first case, a cop was killed during a traffic stop. In the second, a parking garage attendant was gunned down by an irate customer right in front of a bunch of families. That victim ALSO had a CCW permit, and never even got a chance to fire his gun.
And since it wasn’t clear from my post above, since I brought up the examples, I think the knife policy is a good one, and the cough syrup policy is not.
And since it wasn’t clear from my post above, since I brought up the examples, I think the knife policy is a good one, and the cough syrup policy is not.
I have an uncle that is an avid gun collector, hunter, all-around “outdoor sports”-man, and (incidentally) a Democrat. One of his favorite weapons is a ridiculously small diameter round (0.204 Ruger, IIRC) on top of an enormous shell casing. Muzzle velocity is well over 4000 fps, and he says that just about the only way to kill a deer with it (which he does, quite regularly) is with a brain shot.
As avedis has noted, it was (likely) more the nature of the round (non-deforming) than the caliber or velocity that left Giffords alive.
That all depends on what was in the boxes. Not so unbelievable. If it’s boxes of books, for instance, those would make lovely cover. Ditto boxes of tightly-packed heavy machine parts.
In one part of that clip, he’s taking shelter behind a roll of paper. That would stop pretty much anything that failed to destroy it completely (like multiple HE rounds). There isn’t hand-held weapon load in existence that will punch through a 2-meter-diameter roll of card stock.
But in general, gun battles for entertainment are probably not representative of what might happen during an actual gun battle. It’s probably a very bad idea, for instance, to imagine that if someone steps out of cover with a weapon already pointed at you, that you’re going to be able to point and fire faster than they can pull the trigger.
Not that I’m experienced in such things, but gunfights in TV and movies tend to be slanted to entertainment rather than realism. Kind of like individual combat; those flying head-kicks are nice and all, but not typically what you’d lead off with.
I have an uncle that is an avid gun collector, hunter, all-around “outdoor sports”-man, and (incidentally) a Democrat. One of his favorite weapons is a ridiculously small diameter round (0.204 Ruger, IIRC) on top of an enormous shell casing. Muzzle velocity is well over 4000 fps, and he says that just about the only way to kill a deer with it (which he does, quite regularly) is with a brain shot.
As avedis has noted, it was (likely) more the nature of the round (non-deforming) than the caliber or velocity that left Giffords alive.
That all depends on what was in the boxes. Not so unbelievable. If it’s boxes of books, for instance, those would make lovely cover. Ditto boxes of tightly-packed heavy machine parts.
In one part of that clip, he’s taking shelter behind a roll of paper. That would stop pretty much anything that failed to destroy it completely (like multiple HE rounds). There isn’t hand-held weapon load in existence that will punch through a 2-meter-diameter roll of card stock.
But in general, gun battles for entertainment are probably not representative of what might happen during an actual gun battle. It’s probably a very bad idea, for instance, to imagine that if someone steps out of cover with a weapon already pointed at you, that you’re going to be able to point and fire faster than they can pull the trigger.
Not that I’m experienced in such things, but gunfights in TV and movies tend to be slanted to entertainment rather than realism. Kind of like individual combat; those flying head-kicks are nice and all, but not typically what you’d lead off with.
I get a little edgy when I hear about the shooting in self-defence of “potensial assailents” and people involved in a home invasion.
You shouldn’t kill anyone who just wants to steal your stuff. I don’t know how much the frightened person with the gun is to blame here.
I get a little edgy when I hear about the shooting in self-defence of “potensial assailents” and people involved in a home invasion.
You shouldn’t kill anyone who just wants to steal your stuff. I don’t know how much the frightened person with the gun is to blame here.
“You shouldn’t kill anyone who just wants to steal your stuff.”
I disagree with this. Not to mention that, in a home invasion scenario, it takes a lot of mind reading to guess that all they want to do is steal your stuff.
“You shouldn’t kill anyone who just wants to steal your stuff.”
I disagree with this. Not to mention that, in a home invasion scenario, it takes a lot of mind reading to guess that all they want to do is steal your stuff.
It superfluous to mention that I don’t agree with the person who doesn’t agree with me.
”Not to mention that, in a home invasion scenario, it takes a lot of mind reading to guess that all they want to do is steal your stuff.”
If you confront them, certainly.
Stay in your room (with your gun if you like). They probably just want the TV. Granted it’s a different situation if you have family in house.
It superfluous to mention that I don’t agree with the person who doesn’t agree with me.
”Not to mention that, in a home invasion scenario, it takes a lot of mind reading to guess that all they want to do is steal your stuff.”
If you confront them, certainly.
Stay in your room (with your gun if you like). They probably just want the TV. Granted it’s a different situation if you have family in house.
Don’t forget the not insignificant number of cases where the gun owner was shot by the intruder with his own gun (that either was lying around or that was even taken from the owner).
Oh yes, and the cases of home owners (some not even armed) shot by the police without warning. This passed my screen just a few minutes ago.
Don’t forget the not insignificant number of cases where the gun owner was shot by the intruder with his own gun (that either was lying around or that was even taken from the owner).
Oh yes, and the cases of home owners (some not even armed) shot by the police without warning. This passed my screen just a few minutes ago.
Thanks for all above for setting me straight regarding bullet size and survivability.
I disagree with this.
As a Christian, I’d have difficulty justifying my killing of a man to protect some stuff. Perhaps you’re not a Christian or perhaps you worship a God that doesn’t value human life.
Not to mention that, in a home invasion scenario, it takes a lot of mind reading to guess that all they want to do is steal your stuff.
Are home invasions actually more common than bathtub drownings or being struck by lightning? As far as I can tell, there are no statistics on home invasions, and without statistics, I can’t differentiate them from paranoiac fever dreams.
Thanks for all above for setting me straight regarding bullet size and survivability.
I disagree with this.
As a Christian, I’d have difficulty justifying my killing of a man to protect some stuff. Perhaps you’re not a Christian or perhaps you worship a God that doesn’t value human life.
Not to mention that, in a home invasion scenario, it takes a lot of mind reading to guess that all they want to do is steal your stuff.
Are home invasions actually more common than bathtub drownings or being struck by lightning? As far as I can tell, there are no statistics on home invasions, and without statistics, I can’t differentiate them from paranoiac fever dreams.
I get a little edgy when I hear about the shooting in self-defence of “potensial assailents” and people involved in a home invasion.
In the former case, the man was on his porch when he was approached by two teens (and by “teens” I mean 15 and 16 year olds, not 18 or 19), one of who drew a gun on him. He drew his own gun and shot one of them several times in the chest. The other ran off.
Fifteen is more than old enough to know that, if you pull a gun on somebody, you’d better be prepared to accept the consequences. Play with fire and you’re inevitably going to get burned.
Sadly, afterwards the man had his windows broken by friends and relatives of the dead teen, and was essentially driven out of the neighborhood. But the other teen was caught by police and charged with crimes including his accomplice’s death. He’s now serving 18 to life.
I get a little edgy when I hear about the shooting in self-defence of “potensial assailents” and people involved in a home invasion.
In the former case, the man was on his porch when he was approached by two teens (and by “teens” I mean 15 and 16 year olds, not 18 or 19), one of who drew a gun on him. He drew his own gun and shot one of them several times in the chest. The other ran off.
Fifteen is more than old enough to know that, if you pull a gun on somebody, you’d better be prepared to accept the consequences. Play with fire and you’re inevitably going to get burned.
Sadly, afterwards the man had his windows broken by friends and relatives of the dead teen, and was essentially driven out of the neighborhood. But the other teen was caught by police and charged with crimes including his accomplice’s death. He’s now serving 18 to life.
Sounds like a happy ending for everyone involved, Phil. Yay, guns!
Sounds like a happy ending for everyone involved, Phil. Yay, guns!
All of you should read Joe’s book, “Deer Hunting With Jesus”.
As for the line, “If we outlaw guns, then only the criminals will have guns”, I offer this:
1. Criminals already have guns.
2. Given the lawful monopoly on violence, the State will always have guns.
3. If you want to increase the chances of an accidental shooting or have a readily available means to take your own life, then go buy a gun.
4. There is no personal belonging (stuff) that is worth your life or the lives of your loved ones.
For personal protection, I keep a Soviet T-90 in the back yard. Sometimes the neighbors complain when I do a little target shooting, but the threat to run over their flower gardens usually shuts them up. We have also practiced enough to be able to get into the tank in 20 seconds (the scramble) in the event of a home intrusion. I’m still of two minds as to whether destroying the house in order to save it is worth it.
All of you should read Joe’s book, “Deer Hunting With Jesus”.
As for the line, “If we outlaw guns, then only the criminals will have guns”, I offer this:
1. Criminals already have guns.
2. Given the lawful monopoly on violence, the State will always have guns.
3. If you want to increase the chances of an accidental shooting or have a readily available means to take your own life, then go buy a gun.
4. There is no personal belonging (stuff) that is worth your life or the lives of your loved ones.
For personal protection, I keep a Soviet T-90 in the back yard. Sometimes the neighbors complain when I do a little target shooting, but the threat to run over their flower gardens usually shuts them up. We have also practiced enough to be able to get into the tank in 20 seconds (the scramble) in the event of a home intrusion. I’m still of two minds as to whether destroying the house in order to save it is worth it.
I’ll grant you that if you pull a gun on someone you’d better be prepared to accept the consequences. The kid was stupid.
On the other hand, chances are that the kid just wanted to steal from him and they would both have survived the confrontation if he had kept his gun hidden.
I’ll grant you that if you pull a gun on someone you’d better be prepared to accept the consequences. The kid was stupid.
On the other hand, chances are that the kid just wanted to steal from him and they would both have survived the confrontation if he had kept his gun hidden.
I mean, yeah, I agree that if someone’s clear intent is simply to rob you, you shouldn’t just shoot and kill them. But someone walking onto your porch and pulling a gun on you is not necessarily a situation in which you have lots of time to talk it out or think it through. Nor is waking in the middle of the night to find people breaking in through your kitchen door.
Stay in your room (with your gun if you like). They probably just want the TV.
If you just stay in your room, they’re more likely to think nobody is home and start searching the entire house for valuables, possibly making the situation more dangerous.
I mean, yeah, I agree that if someone’s clear intent is simply to rob you, you shouldn’t just shoot and kill them. But someone walking onto your porch and pulling a gun on you is not necessarily a situation in which you have lots of time to talk it out or think it through. Nor is waking in the middle of the night to find people breaking in through your kitchen door.
Stay in your room (with your gun if you like). They probably just want the TV.
If you just stay in your room, they’re more likely to think nobody is home and start searching the entire house for valuables, possibly making the situation more dangerous.
But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this:
Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
Footballs aren’t mostly used for playing games of football. But that’s what they’re for.
But probably the biggest, baddest fantasy about guns, the one that’s the least realistic, and the most widespread, is this:
Guns are mostly used for shooting at people.
Footballs aren’t mostly used for playing games of football. But that’s what they’re for.
On the other hand, chances are that the kid just wanted to steal from him and they would both have survived the confrontation if he had kept his gun hidden.
We’ll never know, will we? It’s not like shootings are rare in the neighborhood in which this took place.
On the other hand, chances are that the kid just wanted to steal from him and they would both have survived the confrontation if he had kept his gun hidden.
We’ll never know, will we? It’s not like shootings are rare in the neighborhood in which this took place.
Granted, we’ll never know, and far be it from me to criticize his reaction – I wasn’t there.
It just seems that the cases there are of guns successfully being used for self-defense, their necessity is at the least questionably.
I also think that we mostly agree with each other on the subject, this squabbling disregarded.
Granted, we’ll never know, and far be it from me to criticize his reaction – I wasn’t there.
It just seems that the cases there are of guns successfully being used for self-defense, their necessity is at the least questionably.
I also think that we mostly agree with each other on the subject, this squabbling disregarded.
A tank is well and good but I opted for an anti personnel minefield round the house that activates at dusk and shuts down at dawn (unless nobody is at home). The safe path through it is changed daily and additionally always directly after a family member crossed it, so casual observers cannot just follow in their footsteps. The mailbox is connected to the house by chute, so the postman and the paperboy have no need to enter the danger zone. Last week an overly clever burglar tried the old mine pig trick but found out too late that some of the mines activate on second contact. We had to switch from cats to exotic fish after an unfortunate accident but we think that was worth it. Replacing used-up mines costs about 20$ per month and the kds in the neighbourhood have learned quickly not to cross the barrier tape to retrieve lost balls (in most cases the blast blows the objects back to them anyway).
A tank is well and good but I opted for an anti personnel minefield round the house that activates at dusk and shuts down at dawn (unless nobody is at home). The safe path through it is changed daily and additionally always directly after a family member crossed it, so casual observers cannot just follow in their footsteps. The mailbox is connected to the house by chute, so the postman and the paperboy have no need to enter the danger zone. Last week an overly clever burglar tried the old mine pig trick but found out too late that some of the mines activate on second contact. We had to switch from cats to exotic fish after an unfortunate accident but we think that was worth it. Replacing used-up mines costs about 20$ per month and the kds in the neighbourhood have learned quickly not to cross the barrier tape to retrieve lost balls (in most cases the blast blows the objects back to them anyway).
During the second world war, the US Army did a study, and they discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that men (they didn’t have women in combat then) had a significant resistance to killing, so much so that soldiers alone would often not fire even to protect their own lives. Plenty of people have since cast doubt on these findings, but I find it telling that when the US military redesigned their training to reduce the resistance to killing, rates of fire went up.
I will admit to suffering from confirmation bias; when I read this, or an account of a mass shooting where the police have found victims dead with unfired guns in their hands, I tend to think: aha, it all fits. I know the world does not work in such a simple manner, but I do believe this: given the state of the evidence, it does not do for any gun owner to hold themselves up as members of an unbadged but always ready police force.
During the second world war, the US Army did a study, and they discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that men (they didn’t have women in combat then) had a significant resistance to killing, so much so that soldiers alone would often not fire even to protect their own lives. Plenty of people have since cast doubt on these findings, but I find it telling that when the US military redesigned their training to reduce the resistance to killing, rates of fire went up.
I will admit to suffering from confirmation bias; when I read this, or an account of a mass shooting where the police have found victims dead with unfired guns in their hands, I tend to think: aha, it all fits. I know the world does not work in such a simple manner, but I do believe this: given the state of the evidence, it does not do for any gun owner to hold themselves up as members of an unbadged but always ready police force.
I think Dr. S is right that the insistence on having guns derives, in large part, from macho fantasies. (Obviously I’m not talking about people who actually go hunting. I’m talking mostly about people who feel that they need to have a hand gun. Or at least the ability to easily get one.) And that cop shows, and other “shoot ’em ups”, help to drive those fantasies.
Which leads me to an interesting observation. I recently came across a new spin-off from the Law & Order series: Law & Order UK. The same sorts of plots as the others, about police catching criminals and Crown Prosecutors (DA equivalents) prosecuting the offenders. (Unfortunately, that spin-off is on BBC America, which isn’t part of my basic Comcast package. But it does turn up on On Demand. Go figure.)
But the show starts with a line that really strikes home: “You have to have a pair of brass ones to go after criminals when you can’t carry a gun.” (Referring, in case anyone here isn’t aware, to the fact the British police do not carry guns except in very limited and exceptional circumstances.)
Imagine the change that could ripple across our current gun-besotted culture if the idea spread that it is more macho to not carry a gun.
I think Dr. S is right that the insistence on having guns derives, in large part, from macho fantasies. (Obviously I’m not talking about people who actually go hunting. I’m talking mostly about people who feel that they need to have a hand gun. Or at least the ability to easily get one.) And that cop shows, and other “shoot ’em ups”, help to drive those fantasies.
Which leads me to an interesting observation. I recently came across a new spin-off from the Law & Order series: Law & Order UK. The same sorts of plots as the others, about police catching criminals and Crown Prosecutors (DA equivalents) prosecuting the offenders. (Unfortunately, that spin-off is on BBC America, which isn’t part of my basic Comcast package. But it does turn up on On Demand. Go figure.)
But the show starts with a line that really strikes home: “You have to have a pair of brass ones to go after criminals when you can’t carry a gun.” (Referring, in case anyone here isn’t aware, to the fact the British police do not carry guns except in very limited and exceptional circumstances.)
Imagine the change that could ripple across our current gun-besotted culture if the idea spread that it is more macho to not carry a gun.
*Shrug*. In my fantasy world?
1) Handguns would be the province of police and the military alone. I’d make an exception, perhaps, for sport-shooters if they underwent a rigorous background check. “Concealed carry” would be the object of mocking laughter.
2) Hunting rifles and shotguns would be available to anyone not convicted of a violent felony, provided they underwent both a background check and an annual safety course. (Heck, I’d make the government pay for the safety course).
Handguns are for killing people. Carrying them around concealed is so no one knows you can kill people. (Or, I suppose, so the big bad criminals don’t know if you can shoot back!). If you’re worried about the big, bad government taking over — a shotgun or a good rifle will do you a lot more good than a handgun when Uncle Sam and his M16s and MP5’s and tanks and helicopters comes calling.
Ditto for home defense.
Of course, all this violates my sacred constitutional right to wander around with a gun under my jacket, feeling all powerful and confident that all those muggers, and rapists, and thieves, and suspiciously black people won’t be able to take ME. Nope. I’ve got 9mm’s of hidden courage, you betcha.
It’s like a longer, harder, more metal penis that fires PURE AWESOME.
And I say this as someone who hunts, and enjoys sport shooting.
*Shrug*. In my fantasy world?
1) Handguns would be the province of police and the military alone. I’d make an exception, perhaps, for sport-shooters if they underwent a rigorous background check. “Concealed carry” would be the object of mocking laughter.
2) Hunting rifles and shotguns would be available to anyone not convicted of a violent felony, provided they underwent both a background check and an annual safety course. (Heck, I’d make the government pay for the safety course).
Handguns are for killing people. Carrying them around concealed is so no one knows you can kill people. (Or, I suppose, so the big bad criminals don’t know if you can shoot back!). If you’re worried about the big, bad government taking over — a shotgun or a good rifle will do you a lot more good than a handgun when Uncle Sam and his M16s and MP5’s and tanks and helicopters comes calling.
Ditto for home defense.
Of course, all this violates my sacred constitutional right to wander around with a gun under my jacket, feeling all powerful and confident that all those muggers, and rapists, and thieves, and suspiciously black people won’t be able to take ME. Nope. I’ve got 9mm’s of hidden courage, you betcha.
It’s like a longer, harder, more metal penis that fires PURE AWESOME.
And I say this as someone who hunts, and enjoys sport shooting.
In a home invasion, I’d go with yelling (with feeling!), while out of sight, “I have a gun! Get the f**k out of my house or I will blow your f**king head off!” You know, whether I had a gun or not, which I don’t. (I do have a kid-sized aluminum bat under my bed. It’s small and light enough to be wielded with one hand if necessary.)
I’ve lived somewhere or another my entire life. I’m 42. No one has ever, to my knowledge, entered any residence of mine without at least an implicit invitation. That’s just my experience, I know.
The only time I’ve had a gun pointed at me was when a friend of mine thought it was funny to point his shotgun at his friends at parties when he was going through his 2nd-amendment phase. Somehow, those of us who weren’t “into” guns had to explain the stupidity of this to him. It didn’t really sink in until another “gun person” who understood gun safety, and whose expertise with firearms was more respectable to my friend, later explained it to him.
In a home invasion, I’d go with yelling (with feeling!), while out of sight, “I have a gun! Get the f**k out of my house or I will blow your f**king head off!” You know, whether I had a gun or not, which I don’t. (I do have a kid-sized aluminum bat under my bed. It’s small and light enough to be wielded with one hand if necessary.)
I’ve lived somewhere or another my entire life. I’m 42. No one has ever, to my knowledge, entered any residence of mine without at least an implicit invitation. That’s just my experience, I know.
The only time I’ve had a gun pointed at me was when a friend of mine thought it was funny to point his shotgun at his friends at parties when he was going through his 2nd-amendment phase. Somehow, those of us who weren’t “into” guns had to explain the stupidity of this to him. It didn’t really sink in until another “gun person” who understood gun safety, and whose expertise with firearms was more respectable to my friend, later explained it to him.
Phil’s comment, “It’s not like shootings are rare in the neighborhood in which this took place.” suggests to me that American policy around guns has not succeeded.
Phil’s comment, “It’s not like shootings are rare in the neighborhood in which this took place.” suggests to me that American policy around guns has not succeeded.
John, we discussed that very topic recently here at length. Similar results could be inferred as late as the mid 19th century when armies began to draft statistics about spent ammo during battles. At Königgrätz, one of the largest battles of its age there was on average a single bullet fired per rifle despite the fact that few participants stood around idly and that the units at the focal points were dangerously short on ammo when it ended (i.e. they had fired about 60 shots each).
John, we discussed that very topic recently here at length. Similar results could be inferred as late as the mid 19th century when armies began to draft statistics about spent ammo during battles. At Königgrätz, one of the largest battles of its age there was on average a single bullet fired per rifle despite the fact that few participants stood around idly and that the units at the focal points were dangerously short on ammo when it ended (i.e. they had fired about 60 shots each).
Well, the problem with Cleveland — and with the east side neighborhoods where violent crime rates are higher — is not guns or gun policy, or not enough people being armed, or too many people being armed.
It’s multi-generational poverty, it’s bad schools, it’s the decimation of families by the War On Drugs, it’s a law enforcement and prison system that destroys poor black families, it’s joblessness . . . it’s all the sociological indicators and factors that correlate positively with violent crime.
Take away all the guns in East Cleveland, and not too much would change big-picture wise except for a few less deaths by gunshot.
Well, the problem with Cleveland — and with the east side neighborhoods where violent crime rates are higher — is not guns or gun policy, or not enough people being armed, or too many people being armed.
It’s multi-generational poverty, it’s bad schools, it’s the decimation of families by the War On Drugs, it’s a law enforcement and prison system that destroys poor black families, it’s joblessness . . . it’s all the sociological indicators and factors that correlate positively with violent crime.
Take away all the guns in East Cleveland, and not too much would change big-picture wise except for a few less deaths by gunshot.
“A tank is well and good but I opted for an anti personnel minefield round the house ”
Wimps. Ever wonder who took those old Minuteman I’s and II’s along with the 54 Titan II missiles off of our government’s hands when they were retired from service as part of our land-based nuclear deterrent? I grant you that the Titans with their liquid fuel are a difficult proposition for the average homeowner to keep maintained and ready to fire, but the Minuteman with its solid fuel is like a dream come true. Admittedly the Minuteman lacks the punch of the Titan 2’s 9 megaton warhead, but I have found that 1.2 megatons is more than enough to take care of the average burglar, not to mention every potential burglar for several miles around. Now admittedly this isn’t the sort of thing for those who never looked at Cheyenne Mountain as their ultimate dream home, but for anyone willing to live a mile underground in a steel bunker there just isn’t anything better for added home security.
But if you want a nuclear deterrent, ask Mother Russia. I’m not selling.
“A tank is well and good but I opted for an anti personnel minefield round the house ”
Wimps. Ever wonder who took those old Minuteman I’s and II’s along with the 54 Titan II missiles off of our government’s hands when they were retired from service as part of our land-based nuclear deterrent? I grant you that the Titans with their liquid fuel are a difficult proposition for the average homeowner to keep maintained and ready to fire, but the Minuteman with its solid fuel is like a dream come true. Admittedly the Minuteman lacks the punch of the Titan 2’s 9 megaton warhead, but I have found that 1.2 megatons is more than enough to take care of the average burglar, not to mention every potential burglar for several miles around. Now admittedly this isn’t the sort of thing for those who never looked at Cheyenne Mountain as their ultimate dream home, but for anyone willing to live a mile underground in a steel bunker there just isn’t anything better for added home security.
But if you want a nuclear deterrent, ask Mother Russia. I’m not selling.
Top this – in addition to my kid-sized aluminum bat, we have a “Beware of Dog” sign in our back window, despite our severe lack of dog.
Top this – in addition to my kid-sized aluminum bat, we have a “Beware of Dog” sign in our back window, despite our severe lack of dog.
Whenever the subject turns to the possession of guns for defending your family, I am compelled to talk about smoke alarms and child seats. Do you have smoke alarms in every room in your house except the kitchen and bathrooms? Are they fairly new? Do they have good batteries in them? Do you have carbon monoxide alarms in every bedroom? Do you have fire extinguishers in the kitchen and garage and some others around the house? Do you have a phone that is guaranteed to work if you need to call the fire department or an ambulance? Do you have a modern car seat for your kid? Did you read the manual? Are you sure it’s installed right? What kind of crash rating did your car receive? Do your tires have enough tread and are they inflated correctly and are your brakes in good shape? OK, now we can talk about guns – in a second.
I believe in statistics, and I do not believe in my ability to beat them. People mostly die prematurely in fires and in car accidents and, well, in accidental shootings in households with guns. None of the above questions were facetious – if you have kids, you should have done all those things.
When it comes to guns, I look at the statistics and they are not very good. Having a gun in the house does not guarantee that someone will get shot with it. It remains a tiny fractional chance. But it’s a significantly higher tiny fractional chance than not having one, and did I mention that I believe in statistics? What excuse would I have if I had a gun and my son shot himself with it by accident? “I didn’t know”?
Similarly for suicide. Gun advocates love to exclude suicides from gun mortality for reasons that passeth understanding to me – dead is dead whether I shoot myself or someone else does. Depression, including suicidality, can hit anyone, and as someone with a – well-managed, not that bothersome – depressive illness I’m certainly not going to think I can beat the odds.
Guns don’t scare me as things. I shot sporting clays in high school with 20- and 12-gauge shotguns. That experience instilled both an ease of handling guns and ammunition and an extreme caution for where they were pointed.
Further, as Turbulence says, I would not kill someone over physical possessions even if there was not good reason to think that introducing a gun to a situation substantially increases the chance that I will get killed. It’s stuff. I have insurance. Some of it is irreplaceable personal stuff – I’d sure be upset if someone stole my wedding ring – but I’m not going to kill some stupid kid over it.
As for home invasion robberies, they are incredibly rare, they almost exclusively happen to drug dealers known to keep large quantities of cash or drugs in their house, and the best thing to do if one occurred is almost certainly to give them what they want and let them leave. (That’d be a limited haul in my house cause the cash and drugs are pretty much the penny jar and a bottle of ibuprofen… but anyway.)
