I had a lineup of posts I was working on Friday when the news came in, derailing those plans. For me, this sort of thing demands immediate social discourse, so that’s what I did. Don’t Worry: When Seconds Count, the Cops Are Only Minutes Away. For those uninterested in this debate and discussion, no quarrel with you. Regular programming returns after this is published. For those with some interest either way, I hope to provide additional insights to consider (lots & lots).
What an inspection of the nearly 200 comments on that post so far will reveal is lots of data, facts, citations on my part and others…contrasted with general appeals to emotion, illogic, blatant ignorance…calls for banning this and that from others.
I’d not had a chance to argue the case for more loaded guns in more places, in the hands of more people (preferably concealed; I’ll explain why below) for a while. I quickly noticed that the sources of data, crime statistics and such that support that view are better than ever, getting even better and more accessible.
The various echelons of the disarmament, defenseless, pacifist, banning, controlling, etc. side are so bankrupt in their logical thinking that all you get are appeals to emotion, lashing out….or citations to a homogenous, island culture like Japan (a police state)—where I lived for 5 years and never locked the door of my house or car, even when away for weeks and in a few cases, a couple of months at a time. Who’s next? The Kitavans?
As I considered this over the weekend with comments rolling in, some things became obvious.
- The “more control,” “ban certain categories,” or plain anti-gun folks are really ignorant about guns. They toss around words and descriptions like “assault rifle” or “semi-automatic” with no real knowledge of what the terms mean—just like a child uses and misuses words they learn from their parents before having a complete understanding of them.
- While it’s easy to dismiss the Kumbayah Pacifists on grounds of mental retardation—’tards’—there’s also the otherwise smart folk who don’t seem to understand that events like this are not a gun problem. …Anymore than a faultily constructed house is a hammer problem and getting rid of it will fix the foundation.
- There is very little understanding of what competent and generally effective defense entails. Of the three, this is perhaps the biggest problem.
Let’s address ’em one at a time.
#1. A true “assault rifle” is a fully automatic weapon. That is, so long as the trigger is held down and ammunition remains, it fires continuously. Semi-automatic weapons require one trigger pull per firing and come in all shapes and sizes, even shotguns. Ironically, in inexperienced hands, fully-auto weapons would usually result in fewer deaths because more rounds are expended per kill than “necessary,” depleting ammunition “inefficiently.” They also tend to be difficult to keep on a target because the continuous recoil makes them move off (using fully automatic weapons or “machine guns“—or even RPGs—effectively requires training and skill).
But the real distinction to understand is that what makes a gun semi-automatic is that a portion of the force from the recoil of firing a round is siphoned off to reload the next round, rather than doing it manually. Well, guess what? All guns with any sort of magazine, i.e., an integral store of rounds, have manual mechanisms for reloading. Whether it’s a quick pump on a shotgun, a fast back-&-forth on the bolt of a rifle, or rapid slapping of the hammer of a revolver, all non-semi-automatic weapons can be rapidly fired just like a semi-auto and sometimes even faster; only, with manual effort required. In fact, I have a .38 revolver, and I can fire its six rounds as fast as any semi-auto. It doesn’t even require slapping the hammer with my other hand—just a more forceful squeeze of the trigger. Moreover, revolvers are arguably the best self defense weapon for Joe Average because their mechanism is simple. It’ll last forever, will never jam, and requires zero maintenance.
All of the “assault rifle” hoopla—every ounce of it—is fodder for the ignorant. It simply is. Manufactures have a certain category of their semi-autos that they manufacture to appear as nefarious and menacing as possible—though they operate just like any semi-auto—and those who lack all knowledge of guns but what they hear from dolled up talking heads on TeeVee—equally ignorant—conjure imaginations that have no correspondence with reality. It’s the blind stirring up the blind.
#2. We have a social problem and it goes very deep, has many tentacles, and banning stuff will not only not solve a damn thing, but just as with alcohol, drugs, and every other thing that gets banned, unintended consequences are always worse.
I don’t even bother to look at arguments that involve banning anything. …No more than I pay attention to arguments that unicorns, Santa, tooth fairies, and Easter bunnies might exist…or that the universe might revolve around a flat Earth. Bans and restrictions are fantasies and at a point, there’s just not enough time in the day and you have to filter out the moron to get anything done. Ban? ….Dismissed out-of-hand. Nothing to see there, except fucking moron, and there’s plenty of that everywhere.
…Oh, ya, then there’s the “bazooka” argument (“well, people can’t own a bazooka, so why not ban other ‘weapons of mass destruction?'”). I note that fissionable material is so difficult to obtain and then explode even if one did own some, whole States have been working on it for decades. I advocate for a complete lifting of the ban on private individual citizens owning nuclear weapons. I also advocate lifting the ban on armed F-22 Raptors, for individuals earning more than its base price of $137 million per year. Have at it. ….And so on.
Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) might be obtainable, but at about $100 per round and training and skill required to make them hit intended targets, it’s going to put a dent in the wallet of an 18-yr-old high schooler, and the requisite practice might draw some attention. If they wanted to use explosives, there’s plenty of ways for even primitive, dirt poor people to improvise them (IEDs).
…Or just go buy this guy’s Bofors L60 40mm automatic anti-aircraft cannon. Legal to own. Legal to sell. Legal to have the time of your life blowing shit up! Ignorants: yes, I am laughing at your utter ignorance. Hey, that’s “military gear.” Ha, and watching that video seriously makes me want to demand a refund from the producers of that 1997 film, The Jackal. …I doubt you’ll be seeing it any time soon at a school near you. So where has your argument gone?
You will never, ever ban your way out of this social problem and will only create worse problems. Here.
In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it’s hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining “That’s the way to get shot.” (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)
By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of “hot” burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a “hot” burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S…. Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.
Note: a “hot” burglary is one where the occupants are home instead of away. That is, it’s a common burglary that becomes a home invasion.
Here.
But the trouble is that this kind of burglary – the kind most likely to go “wrong” – is now the norm in Britain. In America, it’s called a “hot” burglary – a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present – or a “home invasion”, which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are “hot” burglaries, and in my part of the world it’s statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it’s more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police’s petty, well-publicized pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.
Here.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
- Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
- During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
- At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
- Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
“Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime.”
My quibble: looks like the gun ban had a profound [adverse] impact on the mount of [gun-involved] crime. Whether gun-involved or not, seems to me that even victimization that has “gone beyond” guns is for a reason. Dead is dead. Raped is raped. Robbed is robbed. and violated is violated and a lifelong burden, as any raped women will tell you. Stabbed is…not a gun. It’s still stabbed.
All is not lost, however. In spite of the irrational, profit-driven sensationalism surrounding such events, as well as the understandable feelings of helplessness and doom people experience, the rates of mass killings are constant over a long period. The overall rate of violent crime over the last decades has decreased dramatically to the tune of 2/3ds, in spite of all the guns, all the semi-automatics. In spite of all the “military gear” people can now possess.
From the Oxford University Press: The Seven Myths of Mass Murder.
Myth 3: Incidents of mass murder are increasing
When a mass murder occurs, it receives instant and pervasive news coverage. Unfortunately, we are prone to overestimate the frequency of an event by its prominence in our minds, and mass murder is no exception. This is a very rare phenomenon and is neither increasing nor decreasing in the US. Since 1976 there have been about 20 mass murders a year. 2003 was the most violent year for mass murder, with 30 incidents and 135 victims. Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Edmund Oklahoma, and San Ysidro still resonate in the public consciousness, however, reminding us that these events do happen. A positive counterpoint is that rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased over this same time period, from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010. The most lethal school mass murder in US history was in Bath, Michigan, in 1927, a bombing that resulted in 45 deaths, mostly children in the second to sixth grades.
The title of this post relates to point #3 and as is my favorite way of doing things, the most important point is the simplest point.
What is your chief effective lifelong defense against aggression?
Let me explore that by first asking: what phenomena causes all animals to have fear? Isn’t it the unknown, the uncertain, the unpredictable? The unfamiliar? It’s more powerful generally than any physical weapon. Weapons are tools for specific events and needs. But they are also far more effective in the long term and the general: as unknown deterrents.
And so, for example, the unintended consequence of making a school a “gun free zone” is that it advertises predictable certainty right out in the open. No unknowns. Zero fear on the part of predators, and the fact that vice principle Joel Myrick was able to retrieve his gun from his truck and stop a school shooting from going to the next planned school was a mere flash in time coincidence, long forgotten. If someone is intent upon killing, schools are simply: the most logical choice.
Adults ought hang their miserable heads in shame. You have participated politically in putting children in harm’s way, making them the go-to explicit targets and sitting ducks. It’s a perfect storm, and virtually no one looks at it rationally. “It’s a tragedy.” Bullshit! It is your responsibility to protect your children 24-fucking-7; no exceptions, no excuses. …No fucking contrived “tragedies” to mask your dereliction in the most fundamental responsibility that exists between one human being and another.
…Why are militaries so intent on keeping their capabilities secret, unless so overwhelming, that calculated divulgence works better? How come it’s better in a state where concealed carry is permitted, for any common citizen to keep their weapon loaded and concealed, rather than open carry? How would your driving behaviors change if all traffic cops went to unmarked vehicles? If you don’t like and don’t have firearms, are you going to put a “Gun Free Zone” sign on your front yard?
…Are you going to humbly thank people like myself and others who keep the uncertainty alive, that uncertainty, that unknown element you benefit from—or seek to disarm us too? As previously cited, how come only 10% of burglaries in the US are home invasions, while they are 50% in Great Britain? Huh?
You know, I heard a lot of prayers last night during that broadcast of the service for the victims and their families; many understandable, given the horror…and there’s no wishing them well; because their lives will never, ever be well. The prayers that I don’t understand were those thanking an Omnipotent Being for those who responded (to clean up the mess). Emphasis added. Get it? There’s apparently no opportunity to thank those who might be prepared to help, because they are legally prevented from helping in any effective way but…cleaning up the mess.
~~~
In short, armed everyman—or many—is a multifaceted complexion. What you typically find for “solutions” is that which appeals to the average ignorant (wholly or by subject), moron, or ‘tard.’
In the end, it gets very simple and clear. While only a few of the thousands of lawful and rational use of armed citizen resistance to victimization each year get publicized, a few do, and when they do, it’s almost always on local news, so as to keep it localized.
Here’s some examples. And here’s 70-something videos of mostly local new reports of everything from a 12-yr-old shooting an armed intruder with her mom’s gun, to 80 and 90+ yr-old-grannies and grandpas not sitting by to get victimized.
