Guns, Bigger Guns and the NRA’s Bullshit
August 6th, 2008 by Kavan WolfeToday, I’m posting over on f*cking c*nts and you will find alphabitch’s (that’s her handle, not a pejorative) response here on The War on Bullshit. Here is an excerpt from my piece, Protection from our own Government: The Ridiculous Pretense for Gun Ownership.
As far as I have seen, detractors of gun control advanced to three basic arguments:
1. People need guns to defend themselves and their families against other people
2. People need guns to defend their country during an invasion
3. People need guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government
Today, I am going to discuss the third argument… [continue reading]
And now for our feature presentation.
So the NRA isn’t going to overthrow the government …
guest post by alphabitch
I’ll say straight up: I’ve been arguing for years that the whole “we need guns to defend ourselves against the government” line the NRA always trots out is utter bullshit. And I really wish they’d quit trotting the damn thing out already … it’s like trying to parade an old cart horse with a sway back and arthritic hips … it hurts. It hurts my brain, because it’s so fucking unbelievably absurd, and it hurts the entire pro-gun ownership cause, because it makes us all look like morons by association.
Any rational human being knows Bubba Joe with his AR-15 and his brother Billy Joe with his shotgun, out patrolling the wildlands of Hicksville, USA in their pride-and-joy Hummer, are not going to protect ANYONE from the government. Not once the government calls up the local military installation, and rolls in the tanks. Remember a little incident in Waco, Texas, anyone? Those wingnuts were armed to the teeth, and a fat lot of good it did them.
Never once have I, nor will I, use such a fucking ridiculous argument to defend my Constitutional right to bear arms.
Now, once you dispense with the ridiculous idea of overthrowing the government with an army carrying nothing but civilian-legal weaponry, home defense may be the #1 reason given for preserving gun ownership rights, but burglary is really the least of my worries. I, speaking as a woman who’s spent half of her adult life living alone, take the self-defense angle, thankyouverymuch. And it’s not just about rapists either …
Alphabitch’s 5 Reasons to Own Firearms (particularly handguns)
- Self defense at home. Obviously, firearms can’t help defend your home when you’re not there (and if they’re left out in plain sight, they can get stolen and end up in criminal hands). But if I’m at home and someone breaks in knowing I’m there, I doubt they’re just wanting to grab my jewelry and run. Sure, I could defend myself with a baseball bat or knife, but that means the creep has to get within batting/stabbing/grappling range, and I’d just as soon head him off at the front door, while I’m standing out of his reach. (Once, I actually did use my first handgun to ‘encourage’ a man to leave my apartment. It worked fantastically well.)
- Self defense outside the home. Granted, walking around in my neighborhood, I’m not terribly likely to be attacked on the street … but back when I lived near a state University, with all the neighborhood’s attendant drunk and disorderly young men, I was damn glad to have a handgun stashed in the outside pocket of my book bag.
- Protection against animals. Yup, up here in Alaska dangerous wild animals are an actual concern when you’re out of major residential areas. Bears, berserk moose, wolves, and other unfriendly critters actually wander around in fairly large numbers. And that’s not just an Alaska thing … anywhere in the US with native wolf, bear or moose populations has the same issue.
- Third party defense. In many localities where it’s legal to pack a handgun around, it’s also legal to use it to defend other people from violent assault. Personally, I’d feel a lot more confident that I could actually help the situation by drawing a gun and yelling “HEY! STOP IT!” than I would yelling for the police (hoping there were some nearby), or gambling on whether or not help would arrive quickly enough if I called 911 (not out where I live, they won’t).
- Subsistence hunting. Granted, most people don’t need to resort to subsistence hunting to survive, but in low-income rural areas, some still do. Up here, a lot still do. A moose can provide meat to a family for more than a year, a caribou will see you through the winter. Up here, if you live in a rural village, you don’t even have easy access to a well-stocked grocery store (and whatever you can get locally is expensive as hell). Sure, Native Americans found ways to feed themselves without firearms, but a bullet is a lot more reliable than a spear or bow & arrow.
