. . . some say, me included, data and logic should play a major role in decision-making. An informed decision has a greater chance at being the correct decision, as opposed to, for example, one based on emotions.
Skeptics and critical thinkers pride themselves in “looking at the data” . . . but there is one area dear to me where I see no evidence of this happening. Our esteemed leaders have made it known they are ready to use Executive Power (it sounds vaguely dictatorial) to “get things done”, and my more liberal readers applaud the statement.
Of course, they forget the wheel of political favor keeps rolling, and there will come a time (despite all the recent rhetoric about the GOP being done for) when “the other side” will come into power, and employ similar tactics to further their oppressive and repressive agenda.
Boy; won’t my liberal readers scream bloody murder, citing abuse of power, etc. . . . but for now, they are happy to see their own agenda furthered regardless of the process. Screw checks and balances, discussions, debates . . . all them congressmen and senators are too scared to do the job, so it’s up to a semi-dictatorial figure to take charge. (Side note . . . why did they vote those guys into office if they think them so weak-willed and corrupt?)
I’m speaking, of course, about guns, gun control, etc.
I’ve challenged people to do their own research, but that’s like asking a religious person to actually read the bible; ain’t gonna happen.
I’m tired, and recently it has been pointed out to me that using words like “idiots” does not help me further my case, regardless how earnest I am about it.
So, let me point to others who are less confrontational than I am. Read this stuff about violence . . . all of it from Sam Harris. I could cite other sources, but some of my liberal readers might give Harris a listen. He does, after all, make a convincing argument as to why religious beliefs are dangerous, and should be challenged. Well, here some other beliefs that should be challenged.
If you, dear reader, made it this far, at least read this piece:
The Truth about Violence (3 Principles of Self-Defense)
You don’t have to like guns, buy a gun, or use a gun. This is an article on what to do when faced with violence. At the end of it there are suggested books one should read. I’m willing to bet not one in fifty readers (2%) will actually read the article (remember, WP tracks clicks, so I’m not just making up numbers), and of those, not one in one hundred (1%) will bother to follow up with the books, despite the low cost of buying those books (three of them can be had for less than $20).
The reason? They do not think it will happen to them. What’s that word I should not use? Oh yeah . . . never mind.
If you read the above piece, and have not been put-off by my derisive and (some say) dismissive tone, you now come to the second piece.
The Riddle of the Gun
Again, don’t have to like guns, buy a gun, or use a gun. But you should understand why others might think differently than you do. Why, you might even consider that maybe, just maybe, they (and me) are not mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging boobs for thinking that defending oneself against a stronger, faster, younger, and ruthless attacker might be more successful if one can employ some leverage.
I get it . . . you don’t think you will need to. Good for you. Others don’t think the same as you, and maybe, just maybe, they have some experience in the area that you do not possess. Again, lucky you.
Some idi . . . detractors took Harris to task for writing that last article. Leveraged all sorts of criticism upon his views. That’s despite, you know, data, history, psychology, DoJ, FBI, and CDC studies – I mean, who needs all that stuff when one has an opinion? (Even one of my favorite groups, the crew at The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast, after flat-out saying there is no evidence linking gun control, or lack thereof, to mass shootings, AND after agreeing studies on gun violence are ambiguous, all agreed it could not hurt to, you know, enact something . . . anything. Logic, at its finest).
Harris does a decent job addressing some of the major egregious criticisms in the following article.
But he misses some data, and some obvious rebuttals. FSM knows, I ain’t as smart a cookie as Harris, but even as he quoted some of the “counter-arguments” and criticism, I was already formulating responses that should be obvious to even people who watch reality shows. Harris, however, employs a light-hand in guiding the detractors toward examining the totality of the debate, and dealing with realities.
Honest, I don’t know how he does it . . . I don’t know how he can look out at the masses (be they the JC is Our Savior crowd, or the Obama is Our Gun Control Savior crowd), and keep it together.
Maybe the reason is . . . we are stuck here. For better or for worse, we have to deal with them who use selective reason, who are swayed by emotions, who have no concept of how their actions hurt others. He chooses to give them more respect than I can muster up.
I already avoid blogs and people who are overtly religious (god-blessing and god-thanking their way around the Internet) because at the very core of their belief is the desire to control portions of my life, and now I will have to curtail my involvement with the other side because they too harbor the notion they know what is best for me.
Both use the same “logic” . . . it’s for the greater good, you see. Well, no . . . not for my greater good, or that of millions like me. It’s for the “other” greater good. The one based on opinion, and specifically, their opinion.
Between those two camps, the gray area in the middle, is where I look to find some hope for the human race. Perhaps that is who Harris is appealing to . . . those who have learned there are no easy answers, least of all for complex issues.
And, really . . . though you may not like guns, may not want to buy a gun, or think you will ever have use/need for a gun, read about violence. It’s good stuff for you to know, even as my most fervent wish is that you will never encounter it.
