Bowling for Virginia Tech

[pbleighton]

"Astronomical is a bit of an overstatement I would think"

 

A 9/11 every 3 months? Versus one every year?

 

Astronomical? I guess it depends on your telescope. It looks huge in mine.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

The fact that 85% of gun owners are men is enough to show that the argument "Weapons level the playing field" has almost no intersection with reality.

Winston, what would you guess: how often are handguns used as a self-defense, compared to how often they are used to attack someone (murder, armed robbery, etc.)?

A good friend on mine who happens to be Sicilian told me his mother used to tell him, "Pete, there's what is real and there is what is right. You have to deal with what is real."

 

My arguments for gun-ownership rights have to do with what is right, not what is real, i.e., the argument is on a philosophical level only.

 

I recognize that what is right, though, is not nedessarily reality. I have no idea of the rightness or wrongness of gun ownership or banning. Myself, I have lived many more years without a gun that with a gun; at the same time, I have also been robbed at knifepoint when I had no gun, and I can tell you from personal experience that to be in that situation where the choices are acquiesence or serious injury or perhaps both makes you very aware of the power of weaponry for harm or for good. In this case, the knife left me virtually powerless - had I had my own knife, I would have had a decision to make - not a good one but still the choice would have been there.

 

Criminals by nature are mostly cowards. Burglars like to break in when no one is home. It would be hard to say how many crimes guns have halted as criminals are loathe to put themselves in jeapordy for boddily harm or arrest. So any attempt to quantify gun-crimes/crime-prevention-due-to-gun-ownership will be skewed in that criminals try hard not to place themselves in these situations. If a burglar has the choice to peak into the windows of two homes and in one sees the lights are on, and the resident is sitting in a rocking chair with a shotgun on his lap while the other house is dark, and no one appears to be at home, which one will he enter?

Duh.

 

I can only tell you that looking back I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have thought about that night when I was robbed and thought to myself, I wish I had had a gun.

 

I can understand the concern about gun control. I only make the argument that once again it is not so black and white as we seem to think. Another area of gray in a world made up of shades of grays.

[Winstonm]

Young man goes to rob old man who has no gun. He punches old man a number of times who has to spend a month in the hospital, takes his things, and leaves.

 

 

You have just described the law of the jungle. I do not understand your preoccupation with death. Does injury not matter? In your scenrio, the old man must suffer theft of his belongings, the pain of the beatings and the recovery, the expense of hospitalization, as well as the expense of time missed from work plus the emotional expenses associtated with trauma, but because no one died we should defend the right of the strong to victimize the weak by eliminating the weak's only avenue of equality of strength?

 

Gun deaths are quantifiable - there are bodies and ballistics as proof. It is not possible to quantify the dissuasive effect of gun ownership, but we can take a guess. Take the total of all crimes commited against persons, and in each instance place a loaded shotgun in the hands of the victim, pointed at the chest of the perpetrator. O deaths occur as the gun is not fired.

But how many of those crimes would still have occured?

[jdonn]

Young man goes to rob old man who has no gun. He punches old man a number of times who has to spend a month in the hospital, takes his things, and leaves.

 

 

You have just described the law of the jungle. So you are suggesting that civilization should be based on the strong overpowering the weak whenever they so desire and the weak have no recourse?

 

Gun deaths are quantifiable - there are bodies and ballistics as proof. It is not possible to quantify the dissuasive effect of gun ownership, but we can take a guess. Take the total of all crimes commited against persons, and in each instance place a loaded shotgun in the hands of the victim, pointed at the chest of the perpetrator.

How many of those crimes would still have occured?

You are not listening at all. A robber doesn't know if there is a gun in a house when he enters. There is no one sitting there with a shotgun on his lap all day. If there were a gunowner, he doesn't have the gun pointed at the chest of every stranger on his property. If there is any disuading effect at all, it is spread relatively equally among households, not to any gunholder's household.

 

I didn't say a robber should do that, or get away with it. He may well be caught. I am saying that no matter what happens, the likelihood of a death occuring from it is much much much lower if there aren't guns. And that concern so supercedes any other that this whole discussion has always baffled me, and I'm sure always will.

 

Forget how many robberies occur or don't. How many of those loaded guns you say were pointed at someone's chest went off and killed the person?

[mike777]

I am befuddled. If we cannot catch and stop this mass killer given his history ahead of time I think we cannot stop anyone. Willing to listen and learn and stop this evil.

 

God Bless to the families.

 

edit btw I just heard on tv we have 250 million guns in America, not 200 million.

 

My guess this is more than the Dutch, French and UK combined just in case they are thinking of reclaiming something here.

[pclayton]

Young man goes to rob old man who has no gun. He punches old man a number of times who has to spend a month in the hospital, takes his things, and leaves. 0 people end up dead.

 

This is a good thing?

 

Young man goes to rob old man who has gun. Sees the old man pulling his gun, so quickly takes out his own gun to shoot him, since as you said he is faster and better trained in combat. Kills old man, takes his things, and leaves. 1 person ends up dead.

 

I suppose in this case, if the old man completely submits, then he won't get hurt. If the old man chooses to fight back, he's going to get offed anyway.

 

Young man goes to rob old man who has gun. Old man pulls out gun and kills young man. 1 person ends up dead.

 

Probably because the young man didn't realize that guns kill. Not saying this is a good thing, however, the more likely, the scenario is:

 

Old man pulls out gun. Young man realizes that $100 isn't worth getting shot and ending up injured, handicapped, or dead. Young man flees the site. No one gets hurt.

 

Good thing he had a gun for protection!

[cherdano]

Phil, I am a lot more afraid of a robbery in the US than in Germany (well, maybe not in SLC, but...). In Germany, most robbers are not armed with a gun, so if you just give away your money, then you are just left with a traumatizing experience (as bad as that is, I am not playing down Winston's story). In the US, most robbers are armed with a gun, and you have to be afraid that a wrong reaction might cause him to pull the trigger out of panic, by mistake, ...

 

I really think you guys underestimate the detrimental effect the wide-spread gun ownership has on many aspects of society. I may try to explain why I think so later tonight. (But I also understand why Americans are more reluctant to rely on the protection by the police than Europeans.)

[Winstonm]

I am saying that no matter what happens, the likelihood of a death occuring from it is much much much lower if there aren't guns.

 

Yes, I concur with this 100%. There is no doubt it is easier to kill with a gun than any other personal weapon. (Although police will tell you a knife is the worst thing to have to face.)

 

I still do not see what this has to do with rights or how in any way it invalidates my argument that weapons make antagonists equals - to a degree. (Obviously, a skilled marksman would have the upper hand against someone who didn't know which end of a gun was which.)

 

You obviously aren't reading - or I am not saying it well - what I intend to say.

Does a person - or should a person - have the legal right to defend himself with a gun used in a legal manner? The rest - about law of the jungle - was just to show why some people may need that type of protection. Sure, an ex-Green Beret with martial arts training needs little to protect himself from an unarmed opponent - but what about a 110 pound woman facing a 200 pound ex-Green Beret who has turned into a rapist? The gun is her personal protection against having her inalienable rights violated. The rapist has no right to rape.

 

I agree that eliminating guns would eliminate gun deaths. Eliminating cars would eliminate traffic deaths. Eliminating airplanes would end plane crash deaths. You are simply stating an obvious truth.

 

Guns can cause death. That is their power, both for good and for evil. I sincerely hope neither one of us ever has to be in a situation where we would need one.

 

But also consider this: concerning the murderer at Virginia Tech, one bullet to his head by an armed student could have prevented 30 deaths. Was it the gun or the lack of a gun that caused the massacre? Myself, I do not know. But I know it is a valid question.

 

Gun control or gun elimination is not a black and white question, unless you are simply arguing that gun deaths would decrease if there were no guns. That's really not an argument, is it? The debate is whether the saving of those lives lost by guns is worth the elimination of the weaker's best method of self protection.

[pclayton]

Phil, I am a lot more afraid of a robbery in the US than in Germany (well, maybe not in SLC, but...). In Germany, most robbers are not armed with a gun, so if you just give away your money, then you are just left with a traumatizing experience (as bad as that is, I am not playing down Winston's story). In the US, most robbers are armed with a gun, and you have to be afraid that a wrong reaction might cause him to pull the trigger out of panic, by mistake, ...

 

I really think you guys underestimate the detrimental effect the wide-spread gun ownership has on many aspects of society. I may try to explain why I think so later tonight. (But I also understand why Americans are more reluctant to rely on the protection by the police than Europeans.)

No problem Arend, we are all a product of our environment. Growing up in the American west probably has not helped me either.

