A couple weeks ago I made a statement that among the legal gun owners there are between 10% and 30% who should not have guns. After the bombardment of complaints I received, I retracted the statement and amended it to a simple 10%. Naturally, the pro-gun crowd who felt they had me on the ropes weren't satisfied with that. They were outraged. They demanded proof. They provided "proof" that the figure is really less than 1%. One guy suggested I downgrade my idea from "theory" to "hunch."
In this post I propose to offer a bit of what goes into my thinking. I won't call it proof, because as I've said before, much of this is not quantifiable. We must use common sense. So, in order to guard against bias, I'll downplay the numbers, allowing only very conservative figures to go towards the final result.
In the end, I will once again call my idea a "theory," and I would expect to never again hear the complaint that I make this up as I go along, that I say these numbers off the top of my head, and as Mike W. so eloquently put it, that I pull this stuff out of my ass.
Here goes. Let's presume there are 80 million gun owners. That means we need to identify 8 million who aren't fit to have a gun.
Good guys who turn bad. 1%
Some of you guys have generously provided the stats on concealed carry guys who get in trouble. That combined with the FBI stats of overall crime, allowing for the fact that some of the FBI criminals were not gun owners, we come up with about 1 million. So what we're saying is every year about 1 million gun owners out of the 80 million get in serious enough trouble to lose their right to bear arms. If you have trouble with that, look at the crime stats, add the felonies up and divide by 2, estimating that half the men own guns.
Alcoholics and drug addicts. 3%
It is estimated that 8.5% of the population is alcoholic. What percentage do you suppose has problems with other substances, anything from prescription medication to illicit drugs, another 10%?. Let's say 5%. That's 13.5% of our population at large and consequently of the 80 million gun owners. In all fairness, most of them, although I don't personally feel comfortable with their having weapons, won't cause any problems. But what of the worst 3%, say? These are the guys who become anti-social when they drink or party with drugs. You know the type. 3%.
Depression. 3%
It is estimated that about 8% of our population had at least one MDE (major depressive episode) in the last year. Gunowners, being no different from regular folks, can claim this same percentage, which I'll bet goes a long way explaining all those suicides. Since not everyone who suffers one of these episodes attempts suicide or does something else rash, let's call it 3%.
Rage (including road rage). 1%
One of the most frightening types of rage is called Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED). It is estimated that 4% of the population has yearly episodes. I say not a single one of them should own a gun. I realize some of these guys also suffer from depression and may have even been counted under "Alcoholics and drug addicts," so we can cut the 4% in half twice and settle on 1%. I'll throw in the regular rageaholics and road rage maniacs for free. 1%.
Domestic abusers. 3%
It is estimated that 22% of women in America have been abused. It's men doing that abusing, usually the domestic partner, so let's say 22% of the men out there are guilty of this behaviour. Only about half of those men are gun owners, so we're down to 11%. Now, let's eliminate the one's who slap their partners once in a while because they asked for it. Now let's cut it way down because many responsible owners of firearms can successfully separate their domestic squabbles from their proper gun management. I say 3%.
Rape. 1%
The U.S. Department of Justice statistics for 2005 say that 191,670 incidents of rape or sexual assault were reported. Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported which brings the total in 2005 to about 1 million. 1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. These rapists may be some of the same guys we already counted in the "Domestic abusers" percentage. Also, some of these1 million rapes per year might be done by the same people, creating additional duplicate counting. I say we need another small entry here, say 1%.
General stupidity and irresponsibility. one half of 1%
I couldn't find anything to support this except humorous things that weren't very funny. But, just look around. You know who these people are.
There you have it, support for my "theory" that about 10% of the legal gun owners should not have weapons. I honestly believe using the same method I could make a good argument for the higher figures I'd stated earlier, but in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt in all cases, I'll leave it at 10% (rounded down from 13%, you probably noticed).
