Saturday, January 22, 2011

My Last Gun Post (For A While)

I really don’t like talking about guns, so as the title implies, I promise to make this the last post of its kind for a while.

Gun control is not the slippery slope towards disarmament, it is the method by which gun ownership can continue unopposed. In this article, I’ll be talking about two things in particular: the mythology behind guns and a practical solution to enabling near unrestricted gun ownership.

What probably sparked this article more than anything was a marvelously written piece entitled, “The Myth of the Hero Gunslinger.” I have long held that gun owners are part of their own little cult, so the title alone intrigued me. This article discusses the reality of violent attacks.

The most pertinent part of the article is as follows:

On the day of the shooting [in Tucson], a young man named Joseph Zamudio was leaving a drugstore when he saw the chaos at the Safeway parking lot. Zamudio was armed, carrying his 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. Heroically, he rushed to the scene, fingering his weapon, ready to fire.

Now, in the view of the more-guns proponents, Zamudio might have been able to prevent any carnage, or maybe even gotten off a shot before someone was killed.

When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim,” said Arizona state representative Jack Harper, after a gunman had claimed 19 victims.

“I wish there had been one more gun in Tucson,” said an Arizona Congressman, Rep. Trent Franks, implying like Harper that if only someone had been armed at the scene, Jared Lee Loughner would not have been able to unload his rapid-fire Glock on innocent people.

In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.

He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.

It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.

I don’t think these are reasons to disarm the citizenry. That’s never going to happen, nor should it. But the Tucson shootings should discredit the canard that we need more guns at school, in the workplace, even in Congress.
That is reality. Radio Bloger pointed out quite plainly with videos he posted just how quick and confusing shootouts can be. Life isn’t like Hollywood, and we aren’t all action heroes with lightning fast reflexes, perfect aim, or the ability to identify the correct target instinctively.

While the shooting in Tucson was tragic, there’s something interesting and rare about it: the killer was caught. In the time between the shooting and now, hundreds of people have been killed by guns in America. Literally hundreds. Only a fraction of the killers have been caught. What can we actually do about this?

One proposed solution which I am a huge fan of is identification, not just of the owners, but of the bullets.

We have the capability to stamp every bullet sold in the US with a unique ID which can be traced to the point of purchase. This would be an invaluable tool for tracking down the source of weapons used in crimes. What’s most important, however, is that it would not infringe on any citizen’s right to own firearms.

This solution can’t solve every murder, and it probably won’t prevent many, but it may cause some people to rethink their actions if a bullet can be traced back to them, and it could be used to catch some killers.

I don’t think there is any way of preventing violence outright, either through banning guns or encouraging everyone to have one. What we do know, however, is that gun ownership does not make you safer. States with higher rates of gun ownership lead the nation in homicide, and a study at the University of Pennsylvania found that “people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.”

This is reality, stripped of all the gun rhetoric shoved in our faces by big-money lobbyists like the NRA. While I have no interest in standing in the way of you owning a firearm, you just have to ask yourself one question: am I actually safer owning a gun?

Well, are ya... punk?

38 comments:

  1. Mmmm, the delicious disapproval of gun nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll help articulate for you guys what you're feeling:

    Bret, you put the "statist" in "statistics."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have a tendency toward oversimplification ... and naivete. I was talking with some friends about why we should just eliminate guns--I mean, tasers would pretty much take down a criminal if s/he wasn't armed with a gun, right? I ultimately realized that I was wrong (sadly, reality and utopia are worlds apart), but it was an interesting conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I could snap my fingers and magically make every gun in the world disappear and cause all knowledge of how to make them to be erased and impossible to rediscover, I would say that would be a wonderful thing... but... well... there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Gun control is not the slippery slope towards disarmament" - Ginx

    "The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." - Sarah Brady
    (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Identification of the bullets is an interesting idea.... and the reason I use shotguns. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh Radio... I was going to reply with something substantial, but I just can't take you seriously when you use terms like "gun friendly." and "gun unfriendly." You made me gun smirk.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Adam, you're a lying piece of shit. You go around saying guns are illegal in the UK, when they aren't. Fuck you and fuck your bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. UK law defines a "pistol" as a gun with a barrel shorter than 30 cm or a total length of less than 60 cm. Only muzzle-loading pistols - including muzzle-loading revolvers - are permitted. All other pistols are prohibited on the UK mainland, though there are some exceptions, such as pistols used for the humane dispatch of injured animals (such as deer) and some historical firearms, though these are only permitted if kept and used at an approved club. Aside from special temporary exemptions for major events such as the 2012 Olympics, pistol shooting for sporting purposes has been banned since 1997. As a result, the GB pistol squad has to practice abroad.

    ...

    Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership, although the official inquiry, known as the Cullen Inquiry, did not go so far as to recommend such action. Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) licence. Even the UK's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or abroad (namely Switzerland

    (source)

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Radio, you showed nothing but how in love with guns and out of touch with facts you are.

    And Nick, if you can buy a gun of some kind, you can buy firearms and they aren't banned. Thems the facts, son. So you can't buy some particular type, what's your point? Are you not free in America because you can't buy an RPG launcher or a nuclear weapon?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your talent for sophistry becomes more evident with every line you write, Bret.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bret, so you know more about UK guns laws than Adam, who lives there? Research a little more, boy! It is extremely difficult to get any firearm in the UK. You have to jump through hoops (it is not considered a basic right, as in the U.S.). You have to "show good cause" to even purchase a gun there. When Adam says guns are illegal, he means, obviously, that they are not something you can just go down to the local gun shop and purchase.

    Are you not free in America because you can't buy an RPG launcher or a nuclear weapon?

    Oh, please, shove the b.s., Bret, nobody is buying it anymore. It's not "some particular type" that has been banned in Britain, but the basic weapons of self defense, namely, ordinary revolvers and pistols.

    I can't believe you can accuse another of bullshit with a straight face when huge piles of it constantly plop from your keyboard.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When Adam says guns are illegal, he means, obviously, that they are not something you can just go down to the local gun shop and purchase.

    Well then they aren't "illegal" then, are they? Guns must be illegal in the US because you can't buy a sawed off shotgun or hollow point bullets, or because children can't buy them, since any restriction at all is clearly "illegal," or at least some "slippery slope" towards making them all illegal... clearly.

    Adam was talking shit a few weeks ago when you asked who owns a gun, he's talking shit now, and you're defending his shit out of blind loyalty to anyone who supports your victim narrative.

    You didn't address any hard statistics in what I presented in my post, you just unscientifically make it it about everything but the facts. It's pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bret, in the U.S. there may be some restrictions on certain types of firearms, or a waiting period to buy a handgun, etc. The situation in the U.K. is completely different. I can buy a handgun any time I want to here, as long as I'm not a convicted felon, mentally ill, or whatever.

    In the U.K. you CANNOT! Handguns ARE virtually illegal there. As for other guns, they are not easy to legally obtain either. There is no right to own a gun there. Instead of addressing that, you just repeat the very same bullshit, obviously because you have no answer or argument. Pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
  18. In Switzerland it's a "mandatory civic duty" to own a gun.

    There remains a debate here as to whether gun control actually reduces crime. The saying goes, the law abiding will abide but criminals will find ways.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In the U.K. you CANNOT! Handguns ARE virtually illegal there. As for other guns, they are not easy to legally obtain either. There is no right to own a gun there. Instead of addressing that, you just repeat the very same bullshit, obviously because you have no answer or argument. Pathetic!

    This isn't a debate about policy in the UK, I pointed it out because Adam ran in here and remineded me of something stupid he said. which isn't true as evidenced by the fact that you can buy a rifle in the UK.

    In Switzerland it's a "mandatory civic duty" to own a gun.

    Actually, it's mandatory for every citizen to join the military, and those who join are issued a rifle. There are allowances for those who wish to serve in some other capacity (for example, conscientious objectors often serve in a medical or technological capacity, and the disabled and mentally ill are exempt). Many of these rifles, and perhaps even most, rust while locked away in wardrobes after active service is completed.

    And Radio... seriously, try addressing the studies I posted instead of just making up shit or trying to inundate me with hundreds of biased studies bought by the NRA.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And? Your point about Switzerland? It still has the highest gun ownership - especially assault weapons - in the Europe. Something you must detest.

    Play close attention to the number of guns exempt from military service:

    "In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million."

    That's from the Swiss Foreign and Security Policy Network via Wikipedia.

    Don't hold me against this, but I seem to recall on a CBC radio program that suggested Alberta may have more guns than anywhere else in North America.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh. All within a nation with a population of roughly EIGHT million.

    Then again, no one should be surprised given the long history or mercernary activity in Switzerland.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And? Your point about Switzerland?

    I was just letting you know it wasn't a mandate to own a gun. That would be big government telling you what to do, and something you must detest.

    It still has the highest gun ownership - especially assault weapons

    Welll clearly you can scale up the policy of a country with just over the population of New York City and it will be sound. Maybe we should make our ecnomy completely based on providing tax havens and hiding Nazi spoils of war.

    The highest quality surplus military rifles come from the Swiss, the care of the rifles is second to none, you of course would not know this because you pull everything out of your ass.

    Oh, my mistake, then they don't even keep them, they sell them. That's probably a smart idea, because only idiots think they need a gun. Point taken.

    I did but you refuse to admit that every time you bring this up you have your ass handed to you and you are just butt-hurt because you get your information from whatever HCI or Chuckie Shumer pulls out of his ass.

    Really bret, it is old and pathetic, go on to another subject you have something to rant about in a shrill voice like the pussy you are... Oh I forgot that hurts your narcissism because yo think everyone should approve of infanticide and excessive government control, not to mention you cannot understand that marriage is at least a partnership and needs two consenting sentient adults - it is not some excuse to fuck your livestock. You truly are a retarded fuckwit. You don’t contribute anything to this blog outside of insanity and banality.


    Radio, you are literally the dumbest person I have ever talked with. You didn't address the two studies in this post, you told me to move on to another topic on a post titled "My Last Gun Post (For A While)" and I sometimes question if you even read anything I write or if you just skim it looking for things to take out of context.

    You are a waste of oxygen, and this is officially the last thing I will ever write addressed to you. You don't deserve another second of my time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Get a room you two.

    "I was just letting you know it wasn't a mandate to own a gun. That would be big government telling you what to do, and something you must detest."

    In case oyu haven't noticed, I'm not exactly one to "detest" things. I don't get too excited. Maybe I should.

    I'm not passionate about guns but it's interesting reading about gun laws around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, I certainly don't detest things that go on in countries I don't even live in. Switzerland could force every citizen to get a lobotomy for all I care. They are all blonde, anyway, I doubt anyone would even notice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. They act like it. When I was there I had just left Italy and lemme tell ya, it was like entering zombieville. Nothing against the Swiss (except for the fact they profit on things while pretending to be neutral) but man, I wanted back into Italy to prove life existed.

    I'll take Italian chaos over Swiss organization anyday. More fun. In small doses of course.

    ReplyDelete
  29. T.C., that reminds me of the famous Orson Welles line from The Third Man: "...in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Haha.

    And the Sforza's and the de Medici's and so on.

    Not to mention the nuttiness that went on during the Roman age!

    Out of chaos came genius.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah, just look at all the advancements made by the citizens of the Congo. Clearly unrest is great for innovation (even if it is just recipes for how to cook human flesh).

    I'm sure the fact there were are several times more people in Italy had nothing to do with it, or that their access to a port played no part in the introduction and spread of new ideas. Even gunpowder was made during peacetime in China (while trying to create an elixir that granted everlasting life, of all things).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Swiss inventions:

    Rayon
    Velcro
    Cellophane
    Sweetened chocolate
    LSD
    First microscope capable of observing an atom (scanning tunnel microcope)

    And of course, the Swiss Army knife

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh, Bret. In the case of Italy, the phrase applies. I'm not saying it's universal.

    There are plenty of reasons why not just Italy but Western Europe - mainly Germany, UK, France - accomplished what they did.

    Dunno what you mean by "peacetime China" since China has always been involved in some battle...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_battles#Three_Kingdoms_.28220-280_AD.29

    ReplyDelete
  34. Lets address the studies.

    Both rely on self reporting, a big fudge factor in any study. I certainly wouldn't tell a stranger on the phone weather I did in fact own a firearm.

    The study found that 6% of crime involving firearms, the victims had guns. This is no surprise as many victims of crimes with firearms today may have well been the criminal tomorrow. Drug dealing and gang rivalry account for a large chunk or crimes involving firearms. And 4.5 times of pretty much nothing is still pretty much nothing. Even at 1.5% the number of non-victimized gun owners far exceed the number of victimized ones.

    And the other controls for other factors, which in the final analysis each of which may have as much of or more of an affect than firearms, even assuming that all of these factors were correctly corrected for in every area. For example if say urbanization was over-corrected for the correlation might lie entirely in that. There's simply a lot of guessing for something that isn't entirely understood.

    "Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption "


    Yes, you ought to be careful when handling a firearm, and be especially certain before playing the hero, or using a firearms against someone.

    However when all the rules are observed the operation of firearms is quite safe, and even an enjoyable sport. I've only known one person who died from a firearm (hunting accident), while I knew a few from motor vehicles, and several from disease and age.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ok the fact is without guns the world would never be built up.also guns stop more criminal activity
    then they start (as cops use them).criminals will just stab people.That's why there is still criminal activity in England and japan they prove that taking away firearms does nothing. as far as war, guns have saved more lives then they have taken such as the US wining ww2 if we used no guns and lost, the Nazis would murder even more people. dont be afraid of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  36. (http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm) heres some REAL facts its about time we see some.

    ReplyDelete
  37. btw idoit you cant own a gun in the UK how old are you five? why make o post if you dont know this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "States with higher rates of gun ownership lead the nation in homicide, and a study at the University of Pennsylvania found that “people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.”"
    Neither of these statistics is good evidence that guns don't protect. People who believe they're likely to be shot are more likely to own guns, so all that your second stat proves is that people have a good idea whether they're likely to be shot.

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails