I’m fed up with the media’s use of the word “shocking” in connection with gun-related homicides. I think I’ve gone off on this topic before, but today I came across multiple media outlets state that recent fatal shootings were “shocking”.
What’s so shocking about it?
How many gun-related killings occur each year in the US? In 2001, the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Report detailed 29,572 annual gun deaths. This number means that 81 people are killing each other in our country each day with guns. 81.
Where’s the shock factor? When 81 people are getting shot each day in our country, then there’s nothing shocking about it. I’m surprised that media hasn’t gone on to consider other things, like car-related deaths, to qualify for a shocking development (“In today’s morning rush hour, a shocking fender-bender occured, startling many motorists and eventually causing…a traffic jam”.)
Call it senseless, horrible or awful. Call it terrible or disgusting. But don’t call it shocking. Tell it like it is. A normal, daily activity. In the great words of Al Franken: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Using guns.”
long live the NRA
You’ll get my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
After shooting me in the face a few times. With a gun.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Here.. watch me be liberal..
On the gun issue, I am in agreement. Gun laws need to be tougher.
Rifles for hunting? Okay.. but not semiautomatics, not with any kind of liscense. Handguns for home protection? Fine, but liscensed only, no gun shows, no pawn shops, but only available through liscensed dealers. Every gun should have a serial number, and every gun sale should be linked by the serial number to an owner (like we do with cars). Again.. no semiautos here.
Who can’t get guns? Anyone with any history of violent behavior -(criminal or otherwise). Its harder to give blood than to get a gun and thats messed up. Enforcement on guns? Give a grace period of 6 months for someone to turn in their illegal guns, license properly, and be under the old laws.. then, mandatory jail time if anyone has a gun that is unliscensed (not just the owner, but the serial number on the gun).
Wanna make it harder? Make it mandatory that one needs to posess a liscense for buying bullets. A lisence that directly corresponds to to the gun the bullet is bought for. Thats the sick thing.. criminals get illegal guns but can go reload them with no problem, getting bullets legally. ALSO, put a cap on the amount of bullets that can be bought legally for handguns.
(Chris rock has a great bit where he suggests raising the price of bullets for handguns to a hundred dollars a bullet)
We’ll never make guns illegal, it is, for better or worse, in the bill of rights. People who have guns in their homes are afraid they will be robbed, and like feeling secure despite the statistic that says they would be more likely to be killed with their own gun then they would be likely to shoot an intruder with it.
This doesn’t mean we can’t levy higher taxes (like we do for cigarettes) that make bullets less affordable, require strict lisencing, and enforce the laws on the books. (Pay for this with the higher gun and bullet taxes).
So there, I said something liberal.
Gun registration…
Mandatory gun registration is a major milestone on the path to villainous tyrrany. I have arguments to back up this opinion, but lack the time to expound them this morning (I’m already late for work)…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
um.. yeah….
Laws & rules are there to make honest people feel safe.
All the rules and laws do is keep honest people honest.
I think there are plenty of rules and regulations in place now, but little to no enforcement.
I know plenty of gun / firearm collectors that make their own bullets. There is a process for packing your own.
Long and the short of it, if you place super strict gun laws, all you will do is keep them out of the honest people’s hands. A criminal is not going to care if the law says he can not have a gun.
If there were more guns in this country, there’d be less shootin
Your retarded, Semiautomatic means one pull one shot. Liberals suck … anyday. IF there were more guns in peoples possesion, there’d be less shootings. No law will make the criminal give up his Gun….he’s a CRIMINAL why would he follow a NEW LAW yeah get real. If you arm the PUBLIC *2nd amendment* they will be safer. GUNS aren’t the problem. Crazy people are. If someone is screwed up enough to kill someone. And they didn’t have a gun. they’d stab you…Restrictions on guns isn’t the solution. thats half the flipping problem. SENARIO!, Criminal pulls out a gun at a bank and goes “lady, give me the money” nobody has a gun……..oh well lets listen to him. OR “lady, give me the money, and Everybody pulls a gun on him. and says drop the flipping gun. Or SHOOTS HIM. “what gives everybody the right to take a mans life”? What gives that man the right to steal from the public, AND take someones life. it’s for the saftey of everybody that, that man be taken out. more guns=more saftey. get real ladies 🙂 thanks lol
EDIT by matthew: F-bombs and excessive vulgar language not allowed. Here, we prefer to use strong innuendo rather than the most explicit language our limited intellects can imagine.
Gotta sell a strory
I bet it was shocking to the dudes about 10 milliseconds before the bullet hit them.
I was thinking about shocking the other day, in that now that we have the ability to permanently record and store everything that goes on nowadays. Ergo, won’t we be drying up all the creative ideas here soon? At least the “usual” ones? I think that’s why society seems to be going towards more “shocking” behavior and media. Everything else has been done.
In order to push the limits, which is human nature, we have to look deeper and deeper into the seedier and darker sides of humanity. It’s all about finding something new, and we’ve looked in all the good places. Now we’re looking in the nooks and crannies.
That seems to make people think society is going downhill, which isn’t true. Society has always been down in the mud, we just see more of it now than we used to.
My $.02 Weed
Quotes…
“An armed society is a polite society”
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the <citizens> to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject<s> to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. <Our> troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied … territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
“There’s no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”
“The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step — in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come — is to teach men to shoot!”
“The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”
Obviously, you know my opinion on the subject now 🙂 If we didn’t have guns, people would kill each other with swords. If we didn’t have swords, people would kill each other with big rocks and kitchen knives. Guns do little but equalize the playing field; the feeble grandmother has as much lethal power as the overpowering brute. While restricting guns in the U.S. would, as in other countries, almost certainly lower the death toll from violent crime, it would also certainly raise the incidence of violent crime as criminals realized they would not be met with lethal force, and extract a terrible price in the population’s ability, and collective will, to resist tyrrany.
