My View: Why the NRA Shot Itself in the Foot Yesterday

nra-blood

I often believe that scientific allegories give us an insight into our culture that we may lack, because ideas presented in a more straightforward way can run into opposition.  For the past week I have gone to a particular episode in the TV Series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

In a make-believe world of vampires and demons, the tolksfolk in the fictitious California town of Sunnydale were often immune and indifferent to killings.  But a day when two young children were found dead, the town awoke to its problems and rose up in arms in a modern day witchhunt for the culprit – now, it turned out a demon had fabricated the situation to inflame the passions, but the main point is that the demon understood that the vehicle of child victims was a powerful tool that could awake even the most entrenched indifference.

It is in this place that we find the Sandy Hook tragedy.  A shooting at a high school over a decade ago incites outrage, the shooting at a college university begets sorrow and concern, but a shooting of large numbers of innocent six-year-olds is a different story altogether.  People are simply not going to allow this to stand.

Against that backdrop, you offer the words of the vice president of the NRA, who had been silent for a week and, truth be told, should have just stayed that way.

Frankly, it is not that what he said is that different from hundreds of gun advocates – their belief is that more weapons make us safer.

Or to use the words of N.R.A. vice president, Wayne LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The blame he put was on violent video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.what-could-go-wrong

“In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes,” Mr. LaPierre said.

His solution was that, before Congress should move to pass new gun restrictions, it should “act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation” by the time students return from winter break in January.

“Now I can imagine the headlines – the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow,” he said.  “More guns, you’ll claim, are the N.R.A.’s answer to everything.  Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the gun automatically become a bad word?”

The problem with the idea that arming more people is a solution is that these attacks are quite rare.  But if you put guns into the hands of principals and teachers, you introduce the probability that the cure is worse than the disease.

The practical consideration of storing a gun at a school in a manner and location that does not make it accessible to kids or those who would use the guns against the authorities, but is accessible in this type of emergency, seems overwhelming.

Guns in the hands of the untrained are dangerous.  How do we take practical steps to secure the weapons and make sure that we are not simply arming more unstable people in an effort to counter the possibility of unstable people armed with weapons?

Perhaps we should listen to voices of reason, such as Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie, whose response to the NRA proposal was that posting armed guards outside of school will not make classrooms safer or encourage learning.

“You can’t make this (school) an armed camp for kids,” said the governor, himself a former federal prosecutor.

The New York Times editorial this morning writes, “The N.R.A., which devotes itself to destroying compromise on guns, is blameless. So are unscrupulous and unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals, and gun makers who bankroll Mr. LaPierre so he can help them peddle ever-more-lethal, ever-more-efficient products, and politicians who kill even modest controls over guns.”

The Times continued, “His solution to the proliferation of guns, including semiautomatic rifles designed to kill people as quickly as possible, is to put more guns in more places.”

“Mr. LaPierre would put a police officer in every school and compel teachers and principals to become armed guards,” the Times continued.  “He wants volunteer and professional firefighters, who already risk their lives every day, to be charged with thwarting an assault by a deranged murderer. The same applies to paramedics, security guards, veterans, retired police officers.”

“We cannot imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care for our children every day into an armed mob. And let’s be clear, civilians bristling with guns to prevent the ‘next Newtown’ are an armed mob, even with training offered up by Mr. LaPierre. Any town officials or school principals who take up the N.R.A. on that offer should be fired,” the Times writes.

They note that there have been 62 mass-murder cases over the last 30 years, and not one was stopped by an armed civilian.

Indeed, the Times points out, “We have known for many years that a sheriff’s deputy was at Columbine High School in 1999 and fired at one of the two killers while 11 of their 13 victims were still alive. He missed four times.”

The New York Times article reported that 23,000 of the nation’s public schools already have armed security.  That’s roughly one third.

But the Times makes the critical point that so many gun enthusiasts miss: “People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis. That requires a willful ignorance about the facts. Police officers know that firing a weapon is a huge risk; that’s why they avoid doing it. In August, New York City police officers opened fire on a gunman outside the Empire State Building. They killed him and wounded nine bystanders.”

And those are trained police officers, far more trained than any civilian might be.

Of course, my biggest fear with the NRA solution is that we simply add more variables to the equation, more guns, more things that can go wrong.

You have the possibility of accidental fire, people misreading a situation and shooting, people having access to weapons that takes a heated dispute to the next level, and, of course, kids accidentally getting weapons that were improperly stored – or the weapons getting stolen in a number of ways.

On the one hand, the NRA may have done us a favor, because this argument has been floating out there for a week on social media posts and blog comments.  Not only can responsible people shoot it down, but it exposes the NRA’s hand.

However, one columnist argued that Mr. LaPierre’s speech was actually quite effective.

Writes Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post: “Those critics are wrong. LaPierre’s presentation was terrifically effective.  Granted, if you believe that what LaPierre was trying to do today was to sincerely join in a national conversation over school shootings, or offer a coherent set of preventative policy options, or even just demonstrate some baseline sensitivity for the lives that were lost, it is easy to see why you’d deem LaPierre’s press conference to be an ineffective, tone-deaf failure.”

However, he reminds us, “You should remember that the National Rifle Association does not exist to offer sensible public policy or participate in conversations or pretend to be sensitive about tragedies. The National Rifle Association exists to assist the manufacturers of guns and gun-related accoutrements in selling guns and gun-related accoutrements to people. That is their job, summed up, in its entirety.”

Indeed he writes, “The NRA are lobbyists who represent a bunch of gun retailers, and this is what lobbyists do — they help their clients sell their products. And every action that LaPierre took today can and should be viewed through that prism.”

But this time it might be different, because as much as we were pained by Columbine or Virginia Tech, these are six-year-olds, and six-year-olds cannot die in this society without forcing changes.

That is why the demons chose their image as the catalysts for fomenting anger and resentment in the community.  And it’s why people were willing yesterday to openly criticize and mock the NRA.  If the luster comes off the NRA, then perhaps even without legislative changes, we may prevail.

Then again, it might not matter.  After all, in a system where we cannot get simple compromises to save the economy, how can we expect to prevent the killing of six-year-olds?

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

57 Comments

  1. Phil Coleman

    I suppose I should make a public declaration prior to speaking to this issue. I dislike guns and what they represent–killing something. People who speak of the right to gun ownership and possession in any context scare me.

    But I feel a little sorry for the NRA. They delayed speaking on this unspeakable tragedy by design. They had to respond, but didn’t really want to. They knew it was a trap.

    Traditional NRA critics, emotionally charged by profound grief and anger waited expectantly. No matter what the NRA said, they would be attacked. Yet, the NRA leadership could not keep its mouth shut. Their membership demanded they defend them an assign blame elsewhere.

    All that said, I have to agree that the NRA really botched this one. Turning the nation’s classrooms into potential shooting galleries is not a national policy recommendation people are willing to consider right now. Blaming the entertainment industry may have some merit, but public opinion wants corrective action that is much more tangible, and deals directly and tangibly with firearms.

  2. GreenandGolden

    An extraordinarily interesting article by Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses parallels between the psychology of he NRA today and pro-slavery forces in the mid 19th century. A taste, ” I don’t mean to equate owning slaves with owning guns. But I do mean to equate the tactics and rhetoric of the NRA with those of proslavery “Fire-Eaters.” The NRA casts itself as a champion of the Constitution. So did slaveholders, citing the safeguards accorded owners of human “property.” Few Americans questioned slavery’s legality, though they debated the Founders’ intent, just as we do with the Second Amendment. “
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-nra-and-the-positive-good-of-maximum-guns/266571/

  3. medwoman

    Jeff

    I have a legitimate question about how you see two distinct, but related issues. I do not intend this as a provocation but rather as an opening for understanding.

    There seem to be three major issues regarding the “right” to own guns.
    1) The constitutional right. If the second amendment is taken in full, it would seem that the intent was based on the
    perceived importance of a militia, and not on the enjoyment that a gun owner might or might not derive from
    his weapons.
    2) The protection issue. I understand that some people feel safer with weapons in their homes. I would feel safer if
    no one had these kinds of weapons in their homes or on their persons. I agree that both sides can bring out
    their statistics and anecdotes demonstrating the “rightness” of their position. So it would seem to me that the
    best approach would be one that improves the safety of allowable weapons such that they can only be
    discharged by their rightful owner and with limited capacity for mass destruction ( whether one would limit types
    of weapons or quantity of ammunition ) open to discussion.
    3) The pleasure in gun ownership issue.

    It is around this last issue that I have my question. You have come out in the past against relaxation of drug laws.
    So my question would be, how do you see these two issues as so different that you defend the right of gun owners to have their enjoyment of their pass time, but feel that we need to restrict the preferred pass time of those who prefer the individual, personal use of drugs in their own home ? In thinking about this, please consider that both guns and drugs have an associated black market, both can lead to physical harm to those using them, and both, if used to excess can prevent individuals from engaging in perhaps more personally and societally productive activities.

  4. SouthofDavis

    Phil wrote:

    > I suppose I should make a public declaration
    > prior to speaking to this issue. I dislike guns
    > and what they represent–killing something.
    > People who speak of the right to gun ownership
    > and possession in any context scare me

    If you were in charge would anyone have a right to own guns, the Army?, Police?, Park Rangers?, Secret Service?, Guy that camps in the Mendocino National Forrest where pot growers on crystal meth get real paranoid?, Rancher with a Ranch near the Mexican Border that had armed drug dealers crossing his property?, Single Mom in a housing project who heard gunshots every night?

    > All that said, I have to agree that the NRA
    > really botched this one.

    I agree with you on this one… The NRA (and other crazy “gun nuts”) are making the 99% of responsible gun owners look bad…

  5. Davis Progressive

    “I agree with you on this one… The NRA (and other crazy “gun nuts”) are making the 99% of responsible gun owners look bad…”

    completely agree on this point, though i would suggest the number is lower than 99% of gun owners.

  6. J.R.

    [url]They note that there have been 62 mass-murder cases over the last 30 years, and not one was stopped by an armed civilian.[/url]

    I’m missing the logic of this statement. For the cases that were stopped by an armed civilian, the mass-murder did not occur. What are you trying to say here?

  7. Davis Progressive

    I take it to say that for example, Columbine, they had a chance to stop it while in progress and could not. You seem to believe that an armed civilian would stop the mass murder from occurring, it’s far more likely that it would stop the shooter midway through and that apparently hasn’t happened.

    It also points out the hazards in even professionally trained law enforcement agents attempting to fire at a suspect in a crowd of people. Gun advocates seem to believe that someone would simply be able to shoot and incapacitate the assailant, but they might end up just adding to the casualty list.

  8. Just me

    While I do agree that people should have the right to own a gun or multiple if desired, I do NOT believe that ANYONE requires a gun that has the capacity to hold 5000 rounds of amunition. That type of weapon only has 1 purpose! Mass homicide or zombie attack…

  9. medwoman

    JR

    [quote]For the cases that were stopped by an armed civilian, the mass-murder did not occur. What are you trying to say here?[/quote]

    Can you site instances ( and numbers of cases) in which this has occurred ? By profession, I tend to be very evidence based. If you could show me the numbers that demonstrate that a significant number of killings of innocents have been stopped by armed security, I would be much more likely to see this as a viable alternative that should be explored.

  10. J.R.

    [quote]I tend to be very evidence based.[/quote]

    I’m not making any claims one way or the other, since I have not studied this issue. But I too like to think I form opinions based on evidence.

    Can you show me the numbers that demonstrate that a significant number of killings of innocents have been stopped by gun control laws (or whatever policy you are supporting)?

  11. J.R.

    [quote]I do NOT believe that ANYONE requires a gun that has the capacity to hold 5000 rounds of amunition.[/quote]

    Clearly I need to educate myself about guns. I had no idea that any gun could hold 5000 rounds. I would have thought that the weight of that many bullets would make it too heavy to lift.

  12. medwoman

    JR

    [quote][quote]Can you show me the numbers that demonstrate that a significant number of killings of innocents have been stopped by gun control laws (or whatever policy you are supporting)?[/quote][/quote]

    I believe that I can if you are willing to accept data from another country. There are those who claim that this approach could not work in this country. I believe that there are enough similarities between Australia and the US to at least make a similar, if not identical approach, worth considering.

    In 1996 in Port Arthur there was a mass shooting by a single perpetrator which left 35 people dead. In the aftermath, the Prime Minister ( a political ally of President Bush) pushed through strict gun control legislation including a mandatory government buyback of semi automatic and automatic shotguns and rifles.

    Some of the subsequent events ( some would say consequences although that is of course impossible to prove) :
    1) In the decade prior to 1996, there had been 11 mass shootings in Australia, and to the best of my knowledge,
    have been none since.
    2) Homicides by firearm dropped by 59 % between 1996 and 2006 without a corresponding rise in murder by other
    means ( in fairness, this finding has been disputed,however, number 3 below has not been)
    3) Suicides by gun dropped by 65 % without a commensurate rise in suicides by other means. This is possibly
    related more to the lethality of the method than to the numbers of attempts since I do not have commensurate
    data for attempts using all modalities. Alternatively it could be due to the often transient nature of the urge to
    suicide. I do not have the reference for this, but the Israeli experience was that the suicide rate for their soldiers
    dropped dramatically when they were forced to leave their weapons on base when going home on leave.
    So during the same period when suicide rates have dropped in Australia, they have increased in the US during
    recession.

    These findings suggest a number of possible approaches to me.
    1) Stricter regulations on the type of weapons and ammunition that are available outside of secure and regulated
    shooting facilities. Again, I have no problem with ownership of virtually any kind of firearm a person wants as
    long as it is kept in some secured facility, checked out, and returned prior to leaving the facility.
    2) Safer firearms, perhaps with single shooter technology, that only allows for the registered owner to fire the
    weapon. Additional safety features that prevent accidental discharge or perhaps a pressure requirement that
    would preclude a child from discharging the weapon would be reasonable. I have no expertise in design but feel
    that with current technologies it would probably be very feasible to design a firearm that is safer than todays.
    3) More firearm safety training required and maintenance of competency requirements to own weapons. As Jeff
    pointed out in his post, although I know he was making a different point, operating privileges are not given to
    every one even though scalpels are not banned. If we can regulate where and by whom a scalpel can be used
    on another person, why can we not consider putting some very basic competence standards into ownership and
    use of weapons. I would make one exception for collectors. If a person is truly interested only in owning
    weapons for show, then they have no need of ammunition and should be allowed to keep their weapons, either
    disabled so as not to be capable of firing, or without access to ammunition.

    The information and suggestions above are meant as a means of opening conversation, not as definitive or conclusive.

  13. wdf1

    A reminder of past history of Wayne LaPierre.

    [quote]Letter of Resignation Sent By Bush (#41) to Rifle Association ([url]http://beingliberal.tumblr.com/post/38559411675/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-national-rifle-ass[/url]), May 3, 1995

    I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people.
    ….
    [/quote]

  14. SouthofDavis

    I wrote:

    > I agree with you on this one… The NRA (and other crazy
    > “gun nuts”) are making the 99% of responsible gun owners
    > look bad…

    Then Growth issue wrote:

    > completely agree on this point, though i would suggest
    > the number is lower than 99% of gun owners.

    Keep in mind that most responsible gun owners don’t talk about guns, or let anyone know that they have guns in the home (more than half your friends might be gun owners who just keep the fact that they have a gun private). Other than my wife no one in Yolo County knows that I own a gun. Like most gun owners I’ve never gone hunting and guns or gun ownership is not something that I talk about socially. In the past week I’ve read that there are 200 million to 300 million guns in the US numerous times and while I’m sure we have “millions” of gun nuts in America I don’t believe we have “tens of millions” of gun nuts…

  15. J.R.

    medw

    What you cite is plausible, but doesn’t rise to the level of convincing evidence.

    For example, you use as evidence that in Australia,
    [quote]Homicides by firearm dropped by 59 % between 1996 and 2006 without a corresponding rise in murder by other means [/quote]

    But violent crime rates and murder rates in the US have also dropped drastically.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States[/url]

    The homicide rate in the US has dropped from 9.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 since 1991. Less than half of what it was. There have been various explanations, from changing demographics to changes in police methodology to increasing incarceration. It’s important when making conclusions not to fall into the trap of conflating correlation with causation.

  16. SouthofDavis

    medwoman wrote:

    > I do not have the reference for this, but the Israeli experience
    > was that the suicide rate for their soldiers dropped dramatically
    > when they were forced to leave their weapons on base when going
    > home on leave.

    Comparing the US to Israel is really a waste of time since it would be like comparing the upscale White Plains NY neighborhood with multiple synagogues where my Jewish friend Tom grew up to Oakland, CA. My friend Tom’s parent’s neighborhood does not have less shootings than Oakland due to the different laws it has less shootings because it is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Since you mention Israel one of the reasons that it does not have any crazy kids shooting up schools is because every school is an armed camp with multiple guns on every campus (and guns in all the school buses).

    > 1) Stricter regulations on the type of weapons and
    > ammunition that are available outside of secure and
    > regulated shooting facilities.

    How will this stop the small single Mom that finds a big guy stabbing her daughter in her home (all single Moms are not MDs that can afford to live in an expensive low crime area like Davis)? Or the backpackers that find a pot grower who has been up for three days using crystal meth and wants to kill them all?

    > 2) Safer firearms, perhaps with single shooter
    > technology, that only allows for the registered
    > owner to fire the weapon.

    This won’t do anything since we already have 200 to 300 MILLION guns in the US with millions more outside the US that can be brought in to the country just as easily as the millions of pounds illegal drugs brought in EVERY year and the MILLIONS of illegal aliens we have just here in California.

    > 3) More firearm safety training required and
    > maintenance of competency requirements to own weapons.