If you’re really concerned, high-security captive-deadbolt door locks are probably a better investment than guns.
All that said, if you want to keep a gun in your house, and you keep it stored safely and you know how to use it and you’re not a raging psychopath – whatever. Gun rampage deaths are statistically insignificant and individual gun deaths are mostly occupant accidents or arguments. I’m not going to let my kids play at your house, but otherwise, whatever. Just don’t expect me to be impressed with your fantasies.
Whenever the subject turns to the possession of guns for defending your family, I am compelled to talk about smoke alarms and child seats. Do you have smoke alarms in every room in your house except the kitchen and bathrooms? Are they fairly new? Do they have good batteries in them? Do you have carbon monoxide alarms in every bedroom? Do you have fire extinguishers in the kitchen and garage and some others around the house? Do you have a phone that is guaranteed to work if you need to call the fire department or an ambulance? Do you have a modern car seat for your kid? Did you read the manual? Are you sure it’s installed right? What kind of crash rating did your car receive? Do your tires have enough tread and are they inflated correctly and are your brakes in good shape? OK, now we can talk about guns – in a second.
I believe in statistics, and I do not believe in my ability to beat them. People mostly die prematurely in fires and in car accidents and, well, in accidental shootings in households with guns. None of the above questions were facetious – if you have kids, you should have done all those things.
When it comes to guns, I look at the statistics and they are not very good. Having a gun in the house does not guarantee that someone will get shot with it. It remains a tiny fractional chance. But it’s a significantly higher tiny fractional chance than not having one, and did I mention that I believe in statistics? What excuse would I have if I had a gun and my son shot himself with it by accident? “I didn’t know”?
Similarly for suicide. Gun advocates love to exclude suicides from gun mortality for reasons that passeth understanding to me – dead is dead whether I shoot myself or someone else does. Depression, including suicidality, can hit anyone, and as someone with a – well-managed, not that bothersome – depressive illness I’m certainly not going to think I can beat the odds.
Guns don’t scare me as things. I shot sporting clays in high school with 20- and 12-gauge shotguns. That experience instilled both an ease of handling guns and ammunition and an extreme caution for where they were pointed.
Further, as Turbulence says, I would not kill someone over physical possessions even if there was not good reason to think that introducing a gun to a situation substantially increases the chance that I will get killed. It’s stuff. I have insurance. Some of it is irreplaceable personal stuff – I’d sure be upset if someone stole my wedding ring – but I’m not going to kill some stupid kid over it.
As for home invasion robberies, they are incredibly rare, they almost exclusively happen to drug dealers known to keep large quantities of cash or drugs in their house, and the best thing to do if one occurred is almost certainly to give them what they want and let them leave. (That’d be a limited haul in my house cause the cash and drugs are pretty much the penny jar and a bottle of ibuprofen… but anyway.)
If you’re really concerned, high-security captive-deadbolt door locks are probably a better investment than guns.
All that said, if you want to keep a gun in your house, and you keep it stored safely and you know how to use it and you’re not a raging psychopath – whatever. Gun rampage deaths are statistically insignificant and individual gun deaths are mostly occupant accidents or arguments. I’m not going to let my kids play at your house, but otherwise, whatever. Just don’t expect me to be impressed with your fantasies.
“my kid-sized aluminum bat”
I had been wondering what to do in case someone actually got inside the old bunker. Thanks for the tip.
“my kid-sized aluminum bat”
I had been wondering what to do in case someone actually got inside the old bunker. Thanks for the tip.
Dr. S.-
You may turn out to be right, but we don’t know that from the available information. Loughner was using metal-jacketed ammunition that produces through-and-through wounds like Rep. Giffords’, especially at close range. It’s very possible that some bullets passed through the initial victim and then struck another person. For example, I was a juror in a murder case involving a .357 magnum (admittedly, a much larger load). The victim was shot through the chest as he ran from the shooter. The round passed through him and hit a little girl down the street, then passed through her and wounded her mother. A second shot passed through the victim and struck a second little girl. (The mother then dragged both girls to safety.) Two shots, four victims.
Unless the police reconstruct the sequence based on the videotape and information from witnesses, we’ll never know which of the rounds Loughner fired hit someone.
Dr. S.-
You may turn out to be right, but we don’t know that from the available information. Loughner was using metal-jacketed ammunition that produces through-and-through wounds like Rep. Giffords’, especially at close range. It’s very possible that some bullets passed through the initial victim and then struck another person. For example, I was a juror in a murder case involving a .357 magnum (admittedly, a much larger load). The victim was shot through the chest as he ran from the shooter. The round passed through him and hit a little girl down the street, then passed through her and wounded her mother. A second shot passed through the victim and struck a second little girl. (The mother then dragged both girls to safety.) Two shots, four victims.
Unless the police reconstruct the sequence based on the videotape and information from witnesses, we’ll never know which of the rounds Loughner fired hit someone.
The problem is not guns. It is the quality of the people the have them in their hands and it is also our culture itself.
Right, so you shouldn’t change the rules about guns; all you have to do is get a new population and change the culture. (Dissolve the people and elect another, asyermightsay).
The problem is not guns. It is the quality of the people the have them in their hands and it is also our culture itself.
Right, so you shouldn’t change the rules about guns; all you have to do is get a new population and change the culture. (Dissolve the people and elect another, asyermightsay).
“I also think that we mostly agree with each other on the subject, this squabbling disregarded.”
I think so too. Many years ago I was able to move out a community where documented home invasions were more numerous than documented paranoiac fever dreams.ince that time I have never had a agun in my house.
In addition I never let my young children have toy guns. That rule was enforced until I thought they were old enough to grasp the dangers of real guns and to know the difference.
I prefer gun laws that accept open carry rather than hidden guns, as a crime deterrent it is much more effective if they know you have a gun.
I don’t know what I would do if I was in the house by myself, I haven’t thought about protecting my stuff without having a family to consider in over 30 years.
“I also think that we mostly agree with each other on the subject, this squabbling disregarded.”
I think so too. Many years ago I was able to move out a community where documented home invasions were more numerous than documented paranoiac fever dreams.ince that time I have never had a agun in my house.
In addition I never let my young children have toy guns. That rule was enforced until I thought they were old enough to grasp the dangers of real guns and to know the difference.
I prefer gun laws that accept open carry rather than hidden guns, as a crime deterrent it is much more effective if they know you have a gun.
I don’t know what I would do if I was in the house by myself, I haven’t thought about protecting my stuff without having a family to consider in over 30 years.
Obviously you are not someone who has ever Googled “Orlando home invasion“.
It hasn’t happened to me, but it has happened within a half-mile of my house. And not nearly an exclusively-large portion of the victims have been ascertained to have a drug connection.
Home invasions here are mostly, anecdotal evidence mind you, aimed at either a) snatching some quick cash, or b) executing a bit of the old ultra-violence. Check out that Google thread and you’ll find two guys who did at least four rapes as part of their home-invasion circus.
Obviously you are not someone who has ever Googled “Orlando home invasion“.
It hasn’t happened to me, but it has happened within a half-mile of my house. And not nearly an exclusively-large portion of the victims have been ascertained to have a drug connection.
Home invasions here are mostly, anecdotal evidence mind you, aimed at either a) snatching some quick cash, or b) executing a bit of the old ultra-violence. Check out that Google thread and you’ll find two guys who did at least four rapes as part of their home-invasion circus.
The first three hits on that search are from the Orlando Sentinel.
First: “Robinson [the occupant who was shot and killed], a husband and father of two, had started to turn his life around after a history of drug-related incidents and other arrests.”
Second: “[One of the robbers] admitted that he and Pascal had planned the home invasion to steal marijuana.”
The third doesn’t mention drugs. Another on the first page there does though. And obviously we can’t know the exact motivations in cases where none is mentioned.
Can’t find good statistics or studies on this in a quickie search. One of the problems being that “home invasion” is a poorly-defined category. So I can’t offer much beyond “Almost every time I read about home invasion robberies the people they’re robbing appear to be drug dealers.” Well, and the obvious point: drug dealers for obvious reasons tend to keep money and merchandise in their house far in excess of what most of us do. Maybe “almost exclusively” is too strong, maybe not.
The first three hits on that search are from the Orlando Sentinel.
First: “Robinson [the occupant who was shot and killed], a husband and father of two, had started to turn his life around after a history of drug-related incidents and other arrests.”
Second: “[One of the robbers] admitted that he and Pascal had planned the home invasion to steal marijuana.”
The third doesn’t mention drugs. Another on the first page there does though. And obviously we can’t know the exact motivations in cases where none is mentioned.
Can’t find good statistics or studies on this in a quickie search. One of the problems being that “home invasion” is a poorly-defined category. So I can’t offer much beyond “Almost every time I read about home invasion robberies the people they’re robbing appear to be drug dealers.” Well, and the obvious point: drug dealers for obvious reasons tend to keep money and merchandise in their house far in excess of what most of us do. Maybe “almost exclusively” is too strong, maybe not.
I’d say, rather, completely unevidenced, with plenty of evidence weighing against. Notably, in addition to the at least 50% of the cases you found under my link. But this all depends on your threshold of “almost exclusively”, so I won’t belabor the point.
Sure, Jacob. But they also tend to be more highly armed and than the average joe.
I mean, wouldn’t you be, if you had to keep largeish quantities of cash and product around the house, as you speculated?
But: granted, the statistics are difficult to obtain. Also granted (and never disputed) the victims are sometimes drug dealers. I’m guessing the upside is the victims would be less likely to report, while the downside is they’re much, much more likely to be well-armed.
But, again: guessing.
I’d say, rather, completely unevidenced, with plenty of evidence weighing against. Notably, in addition to the at least 50% of the cases you found under my link. But this all depends on your threshold of “almost exclusively”, so I won’t belabor the point.
Sure, Jacob. But they also tend to be more highly armed and than the average joe.
I mean, wouldn’t you be, if you had to keep largeish quantities of cash and product around the house, as you speculated?
But: granted, the statistics are difficult to obtain. Also granted (and never disputed) the victims are sometimes drug dealers. I’m guessing the upside is the victims would be less likely to report, while the downside is they’re much, much more likely to be well-armed.
But, again: guessing.
During the second world war, the US Army did a study, and they discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that men (they didn’t have women in combat then) had a significant resistance to killing, so much so that soldiers alone would often not fire even to protect their own lives
SLA Marshall was credibly accused of fabricating the evidence rather than actually doing the study.
During the second world war, the US Army did a study, and they discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that men (they didn’t have women in combat then) had a significant resistance to killing, so much so that soldiers alone would often not fire even to protect their own lives
SLA Marshall was credibly accused of fabricating the evidence rather than actually doing the study.
“1) Handguns would be the province of police and the military alone. I’d make an exception, perhaps, for sport-shooters if they underwent a rigorous background check. “Concealed carry” would be the object of mocking laughter.
2) Hunting rifles and shotguns would be available to anyone not convicted of a violent felony, provided they underwent both a background check and an annual safety course. (Heck, I’d make the government pay for the safety course).”
That’s pretty much exactly the situation in New Zealand, we’re heavily agricultural so guns are quite important as tools for pest control/putting down large stock/hunting etc but handguns are pretty damn rare.
Guns are almost entirely seen as tools rather than as self defense (on the other hand there are a *lot* of martial arts training places).
The police don’t carry as a rule either(although they keep agitating for it).
I remember sitting on a jury trial of a local leader of one of the most well known criminal gangs in New Zealand…and it still shocked almost all of the jury that he had a pistol on him when arrested (none of the other 5 people on trial with him were armed when arrested).
There are still accidents and shootings but there aren’t as many of them and there are sure as hell a lot less police shootings.
I don’t think it could ever work in the states but it can work and it does make a difference.
“1) Handguns would be the province of police and the military alone. I’d make an exception, perhaps, for sport-shooters if they underwent a rigorous background check. “Concealed carry” would be the object of mocking laughter.
2) Hunting rifles and shotguns would be available to anyone not convicted of a violent felony, provided they underwent both a background check and an annual safety course. (Heck, I’d make the government pay for the safety course).”
That’s pretty much exactly the situation in New Zealand, we’re heavily agricultural so guns are quite important as tools for pest control/putting down large stock/hunting etc but handguns are pretty damn rare.
Guns are almost entirely seen as tools rather than as self defense (on the other hand there are a *lot* of martial arts training places).
The police don’t carry as a rule either(although they keep agitating for it).
I remember sitting on a jury trial of a local leader of one of the most well known criminal gangs in New Zealand…and it still shocked almost all of the jury that he had a pistol on him when arrested (none of the other 5 people on trial with him were armed when arrested).
There are still accidents and shootings but there aren’t as many of them and there are sure as hell a lot less police shootings.
I don’t think it could ever work in the states but it can work and it does make a difference.
” Do you have smoke alarms in every room in your house except the kitchen and bathrooms?”
Why the “except”? We call the one in the kitchen, jokingly, “the oven timer”, and it’s why I’m no longer allowed to roast meat at 500 degrees.
“Don’t forget the not insignificant number of cases where the gun owner was shot by the intruder with his own gun (that either was lying around or that was even taken from the owner).”
Well, not insignificant in the sense where anybody getting shot is significant. Not particularly common, though, either. Really, cost/benefit analysis doesn’t work if you’re determined to only look at costs; You’d have to ask what’s the ratio between guns in the house being used defensively, and being picked up and used against you by a burglar.
” Do you have smoke alarms in every room in your house except the kitchen and bathrooms?”
Why the “except”? We call the one in the kitchen, jokingly, “the oven timer”, and it’s why I’m no longer allowed to roast meat at 500 degrees.
“Don’t forget the not insignificant number of cases where the gun owner was shot by the intruder with his own gun (that either was lying around or that was even taken from the owner).”
Well, not insignificant in the sense where anybody getting shot is significant. Not particularly common, though, either. Really, cost/benefit analysis doesn’t work if you’re determined to only look at costs; You’d have to ask what’s the ratio between guns in the house being used defensively, and being picked up and used against you by a burglar.
You’d have to ask what’s the ratio between guns in the house being used defensively, and being picked up and used against you by a burglar.
Why only by a burglar? (My wife would probably have shot me by now had she the means.)
You’d have to ask what’s the ratio between guns in the house being used defensively, and being picked up and used against you by a burglar.
Why only by a burglar? (My wife would probably have shot me by now had she the means.)
I think all nine-year-old girls interested in how government works should pack one of these motherf$ckers when they show up at political events:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/video-navys-mach-8-railgun-obliterates-record/
I carry one of these when I attend Ted Nugent concerts and plan to carry an enhanced version to Republican Death Panel political events as 2012 approaches.
But, might I ask that everyone take a moment to celebrate the fact that the Jewess Sarah Palin has recovered so quickly from her gunshot wounds that she will be released from the hospital this Friday and will enter the FOXNews rehabilitation facility for extensive physical and speech therapy.
We can’t bring back those who were murdered in this tragic event, such as the Editors of Redrum, Rep. Steve King, and Martin Luther Limbaugh, but I believe we should make an effort to attenuate our sometimes misguided rhetoric.
A good start would be if Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who started this entire chain of events with her careless use of the term “gunsights” a few days before Palin was shot would agree to step to a microphone and at least acknowledge that crazy people with guns kill people, guns don’t kill people and those are the luckiest people in the world.
I think all nine-year-old girls interested in how government works should pack one of these motherf$ckers when they show up at political events:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/video-navys-mach-8-railgun-obliterates-record/
I carry one of these when I attend Ted Nugent concerts and plan to carry an enhanced version to Republican Death Panel political events as 2012 approaches.
But, might I ask that everyone take a moment to celebrate the fact that the Jewess Sarah Palin has recovered so quickly from her gunshot wounds that she will be released from the hospital this Friday and will enter the FOXNews rehabilitation facility for extensive physical and speech therapy.
We can’t bring back those who were murdered in this tragic event, such as the Editors of Redrum, Rep. Steve King, and Martin Luther Limbaugh, but I believe we should make an effort to attenuate our sometimes misguided rhetoric.
A good start would be if Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who started this entire chain of events with her careless use of the term “gunsights” a few days before Palin was shot would agree to step to a microphone and at least acknowledge that crazy people with guns kill people, guns don’t kill people and those are the luckiest people in the world.
It’s bad enough having a smoke alarm in the next room to the kitchen, even with giant industrial range hoods. I am the Burninator.
By “drug dealer” I should emphasize I am mostly talking about the bottom tiers of the pyramid, the small- and medium-timers, who may or may not have a gun but aren’t particularly scary to someone who intends to get the jump on them. There’s also the underreporting problem – where possible people engaged in illegal commerce are unlikely to call the police at all, and if the police come out anyway they’re not going to volunteer to them that maybe they got robbed because everyone knows their house is loaded with drugs and cash.
(Everyone generally does know. I lived in a house with a heroin dealer and a prostitute as next-door neighbors for a while in England. Most people don’t have half a dozen visitors a day who only hang out for an hour. The dealer was also burgled repeatedly, mostly by her own customers.)
The British police generally have guns available these days, in locked compartments in their cars. But they don’t carry them openly and unarmed people rarely get shot by the police because guns are not handy. Gun crime between British criminals is up in recent years though as it’s gotten easier to move guns in from the US, but gun confrontations with the police remain fairly rare as they generally result in the [equivalent of] a SWAT team getting called out.
It’s bad enough having a smoke alarm in the next room to the kitchen, even with giant industrial range hoods. I am the Burninator.
By “drug dealer” I should emphasize I am mostly talking about the bottom tiers of the pyramid, the small- and medium-timers, who may or may not have a gun but aren’t particularly scary to someone who intends to get the jump on them. There’s also the underreporting problem – where possible people engaged in illegal commerce are unlikely to call the police at all, and if the police come out anyway they’re not going to volunteer to them that maybe they got robbed because everyone knows their house is loaded with drugs and cash.
(Everyone generally does know. I lived in a house with a heroin dealer and a prostitute as next-door neighbors for a while in England. Most people don’t have half a dozen visitors a day who only hang out for an hour. The dealer was also burgled repeatedly, mostly by her own customers.)
The British police generally have guns available these days, in locked compartments in their cars. But they don’t carry them openly and unarmed people rarely get shot by the police because guns are not handy. Gun crime between British criminals is up in recent years though as it’s gotten easier to move guns in from the US, but gun confrontations with the police remain fairly rare as they generally result in the [equivalent of] a SWAT team getting called out.
Why the “except”? We call the one in the kitchen, jokingly, “the oven timer”, and it’s why I’m no longer allowed to roast meat at 500 degrees.
I think that’s the reason–the number of false positives. We could cut down on those at our house by cleaning our oven, but then, well, we’d be cleaning our oven.
Why the “except”? We call the one in the kitchen, jokingly, “the oven timer”, and it’s why I’m no longer allowed to roast meat at 500 degrees.
I think that’s the reason–the number of false positives. We could cut down on those at our house by cleaning our oven, but then, well, we’d be cleaning our oven.
… Burninator …
Trogdor!
… Burninator …
Trogdor!
Hogan,
I think that’s the reason–the number of false positives. We could cut down on those at our house by cleaning our oven, but then, well, we’d be cleaning our oven.
I myself am caught in a Catch-22 wrt this problem. Having neglected cleaning my self-cleaning oven for too long, I find that cleaning it generates voluminous amounts of smoke, and sets off all smoke detectors in my building, including in the halls, other apartments, etc.
So I can’t clean it, because it’s dirty.
Note that I am advised that regular chemical oven cleaners are verboten.
Hogan,
I think that’s the reason–the number of false positives. We could cut down on those at our house by cleaning our oven, but then, well, we’d be cleaning our oven.
I myself am caught in a Catch-22 wrt this problem. Having neglected cleaning my self-cleaning oven for too long, I find that cleaning it generates voluminous amounts of smoke, and sets off all smoke detectors in my building, including in the halls, other apartments, etc.
So I can’t clean it, because it’s dirty.
Note that I am advised that regular chemical oven cleaners are verboten.
Time to throw out the oven and buy a new oven.
Time to throw out the oven and buy a new oven.
You could always experiment with unconventional cleaning agents like Krud Kutter (which is just fabulous for cutting greasy crud. Stuff that has already reached a state of rock-hard char, not so much). Those aren’t advertised as “oven cleaner”, so might slip into that fine open area between the rules.
You could always experiment with unconventional cleaning agents like Krud Kutter (which is just fabulous for cutting greasy crud. Stuff that has already reached a state of rock-hard char, not so much). Those aren’t advertised as “oven cleaner”, so might slip into that fine open area between the rules.
The number of guns in private hands and the number of passenger vehicles in the US are not miles apart. Gun related deaths and auto related deaths are eerily similar in quantity. The big difference is that about half of the gun deaths are suicides.
What can we learn from this?
(A) It’s as safe to drive your gun as it is to drive your car.
(B) Gun ownership is a good indicator of poor mental health.
(C) Recent safety improvements make suicide by car difficult.
(D) There is no political support for concealed car carry regulations.
(E) Some of the above.
The number of guns in private hands and the number of passenger vehicles in the US are not miles apart. Gun related deaths and auto related deaths are eerily similar in quantity. The big difference is that about half of the gun deaths are suicides.
What can we learn from this?
(A) It’s as safe to drive your gun as it is to drive your car.
(B) Gun ownership is a good indicator of poor mental health.
(C) Recent safety improvements make suicide by car difficult.
(D) There is no political support for concealed car carry regulations.
(E) Some of the above.
Maybe I’ve been watching too much television, but I can’t help thinking there’s a gun-related solution to the dirty oven problem.
Maybe I’ve been watching too much television, but I can’t help thinking there’s a gun-related solution to the dirty oven problem.
How delightful for all of you who have never had to deal first hand with a home invasion robbery (or burglary, which I consider much the same thing). Not fun.
Many years ago, I moved from the city to a suburb. (North Oakland to Concord, if you are in the San Francisco area and care.) The new house was in what looked like a nice neighborhood, and the back yard looked out across a park. The park was, apparently, the problem.
What problem? Five (count ’em — 5!) burglaries in 8 years – by which time a bit the bullet and moved elsewhere. We generally got hit during the day, when my wife and I were off at work. Although one day I came how while the kid was still inside — he bailed out the broken window where he entered, and across to the park, before I got a look at him.
I say “kid” because the police assured me (and I called and reported each one) that kids going thru the park after school were the usual culprits. (None of whom were ever found.) No, I didn’t have drugs (or guns) in the house. I just made a bad pick of a home location.
How delightful for all of you who have never had to deal first hand with a home invasion robbery (or burglary, which I consider much the same thing). Not fun.
Many years ago, I moved from the city to a suburb. (North Oakland to Concord, if you are in the San Francisco area and care.) The new house was in what looked like a nice neighborhood, and the back yard looked out across a park. The park was, apparently, the problem.
What problem? Five (count ’em — 5!) burglaries in 8 years – by which time a bit the bullet and moved elsewhere. We generally got hit during the day, when my wife and I were off at work. Although one day I came how while the kid was still inside — he bailed out the broken window where he entered, and across to the park, before I got a look at him.
I say “kid” because the police assured me (and I called and reported each one) that kids going thru the park after school were the usual culprits. (None of whom were ever found.) No, I didn’t have drugs (or guns) in the house. I just made a bad pick of a home location.
Bernard,
Slip the building super a little token of appreciation and have them put the fire alarm panel into “test” prior to the cleaning.
You might also try sand-blasting, but that might be a bit messy.
Bernard,
Slip the building super a little token of appreciation and have them put the fire alarm panel into “test” prior to the cleaning.
You might also try sand-blasting, but that might be a bit messy.
How delightful for all of you who have never had to deal first hand with a home invasion robbery (or burglary, which I consider much the same thing). Not fun.
wj, the term home invasion, especially in the context used by Marty, means something well above and beyond having a neighbor hood kid break into your house to steal your stuff. As Wikipedia says “home invasion differs from burglary in having a violent intent”.
How delightful for all of you who have never had to deal first hand with a home invasion robbery (or burglary, which I consider much the same thing). Not fun.
wj, the term home invasion, especially in the context used by Marty, means something well above and beyond having a neighbor hood kid break into your house to steal your stuff. As Wikipedia says “home invasion differs from burglary in having a violent intent”.
Without harshing the light buzz induced by the gun-on-oven scenario, I did want to mention another regular form of home invasions: police who have the wrong address while undertaking a SWAT incursion.
Radley Balko has been following these for quite a while.
Results for people in these households and their pets are pretty bad across the board, but really grim when anyone in them deploys a gun (regardless of its being legally owned and permitted etc.).
Without harshing the light buzz induced by the gun-on-oven scenario, I did want to mention another regular form of home invasions: police who have the wrong address while undertaking a SWAT incursion.
Radley Balko has been following these for quite a while.
Results for people in these households and their pets are pretty bad across the board, but really grim when anyone in them deploys a gun (regardless of its being legally owned and permitted etc.).
bobbyp,
Not a bad idea, except:
No super.
Small building – five apts, and the smoke and odor go everywhere, so the alarms are only part of the problem.
I think I need to devote a day to scraping the charred stuff off and then using something like what slarti suggested to get the grease, and then see what happens when I fire up th eself-cleaning to finish the job.
bobbyp,
Not a bad idea, except:
No super.
Small building – five apts, and the smoke and odor go everywhere, so the alarms are only part of the problem.
I think I need to devote a day to scraping the charred stuff off and then using something like what slarti suggested to get the grease, and then see what happens when I fire up th eself-cleaning to finish the job.
Rotary wire brush in a drill. Followed by the vacuum cleaner. Works like a charm, though the first time a friend unlimbered one on my stove top, I nearly fainted.
Rotary wire brush in a drill. Followed by the vacuum cleaner. Works like a charm, though the first time a friend unlimbered one on my stove top, I nearly fainted.
Radley: Federal Judge Says There’s No First Amendment Right to Record Police.
Smart, sane libertarian! Recommend to all.
(Naturally, I disagree sometimes. Duh!)
Radley: Federal Judge Says There’s No First Amendment Right to Record Police.
Smart, sane libertarian! Recommend to all.
(Naturally, I disagree sometimes. Duh!)
While I agree with you that real-life shootouts are nothing like on TV, I think you’re exaggerating the gun-anarchy scenario as well. From what I know, gun-owners are trained to 1) only fire on a person when they are an imminent threat to life and 2) holster or lay down their weapon once the police arrive. The first point goes for the police as well, who are expected to confront the armed person verbally before firing. You can argue that these safe-guards don’t work, but the idea that a gunfight in a public place will inevitably devolve into a shootout between armed bystanders and police is just an assumption. (And, because I’m sure it’s coming, the fact that police officers shot a man with a golf-club in his own home is as much an argument against guns as it is an argument against golf-clubs).
Nevertheless, I’m with you on the gun-control issue and high-capacity or tactical magazines are an obvious starting point. I will note that most of the gun regulation I have personally seen seems to be very misguided if not counter-productive. Up here in New England, to get a pistol permit you have to personally go between the town police and the state police barracks three or four times, with each step of the process having separate fees and up to three month waiting periods – and this is after you’ve passed the training and the background check.
Now, I would be willing to undergo a psyche evaluation, or have my family interviewed, or get a letter from my boss to satisfy criteria for getting a pistol. These are all valid and effective ways of ensuring the wrong person can’t legally get a gun. But the current system is just security through bureaucracy – if you can read a form and don’t have a job to fill up your day, you can get a gun. Having experienced this, I’m now very weary of gun regulation that is simply based on making access more annoying rather than actually flagging and excluding the right people.
While I agree with you that real-life shootouts are nothing like on TV, I think you’re exaggerating the gun-anarchy scenario as well. From what I know, gun-owners are trained to 1) only fire on a person when they are an imminent threat to life and 2) holster or lay down their weapon once the police arrive. The first point goes for the police as well, who are expected to confront the armed person verbally before firing. You can argue that these safe-guards don’t work, but the idea that a gunfight in a public place will inevitably devolve into a shootout between armed bystanders and police is just an assumption. (And, because I’m sure it’s coming, the fact that police officers shot a man with a golf-club in his own home is as much an argument against guns as it is an argument against golf-clubs).
Nevertheless, I’m with you on the gun-control issue and high-capacity or tactical magazines are an obvious starting point. I will note that most of the gun regulation I have personally seen seems to be very misguided if not counter-productive. Up here in New England, to get a pistol permit you have to personally go between the town police and the state police barracks three or four times, with each step of the process having separate fees and up to three month waiting periods – and this is after you’ve passed the training and the background check.
Now, I would be willing to undergo a psyche evaluation, or have my family interviewed, or get a letter from my boss to satisfy criteria for getting a pistol. These are all valid and effective ways of ensuring the wrong person can’t legally get a gun. But the current system is just security through bureaucracy – if you can read a form and don’t have a job to fill up your day, you can get a gun. Having experienced this, I’m now very weary of gun regulation that is simply based on making access more annoying rather than actually flagging and excluding the right people.
wj!:
Try this!
Like this!
Remember: you asked for it!
😉
wj!:
Try this!
Like this!
Remember: you asked for it!
😉
I believe I already wrote that plenty of people have cast doubt on the findings of the US Army study on combat performance. However, the conclusions have held up well in the light of other studies of behaviour in combat, and the effect of changes in training. Experience appears to validate one of the main conclusions: that normal human beings have a significant resistance to killing, even in our own defence.
I believe I already wrote that plenty of people have cast doubt on the findings of the US Army study on combat performance. However, the conclusions have held up well in the light of other studies of behaviour in combat, and the effect of changes in training. Experience appears to validate one of the main conclusions: that normal human beings have a significant resistance to killing, even in our own defence.
John Spragge – Can you point me to any of these studies (or the names of these studies)? I’ve seen what you claim above asserted by Dave Grossman in books and articles but he never mentions any of these by name or gives any bibliographic details. I’d really like to see the details of these. Grossman is a central figure in a lot of military and video game studies and I’m ambivalent about his credibility and objectivity.
Anything would help. Thanks.
John Spragge – Can you point me to any of these studies (or the names of these studies)? I’ve seen what you claim above asserted by Dave Grossman in books and articles but he never mentions any of these by name or gives any bibliographic details. I’d really like to see the details of these. Grossman is a central figure in a lot of military and video game studies and I’m ambivalent about his credibility and objectivity.
Anything would help. Thanks.
Good thing Loughner’s reload clips were also high capacity. Otherwise he might killed or wounded more people than he did.
Good thing Loughner’s reload clips were also high capacity. Otherwise he might killed or wounded more people than he did.
[…]
Ardant du Picq’s surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations about ancient battles (Battle Studies, 1946), John Keegan and Richard Holmes’ numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history (Soldiers, 1985), Holmes’ assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War (Acts of War, 1985), Paddy Griffith’s data on the extraordinarily low firing rate among Napoleonic and American *Civil War regiments (Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, 1989), the British army’s laser reenactments of historical battles, the FBI’s studies of nonfiring rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations, all confirm Marshall’s fundamental conclusion that human beings are not, by nature, killers. Indeed, from a psychological perspective, the history of warfare can be viewed as a series of successively more effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing other human beings, even when defined as the enemy.
[…]
“Aggression and Violence”
[…]
Ardant du Picq’s surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations about ancient battles (Battle Studies, 1946), John Keegan and Richard Holmes’ numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history (Soldiers, 1985), Holmes’ assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War (Acts of War, 1985), Paddy Griffith’s data on the extraordinarily low firing rate among Napoleonic and American *Civil War regiments (Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, 1989), the British army’s laser reenactments of historical battles, the FBI’s studies of nonfiring rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations, all confirm Marshall’s fundamental conclusion that human beings are not, by nature, killers. Indeed, from a psychological perspective, the history of warfare can be viewed as a series of successively more effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing other human beings, even when defined as the enemy.
[…]
“Aggression and Violence”
Hartmut,
Could you elaborate on this? The argument is so frequently raised that it would be nice to have more facts about the situation. (Though why German gun laws affected conquered places like Poland, much of Russia, etc., is another question worth addressing).
Danke.
Hartmut,
Could you elaborate on this? The argument is so frequently raised that it would be nice to have more facts about the situation. (Though why German gun laws affected conquered places like Poland, much of Russia, etc., is another question worth addressing).
Danke.
RE: gun fantasies.
Years ago my then-husband, now ex bought me a gun. A Ruger 358, to be specific. Since the purpose of the gun was to shoot people (rapists, etc.), my dad’s NRC-member friend recommended that I load it with shotgun shells.
Thus armed I went on camping trips by myself.
I never had the least occasion to use it. I quickly realized that if I followed one simple rule(never be alone with a man) that I was safe.
So I got rid of the gun.
However, before my epiphamy I, in an effort to be a responsible gun owner, took a class and got a concealed weapons permit.
The class brought me into contact with some seriously weird people.
The kind of people whose fantasy lives are really scarey. The gun class was held in a black building covered all over with NRC posters and paranoid posters about unnamed entities that were trying to take everyone’s guns away. Lots of pictures of gunsights. IN side the very dark almost bar-like lobby the walls were covered with posters that got more into the sort of racist area, plus posters of big busted women holding huge guns, often with teh butt end down by their crotches and the other end pointing up.
Seriously weird.
My instructor turned out to be female. She was crazy. Cerifiable. She said that she had shot her gun so mony times that she had lead poisoning and could no longer have children. She said that she never ever was without a gun. She told the class that liberals sided with criminals and that liberals were trying to make it illegal to take classes like the one we were taking. She said tht liberals had changed the laws so that mentally ill people could get guns. I did speak up and corrected her on that.
We went to the gun range. There were all these fat guys in balck tshirts squinting at targets and shooting round after round after round..followed by lots of grunting and joshing and posturing.
The actual content of the class–gun safety ==was fine.
The whole atmosphere of the class–dark, paranoid, hateful–was not.
I got the impression of a whole lot of people who wanted to see themselves as heroic action figures, saviors of good against the forces of darkness. I thought there was a definite sex angle to it, as well. Guns were much more than self defense tools. There were some real issues with the need to feel powerful going on.
It totally creeped me out.
RE: gun fantasies.
Years ago my then-husband, now ex bought me a gun. A Ruger 358, to be specific. Since the purpose of the gun was to shoot people (rapists, etc.), my dad’s NRC-member friend recommended that I load it with shotgun shells.
Thus armed I went on camping trips by myself.
I never had the least occasion to use it. I quickly realized that if I followed one simple rule(never be alone with a man) that I was safe.
So I got rid of the gun.
However, before my epiphamy I, in an effort to be a responsible gun owner, took a class and got a concealed weapons permit.
The class brought me into contact with some seriously weird people.
The kind of people whose fantasy lives are really scarey. The gun class was held in a black building covered all over with NRC posters and paranoid posters about unnamed entities that were trying to take everyone’s guns away. Lots of pictures of gunsights. IN side the very dark almost bar-like lobby the walls were covered with posters that got more into the sort of racist area, plus posters of big busted women holding huge guns, often with teh butt end down by their crotches and the other end pointing up.
Seriously weird.
My instructor turned out to be female. She was crazy. Cerifiable. She said that she had shot her gun so mony times that she had lead poisoning and could no longer have children. She said that she never ever was without a gun. She told the class that liberals sided with criminals and that liberals were trying to make it illegal to take classes like the one we were taking. She said tht liberals had changed the laws so that mentally ill people could get guns. I did speak up and corrected her on that.
We went to the gun range. There were all these fat guys in balck tshirts squinting at targets and shooting round after round after round..followed by lots of grunting and joshing and posturing.
The actual content of the class–gun safety ==was fine.
The whole atmosphere of the class–dark, paranoid, hateful–was not.
I got the impression of a whole lot of people who wanted to see themselves as heroic action figures, saviors of good against the forces of darkness. I thought there was a definite sex angle to it, as well. Guns were much more than self defense tools. There were some real issues with the need to feel powerful going on.
It totally creeped me out.
Wonkie:
Um. Er. Ah. Hmm?
Wonkie:
Um. Er. Ah. Hmm?
Hmm.
Hmm.
Gary, female serial killers usually attack men.
I don’t think gun nuts like the folks at the gun club go around shooting isolated tourists. If my instructor ever kills someone it is more likely to be a politician, a person in the crowd near the politican, or someone breaking into the house.
But I don’t think you were being really serious.
IN any event my point was really that guns have a huge symbolic value about power. People can talk all they want about having one just for self defense but I don’t believe it. People I know who are not normally weird get weird when they start talking about guns. They get gorilla-ish. Grunting. Comparing their gun to the other guy’s gun. They get touchy. They start telling stories about somebody somewhere who could hava avoided being robbed or raped if they had only had a gun. They start the Clint Eastwood fantasies.
Granted I am not acquainted with every gun owner in America. But there is some strange emotional thing that can go on with gun ownership. It’s weirder than how people can get about car ownership or comparing collections of whatever. It’s almost like that sick thing some people have for unneutered male pitbulls (It’s not the dog’s fault that people impose their fantasies on a breed, but that’s another subject). It felt very liberating to me to throw the gun off the bridge. Farewell to being afraid!
Gary, female serial killers usually attack men.
I don’t think gun nuts like the folks at the gun club go around shooting isolated tourists. If my instructor ever kills someone it is more likely to be a politician, a person in the crowd near the politican, or someone breaking into the house.
But I don’t think you were being really serious.
IN any event my point was really that guns have a huge symbolic value about power. People can talk all they want about having one just for self defense but I don’t believe it. People I know who are not normally weird get weird when they start talking about guns. They get gorilla-ish. Grunting. Comparing their gun to the other guy’s gun. They get touchy. They start telling stories about somebody somewhere who could hava avoided being robbed or raped if they had only had a gun. They start the Clint Eastwood fantasies.
Granted I am not acquainted with every gun owner in America. But there is some strange emotional thing that can go on with gun ownership. It’s weirder than how people can get about car ownership or comparing collections of whatever. It’s almost like that sick thing some people have for unneutered male pitbulls (It’s not the dog’s fault that people impose their fantasies on a breed, but that’s another subject). It felt very liberating to me to throw the gun off the bridge. Farewell to being afraid!
To Trizzlor:
“The first point goes for the police as well, who are expected to confront the armed person verbally before firing.”
I’ve watched a few of the police home invasion videos–some of them were more of the Robin William’s bit “Bang” “Stop, or I’ll shoot”.
Part two, a quote from a book, Pure Cop, from an officer describing a threat approaching them.
“If someone is 20 feet away, I have my gun. If they are 10 feet away, I have a gun.”
To Trizzlor:
“The first point goes for the police as well, who are expected to confront the armed person verbally before firing.”
I’ve watched a few of the police home invasion videos–some of them were more of the Robin William’s bit “Bang” “Stop, or I’ll shoot”.
Part two, a quote from a book, Pure Cop, from an officer describing a threat approaching them.
“If someone is 20 feet away, I have my gun. If they are 10 feet away, I have a gun.”
Trizzlor: “From what I know, gun-owners are trained . . . ”
From what I know, they are not. Many of them are, but there’s no requirement that they must be, and the strongest – well, loudest – advocates of Second Amendment rights tend to vigorously protest any suggestion that training be mandatory.
Trizzlor: “From what I know, gun-owners are trained . . . ”
From what I know, they are not. Many of them are, but there’s no requirement that they must be, and the strongest – well, loudest – advocates of Second Amendment rights tend to vigorously protest any suggestion that training be mandatory.
Dr, you’ve just received a Facebook FR to Friend my friend of decades, Joel Rosenberg.
You’ll figure out why.
Dr, you’ve just received a Facebook FR to Friend my friend of decades, Joel Rosenberg.
You’ll figure out why.
As a Canadian, let me make a radical suggestion: social, political, and technological developments over the past two centuries have made the second amendment obsolete as a direct guarantor of liberty, if indeed it ever worked for that purpose. Technological developments in warfare, particularly nuclear weapons, means a violent revolution or civil war in a nuclear armed nation poses extreme hazards. Social evolution, particularly the non-violence taught by Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus of Nazareth has provided a way to make profound social change without weapons.
Given these and other developments, the advantage of an armed militia, well regulated or otherwise, seems highly unclear.
As a Canadian, let me make a radical suggestion: social, political, and technological developments over the past two centuries have made the second amendment obsolete as a direct guarantor of liberty, if indeed it ever worked for that purpose. Technological developments in warfare, particularly nuclear weapons, means a violent revolution or civil war in a nuclear armed nation poses extreme hazards. Social evolution, particularly the non-violence taught by Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus of Nazareth has provided a way to make profound social change without weapons.
Given these and other developments, the advantage of an armed militia, well regulated or otherwise, seems highly unclear.
social, political, and technological developments over the past two centuries have made the second amendment obsolete as a direct guarantor of liberty, if indeed it ever worked for that purpose
Presumably there are lots of occasions in US history in which armed resistance was successfully used to defend against an oppressive government.
social, political, and technological developments over the past two centuries have made the second amendment obsolete as a direct guarantor of liberty, if indeed it ever worked for that purpose
Presumably there are lots of occasions in US history in which armed resistance was successfully used to defend against an oppressive government.
Given these and other developments, the advantage of an armed militia, well regulated or otherwise, seems highly unclear.
Perhaps from the perspective of a Canadian or an American. Yet look how well it’s worked out for, say, Iraqis or Afghans.
Given these and other developments, the advantage of an armed militia, well regulated or otherwise, seems highly unclear.
Perhaps from the perspective of a Canadian or an American. Yet look how well it’s worked out for, say, Iraqis or Afghans.
Bernard, the most important points are that
a) there has never been a right to possess firearms in Germany in the first place. Even city militias got replaced by mercenaries in order to monopolize it for the state.
b) the first actual ‘grab their guns’ law was imposed by the WW1 victors through the Versailles treaty with the purpose to disarm not only the military but also all civilians who somehow go their hands on any firearms (I assume many simply kept their personal one from the war).
c) the first universal/federal gun law was introduced not by but against the Nazis (and other extremist groups on the right) and introduced the basic criteria still applied today, i.e. ‘need’, ‘reliability’ and ‘competence’. It also for the first time introduced mandatory registration.
d) the Nazis basically applied the existing law with bias, i.e. Jews, gypsies etc. were denied the ‘reliability’ status* (that was later codified as part of the Nuremberg laws).
e) the Nazis actually made it easier for the general population to get access to firearms as part of their “Wehrertüchtigungs”-program, including dropping the reliability clause for almost anybody in most NS organisations (like the HJ).
With a (very big) grain of salt one could say that the nazis armed the population while the Democrats before and after them tried to do the opposite and that fear of politcial extremists (from the right in Weimar, more from the left after WW2) was the driving force.
The whole topic is quite complex but the one conclusion one can not draw in good faith from it is that the triumph of nazism was the result of nazi introduced gun control. But that is the most notorious zombie argument by the 2nders I encounter on the web.
One point where distortions are especially strong is in quoting specific restrictions introduced during the 1920ies. Those are in part for real (some are iirc simply made up) but what is (I assume deliberately) omitted is the fact that these ‘restrictions’ for the most parts replaced a total ban. E.g. detailed laws about the handling of ammo were not necessary before because it simply was illegal for those unconnected to the state to handle ammo in the first place.**
*this extended to the possession of any kind of weapon, in some cases a breadknife was used as a pretense for violation charges
**companies producing guns and ammo were usually directly involved with the military in some way or other and hunting has always been a privilege, so hunters were either state employees or under strict supervision.
Bernard, the most important points are that
a) there has never been a right to possess firearms in Germany in the first place. Even city militias got replaced by mercenaries in order to monopolize it for the state.
b) the first actual ‘grab their guns’ law was imposed by the WW1 victors through the Versailles treaty with the purpose to disarm not only the military but also all civilians who somehow go their hands on any firearms (I assume many simply kept their personal one from the war).
c) the first universal/federal gun law was introduced not by but against the Nazis (and other extremist groups on the right) and introduced the basic criteria still applied today, i.e. ‘need’, ‘reliability’ and ‘competence’. It also for the first time introduced mandatory registration.
d) the Nazis basically applied the existing law with bias, i.e. Jews, gypsies etc. were denied the ‘reliability’ status* (that was later codified as part of the Nuremberg laws).
e) the Nazis actually made it easier for the general population to get access to firearms as part of their “Wehrertüchtigungs”-program, including dropping the reliability clause for almost anybody in most NS organisations (like the HJ).
With a (very big) grain of salt one could say that the nazis armed the population while the Democrats before and after them tried to do the opposite and that fear of politcial extremists (from the right in Weimar, more from the left after WW2) was the driving force.
The whole topic is quite complex but the one conclusion one can not draw in good faith from it is that the triumph of nazism was the result of nazi introduced gun control. But that is the most notorious zombie argument by the 2nders I encounter on the web.
One point where distortions are especially strong is in quoting specific restrictions introduced during the 1920ies. Those are in part for real (some are iirc simply made up) but what is (I assume deliberately) omitted is the fact that these ‘restrictions’ for the most parts replaced a total ban. E.g. detailed laws about the handling of ammo were not necessary before because it simply was illegal for those unconnected to the state to handle ammo in the first place.**
*this extended to the possession of any kind of weapon, in some cases a breadknife was used as a pretense for violation charges
**companies producing guns and ammo were usually directly involved with the military in some way or other and hunting has always been a privilege, so hunters were either state employees or under strict supervision.
People can talk all they want about having one just for self defense but I don’t believe it. People I know who are not normally weird get weird when they start talking about guns. They get gorilla-ish. Grunting. Comparing their gun to the other guy’s gun. They get touchy. They start telling stories about somebody somewhere who could hava avoided being robbed or raped if they had only had a gun. They start the Clint Eastwood fantasies.
Granted I am not acquainted with every gun owner in America. But there is some strange emotional thing that can go on with gun ownership. It’s weirder than how people can get about car ownership or comparing collections of whatever. It’s almost like that sick thing some people have for unneutered male pitbulls (It’s not the dog’s fault that people impose their fantasies on a breed, but that’s another subject). It felt very liberating to me to throw the gun off the bridge. Farewell to being afraid!
I’ve known a few gun fetishists. I’ve known a lot more people who hunt or target shoot. I got my first gun, a .22 single shot rifle, when I was ten. I was an avid hunter and shooter for years and years. I still own more than a dozen guns of various kinds.
There is a ton of mind reading going on here. Let me roll this thought out: gun owners get nervous around people like Wonkie and many others here because (1) they are adults who don’t like being judged, and they particularly don’t like being judged in the manner that prevails among those who think like Wonkie and (2) similarly, gun owners have issues with people who take it upon themselves to tell gun owners what they can and cannot do.
The fringe babble about standing up to the state, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and whatnot makes a useful but misleading foil. The more precise issue, from a gun owner’s viewpoint, is that gun ownership is his/her right. Many citizens take their rights very seriously and they have real reservations about those who would suspend, revoke, limit or retrain anyone’s rights.
People can talk all they want about having one just for self defense but I don’t believe it. People I know who are not normally weird get weird when they start talking about guns. They get gorilla-ish. Grunting. Comparing their gun to the other guy’s gun. They get touchy. They start telling stories about somebody somewhere who could hava avoided being robbed or raped if they had only had a gun. They start the Clint Eastwood fantasies.
Granted I am not acquainted with every gun owner in America. But there is some strange emotional thing that can go on with gun ownership. It’s weirder than how people can get about car ownership or comparing collections of whatever. It’s almost like that sick thing some people have for unneutered male pitbulls (It’s not the dog’s fault that people impose their fantasies on a breed, but that’s another subject). It felt very liberating to me to throw the gun off the bridge. Farewell to being afraid!
I’ve known a few gun fetishists. I’ve known a lot more people who hunt or target shoot. I got my first gun, a .22 single shot rifle, when I was ten. I was an avid hunter and shooter for years and years. I still own more than a dozen guns of various kinds.
There is a ton of mind reading going on here. Let me roll this thought out: gun owners get nervous around people like Wonkie and many others here because (1) they are adults who don’t like being judged, and they particularly don’t like being judged in the manner that prevails among those who think like Wonkie and (2) similarly, gun owners have issues with people who take it upon themselves to tell gun owners what they can and cannot do.
The fringe babble about standing up to the state, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and whatnot makes a useful but misleading foil. The more precise issue, from a gun owner’s viewpoint, is that gun ownership is his/her right. Many citizens take their rights very seriously and they have real reservations about those who would suspend, revoke, limit or retrain anyone’s rights.
“Many citizens take their rights very seriously and they have real reservations about those who would suspend, revoke, limit or retrain anyone’s rights.”
Indeed, and they should.
Owing a gun is not a basic human right.
250 years ago some people wrote on a piece of paper that people get to have guns. And now people seem to take that more seriously than the right of other to live in a safe(r) environment.
It doesn’t make it a violation of holy scripture if law changed to more control/regulation of firearms.
“Many citizens take their rights very seriously and they have real reservations about those who would suspend, revoke, limit or retrain anyone’s rights.”
Indeed, and they should.
Owing a gun is not a basic human right.
250 years ago some people wrote on a piece of paper that people get to have guns. And now people seem to take that more seriously than the right of other to live in a safe(r) environment.
It doesn’t make it a violation of holy scripture if law changed to more control/regulation of firearms.
To pour more oil on the fire, hunting is far from unambiguous too. I highly respect the true hunter who has the necessary skills and does his job responsibly. To hunt for food (but not to excess) or to keep a natural balance that was disturbed by e.g. removing natural predators (most hunting over here qualifies) is imo a honorable undertaking. But that is not what motivates a lot of people. They are interested just in the thrill of the kill and often even want the game presented to them since actual stalking takes too much effort. Trophy hunting from helicopters for me is the same category. I think one will find that all those guys that (claim to) want to hunt using assault weapons (fully automatic if available) are in this group and few if any in the former. I also know that there are few people more despised by the true hunters than these.
Famous examples: Chain-Eye, Scalia, Sarah Palin (although some may object to her being thrown in with this lot) and former GDR general secretary Erich Honecker. Former German emperor Wilhelm II was borderline but he at least had the excuse of being seriously handicapped and the bagged animals did not go to waste (and I believe that it was not just for PR that most of it went to charity).
To pour more oil on the fire, hunting is far from unambiguous too. I highly respect the true hunter who has the necessary skills and does his job responsibly. To hunt for food (but not to excess) or to keep a natural balance that was disturbed by e.g. removing natural predators (most hunting over here qualifies) is imo a honorable undertaking. But that is not what motivates a lot of people. They are interested just in the thrill of the kill and often even want the game presented to them since actual stalking takes too much effort. Trophy hunting from helicopters for me is the same category. I think one will find that all those guys that (claim to) want to hunt using assault weapons (fully automatic if available) are in this group and few if any in the former. I also know that there are few people more despised by the true hunters than these.
Famous examples: Chain-Eye, Scalia, Sarah Palin (although some may object to her being thrown in with this lot) and former GDR general secretary Erich Honecker. Former German emperor Wilhelm II was borderline but he at least had the excuse of being seriously handicapped and the bagged animals did not go to waste (and I believe that it was not just for PR that most of it went to charity).
I might add that I would not hunt even given the opportunity because I fear I would not be up to standard. And I would not fish if I had to do the gutting afterwards. No problem with eating the fish, and only once our family had some trouble because we caught a bit more than we could eat on the last day of the holidays.
I might add that I would not hunt even given the opportunity because I fear I would not be up to standard. And I would not fish if I had to do the gutting afterwards. No problem with eating the fish, and only once our family had some trouble because we caught a bit more than we could eat on the last day of the holidays.
I have an uncle and a brother-in-law that are both avid firearms people, both avid hunters, but neither of them is fetishist about either activity, and they both eat what they kill.
They haven’t met each other, and live in completely different parts of the country. One is a Democrat, and the other a Republican. I like and respect both of them. I’d let them watch my kids, and have.
Just as surely as there are weirdo firearms owners, there are also plenty of non-weirdos. People who like what they do, want to continue doing it, and are serious and responsible about these potentially dangerous objects that they own.
Just to answer anecdote in kind.
I have an uncle and a brother-in-law that are both avid firearms people, both avid hunters, but neither of them is fetishist about either activity, and they both eat what they kill.
They haven’t met each other, and live in completely different parts of the country. One is a Democrat, and the other a Republican. I like and respect both of them. I’d let them watch my kids, and have.
Just as surely as there are weirdo firearms owners, there are also plenty of non-weirdos. People who like what they do, want to continue doing it, and are serious and responsible about these potentially dangerous objects that they own.
Just to answer anecdote in kind.
‘Owing a gun is not a basic human right. ‘
Disagree.
Self-defense is a basic human right. An individual in possession of a handgun has an equalizer for self-defense, without generating any harm to others in the absence of such need. Thus, owning a gun is a basic human right.
‘Owing a gun is not a basic human right. ‘
Disagree.
Self-defense is a basic human right. An individual in possession of a handgun has an equalizer for self-defense, without generating any harm to others in the absence of such need. Thus, owning a gun is a basic human right.
Of course I was mindreading. I get to do that. I get to interpete incoming info including bodylannguage, tone of voice, facial expression: so do you. It is possible that some of the fearposturing and hypermachismo comes from being defensive about anticipated criticism but isn’t that what I said? That people who are really into guns seem to have fear/power issues?
The second line is the tell: gun owners hav e issues with people who tell them what they can or cannot do.
In what fantasy world can people own something that can be used to kill other people intentionally or accidentially and not be told by the potential victoms what to do in regard to management of that item? Why on earth would a person who has a potentially lethal item be afraid of regulation of the item? Seems like the knowledge that the item is potentially lethal would lead a reasonable person to assume that there should be some regulations imposed on its use and availability.
Cute bumper sticker I saw: If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will accidentally kill their children.
Not that anyone is trying to outlaw guns altogether.
Of course I was mindreading. I get to do that. I get to interpete incoming info including bodylannguage, tone of voice, facial expression: so do you. It is possible that some of the fearposturing and hypermachismo comes from being defensive about anticipated criticism but isn’t that what I said? That people who are really into guns seem to have fear/power issues?
The second line is the tell: gun owners hav e issues with people who tell them what they can or cannot do.
In what fantasy world can people own something that can be used to kill other people intentionally or accidentially and not be told by the potential victoms what to do in regard to management of that item? Why on earth would a person who has a potentially lethal item be afraid of regulation of the item? Seems like the knowledge that the item is potentially lethal would lead a reasonable person to assume that there should be some regulations imposed on its use and availability.
Cute bumper sticker I saw: If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will accidentally kill their children.
Not that anyone is trying to outlaw guns altogether.
IMO the issue with gun violence in the US has less to do with guns and more to do with US culture. Not that guns are irrelevant to the issue, just that the mere presence of guns is not why violence is so prevalent here.
Also IMO, the closest thing in the modern world to what the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment had in mind is the Swiss military. Most men, and a lot of women, participate for a significant portion of their early adulthood. All of the folks who participate *are required* to keep a fully automatic weapon (rifle or pistol) and a stock of ammunition in their home.
After aging out of militia service, folks are allowed to keep their weapon if they like, and many do. The automatic loading feature is disabled in that case.
In a nation of about 7.6 million people, there are something like 1.5 to 3 million firearms in private households. There are lots and lots of active gun clubs and ranges, and lots of people shoot target and hunt. The Swiss have active gun rights groups.
The Swiss like firearms. They like to shoot.
All from here, there’s more around on the topic if you look around a bit.
The rate of firearm homicide in Switzerland as of 2000 was 0.56 per 100,000. Slightly high for Europe, but only slightly. Comparable to Canada.
The rate of firearm homicide in the US in the same period was 3.97 per 100,000. Comparable to Costa Rica, or Belarus. Not as bad as Zimbabwe.
Those rates are from here.
The problem isn’t that there are a lot of guns around in the US. Although there are probably a lot of people in this country who have guns who should not have them.
The problem is that Americans shoot each other a lot. We don’t just like to shoot, we like to shoot people. We play games about shooting people, we watch movies about shooting people, we sing and listen to songs about shooting people.
Americans are violent. That is the problem.
IMO the issue with gun violence in the US has less to do with guns and more to do with US culture. Not that guns are irrelevant to the issue, just that the mere presence of guns is not why violence is so prevalent here.
Also IMO, the closest thing in the modern world to what the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment had in mind is the Swiss military. Most men, and a lot of women, participate for a significant portion of their early adulthood. All of the folks who participate *are required* to keep a fully automatic weapon (rifle or pistol) and a stock of ammunition in their home.
After aging out of militia service, folks are allowed to keep their weapon if they like, and many do. The automatic loading feature is disabled in that case.
In a nation of about 7.6 million people, there are something like 1.5 to 3 million firearms in private households. There are lots and lots of active gun clubs and ranges, and lots of people shoot target and hunt. The Swiss have active gun rights groups.
The Swiss like firearms. They like to shoot.
All from here, there’s more around on the topic if you look around a bit.
The rate of firearm homicide in Switzerland as of 2000 was 0.56 per 100,000. Slightly high for Europe, but only slightly. Comparable to Canada.
The rate of firearm homicide in the US in the same period was 3.97 per 100,000. Comparable to Costa Rica, or Belarus. Not as bad as Zimbabwe.
Those rates are from here.
The problem isn’t that there are a lot of guns around in the US. Although there are probably a lot of people in this country who have guns who should not have them.
The problem is that Americans shoot each other a lot. We don’t just like to shoot, we like to shoot people. We play games about shooting people, we watch movies about shooting people, we sing and listen to songs about shooting people.
Americans are violent. That is the problem.
We also get to misinterpret, due to our incomplete knowledge of what’s going on behind the other person’s face. That’s the nature of interpersonal communications: horribly, completely flawed. If you didn’t take active measures to ensure that you really heard what you thought you heard, odds are that you left a third of the conversation on the floor.
Best, I think, to treat your interpretations of what people say with some degree of suspicion.
News flash: nearly everyone has issues with people who tell them what they can or cannot do. It’s practically hardwired into our personalities.
We also get to misinterpret, due to our incomplete knowledge of what’s going on behind the other person’s face. That’s the nature of interpersonal communications: horribly, completely flawed. If you didn’t take active measures to ensure that you really heard what you thought you heard, odds are that you left a third of the conversation on the floor.
Best, I think, to treat your interpretations of what people say with some degree of suspicion.
News flash: nearly everyone has issues with people who tell them what they can or cannot do. It’s practically hardwired into our personalities.
Self-defense is a basic human right. An individual in possession of a handgun has an equalizer for self-defense, without generating any harm to others in the absence of such need. Thus, owning a gun is a basic human right.
I absolutely, 100% agree that self-defense is a basic human right — I’d go so far as to almost call it a moral imperative — but this is not so neat and tidy a proof as you seem to imagine. Replace “handgun” with the name of nearly any other weapon imaginable, and it should be clear.
Self-defense is a basic human right. An individual in possession of a handgun has an equalizer for self-defense, without generating any harm to others in the absence of such need. Thus, owning a gun is a basic human right.
I absolutely, 100% agree that self-defense is a basic human right — I’d go so far as to almost call it a moral imperative — but this is not so neat and tidy a proof as you seem to imagine. Replace “handgun” with the name of nearly any other weapon imaginable, and it should be clear.
News flash: nearly everyone has issues with people who tell them what they can or cannot do. It’s practically hardwired into our personalities.
From wonkie’s anectdote, which included things that people actually said, it sounds like the issue was that at least some of those people had a problem with people who didn’t exist – they were paranoid, in the non-clinical sense (maybe in the clinical sense, too). They had overblown fears of being controlled by others (i.e. “liberals”).
News flash: nearly everyone has issues with people who tell them what they can or cannot do. It’s practically hardwired into our personalities.
From wonkie’s anectdote, which included things that people actually said, it sounds like the issue was that at least some of those people had a problem with people who didn’t exist – they were paranoid, in the non-clinical sense (maybe in the clinical sense, too). They had overblown fears of being controlled by others (i.e. “liberals”).
‘The problem isn’t that there are a lot of guns around in the US. Although there are probably a lot of people in this country who have guns who should not have them.
The problem is that Americans shoot each other a lot. We don’t just like to shoot, we like to shoot people. We play games about shooting people, we watch movies about shooting people, we sing and listen to songs about shooting people.
Americans are violent. That is the problem.’
Russell:
Agree with your first point here. And some of the difference between firearm deaths in Switzerland and America is likely that almost universal training the Swiss get. Without researching, I also suspect the American rates are skewed toward metro areas and areas where there are extreme gun control laws. It is well known that there are numerous guns in New York or Chicago, and by mere possession, those folks have already shown their disregard for the law.
Your ‘we Americans’ in the last part is a mite too generic, since those who actually shoot people, unjustly, are a small number.
‘The problem isn’t that there are a lot of guns around in the US. Although there are probably a lot of people in this country who have guns who should not have them.
The problem is that Americans shoot each other a lot. We don’t just like to shoot, we like to shoot people. We play games about shooting people, we watch movies about shooting people, we sing and listen to songs about shooting people.
Americans are violent. That is the problem.’
Russell:
Agree with your first point here. And some of the difference between firearm deaths in Switzerland and America is likely that almost universal training the Swiss get. Without researching, I also suspect the American rates are skewed toward metro areas and areas where there are extreme gun control laws. It is well known that there are numerous guns in New York or Chicago, and by mere possession, those folks have already shown their disregard for the law.
Your ‘we Americans’ in the last part is a mite too generic, since those who actually shoot people, unjustly, are a small number.
I agree with Rusell, too. I wonder why we have more violent citizen countries that are otherwise comparable to us?
I agree with Rusell, too. I wonder why we have more violent citizen countries that are otherwise comparable to us?
Without researching, I also suspect the American rates are skewed toward metro areas and areas where there are extreme gun control laws.
Without researching, I also suspect the American rates are skewed toward metro areas and areas where there are extreme gun control laws.
‘ Replace “handgun” with the name of nearly any other weapon imaginable, and it should be clear.’
I’m missing the point here.
‘ Replace “handgun” with the name of nearly any other weapon imaginable, and it should be clear.’
I’m missing the point here.
I also suspect the American rates are skewed toward metro areas and areas where there are extreme gun control laws.
Hard to say.
Here are the numbers by state, which seem to indicate it’s more a regional thing than a city vs rural thing.
FWIW, if you don’t want to get shot, the place to be is northern New England, or the northern plains and mountain west. Maybe it’s the combination of rural and cold.
To get a real city / rural breakdown, you’d probably need to see those same numbers by country.
My suspicion is that it’s more a function of poverty and general prospects in life than population density per se. That’s just gut, no particular research.
I agree that the number of folks shooting other folks is tiny as a percentage of the overall population, but our tiny percentage is much, much larger than most folks’ tiny percentage.
More folks, by a dramatic margin, get shot to death here than in any similar country. Far and away.
I also suspect the American rates are skewed toward metro areas and areas where there are extreme gun control laws.
Hard to say.
Here are the numbers by state, which seem to indicate it’s more a regional thing than a city vs rural thing.
FWIW, if you don’t want to get shot, the place to be is northern New England, or the northern plains and mountain west. Maybe it’s the combination of rural and cold.
To get a real city / rural breakdown, you’d probably need to see those same numbers by country.
My suspicion is that it’s more a function of poverty and general prospects in life than population density per se. That’s just gut, no particular research.
I agree that the number of folks shooting other folks is tiny as a percentage of the overall population, but our tiny percentage is much, much larger than most folks’ tiny percentage.
More folks, by a dramatic margin, get shot to death here than in any similar country. Far and away.
“More folks, by a dramatic margin, get shot to death here than in any similar country. Far and away.”
But most of the population actually lives in areas where the chance of getting shot is as low as anywhere in Europe. It’s hard to see that in statistics aggregated at the level of states, though. The problem isn’t the murder rate where most people live, it’s that we have small areas where the murder rate is as much as a thousand time higher than elsewhere.
When you’ve got an entire state subject to the same gun laws, and the firearm murder rate varies by a factor of a thousand or so from the best to the worst areas, you really do need to stop obsessing about gun laws, and start looking for the reasons that the nasty areas aren’t as safe as the rest of the state.
“More folks, by a dramatic margin, get shot to death here than in any similar country. Far and away.”
But most of the population actually lives in areas where the chance of getting shot is as low as anywhere in Europe. It’s hard to see that in statistics aggregated at the level of states, though. The problem isn’t the murder rate where most people live, it’s that we have small areas where the murder rate is as much as a thousand time higher than elsewhere.
When you’ve got an entire state subject to the same gun laws, and the firearm murder rate varies by a factor of a thousand or so from the best to the worst areas, you really do need to stop obsessing about gun laws, and start looking for the reasons that the nasty areas aren’t as safe as the rest of the state.
But most of the population actually lives in areas where the chance of getting shot is as low as anywhere in Europe.
I’d like a cite for that, please.
you really do need to stop obsessing about gun laws, and start looking for the reasons that the nasty areas aren’t as safe as the rest of the state.
Gee, let me guess.
But most of the population actually lives in areas where the chance of getting shot is as low as anywhere in Europe.
I’d like a cite for that, please.
you really do need to stop obsessing about gun laws, and start looking for the reasons that the nasty areas aren’t as safe as the rest of the state.
Gee, let me guess.
‘ Replace “handgun” with the name of nearly any other weapon imaginable, and it should be clear.’
I’m missing the point here.
I know.
‘ Replace “handgun” with the name of nearly any other weapon imaginable, and it should be clear.’
I’m missing the point here.
I know.
Also, LOL-ing my butt off at Brett referring to “Europe” as if it’s one homogeneous place with one single culture, crime rate and set of gun laws, but making care to distinguish between nasty ol’ US cities (that are almost certainly full of you-know-what) and the idyllic rural areas where you’re safe as a kitten, you are!
Interestingly, the European country with the most stringent private firearms ownership laws, the UK, has the highest violent crime rate and number of murders among comparable EU countries.
Also, LOL-ing my butt off at Brett referring to “Europe” as if it’s one homogeneous place with one single culture, crime rate and set of gun laws, but making care to distinguish between nasty ol’ US cities (that are almost certainly full of you-know-what) and the idyllic rural areas where you’re safe as a kitten, you are!
Interestingly, the European country with the most stringent private firearms ownership laws, the UK, has the highest violent crime rate and number of murders among comparable EU countries.
Interestingly, the European country with the most stringent private firearms ownership laws, the UK, has the highest violent crime rate and number of murders among comparable EU countries.
First, yes there’s a problem here (UK) though it is in many ways a very safe country. Second, though, beware these data. Traditionally, the UK figures have included crimes that involved neither injury nor a threat of injury, and these amounted to 40 per cent of the total (if not more).
The figures you probably used (Eurostats) give a US rate (estimated) of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population, as against more than 2000 for the UK. Could be, but I suspect classification differences.
Interestingly, the European country with the most stringent private firearms ownership laws, the UK, has the highest violent crime rate and number of murders among comparable EU countries.
First, yes there’s a problem here (UK) though it is in many ways a very safe country. Second, though, beware these data. Traditionally, the UK figures have included crimes that involved neither injury nor a threat of injury, and these amounted to 40 per cent of the total (if not more).
The figures you probably used (Eurostats) give a US rate (estimated) of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population, as against more than 2000 for the UK. Could be, but I suspect classification differences.
When you’ve got an entire state subject to the same gun laws, and the firearm murder rate varies by a factor of a thousand or so from the best to the worst areas, you really do need to stop obsessing about gun laws, and start looking for the reasons that the nasty areas aren’t as safe as the rest of the state.
So, how do you feel about DC having gun laws for DC? Or Chicago for Chicago?
When you’ve got an entire state subject to the same gun laws, and the firearm murder rate varies by a factor of a thousand or so from the best to the worst areas, you really do need to stop obsessing about gun laws, and start looking for the reasons that the nasty areas aren’t as safe as the rest of the state.
So, how do you feel about DC having gun laws for DC? Or Chicago for Chicago?
‘So, how do you feel about DC having gun laws for DC? Or Chicago for Chicago?’
I think this is fine and constitutional (originally) but some might put forth a second amendment challenge now that the 14th has been stretched to the limit to include the States as well as the Federal government into the Bill of Rights.
‘So, how do you feel about DC having gun laws for DC? Or Chicago for Chicago?’
I think this is fine and constitutional (originally) but some might put forth a second amendment challenge now that the 14th has been stretched to the limit to include the States as well as the Federal government into the Bill of Rights.
CharlesWT – thanks for the reference to Grossman’s defense there. Looking over his list I see that he relies on du Picq, Holmes and Keegan for support when, as I remember those sources, they do nothing to support Grossman’s arguments about firing rates and instead only point out that many soldiers admit to not firing or not wanting to kill. This may seem like a quibble, but when one claims that there is a natural human resistance to killing as a default for 98% of the population I want something a little more robust in support of that than anecdotes gathered from historical sources. Of the sources he lists there I’d lean towards the FBI studies he mentions, but he does not cite the individual studies or highlight any data from them at all. Both Grossman and Marshall have been challenged on this figure which is central to their arguments but I have yet to see Grossman respond to this challenge in any detail. The section you copied seems to be the sum of his response.
Seems to me that there are plenty of explanations for low firing rates that have less to do with innate psychology and more to do with morale, culture, and circumstances. I also think it is odd to base one’s idea of human nature off of a range of sources from 1800 to 1970 and only from Western societies.
Hence my questions whenever people cite Grossman. I don’t think we are naturally non-violent or averse to killing. I think that what resistance is there is shallow and needs lots of cultural reinforcement to maintain, especially among people younger than their mid-20s.
Sorry for the tangent. It’s my specialty.
CharlesWT – thanks for the reference to Grossman’s defense there. Looking over his list I see that he relies on du Picq, Holmes and Keegan for support when, as I remember those sources, they do nothing to support Grossman’s arguments about firing rates and instead only point out that many soldiers admit to not firing or not wanting to kill. This may seem like a quibble, but when one claims that there is a natural human resistance to killing as a default for 98% of the population I want something a little more robust in support of that than anecdotes gathered from historical sources. Of the sources he lists there I’d lean towards the FBI studies he mentions, but he does not cite the individual studies or highlight any data from them at all. Both Grossman and Marshall have been challenged on this figure which is central to their arguments but I have yet to see Grossman respond to this challenge in any detail. The section you copied seems to be the sum of his response.
Seems to me that there are plenty of explanations for low firing rates that have less to do with innate psychology and more to do with morale, culture, and circumstances. I also think it is odd to base one’s idea of human nature off of a range of sources from 1800 to 1970 and only from Western societies.
Hence my questions whenever people cite Grossman. I don’t think we are naturally non-violent or averse to killing. I think that what resistance is there is shallow and needs lots of cultural reinforcement to maintain, especially among people younger than their mid-20s.
Sorry for the tangent. It’s my specialty.
I’d like a cite on the crime statistics but it’s not impossible that Brett is right.
However, when you start looking at the reasons why the nasty areas aren’t as safe, it’s generally that they are extremely poor, with very little economic activity and few job prospects, inhabited by minority groups that are widely discriminated against, with multigenerational poverty and educational failure ingrained.
What that tells me is that we need policies of full employment – that we need to push employment to the maximum, even if we have to risk a little inflation, so that those groups that are “hired last, fired first” have some opportunity for economic advancement. Jobs, in short, from the one source that can reliably provide them in good times or bad: the government.
There’s plenty of work to do, even for people with little work experience or education. Our streets need repair and our parks need cleaning up and our schools need fixing and our houses need insulating and flat roofs painted white and – well, I could put 100,000 people to work tomorrow in the Bay Area and keep them busy for years working on things that would greatly increase quality of life around here.
Or I guess we could just all buy guns. That’s almost as good a solution.
I’d like a cite on the crime statistics but it’s not impossible that Brett is right.
However, when you start looking at the reasons why the nasty areas aren’t as safe, it’s generally that they are extremely poor, with very little economic activity and few job prospects, inhabited by minority groups that are widely discriminated against, with multigenerational poverty and educational failure ingrained.
What that tells me is that we need policies of full employment – that we need to push employment to the maximum, even if we have to risk a little inflation, so that those groups that are “hired last, fired first” have some opportunity for economic advancement. Jobs, in short, from the one source that can reliably provide them in good times or bad: the government.
There’s plenty of work to do, even for people with little work experience or education. Our streets need repair and our parks need cleaning up and our schools need fixing and our houses need insulating and flat roofs painted white and – well, I could put 100,000 people to work tomorrow in the Bay Area and keep them busy for years working on things that would greatly increase quality of life around here.
Or I guess we could just all buy guns. That’s almost as good a solution.
wonkie:
In what I linked.
From same link:
Etc. I gave four links, with the intent that they be read. Or I can quote. I can’t simultaneously be brief via links if people don’t read them, and quote when people want me to brief. The rest of the links had equally relevant info, or I wouldn’t have given them.
Who is it that doesn’t have fear/power issues?
All things are a matter of degree.
wonkie:
In what I linked.
From same link:
Etc. I gave four links, with the intent that they be read. Or I can quote. I can’t simultaneously be brief via links if people don’t read them, and quote when people want me to brief. The rest of the links had equally relevant info, or I wouldn’t have given them.
Who is it that doesn’t have fear/power issues?
All things are a matter of degree.
Thanks for the clarification, ptl. I’m always wary of cross-country comparisons, since I know the US FBI Uniform Crime Reports, for example, are more strict in their definition of “violent crime” than are the comparable categories in Canada.
I was just amused by Brett treating “Europe” as an indistinguishable whole.
Also, what Jacob Davies said above, x1000.
Thanks for the clarification, ptl. I’m always wary of cross-country comparisons, since I know the US FBI Uniform Crime Reports, for example, are more strict in their definition of “violent crime” than are the comparable categories in Canada.
I was just amused by Brett treating “Europe” as an indistinguishable whole.
Also, what Jacob Davies said above, x1000.
Hartmut,
Thank you.
Sounds like it is fair to say that the Nazis, if they didn’t actually arm the population, certainly made access to firearms easier, not harder, for all but the obvious groups.
Hartmut,
Thank you.
Sounds like it is fair to say that the Nazis, if they didn’t actually arm the population, certainly made access to firearms easier, not harder, for all but the obvious groups.
Most people do.
Triggers for sexuality are inherent in everything that we associate with sex; how much we’re motivated by sexuality varies by physiology, childhood, and emotional/physical associations, which are, like all thinking/feeling associations, via neuronic connections. We have MRIs and studies of how this works.
All tools have multiple uses. Everything is more than itself. How we subjectively perceive all this is individual.
The reason we all have different perceptions of gun issues, like every other issue, is that we all have unique personal histories, and we all only know what we have based on our own personal experience, which includes every sensory perception and association, whether through direct observation, reading, second-hand knowledge we believe, where we’ve lived, the cultures we’ve lived in, divisions between rural, suburban, city, between neighborhoods, economic levels, ethnic culture, our childhoods, parents, environment, personal encounters, what we fear, what makes us feel secure, and so on.
It’s not a surprise that we all vary in these things, and many more. It’s not a surprise that different localities call for different use of different tools, including guns, which are multi-purpose tools.
And people project their own beliefs onto others. Always. We all can only generalize from what we know.
And yet guns are essentially fungible, and we can’t stop interstate commerce in them: we can only limit it. The laws do tend to work mostly on people who are inclined to cooperate; the alternatives range up to a totalitarian government, down to anarchy, and everything in between.
Guns are a problem that, like all problems, can only be ameliorated, not “solved,” or at least, again like everything: only as a matter of what we want to trade off.
These are not simple questions.
This sort of thing is why I’ve made a habit of staying out of gun control arguments. Among other arguments.
But, hey, arguing is what blogs are for, so I’m for everyone voicing their opinions, comparing experiences, offering thoughts, and so on: that’s how we learn from others, form personal bonds, and preferably don’t shoot each other.
Most people do.
Triggers for sexuality are inherent in everything that we associate with sex; how much we’re motivated by sexuality varies by physiology, childhood, and emotional/physical associations, which are, like all thinking/feeling associations, via neuronic connections. We have MRIs and studies of how this works.
All tools have multiple uses. Everything is more than itself. How we subjectively perceive all this is individual.
The reason we all have different perceptions of gun issues, like every other issue, is that we all have unique personal histories, and we all only know what we have based on our own personal experience, which includes every sensory perception and association, whether through direct observation, reading, second-hand knowledge we believe, where we’ve lived, the cultures we’ve lived in, divisions between rural, suburban, city, between neighborhoods, economic levels, ethnic culture, our childhoods, parents, environment, personal encounters, what we fear, what makes us feel secure, and so on.
It’s not a surprise that we all vary in these things, and many more. It’s not a surprise that different localities call for different use of different tools, including guns, which are multi-purpose tools.
And people project their own beliefs onto others. Always. We all can only generalize from what we know.
And yet guns are essentially fungible, and we can’t stop interstate commerce in them: we can only limit it. The laws do tend to work mostly on people who are inclined to cooperate; the alternatives range up to a totalitarian government, down to anarchy, and everything in between.
Guns are a problem that, like all problems, can only be ameliorated, not “solved,” or at least, again like everything: only as a matter of what we want to trade off.
These are not simple questions.
This sort of thing is why I’ve made a habit of staying out of gun control arguments. Among other arguments.
But, hey, arguing is what blogs are for, so I’m for everyone voicing their opinions, comparing experiences, offering thoughts, and so on: that’s how we learn from others, form personal bonds, and preferably don’t shoot each other.
The guy most think of as “Gandhi“:
And:
And:
He wrote a lot more that’s relevant. I’d ignore the advice about drinking urine, sex, and some of his other stuff, myself, but all up to you, folks. 🙂
The guy most think of as “Gandhi“:
And:
And:
He wrote a lot more that’s relevant. I’d ignore the advice about drinking urine, sex, and some of his other stuff, myself, but all up to you, folks. 🙂
Hartmut, and commenters in general:
Famous examples: Chain-Eye
I’d appreciate it if in comments to my posts, at least, you’d refrain from using nicknames, especially deprecating ones, even for political figures.
In the first place, it forces my overworked brain to do another round of parsing. I honestly had no idea who you were talking about for a minute there.
More importantly, it’s a cheap, tawdry way of making some people less human. I’m trying to avoid it for myself, for that reason. It’s not ad hominem, but it shares qualities with ad hominem.
Object lesson: George W. Bush is famous for giving people nicknames. Don’t be like him.
Hartmut, and commenters in general:
Famous examples: Chain-Eye
I’d appreciate it if in comments to my posts, at least, you’d refrain from using nicknames, especially deprecating ones, even for political figures.
In the first place, it forces my overworked brain to do another round of parsing. I honestly had no idea who you were talking about for a minute there.
More importantly, it’s a cheap, tawdry way of making some people less human. I’m trying to avoid it for myself, for that reason. It’s not ad hominem, but it shares qualities with ad hominem.
Object lesson: George W. Bush is famous for giving people nicknames. Don’t be like him.
Phil, I didn’t think you were attacking the UK. But I thought you should know the quirks of the UK data.
I was just amused by Brett treating “Europe” as an indistinguishable whole.
to be fair, some Europeans treat the US as an undifferentiated mass.
Phil, I didn’t think you were attacking the UK. But I thought you should know the quirks of the UK data.
I was just amused by Brett treating “Europe” as an indistinguishable whole.
to be fair, some Europeans treat the US as an undifferentiated mass.
I’m finding the back-and-forth quoting of homicide stats frustrating, because so many firearms deaths are *not* homicides: they’re suicides or accidents.
In the case of firearms for home protection, as many people claim:
[cite]
I couldn’t readily find stats about how handguns are actually used outside the home — that is, who do people who “Carry” shoot?
I’m finding the back-and-forth quoting of homicide stats frustrating, because so many firearms deaths are *not* homicides: they’re suicides or accidents.
In the case of firearms for home protection, as many people claim:
[cite]
I couldn’t readily find stats about how handguns are actually used outside the home — that is, who do people who “Carry” shoot?
If anyone would like to, we could talk about non-violent ways of helping hundreds of millions of people?
S’alright?
Not to distract from whether we should shoot each other, how many of us shoot ourselves, or should do it which way, what laws we should have over weapons and interstate commerce, and these are, of course, topics that fascinate people, which is why nothing guarantees more comments than: a) stating something that famously isn’t a fact; b) abortion; c) guns; d) computer operating systems; e) down the list.
But we could also talk about how to help out hundreds of millions of poor people, suffering people, non-violently.
We could talk about how To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor. With a program that provably has helped millions of people. And is doing so today.
Outside the United States.
There’s a an empty thread if anyone wants to talk about non-violence.
I shouldn’t have led with the video. I probably should move the cut-tag, but then… there’s no pleasing everyone.
Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in the above, and has anything to say, by all means, please say something. Anything. Thanks!
Not an attempt to thread-jack. Thus a wholly different post/thread.
S’alright?
If anyone would like to, we could talk about non-violent ways of helping hundreds of millions of people?
S’alright?
Not to distract from whether we should shoot each other, how many of us shoot ourselves, or should do it which way, what laws we should have over weapons and interstate commerce, and these are, of course, topics that fascinate people, which is why nothing guarantees more comments than: a) stating something that famously isn’t a fact; b) abortion; c) guns; d) computer operating systems; e) down the list.
But we could also talk about how to help out hundreds of millions of poor people, suffering people, non-violently.
We could talk about how To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor. With a program that provably has helped millions of people. And is doing so today.
Outside the United States.
There’s a an empty thread if anyone wants to talk about non-violence.
I shouldn’t have led with the video. I probably should move the cut-tag, but then… there’s no pleasing everyone.
Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in the above, and has anything to say, by all means, please say something. Anything. Thanks!
Not an attempt to thread-jack. Thus a wholly different post/thread.
S’alright?
Violence Policy Center:
Stats. Stats. Stats.
On-topic? Brief? Too much?
Violence Policy Center:
Stats. Stats. Stats.
On-topic? Brief? Too much?
Carrying and shooting aren’t the same thing. We “use” flashlights by carrying them without turning them on, as well as turning them on. Ditto any tool in a toolbelt.
Ditto a sign in the window that gives a warning.
Why assume that “people who ‘Carry’ shoot anything, let alone at people?
Carrying and shooting aren’t the same thing. We “use” flashlights by carrying them without turning them on, as well as turning them on. Ditto any tool in a toolbelt.
Ditto a sign in the window that gives a warning.
Why assume that “people who ‘Carry’ shoot anything, let alone at people?
I have a personal slight preference for this, myself, in my own thread, but I also wish to encourage everyone to express themselves in the manner they’re most comfortable in, within the posting rules.
We could easily post separate posting rules for threads by each poster. Easily.
But we’d have to talk to each other about it.
And someone with the SuperUser password would have to allow the posting rules to be then posted.
Meanwhile, the Postin Rules as current are here. Incoherently, in a bunch of addenda.
Meanwhile, there’s never ever ever been a rule at ObWi that allows posters to enact their own policies for their own threads. Neither has there ever been any such tradition, precedent, custom, behavior, mode, theory, or suggestion.
Until lately.
But the Posting Rules, by omission, forbid this. All that is not forbidden is allowed.
But everyone can do what they like. Maybe the co-bloggers are sending out telepathic policy communications, and I’m not getting them.
Please unpublish this comment, as desired, Doctor Science, and any blogger on ObWi who can post more than once a day can post a thread about how ObWi should work, if they like. Or not. Or… whatever.
I can do that tomorrow, along with a bunch of other topics in my own open thread. I’ll try to consider doing that, my situation allowing. Otherwise, please unpublish this as sufficiently off-topic, non-brief, and undesirably meta or otherwise undesired. Please, if so.
I can’t. Only you can, or Eric, or Slart.
I have a personal slight preference for this, myself, in my own thread, but I also wish to encourage everyone to express themselves in the manner they’re most comfortable in, within the posting rules.
We could easily post separate posting rules for threads by each poster. Easily.
But we’d have to talk to each other about it.
And someone with the SuperUser password would have to allow the posting rules to be then posted.
Meanwhile, the Postin Rules as current are here. Incoherently, in a bunch of addenda.
Meanwhile, there’s never ever ever been a rule at ObWi that allows posters to enact their own policies for their own threads. Neither has there ever been any such tradition, precedent, custom, behavior, mode, theory, or suggestion.
Until lately.
But the Posting Rules, by omission, forbid this. All that is not forbidden is allowed.
But everyone can do what they like. Maybe the co-bloggers are sending out telepathic policy communications, and I’m not getting them.
Please unpublish this comment, as desired, Doctor Science, and any blogger on ObWi who can post more than once a day can post a thread about how ObWi should work, if they like. Or not. Or… whatever.
I can do that tomorrow, along with a bunch of other topics in my own open thread. I’ll try to consider doing that, my situation allowing. Otherwise, please unpublish this as sufficiently off-topic, non-brief, and undesirably meta or otherwise undesired. Please, if so.
I can’t. Only you can, or Eric, or Slart.
On topic, for once. I believe it is no accident that both the modern action movie and the combat movie have their generic roots in the western and that our cultural fantasies of violence pretty much all come down to either one man standing up for right in the face of violent societal breakdown or to defending the fort against marauding indians and nothing ever truly resolves itself until there has been a cathartic and decisive shootout. The bulk of cinema history lays claim that the two things that preserve civilization are almost always a firearm and personal courage.
I believe this shapes more opinions than any set of quantitative data. Guns are not portrayed as tools of violence and insecurity, but of catharsis.
On topic, for once. I believe it is no accident that both the modern action movie and the combat movie have their generic roots in the western and that our cultural fantasies of violence pretty much all come down to either one man standing up for right in the face of violent societal breakdown or to defending the fort against marauding indians and nothing ever truly resolves itself until there has been a cathartic and decisive shootout. The bulk of cinema history lays claim that the two things that preserve civilization are almost always a firearm and personal courage.
I believe this shapes more opinions than any set of quantitative data. Guns are not portrayed as tools of violence and insecurity, but of catharsis.
What Russell said. I don’t think it’s the guns. It’s culture.
Frex Suicides: U.S. and Canada have similar rates of total suicides, and the U.S. far less than other countries with less guns, so causation from guns is questionable. And check out Lithuania. What’s up with that? I can understand Japan having a high suicide rate but Lithuania? Had no idea. Some think it is the media coverage of suicides.
A lot has been said already about the media’s affect re guns. But it has been one sided. You don’t see a lot about successful defense using a gun in the media. I remember reading this article in Imprimis when it was published. I have never fact checked the article, but the claim that a crime is stopped 95% of the time simply by brandishing a weapon is of note, as is the claim that guns are used to stop crime 3x more than commit crime and that the safest thing you can do in response to a criminal assault is to brandish a weapon.
Jacob Davies’ points about protecting your family are good points. But logically taking it from the opposite perspective, as much emotion should be put into correcting other violent causes of death, such as accidents by driving by irresponsible parties as gun deaths. But that’s not the case.
Full disclosure: I own a hunting rifle (.30-06) and a pistol (S&W .38 +p). I used to hunt in Alaska, but haven’t really had the opportunity here in California (no moose!). I have a CCW permit. I carry on occasion but probably nowhere near as much as I should to justify the permit. I was really conflicted about the permit and still am somewhat. I really don’t want to have to ever use my weapon. I think the hardest thing for most permit holders is to know when is the right time to use it. I had to ponder that a lot and get to a confident place before signing for the permit. And I don’t think I am unique. I know there are some crazies out there. But CCW permit holders are law abiding, good citizens. Take a look at the application process in California, frex.
Having said this, and having previewed before posting, I see the stats Gary has posted and wonder what the real answer is. Stats are stats, but the way they are presented can be misleading:
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.
What is the ratio of successfully using a handgun to defend and NOT killing someone vs. homicide with a gun? How many violent crimes are stopped? A lot of the stats are presented to apparently show how unjustifiable using a gun in self defense actually is but they don’t actually support that proposition.
What Russell said. I don’t think it’s the guns. It’s culture.
Frex Suicides: U.S. and Canada have similar rates of total suicides, and the U.S. far less than other countries with less guns, so causation from guns is questionable. And check out Lithuania. What’s up with that? I can understand Japan having a high suicide rate but Lithuania? Had no idea. Some think it is the media coverage of suicides.
A lot has been said already about the media’s affect re guns. But it has been one sided. You don’t see a lot about successful defense using a gun in the media. I remember reading this article in Imprimis when it was published. I have never fact checked the article, but the claim that a crime is stopped 95% of the time simply by brandishing a weapon is of note, as is the claim that guns are used to stop crime 3x more than commit crime and that the safest thing you can do in response to a criminal assault is to brandish a weapon.
Jacob Davies’ points about protecting your family are good points. But logically taking it from the opposite perspective, as much emotion should be put into correcting other violent causes of death, such as accidents by driving by irresponsible parties as gun deaths. But that’s not the case.
Full disclosure: I own a hunting rifle (.30-06) and a pistol (S&W .38 +p). I used to hunt in Alaska, but haven’t really had the opportunity here in California (no moose!). I have a CCW permit. I carry on occasion but probably nowhere near as much as I should to justify the permit. I was really conflicted about the permit and still am somewhat. I really don’t want to have to ever use my weapon. I think the hardest thing for most permit holders is to know when is the right time to use it. I had to ponder that a lot and get to a confident place before signing for the permit. And I don’t think I am unique. I know there are some crazies out there. But CCW permit holders are law abiding, good citizens. Take a look at the application process in California, frex.
Having said this, and having previewed before posting, I see the stats Gary has posted and wonder what the real answer is. Stats are stats, but the way they are presented can be misleading:
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.
What is the ratio of successfully using a handgun to defend and NOT killing someone vs. homicide with a gun? How many violent crimes are stopped? A lot of the stats are presented to apparently show how unjustifiable using a gun in self defense actually is but they don’t actually support that proposition.
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
This seems impressive, but I don’t think we can infer anything interesting from this line. Guns are not uniformly distributed across the country; their presence in a household may just indicate other variables that make death by homicide far more likely. Unless the analysis carefully controlled for all those differences, it doesn’t mean anything.
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
This seems impressive, but I don’t think we can infer anything interesting from this line. Guns are not uniformly distributed across the country; their presence in a household may just indicate other variables that make death by homicide far more likely. Unless the analysis carefully controlled for all those differences, it doesn’t mean anything.
Frex Suicides: U.S. and Canada have similar rates of total suicides, and the U.S. far less than other countries with less guns, so causation from guns is questionable.
A quick google suggests that there’s no attempt at combining stats to compare national suicide rates, but the stat that 11% of officer shootings were suicide by cop (link) appears in several places. Taking Turb’s point about controlled statistics, I’m not suggesting that it is going to then equal out, but I wonder if it would take up some of the discrepancy.
Frex Suicides: U.S. and Canada have similar rates of total suicides, and the U.S. far less than other countries with less guns, so causation from guns is questionable.
A quick google suggests that there’s no attempt at combining stats to compare national suicide rates, but the stat that 11% of officer shootings were suicide by cop (link) appears in several places. Taking Turb’s point about controlled statistics, I’m not suggesting that it is going to then equal out, but I wonder if it would take up some of the discrepancy.
Russell,
I think they are both problems. I think it is unreasonable to claim that the easy availability of firearms in the US, and their very widespread ownership is not a major factor in the level of violence we have.
Russell,
I think they are both problems. I think it is unreasonable to claim that the easy availability of firearms in the US, and their very widespread ownership is not a major factor in the level of violence we have.
LJ:
Interesting point, but is there any reason to expect a lower percentage of suicide by cop in Canada? It may actually be higher , (I think they are saying 25% in the BC study).
Turbulence:
Exactly. I think this when I see stats from both sides.
Like this one from Gary’s stats:
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in:
* 1.3 unintentional deaths
* 4.6 criminal homicides
* 37 suicides22
But using the same statistics from the study that these numbers came from, for every time a person is killed in the home WITHOUT a gun in self defense, someone will be killed without a gun in:
*12.5 criminal homicides
*86.75 suicides
(apparently there were no accidental deaths not involving firearms in King County for the relevant time periods).
So does this mean that not using a gun to defend your home will increase the homicide and suicide rate?
LJ:
Interesting point, but is there any reason to expect a lower percentage of suicide by cop in Canada? It may actually be higher , (I think they are saying 25% in the BC study).
Turbulence:
Exactly. I think this when I see stats from both sides.
Like this one from Gary’s stats:
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in:
* 1.3 unintentional deaths
* 4.6 criminal homicides
* 37 suicides22
But using the same statistics from the study that these numbers came from, for every time a person is killed in the home WITHOUT a gun in self defense, someone will be killed without a gun in:
*12.5 criminal homicides
*86.75 suicides
(apparently there were no accidental deaths not involving firearms in King County for the relevant time periods).
So does this mean that not using a gun to defend your home will increase the homicide and suicide rate?
I take a longer view. I suggest we can go back a lot further than Chaucer and Beowulf, just for starters. Or Chrétien de Troyes.
But that’s English. How about we discuss Thespis?
Or we could start earlier?
I take a longer view. I suggest we can go back a lot further than Chaucer and Beowulf, just for starters. Or Chrétien de Troyes.
But that’s English. How about we discuss Thespis?
Or we could start earlier?
bc:
Not only that, but as we know, stats are only as good as the methodolgy.
I haven’t checked the stats I presented. I’m not vouching for any of them.
I wasn’t asked to. The question was whether some stats could be found, and the answer was yes, here are some.
If you want more, I’d have to go longer. Brevity!
bc:
Not only that, but as we know, stats are only as good as the methodolgy.
I haven’t checked the stats I presented. I’m not vouching for any of them.
I wasn’t asked to. The question was whether some stats could be found, and the answer was yes, here are some.
If you want more, I’d have to go longer. Brevity!
Please let me add, this, to bc:
I’m quite sure this is unknowable. I don’t see how it possibly could be knowable with current technology.
If anyone has any pointers on how it could be knowable at this time, I’d seriously like to learn about that.
Bernard:
Absolute agreement.
This I regard as provable to my own satisfaction.
Please let me add, this, to bc:
I’m quite sure this is unknowable. I don’t see how it possibly could be knowable with current technology.
If anyone has any pointers on how it could be knowable at this time, I’d seriously like to learn about that.
Bernard:
Absolute agreement.
This I regard as provable to my own satisfaction.
Interesting point, but is there any reason to expect a lower percentage of suicide by cop in Canada? It may actually be higher , (I think they are saying 25% in the BC study).
I don’t know, it’s just that the phrase stuck in my mind and I was curious if there was an attempt to account for it in any national comparisons or anyone wanting to try and factor it in here. The pdf you linked to is a good start and much appreciated.
Interesting point, but is there any reason to expect a lower percentage of suicide by cop in Canada? It may actually be higher , (I think they are saying 25% in the BC study).
I don’t know, it’s just that the phrase stuck in my mind and I was curious if there was an attempt to account for it in any national comparisons or anyone wanting to try and factor it in here. The pdf you linked to is a good start and much appreciated.
Gary – I take a longer view. I suggest we can go back a lot further than Chaucer and Beowulf, just for starters. Or Chrétien de Troyes…
It’s part of the lineage, for sure, but I think that tracing it past the Western gets too broad for the specifics of Doc Science’s premise of the fantasy of the gun. Westerns are a type of romance or epic, but jumping to the more abstract classification gives more false associations as well.
Gary – I take a longer view. I suggest we can go back a lot further than Chaucer and Beowulf, just for starters. Or Chrétien de Troyes…
It’s part of the lineage, for sure, but I think that tracing it past the Western gets too broad for the specifics of Doc Science’s premise of the fantasy of the gun. Westerns are a type of romance or epic, but jumping to the more abstract classification gives more false associations as well.
“It’s part of the lineage, for sure, but I think that tracing it past the Western gets too broad for the specifics of Doc Science’s premise of the fantasy of the gun. ”
Then maybe Dr Science’s premise is wrong. Weapons based violence is all the same isn’t it? Gilgamesh used a sword. If he had had a gun I’m sure he would have used it instead. Ditto the Israelites at the walls of Jericho and King Arthur.
Pre-gun, the sword (and sometimes the bow/archer) and its use was at least as much feteshized in its day as the gun is today.
IMO, all energy is sexual and humans have remained unchanged since the dawn of history. If we take the image of kundalini and the chakras – real phenomena or methaphorical (your choice) –
then there always has been and always will be a need for humans at certain stages of psychological/spititual development to express themselves in terms of the weapon of choice of their time.
…….This is my weapon. This is my gun. This one’s for killing. This one’s for fun!
And, as long as these people are out there, I think a wise and brave person reluctantly, yet proficiently, arms him/herself to protect.
A lot of the gun deaths, from accidents to suicides to homocides, are just natural selection at work.
We sometimes get the idea that murders happen when bad people kill innocent people. The truth is that it usually criminal on criminal violence.
“It’s part of the lineage, for sure, but I think that tracing it past the Western gets too broad for the specifics of Doc Science’s premise of the fantasy of the gun. ”
Then maybe Dr Science’s premise is wrong. Weapons based violence is all the same isn’t it? Gilgamesh used a sword. If he had had a gun I’m sure he would have used it instead. Ditto the Israelites at the walls of Jericho and King Arthur.
Pre-gun, the sword (and sometimes the bow/archer) and its use was at least as much feteshized in its day as the gun is today.
IMO, all energy is sexual and humans have remained unchanged since the dawn of history. If we take the image of kundalini and the chakras – real phenomena or methaphorical (your choice) –
then there always has been and always will be a need for humans at certain stages of psychological/spititual development to express themselves in terms of the weapon of choice of their time.
…….This is my weapon. This is my gun. This one’s for killing. This one’s for fun!
And, as long as these people are out there, I think a wise and brave person reluctantly, yet proficiently, arms him/herself to protect.
A lot of the gun deaths, from accidents to suicides to homocides, are just natural selection at work.
We sometimes get the idea that murders happen when bad people kill innocent people. The truth is that it usually criminal on criminal violence.
“It’s part of the lineage, for sure, but I think that tracing it past the Western gets too broad for the specifics of Doc Science’s premise of the fantasy of the gun. ”
Then maybe Dr Science’s premise is wrong. Weapons based violence is all the same isn’t it? Gilgamesh used a sword. If he had had a gun I’m sure he would have used it instead. Ditto the Israelites at the walls of Jericho and King Arthur.
Pre-gun, the sword (and sometimes the bow/archer) and its use was at least as much feteshized in its day as the gun is today.
IMO, all energy is sexual and humans have remained unchanged since the dawn of history. If we take the image of kundalini and the chakras – real phenomena or methaphorical (your choice) –
then there always has been and always will be a need for humans at certain stages of psychological/spititual development to express themselves in terms of the weapon of choice of their time.
…….This is my weapon. This is my gun. This one’s for killing. This one’s for fun!
And, as long as these people are out there, I think a wise and brave person reluctantly, yet proficiently, arms him/herself to protect.
A lot of the gun deaths, from accidents to suicides to homocides, are just natural selection at work.
We sometimes get the idea that murders happen when bad people kill innocent people. The truth is that it usually criminal on criminal violence.
“It’s part of the lineage, for sure, but I think that tracing it past the Western gets too broad for the specifics of Doc Science’s premise of the fantasy of the gun. ”
Then maybe Dr Science’s premise is wrong. Weapons based violence is all the same isn’t it? Gilgamesh used a sword. If he had had a gun I’m sure he would have used it instead. Ditto the Israelites at the walls of Jericho and King Arthur.
Pre-gun, the sword (and sometimes the bow/archer) and its use was at least as much feteshized in its day as the gun is today.
IMO, all energy is sexual and humans have remained unchanged since the dawn of history. If we take the image of kundalini and the chakras – real phenomena or methaphorical (your choice) –
then there always has been and always will be a need for humans at certain stages of psychological/spititual development to express themselves in terms of the weapon of choice of their time.
…….This is my weapon. This is my gun. This one’s for killing. This one’s for fun!
And, as long as these people are out there, I think a wise and brave person reluctantly, yet proficiently, arms him/herself to protect.
A lot of the gun deaths, from accidents to suicides to homocides, are just natural selection at work.
We sometimes get the idea that murders happen when bad people kill innocent people. The truth is that it usually criminal on criminal violence.
All theories that go back to Chaucer, Beowulf, or Western culture in general, or humanity in general, are clearly out of the running: the particular “fantasy of the gun” that I’m talking about is specific to the United States, not found in our sibling cultures.
For instance, a German correspondent asked me:
The American gun fantasy involves whatever leads so many people to greet mass firearms murder with a cry for MORE GUNS! It’s Americans, *specifically*, who double-down on guns.
All theories that go back to Chaucer, Beowulf, or Western culture in general, or humanity in general, are clearly out of the running: the particular “fantasy of the gun” that I’m talking about is specific to the United States, not found in our sibling cultures.
For instance, a German correspondent asked me:
The American gun fantasy involves whatever leads so many people to greet mass firearms murder with a cry for MORE GUNS! It’s Americans, *specifically*, who double-down on guns.
Interesting dear Dr. When I suggested, in your post on gays in the military, that the fact that other countries have managed to make the integration because they contain a populace of a different psychology than Americans – particularly rural Americans – my idea was dismissed.
Now you are telling me that Americans are culturally/psychologically different than Europeans. Whatsmore, the difference you are alleging is not entirely unrelated to the difference I was alleging, is it?
Interesting dear Dr. When I suggested, in your post on gays in the military, that the fact that other countries have managed to make the integration because they contain a populace of a different psychology than Americans – particularly rural Americans – my idea was dismissed.
Now you are telling me that Americans are culturally/psychologically different than Europeans. Whatsmore, the difference you are alleging is not entirely unrelated to the difference I was alleging, is it?
A basic issue here is how much or little gun violence differs from other forms of human tool-inflicted (or “weapon-inflicted,” if you prefer); if the discussion begins begging the question, then that point is defined as unquestionable. If it’s fallacies such as begging the question that are called for, I definitely feel I’m not going to contribute anything useful, so, I think alas, I say good by to the thread, again.
A basic issue here is how much or little gun violence differs from other forms of human tool-inflicted (or “weapon-inflicted,” if you prefer); if the discussion begins begging the question, then that point is defined as unquestionable. If it’s fallacies such as begging the question that are called for, I definitely feel I’m not going to contribute anything useful, so, I think alas, I say good by to the thread, again.
Regarding the really old tales, it is interesting that many of them have a very low opinion about people using ranged weapons (against people), basically considering them as cowards and/or weaklings that don’t dare to go mano-a-mano.
Some Greek source (iirc) even has the sentence in it (paraphrased): The first one who lifted a stone to throw it at someone was a coward.
A remarkable example can be found in the Iliad where Diomedes at the same time rants against an archer who just has wounded him and boasts that he is better with the bow than the other guy (but referring to hunting, which would be honorable). The Odyssey is a bit of an exception given that Ulysses is the hero committing a massacre with his special bow (but the victims still complain).
—
One thing one should not forget when Switzerland is discussed in the context of firearms: The state will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone making use of the state-issued ammo without explicit authorization. I have heard from someone with direct experience that even justified home/self defense is no excuse there.
Regarding the really old tales, it is interesting that many of them have a very low opinion about people using ranged weapons (against people), basically considering them as cowards and/or weaklings that don’t dare to go mano-a-mano.
Some Greek source (iirc) even has the sentence in it (paraphrased): The first one who lifted a stone to throw it at someone was a coward.
A remarkable example can be found in the Iliad where Diomedes at the same time rants against an archer who just has wounded him and boasts that he is better with the bow than the other guy (but referring to hunting, which would be honorable). The Odyssey is a bit of an exception given that Ulysses is the hero committing a massacre with his special bow (but the victims still complain).
—
One thing one should not forget when Switzerland is discussed in the context of firearms: The state will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone making use of the state-issued ammo without explicit authorization. I have heard from someone with direct experience that even justified home/self defense is no excuse there.
“The state will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone making use of the state-issued ammo without explicit authorization.”
Indeed, that state issued ammo is meant to be there for if you’re mustered in an emergency, and they don’t want to be invaded, and find that all their militia members have used up the ammo supply having fun at the range. This shouldn’t be confused with the state coming down on you like a ton of bricks if you go out and buy your own ammo, and use that.
“The state will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone making use of the state-issued ammo without explicit authorization.”