<><><><><><><><><><o><><><><><><><><><o><><><><><><><><><>
Please, if you are considering bestowing me some recognition beyond commenting below, refrain from doing so. I will decline nominations whereby one blogger bestows an award onto another blogger, or group of bloggers. I appreciate the intent behind it, but I would much prefer a comment thanking me for turning you away from a life of crime, religion, or making you a better person in some other way. That would actually mean something to me.
Should you still nominate me, I will strongly suspect you pulled my name at random, and that you are not, in fact, a reader of my blog. If you wish to know more, please read below.
About awards: Blogger Awards About “likes”: Of “Likes”, Subscriptions, and Stuff
Note: to those who may click on “like”, or rate the post; if you do not personally hear from me, know that I am sincerely appreciative, and I thank you for noticing what I do.
. . . my FP ward . . . chieken shit.
I have a family member who is a cop and he can tell stories that make my head spin. The world is full of bad people and your chances of encountering them gets bigger all the time.
Violence has decreased over the years, but there are a number of factors that might have influenced that (people don’t know for sure).
One of the fears (damn that culture of fear) is that as the economic stagnation continues, people might become more desperate as their situation deteriorates. Statistically, bad people will prey on easy targets of convenience. However, when their target of convenience also don’t have much, they expand their areas of consideration.
I get “breaking news” alerts from the local paper. From accidents, to robberies, to murders, the number of incidents per week have increased over the past few years. Property crime is on an uptrend, reversing it’s downward trend a couple of years ago.
Violent crime was on a downtrend, but it has plateaued for the past few years. The 2012 statistics are not out, so we’ll see how it went. Interestingly, even though the 2011 data has not been published yet, this site projects a lowering of crime for 2013:
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/colorado/colorado-springs.html
This despite a 33% increase in 2011 murders (the highest on record). Go figure.
If one goes by statistics, as a city with a half million, CoS had a 2011 murder rate per 100,000 of 6.4 . . . above the national average, and rising.
The big worry in the area (actually discussed in city meetings, and the El Paso homeowner’s associations meeting with the county commissioner) is the sequestration cuts (if and when they occur). They estimate a 30% reduction of money into the area, and subsequent cuts in employments, revenues, etc.
That’s because the finances of the city and the population are heavily linked to the various armed forces bases in the surrounding areas.
If it happens, it could get real ugly real fast.
I don’t think you considered in your calculations people who do not click through links simply because they may be in agreement…
There are people in agreement?
Son of a gun!! (I was going to say “no shit!?!” but that seemed rude) . . . who’d it thunk it!
Until I actually hear what the proposals are, I am not going to come to any conclusions. I’m okay with tighter background checks, longer waiting periods and perhaps some restriction on high capacity clips. I don’t see any policy maker proposing taking everyone’s guns away. But I get the feeling that you think that is what’s going to be proposed. I’m not seeing it, nor would I support it.
And yes, I clicked through.
I agree with the three principles of self-defense, especially #3. Although, when a gun was held to my ribs while the robber threatened to shoot me, while the second of three robbers waved his gun in the face of my co-workers, I’m not sure what “sudden burst” any of us could have done. That being said, they only wanted money, and so I lost my wallet, as did my co-workers. But the money the manager was counting in the back? Not touched. For some reason we would be damned if we were going to let them know where the real haul was.
The problem is that what little noise one hears is concentrating on the guns. So, it’s not hard to see the “problem” will not be solved. Worse yet, I don’t see a definition of the problem, let alone an understanding of it on the part of anyone who gets in front of a camera.
Now, knowing they are not stupid, I gots to conclude they are callous to the nth degree. But, perhaps I am limited in my vision. I’m open to different interpretations of what the administration’s rhetoric means. They were supposed to get input from gun owners, but reports on how that is going are not encouraging.
So, I can extrapolate . . . the next occurrence, and sadly, it’s likely there will be more, the call will get louder for more restrictions on guns.
I am not opposed to limiting guns . . . I’m opposed to limiting guns for the wrong reasons. I mention data . . . I live for studies and data. Anyone can go and get raw numbers, and basic logic tells you the “noise” is not leading to concrete solutions.
Finally, there are numbers on mass shootings . . . no one can tie them to any past or future proposals. Worse yet, there are no studies nor any data to help guide decision-makers. Their answer . . . limited clips, and banning assault weapons.
That is the direct response to the mass shootings. I am no gun nut, but I can swap a clip in about 4 seconds. And assault weapons is a charged label used for a specific purpose . . . not to direct a solution to a problem, but to inflame and shape public opinion. And no, I do not own an assault rifle . . . I own a rifle I could assault people with.
. . . except that I don’t. I’m about to post something that echoes my views, but is expressed a lot better than I have expressed them. Take a look . . . let me know what you think.
Like I said, I’m waiting to hear what actually comes out of Biden’s group. I suspect it will be low-hanging fruit, but I hope to see some recommendations on beefing up mental health care, and hopefully address our other issues that makes people think that getting a gun and using it, on others and oneself (friend committed suicide), are valid solutions to problems. In Michael Moore’s movie, “Bowling for Columbine,” he made the point that Canada has just about as many guns per capita as the U.S. does, and yet does not have the number of gun violence that we do. He points to a culture of fear in the U.S. that you don’t see in Canada that might have something to do with it. I’m shortening the thesis quite a bit, but if you’ve seen the movie, you know what I mean.