Some gun enthusiasts are very comfortable with the "us against them" mentality. They do it with the good gun owners and the criminal ones. They do it with the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks. It's all foolishness, say I. It is from their very midst, from this 10% that we have a significant "people flow." Not every one of the members of the group will go bad, and certainly not this year, but it is from their ranks that we see so many national headlines.
Please feel free to comment. I'd love to hear your opinion.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Toledo Gun Rally
The Toledo News Leader 11 site has the story. The gun rally, as was pointed out by the commenters to the news article, was not about carrying guns in church, but rather about the compatibility of 2nd Amendment Rights and being Christian.
The rally will point to numerous biblical references claiming Jesus Christ would support second amendment rights. "We're just informing our folks you got to be able to protect yourself and what does the Bible have to say about it. We know our constitution. But this is the final authority here above our Constitution is the word of God," said Reverend Andrew Edwards with the Northwest Baptist Church.
Naturally it has its critics. As posted on the Gun Guys site, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence issued a very eloquent statement.
The gun lobby and gun industry like to disguise their radical and extremist agenda by hiding behind the flag, and now the Bible. People’s lives and safety should matter more than a radical and violent ideology purported by the gun lobby.
We need to honor our values by reducing the access to these tools of violence and not promote weapons and fear if we are ever to reclaim a peaceful and just society.
What's your opinion? Is it fair to say they have "hidden behind the flag," that now they want to "hide behind the Bible?" I think it describes pretty well what they do. I've often suspected that some of the most vocal supporters of the 2nd Amendment, the guys who quote the Founders with reverence, are really just guys who like guns. These means of justification came later.
May I make a prediction? These characters in Toledo won't be the last preachers of the Word who jump on the bandwagon. It started last month with Pastor Ken Pagano down in Kentucky. I can feel it coming like a tidal wave now.
Please leave a comment.
FBI Agent Mistaken as Home Invader
ThePittsburghChannel.com reports on the killing of an FBI agent serving a warrant on a suspected drug suspect.
Consistent with her claim not to have known it was the cops, after the shooting, Mrs. Korbe called 911. "Authorities took her into custody while she was on the phone." But, if she thought the first cop, FBI Agent Hicks was a home invader, why didn't she shoot the others who came to arrest her? That part sounds a little fishy to me.
On the other hand, the neighbor stated that she didn't know it was a warrant being served. She said the unmarked police cars came and left before the incident, and that there was no announcement that she could hear. This seems to support the story of the shooter.
Of interest is the gun, of course. I suppose it's not unusual for people to have guns in the house for protection, especially if they're in the drug business. But is that legal?
How common do you think that is? The criminal, who is a prohibited person, has the spouse get a concealed carry permit. It's like having a built in bodyguard in the family, and of course if things get ,the gun can always be shared. What about in the home? In the home of a convicted felon, the spouse who has a clean record can have all the guns she wants? This sounds like another loophole, what do you think?
What's your opinion? The action took place last November; the reason it's back in the news is there are some squabbles about the defense attorneys not being paid. They've petitioned the judge to let them go or name them court-appointed attorneys in order to receive at least some compensation.
It's certainly a fascinating case. What do you think?
Special Agent Sam Hicks was shot to death on Woods Run Road in Indiana Township.
According to an affidavit obtained by WTAE Channel 4 Action News, police surrounded the house and announced themselves saying, "This is Pittsburgh police. We have a warrant for your arrest."
The affidavit indicated that Hicks, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, looked inside the house and saw a man running, at which point, authorities said Robert Korbe, 39, went to the basement to flush cocaine down the sink.
Christina Korbe said she got a gun and fired one shot down the steps, thinking it was a burglar coming in and not federal agents. The gunshot struck and killed Hicks.
Consistent with her claim not to have known it was the cops, after the shooting, Mrs. Korbe called 911. "Authorities took her into custody while she was on the phone." But, if she thought the first cop, FBI Agent Hicks was a home invader, why didn't she shoot the others who came to arrest her? That part sounds a little fishy to me.
On the other hand, the neighbor stated that she didn't know it was a warrant being served. She said the unmarked police cars came and left before the incident, and that there was no announcement that she could hear. This seems to support the story of the shooter.
Of interest is the gun, of course. I suppose it's not unusual for people to have guns in the house for protection, especially if they're in the drug business. But is that legal?
Robert Korbe's mother, Antoinette, told WTAE Channel 4 Action News that her son has been involved with drugs for years. She said he is a convicted felon and is not allowed to own a gun, but she said Christina Korbe does have a license to carry.
How common do you think that is? The criminal, who is a prohibited person, has the spouse get a concealed carry permit. It's like having a built in bodyguard in the family, and of course if things get ,the gun can always be shared. What about in the home? In the home of a convicted felon, the spouse who has a clean record can have all the guns she wants? This sounds like another loophole, what do you think?
What's your opinion? The action took place last November; the reason it's back in the news is there are some squabbles about the defense attorneys not being paid. They've petitioned the judge to let them go or name them court-appointed attorneys in order to receive at least some compensation.
It's certainly a fascinating case. What do you think?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bernie Madoff about to be Sentenced
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
What do you think should happen to old Bernie?
The Madoff Sentence
CNN reports on the sentencing of Bernie Madoff. He received the maximum.
A few months ago we discussed the most enjoyable New York Times article by Ralph Blumenthal in which he suggested Madoff should receive the Dante treatment: every punishment matches the crime. Apparently the courts heard that message, at least in the sense that an excessive crime receives an excessive punishment.
What do you think? Is this kind of sentence a deterrent? Do you sense an element of vengeance in the reaction of the victims? What do you think about my theory that white collar criminals should not spend time in prison? For me, prison is to prevent violent criminals from continuing to harm others. Wouldn't heavy fines and government supervision accomplish that in Madoff's case?
What's your opinion?
A federal judge sentenced Bernard Madoff, the convicted mastermind of the largest and most sweeping Ponzi scheme ever, to the maximum sentence of 150 years in federal court Monday.Judge Denny Chin of U.S. District Court in New York announced the sentence just moments after Madoff apologized to his victims.
Chin, who called Madoff's crimes "extraordinarily evil," said the maximum sentence was important for deterrence, and also for the victims, many of whom erupted into applause after the judge announced the sentence. Many hugged and some of them broke down in tears.
A few months ago we discussed the most enjoyable New York Times article by Ralph Blumenthal in which he suggested Madoff should receive the Dante treatment: every punishment matches the crime. Apparently the courts heard that message, at least in the sense that an excessive crime receives an excessive punishment.
What do you think? Is this kind of sentence a deterrent? Do you sense an element of vengeance in the reaction of the victims? What do you think about my theory that white collar criminals should not spend time in prison? For me, prison is to prevent violent criminals from continuing to harm others. Wouldn't heavy fines and government supervision accomplish that in Madoff's case?
What's your opinion?
The New Boss
It's been about six months. Is there any indication that Obama will be significantly different than his predecessors? According to Il Principe, no. In a wonderful article, in which he highlights the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who warned Americans against what he called “our dreams of managing history,” the Prince pulls no punches in pointing out that Obama is indeed a new boss, just like the old boss.
What's your opinion? Do most Americans have their head in the sand about military spending? In the beginning of Obama's term we talked about it: Is Afghanistan going to be just another Iraq? What do you think? Are you hopeful that we can pull out of Iraq eventually and manage Afghanistan without going completely bankrupt?
Please leave a comment.
One only has to look at the abysmal record of trying to manage the future of two foreign countries the United States invaded and has since occupied to see that the future cannot be certain or managed.
Incredibly, most Americans do not see the connection between the annual half trillion-defense budget and open-ended wars in two foreign countries, to the demise of America as an economic world power.
