Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 4, 2013
Health / Guns Because Guns Make Us Safer
Posted by Goldy on Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Family and friends in Michigan are mourning the death of a 4-year-old Jackson County deputy’s son, who accidentally shot and killed himself over the weekend.
[...] “How did that kid get that weapon? How did he get a loaded weapon? How did they have access to it?” the neighbor wondered.
1
People are asking "how did he get the gun"?
The father was a sheriff's deputy. They're armed, no? The article doesn't say, but I'd bet the kid got his dad's gun.
What are you trying to say here Goldy?
The father was a sheriff's deputy. They're armed, no? The article doesn't say, but I'd bet the kid got his dad's gun.
What are you trying to say here Goldy?
4
It is striking that even people who are armed professionally can mishandle the firearms in their household.
5
I think the point he's trying to make is that cops shouldn't have guns.
'If only that stupid cop didn't have a gun, that innocent 4-year old would still be alive.'
'If only that stupid cop didn't have a gun, that innocent 4-year old would still be alive.'
8
"How could this happen?"
You didn't secure your guns. This is horrible and unintentional and TOTALLY PREVENTABLE. And now this poor family has to live with this tragedy forever.
If you're going to keep guns in your home, secure them all the time.
You didn't secure your guns. This is horrible and unintentional and TOTALLY PREVENTABLE. And now this poor family has to live with this tragedy forever.
If you're going to keep guns in your home, secure them all the time.
11
From the news story, in which the deputy leaves for work, and then rushes home minutes later and bolts into the house, it seems pretty clear. He got out his gun to prepare for work and then left it out and left home without it. The kid, who knows all about the existence of daddy's gun, immediately recognized this rare opprtunity and picked it up and started messing with it. Understandable? Yes. Avoidable? Absolutely.
Anyone who has a gun and children and who will not force themselves into the iron physical and mental discipline to secure the weapon at all times WITHOUT FAIL (a tall order for our so-fallible race and under today's stresses and pressures) will run a high risk of losing the latter to the former.
Anyone who has a gun and children and who will not force themselves into the iron physical and mental discipline to secure the weapon at all times WITHOUT FAIL (a tall order for our so-fallible race and under today's stresses and pressures) will run a high risk of losing the latter to the former.
12
@5 Actually, I originally intended to comment on the fact that if this could happen in the home of a police officer—who is presumably well trained in firearm safety—you can just imagine how dangerous guns are in the homes of average citizens. That was my only additional thought.
@9 Look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary.
@9 Look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary.
13
I am so sick of reading about dead kids. But as long as asshole Americans insist their right to own murder weapons supersedes people's right to live their lives without being gunned down and/or accidentally shooting themselves, well it will NEVER stop.
There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner." Every time you read about a dead cop's kid it proves it. People TRAINED to handle murder weapons can't seem to keep them out their kids' hands.
I just wish we could put all the gun crazy people in a ghetto - say the one of the Dakotas - and they could all shoot each other up as they pleased the rest of us good simply live our lives.
There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner." Every time you read about a dead cop's kid it proves it. People TRAINED to handle murder weapons can't seem to keep them out their kids' hands.
I just wish we could put all the gun crazy people in a ghetto - say the one of the Dakotas - and they could all shoot each other up as they pleased the rest of us good simply live our lives.
14
? I edited the mistake in my post, but apparently it didn't take. I meant to say the rest of us could be left alone in peace to simply live our lives.
16
So which NRA talking point is supposed to stop the hand-wringing and gun-grabbing regarding this situation?
- Guns don't kill people...
- The only way to stop an bad guy with a gun...
- I'll give you my gun when you pry it...
- Guns don't kill people...
- The only way to stop an bad guy with a gun...
- I'll give you my gun when you pry it...
18
@12
"Look up 'sarcasm' in the dictionary."
Look up "journalism".
You are setting up your own "sarcastic" headline so you can "sarcastically" imply that it is incorrect when you are the only one who has made the original statement in that headline.
I understand that it is considered "cool" to replace actual knowledge with "sarcasm" but they are not the same.
"Look up 'sarcasm' in the dictionary."
Look up "journalism".
You are setting up your own "sarcastic" headline so you can "sarcastically" imply that it is incorrect when you are the only one who has made the original statement in that headline.
I understand that it is considered "cool" to replace actual knowledge with "sarcasm" but they are not the same.
19
Well, the good news for this deputy is that he probably won't be prosecuted. (The King County deputy who did the same dumb thing, he got off.)
The very people who are trained and should KNOW better and yet it still happens.
But hey,, as people like to say "he's already suffered enough." We don't prosecute people to make them suffer. We do it to protect everyone else.
The very people who are trained and should KNOW better and yet it still happens.
But hey,, as people like to say "he's already suffered enough." We don't prosecute people to make them suffer. We do it to protect everyone else.
20
So, Goldy, basically you're just sending a reminder that the world's a rough place.
Great, thanks for sharing... I guess?
Unless you're also trying to not-so-subtly suggest that cops shouldn't have guns?
Great, thanks for sharing... I guess?
Unless you're also trying to not-so-subtly suggest that cops shouldn't have guns?
21
@19 Same thoughts here. We pay lip service to the responsibility of gun ownership but we sure don't treat it that way.
@18 Dude. You're quibbling over headlines and sarcasm on a blog post. On SLOG. You may want to consider taking a vacation from the internet for a while because from here it looks like you're inches away from a complete meltdown.
