1) I've known two people who have bought handguns. Both did so for self defense reasons after being victims of violent crime/break ins. The perpetrators didn't have a gun, but were bigger and stronger (one had a knife and a buddy). Both were middle class white people not living in the ghetto. The perpetrators were defiantly on drugs in one encounter and possibly on drugs in the other.
2) When I was a single young adult I got into skeet shooting for awhile and found it very relaxing. I gave up my gun once I had kids.
3) I don't think gun regulation is a particularly important matter. I think it would probably save lives, but not that many. I'd rather target crime more directly rather than pretending guns are the driver.
I also believe that targeting crime will never happen because we'd have to talk about blacks.
4) One bonus of banning guns would be getting rid of insane fantasies of some right wingers that people could somehow engage in an armed uprising against the government in 2023. I find that notion absurd and distracting from the real fight against tyranny.
5) One thing that really bothers me is active shooter drills in schools. Like every other fear based bullshit they push on kids these days it drives me up the wall.
6) On that note, the entire gun control demographic gives off an authoritarian safety-ism streak that I'm thoroughly exhausted by. Maybe beating their head against the NRA distracts them from whatever other bullshit they would be working on in our lives. I have a gas stove I'd like to keep among other things.
"What’s the big deal if you have to wait a week to buy a gun? By itself, the answer is plainly, “Yea, it’s not a big deal.” "
I had a few events in my life that make me disagree with this. The first was that somebody I knew threatened one of my children. The second was that someone broke into my car and stole my garage door opener, which I assumed meant they wanted to get into my house. On both occasions I considered arming myself. Had it been necessary, a one week waiting period would have been a nightmare. It's very easy to imagine other situations (rioting, looting, domestic violence) where someone could have an immediate need for a gun to protect themselves or their property.
Even though there hasn't been a mass violent counter-response to despotic pushes in the past, the expected risk of democide versus the expected risk of violent population unrest should be weighed. I think its only a fool who would say 80 million small arms owners have zero impact on the degree to which the existing government is despotic. Even if the existing government carpet bombed its civilian population like Biden insinuates (a dubious proposition as why didn't china carpet bomb the protestors recently); this ignores a few facts 1. Those jets need to refueled and rearmed, 65% of our oil is produced domestically and conservatives with guns are really the only people that work in that industry. 2. Why do we have a ground force if air forces are all that is required to win conflicts? 3. Things sure went well for them in Afghanistan with our oil infrastructure in place, superior armor and superior air power...
Here is another problem - if you're pro gun control, and you think #3 passes a risk/reward assessment, you should feel *badly* about taking away firearms from so many law-abiding citizens.
Similarly, an honest progressive might think that taxing the rich is the most efficient path toward prosperity.
In both cases, they should feel badly about hurting innocent people, admittedly in service of an important goal that potentially justifies it. However reviewing progressive rhetoric tells me that progressives often enjoy these aspects of policy rather than feeling badly about them.
The problem is that most people are terrible at understanding numbers and percentages. 700 out of 60 million is only .001% of the population, but that .001% gets massive attention. Mass shootings almost never happen, but mass shootings get massive attention when they do. We need better math education in this country, especially statistics.
Regarding “Gee, what if they own a gun?” point, I live in a cop neighborhood in Chicago, situated on the edge of the city. City employees must reside within city limits, so there are a couple areas like mine that have would-be suburbanite first responders (typically with families). Crime is low here, murder nearly unheard of. I often joke that I benefit from herd immunity to crime: who's going to break into a house or garage if there's a chance a cop is going to wake up and grab his or her gun? Everyone seems to agree with my immunity metaphor, including those who think guns should be illegal.
But to admit this "herd immunity" effect is to admit more gun ownership generally SHOULD have a similar effect on deterring break-ins, right? I don't claim this is a slam-dunk argument, but I get the impression the pro-gun control crowd does seem to dismiss this potential benefit as just a grasping at theoretical straws.
Brian's kids are obviously very smart. A better guide for normal kids might go like this:
"Johnny you know how you like toy guns and mean teacher Karen made you cry by shouting at you for bringing it to show your friend? Our town, our country, and the whole world are run by big versions of Karen. If you let them take your guns, they win."
Most anti-gunners are targeting "assault rifles". Per FBI stats, the total number of people killed by rifles of all kinds is typically around 200 per year. This is nothing statistically speaking, and includes all rifles, not just the scary black ones. People pushing for such bans have other motives besides saving lives - maybe step 1 in a larger gun ban plan, or maybe just wanting to stick it to a deplorable demographic they despise.
