Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Monday, February 28, 2011

Because Nothing Makes You Safer Than Keeping a Gun in Your Home

Posted by on Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Natural selection in action, Alabama style:

(BAY MINETTE, Ala.) The Baldwin County Sheriff's Office said a small child accidentally shot his mother, after finding the gun near his injured father's side.

And how was the father injured? He tripped and fell, accidentally shooting himself in the leg with the loaded Glock he was carrying.

I know it pisses off the 2nd Amendment fundies every time I point this out, but study after study shows that the number one risk factor for death or injury due to firearms is availability. I'm just sayin'.


Comments (72) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
This is possibly the dumbest post I've ever seen on Slog.

So you're telling me that there is a link between owning firearms and firearm related injuries? Really?

Is there a link between breathing air and being a racist?

Do you need to go back to Logic 101 and remember that correlation does not prove causation. I'm sure Mudede could give you a refresher.
Posted by Swearengen on February 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM · Report this
dirac 2
While I am for heavy regulation and personally believe that states can ban guns in certain areas under the current constitution, I think we should also study the morons vs. the well-trained. When I was a kid, my dad made sure that the guns were locked up and that we didn't handle a gun until we passed the NRA safety course. I don't really like the NRA as a political advocacy group but their safety course was rather comprehensive and scared me with videos of what might happen if you made the wrong move with a gun.

My total innocent curiosity is: are there studies that look at that population of the somewhat well-trained?
Posted by dirac on February 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 3
But there's not much point in sayin', is there? This isn't a tragedy, Tuscon was a tragedy. This one is comedy.

"It's WAY too late for Gun Control in America" - Steve Earle
Posted by Max Solomon on February 28, 2011 at 11:38 AM · Report this
Fnarf 4
Hey, speaking of Arizona, they're about to make the Colt Repeater their official firearm, thus hearkening back to a day when Arizonans murdered each other with American guns, not German ones.

You also may have missed the recent travails of Chelsea superstar jackass Cashley Cole, who for some reason decided to bring his shiny new gun to the locker room, where he promptly accidentally shot an intern.

As for your question, @2, I think "people who are smart enough to safely handle firearms" and "people who want guns" are mutually exclusive groups. The rest of you? Just disasters waiting to happen.

But hey, gun owners: thanks a million for being the source of every single illegal gun out there. You're peachy.
Posted by Fnarf on February 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM · Report this
So let me get this straight... you mean to tell me that there are higher rates of death from a particular source (in this case, guns) in households which have guns? Man if I brought this logic into my law school class as a justification for banning firearms I would laughed out of the building with comments probably ranging from "you should outlaw pencils, people who don't have pencils make almost no spelling errors!" to "correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, only a type of natural relation" and shit like that.

Bad logic Mr. Savage, please stop giving those of us blessed with such and awesome last name a bad rap.
Posted by savagedm on February 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM · Report this
HEY! You'll take my stupidity from me when you pry it from my cold dead hand!
Posted by Jonathank5 on February 28, 2011 at 11:49 AM · Report this
Doctor Memory 7
savagedm@5: This article had a by-line. Maybe you should look at it?
Posted by Doctor Memory on February 28, 2011 at 11:50 AM · Report this
@ #1 you need to go back to Logic 101 -- the post is not expressing causation but a correlation -- having a gun correlates (at an undeniably high R-value) with a highly elevated risk of being shot.

IT seems pretty clear, and is well-evidenced, that the cause of this is correlation is that "unforeseeable" circumstances lead to individuals being shot with their own guns -- the didn't plan on falling on their gun, but it happens.

Is there some other causal reason you can propose for the correlation? Or is it selection, that people highly-likely to be shot anyway are the ones who buy guns? Not likely. Is it that moronic fucktards tend to buy guns? You might be getting warmer ...
Posted by I teach Logic 101 on February 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM · Report this
I love the logic used by gun advocates. Jesus fucking christ -- WHEN GUNS ARE AROUND, PEOPLE GET SHOT. Yes, many gun shot victims are stupid, but many of them just happen to be in proximity to the stupid fuckers who bought the gun.

We need guns in the country like we need a hole in the head.
Posted by dandean on February 28, 2011 at 11:54 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 10
Guns are most frequently used to kill family members.

And, if you have one, they're most likely to be used against you by any robber than against the robber.

(exception: trained military personnel and police with experience in weapons handling during fights, although the family member thing still happens)
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM · Report this
It never fails: when presented with facts, gun nuts clutch their penis substitutes tighter and sputter.

Yeah, yeah, but your need for a penis substitute refutes all logic, factual argument, and the unnecessary death of children.

They have penis enlargement surgery (and pumps, if your flesh gun no longer shoots), and no children are killed or maimed in the process.

See a doctor, might even be covered by your insurance, and let the rest of us live.

Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 12
The biggest problem with guns in this country is the illegal sale or transfer of them. People who shouldn't be allowed to own guns (because of criminal history or such) can get them far too easily by gun owners who don't follow the rules.

The 2nd Amendment gives people the right to own guns, but it doesn't give you the right to sell them or give them away.

The penalties for selling/transferring guns to people illegally should be made exceedingly harsh.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM · Report this

It doesn't matter, it is still posted on the SLOG and thus bears with it the connotation that it is approved for posting by Dan. Agents are ALWAYS associated with the company (or sub-agent in this case).


"Is there some other causal reason you can propose for the correlation? Or is it selection, that people highly-likely to be shot anyway are the ones who buy guns? Not likely. Is it that moronic fucktards tend to buy guns? You might be getting warmer"

Of course the availability of guns are going to affect gun-related deaths, just the same as misspelled words will be greater when there are more writing utensils available, it's the nature of things. Now, if there is conclusive evidence out there which indicates that the number of deaths avoided is greater than the new number of deaths caused and crimes committed using things like knives, baseball bats, mace, etc., then you might be on to something. However, at this point I highly doubt that evidence has been fully hashed out yet. There are a great many more factors which need to be considered besides death and ownership.
Posted by savagedm on February 28, 2011 at 12:03 PM · Report this
dirac 14
@4 For the record, don't own a gun. I just grew up in a family where safety was emphasized first and our firearms were used for hunting and eating what we killed. The anecdote is not data, which is why I was asking. Very early on I couldn't deal with the *direct* killing, so gave up on the gun thing entirely--a kind of cognitive dissonance our supermarket culture hasn't reconciled (my meat-eating self included). Still, I'd like to know why Switzerland can be well-armed but have limited gun crime and the US can't seem to duplicate that.
Posted by dirac on February 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM · Report this
Doctor Memory 15
@13: Here, let me fix that for you:

"Oops, my bad. Everything I said still holds, just to Goldy instead."

Was that so fucking hard? Or do you just like coming off as a brittle monomaniac who'd rather contort himself into knots than admit a simple and obvious error?
Posted by Doctor Memory on February 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM · Report this
Goldy 16

A.) Read the byline. I'm not Savage. (Though as a writer, it's flattering to be confused as such.)

B.) Read the post. This post does not advocate for banning firearms. It merely points out that owning one increases the likelihood that you or a family member will be injured or killed by one. Statistically, guns don't make us safer. They simply don't.
Posted by Goldy on February 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 17
Ho-hum, this is as interesting as listening to an NRA-screed. Polemics rarely engage the critical thinker and delight the lazy ones.

Why don't you write about how private ownership (or lack thereof) of firearms shaped the history of your home country & region? The attitude towards guns in RSA is in some cases even more extreme than in America..
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on February 28, 2011 at 12:21 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 18

OK, egg on my face. This read like a Mudede entry.

(hmmmmm.... what is it about polemics that make ever writer appear the same?)
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on February 28, 2011 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 19
@13: The studies and statistics exist. It took me literally less than thirty seconds to Google this one up:
In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime... Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.
As to "the new number of deaths caused and crimes committed using things like knives, baseball bats, mace," I would say that as far as accidental deaths are concerned, I am not aware of any cases where someone was killed by the accidental use of knives, baseball bats, or mace. One doesn't often read about a child picking up a baseball bat, for example, and killing or seriously wounding a friend, sibling, or parent because the baseball bat "goes off" accidentally.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM · Report this
sirkowski 20
I'm sure Mudede could give you a refresher.

You just went full-on retard there.
Posted by sirkowski on February 28, 2011 at 12:30 PM · Report this
21 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
Hmm, let's break down yet another stupid argument by a gun nut anxious to hang on to his penis substitute, no matter the carnage it creates: neither pencils, nor misspelled words kill innocent bystanders, no less children:

"In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

...Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
•In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
•The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"…

But let's just look at that stupid "writing implements=misspelling" argument on it's own: you're likely to find a major slew of writing implements (including computers) at a newspaper/blog like the Stranger, where it's unlikely to find misspellings. (Copyeditors=gun control.)

Where you'll likely find misspellings (as well as logical fallacies, and innocent bystanders murdered and maimed) is among the white trash, red state, gun nut penis-substitute clutchers.

Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 12:43 PM · Report this
Amnt 23
Are there a lot of stupid people with guns? Of course, there are stupid people everywhere, and some own guns. Gun ownership is a significant responsibility and one that must be taken seriously. I'd be happy to see gun safety taught along drivers education. If you don't know what the fuck you are doing, you can hurt yourself or others. No shit. Just like driving a car.

I know plenty of gun owners who are very responsible and quite intelligent. Gun ownership has unfortunately become a partisan issue for many, but if liberals like to say that gun owners care about the 2nd amendment and ignore all the others, why to so many liberals not care about the 2nd amendment? I am a gun owner and member of the ACLU (and not the NRA, I don't like how they operate).

Also, I kill babies in the morning and pass out guns to criminals at night while sniffing glue and waving my tea party sign. Just for Fnarf.
Posted by Amnt on February 28, 2011 at 12:45 PM · Report this
I sure hope child protective services takes the kid away from the parents if they survive - that's clearly not a child-safe environment.
Posted by SuperSteve on February 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM · Report this
The Wretched Harmony 25
If only there were a test for stupidity. Imagine all the uses!
Posted by The Wretched Harmony on February 28, 2011 at 1:00 PM · Report this
@ 19

I would argue that knives have in fact accidentally killed people many time over just by the fact that I almost cut my thumb off with a knife accidentally when I was 8. That being said, if there is legitimate evidence which shows that the death rates wont be shifted to something else or that violent criminals (who we are trying to ultimately stop from having any kind of weapon) don't shift their focus to other weapons/just obtaining guns illegally and shooting people they know are unarmed, then I'm all for restricting guns a bit further. However as another pointed out above, how can Switzerland make it legal and required to own very powerful firearms and still have such little problems with gun control? Do they have a comprehensive gun education system? I am in class right now and don't really have the time to research, only mindlessly post on these pages.
Posted by savagedm on February 28, 2011 at 1:06 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 27
The "more pencils means more misspellings" argument isn't a good analogy.

Having access to guns makes it easier to kill people, having access to pencils doesn't make it easier to misspell words.

Oh, and the thought that Dan is somehow the Overlord of The Stranger is funny. Perhaps that's what religious types are thinking about when they talk about "The Homosexual Agenda." Maybe they think it's Dan's agenda to approve or disapprove of all the Stranger staff's posts.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM · Report this
Go Goldy! Go judybrowni!
Hey gun-caressers, what's your take on victims' rights?
Posted by Sir Bitchalot on February 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 29
I'm way too drunk to read this. But Fnarf, AZ is going to make the Peacemaker their state gun. And Goldy, this bud's for you:…
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM · Report this
Fnarf 30
@12, the biggest source of illegal guns is legal gun owners who have them stolen. Virtually all illegal guns were originally sold legally, to nimrods who thought they were better able to manage their property than they were. I should know; my grandfather was one of them. Had his gun taken away from him and was shot with it, and then that same gun was later used in a whole string of crimes.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about private ownership of guns. Nothing at all. Until a few years ago, even most right-wing constitutional "originalists" acknowledged this (cf. Robert Bork). Sadly the Supreme Court is wholly in the grasp of beyond-far-right kook Republicans.
Posted by Fnarf on February 28, 2011 at 1:09 PM · Report this
31 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
Backyard Bombardier 32
@26: Me cutting myself on a carving knife does not equate to my eleven-year-old accidentally shooting her thirteen-year-old brother with a loaded handgun I left in my bedside table.

As to shifting death rates, there are a few components to consider.

One would be firearms homicides committed by criminals and during crimes. In these cases, I would expect there would be a shift - if handguns were harder to come by, one would expect to see more muggers armed with knives, for example. Would the generally lower lethality of knives as compared to handguns lead to fewer homicides? Hard to say.

Another component would be crimes of opportunity committed by "non-criminals" (for lack of a better term). I am thinking here of drunken arguments or domestic disputes that become lethal due to the availability of a firearm in the home. Again, there might be a shift in weapons as hubby goes for the carving knife instead of the Glock, but here I think that the reduced lethality of a knife versus a gun would come into play more than with "traditional" crime.

And then there are the accidents. I can't imagine we'd see a shift here. Your wounded thumb notwithstanding, knives don't just "go off" and kill people.

Re Switzerland, they do have comprehensive gun education inasmuch as those who get the government-issued powerful firearms do so in the context of military training and service. There are restrictions placed on the use and storage of the weapons, and everyone who gets one is trained. (In this way, Switzerland is a lot closer to the Second Amendment's
"well-regulated militia" than the mass gun ownership that the US sees.)
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM · Report this
Not all gun owners are morons, but morons are magnetically attracted to owning guns. And there's a lot of morons.
Posted by tiktok on February 28, 2011 at 1:21 PM · Report this
@10 The families of gun owners are super-fucking irritating, and are asking for it.
Posted by tiktok on February 28, 2011 at 1:23 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 35
Many of those cases of stolen guns could be the owners selling them to shady characters and then reporting them as stolen, to cover their ass if the thing is ever used in a crime (which the seller probably knows the buyer is going to use it for).

But either way, yes, irresponsible gun owners are an enormous cause of this problem.

Perhaps if laws were passed holding gun sellers and gun owners who've had their weapon stolen from them as accomplices in any crime involving said weapon, people would be a hell of a lot more reluctant to sell them AND buy them.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM · Report this
schmacky 36
savagedm: Maybe you should stop "mindlessly posting" then, because every post you've put up so far is stupider than the previous one. Make a cohesive argument, or just shut the fuck up.
Posted by schmacky on February 28, 2011 at 1:54 PM · Report this
Amnt 37
@35 Gun owners have a moral responsibility to use and store their guns safely, no doubt about that. My guns are locked in a metal cabinet and each has a lock through the action. I would feel pretty shitty if they got stolen and were used in a crime.

That said, holding somebody legally responsible for being a crime victim themselves (theft) is stupid. If I steal your car and run somebody over, is it your fault?

Broad generalization (of which I am an exception, but hey, as long as so many here are trading stereotypes): Liberals treat guns like conservatives treat abortion.
Posted by Amnt on February 28, 2011 at 2:08 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 38
But that's just it, your guns are well protected so you aren't one of the problem people. How many gun owners treat their guns like they treat their cell phones? Those people are the problem.

Yeah, my idea is far-fetched. There really isn't a great solution or it'd be in place already. Just for the record, I'm liberal and in favor of gun rights. I think many gun control advocates are missing the picture. They think if you just ban guns, the problem will be solved, over and out. Unfortunately, it only eliminates a means to commit a crime, not the intent.

Still, it's hard not to look at the stats and think, shit, there is something seriously fucked up with guns in this country.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM · Report this
For every story about someone legitimately using their personal weapon to defend themselves, there are ten, twenty, FIFTY, at least one EVERY DAY about some mingus shooting a family member or acquaintance with their personal weapon. We worry more about people having access to weapons as opposed to worrying if a person is actually TRAINED to use that weapon.
Posted by BigSid on February 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 40
If you took 500 gun nuts and locked them in a room with Gaddafi and gave them all machine pistols, the end result would be a good thing, provided you waited until all but 1 was dead.
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Amnt 41
No doubt there are serious problems. Just this morning my wife found out that the son of a family friend was accidentally (correct term: negligently) shot and killed last night by a drunk friend who was playing with his gun. There is no denying that these tragedies happen, in this case a tragedy of negligence and stupidity rather than criminal intent.

The fact is, guns aren't going away. You can ban all guns tomorrow and all it does is mean that only criminals will have guns. We need to promote safe and responsible gun use (and storage) because you won't stop people from buying guns, whatever your feelings on the issue are. Then we need to focus on root causes of crime rather than tools that are sometimes used in crimes. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, doesn't work for pot (I wrote my legislators last week to support the legal pot bill) and it won't work for guns. So we need to focus on mitigating the negative effects rather than hysterical calls for more prohibition.
Posted by Amnt on February 28, 2011 at 3:05 PM · Report this
seandr 42
@13: Far more people are killed by accidental shootings than while in the process of committing any kind of crime. If memory serves, the ratio is about 2:1. That's not counting suicides.

P.S. It's been a pleasure pulling your head out of your ass. You're welcome.
Posted by seandr on February 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM · Report this
Amnt 43
@40 - It's funny because people who exercise legal rights should be killed!
Posted by Amnt on February 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM · Report this
@42 of the people with a CHL that carry on a regular basis, and have to actually pull out a firearm to protect themself or their loved ones, less then 5% (closer to 4%)actually have to shoot. A handgun is a powerful deterrant. Thats why more people are hurt in firearm accidents than in the commission of a crime, because: a firearm stopped someone from committing a crime.

P.S. Its been a pleasure pulling your head of your ass, you are welcome
Posted by West Texas on February 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM · Report this
@42 thats because a firearm is a powerful deterrant, and less then 5% of all CHL licensees that produce a handgun in self defense actually have to shoot. Which means that for every 1 person that was shot in the commission of a crime, 19 stopped committing a crime and took their leave from the handgun owner

P.S. Suicides shouldn't be included in gun stats, otherwise, they should be included car stats, rope stats, and koolaid stats(and that might upset that fat red dude). Can you imagine buying a new car and the salesmen saying "this car was the car of choice for those 16 years olds that couldn't take it anymore in 2010, in fact, (x) kids use this car to kill themselves! Don't worry, this one is only lightly used..."

P.S. It's been a pleasure pulling your head out of your ass. You're welcome
Posted by West Texas on February 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM · Report this
Wrong again: the statistics are the reverse, more people killed with a gun in their home by a gun owned by a family member, than any "deterrent" factor.

And as for hysterical, yeah, thousands of children killed every year in the U.S. because gun nuts need to cling to a penis substitute, yeah, just hysteria to think that's wrong.

As for the "better regulation" -- that's exactly what the gun nut lobby fights at every turn, no matter how sensible.

As for the "something else might also cause deaths": sure, someone somewhere could wield lawn furniture in a homicide, but guns make it so much easier, and they're what are killing Americans now.

My father was a gunner for seven years in the Navy during WWII shooting down kamikazi pilots, sport hunted from his childhood on up -- but after my younger brother and sister found his (hidden, and out of their reach, he thought) pocketknife and my sister nearly lost a finger, my father not only got rid of the knife, but also his guns.

He had the sense the penis-substitute gun nuts don't. Would rather keep his family alive.

Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM · Report this
Ooops, sorry, Dad was only in the Navy 5 years, from 17 to 22, a gunner on ships from Anzio to the South Pacific.

But hey, what would a life-long sportsman and trained gunner know about sensible gun control, right?

The play penis guys have all the answers.
Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM · Report this
Amnt 48
My grandfather helped liberate Dachau and owned guns all his life. I guess that makes it a tie game?

And besides, I don't have any kids, I killed them all with my penis.

(Seriously, what is it with you and penises?)
Posted by Amnt on February 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 49
Amnt @43 (I think? I'm still drunk): Let's kill all the smokers, too. Yay!

Everybody else: Your "statistics" are meaningless. They're made-up numbers. Really. It's like the Bible. You can make it say whatever you want.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM · Report this
What is it with gun owners and their penis substitutes, and their fantasies about Rambo "deterrence" when the facts are dead family members, the burlar turning the gun against them, or whatever poor neighbor kid gets maimed in the crosshairs of their obsession?

Their hysterical fight against any sensible regulation -- only Freud could provide a explanation.
Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM · Report this
Facts are foolish things, to fools.
Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 4:13 PM · Report this
I am sure you are right about the deterrent, since the criminals who are deterred make it a point to call the police and report someone pulling a gun on them while they are hard at work mugging, robbing and breaking into peoples homes. Waitaminute, no they don't, so that means that the deterring only gets reported in in depth surveys, since the cops aren't going to go tell a homeowner that they shouldn't have stopped the local meth addict from breaking into their home.

And you want to talk about dads and grandads, mine was an infantryman who had guns and hunted his entire life. the only time he got shot was by some German while he was taking a walking tour of Italy sometime around 1943-44.
Posted by West Texas on February 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM · Report this
Again, facts are foolish things, to fools.

But fantasies are apparently endemic to gun nuts.
Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 54
Thank you, Judy Brown. It's so much easier having a discussion with someone when the other person proves that they're an idiot right off the bat.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 28, 2011 at 4:47 PM · Report this
Yes, your idiocy is a shame, but I was too polite to use that term.

And, of course, I'm also aware that ad hominem attacks are not only a logical fallacy, but indicate that the arguer has no valid argument to make.
Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 4:54 PM · Report this
I'm trying to find the sarcasm in @1's post, but it isn't popping up. Am I missing something, Swearengen?
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on February 28, 2011 at 6:13 PM · Report this
DeaconBlues 57
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I would like to point out that the state with the strictest gun control laws is also the state with the most gun crime (California). Just sayin'.

Personally, I'm in favor of gun control. We should be allowed to have guns, but they should not be easy or quick to procure.
Posted by DeaconBlues on February 28, 2011 at 6:43 PM · Report this
If you ignore the population difference maybe.
Firearm murders per 100,000 (FL data not provided) -
1) DC - 18.84
2) Louisiana - 10.46
3) Alabama - 8.02

CA comes in at 3.7 and TX at 3.49. Though TX has much higher rates for Firearm Robberies and Firearm Assaults than CA.
Posted by uptown on February 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM · Report this
Posted by venomlash on February 28, 2011 at 7:27 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 60
I wonder how many of the gun advocates here would balk at state-mandated education. Frankly, I'm glad that every driver on the road has to pass a test.

On the odd occasion I go to the firing range with my gun-owner buddies, they insist on giving me a refresher course, and I'm glad to have it.

What do you think, West Texas? Let me guess: such a move would be simply to give the state a handy list of the people who have guns for when it comes time to take them all away. Amiright?
Posted by Free Lunch on February 28, 2011 at 7:37 PM · Report this
DeaconBlues 61
@58: "Gun Crime" is not "Firearm Murders". Though that is a compelling statistic!

Basically what I am saying here is that this is a complicated issue, and that anyone who says "ban guns" is probably just as wrong as someone who says "let guns flow like rivers".
Posted by DeaconBlues on February 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM · Report this

All the numbers are there, the FBI breaks them into 3 categories:
firearm murders, firearm assaults, and firearm robberies.
Posted by uptown on February 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM · Report this
prompt 63
If I had a gun that didn't have a real safety (ie, Glock), I would at least be smart enough to not have a round chambered. What a tard.
Posted by prompt on February 28, 2011 at 8:30 PM · Report this
@60: personally I think everyone should have some firearms education. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone. That way people can actually decide how they feel about guns after they have felt the recoil in their hands or on their shoulder.

Should it be government mandated? No, I feel that the federal government should become less involved in peoples personal lives. I know in several states, I will use Oklahoma for example since that is where I grew up, that if you want to get a hunting license, you must pass a hunter safety course if you are an Oklahoma resident. Doesn't matter if you are 12 and are going to take your first deer with your dad, or you are 35 and going quail hunting with friends. You have to have taken a course on hunting safety. I think this is a good thing.

As a resident of Texas, a proud gun owner, with a concealed handgun license who carries everywhere it is legal to, I have never had an issue with firearms. the only time I take issue is when someone takes a tragedy like the one above and tries to politicize it: some idiot, who shot himself, and probably deserved to learn a lesson the hard way has put his child in a position where that kid will know that she/he shot his mother. That is going to have a impact on the kid.

The more education the better, just leave the Feds out of it. Leave it to the states and the citizens to decide. How? Simple. California has draconian gun laws, and since I don't actually own a gun that is legal in California(not impressive, most typical guns are illegal there), I will never live in California. Those that want to live in an environment where they are gun free, go there(using it as a example as I haven't researched washington's gun laws beyond chl's).

But here are some statistics you should look up: the typical chl carrier in most states(hint: they have most of their teeth and above average incomes), the crime reduction stats when a state allows it's citizens to carry concealed(hint: it isn't going up).

Now I would pose a question to everyone: your sister/mother/grandma/ lover/ partner is walking home from work and she is confronted by 3 men that intend to do her bodily harm for what little money she has on her. What would you rather she have: a can of mace that may stop the attackers, a cellphone to call the ten minute response time cops, or a .38 special and the knowledge how to use it safely to protect herself?

Thank you for your time, I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion.
Posted by West Texas on February 28, 2011 at 8:32 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 65
I would totally support required gun education for everyone. There are a ton of things I think should be included as mandatory in general education. Economics and personal finance, sex and reproduction, gun operation and safety, foreign relations, etc. I guess there's just too much stuff to learn and not enough time to learn them though.

@ Venomlash,
Oh c'mon man, SLOG is 99% trolling... that's what drives page hits... you know that!
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 28, 2011 at 8:47 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 66
MY grampa never owned a gun, never shot anyone, never got shot, and had the good fortune to be too young for WW1 and too old for WW2.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 28, 2011 at 9:10 PM · Report this
More Rambo fantasies from West Texas, which is where I hope he stays.

The facts are plain: the odds you or your children be shot and/or killed zoom up if you live with a gun nut.

And God help the neighbor kid who visits a gun nut home.

In fact, you're more likely to be shot, killed, or maimed by gunfire if you live in a gun nut state, county or city.

Those odds are also enormous when compared to the miniscule odds that the gun will be used in one of the gun nut "deterrent" fantasies.

There's no good explanation for the gun nut obsession and fantasies other than the Freudian. But apparently, a penis substitute is more important to the gun nut than the reality of blood spilled.
Posted by judybrowni on February 28, 2011 at 10:36 PM · Report this

Did you REALLY never consider that the state with by far the largest population would of course have the most incidents of everything -- including gun crimes?! As an old teacher used to say, it is obvious to the casual observer that you can only compare states by using per capita stats.
Posted by ML77 on March 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM · Report this

Your guns are such a great deterrent in Texas, that you have a 50% higher robbery with firearm rate than California. Sounds to me like they're coming armed in case the homeowner is.
Posted by uptown on March 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM · Report this
About 40% of American households have a gun in them. The idea that this country would ever limit gun ownership in the way Britain or Australia did is as much a fantasy as a self-styled Rambo fighting marauders off his property with his AK.

To split hairs on each and every word of the second amendment is, at best, a form of intellectual masturbation when there are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of citizens. They exist, they cause problems, and we should be able to have a reasonable discussion about who can own them (preferably not the bat-shit crazy) and how they can be legally used.

But we can't have this discussion.

Because of the polarized, foaming-at-the-mouth tone at both ends there can be no reasonable compromises.
Posted by Westside forever on March 1, 2011 at 4:38 PM · Report this
If you control for other factors, (poverty in particular), the statistical correlation between gun ownership and gun violence basically disappears. Of the top ten cities with the highest rates of gun violence, three are located in New Jersey, which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. There simply is no factual, statistical argument that adequately links legal gun ownership with gun violence.
Posted by flimsy on March 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM · Report this
@64 - How about you pose that question directly to me, that five foot tall, 110-pounds-soaking-wet girlfriend-lover-sister-mother-blah blah?

Don't bother. I'd rather be mugged than give you an excuse to live out your weird protector fantasy. And I'm not sure what the hell you're so afraid of but please stop using me as an excuse to indulge your firearms fetish because I'm doing just fine over here.


Your Mother
Posted by jt on March 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy