Limiting Media Coverage will save more lives than Limiting Gun Access
I’m going to break one of my big rules for this blog: avoid talking about personal or political stuff. This is just some thinking I need to get off of my chest. I know everybody has different ideas about these things, and I’m really not trying to start a political argument. The reason I’m writing this is to try to put some issues about gun ownership in perspective. This is not intended to be disrespectful to the victims – the flag at our house has been lowered out of respect. But I do see a knee-jerk reaction forming among people who understandably want someone or some thing at which to aim their anger. I hope that any reaction that comes from this latest in a string of terrible events is something positive, rather than just another ineffective, uninformed, knee-jerk reaction.
I grew up in the wilderness. Literally. Our house was within the boundaries of the Adirondack Park, in extreme upstate New York. One side of the family was small business owners, and the other side was a bunch of hillbillies. My parents both went to college, and I was raised as a protestant in a predominantly Catholic area. I was close with my grandparents, for whom the Depression and World War II were formative experiences. We always had a loaded gun behind the door, and I was able to use it from the time before I could even pick it up. My first black eye came from a scope on a shotgun that I couldn’t get up to my shoulder (some areas of Upstate NY don’t allow deer hunting with rifles, so it is common to put scopes on shotguns for use with slugs).
We lived across the valley from a maximum security state prison that contained a fair number of NY City’s most dangerous criminals. Even though the prison is about 10 miles away, it is tilted up on the mountain side, and we could see right into it, over the walls. I had a cousin and several friends who worked as guards at the prison. One of my best friends father was a state trooper. There were a fair number of military veterans in my family, with uncles and cousins. My brother was in the Air Force and did a tour with the Army in Iraq. I was in the Navy for four years. I’m not an NRA member, and I’m not highly political. I even register as an independent. I’m not an extremist, or anarchist, or neo-nazi. I don’t have any tattoos, wear or even own any camouflage. I have never committed a crime with a gun, or even contemplated doing it. I don’t even personally know anyone who has done so (aside from maybe hunting out of season). I expect that most of this experience is pretty common among people who grew up like I did.
Among real gun owners, fatalities are typically accidents, like hunting accidents, or gun cleaning accidents, generally involving forgetting it’s still loaded. I’m not even talking about “idiots with guns” like Dick Cheney shooting that lawyer. I’m talking about people who are responsible, sober, and know what they’re doing. There are enough morons who don’t mean to hurt anyone who are just careless.
I own a couple of guns. Some are collector’s items older than I am, passed down in the family. I have never owned an “assault rifle” or handgun, and only ever shot a handgun once when at a members-only rifle range, and a friend handed it to me to try out. I keep my guns and ammo in a safe. I would like to have one handy and loaded, but Kim is a little uncomfortable with that.
Semi-automatic means that you don’t have to do anything to eject the spent cartridge and chamber a fresh one. It means each time you pull the trigger, a shot goes off. There is no lever action, pump action, bolt action, breach loading. Fully automatic means you hold the trigger down, and it keeps shooting, like a machine gun. An old fashioned revolver is semi-automatic. I think people use these terms sometimes expecting them to sound frightening, when they don’t even know what they mean, even from a theoretical point of view.
The definition of “assault rifle” includes semi-automatic action with large ammo capacities. This word I think is largely used to scare people. What’s the difference between a .22 target shooting rifle with a 15 shot magazine and an “assault rifle”? It could be just a pistol grip and a folding stock, two characteristics that have nothing to do with how lethal it is. So the politics and definitions are flawed. Assault rifles are also manufactured to look scary, which again has more to do with marketing than function.
There are two other aspects of guns that a lot of people over look. The first is that guns are fascinating mechanisms. For people like engineers, you get to make stuff that “works”, but guns are one of the few things that run without electricity or gasoline. The parts are solid metal, which gives them the quality of weight that a lot of manufactured things just don’t have today. I’ve done engineering/CAD projects for a couple of gun companies, and I know people who do that sort of thing full time. It’s fascinating work. Another aspect is that some guns are highly decorated, and even beautiful. You just don’t see very many tools being decorated with scroll work, but guns frequently have either metal or wooden engravings that make them quite stunning to look at. So these are objects that you might take pride in owning.
I lived in Baltimore when Mohammed and Malvo terrorized DC as snipers. I now live in Roanoke, VA, about 30 miles from Blacksburg, VA where Seuing-Hui Cho killed 30 some people.
All of this background info is just to help you see where I’m coming from. Guns to me are just another part of everyday life. Like lawn mowers, tools, automobiles, and just about anything else you might name. I have a terrifyingly medieval pick-axe in my garage that could kill someone and make less noise than a custom engineered (and illegal) silencer on a .223 rifle.
I understand that people outside of the US, and even those within the US who grew up in urban or suburban environments think guns are for killing people. I’ve used guns a fair amount, and have never killed anyone. I never even shot at a target that was shaped like a human. When you say “gun” to city dwellers, they tend to think of a handgun, and headlines in the news. When I think of a gun, I think of walking in the woods, the smell of gunpowder or the taste of rabbit or grouse in the late fall. You might think “violence”, but I’m thinking hobby or recreation. I don’t even think of self-defense as a primary use of a gun any more than it’s the primary use of a baseball bat.
Most city dwellers don’t own a lawnmower. I had a friend that lost a toe to a lawnmower. Some city dwellers don’t own cars. I have lost several friends to car accidents.
I do believe that anything we can do to prevent criminals from having ready access to a gun is a good thing. I don’t believe that preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns is a good way to do that.
In the shooting at Virginia Tech, all it would have taken would have been one armed good citizen, and that maniac might have only got one shot off before being stopped in his tracks. This idiot in Connecticut got away with what he did because there was no one to stop him. So trying to make guns disappear is not going to reduce crimes like this. There is always another weapon, and guns will always be available to those who are willing to break the law.
We’ve had this incredible string of mass shootings recently. Why? Have a whole bunch of guns just been distributed to people with ongoing or temporary mental problems? No. Guns have been used in these tragedies, but I don’t think guns were the primary cause. The first factor in most of these shootings is mental instability caused by the trauma of divorced parents. You want something to blame? Blame society and government breaking up families. Another is the desire for attention or infamy. I think the fastest and most effective way to stop the killings is to limit the media coverage. The news media are the people who primarily benefit from these horrible events, and when people go crazy and just want attention, they know exactly how to get it. So am I pitting the “freedom of speech” against the “right to bear arms”? I don’t see it that way. Freedom of speech is something I value greatly, as this blog demonstrates. The problem is that for the professional media it isn’t just a matter of the concept of “freedom”, it’s the concept of profit that is most active. I believe the public has a right and a need to know about these events, but ramping up the drama around mass murders has become a means to profit that I argue perpetuates the cycle.
I believe the answer is to create some sort of standards for information of this sort, without preying on people’s sympathy. In the same way that the media has become sensitive to the victims of sexual crimes, I think there needs to be some sort of policy in place where they do not release the names of mass killers, and don’t go into the details of the crime. This is not to protect the killer, but to avoid achieving the goal of the killings in the first place. Attention is what these people seek, and attention is what they get when the media examines every square inch of insanity. The news media is in some ways an accessory to the crime, with profit as the motive. If the media were somehow able to report only facts, and without the constant barrage of analysis and news conferences, I think we would see fewer of these killings. Fewer crazy people trying to out-do one another, or copy the successful attention getting that another mass killer achieved. The existence of guns does not cause crazy people to break the law. Glorification, however, encourages them to do it.
I guess it is a very good thing that there were no gun laws for our forefathers, as we would not exist today. Look at Chicago, there are several gun deaths everyday. Gun laws do NOT stop criminals from using them, it just stops the honest people that abide by the law.
I think we should ban over sized spoons, look at all of the senseless deaths and all the money spent in health related costs which are caused by over eating.
Remember that criminals and crazy people do not care what the law says, hence the term criminal / crazy.
Nope not a self centered gun worshipper but I do believe in the Constitution and right of self determination. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Hitler to mention a few in the last 100 years. Are these figments of my imagination and what did they all do when they could? Disarm citizens. Now why would that be? Odly enough the military thinks highly enough of rifles to still consider them as front line weapons so there must be a reason. Even though they do have all those high tech things to go with it.
You and I disagree and will probably never agree on causation and cure. Time will pass quickly and I hope I am wrong about my fears for the future. I remember leaving Detroit in 1981 where we suburb dwellers were being threatened again by inner city dwellers. We even had conversations on the assembly line where I was told to my face that this time they were not going to burn their own houses but come out to the suburbs. It is not just the military I fear. Dad used to work at Huck Manufacturing in the late 60’s after the riots and he came home telling stories of the Black Panthers doing group exercises on Belleview St near the plant. One of the reasons Huck left Michigan. There are a number of reasons for citizens to have firepower. Criminals always do and they don’t care how many laws and bans are on the books.
Ask your brother about the power of suggestion to influence society. Suicides were not the issue here it was the prevalence of violence in media and games to shape children into accepting violence as a part of their actual lives.
@Jeff Mowry
Jeff,
Thank you for the link to Larry Correia’s blog. I have to give him kudos for the training standard to which he holds himself. I also give him credit for requiring his students to complete some scenario-based judgment training (even though it is not required by law). He goes a little off the rails with some of his views, but I would be much more comfortable around CCW permit holders trained by him (or an instructor like him) who have higher marksmanship standards and good judgment training.
Happy New Year to you as well!
@Dave Ault
Dave,
You are so ready to fight and foam at the mouth the moment someone mentions the word “gun” that you seem to misinterpret or ignore what I have said in my previous comments.
Please read the following and stop putting words in my mouth!
1) I did not say you were wrong.
2) I did not say we should ban any guns.
3) I did not say CCW permit holders were major criminals.
4) I did not say we should do something for the sake of doing something.
5) I did not say the U.S. Constitution is invalid.
What I am saying:
1) Raw stats only tell us some basic info (i.e. trends). Raw stats (only) can’t be used to show causation (the value or trend of one statistic causing or being related to the value or trend of another statistic). Therefore, without further numerical analysis (using accepted statistical methods) backed up by further evidence (usually gathered in a research study) it is no more correct to assume that an increased number of guns or CCW permit holders reduces crime and murder than it is to assume fewer or no guns or CCW permit holders reduces crime and murder. I did not make this rule. This is the way it works in science and academia. Unfortunately, people at both extremes of this debate (and other debates) make these assumptions without the proper evidence, and think they are stating facts. This is why so few issues are truly resolved by our politicians.
