Repeat after me: Guns are not the solution, guns are an integral part of the gun violence problem. The U.S. gun culture is an epic failure.
It is long past time we should change that. Those who make guns part of their way of life like to promote the idea that they are keeping themselves, their families, and their communities safe from the bad guys that Wayne LaPierre, NRA Pimp, likes to talk about.
The reality is very different; the majority of people at risk from gun violence face that risk from their own guns, not from strangers who are the bad guys we usually think of as the perpetrators. When you have guns, when you carry guns, you are more likely, not less likely to be killed by guns. Guns are the problem, more guns are not the solution.
From the American Journal of Epidemiology:
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
The image below is from one of this guy's actual videos on youtube.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/operator-of-popular-youtube-channel-found-shot-to-/nTqHY/
and this:
Gun-toting soccer mom found shot dead
Cops: Pa. woman’s 3 children were home during suspected murder-suicide
LEBANON, Pa. — A mother of three who became a voice of the gun-rights movement when she openly carried a loaded pistol to her daughter's soccer game was fatally shot along with her husband, a parole officer and former prison guard, in an apparent murder-suicide at their home.
Autopsies were planned Friday for Meleanie Hain, 31, and Scott Hain, 33, who were pronounced dead shortly after 8:30 p.m. Wednesday at their brick home in this small city about 80 miles west of Philadelphia.
The couple's 10-year-old son and daughters ages 2 and 6 were home at the time, police said. The two older children ran outside and told neighbors that their father had shot their mother, neighbors said. The children are being cared for by neighbors and relatives.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to argue that having guns in the home raises the risk of an accident enough to outweigh the possible benefits, fine, do that.
If you want to post examples of people like Melanie Hain as proof of the obvious point that guns are not talismans and that you can still be ambushed and killed before you can disarm yourself, fine, do that.
But to post a picture like that final one with the gloating text that has been added to it is the most damnably tasteless thing I've seen in a long time. People on your side complain when people on my side accuse them of dancing in the blood of victims, and regardless of the inappropriateness of such accusations in other situations, that's the only way I can describe making or republishing such a picture--gleefully dancing in the blood of a person you dislike. Unless this picture is pulled and an apology issued, you deserve to be shunned by all polite company on both sides.
There is nothing 'gleeful' or 'dancing in their blood' about any of this. I do not hate these people, I hate that they died violently by guns, after doing their level best to encourage more and more people to arm themselves. Their lives have the same value as the lives of the students and teachers at Sandy Hook, or the people going to a movie in Aurora, Colorado or the 695 + people who have died since Sandy Hook from gun violence, which doesn't even begin to touch how many other people have been injured like the two in the school shooting today.
ReplyDeleteWhat these two people very arrogantly promoted was the illusion of a level of safety because of guns that the numbers prove to be a fraud, a deceit, a lie --- and it would be fair to say that I am passionate about opposing that lie.
The lie that they believed and SOLD, was that the answer to our gun violence is more gun violence, which only escalates that violence.
We see it in the road rage shootings, we see it in the dead children who shoot each other because adults resist properly securing their guns, wrongly confident they are in control of these lethal weapons when they are not.
I'm sick of people making a lot of money promoting arsenals in the home, and escalating the level of weapons until they outgun police.
In the movie trophy winning shooter Michael Moore made about the Columbine mass shooting, those gun guys (and women) who belonged to the Michigan militia group members all said over and over, and other pro-gun people said over and over, that they had a duty as well as the right to deal with bad guys themselves, to shoot intruders or trespassers or other people they suspect might be a threat, instead of calling for law enforcement. Over and over we see people shooting someone else instead of doing something different.
The school where the shooting today took place had an armed guard. It didn't stop the shooting. Unarmed teachers talked the kid into surrendering without shooting anyone else, or himself. THAT is a better result than exchanging gun fire with the armed cop - better for everyone.
So by all means be repulsed by these pictures - I am. Be repulsed and disgusted and angry about all the gun violence and the gun culture, of which they are also a part.
Guns are not an answer, guns are the problem, seeing guns as more protection than they provide is the problem. We need less shooting and we need fewer guns, and we need less death and blood. The ONLY thing I have seen that works is restricting and reducing guns.
I don't see you having any awareness how offensive the arrogant posturing of gun guys promoting this lie about safety is. At least on our side we genuinely care about stopping these shootings from happening, we don't delight in violence, not even when it is a case like that woman with the twins who shot the intruder. We don't try to dehumanize the bad guys either, to make it easier or more desirable to shoot another human being. That's ghoulish and disgusting too.
Dog Gone,
DeleteI fully understand and grasp your point about guns not protecting us from all danger--anybody who treats them like a talisman is a fool. What we try to promote is the idea that if you choose to take on the responsibility of being armed, it can provide a tool to defend yourself with. If you think we're verging too much in the talisman direction, make the argument and by all means use Ms. Hain as an example. That is not what offended me.
The thing that offended me was the flippant statement "Too bad she didn't have a gun. Oh wait..." When we're dealing with someone's death, it's tasteless to be so flippant. This would be like Wayne LaPierre posting a picture of the first grade class killed at Sandy Hook with a caption saying "1st grade kids killed by a madman. Too bad they weren't in a gun free Zone. Oh wait..." There's a difference between making an argument about gun free zones or an argument about whether guns protect you more than they put you at risk, and making flippant pictures like this.
I would expect to see something like this posted on Reddit or some other site by a troll trying to piss people off. I would not expect it here, where you claim to be seeking polite debate and enlightenment.
Well, now you've done it--you've pissed on the image of Saint Meleanie--the patron saint of all those who believe guns will protect them from all evil.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, people, she's made a comeback in recent days as we laugh at your belief that guns will protect you, rather than pose an obvious risk.
You can call it what you want because it stops you from facing the fact that "yeah, her death was by a gun!"
And even one of your heroes can get popped when she's in that white level of awareness.
Anyway, it may be old, but that has never stopped you lot from doing the same thing.
And I guess we "antis" are just uncouth to you for pointing out your fallacies.
Laci,
DeleteYes, her death was by a gun. Anybody can get popped at level white. Anybody can get popped at Any Level of alertness.
And do guns pose a risk to their owners? Yes, that's why you have to be very careful with them, and why I don't have any problem if you decide the risk outweighs the benefit for you.
You want to point out our fallacies, point them out, and feel free to cite Melanie if you think that we fallaciously believe that guns are a protective talisman. Just don't make jokes making fun of people for how they died, or expect us to dismiss you as obnoxious trollish bastards.
And so you feel justified in posting pictures with captions that are the equivalent of "If she'd just listened to me about guns, she'd be alive; oh well, sucks to be her!" ?
ReplyDeleteWell, when I posted my previous comments, I didn't know who was in the top picture. I thought it was the guy from the famous video who accidentally shot himself in the leg, and though I couldn't make sense of the caption, I figured he was being held up as an example of how easy it is to have an accident. In that case, it would have been a fine thing, though the caption didn't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteNow, however, I know that this is Kieth Ratliff who was recently murdered--so recently that we don't know what the real story is. Now the caption makes sense. Had his picture been shown and Kieth been used as an example of guns not making you safer, that would have been one thing. However, with this caption and the present circumstances, there is no way you can make a credible claim that whoever made that picture was not gloating over Kieth's murder. To post it and claim you are engaging in a debate--a debate where you demand courtesy from your commenters--goes beyond the bad taste of the other picture. The fact that the man's body is probably not even buried yet and that his family is still grieving only exacerbates the issue.
Dog Gone, you have some redeeming qualities and are quite learned, but now that I know who the first picture is, all I can say is that to post something like that, and especially at this time, you are the coldest, most vile human being I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with. This is Westboro Baptist level sewage. At least I now know your true colors and know not to waste my time trying to have a productive discussion with you--I doubt that it's impossible for any rational discussion to reach through such an irrational and filthy level of hatred as would be required to post something like that.
A few years ago, my childhood friend and I were having dinner with our extended families who had been friends for years.
ReplyDeleteFor a number of years his family had lived in Europe, mostly Belgium and Germany. He had a little dinner table rant about speeding laws and enforcement, asserting that since he drove fast on the German autobahn, he should be able to do the same thing here, that he could drive safely and wouldn't have an accident at high speed.
I pointed out to him that accidents were crashes that by definition were not planned, things that you didn't think would happen. If you thought they were going to happen, those weren't really accidents, they were fulfilled expectations.
Interestingly, his family members didn't share his evaluation of his driving skills either, thought that though he was a good driver, he was overconfident, and didn't take into adequate consideration the things he couldn't control. The stretch of road we were talking about specifically driving was the length of I-94 through Wisconsin, a stretch known for a lot of deer / vehicle accidents along much of its length.
No no no - he could handle EVERYTHING, even multiple deer dashing out across the road as you come round a curve in the dark and rain, or the accidents blocking the road as you come around that same curve, from someone else colliding with deer. He could, the way he told it, handle EVERYTHING without having an accident.
The reality is that speeding statistically is more dangerous than traveling the speed limit. I don't know anyone who regularly exceeds the speed limit by a lot who thinks they are going to have an accident or believes that they are dangerous to others. That is why the statistics are reliable predictors of dangerous outcomes to speeding.
So when you write "do guns pose a risk to their owners" and "I don't have any problem if the risks outweighs the benefit to you" is pretty much the same thing as my friend asserting loudly over a very happy, loud,raucous dinner party that he could drive safely at 90 mph if he wanted to -- never mind what the stats say or anyone else thought.
The reality is that guns are anywhere from 5 time so 22 times more likely to be killed by guns if you own guns than if you don't. I don't have a problem if you feel you need a gun to protect those chickens of yours from the fox and racoons and skunks and coyotes and other predators. But lets not pretend that these people who were selling the snake oil that they were safer and that you were safer weren't pushing a lie. I'll stop ridiculing the lie, which in this case is part of how they died, because they confirmed the reality of those statistics.
If you listened recently to Wayne La Pierre, you'd know why it appears to us that reason is not part of the discussion, that it is entirely driven by a delusion more than an illusion on your side that is impervious to reason. You think you can handle the risks; Keith Ratliff in the top picture thought he could handle the risks; Meleanie Haimes thought she could handle the risks; and so did Nancy Lanza before her son Adam killed her with her own guns, and then killed 20 kids and 6 teachers and staff. And no doubt so did the people who bought the guns that were responsible for the nearly 700 people killed since the Sandy Hook shooting in mid December.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is where our problem lies, that is the crux of why I posted these two images.
You know where they don't have 700 people killed in less than a month? Countries that don't have the number of guns we do. You know where they have the fewest people killed and injured? In the states that have the strictest gun regulation.
So you will I hope not find it offensive when we point out in a way calculated to prod people out of their certainty and their misplaced comfort zones that their voices for more guns more guns more guns will keep you safe were wrong, and that they were wrong in the way that statistics predicted.
This is about the collision between gun reality and gun delusion; it's meant to hurt, but to hurt less than people being killed and injured, and the loss and grief suffered by those who cared about them. It is meant to make an emotional argument where rational argument so clearly has failed with your side.
Had these two people NOT been such overt promoters of the guns-will-make-you-safe and guns-will-make-you-powerful lie, this would be inappropriate. It's because they did that, however, that this absolutely true and appropriate, and THAT is why the gunner-guys object.
These people were not safe with or because of guns. They make the rest of us less safe; they are NOT only making the decision for themselves and their families. That's why so many of us are being killed in this country. We are ALL less safe with so many guns in so many hands, just like every driver on the road is less safe when someone drives 90 on a highway posted for 65, because they think they can. As Jon Stewart noted the other night, treating car accidents as a public health issue and a consumer issue meant that with changes to our laws and things like requiring safety equipment, we reduced our car accidents over a period of time to 1/5th of what they were at their peak. I haven't fact checked the numbers, but Stewart is usually pretty reliable on stats. This is what gun control should do as well, reduce deaths and injuries.
Get it now? Because THAT is what should be offending you, how many people are dying that are preventable deaths, not a sarcastic or satiric remark on a photo.
So you will have to excuse me if like differing with my friend from childhood, I have an issue with you and other gun owners making decisions about safety. The statistics show that you do not as a group make good decisions about guns and safety, and those decisions kill you -- and a lot of other people.
THAT should offend you the way it offends us.
Fezzik, a belated welcome, Joshua, a more prompt welcome to commenting here on Penigma.
ReplyDeleteYes, when I see 700 people dead since the 26 at Sandy Hook, followed by Weenie La Pierre trying to sell more guns, yes. When it is clear that more guns are not the answer, YES.
No one is gloating, damn it. Keith Ratliff and Meleaenie Haims were arrogant about guns, they personified the overconfidence and the lie about guns.
This is NOT the same thing as Westboro Baptist which tries to make connections about things that have no connections.
Did it ever occur to you to consider that the videos that Keith Ratliff made were AS offenive if not more so to all the people who lost someone at Sandy Hook? Or that the same could be said of Meleaenie Haims to all the people in public places she went showing off her gun on her hip who had been injured by guns or lost a family member or friend to guns the same way these two later died?
You still only see this from one side and that is what you are missing. Your side kills more people than our side, our side doesn't. Your side is every bit as offensive as this, but you never see that.
This IS doing what I hoped it would do. It is opening up a discussion where I hope it will also open up a different awareness as well.
With fewer guns in the hands of fellow Americans, these people would have been much more likely to be alive. I wish they were. I wish those 700 dead people in less than a month were alive as well. Don't you?
I'm not sure how you can call this blog a "RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF POLITICS AND CURRENT EVENTS" when you put tasteless memes up like that. I also like this "your side", "our side" bit. Rational people think with reason, not emotion. They don't turn to buzzwords, nor do they get needlessly worked up.
ReplyDeleteVery simply we can call this a rational discussion because we seek here to distinguish between the belligerence of the actual statements made by Keith Ratliff quoted above - it was not a paraphrase of Charlton Heston, although his comment was equally belligerent, tasteless and insensitive when he made it - and the reality of how wrong they both were about guns and their safety. It is a contrast between THEIR emotional belief, and the factual reality of gun violence to which they belonged.
DeleteI'm reading here, and have read elsewhere, plenty of complaints about these two photos, or points made without the photos about these two individuals, together and separately.
What I have yet to hear is any criticism of people like these two who behaved in an aggressive and oppositional manner with their firearms. You appear to be utterly tone deaf to the pro-gun side of the argument behaving in ways that merit far more censure, and are hypocritically hypersensitive to things like this which are actually far less offensive and far more fact-based, not ONLY emotional in their message.
I don't see a great deal of difference between these two pro-gun voices, and this guy:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20559259/local-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-gun-control
Local CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Gun Control
NASHVILLE, Tenn.- Tennessee again made national news after a local CEO threatened to "start killing people" to protect his Second Amendment right.
In a YouTube video which began to go viral Thursday, James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, said he would "start killing people" if President Barack Obama moved forward with gun control measures. Raw Story reported that Yeager would go to extensive lengths to protect his right to use a gun.
"I'm not (expletive) putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people," he said in the video.
And clearly both Ratliff and Haims were also quite willing to kill other people with their firearms.
That is the kind of message we hear from the other side on a regular basis. So please don't continue to apply a double standard. I put these up because these people represent the folly and fallacy of their belief in guns, in conjunction with one of many studies that demonstrate when you have guns you and those around you are more likely to be killed and injured with guns.
Gun guys who object to this, when their side is far more offensive and threatening, are hypocrites without a leg to stand on for their criticism.
Your side is the violent side, not ours. Your side is responsible for the killings, not ours. Deal with it; I don't really care if you LIKE having that pointed out to you or not. This post might not be warmly fuzzy and empathetic, brimming over with sweetness and light, but it has a factual basis and a truth to it, and it that truth which stings your side.
Let's get at least one thing straight. We don't like James Yeager either, nor do I condone what he says. Despite his macho man attitude, it's well known that he's pretty cowardly (there's a video of him taking a nosedive into a ditch in Baghdad when his PMC company got ambushed) and pretty stupid. Plenty of pro-gun people have taken him to task for his behavior, even before comments like that. And besides, I hear some pretty sick and offensive things coming out of the Brady Campaign.
DeleteThis was initially a parody image, created to mock the perceived sentiment of the Brady Campaign that being victimized is better than defending yourself.
http://tinypic.com/r/10eiw41/6
And to everyone's shock and horror, the Brady Campaign put it up on their official Facebook page. The message was apparently so indistinguishable from what they would consider appropriate to put up.
http://tinypic.com/r/219z5aw/6
Now, I'm not making the argument "Your side wants everyone to be raped" and I'm sure your immediate reaction to that is a mixture of:
A) I don't support the Brady Campaign's sentiment at all, rape is not acceptable
B) Rape is too complicated an issue to address with "guns"
But if you think the US should have a rational discussion on improving gun safety, this whole "sides" bit needs to be dropped. The problem is that it creates this supposed dichotomy where conservatives are (allegedly) in favor of everyone having access to stealth bombers and nuclear bombs in addition to semi-automatic rifles; or liberals (allegedly) want everyone to be raped and murdered by criminals. You can't have "sides" in a complex issue. I think the polls speak for themselves; most NRA members want to improve background checks and close the gunshow loophole; most don't want an "assault weapons" ban. And at least a good portion of Americans don't want to ban handguns, even if they don't own one themselves. People who might agree with you on assault weapons would totally dissent about the role of armed self-defense in our society.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/baltsun_121509.shtml
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx
My point is, the attitudes here are not polar; something you're treating them as.
I put this up on the Brady Campaign discussion group; if it migrated to the Brady facebook page, they got it from me. I have not heard or seen sick and offensive things coming from the Brady Campaign. What I do see is people who are passionate about ending gun violence, including changing our gun culture attitude which includes a very strong vigilante segment that seeks to take the law into their own hands, an example being the shoot first laws which have increased firearms homicides, but not apparently had a comparable increase in justifiable homicide.
DeleteThe pics you describe were put on the Brady campaign site the other day by other people who hacked in; they do not represent actual Brady campaign content.
The responses to 'sides' refer to a division of opinion brought up by our commenter Fezzik 2525. In point of fact, if you were familiar with penigma, you would be aware that I had written here about the polls for instance that show widespread gun owner support for gun regulation, including from NRA members.
The reality is that the NRA directly and through their illegal lobbying arm, ALEC, have written legislation that was passed almost exclusively by conservatives. So on the basis of ALEC, I believe my observations are vindicated.
The wants/ don't wants shouldn't matter; what should be the determinant is what weapons or individuals are the problem. So long as the assault style weapons are an increased risk for law enforcement and so frequently used in drug trafficking crimes and in mass shootings like Sandy Hook, there is legitimate reason to ban them.
We need to close the loophole of ALL private sales, not just the gun show loophole, including internet sales.
I think you might be surprised about the reality of how people feel about handguns as well.
You are also wrong about the role of armed self-defense in our society; the reality is that more guns equal more gun violence. Unless you get past that with a successful argument - hint, there aren't any - then so long as the goal is to decrease gun violence that is the guiding fact, not the emotional position, that we need to follow.
Jack, you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet. especially if they appear bogus on their face and go against what you have been told.
DeleteBoth of these are fakes and have been dealt with on Snopes:
www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bradyad.asp
One of the aspects of propaganda is that it tries to short circuit your intellect and cause you to use emotion.
In this case, it is someone trying to discredit the Brady Campaign. I know someone actually did find out which pro-gun group created it, but I cannot find a reference to that right now.
As I like to say, fact checking helps.
I'm totally aware they're fakes, something I pointed out when I said "parody image". I'm also aware of the group that made the image, and saw the thread where they made the images (there were in fact two threads). I'm not saying the Brady Campaign made them, but the fact that they ended up on the front page is startling. The irregularities in story, whether it was "photoshop" or "hacking" (especially when both are the normal method of denial in any sort of scandal) make me a little incredulous. More likely than not, someone just absent-mindedly posted one that looked almost legitimate. I'm not saying I agree with the images or their content (and there's one a hundred times more offensive than that one out there), but it's scary to think that could almost pass for the argument.
DeleteAgain, what is a false dichotomy? You obviously saw the polls, so did I. You can definitely dissent from NRA viewpoint, but to lump every gun owner or proponent in with the NRA is a little far out. The normal assumption I've seen tossed around is that there's 100 million gun owners in this country; is it fair to say the 4.3 million members of the NRA represent the exact positions of every gun owner? Would it be fair to say the Brady Campaign's 28,000 members represent everyone who wants gun control?
And again, let me reiterate myself. Did I make an argument about armed-self defense? No, I said, "People who might agree with you on assault weapons would totally dissent about the role of armed self-defense in our society." Considering 75% of Americans are against a handgun ban when the only conceivable use of a handgun is self-defense (considering sporting purposes is more broadly covered by rifles/shotguns), I'd say that there must a margin of Americans who are okay with armed self-defense but have reservations about assault weapons, right? I obviously have my own views, but my point was that not everyone has dichotomous views.
As for the number of justifiable homicides not increasing, well the FBI has it's own take on it. Whether or not it's the increasing number of guns (according to Gallup, gun ownership is on the rise) or adjustments in the law; who knows.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-14-justifiable_N.htm
You say you are aware they are fakes, yet you believe the Brady Campaign posted them on their facebook page?
DeleteThey did not, not ever, not by accident, not by........anything, nor is it reasonable to believe these could pass for anything from the Brady campaign.
It seems that the pro-gunners / anti-gun control folks want things both ways. When I write here that the NRA membership supports positions different from gun owners, including NRA members, I get pushback for arguing that the NRA does not represent gun owners, from conservatives, right here.
There DOES seem to be much more consensus among Brady members, as I would expect from a smaller group.
As to the increasing gun ownership, that is disputable as well. There appear to be fewer gun owners, owning more guns. See number 7 here, which cites a gallup poll graphic btw:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
And gun ownership is increasingly defined by partisan political affiliation - ie sides - here while reiterating that gun ownership is declining overall:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/
What we should be looking at in making changes to our gun laws is not what the prevailing whim or beliefs are, but what is likely to do the most to reduce gun violence, including, but not limited to mass shootings.