American gun violence and legislation in the "shelter in place" age
October 20, 2016 12:43 PM Subscribe
We teach our students that the first move in an argument is often one of definition: gun as tool. Gun as "objective correlative" (T. S. Eliot) of "liberty" (Wayne LaPierre). Gun as "right" that, if left "unexercised," will be lost (opencarry.org). While running for president, Jeb Bush argued that our country is a gun when he tweeted a photo of his engraved handgun with a one-word caption, "America." A gun is a little cannon for killing that we've sentimentalized and normalized. [American Weather]
Nice article.
"Inside the gun club where I learn to shoot,there’s a display of “Concealed Carrie” handbags, copies of Stop the Islamization of America, a framed poster of John Wayne, and a sign that reads, the second amendment makes all others possible. In the classroom, there’s another one that you can buy: we don’t call 911. "
I wonder what percent of Americans have this basic mindset. 25%? 60% I have read that although the number of guns in private hands is at an all time high, they are mostly concentrated, and a small number of owners/fetishists have dozens.
posted by jetsetsc at 2:09 PM on October 20, 2016
"Inside the gun club where I learn to shoot,there’s a display of “Concealed Carrie” handbags, copies of Stop the Islamization of America, a framed poster of John Wayne, and a sign that reads, the second amendment makes all others possible. In the classroom, there’s another one that you can buy: we don’t call 911. "
I wonder what percent of Americans have this basic mindset. 25%? 60% I have read that although the number of guns in private hands is at an all time high, they are mostly concentrated, and a small number of owners/fetishists have dozens.
posted by jetsetsc at 2:09 PM on October 20, 2016
He totally voided his warranty when he got the engraving.
posted by lagomorphius at 2:09 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by lagomorphius at 2:09 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
From the article, a simulation exercise the author practices in her gun class: The black man in our class of four students is congratulated for killing an unarmed black man who approached him in a parking lot, asked for change and to borrow his cell phone, then “got in his space.” “But he didn’t have a gun,” I said. Giving the man your change, or letting him borrow your phone, is not an option. Walking away is not an option. Asking him about his day: not an option. Once the man gets in your space, you’re justified to shoot him, I was told. Dead. These films are made by Laser Shot, Inc., out of Stafford, Texas, and distributed nationally. Cops train with them, our teacher says.
Once a man gets in your space, you are justified to shoot him? WTF?
Wonderful and scary article.
posted by kozad at 2:13 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Once a man gets in your space, you are justified to shoot him? WTF?
Wonderful and scary article.
posted by kozad at 2:13 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wow! I've got to be one of the most gundamentelest people that post here and the description of the training videos are horrific. I couldn't justify shooting someone in those situations, nor justify walking around town with an unholstered sidearm, that's just start up brandishing.
posted by ridgerunner at 2:19 PM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ridgerunner at 2:19 PM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
The beginning of the article is a lesson on how much of the mythology--and a lot of it really is myth--there is around bearing arms in this country. The main (but not only) myth in that introduction is that of the carry crowd being deterrents of crime. And yet, this is something that has never been anywhere close to being proven correct in decades of research*. In fact, most evidence shows a negligible effect or even an increased risk of injury or death. And more and more, carry laws are leading to those committing gun violence to have more time to go after their victims. After all, how do you tell who's the "bad guy" and who's the "good guy" in any given situation, especially those as chaotic as, say a shooting in a nightclub? Or as Tom the Dancing Bug satirizes it: How to Tell the Difference Between an Open-Carry Patriot and a Deranged Killer. Not that this will stop even your average carry advocate from insisting that not only are they the "good guy," but also that you are expected (demanded, really) to recognize them and complete strangers as such on nothing more than faith. You're also expected to have faith that they know how to use that gun responsibly, that their skills are that a professional sniper, that they have otherworldly abilities in separating threats from panic, and that they are 100% free of any bias that could cause them to misidentify a "bad guy".
Another consequence of carry laws, one I consider among the more horrifying perversions of the 2nd Amendment, is that guns are increasingly becoming a tool of suppressing democracy here:
* The research that's allowed these days, which is hardly any. The NRA and other members of the gun lobby have successfully lobbied to keep research into gun violence to a bare minimum, which they often "disprove" with studies by people like John Lott or Gary Kleck that are almost unanimously derided by fellow researchers.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
Another consequence of carry laws, one I consider among the more horrifying perversions of the 2nd Amendment, is that guns are increasingly becoming a tool of suppressing democracy here:
The proliferation of concealed and open carry and lack of universal background checks means anyone can be a terrorist and carry in public, so how the hell is that not going to make others think twice about what they say? Not shockingly, this has a chilling effect on democratic debate, our republican form of government and the ability to gather peacefully. If you don't think the gun—the extended phallus of the FoxNews watcher—is about demographic shrinkage and the wish to wield unearned power, so the guys with the guns can still make the rules, let me share a few more examples.Those are just a very tiny sample of the myths of gun culture in this country, and sadly they're costing lives, billions in health care costs, and an erosion of many other civil rights.
There was Irving, Texas, just after the Paris attack, where a bunch of gun-wielding white guys surrounded a mosque. There was November of 2013, also in Texas, when a group of 40 or so gun fetishists showed up at a restaurant where members of Moms Demand Action just happened to be meeting, displaying their weapons and waiting outside the door of the joint. Anna Sarkesian, the victim of harassment at the hands of a bunch of atavistic cavemen in the gamer world, had to cancel a lecture at Utah State University because of anonymous threats and the reality that guns are allowed on campus. And there was The Virginia Citizens Defense League, who decided to make sure they’d intimidate their way to victory over their opposition to a gun store being put next to an elementary school in McLean, Virginia, by showing up at a public debate of the McLean Citizens Association with “armed individuals and a customized RV depicting a threatening image of Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui-Cho.”
The message is clear: Shut up or we’ll shoot you.
* The research that's allowed these days, which is hardly any. The NRA and other members of the gun lobby have successfully lobbied to keep research into gun violence to a bare minimum, which they often "disprove" with studies by people like John Lott or Gary Kleck that are almost unanimously derided by fellow researchers.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
jetsetsc: In the classroom, there’s another one that you can buy: we don’t call 911. "
I wonder what percent of Americans have this basic mindset.
A restaurant I've been to recently had a sign on the delivery door that was simply a picture of a shooting range target silhouette with the caption "There is nothing in here that is worth your life".
Subtler and classier than the "we call .357" sign for sure.
posted by dr_dank at 3:41 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder what percent of Americans have this basic mindset.
A restaurant I've been to recently had a sign on the delivery door that was simply a picture of a shooting range target silhouette with the caption "There is nothing in here that is worth your life".
Subtler and classier than the "we call .357" sign for sure.
posted by dr_dank at 3:41 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Having read the article, and as a non-USian, all I can express is my horror, disgust and sympathy for those of you that have to live in that culture. It is totally foreign to me and I don't understand how it could have ever gotten that bad. Right now in Australia we've got a small number of far right politicians arguing to allow the importation of a 7 shot lever action shotgun, and a strong majority opposing that as ridiculous. Worlds away.
But of course, the US gun culture infects everything, via Hollywood. In a British police procedural, it's about one murder, one gun, and the ripples of effect that has on the surviving victims. In a US show, it's about blasting all the baddies, winning, getting justice in the 60 minutes. All part of the worldview.
posted by wilful at 4:02 PM on October 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
But of course, the US gun culture infects everything, via Hollywood. In a British police procedural, it's about one murder, one gun, and the ripples of effect that has on the surviving victims. In a US show, it's about blasting all the baddies, winning, getting justice in the 60 minutes. All part of the worldview.
posted by wilful at 4:02 PM on October 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm from Colorado Springs. I wrote up a long comment before reading the article, to say how crazy and corrosive gun culture is in my hometown, and that I didn't think I'd be able to read the article because of how sick it all makes me. But I decided that I shouldn't comment without at least checking out TFA, and holy fuck, it's my comment, but way better written than I could ever do!
I'll be back to comment here in like, three weeks, when I make it through.
posted by DGStieber at 4:37 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll be back to comment here in like, three weeks, when I make it through.
posted by DGStieber at 4:37 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Inside the gun club where I learn to shoot,there’s a display of “Concealed Carrie” handbags"
I guess the purpose of these handbags is so you don't reach in to find your keys and end up pulling the trigger by accident (what, no safety?)... But in my area there was not too long ago an accidental shooting in a Walmart where a mother was shopping and had her 2 year old in the shopping cart seat with her purse there also, and the toddler got into the purse, unzipped the pocket, and reached in and accidentally pulled the trigger (what? no safety?) and shot and killed his mother.
I don't really know what to say about that other than maybe putting a gun in your purse isn't a good way to do concealed carry.
posted by hippybear at 5:06 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I guess the purpose of these handbags is so you don't reach in to find your keys and end up pulling the trigger by accident (what, no safety?)... But in my area there was not too long ago an accidental shooting in a Walmart where a mother was shopping and had her 2 year old in the shopping cart seat with her purse there also, and the toddler got into the purse, unzipped the pocket, and reached in and accidentally pulled the trigger (what? no safety?) and shot and killed his mother.
I don't really know what to say about that other than maybe putting a gun in your purse isn't a good way to do concealed carry.
posted by hippybear at 5:06 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
That toddler was a brave patriot applying the Second Amendment Solution to the tyranny of naps.
posted by dr_dank at 5:24 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dr_dank at 5:24 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't really know what to say about that other than maybe putting a gun in your purse isn't a good way to do concealed carry.