2) In your link, http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#%5B11%5D, in 2008, 67% of all murders in the U.S. were committed with firearms. Based on the numbers in your link, http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/, in 2009, over 60% of all murders in the U.S. were committed with firearms. According to this FBI link, http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911, in 2010, 67.5% of murders in the U.S. were committed with firearms. Therefore, the majority of all murders in the U.S. for the last few years were committed with firearms
3) I don’t believe that thousands of people murdered with firearms in the U.S. each year is an acceptable statistic. I also don’t believe in doing something if we have no proof it will work. That is why I advocate for some qualified people to do some legitimate research to show if the number of firearms or CCW permit holders or firearm capacity has any relation to the crime and murder rates.
4) I don’t have any evidence to prove you are wrong, because I did not make that claim. However, since you have only provided links to opinions and raw, unanalyzed data, you have no proof that what you are claiming is correct either.
5) Since a firearm is a weapon, I believe CCW permit holders in every state should have to demonstrate a certain standard of marksmanship and good judgment. If you don’t have the skill, you should not have the permit. When it comes to weapons, civilians should not be held to a lower standard than the police or military.
6) I have an uncle that is bat$h1+ crazy from too many years of substance abuse. He decided one day to apply for a CCW permit. Thanks to the background check, he was denied a CCW permit. Thank God! Can we at least agree that we should close the background check loophole(s) for all legal gun sales?
7) No, if you actually read any of my comments, I obviously don’t hate guns or gun owners. However, I am not particularly fond of self-centered firearms worshipers who believe their right to do anything they want is more important than another’s right to stay alive.
8) After being in the Navy for five years, I find it amusing that some gun owners use the excuse that they might need protection from a tyrannical government. If you are naïve enough to think a few firearms are going to protect you from the U.S. military, then you are in for a big surprise. It would be like a military with firearms doing battle with a military armed only with swords. Because they have all those other weapons (“Arms”) that are illegal for civilians to own, if they want to go after any of us, we are screwed!
9) Your question, “would you prefer to have an semi auto armed neighbor 30 seconds away from you if you had a home invasion or would you prefer the police at ten minutes or more away?” was not addressed to me, but I will answer it anyway. Answer: It depends how well trained the neighbor may be.
10) Dave, unfortunately, some of your comments come across with same tone and tenor as the guy in this video, http://now.msn.com/piers-morgan-debates-alex-jones-about-gun-control?ocid=ansnow11. Therefore, it makes it difficult to listen when you make a good point.
To All,
Because the media is getting blamed for these mass shootings, we should clarify something here. My brother is a Doctor of Clinical Psychology. I asked him what he thought about this. He said the shooters that eventually commit suicide are looking for revenge, not fame. He said it is the shooters that manage to stay alive that are looking for the attention.
Sure MC and this guys opinion is not valid? So far you have had a lot of opinion type comments but you have presented not one bit of proof for your side. I am waiting patiently for you to present proof that would supercede the FBI and state compiled stats. Like with your Utah comments which could lead one to alarm except that the state compiled stats say otherwise.
As I am now going to state I do not accept any arguements that regard the constitution as invalid and present opinions only with no proof that gun control or confiscation works to protect honest citizens. It is not un-noticed here that you try to shift your arguments to avoid direct answers with proof to support your positions. There, now I have won and you have lost according to your logic.
I will ask you once again to provide links to any of these “I am only interested in peer-reviewed, published studies that lead us to facts. You can find this type of study by searching such sites as Google Scholar, but in the academic and scientific world, the information on the Internet is not considered legitimate data unless it was properly collected and analyzed in a peer-reviewed, published study.”
You are long in opinion but short on evidence. Prove your point with real data and not just your opinions. As a matter of fact your whole reply above was once again nothing more than opinion. The idea that nuclear weapons even entered into this debate is a little silly.
Here is more from the FBI. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.htmlRemember
This school shooting anti gun fanatics are using to whip up hysteria used a rifle, although for the sake of argument you could fit it into the category of other. In the category of handguns there is no breakdown as to semi autos with large round capacities as compared to revolvers to small capacity semi autos. But let us use all gun related murders according to the FBI stats for 2005, the second highest year for this chart in a declining murder rate in spite of increased gun ownership. We have the following. Figure 330,000,000 which is the appx population of the US. Figure the total firearm murders for that year of 10,158. This yields an effective rate of danger to you of a .00003078% chance of being murdered by a gun. Where is the clear and present danger please? I know this is logic and not a peer reviewed authorized scientific study but you can’t find and present here one shred of evidence to prove me wrong. Here is another bit of info to put it in perspective.
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Firearms are WAY down on the list of clear and present danger for anyone in this country.
Why won’t you just be honest and say that in spite of evidence to the contrary you just don’t like guns or gun owners and want to use the government to force your opinion on others whether it is right or wrong.
You never did answer the question either about would you prefer to have an semi auto armed neighbor 30 seconds away from you if you had a home invasion or would you prefer the police at ten minutes or more away?
@MC Thank you MC
@Dave Ault
Dave,
This is a blog. Therefore, it is more opinion.
@Jeff Mowry
Jeff,
1) Unless you are afraid of the results, there is no problem in wanting to see some legitimate peer-reviewed studies regarding gun violence conducted in the U.S.
2) I never said these studies need to be quantitative. A legitimate study can be either quantitative or qualitative. I think it would benefit us to see the results of both types of studies.
3) Again, I am not interested in opinion, but facts. Opinion can include blogs, articles, books (other than published studies), speeches, etc. I am only interested in peer-reviewed, published studies that lead us to facts. You can find this type of study by searching such sites as Google Scholar, but in the academic and scientific world, the information on the Internet is not considered legitimate data unless it was properly collected and analyzed in a peer-reviewed, published study.
4) If by “do something”, you mean believing we in the U.S. can do more to prevent the number of shootings, especially mass shootings, then I am a part of that mindset. I am certainly not interested in solutions for solutions sake. I enjoy and respect firearms, but I don’t worship them. That is why I advocate for research to help us decide what will and what won’t work. However, if you think the status quo is fine (and nothing should change), you are welcome to tell the families of all the mass shootings that their dead loved ones are part of an acceptable statistic (I wish you luck with that).
5) You ask, “Is it really possible to stop a deranged person from initiating force against another by any drafted or enacted solutions?” I believe it is possible to make it more difficult for mentally ill people to commit violence against others with firearms (while preserving the rights of the law-abiding citizens), and as a result actually prevent some from achieving this goal.
6) As I have already stated, I do not accept as valid any argument that relates banning objects or substances (i.e. cars, stamps, alcohol) not designed as weapons to gun ownership and violence. These are arguments based in fear and paranoia, and they distract us from discussing mental health and guns.
7) Why don’t we relate gun ownership and violence to the ownership of another Weapon? The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not state firearms, but “Arms”. What about the ownership of nuclear arms? It is currently illegal for any U.S. citizen to own a nuclear weapon, and it requires a special license to possess nuclear material. Since the instructions for making nuclear weapons are readily available on the Internet, and a “Bad Guy” is going to acquire nuclear material regardless, should we just repeal all laws restricting the acquisition of nuclear weapons and nuclear material?
8) If I were to be a “Bad Guy”, I would not want anything to change. I can currently buy a gun online or at a gun show with no questions asked. If anything were to change, I would want every home and every person to have a firearm. Then (with proper training) I could rob any house or mug any person and be armed. Either way, you would make my job easier.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html
http://www.mat-rodina.blogspot.ru/
Need I say more? I presume this gentleman speaks from a solid historical basis.
@MC
MC, here’s another (opinion) piece that backs up arguments with some facts (often linked articles). I thought you might appreciate it:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
You mention being in Utah. As I recall, Utah is a bit unique for CCW laws and certainly doesn’t typify the CCW requirements of other states (nor does neighboring AZ). Here in Colorado, we have classroom training as well as range training involved. I went to neighboring New Mexico (similar to CO) for specific training by a friend of a friend and really got my money’s worth with a wide range (and depth) of range exercises. The shooting skills test required by the state, however, is lame. If you cannot easily/quickly double the distance and obtain a passing score, you’re a bad shooter and should seek (and heed) training. The women in my training class were generally the best shots—and the cops were the absolute worst shots (some couldn’t pass by hitting an 8.5″ x 11″ paper 80% of the shots at 20 feet—not making this up—taking all the time in the world).
Happy new year.
MC,
Again as you are big on proof please provide me with evidence I am wrong. I do have vast amounts of empirical and factual evidence on my side and ask anyone who is 50+ the difference in society today and when they were kids. Click the below links and tell me the FBI is wrong.
http://extranosalley.com/?p=36994 Ticker on the right top corner is interesting and read how it is calculated.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Read for a lot of links to data collection by various government agencies. From a Democrat site of all things.
Google “rate of ccw holders involved in crimes” for tons of proof armed legal citizens, including by the way Utah are far more law abiding than those not which is referenced by one of the above links from official Utah state records.
Sorry but the evidence is against you when it comes to legal owners committing heinous crimes with their guns. You can google “rate of gun owners committing crimes with guns” and come up with all kinds of links. Here is one of many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
and of particular interest considering the kid that did the latest school shooting is Suicides involving firearms
Some research has shown an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates,[8][10] while other research has indicated no such association.[11] During the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a strong upward trend in adolescent suicides with guns,[12] as well as a sharp overall increase in suicides among those age 75 and over.[13] In the United States, firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 50.7% of all suicides committed in 2006.[14]
No association vis-à-vis safe-storage laws of guns that are owned, and gun suicide rates have been found. Studies that attempt to link gun ownership to likely victimology often fail to account for the presence of guns owned by other people.[15][16] Safe-storage laws do not appear to affect gun suicide rates or juvenile accidental gun death.[15][16]
The section on Homicides does mention semi autos but does so in conjunction with “Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[12][18] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[24][25][26] At the same time, semi-automatic weapons were increasingly available, making it easier to kill more people rapidly.” Here once again we see guns are not the problem but criminal mindsets are and so is poverty which I think the government is making worse deliberately so more and more people will turn to them for everything instead of being self reliant.
The truth may well be found here to. Can we believe the FBI stats? I think so. http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/robert-farago/more-guns-less-crime-latest-fbi-crime-stats-tell-the-tale-or-not/ Commentary that follows is interesting.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/emanuel-insists-handgun-laws-keep-guns-from-criminals-despite-contrary-evidence Interesting that Chicago does not provide accurate statistics on guns to the FBI. A fine example of duplicitous behavior by Chicago style politicians with a motive to hide. Gun control sure works for Chicago though eh.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/06/20/2011-fbi-violent-crime-stats-gun-ownership-upcrime-rates-drop/ link to FBI stats for 2011
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/19/fbi-report-violent-crime-down-for-the-fifth-straight-year-in-a-row/ Yes these school shootings are crimes by the way and counted so.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
http://www.justfactsdaily.com/five-fallacies-about-guns-and-violence
Now really I can go on and on with a lot more but the FBI is pretty hard to beat and so is the experience of other countries and their stats.
You can’t point to one group of citizens who own guns in this country that are more than a tiny fraction as a percentage who commit crimes with these guns as compared to the gobs of perps with records who do. So what will passing more laws do anyway? Nothing since the underlying problems of mental condition don’t obey gun control laws either. If you had read that above mentioned opinion post I reference there was a study done it referred to which stated that basically kooks will find a way to kill people because they are kooks. Fertilizer in a van killed how many in Oklahoma some time back?? Lock it up to I suppose. Look for kooks and what makes them not guns.
No you are missing a particularly important issue when you limit it to strictly mental health and guns which as the above links shows is false where guns are concerned. Why would the Democrats and Obama in particular push the above when they know the real facts contradict their public comments? You are big on reading check out what the founding fathers had to say about citizens and guns. Remember they were talking about citizens with the guns of their day which I presume could have been called assault rifles as they were state of the art. Now they did not have any scientific studies to go by but they did understand human nature and they did create the system which led to the creation of the greatest country in the world in record short time.
OK for the sake of argument lets consider this. We have a health bill passed with these famous words from Nancy Pelosi. Pass the bill first and then you can find out what is in it. She really did say that. So now they have seized a huge chunk of the economy and stuff is going to be added at a huge rate according to the head of HHS at her interpretation of how it should be run. All input from taxpayers has now been stripped and bureaucracy will rule. The death panels they denied are now being openly talked about. I am going to trust these clowns to pass a rule that says no more than ten round clips and trust them to not go further? Why would they be so dead set on creating hysteria and legislation quickly rather than taking the time to find out why this is happening? It is not a benign desire to protect their citizens from harm I assure you.
Now the following is philosophical in nature and not scientific. I think there is a great divide between those who are capable of managing their own lives and those who look to others, typically government, to manage whatever is their hot button issue or financial desire. Call it gun control or taking money from their neighbors who work so they don’t have to. The big difference between the two is that one group believes in the power of argument to sway people and the other gets huffy and demands through votes that the government be their enforcer and apply rules they get through by force. Quite frankly I see honest citizens who fear for their country on one side with the bulk of history, especially the last century, proving them right. I see on the other a group who wants government edicts for everything without understanding that the end goal of big government is just that and freedoms for no one but rules for all in every area.
OK now prove me wrong. Guns and magazines don’t kill kooks and criminals do. Guns in citizen hands irregardless of magazine size do however stop a whole lot of crime and that is proveable too by those same FBI stats if you care to dig a little.
@MC
MC, you said, ” I am not really interested in more opinion. I am interested in research and facts that will help us properly identify the problem and help us draft and enact reasonable effective solutions.”
What you mentioned here has some problems. As for data, I recommend reading More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott. I found my copy at a Goodwill store. Loads of statistical data of a scientific (quantifiable) nature. You can also look up all sorts of statistical data on the Internet—something made seemingly unavailable by our rabid news press. But the data are available for any who seek them out. Several good articles have already been mentioned above, making a good start along those lines. (The newsies are deliberately ignorant in this case—who knows their reasons for distribution of such misinformation?)
But back to the “problems” I mentioned in what you wrote—you assume this problem we have is of a quantifiable nature instead of a qualitative nature. I’m not sure that’s correct, and in fact, I doubt it. In fact, you mention we can “draft and enact reasonable effective solutions”. Again, you’re begging the question by asserting the nature of solution before examining the evidence. Sounds to me like the “do something” mindset I’ve already derided above. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Is it really possible to stop a deranged person from initiating force against another by any drafted or enacted solutions? If so, what specifically, is the nature of such a solution that doesn’t equally (or more heavily) impact those who are not so deranged? A solution—for solution’s sake—must never be worse than the problem. And it seems to me that all attempts to legislate against the spurious nut-case (who doesn’t obey laws anyway) who might be one in a million—to the detriment of the remaining 315 million people in a society—is a solution worse than the problem. How do we address the problem of pushing people in front of subways, or beatings to death by hammers? Ban both subways and hammers, while leaving the deranged to their murderous devices with other methods? Lets immediately wrap the entirety of the populace in strait jackets—for the greater good, of course.
Further, I’ve noticed folks try to pigeon-hole gun ownership into the arena of what is needed. For hunting, self-defense, whatever. But this territory is, ultimately, the same as any private property rights issue. And if we apply the same principle of need to other areas of private property rights, we see the absurdity (and tyranny) showing through. For instance, do we say to Jay Leno that he cannot have his wonderful collection of automobiles because he cannot demonstrate sufficient need of them? Really? Or to the old lady with the fine stamp collection that she ought not have all those stamps because she cannot demonstrate proper need of them? No? Then doing so with those who are responsible owners of firearms (which is an ethical issue, and not an quantified scientific issue, by the way—people who have the capacity to govern themselves and not initiate force against anyone vs. those who do) is a logical fallacy when applied only to the arena of gun ownership and not to all private property rights issues equally. It’s a red herring, and therefore an invalid argument. It makes no difference what the particular property is.
England, for instance, has a serious problem with violent crime. They’ve already got such severe restrictions on guns that the guns really aren’t playing a part in this crime. So now they’re (seriously) proposing limits to ownership of kitchen cutlery. Really. Here’s a snarky opinion piece with the details:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban-on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/
I’m not sure what means the Brits would have left to them for cutting watermelons, but perhaps short, blunt knives will eventually do the trick. England has a problem with violent crime because their population is made up more largely (than the USA) of those willing to commit violent crimes. Ban kitchen cutlery—and even make it entirely unavailable—and the violent crimes will continue to be committed by other means. It never ends. In this regard, Dave is correct that there is no inner-compass-like barriers within these people that makes them self-governed people, but instead these people are willing to initiate forceful violence against their fellow man. That’s the problem I believe will remain safely outside the capacity of legislation to cure—just as it has for millennia. The solution, therefore, is to change the people and not the weapons. How, exactly, will laws do this? I don’t believe I’ve seen it happen. Though we had an interesting experiment along those lines in early 20th-century USA with the prohibition of alcohol. It was even done properly, by amending the Constitution. Of course, that failed miserably, and the Constitution was once again amended to undo this attempt to legislate sobriety. The “war on drugs” and “war on poverty” and “war on terror” are all in a similar state of failure, of course, since these attempts to legislate the behavior of individuals can not, in fact, deliver what they promise. Instead, these are the residue of the “do something” mentality governing our rogue public servants.
An interesting side-effect, of course, is the eroded liberty of those who can and do govern themselves in this country. Because a tiny minority cannot or do not govern themselves, laws are enacted that truly restrict those who can (vast majority). My quote far above from a founding father illuminated that problem regarding a free Constitutional republic. My lament is that we’re moving rapidly away from this sort of freedom continually. Instead of being strictly limited to its only legitimate purpose (to protect the liberties of its citizens), our government is now attempting to do all sorts of other, illegitimate things. And in doing so, it has usurped power never delegated to it by the people.
Dave,
1) If you read what I wrote, I did not actually say you or Matt are wrong. I simply asked for some factual proof that what you are claiming is true. If I make a claim, I do my best to back it up with fact and proof. If I am unable to do so, I do my best to clarify it as solely my opinion. So often in our modern American culture, people will make a statement based on opinion and they expect everyone to accept it as fact. Since I did not claim you are wrong, it is really up to you to prove the validity of the claims in your comments.
2) I am glad Tennessee requires you to actually fire some rounds to prove your marksmanship. Does Tennessee also require you to demonstrate good decision-making and judgment (i.e. identifying the “Bad Guy” and knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot in a simulated situation)? Here in Utah, according to state code and one Utah certified firearms instructor’s website, you must complete a 3.5-4 hour class with no live fire requirements to acquire a concealed firearm permit. Utah also has no requirement to demonstrate good decision-making and judgment in a simulated situation. You don’t have to be a Utah resident to acquire the permit and 34 other states recognize Utah’s permit. Therefore, there are 35 states that accept a permit that requires no live firing and no demonstration of good decision-making and judgment. I can’t speak for the other 15 states.
I did not actually indicate the CCW permit holders were the criminals. However, if you do not have to have the proper marksmanship and good decision-making and judgment training, then you are just as likely to make a bad situation worse (my opinion).
3) If one can’t hit a perp at least once with a ten-round magazine, then he/she probably has bigger problems than reloading. If one can’t hit a deer (or other game) with a ten-round magazine, then I would be more concerned for the other hunters in the vicinity of the target.
4) Your link is to an opinion piece in the Washington Post. I am not really interested in more opinion. I am interested in research and facts that will help us properly identify the problem and help us draft and enact reasonable effective solutions.
5) In my previous comment, I did not say we should ban guns. I only discussed limiting the ammunition capacity of legal firearms. I can’t think of any moral or ethical reason a law abiding U.S. citizen would need a 20 round, 50 round, or 100 round plus capacity firearm.
6) I believe the arguments about banning things like cars, planes, baseball bats, the argument claiming all gun control laws don’t work, the argument that everyone should be armed, the argument that the government is going to take all your guns, and the argument that all guns should be banned are all created out of fear and paranoia. The main purpose they serve is to distract us from discussing the real issues – mental health and guns.
MC,
An interesting approach to answering your question on proof could be to ask you to provide proof I am wrong. In all the reports I found in a brief search the psychiatrists seem to be divided between environment shapes individual responses and that violent games attract violent people by nature. I don’t find any that specifically address the idea of God in conjunction nor am I going to spend a lot of time doing so. I am 59 though and I can personally reflect upon what has changed in our society in a big way and it has been the removal of the moral governor that was so pervasive forty years ago. The freedoms I had as a child and no one had to worry compared to today is staggering. It was because people behaved and were expected to behave. Today parents worry about everything and fear to let their children out of their sight. Again with no scientific study to prove my point what has happened that is different? Can you prove me wrong in my argument?
