What really appeared was a minor movement among gun lovers to spread this mistaken urban legend.
The pediatrician who was a victim of this rumor practices in north central Florida, an area with too high gun ownership to make the alledged policy practical. His defense against the charges is here:
That seems oversensitive. I have been using the term gun nuts and gun grabbers to identify the more active elements of both sides of this argument for over a year. Heck the first reply to this thread uses the term gun nuts. I’m not sure how the term gun grabber is more derisive than the term gun nut (or derisive at all, the term gun nut connotes insanity or irrationality on its face, the term gun grabber just describes a breed of gun control advocates that think that banning guns or taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a solution).
The term gun grabber is only bad if it is being used to describe people who aren’t trying to grab your guns and painting every gun control advocate as an irrational advocate of banning guns.
Its a law journal. It is not a scientific journal, it is a law review article making observations about the anti-gun bias in the medical establishment. There are frequently debates that occur in legal journals as different scholars take conflicting positions (the one I am most familiar with is the one between two prominent lawyers about poison pills). They frequently cite to peer reviewed articles to support an assumption made in their arguments but law journal articles are not peer reviewed.
I suspect that the same can be said for people who survive jumping off a bridge. In a nation with so many guns, how do you explain the fact that our suicide rate is about average for industrialized nations? Would our suicide rate be super duper low is we didn’t have legal access to guns? It seems like you are starting with the conclusion.
Thats not the point. I don’t begrudge a grieving family whatever irrationalities it needs to cope but considering the fact that US suicide rates are absolutely normal, I don’t see how you conclude that guns are causing suicides.
Meaningful in this case may mean measurable.
I think that would be harder to do with guns than tabacco. The tobacco industry couldn’t counter all the people dead of lung cancer with all the people who had been saved by smoking cigarettes.
Sure its multivariate but if we can ignore Japanese (and Korean) suicide rates as an outlier, we can probably ignore Japanese smoker mortality rates as well. And if there are in fact so many confounding factors that we cannot rely on suicide statistics that undermine your argument why do you think there are any fewer confounding factors that undermine arguments that favor your argument?
The attempt to pass an AWB didn’t exist?
Is this a things on great debates now? :rolleyes:
First of all, I don’t know that there is virtually unlimited availability of guns in California. But assuming there is, how does a greieving family understand more about the subject than anyone else? Do you think that grief would make you more rational or less rational?
Its a bit like abortions. There is a right to birth control but individual states push around the edges to limit that right. If they can impose a 3 day waiting period for abortions, why can’t they do that for guns? The only way California gets relaxed gun laws is if we adopt a federal standard and drag California kicking and screaming into the federal standard. Otherwise, California will continue to be to guns what Kansas is to abortions.
They definitely want more people. Its how they swing those elections and scare Democrats.
Well, apparently by teaching kids how to be safe around guns, we are putting the burden for guns afety on kids. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
They are pretty focused on banning guns. They are like the folks who think the best form of birth control is abstention so we should not distribute condoms or teach sex ed because it only encourages kids to have sex, or something like that.
You realize that background checks at gun shows are meaningless, right?
ISTM that the NRA was just spiking the ball. Its either a symbolic fig leaf for the folks who tried to ban assault weapons so they could say “see, if we hadn’t gone after assault weapons, we wouldn’t have even gotten this background check” or a touchdown dance by the folks who shut them down so they could say “Wow, you guys really fucked things up so badly that you couldn’t leverage a heartbreaking tragedy like Newtown into something as meaningless as a gun show background check”
I think it should be a cautionary tale to the anti-gun folks, not to let ill informed people on their side drive the debate because that really hurt them.
When one side is perfectly happy with the way things are and the other side wants change, you can’t reach an agreement on change unless you can convince the side who is already happy to agree to that change. The gun rights groups seem content with teh status quo. The gun control groups want more gun control but don’t offer anything other than to meet the gun rights groups in the middle when they are already content where they are.
Feinstein was the spokeswoman. She took the lead and all the gun control folks followed her lead. Between Feinstein and Bloomberg, you have two very intelligent people who have strong feelings about guns but very little knowledge about them.
But a lot of people on the gun rights side aren’t looking for a compromise. What is there to negotiate? What does the gun control side have to offer?
People keep throwing around this 90% support for Manchin Toomey but I doubt anywhere close to 90% were disappointed that Manchin Toomey didn’t pass. It was a fig leaf.
Its unfair to tell him he MUST play even though there is nothing in it for him…
This might be hangfire, its pretty rare. Keep holding your gun in a safe direction for at least 30 seconds then eject the cartridge and dispose of it. I think they covered it in my CCW class.
There is correlation [association?], not necessarily causation as the study clearly states.
Ok. That saves me some time.
Easy words when you have the NRA’s lobby arm to back you.
I’ve been lurking on this thread, and it has helped me come to a conclusion: the primary elephant in the room needs to be neutralized–the NRA and associated factions. Time and time again they are used as an unprincipled backstop to the more radical of the pro-gun arguments, and as a means directly or indirectly of dictating the terms of the debate all the way up through Congress. Unfortunately, the only way it seems to neutralize the NRA (et al) is to grow rival factions to fight their lobby arm.
Here’s a link to Everytown, (which as an organization is fairly new),
and here’s one to the the Brady Campaign, which is older and has about a million members,
(my bold)
Such as? What would you consider as the more radical pro-gun arguments that is supported by the NRA?
One thing about the NRA is that they are not a monolithic entity. Their power derives from their members. The members are focused and vocal. Often gun rights supporters are single issue voters. Can you say the same for people who support gun control?
It really doesn’t matter. Here’s a hypothetical:
In a democracy, an organization of ca 5 million in a population of 300 million has succeeded in putting forward its stance on issue A, pushing it through legislation, pervading debates both inside and outside of congress, punishing legislators in the highest levels in both parties, half of whom seem to be afraid of it. Does this seem just to you?
NO MATTER what arguments you can come up with, it is understandable, even laudable for anyone to object to this ON PRINCIPLE. And the only way to get our voices heard, unfortunately, is to put money into groups that oppose that organization.
(to answer your question–
That’s playing on my words. I never said those radical pro-gun arguments had to come from the NRA. What I mean by a backstop:
A says: I want a gun in every person’s hand between the ages of 8 and 80, open carry, the works.
B says: No.
A says: No anti-gun measure has passed in the past ten years. [own remark: because of the NRA’s mighty lobby arm] Do you think you can avoid the progress of gun distribution in the US? We’re winning. Resistance is futile. etc. etc.
AND
The NRA often ends up being the shield for the Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights (for the uninitiated reader, these are more strident gun groups than the NRA, though smaller).
AND
The fact is, what is radical and what isn’t is being determined by the NRA (et al) itself, further reason they need to be neutralized. For instance I could argue in favor of a flexible interpretation of the 2nd amendment (which plumber Joe implicitly denies in the quotation that started this thread) and your side would, I have little doubt, conflate theory with praxis–the theory, perfectly supportable, is that it’s flexible (it’s the reason “arms” doesn’t cover bazookas); the praxis being what the NRA dictates, utterly rigid in its interpretation (google “NRA 2nd amendment”), leading the poor victim of its dogma and rhetoric to believe the theory doesn’t count.
)
Define “just”. I think our system of government is open to a vocal minority coalescing power in this fashion. They still need to get people to vote, and in large numbers. Overall I’m fine with the status quo in this regard.
While I disagree it’s laudable to object on principle, I encourage you to advocate and donate to causes you believe in. If you think Everytown, Brady, Joyce, MAIG, and other groups align with your goals, then by all means support them. I do the same, just to different groups.
Unfortunately I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. If your restate it in a different way I could respond. Up to you.
Well, recently it has been the US judiciary that has been backing gun owners. The NRA gets most of its power from its membership and other gun owners.
You’re the one that is proposing change. So you have to make a case either through negotiation (which means you have to give the other side something, not offer to take less than you would if you were king of the world), or through changing their minds.
