Monday, October 11, 2010

Where the Two Sides Meet

One of the problems is the 10% of gun owners I'm often talking about.  These would be the least responsible and least qualified among the huge group of legitimate gun owners. Of course there's another large group called "criminal" gun owners, but we're concerned now with the problem of the 10%. We're not saying to address the problem of the 10% and NOT the criminals, no. We're saying in addition to all the ways in which crime is being dealt with, we need to do something about the Famous 10% too.

The gun control solution to this problem is increased and improved regulations which would prevent some, if not all, of these folks from owning guns. The usual pro-gun response is either to deny that this even exists or to resist any attempt to correct it. I always find it curious that truly law-abiding people would do that, but there it is.

Occasionally, there is a pro-gun voice which seeks to improve the situation from the other direction, using education. Robert Farago does that. Here's an example.



What's your opinion? Do you think that's good advice, the part about minimizing distractions? Do you think that advice is often overlooked or not emphasized enough?

I would imagine, like I said about the video of the woman giving advice about going to the public rest room while carrying concealed, the folks among the 10% who most need this advice are the least likely to be interested. Nevertheless, I applaud gun owners who strive to police their own through education and the sharing of practical and useful tips.

The forces of gun control activism and gun rights activism need not be antagonistic.  This is one place where they can meet.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. I would say that the overwhelming majority of gun owners know and practice those rules on a regular basis. They even teach and coach those around them to make sure they're doing the same; I know I do. Go to a range, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. > Do you think that advice is often overlooked or not emphasized enough?

    Yes. Specifically, by people like you. Gun control == abstinence only education.


    > I believe such a program would be a form of advertising for the gun culturesex industry.

    > The gun control folks religious leaders I know feel it's futile to teach kids something like "don't touch and get an adultcondom." Kids, especially little boys, have a great curiosity which is only increased with lessons like this.

    > The NRAPlanned Parenthood is an industry shill. They are interested in selling firearmscondoms, not gun safetySTD avoidance.

    > Eddie EagleDhaaley Dai and all the rest is a wrong direction for us. Isn't it obvious that we're going in the wrong direction?

    > Are the pro-gun folks so short-sighted that they cannot see the whole picture?

    I'm just glad you're no longer so short-sighted Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, VD, gun control=planned parenthood

    Education and prevention

    If anything, the gun rights position is the abstinence only education where people hope that the message that the act only happens under "proper" conditions.

    Gun control realises that unless there is prevention, the wrong people will get their hands on firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, Laci, if this were a debate (or a court case), you would lose. Horribly.

    Van Dyke makes his point by showing how each point in the chain is equivalent to a position in the sex education argument.

    You made one assertion that is contradictory, and didn't back it up by showing how that compares to sex education.

    Super lawyer, indeed. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No Laci, gun control has nothing to do with education.

    You and your ilk rely on dishonesty and feed off of fear and ignorance.

    As far as prevention, you and your ilk consider virtually everyone except the police and military to be "the wrong hands."

    What you seek to prevent is the exercise of constitutional rights. You are bigots who deserve no respect and will be opposed every step of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Laci doesn't get it because he/she is a citizen of the great nanny state of the UK. Just relax and let the government do all your thinking for you, m'kay.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, Laci pretends to be in the UK. Philadelphia isn't in the UK, though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Colin says the overwehlming majority do these things. yeah, like about 90%. It's the rest I'm concerned about and so should you be,

    Van Dyke wants to pretend his comparison to other things makes sense, fine. I don't see it except as a diversion. What's the point, should nothing be done with the worst 10% of gun owners for fear that the other 90% would be inconvenienced? I don't think so.

    There are two problem groups, the criminals, and the 10% of gun owners who are too risky to be trusted with guns. It is from among that 10% that much of the criminal world is armed. It is from among that 10% that most of the surprise murder-suicides take place.

    Why gun owners would not be behind efforts to clean up this mess is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike, in regards to that 10% figure, please see my comments in a different post (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=5085832458577486880). I think I make a pretty compelling case for the number of negligent (criminal or otherwise) gun owners being around 1 in 320. That's a much smaller number than 10%, 0.3% to be exact. And because that number includes all gun injuries and deaths, it assumes that the law-abiding gun owners are solely responsible for that damage. I know this is a proposition that you vehemently maintain, and I definitely resent being incorrectly lumped in with the criminals, but for the sake of this argument I'm just going to roll with the 1/320 number. In my mind it is a much smaller percentage than that, but even using your standards of shared responsibility it cannot mathematically be any worse!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "What's the point, should nothing be done with the worst 10% of gun owners for fear that the other 90% would be inconvenienced? I don't think so."

    How about the government shuts you & Jade down for spewing bigotry and lies?

    You're part of the "worst 10%" of bloggers. Should you be shut down or can we just shut down all anti-gun blogs because of the behavior of folks like you, Jade and Laci.

    Who cares if we trample the rights of a few of your buddies, right MikeB?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Colin, I think we're talking about two different things. Yours is something that can be seen in the stats, mine isn't.

    I'm not saying every single member of the 10% commits a serious crime every year. That's what you're talking about.

    My 10% figure, which could very well be much higher, includes people with drinking problems, people who suffer with depression and other psychological conditions so severely that they are dangerous. I know there are millions who take depression medication and are no danger at all. I'm talking about the worst of the worst. Add to them the violent guys who cannot control their tempers, again not every single guy who gets mad at his wife once in a while, but the worst cases.

    These are the people who have to be screened out BEFORE they become statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "My 10% figure, which could very well be much higher..."

    But isn't, because it was made up with supposition and pulling numbers out of thin air.

    "...includes people with drinking problems, people who suffer with depression and other psychological conditions so severely that they are dangerous."

    Those kind of people are the ones that break laws and are fairly obvious about their insufficiency to live within society.

    "I know there are millions who take depression medication and are no danger at all."

    Really, that doesn't seem to jive with your 10% theory at all.

    "I'm talking about the worst of the worst."

    Do you believe that the worst of the worst (of anything) could really encompass so large a number (ten percent) of any group? For example, if we talked solely about violent offenders amongst all criminals, for example, do you believe that violent offenders make up 10% of all criminals.

    "These are the people who have to be screened out BEFORE they become statistics."

    And, because we don't know who they are (because they haven't done anything to warrant attention) that makes your 10% theory a little ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous said, "And, because we don't know who they are (because they haven't done anything to warrant attention) that makes your 10% theory a little ridiculous."

    First of all, as I've said over and over again, the 10% folks do not all commit serious crimes every year. But, most of the people who do commit serious crimes come from among this 10%. We're talking about gun owners here.

    No one said because they haven't done serious crime yet they cannot be identified. Those cases where the berserk shooter was a total surprise are rare. Usually these people are obvious and with some simple screening can be identified.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Usually these people are obvious and with some simple screening can be identified."

    What simple screening process would do that? Please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete