Interesting piece by David Frum on CNN.com: America’s gun problem is not a race problem. I’ve been largely avoiding discussion of the racial aspect of the Newtown massacre. Some have pointed out that there wouldn’t be as much of an outcry if the victims were people of color (there was at least one black child and one Asian child), and I might agree with that, but I don’t see it that way; I just see 20 dead innocent children and 6 dead innocent adults. Some have also said that the media is ignoring the fact that most mass shooters are white men. I might agree with that too, but I also don’t see it that way–I certainly see it as a male problem, but I think it’s mostly a gun problem. And while white men do commit the majority of mass shootings (44 of 62 since 1982), there are also quite a few non-white men who have been involved, such as Eduardo Sencion, One L. Goh, Jiverly Wong, Omar Thornton, etc.
But the Frum article is interesting. He notes an interview with Ann Coulter, who seems to put the entire blame on “demographics” and who had to go way back to Colin Ferguson to show that it’s a minority thing and that it’s “diversity” that is causing mass shootings (even though 44 of 62 mass shootings since 1982 were committed by white males). Is Ann Coulter saying that our problem is that we have too many people of color?
“If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium,” Coulter said. “So perhaps it’s not a gun problem, it’s a demographic problem.”
Frum says something I found very interesting:
The typical murder has one victim, not many. The typical murder is committed with a handgun, not a rifle. And in the typical murder, both the perpetrator and the victim are young black men. Blacks are six times as likely as whites to be the victim of a homicide. Blacks are seven times as likely to commit a homicide.
The horrifying toll of gun violence on black America explains why black Americans are so much more likely than whites to favor gun control.
Conversely, fears of being victimized by violence explain why so many white Americans — especially older and more conservative white Americans — insist on the right to bear arms in self-protection. They see gun violence as something that impinges on them from the outside. They don’t blame guns for gun violence. They blame a particular subset of the population. And they don’t see why they should lose their right because some subset of the population abuses theirs.
This is true among just about everyone I’ve spoken to. Most black people I know seem to support some form of gun control. Most white people and Asian people I know also support gun control, but most of the gun supporters I’ve run into (“we have enough laws and it’s unconstitutional to have more!”) seem to have violent fantasies of a man breaking into their home and them defending themselves by shooting that man dead (even though even the gun crazies themselves sometimes have trouble getting that first shot out). They keep talking about “that woman in Georgia” or post videos like this one. I have no idea what the race of the man these people imagine breaking in their home would be, but I always feel like the implied assumption of gun rights supporters is that the man probably would come from a certain “subset of the population.” If the numbers presented by both Frum and Coulter are right, then it’s probably black people who ought to fear gun violence more, which would explain why black people tend to be more pro-gun control. With white people who are pro-gun, I can’t help but think that there’s some kind of bloodlust there. Why aren’t these white people taking the logical approach that would make it harder for their assailants to get guns? I mean, really, you need to seriously question people who cheer whenever someone shoots a home invader (not that it happens often…it doesn’t.). Home invader or not, that’s still another dead person.
In any case, I agree with Frum that we can’t just ignore an entire subset of the population. I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that the bloodlusting set is successfully defending itself with guns. As Frum notes, “One important new study finds that a gun kept in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than to be used in self-defense.” I think people probably should have access to guns, just not the larger magazines and assault rifles. No reason not to track guns either. If guns are a problems for Americans in general, let’s regulate them.
Oh, and by the way, race does play a big role in how we discuss guns as well. White privilege plays a role in discussion too. James Yeager, gun rights defender who happens to be white, got his handgun permit suspended for threatening to kill people after he got angry at Obama and Biden. Every time I watch his video (below), I can’t help but think that if he were black, he’d be locked up in prison (which, really, is probably where he belongs–those are some scary, scary threats).
Here’s more on the racial disparities w/r to gun violence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opinion/who-pays-for-the-right-to-bear-arms.html
“Racial disparities in gun violence far outstrip those in almost any other area of life. Black unemployment is double that for whites, as is black infant mortality. But young black men die of gun homicide at a rate eight times that of young white men. Could it be that the laxity of the nation’s gun laws is tolerated because its deadly costs are borne by the segregated black and Latino populations of North Philadelphia and Chicago’s South Side? “
BigWowo,
Quickly read the link to the NYtimes piece. It doesn’t say if the guns used in Black American homicide are leal or not. Somehow, I am under the impression that gun violence in inner city is carried out with illegal guns. If so, it does impact what kind of regulation you want.
I’m not following, why would you need to know if the guns are loyal or not..??
“I’m not following, why would you need to know if the guns are loyal or not..??”
Its pretty simple really. Usually you have to know the problem to come up with a sound solution. Based on legal or illegal guns, you would propose different type of regulation. Knowledge is power, dear Dr. Z.
So how does the loyalty of a gun come into play..?
John Doe meant “legal”, not “loyal”. “Leal” was a typo.
“ So how does the loyalty of a gun come into play..?”