    I don’t think that the gang bangers with illegal guns are going to take a “firearm safety training” class if we pass law making them do it. I don’t think that the majority of current legal gun owners really need a class. I did a Google search and found that the “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms says 93% of all firearms used in criminal acts are obtained illegally.”

  17. GreenandGolden

    For the US

    Mother Jones lists 151 (plus a very recent event) gun deaths from mass shootings this year.
    [url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-victims-2012[/url]

    Slate lists 130 gun deaths since the Sandy Hook shootings (This morning it was 121).
    [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html[/url]

    Follow gun deaths by the hour on Twitter @GunDeaths. Last report, 7 hrs ago.

  18. Rifkin

    After my column on the Newtown massacre ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/usa-where-maniacs-have-guns/[/url]) was published, I got a lot of email. All of it, but one, was on my side of the issue. I think bits of the exchange I had with that one reader whose views are those of the NRA would be of interest to Vanguard readers:

    [b]READER:[/b] “I own guns and I am a hunter, but not a maniac. “

    [i] My greatest concern is with the small minority of people who are mentally ill. I am fully aware that the vast majority of Americans who own guns are sane and have no malicious intent.

    I had a family member (he is now an ex-in law) who developed paranoid schizophrenia and he started collecting firearms in order to “protect himself from the CIA” which he believed “was planting listening devices and cameras in his ceiling.” Every time he went off of his medications, he was extremely dangerous. Yet due to the NRA’s control of our instant background check, he was never once denied the right to legally purchase a gun. [/i]

  19. Rifkin

    [b]READER:[/b] “Most handguns equipped with magazines hold from 7-10 rounds. Magazines are easily ejected when empty and replaced by a full magazine.”

    [i] An interesting case of mass murder to think about is the case of Jared Lee Loughner, the schizophrenic in Tucson who shot 18 people, killing 6. My memory of the specifics is a bit hazy, but I believe he had a magazine on his semi-automatic which held 33 rounds. He emptied the entire chamber at pretty close range. Some shots missed entirely, all the others caused injury, in 6 cases fatal.

    Loughner was carrying a number of extra magazines.

    The only reason he “only” shot 18 people and “only” killed 6 was because, when his magazine was empty, he had to stop, grab his next magazine and reload, before he could kill some more. When he grabbed the second magazine, it slipped from his hand. He then started to grab a third magazine. All of that took a second or two.

    In that short amount of time, Loughner was hit over the head by someone in the crowd and knocked down and stopped for good.

    If Arizona had a 10 round limit to magazines, as we have in California, then all else held equal, he would have shot about 6 people and killed 2. He would have been stopped changing his magazines.[/i]

  20. Rifkin

    [b]READER:[/b] “Revolvers usually hold 6 rounds and take a little longer to reload but there are speed loaders which reduce reloading time. Both type of handguns will fire off rounds as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.”

    [i] It sounds like speed loaders should not be available to civilians (unless they are using them in a controlled, regulated environment). [/i]

    [b]READER:[/b] “You may be aware that there are several rifles that chamber the .223 round.”

    [i] Yes. I noted in my column that the AK-47 and Bushmaster .223 use the same type of cartridge. [/i]

    [b]READER:[/b] “Many people I know use these for target shooting and hunting.”

    [i] There is no need for a semi-automatic assault rifle for shooting birds or rabbits or deer or even an elk. [/i]

  21. Rifkin

    [b]READER:[/b] “If someone is shooting a 10 round clip and can push a release dropping the clip and replace it with a full clip in one second what difference does it make how many rounds are in the magazine?”

    [i] The Loughner case makes it very clear how much difference that makes. The killer at Virginia Tech, also would not have been able to kill so many people if Virginia had California’s restrictions on magazines. That killer was also a paranoid schizophrenic who, due to the NRA, could be denied the right to purchase his massive arsenal.

    Again, as I said in my piece, the law says that mental patients cannot pass background checks. But the NRA has stopped all laws which would put a mental patient on the same list which has felons. [/i]

    [b]READER:[/b] “Your suggestion of having semi-automatic long guns such as the Bushmaster stored and used only at regulated gun ranges in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent. What will be next? Hunting rifles that chamber more than one round? All handguns? All long guns?”

    [i] The precedent is the fully automatic machine gun. Ordinary civilians cannot buy them and keep them in their homes. They are simply too dangerous in the hands of the wrong people.

    If someone wants a gun in his home for protection, he can have a hand-gun which fires no more than 10 shots. If he wants a shot-gun, no problem. If he needs a special gun (like an assault rifle) for target shooting, then he can do so under regulated circumstances. That is where the line needs to be drawn.[/i]

  22. Rifkin

    [b]READER:[/b] “Saying that no one needs an AK-47 stored at their house is your opinion and I respect that. I do not own one or want one. However, it would infringe on the rights of others who have never and will never use the privilege of owning a firearm to harm another human being.”

    [i] That is true. It does infringe on the rights of those who are responsible and not malicious and not insane. So does outlawing those civilians from owning and operating fully automatic machine guns.

    No rights are absolute. Each right needs to be weighed up against other rights when there is a conflict. In this case, the priority needs to go to the right of everyone else to be in the public square or a theater or a school, etc, and know that no civilian can shoot up the place with an assault weapon designed for war.[/i]

    [b]READER:[/b] “It is the responsibility of a gun owner to keep guns in a safe or equip them with trigger locks so that others cannot access them.”

    [i] Agreed. Yet, again due to the NRA, we have almost no law enforcement capability to ensure that private guns are stored safely. For example, in the case of the mother of Adam Lanza, I had no problem with her choice to own and operate firearms. But she should have been required by law to keep them locked up, and she never should have been allowed to teach her mentally ill son to use them, let alone have access to them.[/i]

    [b]READER:[/b] “Criminals, lunatics and the evil in our society will always have access to guns.”