I totally agree with training for CCW permits and what you describe as the way it should be is the way it is here in Tennessee. What states do not require training since you seem to be current with that information? By the way, not one of the CCW permit holders has been implicated here in a serious crime with the use of the CCW permited gun since the program was begun.
The precious two to three seconds you waste while reloading to shoot the perp will cause your death because law breakers are not the ones who will be obedient to new laws. See Mexico where illegal gun use is endemic for the power of written words to stop bad guys. Also see Chicago and Washington DC for the same results. If you have ever been deer hunting and fiddle around with two or three seconds to reload and reaquire your target you know the deer is long gone.
I don’t disagree with back round checks but these have been in place for a long time and for instance the legal holder of the guns in Conn was not the one who used them.
This brings me to another point you do not address. From a comment I made above. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/getting-real-with-mass-murder-stats/2012/07/25/gJQA1YY28W_blog.html states in part and I quote
“We know gun laws are ill-suited to deter the mass murderers:
“Mass killers are extremely deliberate and determined and, no pun intended, dead set on murders,” said [James Alan]Fox, whose books include “Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder.” “They will find the weapons they need regardless of what impediments we put in front of them. It’s not an impulsive act.”
What makes you think taking guns from citizens will accomplish anything anyway? The criminals who use them are lawbreakers and not inclined to obey old laws much less new laws. If I want to shoot twenty rounds at a time and I am law abiding can you think of a single truly justifiable reason I should not be able to? Cars kill more by far than guns here so I think we need to go no more than 30 MPH because going faster is just to dangerous. The common thread here is responsible people are responsible and irresponsible ones are not. So do you punish everyone for the few or go take care of the few instead.
While we are at it I am thinking jet planes to. Even though the terrorists were doing illegal things when they flew into the WTC they could have been stopped by preventing the flight to begin with. Or they could have been stopped by a trained armed citizen saving thousands of lives and a few billion dollars.
I too grew up around guns in rural CA. I learned to shoot various caliber pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I shot targets, clay pigeons, and hunted small game. In the military I had the opportunity to fire various caliber pistols, rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and tanks. While in Navy flight school, I had the opportunity to fire a 20mm machine gun from an aircraft traveling 400mph toward the ground (That was fun!). I love firing guns/firearms/weapons. However, let’s be reasonable.
1) I don’t believe it is a knee-jerk reaction to want to prevent these mass shootings. Devon is correct, “…something has to change.” The status quo is obviously not working.
2) Can you please point me to the valid peer-reviewed scientifically collected data that proves the cause of these mass shootings to be:
– The Media
– Divorced Parents
– Violent Video Games and Movies
– Not enough armed people
3) It is arrogant and simple-minded to blame these shootings on taking God out of schools. If God really is all-powerful and omnipresent, then no human has the ability to take God out of or put God into anything.
4) I don’t believe all guns should be banned. That won’t work. As long as you are responsible, you are welcome to have your own military arsenal in your home. However, I don’t believe everyone should be armed in public. Many people can’t even drive properly or conduct themselves responsibly in public. I sure as hell don’t want them to have a concealed carry permit.
5) You can injure or kill someone with a car or a baseball bat (or just about any object, substance, etc.), but that is not why they were designed and created. Guns were originally designed as a weapon to injure or kill.
6) An armed guard at every school won’t always solve the problem. There were armed guards at Columbine, armed police at Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood is a well-armed military base. I read that the Virginia Tech police were unable to identify the “Bad Guy”.
I do believe there are a few things we can do as a society to limit these mass shootings:
1) Better Mental Health Care and access to Mental Health Care
2) Limit the capacity of clips, strips, drums, and magazines. The 2-3 seconds plus (if you don’t screw up) it takes for a well-trained marksman to reload are precious seconds that can be used to disarm the gunman. Besides, unless you are expecting to encounter a rabid herd of elk or deer hell-bent on your sole destruction, if you need a high-capacity military style assault weapon for hunting, you suck as a hunter and marksman.
3) Everyone who purchases a firearm should be subject to a background check. This includes gun shows and Internet purchases. This may not stop all “Bad Guys”, but it is one more hurdle for the “Bad Guy” to overcome.
4) We should stop issuing Conceal Carry Permits without proper training. The Conceal Carry Permit requirements vary in each state. Only a few states actually require the applicant to put rounds down range, and none seem to require any decision-making training. Aside from a thorough background check, I believe every state needs to require applicants to prove knowledge of three things before they receive a permit:
– Gun Safety
– Shooting Accuracy – must be able to hit the target
– Decision Making – must be able to properly identify the “Bad Guy” and when to shoot and when not to shoot
Ron,
How many people are in this country now? 360,000,000? Do you realize how trivially small percentage wise these sensationalized reports are? The shame is that the media never reports on how guns have stopped crime especially for people like your wife who home alone when the perps break in could stop them with a semi auto. No I am not making light of deaths but put this in perspective and quit trying to make this look like mass murder is everywhere and pervasive. I remember stories of schools here in middle Tennessee in the late 60’s when kids brought their squirrel rifles to school and put them in their unlocked lockers so they could hunt on the way home. They were taught to be responsible with guns and they were. There were also Bibles on teachers desks and the Ten Commandments on the wall heading into the school. The moral compass of America was attacked with the advent of Maddelin O’Hair and the race to the bottom was on.
Rather than making statements about rabid gun owners and addiction could you perhaps slow down and consider more than the 6:00 news and liberal agendas? The underlying cause is not an inanimate object but rather the removal of a strong obligation towards right and wrong. Shallow feel good statements don’t solve problems but critical and discerning research into why things happen can. I would also point out that this same administration who is dead set against gun ownership is also at the root of the problem in another way. A lousy economy where many have little hope of improvement because of the current administrations policies can exacerbate hostile behavior but the media never would touch putting God back in in schools and society or a lousy Whitehouse with a ten foot pole. We don’t need to put every crazy in jail, we need to go back to what works and quit these silly liberal it’s not your fault because your mother did not breast feed you social experiments that don’t. Throughout history this has been proven time and time again and it is why those who wish to disarm the USA don’t want you to know history. A lot can be done to further the goal of those who wish to take over this country by whipping up hysteria to do something fast and then you get fast and the problems get worse. I think it takes greater intellect to sit down and discover root problems and fix things but not much to get shrill and demand the government do something now. They have done to much allready and this is why we are where we are.
If the bad guys were doing a home invasion into your house and the cops were ten minutes away, but your neighbor who was armed was 30 seconds away who would you prefer show up? I say this assuming you do not have an evil spirit possessed gun in your house.
Headline: “US firefighters shot dead at blaze”
Should the media ignore this, too?
Do ALL first responders need to carry guns?
Will ex-cons ever be able to resist having a gun in every drawer in America?
Do we need to commit every pissed off guy to a mental institution?
Should ALL violent video games be banned?
In the meantime, while you’re worrying about suffering forced withdrawal from your gun addiction, the body count mounts….
I read all of the posts, there’s a lot of emotion on all sides. Jim Anders’ comments hit home with me, we need to go to the root of the problem. As one national school expert said, We don’t need metal detectors in schools we need mental detectors. Excerpts from Jim’s comments below.
“Instead of scouring the country looking for millions of large capacity clips in the hands of law-abiding citizens, we should be focused on really helping these disturbed youths and their families. All too often these kids are given pills and just sent on their way. Many times parents aren’t taken seriously by law enforcement or mental health groups – or they are told there’s nothing that can be done. The vast majority of these youth mass killings follow the same pattern of troubled, isolated, sick youths who are all too often ignored. Did Lanza’s mother ever get counseling on how to handle her son? There’s a lot of questions remaining but if we’re truly serious it’s about time we take a long hard look the root cause of the problem.”
“I would hope there are practical, common sense things we can do despite the apparent stalemate of ideas and political disagreements.
1. Public education and increased awareness of gun safety (i.e. locks, safes, etc).
2. More pro-active mental health screening and treatment.
3. Better security. We have made architectural accomodations for handicapped people, for example, why not have schools and other similar public buildings construct safe rooms? Or retrofit closets with secure locks and bulletproof panels?
4. Limit access to extremely violent first-person shoot-up video games.”
One more time, if every country had a Nuclear weapon would we be safer?
What I’ve found so stunningly enlightening is how many people seem to argue that when A + B = C, we need to ban D. D isn’t part of the equation, but since “we” need to “do something” about a truly horrific problem, we’ll settle for any non-sequitur “something” that’s immediately at hand. Never mind that the solution “something” is exactly that—non-sequitur—or, that it has nothing to do with solving the true problem, or the cause behind the seen symptoms. (Sort of reminds me of attacking Iraq when Saudis were known to be responsible for the 9/11 terrorism. “Do something!!!!”)
This guy, Karl, generally comments on financial/economic issues. He’s quite the grumpy curmudgeon, though he’s also commonly right in his analysis. Here’s an article where he addresses so many of the non-sequitur arguments being thrown around in the media (and in the comments above). Might be worth considering, if anyone’s still interested, and can stomach his obvious sarcastic comments:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=215107
From William Bennett, former US Secretary of Education (via liberal CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html
Great point about most of the massacres taking place where law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry guns, and an attacker is almost guaranteed to find no resistance. Might as well advertise: “Lunatics shoot ’em up in here, no one will shoot back!”
Sadly these trcent killing are another indication of how sick our society has become or really actually is behind the vale. The following article is quite good.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33368.htm
I don’t want to diminish this recent tragedy in any way or suggest this wasn’t a horrible, unfathomable horror story – but it is true that in general, US gun deaths have declined from the early 1990s. I do think there are reasonable steps we can take to minimize and reduce these deaths, but let’s be clear about this so-called epidemic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
@Dave Ault
Well Said.
Again from Michael Johnston, a counterpoint (and it’s featured comments) worth reading:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/12/ot-apologia.html
@matt
Matt,
The points you raise are very valid. When there is an emotion connection (either for or against) it’s hard to find compromise.
It’s also unfortunately that the 1% of people who do cause the issue effects the remaining 99% of law abiding citizens. I honestly don’t think that anybody really ever wants Government intervention, as we all know they very rarely get it right.
Personally I would think in this debate it should really be reasonably simple. As you said yourself it’s hard to justify anyone (private citizens) who NEED to own “assault” style weapons. I would have thought that most responsible gun owners would agree. I know the argument starts (as you raised in your original post) the inclusion of small calibre semi automatic rifles, perhaps it’s a small price to pay for compromise!
