Grumpypilgrim is a writer and management consultant living in Madison, WI. He has several scientific degrees, including a recent master’s degree from MIT. He has also held several professional career positions, none of which has been in a field in which he ever took a university course. Grumps is an avid cyclist and, for many years now, has traveled more annual miles by bicycle than by car…and he wishes more people (for the health of both themselves and our planet) would do the same. Grumps is an enthusiastic advocate of life-long learning, healthy living and political awareness. He is single, and provides a loving home for abused and abandoned bicycles. Grumpy’s email: grumpypilgrim(AT)@gmail(DOT).com [Erich’s note: Grumpy asked that his email be encrypted this way to deter spam. If you want to write to him, drop out the parentheticals in the above address].
We need to fly flags at half mast for the 33 killed in a single random act of handgun violence one day this week to take our minds off of the
30 Iraqi non-combatant civilians and
3 U.S. soldiers
killed for each and every day of our occupation since the war ended with "Mission Accomplished" on 1/1/2003 (1569 days ago).
One Site With Details
Thisr is actually a very good question. I've been on another website where there was a black bow in rememberance for all the victims of the VT killings, but I have yet to see a black bow for the Iraqi victims or any American soldier who died there.
Bush would actually have to give a rat's patootie for the soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq. Besides he hides the casualties from Iraq, at VT he can pretend to care.
Not that I'm unsympathetic to the plight of the troops in Iraq, but the reason half-staff flag flying is not done for them is because it is technically their job to stand in harm's way. Presumably since this is a volunteer military, they accepted the possibility of death when they signed on. Lamentable, certainly, and for their "sacrifice" there are other rituals and symbols provided. Half-staff flags are for those who did not in any way choose to stand in harm's way or whose loss is substantially more significant than ordinary murders. As it is symbolic, the potency of the symbolism is preserved by its use in specific instances of national impact outside the bounds of expected loss. One may argue the point if one wishes, but there are reasons for it to be the way it is.
A solemn question for you, or anyone else who cares to chime in…
Assuming you support the ban on assault weapons, do you consider a Glock an assault weapon?
http://glockmeister.com/faq.shtml
I do. A handgun is too lethal to let kids (adults?) walk around with, as demonstrated earlier this weak. A ban on handguns sounds peachy.
Why is it that every time some suicidal maniac murders a few people with a handgun, suddenly some people think that banning guns is a great idea, as if that will solve everything? This is the exact same thinking that led George Bush to invade Iraq after the 9/11 attack: the notion that if someone kills a few Americans, then by god we must DO SOMETHING, even if it is stupid and pointless.
Let me give just one example of the chaos that would happen if guns were banned as Ben suggests: the population of white tailed deer in Wisconsin would skyrocket, because hunters would not have guns with which to kill them, and dozens more motorists would be killed every year by car-deer collisions.
Assault weapons pose difficult legislative challenges. Obviously, there needs to be some line drawn between the types of weapons available to civilians and those available to military and law enforcement. Civilians probably shouldn't have things like grenade launchers, howitzers, shoulder-launched surface-to-air rockets, or intercontinental ballistic missiles, for example. However, civilians can own some weapons, so the question is where to draw the line. Somewhere between a hunting rifle and an automatic machine gun — the region that includes assault rifles — the choice is mostly arbitrary. Ben wants to put assault rifles on the side of the line with prohibited weapons. That works for me, but I don't have a strong feeling either way. We already ban automatic weapons, but semi-automatic weapons have been around for a long time, and so have large-caliber guns for hunting big game. Would a ban on assault rifles make much difference? The slaughter at Virginia Tech was done with two tiny-caliber pistols — one a .22 caliber and one a .19 caliber — sizes that are typically used to hunt squirrels. Now, I'm sure a guy like Ben would say, "See, therefore we must ban all guns!" But I disagree. If the students and professors on the Virginia Tech campus had *all* been packing heat, you can bet that shooter would not have killed nearly so many people.
Jason makes a good point, and one that I considered when I wrote this post. Yes, the potency of any symbol increases when its use is decreased (the reason why major movie and music stars make few public appearances). However, a daily *visible* reminder of the carnage in Iraq might make Americans more conscious of the loss, and less likely in the future to send honorable men and women into harm's way for no good reason.
"and dozens more motorists would be killed every year by car-deer collisions."
Using that logic, the buffalo would once again roam free across the heartland? Please, please tell me you don't advocate sport hunting, lie if you have to.
I know that by "banning guns" that would not instantly zap every gun off the face of the earth. Don't get so defensive, (pardon the pun), the concept of a gun "ban" is only as harsh as you make it. The idea needs to see the light of day, just like our prized atheism. It's only what we agree to make it, the ban so far has included "assault" weapons and weapons of "war". Extend the "ban" to include longer wait times, stricter laws, heavier taxes, penalties, tests, mental evaluations, microchip tracking. This is a "ban", similar to how driving under the influence of alcohol is "banned". That is what the ATF is (should be) for, to find illegal guns, tobacco, and alcohol (pot?).
"Let me give just one example of the chaos that would happen if guns were banned as Ben suggests: the population of white tailed deer in Wisconsin would skyrocket, because hunters would not have guns with which to kill them, and dozens more motorists would be killed every year by car-deer collisions."
Where I live people need to get a license and pass an exam as far as I know to be allowed to hunt. Also, we have hunters who will reduce the number of animals. I don't think the demand for a ban of guns is due to seeing hunters use weapons.
"sizes that are typically used to hunt squirrels"
People hunt squirrels??? With pistols???
"If the students and professors on the Virginia Tech campus had *all* been packing heat, you can bet that shooter would not have killed nearly so many people."
Does "packing heat" mean "carrying weapons"? I think instead of having one big killing, you would constantly have smaller ones -a professor who really really hated you here, a student looked at you funny there. People get pissed off for not getting the grade they think they deserve, for not being as popular as someone else, for not getting the girl/guy they want, for not having the success they strive for. These are not people I would like to see owning weapons. Carrying a gun gives people a false sense of security and power, and it's the latter that most can't handle. Give people power and they will abuse it (especially those who never had it before).
"Extend the “ban” to include longer wait times, stricter laws, heavier taxes, penalties, tests, mental evaluations, microchip tracking."
Good suggestions!
A correction to Grumpy's post, above. The weapons used were a .22 caliber pistol and a 9mm pistol. A 9mm bullet is about the same diameter as ".38-special" bullet (.355" vs .357", respectively — neither is exactly the diameter that its caliber would indicate).
As for banning guns as a cure for gun violence, I think that this is naive. It does not address the underlying cause. As I mentioned in another DI thread, cure the social ills that cause a need or desire for guns, and the demand for guns will follow.
Want to end alcoholism, and all of the ill effects of alcohol consumption? Ban alcohol. And see an entire counterculture grow out of it, along with a whole slew of associated problems. The American era of Prohibition proved this.
Want to end drug abuse? Ban drugs. And see an entire counterculture grow out of it, along with a whole slew of associated problems. The current American War on Drugs proves what a pointless exercise this is. The US today has the highest per capita prison population in the Western world, and most of the inmates are there on drug convictions. Has that solved the problem?
Want to end teenage pregnancy? Ban sex education in the schools. There's another thread on DI about this folly, too.
Want to end home-production of methamphetamines? Restrict sales of products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. So those of us who suffer from seasonal allergies find it more difficult to obtain the safe, legal relief that we need. But I wonder if it has had any effect upon illegal methamphetamine production.
The better way is to address the underlying problems. Cure the causes; don't ban the effects.
Without guns, deer would proliferate? How'd we ever kill off all those species back before we had guns? I don't think anyone ever killed aurochs or mastodons with guns.
Julius Caesar was adequately assassinated without a gun.
Of course, Davy Crockett's legendary infantile encounter with a bear might have come out differently had he not been armed. But these days, kids with guns are surrounded by other kids, not bears.
"Hey, I'm taking the day off to go squirrel hunting. Just me, my dog, and my boom cannon."
Thanks for the support, Leiterin and Dan K (and Vicki, I assume). Do you mind if I come to Germany? These guys are scaring me, even the "rational" ones.
So many comments, so little time…I'll have to pick my battles. Too bad none of it relates to my original post….
To Ben's comment: the buffalo were not killed by sport hunters, they were systematically slaughtered by the U.S. government as a way of wiping out the main food supply for Native Americans and, thus, starving them into submission. As regards today's sport hunters, the ones I know are strong advocates of better conservation and environmental policies, because they want to protect game and other wild species. They also pay far more in licensing fees (to say nothing of their equipment and transportation costs) than they recoup from the meat they take. Do you eat meat, Ben? Perhaps you advocate clearcutting more Amazon rainforests, to create grazing fields for more cattle?
For the sport hunters I know, hunting is more about making and renewing friendships than about killing animals. Likewise, sport fishermen routinely practice "catch and release," because they enjoy the friendship, relaxation and challenge of fishing. Our planet's fauna is being exterminated by commercial operations, Ben, not by sport hunters and fishermen.
As regards gun control in the form of longer wait times, stricter laws, heavier penalties, etc., is there any evidence that any of these practices would reduce gun crime? In what way would longer wait times, stricter laws, heavier taxes, penalties, tests or microchip tracking deter a mass murderer who intends to kill himself after his slaughter? Do you think he cares about stricter laws, heavier taxes or microchip tracking? And just how useful would mental evaluations be, given that nobody has yet invented one that can accurately predict future behavior?
To projektleiterin's question: yes, some people do hunt squirrels with pistols, but if you read my comment more carefully you will notice I was referring to the *caliber* size.
Edgar's correction is appreciated — the reference I checked said a Glock 19 was a .19 caliber, when in fact it is a 9mm.
Edgar's second comment is, pardon the expression, dead on: cure the causes, don't waste time trying to ban the effects.
To Dan's comment: yes, the deer population in Wisconsin would skyrocket if hunting were stopped, or at least so says the state's Dept. of Natural Resources: "In March, DNR scientists warned that if more does aren't killed, the deer population could explode, leading to more crop damage, more car-deer crashes and more changes in forests' ecosystems." (See http://www.startribune.com/531/story/550744.html/…
In closing, let me refer you all to a story I'd like you gun control fans to respond to: an 82-year-old woman who, while balanced on her walker, shot out the tires of an intruder's get-away car:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/b…
I guess it's safe to assume you never saw Bambi. Or Michael Moore's finest documentary "Bowling for Columbine"…
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/
Oh, and I am aware of the rainforest thing (I still eat meat though, ya nailed me).
http://whyfiles.org/238earthday/images/brazil_com…
I agree that hunting a few deer is nothing compared to Burger King, and McDonalds, and Smithfield, and Purdue, Sysco. I take issue with the *needless* suffering, the barbaric act of imposing will on the innocent animal, destroying it's family bonds too. You say "because they enjoy the friendship", but I say, why not play paintball, or basketball instead of slaughtering fellow mammals for *sport*.
Ben asks, "…I say, why not play paintball, or basketball instead of slaughtering fellow mammals for *sport*."
I'm not unsympathetic with that opinion, however, let's consider what would happen to deer in Wisconsin (my state) if they were not hunted. The deer population would skyrocket, leading to more car-deer collisions and more death and suffering for the people and families involved in those accidents. Winter food supplies for deer would be insufficient to sustain the huge herd, leading to mass starvation. Do you think starving to death in the winter is a better way to die than being shot by a hunter, Ben? And not just a few deer would starve, but most all of them, because few would have enough to eat if the limited supplies were divided among a much larger herd. There's a reason why deer hunting occurs in the fall: it's to thin the herd before winter, so that winter food supplies will sustain a larger percentage of the remaining population. Believe it or not, hunting for "sport" is arguably more humane treatment for the deer than not hunting them.
"an 82-year-old woman who, while balanced on her walker, shot out the tires of an intruder’s get-away car"
Okay great job granny!
Six years later as she slips in and out of dementia of old age the kind old woman fails to lock the gun box. One afternoon, her grandchildren visit her, open the box while playing, and one of the children lies in a pool of blood, the odor of gunpowder wafting out of muzzle of granny's gun.
"One afternoon, her grandchildren visit her, open the box while playing, and one of the children lies in a pool of blood, the odor of gunpowder wafting out of muzzle of granny’s gun."
Sounds like a parenting problem to me, Ben: where were they when their kids were playing with granny's gun case?
BTW, dementia is not a normal part of aging. Although a third of people over age 85 do suffer from Alzheimer's disease, most remain lucid. Many cases of "dementia" are actually cases of hearing loss, vision loss, neuromotor loss (Parkinson's disease), etc., not mental loss.
"Six years later as she slips in and out of dementia … her grandchildren visit her …"
Give me a break.
By your logic, the CERTAINTY of allowing the perpetrators to continue to terrorize the public is a better choice than the FANTASY of a firearm accident that "might" happen.
By the way, the ten most common causes of accidental death in the USA are:
1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200
2. Falls
Deaths per year: 14,900
3. Poisoning by solids and liquids
Deaths per year: 8,600
4. Drowning
Deaths per year: 4,000
5. Fires and burns
Deaths per year: 3,700
6. Suffocation
Deaths per year: 3,300
7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500
8. Poisoning by gases
Deaths per year: 700
9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures
Deaths per year: 500
10. Machinery
Deaths per year: 350
Furthermore, accidents account for only 4.4% of ALL deaths in the USA.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/… http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
"By your logic, the CERTAINTY of allowing the perpetrators to continue to terrorize the public is a better choice than the FANTASY of a firearm accident that “might” happen."
Where I live weapons are not allowed and I absolutely do not have the feeling of being terrorized by anybody and I assume the rest of the population doesn't either, because as far as now there have been no calls to introduce the permission to carry weapons.
By the way, I once read that the police in Los Angeles does not only have to fear the bullets of criminals, but they nearly as often hurt themselves accidently with their own guns or get hurt by their colleagues.
Edgar, strawman, we were talking about total deaths by firearms, not just grandma. USA had 8,259 murders with handguns in a 2 year period.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir…
If you wanna talk total assaults, injuries, and robberies using guns, the numbers are even more staggering…
"The murder rate in the United States was five to seven times higher than most industrial nations.
During January-November 2002, New York City reported 489 murder cases; Chicago registered 485 homicide cases, in which 515 people were killed; and Detroit reported 346 murders.
During the same period Los Angeles reported 595 murder cases with 614 people killed…"
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zfbps/t36550….
"Where I live weapons are not allowed and I absolutely do not have the feeling of being terrorized by anybody …"
As I stated in another thread, I would like for that to be the case here, too. But that would require societal changes that I do not know how to bring about.
I'll give an example: As far as I know, it would be perfectly legal for me to own a trebuchet. Do you know why I don't own a trebuchet? Because I don't have any need for one — there aren't any castle walls in my neighborhood that need to be breached. So the inconvenience of storing and maintaining a trebuchet outweighs the "coolness" of being the only person on the block who has one. In the same way, if people feel safe enough that owning firearms seems superfluous, then firearm ownership will dwindle until only people with specific uses for them, such as collectors and sporting enthusiasts, will actually own them. (Having said that, I'll mention that I suspect that there are more people in the USA who own firearms out of a fascination with mechanical things than there are who own firearms strictly for self-defense. It is very much like the America love affair with automobiles.)
As for the LAPD story, it sounds like propaganda to me. If you can cite a credible reference, I'll acknowledge it.
"Edgar, strawman, we were talking about total deaths by firearms, not just grandma."
No, the example given was specifically about a firearm accident involving a child and demented grandma's improperly stored handgun.
Edgar writes "As for banning guns as a cure for gun violence, I think that this is naive."
Edgar, by listing only gun *accidents* you are creating a strawman argument. I agree that people need to be careful when crossing the street, and they should use deer horns if they drive in Wisconsin. Where I live, kids are killing kids on the street corner in drive by shootings. I have never seen a real deer.
Wisconsin deer are a problem because firearms extinguished the wolf and cougar populations (among others) that kept deer in check. I'm not against controlling the deer population; venison is delicious. But it is not a good argument for widely available handguns nor for automatic weapons, no matter how you slice it.
That accidental firearms death number doesn't include the significantly larger number of murders that would otherwise have just been assaults with any other weapon.
But I am one of those who are fascinated by precision machinery, and would delight in studying an example of each model of projectile weapon, had I the time and opportunity. But I doubt that I would buy one unless I had a likely need to kill something.
I've only fired a couple of semi-auto handguns at a gun range, and merely found it interesting. Taking it apart and seeing how it works is what does it for me.