Thursday, April 9, 2009

The Pro-Gun Take on All the Shootings

I have a lot of respect for Jay who writes the Marooned Blog. In my few encounters with him in cyberspace, he seemed to be a gentleman and a good family man. He recently wrote two very comprehensive posts about the rash of shootings that have been all over the news. One was entitled I Don't Know..., in which he made the following observations.

It's not the guns. A 9mm handgun doesn't shoot people on its own. It's not the availability of guns. Some of the people in the above list were prohibited persons. It's not the economy. We see shootings like these even when times are good.

A day or so later, he wrote The Assault Weapons Ban and Mass Shootings..., in which he subjected each of the incidents to an assessment of how the much-vaunted ban on assault weapons would have impacted on the events.

The five non-prohibited perpetrators illustrate the messy, dangerous side to freedom. Sometimes people snap; and sometimes, in statistically insignificant numbers, when they snap they decide to take others with them. Short of dramatically and unConstitutionally changing the American way of life with a complete ban on firearms, there's little that can be done to safeguard against these acts.

I disagree with some of the things he says, for example, I believe the availability of guns does matter, in fact in many cases it makes the whole difference. I also feel that what he calls "statistically insignificant numbers" is debatable. Goodness knows we've discussed both those ideas to death in recent months. My antagonists in the never-ending debate seem to think that the onus is upon me to prove my points. They seem to think that their facts and statistics presented in rebuttal are unassailable and inarguably true. I haven't found them to be so. I remain unconvinced by their arguments.

The main problem I have with Jay's posts is that he's talking about several nationally reported shootings that resulted in about 50 deaths over a month's time. As tragic as they are, during that same time period another approximately 3,000 people died from guns. Now, I've been saying 100 per day, which includes murders, suicides and accidents, and Bob S. came up with some stats that showed it was slightly less than that in 2005. It very well may have escalated to 120 in the last three or four years, but let's call it 90 if you like.

The point is, the 50 killings that made all the headlines are, to use Jay's words, a statistically insignificant part of what's really happening, and that's 3,000 a month (call it 2,500 if you want, Bob).

I say the availability of guns, their easy access, both legal and illegal, made a difference in many of those 3,000 cases. If guns were less available, how many of those 3,000 who died in March would still be alive today? 10, 100, 1000? Perhaps it simply depends upon how much less the availability is. It's probably proportional. I say that the lawful gun owners need to take responsibility for the fact that it's the pool of legally owned guns in America that's continually feeding the black market. It's called gun flow. Stolen and improperly sold weapons combined with the individuals who turn, like the "non-prohibited perpetrators" identified as such by Jay, are what constitutes gun flow - it's weapons and people, and it's anything but insignificant.

What's your opinion? Do you think there might be a middle road? Jay said, "Short of dramatically and unConstitutionally changing the American way of life with a complete ban on firearms, there's little that can be done to safeguard against these acts." Why does it have to be a complete ban? Wouldn't partial bans achieve partial success? Wouldn't enough restrictions to achieve a reduction in the total numbers, address the problem, at least in part.

Please feel free to leave a comment.

16 comments:

  1. From FoxNews.

    Tragedy Strikes at Local Mall

    A 17-year-old boy suffered a head wound and was knocked unconscious when a woman jumped to her death off a New York City mall balcony and landed on him.

    Derrick Mulnoz lost consciousness briefly and had a gaping gash on his head after the unidentified suicide victim leaped over a railing at the Queens Center Mall, hitting him as she fell.

    The 56-year-old woman died after plunging several stories. She had been at the shopping center with two teenagers.

    "I saw the lady on the floor with a pool of blood next to her and her hairpiece," witness John Perez, 22, told the New York Post. "She landed on a kid. ... He was bleeding from his head."

    Mulnoz, a student at Amityville High School on Long Island, N.Y., was sitting on a massage chair on the lower level of the mall when the woman jumped from the third floor about 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, police told the Post.

    Witnesses said she was muttering to herself and had removed her shoes before she took her own life, New York 1 reported.

    The teen was rushed to a hospital in Queens, New York City, where he being treated for his injuries and listed in stable condition.

    The mall was crowded with high school students on spring break when the tragedy occurred.



    I blame the availability of malls, if there weren't so many malls around people wouldn't be able to jump off the balconies.

    Should this be considered an assault mall? I mean who needs a mall with multiple stories, it's just asking for trouble. A single story mall was good enough for our founding fathers, shouldn't it be good enough today?

