One of the things I’ve heard lately is how “we ain’t go us no discourse” about guns and gun control.
“We needs us some discourse, but that summabich NRA is keeping us from getting us some sensible gun control!”
Well, crap . . . let me go see what the NRA is saying . . .
. . . hmmm . . . I agree with that . . . well, maybe . . . no, that’s probably not gonna happen . . . OK, I can live with that . . . no, they are wrong there.
OK, let me go look at what all these smart people are saying about gun control. After all, they are not ideologues . . . many are skeptics, they are knowledgeable on multiple subjects, and are at ease discussing things, from local and world politics to arts, science, and philosophy.
. . . er . . . what? . . . no, you’re . . . What? . . . look, you’re quoting discredited . . . WHAT?
I am not exaggerating . . . it’s exactly like that. I won’t go into all the details. Anyone can go to these sites and read their opinions, and I stress opinions, regarding guns and gun owners.
But, my title asks a question . . . why we have no discourse. The answer is evident, at least to me. “Discourse” by gun control proponents begins with this statement.
“I don’t see why anyone needs to own a gun.”
See, to my limited understanding of “discourse”, that is not an auspicious beginning to a discussion.
Worse yet, when I go into why I want a gun, and why I peripherally think there is a chance one day I might need it, and why if I ever did need it, I would much prefer having one than not, they look at me (figuratively speaking – these discussions are typically Internet based), and tell me I am wrong/ignorant/uninformed/etc.
So I explain how I much prefer that I will never need it, and hope I will go my whole life without ever needing a gun, but experiences in my life, my understanding of human nature, my understanding of things like probabilities (odds, for them who don’t have time to look up the word), and a desire to keep my family and myself safe, how all those things add up to the positive side of the gun ownership question, at least for me.
“Emilio, you ignorant fool!! It is obvious to us you are misinterpreting all the lessons of your long life! It’s so obvious, that we are going to ignore it all, and ask again . . . Why do you feel you need a gun? It’s your manhood, isn’t it? Well, a magnifying glass is a much cheaper and safer solution to your obvious insecurities!”
You know, about at this point I start looking toward the NRA site . . . they seem very reasonable.
Well, I say, you are entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ. Have a nice day. . . . what? slaughtering innocents? Who, me? Are you nuts? What does me buying a gun have to do with . . . What do you mean, you think guns should be banned? Assault rifles? They are already banned. What? That’s a customized rifle; how is that an assault rifle? A pistol grip? It makes it easier to handle, why?
Wait . . . I can buy this rifle, but if I change the stock, and add a pistol grip, it becomes an assault rifle? What do you mean “yes”?
What was that about adjustable stocks? . . . are you serious? You know how much it costs to custom-fit a gun? A cheap sliding stock lets me adjust it for whomever wants to shoot it; tall, short, and in-between; how does an adjustable stock turn my rifle into an assault weapon?
What do you mean “it just does?” Look, I’m going to leave now. Bye.
What? What do you mean “I am more likely to shoot myself or family member than use it in defense of me and my family?“ Wait . . . having a gun in the home makes it 43 times more likely to hurt myself or my family?
OK, given the proliferation of guns in the last 20 years, there should have been a veritable slaughter of innocents . . . did I miss the news? Who? Arthur Kellermann . . . hmmm . . . it says:
“Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman’s methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others[8].”
Hmmm . . . so, it’s not 43, but 2.7? Wait . . . what’s this?
“Critics of Kellermann’s 1993 paper responded with a number of objections: (e.g. the guns/homicide association could simply reflect the fact that people already at risk of homicide are more likely to acquire guns for self-protection; the study population was urban and therefore higher risk in general, compared to suburban or rural areas), and (e.g. that members of rival gangs were tabulated as “family member or intimate acquaintance”; that the data was cherry-picked.”
Hey, even as I looked that up, I crossed paths with other data . . . gun violence is the lowest in 50 years. So, we’ve had an explosion of gun ownership, and we’ve got the lowest number of gun deaths since the 50’s.
Were I not well-versed in statistics, I might conclude guns are the cause of the decrease. However, I’m smart enough to know statistics are not an indication of cause.
The National Research Council, in recent congressional testimony, stated:
“In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.” (my emphasis)
OK, you know what? When in doubt, I go with common sense. As a responsible, handsome, and some say “pretty smart” person, I’m going to make my own assessment regarding me owning a gun. So, have a great day, and . . .
. . . what? Guns cause crimes? Our “gun culture” puts us at risk?
OK, I got to tell you. At the face of it, that just sounds like a good argument for putting guns into the hands of responsible, law-abiding people . . . people like me. You have convinced me; I’m going to go out and buy some serious weapons.
Why? Well, I have met people like you. You think you know better, and because you think so, you are likely to act on it, despite what I, or others might say. Next thing I know, you are likely to try and ban my guns, or worse yet, confiscate them.