Indeed, that state issued ammo is meant to be there for if you’re mustered in an emergency, and they don’t want to be invaded, and find that all their militia members have used up the ammo supply having fun at the range. This shouldn’t be confused with the state coming down on you like a ton of bricks if you go out and buy your own ammo, and use that.
You’ll find buying ammo in Switzerland less easy than in the states too (OK, that does not say much 😉 ).
You’ll find buying ammo in Switzerland less easy than in the states too (OK, that does not say much 😉 ).
It is a characteristic of us humans that we surround ourselves with the accutrments of our fantasies about ourselves. It’s partf how we maintain our sense of who we are as individuals. Every culture has an array of fantasies available for the individuals within that culture to choose from and indiv iduals vary in how much or how sseriously they get into their fantaises. This is easy to see in terms of cars.
A professional manof my acquaintance turned sicty got divoced grew his hair out and bought an expensive flashy sports car. Obvious fantsy going on here. His fantasy of himslef as decades younger than his actual age didn’t include appearing to be pathetically funny in thhe eyes of his colleagues, though. It can be hard to see one’s own fantasies about one’s self.
I got divortced and bought a car too. i bought a used dark honda Civic, becaue my selfimage is of practicallity and prudence and I though an uncool car would be comfortable emotionally foruncool me. It was only after my car got stolen twice that the message sank in: I had inadvertantly bought a car the teen age b oys thought was very cool! Honda Civics of that vintage make good hotrods, anothe exzample of a car as an accutrement to another kind of self image.
So about guns; I statede that every gun owner of my acquatinace had thhe fantsy of needinng guns for self defence when my own opinon was that they need guns because they seemed to be uduly fearful people who had a need of a self image of power. I’ll stand by that since I’m writing of people i have have met.
I also think that the ownership of a gun as an enhancement to one’s sense of self as powerful is pretty common. Look at the imagery that goes with advertisements for guns!
Besodes claim that ione needs a gun for self defene is in most cases a rationalization. Very few people are int he position where they actually need a gun for any rfeal defense purposes. One of my frieds claims he needs his guns (yes, in the plural) for self defense andhe lives on twwenty acres in the country in a house he shares with five German shepards!
Danger from otrher people, the kind of danger that could reasonably require a gun for protecgtion, is very rare and very situational. A drug dealer probbly needs a gun. A homeowner with five german Shepards, living in a rural area with a low crime rate and no particluar rreason for thinking that his home, out of all the homes in America, is suddenly going to b e attacdked by armed invaders, doesn’t need one for defense.
Not that I am suggesting that he shouldn’t have those guns. It’s leaga nad his business. I’m jut pointing out that ownership for self defense is most of the time a ratinalization and that the actual reason for owning a gun involves complex issues of selfimage along with practical issues like enjoying target parctice.
In America this fantasy of oneself as the heroic defender of ones home is very very common. In some cases it gets really extreme like the guy in Philly who shtothe police officers. Mostly it;s just a little self image thing that harms no one like my frined with the German shepards. The real danger of this fantsy is when people can’t tell the difference between defending or agressing or aren’t competent to assess and responsd to stressful situation.
Even in the vary rare situation where a gun is needed for defense a person stil needslots of training to use it appropriately.
L
It is a characteristic of us humans that we surround ourselves with the accutrments of our fantasies about ourselves. It’s partf how we maintain our sense of who we are as individuals. Every culture has an array of fantasies available for the individuals within that culture to choose from and indiv iduals vary in how much or how sseriously they get into their fantaises. This is easy to see in terms of cars.
A professional manof my acquaintance turned sicty got divoced grew his hair out and bought an expensive flashy sports car. Obvious fantsy going on here. His fantasy of himslef as decades younger than his actual age didn’t include appearing to be pathetically funny in thhe eyes of his colleagues, though. It can be hard to see one’s own fantasies about one’s self.
I got divortced and bought a car too. i bought a used dark honda Civic, becaue my selfimage is of practicallity and prudence and I though an uncool car would be comfortable emotionally foruncool me. It was only after my car got stolen twice that the message sank in: I had inadvertantly bought a car the teen age b oys thought was very cool! Honda Civics of that vintage make good hotrods, anothe exzample of a car as an accutrement to another kind of self image.
So about guns; I statede that every gun owner of my acquatinace had thhe fantsy of needinng guns for self defence when my own opinon was that they need guns because they seemed to be uduly fearful people who had a need of a self image of power. I’ll stand by that since I’m writing of people i have have met.
I also think that the ownership of a gun as an enhancement to one’s sense of self as powerful is pretty common. Look at the imagery that goes with advertisements for guns!
Besodes claim that ione needs a gun for self defene is in most cases a rationalization. Very few people are int he position where they actually need a gun for any rfeal defense purposes. One of my frieds claims he needs his guns (yes, in the plural) for self defense andhe lives on twwenty acres in the country in a house he shares with five German shepards!
Danger from otrher people, the kind of danger that could reasonably require a gun for protecgtion, is very rare and very situational. A drug dealer probbly needs a gun. A homeowner with five german Shepards, living in a rural area with a low crime rate and no particluar rreason for thinking that his home, out of all the homes in America, is suddenly going to b e attacdked by armed invaders, doesn’t need one for defense.
Not that I am suggesting that he shouldn’t have those guns. It’s leaga nad his business. I’m jut pointing out that ownership for self defense is most of the time a ratinalization and that the actual reason for owning a gun involves complex issues of selfimage along with practical issues like enjoying target parctice.
In America this fantasy of oneself as the heroic defender of ones home is very very common. In some cases it gets really extreme like the guy in Philly who shtothe police officers. Mostly it;s just a little self image thing that harms no one like my frined with the German shepards. The real danger of this fantsy is when people can’t tell the difference between defending or agressing or aren’t competent to assess and responsd to stressful situation.
Even in the vary rare situation where a gun is needed for defense a person stil needslots of training to use it appropriately.
L
It is a characteristic of us humans that we surround ourselves with the accutrments of our fantasies about ourselves.
I fantasize about being a minimalist.
It is a characteristic of us humans that we surround ourselves with the accutrments of our fantasies about ourselves.
I fantasize about being a minimalist.
Gary – I’m not begging the question, just being too compact and not explaining enough context. I sympathize with Slarti in this. And between grading and deadlines I’m afraid obligations trump longer explanation. Hartmut’s observations about archers does get to a lot of it, though. It’s not just about tools of violence, but the nature of those tools, who can use them, and how they are used.
Sorry I have to run.
Gary – I’m not begging the question, just being too compact and not explaining enough context. I sympathize with Slarti in this. And between grading and deadlines I’m afraid obligations trump longer explanation. Hartmut’s observations about archers does get to a lot of it, though. It’s not just about tools of violence, but the nature of those tools, who can use them, and how they are used.
Sorry I have to run.
‘A homeowner with five german Shepards, living in a rural area with a low crime rate and no particluar rreason for thinking that his home, out of all the homes in America, is suddenly going to b e attacdked by armed invaders, doesn’t need one for defense.’
Wonkie:
You choose a simplistic view. I don’t see my circumstances as very different from the scenario above, yet guns make all the sense in the world to me. I’m sitting in my house now with beautiful snow-capped mountains on 2 sides. Between myself and my daughter’s family next door we have about 5 acres and one dog, about 2 dozen chickens (one rooster), half a dozen young longhorns that will move on to the ranch when they are a little older, and numerous guns. We live in an incorporated town with a local police force, and I cannot recall the last violent crime locally. They will pick up the dog if we let him run loose during the day. When I went out to get the paper this morning I had to chase away 2 deer nibbling around my shrubs.
We have small concern about armed invaders. But, here’s the rub. Cougars have been sited on this property, so it is said. We are sited in a cove and the bench of the mountains is less than a mile, and one can be above 7000 feet quickly. And, in the course of a day, one can trek to over 10,000 feet. I wouldn’t do this without being armed and neither would any of the rest of my family. Bears live in some parts of this world, too. And sometimes predators come after the chickens. We lost a few chicks last summer.
I don’t think your conclusion fits me, and perhaps not your friend with the German Shepherds, either.
‘A homeowner with five german Shepards, living in a rural area with a low crime rate and no particluar rreason for thinking that his home, out of all the homes in America, is suddenly going to b e attacdked by armed invaders, doesn’t need one for defense.’
Wonkie:
You choose a simplistic view. I don’t see my circumstances as very different from the scenario above, yet guns make all the sense in the world to me. I’m sitting in my house now with beautiful snow-capped mountains on 2 sides. Between myself and my daughter’s family next door we have about 5 acres and one dog, about 2 dozen chickens (one rooster), half a dozen young longhorns that will move on to the ranch when they are a little older, and numerous guns. We live in an incorporated town with a local police force, and I cannot recall the last violent crime locally. They will pick up the dog if we let him run loose during the day. When I went out to get the paper this morning I had to chase away 2 deer nibbling around my shrubs.
We have small concern about armed invaders. But, here’s the rub. Cougars have been sited on this property, so it is said. We are sited in a cove and the bench of the mountains is less than a mile, and one can be above 7000 feet quickly. And, in the course of a day, one can trek to over 10,000 feet. I wouldn’t do this without being armed and neither would any of the rest of my family. Bears live in some parts of this world, too. And sometimes predators come after the chickens. We lost a few chicks last summer.
I don’t think your conclusion fits me, and perhaps not your friend with the German Shepherds, either.
“I think it is unreasonable to claim that the easy availability of firearms in the US, and their very widespread ownership is not a major factor in the level of violence we have.”
This seems weird. We have a MUCH higher rate of non-gun violence than nearly all other first world countries (main exception the UK which as has been mentioned above has some of the very strictest anti-gun laws in Europe). It isn’t strictly impossible that the causation line goes the direction you talk about: more guns—->violence—-> even non-gun violence. But it seems very much more likely to me that the causation direction would be: higher levels of violence—->whatever tools are available—->more gun violence.
It certainly doesn’t strike me as unreasonable to claim that that ‘level of violence’ and ‘tools used to commit violence’ might be tenuously linked at best. Both the Swiss case (more guns than Europe, much less violence than the US) and the UK case (fewer guns than Europe, more [by some statistics] but certainly not less violence than the US, and definitely much more than Europe as a whole) tend to suggest that the guns piece is or can be fairly distinct from the violence piece.
I tend to think that changing the violent culture is going to end up being more effective than attacking the tools. I tend to think that is true even more in the future, as biological and chemical tools to kill lots of people become more and more easily available with technology. (I.e we are rapidly approaching a period where guns won’t be the easiest way for an angry loner to kill lots of people)
“I think it is unreasonable to claim that the easy availability of firearms in the US, and their very widespread ownership is not a major factor in the level of violence we have.”
This seems weird. We have a MUCH higher rate of non-gun violence than nearly all other first world countries (main exception the UK which as has been mentioned above has some of the very strictest anti-gun laws in Europe). It isn’t strictly impossible that the causation line goes the direction you talk about: more guns—->violence—-> even non-gun violence. But it seems very much more likely to me that the causation direction would be: higher levels of violence—->whatever tools are available—->more gun violence.
It certainly doesn’t strike me as unreasonable to claim that that ‘level of violence’ and ‘tools used to commit violence’ might be tenuously linked at best. Both the Swiss case (more guns than Europe, much less violence than the US) and the UK case (fewer guns than Europe, more [by some statistics] but certainly not less violence than the US, and definitely much more than Europe as a whole) tend to suggest that the guns piece is or can be fairly distinct from the violence piece.
I tend to think that changing the violent culture is going to end up being more effective than attacking the tools. I tend to think that is true even more in the future, as biological and chemical tools to kill lots of people become more and more easily available with technology. (I.e we are rapidly approaching a period where guns won’t be the easiest way for an angry loner to kill lots of people)
Advocatus diaboli: the violent culture and the gun cult spring from the same source and attacking that source goes to the heart of original American myths (including but no limited to the myth of the frontier).
=> America would not really be America without it. At least the tradition does not require guns stocks to be made from rhino horn as those Jemeni daggers (Jemen being the distant #2 to the US on firearm problems).
—
GoodOleBoy, the question of wild animals and the defense against them has been dicussed here too more than once. The best guns to deal with those are not the ones that tend to cause the big trouble and are usually rather uncontroversial*. Btw, aren’t specially made types of firecrackers** the recommended first line of defense against aggressive wildlife with rifles coming only second? At least that seems the way people in the arctic handle polar bears***.
*in the case of bears a lot of common pistols will just make it angry or so I have heard
**some types fired from a special pistol or short-barrel (long) gun.
***Don’t know, if it’s still true but once the rule in Norway was that one is allowed a single shot against a polar bear. If you fail, the bear can do as he pleases 😉
Advocatus diaboli: the violent culture and the gun cult spring from the same source and attacking that source goes to the heart of original American myths (including but no limited to the myth of the frontier).
=> America would not really be America without it. At least the tradition does not require guns stocks to be made from rhino horn as those Jemeni daggers (Jemen being the distant #2 to the US on firearm problems).
—
GoodOleBoy, the question of wild animals and the defense against them has been dicussed here too more than once. The best guns to deal with those are not the ones that tend to cause the big trouble and are usually rather uncontroversial*. Btw, aren’t specially made types of firecrackers** the recommended first line of defense against aggressive wildlife with rifles coming only second? At least that seems the way people in the arctic handle polar bears***.
*in the case of bears a lot of common pistols will just make it angry or so I have heard
**some types fired from a special pistol or short-barrel (long) gun.
***Don’t know, if it’s still true but once the rule in Norway was that one is allowed a single shot against a polar bear. If you fail, the bear can do as he pleases 😉
GOB, YOu are correct that I did not think of defense against animals. Howecver the conversation with my friend wasnot about defense agasint animals. He was specific in his concern about robbers. He had read stroies about robbers in an NRA publication.
GOB, YOu are correct that I did not think of defense against animals. Howecver the conversation with my friend wasnot about defense agasint animals. He was specific in his concern about robbers. He had read stroies about robbers in an NRA publication.
Sebastian,
Could be. On the other hand, given the lethality of guns compared to say, fists, I’d argue that even if the causation is as you suggest the degree of harm done by violence is somewhat attributable to the availability of guns.
Drivers who get cut off in traffic may be every bit as violent, guns or not, but having a gun sure increases the potential for serious harm.
I think this is glib. Sure, there are factors other than the availability of guns that affect violence levels. But that in no way means that guns are not an important factor.
BTW, I’d be curious to see your figures on violence in the UK. My impression is that homicide rates, the best index of violent crime, are much lower than in the US.
Sebastian,
Could be. On the other hand, given the lethality of guns compared to say, fists, I’d argue that even if the causation is as you suggest the degree of harm done by violence is somewhat attributable to the availability of guns.
Drivers who get cut off in traffic may be every bit as violent, guns or not, but having a gun sure increases the potential for serious harm.
I think this is glib. Sure, there are factors other than the availability of guns that affect violence levels. But that in no way means that guns are not an important factor.
BTW, I’d be curious to see your figures on violence in the UK. My impression is that homicide rates, the best index of violent crime, are much lower than in the US.
The way this seems to me is as follows:
(a) Americans are more violent than most other people.
(b) The prevalence of gun ownership in America means that a lot of the violence here is gun violence.
Not sure this is an either/or situation.
And yeah, people who live in rural areas quite often need to carry firearms to protect themselves or their property from wild animals. Those people are not really the problem here.
And yeah again, you need a fairly serious firearm to stop a bear.
The way this seems to me is as follows:
(a) Americans are more violent than most other people.
(b) The prevalence of gun ownership in America means that a lot of the violence here is gun violence.
Not sure this is an either/or situation.
And yeah, people who live in rural areas quite often need to carry firearms to protect themselves or their property from wild animals. Those people are not really the problem here.
And yeah again, you need a fairly serious firearm to stop a bear.
BTW, I’d be curious to see your figures on violence in the UK. My impression is that homicide rates, the best index of violent crime, are much lower than in the US.
I believe the stats I encountered online showed a per-1,000 population UK homicide rate that was about a fifth of the US rate.
BTW, I’d be curious to see your figures on violence in the UK. My impression is that homicide rates, the best index of violent crime, are much lower than in the US.
I believe the stats I encountered online showed a per-1,000 population UK homicide rate that was about a fifth of the US rate.
The stats do tend to show that Americans are more violent (and, ahem, perhaps different in their attitudes regarding many things) than other industrialized nations except the UK. The prevalence of guns tends to mean that when the prediliction for violence is expressed it is more likely to result in death (i.e. homocide).
The stats do tend to show that Americans are more violent (and, ahem, perhaps different in their attitudes regarding many things) than other industrialized nations except the UK. The prevalence of guns tends to mean that when the prediliction for violence is expressed it is more likely to result in death (i.e. homocide).
Bernard, I’d be loathe to equate violence and homicide as interchangeable for the purposes of this discussion, and I don’t see why you think that statistically homicide is the best index of violent crime. It very rarely picks up violent rape for example, or violent robbery (which has a much higher rate in the UK). A huge portion of very scary violence never really even approaches homicide, but can still completely scar a neighborhood or community.
Now if we want to limit the discussion to *just* homicide because it is easier, that’s fine. But I’m not sure it helps. Both Switzerland and Israel (with very high high gun ownership rates) have a NON-gun homicide rate HIGHER than their gun-homicide rates. As does Norway, which is a complicated case because the gun ownership is high, but it has various gun control laws that make comparison tricky.
I understand that culture involves feedback loops and such, but it seems like we have a very violent culture (compared to Europe, we’re quite tame compared to say much of Latin America or Asia.) It seems quite possible to have a “gun culture” that isn’t the same as a “violent culture”. And it seems possible to have a “violent culture” without a “gun culture”. We see instances of both of these types even restricting ourselves to 1st world countries. And if we extend beyond that slightly, to modern cultures that aren’t first world, we can easily find very violent cultures that aren’t particularly gun cultures at all (say Mexico, with a higher non-gun homicide rate than the total homicide rate in the US, and very strict gun laws.)
I tend to agree with russell that you can definitely say that the gun culture combined with the violent culture makes for more gun violence. But given the Constitution we have, the number of guns already out there, the near impossibility of dramatically reducing the number of guns without severe civil liberties violations (think drug war times 100), I’d say that our best bet is to try to deal with the problem from the violence culture. And it would have lots of other great effects on sub-homicide violence that gun control laws wouldn’t ever touch.
It seems to me that gun control laws are more of a “must be seen to be doing something” response (akin to the Homeland Security Act or the build more prisons response) than a useful response to the fact of relatively high levels of violence in the US.
Bernard, I’d be loathe to equate violence and homicide as interchangeable for the purposes of this discussion, and I don’t see why you think that statistically homicide is the best index of violent crime. It very rarely picks up violent rape for example, or violent robbery (which has a much higher rate in the UK). A huge portion of very scary violence never really even approaches homicide, but can still completely scar a neighborhood or community.
Now if we want to limit the discussion to *just* homicide because it is easier, that’s fine. But I’m not sure it helps. Both Switzerland and Israel (with very high high gun ownership rates) have a NON-gun homicide rate HIGHER than their gun-homicide rates. As does Norway, which is a complicated case because the gun ownership is high, but it has various gun control laws that make comparison tricky.
I understand that culture involves feedback loops and such, but it seems like we have a very violent culture (compared to Europe, we’re quite tame compared to say much of Latin America or Asia.) It seems quite possible to have a “gun culture” that isn’t the same as a “violent culture”. And it seems possible to have a “violent culture” without a “gun culture”. We see instances of both of these types even restricting ourselves to 1st world countries. And if we extend beyond that slightly, to modern cultures that aren’t first world, we can easily find very violent cultures that aren’t particularly gun cultures at all (say Mexico, with a higher non-gun homicide rate than the total homicide rate in the US, and very strict gun laws.)
I tend to agree with russell that you can definitely say that the gun culture combined with the violent culture makes for more gun violence. But given the Constitution we have, the number of guns already out there, the near impossibility of dramatically reducing the number of guns without severe civil liberties violations (think drug war times 100), I’d say that our best bet is to try to deal with the problem from the violence culture. And it would have lots of other great effects on sub-homicide violence that gun control laws wouldn’t ever touch.
It seems to me that gun control laws are more of a “must be seen to be doing something” response (akin to the Homeland Security Act or the build more prisons response) than a useful response to the fact of relatively high levels of violence in the US.
“Americans” this, “Gun culture” that; Can we agree to stop conflating soccer moms and gang bangers? Deer hunters and gang enforcers?
We don’t have one culture in this country, violent or otherwise. We don’t have one gun culture, either. Pretending otherwise is just a way of blaming the people who aren’t killing for the murders committed by the ones who are, to justify restrictions on them.
It’s a way of avoiding any real recognition of what’s driving the difference in crime rates between communities with hellishly high murder rates, and vanishingly low ones.
Take a quickly found example from New York violent crime statistics by county: Hamilton county, violent crime rate 40 incidents per 100,000, poorer than average. Erie county, violent crime rate 543 incidents per 100,000, (13 times higher!) wealthier than average.
Are they of the same culture?
When you get to neighborhood level statistics, the differences get larger, with some areas having essentially no violent crime at all, some pushing 1000 murders per 100,000 people, making them more dangerous to live in than many war zones.
You can’t solve a problem if you deliberately blind yourself to all the relevant information, by insisting on looking at things on a national level in a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
“Americans” this, “Gun culture” that; Can we agree to stop conflating soccer moms and gang bangers? Deer hunters and gang enforcers?
We don’t have one culture in this country, violent or otherwise. We don’t have one gun culture, either. Pretending otherwise is just a way of blaming the people who aren’t killing for the murders committed by the ones who are, to justify restrictions on them.
It’s a way of avoiding any real recognition of what’s driving the difference in crime rates between communities with hellishly high murder rates, and vanishingly low ones.
Take a quickly found example from New York violent crime statistics by county: Hamilton county, violent crime rate 40 incidents per 100,000, poorer than average. Erie county, violent crime rate 543 incidents per 100,000, (13 times higher!) wealthier than average.
Are they of the same culture?
When you get to neighborhood level statistics, the differences get larger, with some areas having essentially no violent crime at all, some pushing 1000 murders per 100,000 people, making them more dangerous to live in than many war zones.
You can’t solve a problem if you deliberately blind yourself to all the relevant information, by insisting on looking at things on a national level in a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
Well, I gotta say, ‘what Brett said’.
Well, I gotta say, ‘what Brett said’.
You can’t solve a problem if you deliberately blind yourself to all the relevant information, by insisting on looking at things on a national level in a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
You mean like “Europe”?
You can’t solve a problem if you deliberately blind yourself to all the relevant information, by insisting on looking at things on a national level in a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
You mean like “Europe”?
Brett (& GOB) – I sympathize with your argument here. I am not a fan of Brady-style firearm regulation either, but I’d like to point out that the NRA does a pretty good job of muddying the waters as well when it comes to opening a nuanced discussion of the Second Amendment. They spend a lot of time and lobbying dollars opposing state and local gun regulations on federal grounds while ignoring local circumstances as well.
Brett (& GOB) – I sympathize with your argument here. I am not a fan of Brady-style firearm regulation either, but I’d like to point out that the NRA does a pretty good job of muddying the waters as well when it comes to opening a nuanced discussion of the Second Amendment. They spend a lot of time and lobbying dollars opposing state and local gun regulations on federal grounds while ignoring local circumstances as well.
nous:
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
I guess this is why the NRA is doing its thing and I don’t know why you complain. If the 14th Amendment extends individuals’ Bill of Rights protections to States and local governments, then would you not agree that it should be applied consistently?
nous:
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
I guess this is why the NRA is doing its thing and I don’t know why you complain. If the 14th Amendment extends individuals’ Bill of Rights protections to States and local governments, then would you not agree that it should be applied consistently?
GOB – Your question does not address what I was addressing which was Marty’s complaint that gun control advocates unfairly lump all firearm users into an undifferentiated mass when there are nuances. Arguing that the NRA’s position is constitutionally warranted does nothing to address whether or not it is productive for a more nuanced understanding of the underlying issues.
And, I note, the federal/local distinction that you and Marty are drawing here is, at its very heart, a plea for inconsistent application that is more sensitive to local context. I’m noting your selective and strategic application of this general principle.
GOB – Your question does not address what I was addressing which was Marty’s complaint that gun control advocates unfairly lump all firearm users into an undifferentiated mass when there are nuances. Arguing that the NRA’s position is constitutionally warranted does nothing to address whether or not it is productive for a more nuanced understanding of the underlying issues.
And, I note, the federal/local distinction that you and Marty are drawing here is, at its very heart, a plea for inconsistent application that is more sensitive to local context. I’m noting your selective and strategic application of this general principle.
“And, I note, the federal/local distinction that you and Marty are drawing here is, at its very heart, a plea for inconsistent application that is more sensitive to local context.”
I’m not sure it is an inconsistent application of gun control that they are asking for. Quite likely a focus on cultures of violence at a local level, which strikes me as a very different thing.
“And, I note, the federal/local distinction that you and Marty are drawing here is, at its very heart, a plea for inconsistent application that is more sensitive to local context.”
I’m not sure it is an inconsistent application of gun control that they are asking for. Quite likely a focus on cultures of violence at a local level, which strikes me as a very different thing.
‘And, I note, the federal/local distinction that you and Marty are drawing here is, at its very heart, a plea for inconsistent application that is more sensitive to local context. I’m noting your selective and strategic application of this general principle.’
I usually do make the distinction you note, particularly with regard to federal legislation affecting state and local issues not constitutionally mandated for the federal government. But since the incorporation doctrine has been progressing for a century or more, it not possible to be consistent with both.
‘And, I note, the federal/local distinction that you and Marty are drawing here is, at its very heart, a plea for inconsistent application that is more sensitive to local context. I’m noting your selective and strategic application of this general principle.’
I usually do make the distinction you note, particularly with regard to federal legislation affecting state and local issues not constitutionally mandated for the federal government. But since the incorporation doctrine has been progressing for a century or more, it not possible to be consistent with both.
Can we agree to stop conflating soccer moms and gang bangers? Deer hunters and gang enforcers?
Even at the soccer mom level, the US is not like other places that are otherwise similar. By “otherwise similar”, I basically mean OECD nations. Not Colombia, Pakistan, or Zimbabwe.