I didn’t realise that you already had much of what was tightened with our gun reform, waiting period before gun pick up etc. At the end of the day here I think overall there were reasonable results. Responsible gun owner still had their hunting and sporting rifles & shotguns (not multiple loading “pump action), handguns could still be owned (even for person protection but not carried on person in public) What was taken out of the system were those weapons that really don’t have a use for the recreational gun owner.
I hope the US can have this debate and that outcomes can be achieved to suit the interests of both sides
ML
Why, as a Canadian, I GET America.
The latest gun tragedy in Connecticut illustrates the great conundrum faced by America. How do they reduce gun deaths while still maintaining their collective responsibility to prevent the great protector of individual rights and freedoms from falling into the wrong hands.
The main impetus for the second amendment is to allow for an armed citizen militia to prevent a charismatic psychopath from seizing power (a la Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, et al). This makes a lot of sense.
Consider Pavlov’s dog. With a dog, food is associated with drooling. Then food is associated with a bell. After conditioning, the bell becomes associated with drooling. It’s a classic bait and switch.
This psychological manipulation can be translated into political behaviour with nations. Suppose a charismatic psychopath associates his political party with freebies and exaggerated promises for voters. Then promised benefits are translated into political power. Then, the new despotic leader begins to dismantle the individual rights and freedoms that enabled him to reach for power in the first place.
The founding fathers understood this risk, and created the second amendment that compels American citizens to reject a despotic takeover of the constitution by armed insurrection. Of course you can’t have armed insurrection without arms. Therefore, it becomes the duty of every American to arm themselves as insurance against the hijacking of the constitution by evil intent. So far, so good….
The problem comes with the heavy burden of an armed populace. Too many sophisticated weapons provide too many opportunities for misuse. Hence, a horrifying death rate from gun violence.
As an American ally, and not a super-power, Canadians have the luxury of forfeiting armed citizen militias and deferring the responsibility for protecting individual freedoms to government and the democratic process. Thus, tough gun laws. The same goes for other US allies such as Australia, Japan and the UK.
American citizens take their responsibility to protect individual freedom more seriously than that. They are currently prepared to suffer the consequences of endless gun deaths to ensure it’s individual Americans, and not the American government, that are the ultimate protectors of freedom.
This takes a lot of heartbreak and human sacrifice. While the media focuses on the gun-crazy and unbridled markets in arms, little analysis is done on the risk to rule of law by those prepared to manipulate the political process.
Is this threat to the constitution real or pure speculation?
Who knows… I’m not sure I want to find out.
Thanks for posting that link. We’ll never know how many people could have died there. I’ll bet everyone at that theater was glad that off-duty officer was there (and armed).
@Jeff Mowry
The world is a very dangerous place and people aren’t smart enough to compensate for all the stupid things they do. Environmental degradation may be the one that finally does us in. That said, we try to do the best we can with what we have.
Armed drones over Pakistan are a very blunt instrument, but they help keep us safe from another 9/11. Banks screw everyone equally. Even criminals and despots. Super-pacs try to buy elections, but at least there ARE elections. Prisons house way too many citizens, but at least the most dangerous never get out. Human beings are inherently violent so violence will never be eliminated. We can only hope to keep a lid on the worst of it and protect the innocents as much as possible.
The ability for the population to thwart a charismatic psychopath’s grab for power is laudable, but perhaps a bridge too far. Guns will claim lives until they are harder to get. I suppose that’s the bottom line.
Should Iran have a nuke ? We say no their leader is nuts, they say we need them for protection from the west. This is escalation at the highest form. Why hand guns? Why not a 50Cal. in a turret at every home? This is written in purple. A hunting rifle maybe but a hand gun, automatic weapon, assault rifle I don’t think so. We police the rest of the world for nuclear weapons but we can’t come up with a way to handle gun reform in our own country. Very sad this keeps happening.
@Ron Richardson
Ron, thanks for the reply—I appreciate you articulating what you’re thinking here.
A peanut butter cookie attack. Yes, that’s true. But look at England, which seems to have a problem with violent crime (more so than the USA), and they’ve got very limited access to guns. Why the problem? Or even what happened in Rwanda, largely without the aid of firearms. So England considers the banning of kitchen cutlery to stem their problem with violence. I don’t think that will help much.
Folks here in the USA are increasingly starting to notice the cozy relationship our government servants (I don’t call them leaders, since they certainly are not leaders or rulers in a representative republic like we used to have) enjoy with sophisticated tools of initiating violence against innocent people such as drones, sonic weapons, electric forced submission weapons and other misused means of repression. By what legitimate means does the government—in any way whatsoever—protect itself from the people? I thought the government was simply an extension of the people, but it seems no longer true, as our government routinely and officially disregards the first, second, fourth, fifth, and tenth amendments of our Constitution (to name a few). Perhaps the rights given us by our Creator are now null and void because of more pressing issues?
Much along the lines of what Matt said in this post, here comes Jim Quinn with a controversial opinion piece on the state of our nation—that rings much more true than I’d prefer. Such is life:
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=28764
@Jeff Mowry
Let’s focus on guns because they most easily deliver violent death. Death by peanut butter cookie attack is a distraction. Guns become the central issue because it’s so darn easy to aim and pull a trigger. A child could do it. A howitzer is difficult to aim. Fertilizer bombs require a truck and a lot of heavy lifting. A gun is as easy to employ as a hat.
I understand the fear of despotic government. I appreciate the American people for assuming the responsibility to save the free world from having America, the great protector of individual rights and freedoms, fall into the wrong hands.
But it is a heavy burden. Citizens of somewhat safer so called free societies, including Canada, surrender that responsibility to their government and the democratic process. That relieves them of the duty of armed citizen militia. A little risky, and a possible deal with the devil to be sure. We risk our own Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al for the peace of mind knowing the nut job next door isn’t LIKELY to shoot his Mom, steal her guns, and head off to kill a bunch of kids. Easy-peasy.
The idea is to make it as difficult as possible for the unhinged, criminal or misguided to wreak death on the innocent. For some countries, blanket gun bans largely achieve that goal, like Japan. The downside is an unarmed populace unable to usurp their own leaders. Consider the price. Is it worth it? I appreciate your stand, but the cost in innocent lives is appalling and unending.
I would hope there are practical, common sense things we can do despite the apparent stalemate of ideas and political disagreements.
1. Public education and increased awareness of gun safety (i.e. locks, safes, etc).
2. More pro-active mental health screening and treatment.
3. Better security. We have made architectural accomodations for handicapped people, for example, why not have schools and other similar public buildings construct safe rooms? Or retrofit closets with secure locks and bulletproof panels?
4. Limit access to extremely violent first-person shoot-up video games.
These are just off the top of my head and I’m sure there are many other reasonable, achievable steps that could be taken.
-J
Only because the Australian Gun law were raise that I thought I should make comment. I’m no expert on them, as they have little or no effect on me! However I was working in the “industry” at the time of there introduction. (Developing Ballistic Resistant materials)
Yes they were introduced after our worst massacre and yes they were committed by a mental disturbed individual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
First like you I don’t dislike guns and over the years have shot an arrangement of different guns. As a matter of fact I find the engineering side on them (and ballistic) quite fascinating! They are like many engineered products works of art!
I have no intention of being critical of your post or the opinions of others express here.
As an outsider looking in I guess there is only a couple comment I can make.
I don’t understand why their is reluctance to have sensible discussion about gun reform. Many of your points raised were raised at the time of our gun reform! Especially by our rural communities. I can say, people did not have their guns taken from them! Yes there are restrictions on owning certain type of guns and they are automatic and semi-automatic weapons! The Government did buy back guns (which is most likely controversial with the state of the economy) There were tightening of licensing requirement. People can still own handgun but I understand they have to have an affiliation with a registered club and record a number of shoots per year. We have always had restrictions on carrying handguns. There were also amnesties to hand in modified or unregistered guns. Yes you can’t just walk in to a gun store and purchase it then and there! Yes you need a licence to buy ammunitions.
After all these years since the introduction of the gun reform it’s all a bit of a non-event.
Did it stop shootings completely, no!
We also have restrictions on carrying knives, but they haven’t stopped all stabbing.
Sure there cannot be a direct comparison, there are many differences in our population as well as belief’s and attitudes to how we see thing’s.
I think the saddest thing about this is after all these years that people and societies have not evolved to a point that there is still fear that we need protection and to protect.
Michael,
I was hoping someone from Au would chime in. Rational discussions are difficult even in the US political system because people are so extremely polarized on both ends. There is so much untruth being thrown around (on both sides) that it’s hard for a moderate person to know what to believe. We already have some of the things you mention. There is a waiting period and background check for handguns, and handguns must be registered. The “assault rifle” ban expired a few years back. I’m not very clear on this ban. First, why would anyone want that kind of gun, and second, it’s not that much different from other guns that it should be singled out with a ban. I don’t understand either sides positions on that particular type of gun.
To me, the protection issue is only marginal. I’ve never been in a situation where I would have used a gun if I had one handy. What makes it hard for me to understand is why law abiding citizens should have to give up stuff that they’ve had for years without incident? They are solving a problem that doesn’t exist.
@Ron Richardson
Ron, my point isn’t merely to harp on you endlessly, but I’d hoped you’d address some of the concerns I’ve got with the positions you’ve advocated. I understand you say you’re willing to deal with the consequences of the policies you advocate yourself, but then there are those like me who aren’t willing to do so. How do we reach common ground here, if on one side, private ownership of guns (despite all evidence and argument) is demonized in itself, and on the other side, a good case is made for why guns are not responsible for the violence behind the guns?
And one last thing—you seem to single out private ownership of guns. Does that mean you’re OK with police/governments having guns? If so, how are atrocities like those of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al. ever to be kept in check in the future? After all, the greatest murderers of all times have been those hiding behind government officialdom against their chosen (and disarmed) victims.
No cars = no car violence. No baseball bats = no baseball bat violence. No steak knives = no steak knife violence. No sticks = no stick violence. No fists = no fist violence. So easy to say without considering the costs of going without, but where does it ever end? But here’s one I like—no initiation of force against another = no violence of any kind ever again. Achieve this, and it matters not whether your neighbor is armed with a howitzer. The problem lies within those who would initiate violence against their neighbor.
Who wants to volunteer to go door-to-door to ask people to turn in their guns? ;o)
Mental Health issues:
http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/
Ron – I think you were referring to the Chinese attack – my apologies – no one physically died – but children will be mentally and physically scarred for life.
