Article about a trauma surgeon and gun violence

  • 26 Replies
  • 10051 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hiro

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
« on: June 14, 2017, 04:58:53 pm »
Since we discussed gun-violence a few times in the Quorum, I'd thought I'd post a link to this article.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gun-violence/

This topic is for further discussion and comments...
Mystery denotes darkness

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2017, 08:23:11 pm »
Where's the NRA loving, shotgun totting, 2nd amendment lovers, so we can get all krunk up in here? Lol. ;)

No, as an American from the hills of West Virginia, I can see the argument on both sides. I myself feel that there is a way to own guns responsibly and no one gets hurt, at least not at the levels we have now. But, it will take sacrifice from so many whom are not willing to budge a inch on keeping their guns and carrying them around town like John Wayne.

As I said in the Quruom, I had a talk at work with a very pro-gun co-worker. And, what it all boiled down to was open carry. I conceded I wouldn't get him to budge on the rest. But, I asked what was the point? He said, to protect myself and protect others. I almost passed myself laughing so hard. I asked him to look at the statistics on those claims, or if he had. He hadnt, and I told him he would be very surprised how little it ever workouts how the gun tigers think it will. I asked him to do some research and come back to me, we'll see tonight.

And, that's the problem, they don't know that wearing a gun doesn't help out in a criminal situation or that having a gun rarely if ever stops a home invasion. They just tell themselves this, to justify wearing a gun around town. Its funny. But, the kid is a good kid and never got angry during our convo, hopefully he really looked up the hard stats and such and maybe, just maybe I'll have effected one person.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2017, 10:37:23 pm »
The problem I'm having with this and many other political issues is the demand that I "do research", which always,  and i mean always, boils down to "read these studies". Now, statistical studies may have value in determining broad trends over even broader populations. I will concede that if you flip a coin a million times,  it's extremely likely that the split between heads/tails will be 50/50. I have to draw the line at determining public policy based on statistical studies. Especially on the issue of gun rights.

Personally, I am sick and tired of having this identical debate after "every" mass shooting. (I write "every" in quotes because no one seems nearly as concerned about mass shootings when it involves two groups of gangbangers.)

Mass shootings occur in cities with strict gun control laws. Mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. There are no easy solutions to the problem of mass shootings. Sometimes they can be prevented or made less severe by the fortuitous presence of a competent armed individual. Sometimes they are made worse by the unfortunate presence of an incompetent armed person. This is life.

For the record, I don't own a gun and never have. But I am starting to think that I should consider at minimum taking some training and some shooting classes.

The aphorism "An armed society is a polite society." contains a great deal of truth. More accurately,  a society that assumes that everyone could possibly be armed is a more polite and more respectful society. Just possibly, it could become a less violent society.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 12:56:27 am by Beardfisher King »
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2017, 12:57:36 am »
Problem is numbers or not, having a gun doesn't stop home invasion, period. It makes matters worse, or the gun is useless because it's locked in a cabinet where it should be. Your setting on the couch with the wife and kids, eating popcorn and watching The Gremlins, door bust in and 3 guys with masks and guns pointed at you tell you they're robbing you....what's that gun in the safe doing for ya? What's the gun in your hip doing for you? You willing to have a shoot out and risk the life of your family? There is so much evidence by means of actual cases, that show that it doesn't help, only worsens the situation. And, to your point BFK, about a society that's armed is safer, well, we as America are kinda proof that that's bullshit.

I'm not having this conversation because of any mass shooting. I'm having it over the need people feel to have a gun to feel safe. For the little boy playing with his dads gun and blows his head off. Those are the reasons I'm having these conversations and believe we need to change the handling of guns in this country. I don't think everyone's guns should be taken, but we need much stricter regulation. Point Blank.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2017, 11:48:26 am »
Where's the NRA loving, shotgun totting, 2nd amendment lovers, so we can get all krunk up in here? Lol. ;)

I don't think we have enough members here to get a real representative of "the other side" of the issue here.  Perhaps not though, I don't know.

No, as an American from the hills of West Virginia, I can see the argument on both sides. I myself feel that there is a way to own guns responsibly and no one gets hurt, at least not at the levels we have now. But, it will take sacrifice from so many whom are not willing to budge a inch on keeping their guns and carrying them around town like John Wayne.

As I said in the Quruom, I had a talk at work with a very pro-gun co-worker. And, what it all boiled down to was open carry. I conceded I wouldn't get him to budge on the rest. But, I asked what was the point? He said, to protect myself and protect others. I almost passed myself laughing so hard. I asked him to look at the statistics on those claims, or if he had. He hadnt, and I told him he would be very surprised how little it ever workouts how the gun tigers think it will. I asked him to do some research and come back to me, we'll see tonight.

And, that's the problem, they don't know that wearing a gun doesn't help out in a criminal situation or that having a gun rarely if ever stops a home invasion. They just tell themselves this, to justify wearing a gun around town. Its funny. But, the kid is a good kid and never got angry during our convo, hopefully he really looked up the hard stats and such and maybe, just maybe I'll have effected one person.

I am not sure if you were on when I was talking about my "John Wayne" hypothesis then too, but indeed, the ideas harking back to a mythologicalized Wild West attitude, where gunslinging "good guys," the picture of rugged manliness, dispense righteous justice with moral certainty, stoic and unflapping.

Unfortunately, that isn't real life.  What it really boils down to is fear in the buying and selling.  Fear of being a victim.  Fear of powerlessness.  Fear of "the other."  Fear of the government.  The incredibly meta, "fear of missing out."  Fear of fear, really.

It's the mainstay of marketing in our culture.  It's a mainstay of our news coverage.  Always predicated on the newest thing to fear.  "Household item that may be killing you!  Find out what at 11!"

What happens when these two things come together?  Well, I think you see it there every day, unfortunately...

The problem I'm having with this and many other political issues is the demand that I "do research", which always,  and i mean always, boils down to "read these studies". Now, statistical studies may have value in determining broad trends over even broader populations. I will concede that if you flip a coin a million times,  it's extremely likely that the split between heads/tails will be 50/50. I have to draw the line at determining public policy based on statistical studies. Especially on the issue of gun rights.

Human behavior isn't a coin flip though.  It isn't really possible to boil down the issue of violence to a 50/50 dichotomy of a person either being violent or not.  What should be looked at are trends.

Personally, I am sick and tired of having this identical debate after "every" mass shooting. (I write "every" in quotes because no one seems nearly as concerned about mass shootings when it involves two groups of gangbangers.)

Mass shootings occur in cities with strict gun control laws. Mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. There are no easy solutions to the problem of mass shootings. Sometimes they can be prevented or made less severe by the fortuitous presence of a competent armed individual. Sometimes they are made worse by the unfortunate presence of an incompetent armed person. This is life.

Of course, area gun laws will never be effective when one can simply drive to the next county, state, or city where such rules don't exist.

The issue is really the confluence of mental health issues tied in with the availability of guns.  Sane people with guns aren't really an issue.  Nor are mentally ill people without automatic weapons.  The problem is when unstable people have access to a means to hurt or kill many people fairly easily.  The issue at hand is also that many of these people do not care if they live or die, in fact, often they fully plan to die in the act.  They want to hurt as many people as they can in the process of suicide.

The aphorism "An armed society is a polite society." contains a great deal of truth. More accurately,  a society that assumes that everyone could possibly be armed is a more polite and more respectful society. Just possibly, it could become a less violent society.