It's a terrible idea. Advising people to carry concealed off the body is a good signal for " this person should be ignored in every respect. "
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:42 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's a terrible idea. Advising people to carry concealed off the body is a good signal for " this person should be ignored in every respect. "
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:42 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
(what? no safety?)
Many pistols don't have safeties. But more to the point, I've never seen a safety that a normal toddler couldn't operate -- it is just a button or toggle that moves when you push on it, not a child-proof lock. You keep kids (and yourself) safe by keeping them away from guns entirely, which doesn't have anything to do with safeties or special purses, but by being smart and careful.
And part of that has to be having smarter laws. You can't legislate away stupidity, but there's equally no need to enable it.
It's a really interesting article and worth reading.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:10 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Many pistols don't have safeties. But more to the point, I've never seen a safety that a normal toddler couldn't operate -- it is just a button or toggle that moves when you push on it, not a child-proof lock. You keep kids (and yourself) safe by keeping them away from guns entirely, which doesn't have anything to do with safeties or special purses, but by being smart and careful.
And part of that has to be having smarter laws. You can't legislate away stupidity, but there's equally no need to enable it.
It's a really interesting article and worth reading.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:10 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, what the man of twists and turns said, twice, three times even.
And oh, holy shit, I was rereading it to count the parts I disagreed with and had missed the instructor playing with a pistol, with a round in the chamber and the safety off!
I so hope this is hyperbole by the poet that wrote it. If not, I'm now in favor of a mandatory half day gun safety class with blue plastic guns that have no firing chamber in every school. All you have to do to pass is show you understand Jeff Cooper's four rules of gun safety and prove you can safety a revolver, a semi-automatic, a bolt action and a break-action. That's it. No sight picture, no trigger control, no shooting at all, but no pass, no graduation.
posted by ridgerunner at 8:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
And oh, holy shit, I was rereading it to count the parts I disagreed with and had missed the instructor playing with a pistol, with a round in the chamber and the safety off!
I so hope this is hyperbole by the poet that wrote it. If not, I'm now in favor of a mandatory half day gun safety class with blue plastic guns that have no firing chamber in every school. All you have to do to pass is show you understand Jeff Cooper's four rules of gun safety and prove you can safety a revolver, a semi-automatic, a bolt action and a break-action. That's it. No sight picture, no trigger control, no shooting at all, but no pass, no graduation.
posted by ridgerunner at 8:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I liked this turn of phrase: “This is front-porch versus back-deck culture,” the pastor said.
posted by Harald74 at 12:31 AM on October 21, 2016
posted by Harald74 at 12:31 AM on October 21, 2016
The only thing that can stop a toddler with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
posted by acb at 3:06 AM on October 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by acb at 3:06 AM on October 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
FTFA:
--
My dad taught us all to shoot a rifle (maybe when I was 8 or 10?), mostly so we wouldn't get hurt mishandling a gun. I was not bad at it, and Freshman year of high school I earned a bunch of NRA shooting medals on Monday evenings in order to tart up my JROTC dress uniform. I have no interest in owning a gun precisely because of those damning figures about how there are a multiple of accidents and crimes for every heroic performance. There's a private shooting range less than a mile from my house and I hear the shots from sunup to sundown seven days a week. (For those with a taste for irony, it's where students evacuate to form the middle school across the road during active shooter drills.) When the Boy Scouts go to a local range each May for a safety lecture and to pop off some .22 rounds, I take my sons and remind them to pay attention to the four steps in handling a gun right if they ever see one.
Guns? No, thank you; I'm already marinating in them. Not in my own private home, but also not in my church or mall or office building, except for the police officers.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:48 AM on October 21, 2016
Imagine that all the scenarios are relational: your wife, your sister, your son. Then move on from there: his wife, her sister, their son. This is how we have a society, if we want one.Whoosh goes all the air out of me: this really is at the heart of it. Do we put up barriers and remove those connections in order to be safe, or do we connect with everyone around us so there are no Others? (This is a good article, in case you haven't guessed by now.)
--
My dad taught us all to shoot a rifle (maybe when I was 8 or 10?), mostly so we wouldn't get hurt mishandling a gun. I was not bad at it, and Freshman year of high school I earned a bunch of NRA shooting medals on Monday evenings in order to tart up my JROTC dress uniform. I have no interest in owning a gun precisely because of those damning figures about how there are a multiple of accidents and crimes for every heroic performance. There's a private shooting range less than a mile from my house and I hear the shots from sunup to sundown seven days a week. (For those with a taste for irony, it's where students evacuate to form the middle school across the road during active shooter drills.) When the Boy Scouts go to a local range each May for a safety lecture and to pop off some .22 rounds, I take my sons and remind them to pay attention to the four steps in handling a gun right if they ever see one.
Guns? No, thank you; I'm already marinating in them. Not in my own private home, but also not in my church or mall or office building, except for the police officers.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:48 AM on October 21, 2016
ridgerunner I doubt very much that it is hyperbole.
One thing about people is that we get used to things, we get casual about things we do often, we get careless about things we use often.
Remember how, when you first learned how to drive, you were hyper cautious, hyper aware of the immense power and danger that your car represented? Remember how hat caution and awareness faded after you'd been driving for a while because you just plain can't maintain it about something you do daily?
Even people dealing with atomic weapons get careless about the power they have. Back during the Cuban Missile crisis world war three almost started because someone high up got careless and sent the wrong codes to a missile base in Okinawa. Every day they sent a code group, always either a "don't nuke anyone today" code, or a "nuke someone today, OH WAIT HAHA THIS WAS A TEST" code. But they got careless, grabbed the wrong code, and sent orders to launch nukes. Fortunately the people at the missile base called back for confirmation twice (the first time they were brushed off, yes the codes were right, sheesh stop bugging us).
So yes, people who handle guns a lot get careless with them. That's what people do.
And then they shoot someone by accident and everyone declares it to be a tragedy but no one talks about how maybe, just maybe, if they didn't fiddle around with guns all the time they wouldn't be so careless with them.
A while back I encountered a person asking for advice online (here? reddit? I forget where) with a family argument. He carried a concealed gun, his sister in law had asked that he not carry it in her house, and he agreed. But he forgot one day that he had it on, and now she's upset with him and he thought she had no reason to be upset because it was just an accident, he hadn't intentionally taken the gun into her house, he just forgot that he had it.
What he'd missed is that was why she was upset. The fact that a person can genuinely, honestly, forget that they're armed is horribly dangerous and illustrates why lots of people think that it shouldn't be permitted for people to carry guns everywhere.
My own personal encounter with the sort of casual, carless, gun handling that is inevitable, unavoidable, and guaranteed to take place in a society where many people habitually go armed, was a bit more intimidating. In Amarillo TX a while back there was a city sponsored social event downtown, my partner and I took our kid, good times were being had. Then the guy with the shotgun showed up. He was dressed up in some faux historical frontiersman outfit (all leather and fringe and fur with a coonskin cap and so on) and had a shotgun over his shoulder.
Not on a strap, but with the barrel resting on his shoulder while he steadied it with a hand on the butt of the gun. Which is why the muzzle was pointing directly behind him, and straight into my face.
I didn't feel comfortable asking the armed asshole to stop pointing his gun at me, what if that was what made him decide to "stand his ground" and "fear for his life"? I don't talk to openly armed people because I have no idea what might set them off. So I found a nearby cop and mentioned that this guy was walking around with blatant disregard for gun safety rules and pointing the muzzle of his gun at random people in the crowd. The cop sighed, rolled his eyes, and told me that in Texas open carry was legal. So I left with my family because fuck.
Gun people are often sloppy with their guns, it's inevitable. You can't have guns carried, you can't have guns commonplace, without some gun carriers getting careless and adopting a casual attitude towards their guns.
posted by sotonohito at 8:51 AM on October 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
One thing about people is that we get used to things, we get casual about things we do often, we get careless about things we use often.
Remember how, when you first learned how to drive, you were hyper cautious, hyper aware of the immense power and danger that your car represented? Remember how hat caution and awareness faded after you'd been driving for a while because you just plain can't maintain it about something you do daily?
Even people dealing with atomic weapons get careless about the power they have. Back during the Cuban Missile crisis world war three almost started because someone high up got careless and sent the wrong codes to a missile base in Okinawa. Every day they sent a code group, always either a "don't nuke anyone today" code, or a "nuke someone today, OH WAIT HAHA THIS WAS A TEST" code. But they got careless, grabbed the wrong code, and sent orders to launch nukes. Fortunately the people at the missile base called back for confirmation twice (the first time they were brushed off, yes the codes were right, sheesh stop bugging us).
So yes, people who handle guns a lot get careless with them. That's what people do.
And then they shoot someone by accident and everyone declares it to be a tragedy but no one talks about how maybe, just maybe, if they didn't fiddle around with guns all the time they wouldn't be so careless with them.
A while back I encountered a person asking for advice online (here? reddit? I forget where) with a family argument. He carried a concealed gun, his sister in law had asked that he not carry it in her house, and he agreed. But he forgot one day that he had it on, and now she's upset with him and he thought she had no reason to be upset because it was just an accident, he hadn't intentionally taken the gun into her house, he just forgot that he had it.
What he'd missed is that was why she was upset. The fact that a person can genuinely, honestly, forget that they're armed is horribly dangerous and illustrates why lots of people think that it shouldn't be permitted for people to carry guns everywhere.
My own personal encounter with the sort of casual, carless, gun handling that is inevitable, unavoidable, and guaranteed to take place in a society where many people habitually go armed, was a bit more intimidating. In Amarillo TX a while back there was a city sponsored social event downtown, my partner and I took our kid, good times were being had. Then the guy with the shotgun showed up. He was dressed up in some faux historical frontiersman outfit (all leather and fringe and fur with a coonskin cap and so on) and had a shotgun over his shoulder.
Not on a strap, but with the barrel resting on his shoulder while he steadied it with a hand on the butt of the gun. Which is why the muzzle was pointing directly behind him, and straight into my face.
I didn't feel comfortable asking the armed asshole to stop pointing his gun at me, what if that was what made him decide to "stand his ground" and "fear for his life"? I don't talk to openly armed people because I have no idea what might set them off. So I found a nearby cop and mentioned that this guy was walking around with blatant disregard for gun safety rules and pointing the muzzle of his gun at random people in the crowd. The cop sighed, rolled his eyes, and told me that in Texas open carry was legal. So I left with my family because fuck.
Gun people are often sloppy with their guns, it's inevitable. You can't have guns carried, you can't have guns commonplace, without some gun carriers getting careless and adopting a casual attitude towards their guns.
posted by sotonohito at 8:51 AM on October 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm very aware of all the statistics and such and still... I don't know. I have (trans and/or gay) friends who are constantly harassed and followed and sometimes attacked and I worry some day they'll end up dead. They're the exact opposite of the Don't Tread on Me Flag Waver or Scared White Homeowner, who don't actually need any protection. I don't own a gun because I'm occasionally suicidal and one drunken night could mean disaster. But if I were at risk as much as those friends, I'd have to rethink that.
posted by AFABulous at 10:10 AM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AFABulous at 10:10 AM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
But if I were at risk as much as those friends, I'd have to rethink that.
Seriously? You think that them carrying a gun would put them at less risk? A gun is not a shield.
posted by Thella at 9:56 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously? You think that them carrying a gun would put them at less risk? A gun is not a shield.
posted by Thella at 9:56 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is a great article by the way. I am going to use it in my Legal Studies classes when we argue whether Australia's gun laws should be relaxed.
posted by Thella at 2:17 AM on October 22, 2016
posted by Thella at 2:17 AM on October 22, 2016
Though Frederick testified that he had given the “subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of fifteen years,” he seemed surprised when asked if the bill was unconstitutional. “I have not given it any study from that point of view,” he said.
He then proceeds to note that federal regulation would be unconstitutional. This was prior to the broad acceptance of the notion that the Commerce Clause gave Congress carte blanche to regulate what had historically been state matters.
Frederick’s logic—that the Second Amendment is not necessarily linked to individual gun ownership, that it is “promiscuous” to carry a gun around, and that the privilege of gun ownership should be curbed by the interests of public safety
He does state that individuals have the right to self-defense by having a gun in the home. Much like Scalia's Heller opinion 80 years later, he believed that carry laws were permissible but individuals had the right to have a gun in the home.
Argue that the “right of the people” refers to “individual rights,” not “ ‘collective’ rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.”According to this exegesis, “the people” is a “term of art.” The people is a person.
Just like it is in the 1st amendment and 4th amendment. If the "the people" have individual rights to assembly and to be free from warrantless search, why would it be any different in the 2nd amendment? Actually grappling with the arguments would get in the way of the author's dismissive snark, though. Can't have that.
posted by jpe at 6:20 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
He then proceeds to note that federal regulation would be unconstitutional. This was prior to the broad acceptance of the notion that the Commerce Clause gave Congress carte blanche to regulate what had historically been state matters.
Frederick’s logic—that the Second Amendment is not necessarily linked to individual gun ownership, that it is “promiscuous” to carry a gun around, and that the privilege of gun ownership should be curbed by the interests of public safety
He does state that individuals have the right to self-defense by having a gun in the home. Much like Scalia's Heller opinion 80 years later, he believed that carry laws were permissible but individuals had the right to have a gun in the home.
Argue that the “right of the people” refers to “individual rights,” not “ ‘collective’ rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.”According to this exegesis, “the people” is a “term of art.” The people is a person.
Just like it is in the 1st amendment and 4th amendment. If the "the people" have individual rights to assembly and to be free from warrantless search, why would it be any different in the 2nd amendment? Actually grappling with the arguments would get in the way of the author's dismissive snark, though. Can't have that.
posted by jpe at 6:20 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just like it is in the 1st amendment and 4th amendment. If the "the people" have individual rights to assembly and to be free from warrantless search, why would it be any different in the 2nd amendment?
The first and fourth aren't begun with an explanation and restriction.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:25 AM on October 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The first and fourth aren't begun with an explanation and restriction.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:25 AM on October 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's no restriction. Nonetheless, that would be a separate argument from her deeply stupid argument that "the people" must refer to a corporate body.
posted by jpe at 8:54 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jpe at 8:54 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
sotonohito Sorry not to reply to you yesterday, RL stuff during the day and a deer ran into the front fender of my pickup in the evening.
...we get careless about things we use often.
If this were true, it would be almost impossible for an OTR truck driver to drive a million accident free miles, but I've met several that have and read about more in various trucking company magazines. Car insurance rates should reflect an increase in carelessness after a few years if you are correct, but the average rate for a 16 y/o is over $8000 in the US, by 21 it has decreased over 50% and continues to decline for over 30 years.
No proof to offer, but I don't find it creditable that someone who has cooked breakfast and supper for decades is more likely to burn or scald themselves than someone that has only been cooking for a couple of years. If it could be shown the injury rate for masters in the skilled trades is higher than for journeymen, that would be persuasive. After a few minutes googling the only thing I've found is the 3 trades I've spent the most time in are more dangerous than being a cop, who knew?
Remember how, when you first learned how to drive, you were hyper cautious...
Nope, can't say that I do. One of my earliest memories is setting on Grandpa's lap, steering in a freshly brush-hogged pasture. At 6 y/o I was driving around hay bails while older cousins loaded the wagon, and two years later driving a loaded pickup down a state highway to the grain elevator behind my ol man on a tractor and wagon. By14, I was driving one or the other pickups all over the county except in the county seat and the cops didn't care, even though they all three knew I was two years shy of legal.
I can tell you, when approaching a sharp bend in the road unthinking conditioned reflexes make sure the turn signal's on even if there's no intersection and nothing but muscle memory manually returns the lever to neutral. Subconsciously, training can last a long time, because its been decades sense I've driven those two little trucks without self-cancelling turn signals.
That's a cool story about the Okinawan nukes, but at the moment the refutation linked to at the top of the article makes the stronger case that it didn't happen. If the NORAD training tape getting broadcast over the real network in '79 was proved to be negligence by an old hand, that wold be interesting.
... He carried a concealed gun, his sister in law had asked that he not carry it in her house, and he agreed.
Her house, her rules; its on him to make it right.
The fact that a person can genuinely, honestly, forget that they're armed is horribly dangerous...
If the sidearm is in a holster that covers the trigger and has a retention system, well would you lead me through the logic that explains why he should be constantly aware it is secured to his body?
I didn't feel comfortable asking the armed asshole to stop pointing his gun at me
I know Missouri's gun laws are way more liberal than Texas's and that would fall under brandishing and, reckless endangerment or criminal negligence up here. I also know that assholes ain't gonna stop being assholes without pushback. So, tens? Hundreds? of people were exposed to this bullshit and nobody personally pushed back? Not enough complained to the cop to get him of his ass, nor called the station to bitch about the asshole and the cop? What are you going to do? I guess they are okay with that kind of shit down there. (See story about driving at 14 y/o above)
posted by ridgerunner at 10:04 AM on October 22, 2016
...we get careless about things we use often.
If this were true, it would be almost impossible for an OTR truck driver to drive a million accident free miles, but I've met several that have and read about more in various trucking company magazines. Car insurance rates should reflect an increase in carelessness after a few years if you are correct, but the average rate for a 16 y/o is over $8000 in the US, by 21 it has decreased over 50% and continues to decline for over 30 years.
No proof to offer, but I don't find it creditable that someone who has cooked breakfast and supper for decades is more likely to burn or scald themselves than someone that has only been cooking for a couple of years. If it could be shown the injury rate for masters in the skilled trades is higher than for journeymen, that would be persuasive. After a few minutes googling the only thing I've found is the 3 trades I've spent the most time in are more dangerous than being a cop, who knew?
Remember how, when you first learned how to drive, you were hyper cautious...
Nope, can't say that I do. One of my earliest memories is setting on Grandpa's lap, steering in a freshly brush-hogged pasture. At 6 y/o I was driving around hay bails while older cousins loaded the wagon, and two years later driving a loaded pickup down a state highway to the grain elevator behind my ol man on a tractor and wagon. By14, I was driving one or the other pickups all over the county except in the county seat and the cops didn't care, even though they all three knew I was two years shy of legal.
I can tell you, when approaching a sharp bend in the road unthinking conditioned reflexes make sure the turn signal's on even if there's no intersection and nothing but muscle memory manually returns the lever to neutral. Subconsciously, training can last a long time, because its been decades sense I've driven those two little trucks without self-cancelling turn signals.