Of course, I love some of the new technology in guns. Once I save enough money (and it matters enough to me — maybe in my forties), I’d love one of those guns which recognizes authorized bearers, and only allows them to fire it. But while I think it would be a smart decision to have such a firearm in the house, I don’t think requirements to use such devices (or comparable trigger-locks) should be a legal requirement.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment:
“As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life — so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.”
So much for work, huh?
If I remember correctly (and my memory is quite bad) one of our states decided to allow everyone to carry a gun. What they found was the crime rate dropped drastically because you didn’t know who had a gun on them and who didn’t, so you’d be risking your own life to pull a gun on someone else. Seems like it was one of our south eastern states. Anyone have anymore information on that?
I believe that being well educated in whatever area is at hand helps prevent a lot of the typical problems. Gun safety is a big issue. My neighbor recently became a cop and therefore has a gun on him at all times. In order for him to become a cop, every member of his family was required to learn to shoot the gun, as well as gun safety. Not a bad idea.
An example of lack of education (a bit off the topic) is the Utah drivers license requirements. When you go in as an out of stater to get a Utah license, you are handed a drivers hand book in your native language and you’re given as long as you need to find the correct answers out of your hand book and mark them on your test papers. Therefore, we have BAD drivers in Utah. No one knows what the laws actually are.
But today, I think I’ll have some banana creme pie!–
Christy
Florida
Florida. See note below to that effect.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Will you flippin’ marry me?
Will you flippin’ marry me? ThANK YOU! more guns=less crime!
EDIT by matthew: My blog, my rules. No f-bombs, period.
Which fallacy is this..
Is it affirming the antecedent or appeal to authority?
I can’t decide.
It does not follow that because bad people wanted to restrict guns and good people want guns to exist that it is a good idea for guns to be restricted.
Find a good argument against the raised price on bullet theory.
Find an argument that foolows regarding gun shows.
Find an argument that refutes the “impulse shootings” done by legal gun owners who happened to be mad at the guy next to them, happened to have a gun, happened to fire it and happened to accidentally hit a bystander.
Quotes…
Neither, it’s just a list of nifty quotes I’ve collected which center around weapons and society. In particular, the attitudes of Mussolini and Hitler are adequate (is there such a thing as “appeal to reverse authority” or “appeal to bad example”? Maybe that fits under the heading of “anecdotal evidence”) to explain the motivations for much gun-control legislation.
Stepping back for a moment to discuss logic, affirming the antecedent is a valid form of argument. Invalidation requires the premises be false. So if I’m affirming an antecedent based on false premises, though the logical structure is correct, I’ve come to a false conclusion. If that’s the case, then state the false premise 🙂
For those who aren’t fans of logic, affirming the antecedent takes place in this form:
So to break it down:
therefore
It’s a cornerstone of logic, and something being an affirmation of the antecedent isn’t a problem in an argument.
I think you meant “affirmation of the consequent”, which is this:
It’s a subtle distortion that people miss, and I hear it all the time in political speeches. They are never so clear about their assertions, though, muddying them up. You can also sometimes hear affirmation of the consequent paraphrased as “correlation does not equal causation”. Sometimes it can be handy shorthand for figuring stuff out (my fender is dented; did I hit something?) but sometimes it can lead to disastrously wrong conclusions if it’s followed (my fender is dented; I hit something. How could I have hit something when I didn’t know it? OH MY GOSH I HAVE ALZHEIMERS, I CAN’T REMEMBER DENTING MY FENDER!)
I don’t think I did that, though, particularly given the context (responding to Sam’s original post).
I didn’t have a point besides a string of quotes from various famous and infamous people on the topic until my last two paragraphs. Note the time: this posting (to which you responded) was not in response to your original posting at all. We posted nearly simultaneously, then I saw your post where I responded that I did not have time to respond more fully.
Still don’t have the time. Maybe tonight. Spent my break writing about logic. What kind of geek am I?
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Pie
I like city of heroes pie.
Matt, tell me you honestly think that the current system of gun regulation works.
You don’t, do you?
The True Fallacy
The actual fallacy is that Matt apparently believes that if the general U.S. public wasn’t allowed to own guns, then there would be 30,000 homicides a year by:
-Knives -Poison -Electricity -Baseball Bats -Acid -Nerve Gas -Bombs
I was trying to look up the National Association of Hit Men and find out what they recommend in the event that a gun isn’t available for executing (get it?) a murder-for-hire. Couldn’t find anything.
Anyway, the original post wasn’t about gun ownership, but about how crazy it is that we continue to call things “shocking” that happen routinely.
Already covered that
Nope, I already covered that one in an earlier post. Fun straw man, though 🙂 The fact is that fatal gun accidents would be reduced, yes. But that’s probably the only category of crime that would be reduced. Violent crime increases when the predators know their prey to be unarmed. It may not be equally fatal, but it will be more common.
I would rather live in a society where I am allowed to defend myself than in one where I am prevented from doing so. Should my right to carry a firearm in public be removed, I would consider it my responsibility to find a home in a new country where the inalienable right of self-defense, and the responsiblity of communal national defense, is not taken so lightly.
Doubt that will happen in the U.S. in my lifetime, but there you have it. I’m a supporter of both the ACLU and the NRA 🙂 In my opinion, they are fighting the same fight, and between the two of them I have many of my rights covered. Of course, if you put an average ACLU member and an average NRA member at the same table, you might have a fight on your hands…
(I’m picturing a big, burly Idaho man in a plaid shirt with a buck knife on his belt sitting across from a slender, citi-fied gay man in dance pants and a purple shirt.)
That said, it’s an interesting correlation that those places in the U.S. with the most restrictive gun ownership laws (Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and California) are those with the greatest homicide rates.
Restrictive gun laws don’t mean that it’s tougher for criminals to get guns, or that it makes them more afraid of owning one. It makes it tougher for law-abiding citizens to get guns, and more afraid of owning one for self-protection and national security because they could get in trouble.
Facts:
I admit, all the selective statistics themselves do not seem to, necessarily, make a strong case for liberal gun laws. But you put them together, and individual gun ownership seems to be a powerful recipe for more civic responsibility.
The people I know who own guns legally (not convicted felons, basically) are responsible, hard-working, average Americans. If we make the purchase of guns and ammunition any more difficult, we’re just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Back to the original post, though, yeah, I think it’s odd to call something “shocking” that is no longer shocking at all. But the news media hopes it is.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment:
Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese
— National Lampoon, “Deteriorata”
Here’s Your Logic
Matt, you’re telling me:
-Guns don’t stop people from hurting other people. -Guns don’t cause people to hurt other people. -People can do lethal harm without guns. -You need a gun so that other people will be afraid to hurt you.
On this frame…
-Nuclear weapons don’t stop countries from hurting other countries. -Nuclear weapons don’t cause countries to hurt other countries. -Countries can inflict lethal harm without nuclear weapons.
So why does it matter if other countries go out and develop nuclear weapons programs? Everyone should have nuclear weapons, right?
Faulty
Incorrect statement of my position. Guns do stop people from hurting other people. Man is hurting you, pull out your gun, kill him. Your hurting is stopped. His hurting stops shortly thereafter when his heart stops pumping.
Correct. People have known how to hurt one another for a very long time before the invention of the gun, and will continue to hurt/kill one another long after today’s firearms have been surpassed by more lethal technology.
Partially correct. People can, but without guns (or similar, no-strength-required implements), lethality is not equal. Guns are an equalizer, partially removing genetics from the equation of who survives a conflict. While I’m somewhat concerned about such equalizing effects on the population over time, the actual number of homicides using firearms diminish in statistical significance compared even to automobile accidents.
Another incorrect summary of my opinion, but only in perspective. The fact that you might legally be carrying a gun raises the risk for a potential violent criminal or invader. Whether you carry or not, the right to carry, and the knowledge in the criminals mind of the average citizens exercise of that right, reduces your risk of violent offense.
Unfortunately, Sammy, the rest of your argument doesn’t hold water. Individual liberty and international law are completely different animals. On an individual level, average citizens carrying firearms reduces the risk of foreign invasion and violent crime. On an international level, a nuclear weapon serves a similar deterrent effect, but the comparison is flawed because a personal sidearm does not have the ability to destroy large portions of the ecosystem. Or, potentially, the entire ecosystem.
There are so many myths about gun ownership that are just wrong. High-profile shootings create their own myths. The fact is that gang warfare accounts for an enormous majority of gun-related deaths. Curtail gang activities (through things like legalizing and regulating certain controlled substances), and you control the homicide rate.
More fun facts:
The facts — and statistics — do not paint a good picture in favor of gun control. Liberalization of personal firearm laws, within reason (note that caveat! I’m not saying sell WMDs at 7-11!), reduces crime, deters foreign invasion, and saves more lives than it takes.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment:
Alex Haley was adopted!
I’ll Let Readers Make Their Own Decision
“Guns don’t stop people from hurting you”: if someone wants to hurt you, they’re going to do it with or without a gun. You’re manipulating the intent of the statement.
“People can do lethal harm without guns”: how can that be partially correct? Can they or can’t they?
You think everyone owning guns deters criminals from coming up to you on the street, or breaking into your house? What are you talking about? I discussed this point on a previous blog. The worst thing you can do is pull a gun on someone who’s attempting robbery. Wielding a weapon in those circumstances leads to terrible results. We just had a neighborhood police-watch session (fun! fun!) and the precinct captain stated how the worst thing to do in an attack situation is pull a gun to defend yourself. It becomes a street/hood version of fire superiority.
Furthermore, referencing auto accidents is wacked, because accidents aren’t vehicular homicides.
Black-and-white?
Ahh, black-and-white propositions…
A gun can stop someone from hurting you. It can prevent them from hurting you. Find a different way to phrase it, and I won’t manipulate the intent 🙂
Of course yes, but with the big but: guns are an equalizer of lethality. People’s capacity for lethal harm varies by individual, largely as a product of genetics and training.
Absolutely. Proven fact, not up for debate. Countries which restrict the ownership of guns by citizens have more crime. There’s more less-lethal crime, but more violent crime. There are exceptions to every rule of course, but Great Britain’s a prime example. Crime rate much worse than the U.S., but a murder rate that’s about 1/5 that of the U.S. in general.
It’s the knowledge of the potential — not necessarily the fact of ownership — which is the deterrent to criminals.
No, the worst thing you can do is fail to defend your family from a violent intruder. To do so is an abdication of individual responsibility to the State. There are less-lethal solutions; I had a conversation with Justin last night on this subject, and he suggested simply getting a big dog. But for personal defense, in absence of a canine, other solutions simply aren’t there yet.
Find me a “stun gun” that incapacitates someone through a leather jacket and a sweater, and the terms of the discussion will change.
2.5 million crimes deterred by the use of a firearm every year in the U.S. alone do not support this assertion. The firearms are used lethally in less than 1% of these altercations.
To paraphrase myself from that same discussion on the phone with Justin last night, if an intruder came into my home and I had a gun, I would stand at the stop of my stairs, gun-in-hand, and inform the intruder of my intent to shoot if he took a single step up the stairs. I would not attempt to interfere with his robbery other than to contact the police.
I’d rather not take a human life if I can avoid it. Even taking the lives of animals makes me slightly ill when I contemplate it. I’m a peaceful man. But abdication of one’s personal responsibility for self and family-defense to the state is a recipe for tyrrany and victimization.
I’m not putting on my tinfoil hat yet, but that reeks of propagandizing. Taking the gun out of the hands of citizens makes the police’s job easier, assuredly. It’s easier to “tell the good guy from the bad guy”.
But making the police’s job easier is not my job. My first responsibility is to do whatever I can to safeguard the security of my self and my family. If the bad guy has a gun and I have nothing but a foul temper and a quick wit, I still lose.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Fine, Let’s Play The Data Game
I wasn’t going to go and fight data with data, because as Justin mentions below, it’s a common sense/reality thing. You’re not a trained gun professional, and just because you own a gun doesn’t mean it’s actually going to create protection. Owning a gun is not an ounce of prevention, it’s an cold, steel fallacy. The only person on this Blog who could use one is Graham; the rest of us (if we lived to actually point it) in a defense situation would be shaking and miss a target standing 15 feet in front of us.