Ron – we are not a Democracy – we are a sovereign republic and that’s what the politicians seem to forget. Mistrusting people who want to take your money and property – control your lives, the live “high on the hog” – all in the name of doing “what’s good for society” is definitely a problem for me.
@Ron Richardson
Ron – No One died in that attack – many died in Oklahoma City and not a shot was fired. Where is your head? You can take away all of the guns you want to and there will still be violence – and probably on a more massive scale. Until God changes a person’s heart – there will always be fiolence
@matt
It is a pity Quebecois music does not get wider airplay — and this does not mean Celine Dion! They have a remarkable amount of home-grown music that gets ignored worldwide. (It helped that for a time I had a girlfriend from Quebec.) Personal favorite is Harmonium.
@Glenn Schroeder
Good one.
Here’s a tragedy that was stopped by a citizen with a gun last night, sounds like it was a woman:
http://www.therightscoop.com/another-deadly-theater-shooting-promptly-stopped-by-armed-off-duty-police-officer/
Matt,
Have you seen this?
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/spoonsfault.png[/img]
@matt
Yes, a lot to discuss and there’s no black or white position, as always.
Next time you’re in Montréal, let’s have a drink!
@Dennis Pence
No one died in that attack because guns are unavailable to anyone but the authorities, like Japan.
Make all excuses you want. No guns = no gun violence.
@Jeff Mowry
In an earlier post, I already said the situation is hopeless and America is doomed to repeat gun violence endlessly. Of course repeal of the 2nd amendment is nigh impossible. Gun addiction is too deeply ingrained. There are too many guns laying about. You can’t predict when a distraught youth will snap. Criminals will not be denied guns as long as there is one that is not under lock and key. A private citizen will react to a threat with the most efficient means available.
I take no pleasure in this. I wish it were different. I wish the Enterprise COULD beam private guns into space. All we can do, as individuals, is live in a way that promotes non-violence. If that means risking your family’s security by rejecting guns, I would consider that a heroic, if agreed risky, position.
I do not have a gun and I can not protect myself or others, or my property by using a gun, but I can go to work without thinking about whether my child or any else could do something stupid with it.
How sure am I that I myself do not freaking out mentally…
The only protection is to ban guns, you can see that in countries where this is prohibited.
Tell that to the 22 Chinese children that were stabbed and slashed by the maniac in their school – on the same day.
Matt,
Obviously, its your Blog and you can do whatever you like with it. (And make no mistake about it -I have certainly learned a great deal from your posts over the years).
However, I hope you’ll keep this Blog limited it to CAD, and start another one for social problems.
In 6 years of blogging, I think this is the first time I have broken my own rule about this sort of thing, unless you include blogging about fishing, which a lot of people also find incomprehensible.
@Ron Richardson
Ron, what happens if I “reject the gun” while the bad guys decide not to do so? How do you believe society in the USA would be better served by increasing the proportional power of criminals (those who would initiate force against another) to that of law-abiding citizens? If you don’t deal with this problem, how do you claim to face reality? How can you tell me that I’m failing to face reality when I bring these real issues to the debate (and offer reasons as to why things work the way they do)?
Many of your comments simply aren’t backed by reality, since you seem to blame the guns themselves (or their mere availability) for the egregious crimes we see, while failing to acknowledge the crimes they stop. If gun availability were a causal factor—and the USA has nearly as many guns in the hands of private citizens as citizens themselves—then why aren’t gun crimes much, much higher than they are? Perhaps we’re still a mostly self-governed people? It seems most ordinary people simply do not commit violent crime, even with ease of access to firearms (or knives or baseball bats, or automobiles). Why not deal with some of these facts in your comments and at least “face the truth squarely”?
By the way, have you read any of the study from Harvard regarding murder rates and firearms banning in the USA? I found it to be interesting. They recognize that the USA is rather unique in regards to gun ownership of the populace and crime, and therefore making analogies to states such as Japan isn’t very effective. Found here in PDF format:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Similar to Matt’s background, I grew up not in an urban area, but a sparsely-populated rural area. I live in a sparsely populated area of Colorado now, where per-capita gun ownership is extraordinarily high—and yet violent crime is extraordinarily low (as I mentioned in a previously-linked article above). People hunt here, regularly. But they also understand their self-defense is wholly within their own capacity, too, since the Sheriff could—at best—arrive on the scene of a crime or would-be crime only after half an hour after being summoned. For you, that might be good enough to trust. It isn’t for me and the family I protect. Perhaps I’m simply “addicted”.
And Japan is just fine with forced entry and inspections without due process. Like it or not, and for good or bad – this country is different from Japan and Europe. Freedom from a tyrannical rule is part of our history and today there are many people who love this country but mistrust the government.
Even if one believes guns should be banned and confiscated (as some are now calling for), from a practical point of view it isn’t going to happen. It couldn’t happen. And if the government ever tried to confiscate guns from the population there will be serious problems and a lot of bloodshed. You might as well hope for the Enterprise to beam up all the weapons.
Look, if Lanza didn’t use the assault rifle he would have used the handguns. And if these handguns didn’t have large capacity clips then he would/could have carried multiple legal smaller capacity clips. Or he could have used a legal “hunting” rifle or shotgun. Considering the situation and the time he had, it wouldn’t have materially made much difference. There’s not much we can do if some crazy wants kills a bunch of people and he doesn’t need an assault weapon. In fact, most gun related deaths aren’t caused by “assault” weapons.
The policitians will pass some new “feel-good” laws just as they did with the Brady Bill and some people will think it will make a difference. The Brady Bill had no real effect on murder rates by handguns. What is needed is for us to make the tough call and take a long hard look at our mental health system and our society. Notice that inner-city gang shootings don’t get the same level of attention but those deaths are every bit as tragic.
Instead of scouring the country looking for millions of large capacity clips in the hands of law-abiding citizens, we should be focused on really helping these disturbed youths and their families. All too often these kids are given pills and just sent on their way. Many times parents aren’t taken seriously by law enforcement or mental health groups – or they are told there’s nothing that can be done. The vast majority of these youth mass killings follow the same pattern of troubled, isolated, sick youths who are all too often ignored. Did Lanza’s mother ever get counseling on how to handle her son? There’s a lot of questions remaining but if we’re truly serious it’s about time we take a long hard look the root cause of the problem.
-J
Guns are like cigarettes. Once you’re addicted, they’re hard to give up. Consider the tobacco addict in denial who can rationalize in their own mind a completely senseless endeavour. Do you find yourself making dubious assertions to justify a cause that is so logically challenged? Reflect on your argument and assess if they are truly reasonable, or simply boilerplate talking points that comfort you like a worn out blanket.
Look no further than a comparison of Japan and America. Japan has zero gun violence because there are zero guns. America is cursed with rampant gun violence because they are littered everywhere. Familiarity breeds contempt. The more of a thing there is, the more likely you’ll find an excuse to use it.
Don’t be just another stupid smoker.
Stop the violence. Reject the gun. Face the truth squarely. There is no other answer.
@Donceod
Donceod. Interesting. I don’t claim to represent all gun owners. On the “fanaticism” scale, with 10 being a total gun fanatic and a 0 being someone who doesn’t care about guns, I’m probably about a 5. I don’t refer to my guns as “weapons”. What’s the difference? Weapons are used against people. Guns are used for hunting and target shooting. The thought of using my guns against people makes me very uncomfortable, although I would definitely do it to protect myself or others, or my property. If I were suddenly drafted into the Marines, I would have no problem using “weapons” to serve my country.
maybe I’m too socially, but for me a weapon does not belong in a home.
From my point of view is the primary requirement of a weapon to kill !
Of course a knife is also weapon, but the probability is much lower that someone can do with a knife such a tragedy.
Matt – Although you’re a SW guy and I’m a SE guy – I cannot agree more whole heartedly with you on this one. We know who controls the media and in order to accomplish their objective (disarming America) – they will use this senseless tragedy. Politicans in general, don’t care about the living American citizens, let alone those that are deceased. Guns are simply a tool that we can choose (or not choose) to use for sinister purposes. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot more people and never fired a shot. Outlaw guns and this is the type of tragedy you will see much more often. Granted, if the shooter had known there might be an armed person in the school, maybe he would have thought twice – maybe not – but at least someone had a chance to take him out and very possible reduce the number of casualities. Im like you, was raised with a gun – hunting, skeet shooting, target practice – just a part of life – and, except for military service, never even considered shooting another human being – but would to protect my life, my family or someone else in danger. The politicians – as usual – want to take an extreme circumstance and call it the norm – like they do everything when it suits their fancy. If guns aren’t needed, then let’s outlaw them completely – no police with guns, no soldiers with guns and then we can “negotiate” when we are attacked. Politicians want power and control – our founding fathers knew this, they had seen it before. They put the Second Amendment in for a good reason and that’s why the current administration wants it out. As far as “media coverage” – they, attorneys, Liberal “do gooders” and politicians will milk this for all it’s worth. Remeber – “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.
It stands to reason that if you ban guns you will cut the amount of gun related deaths. I think this is going to happen now in the US, or at least a massive amount more control over what can and cant be owned.
we in Europe can live well without weapons in every home.
But as long as Americans have this conventional thinking, they must not be surprised if such cruel things happen.
the only solution is to ban all guns from private!!!
@murray
Murray, what I was talking about was the policy at most broadcasters to omit the names of sexual victims. It is a concession that the broadcasters don’t have to make. That was my point. If they are willing to make a concession like that, possibly they might also be willing to stop glorifying mass murderers.
@Marc Gibeault
I can’t speak about those types of guns, other than functionally they aren’t a lot different from what you might call a “regular” gun. Being more afraid of a gun that looks like that than a gun that looks like this: http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-750/model-750-woodsmaster.aspx is only because you don’t understand. And by the way, yes, people do hunt with guns like that. I don’t and wouldn’t own a gun like that, but I know people who do. The only functional difference is the ability to have a clip with a crap-load of rounds.
Anyway, I’m not naive enough to think I’m going to change anyone’s mind, and not insecure enough to have any need to do that, but I would like to be able to talk with people who believe differently, and to point out that there is some common ground where we can agree. The mental health issues and entertainment/journalism glorifying mass murder are issues we can agree about.
I was a roadie for Le Reve for a few shows they did down in the Plattsburgh area. I’m a fan of old timey/bluegrass music, and their music isn’t far from that. I’ve got a couple of their albums from 10+ years ago.
I think I understand most of this but certainly not all.
