dagblog - Comments for "Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns"

I've seen studies of supposed

ocean-kat — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:00:52 +0000

I've seen studies of supposed defensive use of guns that claim the majority are used in escalating arguments that, if there was no gun, likely would have ended with no physical contact or just a few punches thrown. Instead people are shot or killed.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self...

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/gun-control-self-defense_n_3081...

But Hemenway, the Harvard researcher, says many of the incidents people characterize as self-defense are dubious.

"We expected pretty brave and wonderful things," he says, about a 1990s survey of gun owners. "But most of the things that were presented (as self-defense) were little more than escalating arguments. It wasn't like this is a good guy and this is a bad guy. It's two people who got into an argument and somebody drew a gun."

I don't agree that the

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:34:01 +0000

In reply to As I understand the

I don't agree that the Trayvon Martin case is the same as the Jordan Davis case and the movie murder. The latter two are road rage/bar fight/testosterone crimes of passion. (Both with noise being the initial irritant, interestingly.) Zimmerman involves pre-meditation to some degree and, as many involved have argued, that pre-meditation may have been racist in Martin's casen (can't think of any story about Zimmerman where he has used a gun without thinking about it beforehand, as a matter of fact.)

I think it's an important distinction on many levels. How racists react and how hotheads react are two very separate things (even though a shooter may be both.)

As to the latter (hotheads), there is a reason everyone puts soldiers through basic training before they are allowed to fight. If you are going to argue the right for the use of weapons either for self-protection or for protection against tyranny of government, you don't want the testosterone hotheads, you want pre-meditation and control. This is also why you are seeing so many commentaries with law enforcement freaking out about the movie incident, because he was a trained ex-cop who lost control. How can law enforcement combat that, how can they know that, when a cop has lost control? It's almost like we have to wait for science to come out with a test for the hothead syndrome, something that maybe a good drill sergeant knows instinctively.

Does the N.R.A. even argue

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:50:30 +0000

In reply to At Waco, the heavily-armed

Does the N.R.A. even argue the position that the police and army shouldn't have stronger weapons than ordinary citizens, but that everyone, citizens and government, should have equal weapons? Because that is where that interpretation of the 2nd amendment ultimately takes one. The Wild West, anarchy, before there was a sheriff who demanded that guns be submitted at the town line.

Here we are actually back to what Dick Metcalf was arguing. He was saying that he and others, like the N.R.A., are not absolutists and accept that some restrictions are necessary. But that there are so many vocal absolutists out there about not even allowing talking about what those should be that it's counter-productive and going to end up threatening the right to own. And he still got fired for just bringing that point up.

This editorial on the Metcalf brouhaha in the NYTimes today said it well: No less a conservative than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Don’t tell that to Guns & Ammo.

At Waco, the heavily-armed

Donal — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:37:00 +0000

In reply to Exactly, which is why AA

At Waco, the heavily-armed Branch Davidians held their own when faced with ATF agents with comparable weaponry. But once the gov't came in with a halftrack and teargas, it was over quickly. And now, even small city police forces are investing in some sort of armored vehicles. I know Keene very well, and it is a pretty sleepy place to be getting an APC.

As I understand the

rmrd0000 — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:20:17 +0000

In reply to One of your links, asks this

As I understand the situation, previews, not the movie were being shown. That is the time when people are talking to each other and occasionally even on the phone.

There was a gun in the hand of an easily angered, fearful male. The alleged movie murderer fits the profile of the murderers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis.

Exactly, which is why AA

Verified Atheist — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:35:17 +0000

In reply to One of your links, asks this

Exactly, which is why AA wrote:

Looks to me like an argument that all current citizens should be able to keep and bear hand-held rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and assorted and sundry explosives to make IED's.

After all, our government also has better armaments. As AA has indicated what owning handguns has allowed our things like the "courtesy police" who shoot people for not turning off their mobile phone when the movie has started. Note, I cannot imagine what legal measure could have prevented such an sad outcome. I am just pointing out another example of how guns are actually used. Yes, you can argue, rightfully, that they are used for self-defense, but one cannot reasonably argue that handguns and rifes, even automatic ones, can be used to overthrow our government and its standing military.

Semi-automatic handguns might

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:01:50 +0000

In reply to Looks to me like an argument

Semi-automatic handguns might be real good for sowing a fear of grocery shopping, though. Imagine the illusions of power over ordinary people going about doing their business, be your own very own despot for an hour or a day. If you wanted to you could rifles to, say, terrorize a civilian populace with random sniping.

One of your links, asks this

Resistance — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:46:45 +0000

In reply to Looks to me like an argument

One of your links, asks this stupid question

“If there are so many guns in Iraq, why is it still a dictatorship?”

DOH! The American government supplied and nurtured Saddam the Butcher with money and advanced weaponry. Big Oil Government, in our name, propped up this dictator with better arms than his neighbors.

Having guns in itself does not insure freedom, having an equally armed citizenry helps the Resistors remove the dictators.

Imagine the citizens, armed only with Flintlocks, against a government with automatics? Then have some idiot ask “So many flintlocks, why can’t they overthrow the tyrant?

Why am I not surprised at the stupidity of gun control advocates?

Saddam would still be in power, brutalizing his people, had it not been for our superior strength used against him, to aid the people of Iraq.

Ask the rebels in Syria, trying to overthrow Assad, whether their guns are any match to what Assad has?

Go ask them, the lame question posed above. “Why can’t they remove, their dictator?”

Doh! The dictator has better armaments

Looks to me like an argument

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:47:19 +0000

In reply to Think about what you put in

Looks to me like an argument that all current citizens should be able to keep and bear hand-held rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and assorted and sundry explosives to make IED's. (We have a lot of examples over the the last half century, like this one, or this one or this one, which show guns and rifles to no longer be of much use in such a scenario.)

.

Resistance — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:48:04 +0000

In reply to Think about what you put in