    How about background checks? I can't believe we just let anyone walk into the mall without checking their criminal status, their psychological profile. It's insane that we don't have tighter control on who can go into these malls. For Gosh Sakes, A CHILD WAS HURT.

    I think that we need to also implement some sensible mall access laws. Who needs to go to the mall more then once a month?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm going to say that even if I accepted that without guns we would have 30,000 fewer deaths a year, freedom is important enough to pay that price.

    Of course, I do not accept that number--It assumes that no suicides would use other methods, no murderers would use other methods and discounts any use of guns to defend. It ignores that 3/4 of gun deaths are avoidable by their victims, either by choice or lifestyle change. It assumes that eliminating legal guns, we would eliminate gun misuse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have found your blog as a link from that crazy woman Barb.

    It is interesting. I am not expert on guns or murders, But I have read that the statistics say that in America you have 40 times more chances of being murdered by guns than in France or England, and 200 times more chances than in Japan. So the people saying guns don't kill are really big hypocrits.


    Greetings from Paris

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sevesteen, not to mention the Elephant in the room for ant-freedom type. The amount and prevalence of self-defensive gun use.

    Of course lawful gun owners who engage in criminal acts, or allow criminals access to their guns (about 0.012%) is a significant number, but Defensive gun uses (most likely over 100,000 cases per year) is insignificant, and likely overstated.

    But they can repeat the same things we've debunked over-and-over-and-over again.

    Now that's something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB,

    Tom Diaz talks about you!

    I am sick and tired of dilettantes — new ones will emerge from the latest tragedies — who will announce self-righteously that out of the depths of their inchoate genius they have found The Solution, but who will not bother to learn a single thing about guns and the gun industry

    I thought you might be learning something then he goes on to talk again about you:

    The most tedious will be the ones with bags of money and tons of ignorance. Details, facts, history is for drones, not geniuses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sevesteen said, "I'm going to say that even if I accepted that without guns we would have 30,000 fewer deaths a year, freedom is important enough to pay that price."

    Freedom? I've been meaning to ask, wouldn't it be a better type of freedom if you didn't have to have a gun with you continually? Some of you guys probably have to restrict your travel plans based upon whether or not you can take a gun along. Some of you won't go out of the house without a gun. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Weer'd said, "...criminals access to their guns (about 0.012%) is a significant number, but Defensive gun uses (most likely over 100,000 cases per year)..."

    Could you be any more obvious in your attempt at spinning and misleading? The criminal access amount you put as a percentage, but the defensive use number as a straight figure. Why don't you divide that 100,000 by the total number of guns, then we can talk?

    Of course your attempts at manipulating the argument don't end with just that sloppy comparison, you also down-play the one number and up-play the other. And then comes the real genius, you repeat it over and over and keep accusing me of ignoring it as if I were outsmarted by your superior debating skills.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well a sloppy use of facts is better than no facts at all, Mike. I have the upper hand!

    "Freedom? I've been meaning to ask, wouldn't it be a better type of freedom if you didn't have to have a gun with you continually?"

    Violent crime is a reality Mike. There has never been a time, nor a place where the world was free from it.

    Weather you live in Italy or New Jersey, violent crime exists.

    I personally think my life is worth the small amount of weight under my coat.

    I don't mind that you don't think yours is. Actually I concur.

    Your *wrong* political views don't change reality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MikeB,

    Freedom? I've been meaning to ask, wouldn't it be a better type of freedom if you didn't have to have a gun with you continually?

    Absolutely NOT. Because then I am forced to try to fight younger, more fit, or more adversaries without anything to equalize the odds.

    As Marko Kloos said in his essay "Why the Gun is Civilization" there are only 2 ways to get me to do something, convince me or force me.

    A firearm helps insure that someone can't use their physical strength, their numbers, or their lesser weapons to force me.

    This also goes for the government, or especially for the government. As long as the government has the only firearms, then they can run rough shod over everything everyone. Think of those cops who go power hungry with the taser now knowing that NO ONE but them has a firearm, isn't that a little frightening?


    Some of you guys probably have to restrict your travel plans based upon whether or not you can take a gun along.

    And some people restrict their travel plans to the day light hours because not as many criminals are out. Some people restrict their travel plans to certain areas because they know it isn't safe in other areas.

    Some people restrict their travel plans because they are afraid of traffic.

    That doesn't sound like freedom to me

    You are right, in many ways it isn't freedom. That is why we are fighting for our rights. Didn't you say over on another blog that if you had to travel the NYC subways you might go armed?
    Shouldn't people have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to go armed, just about anywhere they want to go?

    Shouldn't we have the freedom t carry UNTIL our ACTIONS prove we aren't responsible citizens?


    "Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress?

    If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

    - Patrick Henry

    ReplyDelete
  10. By the way...no comment on the need to limit malls?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay MikeB,

    100,000 defensive gun uses (DGU) per year out of 280,000,000 firearms is 0.0357%

    That is a very conservative estimate of DGU, Kleck estimated 1,200,000 out of 280,000,000 is 0.4825%

    Homicide with firearms 12,352 out of 280,000,000 is 0.00441%

    From CDC WISQARS

    From the Bureau of Justice Statistics 419,640 total firearm related violent crimes. Now we've done this before. This assumes that each crime is committed by a separate firearm, highly unlikely.
    419,640 out of 280,000,000 is 0.1498%.


    There are the percentages....but again if I'm going to borrow one from the anti-gun side. If a defensive gun use saves just one life, isn't it worth it?

    If it prevents just one woman from being raped, isn't it worth it?

    If it prevents one GLBT from being bashed, isn't it worth it?

    If it prevents one assault, isn't it worth it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Freedom? I've been meaning to ask, wouldn't it be a better type of freedom if you didn't have to have a gun with you continually? Some of you guys probably have to restrict your travel plans based upon whether or not you can take a gun along. Some of you won't go out of the house without a gun. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

    I don't *have* to carry a gun. I managed without one just fine for most of my life, and if carrying becomes illegal again, I'll comply.

    I don't carry a gun primarily because criminals may also have one--Criminals with knives, or even criminals with other criminals would remain a problem even if we were to magically eliminate guns.

    I am predisposed towards self-reliance where practical. When it is within my capabilities, I fix my own cars, appliances, home. I do my own remodeling, built my own second story deck, and totally rebuilt my bathroom, from the studs out. I know I can't be completely self-reliant comfortably, but relying on others gives them power and control over me. Carrying a gun is part of that--If I do wind up in a situation where I need protection, I would rather do it myself--even if the outcome would be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MikeB,

    Just checked out Jay's posts that you linked to.

    Was wondering why you don't leave a comment on his site and respond there?

    Not even a comment with a link to your site.


    Why not let people over there see what you have to say? How you think the availability is the issue, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob said, "Because then I am forced to try to fight younger, more fit, or more adversaries without anything to equalize the odds."

    When was that exactly, Bob? When were you forced to do that? That's my whole point, it's all in your fantasy world of defending yourself against superior odds.

    And besides, how does a gun help exactly? Do you just shoot him dead, this younger more fit opponent, or the several of them that surround you with bad intent?

    I fully recognize it's your business and legally you're doing something you choose to do. But it's not a simple innocuous decision, is it? It has ramifications. Sooner or later, you may very well run into a younger and more fit adversary and you may very well use that gun of yours. Then you'll describe it as one of those defensive gun incidents you keep talking about. But, I wonder how many of them are really misuse of the gun all dressed up.

    And, let's not forget, all the years you have a gun (or several) you add to the statistical possibility that one of them will be used by yourself or someone in your family for suicide. We all know that suicide attempts with other than firearms are much less likely to succeed. And through all those years a thief may get his hands on one of your guns, in which case it flows into the criminal world.

    All the while, you profess your freedom and responsibility. I say you enjoy less freedom and act in a less responsible way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MikeB,

    Check the crime statistics, America isn't the warm fuzzy friendly place where nothing bad happens.

    For 2006, (FTW = Fort Worth, Dal - Dallas)

    Murders - FTW - 49 Dal - 187
    Robbery - FTW - 1417 Dal - 6914
    Agg. Assault - FTW 2496 Dal -7292
    Burglary - FTW - 8998 Dal - 21653
    Larceny Theft - FTW -24128 Dallas -50009

    The other aspect is as we've talked about before isn't just the odds. Odds which I admit that are long that I will need to use my firearms, but the CONSEQUENCES of being involved in a crime.

    While you may choose to face a criminal unarmed I don't because of the potential for harm to me and my family in that situation.

    As with fire extinguishers, life insurance; I would much rather go through the hassle of having them and NEVER needing them, then go the a situation where I need them and DON'T have them.

