The argument from the NRA goes that the only people able to stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns, therefore we should have armed guards at every school and people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons anywhere and everywhere. While there may be some twisted logic in what they are saying - after all police do carry guns as does the military. The implication that carrying a gun will make you or your family safe is simply not true. All of the data shows that when a household has a gun present, the likelihood increases significantly that someone in that household will die from a gun. Obviously there are other factors involved here - the ages of people in the household, how the guns are stored and used, what the guns are, the stability of family members...
Still, the argument goes that good people with guns are able to stop violence from happening. I asked a police officer friend of mine whether he would want to respond to a scene where good people have drawn their guns and began to exchange fire with bad people with guns. He shook his head sadly and asked, "How would I know which were which?"
And then there is the tragic event that took place earlier this week. Mike McLelland, a Texas district attorney, and his wife were shot to death in their home. After the March 19 murder of the Colorado Department of Corrections head, McLellan became more cautious. Both he and his wife began to carry handguns everywhere. He was a 23 year veteran of the military who assured everyone that he was better able to protect himself than most police officers. He was trained. He was cautious. He was armed. Yet, when two men came to his door, his wife was shot once and he was shot 20 times. The killers used military style assault rifles.
Had they not been armed would things have been better? Not likely, but it is possible. Maybe the wife would have been more cautious and not answered the door to two strangers. Who knows? But things would not have been worse. The myth of the good guy riding in and shooting all of the bad guys is just that... a myth. Arming more people is not the answer to gun violence or to the larger issue of guns deaths.
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Friday, April 05, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
the discussion
OK, so folk actually seem to be beginning to have the discussion about guns that is WAAAAYYYY overdue.
Here's the problem... many are beginning with misinformation. The NRA has done their job well.
Here are a couple of untruths that they have floated out there and are clearly just not true.
"People need to have guns in their homes to be safe from home invasions." Every study, let me say that again, every study has shown that households that own guns are significantly more likely to have a family member die of gun violence than homes without guns. There are lots of other factors including age, gender, number of people in the household, and type of gun but the bottom line is always true, if you have guns in your home, someone in your household is more likely to die of a gunshot than if you do not.
"If more people were armed, then someone could have stopped the shooter." See the above. Add the statistics that consistently show show that the more guns in an area, the more gun deaths. States that have higher gun ownership have higher numbers of shootings. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws and/or lower gun ownership have fewer homicides or suicides by gun. Again, the stats all show that more guns means less safety, not more. Please think about this further. If teachers came to school with guns, eventually a child would get access to one and we would see a tragedy. Even under the best of circumstances where police returned fire in August at the Empire State Building, by-standers were hit by fragments of bullets shot by trained police officers. Imagine if 15 by-standers had pulled out their guns and began firing. How many innocent by-standers would have been shot then? Think also of the states where there are stand your ground laws. An individual feels threatened, whether justified or not, and instead of retreating, pulls out a gun and shoots. Someone dies. Without the gun, the individual retreats. Finally think of those places in the world where virtually everyone is armed - Somalia, Afghanistan, you get the picture. Is that really the kind of place we want to emulate?
"If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." Of course, the statement is not true. Law enforcement personnel would still have guns. Military would still have guns. And if guns were outlawed, production stopped, and those extant confiscated and destroyed, eventually even criminals wouldn't have guns. That is obviously not going to happen, but fewer guns would mean fewer available for criminals too. More importantly, the implication here is that somehow having a gun makes an individual less likely to be a victim of a crime. It just is not accurate.
"The real problem is people, not guns. If the crazies didn't have guns, they'd still kill people in some other way." There is a degree of truth in this... but only a degree. Violence still happens without guns, but it is pretty difficult to kill 27 people with a knife or a baseball bat before someone is able to stop you. Yes, we must address a culture of violence and even more importantly, we must address issues of mental illness. In the meantime, lets remove the tools of violence.
