Seattle Weekly reports Pro-gun folks often ask me what I mean by "hidden criminals." It's really a rhetorical question, more a statement on their part. More or less they're saying they don't believe in my idea.There is at least one certainty about the otherwise inexplicable Ian Stawicki. He was mad but not quite mad enough. He punched out his brother and broke his girlfriend's nose. His wild-eyed anger scared people. His father thought he was "crazy." But under state law he couldn't be forcibly committed.Yet he could legally carry a gun, and owned six of them. As Dan Turner puts it, "He didn't break the law until he pulled out a pistol and started shooting." That was last week at Cafe Racer in the U-District where Stawicki killed or mortally wounded four people, then shot a woman to death during his escape and subsequently killed himself, earning the hate of a city. Up to then, he was merely disliked by many.
The idea is simple, the world of gun owners is not neatly divided between good guys and bad guys. This false and simplistic view of things serves the gun-rights argument that being good guys, they are not responsible for the gun violence that never seems to end. They blame the bad guys. It's convenient.
The truth is, however, that the group of people they call "lawful gun owners" contains many volatile characters like Stawicki, folks who are obviously unsafe with guns but who have not yet picked up the necessary convictions to be disqualified.
In addition there are a legion of gun owners who believe that "bad rules be damned." Either for convenience or out of a libertarian-type rebellion, they disregard the laws they don't like.
Then, of course you've got the true criminals who haven't been caught yet, and, let's not forget the ones who use drugs, drink too much or suffer from mental illness.
I covered this in my posts The Venn Diagram of Gun Owners as well as in The Famous 10%. There's nothing new here.
The article I linked to contains part of the solution. Replacing "shall issue" states with "may issue" would certainly prevent some of these undesirable characters from obtaining the conceal carry permit. But we need to go much further than that, and the first goal is awareness.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment
Breaking his girlfriend's nose should have been sufficient to disqualify him. Was that reported to the police? Did he go to trial?
ReplyDeleteWe don't say that there are no hidden criminals in this country. What we say is that taking away rights requires the due process of law--in other words, a conviction after a trial. Otherwise, you could take away rights from anyone who made you feel nervous.
"Breaking his girlfriend's nose should have been sufficient to disqualify him. Was that reported to the police? Did he go to trial?"
DeleteExactly. And you want these same police who dropped the ball here to determine if an individual gets a permit or not? No thanks.
Greg, what you do say is the "vast majority" of gun owners is responsible and safe. The hidden criminals among you ruins that deal.
DeleteI'm all for due process to take away gun rights, and I'm all for you to quit riding that bullshit wagon of the vast majority is safe. It just ain't so. And the problem is you all look alike, the safe ones and the dangerous ones.
It's not bullshit. Majority, of course, means more than fifty percent. A landslide in an election means that the candidate got two-thirds of the vote. It takes a three-fifths supermajority in Congress to pass a constitutional amendment on to the states.
DeleteWhat's the point? Depending on the study or poll, between a third and a half of Americans have at least one gun. You'll argue about the number, and I don't care. Eighty million, a hundred million, or more--it's still a large number. Let's talk round numbers. There are about 100,000 shooting incidents per annum in this country. That number I've seen here and elsewhere. That includes fatalities and injuries. One hundred thousand is one tenth of one percent of the total number of gun owners, more or less.
That's what I mean when I say that the vast majority of us are not criminals, hidden or otherwise.
You're prevaricating now. Greg. When you say "vast majority," you don't mean 51% or more, you mean something like 95% or more. Isn't it?
Delete"Landslide" mean more than 10% in an election.
No, I'm not lying. Vast majority is not clearly defined, but three quarters could be it. However, as I've shown you, more than ninety-five percent of gun owners and guns commit no crimes in a year. That qualifies, no?
DeleteGun control can’t even work to get guns away from know criminals, so how is it going to work for ones we can’t see because there are hidden?
ReplyDeleteBut like Greg and Anonymous said, this guy wasn’t so hidden. The laws are in place- this was a process failure and awareness is the key word that you mentioned. We don’t allow people to be forcibly committed anymore, and that is a good thing. The opportunity comes when they commit a crime- like domestic battery or death threats. The awareness comes in to recognize that this might be a mental health issue and to proceed with charges. Once adjudicated mentally ill, they will be added to the NICS, but more importantly they can get the help they need. That is provided mental health professionals are not wasting all their time screening legitimate gun owners.
MikeB wrote, "... the world of gun owners is not neatly divided between good guys and bad guys."