@18 Dude. You're quibbling over headlines and sarcasm on a blog post. On SLOG. You may want to consider taking a vacation from the internet for a while because from here it looks like you're inches away from a complete meltdown.
22
@20 "Unless you're also trying to not-so-subtly suggest that cops shouldn't have guns?"
I've seen a lot of, what I'll facetiously call documentaries, that suggest that what cops shouldn't have are families.
More seriously, the theory that cops are never off duty, and therefore must remain armed at all times may be a contributing factor worth examining.
I've seen a lot of, what I'll facetiously call documentaries, that suggest that what cops shouldn't have are families.
More seriously, the theory that cops are never off duty, and therefore must remain armed at all times may be a contributing factor worth examining.
23
@12
"Look up 'sarcasm' in the dictionary."
Let me make this just a little bit clearer for you.
Basically there are TWO options at this point.
(After whatever fines, jail time, re-training, counseling, whatever.)
a. That cop is NEVER allowed to carry a gun again.
b. That cop IS still allowed to carry a gun.
Which are you proposing?
And does that proposal apply to just that cop or to ALL cops?
Or is your next "sarcastic" headline going to be:
"Because Cops Make Us Safer"?
"Look up 'sarcasm' in the dictionary."
Let me make this just a little bit clearer for you.
Basically there are TWO options at this point.
(After whatever fines, jail time, re-training, counseling, whatever.)
a. That cop is NEVER allowed to carry a gun again.
b. That cop IS still allowed to carry a gun.
Which are you proposing?
And does that proposal apply to just that cop or to ALL cops?
Or is your next "sarcastic" headline going to be:
"Because Cops Make Us Safer"?
24
@22,
Perhaps it really would be better if they didn't have families.
As for being armed all the time, perhaps the best solution is better education and training for the kids? Teach kids (ALL kids) early on what guns are, how to shoot them, responsibility and safety... and so on. Take the excitement and mystery out of them.
Goldy's argued before that he wants none of that. He'd rather have kids remain ignorant.
Maybe because ignorant kids are more likely to shoot themselves, and more dead kids make his agenda (complete gun bans) easier?
I don't want to suggest that's what Goldy believes though. He'd have to clarify that for himself.
Perhaps it really would be better if they didn't have families.
As for being armed all the time, perhaps the best solution is better education and training for the kids? Teach kids (ALL kids) early on what guns are, how to shoot them, responsibility and safety... and so on. Take the excitement and mystery out of them.
Goldy's argued before that he wants none of that. He'd rather have kids remain ignorant.
Maybe because ignorant kids are more likely to shoot themselves, and more dead kids make his agenda (complete gun bans) easier?
I don't want to suggest that's what Goldy believes though. He'd have to clarify that for himself.
26
How about off-duty cops are truly off duty.
Guns are left at the station, locked up in the armory.
Check when on duty, check in when off.
Guns are left at the station, locked up in the armory.
Check when on duty, check in when off.
28
I'm not a gun owner myself, though I'm reasonably comfortable around them, having spent a little time in the military, including as a company armorer. Point being, I don't really have a dog in this fight.
I'd like to take a step back here a little bit and look at the bigger philosophical question.
Guns are unquestionably dangerous. Statistics show that most firearms shootings are accidents that happen in the home. They can also be used to do terrible things: in general, they escalate violent situations (anything from domestic arguments to robberies on the street) to deadly ones. There's no question that we'd all be much more safe without them.
But that kind of logic applies to lots of other things too, everything from eating Big Macs to non-monogamous sex. It applies to drug use, yes even marijuana, which most people might be able to handle, but some small fraction can't. It applies to things that are otherwise useful: we'd all be safer (and healthier) if we stuck to riding bikes or taking transit, but cars are a useful thing to have in many situations. It applies to things that are just fun: skydiving, even with done with rigorous attention to safety, is still a dangerous business.
The points I'm trying to make are these:
1) Merely calling something "risky" or "unsafe" is not an argument. Stepping out the door falls into that category. What is needed instead is an actual risk assessment that gives us some idea of the relative danger.
2) One fallacy that comes up over and over again is that risk only seems to enter into the argument if we're trying to ban something that we don't particularly care for anyways. Liberals, who don't, by and large, own guns, don't stand to lose anything if they're banned or more strictly regulated. Religious conservatives, on the other hand, see no trouble with sexual morals legislation. Both groups are quick to frame their arguments in terms of risk. But that's because the perceived benefit to them is negligible.
3) In general, freedom means that you make a deal with the other people in society. You get to do stuff that is really going to get people angry. You even get to do stuff that others would consider inexplicably dangerous, for yourself and others. And you don't have to explain yourself to them. But, in exchange, you must extend the same courtesy to them, and allow them to do things you wouldn't personally condone.
4) Obviously, there's a balance to be struck here. Absolute freedom (and absolute security, for that matter) aren't going to happen. But in negotiating that balance, it behooves us to engage with the people who like dangerous things we don't understand, and to use a little empathy in understanding where they're coming from.
It's that empathy, engagement and tolerance that's missing in this discussion. Once upon a time, these were considered liberal virtues. It seems that time has now passed, at Slog at least.
More...
I'd like to take a step back here a little bit and look at the bigger philosophical question.