But I’m convinced of these:
-Several conditions must be present to have a mass shooting and the most important one is a mad man.
-A mad man, without a capable firearm has other means. We’ve seen numerous cases of a mad man doing awful things with their fists or a car for example.
-A mad man is not always a full-time mad man. And some mad man becomes mad man over a certain amount of time, like an evolutionary thing.
-Some firearms are designed to kill a lot of people in very little time.
Some of my family lives in Switzerland. For a long time most of the households had a working gun with ammunition because you’re in the army all your life and must be ready to serve your country. There was very little incidents and mass killing at all. They see guns as tools there, very dangerous tools but nothing more. Since a few years you won’t find these guns in the households anymore, they are kept in depots. It just makes more sense and it’s safer.
Some people in the USA seems to have a fascination with guns, they are excited by guns. When I I go to a newspaper stand in the US I see more magazines about guns than about photography.
Guns like this http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/4903 are not for hunting. Nobody will ever go hunting with this. They are design to kill people and that’s all.
One article that is referred to constantly in the media here is this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
And this one Too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Le Rêve du Diable was a very good trad band. They still do some shows from time to time.
@matt Limiting the graphic description of sexual assaults doesn’t ‘protect’ victims in any way apart from arguably preserving some small privacy in the exact nature of the assault suffered. People still get raped and assaulted. The only difference that doing that ‘right’ thing makes is in saving some peoples’ sensibilities from being outraged by salacious or gratuitous descriptions, and allowing some to congratulate themselves for ‘making a difference’.
@matt
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/florida-man-accused-killing-neighbor-with-hammer/
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_781871.html
Lots of sophisms here.
I’m sure bans or restrictive laws won’t solve the problem. It’s a cultural thing and we can see the depth of it by the arguments put forward.
When guns mean liberty, when killing people is (somerimes) seen as heroic (movies, shows, games), an enormous change has to occur, over several generations.
In the USA the bad guy has to be killed, and we think having a gun infuses one with enough judgement to know who is one.
A bug nice gun is cool. So we want to own one. When we do, it’s very easy to reach for it when judgement has left.
Where I grew up, the closest major city was Montreal. The average American probably doesn’t have any idea about the Quebecois, the secession effort, or the history of French Canadians and why things are like they are today. I lived near there, and the only reason I know anything about it is that I spent some time with a band of folk singers. I don’t have any way to sympathize, not being Canadian or from Quebec, the best I can do is understand in a cold, intellectual way.
I think its the same sort of issue. If you didn’t grow up around guns, you might not understand what kind of shift it would take to reach for a gun in anger. Having a gun around imposes a responsibility. Kids that are around that really do learn responsibility at an earlier age than kids who are not around it. The gun owners that I know don’t take that responsibility lightly. They don’t threaten people casually. They don’t reach for a gun when they get angry. Real life is not like the movies. And if you think guns are going to be hard to take away from owners, just try to take senseless violence out of entertainment.
The real problem is where you get the mixture of people who don’t understand the responsibility, who don’t have any sense of personable accountability, or who have lost that sense. Do you ban guns in cities and suburban areas? Then law abiding citizens are sitting ducks. Do you ban certain kinds of guns? I don’t see what sort of good that would do. A gun is a gun. A .22 can be as lethal as a .50 cal. Folding stocks and pistol grips mean nothing. What happens when the criminals switch to suicide vests instead of guns? Do you think outlawing suicide vests has even the slightest effect on people using them?
The cause of mass murder is people who wig out. Every time.
@Jeff Mowry Jeff, the way you’ve painted Australian gun laws, the semis and autos that were banned were preventing or reducing “a variety of violent crimes”. You’ve just spouted some complete and utter crap, plucking coincidental fluff from your navel and confecting a connection. Australians have NEVER had a “right” to keep firearms, although some, usually farmers, rural residents, and hunters do, and still can. They cannot keep semi and auto self-loaders now, that’s what changed.
BTW, gun dealers and collectors have their weapons stolen, usually through burglary, much more frequently now – or rather, that’s what they tell the police more often.
Maybe guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but to blame media coverage ahead of gun access for massacres committed with guns makes no kind of sense. I’m not American, but as I understand your first and second amendments, you’re claiming that your right to bear arms trumps someone else’s right to speak their mind. And I don’t believe that you can draw a straight line to attention-seeking, especially when the killer takes their own life soon after, because imagining the press you’re going to attract for an atrocity without seeing it can’t possibly offer the sort of gratification that you suggest it must.
Murray,
I’m not arguing that one right trumps another. I’m arguing that no rights are necessarily absolute. There are gun controls, and there are limits as to what you can say.
The media already takes steps to protect victims of sexual assault by voluntarily limiting the kind of coverage. I think this is the “right” thing to do, and I think the same concept should apply to mass murder. This is something that people on both sides of the gun control issue can agree on. There’s a difference between what’s “legal” and what’s “right”. Too many people rely on the government to tell them how to live, and they’ve forgotten how to make their own moral choices. I have little faith in the media to act on the difference between right and wrong, but they practice some restraint in sex cases, and now they need to recognize their role of enabling and limit the attention and glorification they shower on these lunatics.
Ron,
I don’t intend to get into debates here over this and it will be the last time I post on this here.
#6 has it backwards. First off this country was founded on the idea of freedom from tyrannical government, taxation without representation and a place where people could come and worship their idea of God without Crown persecution. Many who came here in fact were called Protest-ants for a reason. It was created as a Republic which it was until 1913 when it became a Democracy. Sadly the same year where the Federal Income tax was started and also the Fractional Reserve Banking act which gave the government the ability to print money without being truly accountable for it’s value. The reason for the Second amendment was to prevent dictatorial government control over citizens. Don’t take my word on this do some research and see what the Founding Fathers had to say. The Founding Fathers who created the system whereby the greatest nation on Earth quickly went from raw frontier to world leader presents clear proof they knew what and how they were doing it. They trusted their fellow man, they did not trust dictatorial governmental authority. Hitler and Stalin were quick to disarm citizens for a reason and it had nothing to do with things like this school shooting. They then went on to slaughter tens of millions of people. A well studied research into how and why this country came into being and the decisions and debates and ideas that went into the Constitution are things most never care to do and our drift in the wrong direct towards big government plagued with societal problems they can’t and won’t solve is the result. History teaches us that those who do not know history will repeat the same mistakes others have made with dire consequences. Ingrained mistrust of Authority was the bedrock this country was founded on to prevent the repetition of the problems that led to a shackled people seeking freedom from England.
Benjamin Franklin summed it up rather well and he had fresh personal experience and I quote.
“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html is a good place to find all you need to know about this.
This school shooting is proof of a sick individual from a sick society not sick gun owners. A sick society can find lots of ways to kill and they don’t have to have guns to do it. Check the Muslims out and see how they do it. There is a direct correlation between when people like Madelyn O’Hair and the Federal government started taking the moral authority and teachings and things like the Ten Commandments of the King James Bible out of schools and society where ever they could from the 60’s on and replace it with PC feel good crap. We are now harvesting the fruit of this.
Dittos on the divorce stuff Matt and it is a prime example of the removal of moral constraints on society. I remember back in Detroit in the 70’s when many young girls discovered they could have babies and marry the government instead of the man responsible for the child. It has worked real well for them I see.
In 2009, unmarried women under age 25 accounted for 75 percent of all births.
* From 2000-2010, 80 percent of teen girls who got pregnant did not expect to do so, but the number of teens who had a second baby out-of-wedlock dropped to 13 percent.
* The greatest increase in unwed pregnancies was among white women, but only one out three white mothers are unwed compared to four out of five African-American women.
A prime breeding ground for social disintegration and it did not have to be this way. I lived in Detroit from 1967 until 1981 and I watched it happen. Fathers day at the factory was a joke with certain groups who would laugh about not even knowing who all their children really were. I heard this kind of stuff with my own ears.
Matt,
“The first factor in most of these shootings is mental instability caused by the trauma of divorced parents.”
I agree. This is also 99% of the cause of most problems in society.
Brave Matty. I agree. As an American I have the right to own firearms and was taught to use guns at a young age. In instances like this week, blaming anything other than the person who committed the crime is a problem.
Laws will not fix people like this. Having the right, given to us by our founding fathers, was not in mistrust of government but as an option in the event that trust was broken.
All this aside, as a parent, man I am crushed.
Ron, just as the status quo won’t change anything, neither will state intervention. Will it? What can the state possibly do to ail what seems to be either a mental/psyciatric or spiritual problem within a very small segment of society? Merely apply blanket rules that hurt the majority more than the tiny minority? Do crazy people really obey rules? Or those bent on murderous rage? The cure is doomed from the start.
Reminds me of something one of our presidents once said:
“Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
–John Adams
The difficulty of limited government—like the sort we started with in this country—is that it requires self-governed individuals for it to function. What acts as a moral/ethical rudder anymore? I most commonly see pragmatism as the personal philosophy of so many people—the lowest of all ethics, for in it the means are justified by the ends. Such a path is trodden by tyrants, of course, who always stand up for the “greater good”, as seen through the eyes of the tyrant—Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc. The inverse of pragmatism would be a life guided by the golden rule—that I ought to treat others as I’d like to be treated. Genocide is never allowed under the golden rule, of course, but neither is the initiation of force against any individual. Ever. Change the spirit, and change the symptoms, I’m afraid. But we no longer have a nation of self-governed individuals, who use the golden rule as their rudder.
Another wise man once said this:
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
–Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
If we look into the mirror, which do we see as a society? One of Adams’ ideals or that of Tacitus’ dystopia?
@ralphg
1. I’m well aware of the demise of the Canadian long gun registry. The government decided it was better to license gun owners rather than long guns. I agree. Canada is a wilderness country. For example, in the arctic if you’re not armed, a polar bear will eat you. I focussed specifically on handguns for that reason. Canada does avoid things like the “gun show loophole” by having national standards.
2. The media is a reflection of society. Lots of gun deaths result in lots of gun coverage. TV doesn’t kill, people with guns (and knives and hammers and rope….) do.
3. Gasoline is dangerous. Why not ban gasoline? Unfortunately, we need gas to get to work. We don’t NEED handguns, though.
4. When I was a kid, it was Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner that was blamed for youth violence. Now it’s video games. Maybe it has an effect. I don’t know.
5. Here are gun death rate stats per capita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
It seems the US isn’t even in the top 10. Imagine my surprise! I still don’t think handguns make average citizens safer.