I don’t usually post in these threads because no one is going to change anyone’s opinion on the subject, but you said that you largely agree with the statement you quoted. I’m wondering if you truly believe the bolded part? As a responsible gun owner I am offended that you believe that I write off the lives of children as the “cost of doing business”. I’m sorry, but that just isn’t the case. In reality I I’m appalled at the actions of individuals that result in the loss of a life. However where it appears we differ is in the solution. How is taking my guns away or restricting my ability to purchase a firearm going to make us safer? Right now all of my weapons are sitting unloaded in a gun safe with the keys securely hidden so no one had access to them other than myself and my wife. We have three children at home and each one has been taught gun safety, they don’t fear guns, they respect them. I have a ccw, but I have never, thankfully, need to use my weapon to protest myself or my family. I don’t feel tough because I have a firearm, I don’t feel the need to even let anyone know I’m carrying one. It is a tool, no different than a hammer or screwdriver. I certainly hope that I’ll never have to use one of my firearms against another human but I won’t hesitate to do so if sometime is attempting to harm me or one if my family members.
The old saying is true, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The only way to solve this problem is not by banning firearms from being in possession of law abiding citizens. The solution if getting them out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals. I have no idea on how to accomplish this, but I am willing to bet that a mentally disturbed person will find a way to murder regardless of their ability to access a firearm. A firearm might make a deranged person’s plans easier to carry out, but it by no means is the only way for a person to massacre their fellow human beings. A IED isn’t rocket science to make.
I will agree with you that we have a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. But taking away my right to sport and defense is going to do zero to make any of us safer. Instead of wasting resources trying to find a way to take my firearms away, how about redirecting that energy in figuring out how to identify and help those with metal issues and perhaps we can make real progress in preventing these tragedies.
And most of all, don’t you dare imply that I or any responsible gun other is fine with a few dead people as long as we get to keep our guns. I’m sadden just as much as you or anyone else when I hear of a tragedy. However, my response isn’t to punish those who had nothing to do with the event, but rather try to find a real solution that might actually prevent another one from happening.
Such as? On a policy level we never seem to get around to that part. We get the “you can’t take my guns!” part, but we don’t see responsible gun owners pushing for any particular solution.
The solution is going to be dealing with identifying and getting treatment for those in our society who are mentally unbalanced. Being a responsible gun owner doesn’t qualify me in the least to put in a plan of action to help solve this puzzle. That is going to be up to the government and the medical community. I don’t want to see any more violence happen than you do, but the fact is I’m as powerless as you to effect meaningful change. I do know that trying to ban firearms will not solve the problem. An easy way to save thousands of lives every year from drunk driving deaths is to ban the automobile. That solution isn’t practical or reasonable, neither is banning guns. The answer to both problems is identifying those at risk of hurting others, intervene and provide what help we can.
I think that we both agree that there is a serious problem here, we just differ on what we think an appropriate solution is.
I agree that one aspect of this problem is the lack of help for people who are mentally ill, but holy crap did you just pass the buck in a hurry.
I disagree that I’ve passed the buck. That is unless you think that all gun owners who want to curb violence should take turns standing at the counter of our local gun stores and decide who is mentally fit to purchase a firearm and who isn’t. I quite honestly don’t think I’m qualified for the job and even if I were I certainly lack the resources and the authority to do so. So, I’m not passing the buck when I say that the responsibility to weed out the whackadoodles falls on the government (who has the authority) and the medical community (who has the qualifications).
I am curious as to what you think we (gun owners who are responsible) should do or can do? I will assume that expecting us to try and convince the government to revoke our ability to own firearms isn’t what is expected.
The responsible gun owners have to deal with the gun-grabbers repeated attempts to ban/register/confiscate legally owned firearms.
Maybe the NRA has promoted a few solutions but the anti-2nd crowd won’t accept anything proposed by the NRA.
I’m not surprised. But you did. You say we need some more help for people with mental illnesses, which I agree with, but then you hasten to assert that you’re one individual and have no power to do anything, and further, it’s not really an issue for gun owners in particular. It’s someone else’s business. The only clear proposal here is ‘don’t pass any restrictions on guns.’ That’s the same problem I was talking about. When this stuff comes up, gun control opponents are usually quick to emphasize the complexity of the issue and say it might be impossible to do anything to prevent widespread gun violence. (This usually focuses on unpredictable things like killing sprees, not constant “regular” shootings.) But when you ask about any laws restricting guns, suddenly they get very specific: no new laws are needed, we’re positive they won’t help, absolutely nothing should be done, so it’s not worth considering. My view is that when you combine those two lines of argument, it looks an awful lot like tactical stalling. ‘Should we do anything about the health care system and people who are mentally ill? Maybe. It’s complicated. Anyway I’m only one person and I don’t know what we can do. But I do know with total certainty what we shouldn’t do, which is pass any law that affects guns. That’s not a complicated issue at all because it’s clear that has nothing to do with the problem.’
