Gun control

[Disaffected.citizen]

Another sensible post from Dillon. Come on, USA. Mature a little, won't you? Please stop fetishising guns. Be like Switzerland if you want guns. Or the UK or Australia if you don't.

I know there is a common perception that the USA is in love with its gun culture, but wonder how much that is driven by Hollywood. Having looked at the statistics on gun related crime worldwide (and I place no trust in the reliability of those statistics) the USA has relatively low rates; not as low as much of Europe, but certainly not as high as we might think from the media.

Any loss of life has consequences, but I'd be willing to wager that the casualty and death rate in road traffic accidents is higher; of course, the incidences of premeditated vehicular homicide are likely fewer than with firearms

[Ray]

You are right. A quick bit of research reveals 32675 motoring fatalities in the USA (2015). That's more than murders by firearm. It doesn't really prove much because you are comparing different things, but there you are. In a direct comparison, the UK (actually Great Britain as Northern Ireland is bizarrely excluded) road deaths stood at 1713 (2013, the most recent year for which stats are available)

Here is a comparison of homicides by country, according to the BBC, which is a generally reliable source.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604

[dillon]

It is unclear who exactly owns all America's guns. By one pro-gun-control source, in the US, personal gun ownership hit its peak in 1985, when 30.5 percent of Americans reported personally owning a gun. By 2014, this number had dropped more than eight percentage points to 22.4 percent. In 2014, slightly more than one out of five Americans reported personally owning a gun. The more rural the state, the higher rate of gun ownership, as you might expect.

By other sources, however, it is suggested that around 40% (+/-) of Americans are gun-owners. The challenge is to discern personal gun ownership from household ownership. I suspect that 40% figure better represents households, and not individuals. The data being most widely and recently cited is from a 2015 University of Chicago Social Science survey. That study data shows that American household gun ownership hit its peak in 1977, when more than half of American households (53.7 percent) reported having any guns. By 2014, only 32.4 percent of American households had a gun in the home -- less than a third. I tend to suspect this actually under-represents household gun ownership, so I am more inclined to a value closer to the 40%. Surveys are failing in far too many ways, because they rely on voluntary information from folks like me who screen calls and toss surveys arriving by post into the recycling bin. In fact, I think the era of the survey is over; tech media has changed too much in our society. It will require a more intuitive approach to gauge the opinions being FED to the public, and not those being held.

However, the average gun-owning household reportedly has eight firearms. Is this fetishism? I think it is more like victimization by propaganda; those inclined to believe all the NRA rhetoric are the major gun consumers. They are generally those pre-disposed to view exclusively conservative media sources, such as Fox News and Limbaugh, and often white evangelicals. They typically seek validation of belief, whether it has any foundation in data or not.

But there is also an inheritance factor; many gun owners, like myself, have weapons inherited from my father and grandfather, in addition to those personally acquired. I seldom use them, but they have sentimental value. Families who are gun-owners tend to continue generationally, just as is the trend among those families who are not legacy gun owners.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... e-in-three

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... sed-to-be/

[Disaffected.citizen]

You are right. A quick bit of research reveals 32675 motoring fatalities in the USA (2015). That's more than murders by firearm. It doesn't really prove much because you are comparing different things, but there you are. In a direct comparison, the UK (actually Great Britain as Northern Ireland is bizarrely excluded) road deaths stood at 1713 (2013, the most recent year for which stats are available)

Here is a comparison of homicides by country, according to the BBC, which is a generally reliable source.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604

Yes, I was comparing different things. My point was to place some alternative perspective; similar to (the late) Steve Irwin's wildlife programmes where he showcased the deadliest creatures in Australia and their impact on the population, then reminded everyone about the comparative number of road deaths. Just throwing a different perspective.

Now, if we were to compare gun (or any) crime (or culture) in the USA to other (say) South American countries, then everyone would see (and likely say) there isn't the problem in the USA that the media would have us think. What IS important is to enter into a mature debate to see how deficiencies or weaknesses can be improved. If only our respective governments could engage with each other and the electorate in such a civilised manner as the patrons here!

[Jim]

Distinguishing the numbers would be a start, but ideally the figures from suicide should be removed completely as being irrelevant to the problem of inter-personal violence. Suicide is a strongly individual choice and usually does no harm directly to others. Indirectly, it can be argued, yes, that harm may be done, but in most cases others are not directly harmed during the act. Of note here is the fact that I regard suicide as a basic human right as a form of self-determination.

People being killed by guns (or knives, or ropes, etc) is not good, whether it is the shooter or someone else.
Suicide is most often the result of depression. Depression often can be treated, and is often not long-lived. Those who survive suicide attempts are often glad the attempts were unsuccessful, and many do not make further attempts. I believe access to firearms are a big factor in whether a suicide attempt is successful. As a gun owner, I believe it is my responsibility to prevent a depressed person to have access to my guns.

[dillon]

Before this spirals completely out of control, I'd like to see the numbers of "gun-related deaths" revised with suicides removed. With suicide included, the statistics do not relate to the actual rate of inter-personal crime, which is what most of the furore is about.

This is also not a problem that lends itself to sound-bites and "infographics". This is an issue that's going to take intellect, compassion, understanding, and empathy to solve -- as well as a healthy dose of realism. The root of it is almost entirely likely to be lurking someplace that we've been diverted from looking at.

Again I would ask why only deaths count? Is a young man paralyzed for the remainder of his life not also a tragedy? Is a gun suicide not also a preventable tragedy? Is a child killed or maimed by accident during play with his daddy's gun not also a tragedy? The troubles of gun culture run far deeper than simple intentional violence. Intentional murder is the NRA party line; it does not, alone, define the problem of gun culture.

Al, the only reason TX is not in the highest gun death category is that your population is also shifting from rural to urban. Your simplistic platitudes are appalling, frankly. You are educated enough to understand the mathematical trend. Please save the sloganism for people who lack the intelligence and education to discern data from rhetoric...i.e. Republicans.

[crfriend]

Again I would ask why only deaths count? Is a young man paralyzed for the remainder of his life not also a tragedy?

Point taken. Both are, indeed, tragedies.

Is a gun suicide not also a preventable tragedy?

Perhaps yes, and, perhaps no. Suicide by gun is remarkably effective, but also represents the will of the individual. One would hope that the individual has weighed matters properly before undertaking the act. A determined individual does not "attempt" suicide, he commits it.

Is a child killed or maimed by accident during play with his daddy's gun not also a tragedy?

It is a tragedy, and is also inexcusable. Parents need to understand that these devices have appeal to children, likely because they are discouraged from handling them. This adds to the fascination. The answer in this case is for rational gun-ownership households to properly teach their children from an early age about the devices, their uses, and their dangers. Sadly, in our "no-threat" societal mentality of today this is not possible. ALL POSSIBLE threat must be removed from the environment lest somebody get hurt. We do vastly more damage than good with that attitude.

The troubles of gun culture run far deeper than simple intentional violence. Intentional murder is the NRA party line; it does not, alone, define the problem of gun culture.

I concede this argument, partly. Other factors that play into it are the erosion of the barrier between fantasy and reality, the omnipresent idolisation of violence by the mass media, a failure of parents and society as a whole to portray firearms in a reasonable and rational light, and an overall ramping up of officially-condoned hyper-violence in the name of "law enforcement".

I stand by my argument, however, that what we're seeing (or are being told) as a "signal" is symptom and not necessarily the disease.

[Uncle Al]

To the membership at Skirt Cafe' -

I WILL NOT respond to the insults afforded my insight or intelligence.
Suffice it to say, I'm tired of people blaming an in-animate object or 'tool'
for something caused by a human being.

When it comes to politics, I do not get into those kind of 'disagreements'.
I'm strongly independent but proudly register to vote as a Republican.
Political humor is just that - humor. A comedian could change the name
in a political joke to any candidate he/she chooses. The results will basically
be the same - full out laughter or groans, boos & hisses. I do not denigrate
a person based on their political thoughts or beliefs.

I base friendships on THE PERSON and how he/she responds to the
people around him/her. I have friends who call themselves straight,
gay or are transgendered. To me they are still friends because of their
inner being.

Here, at Skirt Cafe', we're in the process of 'taking back' skirted garments
for, and as, men. Nothing more - Nothing less. We need to keep advancing
fashion freedom for men and stop the nit-picky, petty comments about things
that we really don't have any control over.

Stricter gun control is not the answer for all situations. Hitler tried that and
too many people died because of it. I just don't want history to repeat itself
because of 'The People' allowing 'Their Government' to take away any chance
of defending themselves from whom/what ever comes their way.

Uncle Al

[Fred in Skirts]

I agree Al one hundred percent. Both as a gun owner and as a citizen of these United States of America. BUT we need a complete flushing of the toilet known as Washington DC. Without that being done nothing will change.

Fred

[Ray]

Uncle Al,

I'm not sure where your ire comes from. I don't get the sense that you are being insulted.

I'd like to pick up on one point with you. You seem not to trust your government. Your words suggest fear. Fear of what, exactly? The government suppressing the free will of the people? I'm not sure where this suspicion of government comes from. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

From a UK perspective, it seems that the second amendment to the US constitution is interpreted very loosely indeed. If you are not part of a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state then it seems to me that said clause doesn't give an individual the automatic right to a firearm. I know that some years ago, a US court disagreed with this, but to me the words are clear. All of the clause has to be read.

I think Dillon stated that the amendment should, err, be amended. It was written centuries ago, and was fit for purpose then. I'm not sure is is any more. That's just my view, looking in from the outside, in a relatively gun free country where I always feel safe.

[Jim]

Stricter gun control is not the answer for all situations. Hitler tried that and
too many people died because of it. I just don't want history to repeat itself
because of 'The People' allowing 'Their Government' to take away any chance
of defending themselves from whom/what ever comes their way.

This seems to be a fairly decent discussion of the controversial theory that people died under Hitler because of gun control:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory

[bobmoore]

"Gun control", is not about controlling guns; it is about controlling people. A free people is a direct threat to any government power structure, which by nature abhores anything that might in any way challenge it's power. Consider: if you anticipate having to wrestle with a tiger what can you do to create advantage? Depriving the tiger of tooth and claw would be prudent, would it not? The government is pragmatic in its approach to self preservation so that a little thing like a Constitutional prohibition against disarming the citizens can not be allowed to stand in the way. But how to sell it to the public as a "benefit" when in fact it is a poison pill? Right, harp about crime, suicides, accidents, and so forth. It is a con game, and the people, especially low-information people, have shown over the years that they are always ready to cede a little more freedom for some supposed nebulous benefit.

[dillon]

To the membership at Skirt Cafe' -

I WILL NOT respond to the insults afforded my insight or intelligence.
Suffice it to say, I'm tired of people blaming an in-animate object or 'tool'
for something caused by a human being.

When it comes to politics, I do not get into those kind of 'disagreements'.
I'm strongly independent but proudly register to vote as a Republican.
Political humor is just that - humor. A comedian could change the name
in a political joke to any candidate he/she chooses. The results will basically
be the same - full out laughter or groans, boos & hisses. I do not denigrate
a person based on their political thoughts or beliefs.

I base friendships on THE PERSON and how he/she responds to the
people around him/her. I have friends who call themselves straight,
gay or are transgendered. To me they are still friends because of their
inner being.

Here, at Skirt Cafe', we're in the process of 'taking back' skirted garments
for, and as, men. Nothing more - Nothing less. We need to keep advancing
fashion freedom for men and stop the nit-picky, petty comments about things
that we really don't have any control over.

Stricter gun control is not the answer for all situations. Hitler tried that and
too many people died because of it. I just don't want history to repeat itself
because of 'The People' allowing 'Their Government' to take away any chance
of defending themselves from whom/what ever comes their way.

Uncle Al

Al, if I was too harsh or personal, you have my profound apology. But when I express a strongly-held opinion, I do so with all due emphasis, and to my full capability. In this case, I was perhaps too concise and did not offer enough explanation. I will give it another shot. But would you have me pull my punches because of my personal affection for the person whose opinion I vehemently dispute? I reserve the right to express a legitimate opinion.

You must have no idea how infuriating it is to hear a 40 year old slogan, particularly one so obtuse as "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" thrown at you, as if it was anything new or anything that had ever made sense. It is an insult to my, and, I suspect, to most people's intelligence. You are an intelligent man; you know that that platitude is barely even a half-truth. If you wanted to make it TRUE you would expand it to say "Guns don't kill people; people kill people; but most people who are intentionally killing other people are doing so WITH GUNS." That saying implies that gun control is punishing the weapon. We both know a weapon cannot be punished; it is steel and plastic. Gun control may mean many things to many people, but in this day and time, in the context of the current debate, it means keeping people who intend violence from purchasing weapons of substantial destructive capacity at their whim, i.e stocking up on ammo on Monday, committing mass murder on Tuesday. If that offends or inconveniences the so-called "honest" gun buyer, that is, to my thinking, a totally acceptable inconvenience; even to save a single life. I am happy to debate that opinion with you, but please save the sweeping generalizations; you are clearly well beyond such adolescent rationalizations. I want your intelligence in the debate, not your rhetorical programming.

I ask only that we try to keep arguments on a level of reality, supported by fact, and that we not tell half-truths in the name of some misplaced patriotism or nationalistic righteousness. No problem can be solved by those who deny its existence; look at any alcoholic in denial of his disease. If we can't discuss something factually, then we are left no option but politics, and a "winner-take-all" ethic. I am happy to debate civilly, but I have no appreciation or indulgence for trite sayings that are not intellectually defensible. If you articulate your message, support it with fact, and refrain from calling names, I will extend the same civil courtesy.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Well put Dillon.

Carl, the reason we all talk about gun deaths is because the statistics for gun deaths are reasonably complete; injuries are not.

I find your arguments for not keeping suicidal people away from guns appalling. Apparently, you didn't read or didn't remember that a recent study of suicide attempts determined that the person who attempted suicide made that decision 5 minutes before they tried to kill themselves. As Dillon pointed out, the success rate, if you want to call it that, of attempted suicides by firearm are in the high 80%'s to low 90%'s. It's been known for a long time that the overwhelming majority of people who attempt suicide are not looking to die; they're crying out for help by trying to call attention to themselves. If the overwhelming majority of the people who turn a gun on themselves give that decision serious, reasoned thought and actually wanted to die, you would have a point but the facts do not support scenario.

Suicides are also the majority of gun deaths if you add them to the homicides and accidents, guns kill more Americans than automobiles.

But there is an interesting issue about woundings as opposed to outright murders or fatal accidents with guns vs. almost anything else. But let's take knives. Despite what we saw as kids in the Westerns on TV, there is no such thing as minor gunshot wound that just takes a BandAid to fix. The ballistics of modern firearms dictate that if you get hit by a bullet, the shock wave will do serious damage to your internal organs, tear up a whole lot of flesh, etc. Not so with a knife, nobody can exert anywhere near that amount of force. Bullets travel at a rate above the speed of sound. The fastest Olympic track star can't outrun them. That person trying to stab or slash you, you might be able to outrun or fight off

I agree with you Carl, that there are underlying causes of violence that need to be addressed, but doesn't it just make sense that we should first turn down the volume, if you will, by doing everything reasonable (and I don't consider banning all guns to be a reasonable action) to keep guns from getting into the hands of people who will intentionally use them on themselves or other people?

Firearms are the only intentionally lethal consumer product and the only one specifically exempted from the consumer product protection law. Carl, I gather you're categorically opposed to additional government regulation because like the character Munch who used to be on "Law & Order SVU" you think there's a grand conspiracy that's out to get you, but support for much of the law we are talking about runs about 70-90% of the electorate. If you want to stick it to the man, see that they get passed into law.

[crfriend]

I find your arguments for not keeping suicidal people away from guns appalling. Apparently, you didn't read or didn't remember that a recent study of suicide attempts determined that the person who attempted suicide made that decision 5 minutes before they tried to kill themselves.

A "five-minute decision" is a snap-judgement and not something that's reasoned out. One cannot reasonably protect people from that sort of impulsive decision.

The fact that most attempts are "cries for help" points up how awfully bad the situation is here in the US when it comes to matters of mental health. There is such a powerful stigma associated with mental and emotional problems here that seeking help in the first place usually causes problems later on -- even with an acute episode long in the past.

The ballistics of modern firearms dictate that if you get hit by a bullet, the shock wave will do serious damage to your internal organs, tear up a whole lot of flesh, etc. Not so with a knife, nobody can exert anywhere near that amount of force. Bullets travel at a rate above the speed of sound. The fastest Olympic track star can't outrun them. That person trying to stab or slash you, you might be able to outrun or fight off

Physics argues against this. Recall that for every newton of energy a shooter imparts into a target, he absorbs the same amount (a little bit more, actually, counting for air friction) in recoil. This is why the Hollywood image of somebody getting thrown around by getting hit is flat wrong. I'm not saying the effects aren't bad, and those effects can be magnified depending on the type of ammunition in use; what I'm saying is that there's a lot of hyperbole involved in the argument. As far as running goes, that's about the worst thing one can do in a bad situation as it puts your back to an attacker.

[... D]oesn't it just make sense that we should first turn down the volume, if you will, by doing everything reasonable (and I don't consider banning all guns to be a reasonable action) to keep guns from getting into the hands of people who will intentionally use them on themselves or other people?

It makes sense if the source of trouble can be accurately pinpointed with sufficient accuracy. The crux of the matter is the identification of such people a-priori.

Carl, I gather you're categorically opposed to additional government regulation [...]

Actually, no. Regulation can -- and has been in the past -- a useful way to even things out in society. Part of the reason we're in the economic mess that we're in now is that most of the regulation has been removed. However, regulation in the name of producing a perfectly "safe" environment is doomed to failure, and that failure usually shows up in rather unexpected ways. For instance, we now have drugs-resistant bacteria because we over-used antibiotics and antiseptics for so long; children of today cannot recognise dangerous things because they've never been exposed to them; people behind the wheel of automobiles mostly don't drive any longer because of all the distractions and because the technology has gotten so good at "protecting" them from harm. If anything, I'd posit that the world is not dangerous enough any longer to keep our attention.

Also, please don't invoke mass-media pabulum like modern cop-shows. My ex- used to be addicted to "Law & Order SVU" (probably still is), and the take-away I got from that particular piece of offal was that it's a manipulative tool explicitly designed to inure people into tolerating abuse of power and illegal actions by authority figures. Watch an episode with a critical eye for about 5 minutes and count the crimes and offences committed by the "good guys". It'll stagger you.