It must be said that every hand-wringing gun-banner of any and all sorts is implicitly advocating for these people to have been victims for no other reason than to assuage their fears, cure their trepidation, bolster their sound-smart or in-crowd, etc. Probably, the same ones displaying the most emotional reaction, too.
You want to solve this? How about resurrect, celebrate and take no substitute for the quintessential human, functioning family? No force, but pressure to bear on what can now be fashionable…because every old good idea is eventually new again, and so why not now?
But that’s a subject for a different day.
As a very second to final shot—and I’m generally not a fan of Vox Day—there’s this.
Ask them this: If guns, and not people, kill people, why don’t they first disarm the more heavily armed government and police people before trying to disarm the public?
Ask them this: How does it make any sense to disarm the public and leave the government armed when over the last 100 years, governments around the world, including the U.S. federal government, have killed vastly more people in time of peace than all of the private murders in the world combined?
Ask them this: 800,000 law enforcement officers have killed 525 unarmed citizens with guns so far this year. Approximately 310 million private citizens killed an estimated 10,500 of their fellow citizens with guns over the same period of time. Given that a law enforcement officer is 19.4 times more likely to shoot and kill an unarmed American than a private citizen, if you genuinely care about reducing gun deaths, why aren’t you calling for the disarmament of law enforcement?
And as the very last shot, what about all these anti-psychotic drugs? I’d known of it generally, had no idea it correlated this heavily. That’s a lot. I count 39 citations, and when you’re talking about mass murder, murder suicide or plain suicide which are relatively rare events, such a strong correlation is noteworthy. However, just as for my subject for a different day, this is all just medicating a more fundamental problem.
…And if I blogged about it regularly, I’d have to rename the blog to Lose the Animal.
Update: Last evening a friend emailed me with some links calling into question the accuracy of the data for Australia that I included in the post. As well, there was a comment this morning doing essentially the same thing. Here’s that comment and my response.
Cow 
Elenor 
Paul
You are 100% spot on and after having experienced how useless, uncaring, and just fucking lazy cops are the few times I have needed them I can tell you I would feel SOOOOOO much better if I could legally keep a pistol in the house, ready to defend the family.
Police provide only control with the illusion of security being why most of us put up with it.
Richard I am not in agreement with you often but on this you are SPOT ON.
Law abiding citizens deserve the right to be prepared and ready and trained to defend themselves and their families. The only places cops proactively protect ARE BANKS and GOVERNMENT not you and me.
Law abiding citizens deserve freedom not restrictions, especially on their personal safety.
Why can’t you keep a gun in the house? We do, my son does, many friends do, it’s a good feeling to know that if a situation arose that threatened us and our families we would have some defense.
It Newtown not Newton.
Anti-psychotic drugs have probably saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychotic
Of course there is a downside, but there is a downside to everything and when in a living/dying situation a person will accept a whole lot of downside.
There are a lot of people out there (who I consider lunatics) talking about the dangers of psychiatric drugs, they point out the instances where a person taking the medication went off the rails, and disregard the 90% of cases where a person who would otherwise be dead as fried chicken was saved by the medication.
Imo the big problem is the reluctance of parents to take their child to a psychiatrist, doing so would avoid a lot of needless pain, but parents are concerned with the stigma, so they postpone it until the situation erupts.
rob,
how can you possibly know that in “90% of cases where a person who would otherwise be dead as fried chicken was saved by the medication”
He can’t.
He can’t. This is called “proof by assertion.” It’s for poofters with no debate skillz.
It’s just as sloppy as proof by correlation – ie the implication by Richard that the drugs are somehow causing the crazy. Crazy people take crazy pills. Why would anybody jump to the conclusion that the drugs are CAUSING the crazy?
I agree that rob’s assertion was too confident, but I would guess that these medications HAVE saved some lives.
I believe I was careful to call it precisely that, a correlation.
“And as the very last shot, what about all these anti-psychotic drugs? I’d known of it generally, had no idea it correlated this heavily. That’s a lot. I count 39 citations, and when you’re talking about mass murder, murder suicide or plain suicide which are relatively rare events, such a strong correlation is noteworthy. However, just as for my subject for a different day, this is all just medicating a more fundamental problem.”
So now correlations can’t even be deemed noteworthy?
Correlations are absolutely noteworthy. They serve as a good string to pull on when attempting to untangle something.
I misunderstood your post to be saying that you thought there was some causal relationship. Maybe I’m just used to the mainstream press which hardly ever bothers to differentiate between the two.
I am an incurable skeptic, so I am evidently overeager to call bullshit when I see a correlation being used.
Nope.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in the post. Basically, I’ve heard the crazy-drugs thing mentioned a lot of times over the years, but didn’t know if there was cherry picking going on.
But that list is a bit sobering; at least, as you say, to pull on strings. Frankly, my suspicion is that the root cause is dysfunctional families, of all the sorts that manifest and in the context of this sort of act-out violence, it seems to be a certain category of young white male that does it.
My modest proposal: fix the family first. Good wholesome food, prepare that food together or with lots of fanfare, eat together (SOCIALIZE! you social animals!!!), clean up together, watch a little TV together, etc.
There is no substitute. We are social animals.
More daughter stories here. When my younger daughter was very young, just a few years old and long before the typical liberal media/school induction/indoctrination could occur she asked me a simple question:
I was tucking her in for the night when she asked “Dad, what would you do if someone broke in while we were home?”
My answer was just as simple: “Honey, I’d kill them.”
She didn’t believe me at first. “No you wouldn’t, what would you really do?”
I told her that the safety of my family was my highest concerns, and that it was my job to make sure my wife and my kids were safe. She asked if I’d just tackle him or tie him up. Nope, I made it clear I’d kill him. I pointed out that dead people no longer pose a threat.
She asked if that was wrong. I told her that he gave up his right to life the moment he violated our rights by invading our house, so no it wasn’t wrong.
She thought about that for a bit, and asked me one more time while looking straight into my eyes: “Dad, would you really kill someone if they broke in?” I told her once more that I absolutely would.
She looked satisfied, and threw her arms around my neck and said “Dad, I love you so much. Thanks for protecting us.”
I didn’t expect that. It actually caught me off guard. But it’s the way it should be. Society at large seems to be so out of touch with what a very young girl got completely.
The only gun problem we have in this country is people who don’t understand that guns aren’t the problem.
Holy crap! Clicked your link to Daily Kos, and immediately got a pop-up asking me to sign a petition to ban guns.
Yea, me too. Almost made me click away. You can control the Internet. Imagine how that might work in the opposite way.
Much better Bofors video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSp7CipN1pw
Also, you can supposedly buy Soviet MiGs for $50K or so. I’ve heard of some of them being delivered to US museums without being dewatted. 🙂
Hear, hear.
“Moreover, revolvers are arguably the best self defense weapon for Joe Average because their mechanism is simple. It’ll last forever, will never jam, and requires zero maintenance.”
It should be added for those who are gun ignorant that a revolver will never fire unless the hammer has been cocked to fire. It is completely safe when loaded. A teacher could have it on his/her desk, pointed at the class, and it would just lay there as happy as can be.
Right it must always be emphasized in the interest of gun safety and knowledge, that while if a semi does not have a round chambered, you can pull the trigger all day long, point it at anyone you like and nothing is going to happen. A semi requires an initial manual action to chamber a round. Once done, then each firing will expel the casing and chamber a new round.
Conversely, for most moder revolvers, the mechanism is such that pulling the trigger fully back will both advance the magazine (the “revolver”) to the next spot and retract the hammer at the same time, and if you pull it all the way back and there’s a round in the next chamber of the revolver, it will fire.
In different ways, semis and revolvers are more and less dangerous as each other, to the uniformed and ignorant.
You know, anyone with the slightest interest can go to a local indoor range. Walk in the door, tell them “I’m ignorant and at least want to be informed” and I’d be surprised if they didn’t dote over you to cure your ignorance for as long as it takes.
People like me want other responsible people to keep, bear, use and fully know about arms. I want them everywhere.
My semi jam too often, and intruder hardly ever want to wait while you clear chamber. Now I has .38 revolver, but because is no safety, I keep first chamber empty so I has to pull trigger twice to shoot. I think this good safety measure, if, like Cow, you maybe little foggy when you wakes up or has different lovers, and sometime they go to bathroom in middle of night and scare crap out of you on return.
Me too, cow. I keep the next chamber in line from a trigger pull empty, with that round wedged into the holster. First pull is dead, second, deadly.
I keep my .357 at the office fully loaded with no gun lock, I have never shot anyone and if it comes to that I don’t want to have to think whether the first pull of the trigger counts or not.
I don’t have a gun at home but then my home is not located in a place frequented by vagrants.
The only other firearm I need to get at some point is a “fine shotgun.” Some real craftsmanship goes into those things.
Okay, read more on your last link at Daily Kos, and these types of things piss me off:
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
What the heck? They asked the doctor to take her off a drug? For goodness sake people, doctors don’t decide these things, they recommend them. You consult with a doctor, and then decide, they have no authority over you! Take charge of your health and quit acting like doctors have control.
You missed the often (mis)used ‘statistic’ about how gun violence is so disproportionate in ‘merica vs. some liberal, gun-free EU nation. All the while ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the corner — or should I say street corner — that the bulk of this violence typically occurs in certain cultures/locations with poor economic outlook, illegal drug sales, and glorification of thug/street culture. Your typical lilly-white liberal has about as much chance of staring down the barrel of a gun walking to Whole Foods in the suburbs as he does walking around most of W. Europe.
Honestly, it feels just like reading epidemiological health statistics where one variable is controlled for, but the rest of the confounders are allowed to run all over the place.
Right. Most crime in the US is committed by, and against Blacks and Hispanics. Of course if you bring this into discussion, the anti-witch chants of ‘racism’ will be brought out.
The thing that really frustrate me is all the whining about “children being killed by guns” — except the stats INCLUDE in the term “children”: “youth up to age 26 (!) and they leave out that MOST of that gun-violence is drug-crime related! It’s NOT your lily-white 6-yr-old whose parents are off at Whole Foods who finds daddy’s gun and kills a sibling… (Oh, and while I’m grousing: did y’all know “our” govt counts as “white” the Hispanics who COMMIT crimes, but count them as “non-white Hispanic” when they suffer a crime!!)
Right on. Perfect. Well, almost perfect–I was a little put off by your use of the word ‘tard, but I’ve read your stuff long enough to know you don’t care too much about my opinion when it comes to that type or thing.
There is a poster meme going around Facebook etc with the following text:
“Last year handguns killed:
48 people in Japan
8 in Great Britain
34 in Switzerland
52 in Canada
58 in Israel
21 in Sweden
42 in West Germany
10,728 in the United States”
With the point being that the US has more handgun deaths BECAUSE it has more guns. Funny thing is, if you go the wikipedia page on gun per capita statistics, guess who is number four? Switzerland.
Leaving aside all the excellent arguements Richard has made in this post, just scrolling through the Wikipedia page should be enough to convince people that guns as a statistic are an utter irrelevancy.
Let’s compare the two countries ranking 7th and 8th for most per capita guns: No. 7: Iraq. No. 8: Finland. I always thought those two places were like twins.
How about numbers 10 through 15: Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, Iceland.
And of course, the places low down on the list are veritable paradises on Earth of peace and non-violence. No. 106? Zimbabwe. No. 118? Palestine.
But its the five-way tie for 164th place that tells you everything you need to know: Haiti, Japan, North Korea, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. That’s right, same number of guns per capita in Japan as in Haiti. That’s why you feel equally safe in either place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
I’m honestly suprised France is so low!
BTW “West Germany”?
yeah wtf
I think it’s just Germany, for a while, now. 🙂
The referenced ad was circulated in 1981, thus why the outdated reference to West Germany…
Why is the trend to wait for the proper authorities? Is it because people have less and less willingness to accept responsibility for their actions?
After the Fort Hood shootings, we in the military got “training” on what to do in case of a shooter. It boils down to run for cover, cower in fear, and wait for the proper authorities. Yes. The American Military. Shouldn’t the training be, “turn the shooters head into a pink mist”?
Bravo!
The passage in the article citing statistics regarding firearms laws in Australia seems to miss the point of the legislation’s introduction.
Firearms laws changed in Australia to prevent mass murders (such as the Port Arthur massacre: 35 dead, 21 injured, Colt AR 15 semi-automatic rifle with 30 round magazine from happening again.
In the 18 years prior to the new legislation in 1996, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none have occurred in the 16 years following (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf).
Also, I’m not sure of the validity of the statistics cited in the article , nor the headline for that matter, as a recent press release from the Australian Minister for Justice dated 4 March 2012 states that current statistics regarding crime in Australia show that homicide has dropped 27% since the gun legislation was introduced in 1996, break-ins have been nearly halved and car theft has dropped by about 61% ).
Also, it is important to note that in Australia, the term sexual assault is not synonymous with rape, but can be considered for incidences that occur anywhere on a continuum from sexual harrassment to life-threatening rape (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sexual%20assault%20rates%20australia&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausstats.abs.gov.au%2FAusstats%2Fsubscriber.nsf%2F0%2FC41F8B2864D42333CA256F070079CBD4%2F%24File%2F45230_2004.pdf&ei=H0zQUOfQK-aTiQe8xoCwAg&usg=AFQjCNF33PGzfIo0jVh1Hx5PAWRUFf42Cg). As such, sexual assault figures per 100000 may seem higher for Australians, but they count for a large range of sexually based offences, not just rape as the American FBI define it (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape). In light of this, I think the article was incorrect in saying that Australian women are “raped” 3 times as often as American women.
Hey Clint.
First, sorry you got hung up in the queue. Lotsa links.
I’d had a friend already email a bunch of stuff on this so I had already begun running it down last night, then saw your comment in the queue this morning.
Looks like I may have been Snoped a bit. Still looking into it. I’ll either reply here and then put an update in the post pointing to it, or do another post on it. We’ll see.
Thanks again.
You might check one of the sources, too. There is no such body as “Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research”.
OK, too many things on my plate to do another post on this and plus, it’ll probably get a bit weary and as well, whether on not those stats are real, overstated, understated or whatever, it doesn’t matter. In terms of violence, homicide, etc., rate had been on the way down already. At any rate, here’s a bunch of links for anyone who cares to dig further into this. The text after each link is an excerpt from the link. Any of my comments are in brackets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[25]
In the year 2002–2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[26] In 1997–1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[27] Knives are used up to three times as often as firearms in robberies.[28] The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of hunting rifles.[25]
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [3], from 1985–2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, and firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[29] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[30] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.
…
A study co-authored by Simon Chapman argued that reduction in firearm numbers had prevented mass shootings because in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been none.[46] The 2002 Monash University shooting of seven people, two of whom died, is ignored by Chapman because the usual definition requires four deaths. Data interpretation of trends in this study differs from other authors, while clearly being based on the same data. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting )
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/
Yet, in 2011, I’m compelled to ask: When will we learn from our mistakes and admit we were wrong? And I ask this question because many Australians are victims of violence. In contrast, for criminals and their enablers, “gun control” is the gift that keeps on giving.
Take Melbourne, Australia’s second most populous city. Between January 16, 1998 and April 19, 2010, 36 criminal figures or partners were murdered during the Melbourne Gangland Killings.
Alas, family environments, from businesses to parks, were drawn into the mess.
The passage of gun control laws fueled our illegal arms market, and gun-hungry gangs multiplied. The significance: many gangland deaths/wars involved bullets. The tribal fights exploded after the Port Arthur massacre-inspired gun laws, against mainstream media predictions.
To concerned Victorians, too, it felt like our criminal class was running the state. The problem though (in Australia at least) is that campaigning newspapers and television networks are never wrong — no matter how many people are killed or threatened by guns, there’s always a “complex” excuse.
The odd thing about gun control is that a culture of censorship often increases after anti-gun laws fail to deliver. So, it would be hard for an Australian writer to submit a piece on Switzerland’s pro-gun ownership culture and low gun crime rate because our media isn’t “ready” to accept opposing views. Only a “thought control” culture can sustain a “gun control” culture.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/bob-katter-tells-kelvin-thomson-hes-wrong-to-lecture-the-us-on-gun-laws/story-fn59nm2j-1226539999490
However, north Queensland MP Bob Katter said Mr Thomson was wrong and Australia needed to “clean up its own backyard” before it had the “moral arrogance” to lecture the rest of the world. “I think we are absolutely reprehensible, we have done nothing, not one single overt act, to separate the guns from the people who are mentally unhinged,” he said.
“I am constantly revolted by the moral arrogance which some people in our country continuously assert, our governments running around being morally superior. ”
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
[Me: Problem is, it is already well established that homicide was on the general decline. The graph runs between 1996 and 2010 and in the years after the gun grab, some years had more homicides, some less, and then in about 2002 the established trend continued (there are peaks in 99, 02, and 06). That you would have more homicides in ANY year close to the event is an a-priori falsification that grabbing all those guns reduced crime. It’s just not possible. The guns were not available. You can argue that it will shift culture, but the problem is that the culture had already been doing fine on its own reducing violence steadily.]
…
Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect.
http://nocompromisemedia.com/2009/02/09/australian-wildfires-called-mass-murder-after-135-killed-while-muslim-cleric-benbrika-jailed-for-15-years-in-melbourne-terror-case-same-time-frame/
Suspicions that some of Australia’s worst wildfires ever were deliberately set led police to declare crime scenes in incinerated towns on Monday through Victoria, 750 homes have been destroyed.
[Me: This last one is quite a read for an entire international overview. About 35 pages, worth every word. I’ll post the introduction and conclusion here.]
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES AND GARY MAUSER
Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be con‐ tacted at [email protected]; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground, WA 98604.
Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian crimi‐ nologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………650
I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF
SOCIAL FACTORS……………………………………………660
II. ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION ……………………..662
III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?……………………665
IV. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?………………………………670
V. GEOGRAPHIC, HISTORICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC
PATTERNS………………………………………………………673
A. DemographicPatterns…………………………….676
B. Macro‐historical Evidence: From the
Middle Ages to the 20th Century ……………..678
C. Later and More Specific Macro‐Historical
Evidence………………………………………………….684
D. GeographicPatternswithinNations……….685
INTRODUCTION
International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a com‐ pound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates.2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.5 Yet, manifest suc‐ cess in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less So‐ viet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drasti‐ cally that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the lat‐ est figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.7 Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transition‐ ing into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”8 While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many devel‐ oped nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.9
The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on fire‐ arms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are high‐ est.”11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:
[T]here is no consistent significant positive association be‐ tween gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12
A second misconception about the relationship between fire‐ arms and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accu‐ rate since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced.13 For instance, virtually the only English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns. During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high.14
In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, sui‐ cide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐ extant studies.16
Stringent gun controls were not adopted in England and Western Europe until after World War I. Consistent with the outcomes of the recent American studies just mentioned, these strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever‐growing violent crime throughout the post‐WWII industrialized world including the United States and Russia. Professor Malcolm’s study of English gun law and violent crime summarizes that nation’s nineteenth and twentieth century experience as follows:
The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions [nine‐ teenth and early twentieth century] England had little vio‐ lent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.17
Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now be‐ come one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has mil‐ lions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the dec‐ ade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.18
In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffective‐ ness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so in‐ creased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.19 Today, Eng‐ lish news media headline violence in terms redolent of the doleful, melodramatic language that for so long characterized American news reports.20 One aspect of England’s recent experience deserves note, given how often and favorably advo‐ cates have compared English gun policy to its American coun‐ terpart over the past 35 years.21 A generally unstated issue in this notoriously emotional debate was the effect of the Warren Court and later restrictions on police powers on American gun policy. Critics of these decisions pointed to soaring American crime rates and argued simplistically that such decisions caused, or at least hampered, police in suppressing crime. But to some supporters of these judicial decisions, the example of England argued that the solution to crime was to restrict guns, not civil liberties. To gun control advocates, England, the cradle of our liberties, was a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns. The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.
The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic re‐ ductions in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.22 Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations.
To conserve the resources of the inundated criminal justice system, English police no longer investigate burglary and “mi‐ nor assaults.”23 As of 2006, if the police catch a mugger, robber, or burglar, or other “minor” criminal in the act, the policy is to release them with a warning rather than to arrest and prosecute them.24 It used to be that English police vehemently opposed the idea of armed policing. Today, ever more police are being armed. Justifying the assignment of armed squads to block roads and carry out random car searches, a police commander asserts: “It is a massive deterrent to gunmen if they think that there are going to be armed police.”25 How far is that from the rationale on which 40 American states have enacted laws giv‐ ing qualified, trained citizens the right to carry concealed guns? Indeed, news media editorials have appeared in England argu‐ ing that civilians should be allowed guns for defense.26 There is currently a vigorous controversy over proposals (which the Blair government first endorsed but now opposes) to amend the law of self‐defense to protect victims from prosecution for using deadly force against burglars.27
The divergence between the United States and the British Commonwealth became especially pronounced during the 1980s and 1990s. During these two decades, while Britain and the Commonwealth were making lawful firearm ownership increasingly difficult, more than 25 states in the United States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. There are now 40 states where qualified citizens can obtain such a handgun permit.28 As a result, the number of U.S. citizens allowed to carry concealed handguns in shopping malls, on the street, and in their cars has grown to 3.5 million men and women.29 Economists John Lott and David Mustard have suggested that these new laws contributed to the drop in homicide and violent crime rates. Based on 25 years of corre‐ lated statistics from all of the more than 3,000 American coun‐ ties, Lott and Mustard conclude that adoption of these statutes has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted this policy than in states that did not.30
As indicated in the preceding footnote, the notion that more guns reduce crime is highly controversial. What the contro‐ versy has obscured from view is the corrosive effect of the Lott and Mustard work on the tenet that more guns equal more murder. As previously stated, adoption of state laws permit‐ ting millions of qualified citizens to carry guns has not resulted in more murder or violent crime in these states. Rather, adop‐ tion of these statutes has been followed by very significant re‐ ductions in murder and violence in these states.
To determine whether this expansion of gun availability caused reductions in violent crime requires taking account of various other factors that might also have contributed to the decline. For instance, two of Lottʹs major critics, Donohue and Levitt, attribute much of the drop in violent crime that started in 1990s to the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, which they argue resulted in the non‐birth of vast numbers of children who would have been disproportionately involved in violent crime had they existed in the 1990s.31
The Lott‐Mustard studies did not address the Donohue‐ Levitt thesis. Lott and Mustard did account, however, for two peculiarly American phenomena which many people believed may have been responsible for the 1990s crime reduction: the dramatic increase of the United States prison population and the number of executions. The prison population in the United States tripled during this time period, jumping from approxi‐ mately 100 prisoners per 100,000 in the late 1970s to more than 300 per 100,000 people in the general population in the early 1990s.32 In addition, executions in the United States soared from approximately 5 per year in the early 1980s to more than 27 per year in the early 1990s.33 Neither of these trends is re‐ flected in Commonwealth countries.
Although the reason is thus obscured, the undeniable result is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, has plum‐ meted in the United States over the past 15 years.34 The fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when com‐ pared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries sur‐ veyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.35 This contrast should induce thoughtful people to wonder what happened in those nations, and to question policies based on the notion that introducing increas‐ ingly more restrictive firearm ownership laws reduces violent crime. Perhaps the United States is doing something right in promoting firearms for law‐abiding responsible adults. Or per‐ haps the United States’ success in lowering its violent crime rate relates to increasing its prison population or its death sen‐ tences.36 Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States’ approach are the most important, or whether all three elements acting in concert were necessary to reduce violent crimes.
…
CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐ den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐ cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the Uni‐ versity of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophis‐ ticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐ guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega‐ tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.150
Couldn’t agree more with your assessment, Richard.
My indoctrination as a young child, a military brat, was weaponry respect. As a result, my boys are taught not only in target practice, but gun selection, disassembling, cleaning, proper storage; the general respect given to a piece of weapon. But since I am fully responsible for their security and others who may be affected by them, I also realistically analyze their thinking, their friends, their diet, their video gaming time, their computer/tv watching, their other outside adventures, etc. I want them to be responsible men who know how to think, but if I noticed any cracks in their thinking, I would quickly shut down many things including weapons.
And as far as mass murders from semi-automatic weapons, which seem to be mostly committed by young white males who were previously or currently taking ADHD-type meds, Jim Jones killed over 200 people with cyanide. If someone wants to commit a shock and awe event, they will find a way. Hmm, suicide bomber?
@Bert – ‘Why is the trend to wait for the proper authorities?’
I believe this is because our legal system makes one hesitate on whether or not to try to stop an event from happening lest they get hung out to dry with a sympathetic ‘tard’-jury. A CW holder is not liable to help; they can, but they don’t have to. When the fear of being sued in court by the thug’s family is greater than being able to duck out and let someone else take care it, we have a nation that gives the upper-hand to the criminal. Imagine you stopping a gun-wielding thug, killing him dead right there, and then you have a jury of indoctrinated Canadian-minds blame you for the killing! Makes me stop to think about whether it’s safer to shoot or run.
We are a Republic, though, not a democracy. The Bill of Rights protects our individual rights with, I believe, the 2nd amendment being the most important. If I cannot protect myself from anyone, government included, then we might as well shut up and walk ourselves to the sheep-holding pen. For those who believe we are a democracy with mob-rule and you believe in taking all guns away, I don’t care how educated you are, you are a moron and wouldn’t last in a world without someone taking care of you.
For those who believe we are a democracy with mob-rule
That’s true for me…
and you believe in taking all guns away,
And, NOT me. I don’t even have a gun. Don’t feel I need one… Yet. Maybe by next year… 🙁
Currently, my two 100-pound dogs and swords are good dissuasions. But if things degrade much more – and they will now, with real food in the crosshairs again, irradiation of our foods increased, codex alimentarius set to be implemented, and our HNIC in for another four destructive years… Plus the push to ban all means of self-defense (Includes guns, swords, knives, pipes, glass, scissors, bottle openers, whatever you can use)… Maybe it’s time to stop retreating, to draw the line in the sand and dig in?
“They” have plans for that, too, of course, but there’s GOT to be a point when we decide we won’t just take whatever scraps fall from “their” table.
(“They” and “their” above have little real meaning, hence in quotes. Elites of various stripes exist, some are visibile, some not, but all “above” the “common rabble.” Funny how I consider myself Conservative, which means I’m a classical liberal, which means I sound like a revolutionary. 😛 )
I used to read a blog now and then named “Classically Liberal.”