That's a cool story about the Okinawan nukes, but at the moment the refutation linked to at the top of the article makes the stronger case that it didn't happen. If the NORAD training tape getting broadcast over the real network in '79 was proved to be negligence by an old hand, that wold be interesting.
... He carried a concealed gun, his sister in law had asked that he not carry it in her house, and he agreed.
Her house, her rules; its on him to make it right.
The fact that a person can genuinely, honestly, forget that they're armed is horribly dangerous...
If the sidearm is in a holster that covers the trigger and has a retention system, well would you lead me through the logic that explains why he should be constantly aware it is secured to his body?
I didn't feel comfortable asking the armed asshole to stop pointing his gun at me
I know Missouri's gun laws are way more liberal than Texas's and that would fall under brandishing and, reckless endangerment or criminal negligence up here. I also know that assholes ain't gonna stop being assholes without pushback. So, tens? Hundreds? of people were exposed to this bullshit and nobody personally pushed back? Not enough complained to the cop to get him of his ass, nor called the station to bitch about the asshole and the cop? What are you going to do? I guess they are okay with that kind of shit down there. (See story about driving at 14 y/o above)
posted by ridgerunner at 10:04 AM on October 22, 2016
Seriously? You think that them carrying a gun would put them at less risk?
Yeah, seriously. Gay bashers generally don't use guns; it's a totally different crime than a robbery so it's less likely to be a shootout. I would think that a gun would be a huge deterrent to kicking someone's face in. There's a whole organization dedicated to this idea.
posted by AFABulous at 10:30 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, seriously. Gay bashers generally don't use guns; it's a totally different crime than a robbery so it's less likely to be a shootout. I would think that a gun would be a huge deterrent to kicking someone's face in. There's a whole organization dedicated to this idea.
posted by AFABulous at 10:30 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Patrick Blanchfield:
‘They’re Coming for the Ones You Love’: My Weekend of Gun Training in the Desert
‘They’re Coming for the Ones You Love’: My Weekend of Gun Training in the Desert
While many in Pahrump quietly admit that they find Front Sight’s promotions embarrassing or even repulsive, Piazza’s marketing clearly gets customers in the door. And the plan is only to scale up. Front Sight is currently building another 26 firing ranges, with the goal of accommodating no fewer than 2,000 shooters at once. With ever more people pursuing firearms training nationwide, Mike Meacher thinks Front Sight is poised for enormous expansion. He shows us the blueprint for a massive development plan, spanning “dorms for college students who only have two nickels to rub together, to time-shares, to luxury houses for Fortune 500 guys who want to fly in once or twice a year to spend a week.” Meacher, who has a background in golf courses, wants to make Front Sight into something similar: a Disneyland or resort destination, but with guns.The American Soul Is a Murderous Soul - "Guns make America more lethal than other countries. But getting rid of the Second Amendment won’t make Americans any less violent."
What Americans should reflect on is how deftly their society has contained and distilled the phenomenon into marginalized communities — and how that distribution of violence is something the majority of Americans of either political persuasion tend to deem irrelevant to their periodic national debates about the country’s safety or lack thereof. The Washington-based politician or journalist who sees a headline-grabbing rampage of shootings as a sign that America is descending into barbarity, and as threatening its status as an “advanced” country, exists in a kind of cognitive bubble: Literally only blocks away, bodies regularly drop at rates otherwise only seen in violence-prone corners of the developing world. Taking an even broader view, it is arguable that, but for modern advances in antibiotics and trauma care, murder rates in such parts of the United States would surpass those historically associated with medieval Europe. American “progress,” such as it is, has apparently consisted in merely blunting some deadly outcomes and enabling others.Recoil Operation - "Small Arms, Long Reach: America’s Rifle Abroad"
In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings, for example, Max Fisher produced a piece for The Washington Post declaring that “The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country,” with a chart featuring predictable comparisons to Japan, Austria, New Zealand, and others on the OECD list of Developed Nations. Though Mexico is certainly “developed” per the OECD, Fisher put his hand on the scale: “I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.”posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:45 PM on October 29, 2016
This is remarkable. Though fought with US-supplied weapons, fueled by immense US demand, and driven by US policy imperatives, “the drug war” erases our next-door neighbor in a supposedly rigorous assessment of the landscape of American gun violence. Needless to say, Fisher’s chart does not exclude gun homicides which (disproportionately) take the lives of young black men in our own cities, deaths which could be ascribed to the very same transnational “drug war.”
ridgerunner I guess I'm not following you, it appears that you're arguing what, that traffic accidents only happen because people deliberately chose to crash their cars because you think everyone just drives perfectly all the time?
How can you possibly argue that mistakes don't happen and people don't get careless sometimes?
Maybe you are an uberperfect person who never makes a mistake, but if so you're decidedly in the minority. Most people mess up sometimes. That's why we have seatbelts, and car insurance, and so on.
If the sidearm is in a holster that covers the trigger and has a retention system, well would you lead me through the logic that explains why he should be constantly aware it is secured to his body?
Because it's a gun. An object designed specifically to kill people, and gun accidents (despite your apparently belief in the possibility of human perfection) do happen. There've been over 500 people killed this year alone from accidental shootings, and significantly more injured.
Forgetting you have a gun strapped to yourself is a good first step in causing a firearm accident, not the only first step for a firearm accident, but it seems like one place they'd start. I'd prefer not to have firearm accidents around me.
I'd argue that a person who is capable of forgetting that they are armed should be automatically disqualified from owning a gun, much less carrying one. Guns are not toys, they are not harmless little status symbols, they are weapons.
So, tens? Hundreds? of people were exposed to this bullshit and nobody personally pushed back?
If you mean "I think you are lying sotonohito" say so.
As for the incident, I suppose it's down to people feeling, as you apparently do, that guns are just fun toys to have around and essentially harmless and anyone objecting is just a bad person who hates freedom.
Remember in Colorado when someone called to report a mass shooter and was brushed off by 911 because open carry was legal?
Most of the people around seemed completely at ease with the yahoo carrying the shotgun. Perhaps they, like you seem to, believed that firearm accidents don't exist and the only reason to be concerned would be if he had the intent of causing harm.
I'm an IT guy and it seems as if I take more care simply being logged in on an account with administrator privileges than you believe is necessary when carrying a gun. And that deeply disturbs me, and seems to go a long way in explaining why we have so many firearm accidents in the USA.
posted by sotonohito at 3:35 PM on October 30, 2016
How can you possibly argue that mistakes don't happen and people don't get careless sometimes?
Maybe you are an uberperfect person who never makes a mistake, but if so you're decidedly in the minority. Most people mess up sometimes. That's why we have seatbelts, and car insurance, and so on.
If the sidearm is in a holster that covers the trigger and has a retention system, well would you lead me through the logic that explains why he should be constantly aware it is secured to his body?
Because it's a gun. An object designed specifically to kill people, and gun accidents (despite your apparently belief in the possibility of human perfection) do happen. There've been over 500 people killed this year alone from accidental shootings, and significantly more injured.
Forgetting you have a gun strapped to yourself is a good first step in causing a firearm accident, not the only first step for a firearm accident, but it seems like one place they'd start. I'd prefer not to have firearm accidents around me.
I'd argue that a person who is capable of forgetting that they are armed should be automatically disqualified from owning a gun, much less carrying one. Guns are not toys, they are not harmless little status symbols, they are weapons.
So, tens? Hundreds? of people were exposed to this bullshit and nobody personally pushed back?
If you mean "I think you are lying sotonohito" say so.
As for the incident, I suppose it's down to people feeling, as you apparently do, that guns are just fun toys to have around and essentially harmless and anyone objecting is just a bad person who hates freedom.
Remember in Colorado when someone called to report a mass shooter and was brushed off by 911 because open carry was legal?
Most of the people around seemed completely at ease with the yahoo carrying the shotgun. Perhaps they, like you seem to, believed that firearm accidents don't exist and the only reason to be concerned would be if he had the intent of causing harm.
I'm an IT guy and it seems as if I take more care simply being logged in on an account with administrator privileges than you believe is necessary when carrying a gun. And that deeply disturbs me, and seems to go a long way in explaining why we have so many firearm accidents in the USA.
posted by sotonohito at 3:35 PM on October 30, 2016
How can you possibly argue that mistakes don't happen and people don't get careless sometimes?
I was objecting to the statement, all people will get careless. Especially considering many millions of Americans collectively shoot off over 5 billion rounds with no ill effects every year.
That's why we have seatbelts, and car insurance, and so on.
The insurance quotes were to illustrate that a hyper cautious, hyper aware attitude is neither necessary nor apparently desirable to safely operate dangerous equipment for decades.
There've been over 500 people killed this year alone from accidental shootings, and significantly more injured.
Were any of them shot by a sidearm in a holster that covers the trigger and has a retention system whether the owner was thinking about it or not? A gun in a good holster is just going to set there.
If you mean "I think you are lying sotonohito" say so.
No. I was unimpressed with how many people in urban Texas were willing to assume the gun was unloaded and unsafe gun handling didn't matter, and pretty disgusted with the cop.
As for the incident, I suppose it's down to people feeling, as you apparently do, that guns are just fun toys to have around and essentially harmless and anyone objecting is just a bad person who hates freedom.