 

The funny thing is I tell my kids that if they are getting mugged to just give up their wallet, their car, whatever. I can replace all of those things, but I can't replace them. Even if they chose to be armed, I would hope that they wouldn't feel the need to shoot 'em up.

 

That being said, if I'm in a position where someone that I love is in the process of being victimized by a violent act (invent your own mental picture), I simply will not idly stand by, if by acting I am only risking more dire circumstances. If I have a gun on me, so much the better, since it improves my chances.

[Winstonm]

Phil, I am a lot more afraid of a robbery in the US than in Germany (well, maybe not in SLC, but...). In Germany, most robbers are not armed with a gun, so if you just give away your money, then you are just left with a traumatizing experience (as bad as that is, I am not playing down Winston's story). In the US, most robbers are armed with a gun, and you have to be afraid that a wrong reaction might cause him to pull the trigger out of panic, by mistake, ...

 

I really think you guys underestimate the detrimental effect the wide-spread gun ownership has on many aspects of society. I may try to explain why I think so later tonight. (But I also understand why Americans are more reluctant to rely on the protection by the police than Europeans.)

Cherdano:

 

I respect your opinion totally, and I think you have expressed it well. IMO, here in the U.S., much of the issue of gun ownership has to do with the founding of our country and its emphasis on personal liberty. It seems in many other countries society's liberty is the emphasis, and there is a difference.

 

Our constitution actually grants the citizens the right to overthrow the government, which will never happen, of course, but the supreme concept inherent in that idea was that not even the government had the right to withdraw personal liberty - the idea of gun ownership is simply an extension of this concept - no one has the right to deny another human being of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and a human has the right to defend, by means of being armed, a violation of those principles, whether it be from another person, the state, or the national government.

 

Perhaps we have gone overboard in this zeal - but I think for many in the U.S., the thought of simply turning over our wallets to a robber because he doesn't have a gun is totally contrary to our self-perception of being free from this invasion of our personal rights. (Or maybe we watched to many John Wayne movies growing up.) We would prefer to stick a gun to his nose and tell him to bug off than give up our hard-earned money, credit cards, driver's license, social security cards - all that crap we carry in our billfolds. (Meaning we would rather risk death than have to go through the bureaucratic nightmare of replacing all that stuff.)

 

Maybe that is the idea - outlaw billfolds so we won't have anything worthwhile to turn over. Now there is a thought.

[mike777]

I have mentioned this before but I think this whole European thing is really not the reality. Europe is much more than a few countries, it is much more than the EU.

 

My guess is the real continent of Europe has much much more gun violence than many of us think in my lifetime. This may be blasphemy in UK, France, Germany and central Europe but you have had concentration camps in the 90's, mass rape and pillage. You did have 1984, Big Brother and barb wire curtain in the 80's.

 

Russia(europe) is still up in the air as far as freedom. The smallest, closest European countries are very worried. China and Southeast Asia is not free. Northwest Asia is not free in many places. Africa is a bloodbath.

 

Yes America can and should do better about guns!

[cherdano]

Perhaps we have gone overboard in this zeal - but I think for many in the U.S., the thought of simply turning over our wallets to a robber because he doesn't have a gun is totally contrary to our self-perception of being free from this invasion of our personal rights. (Or maybe we watched to many John Wayne movies growing up.) We would prefer to stick a gun to his nose and tell him to bug off than give up our hard-earned money, credit cards, driver's license, social security cards - all that crap we carry in our billfolds.

I recommend a 6-week trip to Brazil, with adequate study of the "Practical tips" section of travel guides beforehand, to cure yourself from any heroism :)

 

Seriously, I think one difference is that in Germany, I would just trust that the robber will be caught by the police at some point anyway. Most likely he is just a desperate junkie and won't get happy with the money either way. In the US, he may be in Texas tomorrow and unless he creates enough of a stir to draw attention by the FBI...

 

(All these may be prejudices; I don't think so, but even if they are, the conceptions about safety are still important, maybe almost as important as the reality about safety...)

[Winstonm]

Perhaps we have gone overboard in this zeal - but I think for many in the U.S., the thought of simply turning over our wallets to a robber because he doesn't have a gun is totally contrary to our self-perception of being free from this invasion of our personal rights.  (Or maybe we watched to many John Wayne movies growing up.)  We would prefer to stick a gun to his nose and tell him to bug off than give up our hard-earned money, credit cards, driver's license, social security cards - all that crap we carry in our billfolds.

I recommend a 6-week trip to Brazil, with adequate study of the "Practical tips" section of travel guides beforehand, to cure yourself from any heroism :)

 

Seriously, I think one difference is that in Germany, I would just trust that the robber will be caught by the police at some point anyway. Most likely he is just a desperate junkie and won't get happy with the money either way. In the US, he may be in Texas tomorrow and unless he creates enough of a stir to draw attention by the FBI...

 

(All these may be prejudices; I don't think so, but even if they are, the conceptions about safety are still important, maybe almost as important as the reality about safety...)

In discussions such as this, I am always reminded of the stories we see all too often in the U.S. of a convenience store worker who cooperated with an armed robber but was shot nonetheless. Or the group of steak house workers many years ago who, although they cooperated, were robbed, rounded up, herded into the freezer and murdered.

 

There is no doubt that guns increase the chances of a violent encounter; but at the same time, a gun can increase the chances of survival to the victim of a criminal who is intent on violence to cover-up his crime; yet again, when a victim pulls a gun on an armed robber who had no intention of violence, the conflict may escalate to violence that would not have otherwise occured.

 

I think of lot of our (U.S.A.'s) thinking about gun ownership is fantasy thinking based what we would do if confronted - there is something about being victimized that our illusions of ourselves cannot bear.

[bid_em_up]

I said it before, I will say it again.

 

There is nothing that can be legislated in the U.S. that will prevent anyone, who wishes to obtain a weapon for destructive/criminal purposes, from getting a gun. If they are bound and determined to commit a crime, they will find a means of aquiring a gun. It is that simple.

 

You currently can go to any metropolitan city and for less than $200 buy a gun, if you choose to do so. The more money you have, if you don't get robbed first, the more likely you are to be successful in your attempt to purchase one. You may drive the street price of the gun up by "outlawing" them or making them harder to aquire legally, but you will not succeed in removing them from our society.

 

Given this scenario, knowing that the criminal will likely have a weapon, and seeing such a weapon, if the guy is simply robbing me, by all means, hand him the wallet. But if he is breaking into my house in the middle of the nite, or I just saw him shoot the guy next to me.....why should I not be allowed to protect my family, my home or myself?

 

And if, in order to do so, I feel that I need a gun, why shouldn't I be allowed to purchase one legally? I have nothing to hide, I am not going out to commit any crimes with it. Trying to restrict my access to legally purchasing a gun is just turning me into a criminal, because again.....if I want one bad enough, it will be obtainable, even if I had to do it illegally.

[jdonn]

Deleted, I don't want to get sucked into this any more. Someone might get mad and shoot me.

[helene_t]

There is nothing that can be legislated in the U.S. that will prevent anyone, who wishes to obtain a weapon for destructive/criminal purposes, from getting a gun. If they are bound and determined to commit a crime, they will find a means of aquiring a gun.  It  is that simple.

There is some truth in this. Here in Europe, Hells Angels and similar scum have all the weapon they want. In theory, gun control makes it a little easier to unarm them since they cannot say that the weapons found in their club house belongs to one of the few member who has a license, because nobody has a license. In practice, the police is almost powerless.

 

But a lot of gun killings in countries with easy access to guns are done by people who are not professional killers and who probably would not bother to get a gun if it was illegal.

 

As for Winston's what-is-real-vs-what-is-right: In principle, I agree. In general, I'm strongly against restricting individuals freedom, other than restricting the freedom to restrict other people's freedom. If I decide for myself that I'd like to read "Mein Kampf", to watch child porn, to use heroine, to sell sex, to marry my own brother (or my dog, or both of them), to post silly jokes about Jesus, Mohamed and Queen Beatrix on my own blog, to create a "scientific" website about inteligent design and flat-Earth cosmology, to burn my own copy of the EU flag, to donate my dead body to a cannibal friend who wants to eat it, and to commit suicide, I don't think it's the government's business to make that decision on my behalf, unless I'm a minor or a moron. I can see that "owning a gun" could be added to the list. If a gun makes me feel safer, who cares if some long-haired postmodernist sociologist persuaded the government that a gun would not "really" make me safer.

 

It's just that I find it very hard to imagine that someone with a healthy mind could feel such a strong need to owning a gun. Comparing it to basic rights like the freedom to speak, the freedom to migrate, the freedom to have sex in accordance with one's sexual preferences etc etc just seems absurd to me. So it's not a problem for me to disallow gun ownership if such legislation reduces homicide rates.