People beat each other to death over school hockey matches in this country.
I take your point, but pick any particular demographic slice you like from the US and a similar nation, and within that slice, the US is going to be at best par. For a non-trivial number of cases, it will be more violent.
You can’t solve a problem if you deliberately blind yourself to all the relevant information, by insisting on looking at things on a national level in a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
I don’t hear a lot of people advocating for gun regulation at a national level, spanning a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
When I do hear demands for something like that, it’s usually the NRA, and the demand the make is no regulation whatsoever.
Utah is not Brooklyn. Vermont is not LA. The upper peninsula of Michigan is not Chicago.
Most folks get that, and would be perfectly happy if Brooklyn, LA, and Chicago were allowed to enforce policies that make sense for them, rather than policies that make sense for Utah, Vermont, and the UP.
Can we agree to stop conflating soccer moms and gang bangers? Deer hunters and gang enforcers?
Even at the soccer mom level, the US is not like other places that are otherwise similar. By “otherwise similar”, I basically mean OECD nations. Not Colombia, Pakistan, or Zimbabwe.
People beat each other to death over school hockey matches in this country.
I take your point, but pick any particular demographic slice you like from the US and a similar nation, and within that slice, the US is going to be at best par. For a non-trivial number of cases, it will be more violent.
You can’t solve a problem if you deliberately blind yourself to all the relevant information, by insisting on looking at things on a national level in a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
I don’t hear a lot of people advocating for gun regulation at a national level, spanning a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.
When I do hear demands for something like that, it’s usually the NRA, and the demand the make is no regulation whatsoever.
Utah is not Brooklyn. Vermont is not LA. The upper peninsula of Michigan is not Chicago.
Most folks get that, and would be perfectly happy if Brooklyn, LA, and Chicago were allowed to enforce policies that make sense for them, rather than policies that make sense for Utah, Vermont, and the UP.
Again, Sebastian, I’m not claiming that they are asking for inconsistent application of the Second Amendment. I’m saying that when they complain that gun control advocates are not being sufficiently granular in their characterization of gun owners that they and the NRA are guilty of using the same rhetorical strategy in order to elide sport hunters with suburban gun owners who never go hunting and urban concealed carry activists.
Again, Sebastian, I’m not claiming that they are asking for inconsistent application of the Second Amendment. I’m saying that when they complain that gun control advocates are not being sufficiently granular in their characterization of gun owners that they and the NRA are guilty of using the same rhetorical strategy in order to elide sport hunters with suburban gun owners who never go hunting and urban concealed carry activists.
“I don’t hear a lot of people advocating for gun regulation at a national level, spanning a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.”
Not so much now, (But the liberals calling for a magazine ban in the wake of that recent shooting weren’t suggesting a local ban.) but that’s a response to political realities that gun control is political poison in most of the country, not because the gun control movement doesn’t have a history of going for nation-wide laws, when they think they can get away with it.
“I don’t hear a lot of people advocating for gun regulation at a national level, spanning a nation of several hundred million spanning a continent.”
Not so much now, (But the liberals calling for a magazine ban in the wake of that recent shooting weren’t suggesting a local ban.) but that’s a response to political realities that gun control is political poison in most of the country, not because the gun control movement doesn’t have a history of going for nation-wide laws, when they think they can get away with it.
‘Utah is not Brooklyn. Vermont is not LA. The upper peninsula of Michigan is not Chicago.
Most folks get that, and would be perfectly happy if Brooklyn, LA, and Chicago were allowed to enforce policies that make sense for them, rather than policies that make sense for Utah, Vermont, and the UP.’
I like this Russell and I’m glad you expressed it. Of course, Washington DC is none of these places either.
‘Utah is not Brooklyn. Vermont is not LA. The upper peninsula of Michigan is not Chicago.
Most folks get that, and would be perfectly happy if Brooklyn, LA, and Chicago were allowed to enforce policies that make sense for them, rather than policies that make sense for Utah, Vermont, and the UP.’
I like this Russell and I’m glad you expressed it. Of course, Washington DC is none of these places either.
It’s this thing called a “constitutional right”. Does Chicago get to enforce censorship policies which make sense for Chicago, too? Maybe opt out of the 5th amendment?
Not that there’s really and basis for thinking gun control has worked out well for Chicago. Or that it’s worked out well for NYC or DC, either.
It’s this thing called a “constitutional right”. Does Chicago get to enforce censorship policies which make sense for Chicago, too? Maybe opt out of the 5th amendment?
Not that there’s really and basis for thinking gun control has worked out well for Chicago. Or that it’s worked out well for NYC or DC, either.
Brett,
Not that there’s really and basis for thinking gun control has worked out well for Chicago. Or that it’s worked out well for NYC or DC, either.
Non-existent state borders make this non-testable. Or do you think that we can have open borders and effective immigration control? Should we have strict border control between states/cities like we should have with Mexico?
Brett,
Not that there’s really and basis for thinking gun control has worked out well for Chicago. Or that it’s worked out well for NYC or DC, either.
Non-existent state borders make this non-testable. Or do you think that we can have open borders and effective immigration control? Should we have strict border control between states/cities like we should have with Mexico?
jrudkis, some states are working on that, although it is not (yet) control at the border but e.g. special identity requirements for out-of-staters (which essentially means the same for in-staters since they have to proof that they are not the former) with threats of arrest and deportation without a hearing. ID cards through he backdoor.
Btw, I never really understood why ID cards are anathema in the US* (and the UK). Other countries have them for centuries now without necessarily going Orwellian (the UK managed to go there even without ID cards since 9/11).
And I could name a number of problems plaguing the US that would disappear, if there was a mandatory national ID (e.g. the franchise fraud bogeyman).
*today there is admittedly one reasonable objection: The US is totally unable to keep any database confidential and any info will sooner rather than later leaked/sold/otherwise corrupted. In comparision, over here ‘Datenschutz’ is taken so serious to border on paranoia.
jrudkis, some states are working on that, although it is not (yet) control at the border but e.g. special identity requirements for out-of-staters (which essentially means the same for in-staters since they have to proof that they are not the former) with threats of arrest and deportation without a hearing. ID cards through he backdoor.
Btw, I never really understood why ID cards are anathema in the US* (and the UK). Other countries have them for centuries now without necessarily going Orwellian (the UK managed to go there even without ID cards since 9/11).
And I could name a number of problems plaguing the US that would disappear, if there was a mandatory national ID (e.g. the franchise fraud bogeyman).
*today there is admittedly one reasonable objection: The US is totally unable to keep any database confidential and any info will sooner rather than later leaked/sold/otherwise corrupted. In comparision, over here ‘Datenschutz’ is taken so serious to border on paranoia.
Jrudkis, when you find yourself defending this or that scheme on the basis of, “I could prove it worked if I could take some area and turn it into a prison camp, with everybody undergoing a cavity search if they wanted to enter.”, or, “I could make it work, for the benefit of a few cities, if I got to impose my bitterly hated scheme on the entire nation.”, maybe you need to rethink your scheme?
If that’s what it would take to make local gun control work, you ought to give it up, and let the entire Bill of Rights apply to the entire country.
We should stop talking about the fantasy of the gun, and start talking about the fantasies of the gun controllers. They’ve been on display the last week or so, that’s for sure.
Jrudkis, when you find yourself defending this or that scheme on the basis of, “I could prove it worked if I could take some area and turn it into a prison camp, with everybody undergoing a cavity search if they wanted to enter.”, or, “I could make it work, for the benefit of a few cities, if I got to impose my bitterly hated scheme on the entire nation.”, maybe you need to rethink your scheme?
If that’s what it would take to make local gun control work, you ought to give it up, and let the entire Bill of Rights apply to the entire country.
We should stop talking about the fantasy of the gun, and start talking about the fantasies of the gun controllers. They’ve been on display the last week or so, that’s for sure.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Clarification, please. The borders don’t exist because they’re not painted on the ground? They don’t exist because there’s no wall there? Something else? I really cannot tell.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Clarification, please. The borders don’t exist because they’re not painted on the ground? They don’t exist because there’s no wall there? Something else? I really cannot tell.
I’m pretty sure he means, non-existent, in the sense that people are allowed to cross them without being searched for contraband. It does make it rather difficult for a state to enforce possession bans that aren’t in place nation-wide. And even harder on the level of cities.
Problem is, gun controllers reason from this, not that Chicago ought to give up on banning things that are legal in most of the country, but instead, that the rest of the country ought to be subjected to the harshest gun control any jurisdiction in the country feels like imposing, so as to render the outlier laws less futile.
I’m pretty sure he means, non-existent, in the sense that people are allowed to cross them without being searched for contraband. It does make it rather difficult for a state to enforce possession bans that aren’t in place nation-wide. And even harder on the level of cities.
Problem is, gun controllers reason from this, not that Chicago ought to give up on banning things that are legal in most of the country, but instead, that the rest of the country ought to be subjected to the harshest gun control any jurisdiction in the country feels like imposing, so as to render the outlier laws less futile.
Now let’s just wait for a loonie duo that uses a belt-fed 08/15.
Rachel Maddow had a recent segment about how even these things are not formally banned just regulated and taxed out of existence for all practical means.
Newsflash: A village in Germany had to be evacuated because some militaria loonie had stacked so much explosive stuff from WW2 into his house that an explsoion would have leveled the whole area. He was locally known as Pulver-Kurt (gunpowder-Kurt). And that in a country were firecrackers* are treated by law almost like they were weapons of war.
*Actually there is a notorious problem with illegal fireworks smuggled from Poland. While German firecrackers may contain not more than 4g of blackpowder, Polish contraptions have been found with 40g of HE** (“We put less into our hand grenades”, said a spokesman for the army).
**if I read the description right, it must be the stuff (or at least something similar to it) normally used in torpedo warheads 😉
Now let’s just wait for a loonie duo that uses a belt-fed 08/15.
Rachel Maddow had a recent segment about how even these things are not formally banned just regulated and taxed out of existence for all practical means.
Newsflash: A village in Germany had to be evacuated because some militaria loonie had stacked so much explosive stuff from WW2 into his house that an explsoion would have leveled the whole area. He was locally known as Pulver-Kurt (gunpowder-Kurt). And that in a country were firecrackers* are treated by law almost like they were weapons of war.
*Actually there is a notorious problem with illegal fireworks smuggled from Poland. While German firecrackers may contain not more than 4g of blackpowder, Polish contraptions have been found with 40g of HE** (“We put less into our hand grenades”, said a spokesman for the army).
**if I read the description right, it must be the stuff (or at least something similar to it) normally used in torpedo warheads 😉
Of course, I should note that the conspicuous success of the war on drugs really does demonstrate that you can make possession bans work, if you implement them nation-wide… not.
Of course, I should note that the conspicuous success of the war on drugs really does demonstrate that you can make possession bans work, if you implement them nation-wide… not.
Problem is, gun controllers reason from this,
I assume Brett didn’t jump in at the beginning of the thread because he was trying to locate his mind reading cap.
Problem is, gun controllers reason from this,
I assume Brett didn’t jump in at the beginning of the thread because he was trying to locate his mind reading cap.
But the liberals calling for a magazine ban in the wake of that recent shooting weren’t suggesting a local ban.
Analogy time:
“right to keep and carry arms” is to “right to own and use extended magazines” as “right to free speech” is to “right to shout fire in a crowded movie theater”.
Why not fully automatic weapons? Why not a bazooka?
A little sanity would help this discussion.
But the liberals calling for a magazine ban in the wake of that recent shooting weren’t suggesting a local ban.
Analogy time:
“right to keep and carry arms” is to “right to own and use extended magazines” as “right to free speech” is to “right to shout fire in a crowded movie theater”.
Why not fully automatic weapons? Why not a bazooka?
A little sanity would help this discussion.
Sebastian,
Note the use of the word “index.” I believe that homicides are generally used by researchers because they are the most reliably and consistently reported crimes across countries. Thus they offer a better means of comparison than other crimes, where definitions, variations in reporting rates, and so on obscure the comparison.
It’s not a question of limiting the discussion, though homicides are, shall we say, quite significant crimes. Rather, it’s a matter of using the most reliable data. Pointing out Israel, Norway, and Switzerland is an argument, but not a very convincing one, because, first, there will always be variation in the data, and second because they all seem to have circumstances around gun ownership not present in the US.
But we have both.
Me too.
I don’t really disagree with this, except for… Beginning now to take a stricter attitude toward guns might not matter over the near term future, but could have significant longer-run effects. Also, the argument is that, since bad policies are well-entrenched we have to look for other approaches. That may be right, but it’s nothing to brag about.
This is probably true of most laws that could actually pass. Still, I wonder what could be done if we ignored the “black helicopters are coming to take our guns paranoia.” I have the impression that we could do a better job of tracking guns, etc.
Sebastian,
Note the use of the word “index.” I believe that homicides are generally used by researchers because they are the most reliably and consistently reported crimes across countries. Thus they offer a better means of comparison than other crimes, where definitions, variations in reporting rates, and so on obscure the comparison.
It’s not a question of limiting the discussion, though homicides are, shall we say, quite significant crimes. Rather, it’s a matter of using the most reliable data. Pointing out Israel, Norway, and Switzerland is an argument, but not a very convincing one, because, first, there will always be variation in the data, and second because they all seem to have circumstances around gun ownership not present in the US.
But we have both.
Me too.
I don’t really disagree with this, except for… Beginning now to take a stricter attitude toward guns might not matter over the near term future, but could have significant longer-run effects. Also, the argument is that, since bad policies are well-entrenched we have to look for other approaches. That may be right, but it’s nothing to brag about.
This is probably true of most laws that could actually pass. Still, I wonder what could be done if we ignored the “black helicopters are coming to take our guns paranoia.” I have the impression that we could do a better job of tracking guns, etc.
I think, Bernard, that you’ve just demonstrated that, while a little sanity would help the discussion, it’s arguable which side is in need of it. Pro-gun policies are entrenched, and getting more so as time passes, because your side lost the argument.
You lost it for a lot of reasons.
You lost it because you predicted a bloodbath when concealed carry reform was implemented. And it didn’t happen. And then you predicted it in the next state. And it didn’t happen. And again. And again. And somewhere along the line, people wised up, and stopped listening.
You lost it because you insist on accusing gun owners of paranoia, while trying to pass bills that would make gun stores illegal in almost every populated county in the country. (By banning gun stores from being closer to schools than the average distance between schools.) Accusing them of paranoia, while trying to pass a law that would ban most hunting ammo. And people got tired of listening to it.
You really think that the Democratic party came to treat the issue of gun control like it was radioactive because of people who are afraid of black helicopters?
No, they treat it like it’s radioactive because you lost the argument. And you can’t admit it.
I think, Bernard, that you’ve just demonstrated that, while a little sanity would help the discussion, it’s arguable which side is in need of it. Pro-gun policies are entrenched, and getting more so as time passes, because your side lost the argument.
You lost it for a lot of reasons.
You lost it because you predicted a bloodbath when concealed carry reform was implemented. And it didn’t happen. And then you predicted it in the next state. And it didn’t happen. And again. And again. And somewhere along the line, people wised up, and stopped listening.
You lost it because you insist on accusing gun owners of paranoia, while trying to pass bills that would make gun stores illegal in almost every populated county in the country. (By banning gun stores from being closer to schools than the average distance between schools.) Accusing them of paranoia, while trying to pass a law that would ban most hunting ammo. And people got tired of listening to it.
You really think that the Democratic party came to treat the issue of gun control like it was radioactive because of people who are afraid of black helicopters?
No, they treat it like it’s radioactive because you lost the argument. And you can’t admit it.
@Brett Bellmore:”…they treat it like it’s radioactive because you lost the argument.”
Guess who “won” the argument?
Gabby Giffords, that’s who.
Does that resonate even a smidgen about the quality of the pro-gun argument?
@Brett Bellmore:”…they treat it like it’s radioactive because you lost the argument.”
Guess who “won” the argument?
Gabby Giffords, that’s who.
Does that resonate even a smidgen about the quality of the pro-gun argument?
You lost it because you predicted a bloodbath when concealed carry reform was implemented.
So far in Northeast Ohio, “people murdered in cold blood by CCW holders” leads “crimes prevented by CCW holders” by at least a 3-1 margin.
Also, according to incidents compiled by the VPC (yeah, I know, but they’re just collecting the data), there have been at least 17 incidents in 13 states since May 2007 in which a CCW holder has shot 3 or more persons, resulting in 81 deaths.
You know. So long as we’re keeping score.
You lost it because you predicted a bloodbath when concealed carry reform was implemented.
So far in Northeast Ohio, “people murdered in cold blood by CCW holders” leads “crimes prevented by CCW holders” by at least a 3-1 margin.
Also, according to incidents compiled by the VPC (yeah, I know, but they’re just collecting the data), there have been at least 17 incidents in 13 states since May 2007 in which a CCW holder has shot 3 or more persons, resulting in 81 deaths.
You know. So long as we’re keeping score.
None of which would be notable, btw, except that the NRA assured us all that those kinds of people wouldn’t be capable of getting CCW permits.
None of which would be notable, btw, except that the NRA assured us all that those kinds of people wouldn’t be capable of getting CCW permits.
Phil, the relevant number is not, “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders”, it’s “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders that they couldn’t have committed without the permit. Most people don’t find this, “People intent on criminal acts won’t bring a gun if they can’t legally conceal it.” premise terribly rational. But it’s central to the argument you’re advancing.
And even the VPC’s numbers, as questionable as they often are, don’t represent a “bloodbath”.
Phil, the relevant number is not, “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders”, it’s “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders that they couldn’t have committed without the permit. Most people don’t find this, “People intent on criminal acts won’t bring a gun if they can’t legally conceal it.” premise terribly rational. But it’s central to the argument you’re advancing.
And even the VPC’s numbers, as questionable as they often are, don’t represent a “bloodbath”.
In fact, while the VPC plays up the fact that there are a non-zero number of murders and other crimes by people with concealed carry permits, they don’t exactly bother to point out that this rate is much lower than that for the general population, and might even be lower than the murder rate by POLICE.
In fact, while the VPC plays up the fact that there are a non-zero number of murders and other crimes by people with concealed carry permits, they don’t exactly bother to point out that this rate is much lower than that for the general population, and might even be lower than the murder rate by POLICE.
Phil, the relevant number is not, “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders”, it’s “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders that they couldn’t have committed without the permit.
Uh, says who? You? Why do you get to define the parameters here?
Most people don’t find this, “People intent on criminal acts won’t bring a gun if they can’t legally conceal it.” premise terribly rational. But it’s central to the argument you’re advancing.
No, the argument here is that the NRA guaranteed — guaranteed — that, with the liberalization of CCW permits, they would NOT be given to people likely to commit crimes.
In fact, the exact words were, “As we get more information about right-to-carry, our point is made again and again…People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense.”
And yet here we are.
they don’t exactly bother to point out that this rate is much lower than that for the general population, and might even be lower than the murder rate by POLICE.
Cite, please.
Phil, the relevant number is not, “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders”, it’s “crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders that they couldn’t have committed without the permit.
Uh, says who? You? Why do you get to define the parameters here?
Most people don’t find this, “People intent on criminal acts won’t bring a gun if they can’t legally conceal it.” premise terribly rational. But it’s central to the argument you’re advancing.
No, the argument here is that the NRA guaranteed — guaranteed — that, with the liberalization of CCW permits, they would NOT be given to people likely to commit crimes.
In fact, the exact words were, “As we get more information about right-to-carry, our point is made again and again…People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense.”
And yet here we are.
they don’t exactly bother to point out that this rate is much lower than that for the general population, and might even be lower than the murder rate by POLICE.
Cite, please.
“Uh, says who? You? Why do you get to define the parameters here?”
Let me explain this in detail: If the objection to concealed carry reform is that it facilitates crime, then only crimes a concealed carry permit could have facilitated would have any relevance.
If the objection is that you just don’t like the idea of people carrying guns, whether or not their doing so has any negative consequences, you’ve got to face the fact that THAT reason for passing laws has been rejected across almost the entire country, democratically. Like I said, you’ve lost that argument, you lost it some time ago. Heck, it was a non-starter in most places from the start.
“No, the argument here is that the NRA guaranteed — guaranteed — that, with the liberalization of CCW permits, they would NOT be given to people likely to commit crimes.
…
And yet here we are.”
Indeed, here we are, with CCW permit holders committing crime at a much lower rate than the general population. Surely you noticed that the VPC gave numbers for crimes committed by permit holders, not rates, and conspicuously avoided comparing the rate to any other group? Why did you think that was, because CCW holders came off badly in the comparison?
No, they did it that way because the numbers would prove they were full of it, if put in context.
“Uh, says who? You? Why do you get to define the parameters here?”
Let me explain this in detail: If the objection to concealed carry reform is that it facilitates crime, then only crimes a concealed carry permit could have facilitated would have any relevance.
If the objection is that you just don’t like the idea of people carrying guns, whether or not their doing so has any negative consequences, you’ve got to face the fact that THAT reason for passing laws has been rejected across almost the entire country, democratically. Like I said, you’ve lost that argument, you lost it some time ago. Heck, it was a non-starter in most places from the start.
“No, the argument here is that the NRA guaranteed — guaranteed — that, with the liberalization of CCW permits, they would NOT be given to people likely to commit crimes.
…
And yet here we are.”
Indeed, here we are, with CCW permit holders committing crime at a much lower rate than the general population. Surely you noticed that the VPC gave numbers for crimes committed by permit holders, not rates, and conspicuously avoided comparing the rate to any other group? Why did you think that was, because CCW holders came off badly in the comparison?
No, they did it that way because the numbers would prove they were full of it, if put in context.
If the objection to concealed carry reform is that it facilitates crime, then only crimes a concealed carry permit could have facilitated would have any relevance.
I don’t think the issue here is whether being able to carry a concealed weapon would induce an otherwise law-abiding individual to commit crimes.
I think, or at least IMO, the issue is that folks who are inclined to commit crime are able to get and carry guns.
If the objection to concealed carry reform is that it facilitates crime, then only crimes a concealed carry permit could have facilitated would have any relevance.
I don’t think the issue here is whether being able to carry a concealed weapon would induce an otherwise law-abiding individual to commit crimes.
I think, or at least IMO, the issue is that folks who are inclined to commit crime are able to get and carry guns.
” think, or at least IMO, the issue is that folks who are inclined to commit crime are able to get and carry guns.”
I think the problem with gun control arguments in general is there are (at least)two different arguments presented alternately. This is one.
The other is that guns create danger even in situations where no one intends a crime (dangerous in the home, unqualified owners, suicide is easier, crimes of passion, etc.).
Both can be true but I think the second is a more effective argument for gun control. Your statement, IMO, simply highlights the counter argument that in this country anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime.
So criminals can get guns, it doesn’t really matter if they can also get a license unless we want to charge them for gun possession when we can’t convict them for anything else.
” think, or at least IMO, the issue is that folks who are inclined to commit crime are able to get and carry guns.”
I think the problem with gun control arguments in general is there are (at least)two different arguments presented alternately. This is one.
The other is that guns create danger even in situations where no one intends a crime (dangerous in the home, unqualified owners, suicide is easier, crimes of passion, etc.).
Both can be true but I think the second is a more effective argument for gun control. Your statement, IMO, simply highlights the counter argument that in this country anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime.
So criminals can get guns, it doesn’t really matter if they can also get a license unless we want to charge them for gun possession when we can’t convict them for anything else.
“You really think that the Democratic party came to treat the issue of gun control like it was radioactive because of people who are afraid of black helicopters?”
Yes.
“You really think that the Democratic party came to treat the issue of gun control like it was radioactive because of people who are afraid of black helicopters?”
Yes.
If the objection to concealed carry reform is that it facilitates crime, then only crimes a concealed carry permit could have facilitated would have any relevance.
That’s some catch, that Catch-22. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the facts on the ground: These crimes were committed by these CCW holders with handguns that they were licensed to carry. If you have any evidence at all that these people were likely to commit these crimes without a CCW, by all means, now is the time to unveil it.
If the objection is that you just don’t like the idea of people carrying guns, whether or not their doing so has any negative consequences,
You need to read the thread, sunshine, because your ability to mind read or discern motivations has failed you again. You’re worse at it than that avedis guy.
Indeed, here we are, with CCW permit holders committing crime at a much lower rate than the general population.
We were told by the NRA that the rate would be “zero.” The NRA is composed of liars. QED.
You are a member of the NRA. Completing the syllogism is left as an exercise for the reader.
If the objection to concealed carry reform is that it facilitates crime, then only crimes a concealed carry permit could have facilitated would have any relevance.
That’s some catch, that Catch-22. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the facts on the ground: These crimes were committed by these CCW holders with handguns that they were licensed to carry. If you have any evidence at all that these people were likely to commit these crimes without a CCW, by all means, now is the time to unveil it.
If the objection is that you just don’t like the idea of people carrying guns, whether or not their doing so has any negative consequences,
You need to read the thread, sunshine, because your ability to mind read or discern motivations has failed you again. You’re worse at it than that avedis guy.
Indeed, here we are, with CCW permit holders committing crime at a much lower rate than the general population.
We were told by the NRA that the rate would be “zero.” The NRA is composed of liars. QED.
You are a member of the NRA. Completing the syllogism is left as an exercise for the reader.
Indeed, here we are, with CCW permit holders committing crime at a much lower rate than the general population.
I’m curious, Brett: are you seriously trying to bamboozle everyone present with a “correlation implies causation” argument, or have you bamboozled yourself with it? It’s hardly as if the only (to say nothing of most) important possible difference between the two populations those stats look at is CC permits… I have a sneaking, unsupported suspicion that the CC population would have a higher median income than the non-CC population, simply because it excludes those individuals who cannot afford said legally purchased weapon and associated costs. Of course, I’m sure poverty or lack thereof is not nearly so meaningful a factor as the moral uprightness brought about by having and utilizing a CC permit…
Indeed, here we are, with CCW permit holders committing crime at a much lower rate than the general population.