    [i] If we had reasonable gun laws, as many countries do, then it would be much harder for paranoid schizophrenics to buy guns and ammunition. And it would be much harder for them to have access to dangerous weapons.[/i]

  23. rdcanning

    JR: Your response to Medwoman (she cites data from Australia on lowered homicide rates and you counter with data from US’s lowered homicide rate) and then cluck-cluck at her for equating correlation with causation. That’s always an easy counter. But correlation is real. I suggest that you look at the Australian data about suicide before you simply dismiss her arguments. The suicide data is particularly strong, as is much of the data (albeit correlational) about reducing suicides through the restriction of means. Pre- and post- data is often some of the most convincing but it relies of course on correlational statistics because we don’t randomize subjects in these sorts of situations.

    So let’s take a look at some data from this country. Start with some data about what kinds of deaths are due to guns. In 2010 over 19,000 individuals (mostly male and white) killed themselves with guns. Here’s a quote from an article entitled: Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003. “The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.” Here’s an abstract from a study of over 230,000 Californians who purchased a gun in 1991:

    BACKGROUND: There continues to be considerable controversy over whether ownership of a handgun increases or decreases the risk of violent death.
    METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study to compare mortality among 238,292 persons who purchased a handgun in California in 1991 with that in the general adult population of the state. The observation period began with the date of handgun purchase (15 days after the purchase application) and ended on December 31, 1996. The standardized mortality ratio (the ratio of the number of deaths among handgun purchasers to the number expected on the basis of age- and sex-specific rates among adults in California) was the principal outcome measure.
    RESULTS: In the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers, accounting for 24.5 percent of all deaths and 51.9 percent of deaths among women 21 to 44 years old. The increased risk of suicide by any method among handgun purchasers (standardized mortality ratio, 4.31) was attributable entirely to an excess risk of suicide with a firearm (standardized mortality ratio, 7.12). In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the rate of suicide by means of firearms among purchasers (644 per 100,000 person-years) was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population. Mortality from all causes during the first year after the purchase of a handgun was greater than expected for women (standardized mortality ratio, 1.09), and the entire increase was attributable to the excess number of suicides by means of a firearm. As compared with the general population, handgun purchasers remained at increased risk for suicide by firearm over the study period of up to six years, and the excess risk among women in this cohort (standardized mortality ratio, 15.50) remained greater than that among men (standardized mortality ratio, 3.23). The risk of death by homicide with a firearm was elevated among women (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 2.20; at six years, 2.01) but low among men (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 0.84; at six years, 0.79).
    CONCLUSIONS: The purchase of a handgun is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of suicide by firearm and by any method; the increase in the risk of suicide by firearm is apparent within a week after the purchase of a handgun. The magnitude of the increase and the relation between handgun purchase and the risk of death by homicide differ between men and women.

    There are multiple studies of the increased risk of both suicide and homicide when guns are accessible. See the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, or the Johns Hopkins Center Gun Policy and Research.

    (Here’s my biases: I’ve never owned a gun and have no wish to. I oppose ownership of assault-style firearms and believe they should be banished from the U.S.. I am a psychologist who has spent the last seven years of my career working in suicide prevention. I don’t believe the 2nd amendment prevents sensible and reasonable gun control laws. As opposed to some, I believe fewer guns overall will reduce our suicide and homicide rate and the rate of preventable firearm deaths. And finally, I believe in data.)

  24. medwoman

    JR

    [quote]What you cite is plausible, but doesn’t rise to the level of convincing evidence. [/quote]

    And this is why I made my statement that my intent was to open conversation, not to put this forth as definitive.
    In medicine we grade evidence by its relative quality. The gold standard is the large, prospective, randomized,
    double blinded study. Since I doubt we will ever have a cohort of parents willing to subject their children, or themselves for that matter, to such a study using actual shooters, we will have to make do with less rigorously controlled evidence. In medicine such studies have included comparison of population studies, drug trials on very limited numbers of patients, drug trials using other ( preferably closely related) animals, or sometimes extrapolating from adult studies to the pediatric population since it is very difficult to get sufficient numbers of parents to allow experimentation on their children.

    I would note that if we were never to accept less than thoroughly rigorous testing in medicine, there would have been no progress and we would still not have antibiotics, or immunizations, or anti cancer agents, or any of a host of other treatments. Sometimes we have to take what is plausible and try it. Demanding proof that something works, but refusing to let anyone try it in a meaningful fashion, is to block even the possibility of progress.

  25. craised

    To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge infantry weapon.
    The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.
    If our bureaucrats want to legislate it, they need to DEFINE IT.
    The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. The reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.
    Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.
    One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world.
    Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature but it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.
    Flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.
    Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!
    It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.” Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.
    Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.
    The reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV.
    I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.
    The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting.

  26. rdcanning

    Dear Craised, maybe you can explain a few things. What caliber bullet is the typical semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifle you mention? What size magazine is common? Why would someone wanting to defend their home buy large capacity magazines (>10 rounds) for such a weapon? Why has California been more successful in banning these firearms than the federal government?

  27. craised

    Why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds?
    Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.
    The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.
    Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.

  28. medwoman

    Slate magazine has been running a feature in which it lists the gun related deaths since the Newtown shooting.
    I have broken down these events by category of perpetrator and intent according to the information available.
    Of the 130 cases, my numbers do not add up precisely do to insufficient information and or my inability to decide based on the information, into which of my admittedly somewhat arbitrary categories they should be placed. I am hoping however, to arrive at numbers which might suggest approaches which might be considered as options to reduce gun related injuries and deaths. My categories and the number of cases are as follows:

    Stranger in commission of a crime – 15
    Stranger by accident – 0
    Unknown perpetrator – 69
    Perpetrator known to victim including DV and acquaintance – 35
    Perpetrator known to victim by accident – 0
    Self inflicted ( suicide ) – 9
    Self inflicted ( accident) – 5 ( including one 2 year old and one 3 year old)
    Police – 4
    Self defense in home – 1

    In the above are included :
    Murder / suicide – 5
    1 police officer killed in exchange of fire with single perpetrator
    1 probable ” suicide by police”
    1 suspect armed with a flash light killed by police officer in defense of self and partner
    1 police officer killed during an ambulance transport
    1 police officer killed responding to a DV call
    1 teen shot father purportedly in defense of self and abused mother

    If one were to go by these numbers it would appear statistically that one would be much safer not to have a gun readily available given that only one of the 130 deaths is self defense related. From these numbers, it would seem that the risk of death at the hands of a family member, acquaintance or even by one’s self is much higher than the
    statistical chance of successfully fending off an intruder. Granted these numbers are a very limited snap shot of gun related injury in our country. However, they do seem to trend with previous studies as reported in
    the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2004 showing that the presence of a gun known to be kept inside the house is associated with a 5 fold increased risk of suicide and a 3 fold increased risk of homicide, CDC data from
    2003 – 2007 showing that in children 5-14 a mortality rate in high gun states 2.5 times that of the rate in low gun ownership states and a study from the Journal of Trauma 1998 investigating all gun related injuries and deaths in three cities, Memphis, Seattle and Galveston between 1992 and 1994 in which the gun was known to be kept in the home. These home guns were 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident, 7 x more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self defense.

    My take on these numbers and findings is that the preponderance of the evidence would suggest that limiting the
    ready availability of guns in the home would provide a greater level of safety overall than would having the gun readily available.

  29. Edgar Wai

    Re: MW

    I think this type of data is useful but I think the safety ratio is not 130 to 1. I think the only relevant cases are:

    1) A good civilian using a gun for self defense (Good intention to with good result)
    2) A gun from a good civilian ends up hurting another good civilian (Good intention with bad result)

    This removes intentional suicides, criminal shooting criminal, and police shooting criminal. If you do this, the count becomes:

    Excluded Cases:
    o Stranger in commission of a crime – 15
    o Self inflicted ( suicide ) – 9
    o Police – 4
    o Perpetrator known to victim including DV and acquaintance – 35
    o Perpetrator known to victim by accident – 0
    o Unknown perpetrator – 69

    Type 1 Incidences:
    o Self defense in home – 1

    Type 2 Incidences:
    o Stranger by accident – 0
    o Self inflicted (accident) – 5 (including one 2 year old and one 3 year old)

    Then the ratio is 1:5. This stills support your conclusion that when a good guy gets a gun and the gun is fired in an incident, most of the time (5 times out of 6) a good guy gets hurt.

    One thing to be careful about this type of analysis, is that statistics does not tell you the possibilities. Just because it shows that [b]currently[/b] a good guy is more likely to hurt another good guy by having a gun, it doesn’t mean that there is no way to improve the odds so that a good guy will become more likely to hurt only another bad guy.

    Because of this, statistics are fundamentally irrelevant to policy design unless the variables are rigid. Statistics can be used to prove that an opponent’s impression is incorrect, but it cannot firmly determine what should be done for the future.

    If gun advocates want to keep their guns, they could make legitimate proposals that improves gun safety to reverse the ratio. Statistics tells us how things are, it doesn’t tells us how things can be.

  30. biddlin

    “If gun advocates want to keep their guns, they could make legitimate proposals that improves gun safety to reverse the ratio. Statistics tells us how things are, it doesn’t tells us how things can be. “
    “gun advocates ” have no interest in improving gun safety . Statistics are a numerical profile and like any profile look very different from another angle, and from theirs, no regulation works best. The posts on this subject published herein the last few days only confirm my view that we must deal our murderous nature, with the sense of personal entitlement that allows us to take another life in protection of property or justification of our religion, politics and philosophy ! Big stuff for people that can’t even accommodate same sex marriage and universal health care .

  31. medwoman

    EW

    I think that the choice to limit the conversation is part of the problem, not part of the solution in dealing with our nation’s gun problems. If you decide to frame the conversation more and more narrowly, you will miss a much bigger issue.

    For example, Jeff states that he feels that the main problem that we should focus on is mental health.
    While this will address the issue of most of these mass shooters, it does nothing to address the other problems associated with human life ended through abuse or accidental misuse of firearms.

    rdcanning rightfully points out that the majority of the mentally ill are not violent and that focusing here as opposed to on controlling either the number of guns or the firepower of those weapons will not be effective.

    If each chooses to look only from their own narrow perspective, they will not be able to address the larger issue unless they are willing to at least consider that the others point has validity.

    The second objection that I have to your limiting the conversation to the “good guy” with a gun vs “bad guy” with a gun is the static nature of the argument. This paradigm fails to acknowledge that “good” and “bad” are not rigid qualities set in stone or in our characters as absolutes. Every one who breaks the law with a gun, at some point
    was a “good guy” with no prior history of weapons abuse. Then something changed. He caught his wife cheating, or
    in the case of the 14 year old wants to prevent his mother from being beaten again, or gets in an argument over a trivial issue. With no gun available, it is likely that everyone walks away angry, but alive. A gun immediately available makes it far more likely that someone does not walk away at all.
    What I think that excluding these cases from the analysis does is to limit the scope of our thinking about the problem prematurely. Another flaw with the paradigm is that it excludes the potential beneficial effect of prevention. By fixing the question on the intent of the shooter at the time of the incident, the possibility of primary prevention has been taken off the table with regard to what I would see as the goal, reduction of gun related injuries and deaths overall. Framing the analysis this way allows only consideration of secondary prevention or how to limit the damage once the process has already started but discards the possibility of primary prevention or how to best keep the gun from ending up in anyone’s hand which we all know is the real weapon here. The gun is merely an inert, but highly convenient means with high lethality compared with other less convenient weapons.

    I would consider the exclusion of the use of their firearms by police, but only since I acknowledge that they are, at least when on active duty, using the tools of their trade to do what they have been assigned by society to do.
    However, I would exclude them with a great deal of reservation since even their actions are not beyond reproach or the possibility of improvement as demonstrated by the instances of firing upon victims in the case of Katrina and other very questionable cases of use of firearms to subdue ( and at times kill ) unarmed civilians.

    I can see how excluding these cases fits into the model that you are attempting to use. It is just that I think that all models have their limitations, and this one, used as you are suggesting, does not address the complexity of this issue.

