Here's the second in a series on guns.
After another in a succession of publicized shootings, all I did was ask a simple question.
After another in a succession of publicized shootings, all I did was ask a simple question.
This is what followed.
Enjoy…
Bill Mancuso
Yet another shooting. But it's probably still not the time
to discuss gun control, right?
Huffington Post: NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly
Huffington Post: NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly
Mark
If someone wants a gun to do some crazy illegal shit, is a
gun control law gonna stop them?
Anne
This was right outside my office building exactly where I
park and enter the building. Some coworkers witnessed this insanity. One even
chased the shooter. These people are my friends...it's too close to home. When
the heck are people going to wake up? Sigh.
RB
If I am willing to murder, does anyone imagine that I'm
going to be unwilling to get an illegal handgun?
Anne
It's a larger problem than just getting rid of guns, RB. How
about we start with helping /supporting families raising children?
RB
What does that have to do with talking about gun control? As
far as I know, Bill and I aren't far apart on our thoughts on gun control.
I'm just not sure how over-reacting to the shark attack
nature of these stories will help anything. Remember many years ago when we had
the summer of the shark attack, and people were being gobbled up by sharks?
There were actually fewer shark attacks than normal - we just got to hear about
every single one of them.
This is the same thing. Do you know how many incidents of
violent gun-related crimes have happened around me in the past decade? Zero.
But because of media coverage, I feel like they are happening all around me,
always. But they aren't.
I strongly believe that it's ok to put parameters around
owning guns. But almost everyone that has ever owned any sort of gun that was
legally purchased has never used it to commit a crime. So maybe we should relax
and conclude that today's tragedy wasn't really about the fact that a gun was
involved?
I dunno.
[This is actually the opposite of the 'Shark Attacks' scenario. There are MORE gun-deaths than reported, not LESS. Maybe the problem is that we don’t hear about all
30,000 violent gun-related incidents and 18,000 gun suicides that happen every
year. Perhaps if we did, people wouldn’t so easily be able to claim guns are
everyone’s right to own and block even the simplest of regulations. It’s not
about making you feel like they are happening all around you personally, just
making you realize that they are happening all around the country all the time
– not just the extremely few media sensation cases that are ever reported like
Treyvon Martin. He was murdered with a legally owned gun. As were the Aurora
theater victims. As were those at the Gabby Giffords shooting. As was in he Jovan
Belcher murder/suicide. As were those at the Sikh Temple shootings. As were
the seven other examples in my previous post. As were etc, etc, etc, etc… It isn't what happens to each individual personally. It's about the larger picture. How's this for a similar argument - "Do you know how many malaria-caused deaths happened around me in the past decade? Zero." I have never met a person with malaria or ever heard of anyone I know who knew someone with malaria. But according to the World Health Organization and the Global Action Malaria Plan, in 2010, malaria caused an estimated 216 million clinical episodes, and
655,000 deaths. An estimated 91% of deaths in 2010 were in the
African Region, followed by 6% in the South-East Asian Region and 3% in
the Eastern Mediterranean Region (3%). About 86% of deaths globally were
in children. Just because something isn't happening directly in front of you, that doesn't mean it's not happening.]
Bill Mancuso
First of all, I thought I said now is NOT the time to
discuss gun control?
Second, if you want to do some crazy illegal shit with a
gun, and perhaps it is slightly more difficult to get your hands on a gun than
having absolutely no effective gun
control laws like we do now, maybe you'll settle for a knife? Or a fist? Something a
little bit more defendable against. Even if an effective law curtails only one
person from murdering, wouldn't that be enough? I understand it's difficult to
express the "would have" or "could have" part of an
argument. Like - 'the economy would have been worse if not for the stimulus
bill' is a hard point to argue since the average person can't measure what would have happened if there were no stimulus bill.
Third, if you are willing to murder and are willing to get
an illegal handgun, see the Second point above.
Fourth, violent gun-related murders may not be happening
around everyone, but the family members of 10,000 people gun-murdered per year
may wish to argue your point that it's an over-reaction. A little less than the
15 or so shark killings. Also, sharks are not an option, they are nature (Give
it time, though. Asian soup recipes may put an end to nature.). Manufacturing
and regulating guns is a man-made option, so that's a false equivalency, not
nearly "the same thing."
Fifth, the problem is that the parameters around owning guns
are so weak, they are ineffective to the point of non-existence. The NRA and
people of the like, would have us believe that all our rights are being
assaulted and taken away and we must fight to hold onto them. The reality of
the situation is that the NRA has already effectively removed gun control
regulations and we are fighting to actually have some put in place.
We can purchase guns anonymously over the internet and at
gun shows and at meet-ups in parking lots, a "right" the NRA
leadership fights vigorously for - against 75% of its own members' wishes.
These NRA-backed laws protect these anonymous transactions (a direct cause of
the Fast and Furious debacle
and not the Obama administration conspiracy theory that the right-wing
purports). How is this counted as having our rights taken away? Already nothing
is stopping anyone at all.
Another argument is that people just need to be tolerant and
educated about guns and that would stop the gun violence. Does anyone not know
what guns do? Does anyone try to use guns for a purpose other than what they
are used for? We've been educated for centuries about what guns do. Gun education
is not a new concept.
The simple, inarguable fact is, statistics prove that places
with more stricter gun control has less of a percentage of gun violence and
deaths. And that occurs with people still being allowed to own guns.
As I've said in a previous discussion that was not the time
to have:
One jackass puts a bomb in his shoe once, and everyone in
the United States is forced to take their shoes off for 10 years and counting.
A magnificent example of completely useless legislation masquerading as a
safety measure. In that same time period, over 100,000 gun homicides occurred
and we're still debating the amount of firepower we're allowed to kill each
other with. [It's more like "The amount of firepower we think we have the Constitutional right to kill each other with."] We have been educated. It is obviously not working. And we are
fantastically over-tolerant of gun violence already.
Funny, I didn't think anyone would comment on this post. You
never know.
RB
Bill, with all due respect, your initial comment about it
not being the time oozed sarcasm. ;)
Bill Mancuso
Yes. I was being facetious about that. As evidenced by my
rather lengthy addition to the discussion. [I don’t do emoticons. I admit they would
help in misunderstandable situations like this. But I just can't bring myself to do them.]
RB
Bill, where did this guy live? I was assuming NY, NJ or CT.
Whichever it is, I'd be curious to examine what the relevant barriers were to
this guy getting a gun. I suspect that if it's one of those three (particularly
the People's Republic), then the list of ineffective gun control laws that this
guy had to hurdle was already lengthy. Assuming he was using a legally-obtained
weapon.
10,000 gun homicides per year in a country with about 310
million people? Also, how many of those guns are legal guns being used in
crimes by the owner? Also, how many of those are drug/gang-related killings?
Because I don't particularly care if gang-bangers are killing each other with
guns, as long as they minimize collateral damage.
For reference, over the same span, about 400,000 people died
in car accidents, and I'm not falling over myself to deal with that either. For
another point of reference, it takes cancer less than 3 months to kill as many
people as an entire decade of gun violence.
I get that dealing with these various ways that people can
die aren't mutually exclusive. We can address gun violence while simultaneously
fighting to cure cancer. But I'm not sure that I agree that the problem is as
great as you think it is, while I simultaneously think that it is far more
difficult to control than you think it is.
Moreso considering that the folks that want to deal with
this problem are the same people that created all of the ineffective hurdles
that this guy jumped over.
Also, one thing that I have argued with my brother [Richard] about in
the past is the notion that armed citizens would be effective at containing
situations like this. The victim killed his target and didn't wound anyone
else. All nine wounded at the scene were shot by police trying to subdue the
shooter. At least according to the NYPD. So maybe we can stop pretending that
additional armed citizens opening fire in these situations will resolve them
sooner or with less loss of life.
Bill Mancuso
I'm not suggesting that stricter laws would have prevented
this incident. I'm not even suggesting that stricter laws would have prevented
the last 12 murder sprees. All I'm pointing out is that we have no restrictive gun laws. And that apparently it's never, under any circumstances, ever a
time to ever even think about possibly having at least the notion of a conversation about gun safety laws as
far as the NRA leaders and others of similar mind(less) are concerned. And that at some
point some laws will help in some situations. And that for a fact, statistics
back up my argument. I'm just happy you're not cherry-picking parts of a 200+
year-old document to bludgeon me with outdated ideas that do not match modern
times.
(By "People's Republic," are you referring to New
Jersey as "The People's Republik of New Jermany" as your brother so
eloquently describes it? Please.)
10,000 gun homicides/year is not an insignificant amount.
Many are by legally owned guns. And that further proves my point that we have
virtually no restrictions. Another problem is that gang-banger shoot-outs quite
often result in collateral homicides. What amount of collateral homicides do
you believe would be acceptable? [A great example where limited magazine
capacity would restrict the amount of lead flying around during drive-by’s and
shoot-outs, thereby lowering collateral deaths. If it takes you passing by two
houses while re-loading after every 10 or so rounds, that’s two houses worth of
innocent occupants not in the line of fire.]
Cars are specifically manufactured for transportation, not
to kill, as guns specifically are. Car manufacturing and operation is heavily
regulated. Way more than guns. Accidents are accidents, not intentional mass
murders. Those are two wildly different scenarios and are not equivalent.
Cancer is nature. Things that we know that cause cancer,
like cigarettes, are more regulated than guns. We can barely smoke in our own
homes anymore. And smoking only kills the smoker, who is aware of this
information. You can leave a room containing second-hand smoke - you can't
dodge a bullet. You can't go on a murder spree with things that cause cancer
(Unless you have a few tanks of DDT you run around spraying people with.). This
is also a false equivalency, and I know you know this, so why did you bring it
up?
The problem may not be as great as I think, but the United
States is the country with the most gun homicides in the industrialized world.
Eight times higher than its economic counterparts. A gun homicide rate that's
twelve times higher than the next 25 industrialized nations combined among
children 15 and under.
And yes. It is absolutely quite difficult to control. I
never said it wasn't. The problem is powerful lobbyist money and
spineless/greedy politicians. Pretty much the perennial problem in all
governance situations. Along with the gun genie already being out of the
bottle, so to speak. But the answer is to not even bother trying to make things
better?
And of course armed citizens in these situations will never
help. That's what I call the "Bruce Willis Action Fantasy" world that
gun nuts like your brother think they are living in. Trained police officers
have a 15% accuracy rate in live gun battles. Imagine a smoky, tear-gassed movie theater full of people who aren't nearly as trained as police all
shooting wildly in the dark. The death toll would have been absolutely
magnificent.
RB
I didn't bring up cars or cancer as equivalent to guns in
terms of the METHOD of death. I wasn't suggesting that car manufacturers are
intentionally manufacturing killing machines. Nor was I suggesting that getting
and dying from cancer was the same as dodging bullets in a crowded street.
I brought it up because the scale of those things resets my
impression of the scale of 10k gun-related deaths in a nation of 315M people.
And I'm guessing that it wouldn't be that hard at all for me to reduce that
number even further by removing the gun deaths that I don't actually care
about, or which are the result of using illegally obtained guns.
And yes the People's Republic refers to NJ, which is the
worst state in the union, for a lot of reasons. :) [No examples? Except that
NJ is a maker state. As opposed to almost all the southern taker states. And
yes, NJ has arguably the strictest gun control laws in the US. That’s why
Philly is the place to get guns for NJ.]
[The amount of people dying from uncontrollable
cancer and car accidents are not equivalent to people being intentionally
murdered by weapons specifically designed to kill – something over which
we DO have control. Allegedly. ‘Impression of scale’ is not applicable.]
***** ***** ** ***** *****
Wuxtry! Wuxtry!
Legally owned gun.
***** ***** ** ***** *****
Read all about it!
Legally owned gun.
***** ***** ** ***** *****
***** ***** ** ***** *****
Hey, remember the tales of the Wild West? That safe,
tranquil period in American history when everybody walked around with guns and
there was no crime? Yeah. Since it was so safe and tranquil, I wonder why it
was called the Wild West?
***** ***** ** ***** *****
No comments:
Post a Comment