"We need guns to be able to stand up and revolt against tyrants at home." This argument is the one that actually runs closest to the 2nd Amendment, but it is also the most ridiculous one. Are we really expected to believe that untrained individuals could mount a revolt using the kinds of guns that are in circulation against a military like the US has? Look at the difficulty Syria is having against a third rate military with third rate equipment and imagine sending civilians against helicopter gun ships, jets, missiles, tanks, armed drones, and the best trained, most well equipped, military in the world. This statement betrays such a profound lack of trust in the American system that I don't know quite how to even address that part. I trust the system. I trust the checks and balances. I trust the American people to not allow things to get so far that a revolution is necessary.
Now we can have a real discussion about guns. They make some people feel safe. Is that a good reason to sacrifice our children? As of my writing this, there have been over 94,000 people shot in the US this year. Is that a price we want to pay for a feeling of security, especially one that is not borne out by any of the facts? Some people like to hunt or target shoot. Fine, what kinds of weapons and ammunition are necessary for those sports? And what are reasonable restrictions regarding those weapons and ammo? Doesn't it make sense that the regulations are at least as stringent as for driving - a class, a written and practical test, a license that must be periodically renewed, age requirements for gun use, registration of all guns, periodic inspections of all guns, safety regulations regarding gun design that is strictly enforced... Some folk appreciate the artistry in some guns and like to collect objects of beauty. OK, then for collectors, maybe no ammo? There is the 2nd amendment. Yes, there is, but what does it reasonably mean in our society today? When it was written, a musket shot one ball and then had to be reloaded, taking up to a minute per shot for an experienced musketeer and significantly longer for a person who was not an expert. The weapons were also extremely inaccurate. We just aren't talking about the same thing here, so how does the amendment apply?
Let's do away with the NRA lies and have a real discussion.
Here's the problem... many are beginning with misinformation. The NRA has done their job well.
Here are a couple of untruths that they have floated out there and are clearly just not true.
"People need to have guns in their homes to be safe from home invasions." Every study, let me say that again, every study has shown that households that own guns are significantly more likely to have a family member die of gun violence than homes without guns. There are lots of other factors including age, gender, number of people in the household, and type of gun but the bottom line is always true, if you have guns in your home, someone in your household is more likely to die of a gunshot than if you do not.
"If more people were armed, then someone could have stopped the shooter." See the above. Add the statistics that consistently show show that the more guns in an area, the more gun deaths. States that have higher gun ownership have higher numbers of shootings. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws and/or lower gun ownership have fewer homicides or suicides by gun. Again, the stats all show that more guns means less safety, not more. Please think about this further. If teachers came to school with guns, eventually a child would get access to one and we would see a tragedy. Even under the best of circumstances where police returned fire in August at the Empire State Building, by-standers were hit by fragments of bullets shot by trained police officers. Imagine if 15 by-standers had pulled out their guns and began firing. How many innocent by-standers would have been shot then? Think also of the states where there are stand your ground laws. An individual feels threatened, whether justified or not, and instead of retreating, pulls out a gun and shoots. Someone dies. Without the gun, the individual retreats. Finally think of those places in the world where virtually everyone is armed - Somalia, Afghanistan, you get the picture. Is that really the kind of place we want to emulate?
"If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." Of course, the statement is not true. Law enforcement personnel would still have guns. Military would still have guns. And if guns were outlawed, production stopped, and those extant confiscated and destroyed, eventually even criminals wouldn't have guns. That is obviously not going to happen, but fewer guns would mean fewer available for criminals too. More importantly, the implication here is that somehow having a gun makes an individual less likely to be a victim of a crime. It just is not accurate.
"The real problem is people, not guns. If the crazies didn't have guns, they'd still kill people in some other way." There is a degree of truth in this... but only a degree. Violence still happens without guns, but it is pretty difficult to kill 27 people with a knife or a baseball bat before someone is able to stop you. Yes, we must address a culture of violence and even more importantly, we must address issues of mental illness. In the meantime, lets remove the tools of violence.