    And besides, how does a gun help exactly? Do you just shoot him dead, this younger more fit opponent, or the several of them that surround you with bad intent?

    Why don't you read Clayton Cramer's Civilian Self Defense blog for a while, that should answer many of your questions.

    Or you could actually pay attention to what we say on your very own blog...what a novel concept.

    Most defensive gun uses never even involve firing a shot Mike.

    First, as you stated we've talked about situational awareness. Too many people go through life completely unaware of the potential problems around them. Look at how many news reports have the victims saying "I never even saw them" etc.

    So, being aware of the problem is the first. That reduces most potential problems because criminals are looking for easy victims, not people aware of them. People who might be able to give a good description.

    Next, the reaction to a problem is preparation to deploy a firearm. Criminals have studied victims, certain actions aren't consistent with the victim profile they want.

    If I see a potential problem, I'm going to make sure I can draw. Move items to be carried to my left hand only. Move people on my carry side to the off side. Put myself between the potential criminal(s) and my family or friends.

    These actions tell a criminal that the CHL holder is alert to the problem. Again, not the type of victim they want, so they often go away. Mission accomplished.

    Next is a confrontation that requires a firearm to be drawn or displayed. This is where most defensive gun uses stop. Criminals have repeatedly stated they are more concerned about an armed citizen then the cops.

    Only lastly does the firearm get used. So there are several points where the mere presence and willingness to use a firearm stops a crime long before a shot is fired.

    Now, if you succeed and forcible disarm everyone, those stop points won't exist, right?
    Doesn't common sense tell us that more crime will occur not less?

    The criminals won't obey the laws, they will still have weapons but not the citizens. Is that your goal?

    We all know that suicide attempts with other than firearms are much less likely to succeed

    You have obviously never worked in a manufacturing environment and been through problem solving classes because you are confusing cause and effect.

    People use firearms for suicide attempts when they are serious about it. When people use other means of suicide, they aren't as serious. The thought process isn't "Well, I may or may not want to commit suicide, let me try this gun.....OOOPS it worked, I really didn't want to do it".

    As for as the risk to myself and my family, isn't that my right to take?

    Isn't it my right, my freedom to take that chance? You say that I have less freedom with the firearm, but then try to take away the freedom to choice in the same comment?

    Let's try a common sense thought experiment Mike.

    I am faced with a criminal trying to break into my house / rob me on the way out of a store. Either one.

    Now, according to you I have less freedom with a firearm, right?

    If I don't have a firearm; I can try to flee the criminal, try to fight hand to hand or give into his/her demands, right?

    3 choices.

    If I have a firearms, I can try to flee the criminal, try to fight hand to hand, give into his/her demands, present the firearm and hope that stops the crime or I can draw and fire if appropriate.

    I count 5 choices.

    Which scenario gives me more freedom to choose?

    ReplyDelete
  16. When was that exactly, Bob? When were you forced to do that? That's my whole point, it's all in your fantasy world of defending yourself against superior odds.

    Or equal odds with criminal intent. I'm not interested in a fair fight--someone who wants to impose a fight on me isn't being fair to begin with.

    And besides, how does a gun help exactly? Do you just shoot him dead, this younger more fit opponent, or the several of them that surround you with bad intent?


    Depends on what the attacker does. Statistically, when I pull my gun, there's a very good chance (in the 90% range) they will run or surrender. I'll let them, even if I were certain I'd be legally justified to kill.

    I fully recognize it's your business and legally you're doing something you choose to do. But it's not a simple innocuous decision, is it? It has ramifications. Sooner or later, you may very well run into a younger and more fit adversary and you may very well use that gun of yours. Then you'll describe it as one of those defensive gun incidents you keep talking about. But, I wonder how many of them are really misuse of the gun all dressed up.

    In simple terms, do you consider defensive use of guns to thwart criminal attack as "part of the problem"? Do you think that mugging isn't serious enough to justify deadly force in defense? If my attacker appears to be my equal, am I morally required to "fight fair" rather than use my gun?

    And, let's not forget, all the years you have a gun (or several) you add to the statistical possibility that one of them will be used by yourself or someone in your family for suicide. We all know that suicide attempts with other than firearms are much less likely to succeed.

    Which is cause and which is effect? I don't think methods are picked randomly, or strictly by availability-People who actually mean to kill themselves are going to pick an effective method, people who are seeking attention intentionally pick less likely methods. "Down, not across".

    ReplyDelete