6. Dave Ault really nails it with “Read what the founding fathers had to say about tyrannical government and the last line of defense against it.” This line shows an ingrained mistrust of authority from the get go. A bad start in my mind. This implies democracy can’t be trusted, so its up to individuals to to react as they see fit.
7. The reaction in favour of the status quo demonstrates that there really is no hope. Crazy people will buy armloads of guns. Armed citizens will not deter them. Good luck with that.
Marc, if we ban cars, I can guarantee you car-related deaths will decrease. But that solution—the way it’s phrased—doesn’t take into account the losses occurred in such an action (convenience, commerce, personal autonomy, etc.). Many more people die in car-related deaths, even in the USA, than gun-related deaths. So we see that in Australia, gun-related deaths have decreased after a whole slew of guns were banned. That tells part of the story. But it’s quite misleading. The fact is, a variety of violent crimes have seen significant spikes since the gun bans. I’d imagine the reason is related to what bearsfeat pointed out above—that sitting ducks make great candidates for savage attacks and violent crime. Shooting ducks do not. Those who turn in their guns and go unarmed would certainly be preferred as a target by me—if I were a bad guy—than people I had reason to believe were well-armed. Why disarm the good guys? They don’t need any disarming.
Chicago is a great model for disarmament in the USA. Criminal thugs rule the streets. You wouldn’t want to shoot one of those guys invading your house—you’ll get put away for years. What a farce!
@DevonSowell
Devon,
I figured you would disagree, and that’s ok. I can deal with different opinions. My view is largely a rural point of view, but I think its still valid. If I lived in a place like San Diego I might feel differently. Don’t feel that you can’t express an opinion just because its different from mine. I think we all want to see insanity like this stop.
Matt- I appreciate your post on this subject. My opinions I’ll keep to myself. I’ll say this only, something has to change.
Thanks, Devon
Psychotropic drug use for years, violent video games usage, don’t whip the kids butt when he is bad and take God out of everything. The real problem is how this country has changed morally since the early sixties and not the guns. How we now pour medication down kids throats without any regard for long term problems. 87 dead, Happy Land Social Club in The Bronx, New York, March 25, 1990. Arson. No guns and far greater death toll. 32 dead, Upstairs Bar in New Orleans, June 24, 1973. Arson. 25 dead, Puerto Rican Social Club in The Bronx, New York, Oct. 24, 1976. Arson. V.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/getting-real-with-mass-murder-stats/2012/07/25/gJQA1YY28W_blog.html states in part and I quote
“We know gun laws are ill-suited to deter the mass murderers:
“Mass killers are extremely deliberate and determined and, no pun intended, dead set on murders,” said [James Alan]Fox, whose books include “Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder.” “They will find the weapons they need regardless of what impediments we put in front of them. It’s not an impulsive act.”
Ban gas cans, gas stations and fertilizer would be better. Jets have killed as many as 2,753 in a day so ban them. Every one of you have access to enough deadly things and the ability to do so if you chose to too kill many people. You could take your car at 100 mph and drive into a crowd of people. As we as a nation increasingly drift away from the concept of being responsible for our own actions before man and God there will be more and more of this. Tell me that banning extreme violence and abundant gratuitous gore in video games and TV like this nut job kid spent time with can’t happen because it is protected first amendment stuff and an art form. After kids are desensitized to all this is their subsequent actions like what this kid did to be totally unexpected? And now his actions are unexplainable except by the evil spirits which must after all dwell in all guns which must have been the reason this poor child did this? Really, putting his hand on a gun was the preventable cause of this???
What you put in front of people becomes a big influence to many and it does effect an outcome. Advertising is proof of this and a huge industry has been built around it.
Thousands of gun laws and it does not matter to an individual who intends to do something illegal. Look at Mexico which for those of you who aren’t aware of it has become a slaughter ground with almost 60,000 killed in the last six years in a country less than one third the population of the USA. Google “Mexican drug war deaths” and look at the pictures. Illegal guns galore. Sadly some 2000 of them with only appx 700 recovered even provided by the Obama administration. If you don’t have guns disembowel them and hang them off bridges or put the victims in 50 gallon drums and cook them. I am not kidding do the research yourself and see. The problem there is far worse but comes from the same root core problem. Lack of a society that has respect for fellow man and where the government has allowed the wrong moral things to take root and prosper.
Do not be deceived by media and government with an agenda but rather ask why this is really happening and remember that it was government that took God out of things. That defends the right of twisted sick individuals to put sick twisted things in front of children and turn them into sick twisted individuals. Read what the founding fathers had to say about tyrannical government and the last line of defense against it. Read what people like Thomas Jefferson had to say about the media of his time and how much they lied about things to push the crown agenda. Think very carefully before you jump onto a sensationalist media driven agenda without carefully looking at why this all really has happened.
In Canada about a dozen years ago, the government promised to end gun violence through the establishment of a long gun registry (there already is a registry for short guns). They had the support of the police chiefs. The centralized, computerized registry would pay for itself through annual fees paid by long gun owners, as well as provide employment to a poor part of Eastern Canada.
This year, the government shut it down, after it cost tax payers $2 billion in extra costs, and it failed to stop gun violence. What is expressed in http://jeffsachs.org/2012/12/time-to-stop-the-massacres/ is a pipe dream, a selective example. Canada had several mass school shootings in the time the long-gun registry was in place, on top of our already very strict gun controls.
Those who want the government to ban guns think that it is possible to legislate ethics. When someone is unethical enough to want to murder, then he will not consider the ethics of whether or not to use a weapon banned by society.
You’re wrong Matt.
USA is mostly alone in this situation but was not always;
http://jeffsachs.org/2012/12/time-to-stop-the-massacres/
Popular image here;
http://twitter.com/PaulTremblay9/status/280072944426840064/photo/1
From one of the net best blog:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/12/open-mike.html
@Ron Richardson
If the perpetrator suspected that a percentage of the people witnessing his planned attack were armed, the chance of him carrying out the plan would have to be diminished by some amount. The individuals who are motivated to perform such horrible acts are likely not very brave and at least some of them would not consider such an act if they were in … say, Texas, where “a lot of” people you see are carrying concealed firearms.
That is my opinion. I think that limiting access to owning arms is going in the wrong direction. But banning stupid people – now there’s a novel idea.
I agree with Matt and Jimbo – that broken families hurt more than society realizes, and ultra graphic and violent video games are what should should be banned.
Matt, I wonder if you might regret the flack you’ll receive on this one. Some interesting facts/statistics on gun use in the USA here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-15/newtown-shooter-had-asperger-syndrome-and-some-us-gun-facts
Ron, armed attacks are stopped all the time by armed civilians. Many more times as often as stopped by police—except, of course, places like Chicago where people are disallowed use of self-defense that rivals that of the criminals. (I’m generally armed whenever I’m in so-called “civilization”, and am quite trained to return fire under duress.)
Most folks, when spouting off about this sort of thing, are quick to mention how guns kill. They deftly avoid how they stop killing. If a single person had shot back during the Aurora massacre (a couple hour’s drive north of me), the odds would be even it would have ended instantly. If two had shot back? How about three? Obviously, had everyone been armed, trained, and willing to fire back, there could not have been a massacre.
Who gets called during incidents like the ones at Virginia Tech? That’s right—guys who have guns and training to use them. (I know, that’s obvious.) But the point is that it’s through guns that gun battles are stopped, right?
A 300 pound would-be rapist wielding a knife can easily be bested by a 90 pound woman with a will to shoot to survive, given that she has a gun she knows how to use.
It’s odd to me that so many people refuse to look at the whole of the gun issue, but instead, blame availability of the big, bad, scary guns themselves as the problem. When the waif offs the bad guy with a revolver, why don’t we then hear clamors to reduce availability of guns? Why not? How come only when in the hands of criminals do we hear such foolish, one-sided chatter? Are people, truly, never saved as a result of using a firearm (or at least threatening to do so)? Really? And if so, why do we give guns to cops?
I’ve written from time to time on this topic, and it’s one I believe is worth considerable thought. I recently spoke with someone who told me, “I don’t like guns”, as if that dismisses the problem of psychotic people willing to initiate force against others without cause. It’s an odd thing to stop one’s thinking at that point, isn’t it.
Whatever it’s worth:
http://scpatriotsclub.com/blog/?p=3
http://scpatriotsclub.com/blog/?p=391
Good luck, Matt.
Jeff,
Yes I know there is going to be some blowback. I read the post and edited it 3-4 times before sending it out. There are people who wake up in the morning offended. I was just hoping we could all keep it civil, have a rational discourse about an emotional issue.
The solution is to ban schools, have only home schooling. This way, no more school shootings, problem solved.
I suppose if you were raised on the moon you’d think a lack of oxygen was normal. Here in the real world, meaning most civilized societies, the idea that private citizens can walk around armed with firearms is considered insane. Look at the death rate by gun in the US compared to other countries and the difference is stark. Also, the idea that “If only someone was armed to stop this nut” is similarly crazy. Imagine being ambushed in a classroom by a rampaging shooter. Are you cool enough to find your gun, aim and shoot him before he blows you away? I bet you’d duck for cover just as fast as the unarmed victims. It’s ridiculous to suggest an ambush can be stopped by an armed civilian. Get real!
The truth is that no one wants the government to take away a right (to bear arms) even though it’s for the collective good. Can you imagine all Americans voluntarily surrendering all firearms because they’ve decided the 2nd amendment isn’t worth the trouble it causes?
How would you go about confiscating millions of just the handguns laying around? It’s impossible. You can thank the authors of the constitution for the “Death by Gun” culture you have built. Here in Canada, we decided a long time ago that only those deemed responsible and specifically trained should be allowed to carry handguns. We decided that public safety was the job of the authorities, not private citizens. Does that make Canada less safe? No. It turns out that you’re safer being unarmed simply because everyone else is also unarmed.
Did you know there was a school attack in China too? But because guns are rare, the attacker used a knife and fortunately no one died. We can’t ban knives, but banning stupid people from owning handguns really does help protect the rest of us.
I’m afraid “Gun Culture” has doomed America to never ending headlines of death. Asking the media to stop talking about it is the ultimate in ostrich absurdity.
Excellent post Matt. I agree wholeheartedly.
The media engine that must be fed 24/7 bears responsibility here. I also must question these first-person shoot-up video games that are all so the rage today. A disturbed young person reared on these realistic violent games that glorify virtual killing may very well wonder what the real world has in store for them.
-Jim