This is a blog about guns and gun control. This guy is a gun owner who claims he is on both sides of the argument. A very good read. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun.
Ok, I've read the piece and given it a moment of thought... Here are my initial impressions. Please let me know where my logic is flawed. I respect this guy's authority (even though he weirdly insists on causing flash suppressors “flash hiders”, but he's missing something basic that many people who have a law enforcement background tend to forget... He's talking about how to respond to an incident that's already occurring... What about lowering the number of occurrences in the first place? He's also chosen to leave out that there were armed campus cops at Virginia Tech and an armed guard at Columbine.... Another omission relates to the Chinese stabbing incident he refers to... All the Chinese stabbing victims survived. Also discussed is the press coverage being an attraction for the next potential shooter. I half agree with this. I do believe these events are NEWS, and that they are actually more relevant to the lives of the American public than some fluff piece that gets run before the weather report. That being said, the story can be covered without providing the name or background of the shooter. That might be a decent solution. He also, completely correctly, says that automatic weapons have already been banned... unless you have the appropriate permits. Of course, the permits require that you have a clean criminal record.... just like Adam Lanza. Adam, having been raised around guns and having been shooting regularly with his mother, would have been a perfect candidate for a class 3 permit – if he hadn't cracked too early. The author also neglects to discuss how easily some semi-automatic weapons can be (illegally) converted into fully automatic weapons due to their design. I disagree with the notion that banning semi-automatic weapons is tantamount to banning all guns. If a decent shooter is armed with a revolver, he can drop an attacker. I understand that it often requires several rounds to stop an opponent, I also understand that the first impact is going to buy you an extra second or two to fire off another shot. A semi-auto would only be called for if a person was defending themselves against a group of assailants, and that is an extremely rare occurrence for anyone who doesn't live solely in the mind of Hollywood writers. The author's law enforcement background definitely shows through when he mentions “Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because that's what they do.” This is atypical amateurish thinking in relation to crime PREVENTION rather than response. I lock my door when I leave my house because I want to make it difficult for someone to walk in and take my stuff. Yes, a criminal could still break a window if they're determined, but there's no point making it easy for the bastards and the effort required might actually deter a few. I totally disagree with his stance on the 2nd Amendment. Believing that a ragtag group of untrained enthusiasts with small arms could defend themselves against the US military is not only ridiculous, but insulting. I also think that “Banning arms is tantamount to banning self-defense” is a bit over the top. If, hypothetically, we're each 40 years old... How many times in 40 years have you been in a position that could only be improved by pointing a loaded weapon at another person? None? That's 80 years of life experience between us. Chances are, each of us could live another 80 years with similar results. That's a small control group, but you could include almost anyone you know for similar results. In addition, I have kids. Kids in homes that contain guns are significantly more likely to die of an accidental shooting than those who do not, so what's really the most responsible thing to do in defence of my family? I found it interesting that he touched on Australia, but annoying that he claimed they'd had no mass shootings PRIOR to the Port Arthur massacre that resulted in Australia's gun control policies. He mentions that this information came from a quick google search. I tested that theory and found the following wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders So his information is somewhat flawed when it comes to what has/is happening in other countries. Not a surprise given that he may have no understanding of foreign cultures or criminology (not his fault). I do, and I assure you that the increase in drunken brawls in Australia in recent years have nothing to do with gun control. The author also touches on the military vote being largely conservative. Not sure what the point is there, but I can assure you the bravest 19 year old in the world knows far less than he thinks he does about politics or sociology. As a veteran, I can lovingly testify that many of these guys are not exactly rocket scientists, which is why some of them ended up in the military in the first place (as opposed to higher education or establishing a career). He goes on to provide apocalyptic visions of what will happen if “gun culture” ends, by using Mumbai as an example... Not another first-world democracy, a city in India that's less than 2000 miles from Pakistan. Seriously?! Despite any claims that this guy is neutral, he's about as far to the right as Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks for your response. I still think we are better off with guns than without. Banning has already been tried, and failed. The Clinton ban and the Chicago and DC bans have proven that. The real problem is mental illness and "gun-free" zones. Most of these mass killings happen in these "defense-free" zones. Even the ones with armed guards were still "gun-free" zones, so that nobody else could be legally carrying a weapon. We need to eliminate them. The Second Amendment is an important amendment. I disagree with you about The People not being a serious challenge to the military. If the government does indeed get out of control, I doubt if our soldiers would be willing participants in the killing of civilians. They just may take up arms with The People against a tyrannical government. Banning semi-automatics would ban the majority of guns. Many folks still enjoy bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles and revolvers, but the majority of guns sold these days are semi-automatics. Some anti-gunners say that the Second Amendment was written in a time that muskets were used. Although that is true, I still want a weapon that would be a match for some gang banger or thug, who is most certainly not using a musket. You should research John Lott. He is the leading expert on gun control. His, and other studies, have shown gun control to be mostly ineffective. However, I would support some additional gun control that closes the so-called gun show loophole, and make sure everyone gets a background check. I would also support mandatory classes for gun safety and operation. You call the author a right-winger like Rush, but he is only guilty of cherishing and exercising his Second Amendment rights. If that is right-wing, then count me in. Thanks again for your lengthy response.
I am bumping this because this is one of the most thoughtful and logical rebuttals I have seen in a while here I briefly read the blog myself and gave up after the 8th cherry pick of data as being just..........well, beyond my patience to debate so it is refreshing to see such a nice point by point critique
Lott has been criticised for both his methodology and his treatment of the results and statistics I would not recommend researching Lott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L...rs_or_the_NRA_have_paid_for_Lott.27s_research But I think this bit is the best bit Lols! He did WHAT??
I completely agree with you krak, regardless of your name(lol) you obviously have a head on your shoulders.
Question for all those pro gun-banners. If you were in that classroom when Lanza busted in would you. A) Rather be armed with a gun (maybe even a so-called 'Assault Weapon') OR B) Rather be unarmed. Please try to be truthful. A or B which is it?
C) try to protect the children with my body because there is NO WAY I, anyone, or even superman could identify, draw, aim fire before they shot me And that is backed by the DATA where the only cases of armed citizens who were NOT either trained police officers or marines got themselves well and truly shot up
Identification is easy....Its The guy with the GUNS Yep, that's the guy you want to target....That is...IF you had a GUN.....Which you don't....As you watch him reload...Precious seconds...A fleeting thought occurs to you..."Why If I had a GUN"....But then, you chose NOT to be armed. "Backed By Data" a fitting headstone for a liberal.
Please share this data, I'd like to see it. Every policeman and service member trained in CQC (Close Quarter Combat) that I've talked to would tell you that it's harder for the shooter to identify his target first because of the thought process in choosing between multiple people. That's why police prefer to wait for backup before going into a building, the odds of survival increase dramatically because the shooter has to decide between multiple targets.Therefore, the shooter first has to decide between you and the students, he doesn't know you're armed so he's not going to assume you are, which gives you the opportunity to draw and fire. Proven real world training and experience contradict your "data." How many defensive handgun classes have you taken? Exactly.
I think you might find that police no longer wait for backup. That was what happened in Columbine and it created a storm of outrage. The doctrine was amended, now the idea is to go in as soon as possible. I have to admit I've never heard of the idea that the shooter will pause to identify targets. I would have thought that someone completely off their nut will just go in and shoot everyone he or she can find. Granted there will be the situation where a shooter is obviously armed and looking for a specific target, usually an ex or someone they worked for, but most of these mass shootings, as opposed to targeted shootings of individuals in public places or offices and the like, seem to be indiscriminate.
You're correct, that's why I said prefer to wait. If backup is 30 seconds away, they will usually wait. If not, they'll go in alone. Even if someone is off their rocker and shooting indiscriminately, when first entering a new area and seeing new targets the thought of, "who should I shoot first?" always crosses their minds.
Hmmmm - that is assuming the shooter is aiming. With a rapid fire weapon he could "spray" the area and I would love to a see a citation of your claim too because the research I have done suggests that the police recommend running or hiding if you think there is a mass shooter in the building http://www.newson6.com/story/20350008/police-offer http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School-or-Workplace-Shooting
Citation please - otherwise I will just think you guessing The very high death toll in a short period of time with most mass shootings would argue you are wrong
If Nevada were to legalize cocaine, drug dealers from surrounding states would flock there (and pay taxes on the product) in order to obtain supplies for their own customers in their own states. Nevada would boast about the increased revenue generated, and point to the failure of the "cocaine control" legislation in surrounding states as justification for their actions. Banning something in an area can only work if there are checkpoints/borders/customs to prevent the controlled substance/object from being freely carried into the "control" area. That's why forecasting what a NATIONAL program would look like can only be done by looking at the results of other NATIONAL programs. Take your pick, there are a fair number of first-world democracies like the US, and they all seem to have successfully implemented gun control in some form. You have the right to hold that opinion, no matter how wrong it is. As a veteran of active duty service in the USMC infantry, I can assure you that - if my commanding officer had sent my unit after a "domestic terrorist" - the orders would not have been questioned. Remember Waco? There were approximately 11,458 gun murders in the US last year. Of those, approximately 74% were related to "some gang banger or thug". Most of those petty criminals don't have massive black market connections, they use guns that have been stolen from "law abiding citizens". Britain also has thugs and gangs. Heck, they invented the skinhead and the punk... They had 35 gun murders last year. Even on a per capita basis, that's a pretty clear message. The more guns there are in an area, the easier it will be for people (whether they intend to commit a crime or not) to obtain them. The more people have them, the easier it will be to commit certain crimes. The easier a crime is to commit, the more likely it is to be committed.
Exposing Emotional & unrealistic Gun Control and the results & dangers of punishing law-abiding citizens:
Krak, 1) Finding out who is going to go crazy and why may not be a real simple thing to do in a country the size of the US.... Especially if you're one of the many "small government" supporters. 2) Being alive after being stabbed is better than being dead after being shot. I don't have experience in both these, but I'm fairly confident. 3) Some semi-automatics can be easily converted into full auto without extensive knowledge in firearms... Check some of the conversion kits available on the market. 4) You're right on one thing, we will have do disagree. 5) Drugs and alcohol can be manufactured cheaply and easily in any garage or basement in the country.... Firearms can't. A ban could work - though I don't think a total ban of ALL firearms is warranted. 6) of the 83% of Americans that will be "a victim of violent crime" at some point in their life, how many of these are simple fistfights? How many people got pushed by an angry neighbor who was then charged for assault? Of the friends you mentioned who could have used a firearm to defend themselves... Are they still alive? Would killing another person have made them any more alive? 7) Really? You believe the threat of uncle Jebediah's shotguns are what's keeping drug cartels under control?
I don't know about your sources, but Lott's is not the only research, and the statistics of crime and guns does not help your points.
What a lame excuse to not want a gun in a situation like this. You wouldn't even want to give yourself a chance?
If you have any guns, you should set an example and turn them in. Criminals do not follow laws. Why disarm law-abiding citizens? I guess you hate the Constitution. I will keep my guns. Thank you.
And so you & the children would all be dead, and being untrained in gun handling is the excuse for failing yourself and the children, huh?! Again, I'm sure that you 'mean well' in your ignorance and irresponsibility, and that your ideology trumps actual results (which is the std Liberal trait), but your faux nobility is a FAIL...
SIDEBAR: One area that most ppl fail is in 'planning ahead.' In the military they drill soldiers over & over so that they 'react properly' in combat situations. Self-defense courses do likewise, so as to react and not PANIC! Over-the-road trucking thru experience also taught me how to stay calm, think clearly, and drive out of hazardous situations in mere seconds---NEVER PANIC, as freezing up shuts down reasoning and timely response. And so with the recent mass shootings, get a plan of what you would do in similar situations....dont rely on last minute decisions made via PANIC, but take a quick clear look and make a likewise sane decision in your response.... In the case of Newtown, dont know the exact response of the principle et all, but if I were w/o a weapon, would immediately make a decision to 'bum rush' the shooter if close enuf or take cover until could get into that position, probably then taking a couple of rounds, and hopefully would still be able to slow him down if not disable him, giving the children time to run. I could not live with myself if I ran away or PANICKED & did nothing for the rest of my life...esp if one of the children were my own.
Yeah, the war on drugs has worked so well. Prohibition was a complete success too, but they decided to repeal that anyway. Gun control has worked so well in other countries: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control The Aussie Lesson: Less Guns, More Crime Gun Crime Soars In England Where Guns Are Banned [video=youtube;n9ZvwPmjJu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ZvwPmjJu4[/video] Yes, I remember the murders in Waco. I can see where troops would follow orders to kill a fellow American like they should have in Fort Hood, when that terrorist shot fellow soldiers, but if the government becomes tyrannical, and The People rise against it, that is called a revolution, and I doubt many soldiers would be killing fellow patriots. The more guns, the more chances of thwarting crime.
Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen: Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
