Sam Harris has really done it now. He’s stepped into the gun control debate with The Riddle of the Gun, and he’s taking the side of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. And he’s also making a series of logic-defying assertions that have no credibility at all. I’m not even going to try to work through them all; this subject is clearly a bit of an obsession with him. But throughout, he takes a very personal and rather paranoid view of the world and makes it a justification for individual self-defense, which I think is his big mistake. For instance,
…if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.
Hmmm. If I’m on a crowded street, and the person behind me pulls a knife, I can’t expect the police to stop him in time, either — it is a problem of physics.
If the guy in the house across the street has a sniper rifle aimed at my bedroom window, waiting for my silhouette to cross his scope, I can’t expect the police to stop the bullet in time — it is a problem of physics.
If a disgruntled student rolls up to my front door in a tank, I can’t expect the SWAT team from Minneapolis to get all the way here in time — it is a problem of physics.
What I see over and over again in Harris and rabid defenders of gun ownership is something other than just merely seeing guns as a tool: it’s the cult of the rugged individual, the lone cowboy on his own in hostile territory, where the only recourse is to be quick on the draw. What’s the answer to any trouble? Why, you take care of it yourself, usually by killing the troublemaker. It’s a simple, quick solution that doesn’t require any thinking at all.
He takes a complicated problem — that an individual wants to do him great harm (something I have no trouble believing) — and reduces it to a simplistic scenario — the hostile bad guy is in his house, with a gun! — that can only be resolved by his personal decisiveness and training in firing right back at him.
Do I need to point out that in his scenario, he has already lost, no matter how well-trained he is with a firearm? He is having a gunfight in his home, with his family around him. Imagine yourself in your bedroom, pulling a pistol out of a bedside drawer, loading it, and calmly taking a few shots in the direction of the hallway, without the presence of an intruder to complicate and make even more dangerous the situation. This is not an action without consequences and without risk. But this is the preferred nightmare of the gun fanatics.
I prefer a multi-layered defense that relies on the cooperation of a community. I don’t want a gun put in my hands, because by the time the gun would be useful there have been multiple catastrophic failures of the whole system. An intruder should not be in my house. How about better locks, a security system, and regular police patrols in my neighborhood? An intruder should not be heavily armed. How about serious gun control that limits access to guns and monitors those who do have them? The intruder should not be vengefully gloating about the glory of shooting someone. How about changing the culture to stop worshipping gun violence, to stop thinking that killing an enemy resolves a problem rather than amplifying it?
I know already what response that will get: that it’s a starry-eyed optimistic dream. But what they won’t care about is that Harris’s dream of battling an evil-doer to the death with his well-practiced expertise in firing a gun is just as pie-in-the-sky, and that even in its most benign outcome, is still a horror and a nightmare.
This is my dismissal of the whole gun debate: that the answers the gun advocates propose all amplify the problem. The problem is the ready availability of guns and the willingness of self-righteous people (because, really, even the people gunning down school children are steadfast in their confidence that what they are doing is both right and necessary, as much so as the homeowner defending himself against a burglar) to resort to violent action to resolve conflicts. But they don’t bother to recognize that by the time deadly force is needed, it’s too late.
I promised I wouldn’t get sucked into a line-by-line dissection of Harris’s post. Fortunately, Eric MacDonald has exposed many of the logical fallacies in his argument, and Sean Faircloth has the facts and numbers that show his rationale is bogus.
I just want to emphasize that it’s a huge mistake to make the debate about the physics of the ultimate confrontation. The debate should be about how to make those gun-on-gun confrontations less likely.
I’ve never been a huge Harris fan, but the more I read, the more apparent his sloppy thinking becomes.
*sigh* It’s a sad state of affairs that people who claim to be rational can’t see their wild west fantasy for what it is.
I have been puzzled and dismayed to see John Lott resuscitated as the pro-gun point man in the newsmedia. Expect to see him cited with great confidence by gun lovers because of his supposed credibility. If anyone argues over gun control with you by quoting Lott, be ready to point out that his scholarship is shoddy and his reputation was shot full of holes when he could not defend his results (except by creating sockpuppets to speak on his behalf). See what Alex Seitz-Wald says about Lott in his Salon article.
Then again, …if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect to have your handgun loaded and ready to fire in your hand. This is not your fault—it is a problem of physics.
The wild west fantasy of granny with a shotgun chasing off the bad guys is so ingrained in US culture. Sad.
For every man who thinks he’s Clint Eastwood four words “Play Misty for me”….
I would be easy to refute Sam if he were paranoid about space aliens. Actually you wouldn’t have to refute him, you could just laugh at him.
The scenario that his paranoia feeds on is not impossible, it’s just way less likely to happen than that one of his kids, if he has any, finding the loaded gun in the nightstand and shooting himself with it.
Sam reminds me of a fellow that I knew who refused to use his seatbelt. He had a vision in his head that his car would go out of control on an icy road and plunge into a lake, himself trapped by his seatbelt. You couldn’t argue stats with him. You couldn’t say that he was thousands of times more likely to just run into something in which case his seatbelt would save his life. He pays for his icy road vision with the fines he gets for not wearing and he may someday pay with his life.
Hollywood has a lot to answer for.
Or just watch Paint Your Wagon.
Harris’ argument doesn’t even pass the “physics” test.
In the scenario of an armed robber intent on doing you personal harm, you’ve already lost as soon as the “activity” begins.
Someone breaks into your home…quick, where’s the gun? Is it loaded? Is there a trigger lock? Sorry, TOO LATE. It’s a problem of physics. That person — intent on doing you harm and armed — has already taken control of the situation.
I haven’t looked at Sean’s post, but I can predict what the statistics say:
1. That guns in the home are far more likely to harm someone within that household than any intruder.
2. That the problem of armed intruders entering an occupied home is vanishingly small, unless you’re a drug dealer or owe a drug dealer some tremendous amounts of money.
In short, Sam is offering a solution for which there is not a problem, and one that doesn’t work in any event due to the “laws of physics”. Unless you’re content to stand guard all night at your house with a loaded gun, safety off, cocked and ready to fire. In short, unless you’re a paranoid nutjob.
Sam: don’t be a paranoid nutjob.
My wife is considerably less than enthusiastic about proposals from the NRA and our Texas governor that she be trained in firearms so that she can pack a pistol to her second-grade class.
Weapons-grade stooopid doesn’t even describe that…….
Saw the title and immediately thought, “Every man wants to talk to empty chairs?”
On subject, there are so many complications with everyone having guns. Just look at the Sears tower incident last year where the trained police shot more innocent bystanders than the criminal. Imagine what a horrific mess it would be if everyone there had a gun.
Imagine you are sitting in a cafeteria and shooting erupts on the other side. You wipe out your automatic pistol and shoot…who?
Why would I be expecting someone to enter my house for the purpose of harming me? It’s more likely that no one will enter my house without my permission and far more likely that if anyone does manage to enter without my permission he or she would much rather steal my computer and wallet and leave without violence than would be seeking to harm me. Therefore, my best bet would be to get out and avoid the confrontation, not seek a confrontation in the hopes that I can get my violence in first.
Just shoot everyone. If everyone has a gun, they all deserve it.
Isn’t that how the thinking goes?
I hold Sam “We Should Profile People Who Look Like Ben Stiller at Airports” Harris personally responsible for the next Trayvon Martin case.
Kill them all. God will know his own.
richard — hahahah. Scariest movie I ever saw. And I saw it with a new girl friend who started calling me repeatedly at all times through the day.
Appropriately enough, the banner ad I’m seeing is for “Concealed Carry”…apparently a magazine for those who like to hide their gun inside their pants, as opposed to Poncho who wore his outside his pants.
For all the honest world to feel. Thanks for the earworm, robro. I love that song.
PS. It’s Pancho.
This summer, I went out to the garden to tend my potato plants when a man emerged from the garage. I didn’t recognize him at first, but he was the oft estranged husband of a neighbor (a “lives a mile away” neighbor; we’re very rural here) and claimed that he got drunk and had settled in to sleep in the garage after he had a fight with his wife. He also has a record for armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.
I, because I was out there to garden, had a watering can.
If he had a gun and intended me harm, I would have been killed. But if I had a gun…what good would it have done me under those circumstances? I would have had to take it out gardening with me, loaded. That’s absurd and dangerous.
As it turned out, he didn’t seek to physically harm me. He just robbed me, having scoped out what was in the garage and my level of isolation. There are a lot of things that could have been done to prevent that crime. Me shooting him would have only made things much, much worse.
Reality is so much messier than fantasy hypotheticals.
Well, I must note that home invasions of what appear to be random targets (ie: not drug or gang related, no previous relationship between invaders and victims) do take place. Of course A: it’s one of those terrifying-but-rare phenomena that gets played up into a risk bigger than it objectively is, and B: unless you already had your gun loaded and in-hand, you wouldn’t likely get a chance to use it.
Bottom line: Could everyone please stop taking Sam Harris seriously as a spokesperson for rationality? ‘Cuz…..fuck.
Sam decides to clean his gun and make sure it’s ready in case an intruder enters his home. The gun accidentally discharges killing himself or someone near and dear to him. Or, his uncle comes over and they get in an argument. The uncle finds the gun and shoots the entire family. It’s a matter of physics…well, more precisely, statistics. Accidents and being shot by someone you know happens a lot more often than some stranger using a gun to harm someone.
I’m with Doug. Vivid Hollywood tales (both of ‘pure evil’ villains out to kill us and of heroes successfully using incredible levels of violence without unintended consequences) are a big part of the problem: this is where many get the notion that killing is what needs to be done and that ‘good guys’ blazing away with a gun can really be safe for family members, pets and the general public. Of course that intruder is likely to be a wife or son or daughter coming in late or sleep-walking or drunk, or a pet for that matter– and you’re likely to be confused, sleepy, stunned, clumsy, and make bad mistakes. But the real world facts (just statistics) get ignored here in favour of heroic fantasy.
Yeah, but it’s the illusion of self-control. It’s why people are more casual about getting in their car and driving a thousand miles than getting in an airplane and letting a pilot fly you a thousand miles: guess which one is riskier, and guess which one causes more fear?
Guns are not going away any time soon and contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of industrialized countries have not banned the things, they’ve simply enacted stricter licensing & regulation, which most mainstream gun owners are generally ok with.
If the CNN poll I saw yesterday is to be believed, 15% of people want all guns banned, 15% of people want no restrictions, 70% are ok with the idea of rules and regulations governing the things. Of course, it’s the 30% on the fringes who are doing the bulk of the shouting in this discussion.
Better (mandatory) training would get rid of the Hollywood idea of guns & self defense, it needs to be drilled into people that they aren’t Jason Bourne and right now we’re sorely missing that aspect of gun ownership.
As I effectively proposed in the Breitbart thread;
The NRA was founded to train civilians in the use of arms, instead it’s become a mouthpiece for the firearms industry, I think it should go back to it’s original purpose.
Put firearms into tiers, every tier should require mandatory (and significant) training and rely on obtaining the tier below, which will a: get rid of the image of gun owners as a bunch of irresponsible redneck fuckheads and b: turn knowing how to correctly use a firearm into a point of pride and personal responsibility – you could even require that someone have passed a tier X amount of time before the next tier can be acquired – you can only own a semi automatic rifle, for example, if you’ve already passed the semi automatic handgun tier two years previously and have had no firearms related incidents.
You want to own a gun for personal defense? Fine, you have to carry it around with you everywhere you go in the home, if it’s not within arm’s reach, it should be in an approved and bolted down safe – I know guys who have loaded guns stashed around their home “just in case”.
Enact stricter licensing and storage requirements and everyone can continue to own whatever they want to own without idiots fucking things up for everyone.
Mostly I’d love to see the NRA try to weasel out of the idea that gun owners shouldn’t be forced to know what the fuck they’re doing.
Here’s a nice map of some of those pies in the sky. Though, I do agree it would be a horror to deal with an armed intruder.
http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense
Your post articulately states what I was thinking when I read Harris’ article. I hereby appoint you an honourary Canadian.
Frankly, if I, for whatever reason, thought it was likely that people would invade my home at night to kill me, I’d hide first. Or, I don’t know, quietly leave the house via a window or something.
No kidding. Here’s a police officer who shot and killed his own son, thinking he was an intruder.
And here’s another guy who shot and killed his own son as an intruder.
And this is from South Africa, a man who shot and killed his daughter, yep, thinking she was an intruder.
This is the very essence of mythical, magical thinking: Evil is coming for me, the embodiment of Good, and there are only two possible outcomes. Either I’m left vulnerable and I end up a Sacrifice, or I’m armed and because of that talisman, I end up an Evil-vanquishing Hero. Mythical, magical thinking, not rational, scientific, practical thinking.
md:
Could you explain this nice map to me? What do “female”, “pizza delivery driver”, and “animal” mean in this context? Are these what needed to be shot for protection or who has the guns? (I’m assuming that they’re who needed to be shot, since animals can’t carry guns.)
Wow. Within the space of a few short paragraphs are so many examples of sloppy reasoning:
What does this last claim have to do with any of the preceding sentences?
So poor people shouldn’t be able to own guns.
So it’s only his guns that would provide you the impetus to intervene, even with others, in a situation in which someone’s being attacked with a knife? Good to know.
Can’t find any holes in that.
***
MacDonald:
And given his suggestion that the gun problem is largely confined to places like “Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, Little Rock, and Stockton,”his previous writing about Muslims, and his noting of the importance of expensive expert training, I wouldn’t be too eager to accept his dog-whistly self-assessment or argument about who should own guns, especially if I were a black or Muslim person.
It’s so strange, when you think about it. What he claims to fear in (his vision of) Islam and to like in (his vision of) Buddhism and Jainism is reversed when he talks about himself or “people like him.”
Kyoseki — Sure, training would be a great step. After all, you must pass at least two tests to drive a car because driving is lethal. Also good would be background checks and waiting periods so people can’t buy guns when they’re mad enough to go kill someone.
But some rationality in what guns are available would also be good. No one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon that’s apparently easily modified to be fully automatic. Not one needs 100 round magazines, or even 50 round mags. At least, no one in every day life who just likes to shoot or hunt. If we’re going to allow people to own such things, they should be required to store them and use them only at a licensed firing range.
The current situation is as crazy as letting people carry around personal nukes, the only difference being the scale of effect.
Yosemite Sam Harris.
“Jesse James? Ha ha ha! Phooey. Why, everybody knows me. I’m Yosemite Sam, the meanest, toughest, rip-roarin’-est, Edward Everett Horton-est hombre what ever packed a six-shooter!”
In strong agreement, generally, but a bit dubious about the recommendation for “regular police patrols in my neighborhood.”
I’m under the strong impression that the overwhelming evidence supports the hypothesis that random police patrols are a colossal waste of resources, but a great way to score political points. The chances that a wandering cop happens upon a (detectable) crime being or about to be committed seem to be tiny, and I think the crooks know this rather well.
Nick Davies has written quite a bit on how other approaches to policing turn out to be vastly more effective.
Not fully aware of the best evidence on this, though, so interested if anyone can support or refute this.
I wonder how many of those arguing that they need a gun to defend their home have actually invested anything into securing their homes: floodlights, alarm systems, bars in the windows, etc. That’s what businesses do to prevent burglaries. Since their argument hinges on there being a significant probability that someone will be trying to break in, the expense and inconvenience seems worthwhile.
This is so much bullshit.I’ve been watching American news channels since Newtown, and not once have I seen a journalist, pundit, or interviewee calling for a complete ban on guns. Not one blogger or even commenter have I seen calling for a complete ban. And the closest I’ve seen to anyone who wants no restrictions is that nutcase on CNN (and in the vid clip I’ve seen, even he didn’t specifically say there should be no restrictions, I’m just guessing that would be his position). Almost every pro-gun-control advocate (e.g. the Giffords the other day) has prefaced their statements with multiple disgusting abject disclaimers about how they aren’t against guns per se, and they’re honest gun owners themselves and they’re 2nd amendment supporters, oh yes, they just think guns should be kept from “the wrong people”.
Right after the most recent school shooting, a gun-rights advocate (read: nut) explained that because a criminal would never wait for you to protect your family or get your gun that you should always wear a sidearm at home.
@Mellow Monkey Caerie
I’m trying to figure that out too. It seems its related to what happened? Ie a pizza delivery guy needed to fend off a robbery (I’m assuming female and senior are similar)? or someone in the woods had to fend animals? If you click on the little thingies on the map it gives a little story. I’ve seen dates from 2005-20011 so I don’t think this map does anything to dispel the idea that these events are rare.
I read Sam’s original article and subsequent FAQ and found myself agreeing with his explanations.
I come here and read PZ’s article and agree with PZ’s side more.
In the end, what we need are common-sense solutions to lessen violence, specifically gun violence in this case. And it’s so easy to resort to vilification – do you think Sam is honestly paranoid? No, but he’s very interested in the topics of defense, and chooses to write about them.
Via a friend whose mother worked in law enforcement I once got to talk to someone who was ex-law enforcement and had gone into private security consultation. According to him there was one key rule of security that everyone has to consider and work off of
A: Security is theater
If someone wants to do harm or wants to break the law they can find a way, you can set up some reasonable road blocks but that is deterrence not prevention. For example look at anti-theft detection in big stores. While some higher end stores use very sturdy magnetic tags that clerks have to be removed many stores use a simple magnetic sticker or only tag some of their merchandise. In many many stores the incidence of false positive on the alarm so outweighs actual shop lifting that clerks choose to ignore it and not investigate. And even if it was a positive what are they do to? most stores have a policy that loss of property is not worth risking a clerk’s health over, so they shouldn’t engage. Most of these scanners are really really easy to circumnavigate. But that’s not the point of the scanners really. The point is to have a nice visible reminder of people “DON’T SHOP LIFT”. They’re probably not there to stop someone who goes in determined to shoplift, they’re there to deter someone who might have an impulse to shoplift. It’s to create the illusion that shop lifting is difficult or impossible.
On the greater scale home security works in this way. We rely on the fact that people expect the ability to call 911 or that law enforcement exists to deter burglary. It’s an agreed upon lie that keeps us safe because it generates a barrier to casual law breaking.
Yes. Yes I do. Because he ignores experts and abandons reason for batshittery on some pet topics. And he gets defensive and mad at people who try to point this out to him.
If he was really interested he would choose to READ about them. Creationists are very interested in evolution and write about them. They’re ignorant as Harris is though.
I’m fairly ignorant on guns save what I get from osmosis from real gun nut relatives, but isn’t any modern weapon that is not a shot gun or revolver technically “semi-automatic”?
Anthony:
I hold Sam “We Should Profile People Who Look Like Ben Stiller at Airports” Harris personally responsible for the next Trayvon Martin case.
To paraphrase a relevant tweet that made the rounds: “Remember when the #NRA said Trayvon would still be alive if he had a concealed 9mm? Me neither.”
I have not yet read Harris’ post (‘cos meh), but the thing that really bothers me about the pro-gun, anti-reg, yippie kai yay, motherfucker dudebros is the pretty blatant racism of their position.
Given that Harris bought into the old “terrorist who needs to be tortured because he knows the location of a ticking time bomb” fantasy, should we be surprised that he also goes for the equally implausible “armed intruder who breaks into your home but lets you get your gun” cliché?
I was a fan of Sam Harris when The End of Faith came out. He’s become nothing less than an embarrassment now.
MellowMonkey, Micheald,
Yes, what Micheald said. Click on the mapmarks and read the event summary. Shame they didnt link to the relevant news reports. For those I suggest looking up the names and towns when they are given if you’d like to investigate the individual events.
Well, it’s not “easy” per se, it can be done, but it radically increases the chance of the gun going off accidentally. Effectively it involves filing down some internal components to make the thing “bump fire” – the vibration from the last round getting fired causes the sear to release and allow the next round to be fired.
The same modification, incidentally, can be made to semi automatic handguns.
Although it’s worth pointing out in both cases that this is hardly ever done, yes, it’s possible, but I don’t see it as a basis for legislation.
It’s also worth pointing out here though that “assault rifles” are a red herring in my estimation, if one hadn’t been present at Newtown, the situation would have been identical to the Dunblane massacre, where the shooter still killed 16 children and their teacher, the only reason the casualty count was smaller is because Dunblane is a much smaller school than Newtown.
I agree, but reducing magazine capacities doesn’t really do much to reduce casualties – the idea is that forcing someone to reload more often gives victims a chance to escape or tackle the shooter, but in actuality, this simply doesn’t happen – the Aurora shooter, for example, had enough time to switch weapons twice and reload three times without anyone stopping him.
That said, I’d shunt high capacity magazines into the same category as suppressors/silencers are in now, you can buy them, but they’re all tracked individually by the ATF.
This presents other problems though, not the least of which is presenting thieves with a target that consists of nothing but high value weapons.
In strong agreement, generally, but a bit dubious about the recommendation for “regular police patrols in my neighborhood.”
I’m under the distinct impression that the overwhelming evidence supports the hypothesis that random police patrols are a colossal waste of resources, but a great way to score political points.
The chances that a wandering cop should happen upon a detectable crime being or about to be committed seem tiny, and I think the crooks know this rather well.
Nick Davies has written quite a bit about how other approaches to policing turn out to be vastly more effective.
I’m not fully aware of the best evidence on this, though, so interested if anybody can support or refute this.
Criminals commonly call ahead to schedule their home invasions so you can clear your schedule and be on the alert for them.
Bah. Blockquote fail.
Anthony:
To paraphrase a relevant tweet that made the rounds: “Remember when the #NRA said Trayvon would still be alive if he had a concealed 9mm? Me neither.”
I have not yet read Harris’ post (‘cos meh), but the thing that really bothers me about the pro-gun, anti-reg, yippie kai yay, motherfucker dudebros is the pretty blatant racism of their position.
Regarding Sam being paranoid, that seems a bit unfair. He says his life has been threatened and given the position he takes on some positions and the likely enemies he makes, it seems plausible.
Does anyone have any evidence he might be making these threats up?
Colour me completely unsurprised that this fuckwitted arsehole has proven once again that he’s a fuckwitted arsehole.
Sam Harris, Wayne LaPierre, and their ilk share something in common with many of those who commit firearm related violence: the empowerment they get from using a gun. Gun possession is like a fetish to them.
Semi automatic means that firing the weapon causes the action to cycle and load the next round into the chamber. Their rate of fire is equivalent to a revolver (where pulling the trigger causes the next round to be loaded), but their main “advantage” is that they have larger magazine capacities and can be reloaded more quickly.
A lot of precision rifles and hunting rifles are bolt action, which means the next round must be loaded manually. There’s things like lever action rifles out there as well, but those are primarily used by wild west enthusiasts, they’re not something in common usage.
There are, incidentally, semiautomatic shotguns which are used primarily for duck hunting and skeet shooting (for hunting/skeet, they’re limited to 3 round capacities, for defense, that can go up to 8 rounds).
The most common type of firearm owned in this country (by a HUGE margin) is a semi automatic handgun, which, in confined spaces, isn’t significantly less dangerous than an “assault rifle”.
Unsurprisingly, semi automatic handguns are the most commonly used weapon in gun crime (6500 murders last year compared to 350 for rifles of any type).
I’m with Duncan Black on this one:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/12/vigilante-fantasies.html
Honestly, assuming all of the dangers Harris talks about are real….
That’s an argument for wearing a bulletproof viest everywhere, not a gun.
@Tony
I don’t think for Harris it’s the fetishization. It’s that he’s basically really really racist and fears different people.
Ing:
They also block off the “I forgot I had it on me”, and the “oops… I forgot to pay” defenses. Deliberately ripping off a tag or squeezing around a security scanner is very difficult to explain away.
One of the most bizarre arguments following the Newtown shooting was the claim by NRA spokespeople that the schools should have armed security to prevent future shooting. So let me get this straight: the people who think restrictions on guns will lead to tyranny are also suggesting a solution that one would find in some fascist dystopia in a science fiction novel? I mean, what kind of childhood would you have when you see armed soldiers around every corner to make sure you are “safe”. And how is this solution seen as protecting liberty while more stringent regulations on gun ownership is somehow brutally authoritarian? These people have pretty messed up priorities when it comes to freedom.
Sidenote: I think many people confuse semi-automatic (which is common and itself doesn’t seem to be a problem) with assault rifles and sub-machine guns
Ok fine, being gracious enough to allow people to own muskets doesn’t count as a complete ban, I suppose.
nightshadequeen
And an NBC suit, just to be sure.
That’s every gun nut I know, anyway.
I think the odds are pretty good this was changed from “hobby” to “habit.”
Yes but like I said, someone dedicated can easily spot the flaws and holes in most systems. Places like bookstores and low end department stores like TARGET seem to have such a high rate of false positive that that you could get away with it just by looking at the clerk confused for a second before they wave you on. Plus most stores don’t actually HAVE a security on hand most of the time, and it’s not like most employees are going to try to restrain someone. They make a note of it and I imagine if they can get the security footage for when they file the claim.
unbound @ # 10: … the Sears tower incident last year where the trained police shot more innocent bystanders than the criminal.
Link, please – my search failed to find anything about this other than a crazed-gunman incident in a Loop office building a few blocks away, and the story of the FBI entrapping those dumbass jihadi-wannabes from Miami with a fake bomb-Sears-tower plot.
You know, you are also over-simplifying the issue. The second amendment is the Sword of Damocles in the US constitution and it was thought up by a bunch of men who just fought a war to oust what they thought was an unjust government. The whole point is that an informed citizenry has the right to choose their government and the government has enough trust in the citizenry to leave the power of main force in the hands of citizens. The solution is not to get rid of guns; that is a superficial bandage for a complicated problem which is no better than the thinking you are deriding. The solution is in education and culture: we need to strengthen education enough that people can approach these things logically enough to be trusted with their civic duty as citizens of _this_country_ and we need to (somehow) encourage a culture where people of differing background and thought processes communicate enough that people they don’t know can act as a safety mechanism against the kind of thinking and violence you are so set against. Our government is a heartbeat from becoming a fascist hell mainly because the people here are incapable of making civic-minded choices and believe that imposing their will on others is a good solution to the problem -without realizing that every rule imposed is another step toward that fascist hell and the point where the second amendment actually has its true purpose. The problem here is not guns, it’s people. Giving up your right to guns is as much as giving up your ultimate say in how you are governed –the peaceful resistance thought process of the ’60s is naive and stupid because it relies on who you are rebelling against having enough of a conscience to not pull the trigger, which is not historically always true. If you want to think about how this country was born, the founding fathers would want assault rifles in the hands of the citizens so that the citizens have the option to stand against a government gone wrong and so that the government cannot just mow everybody down who stands up to say “No, I don’t agree.” Mechanized warfare has done a really bad thing to us, but we all need to know it clearly. And, pretending like sticking your head in the sand will make it all go away so that you don’t have to shoulder your particular responsibility for it is nonsense. Glorifying violence is dead wrong, but stripping everyone of the capacity to make choices is not the answer. If your idea of gun control is strong education and only giving guns to people who are responsible with respect to what our country is, I might come to agree with you.
No, I don’t think my thinking is anachronistic; I think it’s being aware of the day when it might be needed again… times of war follow times of peace, even when the people who must fight have been removed from fighting long enough to forget how. And, war happens when people stop being able to communicate enough with each other to see eye-to-eye or find a way to sub-humanize those who disagree with them, which is happening right now. If you think god-fearing people have not sub-humanized you, you’re an idiot and if you think throwing flowers and talking high-minded thoughts in a debate will stop them from shooting you for it outright, you’re doubly so. Keep in mind the alarming regularity with which people like you use the words “Taliban theocrat” and stop to think about what that actually means. Every household should have a gun, if only as a graphic reminder that you never want to have to use it and every household should know enough to not want to use it.
Well this is a part of the problem.
An actual military “assault rifle” is capable of burst fire – three rounds with one squeeze of the trigger.
What’s generally being termed an “assault rifle” in the media (and legislature) is what New Zealand terms a “military style semi automatic” rifle – it looks like the military weapon and it fires the same cartridge, but internally the workings are different, so it’s not just a case of swapping a couple of parts and bingo, you have a machine gun.
At longer range they are more dangerous than handguns, which really aren’t all that accurate beyond about 25 yards, but in terms of rate of fire, reload speed and the lethality of the cartridge, it’s pretty much a wash in my estimation.
Nightshadequeen:
I like the cut of your jib.
It was actually the Empire State Building.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/shooting-reported-outside-empire-state-building/
Note that the “some may have accidentally been shot by police officers” eventually became “everyone was shot by police officers”.
Re: the NRA’s call for armed guards at schools:
There was an incident where a pair of guys up to no good showed up at an American school that did happen to have an armed guard.
This incident happened on April 20, 1999, in Littleton, Colorado. At Columbine High School.
(Please, spare me from having to tell you how that turned out)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
I think the government at the time would be surprised at your reading.
Once again, I think you are being very unfair to Harris. He does not think he is Clint Eastwood. He thinks he is
You’re an idiot.
Delurking to tell the following story…
I’m an academic living in Oxford. Peaceful, innocuous, harmless, weak.
In October a person broke into our home, whilst we were in. Until then we religiously turned out the lights of any room we weren’t in to save electricity. The thief climbed in through our bedroom window, thinking nobody was in…
I was in the kitchen cooking. My wife was in the front room. She saw him first. He encountered her first. Before then, he thought the house was empty. At that moment, he thought she was the only person in the house.
“Hello, can I help you?”, that’s what my wife said. You don’t expect an intruder to be wondering around the house. She thought he was a lost student who’d somehow found his was into our apartment. It’s not rational, but that’s what she thought. People are not Bruce Lee.
He ran away.
He was a thief. He wasn’t a murdered. He wasn’t a rapist. He was *just*a*thief*.
He ran away.
He didn’t just run away. He was *terrified*. He turned. He fled. Out through the window and way. We lost a Kindle, but that’s all.
He ran away.
An intruder is terrified. They don’t want to meet anybody. They think the house is empty. They’re not brave. They’re not a murdered. They want to make an easy profit and get out. They’re scared. They’re timid.
This intruder shat his pants and left his mark. Literally. He’s a person to be pitied.
Yes, retrospectively we’re scared. Yes, we’ve had extra locks placed on the windows. Yes, we’ve each had nightmares. Yes, we don’t feel happy being along with the windows open. Yes, we’ve both woken up convinced we’ve seen hands coming though the window. Wes, we’re scared that we’ll see a person in the corridor. Yes, we’re human.
The person who broke in was also human.
Guns didn’t even feature in this. This wasn’t a life-or-death situation. This was a person in a desperate situation, scared to death, quite literally shitting his pants.
Anybody who thinks this is the sort of situation that requires guns is an idiot.
To pull a gun on somebody means you want to kill them. Over what? Possessions? A Kindle? He can keep the Kindle. His life is worth more than a Kindle! The idea that a thief is free-game is appalling. Sure, it’s upsetting. But that doesn’t justify threatening to kill somebody.
@MD
Shrugs I don’t see that the map is very useful. Compared to the total number of thefts, assaults etc the number of times a gun was useful seems quite small (the map has events from over almost a decade (reports from 2004-2012 that I’ve seen so far). I don’t deny that having a gun for self defense can’t lead to positive outcomes I deny that that’s the common outcome.
I’m also amused one of the events tagged rape involved the victim getting the gun away from the assailant and shooting him. Good for her but it doesn’t really help the idea that bringing a gun isn’t going to be taken and used against you.
Probably has gotten threats and if he’s having anxiety over it I wouldn’t blame him for it. I’m just not convinced this is the best response to them.
To be honest a better security measure is to get a dog. Even a small one. They provide both deterrence and alarm and complicate matters enough to deter most burglars.
Seriously though, I really am Clint Eastwood.
But what size rounds do they use? I was under the impression that in general all rifle rounds were usually greater than handgun rounds?
viggen111:
<blockquoteThe second amendment is the Sword of Damocles in the US constitution and it was thought up by a bunch of men who just fought a war to oust what they thought was an unjust government.
The Second Amendment is no longer necessary.
What reasons exist that people *need* to have guns?
How is a handgun, shotgun, or even a semi automatic rifle going to protect a homeowner from an unjust government that has the technology of today?
Well I borked that up just fine.
viggen111:
The Second Amendment is no longer necessary.
What reasons exist that people *need* to have guns?
How is a handgun, shotgun, or even a semi automatic rifle going to protect a homeowner from an unjust government that has the technology of today?
I read a story in a Stockholm (Sweden) newspaper about 2 years ago about a woman who woke up in the middle of the night and there was a man with a knife standing in the bedroom. It was a hot summer and she had had the window open for the night. She screamed bloody murder and the intruder ran away, through the same windown if I remember right.
An interviewed police officer instructed people to keep their windows locked if they live on the first floor. Funny that, no gun needed even against an armed intruder. Had the lady had a gun, it would have been life or death for the intruder too, forcing him to attack the woman.
The AR 15 typically uses 5.56mm rounds, whereas common handgun calibers start at 9mm and up.
The 5.56 (or .223) round is a much smaller diameter but travels faster, so when it hits a target it typically goes straight through leaving a small hole, larger caliber handgun rounds, particularly hollow points are much more likely to expend all of their energy within the (euphemistically named) target, causing significantly more damage.
I’ve seen arguments for/against AR type rifles in urban situations because people reckon the 5.56 round has less of a chance of overpenetration, at least once it’s hit a target, but honestly I don’t know the details on that point, I think the FBI has done studies and I know there’s a few web pages out there that show the penetration characteristics in ballistic gel.
AK pattern rifles use a 7.62mm round, which does a fair bit more damage than the AR round, but is less accurate over distance (which isn’t typically a factor in mass shootings anyway), the AK series in general have a reputation for being less accurate overall than the AR series (not that I own either).
Basically, getting shot by any bullet isn’t going to hurt, but once you’re into the common semi automatic calibers, they’re not drastically different in terms of lethality.
You can get larger and more dangerous rounds in precision/hunting rifles, but the rate of fire is typically much lower (and anything over, but not including, 50 caliber is controlled by the National Firearms Act).
Who then almost immediately called for the death penalty for people who would view them as an unjust government and try the same thing.
Er, obviously that should be “getting shot by any bullet IS going to hurt”.
Magical thinking. The End.
@Kyoseki
Thank you. It seems that rate of fire should be the deciding factor in whether such weapons should be legal. Though personally I think many hand guns themselves are just as dangerous, due to their use in such shootings.
viggen111:
[emphasis mine]
You win the Stupid Statement of the Day Award.
In this masturbatory fantasy you have, I suppose you think the government is going to send agents *marching* to your home to mow you down, rather than using tanks or aircraft or drones.
By Dog, gun nuts do not make sense to me.
@Tony
And as I pointed out we have historical precedence to think that, no they were not too keen on the idea of any yokel being able to stand up to the government. I seriously question why someone would think that a bunch of people who didn’t think the common person should be trusted with voting (thus the indirect elections and electoral college) would be ok with them marching on the government. Cause you know…they weren’t
Bar shootings, what could have been a fist fight ending up with a shooting, domestic violence ending in a shooting…. aren’t all those usually committed by hand guns?
Also, accidents because of unsecured weapons, kids getting hold of guns and similar – mostly hand guns. No?
kyoseki @ # 66: It was actually the Empire State Building.
Thanks for clarifying that – all these giant suit-hives look alike to me.
And as for the ESB – the situation would never have gotten out of hand if Clark Savage, Jr., still had his office and lab space up there on the 86th floor!
@Beatrice
and most armed crime IIRC.
I’d like heavier regulation and testing of all fire arms and either much stricter criteria or restriction on concealable hand weapons and high rate weapons.
@Ing
Agreed.
That’s what I’ve been arguing for a while now, a semi automatic handgun is just as dangerous in a mass shooting situation as an “assault rifle”, so banning the latter isn’t going to do anything significant to curb the number of casualties in these incidents.
Additionally, assault rifles aren’t used in the bulk of “regular” shooting incidents, so a ban won’t curb those either.
The big problem we have is that semiautomatic handgun ownership is protected by a Supreme Court decision, so while we can ban other types of firearm, the main culprit will remain at large. Changing that would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and that’s not happening any time soon.
As I say, I think the real key to this problem is mandatory training for everyone, get rid of the Jason Bourne mentality and force people to accept the idea that owning a gun isn’t an instant “I win” button.
Even the NRA *should* be on board with this idea, it was their original mandate and if they want to continue in their paranoid delusion that an armed populace can overthrow the government, they should be forcing that populace to at least know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.
As a man with a small penis, I, too, have compensated with study, practice, and careful attention to my technique. I don’t know from guns, but I am here to tell you all these tongue kegels have made a world of difference in terms of my confidence and performance.
I don’t believe any gun can take on this fellow
Fact: You don’t have “the power of main force”. At all.
How is getting rid of guns not a solution to gun crime? If your answer is something along the lines of “but only criminals will have guns!” then please answer:
1. Assuming you have a gun: Would rather keep it unloaded (and have to take time to load) or loaded (and risk it going off by itself).
2. Do you live alone? Do you live with kids or pets? If your answers are no and yes, respectively, would you rather keep your gun locked up (and have to fumble with a lock) or out in the open (and risk someone accidentally setting it off?)
3. Of that last ten policemen/women you’ve seen: What side did they carry on? What weapons are they carrying?
4. How fast can you draw?
5. How fast can you reload?
Gun ownership is not a civic duty.
Name one thing that is a) as easy to get as a gun, b) as easy to use, and c) as deadly.
I’m…laughing at you.
Seriously laughing at you.
Mate, if the government wanted to kill you, you wouldn’t have a chance. Tell me this – are you using a desktop or a laptop? Does your home have central air? Do you go around everywhere with a gas mask on? Do you drive? Do you shop for groceries?
(Trust me, this is relevant).
Do you own a tank? Anti-aircraft guns? Aircraft?
Then why own the gun?
Keep going back to that strawman…
Pretty much all of the “pro-ban guns” positions I’ve seen and been a part of concern guns/accessories that make it overkill for any reasonable use of firearms. Talking about extended magazines and guns that toe the line for fully automatic. I’m perfectly fine with hunting rifles/shotguns and pistols.
Steady on. That’s a tad uncalled for, don’t you think?
The idea that a pack of civillians – no matter how fired up – can outfight the American military (or, shit, an average police SWAT team) is absurd.
In modern warfare, there are exactly two situation where a small number of people owning rifles and assorted handguns can go toe-to-toe with a modern organized military, to wit:
(1) Snipers.
(2) Guerilla warfare.
I would point out that the Continental Army during the Revolution used both techniques (for given values of eighteenth-century “sniping”) to great effect against the British. To the infuriation and crying-foul of the British, I might add. Because the Americans weren’t playing fair. In most of the battles the Americans went up against the British in “standard” battles, the Americans got their butts kicked, because until the late stages of the war (and then, only some units) the Continental Army was a semi-organized militia/rabble and the British Army was a disciplined, well-trained, well-equipped, cohesive unit. The leadership of the Continentals realized this and used what they had (i.e. pluck, knowledge of the terrain, and willingness to bleed the British dry) as advantages.
The modern US Army – all organized militaries – recognizes the dangers of snipers and engages in regular anti-sniper behavior. And the remaining option, guerrilla warfare, depends on the knowledge base of the fighters being unequal. That is, it is unlikely that it would be terribly useful in a homegrown citizenry-vs-government fight, given that the government soldiers, being American, would know – on average – as much as the citizenry. This is not the situation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Americans are more ignorant than the Afghan and Iraqi citizenry.
Or, allegro said. Magical thinking. Nothing else.
to get killed a bit quicker and more often.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
Would you like more, Ing? I’ve got more.
@md
Talk is cheap. Their response to people saying “that’s a good idea” was “execute them for treason”
And that’s assuming said military has enough morals to not, you know, firebomb everything.
I mean FFS, the militia of the states was NOT the idea of protecting yourself form the gov, as we clearly saw in Shays Rebellion where right after the damn war people did go to arms to protect their property from Gov+banks and the Gov response was to suspend the standards of due process
His argument was that nobody was proposing a ban, in fact, I’ve seen quite a few people make the argument that the only weapon the 2nd amendment applies to is muskets, so it’s hardly a straw man if people are actually making the argument, is it?
Fully automatic weapons have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 (and as I say, converting a semi automatic rifle to full automatic is possible, but very dangerous and very rarely done).
Extended magazines are rarely a factor in spree killings when reloading times are quick and the shooter has a backup firearm (the only instance where magazine size was a factor was Tucson, where the shooter was armed with a single gun and dropped the second magazine, whereupon he was tackled) – the Aurora shooter had enough time to switch weapons twice and reload three times without anyone tackling him.
Reduced magazine capacities also will not change anything to curb regular shootings, since those are invariably one on one with only a handful of shots fired.
You say you’re ok with pistols, but pistols are invariably the weapon of choice for murder, suicide and spree killings, banning anything other than those *may* reduce the overall murder rate by 1-2% assuming people only had access to weapons other than handguns (as in Australia) but it won’t really have a significant effect other than annoying responsible gun owners and making some people feel warm and fuzzy.
It takes considerable political capital to enact any kind of gun legislation, I don’t want politicians wasting it with pointless legislation that doesn’t address the root cause of the issue.
Mandatory background checks for all gun purchases is a good idea
Mandatory safety & proficiency training for all gun purchases is a good idea
Mandatory registration of all new firearms sales isn’t a bad idea but difficult to enact
Forcing people to safely store firearms is a good idea, but difficult to enact
Tracking ammunition purchases isn’t a bad idea, but difficult to enact
Banning online ammunition sales is a waste of time (just track them as above)
Restricting ammunition sale amounts is a waste of time
Reducing magazine sizes and banning assault rifles is a waste of time
Banning “bullet buttons” is a waste of time (it’s band aid legislation on top of bad assault weapons legislation).
At any rate, that’s my take on the legislation currently being proposed.
nightshadequeen:
Indeed. Once the soldiers say, “Fuck this, I’m calling in an airstrike,” it’s all over.
Same goes for drones.
(Isn’t it interesting how a lot of the OMGGOTAKEEPMAHGUN types seem to act like the USAF doesn’t exist? Maybe they think that their AR-15 can take down an F-22.)
@MD:
Sherman
Strike Eagle
Black Hawk
The reality is that without a change to the SCOTUS no good action can be made
What we should do is make sure the subject stays alive and active so it becomes a point future SCOTUS candidates will have to answer
nightshadequeen,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Viet Cong.
Seriously I question the supremacy of the SCOTUS and 2nd Amendment protects guns now and for eternity while abortion rights are still constantly curtailed despite SCOTUS ruling
Funny you should mention that, one of the big reasons constantly being parroted when California banned 50 caliber rifles and handguns was that “one of these can take down a plane!”
… of course, one of those has NEVER taken down a plane and any conceivable instance where it would, also applies to any other rifle or handgun, but this logic is apparently lost on the legislature.
The worst part is that they specifically banned the 50 BMG round (the most common 50 caliber rifle round), but Europe has already dealt with this and invented the 510 DTC Europ round, which is, to all intents and purposes, completely fucking identical, but it has a different name so it’s not illegal.
This is the problem with letting people who don’t understand firearms enact firearms legislation.
Wars of attrition are far different than fighting your own gov.
No one in any of those wars thought they could WIN, the goal was to survive and make occupation too costly to continue. You can’t really do that when it’s home base
Always strikes me as disconcerting when devoted anti-fascists start talking bout the superiority of the American military.
This one deserves a name. The Gunslinger’s Reply, perhaps?
@MD
It’s reality you fucking idiot. There is literally nothing stopping you form being declared an enemy combatant and disappeared.
What would even happen if you managed to fight off and kill the initial wave sent for you? You’re not a cop killing terrorist on American soil
MD you’re profoundly dishonest and stupid. Go away so real people can discuss this.
Nonsense. Haven’t you seen that documentary, Red Dawn?
@PZ
Even there, I have to point out. OCCUPYING FORCE. Where do these idiots expect the US military to withdraw TOO in face of domestic gorilla warfare? Canada?
What? A 50-caliber weapon can take down an airplane?
If the pilot holds the plane steady, maybe. And raises the nose so that the shooter can aim at the gas tank. And the shooter has diamond-tipped bullets. And is mounted on a unicorn.
@Esteleth
And Kasumi overloads the shield generator first
Ing,
Can you imagine any situation in life in which you would fight, risking death, and believe yourself morally justified?
Have you observed moments in history when this has occurred and you’ve sympathized?
John Brown and Geronimo failed, but aren’t you glad they had guns?
Give me half an hour and I’m sure I can find someone who thinks this is all a NAFTA plot being orchestrated by those dastardly Canadians.
Linked to it some days ago in the Lounge, noting that he apparently likes the taste of his foot, that’s why he puts it into his mouth that often.
Yeah, there’s always that little problem in that scenario: If you store the weapon securily you have a good chance it won’t be any use the time you get to it. If you don’t store it securely, there’s a good chance your kid hurts themselves or a family member.
Apart from the nasty facts that
A) the intruder is most likely your kid sneaking in.
B) the reason actual burglars carry weapons is the fact that they have a good reason to shoot first…
I remember a friend having the signature “Wouldn’t the world be a nice, quiet place if everybody’s throat was cut”.
+++
Yes, that’s why western Europe has such high levels of crime. Daylight rape is happening all the time, in town squares until the police shows up. Then they shoot everybody.
And that’s why a knife made you the top-dog before they invented guns. Really, you can look that up in any history book.
iamamk
Yes, all of that.
I’m sorry you had to deal with this.
Similar thing happened to friends of mine: the thiefs thought the house was empty while my friend was typing some stuff in the attic. Finally the dog woke up and barked, the thieves ran. they lost 200 bucks and a wristwatch.
If we add guns to the scenario we quickly end up with somebody losing their life.
bcmystery
And here’s a shiny new internet all for you.
According to the gun nuts on Facebook I’m safe from attackers with assault rifles, I have five hammers in my home.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/553333_191092704362502_40322799_n.jpgmd, have you ever tried living in the present? It might give you a more realistic perspective.
None of which really defeated the American military (the Viet Cong came closest, but they had support from our enemies), so much as hamstrung them and were an incredible annoyance. The biggest help they had was using weapons given/sold to them or stolen from the superpowers – we armed bin Laden and Hussein in the first place and the Soviets supported North Vietnam.
If there were any sort of armed rebellion to depose the US government, it would require some kind of rogue military support. Otherwise, it would be trivial for the government to crush any significant, organized resistance. The best you could get is assassinating leaders, who can obviously be replaced. Organized resistance – the kind that could take and hold cities, and actually help in overthrowing governments – would be annihilated in air raids, tank warfare and obviously at sea.
Naw PZ, just watched the Afghanis against the Soviets and now us. Not much more than long rifles, RPG’s and horseback.
If we can all just rally round Chuck Hagel and maybe get the defense budget a good bit trimmed things will really start to even up.
Ing:
BEST. TYPO. EVER.
Obligatory.
PZ:
…which totes features foreign invaders.
In any case: WOOOOOLVERIIINEEES!!!
MD:
For the record, not only am I an anti-fascist, I am a pacifist. Rather strictly, too. In my spare time, I volunteer for an alternatives-to-violence org, and I have from time to time seriously considered “discounting” the Pentagon’s budget (as a proportion of the US federal budget) from my taxes – and yes, I know that this is wildly illegal and that I could, if I did this, go to prison. As a research scientist, I have made the decision to never work on a project – no matter how interesting-sounding and possibly yielding valuable insights – funded by DOD. And yes, I know that I am potentially severely hampering my career. And that I am definitely labeling myself a crank.
If I talk about how powerful the military is, it is not – nor should it be – construed as “Esteleth thinks the military is good,” but as “Esteleth is well aware of what the military is capable of and is horrified by it.”
In closing, fuck you.
Guess what, md.
RPGs are restricted as a destructive device (thank the Emperor). Given that pretty much no civilian has access to anti-tank weapons (the closest thing being anti-materiel rifles), a civilian rebellion would have a hard time with anything tougher than the average soldier. Sure, if they have chemists and explosives experts, they could try to bake up some home-made explosives they could use in IEDs, but that’s why access to those chemicals is (mostly – still pretty easy to make mustard gas) restricted too.
Either way, the Afghanis had the advantage of being in their home country. An anti-government resistance would have this advantage negated because the government would be in its home country.
Just FYI, civilians can still get access to destructive devices, but the paperwork is Biblical.
I would agree a reduction in gun ownership and heavy restrictions of what may be purchased for home defense (small caliber pistol, semi-automatic at most, no: extended clip / sound suppressor / various other modifications), but not a total gun ban. I think the reasoning behind such a ban to be far too idealised to be of practical benefit.
I haven’t read the entire comment thread, so sorry if this is repeating somebody, but the immediate thing that sprung to mind when reading Harris’s scenario is ‘how do you know the person is there to harm you?’ I mean, yes, I can picture scenarios where it’s pretty obvious that’s what they’re there for (such as a guy busting in, gun in hand, in which case, the problem becomes how do you manage to get to your gun before he shoots you), but, especially if you live in more rural communities, where doors are typically left unlocked, an ‘intruder’ could simply be, say, a drunk guy looking for the party in the next street who’s stumbled into the wrong house.
Oooh, have we gotten into the “we need guns to protect ourselves from the government” argument? That’s always a fun one. Here’s the problem: Small arms, even automatic weapons, aren’t much use against tanks, drones, and fuel air bombs. If the government wanted your guns, they’d just go get them and anyone who said “Over my cold, dead body” would find that those conditions were perfectly acceptable to those taking them. Guns don’t protect you from tyranny. Voting protects you from tyranny. As evidence, consider that the party of the 1% wants to restrict your vote*, not your guns. Because that’s what really scares them: an informed population that can vote them out.
*Well, maybe not md’s vote, if he or she is, in fact, a wealthy white man as I suspect.
some quick history here on the racist roots of gun control, in case anyone’s interested.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/12/21/craig-r-whitney-living-with-guns
Indeed.
I’ve always found it amusing how “conservatives” are perfectly happy to surrender just about every right apart from the right to own guns.
What I find even more amusing is that these are the same guys who go nuts when it is suggested that we spend less on the US military because being the biggest, baddest military strength in the world is the only thing standing between us and name-the-evil-doers-du-jour. Now, they argue they need their guns to shoot at our own soldiers because our government is to be feared.
Dissonance much?
Why should they be? The question is, what should be done now? After all, the very presence in the USA of a considerable African-American population has extremely racist roots. Does that mean they should be got rid of?
Interesting how Schroedinger’s Thief is totally reasonable position to take vis a vis gun “rights”, but Schroedinger’s Rapist is misandry. I wonder what the difference could possibly be . . . .
In an environment with strong gun control, the “armed thief breaking in” scenario becomes a lot less likely. If guns are hard to acquire legally, is some small-time burglar who breaks into random people’s apartments really going to go through the trouble of getting a handgun on the black market? The question answers itself. If you can’t get a gun to protect yourself, an amateur assailant probably can’t either.
This argument really only holds true if guns were never in ready supply originally (such as in the UK).
In Mexico & Brazil, for example, it’s very difficult to obtain a gun legally, but they’re still readily available on the black market and so their murder rate is commensurate with that.
Better firearm tracking & registration and better storage of firearms would go a long way to starving the black market of illegal guns, but as long as people want them, someone will supply them.
@kyoseki
Give me 5 well-publicised examples of the argument “because the 2nd amendment only applied to muskets*, all guns should be banned”.** You should show some intellectual integrity and admit that, in fact it is the middle 70% that is dominating the debate, not those with extreme positions.
*I’ll even throw in “because the 2nd amendment only applied to well-regulated militias, all guns should be banned” for good measure.
**The argument that “because the 2nd amendment was written at a time when muskets were cutting-edge technology and therefore, it is absurd to let it totally dictate 21st century policy or to insist on having no regulations”, does not qualify, since that argument is a 70%er, not a 15%er one.
The reason to read history, beyond the sake of knowledge for its own sake, is to see if it informs the present. You know this, of course. Gun control in those days was popular because of a demonization of motive not linked with actual observed behavior. Not much has changed.
What should be done now? Im assuming you mean what should be done about gun violence. How about taking a hard look at the recidivism statistics and incorporating that into prison sentencing? How about re-prioritizing prison terms away from non-violent drug offenders towards violent criminals?
How about quit demonizing the 70-80 million legal gun owners who hardly commit crime each year and maybe they’ll quit legally buying so many guns?
How about reconciling how Mexico has extreme gun control laws with the fact that you don’t want to go on an aimless backpacking trip across their no doubt beautiful and rugged backcountry? Oh, thats me projecting.
Wrong. With open borders across most of Europe, getting guns would not be that much of a problem. And evodently violent criminals, especially neo-nazis often have large arsenals of illegal guns.
But your run-off-the-mill thief isn’t interested in murder or, for that matter, spending a long time in prison. Around here they also don’t face much of a chance of either a house-owner or the police killing them.
Not getting killed is among the top priorities of everybody, but if it’s hardly a concern you don’t have to engage in an arms race or shoot first. Having a weapon would make it much more likely for the police to shoot you. It would also mean a lot longer prison sentence.
Why should a thief do that?
In Mexico & Brazil, for example, it’s very difficult to obtain a gun legally, but they’re still readily available on the black market and so their murder rate is commensurate with that.
Mexico’s illegal firearms are mostly obtained from the US, so stricter gun control laws in the US could help Mexico’s murder rate quite a bit. If you look at where Mexico’s murders mostly occur, the states with the highest murder rates are generally the northern states. Mexico City, for example, has a murder rate of 9 per 100,000 versus Chihuahua’s 111 per 100,000.
Brazil, I’m not so sure about. You may have a case there.
And don’t forget that gun control is also profoundly classist as well. That’s why I support that most worthy charity, Arm the Homeless, to ensure that every American, regardless of their means, can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. (And you’d be surprised how much more effective panhandling is when one is packing…)
md:
Who is “demonizing” legal gun owners, historically (since this is such a thing for you) or today? Serious question. How are gun owners being demonized?
From there, you are saying that this demonization is the reason people are hoarding guns? Why would this be so?
tulse: I propose a further charity: Arm the prostitutes. Fewer prostitutes would be disappearing if they were armed, right? Also helpful for johns who refuse to pay.
So…why isn’t the NRA into this sort of thing? Surely homeless people are at greater risk of being victims of crime than suburbanites.
And you know where those guns come fom, right?
Ing:
Difference being–many American have no problem controlling the bodies of women.
Many American have a *huge* problem whenever you talk about gun control.
emphasis mine
Ahhh, PZ, you rascal, you just had to do it. Just noticed this nasty little clunker. Because all that is necessary to determine what is moral, what is reasonable, and what is legal is that one possesses “steadfast…confidence that what they are doing is both right and necessary”.
Gotcha PZ, you believe the schoolteacher that slighted you and the kids that laughed are no different, morally, than the intruder threatening you and your family in your home.
I’ve recently been watching some marathons of the old show MacGyver on TV.
Full disclosure here: Richard Dean Anderson has always been the one actor who would seriously tempt me to cheat on my hubby. He’s played someone who is very smart (MacGyver) and a man in uniform (Stargate) while being incredibly handsome. Of course, I’m married to a very smart, incredibly handsome military officer with science degrees, so go figure!
Anyway, I’ve always loved the premise of MacGyver. The hero refused to carry a gun and could always think his way out of bad situations using his Swiss Army knife and things that he found in his environment, using a great knowledge of science. My kids grew up watching the show and adoring MacGyver. When I’ve mentioned it to my daughters lately, two of them have decided that they should find it on Netflix to show to their own kids. I want my grandsons to get acquainted with this peace-loving hero who uses science to do good.
My hubby and I think that it’s a good time to re-boot the show. We’re thinking that MacGyver’s son should be a former Navy Seal with all of the heroic skills, but his Dad’s distaste for guns and violence. There should be a new start-up of the Phoenix Foundation as a force for good in the world that hires the young MacGyver.
Too idealistic? Maybe, but I would watch the show, especially if they could get Channing Tatum to play the young MacGyver!
So…I’ve been trying to think of what would happen if the US government became a dictatorship. How are the guns supposed to help? The most likely scenario I see* is that the government starts going after people that they know or suspect have guns with tanks, drones, and maybe air to surface missiles. Not sure how a firearm is supposed to help in any of those situations. But maybe they don’t know about the weapons. Ok, then, the owners either have to keep hiding them (making them useless for defense) or use them in acts of rebellion. That might work…some. They might be able to take over, say, a town or maybe a rural district. Great. But what does the US have more of than any other country in the world (besides guns per capita and serial killers)? Nukes. Boom. Bye-bye rebellion.
*Actually, I think it most likely that the government would ignore the gun nuts, at least initially. As noted above, they aren’t really that big a threat and might even be a help to the government: Nothing motivates people to feel that a “strong government” is a good thing like a massacre and if some nut with a gun could be provoked into a particularly spectacular one, well, 9/11/01.
@147:
I wonder if enough people would watch an updated McGuyver. Our gun and violence loving culture seems to crave more guns and more violence. Not less. And not a pacifist protagonist.
(I would watch it though.)
I don’t know PZ, I think claiming Harris is “taking the side of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA” is a bit disingenuous. Believe me, reading his article definitely caused a few facepalm moments when he talks about his personal need for a gun and the whole gun vs knife absurdity. However, the entire purpose of his article is trying to find a center amongst extremes. That the knee-jerk reactions of both advocates (no regulations!) and the opposition (prohibition!) shutdown a needed discussion on gun-control. He admits he doesn’t know the answer (hence the title) to our country’s gun problems, but that neither side adds much in realistic approaches.
From the article:
However, the entire purpose of his article is trying to find a center amongst extremes. That the knee-jerk reactions of both advocates (no regulations!) and the opposition (prohibition!) shutdown a needed discussion on gun-control.
False equivalence.
md,
You still haven’t explained why the “racist roots of gun control” are relevant to the question of gun control now, unless you’re claiming that gun control advocates now are on average more racist than gun control opponents – and I think even you would have difficulty taking that claim seriously.
OK, but why only sentencing? Why not look at what might reduce recidivism?
Good idea; and with many fewer people in prison, more resources could go into reducing recidivism.
Assuming they are being demonized, why has lead or would lead to them buying more guns? Given that over the past couple of decades, the NRA has managed to swing American public opinion and laws in favour of gun ownership, while gun owners have kept buying more and more, and increasingly lethal guns. Oh, and are you implicitly admitting here that more guns is a bad thing?
No, that’s you being stupid. Where do you think most of those guns are coming from?
Finally, given the evidence, that I’ve cited several times, that at least in rich countries, more guns are highly correlated with more gun deaths, and also to some extent with more homicides overall, how about working on reducing the number of guns in private hands in the USA? You know, so they kill fewer people.
@150:
From Sam Harris’ article-
He is on the NRA’s side. He wants more guns to stop gun violence.
Yes, he does support gun control, but the idiocy of thinking armed security in schools is the answer to gun violence is ridiculous on several levels (especially since he even admits that mass shootings in schools are rare. The problem is gun violence in society, of which school shootings are only a part of–a horrible part.)
Also, I’m really uncomfortable with how he’s trying to shift the focus onto inner city African American criminals.
BeyondUnderstanding:
Also, the vast majority of people arguing for gun control are not asking to BAN guns.
dianne
Well,IMO the most likely scenario would be that they do what every sensible dictatorship does: Get the people with the guns on your side. Give them something. Feed their sick little power hunger and give them some honoured neighbourhood watch, border patrol (am i right that this is already happening?) and such and in no time it’s their dictatorship.
Funny how in the 200 some years since 2nd Amendment was passed no country has created a constitution wiith a right to bear arms. And when the Americans got the chance to create a constitution for post WW2 Japan they didn’t give the Japanese such a right.
The American Revolution shares a lot with the Soviet-Afghan War. Both saw a colonial power, troubled by problems elsewhere, concede to an insurgency supported financially and militarily by their colonial rivals. Unlike the Afghan war however the American war included direct military support from the armed forces of a foreign power, in this case France and Spain. It wasn’t just a handful of plucky citizens with guns defeating a much larger power.
And if we’re going to talk about armed irregulars standing up to government tyranny we need to mention the various Native American tribes. They sure did well, didn’t they?
dianne,
What’s the false equivalence?
Should I have said one side says “more guns” while the other says “no guns”?
md:
Why is owning a gun so all fired important to you? I get the impression that you feel it is up there with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Gileill: Sounds like the likely plan to me. There always has been a little fascist undertone to the pro-gun movement anyway and they’d be delighted to be able to “patrol” with impunity. Ok, they almost can now, but people make such a fuss when you kill an unarmed teen.
BeyondUnderstanding:
Do you have a citation to support your belief that most of the people shouting for gun control are asking for Firearm Prohibition?
Well, the main reason for this I would wager is the fact that the northern towns are more heavily involved in the drug trade, so while it is their proximity to the US that’s a factor, it’s not because it puts them closer to the source of the guns.
Additionally, while it’s often repeated that “90% of the guns traced in Mexico were sold in the US” what’s not reported is that the majority of the guns seized aren’t actually traced;
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth (I have no idea of the reliability of StratFor, but the numbers he talks about are from the GAO).
From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/international/americas/20brazil.html?_r=0
Right now, the US both wants guns and has the capacity to manufacture them (even AR/AK type weapons are manufactured in large quantities by domestic/boutique manufacturers), so even a ban on the sale of them is unlikely to have a significant impact on the gun supply.
Oh, so now it has to be 5 examples?
I can’t just point to the hugely obvious and talked about example of Piers Morgan & Alex Jones both ranting at each other?
You will notice that I did say “shouting” in my original post.
The people doing the largest amount of SHOUTING are the people on the fringes.
@153
What I got from the article wasn’t that he was advocating for armed guards in schools, but that if the main goal was to prevent these particular incidents (of a lone gunman shooting up a gun-free zone) that an armed person with gun training would be the best option for stopping it in time. He doesn’t seem to actual consider this as a viable option. In fact, he doesn’t seem to think there is a solution to these particular incidents at all.
I agree that most are not calling for an outright ban on all guns, however the media does focus their attention on banning certain types of guns, like “assault weapons” or “semi-automatics”.
Just wanted to point out that proximity to the U.S. is also the reason they are more heavily involved in the drug trade. So it’s not reasonable to say that you should blame gun violence on the drug trade AND NOT on proximity to the U.S.
That’s a fair point, but the central issue is that with a country that’s already awash with guns, criminals feel a greater need to carry them. The UK was never awash with guns, so criminals there typically don’t escalate to lethal force.
Banning (or even enacting strict controls on) the guns will not have a significant effect on the prevalence of arms within the criminal community – but I feel that this is something of a red herring anyway (I’ve never agreed with the idea that “criminals will always be able to get guns, therefore we shouldn’t control them”).
If you look at the FBI figures, you’ll see that a minority of gun homicides occur during the commission of another felony (rape, robbery etc), although I will admit that there’s a fairly large “unknown” component here;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-12
Sure Im for rehabilitation, as long as we’re honest about what works and what does not. Jesus is big in the prison rehab industry, to not much effect that I can see.
more racist…well im not sure how one would quantify it. Nor am I totally conceding the point, yes I do believe that much of what drives gun control advocates, particularly regarding assault rifle bans, is that mainly rural whites collect these things and its a symbolic political victory over those bitter clingers. They simply are not used much in crime compared to handguns. Combine this with most liberals aversion to ‘stop and frisk’ in urban areas where most gun violence occurs (not that I am arguing for or against it) and yes, I think tribalism enters into it.
Well see OP and mine at #146, PZ defines the problem as the self-righteous willing to use guns to solve problems and includes a description that includes both a schoolshooter and someone defending their home. I call that moral equivalence and an unfair demonization. What do you call it?
Why has it lead to more? Im not sure, perhaps they believe an unsympathetic government is coming to strip them, or perhaps its something less, they figure they’ll be grandfathered into any new laws so better buy them now.
Ive never denied the facts around stolen guns and, yes I do think that people shown to be negligent with guns in storage etc ought to be held liable. I dont really want to argue what ought to construe negligence right now.
Yes ive read about the Fast and Furious scandal too.
That is arguable to a point, which you’ve conceded in another thread I believe. Gun ownership has continued to go up dramatically in these past decades in the US, while murder has dropped. We both know many factors are at work here and its extremely difficult to tease out cause and effect. TBS, I am not arguing the increase in gun ownership has led to a decrease in murders.
But to answer your question about guns. How, and to what extent? There are by some estimates 270 million guns in the U.S. in around 80 million adult hands. What is the optimal number of guns in private hands? Is it 0? 100 million? 250 million? Are you opposed to stop and frisk in NYC, but ready to stop and frisk and disarm the entire country? Are you in good faith arguing for just an assault rifle ban, and will stop there if that’s achieved, or will you move on to handguns next after the next statistically rare, but sensational for ratings, school shooting?
@161: So Brazil is similar to the US in terms of being a large, relatively rich country that makes a lot of guns and exports them to neighboring countries. They’d likely benefit from gun control regulations as well.
I went to the GAO material for the statistics. The link you gave has some interesting assumptions in it. It’s true that only a minority of the guns are traced, but 87% of those that are traced are traced back to the US. Is there any reason to believe that the guns that are traced are an atypical subset that is not representative of the overall supply of guns in Mexico? As far as I can tell in a brief scan of the report, the primary difference between a traced and non-traced gun is whether or not the police in Mexico bothered to submit information to the US ATF and the ATF had the resources to trace it. Might have missed something skimming the article though.
I think you’ll find that I never said that the proximity to the US wasn’t a factor, in fact I said the opposite, for exactly the reason that you state.
I don’t actually own any, Tony, so I can’t speak from experience. What can I say, I like freedom. I dont smoke and think bars should be dens of tobacco, alcohol, and vice, incidentally.
Oops, I did miss something. Figure 8, which shows the number of firearms confiscated and number traced to the US, by state. There is significant,albeit not perfect, overlap between the two.
They do have gun control regulations, quite a lot of them in fact, but they’re not overly effective it seems.
Well, from a quick look at the Wikipedia, it appears that a lot of guns seized are fully automatic weapons that are primarily imported from south east Asia – the US not being a source of these weapons since they’re already heavily restricted here.
While I’m sure that a lot of the semi automatic weapons that are showing up down there have been bought by straw buyers in the US (which is why I’m happy to support registration and background checks on all gun purchases), I don’t think it’s a fair assumption to make that even the bulk of the weapons seized come from here. Even half of the gun records submitted for tracing by the ATF didn’t come back with any record of sale here;
@171: A more updated set of data is referenced here. The ATF estimate quoted in this article is 68% of guns in Mexico come from the US. This is, of course, a lower number than 87%, but still represents the majority of guns in Mexico, suggesting that reasonable gun control laws in the US would greatly improve the situation in Mexico. Additionally, the data seems to be more complete for later years, so is probably more reliable.
Evidently, Sam wants to move into political punditry.
If he writes something interesting and wonderful – he still seems to be a wonderful man when not commenting – I hope I hear about it, but I’m instituting a new rule, naming it after him:.
The Harris Rule – Anyone who defends the use of torture is womeone whose opinion on any subject can be shown any respect.
Sammy! We hardly knew ye!
@169
I totally disagree with you.
Your freedom to own a gun should not be more valuable than children’s and teachers’ freedom to go to school in safety.
Also, I happen to enjoy going to a bar for a drink and some enjoyable company, but I do not want to be exposed to the second-hand smoke of others. They can smoke all they want in their own homes or out on the patio of the bar. I’ve been to bars in Texas, where I could not stand to stay long enough to visit with my friends without having an asthma attack. Now that we are living in California, where smoking is banned in bars, I’m able to happily join the party.
Sometimes being a part of a civilized society means being willing to postpone your own gratification for the good of others in your surroundings.
@md
*rolls eyes*
md, please take yourself down to a firing range and fire a few guns. Feel the damn recoil, see how good you are at aiming, and see how fast you are at reloading.
And then come back here and defend why owning a gun is a “freedom”.
*sigh*
Guns just make it so the person most willing to shoot wins. Unfortunately, the person most willing to shoot is probably not the person who’s right.
Oh Peez, Peez, Peez… so right, and so wrong.
You’re engaged in a nasty piece of unconscious victim-blaming: how about better locks, a security system, buy a dog, stop wearing tight dresses… do you see where I’m going here? And the people who are most vulnerable to crime are the ones who usually have the least options, as opposed to the middle-class white guys like yourself and Sam Harris. Check your privilege Peez. :)
Now, as for the rest? In a perfect world, there’s no need for guns because world peace and everyone gets a unicorn and/or dragon on their 16th birthday rather than a driver’s licence. In a better America that could exist, there are many many fewer guns like in the rest of the civilized world, along with the commensurate drop in gun deaths. In the America that does exist, an argument can be made for some individuals to own guns for self-defense until politicians find the spine to get most of the guns out of the hands of civilians. As a culture we need to do better.
Now back to Sam Harris: telling HIM to get a better security system is reasonable, and unnecessary because I’m sure he’s got a very nice home with a very nice security system, likely in a gated community with its own security people on duty. I’m sure Wayne LaPierre lives in an even nicer home, in an even nicer community, and ironically is almost completely isolated from the problems he’s helped create. And those yahoos with 20 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo? The main reason anyone would rob them is for their guns!
As for me, I carried a handgun for self-defense, and I still believe I acted reasonably under the circumstances. I’m also privileged enough to have been able to move out of those specific circumstances… and the gun was sold less than a month later. Because for us non-nut gun owners who don’t think we’re Clint Eastwood, having a gun for self-defense just makes your fear something you can’t ignore, and it is depressing and exhausting.
md:
Advocating for gun rights does not follow from “I like freedom”.
Fair enough, but there’s still a lot of unknowns here.
What proportion of the guns seized were those 99,000?
Did the Mexican authorities categorize weapons by type and only submit records for those suspected of coming from the US? (eg. were they primarily interested in semi auto rifles and didn’t submit requests for handguns and fully automatic weapons that likely came from elsewhere?)
What proportion of those guns were a part of operation gunrunner?
At any rate, this is rather a side point, I’m perfectly willing to believe that a large number of the assault rifles showing up down there are coming from here, which is why I’m totally OK with the idea of background checks on all buyers along with recording who bought what, so that if the gun shows up at the scene of a crime, whether it be here or in Mexico, someone should be on the hook for it.
Wait!
I got mine. Screw everyone else.
MD, are you a libertarian?
This is an extremely spurious argument to make, since it can be applied to just about anything. It’s not so much an argument in favor of banning something, so much an argument on ensuring that it’s regulated to the point where it’s only used by responsible individuals.
Again though, this is the difference between making cigarettes illegal and simply making it illegal to use them around other people.
Simply owning a gun isn’t a problem, it’s how it’s used that’s the issue.
I don’t see how this follows.
In particular, if there’s a bullet heading my way, I don’t think I can pull out a gun and fire before it hits me.
Let’s assume that there exists someone in the world that a) has a gun and b) would like to kill me with it. Given that this someone is likely to fire first (likely before I even see them), I can’t see how a gun will help me.
I get sunburned easy. Until the government dims the sunrays to calibrate precisely with what my melanin can handle, my right to be free from skincancer is being abused.
I get asthma too. I like smokeless bars too, but the government does not exist to make the entire country more comfortable for you, or me. There are other people in this country with different preferences who also have rights.
The sun…is not a person.
Oh, and see “banning of CFCs”
I would agree that the idea that having a gun in the house would be a good thing to have for self-defense is a phantasy. unless you keep it loaded and within reach the whole time your in the house it is going to be just something else of value for an intruder to steal when they come in when you are out.
For a while my neighborhood was not what could be called optimal and I found it gave me a far better sense of security to keep a bull terrier inside all the time a better option but had he had other drawbacks. (he was subject to gas)
guns for self defense argument is most of the time rather dumb.
uncle frogy
nightshadequeen,
You seem to think “some individuals” refers to you in particular, and it very clearly doesn’t. You don’t want a gun? Don’t get one. You aren’t going to fire then gun? PLEASE don’t get one, that would be dumb! I’m not sure where you live where you expect to be shot at by a sniper, but I’m guessing you’re not going to be able to fight back in that case.
I see that md is comparing smoking people to the sun.
No wonder I ignore him.
Joe, I’m arguing that the advantage almost always is in the hands of the person who fires first, which almost by definition not the person playing defense.
No sniping needed.
I’m arguing that a bullet would hit me before I could fire, making a gun for self defense not particularly useful.
Guns for self defense are only of any use if you’re paying attention and see a threat that cannot be avoided by retreating (which is why I’m completely in favor of training & the abolition of “stand your ground” laws).
… the fact remains that there are circumstances where being armed is better than not, what needs to happen is to train people to separate those circumstances from the majority of shootings that could have been avoided.
Not sure if this is behind a firewall or not:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault. By: Branas, Charles C., Richmond, Therese S., Culhane, Dennis P., Have, Thomas R. Ten, Wiebe, Douglas J., American Journal of Public Health, 00900036, Nov2009, Vol. 99, Issue 11
Link: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=091447e6-389a-4735-8395-1b0dceb60745%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=47508719
Since md has made this conversation even dumber than usual, let me say that as a smoker and a public health worker, I fully support smoke-free bars.
Even here, where the weather kicks you in the teeth eight months out of the year, the discomfort I suffer when I step outside for a puff is minimal compared to the enjoyment I get from socialising with those of my friends who find second-hand tobacco smoke nauseating.
Crap. You don’t give a shit about the freedom not to be shot, or poisoned by secondhand smoke.
It is odd… some anti-gun folks can’t imagine a single use for a firearm, and the gun nuts imagine way too many increasingly improbable uses.
I’ve always wondered whether you could shoot a smoker and claim it was self defense? ;)
Shooting people?
Hunting?
“I saw him coming from twenty years away, and I knew I had to act to save my life, officer.”
Channel changing.
Sure, I read them, but not any more and probably less then pundits of other political persuasians. The only consistent pattern one could hypothesize from my voting has been against incumbents. I believe i’m a registered Democrat, though.
Maybe Mumia Abu Jamal wouldn’t have been shot if he didn’t carry a firearm. Maybe MOVE wouldn’t have been firebombed by the police in 1985 if they hadn’t been armed. Maybe more students would have been killed at kent state if they’d had guns with them. And if the Branch Davidians at WACO had let the ATF walk in and arrest them all perhaps there’d have been a lot less deaths.
Do you see a problem with this line of reasoning? That we should give up a single right to resist oppression – even if it currently appears ineffective – in order to placate the oppressors?
You might argue that such state sponsored massacres are comparatively rare (domestically, at least), that most deaths by firearms take place between private individuals. Well so what? Gun deaths generally are comparatively rare so you can’t dismiss one rare occurrence and then rely on another. If you do you’re making a political trade off. You’re saying x number of people MIGHT not be killed in exchange for a historically important political right, which will probably become a very important right in the future too (unless you have the myopic Panglossian view of history espoused by Fukayama or Pinker).
If you believe the American state is a neutral arbiter in society and that its attempts to assert a monopoly on deadly force is done fundamentally to protect the people then this isn’t a problem and makes sense.
If however you see the American state as an institution dedicated to the maintenance of a ruling class with its oppressive system nationally and internationally its clear gun control furthers the maintenance of the status quo.
Because oppression isn’t just about murder or violence (as I’m sure many feminists here would agree with). Its also about the structure of society and its economy, the underlying threat of violence, a massive and inhumane prison system and the encouragement of feelings of helplessness in the oppressed about their ability to fight back.
This issue is a political one, not a health and safety issue.
Comprehensive gun control laws faster than you could say “constitutional amendment”. They aren’t stupid, you know. ;-)
Do me the favor of not assuming that I want to ban all guns, and I’ll do you the favor of not assuming you shouldn’t own one.
Increased gun control wouldn’t “placate the oppressors”. It would do a little to placate me, though.
Were all twenty of those children at Sandy Hook “the oppressors”? How about the seventy people who were killed or wounded in Aurora? Those were “the oppressors”, too?
Doesn’t seem to me as though “the oppressors” are the ones who are dying.
md,
Most of your #166 is evasion, and I think that will be obvious to most people. For example:
Answer the fucking question. Are you claiming that gun control advocates are more racist than gun control opponents. If so, on what grounds. If not, what was the point of your link to the “racist roots of gun control”, other than a bit of well-poisoning?
No, I haven’t. I’ve never argued other than that homicide numbers are multi-factorial, but the evidence that more guns contribute to more gun deaths and ttotal homicides is quite sufficient for any rational and decent person.
But you don’t.
Yes. See, that’s how to answer a question without evasion or dishonest quibbling.
This is a perfectly valid reason to NOT own a firearm for self defense, particularly if you don’t know how to use it (and I’m still amazed at some of the things I’ve seen people do at gun ranges), but it’s still an issue of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
For example, in purchasing a motorcycle, I may have an expectation of the open road and the wind in my … helmet, but the reality is that I’m more likely than not to end up dead or at least moderately injured at some point within the first few years – this is, however, still my choice.
If I may strain the analogy a little further, the key here lies not in banning motorcycles or even specific types of motorcycle, but educating people as to their correct usage and instilling a higher degree of respect for the things.
Training goes a long way to dispelling the myths involved (in both activities) and toward reducing the likelihood of injuring either yourself or someone else (and I’ve seen some GNARLY crashes involving speeding or inept motorcyclists hitting other people).
The UK has actually had pretty good success with comprehensive tiered training for motorcycles, the motorcycling community even polices itself to some degree, with irresponsible or inept people being largely derided by those who take them seriously – I feel that mandatory tiered training on the firearms front would have a similar effect.
Shooting people?
Hunting
Getting cool high speed shots of milk bottles being destroyed?
For example, in purchasing a motorcycle, I may have an expectation of the open road and the wind in my … helmet, but the reality is that I’m more likely than not to end up dead or at least moderately injured at some point within the first few years – this is, however, still my choice.
In at least some places, there is a legal requirement that you wear a helmet. This is a restriction of your freedom, but also cuts down on the risk of your experiencing brain injury if you have a bad crash. Why is this an acceptable restriction and requiring, for example, that any firearms be stored in a locked container and unloaded an unacceptable restriction? And as with a driver’s license, why not require a gun license that is only obtainable after passing a background check, weapons training course, etc?
I like those MythBusters ones with the ballistic jello.
I actually don’t like the idea of helmet laws, but I’d never ride without one.
I don’t believe I’ve ever made the argument that they shouldn’t be, in fact, I’ve been consistently pushing for training & regulation throughout this discussion.
What I don’t like is the argument that banning certain types of firearm (like banning certain types of motorcycle) will have a significant impact on the mortality rates thereof, particularly when you aren’t talking about actually removing existing ones from circulation, but simply stopping the sale of more.
People should be allowed to own whatever the hell they like, but the more dangerous it is, the more training and paperwork should be involved.
I don’t believe I’ve ever made the argument that they shouldn’t be, in fact, I’ve been consistently pushing for training & regulation throughout this discussion.
I believe that puts you in the “radical gun control” category according to the NRA. Welcome to the dark side. Cookies are on the left.
Ah, the old freedom thing. I don’t live in the US, so apparently I don’t have freedom… you know what I have? The freedom to live life without a gun. 28 years and the most serious violence I’ve seen was a couple of school fights. I live in a country where ANY shooting makes national news. I love my freedom .
Oh, I’m aware of that, but as I say, they’re part of the 15% on the fringe.
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but there’s something like 100 million gun owners in the country, whereas the NRA only has 4 million members (and I’m not one of them).
No thanks, trying to cut down, but if there’s a nice scotch kicking around anywhere…
kyoseki:
You contend they only have a small degree of influence over public policy by virtue of their purported fringe status?
Not at all, but only because of laziness on the part of most everyone else.
It’s kind of like the political primaries, those are decided by the nut jobs on the fringes because nobody else can be bothered to vote in the things.
@198
I really dislike that you chose such a good strategy game as your nym.
No one should be stupid enough to say that gun control isn’t a safety issue. No one.
Your stupidity reflects badly on anything you’re associated with.
@Esteleth #94
You’re ignoring the main political and military significance of an armed citizenry which is in a civil war. In civil wars the state military forces typically split, because the military to a greater or lesser extent is representative of society and its divisions. A fragmented military is far less capable militarily and the more military force which is used against their own population the more societal divisions sharpen and the military further fragments. The US, like most stable regimes, tends not to murder too much of its own population too often as things can get very out of control very quickly, as we’ve seen recently in Syria.
Basic weaponry such as rifles become extremely important in civil war situations. Its not the end of the matter by a long shot but it’s a prerequisite for resistance (or strife depending on your perspective).
Relying on the goodwill of the military is the road to Pinochets coup in Chile, the My Lai massacre, Srebrenica in 95 or countless other situations.
That is easily the stupidest thing I’ve read this year. And a fine example of what is wrong with the US when it comes to thinking about gun violence.
@Suido #212
Well I suppose Gun control is a health and safety issue to a similar extent it’s a sporting issue. It’s an aspect which is used as a political argument by one side but it’s not why its such a recurrent issue. The Leviathan demands a monopoly on violence and the second amendment threatens that – it always has, even as the state has been supported by most gun owners historically.
Its certainly an historical curiosity that the main political divisions in the US the “left wing” support this state monopoly while the right wing – especially the more nutty elements – oppose it. As former radical myself it’s a bit sad to see that.
Also my nym is based on the imperial policy not a game. Ironically ofc.
I’ve written a bit recently (tooting my own horn! toot toot!) about the contradictory (and ludicrous) narratives gun nuts set up to justify gun possession/ownership/make-you-safe-ness. More guns make you safer, because any person with a gun can get to it and take out the correct target without hurting anyone else, even if it’s a chaotic situation (which, of course, means that the police and military are the safest professions you can have). If a criminal knows that the person they’re planning on attacking may have a gun, they will behave in a perfectly rational way, weighing the potential risks, and decide against it (even though it’s people, not guns, that kill people). We can’t outlaw guns because criminals will find a way to get guns anyway (because when you become a criminal, you get your secret password and directions to the Black Market mailed to you, along with your domino mask and big canvas bag with a dollar sign on it). And besides, anything can be used as a weapon, like scissors or a fork, so a person who is determined to kill will do so with whatever’s available (so why do civilians need to be armed? Isn’t self-preservation enough to make you determined to kill your attacker with whatever you have in your pockets? And if they’re determined to kill no matter what, how will knowing that a civilian is armed stop them?). But these same super-intelligent, crafty, determined killers can’t come up with a way to prevent an armed civilian from taking them out with a single shot and a clever quip, with no collateral damage (like, say, attacking a school full of children unlikely to be armed; or attacking a theater in a concealed-carry state that has a no-guns policy, and do so in the dark, while wearing body armor, and after throwing out tear gas canisters to blind any would-be Dirty Harries)?
Every gun-nut justification is self-defeating, and rests on the same kind of concept of the world as conspiracy theorists: I have something special (a gun, secret knowledge) that prevents me from becoming a [victim, sheeple] like the rest of you rubes.
Even in a civil war situation, the way small arms in the hands of civillians is useful is via sniping and guerrilla warfare.
Which, incidentally, raises an interesting question: if DC decides to declare martial law, who do you think they’re declaring it on? Why? Who rises up and who submits?
(Suspecting that this is going to turn into a rehashing of the Civil War…)
Giliell, I promise to use my new internet for good and not evil.
Well, you suppose wrong. Your premise that gun control is purely a political issue is wrong. It’s simplistic thinking in a complex world. Trying to discuss gun ownership while deliberately ignoring the thousands of people who die as a consequence of gun ownership is callous and blinkered.
It’s almost like you’re trying to ignore data that contradicts your opinion. And you wouldn’t do that, would you?
If it’s civilians vs. the military, run. Guess what? No matter what guns you have, the military has better ones. So unless you’re advocating deregulation to the point where the average civilian can purchase drones and tanks and rocket-propelled grenades, the argument is a non-starter. No amount of Wal-Mart riflery will keep you alive in the event of a war with the military.
As to the Kent State claim above, the guardsmen shot in response to thrown rocks. Why on Earth would you think that people throwing high-speed bullets would have resulted in fewer deaths? It would have resulted in, at the very least, crossfire (which seems like a rather life-endangering thing indeed) and probably would have prolonged the violence considerably. It also would have resulted in the loss of any moral high ground, and instead of the “Kent State Massacre,” we’d be talking about the “Kent State Riots.” The idea that the National Guard would be somehow cowed by a few students with handguns (or rifles, or mortars, or whatever) is absurd in the extreme. Unless the idea is that enough of the 2,000 students in the protest would have been armed to overwhelm and completely destroy the 77 guardsmen…in which case, I suspect they would have sent in more guardsmen to begin with.
The Nuge has deigned to “grace” us with his “wisdom”;
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/ted-nugent-gun-owners-the-next-rosa-parks/
GD’s civil war premise is that some of the military will defect to the civilian side, (with their toys, natch). So it won’t be civilians vs military, it’ll be anti-gov civilians and military vs pro-gov military and civilians. Then GD said that if civilians don’t have guns, no resistance is possible and military personnel won’t have anyone to defect to. So the noble civilians would be doomed to endless tyranny. This was a non-sequitur when GD wrote it, and didn’t get any better through my re-write.
One word on guns being necessary for resistance: Gandhi.
Gah, why did I let myself get dragged into the political side of this. COMPLEX SYSTEMS, PEOPLE.
Analysis in isolation is futile. Lay down your arguments. Analysis in isolation is futile. Submit to the tyranny of holistic thinking.
One thing this argument (and I realize you’re not the one making it) neglects is the high level of information integration in the current US military. Any defecting forces will lose access to things like GPS, AWACS and all that other fun crap that 90% of the heavy equipment relies on.
Unless, of course, anyone thinks NORAD (in Colorado) and the main AFSPC base (in Los Angeles) are likely to side with the upstarts.
Losing that infrastructure completely negates air superiority, you wouldn’t be able to launch a single missile. That, in turn, completely negates naval superiority, so any insurrection is pretty much fucked from the get go unless foreign military forces get involved.
It would be fair to describe me as a gun enthusiast. I love to shoot. I have a pellet trap set up in my tiny studio apartment, next to my monitor so I can plink with my air pistol while I watch a movie. While at the moment I only own a .22 rifle and it isn’t even in working order (though it is semi-automatic, and 30 round magazines are available), I’ve had about a half dozen guns in my life and I will probably buy at least a few more over the course of my lifetime. I even sometimes fantasize about insurrectionist or apocalyptic scenarios where owning a good rifle could be the difference between life and death. I am an anarchist at heart, and I believe that for every problem that can be solved in a top-down fashion, there is the potential for a better option from the grass roots.
But my fantasies are just that, and back here in the real world there are preventable homicides happening. I can’t come up with a single practical objection to a national licensing and registration system, or legislation that would hold gun owners responsible if their weapons are stolen and used in a crime due to their negligence, or waiting periods, or closing the gun show loophole. I’m pretty sure all of those things would produce positive change while not impeding anyone’s second amendment rights (by any reasonable interpretation). I’m not a fan of “assault weapons” bans that generally seem to be based more on the form of the weapon than the function, and I share Kyoseki’s skepticism about the effectiveness of magazine limits (unless maybe the limit with 3-5) even in mass shootings, but most of the proposals I’ve heard wouldn’t seriously impact my ability to enjoy recreational shooting either.
On the NRA, while have never been and never will be a member I’ve known quite a few people who paid dues despite being in favor of increased gun control. Why would they do that? Well around here at least (I get this impression this is true in most of the country) the gun clubs require you to be an NRA member to use their facilities or participate in competitions. It’s really quite a racket they’ve got going.
I do think Gunboat’s observation about the military splitting during a civil war is worth bearing in mind, though I don’t think it makes the point they think it does. After all, if soldiers are defecting en masse it seems like they might bring a little hardware with them. Maybe even a few spare rifles! And really even if the military in your area is still made up of loyalists surely any self respecting guerilla band with hunting rifles should be able to liberate a few M-16s in short order?
I’ve read quite a bit on firearms and quite a bit more on revolution. Anyone who thinks that a few AR-15s more or less could make or break an insurrection in present day north america is need of a serious reality check. Not to mention remedial history.
@Kyoseki
Yep. That was the point of the snarky parenthetical comment about toys. I’d be seriously surprised if the highly-dangerous-if-in-the-wrong-hands hardware didn’t have remote deactivation software installed. Of course, any good ol’ boy citizenry with a screwdriver should be able to bypass that, right?
But yes, lack of satellite access would also be a bit of a problem. Don’t ya hate it when your missile’s targeting system doesn’t work? That wouldn’t happen with ol’ reliable muskets, nosirree. We got sharpshooters that use rifled barrels, even. Those gubmint forces better watch out.
I encourage you to spend as much time around smokers as possible.
I honestly haven’t anything to add, being one of those horrible evil liberals who don’t think you need 30 rounds to take down a deer, but I just have this really intense curiosity to meet BCmystery for some odd reason. *coughs*
I don’t.
Always known I’m just me instead.
For better or worse. Can’t be but who I am. I try to be someone worthwhile, good and still me.
Sometimes feel like a vase inside a hessian sack that’s been struck with a sledgehammer.
@Tom Foss
That would indeed seem to be an unlikely outcome. Which is why I argued the opposite.
@227 spamamander – A friend of mine, gun enthusiast and hunter, has been trying to shoot a deer for years and has never bagged one. He does the whole thing: wears the camo gear and rubs himself with deer poo, but so far zilch. They are always too quick and too far away.
I’m a little late, but it is always interesting that in the myth the outsider group, bravely resisting government authority with their god given rifles, are always the good guys. They’re never neo nazi separatist assholes or something.
As others have mentioned, the implied right to overthrow the government isn’t that at all. It’s a right to civil war, coz that’s really how any such situation would play out, at “best” (if it really were to escalate into anything likely to cause any sort of actual power shift).
Most likely, I think, is the Remember Ruby Ridge Rangers get squashed, their spiritual supporters make a lot of grumpy noises. But in the end they don’t do anything because, well, the jack booted thugs of legend haven’t come and taken away their guns yet (because we all know that’s how you tell). Just keep right on listening to Alex Jones or whoever and be ignorantly, civilly disengaged. A gun grants you that right.
I would have to disagree, with some of the points here.
For one, criminals dont just magically appear in your room, they have to break a lock or a window… usually that makes a lot of noise … its physics. Also these days people set up sensors etc.
I dont think anyone is thinking of rugged cowboys in this debate, people are thinking of their own saftey.
As a woman in a rape culture guns make me feel safe.
Why ? Does not seem very rational to me, unless you think a potential rapist will wait while you get the key to your gun cabinet, unlock it, assemble the gun and then find the key and unlock your ammunition cabinet and load the gun. It is odd. No one who claims they need a gun for self-defence ever explains just how they will get an intruder to wait whilst they do this.
Oh, and given most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, it is not clear how having a gun will help there either.
PZ Myers wrote:
The thing is, many of us already live in countries that mostly operate on those principles, such as most of Europe. Sure, it’s not perfect, we get shootings too, but our societies are definitely not the scary place that people in the US seem to think theirs is. And the statistics show it. For the US to reach a similar level of safety, then, shouldn’t be a starry-eyed optimistic dream, but be entirely within the realm of the possible. It’s been done before.
Of course, it will take much more than just changing the gun regulations to get there. It would require changes in health care, social safety net, reduction of poverty and inequality, etc. It’s quite likely that in the current cultural and political climate, it would be impossible to get much of that done. But instead of throwing up your hands and claiming it’s a pipe dream, as some people seem to do, you could also work to change the culture and political climate. You might fail, but it seems worth trying to me.
@Gunboat Diplomat in #198
There’s just one problem with this theory. Lax gun regulations are the current status quo, and it has been maintained by the ruling class and the establishment for years in the form of the Republican party, the NRA and weapon manufacturers, Fox News, etc. And not just maintained, but expanded. Clearly, for years, all those guns suited the establishment just fine.
Personally, I think that a situation where almost everyone is armed and afraid of their neighbors, is an excellent situation for a would-be dictator. When people are afraid of each other, they won’t join together to resist you. After that, it’s just a matter of redirecting all that fear to your political enemies (like repeating over and over that the islamist secularist socialist communists will take over your country any day now) and suddenly you’d have all those guns aimed at your political enemies at very little expense.
So you’ll doubtless be able to point us to cases where an armed citizenry has had political and military significance in a civil war, in a state with a military capability comparable to that of the present-day USA.
One last stupid quip before I head off for class:
For those who warn about bringing knives to gunfights: wouldn’t it be a better idea to just run the other way?
Gunboat Diplomat, you’ll appreciate this bit of history.
Nick, if only they hadn’t given them up things might’ve been different.
Gunboat Diplomat @ 213;
Firstly, the liklihood of such a civil conflict befalling the contemporary US is rather small.
Secondly, even if such a conflict came to pass, there is no guarantee that the military would be significantly divided, in which case wannabe citizen-warriors with a massive John Wayne complex will just get themselves killed in droves for no benefit.
Thirdly, even if the military was significantly divided, when dealing with a force possessing the firepower of a modern state the practical contribution of largely untrained civilians with handguns would be questionable at best.
At the end of the day, civilians with pistols or even a rifles just aren’t much of an argument against main battle tanks, helicopter gunships and aircraft carriers. Why should we sit back and watch the large numbers of very real deaths and injuries that are caused by such lax firearm laws occur every year in the name of some civil war scenario that is not only unlikely at best, but whose outcome probably wouldn’t even be significantly impacted by a citizenry armed with what amounts to little more than peashooters in relative terms?
Gun ownership makes more practical sense for people in the middle of the wilderness, where the next nearest neighbor is a quarter mile away or more, and round-trips into town take all day. That’s not really the case for most Americans these days.
Besides, let’s say Americans were all armed in case of government overthrow. How effective will most of the civilians-turned-soldiers fight? Without regular practice, they won’t be able to aim the gun to hit a target much less maintenance afterwards (as would be required for any civil strife lasting more than a day or two; and ammo too! Remember that ammo would need to be stockpiled as well). At present, the idea of a large, effective, civilian militia in a first world nation is a joke to me.
link fail in #240, sorry.
md@240,
Your link is borked.
Gunboat: You’re right, I misread.
The Pravda article linked by md is awesome.
I hope Gunboat Diplomat reads it.
md,
All your link demonstrates is that you are an ignorant idiot. You quite evidently know fuck-all about the circumstances of the Russian Civil War, and the article you link to contains some prize drivel, for example:
You think Tsarist Russia was a free country?
Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds? I’m amazed that even you are enough of a fuckwit to take this garbage seriously.
You will note, also, that I specified a civil war in a state with a military capability comparable to the present-day USA – because that’s the subject under discussion.
Hum. Does Batman count as pacifist? Guy won’t kill, but seems to have no problem stringing people up by their ankles.
From: Willingness to shoot: Public attitudes toward defensive gun use by Cao, LiqunView Profile; Cullen, Francis TView Profile; Barton, Shannon MView Profile; Blevins, Kristie RView Profile. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ27. 1 (Fall 2002): 85-109.
From The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results From a National Survey by Hemenway, DavidView Profile; Azrael, DeborahView Profile. Violence and Victims. 3 (2000): 257-72.
[Yes, I know that random-digit excludes people who don’t have landlines]
To people who ask how one would defend against a dictatorship without guns: I don’t know about you, but I’d go after infrastructure, especially oil pipelines.
Suido
On the topic of the military splitting anyways: Even if I had a tank behind me, I don’t think I’d like to go up against a tank with a .22.
Much rather prefer my chances against a (coal-bearing) railroad with, I don’t know, a large sledgehammer.
Wait, how does this work? I thought GPS was a combination of 24 satelites (which would be turned on and off for everyone) and local processing?
From what I remember, the Whites during the Russian civil war were supported by a number of countries, one of which was the US. In fact in 1918 Wilson even dispatched a couple of expeditionary forces to aid the Whites.
MD, can you explain why you are referring us to a source that is so obviously flawed ?
You can actually disable a coal-fired steam locomotive with a sledge hammer. You can also disable a diesel-electric locomotive with a sledgehammer. You can also disable the brake components of a freight train (coal cars, for instance) with a sledge hammer.
A main battle tank? Well, you might be able to take out the thermal imaging or laser sighting system, but the MBT could still fight effectively, though not as efficiently. I suppose you could take out the headlights, but those aren’t used much in actual combat.
I’d rather take on the train, too.
@Ogvorbis
I was actually referring to taking out the tracks*, not the train itself, but yeah :D
*I’m assuming the train is defended by soldiers with guns, but it’s a bit difficult to defend large amounts of track, and trains kind of have issues running if a track segment was gone.
The GPS satellites are under the control of the US Government. At the moment the signals from them are not enciphered. However the facility to encipher the signals exists, and then could only be read by equipment with the capability to decipher them. Only the US military has such hardware.
There are a lot of really cool articles at Pravda
“Global warming, the tool of the West”
“Why Americans cannot discipline their children”
it’s better than The Onion
Experience during the Second World War showed that simply blowing up sections of track was not very effective in hindering rail movements. Too easy to repair, and often there are other routing options available. Much better to target tunnels, bridges and marshaling yards.
No sure how a sledge hammer would help disable the tracks. Now, a big wrench and a spike puller, and you could do some real damage, but a sledge hammer against even something as light as 90-lb rail? It’d just bounce off.
Railroads, in every war in which they have been used, have proved far more resilient than anyone in the military was willing to believe. Railroads are fragile, but they can also be repaired very quickly. Railroads suffer train wrecks with alarming frequency (the ones we hear about are the ones that impact towns or kill people). And the damage done by a couple of 1,000 pound bombs is far less then the damage done by a 10,000 ton freight leaving the tracks at 30 mph.
Pipelines, now, much more fragile. Especially if you can leave the pumps on but block the pipe.
Stolen Gun Control by Robert W. Helsley, Arthur O’Sullivan from Journal of Urban Economics. Volume 50, Issue 3, November 2001, Pages 436–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2227
Ah, okay.
Makes sense.
Wouldn’t any defecting military also have that hardware, too?
(Unless most of the military doesn’t have the unlock code and the unlock code is only ssh’ed to known loyal units when the encryption is activated)
But if gun owners are so responsible, how can their guns get stolen ?
Yeah, it seems like there’s nice loop-effect: Criminals steal guns and use them, non-criminals get scared and buy more guns, which then proceed to get stolen, which increases gun crime, etc.
Funny how well that starry-eyed optimistic dream seems to be working in other nations with greater restrictions on access to handguns and assault rifles…
…clarification:
“nice” is sarcastic.
Well, that would explain why the NRA fights any law that would require reporting stolen guns. If they’re never reported, they were never stolen. And the ones that are stolen are obviously stolen from those horrible liberals who don’t know how to lock up a fire arm.
Not if the key was changed.
They were free enough to own guns. Not all the freedom necessary for human dignity, but a crucial part, and a freedom promptly dispensed with after the revolution to rid the world of inequality.
You will note the parameters of discussion were set impossibly narrow. I widened them. No other state has ever had a military capability comparable to the US. So lets take a holistic, multi-factorial approach to with-straining it through clear constitutional instruction on the declaration of war, civilian government oversight of the military, a culture continually nurtured to be skeptical of the need of large standing armies during peacetime, a defense budget proportional to the actual intended purpose of defense of the nation, instead of the role of heavily armed international mega-charity it currently occupies, and a populace educated that the greatest dangers of tyranny have historically shown to be either from one’s own government gone awry or from some highly motivated faction within who manages to capture sovereignty, as the Pravda link reminds us, and finally if all those failsafes fail, as some of them currently are in the case of the U.S., those willing civilian volunteers able to take up arms and fight back, like those in Libya and Syria, and hang on and keep hope alive, until someone else will supply them with reinforcements. Think of this as a Total Cultural Solution.
Yea sounds a bit suspect. Private American money supporting Trotsky, sure.
But the relevant bit, which you don’t contend, is this:
Which would give a huge advantage to whichever side secured the facilities with the permission codes and transmission facilities. Or destroyed the same.
Either way, in a high tech civil war in which the military split sides, what the military thought was worth fighting for and what the civilians thought worth fighting for would be very different.
I see MD can offer no explanation as to why he linked to such a flawed website. It would be reasonable to assume therefore that he knew it was flawed and he intended to push a dishonest source.
Clint Eastwood?
Near the end of A Fistful of Dollars, Clint Eastwood confronts the bad guy, who has already drawn and is known as an excellent marksman. He just walks toward him, slowly. The bad guy shoots, and nothing happens. Again and again, the bad guy shoots, and nothing happens. When the bad guy’s gun is empty, Eastwood throws the front side of his poncho over his shoulder, revealing an enormous iron plate with six indentations very close together – right over his heart. He’s completely unharmed.
I like that scene.
I expect some gun-nuts think it was a documentary on how to protect yourself.
Matt:
I also notice that MD claims that Russians being allowed to own fire arms proves freedom. Then, in the same comment, supporting the idea that the masses being armed will help in a civil war, he quotes this:
as if the Tsarist officers, retired and active, who were living in Moscow, were somehow part of the masses.
History would seem to be something MD knows nothing about, at least not the Russian Civil War. I am hardly an expert, only having read Orlando Figes on the subject but even that is enough to know he pushing total bullshit.
There is also an article at Pravda about how things were better under the Soviet Union.
Only in your America-centric view. Newsflash, bub, the rest of the civilized world doesn’t consider guns a super speshul blessing of God, given to the white hat guys, without which nothing can exist but tyranny.
Do you think the rest of the world is too stupid to figure out that much? Or do you think everywhere works just like America or wants to work just like America? Fuck you.
md,
You further confirm your ignorant idiocy.
Just not to choose their rulers, have a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary arrest… In other words, a clear demonstration that the freedom to own guns gets you nothing whatsoever in the way of other freedoms.
To a situation in which both civil government and the armed forces had collapsed following military defeat and occupation of a considerable part of the country, by an enemy that was itself then defeated, producing a power vacuum with few parallels in modern history. The army disintegrated, with the soldiers going home and taking their weapons with them – those were the bulk of the weapons used in the civil war.
No source is given. When the article is as full of crap as I demonstrated it was, nothing it says should be taken seriously. If you can produce any actual evidence of such an event taking place, I’ll consider it.
That characterization is a truly remarkable combination of stupidity and mendacity.
No, I’ll think of it as the fuckwitted bullshit it undoubtedly is. In both Libya and Syria, it has been splits in the military plus foreign intervention that made effective resistance possible.
Somewhere up the page I alluded to the idea that arms freedoms are a distracting sort of right that appears sufficient even if the others start to disappear.
Can’t say I was really expecting gun rights folks to agree so readily. Usually this notion gets some dispute.
A little bit of derail:
Arg, why is it so hard to find a study on self-defense during rape/attempted rape that a) isn’t behind a firewall and b) doesn’t restrict their interview subjects to just women who were successful in avoid rape or women who survived?
“God made Man, Colt made them equal” is a myth. Guns favor those who are likely to draw first – that means the paranoid, the murderous and the trigger-happy.
Here’s a recent story in the news about a woman who had time to retrieve her handgun from a safe before using it to repel a home intruder.
Not a scientific article but:
CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: THE BLACK COMMUNITY CANNOT IGNORE THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE
Santiago, Roberto; Lowe, Walter. Emerge. 10 (Sep 1990): 36.
From samizdat2003‘s link:
Well it’d be hard to interview the women who didn’t survive… /snark
nightshadequeen, did you see that gun research is restricted in the US?
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Well, yeah, it’s hard to interview a dead person, but most studies don’t even acknowledge that. It’s all “These people successfully resisted; this percent via force, this percent via talking, etc.”
re: Salon article.
They’re so transparent….
RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES
Jongyeon Tark; Kleck, GaryView Profile. Criminology42. 4 (Nov 2004): 861-909.
That’s an interesting idea.
(I’m ignoring the rest of the study – dear authors, please do not declare that “resisting an attack almost never increases risk of injury” if you’re going to restrict your analysis to a database that only looks at victims who survive)
Just saw this research that Libby Anne unearthed:
Abstract of that study is here: http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502
Via Libby Anne: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/01/the-intersection-of-guns-gender-and-violence.html
Probably, since most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, it’d be even more difficult for them to pull a gun and be willing to use it on someone they trusted than for the aggressor to use a gun on someone they already consider a target.
I came to the same conclusion as you, PZ. The thing that baffles me is it is almost certain that the person breaking into your house wishes you no harm whatsoever. All you need as proof is to look at crime statistics and see how many robberies there are versus how many assaults there are. Sam Harris is just another grown man playing Dungeons & Dragons.
http://www.alittlerebellion.net/2012/12/17/grown-men-playing-dungeons-and-dragons/
Comments 216, 237, 256 and 259 FTW.
AFAIK, pravda.ru has nothing to do with the actual newspaper, it’s just a conspiracy-theory site.
Why several??? How many can one person possibly need for self-defense? …Even Yosemite Sam only ever uses two at once and doesn’t seem to have any others.
Where to begin…
– The idea behind the 2nd Amendment pretty clearly is the Founding Fathers’ aversion to having a standing army, because, in the history they knew, standing armies had provided a constant opportunity for rulers to oppress people. Rather have the entire male population be the army in wartime and simply go home, unpaid, in peacetime, they thought. …Well, the US now has a standing army, because fighting a modern war without professionals is just laughable. There’s no more militia (not even a draft), so no more reason for the 2nd Amendment as far as I can see.
– Under Saddam Hussein, every man who considered himself one had an AK-47. Fat lot of good it did them. The army had bigger and better guns and remained loyal, never mind the Republican Guard and the palace and body guards and the fact that Saddam never spent 2 nights in a row in the same p(a)lace.
That’s just stupid.
…Please do remember that the US isn’t the only country in the world, nor the only country where gun control has ever been proposed. Just saying.
*steal*
Alternatively, he had no clude, didn’t bother trying to find out because it fit his preconceived notion so well, and is now too embarrassed to admit his mistake…
…which is the very mindset that is the greatest danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ever. Sounds grandstanding, but I’m serious; think it through, and I’m sure you’ll agree.
That’d be actual progress, you know: the scene makes clear that a gun wouldn’t have helped (didn’t help, in fact, because Eastwood’s character does carry a gun which he later uses). Wearing a bulletproof vest all day may be stupid, and it may not help a lot, and I have no idea what the thing costs (or what a gun costs for that matter), but at least it doesn’t endanger other people.
David:
Moar gunz=More manly?
1 gun= I have a little power and a bigger dick
2 gunz= I have a little bit more power and several extra inches
A semi automatic= I am BMOC with donkey dick.
Moar gunz=More manly?
That’s what the guyz with gunz are hoping you’ll believe. Actually, the correlation is more inverse.
Duh! So he can take down several Moooslemterrists simultaneously.
A little over two years ago, two shanty towns which were highly entrenched positions of criminal gangs in Rio de Janeiro were invaded by a joint operation of the police and army. The criminals had assault rifles, grenades, even anti-air guns. The army sent a bunch of APCs – no tanks, no aircraft, no missiles, no drones. Just APCs. They rolled over all resistance.
That was a bunch of people who were well armed, prepared to kill and had turned their home into a fortress; they stood no chance against a military with a small fraction of the American budget. To the Americans who are planned an armed uprising: good luck.
In that case the vast majority of gun owners are whatever the fuck a BMOC with a donkey dick is.
The most common type of firearm in civilian possession in the us is a semi automatic pistol.
Please, please PLEASE learn the difference between firearms so you can, at least, carry on an educated discussion.
Here’s the California handgun safety study guide, PLEASE read it;
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf
… as for owning several guns, I own several guns for the same reason I own several bicycles, each one fulfills a different purpose, the same gun you use for self defense isn’t the same gun you might use for skeet shooting or IPSC competition, for example.
Bah, this conversation took a left turn into my field of professional expertise while I was sleeping.
A sledgehammer, wielded accurately, could disable an old railway line. Remove the clips and spikes, knock the rails of the sleepers, job done. Really easy to fix, as mentioned, but a sledgehammer could do the job because it’s basically how they were built. A modern railway, with continuously welded rail, you’ll need a cutting torch to damage that. As with before, it’s really easy to fix. You’ll derail a maximum of one train, each time. If cutting equipment not available, you’ll need to try something different.
If there aren’t any tunnels or bridges readily available, your best bet would be to dig under the ballast and destabilise the foundations. If we’re talking about coal trains, find a place where there’s already lots of coal in the ballast. This will indicate an already bumpy area. Add water for increased effect. No guarantees, but a bumpy ride can cause derailments. Also easily fixed, just by slowing the train down. Again, you’ll stop, at maximum, one train for each attempt at disabling the railway.
So you’re back to bridges and tunnels, and even bridges are pretty easy to fix these days with pre-cast slabs + cranes. Oh, and they’ll be guarded.
If you really wanted to disable a rail network, as a civil engineer I’d have to recommend cutting off the fuel source. This may be difficult. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that military types get twitchy if their fuel supplies are endangered. Possibly even more twitchy than a commuter seeing the price of petrol increase by 10c per litre.
Steering back towards the subject, I don’t see how citizens having small arms is going to improve the odds of defeating the powers that be, even in situations like sabotaging rail networks.
It’s post like this that have me coming here less and less. A sad state of Pharyngula.
*posts
It is so sad for Pharyngula that ericyoungstrom comes here less.
Whereas if you don’t like what happens, why can’t you shut the fuck up and go away? What makes you think your OPINION means anything, when the regulars like it?
Does this mean we will get less replies from the ericyoungstroms of life? One can only hope.
Hey FYI Janine… I am not the only ATHEIST that thinks/does this. The Sam Harris hate, the extreme feminism and now the anti gun stance….. There are other blogs with less dogma to deal with.
Hear that pz ? More posts like this one!
RED, “What makes you think your OPINION means anything..”
I flip it to you RED! What makes your or ANY opinion here valid or of worth?
From an Atheist that meet him at a rally… “i met PZ at the rally, he was a bloody gerbil. I will never forget i walked up and asked him sir are your ready ? he was next to speak . He looked me up and down disgusted as if i had spit on him. I won’t forget his disdain anytime soon.”
I know enough not to tell PZ how to run his blog. You don’t. PZ doesn’t like fuckwitted idjits, including the regulars, telling him how to run his blog. Makes your OPINION trash, and your cogency trash if you don’t know that. Welcome to reality, where your OPINION is not sacred to other people…
Someone needs to draw PZ as a Don Blueth style snobbish gerbil
only women should be allowed to have guns.. because of *trigger warning* rape culture and ALL men are mysogonist creeps
According to an idiot on the internet PZ has offended THE Atheist. Shame on him…and pitty on this poor hard of thought individual who is forced to read blogs he hates. Tell me young hobbleminded padawan, is it a man with a white streak and moustache in a green lab coat or a scary blond woman in a jump suit holding you captive? Have you considered building some robot friends to help you cope in these hard times?
Only the first paragraph is by ericyoungstrom. The rest is me.
Oh, yeah, nice story there. Who was the nameless atheist?
Yawn
I wonder if these dumbasses realise that by informing PZ they are offended by his posts, they’re actually increasing the chances of him doing more of them? Because, as far as I can tell, offending dumbasses is his raisin date.
No, I doubt it. The rage is too blinding.
Words of wisdom from eric:
Ah, it’s some specific posts that are discouraging you.
Wait, what? You don’t like PZ? If you don’t like PZ, why did you used to come to his site, and why are you so upset that he’s posting things you don’t like to read? Consistency, you’re doing it wrong.
nb Google search revealed no matches for the above quote. Not even after I fixed all the punctuation. And stripped it down to keywords. Amazing.
Uh.. RED! Did I tell PZ at any point how to run his blog? No I didn’t. Once again the congregation of the gospel that is the church of PZ has ran off into LEFT field with bull$hit. Add this to the mountain of evidence that is why less and less atheist are coming here.
Congrads everyone of the flock of PZ… You have run off anyone that would question or and reason to debate because it make pale the light that is your PZ…… You are all sounding a lot like a religion….. This Atheist is out!
Suido, It wasn’t ME It was another friend that happened to meet PZ, he posted this to me on FB….. Reading comprehension is your friend.
You first post was at #292.
You said this.
This does not sound you you wanted to have a debate. It sounds like a kiss off.
But, hey, you wanted to show off just how much you dislike this blog.
Also, you did not get around to explain what would be the proper type of feminism that you would tolerate. I would hate to lose a well reasoning atheist ally like you.
You really should read your last words for ironic effect. Suido did not say you said it. Just that the story could not be found with a search.
Thumbs up!
Funny, I’m pretty sure that the traffic here has been climbing for some time.
Yes you did. You implied less posts on gun control would keep you here. Like anybody cares what you think, but we do care about you lying. Arrogance and lies. Typical of MRA fuckwits and liberturds.
you want to debate? Say “this is what I believe, and this (link) is the EVIDENCE to back that up”. Liberturds and MRA fuckwits offer nothing but OPINIONS, especially whiny OPINIONS. Which is all you have done to date. That does tell us a lot about you, whether you think so or not. Time to remind you of the first rule of holes. When in over your head, stop digging. Stop digging.
This ^ alone points out that you have the reading comprehension of a dirt clod. The nym is Nerd of Redhead. That you derive “Red” out of that shows what a muddle your thought processes happen to be. Given that, what on earth makes you think you could fashion any sort of argument which would not only make sense, but manage to be valid?
Paul Fidalgo shows the proper level of respect, ericyoungstrom. Go chat about Harris hate with him.
….fork….I….always…miss…the…’good’….stuff
@319–Urg, reading that Fidalgo piece was painful. And then he turned off comments, so no one can criticize his bullshit baiting and strawmanning. Keep being classy, Paul.
>> “I prefer a multi-layered defense that relies on the cooperation of a community. I don’t want a gun put in my hands……”
lolz.. one thing is for sure, PZ is no Clint Eastwood, its not surprising he wants a “multilayered” approach… ie other people to do his share of the “dirty work”. With police (Clint Eastwoods) patrolling his area constantly and taking guns away from ‘the people that shouldnt have them’.
How exactly do you go about gun control, taking away weapons from criminals ??
Its quite easy to make one, import one, or easily make many other type of weapons…
Its time to grow a brain and start using it. :3
@Anthony
Actually you can’t because it appears there are no comments.
Not that I want to talk to that asshole anyway. Yes Sam Harris is very much my enemy thank you, I’m very sorry so many others of this inclusive secular movement don’t care how hateful and hurtful he is but that’s how it is.
@311:
On what basis did you determine that fewer and fewer people are coming here?
kyoseki:
Big
Man
On
Campus
Kyoseki:
Also, my point #286 was that for some gun owners, more guns or bigger/more powerful guns is a symbol of masculinity (strength/power as well). One hangun makes you Spider-Man. A semi-automatic makes you Superman. Though I prefer my dick analogy better since there is already a penis subtext to firearms.
For the point I was trying to make, why do you feel I need, need, need to educate myself?
ericyoungstrom:
What gives you the impression that people here are arguing from an anti gun position, rather than a stricter gun laws position?
Shorter Paul Fidalgo: LEAVE SAM HARRIS ALONE!!!!!!!!
Quite possible in the same way other countries have managed it.
Why did you ask such an idiotic question ?
First true thing you have said. However you should have grown a brain BEFORE commenting here.
Fidalgo writes a provocative post on Sam Harris but doesn’t want anyone to comment on it. Another FTB blog I won’t be visiting again.
Our forefathers made it quite clear their intent with the 2nd Amendment: The citizens should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government with equivalent weaponry. The 2nd Amendment was intended so that the citizen was always capable of overthrowing a government that is no longer serving the will of the people. Now, does YOUR right to feel safe from a scary looking rifle trump my RIGHT to carry said rifle in defense of myself, my family or my country? NO, it does not. First of all, most of what are being referred to as ‘assault’ weapons are NOT assault weapons at all. But is sure does sound scarier than just ‘rifle’ or ‘firearm’ doesn’t it? Next, this so-call “gun-free” zone (created to make people feel safer than they actually are) was a prime target, made so by the very law intended to make the school safer. Gun-free just means that law-abiding citizens are unarmed. Seriously, do you think a sign, or a law for that matter, stops this type of thing from happening?
Laws do not stop such things happening, but they can reduce the volume of such things happening.
Can you explain why you asked such a stupid question ?
He has since written a follow up post about how people will not bother trying to understand the earlier post, and whilst he initially allowed comments he has since closed them after getting about 5, nearly all critical of his reasoning.
He does not seem to quite understand the concept of blogging.
So I guess that means you would advocate for the right of law-abiding citizens to own tanks and nukes and such then?
So what are they instead? Defensive weapons? You mean you can use them to parry and deflect bullets?
No, it won’t stop it – but do you seriously think that it wouldn’t happen less often if guns were a lot harder to get?
lol. no.
while I was home for christmas, there were two hostage situations at banks. The first one was committed with a toy gun and a bag of flour disguised as a bomb; the second was committed with a kind of gun that can’t fire deadly ammo, only pepper-spray and noise-makers.
In the long run, proper gun regulation (guns aren’t banned back home) leads to criminals not being able to get their hands on guns, either. The problem with the US is that this would be a extremely long run, since the US is largely wilderness with less than one cop per square mile, where illegally owned guns could continue to be smuggled about from asshole militia-type to asshole militia-type; especially when that one cop per square mile is one of the militia-type assholes.
nukes and supersonic bombers for everyone! I call dibs on everything stored in/under North Dakota.
Are you sure you checked off all the talking points? Might want to go back and make sure you’ll get full credit.
Drayton:
Do you seriously believe that all civilians should have their own private nuke?
…Excuse me while I go build a large bomb shelter.
Hun, if you need an AK-47 to take down a deer, you’re a sucky hunter.
70% of all guns used by criminals are stolen; 90% from households like yours.
Re: Suido
So no go on bursting oil pipes?
Hum.
Operation GTFO then, I guess?
Drayton Toups, you do realize that some of those framers of the Constitution wanted white male citizens armed because they were afraid of slave uprisings.
Those damned tyrannical slaves.
Incidentally, how easy would it be to switch out jet fuel with regular gasoline?
…eh, that would mean trying to access a base (difficult/impossible).
(…something makes me think the FBI’ll be showing up near my place soon :D)
Extreme feminism: the opinion that women are, extremely, people.
Seriously, dude, you have me giggling at my own joke, you’re that ridiculous. Go ahead, defend Yosemite Sam Harris’s “arguments”.
Are you sure this big-A Atheist didn’t just misinterpret PZ’s face? That beard sometimes hides most of it, you know.
Even absent a beard, I’ve known people who always look as if they’re just about to cry, no matter how happy they are. It’s just the shape of their face. I also know someone who always looks like they’re smiling a bit, even when they’re sleeping.
On what basis do you disagree with comment 285?
In theory a jet engine could run on the type of gasoline used in cars, and early jet engines used a fuel that was a mix of gasoline and kerosene. However given the complex nature of modern jet engines, and the advanced electronic control systems they contain that any attempt to use gasoline in a modern engine would be a failure.
What? Civilians should have access to equivalent weaponry as the government?
So…you have a helicopter gunship? An F-22 (and a maintenance crew, I suppose)? Drones? Aircraft carriers? Nukes?
Please tell me where you live so I an avoid you.
To everyone going on about their sacred patriarch slave holding rich selfish debt dodging fucks please explain why if the jack holes wanted people to fight oppressive gov one of the first things they did was put down a populist rebellion made up of the folk who fought for them and got screwed over? And then why did they restructure the gov to give people less direct involvement?
Seriously the FF where a bunch of hyper rich asses who didn’t give too many shits about your freedom compared to their bottom line.
And please remember actions speak louder than words. The propaganda drum beats of liberty they vomited forth don’t matter if they turn around and do the same shit they where protesting.
How much did life for the average slub improve after the succession anyway. Probably increased the life span of the slave trade.
So yeah American “freedom” can eat me
For those who do not know what Ing is taking about, look up Shays’ Rebellion.
Americans don’t know shit about their own history but still buy into manifest destiny propaganda. You wouldn’t need to be told to love your country so much if it was half as great as it is claimed to be
Truth is you’re probably a lot less free than many other developed nations
Just came across something Judge Napolitano contributed to the discussion the other day:
It’s hard to believe that someone who’s supposed to be an expert on the Constitution thinks it says you have a right to shoot anyone. Where does it say that?
But even if he’s right, and you really have a right to shoot a tyrant, then we really need to solve this one little problem: Who gets to decide who is, or isn’t, a tyrant?
Mishin writes those gun control/Moscow killing claims are sourced to this book
http://books.google.com/books/about/Russia_in_chains.html?id=7Li6AAAAIAAJ
Out of prin,t but my local university has a hard copy. May take me a few days to dig it up.
@md
Don’t bother
As usual, the Onion has it covered.
MD,
We are still awaiting your explanation as to why you posted a link to a site about the Russian Civil War that was so flawed, so rather than posting more links maybe you could deal with your previous failings first. As things stand your silence must be taken as admission your part you have no defence.
It’s about balance. Having a gun in the house serves a degree of protection with a degree of risk. We weigh those two and make our decision. Sam has come down on the side of having a gun while acknowledging the tradeoffs. So be it.
His decision and writings don’t deserve anywhere near the ire cast down upon him by us liberalati.
I love that
It’s about balance and weighing opinions it’s not objective…but your weighing of Sam US just wrong.
Go fuck yourself
Us???
Depends how much you care about stopping people being killed versus people being able to feel important because they have a gun. You clearly do not value life quite as much as we do.
Rationalist Missionary is yet more evidence that anyone who who calls themselves a rationalist in their ‘nym is being less than honest.
FORUM: RETHINKING THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment
NAME: ROBERT H. CHURCHILL
Restrictions on who could carry a gun.
Restriction on where guns could be used
Restriction on what you could use guns for
@Rationalist Missionary
Except the evidence comes down to: owning a gun puts both you and your neighbors in more danger.
I doubt Rationalist Missionary cares much for evidence.
Nope.
ericyoungstrom,
You’re both a fool and a liar.
No-one here by that name.
Yes you did – see #316.
Liar. On this very thread we have the regular md and returning commenter Gunboat Diplomat, who disagree with PZ on just about everything except atheism, and regulars kyoseki and Improbable Joe, who disagree with him on gun control. On this thread, I warned PZ (correctly as it turned out), that the story he was relaying could well be a hoax, and criticised him for posting it without checking it. Many other regular commenters frequently disagree with PZ on a range of issues.
This sentence is simply incoherent; but also, claims without evidence that “less and less” (that should be “fewer and fewer”) atheists are coming here. Produce your evidence that this is the case, liar.
Liar: see above.
Exactly what theists and accommodationists say of forthright athesists, of course.
Is that a promise? I assure you, you won’t be missed.
I do not agree with anyone that wants to restrict my right to own and carry a firearm. But that’s what the 1st Amendment is for; I don’t have to agree, I just have to deal with it. I do not feel the need to disparage anyone’s character just because they do not agree with me. I will, however, use my firearm to protect any one of them if the need arises (providing that their superior moral standards allow me to save their life at the expense of another). They have their right to their own opinion. I’ll protect that right as well. All I want is the same courtesy. Every right is precious, even the ones that you may take for granted.
It amazes me that people still trot out the wheeze “gots ta have guns ta perteck me from the gummint.”
In 1943 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto tried to keep the Germans from taking victims to concentration camps. Several thousand Jews armed with pistols, rifles, Molotov cocktails and a few automatic weapons took on a reinforced SS Panzergrenadier brigade. It’s estimated that some 15,000 Jews died in the fighting (mainly by being stuck in burning buildings) while German casualties were officially around 100 killed and wounded (the Polish Underground believed the number was closer to 300). Most of the Jewish survivors went to the Auschwitz and Treblinka camps. When armed civilians take on soldiers, the civilians lose big time.
Toups,
You inability to explain why you asked such a stupid question is noted. Your silence is a tacit admission you know you were being dishonest, but lack the moral strength to admit it.
I will, however, use my firearm to protect any one of them if the need arises
Or maybe shoot one of them, perhaps accidentally. There are no instances that I can find of an untrained civilian with a gun stopping a mass shooting. There are a few instances of trained off duty police or military personnel being able to shoot a shooter, possibly decreasing their body count, but none of civilians, as far as I know. I do know of at least one instance of an unarmed couple managing to disarm a man with a bottle of gasoline and a lighter, but that’s it. If you were in a theater in Aurora when the shooting started, you’d likely shoot a bystander, not the shooter (who, IIRC, was wearing a bullet proof vest anyway and setting off smoke bombs, making shooting him without hitting anyone else or even with hitting anyone else extremely challenging.)
Not to mention that when you get civilians shooting at each other, it becomes very difficult for anyone arriving on the scene to work out who is who. Which could well mean more civilians shooting at each other, and the police turning up and not having a clue who is the “bad” guy. But of course in the heads of the like of Toups they are would-be heroes riding to the rescue.
@ Matt. I did not respond because your question did not warrant a response. Does your need to insult me in some way make you feel better?
To be honest, I think one thing that is missing from Harris’ article is a defense of racially profiling white guys. After all, Adam Lanza and James Eagan Holmes were white kids.
Why is it that the people who bring up how guns are needed to protect their homes and protect against the government ignore the fact that the framers were also afraid of slave uprising and attacks by Native Americans, usually by settlers moving onto their lands.
Let us ignore the situations these people were living under.
Which could well mean more civilians shooting at each other, and the police turning up and not having a clue who is the “bad” guy.
Well, isn’t any civilian who shoots another a “bad guy” more or less by definition? They may not have been the person who started the shooting, but they are contributing to the body count.
But maybe he would have assessed the situation and decided not to fire for fear of doing that very thing. Several people at the scene of Rep Gifford’s shooting had guns with them, but did not fire for fear of adding to the chaos and injury or death toll. Instead, a number of people stopped him by hitting him on the head with a folding chair, tackling him, or stealing the ammo that he dropped. They prevented further deaths, not some imaginary “hero” with a gun.
Of course, it could have gone differently.
Drayton Toups, I have not insulted you. Why do you ignore what I said about the fear of slave uprisings and and Native American attacks on people settling on their lands. I ask because you claim it is clear what the framers meant.
Also, are you so insecure that a person insulting you is reason enough not to answer the legitimate challenge to you?
@370: That is kind of the other elephant (pardon the reference) in the room. Nearly all mass murderers are male and most are white. Harris recently called for increased surveillance of people who he thought might be Islamic during airport security checks because he believes them more likely to commit acts of terrorism. Where is his call for increased scrutiny of white men, who are more likely to commit mass murders? At the very least, they should undergo more intense background checks before purchasing guns, no?(Not that that would really likely help. See Nancy Lanza.)
They would be the good guys. Ask Wayne LaPierre.
@Nightshadequeen. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the average “Hunting” rifle used for game (.308 Remington 700..) is actually MORE powerful than the semi-automatic (non-assault) AK47, both of which are legal. So, taking a deer with an semi-auto Ak with one shot would be MORE difficult, requiring more accurate shot placement. Your assumption is just a symptom of your brainwashing by the media. In addition, your response to my statement “Gun-free just means that law-abiding citizens are unarmed.” missed the point entirely. Try again.
@Janine..I’m getting to the responses just as fast as I can. :) BUT..I think you need to go back and RE-READ my comment. The insult remark was directed to Matt, not you. But as long as I’m here, If I could go back in time, I’d arm every single native american with the best weapons available and die right along side of them. The same goes for the travesty of slavery. I’d arm every last one of them and fight along side to assure their freedom and repatriation if they so chose. I can’t change what happened, but I can help keep it from happening again. That will require tools, tools which some people see as unneeded. Ask an Native American or kidnapped African slave if he’d like to have a firearm to defend himself with…you know what the answer would be.
What brainwashing by the media? From where I sit, the US media seem to give the NRA more respect than proponents of gun regulation. Certainly more respect than it deserves.
I know it was directed at Matt.
So, you would fight against the people who had the wisdom to make sure that citizens could defend against tyrannical governments.
You are a bundle of contradictions.
Why time travel?
Arm them now.
Ask an Native American or kidnapped African slave if he’d like to have a firearm to defend himself with
Actually, quite a number of NA tribes did have guns to “defend themselves with”. Often supplied by Europeans who wanted to make trouble between the tribes and the local settlers. It…didn’t work out well for the Amerind, for the most part.
One have to wonder if the second amendment absolutists would have anything to do with the pre1970’s NRA?
Except indians and slaves don’t get that right because they don’t count. So again explain how the founding fatheads where willing to promote armed indirection against their tyranny.
Why do these people just ignore Shay ?
Why time travel?
Arm them now.
Interesting point, but I’d rather be armed with a lawyer. They’re more effective against the US government than a gun.
Also don’t ffucking dare compare your selfish ass to entire nations that faced systematic enslavement and extermination.
Drayton:
Why do you need a firearm?
The “right” to own a gun is not essential. In fact, it is more a privilege. There is no longer any reason that anyone *needs* to own a gun.
When it comes to a list of human rights that are essential, try reading The International Declaration of Human Rights. Curiously, no mention is made of owning a gun as a right (and yes, I’m aware that owning a gun is in the US Constitution and the IDHR isn’t a governing body.)
Drayton:
You are in the wrong blog if you’re worried about your tender fee fees being offended at insults. If you say stupid shit (and you can cover an entire first floor apartment with the shit you’ve spewed), you’re likely to get insulted here.
Hey! Looky!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/gun-appreciation-day-chairman-slavery-wouldnt-have-happened-if-slaves-were-armed/
If must be fucking nice to be so divorced from history that lying shitheads like Larry Ward could say that slavery would not have happened if slaves were armed.
Armed militias were wanted by the southern states in order to suppress slave uprising! Those framers from the southern states were afraid of this!
And yet this get ignored.
@Tony
… because you sound like a Creationist arguing against biology.
“Handgun” and “semi automatic” are not mutually exclusive terms, in fact, most handguns ARE semi automatic.
Ignorance is never a good thing, even if it’s a subject you dislike.
What was it that Wayne LaPierre said? “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/california-school-shooting/index.html
Chigau, even if we grant that he’s correct about that – not a given – that fact (and subsequent facts about post-Civil War events) is one of the things fueling the gun nuts.
A lot – if not the majority – of the gun nuts who go on about the need for everyone to be armed are curiously silent on the topic of minorities being armed.
Did the NRA say that Trayvon Martin should have been packing heat, for example?
Esteleth
I am hoping the time-travelling Drayton Toups @ 377 reads the gun-appreciation-day story and comments.
I have gotten the distinct impression that only white
peoplemen are meant to stand their ground.mythbri: Isn’t this more or less the scenario the NRA favors? A “good guy” with a gun stops a bully from harassing him. Why don’t they consider him a hero? Or maybe they do. Nothing like a little violence to solve one’s problems, right?
Also I note that he stopped shooting when a teacher talked him down. If the teacher had a gun, he might have used it to kill a troubled 16 year old instead of talking him into surrendering and maybe giving him a chance to make restitution and go on with his life. If the kid thought the teacher had a gun, he might have shot him preemptively. I don’t see how adding another gun to this equation would have helped.
It seems you are rather stupid. Stupid enough that you are unware quite how stupid you are,
If you could not answer my question, it would have been better if you just admitted you could not explain why you made such a stupid comment. We agree, I am sure, that it was a stupid comment on your part. After all, you know that the evidence contradicts you, and I am sure you were not being dishonest, which leaves only your being a bit stupid when you made it.
Of course, if you want to continue to claim that I was being rude when I asked why you made a stupid comment then it falls to you to explain why you made a dishonest one.
@365 Rodney Nelson
You’re using the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as a reason civilians shouldn’t have guns? Holy crap! I think I’ve seen you before. You were at Harpers Ferry in 1859 before things kicked off telling John Brown not to bother with his raid because he had no chance. You were in Dublin in 1916 warning of the dangers of taking on an empire already at war. And of course you were also in the Viet Congs headquarters on the eve of Tet in 1968 shouting not to proceed as no military objectives would be met at great cost in lives.
History is littered with military disasters and symbolic and political victories.
But hey, if your current career doesn’t work out you could get a job in PR for the Borg: “Resistance is futile”
GuDip:
No, you fool. He’s using it as a reason why “gots ta have guns ta perteck me from the gummint.” is a wheeze.
(You even quoted him!)
Drayton
I have posted fucktons of evidence in this thread that your gun ownership makes things more dangerous for both you and people around you. I have provided fucktons of evidence that you are misinterpreting the second amendment. Please address my evidence.
Hun, I’m referencing the magazine sizes – if you can’t take down a deer with less than two bullets, you fail.
…you have no clue how stupid you sound right now.
Dearest, I think I can outthink you even after not sleeping for thirty-nine hours. If you’d like to prove me wrong, please…try actually doing so. With quotes and evidence, that’d be nice.
I’m waiting. With actual fucking studies.
Do you deny that 70% of the guns used by criminals are stolen, and 90% of those guns come from households like yours? Link
Not suprisingly, GB proves how stupid it is….
*looks at Pullet Patrol™ shakes head, looks at snail shakes head, finally pond scum and nods*
It’s like…they’re allergic to evidence or something. I haven’t even seen someone post that flawed Kleck study yet.
*headshake*
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
*double headdesk*
http://gawker.com/5975171/armed-men-roaming-streets-of-portland-claim-they-are-trying-to-educate-the-public
nightshadequeen:
Gun nuts. Evidence is their kryptonite.
I don’t know. If they’d given those slaves three-fifths of a gun, things might have been very different. /sarc
cm
If they had given each slave a slightly different three-fifths of a gun…
Maybe it’s old news to you folks but I just saw this: “He was surrounded by several guns, but not the one that killed him.”
^Yeah, the FPSRussia thing is very strange.
From what I’ve read (though, the internet rumor mill being what it is, it could well be bunk), he was tied to a chair and shot in the back of the head, so something very strange must happened, it doesn’t appear to be a simple home invasion robbery type thing.
Ok, yep, looks like the early reports that he was tied up were bunk, however, there doesn’t appear to be any sign of a struggle and he died from a single gunshot to the head.
Following up on nightshadequeen’s 256:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/phil-gingrey-adventure-outdoors-gold-standard
No wonder nobody’s lining up to steal merchandise from gun stores… between gun show loopholes, theft from households, and negligent or complicit dealers, there’s no need to bother.
Am I too late for this circlejerk? Too bad this blog doesn’t use threaded comments so I could actually answer each inane comment in a reasonable fashion.
[meta]
polyderp, your trolling is feeble.
(But your inability to note the comment numbers and the comment hyperlinks is not)
derpetc.
pathetic
@John
Yeah, I read the comments here often, so I’m familiar with the numbering. I still contend that it’s a ridiculous means of effective communication on a 400+ comment post. If I decide to argue with post #3 for example, what are the chances that Ogvorbis is anywhere near this thread, as that comment was written days ago?
I don’t know that I’d call my comment trolling, more like venting. I love this blog, and the comments (usually), but it’s very difficult to argue a minority position here.
@chigau
thanks I guess
Polyderp, your contention is particularly stupid since the chances that Ogvorbis is anywhere near this thread are independent of whether the comments are threaded or not.
—
This is the topic:
“Sam Harris has really done it now. He’s stepped into the gun control debate with The Riddle of the Gun, and he’s taking the side of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. And he’s also making a series of logic-defying assertions that have no credibility at all. I’m not even going to try to work through them all; this subject is clearly a bit of an obsession with him. But throughout, he takes a very personal and rather paranoid view of the world and makes it a justification for individual self-defense, which I think is his big mistake.”
If you want to argue a minority position, do it.
If you merely want to chat, take it to the Thunderdome.
Please do not turn this into a HOUSE OF LIES
derp
What do you think the chances are that Ogvorbis could be arsed to respond to you?
Whatever the format?
Your claim to be familiar with how commenting goes here is … not correct.
We all know how to bookmark and use ctrl-f.
I think calling yourself “derpderpderpderpderp” implies that you aren’t going to answer any questions in a reasonable fashion, no matter what the format.
Ugh. It speaks volumes that you favour threaded comments. Only an idiot would require them to comment. Says it all, really.
derp^5,
Got studies? Or is it just opinion again?
This came up on another blog today:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true
I thought that was interesting.
Talk is cheap.
Well, you seem to have 4 primary options:
1) Shrug and go back to lurking,
2) Continue complaining about the situation,
3) Pick a more recent comment,
4) Comment as you like and see if anyone else on the blog responds.
To put it another way, if you feel you have a good point of opposition to something that was said earlier, post it, post your response and see if anyone salutes.
Good points often lead to good discussions.
Good discussions often lead to good threads.
Good threads tend to get revisited.
Failing that, you can always take your post to the Thunderdome.
I am mostly anti-gun but I don’t like the way you treated rationalist-missionary guy. He didn’t even contradict us. I’ve noticed that time and time again, liberals, atheists, and SJ types have the correct moral opinions and the correct facts, but are just as bad as conservatives at not being able to imagine the opposing side having reasons for their beliefs.
I agree that the evidence shows that the costs of having guns is more than the benefit. And a majority of pro-gun types are real assholes, or armchair badasses, or both. But the idea that it could be the other way is not so beyond the pale.