  32. craised

    [quote]biddlin wrote
    “If gun advocates want to keep their guns, they could make legitimate proposals that improves gun safety to reverse the ratio. Statistics tells us how things are, it doesn’t tells us how things can be. ” [/quote]

    On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

    But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

    So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

  33. craised

    Basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.
    If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints.
    If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.
    They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?
    Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

  34. rdcanning

    Craised – In your calculations, you want to forget suicides by firearms, which I believe should be included in any calculations about firearm deaths, in part because many of them are preventable by access to mental health care and reducing access to firearms (particularly in the household). The 108,000 figure is also not just from the Brady Center (which is always suspect in these discussions) but from the Department of Justice (at least we can think they are more objective). In 2010, then, there were a little over 19,000 firearm suicides, 11,000 firearm homicides, about 350 homicides in legal interactions, and about 650 accidental deaths by firearms (this comes from the CDC’s injury control interactive website WISQARS). So the total is about 31,000 firearm deaths from all causes. Using this number instead of homicides alone (which I believe better reflects the role of firearms in deaths in the U.S.) the ratio is still an impressive 3:1.

    But there are other viewpoints and research that suggest there are fewer gun defense incidents each year than uses of guns to threaten and intimidate. A study by David Hemenway, a public health researcher at the Harvard Injury Control Center (see: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/) published a study in 2000 based on a telephone survey (see: Injury Prevention, 2000) that found it was much more likely that an individual is intimidated or threatened with a gun than a gun is used in self-defense. Now, the limitations of the study are that the data is 16 years old and the laws about concealed carry are different these days (although the DOJ estimate of 108,00 also predates changes in state carry laws).

    Additionally, I believe we should think about non-fatal injuries due to firearms in our thinking about how best to regulate firearms in our country. I think injuries are important because as Craised has pointed out, you may not hit the bad guy with the first magazine (the Empire State Building incident last summer is a good example of the dangers of firing guns in public – one shooter dead, nine bystanders injured by law enforcement).

  35. Edgar Wai

    Re: MW

    Short response:

    1) MW concern: The scope of discussion becomes limited. EW reply: When a question is defined, irrelevant data needs to be excluded to answer the question. This does not limit the scope of the discussion because the same set of data can answer multiple questions.

    2) MW concern: “Good” and “Bad” assignments are too rigid. EW reply: They are not static, and needs to be analyzed for each data point. In the following I show how I would categorize your cases would be categorized if the details and context are known. A specific area you could object, is my assignment to the the cases you provided.

    3) EW concern: The use of statistics can be a wasteful endeavor when the common vision is not confirmed.

    Long response:

    Many conclusions can be drawn from one set of data to answer questions on different aspect. Depending on the question, irrelevant data is excluded.

    The question that I was answering was this:

    [b]Q1:[/b] Statistically speaking, what is the odds that someone who wanted to buy a gun for self/home protection with a good intention ends up causing harm?

    Among many questions that can be answered from the data, this is just one of them. But I think this question is one of the most directly relevant one because most people claim that they buy gun because they want to be the good guy.

    Formally, I agree with you that term like “good guy” needs to be defined, but I think in our case we don’t need a formal definition unless we got drastically different conclusions when we answer this question with the data. To answer which cases are Type1 (Good intention Good consequence) and which are Type2 (Good intention Bad consequence), here are where I draw the lines based on the cases that you or others mentioned.

    [b]Type1[/b] (Good intention when buying gun, Good consequence):

    o Someone who bought the gun to protect the family, but ended up getting shot by 14-yearold son because the gun buyer had became “the bad guy” and the son had to do something to save his mom who would have been beaten to death.

    o Someone who bought the gun to protect fellow citizens, and used it to confront a mall shooter. The shooter got scared and kills himself. (The lives saved has to be accounted.)

    [b]Type2[/b] (Good intention when buying gun, Bad consequence):

    o Someone who bought the gun trying to protect himself, but ended up using it in a crime and hurts someone for the first time.

    o Husband who bought gun to protect his wife, but ends up using it to kill wife after finding her cheating.

    o Dad who bought gun to protect the family, but ends up getting shot and killed by 14-yearold son during an argument over a trivial issue.

    o Mom bought gun to have quality family time with son, but son ends up using the gun to kill in mass shooting. (Each victim life has to be accounted)

    In the above I am trying to show that the context matters. But since the data I saw didn’t have much context I made some guesses. If I had the context I would have done the classification as above. Type2 uses of gun are bad uses. For Type1 cases, the line is drawn on whether life is saved, or whether harm is avoid in the case of using a gun as a deterrent. If the incident ends with a loss of life, the incident itself must be life-threatening to qualify as Type1.

    If possible, externalizes can also be accounted. For example, a good guy carrying a gun as a deterrent could encourage the bad guy to also get a gun. The bad guy gets a guy and kills another good guy. Such chain of causality feeds itself and drives society toward a type of arm race, where conflicts gets escalated, and resources that could be used to build the society are lost in security costs of citizens guarding against one another. Because of this, my perspective is that while statistics can answer some questions, it is in-adequate and inefficient in answer what society should do. That answer lies in the vision of the society.

  36. Edgar Wai

    [b]Solving Problem by first uniting vision[/b]

    To solve problems based on vision, the stakeholders need to declare that visions and resolve the conflicts in their visions first. Once the conflicts in their visions are resolved, the stakeholders will see each other as collaborators instead of opponents.

    I think the first question to ask, is whether each stakeholder would agree with this ranking of civilization achievement from highest to lowest:

    Rank 1: People cooperate because they want to
    Rank 2: People cooperate because they are given incentives
    Rank 3: People cooperate because they fear the consequences if they don’t
    Rank 4: People exploit one another at the cost of others’ poverty
    Rank 5: People exploit one another at the cost of opponent’s lives

    A Rank 5 society is one with genocide. A Rank 4 society is one with a huge unsurpassable class difference between the rich and the poor. A Rank 3 society is one that promotes laws but lacks moral integrity. A Rank 2 society is one people work together but don’t connect to each other as individual persons. A Rank 1 society is one that is like a loving family in the scale of a society.

    At each rank, there is a force that prevents the society from advancing forward. People who are under the influence of that force tend to believe that that is the only way the society could be or should be.

    If the stakeholders agree with this ranking, then the second question to confirm among the stakeholders, is whether each of them has the intention to advance the Ranking of our society in every aspect. Once the stakeholders confirm that this is the common vision, then they are ready to discuss proposals, because proposals need to be analyzed not only based on cost and benefits in terms of how the current society works, but on their ability to advance the society as a whole to the next rank of civilization.

  37. medwoman

    EW

    I agree with you that this initial reports do not provide enough information to adequately assess where each of the individual cases would most appropriately be placed in your paradigm. But I also do not think that lack of information, which will always exist should be enough to perpetuate paralysis in cases of demonstrated need for change. Sometimes, you just need to make your hypothesis, draw up a pilot to test it in the real world and see what happens.

    As for your ranking of societies, I agree with the basic outline. Having just returned from Haitii which I would on my limited observations, rank as a least a 4, and if a 4.5 were on your list, I would probably have selected that.
    I also see the utility of enlisting people’s beliefs in this kind of ranking and goal system. So I will stick my neck out. Right now I see the United States as being in the 3-4 range and would very much like to promote activities that would move us up on your scale.

  38. wdf1

    [quote]NRA Video Games Support NRA Claim That Video Games Are Bad ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nra-video-game-supports-nra-claim-that-video-games-are-bad_n_2348088.html[/url])

    ….
    “The real culprit in the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., said LaPierre, was not high-powered rifles but “monsters” like Adam Lanza and the problematic media they consumed, especially “vicious, violent video games.”

    But the broad brush of that last statement may tar even the NRA itself. In the past six years, the NRA has put out four video games, including “NRA Gun Club,” “NRA High Power Competition” and “NRA Varmint Hunter,” Business Insider discovered.”
    ….[/quote]

  39. craised

    [quote]Additionally, I believe we should think about non-fatal injuries due to firearms in our thinking about how best to regulate firearms in our country. I think injuries are important because as Craised has pointed out, you may not hit the bad guy with the first magazine (the Empire State Building incident last summer is a good example of the dangers of firing guns in public – one shooter dead, nine bystanders injured by law enforcement). [/quote]

    This is what happens when people who have never handled a weapon make laws that we all have to abided by.

    Law Enforcement agencies put a very heavy trigger on their issue service pistol for liability reasons. The most famous example is the Glock New York trigger that weighs approx 8 lbs and even worse is the New York plus that has a trigger pull weight of 12 lbs. Remember if your pistol weighs 2 lbs loaded and you have an 8 pound trigger pull it will take 4 times the loaded weight of the the handgun to make it fire. This means for the typical shooter it is virtually impossible to shoot the weapon accurately under stress. This leads to misses and an unintentional spray and pray approach when in a gunfight. The danger to innocent bystanders is increased dramatically and the very thing that was meant to make the pistol safer ( heavy trigger pull ) actually increases the danger to the public that LE officers are sworn to protect. This sad state of affairs started as a byproduct of LE agencies that issued revolvers and relied on the long heavy double action trigger pull as a safety device. This lead to the unsafe habit of allowing officers to have their finger on the trigger when they should not.
    A much better approach is to train and if need be re-train officers to keep their finger off the trigger at all times except when presenting the weapon toward the target. Always keep in mind that a mechanical device is a poor substitute for safe gun handling.

  40. rdcanning

    Craised: I think it is important to make sure as few innocents as possible are hurt by law enforcement agencies.

    But back to the point you were trying to make: the number of incidents in which a firearm is used to deter and/or repel an intruder. Thus, more guns in the hands of citizens the better.

    But most of the evidence out there (and I don’t want to get into debating about people like John Lott, whose data and methods have been repeatedly called into question) suggests that the more guns are available, the higher the rates of homicide and suicide – and not by strangers – but by people in the households where the guns are kept.

  41. craised

    [quote]But back to the point you were trying to make: the number of incidents in which a firearm is used to deter and/or repel an intruder. Thus, more guns in the hands of citizens the better[/quote]

    I think we need to issue permits to buy ammunition for each caliber the applicant chooses to purchase. Also, in order to receive this permit each person should also be required to take at least 2 days of weapons training every year for each weapon they want to buy ammunition for. The permit applicant should also be required to submit to a psychological evaluation every year. All this should be on the applicants dime. If the permit holder is found to be under the influence
    of alcohol or drugs under any circumstance, they should never be allowed to purchase ammunition for life.

  42. Roger Rabbit

    And the guns are not there just because he is president – typical rich Dems, we want to have guns protecting us, but we don’t others to have guns to protect themselves.

    [url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
    [/url]

    Gov Never has gun control – why?

    [url]http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Obama-guns.jpg
    [/url]

  43. Roger Rabbit

    “The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

    Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

    The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act. So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

  44. medwoman

    RR

    That is a cute picture of the Obama’s. It brought to mind for me another picture of a very photogenic president waving and smiling at the public while surrounded by heavily armed social service and police. Ronald Reagan seconds before he was shot.

    [img]Reagan waves.jpg[/img]

    Now let’s imagine a speech bubble for President Reagan that reads ” Guns will protect us “
    Now go to the site President Reagan assassination attempt for the pictures that I chose not to post out of respect for the President, Mr. Brady and the injured social service agent and policeman. This sequence taken over the next few seconds to minutes aptly illustrates why a gun in everyone’s hand is certainly not guaranteed to make even the President safer.

    So if highly armed and ubiquitous body guards, presumably of the demonstrated highest caliber, were unable to adequately protect JFK, RFK and President Reagan, are we really ready to believe that a cadre of civilians with by comparison minimal training are going to successfully protect our children ?

  45. rdcanning

    RR: Retired USMC may understand warfare but I would disagree with his general statement about human nature. For instance, would Maj. Caudill’s model work for parenting and raising a child? Human beings have myriad ways of dealing with each other. A simple dichotomous view of the world may seem attractive, but when put into action, it leads to more problems than it solves.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for