Has anyone noticed that gun control zealots are also fanatical advocates of leniency towards the criminal element in society?
Agree with you Richard. Many people don’t understand what a semi automatic weapon is. They assume it is a machine gun. Others, who understand a little more, are concerned about magazine capacity. I am a woman with a permit, and I struggle to find an answer to helping prevent some of these senseless deaths, especially of children. For a while I struggled with the idea that banning semi automatics may save lives, thinking it is the larger bullet capacity that is the problem and perhaps if the clip had to be changed sooner, someone could intervene and a life could be saved. I now know large capacity clips are available for handguns as well and a clip can be changed in a second anyway. One thing I struggle to understand is why so many men are SO passionate about their right to own every gun out there. It completely takes away their ability to have any sort of open mind to even discussing options. Its like someone is trying to confiscate their balls.
Here in Ct an 8 year old boy died trying to operate an Uzzi machine gun. He was with his father at a gun range. I guess his father and the so called safety personnel on staff thought that was an ok thing to do. As the boy pulled the trigger, the gun went out of control, went up to his head and killed him. Yes, I agree with you, adults should know better and be more responsible. However, I don’t know if its a woman thing but I can easily say, ok, innocent children are being killed because some adults are sick or just stupid assholes – you don’t have to be mentally to use poor judgement – maybe I can give up my right to own an UZZI in the hope that it might prevent a tragic incident from happening, and if just one child could be saved, my sacrifice is so worth it. I know it is not as simple as this, just trying to make a point that being social beings and living in communities, we have to be somewhat open and come together on some things… shouldn’t we be willing to try? People can not be trusted to be responsible… they just can’t.
“You don’t have to be mentally ILL to use poor judgement”
I’ve got to start proofing my comments.
‘One thing I struggle to understand is why so many men are SO passionate about their right to own every gun out there. ‘
I own 2 different handguns and definitely want another, mainly because my PPK jams, my SIG is a bit heavy to carry, and I really want a revolver. I suppose if I hunted, I’d want some other type of gun. Mostly it depends on the context of where it’s going to be used.
My husband and boys want them all. They also want crossbows, compound bows, throwing knives and all the fastest, coolest cars in town.
When a group of people (mob-rule) decide to limit something else that a person desires, where does it stop? I say the fastest, coolest car in town has more potential to kill my son and anyone else around him than his Remington 22. Should mob-rule then decide that a Mustang Roush be banned?
“I own 2 different handguns and definitely want another, mainly because my PPK jams, my SIG is a bit heavy to carry, and I really want a revolver.”
I don’t understand why more people don’t go with a revolver for their first gun, they are pretty much foolproof, if you want more capacity buy a speed loader.
You could have saved me a lot of money, Rob, if you had been around when I was buying! But, these look cool. So for those who are buying their first gun – take other’s advise and shoot many until you find the right for you.
‘People can not be trusted to be responsible… they just can’t.’
I don’t understand how you can make the leap from sensationalized random incidents to “all people.” Are we all to be relegated to wearing shoes with velcro because we can’t be trusted to not strangle someone or hang ourselves by the shoe strings; should we be forced to drive a prius because we can’t be trusted with a 2-ton truck; should we give up alcohol because we can’t be trusted to drink wine just at dinner; should we be forced to drink pasteurized milk because farmers can’t be trusted to make clean raw milk (oh, wait, that’s already happened); and the endless, tiring list goes on – all in the name of children safety. And in the meantime, every day, you not only give away your rights but also expect to take mine.
I’m sorry that some people are stupid and can’t handle certain things. It’s not my responsibility, though, to give up what I can handle because others cannot.
All that you have said makes sense and I understand your reasoning. My husband uses the same arguments, especially the car one. It is a topic that triggers (no pun intended) a lot of emotion. Main difference being though, that guns were invented as a weapon to kill, not so with cars. This is a huge distinction between guns and other things that kill. And don’t bring up the sport of target sport of target shooting – let’s face it most of target shooting is so that one can become good at just that – hitting the target and learning to handle and become familiar with the gun.
The only place we really differ is that I feel as a societal being, it is my responsibility to give up what I can handle because others can not. Not everything… but certainly something. Isn’t that what highly evolved civilized people do? Otherwise its the Hatfield’s and the McCoys all over again.
“Main difference being though, that guns were invented as a weapon to kill.”
But as a tool, it has become primarily a weapon of deterrence and defense.
It’s cool how that works, with tools. Someone always figures other uses for it.
“it is my responsibility….”
Fine, then get to it, get in line. So long as I’m not forced to be included, I’ve got no quarrel.
Kris – you don’t offend me, but when you say “I feel” that’s exactly how you are trying to argue your point – you overwhelmingly feel, not think. It’s not a criticism necessarily, there are so many feelers around especially women, I’m just not much of one. So when media sensationalizes extremely tragic, random events, the feelers are overwhelmed with grief and feel they need to do something; that’s the whole point in showing the pictures of the killers, the pictures of the grievers, the pictures of the weapons, the pictures of the idyllic town shattered, the pictures of the glowing candles – to evoke feeling. This is one way to cope when kept in check with thinking. However, since you are a feeler, your emotions are being played by those who are pulling your strings for their benefit. Be aware of that type of mind control, it’s very subtle, but very real.