How do we know this though?  Under what auspices can we safely assume this is true?  Is it anecdotal?  Or demonstratively factual?  Serious questions.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2017, 04:38:16 pm »
Problem is numbers or not, having a gun doesn't stop home invasion, period. It makes matters worse, or the gun is useless because it's locked in a cabinet where it should be. Your setting on the couch with the wife and kids, eating popcorn and watching The Gremlins, door bust in and 3 guys with masks and guns pointed at you tell you they're robbing you....what's that gun in the safe doing for ya? What's the gun in your hip doing for you? You willing to have a shoot out and risk the life of your family? There is so much evidence by means of actual cases, that show that it doesn't help, only worsens the situation. And, to your point BFK, about a society that's armed is safer, well, we as America are kinda proof that that's bullshit.

I'm not having this conversation because of any mass shooting. I'm having it over the need people feel to have a gun to feel safe. For the little boy playing with his dads gun and blows his head off. Those are the reasons I'm having these conversations and believe we need to change the handling of guns in this country. I don't think everyone's guns should be taken, but we need much stricter regulation. Point Blank.

1) "Having a gun doesn't stop home invasion, period." Really?  Never?

2) "It only worsens the situation." Really? Always?

3) What I actually wrote, MSJ, is this:

[The aphorism "An armed society is a polite society." contains a great deal of truth. More accurately,  a society that assumes that everyone could possibly be armed is a more polite and more respectful society. Just possibly, it could become a less violent society.]

I hope you will do me the justice of noting that I qualified the aphorism substantially.  Sure, you can dismiss an aphorism as "bullshit". After all, it's just an aphorism. This one is probably more prescriptive than descriptive. In other words, it speaks to the proper mindset within a society. Politeness and respectful behavior are important cultural virtues.

4)
How do we know this though?  Under what auspices can we safely assume this is true?  Is it anecdotal?  Or demonstratively factual?  Serious questions.

Fair points, all, H. I hope my brief explanation above clarifies my use of the aphorism. It's no more demonstrable than MSJ's overheated home-invasion scenario. According to MSJ, having a weapon in the home is literally useless in the case of a home invasion.

This is why I prefer to argue this issue on a more situational and personal level, without recourse to statistics. Actual cases are helpful, but it comes down to each individual's situation and needs. What is your primary safety requirement? For me, I'm clearly most at risk while outside my cab. Open carry might be a good idea for me. Gun in the home for "home defense"? Not as critical, and possibly a bad idea.

That's, to me, the importance of the 2nd amendment.  We as citizens, have an inalienable right to answer this question individually as citizens. Yes, the right is subject to regulation, as the subordinate clause clearly indicates. All rights are subject to limits and bear corresponding responsibilities. Yes, you have a right to free speech, and you are responsible for the impact of your speech. Yes, you have a right to bear arms,  and you are responsible for the impact of your decision to do so.

Best wishes, one and all.
BFK
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2017, 04:50:52 pm »
To all:
Those who prefer to be given a generous reading by others should do the same courtesy. So far, there's a pretty mediocre job being done by all.

Those who wish to have a discussion should be very careful to not use inflammatory remarks/language - intentionally or unintentionally. Emotional topics tend to go awry rapidly.

As with everything else, do try to think about this from both sides.

Thanks, from your friendly neighborhood moderator.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2017, 05:45:21 pm »
4)
How do we know this though?  Under what auspices can we safely assume this is true?  Is it anecdotal?  Or demonstratively factual?  Serious questions.

Fair points, all, H. I hope my brief explanation above clarifies my use of the aphorism. It's no more demonstrable than MSJ's overheated home-invasion scenario. According to MSJ, having a weapon in the home is literally useless in the case of a home invasion.

This is why I prefer to argue this issue on a more situational and personal level, without recourse to statistics. Actual cases are helpful, but it comes down to each individual's situation and needs. What is your primary safety requirement? For me, I'm clearly most at risk while outside my cab. Open carry might be a good idea for me. Gun in the home for "home defense"? Not as critical, and possibly a bad idea.

That's, to me, the importance of the 2nd amendment.  We as citizens, have an inalienable right to answer this question individually as citizens. Yes, the right is subject to regulation, as the subordinate clause clearly indicates. All rights are subject to limits and bear corresponding responsibilities. Yes, you have a right to free speech, and you are responsible for the impact of your speech. Yes, you have a right to bear arms,  and you are responsible for the impact of your decision to do so.

Best wishes, one and all.
BFK

My point was only that there really isn't any way to know this is true or not.  Sure, it stands to reason, but we have no idea if that reason is actually sound.  Certainly, in times past, where people certainly were armed at all times (i.e. premodern times) I don't know that people were or were not more respectful, in general.

Under no auspices is my point to make that there should be a gun ban, but as you point out, this does not exclude regulation.  I think that most people get into a fight over the extreme cases, where the idea there should be no gun meets people who do not believe there should be an ounce of regulation.

Like most things, there should certainly be more balance.  I think the main issue though is what system we have right now does not work very well at all.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2017, 06:44:23 pm »

Under no auspices is my point to make that there should be a gun ban, but as you point out, this does not exclude regulation.  I think that most people get into a fight over the extreme cases, where the idea there should be no gun meets people who do not believe there should be an ounce of regulation.

Like most things, there should certainly be more balance.  I think the main issue though is what system we have right now does not work very well at all.

If by "not working very well", you mean the system is not preventing mass shootings, I would argue that most mass shootings are not preventable.  You enumerated many reasons why this is so.
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2017, 06:58:15 pm »

Under no auspices is my point to make that there should be a gun ban, but as you point out, this does not exclude regulation.  I think that most people get into a fight over the extreme cases, where the idea there should be no gun meets people who do not believe there should be an ounce of regulation.

Like most things, there should certainly be more balance.  I think the main issue though is what system we have right now does not work very well at all.

If by "not working very well", you mean the system is not preventing mass shootings, I would argue that most mass shootings are not preventable.  You enumerated many reasons why this is so.

Eh, I'd be more apt to categorize it as "minimizing violence."  While everything isn't preventable, I don't think that means one should try to minimize their happening though.  Car accidents are pretty unpreventable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what steps we can to minimize their happening.  Same idea to minimize gun violence.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2017, 08:44:56 pm »

Under no auspices is my point to make that there should be a gun ban, but as you point out, this does not exclude regulation.  I think that most people get into a fight over the extreme cases, where the idea there should be no gun meets people who do not believe there should be an ounce of regulation.

Like most things, there should certainly be more balance.  I think the main issue though is what system we have right now does not work very well at all.

If by "not working very well", you mean the system is not preventing mass shootings, I would argue that most mass shootings are not preventable.  You enumerated many reasons why this is so.

Eh, I'd be more apt to categorize it as "minimizing violence."  While everything isn't preventable, I don't think that means one should try to minimize their happening though.  Car accidents are pretty unpreventable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what steps we can to minimize their happening.  Same idea to minimize gun violence.
Where the rubber meets the road is at the intersection of the phrase "take what steps we can" and the 2nd Amendment.

Your comparison to car accidents is interesting. So very many collisions are preventable, but only if the drivers involved were to exercise some elementary prudence. Don't tailgate, slow down when weather conditions deteriorate, etc. In the case of gun violence,  the situation differs in that there is generally a perpetrator who has become an outlaw. As you note in your previous post, that accounts for the fear of being victimized by someone whose has no concern about or respect for the law. How do you prevent people from becoming outlaws?
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2017, 09:02:01 pm »
It's simply false to assume that armed citizens cannot stop mass shootings. Perhaps this article could be food for thought.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.e815f8f37f6e

ETA: I posted the article before I read it. Scanning it quickly, I'll just note that Volokh is fair-minded and doesn't overplay what is admittedly an extremely small sample size.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 09:06:20 pm by Beardfisher King »
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2017, 09:33:43 pm »
Lol, when is the last time you've heard of a armed citizen stopping a mass shooting? I'm sure its happened and I'm sure it can. I'm sure a gun can protect certain peoples lives if they use it the right way in the right situation. I said I can see both sides. My point, there are guns in the hands of way to many people that shouldn't even hold a steak knife, for the irresponsibility or for mental health reasons. And we have no way to stop this. Unless your a felon or a few other criminal factors, you can get a gun as easily as a fishing pole. And, in a lot of states don't even need a permit to carry said gun.

BFK, I am not a anti-gun nut. I just know that as of now, in this society, with these laws and regulations, the bad outweighs the good. Full stop.

I can link you a dozen pro-gun, guy saved the day articles, I can also link you thousand of unjustifiable deaths at the hands of guns to innocents. The question is, which one is more important to you?

I am not in favor of banning guns, period. I just think there should be much stricter background checks, mental health evals and regulations on storing fire-arms and those regulations being enforced..harshly.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2017, 10:07:59 pm »
I can link you a dozen pro-gun, guy saved the day articles, I can also link you thousand of unjustifiable deaths at the hands of guns to innocents. The question is, which one is more important to you?
"Which one is more important to me?" They're equally important, MSJ. Equally. Full stop.

"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
  • whore
    • View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2017, 10:56:51 pm »
A PoN forum that doesn’t love guns? WTF!!! And what’s this bullshit about being respectful – the harsher the language, the greater the love where I come from!

Enter … The other … me! Surprise! Well, my friends, I’m from the South – and down here, guns just ain’t a big deal. It’s cosmology. Plenty of people living in the South want gun regulation, not saying we’re all NRA lovin’ groupies ( I’m actually a rare bird who is “pro-gun” but “anti NRA” – get to that in a minute ).

The conversation you’all are having is a political one – which is to say it’s the wrong conversation. Beard touched on some human truths about “research” and “statistics”. Statistics is the worse form of science in that it’s far too overused and under-understood. Just a quick sideline, you’re almost never going to “convince” someone with “statistics”. Why? Because statistics are too shallow a “fact” to share properly. When someone quotes a statistic to another, it has to bypass several good layers of resistance ( and I mean good in both strong and proper they are there ). So, you present me a statistic … well, for me to accept it as a “fact”, it has to survive all of my “walls” protecting myself from manipulation.

1.   I have to trust the source you received it from ( Did the source make a mistake? Did they take a proper sample? Did the source know how to perform a statistical study? In cases of polls, was the question well-crafted to ensure responses are accurate? Is the source a dick trying to fuck people over and made it all up? ).
2.   Then I have to trust you accurately recorded and relayed the statistic to me ( Maybe you made a mistake? ).
3.   Then I have to trust you ( Maybe you made it up and trying to fuck me over ).
4.   Lastly, so most importantly it renders the first 3 walls virtually insignificant, is do I agree with what you’re concluding from the statistic? Maybe it’s just a single relevant data point in a sea of data points when taken together result in a completely different conclusion. Making this up as example, you tell me sports cars are more likely to be in car crashes than non-sports cars – so says a statistic. Turns out there’s another statistic that says red cars due to reduced visibility have more accidents than any other color, but so happens sports cars are more likely to be red than any other color which is not true for non-sports cars ( so happens yellow is most common color for sports cars due to that color highlighting the cool curves of a sports car more so than other colors – again, making up the red thing as example ).

To address MSJ home invasion scenario, almost never happens like that. Home invasions typically occur ( when not by accident by a burglar thinking no one is home when there is ) by a knock at the door and someone putting a gun to your face when you answer … may not undermine your point, but still shows problems with your “statistics”.

To talk turkey with my peeps, fuck statistics, they have no place in the heart of this discussion ( and perhaps, most discussions ). Let’s get to the heart of the matter – wait for it, this is a rich intense delve into the human psyche – we LOVE guns! Crazy, I know, right? We think they’re a blast ( forgive the pun ) and want a lot of them and to have fun with them. Fuck all on the self-defense shit – that’s all politics, not based in reality. Understand, for the average Joe gun owner, you’re talking about restricting something they really like.

Which brings me to why I hate the NRA. The NRA has become a political tool, which ironically ( tragically to gun owners ) puts gun ownership at risk. How do we know it’s no longer a social organization and is now a pure political one? After Sandyhook ( and maybe before then, can’t remember ), the NRA’s stance was the root cause was mental illness, not gun ownership – for which I agree. But it stopped there – because to do the socially responsible thing AND retain gun ownership rights, they would have pushed for legislation to fund mental health services to the public at large ( one could make a convincing argument everyone could benefit from therapy ). But that flies in the face of the larger Republican meme of lowering Federal taxes and spending. So they didn’t – that move could have helped gun owners big time. Instead, they derailed down this path for which MSJ did a very nice job of explaining the truth of the reality of using guns for self-defense – it is, to put it scientifically, bullshit. To argue effective wide spread self-defense with guns is wishing too much of situations and people; even if you are quite skilled with a gun and even if you’re in a position to employ the gun without harm to others around you ( some big if’s there already ), you don’t have the experience to on the fly in a fire fight to not shoot up everything/everyone around the shooter before taking out the shooter. And the war games gun owners like to play does not translate to real world fire fight situations ( only real world fight fights lends experience to effectively engage in real world fire fights ). Sorry, Beard, but MSJ is right – having a gun for self-defense poses much more hazard than utility. And the argument to arm all of society is inane and inadvertently supports the anti-gun stance. We want the right to own a gun because we feel like having one. Well, the obverse is true, people who don’t want them, shouldn’t have to have one themselves. By arguing for more guns, NRA is conceding the problem with mass shootings are the guns, just different approach to the problem. If the problem is guns, obviously less would be better. Being from the South, it’s plain as day to me the problem is mental illness and we should expand psychiatric services big time if we want to reduce many of society ills including mass murders. The NRA has given you an “in” by putting forth the idiotic arm all of society argument. The rich data and saturated awareness of our incompetence supports restricting gun ownership far more convincingly than arming the population. And if the incompetence argument doesn’t hit home, then simply “fuck you, I’m not carrying a gun because I don’t feel like it” should win the argument, rooted in the same “freedom” logic that is so touted by the NRA. More evidence NRA sucks is their fight against ANY gun legislation – prohibiting no-fly list persons is common sense, but that would give a “win” to Democrats, further weakening them and by proxy, needlessly putting gun owners at risk of losing their guns. The NRA is your friend, liberals! You just don’t see it yet.

In short – I am pro-gun ownership in spite of the political nonsense being thrown around the room … on both sides. Self-defense and hunting are not the REAL reasons we want guns – we want guns because we like them. We don’t walk out of our house “wondering” whose packing. We simply don’t have a fear of guns down here. Accidents happen and that sucks, big time. Violent crime happens and that sucks too. But taking away something we love and don’t feel the fear of it taking society down at the knees, so we want to keep them. Plenty more people die in car crashes and no one is talking about taking our cars away. You want to reduce traffic deaths – make the speed limit 40 miles an hour max and you will reduce traffic deaths, big time. Why don’t we? Because the tragedy of car crashes does not rise to the level of wanting to restrict my freedom/elbow movement/love of driving and getting to my destination faster. Everything has a price and simply put, some the costs of some freedoms are worth the benefits.

Not that it’s anyone’s business ( I don’t publicly announce my personal gun ownership situation ), but I do not own a gun for the reasons MSJ details – the odds of an accident in my house are small, but I do all I can to minimize accidental risks to my children ( same logic for keeping toilet lids down when a 2 year old is walking around, pool fences, etc ). Don’t own wild animals ( snakes ), etc. BUT – it’s in my bones, I like guns and have many friends who own them and don’t even think about it. The mass tragedies haven’t “scared the shit out of me”. It’s terrible, but the rate of gun violence and accidents hasn’t risen to the level of abandonment to “turn” me and support strong gun legislation.
It's me, Dave, open up, I've got the stuff