?? What??
Thanks Raguel.
@Dr. Z,
I am not sure what your day job is but in my day job I cannot provide a solution unless I know what the problem is.
I am no gun expert but as an ordinary person I would like to know what the regulations are trying to regulate. Let me illustrate with some extreme examples.
Lets say there is a problem where people are buying guns, and then passing them on to others who are committing single person homicide with that weapon. In this scenario, restricting the magazine capacity or banning assault type rifles will not prevent or solve the problem. Here the solution might be to do a better background check on the buyer, the kind of associations/friends the buyer might have, or some regulation to have the buyer re-register the gun periodically might be better.
Consider a different scenario where registered gun owners are shooting people in random in crowded places. Here a better regulation would be to restrict the kind of weapons you can own, and also put more emphasis on mental health checks in the regulation.
You get the picture I hope, and see that the solution or regulation have to be designed to fit the problem. And not the other way around.
Now the NY times article is lacking in some aspects … the problem is not clearly defined. The author needs to do more thorough research or provide more information.
That clears that up. Leal is a word that means faithfulness/loyalty, hence the question.
John Doe:
I do not know what your day job is. However, two things have occurred to me:
Your job does not involve spellchecker or a grammar check.
You are most certainly not a lawyer if you are misspelling legal.
“Your job does not involve spellchecker or a grammar check.”
Got that right. Thats for the secretary. Mine requires thinking in abstract terms. Law is too rigid as a subject and devoid of imagination for my taste. I enjoy creative work. Does your job require thinking? Or just memorization of facts?
I can tell Raguel’s job requires thinking based on his deductive logic.
English majors seem to be very good at spelling and grammar in English. But I am okay for someone who speaks English as a third or fourth language.
But the more important question is do you still think the problem should fit the solution or the solution should fit the problem. You seem to be avoiding that. I wonder why?
John,
Sorry for the late response.
I think you’re right. Bans on high capacity mags and assault weapons prevent mass shootings. It’s a little trickier with the typical shooting that Frum describes. Nearly 75% of these guns are obtained legally, although even a statement such as that requires some assumptions–Adam Lanza, for example, was legally allowed to fire his mother’s guns (and she encouraged him to do so), although it’s assumed that he illegally took them from her since he shot his mother.
In the case of regular person-to-person handgun violence, I think it’s a bit harder to determine what is legal and not legal. Many states don’t require permits to own guns, and I think most states allow private gun sales from one individual to another. Gunshow loopholes allow people to buy guns without background checks. I also wonder what exactly qualifies as a homicide. Is Dan Freudenberg’s murder considered a homicide? (I don’t think it is.) Laws are so lax that it’s hard to determine what is legal and what isn’t.
It’s probably easier to figure such statistics in a place like New York City, for example, that has strict gun laws. In NYC, you’re not even supposed to touch a handgun without a permit. I’m generally not a big believer that local gun laws work, but in the case of New York City, there were only 237 gun murders for the year at the end of December 2012, which is really quite remarkable for a city of eight million that borders places where it’s much easier to own a gun.
http://gothamist.com/2012/12/28/nyc_hits_record_low_murder_rate_in.php
Thanks Bigwowo for the info. Thats the kind of details that one needs to get into to see what needs fixing. I support the right to carry weapon with proper regulations in place… at the same time like the marine Joshua Boston in that other blog I would be nervous if everyone was packing. That to me seems a bit hypocritical. To be clear I am not for everything goes like the marine is suggesting.
On the other hand, as they say more is different. There is a quality of its own to quantity, and when everyone is packing it might change the social dynamics in very bad directions.
One thing that is never discussed, conveniently I might add, by the Ann Coulter’s of the world is the income disparity in our nation. They bring up the “others” or say “oh it’s the others and maybe a few crazy white guys”, but it’s more complicated than that, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1170534/-Gun-Violence-Has-Too-Many-Causes.
I also find it odd how much of a gun fetish exist these days. I went to school in Virginia and Indiana. Since the Newtown shooting I’ve seen tons of pictures on Facebook of people flaunting guns, bragging about their arsenal and how no one will “ever take away their freedoms.” It’s a sad day in our history when common sense is trumped by an obsession over ones penis envy. *snarkintended
Re-posting this for others to read:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/kyle-mattingly/
(Sorry Byron)
Gun violence disproportionately affects young black and latino men more than other ethnic groups because generational poverty, fatherless-ness, lack of access to quality education, unemployment, etc. also disproportionately affect them. If you remove the numbers of gun deaths that are SUICIDES, I think the statistic would be even more glaring. So I’ll repeat my point from our previous conversations: ultimately the problem of gun violence is VIOLENCE, not the gun.
Gun violence is a symptom of much larger issues of class and racism. And as violent as some parts of America are, even though we’re #1 in the world for per capita gun ownership, there are other countries that have a far greater incidence of crime and murder. We all want to live in a safer and more peaceful country, but attacking guns as the sole problem is misguided.
