Doctor Cleveland's picture

    The Second Amendment Right to Kill You

    By Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 4:03pm | Politics

    Someone with an assault rifle shot up the University of Texas today. And then he killed himself. I'm pretty nauseated just writing that first sentence, considering UT's history. No one is dead but the gunman, who shot himself.

    Ten days ago someone else walked into Harvard Yard with a handgun, stood on the chapel steps, and killed himself in full view of a tour group. It was Yom Kippur. He left a nineteen-hundred-page suicide note, detailing his inability to get past sophomore philosophy questions.

    In related sophomore-logic problems, one commenter on UT-Austin's emergency alert page used this to argue for even more guns on campus:

    Andrew Kelling said on September 28, 2010

    This is exactly why we need to allow concealed carry on campus, so that if this shooter had decided to open fire, he would've been stopped long before he would have done much damage

    That's one deep dedication to the counter-factual there, Andrew. Although the shooter harmed no one but himself under the current gun laws, it proves a need for even looser gun laws which "would've" hypothetically prevented him from doing any harm. Let's imagine things went even worse than they did, but then imagine that something else magically solved the problem. When your guarantee of public safety rests on not just one but a series of contingent events working out in your favor, I'd say you've just stepped down from the planning commitee. But Andrew's just working with ideas that are already out there, ideas which are so committed to everyone's freedom to have an AK-47 that no real world evidence can possibly interfere.

    Apparently, we are committed to the Second Amendment, and committed to it everywhere, even in places dedicated to strengthening the mind and spirit. Thanks to the Founders' commitment to intellectual liberty and philosophical ideals, there is nowhere in this country where the life of the mind cannot be cut short with a small piece of lead.

    Both Harvard and Texas are beautiful places. They've both been kind to me in what time I've spent there. They both have people I like and want to see safe.

    Both of those stories are going to be spun as relatively happy endings, because neither of the unbalanced gunmen murdered anyone but himself. Pardon me if I don't see suicide as a happy ending. And I'm tired of talking about preventing murderers from getting guns. It is a terrible thing to sell a suicide the bullets.

    I wish that 1,900 page suicide note had a sequel. I don't mean that as a joke. I think that every suicide note should have a sequel. I think the people who write them could eventually come through the other side of their suicidal depressions and rejoin the living world. I think that would be better for the potential suicides and better for the world.

    It's easy to die. It always has been. But there is no point in making our fragile lives more fragile, making them easier to throw away in one dark moment. Death has always been stupid. But I'm sick of living in a country that makes dying so easy.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    On the bright side, I see the Firearms Training Institute ad is back in the righthand column.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 4:34pm

    The NY Times had a chart recently, showing who was being shot, where and what age. I can't find it right now, but the two most noticeable groups were young black men shooting each other, and older white men shooting themselves.

    I find myself in the middle on this issue. I have respect for the right to bear arms, and defend one's home and family, but I also understand that many people in our society don't want to live in an armed camp. I grew up hearing gunshots in the woods behind our house. It didn't bother me because I knew it was just hunters, and I assumed they were experienced enough to shoot away from populated areas. But if strangers had walked up to the house wearing guns, I would have felt threatened. Hunting was normal, wearing guns in society wasn't. Maybe if I moved to a more rural area, I'd learn to feel differently, but to me wearing a gun means you're expecting to run into something you have to shoot.


    by Donal on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 4:42pm

    Strange that the Globe story about a 1905-page suicide note would begin with, "In the end, no one really knows what led Mitchell Heisman....'   What is the point of the story?  That there is no point leaving suicide notes?  Whatever. 

    I have to think Heisman was picturing the inspiration for this when listening to The Well-Tempered Clavier.  Bon Voyager Heisman.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 6:32pm

    People like you can be as dangerous as the dead shooter.  At this point, for all you know, someone did have a handgun with them and they stopped the bastard.  Forensics haven't been released.  How will you spin this if a "vigalante" kept the damage to a bare minimum? It's happened in the past.

    Realize this.  Texas and this entire country is armed to the teeth, and there is not one thing you can do about it.


    by WIlliam Travis (not verified) on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 6:48pm

    Need a bit of help with the reading skills there, William?

    The very first graf, for your reading-impaired pleasure:

    Someone with an assault rifle shot up the University of Texas today. And then he killed himself. I'm pretty nauseated just writing that first sentence, considering UT's history. No one is dead but the gunman, who shot himself.

    Does bolding it help?  Or are you sufficiently determined to outright ignore the facts to try (and thereby fail) to make your point?


    by Austin Train on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 6:55pm

    Typical adolescent innuendo and name-calling, and you people are supposed to be the hope of America?  Good grief that's a sad future.

    Listen up, I'll say it again.  No one will rid this country of firearms; legal or illegal.  The shooter was only 19, so again gun laws appear virtually meaningless.  Always will be.  I know that gives most of you angina, but the sooner you come to grips with the reality, the sooner you can learn to deal with the facts.  Seriously, you're not going to get your way.  It's over, and you're not going to put the genie back in the bottle.  Give it some thought.  Do the math.

    Personally, I doubt the shooter was stopped by a CCW holder (vigilante).  News reports are painting a pretty sad story. The kid was obviously unstable for whatever reason, but for the most part he was a good kid.  At this point, I'm just glad no one else was hurt or worse. We should be able to agree on that one.


    by WIlliam Travis (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 1:49am

    So  you don't like being called out on your BS?  Your earlier comment implied the vigilante thing, and then I pointed your lie out to you, now you stoop to the very name-calling you pretend to decry.  How utterly typical.

    Go fondle your gun, little man.  And revel in the cowardice that makes you unwilling, perhaps even unable, to live your life without one.

    I quote you back your nonsensical BS from your first comment:

    At this point, for all you know, someone did have a handgun with them and they stopped the bastard.  Forensics haven't been released.  How will you spin this if a "vigalante" kept the damage to a bare minimum? It's happened in the past.

    I can imagine no future sadder than yours.


    by Austin Train on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 2:13am

    Okay Willie, listen up.

    Suppose there were a number of armed individuals on the campus and they all responded. Now there's a situation where there's one armed person shooting up the place and a number of others armed and looking to take him out.

    So there's a bunch of people running around a college campus with guns, one shooting his and the others intending to shoot him.

    Do you see the problem yet?

    How do those armed do-gooders know the person they see with a gun is not the one shooting the place up?

    You could very well end up with a lot of dead people who shot each other thinking the person they shot was the original shooter while the shooter commits suicide.

    Personally, I would love for that to happen... after a while there wouldn't be any opposition to repealing the 2nd Amendment simply because everyone who would fight tooth-and-nail for it will have already been killed by someone else thinking they were the gunman.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 7:20pm

    I'd be against repealing the 2nd amendment, but I'm not crazy enough to walk around thinking I'm Marshal Dillon.


    by Donal on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 7:47pm

    I'm not looking to repeal the 2nd Amendment either. I grew up in a house with guns, and both my parents still own one. I'm not talking about an outright ban.

    What I'm frustrated about is the resistance (including sabotaging implementation) to any kind of reasonable middle ground. How about not selling a 19-year-old kid, who's not even allowed to purchase a sixpack of Lone Star, an AK-47? How about looking into ways to keep people who are high risks for suicide from buying guns? (The Virginia Tech shooter wasn't an obvious murder threat when he bought his two high-powered automatics, but he was a suicide risk.)

    Instead of any kind of collaboration or creativity from gun-rights advocates, we get these kind of fantasy scenarios, like the ones our friend from the Alamo here has been spinning, that simply makes up imaginary facts. And that's pretty damned frustrating.

     


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 8:17pm

    And to be fair, the anti-gun people are the perfect foil to keep the pro-gun people up in arms, so to speak.


    by Donal on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 8:22pm

    According to the story the kid was never in trouble prior to his suicide. There was no evidence that he was a suicide risk.  18 is the typical legal age for long-arm purchases such as the semi-automatic version of the AKM he used.  The military arms 18 year olds all the time.  I have read that firearms are used defensively up to 2.5 million times a year.  Clearly defending self defence is not all fantasy.

    Personally I think that the subject is so polarizing that neither gun-control nor gun-rights activists are going to be looking at collaborative or creative solutions any time in the future. 


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 9:01am

    I am all for home defense, if you feel threatened, but I have read a lot of stats that just weren't true.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 9:06am

    With all due respect, I need a source for that 2.5 million number.

    And that's almost 1 percent of the country's adult population using a gun in self-defense every year. If it happened that often, it strikes me that we wouldn't even need to read about the figure.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:21am

    Hello,

    No worries, here you go http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html note I said up to 2.5 million there are a variety of studies differing results.


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:47am

    From the page you linked:

    There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually.

    So, may I as that this happens as seldom as 108,000 times a year? Somewhere between 108,000 and 2.5 million, that's the ballpark.

    Let's try a survey not cherry-picked (but linked to) by that pro-gun site:

    Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are
in the right ballpark, millions of attempted
assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by
armed citizens during the 12-month period.
According to these results, guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
million incidents of violent crime in 1994,
according to NCVS data.) 

Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance
to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates
before embracing them. Because respondents were
asked to describe only their most recent defensive
gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they
assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The
results still suggest that DGU estimates are far
too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and
robbery attempts do victims use guns in
self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
(exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8,
the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF
estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all
NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate
of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated
assaults. If those percentages were close to
accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals
are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders.
That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number
of gunshot cases.[14]

The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even
stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates
are calculated using only the most recently
reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as
noted, about half of the respondents who reported a
DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year.
Although there are no details on the circumstances
of those additional DGUs, presumably they are
similar to the most recent case and provide
evidence for additional millions of violent crimes
foiled and perpetrators shot.

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one
believes, only a small fraction of adults have used
guns defensively in 1994. The only question is
whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would
conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated
by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's
criteria).

    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:01am

    I am happy to concede the more conservative number of 100K. Still even one life saved must be worth something?

     


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:45am

    Is it a life saved if it comes at the cost of two others lost?

    Even that 108,000 figure is "all crimes" not murders. Let's go to the annual FBI crime report:

    In 2009, there were 215 cases of justifiable homicide, meaning the killing of a felon in the act of felony, by private citizens using handguns. (Meanwhile, 46 hardy souls killed a felon hand to hand.) Now, that's only a subset of the legitimate uses of a gun to prevent a crime, but on the other hand that 215 includes lots of felons who weren't attempting murder: it also includes rapists, burglars, thigs robbing liquor stores, and so on. This, I think gives us a reasonable mainline basis to start estimating 1) how many times guns really were used to prevent crimes in 2009 and 2) how many lives were saved. Even the 108,000 figure means a ratio of about 500 crimes prevented with a gun for every one criminal killed in preventing a crime. That still strikes me as improbably low. 0.2%? Really?

    But when we get to "lives saved by gun-owning citizens," the numbers get even less promising. How many of those felons (the burglars, the armed robbers, the rapists) were actually going to kill a victim? The fact that you shoot someone who's holidng up your store is totally justified, but doesn't mean that you would have been killed if you handed over the money in the register. I'm going to peg the number of lives saved with handguns at a (generous, I'd say) factor of 5 times the number of felons killed with handguns. Oh, the hell with it, I'll give you an unrealistically high multiple of 10. So, 2150 human lives.

    Meanwhile, in 2009, law enforcement officers shot and killed 403 felons. I don't actually believe they saved 4000 lives in the process, but I'll give you the 2150 number.

    But the total number of firearm murders in 2009 was 9,146. That's a good number. For several years there the figure was over 10,000 a year. And since I haven't double-checked the FBI's methodology, let me be safe and subtract the justifiable homicides from the toal number, which gives us about 8500. That is still, slanting things as heavily as I can toward the personal-defense side of things, four times as many people wrongfully killed with guns as saved by guns in private hands.

    What about those 6000+ people? Doesn't even one life saved matter?


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 12:25pm

    LOL Doc you sure are generous with your numbers. Still it does seem to me that, generosity aside, that you are being a bit disingenuous with some of your assumptions here. Is defending against rape and assault a laudable thing? How many criminals were deterred by simply brandishing a firearm? From the same FBI report "In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 5.3 percent from the 2008 estimate.". These are defined as four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Just be conservative I will use 10% to reflect the defensive use of a firearm to prevent such crimes, hey 131839 that's pretty close to the 108K I generously conceded to you earlier. :)

    All life matters Doc, perhaps we can compromise in a way that allows those who wish to defend themselves from violence to do so without increasing criminal violence.  All we need is some common sense and a desire to find a practical solution.


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 12:49pm

    LOL is right. I find some of your arguments hard to take with a straight face.

    If you want to return the numbers of rapes and robberies prevented with a gun to the discussion, then you also have to include the numbers of those crimes committed with a help of a gun. Your argument, as stated, is that the 6000+ extra gun deaths is counterbalanced by the number of rapes and robberies that guns prevent. That proposition is already dubious, but also wrong. It's not a trade in which you get 6000 more murders but reduce other violent crimes. It's a tradeoff where you get 6000 more murders than you prevent and also more rapes and robberies than you prevent.

    Look, with all due respect, I'm not feeling an overwhelming trust for the way you're using figures today. You're the one who brought the clearly-absurd 2.5 million figure in here. You're not even really thinking about these figures to see if they make sense at all. Now you've made up a claim that 10% of all crimes are deterred by gun owners. But at this point, you've made enough specious arguments that anything you say is suspect.

    Here is the first question: how many murders are committed with guns and how many prevented by guns? The answer is ... many more people are killed with guns than saved by them.

    Here is a second question: how many other crimes are committed with guns, and how many prevented by guns? The same answer applies: guns enable far more crimes than they prevent.

     


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 1:06pm

    Doc, I am not looking to upset anyone here, I just think the topic is worthy of discussion.  I'd like to try and reach a point of agreement here so:  X number of crimes are committed with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm) and X number of crimes are prevented with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm) can we agree on that?


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 2:26pm

    Wowzer ...

    From "...firearms are used defensively up to 2.5 million times a year..." to "...X number of crimes are committed with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm) and X number of crimes are prevented with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm)..."

    From this sub-thread I have come away with a way in which Patrick's procession of logic can be made useful. His questionable use of logic can be used by instructors of college courses as a final exam of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 10 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks.

    Paddlin' on...

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 7:29pm

    Which takes us right back to my original statement. The topic of gun rights/gun control is so divisive that rational discourse is almost impossible. OGD clearly didn't read my comments carefully. OGD clearly ignores the logic flaws in the opposing point of view. And OGD insults rather than informs. Don't get me wrong, if I went to a pro gun right site and took the opposing stance I would get the same irrational ranting that I see here.


    by Patrick (not verified) on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 7:36am

    Calling people herd animals and then complaining about insults is itself divisive. Citing outlandish stats and then complaining about the other guy's logic is itself divisive.

    If you simply say, "I think owning a gun is essential to preserving my freedom, and here is my belief in how ownership should/should not be regulated," or whatever, we can debate that.


    by Donal on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 8:07am

    Repealing the 2nd Amendment can take many forms. As the good Doc says, why sell an AK-47 to someone not old enough to buy a six-pack of beer. I personally would like to own a real WWII German Lugar - excellent weapon, easy to use as well as accurate to shoot, just lacks  the punching power of a 45. Nothing more than a target shooting toy. But I draw exception to those who demand the right to bear arms regardless if the arm in question is really necessary to bear by someone in the public domain. I also disagree with wearing a sidearm in public as if it were a badge of authority over those without.There's a time and place for weapons and the public domain isn't one of them. The best armed people I've run across are the one's that don't make an issue out of having a gun in their possession. It's there and ready for use if necessary, but things have to be pretty grave before it comes out from it's hiding place...they have to have a true reason why they need to use it. It's those people who have the utmost respect for the law that I admire and respect. But a chnage is necessary to keep the bat-$hit crazies from going off on a tangent.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 9:01pm

    Lugers are usually 9mm, standard issue caliber for a lot of police departments. I've considered owning the Ruger Mark III which bears some resemblance to both the Luger and the Japanese Nambu, for target shooting, but I'm leaning towards a small revolver instead. Someday.


    by Donal on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 9:15pm

    Okay, "William." You got it.

    If a vigilante killed this person with a concealed handgun, I will not spin it. I will become an advocate for concealed carry.

    If, on the other hand, he turns out to have shot himself, I expect you to live up to this deal by becoming an active and vocal advocate for gun control. (Say, an assault rifle ban for starters.)

    Is it a bet?


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 7:43pm

    William Travis, when our guns are taken away it will be done by a Republican President, by a tinpot  'Decider', and it will be done to protect the GOP 'haves and have mores', the rich backers and their property, enforced by thugs of some domestic XE security contractor answerable to no one but the CIA or Homeland Security. The authority is already there in George W. Bush's Patriot Act. Perpetual war, as with the GWOT, is not a way to preserve your freedoms, it is meant to do the exact opposite.

    The first to line up to surrender their guns will be the loyal Bush Base types who believe anything Big GOP Daddy or Fox News tells them.


    by NCD on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 11:04pm

    Humbly, I want to say: FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT! No normal person in this country needs an assault weapon! Most people (with the exception of some law enforcement personnel) need Out country is at the mercy of ignorant militia-minded assholes who think they are brave, but are actually the biggest pussies on this planet. If all of your bravery comes from a gun, you are not brave.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 9:38pm

    ...ignorant militia-minded assholes who think they are brave, but are actually the biggest pussies on this planet. If all of your bravery comes from a gun, you are not brave.

    Well said!


    by Austin Train on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 10:06pm

    Um, right.. because there's never been a Law enforcement person who used a gun to oppress, abuse or kill an innocent person...  You sir would make an excellent herd animal..


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 9:04am

    Personally I think that the subject is so polarizing that neither gun-control nor gun-rights activists are going to be looking at collaborative or creative solutions any time in the future.

    Calling folk "herd animals" isn't going to decrease the polarization, pilgrim.



    by Donal on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 9:43am

    LOL good point!  I suppose "FUCK THE 2ND AMENDMENT" won't help either. :)  Still it's scary how comfortable people are with a police force armed with assault rifles.


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:43am

    In fact, Patrick, I have been many places and done many things, quite a few involving law enforcement (and the fire service) and some involving being in some relatively dicey areas, including housing projects, at times at odd hours.  Was I sure to remain aware?  Of course.  Have I felt overtly threatened?  Once, long ago, and because of the situation, I took actions that prevented anything from happening to anyone, most notably myself.  No incident, no worries to anyone, and no, I didn't "cut and run" - just to head off your likely bogus assertion.  Simply read the situation and followed a sensible course of action.

    I do not own a firearm.

    And no law enforcement officers have ever "oppresse(d), abuse(d), or kill(ed)..." me.  Not even once.  With or without weapons in their hands.

    Just what sort of activity is it you engage in that you find yourself confronted by armed law enforcement officers, anyway? 

    Inquiring minds...


    by Austin Train on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:45am

    I am honestly happy you have had only one situation where you felt threatened.  In firearm self defence classes they will tell you to cut-and-run so no snide comments from me on that point.  Avoiding violence is always the best solution.  The implication that those who carry a firearm are out there looking for trouble is absurd.  There are 80 million firearm owners in the US the fraction fitting your stereotype is tiny. 

    Again I am happy no police officer has abused their authority in your presence, though grant me the point that it does happen in this country.

    LOL why none at all.  In fact I am a member of small group in this country who have been vetted by law enforcement and found to be so upstanding that they granted me a concealed carry permit in the state of Massachusetts even, a well known bastion of pro gun-control sentiment.


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:57am

    Really?

    That's the last time I drive you to Massachusetts.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:03am

    Bummer Doc, I suppose I'll have to find another ride then. :)


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:38am

    So, you just like guns because they're long, and hard, and...?


    by Austin Train on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:34am

    LOL, your point being???


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:39am

    So what's your solution for that fallibility among police officers? Allowing criminals to have vastly more firepower than the police, which is now an all too common situation? I'm not a fan of criminals with semi-automatic rifles firing on police officers armed with six- or eight-shot pistols. (Not an invented or an imaginary fact ... one of my uncles has been fired on with an assault rifle, while crouching behind the rear of his police cruiser and defending himself with a standard six-shot .357.)

    The other solution is to let criminals arm themselves to the teeth and increase the armament of those potentially abusive and oppressive cops. But how is that better? Now we have two parties you don't fully trust carrying a lot more firepower, and we've ensured that any actual gun violence will be more powerful. And when cops do misuse their weapons, the increased firepower causes increased damage. Again, to stick with documented real-world examples: how do you think the cops shot Amadou Diallou 41 times? How do four police officers discharge that many bullets in the heat of the moment? Because that unit had been given heavier firepower (12 shots, fully automatic) to match what they were meeting on the street. And it was the unarmed civilian who paid the price for that.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:45am

    I

    I don't believe anyone is "allowing" criminals to have firearms. In fact I believe that it might be against the law for them to do so. :) Darned inconsiderate of them to ignore those laws. :) Um, I believe that stating "vastly more firepower than police" is generally no longer true in this country. Semi-automatic variants of assault rifles are rarely used in crimes. Most are committed with the same handguns that most Americans can own.

    Good point, and your solution to the problem of excessive police violence such as you describe is to pass a law forbidding the ownership of, what? Semi-automatic rifles? Semi-auto pistols? Having accomplished this, then what? Confiscating all the 240 million firearms in this country that meet that criteria?


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:37am

    I propose that there is an actual problem with gun violence in this country.

    I propose that claiming that nothing can or should be done about it is not a reasonable position. If your plan for dealing with gun violence is no changes, or even a loosening of restrictions, I would suggest that you are not being serious.

    I propose that defenses of gun rights based on imaginary facts, such as A) our friend "William Travis's" counterfactual claim that the Austin shooter "might have been" killed by an armed bystander or B) surveys like the one you cite, which lists more criminals killed or wounded by citizens with guns than is actually possible given the number of gunshot wounds in the country, help neither public safety nor the cause of gun rights. By refusing to address common sense concerns, you get in the way of practical solutions and discredit your own cause. If gun rights are ever genuinely abolished in this country, it will be because self-described "gun-rights" advocates keep ruling out any compromise measures.

    I propose that people interested in preserving gun rights in this country think about ways to preserve gun rights while reducing gun violence. I'm looking for policies that maximally reduce the amount of overall bloodshed while permitting lawful uses with minimal inconvenience.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:55am

    I made no such claim regarding violence in this country.  Is gun violence somehow worse than all the other forms on violence?

    I am all for common sense and practical solutions and I am very pleased to hear that "gun-control" advocates are all-for compromise measures.

    I believe that is a very rational proposal.  One I whole heartedly support.


    by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 12:06pm

    Latest Comments