Matt Williams has been a resident of Davis/El Macero since 1998. Matt is a past member of the City's Utilities Commission, as well as a former Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission (FBC), former member of the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee (DPAC), former member of the Broadband Advisory Task Force (BATF), as well as Treasurer of Davis Community Network (DCN). He is a past Treasurer of the Senior Citizens of Davis, and past member of the Finance Committee of the Davis Art Center, the Editorial Board of the Davis Vanguard, Yolo County's South Davis General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, the Davis School District's 7-11 Committee for Nugget Fields, the Yolo County Health Council and the City of Davis Water Advisory Committee and Natural Resources Commission.
His undergraduate degree is from Cornell University and his MBA is from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He spent over 30 years planning, developing, delivering and leading bottom-line focused strategies in the management of healthcare practice, healthcare finance, and healthcare technology, as well municipal finance.
Many Americans defend the second amendment precisely BECAUSE they love their kids and understand the importance of the second amendment in protecting and preserving the quality of the society we live in.
“BECAUSE they love their kids and understand the importance of the second amendment in protecting and preserving the quality of the society we live in.”
And perhaps their feeling flies in the face of the statistics on what actually makes their children safer. Namely, no guns in the home. This simple step prevents accidental death by gun, death by suicide, and death by mistake. It ignores evidence on the enhanced safety of everyone of not having guns and children in your possession at the same time. No gun, no possibility of your toddler taking it out of your specially designed to carry purse and killing you with it.
As for the “quality of the society we live in”, I would definitely consider a society in which mass shootings, drive by shootings, and accidental shootings of children were not daily events or at least so common as to not even invoke outrage, to be of higher quality than the one in which we find ourselves.
In 2010, according to the most recent data on justifiable homicides from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, there were 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm in self-defense during either an attempted or a completed crime. In the same year, there were 8,275 firearm homicides. This means that, for every one justifiable firearm homicide, there were 36 criminal homicides. The most reliable data on this question clearly show that between 2007 and 2011 firearms were used only 338,700 times in self-defense, and this includes off-duty police, (contrary to the gun lobby’s claim that, between 2007 and 2011, guns were used twelve and a half million times in self-defense). Clearly, then, despite living in a country with 300 million guns, the use of firearms in self-defense appears to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon.
Two other areas of crime—violent crime and property crime-are analyzed by the Violence Policy Center, and cast serious doubt on the argument that guns are used regularly in self-defense. Between 2007 and 2011, only 0.8 percent of violent crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. During the same five year period, only 0.1 percent of attempted or completed property crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. Given that between 40 and 45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it’s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense. Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010.
You might be thinking that 338,700 defense gun uses in a five year period is not ‘rare’, and that guns are used in self-defense 7 times as much as they are used in criminal homicides. However, this comparison is disingenuous:
The 338,700 defensive gun uses are primarily composed of self-defense uses in which the victim would not have died in the absence of a gun. We know this to be true because the majority of firearm violence in which the victim is unarmed does not result in the death of the victim.
It should be clear, then, that comparing defensive gun uses to offensive gun deaths, commits a category mistake because you are comparing variables of different magnitude. Either uses should be compared to uses, or deaths should be compared to deaths.
Thus, two potential comparisons are more appropriate:
Justifiable homicides vs criminal homicides – (deaths vs. deaths) the reason this is more accurate is that both result in a guaranteed death, and justifiable homicides function as a serviceable substitute for situations in which the death of the victim is more likely in the absence of a gun. In this case we have 230 justifiable homicides in 2010 vs 8275 criminal homicides in 2010, which clearly weighs in favor of gun control advocates.
Defensive gun use vs crimes committed with a firearm –(uses vs uses). Again, guns were used in self-defense 338,700 times between 2007-2011. In that same five year period, there were 2,277,000 crimes committed with a firearm.
Let’s be clear about this: every time a gun was used in self-defense, a criminal committed fatal or non-fatal firearm violence ~7 times. Either way you look at it, offensive gun use far outweighs defensive gun uses, and there is very little evidence that guns reliably de-escalate a criminal encounter once it happens. Just doing the math.
One can almost always find data in the realm of social sciences to support a belief, particularly data such as “the most reliable data on this question clearly show. . . ”
The second amendment was not written as a crime-fighting provision, nor was it written to protect duck hunting and deer hunting. The second amendment was written to provide some measure of protection against abuses by government itself, a well-established and predictable tendency of all governments throughout history.
There are many issues very poorly addressed by our current crop of politicians including virtual obliviousness to the importance of mental health services as a legitimate service of government, politicians perpetuating crime-inducing black market incentives, and a system of “justice” stacked against ordinary citizens of limited means – but quite attractive to major banks, defense contractors, major law firms, and multiple forms of parasites lining the beltway encircling what P.J. O’Rourke so aptly called “a parliament of whores.”
In practical terms, the vast numbers of Americans (most of whom are not members of the NRA) who own guns will ignore any politician’s attempt to mandate relinquishment, just like they did in Morton Grove, Illionois and even in San Francisco back around 1982 when Dianne Feinstein’s stroke of a pen created thousands of new criminals, who promptly ignored her idiocy.
“One can almost always find data in the realm of social sciences to support a belief, particularly data such as “the most reliable data on this question clearly show. . . ””
I don’t agree with that point. That is why there is the need for proper analysis of data.
“I don’t agree with that point. That is why there is the need for proper analysis of data.”
David, I’ve seen many examples of poorly compiled data over the years, especially in the social sciences. That is partially due to the inherently greater subjectivity of the data gathering and analysis methods, and in some cases due to biases built into the data gathering instruments themselves.
Then, there is selective reporting of results and the extraction of partial results out of context for purposes of persuasion. Even the hard(er) sciences often suffer from biased data gathering and reporting (manufacturer-sponsored drug study, anyone?)
I certainly agree with you that proper data analysis is important – at least as important as reliable data themselves.
Poorly compiled data is not making data say what you want, it’s falsely analyzing the data and coming to a faulty conclusion. In the social realm you create an explanatory model, you collect the data, and you analyze how well that data fit the model. The peer review process hopefully catches some mistakes and follow up work refines the model. People should not accept a first release of a study without heavy scrutiny about the model and data.
David, I agree with that, but you must have seen the various ways the same body of data, especially social sciences data, can be spun in different directions for political purposes – and often is in press reports supporting one side or the other of a controversial issue. And, how often have you seen a model built in which questions are biased even without an intention to do so? What about the reports and analyses of multiple sets of data that both justify and condemn foreign aid as helping or hindering the development of self-sufficiency?
Do I dare mention the non-peer reviewed UC Davis report on the AIM program and how it was spun by DJUSD administrators?
Biddlin–those are very interesting statistics, but they do not include the effect that gun ownership has in deterring the attempt at committing a crime. It is reasonable to assume that there would be more robberies and home invasions and carjackings if the perps could be assured that their victims did not have guns (as it is now; the perp can never be sure whether or not a potential target might have a gun)–the big question is how large this particular deterrent effect actually is–I’ll have to think of how one might conduct a study to address this question; or perhaps compile statistics from places around the world with different gun laws and rates of gun ownership.
tribeUSA-“Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010.”
That’s 1,162,000 guns put into the hands of criminals by gun owners, so what deterrent?
Napoleon, can you name a single person who you know personally who used their personal firearm in protecting and preserving the quality of the society we live in.
I ask the above question with the knowledge aforethought that anyone who has fought to protect and preserve the quality of the society doesn’t use their personal firearm, but rather one the government issues to him/her . . . and the same is true of the police, whose firearms are not personally owned, but rather owned by the jurisdiction they work for.
I have to wonder whether the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be renamed “the Minutemen Amendment,” and I can’t remember the last time I saw a Minuteman,
Matt, fortunately it is rare that a person has to literally “use” their personal firearm to protect and preserve the quality of the society we live in. The simple fact that they have the right to own firearms, and a very large percentage do, is an important deterrent to the natural tendency of all governments to drift into evil. Thus, even “non-use” of a firearm plays a valuable role. It is not easy to say what might have been, but I’m certain that without the second amendment, our government would have been, and would be now, much more abusive of individual rights than we have experienced.
I feel as though I should form a militia to protect myself from the people who feel they need to form militias to protect themselves from the government.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, and respect your right to come to that conclusion. I just happen to feel that you are following the Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy. There are an infinite number of reasons why our government (compared to other governments) has not been very abusive to individual rights. The fact that any individual personally owns a gun is only one of those infinite number of reasons.
Interesting statistics. What do you propose that the American people do about this? It seems that there is not political support for making any significant changes.
That’s the difficult question. For me it starts with the words of the Buffalo Springfield song … “There’s a man with a gun over there. Telling me I’ve got to beware.”
Having fewer guns “over there” will help a lot, but changing the threatening mindset will probably help more. Of the 142 incidents listed above, the gun wielder was very frequently not an adult. Producing a mindset in a child where threatening others with a gun starts in the home. It is passed on to that child by parents who either honor that mindset themselves, or are oblivious to it.
I completely agree with your point about mindset being one key. That however will require change to a kinder, gentler, more compassionate national outlook which would take many generations. Having fewer guns “over there” is something that we could act on now. I repeat, probably to the point of everyone else’s exasperation my belief in evidence based problem solving. In this case, the evidence is clear. We are simply choosing to ignore it or worse, choosing to prevent our own researchers from gathering more.
Not meaning to be trite, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Even if you don’t believe that, guns don’t (except rarely) kill people, bullets do.
Education, responsible gun ownership (trigger locks, gun safes, NRA safety training, parental supervision of minors, etc.), would reduce the list mightily. The list does not differentiate between “personal” murder, and the random Sandy Hook, Oregon JC, murders. The personal murders occur on campus just because that is where the target is.
A main constant of the non-easily preventable incidences, appears to be mental health issues. I just wish that those bent on murder-suicide could be trained to reverse the order of their actions. THAT would also cut the list down significantly.
BTW, “source” of the list (don’t think Matt compiled it)? So we can look at any potential biases? Am struck with the number of times that BOTH “shooter attempted/failed to commit suicide” AND “shooter committed suicide” are checked… multiple shooters? Also there appears to be an anomaly with # 66 & #67… two shootings at Pierce College a day apart?
Yes pierce, two shootings at Pierce College in two days, as is confirmed in this news story.
As you correctly suspected, I do not personally compile shooting data. The source of the information in the table is the following story and I agree with you that the final two columns regarding suicide information about the shooters may need some double checking.
“What do you propose that the American people do about this?”
I would suggest that we do what the Autralians did in 1996 in response to a 35 person massacre. They passed a law with a mandatory gun buy back with the following results :
“A study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness. “
We have evidence of what works. What we do not have is the will to place lives above, not the second amendment, but above an interpretation of the second amendment drafted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court that has chosen to ignore the militia clause as though it simply were not there.
True as written. And completely ignores the fact that guns, as a very specific product, allow people to achieve the goal of killing with high efficiency at longer distances than is possible with knives, or bats, or fists or feet. Guns are a special case of violence enhancers and to deny or ignore this is to ignore reality.
And, to deny and/or ignore need for education, mental health issues, and/or out-and-out criminality is to ignore reality… big time. Or is it easier to ban guns (under all circumstances) easier than dealing with the underlying causes?
I think there are a lot of questions that get lost in the guns/ people dichotomy. One of my big questions is whether America is a more violent society than other countries? If so, why? If not, how does the violent impulses of people like the active shooter manifest itself in other countries and cultures?
This is another example of the inability of 2 immovable sides to compromise. The plain truth is that the 2nd amendment, at least in my lifetime is here to stay. To continually wring our hands at each shooting and say we need more gun control is like banging our heads on Mt. Rushmore and expecting it to move.
What might work, and its just an idea is to require a fee of say a buck for each gun sold anywhere to go to mental health counseling and availability for young male adults, the group from which these disturbed shooters almost always come. That might be supported by both sides and maybe then we could get some politicians to support multiple clip and rapid fire weapon prohibitions which no hunter or protector of the family or home needs.
Maybe instead arming all teachers we could have certain trained persons on campus in key spots throuughout the day watching the entries and armed. there is room to compromise, there almost always is if good people not set dead in stone negotiate.
What might work, and its just an idea is to require a fee of say a buck for each gun sold anywhere to go to mental health counseling and availability for young male adults, the group from which these disturbed shooters almost always come.
Since most of the shooters are young men with mental health problems, I wonder why there is not more emphasis on identifying these at risk boys and men and making sure that they don’t have access to guns? It would require that parents, relatives, and friends be aware of the potential problem and then taking action. I know this will be very difficult in situations where the potential shooter has not been diagnosed as mentally ill.
By J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., M. Hunter Martaindale, M.S., and Terry Nichols, M.S.
“Shooter Profile
Single shooters conducted all attacks between 2000 to 2012 that the authors identified. Shooters did not fit a specific profile. While most (94 percent) of the shooters were male, some were female. They also came from different racial and ethnic categories. The youngest shooter in the data set was 13, and the oldest was 88. Again, no clear profile based upon the demographics of the shooter was observed.
Relationship Between Shooter and Victims
The shooter did not have any apparent connection (such as being a current or former student/employee) with the attack location in 45 percent of events. In 55 percent of the incidents, the shooter did have a connection with the attack location.”
Mercy… I for one, don’t believe it should be a dichotomous discussion… existing condition is not working, no one having a gun, for any reason is just as stupid.
Many posters, you are right, seem to be all or nothing. I reject those views.
I do not own a gun. None of my parents or grandparents did. One of my children owns a shotgun, which is in our home. Unloaded. Trigger lock. Likes to shoot skeet. [Sorry, skeet is not a protected species]
I think there is data showing three things: (1) gun ownership has declined substantially in the last forty years. (2) Murders and shootings are down over that same period of time. (3) Active shootings are up. Why?
I wonder if this rise tracks at all with the rise in the ‘incel’ or ‘beta male’ net culture (see the 4chan forum discussion, e.g.)? The Isla Vista, Sandy Hook, and possibly Colorado Theater shooters were all heavily involved in this culture.
So, having an individual who is already disaffected and/or mentally ill (in the case of the Isla Vista shooter), coupled with the echo chamber of oftentimes extremely violent messaging in these internet forums/etc. might be a factor (at least maybe in the more recent shootings).
“This is another example of the inability of 2 immovable sides to compromise. “
I disagree with your fundamental premise. I have been for my entire life an advocate of increased gun safety. I am also the daughter of a hunter and would likely have been one myself had my father not died prior to completing my training. My goal, and the goal of the Brady campaign, and multiple other groups promoting increased gun safety is not the abolishment of the second amendment. This is a straw man argument used over and over by those who want unlimited access to guns and claim that their actions are a defense of the second amendment.
Many of us who advocate for increased gun safety laws completely understand the value of compromise. But, I do not believe that this is about compromise at all. I also do not believe that it is truly about the second amendment. I believe that it is about profit for gun manufacturers and their supporters. If this were not the case, why would we not be seeing gun advocates out stumping for safer firing mechanisms, or greater enforcement of child safety regulations such as keeping your weapons locked in a safe, or unloaded while children are in the home ?
Instead, every suggestion for safer gun handling and storage, every suggestion for tighter controls designed to keep weapons out of the hands of the isolated, angry and sometimes mentally ill young men who are the usual mass shooters, and most heinously in my opinion, every attempt to use public funds to even study the safety issues is blocked by gun advocates.
How, in your estimation, is this an example of both sides being unwilling to compromise ?
Tia, you wrote that you favor, “increased gun safety”… I know no rational person who would disagree… I favor and have practiced it, and my children likewise.
Yet you advocate, “Namely, no guns in the home”. Unequivocal. No nuance about being “safely kept” in the home. You also advocate, “suggest that we do what the Australians did in 1996 in response to a 35 person massacre. They passed a law with a mandatory gun buy back…”. Unequivocal. Absolute. Nothing about safety or responsibility.
Looks like you are on the end of the bell curve that believes the only good gun is a dead gun.
I strongly believe that the current laws and policies need reforming. I am moreseriously concerned about dealing with mental health and criminality issues. I am firmly against complete bans of private ownership of guns. I strongly support a complete ban on the availability of automatic weapons for individuals. I strongly support a limit on a number of guns that an individual has (except for ‘collections’, show pieces, etc.) [just look at the number of notorious cases that included ownership of 6-20 guns by the individual. I think they are up to discovering 10 owned by the jerk/ill person in Oregon. Coroner has determined cause of the shooter’s death to be suicide].
“Yet you advocate, “Namely, no guns in the home”. Unequivocal.”
I believe that you are referencing this post of mine: “And perhaps their feeling flies in the face of the statistics on what actually makes their children safer. Namely, no guns in the home.”
But you have distorted my position. I have never advocated for “no guns in the home. Unequivocal.” If you read my posts carefully what I have stated is that no guns in the home would be statistically safer. This also is unequivocally true from the point of view of prevention of gun related deaths and injuries. But it does not mean that I am advocating for that.
No sex ever would also eliminate any possibility of unintended pregnancy, but that does not mean that I am advocating for that as a means of abortion reduction.
No car use ever would also eliminate deaths and injuries related to automobile collisions. That does not mean that I am advocating for the confiscation of all automobiles.
Likewise, I am advocating for the safe use, ownership, and storage of both weapons and ammunition, not their elimination from our society.
“I am advocating for the safe use, ownership, and storage of both weapons and ammunition, not their elimination from our society.” Wow… what I thought was my fair read of your earlier posts must have been ‘wrong’. In your quoted statement, as simply stated, we are of one mind.
“The second amendment was written to provide some measure of protection against abuses by government itself, a well-established and predictable tendency of all governments throughout history.”
Agreed. And it clearly no longer serves that original purpose. If we were advocating weapons in our homes to protect us against abuses by the government, we would have to be advocating for individual ownership of bombs, tanks, drones, military grade airplanes and the like. I do not know of anyone who is advocating for these types of weaponry for defense against the government.
Also the second amendment included the oft ignored “militia clause”. Current interpretation has stepped so far away from initial author intent, as to make the citing of this amendment in defense of individual ownership of guns completely untenable. That does not mean that there are not other reasons to defend individual ownership of guns, such as for food procurement for rural residents, or skeet or target shooting for those who enjoy these activities, but the second amendment as a feasible argument, no longer applies to our current situation.
To address your second point first, militia are composed of individuals. I see no conflict between the reference to militia in the language of the second amendment and the interpretation that the language was clearly intended to protect the right of individual citizens to “keep and bear arms.”
As for your first comment, I’ll make two observations that are both likely to be viewed by some as inflammatory. The first is that the will of government is carried out by individuals, and airstrikes aside, often requires the face-to-face interaction of a government person with a non-government person. Thus, small arms as we currently think of them (rifles, shotguns, hand guns) are sufficient to maintain a certain degree of deterrence against rampant abuse of government power. I won’t be explicit on how that would work in operational terms, but I’m sure you get the idea.
As for individual ownership of heavy weapons, where does the individual end and the government start? And, why are criminals not called criminals when they are defined and protected as government? Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad come to mind as topical examples, but there are many others. No, I’m not advocating individual ownership of cluster bombs and fighter jets, but such weapons being solely under the control of governments is not especially reassuring.
“As for your first comment, I’ll make two observations that are both likely to be viewed by some as inflammatory. The first is that the will of government is carried out by individuals, and airstrikes aside, often requires the face-to-face interaction of a government person with a non-government person. Thus, small arms as we currently think of them (rifles, shotguns, hand guns) are sufficient to maintain a certain degree of deterrence against rampant abuse of government power. I won’t be explicit on how that would work in operational terms, but I’m sure you get the idea.”
I am sure that without you being much more specific, I do not get the idea.
For example, both the Move organization and the government of the City of Philadelphia were composed of individuals. In 1985, representatives of the City of Philadelphia chose to bomb the headquarters of this group which was also a residence in which there were children. So please consider this a sincere question. Would you have supported a pre-emptive strike by this group including shooting police officers in the hopes of preventing the bombing since they doubtless did not consider the actions of the government as protective of their interests ?
Same question about the inhabitants of Waco and of Ruby Ridge ? Same question about the actions of Timothy McVeigh and his group who, per their own statements, viewed their actions as both defensive and retaliatory for the individual decisions of government representatives at Waco.
Please note that I am asking, not defending the actions of either the inhabitants of these sites or the government in attempting to deal with these situations.
Tia, I think those are very good questions and probably deserve a more thoughtful and detailed response than I have the knowledge to provide in the midst of competing obligations.
In the case of Philadelphia and the Move group (about which I know nothing, so I’m going out on a limb here), the bombing sounds like it was clearly a criminal act by a government (composed of individual, as all are). With prior knowledge of those plans, the members of Move could have sought intervention by another arm of the government. If that failed, then in my opinion they would have been justified in defending themselves from attempted murder and murder by the individuals who agreed to carry out the criminal will of that government. If police officers chose to be part of the government-sanctioned murder squad, then under those circumstances, they would be legitimate targets of self defense.
As for Ruby Ridge, that was clearly murder by a government agent. Waco is more complicated. There were incompetent government idiots involved in those deaths for sure, and absolutely there was criminal over-use of force on the part of the government, but I certainly hope the fire that resulted in the deaths of so many innocent individuals was unintended.
Timothy McVeigh was a criminal murderer and also delusional. There is absolutely no justification for his actions, and in my view there will never be justification for the killing of random and innocent people. It is one thing to kill a marauding government criminal in the act of being a criminal, it is quite a different thing to embark on an insane ideological crusade that destroys the lives of people with no choice in the matter.
I am disgusted with politicians that exploit every tragedy for political and ideological gains. Especially this President and his minions.
My liberal friends are so selective in their statistical arguments that their use of statistics in their arguments should be rejected immediately and strongly. Until and unless they learn how to be truly objective and intellectual debaters of ALL the facts, they are better off just making their emotional and ideological demands.
Here is the complete US government list of death cause statistics and the probability of each for year 2000.
One thing clear. We should ban transportation because it is clearly responsible for so much death and mayhem that we should be outraged! And falls count for more deaths than do murders and accidental death by firearm. Seems we should regulate and restrict walking!
Ok, lets do be both honest and objective in our arguments. You are correct that there are many other causes of death than weapons designed specifically for the purpose of killing many individuals in a very short period of time.
Transportation and just walking, as you state are indeed responsible for more deaths than are firearms. However, what you are conveniently forgetting to mention is that both walking and other means of transportation also serve many beneficial purposes in our lives. Walking provides many health benefits and lengthens many more lives than it shortens. Cars, buses, trains, airplanes and other means of transportation allow us to pursue our livelihoods ( jobs, careers), and avocations within the structure of the society as we have chosen to construct it. They serve many beneficial purposes as well as causing deaths and injuries. However, their purpose is not specifically that of causing death and injury.
This is also true of some guns…. namely those used for food acquisition or target or skeet shooting, or those whose sole purpose is for collectors. However, I think it is beyond contention that many of the guns available in our society exist for one purpose only, the killing of another human being. This is the critical point that you are failing to address which makes your own comment neither objective nor honest.
However, what you are conveniently forgetting to mention is that firearms and many other tools (that can be a means of killing people if not used as intended), also serve many beneficial purposes in our lives.
“I see no conflict between the reference to militia in the language of the second amendment and the interpretation that the language was clearly intended to protect the right of individual citizens to “keep and bear arms.”
And I see a clear conflict. The military is also comprised of individual citizens. That does not mean that every citizen is a member of the military and that every citizen has the right to access all the weaponry of the military. I believe that our founding father’s were very careful with their wording. I believe that the “militia clause” was placed there for a very specific purpose. I believe that that purpose was to state the specific rationale for the right to bear arms which was precisely what they said that it was for, namely the maintenance of a militia ….. not the maintenance of personal protection against bad guys regardless of whether or not they are in uniform, but for the maintenance of a militia. Why else would they have felt the need for such explicit language since of course, it is a given that militias are composed of individuals as is every other social group. They did not say, for the maintenance of a family, or a town, or a religious group. They specifically used the word “militia:. I am taking our founders at their word.
Tia, respectfully I disagree with you on this issue of definition. In the late 18th century, there was a distinction between a standing army and a militia.
I do not consider a member of the modern military to be a member of a militia, nor do I think that every citizen needs access to all the weaponry of the military. A few rifles, shotguns, and hand guns should be adequate.
If it is part because of the second amendment I suspect that that part is less than one hundredth of one percent of the reason.
The two biggest reasons are the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The decidedly nonaggressive posture of our neighbor to the north, Canada, probably follows the two oceans. Bottom-line, the need to actively tap the civilian population to create a local military force in an emergency pretty much disappeared in this country over a century ago.
With that said, the need for a militia in countries without the natural boundaries that the United States enjoys still is substantial.
All the time, Matt… the National Guard is a State-funded ‘militia’, consisting of your neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens who are trained to serve in many ways, not justin the use of weapons, but definitely weapons training is part of their training. Each State’s militia is under the control of that state’s Governor, and I’m not sure how it works, they can be deployed to serve with our “standing” armed forces.
Never heard of “weekend warriors”, or “citizen soldiers”?
Was a second-level supervisor of a National Guardsman, got invited to a weekend outing to see their training at Camp Roberts (central CA). Even got to shoot a jeep-mounted 50 mm. Very cool. Don’t feel a need to have one tho’.
But to paraphrase a famous Christmas essay, “Yes Matt, there IS a militia”. And I for one am damn glad there is. And yeah, I have no problem with them or any other citizen having weapons, absent mental health, criminal other issues, at home.
I reserve the rightto have guns in my home, in my possession elsewhere, as long as I use them responsibly and safely (redundancy?). I carry a knife almost everywhere (except I have to put it in checked baggage when I fly).
pierce, my first reaction to your point was one based on my understanding (which proved to be faulty in this case) that in order to be in the National Guard you had to have first been an active member of the Military and retired from that military service, and that the military gave each of its members the option of joining the “Reserve” if they so chose. Either that understanding of mine was dated or it has always been flat out wrong. Going to the Guard and Reserve Frequently Asked Questions was a real education for me.
With that said, I have always thought of the National Guard as an active part of our country’s formal military. How the National Guard was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan was certainly far from being an ad hoc citizen army, which is what my sense of a militia was prior to your post. I suspect that there aren’t any National Guardsment and National Guardswomen who use a firearm that thy personally own as opposed to a firearm that the government owns.
I too reserve the right to store guns in my home, and have them in my possession elsewhere if I am participating in an organized activity such as hunting or skeet shootijng or target practice, as long as I use them responsibly and safely? My position on the possession of a gun is almost identical to my position on choice. I have the right to choose to have a gun, but I don’t choose to actually have one.
Matt, you are missing the point. Preventing invasion by a foreign force is what a standing army (along with Harrier jets and other such hardware) is for.
The point of a militia made up of civilians (as envisioned by the framers of the constitution) is to protect the country from its own government evolving in the wrong direction, as governments have a strong tendency to do in the absent of constraints – by assuring that said government will remain reasonably benign in the face of a population with the means to effectively fight abuse, a population unwilling to passively cede power beyond a certain point to marauding aristocrats or corrupt bureaucrats.
The fact that we can generally trust our government (with major and troubling exceptions) is largely due to the wisdom of the authors of the second amendment – and, of course, the first amendment – not due to the inherent capability of people in power to resist abusing said power.
Napoleon, I respectfully disagree. The fact that we can generally trust our government (with few exceptions troubling or otherwise) is largely due to the wisdom of the authors of Constitution with its three part “Checks and Balances” format. The citizens of the US have only felt the need to rise up against their government once … 150 years ago, and support for that uprising was far from a consensus.
As I said in a prior post. The 2nd Amendment should be called the “Minutemen Amendment.” We haven’t had the nedd for the ad hoc coalescing of a militia for internal reasons since the Redcoats left our shores.
With that said, hpierce’s correct reference to the National Guard as a militia is (at least for me) a formalized structure that has changed the original (Founding Fathers) ad hoc nature of militias in to a formalized Military organization.
JMHO I’m not saying I am right, nor am I trying to change your mind in any way. I just see militia in a very different way than you do.
hpierce
Very good comment. I stand corrected on my very narrow and out-of-date definition of militia.
Matt – Your timing for this line of arguing is very inconvenient for you. You, I assume, voted for this President that rules more like a dictator than the top position of our representative democracy as designed. And I assume that you routinely vote for the political party of the left that is spending us to oblivion while working hard to put us in third world economic status. Not only is liberal utopia not attainable, but our trajectory is exactly the opposite… dystopia. I think smart liberals know this, or at least sense this, and know that their grip on central authority will begin to melt away as the money they loot from producers to buy their support of the seething masses runs out… probably soon when we hit the next big recession. And because liberals will have to begin to seize private property (I am guessing beginning with private 401k accounts and estates) justified by their brilliant movement of so much give-away spending into the non-discretionary category (read: protected by the judicial arm), liberals want those guns gone. It won’t happen because too many other smart voters know what liberals are up to.
The main problem though is that these nut-job killings are few and far between. That leaves you with primarily the gun killings done by real bad guys like those in Chicago gangs… that by the way, live and kill in the city with the toughest gun restriction laws in the country.
How about some real solutions here instead of just feel-good lefty stuff that causes even more problems from the laws of unintended consequences? How about we talk about mental health care in this country. Why didn’t the school or this killer’s mother or any doctor or, or, or… get him locked away into an asylum or at least get him identified as unfit to buy, own, carry, or shoot firearms?
If the left would go forward with ideas to keep the guns out of the hands of the wackadoodles instead of trying to keep them out of the hands of everyone, we could start working together.
But then this does not help the political agenda of the left, does it?
Frankly, you are looking at life through filtered glasses (dare I say polarized glasses). What you accuse Obama of has been consistently done by Presidents throughout the history of the USA. The details differ, but the actions fall into the same category, President after President after President.
I believe you know that I am very far from “agenda driven,” and with that said I give you permission to use me as a hyperbole scapegoat if that is your desire. It doesn’t bother me when you do so.
Why didn’t the school or this killer’s mother or any doctor or, or, or… get him locked away into an asylum or at least get him identified as unfit to buy, own, carry, or shoot firearms?
Based on what? There’s no real way to do what you are proposing here. No way to take away the several guns he already owned once someone identifies him (how?) as unfit. No registry of such people, no way to act on the information that might be in that registry. No research allowed into gun issues. No national database allowed. No limits on private sales to him.
Got any solutions to those problems?
Yeah Napoleon… the fuller quote from the 2nd amendment is “… a well regulated militia…”… trained… disciplined… responsible. And, no, that doesn’t take away the provisional right (like voting) to own, possess, and use guns from any citizen. And, if I were to own a gun, I would get training, discipline myself, and be responsible.
Frankly: How about we talk about mental health care in this country. Why didn’t the school or this killer’s mother or any doctor or, or, or… get him locked away into an asylum or at least get him identified as unfit to buy, own, carry, or shoot firearms?
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. These are clearly areas in which we will just have to disagree, while I suspect agreeing that there are dangers involved whether one is more disturbed by the thought of government over reach, or the thought of individuals being will to decide for themselves which laws they will and will not obey.
Tia–the primary purpose of guns is not to kill; but to provide a deterrent; just as the primary purpose of a nuclear bomb is not to destroy cities and countries, but to provide a deterrent (and history shows that they have proved useful as a deterrent; unfortunately however they have also been used as an implicit threat and leveraging tool in international relations wherein one of the parties is not part of the nuclear club).
The horns of a bull or goat, antlers of a moose or elk, are not used primarily as offensive weapons, although they can be deadly, but to protect against predators. Of course there are mentally ill moose or elk that may become insanely aggressive (there is an endemic kind of roundworm that infects the brains of moose and elk that causes a type of insanity) to the point where they will attack without provocation.
In the human ecosystem perhaps an analogy for armed citizens are the moose with antlers; and unarmed are the moose without antlers–in many countries, only specially licensed government moose are allowed to grow antlers, while the vast majority of the herd accepts their antler-less lot, and leaves the power of the antler in the hands of the special antlered moose, in whom they are taught (and hope) they can trust. Then too there are rogue moose who illegally grow antlers and predate the antlerless herd.
With regard to providing a check on government power, unquestionably the right of citizens to bear arms plays a role in this. It is not that there may be any immediate threat of a fascist police-state crackdown on the citizens; but that the fact that so many citizens bear arms helps dampen the temptation of government to bring oppressive measures to bear against the citizens–in other words, as the christian bible teaches, the arms-bearing citizenry does the government a positive service by reducing the temptation for them to attempt to over-reach their legitimate powers. We take this state of affairs for granted; however bearing of arms is one of the conditions that has helped to ensure a balance of powers. I’d rather be one of the antlered moose than leave all the antlers entirely rooted in a small group of specialized moose that takes their orders from the government.
Matt shared with me the source… everytown.org. From a 10 minute perusal of the site, looks like they are NOT a firearm ban group, and have identified a number of the “underlying causes” that need work. More control of gun purchase, to vet owners, etc. are measures I’d have no problem with. If I feel a needto buy a gun in the next 3 days, ten days, that should tell someone that there is something wrong going on with me. And no, I don’t feel that need.
hpierce–what if somebody just gave you a serious death threat to you or your family? sure you can call the police; in the meantime until they find the guy, you may want to protect yourself and your family; even if they catch the guy they may not be able to legally hold him.
Or how about you find out a violent and vengeful criminal you helped to convict (say as a key witness) is about to be released on parole?
Yes, there are situations in which you may legitimately want to purchase a gun and learn how to use it (e.g. at a firing range) in a hurry!
You obviously have not read and/or do not understand the New Testament, the Christian contribution to the Bible… a REAL reading of it, and understanding of it, particularly the words attributed to the Christ, is not simple… nuanced, based on the account… not ready to cast my pearls (knowledge/insight) before…
And you apparently have not read the conflicting accounts of the survivors saying that although he was asking the question, he was not shooting exclusively Christians. In either case, the statistics on guns kept in the home are not reassuring in terms of protection. And for those who would rush out and buy a gun and train “in a hurry”, what makes you think that you will be able to achieve the level of skill necessarily to keep a hardened criminal from killing you or your family ? Sure, many people would like to see themselves as the “hero: in a good guys vs bad guys scenario, all the while forgetting that proficiency with a weapon is like any other skill …… you need to learn and practice your skill. Would you rely on a surgeon who learned their trade in a one time course and then maybe made the range a few times a year for practice at best ? What the ” arm all Christians ” folks are suggesting is a recipe for disaster in terms of accidental shootings and suicides.
Many (the majority?) of the campuses listed in the leading table for this article appear to be “weapons free zones” that may not provide adequate (any?) protection for students, faculty, and staff. To protect campus attendees, it seems reasonable that campuses in this situation should begin to provide properly cleared armed security on campus. Without such protection,, these campuses will continue to become tempting targets (killing fields) for the weaponized deranged.
Several states have adopted, or are considering, open and/or concealed carry options for elementary, secondary, and college campuses. Only for those 18 or over as far as I am able to discern. Some legislation includes teachers, staff, administrators and/or (adult) students.
Perhaps one change that may help with gun regulation legislation is a change in wording:
Don’t use the term ‘gun control’, use the word ‘gun regulation’
I still bristle a bit when I hear the word ‘gun control’ (ain’t nobody else gonna control my guns!); however I agree that some gun regulation measures are a good idea–definitely I support some well-crafted legislation that would make it more difficult and less likely for the mentally ill and criminals to get their hands on guns–of course that can never be 100% guaranteed, however there should be some moderate steps that can be taken to reduce guns getting into the wrong hands.
“however there should be some moderate steps that can be taken to reduce guns getting into the wrong hands.”
And if you read the Everytown ( of which I am a member) information as hpierce suggested you will see that the proposals are about gun safety. I think that the language we use has a major impact on people’s perceptions. I favor the use of “gun safety” over “gun control”. I also favor the use of “gun injury prevention” rather than “gun violence pervention”. This allows for a thoughtful discussion of the reduction of suicide and accidental shootings, often by children, rather than reducing the conversation to a “good guys” vs “bad guys” conversation.
But I realize that this is spoken from the perspective of someone whose life work involves prevention of injury, illness and untimely death.
Tia–yes I agree that the vocabulary we use around this issue is important. It is curious that the phrase ‘gun control’ has persisted so long by activists and politicos and media, when the phrase itself is somewhat polarizing and guaranteed to provoke resistance–people don’t like the thought of bureaucrats ‘controlling’ their guns. Many of the legislative proposals are moderate and are really more accurately described as ‘gun regulation’ or ‘gun safety’ proposals rather than ‘gun control’ proposals; nevertheless the more polarizing qualifier ‘control’ is usually pasted on when describing such legislation.
Yes, I do appreciate your perspective and focus from a gun safety viewpoint, as there have been and remain so many tragic inadvertent accidents having to do with guns (don’t go duck hunting with Dick Cheney), especially with children finding an exciting new toy to play with, because their parents were not careful enough about ensuring such a find would not occur.
As long as Americans love and protect the second amendment more than our kids, this will be the case.
;>)/
Many Americans defend the second amendment precisely BECAUSE they love their kids and understand the importance of the second amendment in protecting and preserving the quality of the society we live in.
Napoleon
“BECAUSE they love their kids and understand the importance of the second amendment in protecting and preserving the quality of the society we live in.”
And perhaps their feeling flies in the face of the statistics on what actually makes their children safer. Namely, no guns in the home. This simple step prevents accidental death by gun, death by suicide, and death by mistake. It ignores evidence on the enhanced safety of everyone of not having guns and children in your possession at the same time. No gun, no possibility of your toddler taking it out of your specially designed to carry purse and killing you with it.
As for the “quality of the society we live in”, I would definitely consider a society in which mass shootings, drive by shootings, and accidental shootings of children were not daily events or at least so common as to not even invoke outrage, to be of higher quality than the one in which we find ourselves.
In 2010, according to the most recent data on justifiable homicides from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, there were 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm in self-defense during either an attempted or a completed crime. In the same year, there were 8,275 firearm homicides. This means that, for every one justifiable firearm homicide, there were 36 criminal homicides. The most reliable data on this question clearly show that between 2007 and 2011 firearms were used only 338,700 times in self-defense, and this includes off-duty police, (contrary to the gun lobby’s claim that, between 2007 and 2011, guns were used twelve and a half million times in self-defense). Clearly, then, despite living in a country with 300 million guns, the use of firearms in self-defense appears to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon.
Two other areas of crime—violent crime and property crime-are analyzed by the Violence Policy Center, and cast serious doubt on the argument that guns are used regularly in self-defense. Between 2007 and 2011, only 0.8 percent of violent crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. During the same five year period, only 0.1 percent of attempted or completed property crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. Given that between 40 and 45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it’s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense. Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010.
You might be thinking that 338,700 defense gun uses in a five year period is not ‘rare’, and that guns are used in self-defense 7 times as much as they are used in criminal homicides. However, this comparison is disingenuous:
The 338,700 defensive gun uses are primarily composed of self-defense uses in which the victim would not have died in the absence of a gun. We know this to be true because the majority of firearm violence in which the victim is unarmed does not result in the death of the victim.
It should be clear, then, that comparing defensive gun uses to offensive gun deaths, commits a category mistake because you are comparing variables of different magnitude. Either uses should be compared to uses, or deaths should be compared to deaths.
Thus, two potential comparisons are more appropriate:
Justifiable homicides vs criminal homicides – (deaths vs. deaths) the reason this is more accurate is that both result in a guaranteed death, and justifiable homicides function as a serviceable substitute for situations in which the death of the victim is more likely in the absence of a gun. In this case we have 230 justifiable homicides in 2010 vs 8275 criminal homicides in 2010, which clearly weighs in favor of gun control advocates.
Defensive gun use vs crimes committed with a firearm –(uses vs uses). Again, guns were used in self-defense 338,700 times between 2007-2011. In that same five year period, there were 2,277,000 crimes committed with a firearm.
Let’s be clear about this: every time a gun was used in self-defense, a criminal committed fatal or non-fatal firearm violence ~7 times. Either way you look at it, offensive gun use far outweighs defensive gun uses, and there is very little evidence that guns reliably de-escalate a criminal encounter once it happens. Just doing the math.
One can almost always find data in the realm of social sciences to support a belief, particularly data such as “the most reliable data on this question clearly show. . . ”
The second amendment was not written as a crime-fighting provision, nor was it written to protect duck hunting and deer hunting. The second amendment was written to provide some measure of protection against abuses by government itself, a well-established and predictable tendency of all governments throughout history.
There are many issues very poorly addressed by our current crop of politicians including virtual obliviousness to the importance of mental health services as a legitimate service of government, politicians perpetuating crime-inducing black market incentives, and a system of “justice” stacked against ordinary citizens of limited means – but quite attractive to major banks, defense contractors, major law firms, and multiple forms of parasites lining the beltway encircling what P.J. O’Rourke so aptly called “a parliament of whores.”
In practical terms, the vast numbers of Americans (most of whom are not members of the NRA) who own guns will ignore any politician’s attempt to mandate relinquishment, just like they did in Morton Grove, Illionois and even in San Francisco back around 1982 when Dianne Feinstein’s stroke of a pen created thousands of new criminals, who promptly ignored her idiocy.
“One can almost always find data in the realm of social sciences to support a belief, particularly data such as “the most reliable data on this question clearly show. . . ””
I don’t agree with that point. That is why there is the need for proper analysis of data.
“I don’t agree with that point. That is why there is the need for proper analysis of data.”
David, I’ve seen many examples of poorly compiled data over the years, especially in the social sciences. That is partially due to the inherently greater subjectivity of the data gathering and analysis methods, and in some cases due to biases built into the data gathering instruments themselves.
Then, there is selective reporting of results and the extraction of partial results out of context for purposes of persuasion. Even the hard(er) sciences often suffer from biased data gathering and reporting (manufacturer-sponsored drug study, anyone?)
I certainly agree with you that proper data analysis is important – at least as important as reliable data themselves.
Poorly compiled data is not making data say what you want, it’s falsely analyzing the data and coming to a faulty conclusion. In the social realm you create an explanatory model, you collect the data, and you analyze how well that data fit the model. The peer review process hopefully catches some mistakes and follow up work refines the model. People should not accept a first release of a study without heavy scrutiny about the model and data.
David, I agree with that, but you must have seen the various ways the same body of data, especially social sciences data, can be spun in different directions for political purposes – and often is in press reports supporting one side or the other of a controversial issue. And, how often have you seen a model built in which questions are biased even without an intention to do so? What about the reports and analyses of multiple sets of data that both justify and condemn foreign aid as helping or hindering the development of self-sufficiency?
Do I dare mention the non-peer reviewed UC Davis report on the AIM program and how it was spun by DJUSD administrators?
Biddlin–those are very interesting statistics, but they do not include the effect that gun ownership has in deterring the attempt at committing a crime. It is reasonable to assume that there would be more robberies and home invasions and carjackings if the perps could be assured that their victims did not have guns (as it is now; the perp can never be sure whether or not a potential target might have a gun)–the big question is how large this particular deterrent effect actually is–I’ll have to think of how one might conduct a study to address this question; or perhaps compile statistics from places around the world with different gun laws and rates of gun ownership.
tribeUSA-“Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010.”
That’s 1,162,000 guns put into the hands of criminals by gun owners, so what deterrent?
;>)/
Napoleon, can you name a single person who you know personally who used their personal firearm in protecting and preserving the quality of the society we live in.
I ask the above question with the knowledge aforethought that anyone who has fought to protect and preserve the quality of the society doesn’t use their personal firearm, but rather one the government issues to him/her . . . and the same is true of the police, whose firearms are not personally owned, but rather owned by the jurisdiction they work for.
I have to wonder whether the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be renamed “the Minutemen Amendment,” and I can’t remember the last time I saw a Minuteman,
Matt, fortunately it is rare that a person has to literally “use” their personal firearm to protect and preserve the quality of the society we live in. The simple fact that they have the right to own firearms, and a very large percentage do, is an important deterrent to the natural tendency of all governments to drift into evil. Thus, even “non-use” of a firearm plays a valuable role. It is not easy to say what might have been, but I’m certain that without the second amendment, our government would have been, and would be now, much more abusive of individual rights than we have experienced.
I feel as though I should form a militia to protect myself from the people who feel they need to form militias to protect themselves from the government.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, and respect your right to come to that conclusion. I just happen to feel that you are following the Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy. There are an infinite number of reasons why our government (compared to other governments) has not been very abusive to individual rights. The fact that any individual personally owns a gun is only one of those infinite number of reasons.
Interesting statistics. What do you propose that the American people do about this? It seems that there is not political support for making any significant changes.
That’s the difficult question. For me it starts with the words of the Buffalo Springfield song … “There’s a man with a gun over there. Telling me I’ve got to beware.”
Having fewer guns “over there” will help a lot, but changing the threatening mindset will probably help more. Of the 142 incidents listed above, the gun wielder was very frequently not an adult. Producing a mindset in a child where threatening others with a gun starts in the home. It is passed on to that child by parents who either honor that mindset themselves, or are oblivious to it.
Matt
I completely agree with your point about mindset being one key. That however will require change to a kinder, gentler, more compassionate national outlook which would take many generations. Having fewer guns “over there” is something that we could act on now. I repeat, probably to the point of everyone else’s exasperation my belief in evidence based problem solving. In this case, the evidence is clear. We are simply choosing to ignore it or worse, choosing to prevent our own researchers from gathering more.
Not meaning to be trite, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Even if you don’t believe that, guns don’t (except rarely) kill people, bullets do.
Education, responsible gun ownership (trigger locks, gun safes, NRA safety training, parental supervision of minors, etc.), would reduce the list mightily. The list does not differentiate between “personal” murder, and the random Sandy Hook, Oregon JC, murders. The personal murders occur on campus just because that is where the target is.
A main constant of the non-easily preventable incidences, appears to be mental health issues. I just wish that those bent on murder-suicide could be trained to reverse the order of their actions. THAT would also cut the list down significantly.
BTW, “source” of the list (don’t think Matt compiled it)? So we can look at any potential biases? Am struck with the number of times that BOTH “shooter attempted/failed to commit suicide” AND “shooter committed suicide” are checked… multiple shooters? Also there appears to be an anomaly with # 66 & #67… two shootings at Pierce College a day apart?
Yes pierce, two shootings at Pierce College in two days, as is confirmed in this news story.
As you correctly suspected, I do not personally compile shooting data. The source of the information in the table is the following story and I agree with you that the final two columns regarding suicide information about the shooters may need some double checking.
“What do you propose that the American people do about this?”
I would suggest that we do what the Autralians did in 1996 in response to a 35 person massacre. They passed a law with a mandatory gun buy back with the following results :
“A study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness. “
We have evidence of what works. What we do not have is the will to place lives above, not the second amendment, but above an interpretation of the second amendment drafted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court that has chosen to ignore the militia clause as though it simply were not there.
““Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.”
True as written. And completely ignores the fact that guns, as a very specific product, allow people to achieve the goal of killing with high efficiency at longer distances than is possible with knives, or bats, or fists or feet. Guns are a special case of violence enhancers and to deny or ignore this is to ignore reality.
And, to deny and/or ignore need for education, mental health issues, and/or out-and-out criminality is to ignore reality… big time. Or is it easier to ban guns (under all circumstances) easier than dealing with the underlying causes?
I think there are a lot of questions that get lost in the guns/ people dichotomy. One of my big questions is whether America is a more violent society than other countries? If so, why? If not, how does the violent impulses of people like the active shooter manifest itself in other countries and cultures?
This is another example of the inability of 2 immovable sides to compromise. The plain truth is that the 2nd amendment, at least in my lifetime is here to stay. To continually wring our hands at each shooting and say we need more gun control is like banging our heads on Mt. Rushmore and expecting it to move.
What might work, and its just an idea is to require a fee of say a buck for each gun sold anywhere to go to mental health counseling and availability for young male adults, the group from which these disturbed shooters almost always come. That might be supported by both sides and maybe then we could get some politicians to support multiple clip and rapid fire weapon prohibitions which no hunter or protector of the family or home needs.
Maybe instead arming all teachers we could have certain trained persons on campus in key spots throuughout the day watching the entries and armed. there is room to compromise, there almost always is if good people not set dead in stone negotiate.
Since most of the shooters are young men with mental health problems, I wonder why there is not more emphasis on identifying these at risk boys and men and making sure that they don’t have access to guns? It would require that parents, relatives, and friends be aware of the potential problem and then taking action. I know this will be very difficult in situations where the potential shooter has not been diagnosed as mentally ill.
source:FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2012
By J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., M. Hunter Martaindale, M.S., and Terry Nichols, M.S.
“Shooter Profile
Single shooters conducted all attacks between 2000 to 2012 that the authors identified. Shooters did not fit a specific profile. While most (94 percent) of the shooters were male, some were female. They also came from different racial and ethnic categories. The youngest shooter in the data set was 13, and the oldest was 88. Again, no clear profile based upon the demographics of the shooter was observed.
Relationship Between Shooter and Victims
The shooter did not have any apparent connection (such as being a current or former student/employee) with the attack location in 45 percent of events. In 55 percent of the incidents, the shooter did have a connection with the attack location.”
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012
;>)/
Mercy… I for one, don’t believe it should be a dichotomous discussion… existing condition is not working, no one having a gun, for any reason is just as stupid.
Many posters, you are right, seem to be all or nothing. I reject those views.
I do not own a gun. None of my parents or grandparents did. One of my children owns a shotgun, which is in our home. Unloaded. Trigger lock. Likes to shoot skeet. [Sorry, skeet is not a protected species]
I think there is data showing three things: (1) gun ownership has declined substantially in the last forty years. (2) Murders and shootings are down over that same period of time. (3) Active shootings are up. Why?
I wonder if this rise tracks at all with the rise in the ‘incel’ or ‘beta male’ net culture (see the 4chan forum discussion, e.g.)? The Isla Vista, Sandy Hook, and possibly Colorado Theater shooters were all heavily involved in this culture.
So, having an individual who is already disaffected and/or mentally ill (in the case of the Isla Vista shooter), coupled with the echo chamber of oftentimes extremely violent messaging in these internet forums/etc. might be a factor (at least maybe in the more recent shootings).
Careful… now some folk may ‘go after’ both the 1st AND 2nd amendments…
mercy4all
“This is another example of the inability of 2 immovable sides to compromise. “
I disagree with your fundamental premise. I have been for my entire life an advocate of increased gun safety. I am also the daughter of a hunter and would likely have been one myself had my father not died prior to completing my training. My goal, and the goal of the Brady campaign, and multiple other groups promoting increased gun safety is not the abolishment of the second amendment. This is a straw man argument used over and over by those who want unlimited access to guns and claim that their actions are a defense of the second amendment.
Many of us who advocate for increased gun safety laws completely understand the value of compromise. But, I do not believe that this is about compromise at all. I also do not believe that it is truly about the second amendment. I believe that it is about profit for gun manufacturers and their supporters. If this were not the case, why would we not be seeing gun advocates out stumping for safer firing mechanisms, or greater enforcement of child safety regulations such as keeping your weapons locked in a safe, or unloaded while children are in the home ?
Instead, every suggestion for safer gun handling and storage, every suggestion for tighter controls designed to keep weapons out of the hands of the isolated, angry and sometimes mentally ill young men who are the usual mass shooters, and most heinously in my opinion, every attempt to use public funds to even study the safety issues is blocked by gun advocates.
How, in your estimation, is this an example of both sides being unwilling to compromise ?
Tia, you wrote that you favor, “increased gun safety”… I know no rational person who would disagree… I favor and have practiced it, and my children likewise.
Yet you advocate, “Namely, no guns in the home”. Unequivocal. No nuance about being “safely kept” in the home. You also advocate, “suggest that we do what the Australians did in 1996 in response to a 35 person massacre. They passed a law with a mandatory gun buy back…”. Unequivocal. Absolute. Nothing about safety or responsibility.
Looks like you are on the end of the bell curve that believes the only good gun is a dead gun.
I strongly believe that the current laws and policies need reforming. I am more seriously concerned about dealing with mental health and criminality issues. I am firmly against complete bans of private ownership of guns. I strongly support a complete ban on the availability of automatic weapons for individuals. I strongly support a limit on a number of guns that an individual has (except for ‘collections’, show pieces, etc.) [just look at the number of notorious cases that included ownership of 6-20 guns by the individual. I think they are up to discovering 10 owned by the jerk/ill person in Oregon. Coroner has determined cause of the shooter’s death to be suicide].
hpierce
“Yet you advocate, “Namely, no guns in the home”. Unequivocal.”
I believe that you are referencing this post of mine: “And perhaps their feeling flies in the face of the statistics on what actually makes their children safer. Namely, no guns in the home.”
But you have distorted my position. I have never advocated for “no guns in the home. Unequivocal.” If you read my posts carefully what I have stated is that no guns in the home would be statistically safer. This also is unequivocally true from the point of view of prevention of gun related deaths and injuries. But it does not mean that I am advocating for that.
No sex ever would also eliminate any possibility of unintended pregnancy, but that does not mean that I am advocating for that as a means of abortion reduction.
No car use ever would also eliminate deaths and injuries related to automobile collisions. That does not mean that I am advocating for the confiscation of all automobiles.
Likewise, I am advocating for the safe use, ownership, and storage of both weapons and ammunition, not their elimination from our society.
“I am advocating for the safe use, ownership, and storage of both weapons and ammunition, not their elimination from our society.” Wow… what I thought was my fair read of your earlier posts must have been ‘wrong’. In your quoted statement, as simply stated, we are of one mind.
Napoleon
“The second amendment was written to provide some measure of protection against abuses by government itself, a well-established and predictable tendency of all governments throughout history.”
Agreed. And it clearly no longer serves that original purpose. If we were advocating weapons in our homes to protect us against abuses by the government, we would have to be advocating for individual ownership of bombs, tanks, drones, military grade airplanes and the like. I do not know of anyone who is advocating for these types of weaponry for defense against the government.
Also the second amendment included the oft ignored “militia clause”. Current interpretation has stepped so far away from initial author intent, as to make the citing of this amendment in defense of individual ownership of guns completely untenable. That does not mean that there are not other reasons to defend individual ownership of guns, such as for food procurement for rural residents, or skeet or target shooting for those who enjoy these activities, but the second amendment as a feasible argument, no longer applies to our current situation.
Tia
To address your second point first, militia are composed of individuals. I see no conflict between the reference to militia in the language of the second amendment and the interpretation that the language was clearly intended to protect the right of individual citizens to “keep and bear arms.”
As for your first comment, I’ll make two observations that are both likely to be viewed by some as inflammatory. The first is that the will of government is carried out by individuals, and airstrikes aside, often requires the face-to-face interaction of a government person with a non-government person. Thus, small arms as we currently think of them (rifles, shotguns, hand guns) are sufficient to maintain a certain degree of deterrence against rampant abuse of government power. I won’t be explicit on how that would work in operational terms, but I’m sure you get the idea.
As for individual ownership of heavy weapons, where does the individual end and the government start? And, why are criminals not called criminals when they are defined and protected as government? Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad come to mind as topical examples, but there are many others. No, I’m not advocating individual ownership of cluster bombs and fighter jets, but such weapons being solely under the control of governments is not especially reassuring.
Besides, even a Harrier ‘jump-jet’, parked in your driveway, would probably violate a bunch of Davis zoning laws!
Good point. Heaven forbid!
Napoleon
“As for your first comment, I’ll make two observations that are both likely to be viewed by some as inflammatory. The first is that the will of government is carried out by individuals, and airstrikes aside, often requires the face-to-face interaction of a government person with a non-government person. Thus, small arms as we currently think of them (rifles, shotguns, hand guns) are sufficient to maintain a certain degree of deterrence against rampant abuse of government power. I won’t be explicit on how that would work in operational terms, but I’m sure you get the idea.”
I am sure that without you being much more specific, I do not get the idea.
For example, both the Move organization and the government of the City of Philadelphia were composed of individuals. In 1985, representatives of the City of Philadelphia chose to bomb the headquarters of this group which was also a residence in which there were children. So please consider this a sincere question. Would you have supported a pre-emptive strike by this group including shooting police officers in the hopes of preventing the bombing since they doubtless did not consider the actions of the government as protective of their interests ?
Same question about the inhabitants of Waco and of Ruby Ridge ? Same question about the actions of Timothy McVeigh and his group who, per their own statements, viewed their actions as both defensive and retaliatory for the individual decisions of government representatives at Waco.
Please note that I am asking, not defending the actions of either the inhabitants of these sites or the government in attempting to deal with these situations.
Tia, I think those are very good questions and probably deserve a more thoughtful and detailed response than I have the knowledge to provide in the midst of competing obligations.
In the case of Philadelphia and the Move group (about which I know nothing, so I’m going out on a limb here), the bombing sounds like it was clearly a criminal act by a government (composed of individual, as all are). With prior knowledge of those plans, the members of Move could have sought intervention by another arm of the government. If that failed, then in my opinion they would have been justified in defending themselves from attempted murder and murder by the individuals who agreed to carry out the criminal will of that government. If police officers chose to be part of the government-sanctioned murder squad, then under those circumstances, they would be legitimate targets of self defense.
As for Ruby Ridge, that was clearly murder by a government agent. Waco is more complicated. There were incompetent government idiots involved in those deaths for sure, and absolutely there was criminal over-use of force on the part of the government, but I certainly hope the fire that resulted in the deaths of so many innocent individuals was unintended.
Timothy McVeigh was a criminal murderer and also delusional. There is absolutely no justification for his actions, and in my view there will never be justification for the killing of random and innocent people. It is one thing to kill a marauding government criminal in the act of being a criminal, it is quite a different thing to embark on an insane ideological crusade that destroys the lives of people with no choice in the matter.
I am disgusted with politicians that exploit every tragedy for political and ideological gains. Especially this President and his minions.
My liberal friends are so selective in their statistical arguments that their use of statistics in their arguments should be rejected immediately and strongly. Until and unless they learn how to be truly objective and intellectual debaters of ALL the facts, they are better off just making their emotional and ideological demands.
Here is the complete US government list of death cause statistics and the probability of each for year 2000.
One thing clear. We should ban transportation because it is clearly responsible for so much death and mayhem that we should be outraged! And falls count for more deaths than do murders and accidental death by firearm. Seems we should regulate and restrict walking!
Frankly
Ok, lets do be both honest and objective in our arguments. You are correct that there are many other causes of death than weapons designed specifically for the purpose of killing many individuals in a very short period of time.
Transportation and just walking, as you state are indeed responsible for more deaths than are firearms. However, what you are conveniently forgetting to mention is that both walking and other means of transportation also serve many beneficial purposes in our lives. Walking provides many health benefits and lengthens many more lives than it shortens. Cars, buses, trains, airplanes and other means of transportation allow us to pursue our livelihoods ( jobs, careers), and avocations within the structure of the society as we have chosen to construct it. They serve many beneficial purposes as well as causing deaths and injuries. However, their purpose is not specifically that of causing death and injury.
This is also true of some guns…. namely those used for food acquisition or target or skeet shooting, or those whose sole purpose is for collectors. However, I think it is beyond contention that many of the guns available in our society exist for one purpose only, the killing of another human being. This is the critical point that you are failing to address which makes your own comment neither objective nor honest.
However, what you are conveniently forgetting to mention is that firearms and many other tools (that can be a means of killing people if not used as intended), also serve many beneficial purposes in our lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)
Napoleon
“I see no conflict between the reference to militia in the language of the second amendment and the interpretation that the language was clearly intended to protect the right of individual citizens to “keep and bear arms.”
And I see a clear conflict. The military is also comprised of individual citizens. That does not mean that every citizen is a member of the military and that every citizen has the right to access all the weaponry of the military. I believe that our founding father’s were very careful with their wording. I believe that the “militia clause” was placed there for a very specific purpose. I believe that that purpose was to state the specific rationale for the right to bear arms which was precisely what they said that it was for, namely the maintenance of a militia ….. not the maintenance of personal protection against bad guys regardless of whether or not they are in uniform, but for the maintenance of a militia. Why else would they have felt the need for such explicit language since of course, it is a given that militias are composed of individuals as is every other social group. They did not say, for the maintenance of a family, or a town, or a religious group. They specifically used the word “militia:. I am taking our founders at their word.
Tia, respectfully I disagree with you on this issue of definition. In the late 18th century, there was a distinction between a standing army and a militia.
I do not consider a member of the modern military to be a member of a militia, nor do I think that every citizen needs access to all the weaponry of the military. A few rifles, shotguns, and hand guns should be adequate.
Napoleon, when was the last time a militia was deployed in the US?
Fortunately, not for a very long time, perhaps in part because of the existence of, and ongoing popular support of, the second amendment.
If it is part because of the second amendment I suspect that that part is less than one hundredth of one percent of the reason.
The two biggest reasons are the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The decidedly nonaggressive posture of our neighbor to the north, Canada, probably follows the two oceans. Bottom-line, the need to actively tap the civilian population to create a local military force in an emergency pretty much disappeared in this country over a century ago.
With that said, the need for a militia in countries without the natural boundaries that the United States enjoys still is substantial.
All the time, Matt… the National Guard is a State-funded ‘militia’, consisting of your neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens who are trained to serve in many ways, not just in the use of weapons, but definitely weapons training is part of their training. Each State’s militia is under the control of that state’s Governor, and I’m not sure how it works, they can be deployed to serve with our “standing” armed forces.
Never heard of “weekend warriors”, or “citizen soldiers”?
Was a second-level supervisor of a National Guardsman, got invited to a weekend outing to see their training at Camp Roberts (central CA). Even got to shoot a jeep-mounted 50 mm. Very cool. Don’t feel a need to have one tho’.
But to paraphrase a famous Christmas essay, “Yes Matt, there IS a militia”. And I for one am damn glad there is. And yeah, I have no problem with them or any other citizen having weapons, absent mental health, criminal other issues, at home.
I reserve the right to have guns in my home, in my possession elsewhere, as long as I use them responsibly and safely (redundancy?). I carry a knife almost everywhere (except I have to put it in checked baggage when I fly).
pierce, my first reaction to your point was one based on my understanding (which proved to be faulty in this case) that in order to be in the National Guard you had to have first been an active member of the Military and retired from that military service, and that the military gave each of its members the option of joining the “Reserve” if they so chose. Either that understanding of mine was dated or it has always been flat out wrong. Going to the Guard and Reserve Frequently Asked Questions was a real education for me.
With that said, I have always thought of the National Guard as an active part of our country’s formal military. How the National Guard was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan was certainly far from being an ad hoc citizen army, which is what my sense of a militia was prior to your post. I suspect that there aren’t any National Guardsment and National Guardswomen who use a firearm that thy personally own as opposed to a firearm that the government owns.
I too reserve the right to store guns in my home, and have them in my possession elsewhere if I am participating in an organized activity such as hunting or skeet shootijng or target practice, as long as I use them responsibly and safely? My position on the possession of a gun is almost identical to my position on choice. I have the right to choose to have a gun, but I don’t choose to actually have one.
Matt, you are missing the point. Preventing invasion by a foreign force is what a standing army (along with Harrier jets and other such hardware) is for.
The point of a militia made up of civilians (as envisioned by the framers of the constitution) is to protect the country from its own government evolving in the wrong direction, as governments have a strong tendency to do in the absent of constraints – by assuring that said government will remain reasonably benign in the face of a population with the means to effectively fight abuse, a population unwilling to passively cede power beyond a certain point to marauding aristocrats or corrupt bureaucrats.
The fact that we can generally trust our government (with major and troubling exceptions) is largely due to the wisdom of the authors of the second amendment – and, of course, the first amendment – not due to the inherent capability of people in power to resist abusing said power.
Napoleon, I respectfully disagree. The fact that we can generally trust our government (with few exceptions troubling or otherwise) is largely due to the wisdom of the authors of Constitution with its three part “Checks and Balances” format. The citizens of the US have only felt the need to rise up against their government once … 150 years ago, and support for that uprising was far from a consensus.
As I said in a prior post. The 2nd Amendment should be called the “Minutemen Amendment.” We haven’t had the nedd for the ad hoc coalescing of a militia for internal reasons since the Redcoats left our shores.
With that said, hpierce’s correct reference to the National Guard as a militia is (at least for me) a formalized structure that has changed the original (Founding Fathers) ad hoc nature of militias in to a formalized Military organization.
JMHO I’m not saying I am right, nor am I trying to change your mind in any way. I just see militia in a very different way than you do.
hpierce
Very good comment. I stand corrected on my very narrow and out-of-date definition of militia.
Matt – Your timing for this line of arguing is very inconvenient for you. You, I assume, voted for this President that rules more like a dictator than the top position of our representative democracy as designed. And I assume that you routinely vote for the political party of the left that is spending us to oblivion while working hard to put us in third world economic status. Not only is liberal utopia not attainable, but our trajectory is exactly the opposite… dystopia. I think smart liberals know this, or at least sense this, and know that their grip on central authority will begin to melt away as the money they loot from producers to buy their support of the seething masses runs out… probably soon when we hit the next big recession. And because liberals will have to begin to seize private property (I am guessing beginning with private 401k accounts and estates) justified by their brilliant movement of so much give-away spending into the non-discretionary category (read: protected by the judicial arm), liberals want those guns gone. It won’t happen because too many other smart voters know what liberals are up to.
The main problem though is that these nut-job killings are few and far between. That leaves you with primarily the gun killings done by real bad guys like those in Chicago gangs… that by the way, live and kill in the city with the toughest gun restriction laws in the country.
How about some real solutions here instead of just feel-good lefty stuff that causes even more problems from the laws of unintended consequences? How about we talk about mental health care in this country. Why didn’t the school or this killer’s mother or any doctor or, or, or… get him locked away into an asylum or at least get him identified as unfit to buy, own, carry, or shoot firearms?
If the left would go forward with ideas to keep the guns out of the hands of the wackadoodles instead of trying to keep them out of the hands of everyone, we could start working together.
But then this does not help the political agenda of the left, does it?
Frankly, you are looking at life through filtered glasses (dare I say polarized glasses). What you accuse Obama of has been consistently done by Presidents throughout the history of the USA. The details differ, but the actions fall into the same category, President after President after President.
I believe you know that I am very far from “agenda driven,” and with that said I give you permission to use me as a hyperbole scapegoat if that is your desire. It doesn’t bother me when you do so.
Based on what? There’s no real way to do what you are proposing here. No way to take away the several guns he already owned once someone identifies him (how?) as unfit. No registry of such people, no way to act on the information that might be in that registry. No research allowed into gun issues. No national database allowed. No limits on private sales to him.
Got any solutions to those problems?
Yeah Napoleon… the fuller quote from the 2nd amendment is “… a well regulated militia…”… trained… disciplined… responsible. And, no, that doesn’t take away the provisional right (like voting) to own, possess, and use guns from any citizen. And, if I were to own a gun, I would get training, discipline myself, and be responsible.
Frankly: How about we talk about mental health care in this country. Why didn’t the school or this killer’s mother or any doctor or, or, or… get him locked away into an asylum or at least get him identified as unfit to buy, own, carry, or shoot firearms?
Salon, 6/18/2015: It’s not about mental illness: The big lie that always follows mass shootings by white males
Napoleon
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. These are clearly areas in which we will just have to disagree, while I suspect agreeing that there are dangers involved whether one is more disturbed by the thought of government over reach, or the thought of individuals being will to decide for themselves which laws they will and will not obey.
Tia,
Yes. Well stated.
Tia–the primary purpose of guns is not to kill; but to provide a deterrent; just as the primary purpose of a nuclear bomb is not to destroy cities and countries, but to provide a deterrent (and history shows that they have proved useful as a deterrent; unfortunately however they have also been used as an implicit threat and leveraging tool in international relations wherein one of the parties is not part of the nuclear club).
The horns of a bull or goat, antlers of a moose or elk, are not used primarily as offensive weapons, although they can be deadly, but to protect against predators. Of course there are mentally ill moose or elk that may become insanely aggressive (there is an endemic kind of roundworm that infects the brains of moose and elk that causes a type of insanity) to the point where they will attack without provocation.
In the human ecosystem perhaps an analogy for armed citizens are the moose with antlers; and unarmed are the moose without antlers–in many countries, only specially licensed government moose are allowed to grow antlers, while the vast majority of the herd accepts their antler-less lot, and leaves the power of the antler in the hands of the special antlered moose, in whom they are taught (and hope) they can trust. Then too there are rogue moose who illegally grow antlers and predate the antlerless herd.
With regard to providing a check on government power, unquestionably the right of citizens to bear arms plays a role in this. It is not that there may be any immediate threat of a fascist police-state crackdown on the citizens; but that the fact that so many citizens bear arms helps dampen the temptation of government to bring oppressive measures to bear against the citizens–in other words, as the christian bible teaches, the arms-bearing citizenry does the government a positive service by reducing the temptation for them to attempt to over-reach their legitimate powers. We take this state of affairs for granted; however bearing of arms is one of the conditions that has helped to ensure a balance of powers. I’d rather be one of the antlered moose than leave all the antlers entirely rooted in a small group of specialized moose that takes their orders from the government.
Well done.
Matt shared with me the source… everytown.org. From a 10 minute perusal of the site, looks like they are NOT a firearm ban group, and have identified a number of the “underlying causes” that need work. More control of gun purchase, to vet owners, etc. are measures I’d have no problem with. If I feel a need to buy a gun in the next 3 days, ten days, that should tell someone that there is something wrong going on with me. And no, I don’t feel that need.
hpierce–what if somebody just gave you a serious death threat to you or your family? sure you can call the police; in the meantime until they find the guy, you may want to protect yourself and your family; even if they catch the guy they may not be able to legally hold him.
Or how about you find out a violent and vengeful criminal you helped to convict (say as a key witness) is about to be released on parole?
Yes, there are situations in which you may legitimately want to purchase a gun and learn how to use it (e.g. at a firing range) in a hurry!
Since we’re finding out that this killer was targeting Christians that’s just all the more reason that Christians should arm and protect themselves.
You obviously have not read and/or do not understand the New Testament, the Christian contribution to the Bible… a REAL reading of it, and understanding of it, particularly the words attributed to the Christ, is not simple… nuanced, based on the account… not ready to cast my pearls (knowledge/insight) before…
Should have read, “… based on the account and CONTEXT of the quote…”.
BP
And you apparently have not read the conflicting accounts of the survivors saying that although he was asking the question, he was not shooting exclusively Christians. In either case, the statistics on guns kept in the home are not reassuring in terms of protection. And for those who would rush out and buy a gun and train “in a hurry”, what makes you think that you will be able to achieve the level of skill necessarily to keep a hardened criminal from killing you or your family ? Sure, many people would like to see themselves as the “hero: in a good guys vs bad guys scenario, all the while forgetting that proficiency with a weapon is like any other skill …… you need to learn and practice your skill. Would you rely on a surgeon who learned their trade in a one time course and then maybe made the range a few times a year for practice at best ? What the ” arm all Christians ” folks are suggesting is a recipe for disaster in terms of accidental shootings and suicides.
Many (the majority?) of the campuses listed in the leading table for this article appear to be “weapons free zones” that may not provide adequate (any?) protection for students, faculty, and staff. To protect campus attendees, it seems reasonable that campuses in this situation should begin to provide properly cleared armed security on campus. Without such protection,, these campuses will continue to become tempting targets (killing fields) for the weaponized deranged.
Several states have adopted, or are considering, open and/or concealed carry options for elementary, secondary, and college campuses. Only for those 18 or over as far as I am able to discern. Some legislation includes teachers, staff, administrators and/or (adult) students.
Perhaps one change that may help with gun regulation legislation is a change in wording:
Don’t use the term ‘gun control’, use the word ‘gun regulation’
I still bristle a bit when I hear the word ‘gun control’ (ain’t nobody else gonna control my guns!); however I agree that some gun regulation measures are a good idea–definitely I support some well-crafted legislation that would make it more difficult and less likely for the mentally ill and criminals to get their hands on guns–of course that can never be 100% guaranteed, however there should be some moderate steps that can be taken to reduce guns getting into the wrong hands.
“however there should be some moderate steps that can be taken to reduce guns getting into the wrong hands.”
And if you read the Everytown ( of which I am a member) information as hpierce suggested you will see that the proposals are about gun safety. I think that the language we use has a major impact on people’s perceptions. I favor the use of “gun safety” over “gun control”. I also favor the use of “gun injury prevention” rather than “gun violence pervention”. This allows for a thoughtful discussion of the reduction of suicide and accidental shootings, often by children, rather than reducing the conversation to a “good guys” vs “bad guys” conversation.
But I realize that this is spoken from the perspective of someone whose life work involves prevention of injury, illness and untimely death.
Tia–yes I agree that the vocabulary we use around this issue is important. It is curious that the phrase ‘gun control’ has persisted so long by activists and politicos and media, when the phrase itself is somewhat polarizing and guaranteed to provoke resistance–people don’t like the thought of bureaucrats ‘controlling’ their guns. Many of the legislative proposals are moderate and are really more accurately described as ‘gun regulation’ or ‘gun safety’ proposals rather than ‘gun control’ proposals; nevertheless the more polarizing qualifier ‘control’ is usually pasted on when describing such legislation.
Yes, I do appreciate your perspective and focus from a gun safety viewpoint, as there have been and remain so many tragic inadvertent accidents having to do with guns (don’t go duck hunting with Dick Cheney), especially with children finding an exciting new toy to play with, because their parents were not careful enough about ensuring such a find would not occur.