ReplyDeleteI'll finish his following sentence. "This false and simplistic view ..." also applies to law enforcement officers, dispatchers, bureaucrats, politicians, and appointed officials.
And yet those are the very people who would apply whatever gun control laws that gun grabbers envision. Those people would screw up just as often as anyone doing anything.
MikeB doesn't trust armed citizens to behave because there are some bad apples. I don't trust public servants for the very same reason.
When a known criminal, "hidden criminal", or public servant screws up, I want my firearms on hand.
I want those guys disarmed.
DeleteAnd since, Mikeb, you suspect all of us, you want all of us disarmed.
DeleteThis is why we are concerned, Mike. You just said we all look alike.
DeleteMikeB: “And the problem is you all look alike, the safe ones and the dangerous ones.”
I never said disarm all of 'em and let god sort 'em out. I said disarm the obvious nut jobs and all the one-strike-you're-out guys.
DeleteBut your one-strike definition is ridiculous, since you'd apply it to anyone who has a minor accident of no consequence, and your "obvious nut jobs" is unclear, since you can't show a fair and trustworthy way to determine who is obviously crazy, nor can you explain how all of us will be tested.
DeleteNo, you said we all look alike. In other words, you can't tell the difference between the safe ones and the dangerous ones.
DeleteTS, are you breakin' balls again? When I say you all look alike I mean when I run into you at Starbucks. I can't tell if you're one of the responsible ones or one of the irresponsible ones.
DeleteGreg, my one-strike-you're-out applies to people who act negligently with a gun, that's not of no consequence.
Mikeb, have you ever cut your hand with a knife or a saw? Well, then, no more sharp objects for you. You have unreasonable expectations, and the truth is that most of us actually meet them. But you are gleeful over the idea of taking away gun rights, and you have stated that you can't tell the difference between good and bad, so why do you imagine that we'll trust you?
DeleteI say it's more than a little hard to trust armed citizens and getting harder what with all of those folks shooting people in public places. Great post, Mike. I love the Venn diagram in the linked post. This is what I have been saying on my blog. Yes, there are criminals with guns who do bad things but the majority of shootings are between people who know each other, often domestic in nature. There are otherwise "law abiding" gun owners who shouldn't have permits or guns who are not stopped from doing so because we refuse to pass laws to stop them from getting their guns. Rather we let the NRA and its' minions make false claims like we can't keep guns away from criminals so how can we keep them away from people like Stawicki. That is pure and utter nonsense and cynicism and a way to avoid doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteJapete, you didn't ask about common sense, so you must not really mean it.
DeleteBut I operate with genuine sense. As I've shown Mikeb, incidents of gun violence represent one tenth of one percent of gun owners in this country and a far smaller portion of total guns.
What I see here is that you had a loss in your life, and now you're lashing out at anyone who reminds you of the person who hurt you. The fact that we're not like him doesn't matter to you. Fortunately, there are enough people in this country who care about evidence, rather than resentment, in making their policy choices.
japete said..."the majority of shootings are between people who know each other"
DeleteCan you cite a source? According to the FBI, 44.29% of the murder victims knew the offender.
A revenue report destined to make Japete cry.....
DeleteRevenue as reported on NRA website has compounded at 5.73% annually for last 23 years of available data.
1986 $66,000,000
1994 $150,000,000
2004 $205,400,000
2009 (last year for data) $237,500,000+
Thomas, do you have the numbers for the Brady Bunch?
DeleteGreg, I though they were bailed out by Joyce to avoid bankruptcy.
DeleteI wouldn't doubt it. For any wacky cause, there's always somebody out there who has more money than sense.
Delete"Replacing "shall issue" states with "may issue" would certainly prevent some of these undesirable characters from obtaining the conceal carry permit"
ReplyDeleteThis does not work at all because it always goes past common sense. Look at NJ a may issue state...that "may" will only issue if you are connected in the Government or are a Judge, DA, ect... all it has done is disarmed the citizens and murder is rampant in Trenton & Camden. There is no middle road common sense route because it is always taken too far and the regular law abiding citizen is left defenseless. The police can take up to 10 minutes to respond to a call for help, I can draw my weapon in about 1 second.... what option would you trust the safety of your wife and kids to?
Mikeb wants you to ask permission before you defend your life.
Delete"May Issue" harkens back to Jim Crow days before the gun control folks got serious. A white person could be virtually guaranteed of receiving a permit, but a black man would never get one from the local police chief or sheriff.
ReplyDelete