A Florida boy remains in stable condition just days after he found his parents' long-forgotten handgun in a closet and accidentally shot himself in the head.This terrible story is a perfect illustration of what we discussed yesterday. Gun availability is a major factor in many incidents of gun violence. In this case, I don't know why the police have ruled out suicide, if they have. It seems to me a bit strange that a 12-year-old would point a gun at his head and pull the trigger by accident. But, whether by accident or not, the point is clear: guns and kids don't mix.Sheriff's detectives in Pinellas County, Florida, near St. Petersburg, say the boy found the .25-caliber European semi-automatic handgun in a box in a closet in their home.
The boy's mother explained that she had received the gun years ago and left it in a box inside the closet, never firing it. Is that normal behaviour? How many of the 50 million gun owners are like this? The passionate gun enthusiasts talk as if the entire body of approximately 50 million of them are responsible and practiced with their guns. What percentage is this negligent, I ask?
What's your opinion? Do you think people like this should be punished for their irresponsible gun storage? Or do you agree with this?
Chief Assistant State Attorney Bruce Bartlett says that although laws are needed, an accident with a firearm can be a greater penalty than any judge could ever hand down.
"Sometimes, the injury of a child is more severe from a punishment standpoint than any kind of criminal charge," he said.
Please feel free to leave a comment?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/17/ma_woman_accused_of_killing_unborn_child_daughter/
ReplyDeleteI blame knife availability! Charges should be filed for not having their kitchen knives locked up in a government approved container!
Also I press that one murder charge be dropped, as the fetus was not yet born, so can't REALLY be killed!
As for the above article, I think you did a good enough job contradicting yourself, Mike.
The Kid committed suicide, and likely knew where the parents hid the gun for quite a while.
You lament his death because he used a gun, but if he had drank anti-freeze, stabbed himself, or hung himself by a rafter, you wouldn't even care enough about that death to mention it.
Very cold-blooded, indeed!
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteCheck out my latest post for a counter to your "availability" opinion.
I was glad to see you put up some evidence yesterday. Of course you are wrong but I show you WHY on my post.
As far as not believing that a boy can do stupid things, remember this?
"Actor Wounds Himself On Set of TV Series"
October 14, 1984
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 13 (AP) -- Jon-Erik Hexum, a television actor, was in critical condition today after he accidentally shot himself in the head Friday with a blank-loaded pistol on the set of the CBS-TV series "Cover Up," a studio spokesman said.
Mr. Hexum, 26 years old, was transferred to the intensive care unit at the Beverly Hills Medical Center. He will be kept sedated until the swelling in his head subsides, according to Vince Panettiere, a publicist for 20th Century Fox Studios.
Mr. Hexum underwent five hours of surgery, performed by a neurosurgical team headed by Dr. David Ditsworth. Mr. Panettiere quoted Dr. Ditsworth as saying Mr. Hexum was struck in the right temple. The force of the blank charge fired at close range fractured the bone, but there was no penetration, Mr. Pannetiere said.As far as this being typical of gun owners, partly. And I blame people like you for it. (let's see if this gets through moderation).
Since "guns are bad" and we can't teach anything about them, thousand of people have grown up without basic safety instruction. At one point many schools offered basic instruction on firearms, now it is unthinkable to do so.
If we had that basic instruction, the mother would have known to store the firearm properly.
If we had that basic instruction, the boy would have know how to handle the firearm safely.
Gun availability wasn't the primary factor in this case...it was the lack of education.
Florida law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm where a minor might have access to it. Prosecutors do have some discretion, and depending on what happens with the gun, charges ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony can be filed in the event of death or serious injury.
What's your opinion? Do you think people like this should be punished for their irresponsible gun storage?The article tells you that this people violated the law:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that 17 states have child firearm access protection and safe-storage lawsI also blame people like you for the accident in making it more difficult to carry. Perhaps the parents would have carried the firearm instead of storing it if they were allowed to freely exercise their rights. Instead, there are requirements, costs and hassles to carry (places you can and can't).
It could easily be an accident--"shot himself in the head" could just as easily mean "he was looking down the barrel and accidentally jostled the trigger" as "put the barrel to his temple and pulled the trigger".
ReplyDeleteIt isn't that kids and guns don't mix any more than kids and power tools don't mix. it's that kids who're allowed access to guns, or power tools, or mopeds, or the family tractor need to be carefully taught and supervised until they understand the dangers and responsibility enough to handle powerful things safely. Nobody should ever have an unsecured loaded firearm within the reach of a kid who hasn't been taught to handle one safely and responsibly. These parents needed _either_ a gun safe _or_ to teach their son safe firearms handling, _or_ to get rid of the gun. The negligence was in doing none of those things.
(I'm also a little dubious about why the gun was loaded, if it was forgotten in a box in the back of the closet; my fiancee and I keep our handguns loaded and unsecured... in our bedside table.)
Where the penalty for negligence begins, I dunno. I'd look at analogous situations, like a parent whose kid got killed playing with the table saw or the family car, or a parent who buys his kid a moped but doesn't teach or supervise him, and see what the case law looks like.
I know, lets blame the availability of water and bathtubs for child drowning deaths.
ReplyDeleteThink that's silly Mike? It's the same BS crap you're trying to pull with guns here.
The kid was 12, at that age his parents should have already taught him gun safety AND they shouldn't be storing a loaded gun unsecured in a closet with young kids around.
My brother is a cop. He owns plenty of guns and my nephew is 12.
He's 12, and he's gone shooting, hunting, and has had gun safety drilled into his head already. I'm not saying leave guns lying around for 12 year olds, but if you EDUCATE them they at least know what not to do if they find one, be it at home or at someone else's house.
It's called parental responsibility and you can't legislate it.
Remember, Mike, 'guns don't kill.'
ReplyDeleteThere are quite a few people who have a gun buried in a closet somewhere. I was trying to help a co-worker learn to use her guns, but she couldn't figure out how to unload her .25 automatic so she didn't bring it to the range.
ReplyDeleteA .25 caliber European gun is almost certainly at least 40 years old--The GCA of 67 set up a points system designed to restrict imports of these guns, so production moved to the US.
I won't argue that if you have guns and kids in the same house, the guns should be either locked up or carried on your person.
Laws can't enforce common sense. If you have guns, you should have secure locking storage for them. Laws mandating specific forms of safe storage are unenforceable, and depending on how they are written may prevent defensive use.
Everyone should know Cooper's 4 rules of gun safety--They should be taught in school. Refusing to acknowledge guns is similar to abstinence-only sex ed.
Like a computer virus, Mike's constant anti -gun blogs have influenced my own blog entries.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent posting about the erosion of democracy in America due to corporations, The Steady Evolution of Corporate Power into Political Form, I gave the example of a man shot and killed in Arizona by someone with a .45 semi automatic pistol.
While I did not write about it in my posting, I could have argued that if the State of Arizona did not subcontract out the work of the police writing tickets, than the perp might not have targeted the un armed corporate worker. Then again if the corporate worker was armed than it would have been a more fair fight.
Wow, Mud said something on the point, factual and made sense doing it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he was trying to be completely sarcastic while doing it but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Guns don't kill, people using guns do. That is the fact....of course people using their fist kill also. People using bath tubs kill also.
Every time people like Mud and MikeB talk they prove a simple point, with them it isn't about gun control...but controlling people. They think they should be the ones allowed to decide who has and who doesn't have firearms. They think they should be the ones running people's lives.
Sorry,liberty is dangerous and messy....but I wouldn't have it any other way.
If you want safety, find some place safe and lock yourself way. that is the only way you can guarantee yourself safety. I'll take my chances with the other gun owners in society. I'll even take my chances with the criminals, I think they can learn to leave people alone with the right motivation.
Knives don't kill either muddy, and a hot stove can't burn you unless you touch it.
ReplyDeleteWe teach our kids not to play with knives, and we keep them put away instead of leaving them lying around. Why? because they're potentially dangerous.
If a kid had never been taught not to touch a hot stove and he ended up with 3rd degree burns on his hands would you blame the stove or "stove availability?" Or would you blame the parent for not teaching their kid?
If you want your kids to be responsible you have to TEACH THEM. Obviously the gun should have been secured, but that doesn't change the fact that simple education might have prevented this.
Hell, watch that ridiculous 20/20 piece to see what even teens will do when they find a gun and have never been taught about them by a responsible adult. What I saw scared the shit out of me and really stressed the need for firearms education.
"Refusing to acknowledge guns is similar to abstinence-only sex ed."
ReplyDeleteAnd equally effective...
Anti-gunners encourage ignorance and then wonder why tragic "accidents" happen.
Does anyone think there would be a conflict in my agreeing to firearms training in schools and at the same time continuing with all my ongoing arguments against guns?