Guns are unquestionably dangerous. Statistics show that most firearms shootings are accidents that happen in the home. They can also be used to do terrible things: in general, they escalate violent situations (anything from domestic arguments to robberies on the street) to deadly ones. There's no question that we'd all be much more safe without them.
But that kind of logic applies to lots of other things too, everything from eating Big Macs to non-monogamous sex. It applies to drug use, yes even marijuana, which most people might be able to handle, but some small fraction can't. It applies to things that are otherwise useful: we'd all be safer (and healthier) if we stuck to riding bikes or taking transit, but cars are a useful thing to have in many situations. It applies to things that are just fun: skydiving, even with done with rigorous attention to safety, is still a dangerous business.
The points I'm trying to make are these:
1) Merely calling something "risky" or "unsafe" is not an argument. Stepping out the door falls into that category. What is needed instead is an actual risk assessment that gives us some idea of the relative danger.
2) One fallacy that comes up over and over again is that risk only seems to enter into the argument if we're trying to ban something that we don't particularly care for anyways. Liberals, who don't, by and large, own guns, don't stand to lose anything if they're banned or more strictly regulated. Religious conservatives, on the other hand, see no trouble with sexual morals legislation. Both groups are quick to frame their arguments in terms of risk. But that's because the perceived benefit to them is negligible.
3) In general, freedom means that you make a deal with the other people in society. You get to do stuff that is really going to get people angry. You even get to do stuff that others would consider inexplicably dangerous, for yourself and others. And you don't have to explain yourself to them. But, in exchange, you must extend the same courtesy to them, and allow them to do things you wouldn't personally condone.
4) Obviously, there's a balance to be struck here. Absolute freedom (and absolute security, for that matter) aren't going to happen. But in negotiating that balance, it behooves us to engage with the people who like dangerous things we don't understand, and to use a little empathy in understanding where they're coming from.
It's that empathy, engagement and tolerance that's missing in this discussion. Once upon a time, these were considered liberal virtues. It seems that time has now passed, at Slog at least.
29
@23 You can insist you know what I meant more than I know what I meant all you want, but it doesn't make it so. I've been using this "Guns Make Us Safer" headline repeatedly for the past couple years. Google it.
30
@29
"You can insist you know what I meant more than I know what I meant all you want, but it doesn't make it so."
What you "meant" is that you do not like guns. That is all that you "meant".
Otherwise you would be able to take a more nuanced position with regard to guns and specific instances of gun-related deaths and shootings.
And because you cannot take a more nuanced position that means that you are unable to answer the questions I posted.
Basically there are TWO options at this point.
(After whatever fines, jail time, re-training, counseling, whatever.)
a. That cop is NEVER allowed to carry a gun again.
b. That cop IS still allowed to carry a gun.
Which are you proposing?
And does that proposal apply to just that cop or to ALL cops?
Or is your next "sarcastic" headline going to be:
"Because Cops Make Us Safer"?
"You can insist you know what I meant more than I know what I meant all you want, but it doesn't make it so."
What you "meant" is that you do not like guns. That is all that you "meant".
Otherwise you would be able to take a more nuanced position with regard to guns and specific instances of gun-related deaths and shootings.
And because you cannot take a more nuanced position that means that you are unable to answer the questions I posted.
Basically there are TWO options at this point.
(After whatever fines, jail time, re-training, counseling, whatever.)
a. That cop is NEVER allowed to carry a gun again.
b. That cop IS still allowed to carry a gun.
Which are you proposing?
And does that proposal apply to just that cop or to ALL cops?
Or is your next "sarcastic" headline going to be:
"Because Cops Make Us Safer"?
31
@24 "Perhaps it really would be better if [cops] didn't have families."
It certainly would have saved us from a good share of Steven Segal's career.
@24 "Teach kids (ALL kids) early on what guns are, how to shoot them, responsibility and safety... and so on."
I am certainly not against this, but by what mechanisms would you enforce this education? Please bear in mind that this kid was four.
It certainly would have saved us from a good share of Steven Segal's career.
@24 "Teach kids (ALL kids) early on what guns are, how to shoot them, responsibility and safety... and so on."
I am certainly not against this, but by what mechanisms would you enforce this education? Please bear in mind that this kid was four.
32
@24: the kid was 4. he just learned to wipe his own ass. what age do you propose for comprehensive weapons training to start?
keep in mind, we don't live in Sparta.
keep in mind, we don't live in Sparta.
33
@28, Are you suggesting that the people in favor of reasonable regulation (not "bans") should empathize with the negligent, the reckless, the intentionally violent, and those who defend their behavior, but those people have no duty to empathize with those of us who fear their negligent, reckless, intentionally violent behavior, supported by self-identified "responsible" people? It's very difficult to engage with folks "empathetically" when "reasonable regulation" (liability insurance, mandatory safe storage laws) is met with melodramatic shrieks of "THEY'RE BANNING OUR GUNNNNNNNNNNNNSSS!!!" Can't we just agree that if you play like grown ups you can have your murder weapons? Just like "liberals" can have their marijuana if they agree not drive while high? The unreasonable folks in this debate are the ones who refuse to admit that they're endangering others in a real, tangible, measurable way that gay marriage or smoking in your back yard simply does not.
34
@30 Or that this cop and all others don't take their gun home at night. Or that other people who don't have the amount of training that a policemen has realize that this could just as easily happen to them. Or that this really had nothing to do with the father being a policeman in spite of badgering over a minor part of the story. I guess there are way more than two options.
35
@24, there's some data out there that says gun education programs don't work. Kids, especially boys, will pick up a gun no matter how many times Eddie the Eagle tells them not to. And most will pull the trigger. I'll try to find that study.
So no, in fact, educating children on "gun safety" doesn't work. The only way to keep children safe around guns is not to keep guns around children.
So no, in fact, educating children on "gun safety" doesn't work. The only way to keep children safe around guns is not to keep guns around children.
36
@31,32,35,
I don't have a good idea for how to teach kids early on. I'm not an educator though so it's not my area of expertise.
More education just seems like a good thing.
I guess if it doesn't work though, it doesn't work. That sucks.
Also @31
I don't have a good idea for how to teach kids early on. I'm not an educator though so it's not my area of expertise.
More education just seems like a good thing.
I guess if it doesn't work though, it doesn't work. That sucks.
Also @31
"Perhaps it really would be better if [cops] didn't have families."Zing!
It certainly would have saved us from a good share of Steven Segal's career.
37
@33,
I think that's what @28 IS saying though. Sure, there will always be unreasonable people in any given debate with whom it is useless to argue with. Those aren't the people who need to be understood though.
There are also rational people in each side of a debate, and if each side's rational people can empathize with the other side, reasonable compromise should be more likely.
At least, I think that's what both of you are saying.
I think that's what @28 IS saying though. Sure, there will always be unreasonable people in any given debate with whom it is useless to argue with. Those aren't the people who need to be understood though.
There are also rational people in each side of a debate, and if each side's rational people can empathize with the other side, reasonable compromise should be more likely.
At least, I think that's what both of you are saying.
38
@20
@23
No, there is an option for the cop to carry a gun at work but NOT ALLOW HIM TO TAKE IT HOME.
@23
No, there is an option for the cop to carry a gun at work but NOT ALLOW HIM TO TAKE IT HOME.
39
@38
"No, there is an option for the cop to carry a gun at work but NOT ALLOW HIM TO TAKE IT HOME."
No. He's still carrying a gun in that situation. All that has changed is the specific times he is carrying it.
So you're okay with a cop who lets his 4 year old son get his gun and kill himself still being allowed to carry a gun.
Or are you saying that you think he is okay to have a gun in tense situations that cops are likely to encounter BUT he cannot be trusted to carry a gun in less dangerous situations?
"No, there is an option for the cop to carry a gun at work but NOT ALLOW HIM TO TAKE IT HOME."
No. He's still carrying a gun in that situation. All that has changed is the specific times he is carrying it.
So you're okay with a cop who lets his 4 year old son get his gun and kill himself still being allowed to carry a gun.
Or are you saying that you think he is okay to have a gun in tense situations that cops are likely to encounter BUT he cannot be trusted to carry a gun in less dangerous situations?
40
@29
NRA to sponsor April race at Texas
ESPN - ‎3 hours ago‎
The National Rifle Association announced on Monday that it has reached a deal to sponsor the April 13 Sprint Cup race, known as the NRA 500, at Texas Motor Speedway.
NRA to sponsor April race at Texas
ESPN - ‎3 hours ago‎
The National Rifle Association announced on Monday that it has reached a deal to sponsor the April 13 Sprint Cup race, known as the NRA 500, at Texas Motor Speedway.
41
@33
This is actually one of the problems I have with political advocacy in general. It's very rare for a group to articulate any kind of ultimate legislative agenda they're working towards. Instead, they'll put out some kind of nebulous goal ("Let's make things safer for the children!") and then work to pass incremental law after incremental law.
It's no surprise that the opponents of gun control are worried about what advocates want, because while advocates are very good at spelling out their immediate goals, and while they bend over backwards to say what they won't do (as you just did), they refuse to say what their ideal legislative environment would actually be.
What would be the ideal gun control environment? nobody knows, because the advocates refuse to say. This opens the door to advocacy groups continuing in perpetuity (when was the last time you saw a political group of any stripe declare victory and shut down?) and it also allows opponents to ascribe ulterior motives.
No, of course not. But that's a strawman. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and peaceful people. The fact of the matter is that many of the proposals affects those people just as much as the reckless and violent types.
And then there's the nuts and bolts of trying to sort out the reckless and violent types from the rest of us. Certainly, we can agree that violent felons shouldn't have access to weapons, but that's already on the books. How do you feel about the government going through your mental health records for instance?
And here's where the criminalization of sexual behavior is apropos. There are risks that go hand in hand with that, including some serious, even life-threatening risks. Yet I doubt few here would argue that the government should be involved in regulating with whom and under what circumstances you can have sex, beyond very basic ethical standards like disclosing HIV status or not raping anyone.
And, in fact, we've rejoiced when sodomy laws have been repealed or struck down and argued that government should not be in the nation's bedrooms, even if there are serious risks and consequences out there. In fact, we do nothing to prevent women from getting pregnant while they're hooked on drugs known to cause birth defects, or to prevent anal sex with strangers without a condom, or to stop people from engaging in fetishes that could potentially cause serious physical harm.
Instead, we focus on education to help people make better choices, because we value our freedom, even if our exercise of that freedom occasionally results in harm to ourselves or to others. We accept that risk as the price of having that freedom.
Well, gun owners value that freedom just as highly.
From my point of view, many of the advocates of gun control here on Slog are the functional equivalents of social conservatives on sexual matters.
More...
Are you suggesting that the people in favor of reasonable regulation (not "bans")
This is actually one of the problems I have with political advocacy in general. It's very rare for a group to articulate any kind of ultimate legislative agenda they're working towards. Instead, they'll put out some kind of nebulous goal ("Let's make things safer for the children!") and then work to pass incremental law after incremental law.
It's no surprise that the opponents of gun control are worried about what advocates want, because while advocates are very good at spelling out their immediate goals, and while they bend over backwards to say what they won't do (as you just did), they refuse to say what their ideal legislative environment would actually be.
What would be the ideal gun control environment? nobody knows, because the advocates refuse to say. This opens the door to advocacy groups continuing in perpetuity (when was the last time you saw a political group of any stripe declare victory and shut down?) and it also allows opponents to ascribe ulterior motives.
should empathize with the negligent, the reckless, the intentionally violent, and those who defend their behavior, but those people have no duty to empathize with those of us who fear their negligent, reckless, intentionally violent behavior, supported by self-identified "responsible" people?
No, of course not. But that's a strawman. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and peaceful people. The fact of the matter is that many of the proposals affects those people just as much as the reckless and violent types.
And then there's the nuts and bolts of trying to sort out the reckless and violent types from the rest of us. Certainly, we can agree that violent felons shouldn't have access to weapons, but that's already on the books. How do you feel about the government going through your mental health records for instance?
And here's where the criminalization of sexual behavior is apropos. There are risks that go hand in hand with that, including some serious, even life-threatening risks. Yet I doubt few here would argue that the government should be involved in regulating with whom and under what circumstances you can have sex, beyond very basic ethical standards like disclosing HIV status or not raping anyone.
And, in fact, we've rejoiced when sodomy laws have been repealed or struck down and argued that government should not be in the nation's bedrooms, even if there are serious risks and consequences out there. In fact, we do nothing to prevent women from getting pregnant while they're hooked on drugs known to cause birth defects, or to prevent anal sex with strangers without a condom, or to stop people from engaging in fetishes that could potentially cause serious physical harm.
Instead, we focus on education to help people make better choices, because we value our freedom, even if our exercise of that freedom occasionally results in harm to ourselves or to others. We accept that risk as the price of having that freedom.
Well, gun owners value that freedom just as highly.
From my point of view, many of the advocates of gun control here on Slog are the functional equivalents of social conservatives on sexual matters.
43
It's a huge error that gun owning parents think it's their right to take these kinds of risks with their childrens' lives. Kids have a right to a safe home that supersedes the controversial and questionable right for anybody to have any gun they want under any circumstances.
An obvious definition of "well regulated" should include "well regulated enough that children killed with their parents' guns should be almost unheard of." We used to lose so many more kids in car accidents, and we reduced that by giving drivers specific requirements: car seats that are installed correctly, sized for the child, away from air bags. The list goes on.
If you have a hard time seeing why protecting these kids is a higher priority than your right to a gun, you might be a "gun nut".
An obvious definition of "well regulated" should include "well regulated enough that children killed with their parents' guns should be almost unheard of." We used to lose so many more kids in car accidents, and we reduced that by giving drivers specific requirements: car seats that are installed correctly, sized for the child, away from air bags. The list goes on.
If you have a hard time seeing why protecting these kids is a higher priority than your right to a gun, you might be a "gun nut".
44
@41
"It's no surprise that the opponents of gun control are worried about what advocates want, because while advocates are very good at spelling out their immediate goals, and while they bend over backwards to say what they won't do (as you just did), they refuse to say what their ideal legislative environment would actually be."
I think that that is mostly because (without a 100% ban) there will ALWAYS be incidents of gun-related deaths.
Therefore, anyone arguing for less than a 100% ban is, in essence, arguing the exact same position as the "gun nut" they are arguing against. Except in degree.
100 dead children a year is too much but 50 dead children a year is okay.
But they cannot bring themselves to say that.
Instead they claim that they want to work towards zero dead children.
But without a 100% ban on guns.
It is an irrational position to start from.
"From my point of view, many of the advocates of gun control here on Slog are the functional equivalents of social conservatives on sexual matters."
Yes. Although I would say it was like a religion.
No matter how many items you agree with someone on (gay marriage, equal pay, racism, rape culture, etc) disagreeing on the specifics of gun restrictions means that you are a bad person.
"It's no surprise that the opponents of gun control are worried about what advocates want, because while advocates are very good at spelling out their immediate goals, and while they bend over backwards to say what they won't do (as you just did), they refuse to say what their ideal legislative environment would actually be."
I think that that is mostly because (without a 100% ban) there will ALWAYS be incidents of gun-related deaths.
Therefore, anyone arguing for less than a 100% ban is, in essence, arguing the exact same position as the "gun nut" they are arguing against. Except in degree.
100 dead children a year is too much but 50 dead children a year is okay.
But they cannot bring themselves to say that.
Instead they claim that they want to work towards zero dead children.
But without a 100% ban on guns.
It is an irrational position to start from.
"From my point of view, many of the advocates of gun control here on Slog are the functional equivalents of social conservatives on sexual matters."
Yes. Although I would say it was like a religion.
No matter how many items you agree with someone on (gay marriage, equal pay, racism, rape culture, etc) disagreeing on the specifics of gun restrictions means that you are a bad person.
45
Sodomy statutes impact two consenting adults in private. If gun owners want to keep their guns locked up safely in their bedrooms...then the analogy holds. I, however, have a right to know that the majority of people carrying guns in my community have been background checked. As it stands, almost half of them have not.
Where's my consent in that?
Where's my consent in that?
46
@36, Part of the problem with the Eddie Eagle program is it attempts to teach kids not to touch a found firearm and go tell an adult. That is very different from teaching kids about firearm safety. That said, I don't think it is really possible to teach 4-5 year-olds, or even 8-10 year-olds (obviously depends on the kid in question) about firearm safety. For example, when my daughter was 10, she was mature enough to learn about firearms, my son, at 10, was absolutely not mature enough.
On the other hand, more children, 4 and under, die every day from drowning (bathtubs, pools, buckets, etc.) than do from firearms and yet I'm still not seeing posts from Goldy about how pools make us happier.
However, I'm basically in agreement with Ph'nglui - if you are going to have firearms and children in the same house, you really need to practice a much higher level of firearm safety than otherwise. Unfortunately, other than increased liability and *much* better education, I don't think there will be any immediate technical advances that will help.
And for those that are saying that a "policeman" should know better - it looks like the guy is a deputy in a small town. The amount of training and education these guys get is probably less than a dedicated 'enthusiast'. And since he carries his firearm every day he probably is more casual with it than a "regular citizen" might be.
On the other hand, more children, 4 and under, die every day from drowning (bathtubs, pools, buckets, etc.) than do from firearms and yet I'm still not seeing posts from Goldy about how pools make us happier.
However, I'm basically in agreement with Ph'nglui - if you are going to have firearms and children in the same house, you really need to practice a much higher level of firearm safety than otherwise. Unfortunately, other than increased liability and *much* better education, I don't think there will be any immediate technical advances that will help.
And for those that are saying that a "policeman" should know better - it looks like the guy is a deputy in a small town. The amount of training and education these guys get is probably less than a dedicated 'enthusiast'. And since he carries his firearm every day he probably is more casual with it than a "regular citizen" might be.
47
If we had a tenth of the education, regulation and liability around gun manufacture and use as we do around pools, we would have less deaths, I'm a-wagerin'.
48
@30 Blah, blah, blah. All these posts are trying to do is counter the common misconception that keeping a gun in your home makes you safer by providing real world examples that show it does not. There is plenty of data to support my assertion, but tragedies like this sadly have more impact.
49
@48
"Blah, blah, blah."
Yes, I've read your posts.
Basically there are TWO options at this point.
(After whatever fines, jail time, re-training, counseling, whatever.)
a. That cop is NEVER allowed to carry a gun again.
b. That cop IS still allowed to carry a gun.
Which are you proposing?
And does that proposal apply to just that cop or to ALL cops?
Or is your next "sarcastic" headline going to be:
"Because Cops Make Us Safer"?
"Blah, blah, blah."
Yes, I've read your posts.
Basically there are TWO options at this point.
(After whatever fines, jail time, re-training, counseling, whatever.)
a. That cop is NEVER allowed to carry a gun again.
b. That cop IS still allowed to carry a gun.
Which are you proposing?
And does that proposal apply to just that cop or to ALL cops?
Or is your next "sarcastic" headline going to be:
"Because Cops Make Us Safer"?
50
@49 For the last time (and really, this is my last response to you), I'm not proposing anything. I don't know the details of this tragedy. I don't who is to blame. I only know that keeping a gun in the house tragically cost this child his life. My hope is that other parents learn from this tragedy, and decline to expose their children to the same danger.
51
@50
"... I'm not proposing anything."
You decided to post that story of a 4 year old kid dying and you just wanted to do that to feed your "sarcastic" headline?
And you don't have any proposals for doing anything about it in the future?
And that's okay as long as you get your "sarcastic" headline out of it?
"My hope is that other parents learn from this tragedy, and decline to expose their children to the same danger."
He was a cop.
"I don't know the details of this tragedy."
And that is why "sarcasm" is not a synonym for "journalism".
"... I'm not proposing anything."
You decided to post that story of a 4 year old kid dying and you just wanted to do that to feed your "sarcastic" headline?
And you don't have any proposals for doing anything about it in the future?
And that's okay as long as you get your "sarcastic" headline out of it?
"My hope is that other parents learn from this tragedy, and decline to expose their children to the same danger."
He was a cop.
"I don't know the details of this tragedy."
And that is why "sarcasm" is not a synonym for "journalism".
52
@44 "I think that that is mostly because (without a 100% ban) there will ALWAYS be incidents of gun-related deaths."
There are certainly some people who would state their goal that way, and some others who unthinking would subscribe to that.
However, even the strictest of nannies tends to live in something closer to the real world.
So, let's pretend like the non-fringe elements of this issue want to enact most of the least freedom-infringing reforms that reduce the reasonably preventable gun deaths towards zero; not stopping all gun deaths, just the ones that most people would say should have never happened.
@46 " I don't think there will be any immediate technical advances that will help."
Do you mean like you can't imagine databases, or biometric triggers? ...or do you mean you can't imagine the intersection of policy and technology that would curb gun deaths?
There are certainly some people who would state their goal that way, and some others who unthinking would subscribe to that.
However, even the strictest of nannies tends to live in something closer to the real world.
So, let's pretend like the non-fringe elements of this issue want to enact most of the least freedom-infringing reforms that reduce the reasonably preventable gun deaths towards zero; not stopping all gun deaths, just the ones that most people would say should have never happened.
@46 " I don't think there will be any immediate technical advances that will help."
Do you mean like you can't imagine databases, or biometric triggers? ...or do you mean you can't imagine the intersection of policy and technology that would curb gun deaths?
53
That kid paid the price for Freedom! He's a hero. You know freedom to own a gun is not free, and that child got to pay the price. The Father must be VERY proud. (I'm very tired of these petty stories. People have guns in their homes, accidents happen in homes EVERY DAY).
54
@47, Err. What regulations are there around 'temporary' pools?
http://www.kmart.com/search=pool
You can walk into any kmart, buy one of these, stick it in your backyard. Oh. You meant the regulations and licensing for a permanent pool? What regulations are there? Let's see. You need to get a permit for construction. That's basically so that the town can collect taxes. As long as your property meets the setbacks..etc you're not going to be denied a permit. Your insurance company will raise your home insurance slightly - unless you put a fence around the pool (so the neighbors kid doesn't wander into it.) Other than that, there really isn't much. (This is true in my county - you can research the laws for your own county).
There's a lot more regulation and education (which is severely lacking) on firearms than there is in private pools. Public pools are pretty safe - lots of regulations..etc., same for public gun ranges.
All I'm saying is that if Goldy was really interested in "saving lives", he'd be post about the hundreds of kids that drown every day, he'd post about the hundreds of people who die due to lack of health care and so on.
http://www.kmart.com/search=pool
You can walk into any kmart, buy one of these, stick it in your backyard. Oh. You meant the regulations and licensing for a permanent pool? What regulations are there? Let's see. You need to get a permit for construction. That's basically so that the town can collect taxes. As long as your property meets the setbacks..etc you're not going to be denied a permit. Your insurance company will raise your home insurance slightly - unless you put a fence around the pool (so the neighbors kid doesn't wander into it.) Other than that, there really isn't much. (This is true in my county - you can research the laws for your own county).
There's a lot more regulation and education (which is severely lacking) on firearms than there is in private pools. Public pools are pretty safe - lots of regulations..etc., same for public gun ranges.
All I'm saying is that if Goldy was really interested in "saving lives", he'd be post about the hundreds of kids that drown every day, he'd post about the hundreds of people who die due to lack of health care and so on.
55
@52, How is a database going to help prevent unauthorized access? Biometric triggers would be great. When you find one for a reasonable price that actually works, let me know! Keep in mind, in order to really be effective, it will have to be able to be retrofitted to the 300+ million firearms already out there.
There was this word that I used that you quoted - 'immediate'. Apparently you're not familiar with it. Here's the definition:
Adjective
1. Occurring or done at once; instant.
2. Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority".
My personal opinion, and my crystal ball is pretty fuzzy, so I could be completely wrong, is that working, economical biometric locks for handguns are at least 10-20 years out.
There was this word that I used that you quoted - 'immediate'. Apparently you're not familiar with it. Here's the definition:
Adjective
1. Occurring or done at once; instant.
2. Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority".
My personal opinion, and my crystal ball is pretty fuzzy, so I could be completely wrong, is that working, economical biometric locks for handguns are at least 10-20 years out.
56
@51, etc.: Slow clap.
You've shit yourself, the bed, your cage, passers-by, and most importantly, the thread. Congratulations on once again bringing nothing but babbling playground inanity to what could be a conversation. Or is that your mission ... to prevent conversation?
Anyway, this responsible gun owner wishes you would go fuck yourself. Or unfuck yourself. Whichever is more appropriate.
You've shit yourself, the bed, your cage, passers-by, and most importantly, the thread. Congratulations on once again bringing nothing but babbling playground inanity to what could be a conversation. Or is that your mission ... to prevent conversation?
Anyway, this responsible gun owner wishes you would go fuck yourself. Or unfuck yourself. Whichever is more appropriate.
58
@57, From the CDC:
"Children: Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1"
Drowning is not a real problem for adults, but is a big issue for small children. Also, I meant to say hundreds per MONTH!! Not day!
"Children: Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1"
Drowning is not a real problem for adults, but is a big issue for small children. Also, I meant to say hundreds per MONTH!! Not day!
59
Here's more than you ever wanted to know about causes of child deaths:
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causes.h…
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causes.h…
60
@ 58, interesting. I wonder why there's so much neglect? From that same CDC page:
Minorities: Between 2005 and 2009, the fatal unintentional drowning rate for African Americans was significantly higher than that of whites across all ages.(2) The disparity is widest among children 5-14 years old. The fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is almost three times that of white children in the same age range.(2)
Factors such as access to swimming pools, the desire or lack of desire to learn how to swim, and choosing water-related recreational activities may contribute to the racial differences in drowning rates. Available rates are based on population, not on participation. If rates could be determined by actual participation in water-related activities, the disparity in minorities’ drowning rates compared to whites would be much greater.(5)
61
@60, I don't think it is neglect really - it takes less than a minute for a toddler to wander off and drown. When my son was one year old (literally a couple days before his birthday) he managed to pull a cup of freshly made tea off a desk and sustained 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 23% of his body. He was lucky that it was mostly on his arm/torso - if he'd gotten it in the face he could have lost an eye. Both his mom and I were in the room - I put the cup of tea down and in the time it took me to pull a chair out and sit down, he pulled himself up on the table leg and pulled the cup off the table. He couldn't even walk at the time and the table top was above his head.
I have no idea, however, why there is such a disparity between races. I would think that, for the most part, white people have more access to pools and water activities and would be more likely to drown. Although it could be that minorities rarely get a chance to swim, or learn about swimming and are much more likely to die if they accidentally fall in to a pool.
I have no idea, however, why there is such a disparity between races. I would think that, for the most part, white people have more access to pools and water activities and would be more likely to drown. Although it could be that minorities rarely get a chance to swim, or learn about swimming and are much more likely to die if they accidentally fall in to a pool.
63
@17 - That's exactly right. As an unsupervised ten-year-old, I once spent an entire day scouring the house for my dad's gun (which it turned out he didn't keep at home).
Anyone who thinks their kid won't look in the shoebox labeled "taxes" on the top shelf of a closet is risking a dead kid.
Anyone who thinks their kid won't look in the shoebox labeled "taxes" on the top shelf of a closet is risking a dead kid.
64
@28 I like your logic. You make a cogent argument for untrammeled freedom. There's just one point where it fails, at least for me. That's, the risk to me of other people's gun ownership.
Sure, go ahead and blow your own head off, fine. That affects me only obliquely. But, let loose a bullet which comes whizzing my way, and that affects me directly.
My logic is that a) all people do stupid or malevolent things of one sort or another at some time or other, b) stupidity or malevolence with guns results in tragedies, c) regardless of our efforts, the percentage of stupid and malevolent events in the human population seems to be a constant, so therefore d) as the number of guns in private hands is increased, then so the number of tragedies increases.
Obviously, there are cultural differences between populations. All stupidity is not equal. All guns are not equal. Switzerland is not Israel is not Canada is definitely not the U.S.
But in general, I think it's fair to say that the fewer guns that are randomly distributed in any population, the fewer bullets end up wounding random people.
Sure, go ahead and blow your own head off, fine. That affects me only obliquely. But, let loose a bullet which comes whizzing my way, and that affects me directly.
My logic is that a) all people do stupid or malevolent things of one sort or another at some time or other, b) stupidity or malevolence with guns results in tragedies, c) regardless of our efforts, the percentage of stupid and malevolent events in the human population seems to be a constant, so therefore d) as the number of guns in private hands is increased, then so the number of tragedies increases.
Obviously, there are cultural differences between populations. All stupidity is not equal. All guns are not equal. Switzerland is not Israel is not Canada is definitely not the U.S.
But in general, I think it's fair to say that the fewer guns that are randomly distributed in any population, the fewer bullets end up wounding random people.
65
@64, "d) as the number of guns in private hands is increased, then so the number of tragedies increases." This is a nice belief, however, the statistics don't support it.
Unintentional Injuries due to firearms have been mostly stable with a slight downward trend since 2001, while the number of firearms has gone from approximately 200-240 million to over 330 million.
2001: 17,696 Injuries, 6.21/100k pop.
2004: 16,555 Injuries, 5.65/100k pop.
2007: 15,698 Injuries, 5.21/100k pop.
2008: 17,215 Injuries, 5.66/100k pop.
2009: 18,161 Injuries, 6.07/100k pop.
2010: 14,161 Injuries, 4.59/100k pop.
Total annual firearms related deaths have been right around 30k/year for the last decade - per capita rate is pretty stable. Firearm related homicides have been trending marginally downward (all homicides have been pretty stable). Suicides are up slightly in the last few years, but I'd have to say that is most likely due to the piss poor economy. The overall rate has been relatively stable in the last decade. (+/-5% year to year)
You can do your own data spelunking here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfir…
Unintentional Injuries due to firearms have been mostly stable with a slight downward trend since 2001, while the number of firearms has gone from approximately 200-240 million to over 330 million.
2001: 17,696 Injuries, 6.21/100k pop.
2004: 16,555 Injuries, 5.65/100k pop.
2007: 15,698 Injuries, 5.21/100k pop.
2008: 17,215 Injuries, 5.66/100k pop.
2009: 18,161 Injuries, 6.07/100k pop.
2010: 14,161 Injuries, 4.59/100k pop.
Total annual firearms related deaths have been right around 30k/year for the last decade - per capita rate is pretty stable. Firearm related homicides have been trending marginally downward (all homicides have been pretty stable). Suicides are up slightly in the last few years, but I'd have to say that is most likely due to the piss poor economy. The overall rate has been relatively stable in the last decade. (+/-5% year to year)
You can do your own data spelunking here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfir…
66
@65: I'm guessing that firearm accidents are related to whether or not a home has firearms, not how many firearms that home has. This makes sense: The household with the responsible gun owner who has 25 guns locked away in a safe is far less likely to have a firearm accident than the household with an idiot who has one gun that is kept loaded on his/her nightstand. And while the number of guns owned has increased, the number of gun owners has been declining.
67
@65 You linked to the non-fatal injuries page. I looked at a few years over the past decade and there doesn't appear to be a trend in any direction, fluctuating around 20-25 per 100K. Point being, if you take a more thorough look at all gun-related injuries (fatal and non) it's probably a much more complex story than the fatal data alone might suggest.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
-
Meanwhile in Toronto by Dan Savage
-
In Which I Do Not Declare My Candidacy for Seattle City Council by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (67) RSS