But for those of you who still want guns around the house…
*In 2000, 1,776 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 1,007 committed suicide with guns, and 193 died in unintentional shootings. *A total of 3,042 young people were killed by firearms in the U.S., one every three hours. *Each year from 1993 to 1997, gun murders were committed by 1,621 killers under the age of 18. *In 2000, 80% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm. *During 2000, 62% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms. In 1986, guns were involved in 38% of such offenses. *Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S. *The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. *For every child killed by a gun, four are wounded. *In a study of inner-city 7-year-olds and their exposure to violence, 75% of them reported hearing gun shots. *The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is 10 times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century. *Medical costs of gun violence put a terrible burden on health service providers and governments. When indirect costs of gun violence – loss of productivity, mental health treatment and rehabilitation, legal and judicial costs – are figured in, gun violence costs the US over $100 billion annually. *The Annual Bill To The Nation Annual costs of gun violence in the US have been estimated at between $100 billion and $126 billion. *Most victims of gun violence are uninsured and the public pays. Of $4 billion in medical costs in 1995, the public paid about 85 percent. Of victims hospitalized for gunshot wounds in California in 1996, 81 percent were uninsured. *In 2001, suicide by all means took the lives of 30,622 people in the United States: Of this number, 55% (16,869) were completed using a firearm. *In 2001, gun-related completed suicides accounted for 16,869 (57%) of all gun related deaths in the U. S.: that’s 46 lives every day that are lost to gun violence. *In 2001, was the third leading cause of death for ages 15-23 and 25-34, accounting for 54% and 51% respectively, for completed suicides using firearms. *A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. *In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday. *In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age – second only to motor vehicle crashes. *In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34. *From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year. *Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone’s life with a gun. *For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting (note that every self-defense is legally justifiable) there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings. *The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. *The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold. *A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. *One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked. *Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home, and 40% occur in the home of a friend. *When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes. *Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent. *In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.
Hmmm
Ever heard the old joke?
Mathematics is all Psychology Psychology is all Biology Biology is all Chemistry Chemistry is all Physics Physics is all Mathematics
As a parent and a responsible citizen, if I were to have a gun in my house, it would be my duty and responsibility to A) make sure everyone in my family had proper gun safety B) make sure the gun was properly stored and lock, ammo as well C) make sure the parents of the homes my son went to visit fell under the same guidelines
If I were to have a gun in my house, I’d spend the time to make sure I knew how to use it.
It’s different for different areas. Where I live, I have family and friends, parents all, who have guns in their house. Both rifles for hunting and hadnguns for whatever. I have a 6-year-old nephew who can handle a gun better than I. It’s a right of manhood up here to go hunt deer and to know how to handle a gun.
But the thing is, the fathers teach the sons (and daughters too) how to care for a gun. When you are taught the respect a gun demands, it becomes like any other tool. How many people are disfigured or killed misusing power tools each year? I bet the numbers are high there too. True, a gun’s sole pupose is to injure, but the threat of injury is a deterrent. There’s probably a 99.9999% chance it would never be used, but why not be prepared?
The point of the matter is things are different for those in the cities than those in the sticks. Just because some parents don’t bother to raise their kids right doesn’t mean we should take away a basic right for all.
Remember, politicians use numbers, and I can take numbers and twist them any which way to get what I want out of them. If you don’t want guns in your house, don’t have them. If you do, then buy one. Let the government make it as safe as possible, but not by taking away the right.
My $.02 Weed
And Brusco
Sorry Jon, forgot to include you above on my personal list of gun experts. 🙂
numbers dont lie!
how many times does one need to use the 2nd ammendment as an excuse to whimsically purchase guns like a kid in a candy store with $100. So many gun owners have the gaul to look at statistics such as the ones provided on this site,and still refuse to open their minds up to at least the possibility that their home becomes much more dangerous than if they didn’t have a firearm in the first place.
i used to be a huge NRA proponent and I hope the rest of America open up their eyes to this problem before they have to learn the hard way,such as myself.
not one person in this country(rational person that is)can honestly say that they feel safe with half of America owning guns.i’m more fearful of another American shooting me accidentaly,then a foreign invader shooting me on purpose.
once again,corporate America has their tentacles wrapped around the minds of weak-willed individuals who dont feel safe,or macho without a .45 caliber pistol stuffed in their pants-permit or not,cop or criminal.
You are the lamest excuse of
You are the lamest excuse of a human being i swear it. if 1,776 children and teenagers wanted to murder someone. and guns didn’t exist. THEY’D STILL ALL GET MUDERED. with a knife bare hands anything. because they are flippin’ CRAZY enough to do it. if 1,007 committed suicide with guns Then all 1,007 would still be dead today wether or not guns existed…they wanted to KILL THEMSELVES you cancer of STupid.and if 193 died in unintentional shootings/ Thats only because they are uneducated morons like yourself with no common FLIPPIN’ sense. please go get a brain. PLease.
EDIT by matthew: F-bombs f-bombed.
Dude, Get A Clue
Hey Shooter,
Have you noticed how most of the people who post here manage to get their point across without insulting others and droping f-bombs? I don’t care if you’re for guns or against guns or even a gun yourself, if you come in this blog and use language and manners like that, then I’m against you.
I have to think your point is valid, but people like you are the reason the mass majority of Americans view the NRA as a bunch of redneck violent uneducated hillbillies.
If you can’t make your point without being disrespectful to others or sounding like Andrew Dice Clay, then please take your opinion elsewhere. I shudder when the vision of a person like you holding a gun pops into my head.
Shape up or ship out. Please. Weed
Violent redneck redacted
I have exercised my godlike powers and excised the foul language. However, I have left his opinion up for now, because I like your comment (Weed) enough that I don’t want to lose the context by nuking his post 🙂
Weed == Good. F-bomber-driveby == bad.