I believe in noblese oblige. Black americans will not stop shooting each other, and their lives matter. White people keep shooting themselves, and their lives matter too. Notice you didn't mention suicide in your post. We need to have fewer guns we should make ownership mostly illegal, espically of hand guns, which aren't useful for hunting or defense against the state, and are used in 80% of gun homicides. we should have buy backs and amnesties, it'll take a while, but long term we can greatly reduce the number of guns in the country and the number of shootings. It's the right thing to do, I expect gun owners to do the right thing and eventually hand their guns in, or eventually get fined, if they don't. We know from australia this works. They are similar to us and not Japan.
3) You could reply, “Sure, banning guns is unfair to the vast majority of gun owners. But the gains of banning guns are so massive that we should do it anyway.”
Try this with Alcohol which kills 140,000 Americans a year. Drunk driving alone kills as many people as are murdered by guns. So why don't we apply the same solutions? Require a permit to purchase, purchase limits, a waiting period, safe storage, relatives can call police to confiscate. No one will take you seriously because alcohol isn't scary like guns to many people.
Thankfully, I've never known anyone killed by a gun. I have had friends in 5 different DUI accidents. Three dead, one seriously injured, one out of work for 3 months, and 3 just banged up.
What about gun related accidents? As I understand it deaths and injuries caused by accidents are way higher than actual murders. (I remember an amusing but not very helpful statistic that said that more people get shot by their own dog every year in the US than killed in terrorist attacks!)
Kevin Williamson has many very good articles on guns and gun control. One good point he often makes is that America is just a violent country; we kill a lot of people with guns, but we also kill a lot of people with our hands, hammers, bats, etc
"A prince, who fills the throne with a disputed title, dares not arm his subjects; the only method of securing a people fully, both against domestic oppression and foreign conquest."
My understanding is the vast majority of US gun deaths are suicides. An issue most likely to impact young men. I am also given to believe that making it harder to kill yourself, does drastically reduce the rate (gas oven legislation in the UK).
1) I've known two people who have bought handguns. Both did so for self defense reasons after being victims of violent crime/break ins. The perpetrators didn't have a gun, but were bigger and stronger (one had a knife and a buddy). Both were middle class white people not living in the ghetto. The perpetrators were defiantly on drugs in one encounter and possibly on drugs in the other.
2) When I was a single young adult I got into skeet shooting for awhile and found it very relaxing. I gave up my gun once I had kids.
3) I don't think gun regulation is a particularly important matter. I think it would probably save lives, but not that many. I'd rather target crime more directly rather than pretending guns are the driver.
I also believe that targeting crime will never happen because we'd have to talk about blacks.
4) One bonus of banning guns would be getting rid of insane fantasies of some right wingers that people could somehow engage in an armed uprising against the government in 2023. I find that notion absurd and distracting from the real fight against tyranny.
5) One thing that really bothers me is active shooter drills in schools. Like every other fear based bullshit they push on kids these days it drives me up the wall.
6) On that note, the entire gun control demographic gives off an authoritarian safety-ism streak that I'm thoroughly exhausted by. Maybe beating their head against the NRA distracts them from whatever other bullshit they would be working on in our lives. I have a gas stove I'd like to keep among other things.
"What’s the big deal if you have to wait a week to buy a gun? By itself, the answer is plainly, “Yea, it’s not a big deal.” "
I had a few events in my life that make me disagree with this. The first was that somebody I knew threatened one of my children. The second was that someone broke into my car and stole my garage door opener, which I assumed meant they wanted to get into my house. On both occasions I considered arming myself. Had it been necessary, a one week waiting period would have been a nightmare. It's very easy to imagine other situations (rioting, looting, domestic violence) where someone could have an immediate need for a gun to protect themselves or their property.
Even though there hasn't been a mass violent counter-response to despotic pushes in the past, the expected risk of democide versus the expected risk of violent population unrest should be weighed. I think its only a fool who would say 80 million small arms owners have zero impact on the degree to which the existing government is despotic. Even if the existing government carpet bombed its civilian population like Biden insinuates (a dubious proposition as why didn't china carpet bomb the protestors recently); this ignores a few facts 1. Those jets need to refueled and rearmed, 65% of our oil is produced domestically and conservatives with guns are really the only people that work in that industry. 2. Why do we have a ground force if air forces are all that is required to win conflicts? 3. Things sure went well for them in Afghanistan with our oil infrastructure in place, superior armor and superior air power...
