Truthout
The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It, by Tom Diaz, The New Press, 336 pages, $18.95 paperback, Release date: January 1, 2015.
"Diaz points out that the gun Hassan used, the FN Five-seveN, was a "typical example of military-style weapons that define the market today. There is no mystery in this militarization," he writes. "It is simply a business strategy aimed at survival: Boosting sales and improving the bottom line in a desperate and fading line of commerce. The hard commercial fact is that military-style weapons sell in an increasingly focused civilian gun market. The sporting guns do not."
*******************
"The toll of ordinary Americans killed and injured by guns every single day would remain staggering, a bloodletting inconceivable in any other developed country in the world," he writes. "Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than 1.3 million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides and from unintentional injuries."
What's more, Diaz points out that 90 percent of US households own a car while fewer than one in three own a gun. Still, firearm deaths have come to exceed motor vehicle fatalities, something that should certainly give us pause.
***********************
The upshot, Diaz writes, is that in today's USA, "guns are most likely to be owned by white men who live in a rural area, those who are middle aged or older, with middle to higher income, who grew up with guns in the home and who live in the southern or Midwestern regions of the country. Moreover, fewer and fewer people are owning more and more guns." To wit: Diaz notes that the average gun owner now has an average of 6.9 guns compared with a still-high 4.1 per person 20 years ago.
Wow--that's some concentrated bullshit.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, this part is interesting (bold emphasis added):
The upshot, Diaz writes, is that in today's USA, "guns are most likely to be owned by white men who live in a rural area, those who are middle aged or older, with middle to higher income . . .
So, Mikeb--are you going to set Diaz straight about there being " . . . no denying the connection between low education, gun ownership and poverty"? Because he seems to be in defiance of your "no denying" commandment.
Also from the article:
For example, Diaz points out that the gun Hassan used, the FN Five-seveN, was a "typical example of military-style weapons that define the market today.
I bought my Five-seveN not long after that attack. Not because of some nefarious gun industry marketing scheme, but because the gun ban zealots were screaming so loudly to ban it because of its supposed "armor piercing" ability, and the fact that standard magazines hold 20 rounds, and you can buy extensions for them, to turn them into 30-round mags. And it's not that I was worried that they'd succeed--Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) has been comically futilely trying to ban that gun and that cartridge for years--but because it's just so damned fun to buy what the gun ban fanatics don't want me to have.
Not only did I manage to find and stockpile some rounds that actually are pretty capable of penetrating body armor, I got lots of the mags and extensions (I'd actually hoped to attach two extensions to a mag, giving a 40-round capacity, but that seems to create a seam that the follower gets pushed below, causing it to hang up. Ah, well--can't win 'em all.
"What's more, Diaz points out that 90 percent of US households own a car while fewer than one in three own a gun."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if he's bad at math, or does he just hope his readers wont check. Gun ownership seems to have never been below 1 in 3 and is currently rising.
He also makes some interesting claims in regards to the military and gun ownership. Its been an army policy for quit a while that soldiers that live in the barracks are required to keep personally owned weapons in the arms room.
Firearms possessed off post are just like any other owned by a citizen. Major Hasan lived off post and was not required to report owning firearms.
Got to give him credit for not making any attempt at looking at things objectively. This is just a straight up opinion piece, as is his book. Especially in light of the recent increase in importance of protecting gun rights.
So let's say, 90% have cars and only 40% have guns. Isn't the point still valid?
DeleteNo Mike, because he then made this claim,
Delete"Still, firearm deaths have come to exceed motor vehicle fatalities, something that should certainly give us pause."
Which also isn't correct. And of course, the only possible solution given is banning possession of firearms. Nothing regarding for example, training in the responsible use of them.
Well, gun deaths have outgrown car deaths in some states, and they seem to be increasing. It certainly gives me pause. When you consider there considerably more households with cars as with guns, the pause is even more pronounced.
DeleteWe train people to drive cars but that doesn't stop trained drivers from committing negligence and crimes with their cars. Training is only a basic step, not a guarantee that no offense will happen. So we have laws to try and deter negligent and criminal behavior.
DeleteThat's would be fine, Fred, but we don't take "negligent and criminal behavior" seriously enough. Gun negligence, even cases in which people are injured or killed, is often met with disgraceful nonchalance. The call them accidents.
DeleteThe call them accidents.
DeleteIn this, I am taking a position contrary to that of many pro-rights advocates, who are quick to correct anyone who says "accidental discharge," when the acceptable term is "negligent discharge," but I've never understood the objection to referring to unintended shootings as "accidents."
Calling it an accident doesn't rule out negligence, stupidity, clumsiness, irresponsibility, etc., and doesn't absolve the unintended shooter of blame for the act.
One of Merriam-Webster's definitions of "accident" is:
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
How is it "disgraceful nonchalance" to refer to a negligent shooting, even an injurious or fatal one, as "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance"?
Agreed Mike.
DeleteKurt, most cases labeled "accident" are not investigated the same as when labeled "negligence." That's a police distinction, not a dictionary one.
It's disgraceful nonchalance when referring to such incidents as accidents exonerates the shooter from accountability, which happens too often.
DeleteMy point is that a correct reading of the meaning of "accident" does not exonerate anyone for their wrongdoing.
DeleteMaybe for a word maven like you, that's fine. But in the real world it doesn't work like that. Sometimes they even say no charges BECAUSE it was determined to have been an accident.
DeleteWow--having functional literacy and a decent basic grasp of my native language makes me a "word maven," eh?
DeleteKurt, you're extremely eloquent and persuasive. Feigned humility about your "grasp of the native language" is just more mendacious bullshit on your part.
DeleteWow--accused of dishonesty for not having an excessively high opinion of my language skills. Amazing.
Delete