"We need guns to be able to stand up and revolt against tyrants at home." This argument is the one that actually runs closest to the 2nd Amendment, but it is also the most ridiculous one. Are we really expected to believe that untrained individuals could mount a revolt using the kinds of guns that are in circulation against a military like the US has? Look at the difficulty Syria is having against a third rate military with third rate equipment and imagine sending civilians against helicopter gun ships, jets, missiles, tanks, armed drones, and the best trained, most well equipped, military in the world. This statement betrays such a profound lack of trust in the American system that I don't know quite how to even address that part. I trust the system. I trust the checks and balances. I trust the American people to not allow things to get so far that a revolution is necessary.
Now we can have a real discussion about guns. They make some people feel safe. Is that a good reason to sacrifice our children? As of my writing this, there have been over 94,000 people shot in the US this year. Is that a price we want to pay for a feeling of security, especially one that is not borne out by any of the facts? Some people like to hunt or target shoot. Fine, what kinds of weapons and ammunition are necessary for those sports? And what are reasonable restrictions regarding those weapons and ammo? Doesn't it make sense that the regulations are at least as stringent as for driving - a class, a written and practical test, a license that must be periodically renewed, age requirements for gun use, registration of all guns, periodic inspections of all guns, safety regulations regarding gun design that is strictly enforced... Some folk appreciate the artistry in some guns and like to collect objects of beauty. OK, then for collectors, maybe no ammo? There is the 2nd amendment. Yes, there is, but what does it reasonably mean in our society today? When it was written, a musket shot one ball and then had to be reloaded, taking up to a minute per shot for an experienced musketeer and significantly longer for a person who was not an expert. The weapons were also extremely inaccurate. We just aren't talking about the same thing here, so how does the amendment apply?
Let's do away with the NRA lies and have a real discussion.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Guns
Some of my in-laws hunt own guns and regularly hunt. Indeed, I have a scar on my forehead that I got while hunting with my grandfather-in-law a long time ago - I got too close to the scope. I understand hunting and appreciate a good venison steak when someone will give me one. I understand target shooting as a hobby. I even understand gun collecting within certain parameters. Especially given the events in Tucson, I believe it is time to change our laws regarding firearms.
First, I don't think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with the arguments we have today and certainly do not refer to the weapons you or I can purchase at a local gun store. Folk who call themselves "originalists" can't possibly believe that the framers of the constitution meant "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to say that any crazy could go in and purchase a semiautomatic pistol, high capacity magazines, and unlimited rounds of ammunition, conceal them, and carry them anywhere. And if so, why not depleted uranium shells? Or nuclear warheads? After all, if the purpose of the amendment is to allow a citizen militia the ability to stand up against the army, then they need access to the same kinds of firepower. If the government has the right to regulate any arms, why does it not have the right to regulate all arms? Of course, as soon as I write that, I realize there are those who would argue that indeed, the government has no right to regulate any arms and that they should be able to go to the store and purchase a howitzer or shoulder mounted rocket grenade launcher if they want. Crazy!
Second, clearly the current regulations do not work. Crazies get guns and ammunition and, at least in the case of Jared Loughner, they do so legally. The last time we visited Phoenix, we ate at a Waffle House with a sign on the door - "No Handguns Allowed." I couldn't help but wonder what had happened that they had that sign or why the McDonalds across the street didn't have one. It was very common to see guns in holsters at people's sides. I'm sure there were at least as many concealed weapons.
Third, the argument is made that if more people have firearms, then when a crazy does pull out a gun, there will be someone there with a gun to "take them out." This didn't work either. In Arizona, which has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation and where you can't go anywhere without seeing guns strapped to people's belts and evidence of guns everywhere, nobody had a gun to "take out" Jared Loughner or at least, nobody used one. Indeed, he was stopped when people tackled him while trying to reload... which of course was after 32 shots since he had a high capacity magazine. And think of that scenario a bit more... so a crazy in the middle of a crowd, pulls out a gun and starts shooting and people from all around pull out their guns and start shooting as well... how many would be injured or killed in the crossfire?
Fourth, there are those who want to relax the laws further including allowing guns on college and university campuses and in bars. Picture college age guys brimming over with testosterone, alcohol, and guns... mix them all together and picture the results of that. We already have states where a person who is obviously mentally ill can buy a semi-automatic handgun. Imagine what might happen.
Fifth, in spite of what the NRA would have you believe, recent studies have shown that the vast, vast majority of guns being used by the Mexican drug criminals were purchased at gun shops just over the border in the US. Gun ownership is highly restricted in Mexico and there is only one gun store in the entire country and it is controlled by the military. Between 7000 and 8000 firearms are legally sold in Mexico each year. Last year some 30,000 guns were seized by law enforcement officials, primarily from drug cartels. Our guns are clearly finding their way into Mexico and feeding the violence there.
Yes, it is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people... but Jared Loughner would have killed and injured a lot fewer people, maybe none, without his Glock 19.
So what do I learn from this? Restrict gun ownership. Restrict the resale of guns. Restrict the ownership of ammunition. Restrict the kinds of weapons that can be owned. Restrict where those firearms can go or be.
First, I don't think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with the arguments we have today and certainly do not refer to the weapons you or I can purchase at a local gun store. Folk who call themselves "originalists" can't possibly believe that the framers of the constitution meant "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to say that any crazy could go in and purchase a semiautomatic pistol, high capacity magazines, and unlimited rounds of ammunition, conceal them, and carry them anywhere. And if so, why not depleted uranium shells? Or nuclear warheads? After all, if the purpose of the amendment is to allow a citizen militia the ability to stand up against the army, then they need access to the same kinds of firepower. If the government has the right to regulate any arms, why does it not have the right to regulate all arms? Of course, as soon as I write that, I realize there are those who would argue that indeed, the government has no right to regulate any arms and that they should be able to go to the store and purchase a howitzer or shoulder mounted rocket grenade launcher if they want. Crazy!
Second, clearly the current regulations do not work. Crazies get guns and ammunition and, at least in the case of Jared Loughner, they do so legally. The last time we visited Phoenix, we ate at a Waffle House with a sign on the door - "No Handguns Allowed." I couldn't help but wonder what had happened that they had that sign or why the McDonalds across the street didn't have one. It was very common to see guns in holsters at people's sides. I'm sure there were at least as many concealed weapons.
Third, the argument is made that if more people have firearms, then when a crazy does pull out a gun, there will be someone there with a gun to "take them out." This didn't work either. In Arizona, which has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation and where you can't go anywhere without seeing guns strapped to people's belts and evidence of guns everywhere, nobody had a gun to "take out" Jared Loughner or at least, nobody used one. Indeed, he was stopped when people tackled him while trying to reload... which of course was after 32 shots since he had a high capacity magazine. And think of that scenario a bit more... so a crazy in the middle of a crowd, pulls out a gun and starts shooting and people from all around pull out their guns and start shooting as well... how many would be injured or killed in the crossfire?
Fourth, there are those who want to relax the laws further including allowing guns on college and university campuses and in bars. Picture college age guys brimming over with testosterone, alcohol, and guns... mix them all together and picture the results of that. We already have states where a person who is obviously mentally ill can buy a semi-automatic handgun. Imagine what might happen.
Fifth, in spite of what the NRA would have you believe, recent studies have shown that the vast, vast majority of guns being used by the Mexican drug criminals were purchased at gun shops just over the border in the US. Gun ownership is highly restricted in Mexico and there is only one gun store in the entire country and it is controlled by the military. Between 7000 and 8000 firearms are legally sold in Mexico each year. Last year some 30,000 guns were seized by law enforcement officials, primarily from drug cartels. Our guns are clearly finding their way into Mexico and feeding the violence there.
Yes, it is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people... but Jared Loughner would have killed and injured a lot fewer people, maybe none, without his Glock 19.
So what do I learn from this? Restrict gun ownership. Restrict the resale of guns. Restrict the ownership of ammunition. Restrict the kinds of weapons that can be owned. Restrict where those firearms can go or be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