ReplyDeleteNo, you can be against pre-maritial sex, yet willing to acknowledge that kids are going to do it and thus should be educated.
ReplyDeleteMy blame would be on the parents for not teaching their kids about guns. Guns are dangers just like cars, knives, boats, cliffs, whatever. The danger can be minimized with proper education.
ReplyDeleteIt would be hypocritical for someone against guns due to their view of the danger to oppose safety training.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you have other reasons for banning guns, you might oppose training
The Brady Bunch opposes training.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhat if the training in school reduced the number of deaths due to firearms, would you still call for banning them?
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission hunter educator Joe Huggins said, "Educating hunters is the reason for the low number of accidents."
"The incident rates have gone down significantly since the program became mandatory in 1993," said Ray Metzler, hunter education coordinator for the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. "The past 10 years has been our safest decade."
The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation states that "Over the past 30 years, hunting related accidents and fatalities have declined by more than 70 percent in Oklahoma. Officials with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation say mandatory hunter education courses have not only reduced accidents within Oklahoma, but also in every state and Canadian province with similar programs."
The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department states that "It's no accident that hunting is a safe activity. That's because today's hunters are better educated than ever before. They're going into the field knowing how to hunt safely and responsibly ... a knowledge provided by hunter education courses."
In Maryland, the Department of Natural Resources says that "The goals of Maryland's Hunter Education Programs include the reduction of hunting accidents and violations; promotion of safe, responsible and knowledgeable hunting activities and to continue the traditions of the hunting experience."
Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources says that "Hunter education is offered in each state, Canadian province, and parts of Mexico. Since its implementation, there has been a tremendous decline in hunting related accidents across the country."
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources says that "This [mandatory hunter safety course] law is working; since 1996 Utah has averaged less than seven hunting accidents per year. During that time, Utah has had only two hunting firearm-related fatalities. Hunting is safe and getting safer."
The Pennsylvania Game Commission says that "With more than 1,700,000 students certified to date, statistics show hunting fatalities and injuries from firearms have declined nearly 80 percent. Similar results are being reported across the country. Hunter education is working, and working well! Hunter education – it's fun, it's effective, and it's waiting for you. Give it a try!"
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Hunter Education allows hunting to be one of the safest outdoor recreations
California Department of Fish and Game: Hunting accidents of all types have declined substantially since the start of the [mandatory hunter safety education] program
Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife: The intent of the program is to preserve Delaware's heritage of hunting through education. With an emphasis on safety, the program has proven to be extremely effective in reducing hunting accidents.
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources: Since [hunter safety education's] implementation, there has been a tremendous decline in hunting related accidents across the country.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources: The Illinois Hunter Education Program was designed to improve safety and to develop an attitude of respect for wildlife and the environment.
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks: Kansas Hunter Education teaches new hunters to be responsible hunters. Responsible hunters are ethical, safe and knowledgeable.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries states that "the major objectives of the Hunter Education programs are" to "reduce the number of hunting accidents."
Mississippi Wildlife Fisheries & Parks: Since 1950, when formal hunter safety programs were introduced, the number of hunting and firearms-related accidents has declined dramatically nationwide. In Mississippi, we know that our hunter education efforts have reduced firearms accidents and saved lives.
Families Afield readily admits that firearm safety is important. They state in their literature that "Hunting-related shooting incidents have declined by 31 percent over the past 10 years," attributing this to the 70,000 hunter educators who teach basic safety.If hunter safety courses reduce hunting accidents, then requiring education in school should, note should, reduce accidental deaths, right?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed, just noticed that you removed comment moderation.
Good job.
Does anyone think there would be a conflict in my agreeing to firearms training in schools and at the same time continuing with all my ongoing arguments against guns?
ReplyDeleteA quick personal question, since we're sharing. ;)
Do you have any experience handling guns? Have you had any training, even of the informal "this is how it works, this is how not to shoot yourself" type?
[I promise I'm not waiting to spring a "THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION US!" line if you say no; I don't buy the "men have no right to weigh in on abortion" line, either. ;) ]
More Grist.
ReplyDeleteClayton Cramer just pubished his 4,000th Defensive gun story in the blog you claim is all lies.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2009_04_19_archive.html#6156324322914958524
Some really neat number break-downs there.
Also good for you at lifting your moderation.
Weer'd, I never claimed anything is "all lies."
ReplyDeleteMichael, To your personal question, I'll direct you to some earlier discussions we've had, here and here. I get a kick out of some bloggers who seem to expect new readers to first go back in the archives and read EVERYTHING.
To sum up, I did Parris Island Marine Corp training when I was 17, in the summer of 1970. I didn't have to go to Viet Nam, thank goodness. After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years. I was never passionate about them back then and over the last couple of decades have become strongly anti-gun, especially since I started writing this blog.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhy avoid addressing the issues raised in the comments?
You respond to Michael, great but then ignore the very responses you asked for, why?
You respond to Michael, great but then ignore the very responses you asked for, why?
ReplyDeleteLack of response isn't the same thing as ignoring. MikeB's made it clear that he reads every response, and people don't always have a reply right away.
Sometimes a really good argument will change the way a person thinks about the issue, and sometimes it won't--and even when it does, it can take a while for the idea to percolate. We're all grown-ups here, and I think we can just say our piece, assume that the other party will ask if he has any questions, and leave it at that. Demanding responses right now doesn't generally help get your point across any better. :)
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteFair enough. You narrowly avoided Viet Nam in the Marines around the same time my dad narrowly avoided Viet Nam in the Navy. ;)
I ask mainly because, while I _don't_ think there's a necessary conflict between supporting gun restrictions and supporting gun training, in my experience familiarity with guns tends to erode support for gun restrictions. It seems like whenever I take a mild anti- or neutral-gun person through gun safety and let them handle my firearms, they lose a lot of the fear and mistique that I think fuels most (but obviously not all) popular support for gun control.
Take a whole generation of Americans and expose them to what guns really are and how they really work, and I'll bet you'll see the utter death of gun control as a motivating political issue. I strongly suspect this is the real reason why intelligent, calculating organizations like the Brady Campaign attack the NRA's child safety education programs.
Of course, there's a certain selection bias here: every shooter knows that anti-gunners who give guns an honest chance turn into pro-gunners... Just like all anti-gun activists are dead certain that every shooter who loses a loved one to "gun violence" will realize the error of his ways and go anti-gun. People are obviously more complicated than that, as you yourself demonstrate.
Well Michael, there hasn't been a question raised here that hasn't been rased dozens of times in the last half-year or so.
ReplyDeleteEither they don't get answered, or they are answered, and Mike then igores his own answer in his next commentary, or he gives contradictory answers, and again resturns back to square one.
Remember, this is a man who has said that there is NO data that could ever be presented to make him change his tune.
It's religion not ideology.
I think I can speak for Bob as well that we're here not to get Mike to change his tune, but to make it obvious that his MO is to plant his feet to the dirt, and his head in the sand, as well as make the other side clear for any curious onlookers.
...we're here not to get Mike to change his tune, but to make it obvious that his MO is to plant his feet to the dirt, and his head in the sand, as well as make the other side clear for any curious onlookers.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that you're accomplishing that. I'm coming in here sympathetic to you and agreeing with you, and I come away with much more sympathy for MikeB, who presents himself as very patient and seems to have evolved his opinion on a couple issues in the last few days. Maybe Mike's obstinately refusing to listen to other voices. Maybe he just isn't convinced by your arguments. I honestly don't know.
You guys are dead right, as far as I'm concerned, and I understand that MikeB's talking about abridging our rights; that makes it an emotional situation for me, too. But the hard-ass routine is making you guys come off like jerks, even to a guy who's completely on your side.
I'm not gonna presume to tell you what to do. But in your shoes, I'd like to think I'd either try to present my point another way and see if that had an effect, or accept that somebody's wrong on the internet and move on. The "angry gun owner" stereotype is as unfair as the "angry black man" stereotype, but it's just as common, too. If a fence-sitting onlooker wanders in here and sees all these comments from you guys, it's as likely to confirm his stereotypes as to educate him. :\
By the way mike, if you think "kids & guns don't mix" you might want to check out 11 year old McKenzie.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=2B2rKj4eZgo&
feature=related
Here she field strips and reassembles an AR-15 in 53 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irykjLjuKo8&feature=related
Bob asked, "If hunter safety courses reduce hunting accidents, then requiring education in school should, note should, reduce accidental deaths, right?"I would like to see firearms safety techniques taught to kids in school. Much like the controversial sex-education business, I think this could be a good thing. Some kids are going to experiment with sex and some kids are going to be exposed to guns, so education in both these areas is good.
ReplyDeleteThe link Mike W. provided brings up another question. I'm talking about safety training above, not firearms use training. It strikes me as obsene to teach kids to use guns. The five-year-old who plays cowboys and indians is fairly innocent and although it might not be the best educational play-acting, I wouldn't worry about it. The eleven year old girl who practices killing imaginary adversaries at the shooting range with live ammunition, in my opinion is a sick display of parental misjudgment. I feel pretty much the same way about what a lot of adult gun folks do, that it's sick and damaging to themselves and society to go around with adversarial thoughts in their minds. This especially applies to the concealed carry guys, of course. But at least here we're talking about adults. As adults I realize there's a certain amount of freedom to make these kinds of choices. But training a child to be a proficient killing machine, I'm sure always describing it as defensive only, is sick.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYour bias is showing again, you might want to adjust your slip.
But training a child to be a proficient killing machine, I'm sure always describing it as defensive only, is sickI was just at a meeting where the Rifle team from TCU gave a presentation. These ATHLETES spend hours a day practicing Air Rifle and Small Bore Rifle and they don't think of themselves as becoming "proficient killing machines".
They think of themselves as Olympic Caliber athletes. Why is it that pro-ignorance people like you can never see the SPORTING side of shooting?
Once again you display your ignorance and bias for all to see.
Congratulations.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd, You're welcome to comment here, but I won't allow any more of your gratuitous attacks. They have nothing to do with the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you know what? It's not that I get angry about your remarks, it's simply that I've asked you to refrain from this type of thing. These are my wishes. Sorry.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd
ReplyDeleteI wish you would stick to the issues and refrain from personal attacks. You aren't helping.
Sevesteen,
ReplyDeleteDon't you find it offensive that MikeB continues to imply that as gun owners we are responsible for morally heinous acts?
What is wrong with asking the same type of question to MikeB?
I missed Weer'd's statements so I don't know what he said about MikeB this time, but shouldn't people be allowed to defend themselves?
If MikeB starts continually attacks people, shouldn't he have to live with the response it generates?
There are two issues here--politeness and effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI came here via Weer'd, based on his claim that it is one of the few places where an anti allows debate. I'd like to see that continue--I'd rather argue with an anti than preach to the choir.
Some of the comments seem designed to trigger moderation to allow "I told you so--antis are scared to allow free speach!!!" responses.
I don't see MikeB attacking individuals, he is arguing about gun owners in general. I've called him on ignoring questions he doesn't have good answers for, and unless he changes, I'll likely do it again. I will absolutely attack his arguments, and his failure to back them up. I think Weer'd has gone the farthest in attacking MikeB personally, rather than his mistaken ideas.
If MikeB indicates that I or my views are not welcome here either by telling me or moderating me, I'll leave--Continuing to shout where you are unwelcome is generally counterproductive. We need to reinforce the image of responsible gun ownership, not "angry man with a gun".
Sev,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you about MikeB not attacking individuals.
What he does is use generalities to attack individuals. Those "gun owners who bear responsibility" are my friends, my family, people I've met online..they are individuals.
And MikeB continually throws us under the bus and then gets upset when the absolutely same logic is applied to him and people like him.
I agree there is a line between trying to show a positive side of gun owners, but also sometimes it is important to point out the hypocrisy, the lies, the tactics of the other side.
If we allow MikeB to frame the debate and limit it to terms only acceptable to him, then we might as well turn in our firearms now.
He's said that in the past, that he believes gun owners should be working with gun control people to get rid of our guns.
Sorry while sometimes impolite it is sometimes necessary to show the behavior of others for what it is - hypocritical.
"You are a nasty liar!"
ReplyDelete"Your claim about gun owners isn't true because..."
Same basic idea. One version concentrates on the content, the other is personal.
I'm not really trying to convince Mikeb here. I'm trying to convince fence-sitters. Either way, polite but firm is more likely to work.
You guys often talk about convincing fence-sitters. Do you think that could apply to me as well? Is there a fence-sitting type of gun owner who might be convinced by my argument?
ReplyDeleteMike - No, I don't. The only people I see who turn anti-gun are those who have suffered a personal loss and are basing their conclusions on emotion and irrational thought.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who can look at the issue honestly, rationally, and with an open look at the facts should come to a pro-gun conclusion.
I started as pretty much ambivalent about guns, but once I took an honest, detailed look at both the facts as well as the issue from a Constitutional standpoint I became very pro-gun.
I think it just depends on the person. Some people are logical, rational thinkers, others are very emotional in their thought processes.
Some in the 2nd group have their minds made up because they're guided by "feelings." For them no amount of verifiable truth will change their minds. Those aren't the people I try to reach. They're unable and unwilling to think rationally about the issue, so nothing I can say will ever make them see the truth.
Mike W., Are you saying that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is either wrong or unable to make a sound decision because they're too emotional to do so?
ReplyDeleteWeer'd says there's another possibility and that I fall into it. That's the evil malicious guys who have ulterior motives and lie.
I think both you guys missed another possibility, one in which I really do fit. This is the one where people, and there are millions of us, look at the same facts you do but see a different reality. These are people who are rational and intelligent but come to a completely different conclusion than you do.
An example is the way we see individual accountability in young criminals differently. Another example is what we consider a "significant" percentage when talking about law-abiding gun owners going bad, or the overall percentage of gun crime compared to total number of guns.
There are many examples right here in the pages of this blog. My point is I can accept that you guys see a different reality than me and that you're arguing for the most part in good faith. Can't you accept the same from me?
"Weer'd says there's another possibility and that I fall into it. That's the evil malicious guys who have ulterior motives and lie."
ReplyDeleteWell you've read the facts and laws, and know your statements are incorrect.
You've had all your points refuted so much that you abandon them and change the subject. You routinly ignore or moderate questions that you don't want to answer.
What would you call that?
There is such a thing as right and wrong.
Not allowing gays to marry. Wrong. Killing somebody for stealing a loaf of bread, WRONG. Denying people the tools for self defense is no different.
You're wrong, MikeB. And not only can't you refute that, you won't even attempt to refute it.
people, and there are millions of us, look at the same facts you do but see a different reality. These are people who are rational and intelligent but come to a completely different conclusion than you do.You have said that you are not well-versed on some of these issues. It took quite a while for you to understand that the definition of an assault rifle was fairly meaningless. I don't think it was a conclusion you enjoyed admitting, but honesty compelled you.
ReplyDeleteMost of the rest of gun control is similar--Logical sounding claims that don't stand up to detailed examination. Many, many people have changed to a pro-rights stand after getting the details, even people who don't want their own gun.
The people who decide against gun rights generally do so after a personal tragedy rather than a detailed examination of facts. Sarah Brady, Toby Hoover (the spokesman for Ohio's loudest anti-gun group) Skyewriter...
You also have a fairly extreme tendency to discount facts that don't support your views--you won't accept Texas's stats on how law abiding CCW holders are, claiming that Texas is biased. I suppose this is possible, but don't you think that if state statistics existed that damned licensed carry, at least one of the 48 states with licenses would publish those stats?
Sevesteen - I posted the FL CCW stats AND the TX stats for MikeB. They didn't seem to matter.
ReplyDeleteMike W., Are you saying that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is either wrong or unable to make a sound decision because they're too emotional to do so?Yes and no. I am certainly not always right. That said, if you blatantly deny FACTS because they conflict with how you FEEL, then yes, you are both wrong and unable to make sound, rational judgments on the issue at hand.
Sometimes things are straight black and white. Skye's protege for example continually denies the stated purpose of the 2A, even when shown proof. Skye continually denies that Obama is anti-gun, even when shown a myriad of factual evidence.
Sevesteen said "...don't you think that if state statistics existed that damned licensed carry, at least one of the 48 states with licenses would publish those stats?"That's a good one. Let me keep it in mind as we go forward. There may be an explanation, but I honestly can't imagine what it would be.
ReplyDeleteYou guys often talk about convincing fence-sitters. Do you think that could apply to me as well? Is there a fence-sitting type of gun owner who might be convinced by my argument?
ReplyDeleteOf course. People are different, and draw different conclusions from the same situations--that's why we as a species have devoted so much time and effort to inventing new ways to disagree with each other. ;)
For what it's worth, I'm talking to you, not your readers. I'm very, very confident that my opinion is backed by the stronger argument (of course I would be--If I didn't I wouldn't hold this opinion), but that doesn't mean I'm definitely right. And even if I am right, that doesn't mean you'll definitely end up agreeing with me. But at the very least, discussion lets us understand each other better. I know more about how you see the world and what's important to you, and I think you know more about why people like me own guns and what some high-profile gun laws actually do. Even if we can't come to an agreement, we end up in a better place than you assuming that all gun owners are tiny-dicked men who want to be Rambo and me assuming all gun control advocates are shrill soccermoms who obsess over everything they think might hurt their babies.