Yeah, that's why I didn't express dismay about ignoring gun safety rules in the essay, even perfectly legal ones like guns in purses. Oh wait, I did in the 1st comment you replied to.
Remember in Colorado when someone called to report a mass shooter and was brushed off by 911 because open carry was legal?
You mean the one the essay's opening? I already commented on that brandishing, but will add that any long gun in public in town should at least be in an over the shoulder scabbard that covers the barrel and action, minimum.
Most of the people around seemed completely at ease with the yahoo carrying the shotgun. Perhaps they, like you seem to, believed that firearm accidents don't exist and the only reason to be concerned would be if he had the intent of causing harm.
I believe I disagreed with those people in Amarillo reactions when I repeatedly called him an asshole and pointed out at least two violations he could be charged with even in my gun happy state.
I'm an IT guy and it seems as if I take more care simply being logged in on an account with administrator privileges than you believe is necessary when carrying a gun. And that deeply disturbs me, and seems to go a long way in explaining why we have so many firearm accidents in the USA.
If I actually was the caricature with the attributes you try to ascribe to me, I would be disturbed. Nevertheless, I still find the arguments you advance unpersuasive and believe them to be minutely detrimental to efforts to improve gun safety in the US.
posted by ridgerunner at 9:01 AM on October 31, 2016
I was objecting to the statement, all people will get careless. Especially considering many millions of Americans collectively shoot off over 5 billion rounds with no ill effects every year.
That's why we have seatbelts, and car insurance, and so on.
The insurance quotes were to illustrate that a hyper cautious, hyper aware attitude is neither necessary nor apparently desirable to safely operate dangerous equipment for decades.
There've been over 500 people killed this year alone from accidental shootings, and significantly more injured.
Were any of them shot by a sidearm in a holster that covers the trigger and has a retention system whether the owner was thinking about it or not? A gun in a good holster is just going to set there.
If you mean "I think you are lying sotonohito" say so.
No. I was unimpressed with how many people in urban Texas were willing to assume the gun was unloaded and unsafe gun handling didn't matter, and pretty disgusted with the cop.
As for the incident, I suppose it's down to people feeling, as you apparently do, that guns are just fun toys to have around and essentially harmless and anyone objecting is just a bad person who hates freedom.
Yeah, that's why I didn't express dismay about ignoring gun safety rules in the essay, even perfectly legal ones like guns in purses. Oh wait, I did in the 1st comment you replied to.
Remember in Colorado when someone called to report a mass shooter and was brushed off by 911 because open carry was legal?
You mean the one the essay's opening? I already commented on that brandishing, but will add that any long gun in public in town should at least be in an over the shoulder scabbard that covers the barrel and action, minimum.
Most of the people around seemed completely at ease with the yahoo carrying the shotgun. Perhaps they, like you seem to, believed that firearm accidents don't exist and the only reason to be concerned would be if he had the intent of causing harm.
I believe I disagreed with those people in Amarillo reactions when I repeatedly called him an asshole and pointed out at least two violations he could be charged with even in my gun happy state.
I'm an IT guy and it seems as if I take more care simply being logged in on an account with administrator privileges than you believe is necessary when carrying a gun. And that deeply disturbs me, and seems to go a long way in explaining why we have so many firearm accidents in the USA.
If I actually was the caricature with the attributes you try to ascribe to me, I would be disturbed. Nevertheless, I still find the arguments you advance unpersuasive and believe them to be minutely detrimental to efforts to improve gun safety in the US.
posted by ridgerunner at 9:01 AM on October 31, 2016
If we can't agree that forgetting you are armed is negligent and dangerous, I don't think there's really any point in continuing.
I can't think of a more basic failure of essential gun safety than not knowing you have a gun. If you don't know you have it you are, by definition, incapable of treating it in a safe way.
Again, I seem to treat an administrator login with more respect and caution than you seem to feel is appropriate for a firearm. "I forgot I was logged in as root" isn't an acceptable excuse for screwing up on a computer, why would it be acceptable for screwing up with a gun?
posted by sotonohito at 12:31 PM on October 31, 2016
I can't think of a more basic failure of essential gun safety than not knowing you have a gun. If you don't know you have it you are, by definition, incapable of treating it in a safe way.
Again, I seem to treat an administrator login with more respect and caution than you seem to feel is appropriate for a firearm. "I forgot I was logged in as root" isn't an acceptable excuse for screwing up on a computer, why would it be acceptable for screwing up with a gun?
posted by sotonohito at 12:31 PM on October 31, 2016
I can't think of a more basic failure of essential gun safety than not knowing you have a gun.
Pointing the gun at somebody, fingering the trigger before you're ready to fire, leaving a shell in the chamber of a gun that's not drop safe, or leaving a gun out for anybody to find.
"I forgot I was logged is as root"
Is equivalent to "I didn't know the gun was loaded." A pistol in a good holster is more like a root prompt in a minimized window, it doesn't become potentially hazardous until you start to fiddle with it. Sitting there it does nothing whether you are concentrating on it or not.
posted by ridgerunner at 3:34 PM on October 31, 2016
Pointing the gun at somebody, fingering the trigger before you're ready to fire, leaving a shell in the chamber of a gun that's not drop safe, or leaving a gun out for anybody to find.
"I forgot I was logged is as root"
Is equivalent to "I didn't know the gun was loaded." A pistol in a good holster is more like a root prompt in a minimized window, it doesn't become potentially hazardous until you start to fiddle with it. Sitting there it does nothing whether you are concentrating on it or not.
posted by ridgerunner at 3:34 PM on October 31, 2016
A pistol in a good holster is more like a root prompt in a minimized window, it doesn't become potentially hazardous until you start to fiddle with it. Sitting there it does nothing whether you are concentrating on it or not.
OK, I've realize that we literally are incapable of even finding common ground about guns, but this is where I live.
DO NOT EVER leave a root prompt in a minimized terminal window. That's an invitation to accident and massive, catastrophic, failure. If I saw a tech who routinely kept a minimized terminal logged in to root I'd flip my shit. The possibility of accidentally selecting it, not noticing it was root and doing something stupid is way too huge. Especially since if you're a tech you probably have at least one other terminal window open.
Perhaps we simply have vastly different worldviews, you appear to have what seems to me to be a naive faith in the ability of people to not fuck things up, while I'm a very cautious (the unkind might say paranoid) person who tries to minimize the risk of accident and accidental error.
I've seen attitudes like yours in plenty of young programmers and techs and it tends to end badly. Sometimes they can get away with it for years, maybe even decades, but from my POV such people are ticking timebombs, and the longer it goes before they experience the inevitable catastrophic failure the worse it's going to be.
I'm a belt and suspenders sort of person when it comes to anything potentially dangerous. You, clearly, are the sort of person who takes a much more devil may care attitude. I find that unacceptable even in situations where the worst that can happen is a computer going down, the fact that you consider what I see as careless, reckless, behavior to be tolerable in situations where the worst that can happen is a someone being killed horrifies me and is, I think the root of our disagreement.
I see an armed person as an accident waiting to happen, so I want to reduce the number of armed people to absolute minimum necessary for a functioning society.
You, clearly, see an armed person as someone who won't be a problem as long as they're careful.
I think it is impossible for most humans to successfully be careful 100% of the time, you seem to disagree.
We tolerate the horrors of people driving, despite the awful body count, because without it our society would grind to a halt. But to my mind that's the reason why computer driving is the best thing ever. Get humans off the road and we eliminate an area where people fucking up results in deaths. The very instant computer driving works (defined as: works even 1% safer than human driving) I'll be fully in support of laws banning human drivers on public roads.
I simply, fundamentally, recognize that people fuck up sometimes and therefore think anything we can do to get people out of situations where fucking up will kill people is a good thing. You clearly disagree and I have no idea why.
posted by sotonohito at 6:02 AM on November 1, 2016
OK, I've realize that we literally are incapable of even finding common ground about guns, but this is where I live.
DO NOT EVER leave a root prompt in a minimized terminal window. That's an invitation to accident and massive, catastrophic, failure. If I saw a tech who routinely kept a minimized terminal logged in to root I'd flip my shit. The possibility of accidentally selecting it, not noticing it was root and doing something stupid is way too huge. Especially since if you're a tech you probably have at least one other terminal window open.
Perhaps we simply have vastly different worldviews, you appear to have what seems to me to be a naive faith in the ability of people to not fuck things up, while I'm a very cautious (the unkind might say paranoid) person who tries to minimize the risk of accident and accidental error.
I've seen attitudes like yours in plenty of young programmers and techs and it tends to end badly. Sometimes they can get away with it for years, maybe even decades, but from my POV such people are ticking timebombs, and the longer it goes before they experience the inevitable catastrophic failure the worse it's going to be.
I'm a belt and suspenders sort of person when it comes to anything potentially dangerous. You, clearly, are the sort of person who takes a much more devil may care attitude. I find that unacceptable even in situations where the worst that can happen is a computer going down, the fact that you consider what I see as careless, reckless, behavior to be tolerable in situations where the worst that can happen is a someone being killed horrifies me and is, I think the root of our disagreement.
I see an armed person as an accident waiting to happen, so I want to reduce the number of armed people to absolute minimum necessary for a functioning society.
You, clearly, see an armed person as someone who won't be a problem as long as they're careful.
I think it is impossible for most humans to successfully be careful 100% of the time, you seem to disagree.