And it’s not just white folks who have fears of being victims of crimes. Asian American families and business owners have been targeted because of their race for crime, with the assumption that Asian = rich. More of LA’s Koreatown probably would have burned to the ground if it wasn’t for the groups of Korean shopkeepers who formed self-defense groups with whatever rifles, pistols, and shotguns they had on hand.
My 2 cents. You should blog verbatim our gigantic dialogues from Facebook. Many of my “real life” friends and family(both pro and anti gun control) have complimented to me that our discussion thread was thought provoking.
PS
James Yeager = crazy. I don’t blame the gov’t for pulling his permit.
Armed insurrection is the security blanket of the anti-democracy, anti-equality plantation culture that has infested American conservatism. They know that their ideas have been obsolete since the Civil War, but they’re unwilling to adapt. They will either force the country to revert back to its antebellum ways, or they will die (or fantasize dying, because they’ll most likely surrender at first opportunity) trying.
Hey Gar,
Yes, those FB convos are definitely good. Glad your friends and family like them!
I actually don’t disagree with what that blogger wrote about race and guns. But while I agree with his opinion, I don’t think it’s the best way to talk about it. In other words, I’m fine with what he says, but I’m not sure it’s the MOST helpful way to discuss the issue. Sure, I can see that somepeople might not have cared enough if it were black kids gunned down (and as I mentioned in the OP, there was in fact a black child who was murdered at Sandy Hook), but rather than limit oneself to just that idea, why not use people’s anger about the white kids to do something to help those black kids?
I don’t know if one should “remove” suicides from the discussion. Guns are enablers; it’s one reason why men, who are more likely to have guns, are often more successful in suicide than women. Lots of these suicides might not be successful or even attempted were guns not so easily acceptable. Suicide, imo, is still violence. Not only should we include suicides, but we should also include all gun “accidents” since they also seem to happen a lot.
Mayor Michael Nutter is still speaking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/politics/recalling-pain-of-guns-toll-mayors-urge-bills-passage.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130118
“Far too often it is the mayor who gets the call about a tragic crime committed with an illegal gun that’s resulted in a loss of life,” Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia, the president of the conference, said in a speech. “It may be the life of a child. A police officer. A young black man. A young woman. It could be anyone in our cities. But it’s the mayor who visits the family members who have had their hearts torn out, and the mayor who attends funeral after funeral after funeral.”
Frank,
Good to hear from you! Hope things are going well!
John,
I agree. Quantity is a big problem. Quantity and availability.
I know there’s a big big amount of words out there, some worth spending time with, some not, but check this one out from Kristof.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/kristof-lessons-from-guns-and-a-goose.html
” He was probably just making a point, but, since he had a gun handy, he pulled it out and aimed it in the direction of the goose. Seeing this, the goose-owner (who had come to fetch his bird) saw the need to protect his property and pulled out his own gun. They faced off — over a goose!
Our neighbors were both good, admirable, law-abiding people, but their guns had led to a dangerous confrontation. The N.R.A. might say that guns don’t kill people, geese kill people, but in the absence of firearms they wouldn’t have menaced each other with axes or hammers. “
There are different lists out there. There is also whether you include murders like the Wichita Murders where 4 people were murdered. Theres an immigrant mass murder table
2003-07-08 Douglas Williams – 7 killed – White
2004-07-06 Elijah Brown – 6 killed – Black
2004-09-24 Chai Vang – 6 killed – Asian
2005-03-12 Terry Ratzmann – 7 killed – White
2005-03-21 Jeff Weise – 10 killed – Native American
2006-01-?? Ricky Gray and Ray Dandridge – 9 killed – both Black
2006-01-30 Jennifer San Marco – 8 killed – White
2006-03-25 Kyle Huff – 7 killed – White
2006-10-02 Charles Roberts IV – 6 killed – White
2007-02-12 Sulejman Talović – 6 killed – European Muslim
2007-04-16 Cho Seung-Hui – 33 killed – Asian
2007-07-09 Ambrosio Analco-Ramirez – 6 killed – Hispanic
2007-10-07 Tyler Peterson – 7 killed – White
2007-12-05 Robert Hawkins – 9 killed – half English and half Hispanic
2007-12-09 Matthew Murray – 4 killed – White
2008-02-02 Unknown – 5 killed – Black (as stated by witnesses)
2008-02-07 Charles Thornton – 7 killed – Black
2008-02-14 Steven Kazmierczak – 6 killed – White
2008-06-25 Wesley Higdon – 6 killed – White
2008-12-24 Bruce Pardo – 10 killed – White
2009-03-21 Lovelle Mixon – 5 killed – Black
2009-03-10 Michael McLendon – 10 killed – White
2009-03-29 Robert Stewart – 8 killed – White
2009-04-03 Jiverly Wong – 14 killed – Asian
2009-08-04 George Sodini – 4 killed – White
2009-09-?? Richard McCroskey – 4 killed – White
2009-11-05 Nidal Hasan – 13 killed – Arab
2009-11-20 Li Zhongren – 5 killed – Asian
2009-11-29 Maurice Clemmons – 5 killed – Black
2010-01-07 Timothy Hendron – 4 killed – White
2010-01-19 Christopher Speight – 8 killed – White
2010-08-03 Omar Thornton – 9 killed – Black
2011-01-08 Jared Loughner – 6 killed – White
2011-06-02 Carey Dyess – 6 killed – White
2011-07-07 Rodrick Dantzler – 8 killed – Black
2011-08-07 Michael Hance – 8 killed – White
2011-09-06 Eduardo Sencion – 5 killed – Hispanic
2011-10-05 Shareef Allman – 4 killed – Black
2011-10-12 Scott Dekraai – 8 killed – White
2012-02-21 Jeong Soo Paek – 5 killed – Asian
2012-03-23 Binh Thai Luc – 5 killed – Asian
2012-04-02 One Goh – 7 killed – Asian
2012-05-30 Ian Stawicki – 6 killed – White
2012-07-20 James Holmes – 12 killed – White
2012-08-05 Wade Page – 7 killed – White
2012-09-27 Andrew Engeldinger – 7 killed – White
2012-10-18 Bradford Bumet – 4 killed – Black? (Vitiligo)
2012-10-21 Radcliffe Haughton – 4 killed – Black
2012-12-14 Adam Lanza – 28 killed – White
Based on the statistics, logic would dictate that control of handguns particularly in high crime urban areas would be an effective starting point. It would setup a scenario where guns are confiscated from blacks at a higher rate than for other races, which is aligned with the statistics that point to the group that commits the majority of gun violence. Assault rifle bans are akin to restricting airline travel because when there is a crash, many people die in one event, when statistics clearly point to automobiles as the form of transportation that results in the most deaths.
Why do these racists and HBD nuthuggers seek out this blog so much even though this isn’t even a racist or HBD blog?
What’s wrong with them? What handicaps or ails their minds?
It’s probably the same outcast two or three people over and over again, isn’t it?
I think you just answered yourself Rags.
-What are the chances that Big WOWO is some kind of worldwide HBDer magnet?
-Now on the other hand, what are the chances that the same 1 or 2 deranged nitwits keep showing up and changing their names more often than they changes their soiled HBD underwear?
I think it’s time for me to put up Google Ads or something. Half-Sigma closed down, AOR went AWOL from the HBD club, and while this isn’t an HBD site, I guess I’ve posted on HBD–at least on the perversity of it. Might as well make money off of it!
But if it is just one or two nitwits, then man, we’re really getting ripped off.
LOL
You know, I have a blog about human nature, and some HBDers started getting interested in it and I could never get rid of them since. They were pretty annoying because they kept derailing every thread into a discussion of genetics. No matter the topic, they would be like “What about genetics?” “What about genetics?” Then when you said yes, genetics matter, they would move onto “What about genetics, race, and IQ?” My idea was to mostly ignore them at first, but the derailings were getting so annoying I decided to just have it out with them “once and for all,” as you can see here:
http://nexxtlevelup.com/everything-else/the-truth-behind-the-hbd-cult-prt-1
http://nexxtlevelup.com/everything-else/the-truth-behind-the-hbd-cult-prt-2
However I found your blog today, found out you had a post having it out with them “once and for all” YEARS ago, and they STILL bother you. So I’m guessing my current idea is probably not gonna work, lol…
Oops, I just read your obtrusive and unsubstantiated rule. Hope what I posted didn’t violate that.
The mentally ill, obsessive HBD nuthuggers who deserve to be euthanised subtantiate the allegations against themselves with their craven deeds.
Great job on dealing blows to “HBD Race Realists” on your blog, T. AKA Ricky Raw.
Hopefully they are a dying breed…. of dummies.
T. AKA Ricky Raw,
Great job! I think you nailed it. There’s just so much misplaced ego behind everything those HBD nuthuggers post.
And yeah, they’ll never go away. We had to invoke the “relevance” rule because they’d bring up their HBD religion on just about every topic. I could post on global warming or genetically modified tofu, and all of a sudden they’d find a way to relate it to HBD! Talk about religion gone wild!
“Yes WOWO, is it not possible that GMO tofu is actually genetically superior to Haplogroup E which in turn implies that soybeans would test smarter than African Americans?”
(sigh)
LOL, King. You’re on a roll. First the kickball crack and now this.
I also enjoyed Ricky Raw’s first post on HBD (haven’t read the second one). The comments were particularly telling of these people. When something goes against their viewpoint, these clowns jump on their rationalization unicycle real fast.
The funny thing is, my posts on HBD keep getting attacked as ad hominems or because they discuss the psychology of HBDers over the substance of their arguments. But I liken it to Einstein’s theory about awareness, that a problem can’t be solved on the same level of awareness that created the problem. I don’t think the HBD problem is really about the superficial subject matter, which is the IQ of blacks. The real problem comes from their psychological issues, and their total lack of self-awareness of said psychological issues.