I’m curious, Brett: are you seriously trying to bamboozle everyone present with a “correlation implies causation” argument, or have you bamboozled yourself with it? It’s hardly as if the only (to say nothing of most) important possible difference between the two populations those stats look at is CC permits… I have a sneaking, unsupported suspicion that the CC population would have a higher median income than the non-CC population, simply because it excludes those individuals who cannot afford said legally purchased weapon and associated costs. Of course, I’m sure poverty or lack thereof is not nearly so meaningful a factor as the moral uprightness brought about by having and utilizing a CC permit…
“I think, or at least IMO, the issue is that folks who are inclined to commit crime are able to get and carry guns.”
And what does a concealed carry permit have to do with that? You don’t need one to “get” a gun. You don’t need one to “carry” a gun, either; Were you under the impression that, lacking a CCW permit, any gun you shoved into your pocket would pop back out like a watermelon seed the moment you took your hand off it? All you need it for is to carry one concealed legally. The theory here seems to be that the aspiring mass murderer will, at the door to his home, suddenly stop and say, “Oh, my God! I was about to commit a crime on the way to my planned mass murder!”, turn around, and spend the evening watching TV instead.
“We were told by the NRA that the rate would be “zero.” The NRA is composed of liars. QED.”
Cite, right back at ya. I’m a life member, and I never heard that claim.
“I’m curious, Brett: are you seriously trying to bamboozle everyone present with a “correlation implies causation” argument, or have you bamboozled yourself with it?”
Neither. You originally stated the NRA claimed “that, with the liberalization of CCW permits, they would NOT be given to people likely to commit crimes.” This is a true statement. The fact that CCW permits are given to people who then go on to commit crime at a rate much lower than the general population demonstrates that the guarantee was fulfilled: They are not “likely” to commit crimes. There are enough of them, numbering into the millions, that some crimes happen anyway. But that is merely to say that the unlikely happens, given a large enough sample.
I was simply demonstrating that the NRA, as it happened, was right about CCW reform. And the VPC, which predicted “a bloodbath” each time a new state adopted CCW reform, was wrong.
“I think, or at least IMO, the issue is that folks who are inclined to commit crime are able to get and carry guns.”
And what does a concealed carry permit have to do with that? You don’t need one to “get” a gun. You don’t need one to “carry” a gun, either; Were you under the impression that, lacking a CCW permit, any gun you shoved into your pocket would pop back out like a watermelon seed the moment you took your hand off it? All you need it for is to carry one concealed legally. The theory here seems to be that the aspiring mass murderer will, at the door to his home, suddenly stop and say, “Oh, my God! I was about to commit a crime on the way to my planned mass murder!”, turn around, and spend the evening watching TV instead.
“We were told by the NRA that the rate would be “zero.” The NRA is composed of liars. QED.”
Cite, right back at ya. I’m a life member, and I never heard that claim.
“I’m curious, Brett: are you seriously trying to bamboozle everyone present with a “correlation implies causation” argument, or have you bamboozled yourself with it?”
Neither. You originally stated the NRA claimed “that, with the liberalization of CCW permits, they would NOT be given to people likely to commit crimes.” This is a true statement. The fact that CCW permits are given to people who then go on to commit crime at a rate much lower than the general population demonstrates that the guarantee was fulfilled: They are not “likely” to commit crimes. There are enough of them, numbering into the millions, that some crimes happen anyway. But that is merely to say that the unlikely happens, given a large enough sample.
I was simply demonstrating that the NRA, as it happened, was right about CCW reform. And the VPC, which predicted “a bloodbath” each time a new state adopted CCW reform, was wrong.
For your convenience, A detailed takedown of the ‘study’. Read it. Take to heart what it tells you about the VPC’s MO. You’re relying for your information on people who have not the slightest scruple about deceiving you.
You’re not running with a nice crowd, Phil.
For your convenience, A detailed takedown of the ‘study’. Read it. Take to heart what it tells you about the VPC’s MO. You’re relying for your information on people who have not the slightest scruple about deceiving you.
You’re not running with a nice crowd, Phil.
You’re such a tool, Brett. Do you think I’m a member of or contributor to the VPC? I Googled to find easily available information on how many CCW holders have murdered people over the last several years. I never claimed it was a “study,” never attributed to it any statistical significance, never gave it any deeper meaning.
I used those numbers to point out that, contra the NRA’s claim that “People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense,” some of them are actually psychopathic killers.
You want me to find better numbers? Great! Say so, and I will. I’ve already provided links to local cases in which CCW holders definitely did kill innocent people with the guns they were likely to carry and would likely not have had without the permits.
(BTW, you may not want to link to op-eds which begin with quotes from Gregg Easterbrook, who is . . . I hesitate to use “retarded” but I can’t think of a more polite word.)
You’re attributing to me all kinds of motivations that I do not hold and claims that I am not making. Read back through the thread — I think that people should be allowed to own handguns for self defense. But I’m also going to face the fact that some innocent people are certainly going to die as a result. It’s already happened, and both history and human behavior suggest that the more permits are issued, the more it will happen.
Now, you can approach that information with the attitude that, oh well, sh*t happens.
You can say it’s statistical noise, as if we make policy by simply doing an R-squared analysis and calling it a day.
You can claim — with all the proof you can muster to provide any counterfactual — that those crimes would have happened anyway.
What you can’t do is claim that the NRA was right, and rely on sophistry like arguing about the word “likely” to do it.
I don’t “run” with any crowd, Brett. You, on the other hand, have ties to militia freakshows and known liars. So save me your faux concern. It’s unbecoming for you to pretend you care about people. Your contempt for humanity borders on nihilism.
You’re such a tool, Brett. Do you think I’m a member of or contributor to the VPC? I Googled to find easily available information on how many CCW holders have murdered people over the last several years. I never claimed it was a “study,” never attributed to it any statistical significance, never gave it any deeper meaning.
I used those numbers to point out that, contra the NRA’s claim that “People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense,” some of them are actually psychopathic killers.
You want me to find better numbers? Great! Say so, and I will. I’ve already provided links to local cases in which CCW holders definitely did kill innocent people with the guns they were likely to carry and would likely not have had without the permits.
(BTW, you may not want to link to op-eds which begin with quotes from Gregg Easterbrook, who is . . . I hesitate to use “retarded” but I can’t think of a more polite word.)
You’re attributing to me all kinds of motivations that I do not hold and claims that I am not making. Read back through the thread — I think that people should be allowed to own handguns for self defense. But I’m also going to face the fact that some innocent people are certainly going to die as a result. It’s already happened, and both history and human behavior suggest that the more permits are issued, the more it will happen.
Now, you can approach that information with the attitude that, oh well, sh*t happens.
You can say it’s statistical noise, as if we make policy by simply doing an R-squared analysis and calling it a day.
You can claim — with all the proof you can muster to provide any counterfactual — that those crimes would have happened anyway.
What you can’t do is claim that the NRA was right, and rely on sophistry like arguing about the word “likely” to do it.
I don’t “run” with any crowd, Brett. You, on the other hand, have ties to militia freakshows and known liars. So save me your faux concern. It’s unbecoming for you to pretend you care about people. Your contempt for humanity borders on nihilism.
Don’t you support the Tea Party and the Minutemen? Here’s the crowd YOU run with:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/27/the-murder-of-brisenia-flores/
Don’t you support the Tea Party and the Minutemen? Here’s the crowd YOU run with:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/27/the-murder-of-brisenia-flores/
Please note for the record that, from my comment, “Also, according to incidents compiled by the VPC (yeah, I know, but they’re just collecting the data) . . .”, a comment which clearly indicates that I don’t necessarily consider them a source I would normally use, nor unbiased, Bellmore concludes that the VPC is a “crowd” that I “run with.”
Also note that he can’t differentiate between me and commenter “envy,” attributing to the latter something I said. I suspect that, when it comes to his “enemies,” Brett merely sees an undifferentiated mass, and will gladly swap traits and quotes back and forth between them if he thinks it will advance his argument.
Please note for the record that, from my comment, “Also, according to incidents compiled by the VPC (yeah, I know, but they’re just collecting the data) . . .”, a comment which clearly indicates that I don’t necessarily consider them a source I would normally use, nor unbiased, Bellmore concludes that the VPC is a “crowd” that I “run with.”
Also note that he can’t differentiate between me and commenter “envy,” attributing to the latter something I said. I suspect that, when it comes to his “enemies,” Brett merely sees an undifferentiated mass, and will gladly swap traits and quotes back and forth between them if he thinks it will advance his argument.
Your statement, IMO, simply highlights the counter argument that in this country anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime.
It’s not completely clear to me why “anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime” is a compelling argument against gun laws. I’m probably missing something there.
My personal feeling about the gun issue is that (a) folks who are sane and not demonstrably irresponsible should be able to own a gun if they want one, and (b) federal state and local governments should be able to set standards and rules for determining what “sane and not demonstrably irresponsible” means, and also the level of ordnance that it is appropriate for a private individual to own.
I don’t own a gun, have no particular need for a gun, and am not that interested in guns. I did have an air rifle when I was a little kid, and had great fun with it shooting cans and annoying birds and squirrels. Since then, not so much. I’d rather play music. That’s just me.
My old man had a shotgun and was a great shot with any kind of rifle, all of my brothers-in-law are avid gun fans and collectors. I have no particular problem with guns that are not pointed at me. If guns are your thing, live it up. Just kindly note the “not pointed at me” part.
My sense of the 2nd Amendment is that folks who wrote it didn’t want standing armies and didn’t want the federal government to prohibit gun ownership. The horse is out of the barn on the first issue, as far as I can tell the second issue has never really come up.
The issue of gun violence in the US is a function of the generally violent nature of American culture, and the very very widespread availability of guns and the ease with which people can obtain them. If we want to solve the problem of gun violence, we will need to address both aspects of the problem.
My sense is that Americans will be shooting each other in disproportionate numbers until the end of time. It’s something we appear to be inclined toward.
Your statement, IMO, simply highlights the counter argument that in this country anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime.
It’s not completely clear to me why “anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime” is a compelling argument against gun laws. I’m probably missing something there.
My personal feeling about the gun issue is that (a) folks who are sane and not demonstrably irresponsible should be able to own a gun if they want one, and (b) federal state and local governments should be able to set standards and rules for determining what “sane and not demonstrably irresponsible” means, and also the level of ordnance that it is appropriate for a private individual to own.
I don’t own a gun, have no particular need for a gun, and am not that interested in guns. I did have an air rifle when I was a little kid, and had great fun with it shooting cans and annoying birds and squirrels. Since then, not so much. I’d rather play music. That’s just me.
My old man had a shotgun and was a great shot with any kind of rifle, all of my brothers-in-law are avid gun fans and collectors. I have no particular problem with guns that are not pointed at me. If guns are your thing, live it up. Just kindly note the “not pointed at me” part.
My sense of the 2nd Amendment is that folks who wrote it didn’t want standing armies and didn’t want the federal government to prohibit gun ownership. The horse is out of the barn on the first issue, as far as I can tell the second issue has never really come up.
The issue of gun violence in the US is a function of the generally violent nature of American culture, and the very very widespread availability of guns and the ease with which people can obtain them. If we want to solve the problem of gun violence, we will need to address both aspects of the problem.
My sense is that Americans will be shooting each other in disproportionate numbers until the end of time. It’s something we appear to be inclined toward.
Russell — The issue of gun violence in the US is a function of the generally violent nature of American culture, and the very very widespread availability of guns and the ease with which people can obtain them. If we want to solve the problem of gun violence, we will need to address both aspects of the problem.
My sense is that Americans will be shooting each other in disproportionate numbers until the end of time. It’s something we appear to be inclined toward.
Agreed. When I think about this I tend to compare the situation with guns here to, say, knives and bolos in the Philippines — which I hear about a lot because of my MA training. There are segments of Filipino culture (please correct me if I am wrong, dr. ngo) that are more violent than their American counterparts but when personal violence is settled with a blade rather than a gun it tends to create a bit less collateral damage. You just can’t stab or cut someone unless you are right next to them and bystanders have to be a lot closer before you will attack them as a threat.
So it’s not as if guns and violence are hermetically separated in this. The nature of the weapon’s use determines the nature of the violence. Guns allow their wielder to project their force – and, when applicable, their paranoia – a lot farther. The danger zone has a much larger radius. It’s impersonal in a way that a blade can never be.
It’s not just violence, it’s violence expressed with a firearm, which looks very different from other sorts of violence and plays on different fears and concerns. Both parts are germane to the discussion.
Russell — The issue of gun violence in the US is a function of the generally violent nature of American culture, and the very very widespread availability of guns and the ease with which people can obtain them. If we want to solve the problem of gun violence, we will need to address both aspects of the problem.
My sense is that Americans will be shooting each other in disproportionate numbers until the end of time. It’s something we appear to be inclined toward.
Agreed. When I think about this I tend to compare the situation with guns here to, say, knives and bolos in the Philippines — which I hear about a lot because of my MA training. There are segments of Filipino culture (please correct me if I am wrong, dr. ngo) that are more violent than their American counterparts but when personal violence is settled with a blade rather than a gun it tends to create a bit less collateral damage. You just can’t stab or cut someone unless you are right next to them and bystanders have to be a lot closer before you will attack them as a threat.
So it’s not as if guns and violence are hermetically separated in this. The nature of the weapon’s use determines the nature of the violence. Guns allow their wielder to project their force – and, when applicable, their paranoia – a lot farther. The danger zone has a much larger radius. It’s impersonal in a way that a blade can never be.
It’s not just violence, it’s violence expressed with a firearm, which looks very different from other sorts of violence and plays on different fears and concerns. Both parts are germane to the discussion.
“It’s not completely clear to me why “anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime” is a compelling argument against gun laws. I’m probably missing something there.”
No, not really missing anything, it is just that the counter argument that criminals wouldn’t have guns if certain types of guns were outlawed is really not a STRONG argument.
My point was that the argument that casual gun ownership involves some inherent dangers is a more easily sold argument.
I mean, if we can outlaw toys with McDonalds Happy Meals then we should be able to make the case that adults don’t have the sense to own guns for chrissake.
“It’s not completely clear to me why “anyone can get a gun if they intend to use it for a crime” is a compelling argument against gun laws. I’m probably missing something there.”
No, not really missing anything, it is just that the counter argument that criminals wouldn’t have guns if certain types of guns were outlawed is really not a STRONG argument.
My point was that the argument that casual gun ownership involves some inherent dangers is a more easily sold argument.
I mean, if we can outlaw toys with McDonalds Happy Meals then we should be able to make the case that adults don’t have the sense to own guns for chrissake.
Marty raises an interesting question: where do “criminals” get guns?
Professional muggers, part-time bank robbers, would-be home invaders, and amateur assassins are NOT, as a rule, gunsmiths. They seldom have Bridgeport mills, Clausing lathes, or heat-treat furnaces down in the basement; even if they do, any gun they build is more likely to blow their own head off than injure somebody else.
Practically every gun used by a “criminal” is a gun that was legally manufactured, legally wholesaled, legally retailed to a “responsible gun owner”, originally. The abundance of guns in “criminal” hands makes me wonder about the overlap between “responsible gun owners and “criminals”.
–TP
Marty raises an interesting question: where do “criminals” get guns?
Professional muggers, part-time bank robbers, would-be home invaders, and amateur assassins are NOT, as a rule, gunsmiths. They seldom have Bridgeport mills, Clausing lathes, or heat-treat furnaces down in the basement; even if they do, any gun they build is more likely to blow their own head off than injure somebody else.
Practically every gun used by a “criminal” is a gun that was legally manufactured, legally wholesaled, legally retailed to a “responsible gun owner”, originally. The abundance of guns in “criminal” hands makes me wonder about the overlap between “responsible gun owners and “criminals”.
–TP
As does the abundance of getaway cars being driven by criminals, I suppose…
Not every drug dealer is an organic chemist, but they somehow manage to get their hands on illegal drugs. Why anybody would suppose a war on guns would be more successful is beyond me.
As does the abundance of getaway cars being driven by criminals, I suppose…
Not every drug dealer is an organic chemist, but they somehow manage to get their hands on illegal drugs. Why anybody would suppose a war on guns would be more successful is beyond me.
Yeah, you rarely ever hear of a drive by knifing.
Yeah, you rarely ever hear of a drive by knifing.
Brett,
If you’re opposed to registering cars, licensing drivers, and requiring liability insurance to operate an automobile on public roads, just say so.
If you think automatic pistols are as easy to homebrew as crystal meth, say that too.
Otherwise, your riposte-by-analogy is kinda lame.
–TP
Brett,
If you’re opposed to registering cars, licensing drivers, and requiring liability insurance to operate an automobile on public roads, just say so.
If you think automatic pistols are as easy to homebrew as crystal meth, say that too.
Otherwise, your riposte-by-analogy is kinda lame.
–TP
It’s kind of mixed: I’m a mechanical engineer and a machinist, I could home brew a machine gun easier than I could cook up a batch of meth. OTOH, I didn’t do badly in chemistry, back in college, so I suppose if I took the trouble to tool up and find some recipes, I could do the latter, too. I think I’d rather score some modifinil, though…
But you kind of miss the point: Just as a market in illegal drugs doesn’t rely on every dealer, let alone every user, being handy with a retort, a market in illegal guns hardly depends on every armed criminal being a machinist. It isn’t just legal markets that can take advantage of specialization and the division of labor, after all.
Prohibitions are a spectacular failure, essentially without regard to what is being prohibited, for very fundamental reasons, which apply if anything even more to guns than to drugs.
And, you guys keep making my point for me: How is it that the gun owners are the ones trapped in a fantasy world, when gun controllers are talking about making guns the legal equivalent of meth, in a country where 48 states have legal concealed carry, and 44 states guarantee the right in their own constitutions?
You’ve been talking to yourselves so long, you’re living in a fantasy world where people think you’re reasonable.
It’s kind of mixed: I’m a mechanical engineer and a machinist, I could home brew a machine gun easier than I could cook up a batch of meth. OTOH, I didn’t do badly in chemistry, back in college, so I suppose if I took the trouble to tool up and find some recipes, I could do the latter, too. I think I’d rather score some modifinil, though…
But you kind of miss the point: Just as a market in illegal drugs doesn’t rely on every dealer, let alone every user, being handy with a retort, a market in illegal guns hardly depends on every armed criminal being a machinist. It isn’t just legal markets that can take advantage of specialization and the division of labor, after all.
Prohibitions are a spectacular failure, essentially without regard to what is being prohibited, for very fundamental reasons, which apply if anything even more to guns than to drugs.
And, you guys keep making my point for me: How is it that the gun owners are the ones trapped in a fantasy world, when gun controllers are talking about making guns the legal equivalent of meth, in a country where 48 states have legal concealed carry, and 44 states guarantee the right in their own constitutions?
You’ve been talking to yourselves so long, you’re living in a fantasy world where people think you’re reasonable.
“And, [I think] you guys keep making my point for me [because I’m not really reading what you say, but skimming and then assuming that you are actually saying the things that gun rights activists say gun control advocates say]: How is it that the gun owners are the ones trapped in a fantasy world, when gun controllers are talking about making [some sorts of] guns the legal equivalent of meth, in a country where 48 states have legal concealed carry [for a Glock 17, but not, say, a Glock 18, despite them both being ‘arms’], and 44 states guarantee the right [to own some sorts of firearms, but not all sorts] in their own constitutions?”
“And, [I think] you guys keep making my point for me [because I’m not really reading what you say, but skimming and then assuming that you are actually saying the things that gun rights activists say gun control advocates say]: How is it that the gun owners are the ones trapped in a fantasy world, when gun controllers are talking about making [some sorts of] guns the legal equivalent of meth, in a country where 48 states have legal concealed carry [for a Glock 17, but not, say, a Glock 18, despite them both being ‘arms’], and 44 states guarantee the right [to own some sorts of firearms, but not all sorts] in their own constitutions?”
Brett,
As a fellow mechanical engineer, I object to your denseness (density?) as displayed in your last comment.
My WHOLE POINT, originally, was that criminals are not capable of manufacturing their own guns. So whose point are you making when you write that “a market in illegal guns hardly depends on every armed criminal being a machinist”?
Of COURSE it doesn’t. It depends on upstanding, law-abiding, freedom-loving, cold-dead-fingered patriots defending the purity of the 2nd Amendment to such an extent that “legal” guns all too easily become guns in “criminal” hands.
Be a mensch, Brett. Admit that your right to keep and bear arms (and mine!) is WORTH an occasional massacre.
–TP
Brett,
As a fellow mechanical engineer, I object to your denseness (density?) as displayed in your last comment.
My WHOLE POINT, originally, was that criminals are not capable of manufacturing their own guns. So whose point are you making when you write that “a market in illegal guns hardly depends on every armed criminal being a machinist”?
Of COURSE it doesn’t. It depends on upstanding, law-abiding, freedom-loving, cold-dead-fingered patriots defending the purity of the 2nd Amendment to such an extent that “legal” guns all too easily become guns in “criminal” hands.
Be a mensch, Brett. Admit that your right to keep and bear arms (and mine!) is WORTH an occasional massacre.
–TP
Maybe it’s just me, but comparing the drug war to a potential gun war is problematic because drugs have a personal application that doesn’t project itself on others the way the use of guns can. I’m not talking about the crazy shit people do when they’re effed up. I’m talking about the fact that you can just sit in your house and get high without anyone being the wiser, even if you live in a densely populated city. In fact, people can get together in groups and use drugs at things called “parties.”
Several people can sit around a table and do lots of coke and talk about things they know nothing about for hours. Or they can do bong hits and listen to King Crimson while pseudo-theorizing on pseudo-metaphysics. What could you do with guns, under the assumption that guns were entirely illegal? I guess you could go hunting in the hinterlands or shoot cans in the middle of nowhere, maybe even in the burbs if you were smart about it. But guns are a bit more obvious and not so usable in the comfort of your living room in, say, Seattle without anyone noticing.
So, yeah, analogies have their limits. I’ve been drinking stout and a little vodka, but I could just as easily be storched up on the old wackus, and my neighbors would have no idea. Nor the police.
I mean, you could just sit around with your guns, looking at them, stroking them, perhaps. But if you were to use them, someone might notice.
It might take a while, but lots and lots of guns could be cleaned up over time. I don’t advocate that, mind you, but it’s not really like drugs at all.
Maybe it’s just me, but comparing the drug war to a potential gun war is problematic because drugs have a personal application that doesn’t project itself on others the way the use of guns can. I’m not talking about the crazy shit people do when they’re effed up. I’m talking about the fact that you can just sit in your house and get high without anyone being the wiser, even if you live in a densely populated city. In fact, people can get together in groups and use drugs at things called “parties.”
Several people can sit around a table and do lots of coke and talk about things they know nothing about for hours. Or they can do bong hits and listen to King Crimson while pseudo-theorizing on pseudo-metaphysics. What could you do with guns, under the assumption that guns were entirely illegal? I guess you could go hunting in the hinterlands or shoot cans in the middle of nowhere, maybe even in the burbs if you were smart about it. But guns are a bit more obvious and not so usable in the comfort of your living room in, say, Seattle without anyone noticing.
So, yeah, analogies have their limits. I’ve been drinking stout and a little vodka, but I could just as easily be storched up on the old wackus, and my neighbors would have no idea. Nor the police.
I mean, you could just sit around with your guns, looking at them, stroking them, perhaps. But if you were to use them, someone might notice.
It might take a while, but lots and lots of guns could be cleaned up over time. I don’t advocate that, mind you, but it’s not really like drugs at all.
I suppose I could shoot a burglar, if it came to it, and bury him in the back yard instead of reporting him to the police.
Rather, the biggest difference between a war on drugs, and a war on guns, at least in this country, it that the former is only (mostly!) metaphorically a war, while the latter, if pursued seriously, would inevitably be a real war. Because there are just too damn many Americans who wouldn’t stand for it.
Hell, the last time the war on guns was being seriously waged, they were burning people alive in their homes, and government offices were getting blown up. Want a return to that?
I suppose I could shoot a burglar, if it came to it, and bury him in the back yard instead of reporting him to the police.
Rather, the biggest difference between a war on drugs, and a war on guns, at least in this country, it that the former is only (mostly!) metaphorically a war, while the latter, if pursued seriously, would inevitably be a real war. Because there are just too damn many Americans who wouldn’t stand for it.
Hell, the last time the war on guns was being seriously waged, they were burning people alive in their homes, and government offices were getting blown up. Want a return to that?
Well, outside US borders the US ‘War on (certain) Drugs’ kills lots of people daily directly and indirectly and some of it is fed by the uncontrolled influx of US produced guns.
Well, outside US borders the US ‘War on (certain) Drugs’ kills lots of people daily directly and indirectly and some of it is fed by the uncontrolled influx of US produced guns.
Want a return to that?
If you’re asking me Brett, see this (with emphasis):
I don’t advocate that, mind you, but it’s not really like drugs at all.
Want a return to that?
If you’re asking me Brett, see this (with emphasis):
I don’t advocate that, mind you, but it’s not really like drugs at all.
I should add, though, that there’s no need to be so literal about the “War on (insert object)” construct. If gun shops were closed, gun shows eliminated, and manufacturers severely restricted on how much they could produce and whom they could sell to (or some subset of those things, perhaps limited to certain types of weapons), with confiscations from individuals only based on criminial activity (other than what we’ll assume is illegal gun ownership), the number of guns (or, at least, of certain types) available would go down over time. There would be no need to go barging into people’s homes just to take their guns.
Relatively unresourceful criminals would largely be unable to obtain them, unlike now, where just about any knucklehead can get one. We’re more or less awash in them. They’re relatively cheap and highly available. That could change, over time, without a civil war, in such a way that gun violence could be significantly reduced, IMO.
I should add, though, that there’s no need to be so literal about the “War on (insert object)” construct. If gun shops were closed, gun shows eliminated, and manufacturers severely restricted on how much they could produce and whom they could sell to (or some subset of those things, perhaps limited to certain types of weapons), with confiscations from individuals only based on criminial activity (other than what we’ll assume is illegal gun ownership), the number of guns (or, at least, of certain types) available would go down over time. There would be no need to go barging into people’s homes just to take their guns.
Relatively unresourceful criminals would largely be unable to obtain them, unlike now, where just about any knucklehead can get one. We’re more or less awash in them. They’re relatively cheap and highly available. That could change, over time, without a civil war, in such a way that gun violence could be significantly reduced, IMO.