Makes me think that perhaps I should turn moderation on for all anon posters again. In switching to a “captcha” for unregistered posters, I knew that I covered the spammers, but I forgot abouut the insulting plebian swine.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Quick response
Here’s my summary response:
This makes no sense to me as phrased. If you’ll rephrase, I’ll come up with an appropriate response.
I can reload my own shells. This would do nothing but raise the price on used brass, cause the reloading market to burgeon, and discourage responsible shooters from making sure they are competent with their chosen weapon. Some people shoot recreationally, and even professionally. Why not raise the price of baseball bats, since they can be used in a homicide?
Would you prevent secondary sales of guns entirely? What if it was illegal for you to sell your car? It’s a loophole in the existing 5-day-waiting-period law, surely. I think the best thing to do would be for gun show attendees to be required to provide a valid photo ID to purchase a gun, and have a station at all gun shows where the background of the individual making the purchase can be instantly checked to make sure they aren’t a felon. A law-abiding citizen wishing to purchase a firearm should not be prevented from doing so, nor should their purchase be “tracked” for future weapon confiscation. I don’t have a good answer for the existing loophole, though, except to repeal the 5-day waiting period entirely, implement an instant-check system, and call it good. There’d have to be some limit on the amount of vendors, though. An instant-check system would be stupid and overkill if I go to my buddy Joe’s house and buy myself a shotgun, while it would be a really good idea at these huge, mostly-anonymous gun shows. Then again, I haven’t been to a gun show in several years, I’m not up to date on the regulations surrounding it.
Innocent bystanders account for less than 1% of gun fatalities in the U.S. per year. The world is dangerous. A well-armed citizenry makes it, on the whole, less dangerous.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment:
MORE SPORTS RESULTS:
The Beverly Hills Freudians tied the Chicago Rogerians 0-0 last Saturday night. The match started with a long period of silence while the Freudians waited for the Rogerians to free associate and the Rogerians waited for the Freudians to say something they could paraphrase. The stalemate was broken when the Freudians’ best player took the offensive and interpreted the Rogerians’ silence as reflecting their anal-retentive personalities. At this the Rogerians’ star player said “I hear you saying you think we’re full of ka-ka.” This started a fight and the match was called by officials.
guns guns guns
“The world is dangerous. A well-armed citizenry makes it, on the whole, less dangerous.”
This is an incredibly depressing thought, and one which I refuse to even consider.
If the only way to be “safe” is for everyone to be armed so that everyone is in constant fear of everyone else’s firepower, I’d rather take my chances of getting mugged on the way to my car.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Mob rule
Hey, we’re just the most intelligent (that we know of) apes on the planet. We’re smart enough to know better, but mob rule is still the order of the day. Witness the US’s uncontested invasion of Iraq. Sure, it ruffled feathers. Made a lot of people angry. But there was no retribution, because our country is one of the most powerful on the planet.
If we’d been a small country with a small military and we took over a sovereign country to impose our form of government, I am sure retribution would have been swift.
Anyway, yeah, I know it’s depressing. I wish the world was more civil. But it’s not, and it behooves us to make sure that, even if we choose not to exercise the right, that we preserve our right to keep and bear arms in our own, and our nation’s, self-defense.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
no retribution
“Hey, we’re just the most intelligent (that we know of) apes on the planet. We’re smart enough to know better, but mob rule is still the order of the day. Witness the US’s uncontested invasion of Iraq. Sure, it ruffled feathers. Made a lot of people angry. But there was no retribution, because our country is one of the most powerful on the planet.”
I wouldn’t call 1400 American deaths “no retribution”. It’s simply a matter of us being so big and brawny that those attempting retribution are unable to make much of an impact.
You are correct, however, in implying that the US is the 400-pound gorilla which the rest of the world must appease “or else”. But that’s equally as depressing.
I would rather turn my attention towards figuring out WHY there is so much more gun violence in this country than in any other civilized nation in the world.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
A question
Ben/Matt,
Is Ben’s statement true? Is there more gun violence in America than any other country? Is this per capita? It’s a no-brainer that if we are the biggest country that allows guns, then we’re going to have the most gun violence. Its like saying we’re the worst drivers, when that’s true because we have 10 times more cars that any other country.
My $.02 Weed
darn
I’ve seen it in a number of different publications, but of course now I can’t find any sources.
US gun-related crimes average something like 11,000 a year. In Australia and Canada, that number is less than 100. Even taking into account the different in population size, that’s a big difference.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
I’d just like to point out the questionable wisdom of taking advice on weaponry from a man who believed that all men secretly wanted to sleep with their mothers. 😉
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Abstinence
Abstaining in fear now that I might get shot.
Wow, Where’s the pie?
I NEED MORE PIE OR I’LL, I’LL SHOOT! What? No bullets in my finger? I’m not inspector gadget? Hmmm. I’ll settle for the banana.–
Christy
Ha!
LOL
Guns R Us
I used to think that getting rid of guns would be the best thing. We don’t need guns, we’re a enlightened society, guns only kill people, the NRA is a bunch of idiots.
Then I moved to an isolated, wooded home, and had kids. The the towers fell.
The truth is, there are people out there who disobey laws. We have laws to protect us, but they’re usually applied after the fact. We punish the criminal after the theft, after the rape, after the murder. Our laws cannot assume intent, which I think is good, but that takes the police out of the prevention business.
However, I have no intention myself of waiting for the criminal act to occur before taking action. An ounce of prevention is worth an pound of cure. I have an alarm system, and a nice big ole sign letting you know that I have an alarm system. I also think that having a gun is a necessary evil. Are guns good or bad? Depends on which side of the barrel you’re on. But are they necessary? A resounding yes.
We as a society, until we have a face-to-face encounter with violent crime, are seduced by the Gene Roddenberry fiction of all humans being essentially good. Which is just that, fiction. If all human beings were raised in wonderful homes with loving parents and abundant resources, they hey, maybe that would be possible. But in truth, we have kids raised in horrible conditions by abusive or absent parents who have no moral compass. They want it, we have it, and they think they can take it. If we meet in normal circumstances, I’d be inclined to try and help them. If we meet in the dark in my house, I’m inclined to defend myself and my family no matter what.