Here is another problem - if you're pro gun control, and you think #3 passes a risk/reward assessment, you should feel *badly* about taking away firearms from so many law-abiding citizens.
Similarly, an honest progressive might think that taxing the rich is the most efficient path toward prosperity.
In both cases, they should feel badly about hurting innocent people, admittedly in service of an important goal that potentially justifies it. However reviewing progressive rhetoric tells me that progressives often enjoy these aspects of policy rather than feeling badly about them.
The problem is that most people are terrible at understanding numbers and percentages. 700 out of 60 million is only .001% of the population, but that .001% gets massive attention. Mass shootings almost never happen, but mass shootings get massive attention when they do. We need better math education in this country, especially statistics.
Regarding “Gee, what if they own a gun?” point, I live in a cop neighborhood in Chicago, situated on the edge of the city. City employees must reside within city limits, so there are a couple areas like mine that have would-be suburbanite first responders (typically with families). Crime is low here, murder nearly unheard of. I often joke that I benefit from herd immunity to crime: who's going to break into a house or garage if there's a chance a cop is going to wake up and grab his or her gun? Everyone seems to agree with my immunity metaphor, including those who think guns should be illegal.
But to admit this "herd immunity" effect is to admit more gun ownership generally SHOULD have a similar effect on deterring break-ins, right? I don't claim this is a slam-dunk argument, but I get the impression the pro-gun control crowd does seem to dismiss this potential benefit as just a grasping at theoretical straws.
Brian's kids are obviously very smart. A better guide for normal kids might go like this:
"Johnny you know how you like toy guns and mean teacher Karen made you cry by shouting at you for bringing it to show your friend? Our town, our country, and the whole world are run by big versions of Karen. If you let them take your guns, they win."
Most anti-gunners are targeting "assault rifles". Per FBI stats, the total number of people killed by rifles of all kinds is typically around 200 per year. This is nothing statistically speaking, and includes all rifles, not just the scary black ones. People pushing for such bans have other motives besides saving lives - maybe step 1 in a larger gun ban plan, or maybe just wanting to stick it to a deplorable demographic they despise.
I believe in noblese oblige. Black americans will not stop shooting each other, and their lives matter. White people keep shooting themselves, and their lives matter too. Notice you didn't mention suicide in your post. We need to have fewer guns we should make ownership mostly illegal, espically of hand guns, which aren't useful for hunting or defense against the state, and are used in 80% of gun homicides. we should have buy backs and amnesties, it'll take a while, but long term we can greatly reduce the number of guns in the country and the number of shootings. It's the right thing to do, I expect gun owners to do the right thing and eventually hand their guns in, or eventually get fined, if they don't. We know from australia this works. They are similar to us and not Japan.
3) You could reply, “Sure, banning guns is unfair to the vast majority of gun owners. But the gains of banning guns are so massive that we should do it anyway.”
Try this with Alcohol which kills 140,000 Americans a year. Drunk driving alone kills as many people as are murdered by guns. So why don't we apply the same solutions? Require a permit to purchase, purchase limits, a waiting period, safe storage, relatives can call police to confiscate. No one will take you seriously because alcohol isn't scary like guns to many people.
Thankfully, I've never known anyone killed by a gun. I have had friends in 5 different DUI accidents. Three dead, one seriously injured, one out of work for 3 months, and 3 just banged up.
When people say, "you don't need a gun, and many lives would be saved", ask them if they favor alcohol prohibition.
Bryan. Beautifully argued, as always. Thanks. (I confess to being a 2A fundamentalist.)
What about gun related accidents? As I understand it deaths and injuries caused by accidents are way higher than actual murders. (I remember an amusing but not very helpful statistic that said that more people get shot by their own dog every year in the US than killed in terrorist attacks!)
Kevin Williamson has many very good articles on guns and gun control. One good point he often makes is that America is just a violent country; we kill a lot of people with guns, but we also kill a lot of people with our hands, hammers, bats, etc
A sentence from David Hume 1752:
"A prince, who fills the throne with a disputed title, dares not arm his subjects; the only method of securing a people fully, both against domestic oppression and foreign conquest."
*not an American*
My understanding is the vast majority of US gun deaths are suicides. An issue most likely to impact young men. I am also given to believe that making it harder to kill yourself, does drastically reduce the rate (gas oven legislation in the UK).
How would you discuss that with your children?