Yesterday I read Cliff's post about well-respected journalist Bill Moyers' piece on guns. My first reaction was that even the pro-gun crowd would listen up when someone like Moyers says it. Here's the link to the video on Bill Moyers Journal.
One thing occurred to me while reading this comment. Bill said the NRA is the "best known front group for the arms merchants." I'm wondering if perhaps our focus has been wrong all along. Usually we're talking about the 80 million gun owners as if it were their fault. Perhaps the real fault lies with the gun manufacturers. Perhaps that's where effective controls can best be implemented.
These are just ideas that came to mind. What's your opinion? Bill Moyers sums it up like this.
What do you think about that "22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family" idea? Even if it's wildly exaggerated, let's say by a factor of five, wouldn't it still mean that to have a gun in the house is a bad idea?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
We're arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.
The fact is, neither party will stand up to the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants. In Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Holocaust Museum, this week's Democratic primary for governor was won by state legislator R. Creigh Deeds, a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month.
One thing occurred to me while reading this comment. Bill said the NRA is the "best known front group for the arms merchants." I'm wondering if perhaps our focus has been wrong all along. Usually we're talking about the 80 million gun owners as if it were their fault. Perhaps the real fault lies with the gun manufacturers. Perhaps that's where effective controls can best be implemented.
These are just ideas that came to mind. What's your opinion? Bill Moyers sums it up like this.
So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting. They can even have a permit for a gun to protect their business or home, even though it's 22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family (including suicides) than an intruder.
But please, there are already some 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can't we just say, no thanks?
Enough's enough.
What do you think about that "22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family" idea? Even if it's wildly exaggerated, let's say by a factor of five, wouldn't it still mean that to have a gun in the house is a bad idea?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
"My first reaction was that even the pro-gun crowd would listen up when someone like Moyers says it."
ReplyDeleteDeep down you know better than that. We are not going to listen to an anti that reads directly from the Brady notecard just because he is an old journalist.
"Perhaps the real fault lies with the gun manufacturers. Perhaps that's where effective controls can best be implemented."
This is already the most regulated manufacturing business in America. Maybe we should regulate the regulated regulations.
"So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting."
Ok. I'll accept that. That covers all firearms. No problem
"What do you think about that "22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family" idea? Even if it's wildly exaggerated, let's say by a factor of five, wouldn't it still mean that to have a gun in the house is a bad idea?"
Totally made up bogus statistic that shows that this "journalist", instead of doing any real research, just uses the Brady play book. Typical lazy liberal tool.
Taking your underestimated 50m gun owners, the 430k gun incidents given in this article, and that each was done individually by a legal gun owner, that gives a total of .86% of legal gun owners causing issues.
ReplyDeleteIs that anywhere near your 10% MikeB?
Would you be willing to reduce crime by nearly 40% if it effected only about 4% of the population?
Does "totally made up bogus statistic" mean it's not 22 times more likely but only twice, or not at all, what exactly? Do you pro gun guys claim a defensive use of the gun kept in the home is more likely that a mishap?
ReplyDelete"Does "totally made up bogus statistic" mean it's not 22 times more likely but only twice, or not at all, what exactly?"
ReplyDeleteIt means that there is absolutely no statistical data available to promote such a claim. None. No "studies", no numbers anywhere. Quite simply, they made this statistic up and the media regurgitates it like it is fact.
"what exactly?"
ReplyDeleteWhat it means is that the author, Kellerman, even recognized how flawed the study was. Every followup done by him was different and have never been able to be repeated.
Good science there.
Why won't you answer my question MikeB?
Thirdpower, I don't clearly understand your question, the percentages got me confused. But, let me say this. I would certainly be willing to inconvenience the great majority in order to reduce gun violence even if a tiny percentage is committing all the crime. The answer is "yes."
ReplyDeleteGood thing you live in Italy then Mike.
ReplyDeleteStay the heck out of America please, your views are the antithesis of the very principles of this great country.