What? You have no intention of confiscating my guns? With 310 million guns in civilian hands, it would be impractical?
Tell me, if that’s so, why are we even having this discussion?
Leave me alone, while I go and push for strict enforcement of existing gun laws.
<><><><><><><><><><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’ve enjoyed this and other posts you have done on the subject, although as I’m English and now live in Poland; both of which have fairly strict gun laws, it’s hard to understand the gun culture of America. And that I believe is the problem, it’s cultural and it will take generations to change.
A little bit like smoking, everybody used to do it and it was accepted by the majority of society, ok it might be linked to some deaths, but where’s the proof! Slowly change the people’s attitude, bring in controls about where you can smoke, increase the cost and maybe run some adverts telling you how it’s bad for your health, and fifty years later the smoker is in a minority and smoking is no longer accepted as the norm.
Keep hold of your guns, you will be no worse off than you are already, but don’t be surprised if your grandchildren have a different attitude and opinion.
I will be surprised if I have any grandchildren at all . . . we opted not to have kids.
Seriously, I see evidence of what you speak . . . people (young adults and adults) who have never come in contact with a gun, and have what amounts to a phobia of them . . . to the point they are afraid at the mere sight of a gun, even when it’s just laying there. In my book, that is called conditioning . . . it works, and it’s scary as hell.
But I also have nephews who are getting heavily into hunting, this despite neither parents hunt, own, or like guns. And I know parents who introduce their kids to guns as as tools for recreation.
Personally, I believe everyone should know how to use a gun (many countries have mandatory military service). To be fair, they should also learn the sword, and be handy with a knife.
If anyone ever asked me (they never do), there is some truth to the argument that times have changed. But they missed the point . . . I believe we have lost (not just here, but humanity in general) the concept of honor, personal responsibility, personal worth, personal integrity . . . and with that the door is open for a reversal to times of yore. We are already seeing a stratification of society between the have and have nots. Rules are different for people with power (money) and influence (money) than for people subservient to said money, and we are being trained to accept it. We get trained to accept we have less worth than others, we matter less than others, and as a consequence, we cannot be trusted to think for ourselves, to make our own decisions.
Note, I am not saying the answer is a gun. I am saying accepting other people telling you what you can’t and cannot have, even accepting direction on how you should think, robs you of intangible qualities whose absences begin to weigh on one’s psyche.
The gun argument is symptomatic of a broader attitude that one should abdicate personal responsibility in favor for the “state” taking care of you.
Again, the gun is not the issue. The issue is “authority” telling me I cannot have something because others (a very small number of others – typically criminals) might misuse/abuse . It is the assumption I am not responsible, that I am a potential criminal, that I cannot be trusted with something that I can demonstrate proficiency, understanding, and facility with.
Agreeing to that is abdicating a measure of independence, a measure of responsibility, but most of all, a measure of who I am.
It could very well be the rest of the world is happy with their governments dictating large portions of their behavior . . . I feel sorry for them. But most of all, I don’t want to be them.
Luckily I learnt how to use rifles, pistols and even automatic weapons when I was a teenager and a member of the army cadets. I also became quite an efficient hunter of rabbits with my air rifle.
As Poland has strict gun laws and weapons are not prolific in its society I don’t feel threatened enough to want to have a firearm and for me that’s fine, I don’t believe I’m bowing down to state rule. However I will be purchasing an air rifle when the opportunity arises, for the control of vermin; it much more humane and environmentally friendly than using poisons.
In saying that you have a very good point, although I would add that the state can only wield such power over the people, because the people, as a rule, do not act upon, or are able of, independent thought.
The divide between rich and poor has always existed and the rich will always hold the power; it’s the underlying foundation of capitalism. Communism can be written off as it hasn’t managed to succeed yet, even though it is a great idea on paper; so this leaves the option of dropping out of society and taking responsibility for ones self, which as you know is the route I’m trying to take, and as I understand it, one you advocate yourself?
It is difficult to speak of these things without sounding just a tad off. It would be easier were I a famous person . . . then I could pretty much comment about belly-button lint, and people would find deep wisdom in my words.
However, here goes nothing.
First, the idea strict gun laws afford a measure of safety. I have very little fear of being shot. My greater fear, because I have experienced it, is to be physically attacked, bullied, or otherwise intimidated. The strong have always, as a rule, exercised their superior strength to intimidate and victimize the weak. Some people choose to debate me on this point . . . I don’t know what world they live in, but I have seen what people are capable of, and I’ve seen very little. There is much, much worse out there than what I have seen and experienced. Perhaps people are idealistic with that regards.
Perhaps that is what allows them to say to me “the odds are small that you will be attacked”, and think that is reassuring.
Much has been made of violence in America, and although we are improving, we are still a pretty violent group as a country (compared to so-called other “civilized” countries – although if you look at crime in terms of population density, we are not that far off).
People have tried to tie it to all sorts of things, foremost among them, guns. There is no study that has, or indeed can, prove that causal link, yet that is at the basis of every gun control argument I hear. And let’s be clear . . . I am in favor of gun control, gun laws, gun restrictions. The problem is that what is being proposed, even as I write this, is completely and utterly a “feel good” measure that will not do anything to stem the violence, and targets, instead, people who would otherwise not pose a problem to anyone.
This is where people invariably say . . . if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. Wow, that’s deep . . . but gun crime is not what concerns me. It’s crime in general. I have my own theories on that, but they are not relevant to a discussion about guns.
Suffice it to say that I question your statement regarding feeling safe because there are strict gun laws. It may be true there, but there may be other factors which one can point to . . . or are you saying that if you or your neighbor had access to guns, there would be more crime?
As for the divide between the rich and poor . . . yes and no. The concept of a middle class, with political power, is relatively new. Really, we can point to World War II as the catalyst for its emergence. One can read many theories about it, and formulate their own opinion as to the mechanisms.
However, there is no question that segment of society is under very heavy pressure from both above and below. You mention communism . . . let me be clear; I advocate no such thing. I don’t even begrudge the rich their station in life, earned or unearned.
I just object to roadblocks placed in my path, and I object to being penalized from one side, and made to feel guilty from the other side . . . and the government happily acting for those two sides, getting money from one, and political clout (and therefore more control over people’s lives) from the other.
That sounds vaguely conspiratorial, so let me be clear. There is no dark plot here . . . they are not that clever. It is just what happens naturally when people are given a bit of power or influence; they start to think they know better, and start to want more power and control. History is a wonderful thing, but for, oh so many, it is a poor teacher.
We act as if the world we face is something new, the problems we face unique to us . . . they are not. The scenery has changed, the travelers are different, but the paths we follow are the same. There is no question in my mind younger, more vibrant societies will someday supplant the US as it will have fallen to corruption, greed, and abuse of power. It may take many decades, maybe a hundred years, but we have seen it before.
One may ask why we are so violent . . . look at us. We are filled with unearned hubris. “The greatest country in the world . . . agree with us, or we will bomb the shit out of you”. That is reflected in the psyche of nearly everyone . . . “I want, I take, and screw everyone else”.
The point being that as an immigrant, I am perhaps more aware of how the government has expanded its power, taken more and more control or people’s lives, putting up roadblocks to individuality and independent action and thought.
Side note: I had a business for 20 years, 30+ employees plus literally hundreds more that used us as a path to getting recognition and eventual positions of influence at GM, Ford, And Chrysler. We were lucky . . . there is absolutely zero chance that company could exist, let alone thrive for 20 years, in the current business and regulatory environment. Sure, others might be able to make it a go doing something else . . . but you have to “know” people, have to have connections, have to be allowed to do so. Many will dismiss this as sour grapes . . . fine. Take a look around at what has happened to small businesses.
Anyway, regarding the middle class, look for it melting back into the lower class.
And with that, I come to your question . . . no, I am not dropping out of society. I worked too hard, and I like what I have. I like being to connect to people half way around the world even as I shun my neighbors. I like having access to information, health care, vehicles, and the luxuries of life. I am willing to fight for them. I’m willing to try and make them last until I am no more . . . then I truly and honestly no longer give a shit.
People will get the world they deserve, and while I hope, for the sake of many, that it will be a good one, I personally don’t see it. And I don’t agree with others who claim to see it . . . for they are doing nothing more than lowering their expectations. Or so I believe.
Live and let live . . . just wanted you to know I read the post.
Live and let live is good . . . too bad people interpret that in different ways.
Yeah, if they’re throwing insults and accusations it isn’t really a discussion. And, worst of all, it cheapens the opinion they’re trying to get across. Especially if they can’t back it up with facts. Not quoting another website that states opinion. Actual facts.
Honestly, to my way of thinking – if someone is going to go on a rampage, then they’re going to do it with or without a gun. They could use a car. They could use a bomb. They could use a knife. They could use a chainsaw. They could also use a gun. Hell, if they want to get all McGuyver, they could use an icecream scoop, miscellaneous shrapnel, bubble gum, and a really big slingshot. The ugliest, most disgusting criminals in history were not that way because they got their hands on a gun. *They* committed those atrocities, regardless of what tool they used to do it. In my opinion, I don’t think the guns are the problem. I think it’s the people handling the guns. I think we need stronger regulations.
I think people having guns to defend themselves is a deterrent to crime. I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. I want the ability to protect my family. I see no reason why *responsible* people, who have been educated on how to use guns safely, should not be able to own them.
People often mistake me for wanting less regulations . . . heck, I want to regulate the crap out of everything.
I like the idea people should be trusted to handle responsibility, but they have to prove themselves capable, and swift and deadly justice descends upon them if they slip.
That’s my main problem with the news, the pundits, etc. . . . they are not addressing problems, or even symptoms. They just play with words, usually for ratings, sometimes for power.