Now we throw in the fact that a large portion of the world doesn’t care for us. They’ve demonstrated repeatedly that they would kill themselves for the opportunity to kill us. Is the probability that I’ll meet one of them face to face high? No, it’s probably very small. But just because there haven’t been enemy soliders on American soil in forever doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen. They just won’t be dressed in uniform.
And then we have Bush, in his conservatism, taking away civil liberties. Maybe since he’s from Texas, he’s leaving arms alone. But the idea is that if the government tries to overstep its bounds, even to the point of ignoring the masses, the masses can step up and put the government back in place. It a very powerful point, but overlooked because we haven’t had to use it in many moons. But ask people from other countries who’ve had dictatorships, and they’ll tell you what a vital right that is.
The cure to needing guns is to raise the standard of living for everyone in the world. Fun, happy people don’t shoot each other. Poor, hungry, disenfranchised people do.
And Matt has a good point about guns being equalizers. Without guns, it then becomes a matter of strength in a violent encounter. With guns, it becomes a matter of aim. For little guys like me, I like the odds of bettering my aim than being able to tangle with a 6’2″, 220 lb dude.
It’s an ivory ideal to think guns aren’t necessary. It’s not a realistic fact. One shouldn’t be happy about it, but one should be prepared for the world we live in as we try to change it for our children.
My $.02 Weed
Violent intruder..
Umm, the odds of you being home when a violent intruder comes in .. and the odds of him coming in and getting you.. and the odds of you getting to your gun in time.. and the odds of you killing him before ha kills you (something he might not have been considering until you pulled a gun) are very every very small.
The odds of you being accosted in your home are actualy very small. In fact, the odds of you ever being the victim of a violent crime are, while more present, still small.
I’ve had my house robbed, I’ve been at the other end of a gun (a gun held by a kid whose parents probably owned it – he was 15 or 16 – I was 13) but I’ve never been accosted in my home. I don’t know anyone who has. I know very few people who know people who have. I do know a kid who attempted suicide with his parent’s gun, someone who is in jail for taking his friend’s dad’s gun, driving down the street and taking potshots at windows of houses (for lack of anything else to do).. I have had a bullet fly through my house, shatter my wall, and lodge itself at the head level of where I normally sit – It was from a gun that was legally owned being cleaned by the owner’s friend that accidentally went off.
We’ve been lied to by slasher films and security commercials. Odds are no one is coming to get us… but if they were, we can be sure that they can buy a gun at a pawn shop for less than a hundred dollars, and bullets for nothing, never be checked out thoroughly.. and have their gun in hand while we’re scrambling out of bed to find ours.
Hmmm
I’ll still take my chances of defending myself. Sitting around while someone invades my house and takes away my sense of security forever? I’ll be alive, but then I’ll always hear the voices in the dark.
Like I said, the gun is there as a deterrence. I take full responsibility to teach my sons proper gun care. I have an alarm system, which will keep 95% of any criminal away. And I’ll let anyone know I have a gun, which should keep away the other 5%.
Your argument about not beng accosted at home makes me think we should allow guns to be carried at all times, since we’re more likely to be accosted away from home.
I’m sorry there are idiots who have mishandled guns around you. I’m not going to give up my right to have one because of it. I’m all for parental liability in gun misuse cases and background checks and gun safety. But to take away guns? Nope.
My $.02 Weed
Packing
Actually, in most states (I think Maryland, California, Illinois, and a handful of others) you are perfectly within your rights to carry a publicly-displayed sidearm in public. In most cases, one must only register in order to carry the weapon concealed, and in certain business and government establishments.
Of course, carrying a pistol on your hip in full display is frowned upon by society. They think you’re some kind of gun nut…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Guns
If the ignominious Al Franken was being honest with the facts, he would have said “Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. With Cars.”
In 2001 43,987 people died in motor vehicle related incidents (as reported by the CDC).
Also, the facts on gun deaths previously quoted were quite misleading. Condsider that of the 29,573 gun-related deaths in 2001, 16,869 were from suicide; 802 were accidental; 323 were from legal intervention; 231 were of ‘undetermined origin’. This means that a far smaller number – 11,348 – were gun-related murders.
Do you think the the approximately 17,000 people that killed themselves with a gun would have found another way to do it if they had not had access to a gun?
Something else to consider: every year approximately 2 million people protect themselves with a gun. The price we pay as a society for this right is that 11,348 times a year the victims are unable or unsuccessful in protecting themselves. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will tilt these statistics in the other direction.
11, 348 isn’t anything to hang up your hat about.
isn’t 11,348 still too many, even if it isnt the more extraordinary 29,573?
Whoa…
Here’s an interesting occurrence for a Monday morning… I take a quick break from work to browse a Blog that interests me, and about half an hour later I have actually had my stance on gun control (which I have held for most of my life) pretty much reversed. And even if not reversed, at least it’s getting some serious second glances.
How often does that happen in our lives, that by examination of well-reasoned arguments on BOTH sides of a major issue our minds are actually changed? Take a bow, everyone.
Going with the “ounce of prevention” line of discussion, if I did own a gun I think it would be more effective to have it strapped to my hip than concealed on my person. Actually, what I’d REALLY love to do would be to walk around in public not with a gun strapped to my hip, but with a katana or medieval broadsword strapped to my back. Here’s why:
So much of preemptive prevention is about making yourself look like a difficult target. Predators hunt the weaker members of the herd, after all. If I’ve got my gun concealed on me, Mr. Mugger in the alley has no way of knowing that I could bring deadly force to bear. So he might still come after me, and he might beat me to the draw. If I was visibly packing heat, he’d probably be more inclined to reconsider.
Even more so if I were packing steel (much more visible than a gun): because you got to consider that the only two reasons why someone would walk down the street with a katana strapped to their back are that a) they’re totally crazy, which would make them unpredictable and not a safe target, or b) they really, really know how to use it, which also elevates their threat level beyond acceptable boundaries for a predator.
