That's pretty funny about Gohmert but I think it applies to most gun owners. They wouldn't be able to help in a critical situation anyway. And they certainly could hurt.It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.
I don’t think these are reasons to disarm the citizenry. That’s never going to happen, nor should it. But the Tucson shootings should discredit the canard that we need more guns at school, in the workplace, even in Congress. Yes, Congress. The Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has proposed a bill to allow fellow members to carry firearms into the Capitol Building.
Gohmert has enough trouble carrying a coherent thought onto the House floor. God forbid he would try to bring a Glock to work. By his reasoning, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I once heard, from an ex-mayor of a large city, that police officers only hit their target about 20-30% of the time during a shootout. That's despite training constantly for such situations and being required to be proficient at shooting their handguns. If well-trained police have such a low percentage, what do you think the hit rate is for the typical gun hobbiest, who isn't required to have a minute of training to buy a gun in most states? What bystanders will they hit? And if I had to bet between the ability and resolve of a hardened criminal to kill their opponent, or a gun hobbiest, my money's on the criminal.
ReplyDeleteI disagree as much with the notion that "more guns = less crime" as I do "less guns = less crime." The reason is simple - Because guns don't CAUSE firearm-related crime. The fact that violent criminals have guns is a symptom of violent crime, not a cause.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that people shouldn't carry guns in some places like schools, churches, or even anywhere in public, is based on a distrust of our fellow man. Criminals willing to break the law already carry in those places, where a "gun free zone" sign only makes the criminal safer.
In spite of the fact that peaceably armed citizens overwhelmingly prove they can be trusted, and that accidents and irresponsibility is the rare exception, some people still have an emotional, illogical belief that because a scant few can't be trusted, then nobody else should either.
...Orygunner...
Baldr, that was the information provided to me about the accuracy of police officers hitting their target in my combat pistol class, with specific examples provided by the instructor by way of police reports and news articles.
ReplyDeleteAs to more guns.....
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/more-guns-fewer-murders/
[Utah Senator]Lee: And to the contrary, I think there is abundant research suggesting that in cities where more people own guns, the crime rate, especially the murder rate actually goes down
Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania countered this false claim by Senator Lee:
That’s not true. A causal relationship between prevalence of gun ownership and crime hasn’t been established by researchers.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-guns-do-not-equal-fewer-murders.html
Dog Gone: Fact Check is correct but only semantically. There is no causal link between more guns and crime.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there's no causal link between cigarette smoking and lung disease. There's also no causal link between heroin use and heeroin addiction.
OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to support a strong correlation between more guns and more homicide. Just as there's a strong correlation between smoking and lung illnesses.
Baldr: "If well-trained police have such a low percentage, what do you think the hit rate is for the typical gun hobbiest, who isn't required to have a minute of training to buy a gun in most states?"
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting it might be as low as 10% for your typical hobbyist given that it s 20% for those well trained officers? So on average it is going to take 10 shots just to hit something once. I think you just answered your own question on who *needs* more than a 10 round magazine.
Jade: “OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to support a strong correlation between more guns and more homicide.”
I have only seen you correlate guns and GUN homicides. I am still waiting to see what you claim above.
I found this to be a good companion piece for facts with the factcheck.org study, the geography of gun deaths:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
It correlates mutliple factors in gun violence, in what I found to be one of the more thoughtful and copmrehensive analysis.
TS wrote:
"So on average it is going to take 10 shots just to hit something once. I think you just answered your own question on who *needs* more than a 10 round magazine."
You make an unwarranted assumption, that the longer you continue shooting, the greater the chance you are going to hit your target eventually. That doesn't follow, and in fact you are less likely to hit something (especially if that 'something' is shooting back at you during the experience) as time goes on.
I don't know your experience, but in my combat pistol training we were taught to be aware of the distorting effects of different levels of lighting, especially on a moving target, as well as the effect of how many shots you are firing at one time (how it tends to make a gun 'climb') holding a gun upright versus sideways in certain situations to counter climb. I suspect that the correct way to breathe while shooting for most people would got to hell in a handbasket, affecting their accuracy as well.
If you aren't hitting your target in less than a single regular capacity clip, give it up, don't keep shooting. And hit the range for some more practice with someone who can give you pointers.
Much like hitting the driving range if you need to improve your control golfing.
I used to find target practice very zen, focusing on maintaining the right amount of relaxation, breathing, perfecting eye hand coordination, and consciously building the muscle memory and reflex.
I like what Jadegold said about "a strong correlation."
ReplyDeleteOrygunner says, "Because guns don't CAUSE firearm-related crime. The fact that violent criminals have guns is a symptom of violent crime, not a cause."
I don't know about that. First of all, when we say "guns" we often mean gun availability.
It seems to me gun availability is one of the factors which contributes towards gun violence. As Jadegold said there's a strong correlation here. The rest is nitpicking and semantics.
Mikeb wrote:
ReplyDelete"It seems to me gun availability is one of the factors which contributes towards gun violence."
Yes, guns are available, what do you propose to make them UNavailable for dangerous people?
Everything I've seen you suggest to make it "harder" for dangerous people to get guns doesn't make it hard enough to actually accomplish anything, and the unintended consequences are much worse than the problem you're attempting to solve.
Each incremental step of gun control, each channel of distribution to the black market you shut down, only increases the flow through other channels. When we made it illegal for felons to buy guns from dealers, the black market on the street increased to meet the demand. Registration and "one gun a month" laws in some states didn't lower the crime rate, because the flow of guns started coming from other states because it's easier. If you equalize the laws in ALL states, it won't reduce the crime rate or flow of guns to the street, just reduce the interstate flow.
If you look at the illicit drug trade (which fuels violent crime, by the way), when any legitimate channels for drugs to get to the streets was closed with Federal laws, what happened? Criminals either smuggle the drugs into the US, or manufacture the drugs to meet the demand.
If you somehow manage to restrict the flow "to the street" through any and all "legitimate" channels, you still aren't going to make it "harder" enough to make a difference. Guns, especially fully automatic firearms, are extremely easy to manufacture in large quantities in a simple machine shop, and what makes you think guns would be harder to smuggle into the US than all the drugs coming in now? Even worse, what then is to stop criminals from raiding small police stations and killing cops to steal guns and ammo and supply the market on the street?
Instead of continuously trying to stop the flow, which we can never do, why not look at the CAUSES of violent crime and try to stop the demand? Where is the logic in continuing to try the policies of gun control that have only proven to fail?
...Orgunner...
Orygunner wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yes, guns are available, what do you propose to make them UNavailable for dangerous people?"
That is exactly what we propose. To make it harder for dangerous people to get guns - that would be the people listed on the NCIS checklist data base, IF states funded it and supplied names to it.
"Everything I've seen you suggest to make it "harder" for dangerous people to get guns doesn't make it hard enough to actually accomplish anything, and the unintended consequences are much worse than the problem you're attempting to solve."
No. Not if you look at the success of other countries in restricting guns to those who are dangerous. But more than that we need to look at all the factors examined and evaluated for positive and negative correlation in the Geography of Gun Deaths study.
Each incremental step of gun control, each channel of distribution to the black market you shut down, only increases the flow through other channels.
Orygunner, Much of what you say sounds like self-justification. One of your repeated retorts is that criminals will always find ways to get guns. Well, that's not true if you think about it. Availability has to be there for it to be the case. We're trying to find ways to lessen the availability.
ReplyDeleteDogGone and/or Mikeb:
ReplyDeletePlease show me some countries that have restricted guns and then seen their violent crime rates DROP significantly or consistently as a result? The countries that the Brady Campaign currently points to as having strict gun control and low firearm-related crime rates also had low rates BEFORE their gun control was introduced, and for the years after the new restrictions, have seen no significant or consistent change in firearm-related violence attributed to it.
Even England with a total ban on handguns hasn't seen any positive results - violent crime involving handguns actually went UP in the years afterwards (see this report, page 35: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf)
Would you also claim that making drugs illegal has significantly reduced the supply of drugs to the street too? That's an absolute failure as the tighter the government cracks down on it, the more criminals find ways to supply the demand. There would be nothing different with firearms: the harder you make it through normal channels, the more robust the black market on the street becomes, and those willing to disobey the law still get what they want.
...Orygunner...
I'm asking you to use common sense and logic and you're asking me for PROOF.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder we can't agree on anything.