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].
"Want to end teenage pregnancy? Ban sex education in the schools. There’s another thread on DI about this folly, too."
Okay, slow down, now you are comparing useful education to dangerous weapons? I would love to hear more about THIS analogy you propose.
I think more accurate would be: "Want to end teenage pregnancy? Ban *abstinence only* education in the schools." There's another thread about irrational creationists' thinking on DI about this folly, too."
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1230
Dan, I understand your curiousity. I fancy myself quite a marksman, among other things (juggling 4 objects, for example). I don't intend on ever using a real gun though. I have dominated paintball games (with old-fogies, albeit), I played Laser-Tag on a tournament team for about 5 years. I played "Socom2 Navy Seals" for days on end, perfecting my skill with the video game control. Dan is correct, if you want to practice marksmanship, there are many ways besides going hunting with Dick Cheney and the NRA.
"Edgar, by listing only gun *accidents* you are creating a strawman argument."
No. I responded to a specific example that was presented TO me, not BY me.
"Okay, slow down, now you are comparing useful education to dangerous weapons? I would love to hear more about THIS analogy you propose."
The analogy is purposely absurd. My intent is to show that legislation that does not address the root cause of a problem is doomed to failure.
Edgar, I appreciate your time and effort with the issue here. Maybe my analogy was too weak…
Four years later as she slips into the bleakness of alzheimer's, the gentle old woman forgets to lock her back door. One afternoon, while she is away at the market, her home is robbed. The thief does not find much more than jewelry boxes, a small safe, silverware, and some electronics. The thief is only able to sell his "hot" items for 200 dollars. He has not yet been able to open the mini-safe, but he knows thats where the real prize is, and finds a crowbar. Later that evening, the gleaming muzzle of granny's shiny gun catches the eye of the convenience store clerk. The clerk is already bleeding from a gutshot, the odor of gunpowder wafting out of muzzle of granny’s gun. His death makes the local news. Granny's gun goes on to assist 3 different gangs, and eventually is traded in for cash in a guns-for-cash program. Unfortunately granny's gun was the enabler in 11 total shootings and 3 murders. People don't kill people, guns kill people.
Ben writes, "Unfortunately granny’s gun was the enabler in 11 total shootings and 3 murders."
What evidence do you have, Ben, that banning guns would have prevented all the murders that have ever been committed with guns?
Another question, Ben: since drunk drivers kill more than 10,000 people every year with their cars, should we ban cars as a way of preventing drunk driving deaths? That's the exact same reasoning you apply in your argument for banning guns.
Tired Scholar writes: "USA had 8,259 murders with handguns in a 2 year period."
USA has twice that number killed every year by drunk drivers — should we ban cars, too, to stop drunk drivers from using them to kill people?
Tired Scholar continues: "If you wanna talk total assaults, injuries, and robberies using guns, the numbers are even more staggering."
Show us your data, Tired Scholar. According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, most firearm deaths (nearly 60%) are suicides. Also, the number of gun suicides has remained relatively stable, while the number of gun homocides has plummeted. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth…. See also http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm/.
Tired Scholar continues: "“The murder rate in the United States was five to seven times higher than most industrial nations…."
Correlation is not causation, Tired Scholar. Where is your data demonstrating a *causal link* between gun ownership and America's high murder rate? Where is your data to show that the murder rate in the U.S. would significantly drop if guns were banned? Maybe the high murder rate in the U.S. is a result of violence on television, or the gulf between rich and poor, or racial inequality, or any of a dozen other things. Maybe America's version of capitalism, which is far more severe than elsewhere in the world, inherently breeds more violence than elsewhere in the world.
Ban drunk driving. Alcohol blowers for all vehicles.
Okay, fine, I will join the NRA tomorrow.
Check your links Grumpy.
Mine work fine…
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-…
#1 District of Columbia: 31.2
#2 Alaska: 20
#3 Louisiana: 19.5
#4 Wyoming: 18.8
#5 Arizona: 18
#6 Mississippi: 17.3
#7 Nevada: 17.3
#8 New Mexico: 16.6
#9 Arkansas: 16.3
#10 Alabama: 16.2
#11 Tennessee: 15.4
#12 West Virginia: 14.7
#13 Montana: 14.5
#14 South Carolina: 13.8
#15 North Carolina: 13.6
#16 Georgia: 13.4
#17 Kentucky: 13.1
#18 Oklahoma: 13.1
#19 Idaho: 12.3
#20 Missouri: 12.3
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_w…
#1 Delaware: 80 %
#2 Louisiana: 77.5 %
#3 Vermont: 76.9 %
#4 Arizona: 76 %
#5 Arkansas: 75.2 %
#6 Illinois: 74.2 %
#7 New Hampshire: 72.7 %
#8 California: 72.6 %
#9 Pennsylvania: 72.5 %
#10 Georgia: 72 %
#11 Wisconsin: 72 %
#12 Michigan: 69.4 %
#13 Missouri: 69.3 %
#14 Virginia: 69.3 %
#15 West Virginia: 68.4 %
#16 North Carolina: 68.3 %
#17 South Carolina: 68.3 %
#18 Maryland: 67.6 %
#19 Tennessee: 66.7 %
#20 Alabama: 65.2 %
#21 Kentucky: 64.7 %
#22 Indiana: 64.2 %
#23 Mississippi: 63.6 %
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable–over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS…
"Ban drunk driving. Alcohol blowers for all vehicles."
Ben, apologies for digressing a bit here, but at least this will show that I still have a sense of humor about this. When you said, "Alcohol blowers for all vehicles," the image that came to mind was of every automobile engine equipped with a supercharger ("blower"); every vehicle fueled by alcohol.
"Okay, fine, I will join the NRA tomorrow."
Actually, that might not be a bad idea. You'll find that it is an organization made up of good, hard-working people who want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, like so many large, powerful organizations, it has (in my opinion) been taken over by a bunch of fanatics. I actually terminated my membership in the NRA several years ago because of their blind, unwavering support for George W. Bush, based solely upon his position on gun control.
Let me add one more thing. Believe it or not, I actually want guns to go away! I am serious. I want there to be an end to all of the gun-related social problems, which you and others have enumerated in this thread and which I acknowledge to be accurate, just the same as I want there to be an end to all of the alcohol and drug-related social problems, poverty-related social problems, race-related social problems, etc. But the "ban all guns" solution is not sophisticated enough to make that happen, just the same as banning all alcohol didn't make it go away, and banning all drugs hasn't made them go away, etc. The reason, in my opinion, is that guns are not the cause of the problem, they are the effect. As long as people feel insecure and afraid, as long as they feel either that the government is powerless to help them or that the government is actually against them, as long as other problems, such as alcohol and drugs and poverty, lead to violent behavior among non-law-abiding people, law-abiding people will feel the need to protect themselves by whatever means they can find. As I indicated in an earlier post, I believe that solving those other root problems will make gun ownership superfluous for all but collectors and sports enthusiasts. And collectors and sports enthusiasts, I imagine, are probably willing to abide by whatever laws are necessary to ensure that they can continue to be collectors and sports enthusiasts.
Guns vs. Cars: Cars are designed to transport people and goods. In practice, this is what they almost always do. Rarely (on a per car basis) do they cause a death.
Guns are for killing. Many are only used for training and show (shooting ranges, etc). But their design purpose is to make killing quick and easy. Often (on a per gun basis) they do cause death. Granted, mostly other animals. Also, a majority of the humans deaths-by-gun are sanctioned (police, wars, etc).
I don't have the stats, but I'm confident that the average human civilian deaths-per-gun is several orders of magnitude greater then deaths-per-car.
Banning guns would never work (prohibition, abstinence only, just say "no", etc). Proper licensing and taxing might help. Let the organization determined to put a gun in everyones hand, the NRA, be put in charge of certifying owners and users with annual, biennial, or semi-decade licenses. Let them collect a tax on guns and gunpowder sales to pay for the bureaucracy.
Then when someone slips through the cracks, the NRA can defend its practices in civil and criminal courts. They will cover the judgment costs with the license fees and taxes on weapons and propellants.
Take the regulation of personal weapons out of the hands of the government, just like the NRA desires. But make them responsible for the results.
"I don’t have the stats, but I’m confident that the average human civilian deaths-per-gun is several orders of magnitude greater then deaths-per-car."
Well, let's see. I did a little research last night, and found that there are an estimated 62 million cars in the US, and approximately 250 million guns.
There were 43,200 accidental auto deaths, and some unknown number of auto murders. (I searched for a long time to find vehicular homicide and manslaughter numbers, but failed.)
There were 1500 accidental gun deaths, and approximately 4130 murders (8,259 murders with handguns in a 2 year period, according to an earlier post by Tired Scholar).
The deaths-per-car and deaths-per-gun computations are left as an exercise for the reader.
Look; using raw statistics as an attempt to justify banning guns isn't going to work, because the statistics work against you. Example after example has shown that banning guns increases crime, regions with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates, and regions with the most liberal gun laws have the lowest crime rates.
Once again, elimination of guns must come as a result of social improvements in other areas rendering gun ownership unnecessary (or, at least, perceived to be unnecessary).
Ben, not one of the references you cited addresses the question I asked: "What evidence do you have, Ben, that banning guns would have prevented all the murders that have ever been committed with guns?"
Edgar writes: "Example after example has shown that banning guns increases crime, regions with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates, and regions with the most liberal gun laws have the lowest crime rates."
Careful there, Edgar — correlation does not demonstrate causation. Indeed, rather than strict gun laws causing high crime rates (which is what your comment implies), strict gun laws were more likely created *after* high crime rates were noticed, as politicians tried to apply Band-Aid solutions by passing gun control laws (laws that were then ineffective, for reasons you previously described…indeed, to the extent that strict gun laws have failed to reduce gun crime 'post facto', Ben's argument in favor of gun control would be directly contradicted).
"Careful there, Edgar — correlation does not demonstrate causation."
Touché. I concede your point.
Grumpy, think of it like taking matches away from a 6 year old. You reduce the risk of fire, whether accidental or playful or purposeful. Of course, the child may still injure himself, when he falls and skins his knee, or swings too high on the swingset. The WHOLE POINT is removing objects which are too dangerous to control when misused or used by an angry, vengeful, or insane person.
In a fit of rage, a person with access to a gun is able to kill. Fit of rage normally last about 15 minutes. Without access to a gun, this person would be reduced to screaming or fisticuffs, a good thing, in my opinion.
Take the Robert Blake example, he was in a fit of rage, if all he had in his car was a baseball bat, he wouldve walked back into the bar, and beaten his wife with the bat. After a few swings, good samaritans at the bar wouldve controlled the situation. Unfortunately, his weapon of choice was not a baseball bat, and by the time his fit of rage had ended, he came to the horrible realization what he had done. Temporary insanity, if you want, but the gun is to blame for the severity here.
Grumpy, I don't understand how you think that 60% of gun deaths being attributed to suicide helps your case. If anything, it shows that guns are too powerful for humans to play with. Humans get depressed, even have breakdowns, mania, schizophrenia. The gun is especially lethal in these situations, because, attempted suicide does not come into the picture. Once you pull that trigger, it's over. There is no changing your mind, once your mind is stuck to the carpet. Other forms of suicide, pills, hanging, cutting, jumping off a bridge— people actually live through these. So, once again, GUNS are EXTREMELY CULPABLE in SUICIDE (as Grumpy has kindly pointed out.)
"I’m confident that the average human civilian deaths-per-gun is several orders of magnitude greater then deaths-per-car."
I like the direction you are headed, but keep in mind that people drive their car twice a day. They only use their guns when they get angry or are attacked by another angry person who *does not own* a gun. Ironically if the attacker has a gun, you won't even have time to use your gun, because you are likely dead already. The purpose of Guns, as Dan wisely points out, is killing made clean and easy.
projektleiterin writes, "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…Carrying a gun gives people a false sense of security and power, and it’s the latter that most can’t handle."
The point of my comment was not that everyone should be required to carry guns, merely that the VT shooter probably would not have slaughtered as many people if others on the campus had been armed.
Also, I doubt very much that allowing handguns on college campuses would lead to widespread killings for bad grades or funny looks. Guns can enable a lunatic to slaughter many people, but where is the evidence that carrying a gun will turn an ordinary person into an indiscriminate murderer? The people I know who carry a gun are, if anything, much *more* careful when they carry, because they recognize the risk.
Out of curiosity, I checked gun crime statistics at the website for the U.S. Bureau of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm/. According to their data, "During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." These data suggest that banning firearms, especially military-style assault rifles, would cause relatively little decrease in violent crime. More likely, criminals would simply use other weapons, as most already do.
The data also show that during the 1993-2001 period (the Clinton years, when the economy boomed), gun crime dropped 40%.
As regards public schools (presumably, excluding colleges), the data show that 70% of murders involve a firearm and 50% involve a handgun. Since children are prohibited from owning guns, these data demonstrate not that guns are dangerous, but that adults who own guns do an inadequate job of keeping them away from children.
According to this document: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
firearm violence is highly correlated with both race and household income: "Blacks at every income level were more vulnerable than whites to be victims of firearm violence. Whites and blacks with household incomes below $7,500 were more vulnerable to armed violence than their counterparts with higher incomes."
Age is also a factor, with people 12-24 years old disproportionately involved. Since this age is highly correlated with both gang activity and illegal drug use, I suspect (but do not have data to verify) that many gun homocides are targeted killings — an activity that would seem likely to continue without firearms.
In any case, I will conclude by returning to Edgar's comment: cure the causes, don't ban the effects.
"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."
You talk as if you're living in a warzone…
I saw you wrote about fighting the causes that lead to people wanting to possess arms instead of introducing a ban. I totally agree with that, banning weapons without making people get rid of the Wild-West-Lonesome-Cowboy-mentality would not work out. Nevertheless, it is necessary to establish a ban to support this mental change and to give a clear signal about the safety issues concerning weapons. If you want people to stop having the need to have weapons at home, you will have to reduce the crime rates, and I'm really sure, making it more difficult to get weapons would support this objective. I think it's a vicious circle that you can only efficiently stop by tackling these two issues at the same time.
The article about the high accident rate among cops can be found here: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,4321… It's in German though. That's a news magazine like "Time" or "Newsweek".
Between 1985 and 2005 161 cops had been shot, 68 of them mistakenly by coworkers or happened to have an accident with their own weapon.
One story was about this guy who shot his girlfriend in the leg when he tried to remove a bullet from his gun to give it to her as a souvenir of their date (I'm sure she will remember this date!). The story about the cop who was paralyzed, because he was shot when his three year old son was playing with his gun was less funny.
"Banning guns would never work"
Because you have a whole society been brainwashed by the myth that people have to be independent and taking care of themselves at all cost. That personal freedom is such a high value, which it is, but I sometimes feel it has been corrupted and has created individuals that are not living in a society and community, but are in a constant competition with and in fear of each other.
It's absolutely possible to live without weapons, if it's not happening in the States, it's because people don't want to, but it's not a must to survive.
Edgar's numbers are interesting, but suspect:
"Estimated 62 million cars in the U.S" = 1 car per 5 people. This seems low.
I found
That doesn't include the cars up on blocks or such, equivalent to the guns in storage.
43,200 auto deaths per year? This number is close to what I've found. Scary. At 243 mega-cars, that's .00018 deaths per car per year.
250 million guns in the U.S. means about one gun for everyone in the U.S. over 3 years old. Given the hundreds of normal, gunless people I personally know, I suspect that number includes military issue and no-longer-functioning weapons.
The scary part is that no one knows how many guns there are. There is no tracking of guns, no records kept of ammo purchases, and no records kept of guns produced and imported compared to guns destroyed and lost. The Brady Bill merely makes it a little harder for people to acquire guns legally at that moment when they are homicidal.
For Edgar's gun numbers: 0.00002 deaths per gun per year. Only one gun in 44,000 is used to do that for which it was designed.
Edgar's discovery is that ubiquitous cars that almost every American encounters on a daily basis are 9 times as deadly per unit as are rarely seen or displayed guns.
“During the offense that brought them to (Federal) prison… only 15% used guns"
Seems a bit unfair to list *total* federal inmate numbers instead of *violent crime*. Correct me if I'm wrong, but violence is not the culprit in crimes like tax evasion, credit card fraud, insider trading, or any other white collar crime. Another problem is the frequency which guns are used in violent crimes, assaults, robberies, which go *unreported* and *unconvicted*.
Oh yeah, and your precious "60% of gun deaths are suicides" figure also invalidates your federal inmate numbers. The reason? Suicide victims don't get a day in court. Suicide victims don't get sent to federal prison.
"60 percent of gun deaths are suicides", this speaks volumes for NOT owning a gun. Whether it's cause or effect I'm not sure, but I sure as HELL ain't joining Uncle Sam or the NRA.
I wonder if consulting the U.S. Justice Department for tips on reducing violence is akin to going to ExxonMobil.com for the latest research on anthropogenic global warming? Pocketbooks are involved there, the Right relies on the gun lobby.