Putting the Nut in Gun Nut
Posted by
tgirsch
At least he’s honest. A little paranoid, maybe. OK, maybe a lot paranoid. But honest. 
Disclosure: I’m a gun owner and a CCW permit holder. I’m a gun owner primarly because I enjoy shooting, and because I was given a nice firearm as a gift. I’m a CCW permit holder because it’s easy in Tennessee, because it makes my GOP in-laws in Wisconsin insanely jealous, and because in the extremely unlikely (and hopefully never) event that I actually have to use the gun for other than recreational shooting (think home invasion here), I can show authorities that I’ve at least taken basic gun safety and have demonstrated basic proficiency.
“…in the extremely unlikely (and hopefully never) event that I actually have to use the gun for other than recreational shooting (think home invasion here)….”
You’re willing to kill their asses?
Comment 1/11/2007
I’m not paranoid.
The original version of that post had links to the ‘ifs’ i mentioned that have actually happened.
Comment 1/11/2007
Kevin Baker:
You’re willing to kill their asses?
Not to put too fine a point on it, if they’re a threat to my loved ones, you’d better believe it.
Uncle:
I’m not paranoid.
You’re supposed to finish that with “everyone really is out to get me!”
Comment 1/11/2007
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you
Comment 1/11/2007
Apparently I’m paranoid for keeping a fire extinguisher in my apartment even though my family hasn’t had a fire in the house going back 3 generations on either side.
Comment 1/14/2007
Jordan:
Nope. But you’d be paranoid if you carried the fire extinguisher around with you everywhere you went, on the off chance you stumbled across a fire.
Comment 1/14/2007
Doesn this mean I’m paranoid for keeping a first aid kit, blankets, a spare tire, a changing kit, and flares in my car as well? The probability of you stumbling across a fire that’s likely to be able to hurt you or someone else and can be stopped by a fire extinguisher in the time needed is most likely 3-10 orders of magnitude less than the probability of you being in a situation where a gun would save your life or someone elses life. It’s a common safety procedure that takes maybe an hour out of your week to upkeep, possibly two. Moreover, those with CCW licenses are less likely than those without to commit violent crimes and almost NO CCW carriers have been charged with crimes involving their weapon. The fact of the matter is, your side is much more paranoid because it sees anyone who takes steps to defend themselves in ways other than run away as being somehow misanthropic and dangerous.
Comment 1/15/2007
I hesitate to extend the silly fire extinguisher/handgun comparisons, but..
have you ever actually used or seen used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire? I certainly have, and I expect most folks have. Have you ever used a handgun to save a life, or do you have first hand knowledge of such an incident? I doubt it (cops and military excluded of course).
How many people are accidentally killed by fire extinguishers kept in their homes? How about handguns?
How many people are killed on the street by fire extinguishers vs how many by handguns.
despite the fact that owning a handgun greatly increases the probability that you or a loved one will be injured or killed by it relative to the odds of being protected by it, people still hang on to this as a rationale for owning a handgun. Perhaps if society attached a stronger penalty to accidental death or injury, or even having a gun stolen and then used in a crime, we would begin to see the aggregate cost of handgun ownership as outweighing the benefits derived by the gun owners. This is a tough call, but at a minimum I would like gun owners to understand and admit that their gun ownership does in fact put themselves and others in greater danger than if they did not own their guns. Perhaps then we could have a meaningful, rational debate on the subject. And ultimately save thousands of lives each year.
Comment 1/15/2007
And my penis increases the probability that I will commit rape. Just like owning a pen and paper increases the probability that I will use them to write another “Kapital” or “Mein Kampf” and inspire millions of murders.
I don’t think “owning” a handgun (or long gun either, why the distinction?) increases the probability of any EVENT. Just saying that it does indicates that you see the tool as the actor rather than the people around it.
People generally try to possess things that they feel they need. Some people who feel they need guns are decent and careful. Their possessing a gun no more increases the chance that they will do murder than their possessing kitchen knives or hands, two other murder weapons.
Some people who feel they need to possess guns are careless, stupid, or violent. Their possession of those traits are what increases the probability of the events.
Comment 1/16/2007
staghounds, according to the CDC, four kids die every day from gun accidents. Not homicides, accidents. (www.kidsandguns.org) You can fall back on “the tool as the actor” to dismiss ten thousand gun-related homicides each year in the US, but accidents are accidents.
Handguns are used in homicides at about three times the rate long guns are (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) and also don’t have much use in hunting. This is why most gun control people target hand guns.
I absolutely agree with you that gun ownership is not an indicator of a person’s character. I hope you will agree with me that the aggregate result of all that gun ownership is the loss of several thousand lives each year. There are benefits to some people to owning guns. And there are costs to others because of gun ownership. I only ask for a discussion that recognizes both of these facts.
Comment 1/16/2007
I receive the NRA magazine and my favorite part is the section where they have news accounts of people who have defended themselves with their guns. You liberals can wait 30 minutes for the police to take care of the matter if you want.
Comment 1/16/2007
I absolutely do recognize both of those facts. (Though your accident stat is incorrect- the 4 a day is accidents PLUS suicides, and suicides are a 4x+ multiple of accidents. http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/states_deaths.asp?National )
I believe that the way to reduce accidents is through care and education, not through panic, emotion, bogus claims, and blaming the object. We focus on prevention with cars and fire, we should with guns.
Comment 1/17/2007
For example, both “About 3 children a week die in firearm accidents” and “Firearm accidents account for less than 1% of childhood accidental deaths” are both true. The odds against a child dying in a U. S. firearm accident are over a million to one. More than twice as many children are “killed by ” bicycles, more than 3 times as many by water.
Comment 1/17/2007
You are right about accidents/suicides. I wil point out that if one of my kids was very depressed I would feel better knowing they did not have ready access to a gun.
Children die from accidents. That is a given. I would hope that as a society we are wise enough to evaluate individual contributors to accidental death on a case by case basis, and not just throw up our hands because shit happens.
I am unsure of how fire relates to guns in this discussion. As for automobiles, it is illegal to drive an auto without a license and insurance. Obtaining said license requires significant training and a period of probation. If the gun lobby was willing to allow such controls to be associated with guns, I for one would consider it a huge step in the right direction. (And please don’t compare current gun licensing with drivers licenses.)
Since you have introduced mundane comparisons, how about the other end of the spectrum. Should we as a society allow personal plutonium collections? How about anthrax? Would you agree that there is a point where risks to society outweigh personal benefits and it is acceptable to “blame the object”? I do not believe guns are in the same category as these, but then I don’t think guns are in the same category as water or fire.
Comment 1/17/2007
My father has consistantly put plutonium on his Christmas list. He has an element collection, like other people have stamp collections. He’s already got uranium.
Comment 1/18/2007
“Should we as a society allow personal plutonium collections? How about anthrax?”
If the Constitution allows it we should. Which amendment to the Constitution protects plutonium or anthrax collections?
Comment 1/19/2007
Fred:
I’m probably taking your comment more seriously than it deserves to be taken, however:
The Constitution says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say firearms, it just says “arms.” Thus, from a pure textualist perspective, people have a constitutional right to keep and bear any kind of arms, including nuclear arms, biological arms, chemical arms, etc.
Ted’s point was that even though that’s what the Constitution says, no right-minded person interprets it that way: everyone, even the most extreme gun-rights advocates, draws the line somewhere concerning what is and is not an allowable private “arm.” So the debate is over where you draw the line.
If you factor in “original intent,” the amendment wasn’t put there for personal self-defense or for hunting; it was put there so that the populace would have an ability to rise up against an oppressive government, and to be called up into militia service in the event of an invasion by a hostile force. As such, from an originalist perspective, the people should retain a right to keep and bear whatever arms would be necessary to repel a modern army, including the country’s own modern army. For those purposes, handguns (currently allowed) aren’t terribly useful, while full-auto rifles and explosive munitions (both currently illegal) would be.
Truth to tell, the second amendment is obsolete with respect to its original intent, because of the changes in the nature and scale of warfare over the last 150 years. You can still make a good argument for why people ought to be able to retain arms, but the original reasons no longer really apply.
Comment 1/19/2007
“I’m probably taking your comment more seriously than it deserves to be taken, however:”
You keep saying you are not going to respond to me and then you do. Why do you lie so much?
Your points are nonsensical and unworthy of a response.
Comment 1/20/2007
Fred:
You got caught dead-wrong, and dodged admitting it, as usual. Coward.
Comment 1/21/2007
“You got caught dead-wrong, and dodged admitting it, as usual. Coward.”
Dead wrong about what? Where do you come up with those idiotic thoughts?
Comment 1/22/2007