Of course, maybe this is just me longing for the good old days of swordplay, when there was a real art to weapon use that’s fallen by the wayside. ::sigh:: I guess savage violence just isn’t as beautiful as it used to be.
—————————– Who needs a gun? “I can kill you with my brain…” Arthur Rowan
The only problem
With that theory is that you’re assuming the other person will follow logic like yourself. You forget the unbalanced out there who will try and take you out simplly because you’re obviously threatening them by wearing a katana.
Matter of fact, we’re all threatening them. So it’s them against the world!!!
Sometimes, the world is really a different color in other people’s worlds. Those are the ones that scare me.
My $.02 Weed
The ultimate argument
Excellent point about how your average attacker is not as logical as yours truly… in fact, I’m sure there’s many arguments against the use of three pounds of folded steel, honed to a molecular sharpness, to solve your problems.
Unfortunately, all those arguments crumble against the simple fact that katanas are cool, which harkens back to one of Aristotle’s principles: “Ean orios, tote axios,” roughly translated “If cool, then worthy.”
The principle essentially holds that how cool something is directly correlates to its logical strength in an argument.
Ergo: A) Katanas are wicked cool. B) Wicked cool things are the ultimate way to solve problems. C) Katanas are the ultimate way to solve problems.
Your skill in logic is strong, grasshopper, but it is not yet strong enough. Continue your training. When you have blown apart 10,000 straw men with the force of your own hot air (as I have done), then come challenge me again…
—————————– “I can kill you with my brain…” Arthur Rowan
In many states…
In many–actually, most–states, it is perfectly legal to walk with a sidearm or sword in public. It’s considered uncouth, though, I think, and my work would want to have a word with me about their workplace safety requirements… Nevertheless, in most places you are entitled to keep and bear arms, publicly displayed, in most public places where there is not a gun-check.
Matter of fact, in Utah it’s perfectly legal to walk into a bank packing heat in your holster. The only place it’s illegal to do so is certain government buildings (where there is a gun check room), and some private property owners restrict firearms on their property.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Moving to utah.
Now.
Once, Twice, Thrice
“Three schools have been hit by deadly attacks in the past week. A gunman killed himself and three students Monday at a one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania; on Friday a 15-year-old Wisconsin student shot and killed his principal; and last Wednesday a man took six girls hostage in Colorado, sexually assaulting them before fatally shooting one girl and killing himself.”
And, once again, I continue to hear the word spoken by the media…”shocking”, “a shocking event”, “truly shocking”…
What’s so shocking when it happens everyday?
This is what happens when you give people guns.
Baby With The Bathwater
Sam, again I must disagree. Since Pandora’s box is open and guns are widely available, banning guns is not the answer. Then only the criminals will have guns. Britain has banned guns, and their firearm crime rate is rising. Google it and see for yourself.
The problem is that with expanded freedoms come expanded risks. Used to be someone shot up a place, it maybe got some local press, but wasn’t all over the news. Nowadays, someone shoots up the place, and it’s on TV, the internet, talk radio, everywhere. This performs two things: it makes everyone think the world is going down the tubes, and it gives other people who are impressionable and mentailly imbalanced an idea. They can act out their anger and get on TV. Who in American doesn’t want to be on TV and famous?
The sad truth is that we can’t protect everyone everywhere at all times. Humans are a violent race who’ve just recently attempted to live peaceable with themselves. The police force isn’t big enough to perform preventative measures, they just have to clean up the results and hopefully make the bad guys pay. It’s up to us to be both smart about the situations we put ourselves in as well and prepared for whatever situations force themselves upon us.
I want the right to own a firearm. With that right I must accept the responsibility of proper ownership for me and my family. Hoping it won’t happen to me and then hoping the police will save me isn’t being properly prepared, it’s putting your head in the sand.
And it still is shocking, it’s just not unexpected. It’s just that America can’t seem to understand that a lot of turmoil occurs during the years you’re in school, and therefore of anger will be directed at schools. They should educate and arm certain teachers at schools, to protect them. But that will never happen, because what if that teacher goes off the deep end? What if the police officer responding goes off the deep end? What if the president goes off the deep end? You can’t live in fear, you have to trust the people you have and hope they reward your trust.
Otherwise, let’s build walls around everyone and live in constant fear.
My $.02 Weed
Where did I write: ‘ban guns’?
Weed, my most excellent amigo, where have I written a request to ban guns as a solution? I’m asking my friends here not to use them. It starts with us.
Death by gunfire isn’t shocking. It’s not unexpected. It happens every single day. It’s awful.
But if you want to own a firearm and with that right “accept the responsibility of proper ownership for me and my family,” then when somebody from your family breaks open the home gun cabinet and shoots up a school or neighbor down the street, then maybe a solution is to punish both shooter and the person who accepted responsibility for that shooter?
Now there’s a solution.
Actually…
Actually that’s already the case. It’s a tort called “negligent entrustment”.
— Ben
Trust
Of course, that’s not a criminal act, though, just a tortable one. Tort == “he hurt me, make him pay”, misdemeanor or felony == “he hurt me, send him to jail”. A subtle but important difference.
If the child is given a firearm when they reach a responsible age (twelve years old is fairly normal), taught how to use it safely, and regularly instructed and tested in responsible use of the firearm, I don’t think that could possibly be negligent. In most of these cases where kids are shooting kids, they’re pilfering the weapons from a grandparent or parent, and have not been routinely mentored in the proper use of the weapon.
Christy (my wife)wants a .22 at the same time that I’ll be giving my daughter hers in about a year, so that we can all go shoot together. You’re going to have bizarre fringe cases no matter what you do; I trust that if I do everything in my power to make sure my children and spouse know how to use a firearm safely, that they will do so.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Responsibility…
I concur. If a minor from my household were to use a firearm I gave him or her inappropriately, I should be punished for his/her actions, as should she or he.