We tolerate the horrors of people driving, despite the awful body count, because without it our society would grind to a halt. But to my mind that's the reason why computer driving is the best thing ever. Get humans off the road and we eliminate an area where people fucking up results in deaths. The very instant computer driving works (defined as: works even 1% safer than human driving) I'll be fully in support of laws banning human drivers on public roads.
I simply, fundamentally, recognize that people fuck up sometimes and therefore think anything we can do to get people out of situations where fucking up will kill people is a good thing. You clearly disagree and I have no idea why.
posted by sotonohito at 6:02 AM on November 1, 2016
You clearly disagree and I have no idea why.
because I've had a violent life, the cops are useless, and I've never had enough cash for a bodyguard.
Of course there's a risk to using anything powerful, but there are sociopaths born or made every fucking day. I have no intention of going back to where two guys armed with sticks can put me in the hospital, out of work for weeks, and further in debt. I once went ten years without pulling a gun on anyone, it was great, then had to twice in less than six months.
I really hate it when someone sitting on their ass in an office complains about car accidents when every office building has the blood of some working class asshole embedded in it. I guarantee at sometime you've eaten food that somebody died getting it out of the ground or to the store. The last guy l knew that got killed, died because someone above him fumbled a battery change on their Dewalt. It hit him on the spine, just behind his hardhat, he suffocated in the bottom of a hole because his lungs wouldn't work no more.
So, the minimizable risk from a gun? Yeah, whatever, beats the alternative.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:37 AM on November 1, 2016
because I've had a violent life, the cops are useless, and I've never had enough cash for a bodyguard.
Of course there's a risk to using anything powerful, but there are sociopaths born or made every fucking day. I have no intention of going back to where two guys armed with sticks can put me in the hospital, out of work for weeks, and further in debt. I once went ten years without pulling a gun on anyone, it was great, then had to twice in less than six months.
I really hate it when someone sitting on their ass in an office complains about car accidents when every office building has the blood of some working class asshole embedded in it. I guarantee at sometime you've eaten food that somebody died getting it out of the ground or to the store. The last guy l knew that got killed, died because someone above him fumbled a battery change on their Dewalt. It hit him on the spine, just behind his hardhat, he suffocated in the bottom of a hole because his lungs wouldn't work no more.
So, the minimizable risk from a gun? Yeah, whatever, beats the alternative.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:37 AM on November 1, 2016
Maybe it's minimizing the risk at an individual level, but the US has a fairly unique systemic gun problem that's fed by gun culture.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:33 AM on November 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 11:33 AM on November 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Death rates for industries I've worked in:
Agricultural. 22.2
Transportation. 13.1
Construction. 9.4
These are Fed rates, so if you're pulling 5/12s or 6/10s and get killed at work you only count as .666 of one death.
EMS about 11
Accidental firearm 0.2 up to 0.3 if you throw in all the undetermined death.
If you work in Information Industries your only about 5 times more likely to die at work than get killed by a bullet accidentally, so l guess it all relative.
posted by ridgerunner at 1:01 PM on November 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Agricultural. 22.2
Transportation. 13.1
Construction. 9.4
These are Fed rates, so if you're pulling 5/12s or 6/10s and get killed at work you only count as .666 of one death.
EMS about 11
Accidental firearm 0.2 up to 0.3 if you throw in all the undetermined death.
If you work in Information Industries your only about 5 times more likely to die at work than get killed by a bullet accidentally, so l guess it all relative.
posted by ridgerunner at 1:01 PM on November 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's minimizing the risk at an individual level...
Violence is an individual thing. Cultures don't find themselves on the ground with their eyes not quite focusing right, an arm jammed against broken ribs trying to figger out how bad their bleeding. That's what a person does.
posted by ridgerunner at 1:59 PM on November 1, 2016
Violence is an individual thing. Cultures don't find themselves on the ground with their eyes not quite focusing right, an arm jammed against broken ribs trying to figger out how bad their bleeding. That's what a person does.
posted by ridgerunner at 1:59 PM on November 1, 2016
The worker fatal injury rate in the [agriculture] sector (9.12 per 100,000 workers) remains much higher than any other industry sector: around 6 times that in construction and 20 times that across all industries (1.62 and 0.46 per 100,000 respectively).Sometimes I get pretty pissed off living in the UK, but I have to appreciate how well health and safety works here.
posted by ambrosen at 3:03 PM on November 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm baffled as to why you'd bring up death rates in various industries, to me that's a categorically different problem. One that needs to be addressed, and the worker protection laws in the USA are criminally lax. We need stronger unions, better laws, and a culture that emphasizes workplace safety rather than efficiency or productivity or the bottom line. American safety laws are a joke and I do what limited things I can to try and make them stronger.
But I don't see how that relates to gun deaths because we have actual need of food, and buildings, and resource extraction, and all the other dangerous things.
We don't have need of armed civilians. Guns are a hobby, not a necessity, and asking society to assume the risk of your hobby is deeply wrong and unfair. If gun enthusiasts were only killing themselves it'd be a different issue, I'd dislike it but only in the same sense that I dislike skydiving or other dangerous hobbies. Their risk is theirs, they aren't asking me to take on their risk so they can have their fun.
I'm sure I'll be having the same argument with car enthusiasts once self driving cars become a reality. There are people who really like driving. But humans are awful drivers, and their enjoyment of driving should not (once it stops being necessary for the functioning of society) be permitted to endanger others. Right now I tolerate the dangers of human drivers because there isn't really an alternative. Once it stops being necessary for humans to drive I'll fight tooth and nail to make it illegal for humans to drive (on public roads anyway, if you want to risk your life on a private racetrack that's fine).
Gun fans are asking me to take the risk that their hobby entails. They are saying "I like this dangerous thing, and I demand that you accept the risk of death or bodily harm that my hobby produces". That's an unfair, unjust, and immoral demand. It is wrong for you to ask me to risk my life just so you can indulge your gun fandom. Take your gun to a shooting range, go hunting, I'm not going to complain. Tell me your fandom demands that you carry a gun everywhere and I'll object and do my best to make that illegal.
If what you do for fun requires that non-consenting third parties take the risk of dying or being injured, then you need to find some other hobby.
posted by sotonohito at 5:43 AM on November 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
But I don't see how that relates to gun deaths because we have actual need of food, and buildings, and resource extraction, and all the other dangerous things.
We don't have need of armed civilians. Guns are a hobby, not a necessity, and asking society to assume the risk of your hobby is deeply wrong and unfair. If gun enthusiasts were only killing themselves it'd be a different issue, I'd dislike it but only in the same sense that I dislike skydiving or other dangerous hobbies. Their risk is theirs, they aren't asking me to take on their risk so they can have their fun.
I'm sure I'll be having the same argument with car enthusiasts once self driving cars become a reality. There are people who really like driving. But humans are awful drivers, and their enjoyment of driving should not (once it stops being necessary for the functioning of society) be permitted to endanger others. Right now I tolerate the dangers of human drivers because there isn't really an alternative. Once it stops being necessary for humans to drive I'll fight tooth and nail to make it illegal for humans to drive (on public roads anyway, if you want to risk your life on a private racetrack that's fine).
Gun fans are asking me to take the risk that their hobby entails. They are saying "I like this dangerous thing, and I demand that you accept the risk of death or bodily harm that my hobby produces". That's an unfair, unjust, and immoral demand. It is wrong for you to ask me to risk my life just so you can indulge your gun fandom. Take your gun to a shooting range, go hunting, I'm not going to complain. Tell me your fandom demands that you carry a gun everywhere and I'll object and do my best to make that illegal.
If what you do for fun requires that non-consenting third parties take the risk of dying or being injured, then you need to find some other hobby.
posted by sotonohito at 5:43 AM on November 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's what the linked article is about, really. The gun fans have turned gun violence and accident into something Americans view as being inevitable, just a different sort of weather. But it isn't.
There's nothing inherently necessary about gun carrying. We can't stop every way that people to die, but we can end this way that people to die.
Isn't that a goal worth fighting for?
posted by sotonohito at 5:44 AM on November 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's nothing inherently necessary about gun carrying. We can't stop every way that people to die, but we can end this way that people to die.
Isn't that a goal worth fighting for?
posted by sotonohito at 5:44 AM on November 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know that it's possible at this point to wipe out guns in America. There are just too many - how would you physically round them up? Most cops and military won't want to go door to door confronting people they know are armed. (But there's no national registry, so you don't actually know where the guns are at. So you'd have to search everyone's house. But there's the 4th amendment.) Buybacks won't affect the fanatics. And we can't keep drugs or people from getting through our borders, so there'll be a black market. And if we manage to stop the importation, 3D printing is just around the corner. You can already make your own bullets, or someone will do it and sell those to you on the black market.
I've never seen a credible solution for eliminating guns, only (partially) controlling the sale. This is just a guess, but I'd bet most of the accidents would not have been stopped by a background check, because there's no reason to suspect that accident-prone people are also felons.
posted by AFABulous at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2016
I've never seen a credible solution for eliminating guns, only (partially) controlling the sale. This is just a guess, but I'd bet most of the accidents would not have been stopped by a background check, because there's no reason to suspect that accident-prone people are also felons.
posted by AFABulous at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2016
You seem to be conflating "addressing gun violence" with "getting rid of all guns".
I'll agree that the second is a very difficult problem indeed and probably can't be solved short of actual civil war and massive invasions of privacy.
But you don't have to get rid of all guns in order to end a lot of gun problems.
Just ending gun carrying solves a large swathe of problems right away and can be done fairly easily.
Addressing the storm situation gets easier if gun carrying is generally illegal. Look again at the Colorado Springs spree shooting last year. Someone saw the shooter moving into position, called 911 and was told to bugger off and stop annoying the police because open carry was legal.
If gun carrying is generally not legal, than identifying shooters on the way to kill people is a vastly simpler problem: you can safely assume that civilians who are carrying guns around [1] is probably getting ready to kill lots of people.
Likewise imposing rules mandating that guns kept at home be kept in locked gun safes, with fines and permanent loss of gun rights for people found to have violated that requirement, helps a lot too.
Likewise shutting down the known bad actors in the gun selling community. Over 50% of guns used in crimes were sold by just 1% of gun dealers. The bad actors are known, but due to the NRA they can't be shut down.
Gun violence is **NOT** an intractable problem, it is not weather, it is not unsolvable, it does not require that we eliminate guns.
It just requires that we act despite the whining and pouting from the gun fans. I don't object in principle to most of their hobby (the gun carrying part is the only part I object to), and I don't object in principle to civilian ownership of firearms.
They'll whine, mock, and pout any action that inconveniences them in the slightest or seems to them like it doesn't take the idols of their religion sufficiently seriously (see, for example, the way gun fans scream and tantrum and mock gun buyback programs, the root of their objection is not that such programs don't work, it's just that they don't like the idea of there being fewer guns and the police aren't treating guns like sacred relics but rather destroying them).
But we have to work through that.
It'd be nice to think that the gun fans would help out, that we could make common cause with them to solve the problem, but I don't think we'll get many willing to do so. Gun fans seem far too enamored with the mythology the NRA has built up, even if they despise the NRA itself.
[1] Obvious exception for people going hunting or to a gun range.
posted by sotonohito at 5:52 AM on November 4, 2016
I'll agree that the second is a very difficult problem indeed and probably can't be solved short of actual civil war and massive invasions of privacy.
But you don't have to get rid of all guns in order to end a lot of gun problems.
Just ending gun carrying solves a large swathe of problems right away and can be done fairly easily.
Addressing the storm situation gets easier if gun carrying is generally illegal. Look again at the Colorado Springs spree shooting last year. Someone saw the shooter moving into position, called 911 and was told to bugger off and stop annoying the police because open carry was legal.
If gun carrying is generally not legal, than identifying shooters on the way to kill people is a vastly simpler problem: you can safely assume that civilians who are carrying guns around [1] is probably getting ready to kill lots of people.
Likewise imposing rules mandating that guns kept at home be kept in locked gun safes, with fines and permanent loss of gun rights for people found to have violated that requirement, helps a lot too.
Likewise shutting down the known bad actors in the gun selling community. Over 50% of guns used in crimes were sold by just 1% of gun dealers. The bad actors are known, but due to the NRA they can't be shut down.
Gun violence is **NOT** an intractable problem, it is not weather, it is not unsolvable, it does not require that we eliminate guns.
It just requires that we act despite the whining and pouting from the gun fans. I don't object in principle to most of their hobby (the gun carrying part is the only part I object to), and I don't object in principle to civilian ownership of firearms.
They'll whine, mock, and pout any action that inconveniences them in the slightest or seems to them like it doesn't take the idols of their religion sufficiently seriously (see, for example, the way gun fans scream and tantrum and mock gun buyback programs, the root of their objection is not that such programs don't work, it's just that they don't like the idea of there being fewer guns and the police aren't treating guns like sacred relics but rather destroying them).
But we have to work through that.
It'd be nice to think that the gun fans would help out, that we could make common cause with them to solve the problem, but I don't think we'll get many willing to do so. Gun fans seem far too enamored with the mythology the NRA has built up, even if they despise the NRA itself.
[1] Obvious exception for people going hunting or to a gun range.
posted by sotonohito at 5:52 AM on November 4, 2016
I'm baffled as to why you'd bring up death rates in various industries, to me that's a categorically different problem.
Relative risk. Every morning when I step out the door, I'm 111 times more likely to bite it trying to make a buck than taking a stray round. Even in my safest trade it was almost 50 times more likely to happen at work; electrocution, hypothermia, heatstroke, falls or some dickhead dropping a hammer or an I-beam on me. Getting shot's not even on the radar.
What is the difference between getting shot at the Dairy Queen and my neighbor's bull taking me out? Whoever shot me would feel bad for a little while just like my neighbor would. I would still be dead and eventually my insurance would pay out. This stuff ain't new, I was in early elementary school when I lost my first buddy to a farm accident.
American safety laws are a joke and I do what limited things I can to try and make them stronger.
Yep, its pretty hard to make any progress when the middle class are such faithless allies, generally more enablers and force multipliers for the 1%.
...we have actual need of food, and buildings, and resource extraction, and all the other dangerous things.
Yep. Of course the risk/benefit calculations all favor the middle and upper class as it's working class lives on the line.
We don't have need of armed civilians.
Wow! So are you saying almost all people live and work in a place where cops enforce restraining orders; prevent white supremacists, street gangs and 1%er MCs from moving in and respond appropriately to junkies that are loosing it? That must be so chill. No wonder you were so upset with that cop in Amarillo.
Ain't been my life. The only difference between most cop shops and Ferguson's or Sheriff Joe's is not a difference in kind but of degree. Rampart type policing happens lots of places outside L. A. or Chicago. If your not upper or middle class, police protection is... sporadic at best.
I really don't like the alternate power structures. Ones like the old spookily named La Costra Nostra, straight up intimidating M13 or the romanticized Hell's Angels. They seriously stress the normal social bonds that dampen violence, especially the wannabe possers before they get slapped down. They all act like they've got some damned divine right to prey on the working class and the poor, mainly by making junkies to funnel them receipts from stolen goods, extortion and hooking.
Around here its been The Galloping Goose MC for about 50 years. They've been loosing ground to 'The Mexicans' or 'The Cartels' and 'The Honkies' (vaguely associated with the Aryan Nation) for a few years now. There's persistent rumors some cops are heavily favoring white over brown, but The Mexicans are better funded.
Apparently a few years ago around K. C. the Feds finally managed to get most of the Goose's and El Forastero MC's leadership convicted and promptly left for D. C. to collect their brownie points, leaving a nice juicy power vacuum in Missouri's drug trade. Now the Bandidos, Vagos, Sons of Silence, Mongols, Boozefighters and Outlaws are all openly riding around the state. I don't know if the Gooses inviting, their buddies, the Hells Angels in to take over would be better than a seven way turf war. I'm betting either way the fallout mostly lands on people that don't want anything to do with this shit.
I'ld much rather see effective rehab cheap enough for even poor people to afford as the main effort to reduce crime. Ain't counting on it, we got too much practice ignoring junkies from when they were mostly poor and black. ODs killing more people now than guns or cars ain't changed that.
...you carry a gun everywhere and I'll object and do my best to make that illegal.
The last 36 years have seen concealed carry laws liberalized in almost every state and guns and ammo sales soar. Do you expect federal action to reverse these trends in the next few years?
We can't stop every way that people to die, but we can end this way that people to die. Isn't that a goal worth fighting for?
Does your plan disadvantage the working class and poor? Do the benefits mostly accrue to the upper and middle classes? Not interested, got enough of that already.
posted by ridgerunner at 7:59 AM on November 7, 2016
Relative risk. Every morning when I step out the door, I'm 111 times more likely to bite it trying to make a buck than taking a stray round. Even in my safest trade it was almost 50 times more likely to happen at work; electrocution, hypothermia, heatstroke, falls or some dickhead dropping a hammer or an I-beam on me. Getting shot's not even on the radar.
What is the difference between getting shot at the Dairy Queen and my neighbor's bull taking me out? Whoever shot me would feel bad for a little while just like my neighbor would. I would still be dead and eventually my insurance would pay out. This stuff ain't new, I was in early elementary school when I lost my first buddy to a farm accident.
American safety laws are a joke and I do what limited things I can to try and make them stronger.
Yep, its pretty hard to make any progress when the middle class are such faithless allies, generally more enablers and force multipliers for the 1%.
...we have actual need of food, and buildings, and resource extraction, and all the other dangerous things.
Yep. Of course the risk/benefit calculations all favor the middle and upper class as it's working class lives on the line.
We don't have need of armed civilians.
Wow! So are you saying almost all people live and work in a place where cops enforce restraining orders; prevent white supremacists, street gangs and 1%er MCs from moving in and respond appropriately to junkies that are loosing it? That must be so chill. No wonder you were so upset with that cop in Amarillo.
Ain't been my life. The only difference between most cop shops and Ferguson's or Sheriff Joe's is not a difference in kind but of degree. Rampart type policing happens lots of places outside L. A. or Chicago. If your not upper or middle class, police protection is... sporadic at best.
I really don't like the alternate power structures. Ones like the old spookily named La Costra Nostra, straight up intimidating M13 or the romanticized Hell's Angels. They seriously stress the normal social bonds that dampen violence, especially the wannabe possers before they get slapped down. They all act like they've got some damned divine right to prey on the working class and the poor, mainly by making junkies to funnel them receipts from stolen goods, extortion and hooking.
Around here its been The Galloping Goose MC for about 50 years. They've been loosing ground to 'The Mexicans' or 'The Cartels' and 'The Honkies' (vaguely associated with the Aryan Nation) for a few years now. There's persistent rumors some cops are heavily favoring white over brown, but The Mexicans are better funded.
Apparently a few years ago around K. C. the Feds finally managed to get most of the Goose's and El Forastero MC's leadership convicted and promptly left for D. C. to collect their brownie points, leaving a nice juicy power vacuum in Missouri's drug trade. Now the Bandidos, Vagos, Sons of Silence, Mongols, Boozefighters and Outlaws are all openly riding around the state. I don't know if the Gooses inviting, their buddies, the Hells Angels in to take over would be better than a seven way turf war. I'm betting either way the fallout mostly lands on people that don't want anything to do with this shit.
I'ld much rather see effective rehab cheap enough for even poor people to afford as the main effort to reduce crime. Ain't counting on it, we got too much practice ignoring junkies from when they were mostly poor and black. ODs killing more people now than guns or cars ain't changed that.
...you carry a gun everywhere and I'll object and do my best to make that illegal.
The last 36 years have seen concealed carry laws liberalized in almost every state and guns and ammo sales soar. Do you expect federal action to reverse these trends in the next few years?
We can't stop every way that people to die, but we can end this way that people to die. Isn't that a goal worth fighting for?
Does your plan disadvantage the working class and poor? Do the benefits mostly accrue to the upper and middle classes? Not interested, got enough of that already.
posted by ridgerunner at 7:59 AM on November 7, 2016
I have no idea what you're going on about in regards to carry laws and the working class and the poor, unless you're not counting working class PoC, women, religious minorities, and many other groups. The fact of the matter is that carry laws have thus far proven at best completely ineffective at reducing crime levels, and at worst have exacerbated existing issues with injuries and deaths from mistaken and/or accidental shootings. Open carry is already causing problems with preventing crimes committed with firearms, and it is increasingly being used in attempts to deny Constitutional rights to marginalized communities. And as we've seen in the last several months, the reality is that they are applicable to white people (and men especially) only.
So, in the end, it's carry laws that are the ones actually ending up as disadvantage to the working class and the poor, especially those who aren't white Christian men. Inconsistent application of the laws won't really change anytime soon; leaving billions of dollars in health care, legal, and other costs to be shouldered by the very same working class people you're claiming it works for. That's not to say it may work for you at a personal level, but at a systemic level it really is worse for everybody, and getting rid of that does seem to be a goal worth fighting for.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:17 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, in the end, it's carry laws that are the ones actually ending up as disadvantage to the working class and the poor, especially those who aren't white Christian men. Inconsistent application of the laws won't really change anytime soon; leaving billions of dollars in health care, legal, and other costs to be shouldered by the very same working class people you're claiming it works for. That's not to say it may work for you at a personal level, but at a systemic level it really is worse for everybody, and getting rid of that does seem to be a goal worth fighting for.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:17 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Actually, I remembered the figures wrong. It's not just billions, it's hundreds of billions, the vast majority of which impacts the victims:
posted by zombieflanders at 1:21 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
In collaboration with Miller, Mother Jones crunched data from 2012 and found that the annual cost of gun violence in America exceeds $229 billion. Direct costs account for $8.6 billion—including long-term prison costs for people who commit assault and homicide using guns, which at $5.2 billion a year is the largest direct expense. Even before accounting for the more intangible costs of the violence, in other words, the average cost to taxpayers for a single gun homicide in America is nearly $400,000. And we pay for 32 of them every single day.The article notes that the $229 billion number is probably an underestimation, perhaps a large one, as it doesn't take into account a variety of other factors such as mental health or extremely long-term (7+ years) health care costs. Either way, it's an italics, bold, underline emphasis that the expansion of gun rights that manifests in carry laws and many others is a huge cost for the US, both in terms of financial and social impacts. And as expected, it's the states with the loosest gun laws that contribute the higher ratios of costs, much of which is also passed onto taxpayers. To try and posit that gun control is the real burden on the working class and poor of this country isn't just wrong, it's actually the complete opposite of reality.
Indirect costs amount to at least $221 billion, about $169 billion of which comes from what researchers consider to be the impact on victims' quality of life. Victims' lost wages, which account for $49 billion annually, are the other major factor. Miller's calculation for indirect costs, based on jury awards, values the average "statistical life" harmed by gun violence at about $6.2 million. That's toward the lower end of the range for this analytical method, which is used widely by industry and government. (The EPA, for example, currently values a statistical life at $7.9 million, and the DOT uses $9.2 million.)
Our investigation also begins to illuminate the economic toll for individual states. Louisiana has the highest gun homicide rate in the nation, with costs per capita of more than $1,300. Wyoming has a small population but the highest overall rate of gun deaths—including the nation's highest suicide rate—with costs working out to about $1,400 per resident. Among the four most populous states, the costs per capita in the gun rights strongholds of Florida and Texas outpace those in more strictly regulated California and New York. Hawaii and Massachusetts, with their relatively low gun ownership rates and tight gun laws, have the lowest gun death rates, and costs per capita roughly a fifth as much as those of the states that pay the most.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:21 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
I ain't a Christian, never been one and I ain't white. There's reasons I self identify as a halfbreed hillbilly, not NDN that goes back to '64. No biggie, just saying.
Not that it matters after the 8th, but if carrying was outlawed something like 60% of blue collar people that get caught would end up in jail, for suits it would be maybe 10%. Now the chances of doing something that could actually reduce violence like getting a few more rehab beds just took big hit, it wouldn't surprise me if we lose some detox beds. Not that anybody can afford it without going to jail first.
From 2012:
Because violence and violence containment is costing the average taxpayer $3,257 each year. In fact, the total cost of violence to the U.S. — including lost productivity from violence — was conservatively calculated to be over S460 billion.
A number I find suspect too, because I don't believe even half the violent crimes, without a body, are reported. Assuming there are both equally invalid, Mother Jones was leaving half the cost of violence off the table not to mention a big chunk of pain and a few bodies. Being that every fight, beating and knifing involves a risk of death or maiming I don't believe that's a valid division.
Dept of Justice's 4 year average ending in 2012 shows poor people were the victims of non fatal violent crimes at a rate of 3980/100,000 with 350 per using a gun. For above ~ $50K it was 1690/100,000 and 80 per using a gun. That's once every 25 person-years. So, if someone got into it 5 or 6 times in 25 years there could be 3 people that experienced violence as a once in a lifetime thing and 1 that never experienced violence?
No wonder we can't communicate very well, after thinking about it off and on for over a day, I really can't understand how that would work. Do people just shun people with assholes for SOs or that join NA? Do they just stand by when someone tries to walk away with the tools they need to get paid? Thinking about an Alt History where Hitler was a successful Art Deco painter is easier.
Sorry for the digression. If we subtract guns from the total we're still left with 90% of the assaults plus however many would go at it without a gun. I think its 70%, but lets say I'm exactly wrong, that would leave 93%. Convincing me to support your views on guns means showing the deterrent effect of a gun is worth significantly less than a 7% reduction in attacks.
If you don't feel you need a gun, I'm not trying to tell you, you're wrong, just pointing out your conditions aren't universal.
posted by ridgerunner at 3:35 PM on November 10, 2016
Not that it matters after the 8th, but if carrying was outlawed something like 60% of blue collar people that get caught would end up in jail, for suits it would be maybe 10%. Now the chances of doing something that could actually reduce violence like getting a few more rehab beds just took big hit, it wouldn't surprise me if we lose some detox beds. Not that anybody can afford it without going to jail first.
From 2012:
Because violence and violence containment is costing the average taxpayer $3,257 each year. In fact, the total cost of violence to the U.S. — including lost productivity from violence — was conservatively calculated to be over S460 billion.
A number I find suspect too, because I don't believe even half the violent crimes, without a body, are reported. Assuming there are both equally invalid, Mother Jones was leaving half the cost of violence off the table not to mention a big chunk of pain and a few bodies. Being that every fight, beating and knifing involves a risk of death or maiming I don't believe that's a valid division.
Dept of Justice's 4 year average ending in 2012 shows poor people were the victims of non fatal violent crimes at a rate of 3980/100,000 with 350 per using a gun. For above ~ $50K it was 1690/100,000 and 80 per using a gun. That's once every 25 person-years. So, if someone got into it 5 or 6 times in 25 years there could be 3 people that experienced violence as a once in a lifetime thing and 1 that never experienced violence?
No wonder we can't communicate very well, after thinking about it off and on for over a day, I really can't understand how that would work. Do people just shun people with assholes for SOs or that join NA? Do they just stand by when someone tries to walk away with the tools they need to get paid? Thinking about an Alt History where Hitler was a successful Art Deco painter is easier.
Sorry for the digression. If we subtract guns from the total we're still left with 90% of the assaults plus however many would go at it without a gun. I think its 70%, but lets say I'm exactly wrong, that would leave 93%. Convincing me to support your views on guns means showing the deterrent effect of a gun is worth significantly less than a 7% reduction in attacks.
If you don't feel you need a gun, I'm not trying to tell you, you're wrong, just pointing out your conditions aren't universal.
posted by ridgerunner at 3:35 PM on November 10, 2016
« Older It must have sounded like a tire factory. | The secret behind Italy's rarest pasta Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:07 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]