Now, of course guns are used to commit crimes. They’re even used to commit crimes in cities and countries where private gun ownership is partially or completely banned. And there’s nothing the anti-gun camp loves to throw around more than big scary numbers involving firearm deaths and gun-related crime. These raw numbers lead most anti-gun folks to believe if there were fewer firearms in the US, there would be a lot less violent crime to worry about. However, if you look a little further than the raw numbers, and study the per-capita statistics provided by government and law enforcement agencies, the picture starts to change…
Statistically speaking, guns are rarely used in violent crime. During the 1990s (when crime rates were even higher than they are now) 90% of violent crimes in the US were committed by perpetrators who were not carrying a firearm1 (and even when “armed criminals” did commit a crime, 83% of them didn’t fire the weapon, or even threaten to use it2). What that means: If the anti-gun camp found a way to miraculously eliminate every privately-owned firearm in the US, we could expect a whopping ten percent decrease in violent crime, and an even tinier decrease in the number of crime-related shootings.
And what could victims of the remaining 90% of violent crimes expect? A 1995 study looked at a single year’s worth of incidents where a would-be victim successfully defended themselves with a firearm. Out of the approximately 2,500,000 successful self-defense cases, only 8% involved the would-be victim actually shooting at anyone … in the other 92% firing a warning shot, or merely brandishing the weapon, was sufficient4. In another study, over 70% of them time a firearm was used in self-defense, the would-be victim never fired a shot4. So, even though the vast majority of these millions of people didn’t hurt anyone when they used their guns to defend themselves, the anti-gun contingent would rather see you use pepper spray, or handheld weapons who’s use requires you to let your attacker get within arm’s reach.
Now, I’m sure someone will say that even if guns might be useful for defense during an attempted violent crime, eliminating privately-owned guns altogether would still prevent some deaths, and therefore banning them is worth it … but consider this tidbit:
In the US from 1983–2000, less than 15% of burglaries were committed when the victim was in the house, while in the UK, where handguns are illegal and owning a hunting rifle or shotgun is rare, almost 60% of burglaries were committed while the victim was at home5. And before you argue that perhaps the US just has MUCH higher burglary rate (so maybe the raw numbers even out), burglary rates per capita in the US were the same or lower than UK rates during that period, and were consistently much lower in the US from 1990–2000.6 That suggests to me that if burglars know their intended victims are almost certainly UNarmed, they’re a whole lot more willing to come in the house whether you’re home or not … which also makes it a lot more likely that if you get burglarized, you’ll wake up in the middle of the night with a criminal’s gun in your face, rather than coming home to find your jewelry went missing while you were at work.
Now, I’m not enough of a heartless cunt to suggest that we just call accidental and criminal firearms deaths the “price we gots tuh pay fer ar freedums, ‘cuz you gots ta’ break a feew eggs tuh mayke uhn omelette,” or anything. But there are ways of dealing with gun crime that do not involve taking law abiding citizens’ self-defense options away. Increasing penalties for crimes involving firearms (and publicizing the penalties) is one option. Instituting penalties against adults who’s unlocked guns are used by children is another. Funding currently used to enforce irrelevant anti-”assault weapons” laws could be spent on free firearms safety courses for novice gun owners … and so on.
Banning privately-owned guns because a few rotten or irresponsible people use them badly would be like banning privately-owned cars because a few people drive drunk or recklessly … and banning cars would save a lot more lives, because a fuck of a lot more people die from motor vehicle accidents than gunshot wounds.
2. National Crime Victimization Survey, 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics
3. Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
4. National Crime Victimization Survey, 1979-1985
5. Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)
6. British Home Office, National Crime Rates Compared, 2004
August 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
That’s a great post. But..
An armed populace is certainly a check against government power; regardless of how much you hate the cliche’ slogan. The Waco incident is not a relevant analogy. We’re comparing the a military power vs. an armed group like they are going to fight by the same rules.
Asymmetrical warfare works. It’s crippling the US in Iraq, it made Simon Bolivar a hero, and it will always be a check against against government power.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’m sure there is the possibility of certain branches of the military siding with the people.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
If I may ask, what’s the deal about the US and guns. I’m just plain curious. I’m from Norway and don’t know the US that well. While there aren’t all that many dangerous predators around here, Alphabitch’s argument #3 I can understand. #5 isn’t strictly necessary for survival for any of my neighbours, but they sure save some money by going hunting anyway. I won’t begrudge anyone the right to have a handgun for defense, either, (#1, #2 and #4) though I can’t help thinking it’s a bit silly. It’s not like anything happens. It’s not like anything -ever- happens. But, ok, it might very well be very different in the US, for whatever reason. Things might happen much more often than I know. But that’s not what I find most puzzling. Rather, it’s the idea that any individual that doesn’t own some sort of gun is considered a leech upon society, and should be ashamed of themselves. That’s it un-American to rely on the police, and therefore taxpayer money, to protect you from bad guys. This puzzles me. Not that someone figures out that brandishing a weapon on your own is a faster deterrent than calling 911. It’s that someone thinks less of you when you have to call 911 because you don’t have a gun on your own. I get the message that’s it worthy of scorn not to have a gun at the ready, and then I look around and think: “But, but, but nothing -never- EVER happens here!”
I’m sorry, but I just can’t wrap my head around this one. Maybe someone else can help me out?
Disclaimer: I don’t claim neither blogger to share the view I find puzzling, They reminded me about it, that’s all.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
@Jonathan and @H, for a detailed discussion of an armed populace as a check against government power, see the companion post: http://f-ckingc-nts.com/politics/gun-control-defense-against-tyranny/
@Secateur, it seems a bit silly to me too, but I believe that the crime rate in the US is MUCH higher than the crime rate in Norway. Even here in Canada, I know a lot of people who’ve been assaulted, raped or robbed.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
@Secateur - “That’s it un-American to rely on the police, and therefore taxpayer money, to protect you from bad guys. This puzzles me. Not that someone figures out that brandishing a weapon on your own is a faster deterrent than calling 911. It’s that someone thinks less of you when you have to call 911 because you don’t have a gun on your own. I get the message that’s it worthy of scorn not to have a gun at the ready, and then I look around and think: “But, but, but nothing -never- EVER happens here!”
———————————————————————————————–
I’ll have to be somewhat presumptuous in addressing your question. Obviously I can’t speak for all gun advocates, but I don’t think they necessarily think less of those who choose not to arm themselves. I can understand why you might have that impression. It seems inevitable that any discussion/debate on this subject will ultimately lead to someones pious attitude taking over. At that point all rationality is lost, though the debate rages on.
Now what the gun advocates do take very seriously (very, very, seriously) is when those who choose not to arm themselves try to impose their ideology on others. So in short, we (gun advocates) don’t care if you carry a weapon, just don’t tell me I can’t.
Did I completely misunderstand you question or did I just do a piss poor job of answering it? Or both?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:46 am
About the “relying on the police” thing:
Imagine yourself in a situation where some maniac is shooting up your school or a mall. How long will it take the police to get there, go through their routines, etc. and finally bust in? I could be like fifteen minutes. That’s alot of time for that maniac to have his way with you. Now if one person or even a few had a gun of some sort, they could act much faster than the police since they are already there. Now, I hope nobody ever finds themselves in that kind of situation, but I’d like to have a fast response, wouldn’t you?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
@Rick,
I must admit I have met these idiots who think you’re a pussy for calling the police, but I don’t think it’s a gun-lover thing, I think it’s an ignorant redneck thing. You raise an interesting question as well: if a majority of the populace of a democracy desires a gun-free society, wouldn’t banning guns be the only democratic alternative?
@QWERTYUIOP,
You raise a common scenario used by gun advocates. THe common response is, what about the innocent bystanders that get killed in the crossfire? But this is only tangential to the point about thinking someone less manly because they let the police handle something.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Innocent bystanders.
The typical, predictable, presumptuous, response by anti-gun nuts.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
@Kavan - “if a majority of the populace of a democracy desires a gun-free society, wouldn’t banning guns be the only democratic alternative?”
Yes I believe that’s the essence of a democracy, unless of course you’re electing the president of the United State (electoral college).
The problem I see here(IMO) is now you’re talking about modifying the constitution. You and I have tossed this ball around previously and I don’t think it’s prudent to let the ignorant masses make that type of decision. If we allowed that to happen, do you really think they would stop with guns? Talk about opening up a Pandora’s box.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:35 am
“if a majority of the populace of a democracy desires a gun-free society, wouldn’t banning guns be the only democratic alternative?”
Depends on the type of government. In the US it would not be. The US does not simply have majority rule. There is also the ideal of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I still think more gun control is not really needed. Maybe close a few loopholes and increase safety and training around them to help reduce accidents more but to ban them? Not needed, or desirable.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:52 am
I find it hilarious when people complain about all the gun related accidents. How about car accidents? Skateboard accidents? Bathtub accidents? Knife accidents?
All happen more often that gun accidents. Priorities, people. Priorities.
Rely not on emotions, rely on logical thinking.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:27 am
The difference between gun deaths and vehicle deaths is that a vehicle is a device made for something else that happens to kill people occasionally. Guns are devices made to kill - and pistols are devices made to kill _people_. That is their purpose. What kind of barbaric country are we in where we feel everyone should or even has the right to own a device made solely for killing other people?
August 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Of course, people who die from these things are totally justified by those who benefit. Right, you heartless bastard? You think just like the drug companies.
OK, I’ll play along. Since we need to ban things that hurt people (regardless of personal responsibility or stupidity) and have no benefits, how about this:
Alcohol and tobacco. What do they do besides kill people and make them do stupid things?
We tried prohibition. It did not work. The current ridiculous drug prohibition is not working and neither will a gun prohibition. Deal with it.
About your “barbaric country” statement, we have certain people, called “criminals”, who can obtain these weapons regardless of the law. This gives them a distinct advantage and power over the good people. To restore the balance, the good people need to be on equal, or better footing than these criminals. The police are too slow to respond when the shit hits the fan. You just don’t seem to understand (or care to acknowledge) that last sentence. Care to think about how many lives could have potentially been saved in places like Columbine and Virginia Tech if even one other person had a gun? We need a means to counter the real barbarians - those with no respect for human life and who want to kill people.
So when you get robbed at gunpoint on the street, you are welcome to beg the maniac for mercy, or pray for a cop to come before the guy kills you. Others of us would like a more effective means of defense at our disposal.
Did you not learn anything from the bitchslapping you received in the other gun control thread? Or do you want to pretend it never took place at all?
Stick to issues you’re good at. This is not what you’re good at. You have nothing we haven’t heard before. All emotions and no logic.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“But this is only tangential to the point about thinking someone less manly because they let the police handle something.”
For a site called “War on Bullshit” you sure spout a lot of it.
It has nothing to do with “manliness”. It has everything to do with saving your own ass. Why should I have to wait for someone else, who could be many miles away, to come and save my life when I’m being attacked with a deadly weapon? Come on now…
The only thing the police “handle” are the dead bodies after the fact. How does that help anyone? Answer: it doesn’t.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
@QWERTY, it is the very criminality you speak of that I am referring to. Why is it that we in the United States are so criminal in nature we must carry guns to defend ourselves, while the rest of the developed world does not face the same dilemma? Lower crime rates and tougher gun control laws. Do you not see any connection there at all?
Your Prohibition argument doesn’t hold. Other countries have a long history of successful gun control policies.
Furthermore, if you are robbed at gunpoint, what makes you think you will have your own gun out before your brains are splattered on a wall? Sorry, I forgot all you pro-gun advocates are Doc Holliday.
And finally, to the bitchslap comment… I’m sorry if you think that just because a bunch of conservatives decided to voice their opposition I was ‘bitchslapped,’ but that’s not the way it works. There’s plenty of folks out there that agree gun control is the best policy (in fact, the proposed legislation I discussed on that post was defeated everywhere it was introduced), and I fail to see how any of you rendered my arguments irrelevant. Disagreement does not constitute a ‘bitchslap.’
August 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
@Riley: Just so you know England actually has a higher violent crime rate now than in the US. Interestingly it seems that criminals have a higher rate of being caught and incarcerated in the US than in England.
US violent crime rates have been falling for many years. And depending on the type of crime Canada has a higher rate as well. It’s a fallacy that other countries automatically have a lower rate of crime.
August 9th, 2008 at 5:31 am
I notice you only bothered to address SOME of my points. So I won’t waste my time with you further until you man up, open your mind and think that maybe the other side has a point.
I see all your points perfectly clear and that’s how I know you’re full of shit. Thank you. Good bye.
August 9th, 2008 at 5:34 am
oh, the conservatives comment. I don’t affiliate myself with any party. I hate politics. I think logically about things and I don’t care what party’s ideal it is.
August 9th, 2008 at 5:36 am
“in fact, the proposed legislation I discussed on that post was defeated everywhere it was introduced”
*hint* *hint*
“and I fail to see how any of you rendered my arguments irrelevant”
As someone else put it: “You don’t see it in the sense that you have shut your eyes and plugged your ears and saying “neener neener neener” in order to drown out the voices of logic and reason.”
Something like that anyway.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:59 am
@Larry - ‘The US does not simply have majority rule. There is also the ideal of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.”
Good point.
For me reading these discussions/debates on gun control is for entertainment purposes only (thanks everyone). Each side can and usually does put forth some legitimate arguments (IMO); however, in the eyes of each debtor these arguments are facts and are beyond reproach. Unfortunately, no amount of debate is ever going to change deeply entrenched opinions. The only real value is to the individual who has yet to fully develop their opinion.
@Riley - “Your Prohibition argument doesn’t hold. Other countries have a long history of successful gun control policies.”
Prohibition has never been successful in the US. I suppose we would be more effective if we hung first time drug dealers and cut the hands off people caught stealing… etc, but we don’t. Doing so would require a significant shift in our societal ideology. Whether or not that is the solution is for another post (IMO).
An alternative (quicker/easier)solution to the aforementioned would be to move to a different country. Judging from your previous post it sounds like the idea has crossed your mind:)
August 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
OK … hectic weekend winding down. Finally getting around to following up over here!
@jonathan: “Asymmetrical warfare works. It’s crippling the US in Iraq, it made Simon Bolivar a hero, and it will always be a check against against government power.”
Good point … except that the folks in the US with the home arsenals largely give unquestioning support to any government that supports their right to have an arsenal, regardless of how oppressive the rest of their policies may be; while they vehemently oppose any candidate who favors gun control, regardless of what any of their other policies are. Oh, the irony.
@H: “I’m sure there is the possibility of certain branches of the military siding with the people.”
I think there is the possibility of certain individuals within the military siding with the people, but I don’t think there’d be enough of them to manage smuggling out a bunch of tanks and heavy artillery to the “rebels”.
@Secateur: “…it’s the idea that any individual that doesn’t own some sort of gun is considered a leech upon society, and should be ashamed of themselves. That’s it un-American to rely on the police, and therefore taxpayer money, to protect you from bad guys.”
I think Rick addressed this pretty well, but to add my two cents (because I can’t help myself! heh), most of the people I’ve met with that attitude either lived a life of dubious legality themselves—and it had fuckall to do with tax money, they just hate cops—or they live in an area (like I do) where the cops aren’t going to get there soon enough (or aren’t going to show up at all) to do any good—and once again, it’s not about tax money, it’s about thinking the unarmed folks are stupid for not being able to protect themselves.
@QWERTYUIOP: “…if a majority of the populace of a democracy desires a gun-free society, wouldn’t banning guns be the only democratic alternative?” Exactly why the US wasn’t set up as a majority-rule democracy, like Larry said, it was specifically set up to protect minorities. Imagine how well the whole civil rights thing would have gone if the majority got their way?
“…what about the innocent bystanders that get killed in the crossfire?”
OK, now I’m going to have to look up the stats showing that private citizens who use firearms in legal conflicts (read: self defense or defense of others) have a MUCH lower rate of shooting innocent or unarmed people than the police do. Back later.
@Larry: “…close a few loopholes and increase safety and training around them to help reduce accidents”
Bingo!
@QWERTYUIOP: “How about car accidents?”
That’s the #1 cause of accidental deaths in the US, by far.
@Riley Firth: “…pistols are devices made to kill _people_.”
Tell that to my friend with the hand-cannon .44 revolver, that he carries when he’s out in the woods, specifically for defense against wild animals.
And if we should ban everything who’s “primary” purpose is harmful, like QWERTYUIOP said, we need to ban cigarettes and alcohol too. That’ll go over well.
See, my handgun is primarily for recreational purposes, self-defense secondary. AFAIK, cigarettes & alcohol have no positive use outside recreation, but their negative effects are FAR more of an expense and lethal hazard to society than guns are.
@QWERTYUIOP: “About your “barbaric country” statement, we have certain people, called “criminals”, who can obtain these weapons regardless of the law.”
And even in countries where handguns are illegal for any private citizen, and long guns are really hard to own legally, the criminals seem to find ways to get both on a very reliable basis.
@H: “For a site called “War on Bullshit” you sure spout a lot of it.
It has nothing to do with “manliness”.”
Um, that wasn’t Kavan who brought that idea up … it was Secateur, who was asking a question about his own perception of American society as someone who’s never been here. And he asked very civilly, FWIW.
@Riley Firth: “…the rest of the developed world does not face the same dilemma? […] Other countries have a long history of successful gun control policies.”
Other countries also have a long history of monarchy prior to the establishment of democratic governments, and have a cultural background of accepting their ruler’s law iver and above their own individual rights. While Western Europe and the UK now have representative governments, their cultural backgrounds are entirely different than the US, which started with the idea of the primacy of individual rights (at least for white men, at the time … heh).
@Larry: “…England actually has a higher violent crime rate now than in the US.”
Yup, lots of countries do. But when you spout off raw numnbers when discussing national crime rates, the US ends up looking worse because we have SO many more people. Raw numbers are meaningless. Per capita numbers and percentages are the only statistics that are worth a shit when comparing crime rates internationally.
@Rick: “The only real value is to the individual who has yet to fully develop their opinion.”
Which is one very big reason I personally continue debating these sorts of things … you never know when someone in the room might be open to hearing new information, and developing an informed opinion, rather than a gut-level emotional one.
“I suppose we would be more effective if we hung first time drug dealers and cut the hands off people caught stealing… etc”
Not unlike the early criminal codes of the monarchic European governments I was mentioning in my response to him.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
AND, I just re-read my comment and realized I left out the “@Kavan” in front of my comment about innocent bystanders. Sorry QWERTYUIOP, that one wasn’t directed at you.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
@Larry, yes, I admit the comment on crime rates was greatly oversimplified.
@QWERTY, sorry if you felt as if I was purposefully omitting parts of your argument. I didn’t have much response to them and was replying with fairly limited time. But since it bothered you, here ya go:
Alcohol and tobacco were created for entertainment and stress relief, and just have the crappy side effect of killing folks. Guns were created to kill folks, and just have the side effect of being entertaining to shoot.
@alphabitch, good points, I agree that other countries’ respective histories give them a very different perspective on gun rights. Here it is seen as a basic right, which makes attempts at prohibiting them unsuccesful.
With that (and this is for both of you), I’d reply that I don’t suggest we eradicate guns and don’t allow private ownership of them. I don’t support a completely unarmed America. I just don’t think folks should walk the streets strapping heat, and I think there should be stricter regulation and control.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
@Kavan Wolfe, I’ve compared Norwegian and US American crime rates. Norway does indeed appear to have less murders, aggravated assaults and robberies per capita. The property crime rate is about the same.
@Rick, while you might’ve not quite understood my question, you answered admirably nonetheless, thank you.
@H, I’m afraid manliness was indeed brought up by me.
@everyone: Or rather by two US Americans I found on the internet. It wasn’t from their heated arguments, but from their carefully crafted fan-fiction. As fan-fic writers, their opinions might not carry any more weight than any ordinary US citizen, but their opinions don’t carry any less either, and where there’s two there might be more. I found their fan-fics easy to comprehend, except the points about guns. I didn’t quite realize at the time, but now I do think that it’s just about manliness. I focused on the part where they (more or less) write that it’s alarmingly irresponsible for women to go around unarmed. From there I concluded that they meant that it was alarmingly irresponsible for anyone to go around unarmed. Alas, I seem to have taken it out of contest. Rather, they write that the protagonist’s extraordinarily attractive girlfriend shouldn’t go around unarmed, because even the protagonist can’t protect her -all- the time, right? By the way, the protagonists in these fan-fics are unusually clever with computers, martial arts experts, awesome marksmen, built like a tank, looks like Adonis, have an unmatchable humor and a name that’s the same as the author’s online nickname. (Well, ok, maybe not -that- egregious.) I do apologize for bothering you all with my question, and thank you all profusely for the enlightenment.
@Alphabitch, I’m so very sorry, but I just might have incorrectly inferred that part about tax money. I did it in an attempt to make sense of things, but it now seems to be all wrong, I’m sorry. Also, I should add that I have visited the US twice, for a total of about two weeks. I think that the US is very interesting in many ways. Once in New York, as I was about to change from Greyhound bus to NY subway, I was approached by some unaffiliated person wanting to guide me to wherever I was going. Suspicious, I grabbed all my gear before I muttered “subway”. He quickly started going and disappeared around the corner. As I rounded the corner I found my “guide” next to a police officer, with “guide” in handcuffs. I’m still unsure what to think of that.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
@QWERTYUIOP,
I’ll try to respond to everything you said. Here goes:
1)predictable does not mean wrong.
2) The fact that other things are involved in more accidents than guns doesn’t mean we should ignore guns. There is no rule that society has to address problems one at a time.
3) Alcohol has medical benefits in small amounts. Tobacco does not, it only kills people. Therefore, yes, it should be illegal or at least strictly controlled. Not all things classed as “drugs” fall into this category.
4) The situation where the unarmed person is mugged or attacked by the armed person is screwy for two reasons. First, the point of gun control is to make it harder for the bad guys to get guns too. Second, from a game theory perspective legalizing concealed weapons increases the chance that you will be shot in the back and robbed rather than mugged. This is a complex argument that I will return to in a later post. If you value logic, I would expect a game theorectical argument to hold substantial weight for you.
5) Don’t be so sanctimonious. Not everyone has time to address all of your comments, and you certainly didn’t address all of the points in the original post. This isn’t my job, or Riley’s – we do it for fun.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
@Rick, good point about modifying the constitution, however, my arguments are not specific to any one country. It does seem that most of my readers are Americans though, so I take your point all the same.
I am what you’d call a radical empiricist, a term made popular my the philosopher Quine. It means I don’t take any facts as beyond reproach. However, it also means I’m significantly more interested in evidence than opinions
Also a good point about the shift in societal ideology. This may be the key to solving a whole bunch of problems
August 15th, 2008 at 12:06 am
@H, I think you misinterpreted my point about manliness. I was saying, same as you, that it’s silly to think someone is unmanly for not owning a gun.
@Larry, I think most people assume the US has the highest crime rate because it has so many people in jail. It is, of course, not true. You can see a list of countries by homocide rate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s
Note, however, that while many countries have a higher homicide rate than the US, none of them are in Western Europe.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:12 am
@Secateur,
Way to be the most polite person in the discussion. Just stay away from Bill O’Reilly
Interesting idea about women always being armed. It makes sense on its face, but then, do you know many young women? Most of the 18-25ers I know couldn’t be trusted with a stapler, let alone a glock.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:42 am
“do you know many young women? Most of the 18-25ers I know couldn’t be trusted with a stapler, let alone a glock.”
Yep, little girls can’t be trusted with dangerous, deadly things. That would explain why 16–25 year old BOYS are the ones with the highest automobile accident rate, and the resulting car insurance rates.
And I wonder what the rates of alcohol-related injuries, by gender, are in that age group? When I was in college, I didn’t see any articles in the student paper about sorority girls going to the hospital with alcohol poisoning during sorority parties, or girls getting arrested for booze-soaked brawls in the campus-area bars.
Seems to me that “young women,” with proper training (such as that required to get a drivers license), are a lot more trustworthy in potentially dangerous situations than “young men” the same age.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Thank you, it felt natural to be polite in such charming company.
Sadly, I can’t say I know many young women. I guess I used to, back when I was 18-25 myself, but I don’t remember violent crime and gun policies to be the talk of the time.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
@alphabitch, 16-25-year-old boys can be just as stupid as their female counterparts, but often in different ways. My comment come out far more sexist-sounding than I intended.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
@Kavan: “far more sexist-sounding than I intended”
But yeah, statistics consistently show that boys tend to err more on the side of violence, physical danger and criminal activity than girls, for the most part.
hehehe … glad to hear it.