Forget about drawing a line in the sand like the Bush administration said in 1991 and the First Gulf War, more Americans need to get their head out of the sand and realize the drag on the economy the trillions of dollars spent on the Pentagon is having on the American economy.
What's your opinion? Do most Americans have their head in the sand about military spending? In the beginning of Obama's term we talked about it: Is Afghanistan going to be just another Iraq? What do you think? Are you hopeful that we can pull out of Iraq eventually and manage Afghanistan without going completely bankrupt?
Please leave a comment.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Is It True? Terrorists Buying Guns?
MSNBC reports on the latest concerns over the gun buying frenzy in America.
I believe this is the same list we talked about last year. At that time there were reports all over the internet that the list contained a million names, obviously many who didn't belong there. Suddenly the government announced the list is much shorter than that, around 16,000 they said. So what does it mean? What does it mean for the 800 "suspected terrorists" who've purchased firearms over the last five years?
I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret" list. The federal government that keeps lists on it's citizens might be all right for China and Iran, but surely not in America. But what's a government to do? How are they supposed to anticipate another 9/11 attack if they don't keep lists? These are difficult questions.
About anyone being able to buy guns, certain places in America are havens for that sort of thing, aren't they? No one goes to New Jersey for that, but there are states where anyone, terrorist, felon, mentally ill person, anyone at all can easily buy guns. And let's not forget the so-called "straw purchasers" and the middle men looking only to turn a profit. That's the problem. That's where a lot of the gun flow happens.
We talked about New Jersey's new one-gun-a-month law the other day. Is it safe to assume that the crime guns in Camden and Newark are for the most part imported from out of state? Then would it be safe to assume that if those other states had similar restrictions to those of NJ, this type of gun flow would cease? I say yes, and I say that's part of the solution. I also say it would be a small price for the legitimate gun public to pay for a major improvement in the gun violence problem.
What's your opinion?
More than 800 gun purchases were approved after background checks in the last five years even though the buyers' names were on the government's terrorist watch list, investigators said Monday.
Being on the watch list is not among the nine factors, such as a felony conviction, that disqualify someone from buying a gun under federal law. More than 900 background checks between February 2004 and February 2009 turned up names on the watch list, and all but 98 were allowed to go through.
The watch list — maintained by the FBI and used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies — is meant to identify known or suspected terrorists. However, the list has drawn criticism over the years for mistakes that have led to questioning and searches of innocent people.
I believe this is the same list we talked about last year. At that time there were reports all over the internet that the list contained a million names, obviously many who didn't belong there. Suddenly the government announced the list is much shorter than that, around 16,000 they said. So what does it mean? What does it mean for the 800 "suspected terrorists" who've purchased firearms over the last five years?
The top lobbyist for the National Rifle Association said the terrorist watch list has names of people who should not be on the list.
"Law-abiding Americans should not be treated like terrorists," the NRA's Chris Cox said. "To deny law-abiding people due process and their Second Amendment rights based on a secret list is not how we do things in America."
I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret" list. The federal government that keeps lists on it's citizens might be all right for China and Iran, but surely not in America. But what's a government to do? How are they supposed to anticipate another 9/11 attack if they don't keep lists? These are difficult questions.
About anyone being able to buy guns, certain places in America are havens for that sort of thing, aren't they? No one goes to New Jersey for that, but there are states where anyone, terrorist, felon, mentally ill person, anyone at all can easily buy guns. And let's not forget the so-called "straw purchasers" and the middle men looking only to turn a profit. That's the problem. That's where a lot of the gun flow happens.
We talked about New Jersey's new one-gun-a-month law the other day. Is it safe to assume that the crime guns in Camden and Newark are for the most part imported from out of state? Then would it be safe to assume that if those other states had similar restrictions to those of NJ, this type of gun flow would cease? I say yes, and I say that's part of the solution. I also say it would be a small price for the legitimate gun public to pay for a major improvement in the gun violence problem.
What's your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)