It’s difficult to get data from Canada . . . they write a lot of reports, but don’t quote many numbers other than percentages. If we look at recent reports, there is growing concern with increases in gang memberships, and associated crime. One report cites 80% of violent crimes and murders are committed by youth gangs (18 year old or less).
They never mention gang memberships other than for prison population, and as percentages, but the article below mentions Canada’s estimated gun membership in 2006 as 11,000. By comparison, the US has 10 times the number of gang membership per capita (or adjusted for population differences). They also have comparable violence and murders for population densities (i.e. larger cities have more violence and murders, with numbers approaching those of comparable US cities).
The other article below mentions the problem of gang membership in Chicago. One can go check crime statistics (as the guy does in my next post, and as I have done), and you can narrow down how much of the reported crime, including murder of “children” (anyone under 18) is related to gang activity.
That’s the problem with comparing to other countries. One can pick and choose what to compare.
As for Mr. Moore’s documentary . . . one can read plenty of rebuttals. Let’s just say I was not impressed with the man, his views, or his style of reporting. I remember at the time I did my own fact-checking, and found quite a lot of liberties were taken. Sure . . . defensible under artistic license, under the premise that he wanted to present a message. The problem is that in aggregate, that documentary is very manipulative, and in places deliberately misleading. We chastised Stein’s documentary for the same tactics.
After all, what is the implication there . . . that the average person in the US is more violent and prone to more crime than the average person in Canada? How does exactly a “culture of fear” promote more violence? Am I a part of the culture of fear (I think about possibilities, and take steps to avoid them)?
My impression regarding the “culture of fear” is that it has to do more with politicians manipulating the public, rather than have a direct tie to violence itself.
The bottom line is that crime in the general population has kept dropping despite more guns, more people, etc. Now, if you look at violence related to specific criminal activities, that is worrisome. Still, I don’t see how me not being able to buy a rifle that “looks” menacing to some is doing anything to address that particular problem. And sure, I’ll wait and see what the group comes up with . . . but, unless the news agencies are slanting stories (!), we are hearing the same noises out of the democratic leadership.
Feinstein’s own site (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons) lists weapons that accept detachable magazines as part of her proposed 2013 legislative push . . . including handguns. Reading the rest of her proposal, once immediately notices more bureaucracy, power, and scope to an agency which has nothing to do with directly stopping violence.
Finally, as you know, I have some personal experience with suicide as well. To imply suicide is a direct result of the availability of a gun masks other factors that to my mind are much more unfathomable, difficult to deal with, and ultimately likely to be outside our ability to understand. I believe it is, in fact, our inability to understand that makes it easy for some of us to imply “if only there were no guns around, they might still be with us yet”. Damn guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_population
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/gazette/vol70n2/gang-bande-canada-eng.htm
I’m waiting for this to hit the national news cycle, and all sorts of people jump all over us.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/teachers-149577-sheriff-offer.html
Imagine: You are loading groceries into your car and man appears at your side with a gun.
“Get in the car, and you won’t get hurt.”
Your instincts are probably bad here: Getting in the car is the last thing you should do.
Interesting, thank you. I like the advice on not giving them control, and that it’s better to run than do what they say. At least then you’re more likely to escape being tortured and raped, even if you do get shot in the back.
I’ve been lucky enough to escape violence so far, and have ‘only’ received verbal abuse from people whilst walking down the street. I have friends who have been attacked; the trouble is that once someone weighing ten stone more than you has hold of you, it’s very difficult to escape. I’m not sure what can be done in that situation.
You cannot imagine how difficult it is for me to read the above.
The thing with being mugged . . . it stays with you. But beyond that, people deserve to go through their lives without the constant threat of other people doing them harm.
And yes, if you are giving away 50-60 pounds to your attacker, who, by the way, has already entered the frame of mind to go ahead with violence, it’s difficult.
Still, I cannot see anything making more sense than resisting (I’m speaking specifically of attacks, not necessarily of a robbery), and it frustrates me when people wish to limit one’s option for defense.
As much as one might labor to avoid dangerous situations (essentially living in fear – how sad is that?), it is no guarantee one can avoid it.
Thus my antipathy toward people whose lives are relatively safe (privileged) judging me for wanting to add options aimed at increasing my odds of keeping from harm.
If I could afford a bodyguard or two (likely, armed), I too might deride others for wanting to arm myself . . . no; I don’t think so. I would have to be a hypocrite to do so. Ergo why my opinion of politicians and celebrities is so low.
I appreciated Harris’ article…nice to see you referencing it, and him, here. Seems we’re on the same page with a few other things, too…. Good company, I say….
Thanks Scott. And as for Harris’ article, it’s depressing to read some of the criticism from people who fancy themselves critical thinkers. Is Harris right on the money with everything? No, but he is well on this side of common sense.
You’re welcome…and yes, it strikes me as very sad how people can be so harsh with their criticism…. I’ll stand with Harris…and I agree…he’s well on this side of common sense…well put.
Very interesting facts and lots of common sense . . .