However, I don’t think that would solve anything, except to reassure people. Harris & Klebold stole their grandfather’s guns, and he certainly had not consented to them using them.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
The Problem
The problem is that when someone steals a gun and uses it to go on a rampage, it becomes front page news and is all over the media. But you don’t hear about the stories where a good gun owner uses their gun to prevent violence in their house. For one, there’s violence prevented from the simple fact that it’s known a person owns a gun and they’re not an easy target. Then, most times if a good gun owner does use their gun legally to protect themselves, it’s not going to be in the news because it’s not that big of a deal.
I’d like to see statistics showing how many legal uses of guns there are for self-defense. That would help determine how bad this “gun use epidemic” is.
My $.02 Weed
Statistics…
Well, here are useful stats:
* When a concealed-carry law is permitted in an area, crime (particularly violent crime) goes down, permanently. This is a reliable statistic, and has been the case in every county which has allowed liberal concealed-carry laws. (Source: Lott & Mustard, 1987) * Colorado enacted stricter gun control laws in 1996. Their rate of gun crime among teens has tripled since then. * From 1987 to 1992, Florida’s rate of gun-related crime dropped 25%, while the nation’s rose 9%. Florida enacted “shall issue” concealed-carry permit legislation in 1987. * According to a summary of the Lott & Mustard study, “In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found that guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually.7 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,” who wanted to “eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police,” said, “The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.”8 A study for the Dept. of Justice found that 34% of felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and 40% of felons have not committed crimes, fearing potential victims were armed.9
Simple fact: responsible, widespread gun ownership deters crime much more effectively than any police or restriction program. Pandora’s box is open, and the best way to fight the negative side effects of widespread firearm ownership is to put more firearms into the hands of law-abiding citizens.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
The solution…
The solution, IMHO, is mandatory firearm ownership for all citizens (except conscientious objectors).
I’d go further in my quest for deterrence. I’m still working on the recipe, but I think it would have these ingredients:
I think there would be more ingredients in my ideal gun society, but that’s it for now. Sure, call me a loony if you want, but an armed society is a polite society. A move toward restriction of personal firearm ownership is a move toward greater barbarity and concentration of power in the hands of elites who will abuse it.
(Some may notice references to similar themes from essays by Robert Heinlein.)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Shoot me, please.
Maybe the badge could look like the Target logo? Concealed carrying is important so that you don’t become the first victim in any room. You’ll recall the 1994 hostage standoff in the SLC library many years back where an off-duty officer, carrying a concealed weapon, was part of the hostage group? He ultimately shot the criminal just as he was about to murder his first hostage. That wouldn’t have worked with a badge.
But, since this whole gun-control issue is kind of a thread-jack, let me comment briefly on “shocking.” School shootings are shocking. If they’re not shocking to the general population, they’re certainly shocking to the local communities. It’s like saying that winning a $10 million lottery is no big deal because it happens all the time. Of course, when it happens to you, it’s a very big deal. News reporters, particularly local ones, are simply reflecting that, and once it’s on the AP wire it gets read (basically) verbatim nationwide. 81 people die every day, but we don’t hear a lot about them because it’s not shocking when crack-whores gun each other down or people shoot themselves. When suburban schools get turned into personal Quake games, that’s shocking. And when non-students start doing it, and adding sexual assaults to the mix, it’s really shocking.
If you stop being shocked by stuff like this, you’re getting desensitized to it. A bad thing, in my opinion; I hope I’m always shocked at the idea of a man aiming a pistol at 6,7, and 8-year-old girls and shooting them.
Hijacked??
What comic was it that said this?
“Pain + you – me = funny” (or something to that effect)
I think a badge for a normal Joe like you or me makes sense. Someone concealing while in their line of duty shouldn’t need to conceal.
I think Sam’s original post needed to be reworded. It’s still shocking when these events occur, and should be for all time. Unfortunately, it’s not unheard of. We’re not breaking new ground in repravity. 9/11 was unheard of, no one had crashed jet liners into buildings before as a terrorist attack.
I can’t see any other practical solution that what Matt suggests, unfortunately. Getting rid of guns won’t work because Pandora’s box is open. Choosing not to carry is sticking your head in the sand and hoping it doesn’t happen to you. Deterring it by showing you’re prepared with lethal force yourself seems like the only solution to me.
The dude who shot up the Amish community picked that school because he knew it and knew he could pull it off. If Brother Jeremiah was known to be lurking with a shotgun at verious periods of the day, I bet he would have chosed a different school.
And trying to fix the psychos who commit these crimes? Listen to everyone who knew the Amish shooter…he was the nicest guy. How do you fix problems hidden deep in the psyche of an otherwise normal looking person? I’m all for a law mandating parents to raise their children with love, attention, and care, but I seem problems with the enforcability aspect. Until some genius develops the brain wave analyzer who shows us who’s about to go off the deep end, we just have to be prepared (and even after, because that’s a horrible invasion of privacy to have your brain waves scanned, future massacres be damned!)
My $.02 Weed
Lock it?
Given the amount of responses on Sam’s blog entry over quite a long period of time, should I lock it and direct us at a new one?
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Sticking To My Original Intent
Weed, thanks for the defense, but I’m sticking to my original intent.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
Seems like there could be more school shootings than $10M lottery winners? Great, the lottery was won. Was it so shocking that someone won the lottery? Happens often enough.
When the Red Lake, MN shooting transpired, which marked the second school shooting in the state since I moved to the frozen tundra, I made the following assertions:
-School shootings are happening with enough frequency that there’s an expectation they will continue to happen -Sort of like suicide bombings
Soldiers standing post at airports with guns drawn after 9/11 were a shocking sight, until I got used to it. Somebody strapping a bomb to their body and detonating in a crowded place? Daily news, now. And when “crack-whores gun each other down,” are we to sterilize our senses to the fact that drugs are so rampant and people are so destitute that they kill themselves off each day, while the rest of us swat the news off like a day-fly briefly buzzing in front of our eyes?
If you stop getting that awful, frustrated and angry feeling that comes after a school shooting or crack-whore shooting or sexual assault, then it’s worse than the acts themselves.
But it’s not shocking anymore when it happens.