 

I realize that some people that have been brought up in a "gun culture" like the U.S. may think differently about it. Although, as I understand it, the majority of U.S. citizens favor at least some degree of gun control, and the liberal legislation is mainly due to the NRA making sure that if some congressman dares to stand up against guns, everybody will know all the stories about his drug usage, infidelity etc.

[mike777]

sigh.. I have said this in many ways...but it seems people do not understand anything beyond..straight....non ......huge english.

 

1) Usa live in a huge Myth about guns

2) see apache

3) see mexico

4) see canada

5) see mexico

6) talk about 5---6---9===10 times homicide rate...and USA says...so what compared to what?

7) ruwada

8) cambodia?

9) central europe?

10) eastearn europe

11) china

12) southnorth aisa13) africa

14) southeast asia

15) middle east

 

yes yes you can find countries better than usa.....but decade after decade the answer seems to be..: so what.......Usa better than.....50...60...80...56=90...????

 

you guys seem to think..scalping....raping..pillage is something from hundred thousand years ago...not....last month.........

[jvage]

There is a huge cultural difference between USA and Western Europe relating to guns and guncontrol. I live in Norway, said to be the WE country with most registered guns compared to population (about 500.000 in a country of 4,5 mill people). Most of these weapons belong either to hunters or members of the Home Guard. What these have in common is an education and training that focus on safe handling and weapons-culture. These weapons are locked away, and hardly anyone think of them as something to use to defend their home and family. There are criminal gangs with guns, but they use the guns mostly in internal disputes. They have been used for bank-robbery etc. but I have not heard of a burglar or rapist armed with a gun.

 

Norwegian police is unarmed (they have locked down weapons in all vehicles, to be used in emergencies), when they tell this to American colleagues the Americans can't stop laughing. Still we have a much lower crime-rate and there have only been 2 cases of shooting of police officers over the last 20 years. About 12 years ago a sick person who had escaped from a mental institution shot 2 officers. He had no violent history, the police didn't know he had a hunting rifle and he started shooting before they had seen him. The second was during the "Nokas-robbery" a couple of years ago. Here the police was heavily armed and had already shot at the robbers. The killer is convicted, his only excuse was that he felt very threatened by the police firing at him.....

 

The American mentality is different and very strange to us. For example are most shooting of American police officers with their own weapons, the officers reaction to this is (similar to those who want teachers to be armed) to often carry one or two extra (concealed) guns. It also shows in multinational military or peacekeeping operations. European soldiers would rarely point a loaded gun at someone unless threatened, Americans are noticeable more agressive in their use of weapons and sometimes seems to be inspired by Dirty Harry.

 

I also found the statistics presented earlier in this thread interesting. Of the 30-40.000 people killed by guns every year in the USA only 600 are ruled justifiable homocide. I happen to know one such case personally. A friend of a friend went over as an exchange student. The first weekend he was at a party, got pissing drunk, and managed to mistakenly go into the neighboors house (the houses looked the same). He went to sleep on the coach, the home-owner called the police, and he was shot and killed. According to the police it was a big guy who had appeared confused and aggressive (but unarmed and not physically assaulting anyone).....

 

John

[jikl]

Let's just face a fact non-Americans, they cannot and will not accept any arguments on this matter. No matter how much logic, rationale or intelligence you show in this debate, they want guns. Quote any statistics you want, it will make no difference. Let's stop wasting our time.

 

Sean

[hotShot]

The number of homicides in Germany dropped from 662(1146 including tries) in 1994 to 413 (794 including tries) in 2005. Taking into account hat germany has only 1/3.75 of the people the USA have, this would be 1500 homicides for a country as big as the US. In less than 25% of these guns were involved (this means that there was a gun, even if it was not used for the killing).

If i take the data from 2005, 120 homicides / 80.000.000 people with guns involved and adapt that number to the US population, I get an estimated 450 gun related homicides / 300.000.000 people.

Compared to the 11.000 in the US this is less than 4.01%.

 

But you have less mass murders than continents where paramilitary groups depredate the area.

 

I think these numbers support weapons control much more, than the right to have guns.

[pbleighton]

"you guys seem to think..scalping....raping..pillage is something from hundred thousand years ago...not....last month......... "

 

You're very fond of red herring, Mike. You probably have low cholesterol :)

 

Relevant comparisons are to the advanced industrialized democracies at peace. Why do you want to set the bar so low? Why are you so insecure about the virtues of the U.S. (which are considerable) that you can't deal with criticism with intellectual honesty, and have to resort to these ridiculous comparisons? The U.S. has less bloodshed than Uganda under Amin, or Yugoslavia in a civil war? Big deal!

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.

2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997

3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."

4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

 

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

 

I went to ask.com and typed in how many people are killed in the U.S. by guns every year? Then I just scanned the results, having no idea how reliable any are. The numbers in order are

 

40,000

40,000

30,000

11,000 (five years ago)

34,500

90 a day (= 32,850)

 

I heard something like your statistics about 10 years ago. It seems like a lot more now, which leads me to believe it's growing still.

So, not as many as are killed in car crashes (about 60,000 per year) not to talk about preventable cancer deaths etc......but those are almost 'Natural' causes.

 

So 100,000 Americans die on the road and by gunshot every year.....sounds like a lottery to me...

[kenberg]

My condoleances to the family and friends of all the victims of this horrible shooting, and at the same time an appeal to every thinking US-citizen.

 

Zillions of dollars are spent on fighting terrorists, yet nothing is done to prevent horrible acts like this. I find it beyond belief that students can buy a machine gun (although if you look Arabic you might be arrested the next day if you did), you'd think that it would be the first step towards keeping the US population safe is to get rid of this law.

 

People like the guy who was on German television a couple of minutes ago who suggested that if the teachers would have had a gun that they could have protected the student, have in my opinion completely lost their connection to reality.

As a retired college prof I was interested in the idea that the problem was that students and faculty were not allowed to carry guns. I imagine preparing for class. Do I have everything? Chalk, eraser, notes, Glock? Decisions to grant tenure could be based on research, teaching, and the ability to fire three shots rapidly in a tight pattern at fifty feet.

 

Some ideas are bad, others are just nuts.

 

Stopping madmen is tough. Working on reducing the violence that happens everyday has a chance of helping, at least somewhat.

 

There is nothing even remotely adequate to express my sorrow for what happened.

[mycroft]

You know, I don't know numbers, and I don't understand the argument (never did). I hope, were I to be in such a situation, that I would do whatever I could, and that "whatever I could" would not reach to taking a life. I have a feeling that fulfilling that second clause would be harder than the first, but if I failed, that it would be much worse for me.

 

Yes, that makes me a sheep. I am glad I live in a world where the work of my hands and mind, and that of my opponent, is worth more than the work of ending that of my opponent.

 

All of the above means I just don't get it. All I want to add to the discussion is:

 

1) How many burglaries are prevented from having a handgun in the place and an owner willing, able, and capable of using it, as opposed to the number of burglaries where the owner isn't home and the handgun is stolen? As people have said, criminals like taking the easy route, and that involves breaking in to an empty house.

 

2) How many "defenders of themselves and their families" get shot with their own weapons - i.e. would not have been damaged as severely had they not pulled a weapon, had it taken from them by someone faster, stronger, more experienced with violence? If it happens to police officers (who should be faster and stronger than most criminals, and suitably experienced with the violent side of the world - and expecting it to happen), how can it not happen to Random Gun Owner, even Random Gun Owner with Training?

 

3) I am hundreds of times more likely to die from random crazy, or drug deal gone wrong, between my office and the train station, than I am from any act of terrorism (even "not terrorism" by CSIS or the NHS, and even counting the fact that I firmly believe that North America's current foreign policy is increasing the odds of a terrorist attack). Guess what I'm more afraid of.

 

Michael.

[kenberg]

We need to try to get this right. A story from my childhood, c.1948:

 

My parents had rented out the top floor of our house to a women with two kids who was separated from her abusive husband. He came by one evening drunk and shouting through the screen door that he was coming in to see his wife. My father was out. The door led to a staircase to the basement, my mother was at the foot of the stairs with my father's double barrel 12 gauge pointed at the door explaining to him that he would not be coming in. He decided maybe he didn't need to see his wife after all. Even a drunk can show some sense.

 

Given my current neighborhood and life, I regard the chance of a similar incident today as being a good deal less than my chance of being struck by lightning while I am mowing the lawn. It has, however, left me with an aversion to telling folks whose life situation I don't know that they do not need a gun.

 

Still, the current situation is absurd. I don't have the answers, but I think a good start would be to tell the NRA to $%#* off. Those folks are interested in profits, not in safety and not, except where it will help them with their profits, in the constitution.