Hit return too soon…
Anyway, I think the debate is the actual point for them, not getting to any resolution of the debate. The debate helps feed their psychological needs, which is why they have an endless stamina for the topics. In my mind, that’s why entertaining the substance too deeply actually registers as a “win” for them. It’s like a comedian with a heckler who keeps shouting “you suck.” If you engage the argument on its surface and actually debate the merits of the standup act and explain logically why it doesn’t suck, you just make the heckler happier and feed his needs. That’s why comedians will attack the heckler’s psychology and motivations instead of the actual substance of what he’s saying. Because what he’s saying is not the real motivation.
Why aren’t these white people taking the logical approach that would make it harder for their assailants to get guns?
——————————–
Because criminals with guns don’t exactly get them while abiding by laws, now do they? All the gun laws you want will do nothing to stop gun violence. Even if you flip it around: “Why aren’t these black people taking the logical approach that would make it harder for their assailants to get guns?” it has the same result.
What makes you think that by making it more difficult for Americans, (be they white or black or Asian or whatever), to get legal guns would put a dent at all in illegal gun activity?
You are wishing to penalize the law-abiding to punish the law-breaking. #logicfail
Donald,
Thanks for commenting!
“Because criminals with guns don’t exactly get them while abiding by laws, now do they?”
Often, they do! Adam Lanza’s guns were in his home legally. Same with Nathaniel Griego. 75% of mass murderers, according to Mother Jones, obtained their guns legally. If guns were harder to get and required registration, there would be fewer of them on the street. Even if it were just a hassle to get them (background check, fill out a one page form, etc.), it would decrease the numbers. Not eliminate, but decrease.
By the way, I just checked out the website linked by your avatar, and I saw on the front page that Chris Kyle was killed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/chris-kyle-american-sniper-author-reported-killed.html?_r=0
Really sad.
Not to politicize his death, but they were at an exclusive shooting range. That could be another case where the gun was legally obtained. I’m not saying we should make it impossible to get a gun, just harder.
bigWOWO,
Point of Order: The guns Adam Lanza used were legal guns he stole from his dead other to commit his atrocities. He was not the rightful owner. Being 20, he is not allowed to legally purchase an AR15. So while the guns were legal, indeed, he used them illegally, obviously.
I would like to see the link from Mother Jones regarding the 75% statistic you mentioned.
Also, how many of the homicides in Chicago, Detroit, and New York City are carried out with legal firearms? I understand that you might wish to focus solely on the ‘mass murder’ aspect, but does that diminish the fact that these cities have a yearly tally of gun homicides that dwarf all of the mass murders committed?
Illegal guns used illegally. To punish the law-abiding citizens for the evil of the non-law-abiding citizens makes no sense to me. That would be akin to me wishing to punish you as a peaceful Asian person because a mean-spirited Asian fella slapped my face.
Thank you for the polite dialogue. When you have the chance, I would very much like to see the Mother Jones article via linkage.
Respectfully, Donald Borsch Jr.
PS: Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield being shot at a gun range by a fella suffering from PTSD is not an argument for gun control you want to have. Stop and think about it for a minute, and go down every logical path with the argument. It was a gun range. There are guns at a gun range. No one was uptight about guns at a gun range. No one saw this coming. Having been to many, many ranges to fire weapons, I can honestly attest that I have only seen one incident that required any of us to directly intervene and react. Now, why did this Eddie Ray Routh fella shoot Chris and Chad? Only he knows why.
What about arming people at firing ranges with MORE guns? Would that make firing ranges safer and prevent senseless shootings? ROFL
Raguel,
Yeah, that was funny. So funny. Laughing at the death of an American hero is always humorous to anonymous commenters. Enjoy the right to free speech that Chris Kyle defended.
Donald:
Here is the Mother Jones link:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
“Weapons: Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally.”
I would like to comment on your point of order. Yes, Lanza was not the rightful owner, but the guns were legally stored in his house. From reports about Nancy Lanza, it looks like Adam Lanza had fired those guns legally with his mother at the shooting range before the incident. I’ve spoken to some other (not you, Donald!) “gun rights advocates” (I put it in quotes because very very few people are against the right to bear arms), and some of them keep saying “but the act of murder is illegal.” To me, it’s pointless and redundant to say that people who murdered illegally with guns broke the law and that breaking the law is the problem. Obviously murder is against the law! The real problem is whether Adam Lanza and people like him are having legal and easy access to guns. Had there been copious amounts of paperwork and strict laws on who can use a gun, would Newtown have been prevented? Would Nancy Lanza still have guns? Maybe, maybe not. But any roadblocks that reduce the number of guns possessed by irresponsible people, Nancy Lanza included, could decrease the murder rates.
And yes, I agree that there are problems in big cities. I think they need to regulate guns across the board.