It’s very hard to take this with a straight face. How can the entire problem be so nebulous and complicated and while it’s so obvious that a couple of very obvious elements aren’t factors at all? davidw was describing a sad and very cynical bargain our society has made because as a whole we are unable to address this issue at all. He wasn’t saying these kinds of murders are just fine. He was saying we’re in a stalemate because there’s a bloc of people who have absolved themselves of responsibility and who will oppose any change no matter what. They might be personally saddened by these kinds of deaths, but they’re only sad enough to say someone else should do something and any solution that is displeasing to them is dead on arrival.
It hasn’t. Unless you count “create a government registry of mentally ill people,” which doesn’t count because it’s insane and vaguely Nazi-ish.
It’s nothing to be offended about, and has nothing to do with being a gun owner, responsible or not - it’s simply being a realist. It’s not the cost of doing business, it’s the price of freedom.
As you say, people kill people, and any culture this side of a futuristic dystopia where the entire human race is kept prisoner will have such tragedies. Going after guns is just a populist boon-doggle, because it’s the impulse tto kill that’s the problem, and that will always be with us. Claims that limiting guns, fertilizer purchases, or tracking martial arts style throwing stars ignore the fact that humans will kill and the best way to limit that is placing consequences on the act, with the understanding that to a small percentage that won’t deter them. And part and parcel of realizing that is understanding that nothing will - not scarcity of guns, lack of fertilizer and diesel fuel, tracked propane sales, hardened cockpits on planes or anything else.
So how come countries with much stronger gun laws – and that would encompass pretty much the whole of the industrialized world outside the US – have rates of gun homicide that are several orders of magnitude lower than in the US? Such that epidemiological studies of gun fatalities have concluded that the US suffers an epidemic of gun violence unique in the first world? This is the question that just won’t go away. It’s a waste of time even digging up the references and statistics because gun worship in the US has become a religion. Facts just annoy the high priests.
I’ve suggested licensing and registration about a hundred times on this board. Surely you have seen one of those posts.
In what way is registration in the same category as banning guns and confiscating guns?
Because their murders are committed by other means. Of course the USA has a much higher than average murder rate. But you seem to be reaching the conclusion that we can close that gap by banning guns or something. A large percentage of the gun murders are committed by people who aren’t allowed to have a gun in the first place.
He has a point admittedly but it was an incredibly rude and mean spirited thing to say.
Some of what you say sounds good, but this can’t be serious. You really believe that murder attempts by stabbing, or pushing people out of windows, or beating them, have as high a case fatality rate as attempted murder by shooting? I can post links on case fatality rates, and have, and guess what? Not one gun owner ever came back and said, you know, I never before realized a gun was better at killing people than poison.
As for solutions, I think we all know there are none. That’s not a criticism; I assume you mean that you would like to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the mentally unstable, but probably without taking such draconian measures as would stigmatize the mentally ill or bring back massively expensive institutionalization. The problem there is that few of us are a perfect model of mental health, and medical science simply does not have a good test for who is going to kill.
As a self-described gun owner, I think you can do something that will be more effective than what psychologists can do. This is to keep your guns out of the hands of others less responsible. That way, when they have an impulse to kill – and lots of killing, whether suicide or homicide, is impulsive – your gun will not be at hand.
The way to do this is to never sell your guns, and to put in your will that they be turned over to the police for destruction. Otherwise, your guns, if of high quality and well-maintained, will pass down from generation to generation until someone is hurt.
Absurd? Well, it’s not as absurd as thinking that locking up even more people, in a country that already has both the world’s highest incarceration rate, and the highest violent death rate of any first-world nation, needs still more people to be locked up. For decades, until quite recently, US gun ownership rates were declining. We voluntarily reduced smoking, and can voluntarily reduce the density of guns.