Did you see this comic by Jeff and Hudson Yang?
http://www.bigwowo.com/2012/12/if-guns-were-regulated-like-cars/
Is it a punishment for a good driver like me if I have to renew my vehicle every two years? Is it wrong for the government to have emissions laws that make certain gas-guzzlers incompliant? I just don’t see it that way. If I ask that all gun-owners register their weapons, maybe take a gun safety test, and not own guns that have caused too many problems in society, I just don’t see that as a punishment. I see that as a collective action necessary to make the country safer.
Yeah, it’s a pain in the ass. Last time I renewed my license, I even had to bring in my passport, which is a new Oregon requirement. But that might just be the cost that I need to bear so that our roads are well-regulated.
About Chris Kyle’s killer…Adam Lanza, Nathaniel Griego, and Eddie Ray Routh seem to all have had some mental issues, and the people around them offered “therapy” by taking them shooting. Now I don’t know if their mental health issues would prevent these guys from touching guns in each person’s individual case, but it would seem that that might be an area that people might want to explore. I too have been to gun ranges, and yes, it’s somewhat liberating. But knowing what we know about guns and gun therapy, I don’t think it’s for everyone.
Donald, what’s the matter, don’t you like my joke?
If Kyle your “American hero” spent his life defending free speech as you put it, what’s the problem? Have you thought about this down every logical path?
Raguel,
Free Speech and responsible speech are two different things. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is punishable by law.
What you said was irresponsible and reckless and in extremely poor taste. Follow that logical path, Raguel.
bigWOWO,
Your responses are courteous and very well said. As long as we can interact in this friendly spirit, I believe we will have much to share with one another.
I appreciate the linkage to MJ. I will definitely dig into it later on today.
Now then…
You said:
“If I ask that all gun-owners register their weapons, maybe take a gun safety test, and not own guns that have caused too many problems in society, I just don’t see that as a punishment. I see that as a collective action necessary to make the country safer.”
Hold on. You said you have no issue with “…not own(ing) guns that have caused too many problems in society…” Holy guacamole Batman. That comment, while you uttered it without malice, is rife with danger and caution. Dianne Feinstein wants to make sure Americans can only own certain private firearms. Where does it address this in our Constitution? (And I am trusting you are not going to say, “But what about nukes or Sidewinder missles or an M1 Abrams tank? Does the Constitution say we can own those, too?!”)
bigWOWO, if you and I are neighbors, and you decide to legally purchase a shotgun for home defense, I wouldn’t blink an eye. If you, as my neighbor, decided to purchase a legal AR15 for home defense, I wouldn’t blink a eye. If you, as my neighbor, decided to purchase 3 or 4 .38 caliber handguns for home defense and personal defense, I wouldn’t blink an eye. The reason being, as a Libertarian, I must adhere to the Constitution and allow you the right to keep and bear firearms if that is your wish. Surely I cannot, (no would I), tell you which kind of legal and private firearms you can have.
When you use the words “collective action”, please understand that I flinch a bit. I have yet to see any kind of legislation, done for “the common good”, to actually prevent that which it targets. Examples: the legal alcoholic drinking age is 21. People under 21 still drink alcohol. So the law has failed to stop those under 21 from drinking alcohol. The speed limit near my house is 35 mph. No one, myself included, goes 35 mph where posted. The law has failed to stop us from speeding.
These laws were implemented because some legislators, under the false premise that they knew what was best for society, decided to impose this upon us as free Americans, for ‘our own good’. Yikes. Only you and I know what is best for us, bigWOWO. And we should be allowed to do as is best for us, according to our own discretion, and be prepared to stand accountable if we screw up. Laws cannot legislate morality; laws can only punish immorality.
I do not believe in ‘collective action’, since it has not been shown to work. “Gun Free Zone” signs? Worthless other than to prohibit the law-abiding from carrying legal and private guns. All these things put upon our shoulders like yokes of bondage, failing miserably to do anything other than regulate us like we are some social-engineering experiment.
If indeed the laws change from what they currently are to become even harsher and more micro-managerial regarding gun ownership in America, it will open up a door to further and further rights being choked. This is a slippery slope, bigWOWO, and while you may not see it now, you will see it in 3 to 4 years if all these gun rules pass.
Let me pose a simple question:
Say you live alone. Say you begin to feel not as safe as you once did. Say you start getting harassing phone calls and late-night door knockings. Say you start to find notes on your car’s windshield telling you how attractive you are. Now then…if all these laws get passed that you don’t see a problem with, and you go to purchase a legal and private firearm for your safety, and they tell you, “No”, what will you do? You and I do not know the fullness of these new laws they are wanting to pass. For all we know, they are open-ended and able to be added to upon the will of Feinstein. What would you do? You want a gun. You feel you need a gun. Yet now you cannot have one, even though our Constitution says you can.
True, this is high speculation and such, but…I mean…it could happen, bigWOWO. And it needs to start somewhere. I believe that somewhere is today, in that awful proposal of Feinstein and the gun-haters.
So sorry for this Tolstoy-worthy response! I tend to write when there is something worth saying and when the person I am writing to is willing to read it. I’ll check back later to see if you have a response!
bigWOWO,
You said:
“About Chris Kyle’s killer…Adam Lanza, Nathaniel Griego, and Eddie Ray Routh seem to all have had some mental issues, and the people around them offered “therapy” by taking them shooting. Now I don’t know if their mental health issues would prevent these guys from touching guns in each person’s individual case, but it would seem that that might be an area that people might want to explore. I too have been to gun ranges, and yes, it’s somewhat liberating. But knowing what we know about guns and gun therapy, I don’t think it’s for everyone.”
I am considering what you are getting at, here. However, my initial response is that Eddie Ray Routh is a former combat Marine. He knew guns. Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield also knew guns. The three of them together is a far cry from Nancy Lanza seeking to bond with her son using guns. I mean, what expertise did Nancy Lanza have, other than the idea of trying to do something together with her son that could possibly bring them closer together?
Just a thought.
Hey Donald,
Thanks to you too for a good discussion!
I actually agree with Dianne Feinstein on gun control. I think certain guns ought not to be allowed in the hands of the general public. Guns like the AR-15 are only to kill multiple people. Certainly they’re fun to shoot (I have in fact shot one myself), but they don’t belong in the hands of the public. They’re simply too dangerous. The fun I get out of shooting one doesn’t make up for the many many mass murders that people are committing with them.
The Second Amendment certainly protects our right to bear arms, but it doesn’t specify what kinds of arms we are allowed to have. Much like we can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, the public shouldn’t be subject to dangerous conditions based on the availability of assault weapons. Having a gun may be a right, but that doesn’t mean guns shouldn’t be well regulated. As you mentioned (and I do agree, and will in fact restate this!), we can’t have rocket launchers. We can’t, for the most part, own burst weapons or fully automatic weapons. So why can’t we regulate semiautomatic rifles (as an example)?
I recently read and reviewed this book:
http://www.bigwowo.com/2013/01/the-ultimate-suburban-survivalist-guide-by-sean-brodrick-review/
In the book, Broderick, who is a prepper, talks about the reality of gun defense. If you shoot a high caliber rifle at at intruder, it’s possible for the bullet to go through the intruder, through your walls, through your neighbor’s walls, and into your neighbor or his kids. Why should people be subject to that danger? Most gun “defenses,” rare as they are, probably take place without the firing of a single shot. So on what basis should people be able to own these weapons? It’s overkill from a self-defense perspective.
Broderick says that a shotgun should be sufficient for anyone. I agree with him, and I posted about it way before I read his book:
http://www.bigwowo.com/2012/12/guns-for-self-defense-and-how-much-firepower-should-be-legal/
When you say that we should “stand accountable if we screw up,” I’d rather just not have these screwups. Think about it from the moral angle–is it even possible for Nancy Lanza or Greg Griego to be held accountable? What about Eddie Ray Routh? Sure, he’s in police custody. But what can make up for the fact that he murdered the father of two young children? Is he going to financially support Kyle’s widow and grieving children? Can he make up for the fact that these two children no longer have a father? I don’t see justice after-the-fact as being equal to having better preventative measures.
I totally understand what you’re saying about laws, but I do think there are some preventative measures that those laws successfully impose. There’s a 35 mph zone near my house too, and cops love hanging out there. The upshot? Not everyone goes under 35, but many people do because they don’t want tickets. (Those bastards caught me too!) Some people go under 40, which probably makes them safer than if they were going just under 60. Similarly, I’m sure you’ve known kids who have been stopped from buying alcohol because they’re underaged. I’ve known lots of people who have been carded and ultimately turned away. The fact is that the law never stops everyone, but it does work as a form of prevention. Laws may not legislate morality, but they can reduce the number of people engaging in activities that the law deems harmful to society. That’s all that can really be expected of any law, in any society.
Similarly, will gun laws STOP gun murders? NO. But if they can reduce gun murders, I think that’s a noble goal too.
I do think that gun free zones sometimes work, but often don’t. It’s like Gov. Malloy has said–unless the gun laws are federal, it’s just too easy to bring guns from one place to another. So I probably agree with you mostly on this.
I agree with you that there is a problem if people who need guns can’t get them. I just don’t see this happening. Even Andrew Cuomo is a gun owner. Regulating guns and banning certain kinds of guns doesn’t mean that they’re abolishing the Second Amendment!
I think Nancy Lanza was supposed to be pretty adept with a gun. She went to the shooting range all the time and was a prepper, according to some reports. She was a gun enthusiast, so it’s probable that she knew quite a bit about guns. I don’t know about Greg Griego.
I just posted about Chris Kyle. Sad tragedy, and hopefully we can react appropriately.
http://www.bigwowo.com/2013/02/jocks-geeks-guns-critical-thinking-and-chris-kyle/
bigWOWO,
You said:
“Regulating guns and banning certain kinds of guns doesn’t mean that they’re abolishing the Second Amendment!”
The Second Amendment says:
“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.”
My online friend, the word “infringed” says yes, gun control is seeking to abolish the Second Amendment.
bigWOWO,
You said:
“I think Nancy Lanza was supposed to be pretty adept with a gun. She went to the shooting range all the time and was a prepper, according to some reports.”
“She went to the shooting range all the time and was a prepper…”
Come on, man. Find where you read this. Link it. To say such things demands evidence. No more presumptions. No more hinted concepts. Bring out the evidence.
What if I said, “According to some reports, Nancy Lanza was an Obama-voting divorced lesbian terrorist who was grooming her killing-machine son to take out Congress during a planned trip to DC. You know. According to some reports, that is…”
Work with me, bigWOWO. You have a good blog. Present proof.
It’s all over the web, but if you want another link, it’s right here, from her own sister-in-law:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9749217/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanzas-mother-was-preparing-for-disaster.html
” Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam for Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.
“She prepared for the worst,” her sister-in-law Marsha Lanza told reporters. “Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping – are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?” ”
If you want more, check this:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/conn_gunmans_mother_nancy_lanz.html
“Two or three nights a week, Lanza — the mother of the gunman in Connecticut’s horrific school massacre — came in for carryout salads, but stayed for Chardonnay and good humor. The divorced mother of two — still smooth-skinned and ash blonde at 52 — clearly didn’t have to work, but was always glad to share talk of her beloved Red Sox, gardening and a growing enthusiasm for target shooting.”
For the record, I always cite stuff in my blog posts, but I don’t always cite stuff in my comments. Comments are mostly for conversation, usually about stuff that I’ve already linked and cited. But do feel free to ask if you doubt anything I say. I think any question is fair.
“My online friend, the word “infringed” says yes, gun control is seeking to abolish the Second Amendment.”
Well the Second Amendment doesn’t say that people ought to have unregulated access to everything that shoots! Abolish means “to formally put an end to,” according to Google (I hope I don’t have to link this!). No one in the mainstream is asking for there to be a formal end to the Second Amendment. People are just asking that there be reasonable laws so that we can avoid more Newtowns, Auroras, Clackamases, Virginia Techs, Columbines, etc.
Although to be fair, I did question why we needed a Second Amendment. Didn’t say I wanted to get rid of it, but I did question why it’s necessary.
http://www.bigwowo.com/2012/12/why-do-we-still-have-the-second-amendment/
“Come on, man. Find where you read this. Link it. To say such things demands evidence. No more presumptions. No more hinted concepts. Bring out the evidence.”
“Enjoy the right to free speech that Chris Kyle defended.”
So “my friend”, has Chris Kyle ever mentioned that he was defending “free speech”? Can you show me the evidence? Can you show me a link where he said this?
“Free Speech and responsible speech are two different things. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is punishable by law.”
Or do you now mean Chris Kyle was only defending “responsible” speech instead of the free one?
ROFLMAO
bigWOWO,
You said:
“Well the Second Amendment doesn’t say that people ought to have unregulated access to everything that shoots!”
True, true. But the Second doesn’t say we DON’T have unregulated access to everything that shoots, either.
And thank you for the links to the Nancy Lanza “prepper” issue. I hadn’t read that, and now I know. I appreciate you showing me where you read that.
Please know that proof is crucial to me, especially as we dig into this ‘gun control’ argument. Way too much emotional rhetoric, from BOTH SIDES, and I myself need to see proof positive before I opine. You provided proof. Bravo.
How does this guy manage to sound so condescending and pompous even as he tries to fake his chumminess? This guy must be one of those loner “intellectuals”.
Don,
The Second Amendment talks about a “well-regulated militia.” So even if it doesn’t talk about regulating types of firearms, it’s explicit about regulation.
The First Amendment doesn’t address regulation of the kinds of free speech allowed. But even then, we accept that it’s against the law to credibly threaten to kill someone, to defame someone with lies, or to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
bigWOWO,
“Regulated” as per our Second Amendment, means to be “properly outfitted and well-supplied”.
As to the “militia” aspect, in the words of George Mason-
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
I would recommend reading The Federalist #29, here:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
Alexander Hamilton was an amazing man.
Hey, all things aside, let me again tell you how enjoyable this dialogue has been. While I know for a fact we disagree on many, many issues concerning the governance of our Nation, your courtesy and reciprocated politeness is not lost on me. Having been in the trenches of less than honorable debates, *ahem*, it is refreshing to be able to dialogue openly with no fear of name-calling or mockery.
Why yes, of course. The founding fathers meant that “well-regulated” only means being well armed and supplied with ammo, and has nothing to do with well I don’t know….
MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE NOT SHOOTING OTHERS IN PUBLIC
Donald,
The respect goes both ways, man! This has been a great discussion. Thanks so much for coming here, and I hope we continue to talk about issues that matter.