Chaz Ursamanno shot himself in the head demonstrating to his girlfriend that his gun was empty. And he did it twice. Barber Kurt Voelkel was shot in the ass when a customer’s pistol fell out of his pants and went up. The bullet went clear through the barber’s chair, wallet, and butt. Well, actually, it stayed in his butt. In Oklahoma, two slack jawed yokels decided to “target practice” with no idea what was beyond the trees lining the field they were shooting in. What was there was a farmer and his little nephew. The nephew got to watch as David Reed’s chest was pierced fatally with a stray bullet. Six year old Zykria Hackett of Greenwood, South Carolina, which is the stoopedest state in the US, was shot and killed by her grand-daddy’s gun while waiting to go to a pre-church breakfast. The granddaddy had stashed little Zykria and two other young children in the van and while they were waiting for him, the kids found his gun and decided to play with it. There will be no charges.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
They don’t do that well with power tools either.
@davidct: This is why I don’t touch power tools, and don’t go nearer than a meter or two to someone who’s using them. This should keep me rather safe from them. But idiots like the last example could get me anyway.
As someone who has been hunting all of his life from a young age through adulthood…I agree 100%. The masses are too stupid to have guns.
Many hunters are too stupid to have guns (I would put it around 1/3 of them). The reason there aren’t more hunting deaths has more to do with intervening trees (et al) and random shooting hitting someone far less than most people think when it is at distances beyond a few feet.
Not sure about all states, but I know that the number of hunters in my home state has dropped dramatically in the past 2 decades to the point that the state game & fish department is actually struggling to give out enough licenses to keep the deer population in check (unless people want a bunch of mountain lions roaming around, hunters are about the only thing that keeps their population steady in North America short of starvation). So most guns are not even owned by hunters anymore…and I didn’t trust all of them anyways, much less non-hunters.
That’s as it should be. What purpose would be served by applying more punishment on top of the death of a granddaughter? Some activities are self-punishing and the state should leave it alone. Makes more sense to punish those who engage in stupid activities where nothing bad happens.
Greg: No. That is exactly, 100 wrong.
Seems perfectly logical.
Just like a mother who shakes her baby, accidentally killing it. She’s suffered enough.
Just like the drunk driver who killed his friends in the passenger seats and the family in the minivan he hit. Can you imagine the immense guilt? That’s punishment enough.
Just like the wife who died from the beating her husband gave her. How horrible would it be to lose your beloved because you did something stupid in a fit of anger? Punishment enough.
I’m sorry, these don’t involve negligence. How about this one?
The grandmother who died of hypothermia because her family made her live in an unheated garage. They’ve suffered enough, right?
Of course, people are also too stupid to drive cars… or drink alcohol… or have sex… or operate on other people… or anything else for that matter.
Face facts, the majority of the people act perfectly acceptably the majority of the time. It is a few people who don’t (for whatever reason) that make the rest of us look stupid.
Even experts make mistakes… yes it is a mistake. Sometimes mistakes kill people.
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be punished, because one should always act EXTRA responsibly with firearms. What I’m saying is that you are cherry-picking. I’m sorry you have something against firearms. But this argument is much more effective against automobiles than firearms.
Consider the CDC report for 2009 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf)
Deaths from automobile related accident 33,808 (all causes)
Deaths from firearm accidents 588
Deaths from firearm suicide 18,889
Deaths from firearm homicide 11,406
Death from firearm (other) 230
Arguably suicide is intended not accidental. Still, more deaths from cars than firearms. I’ve asked you this before, why don’t you rail against cars as much?
I’m not asking to deflect the topic, I’m honestly curious.
Of course, alcohol was a factor in 24,000+ deaths in 2009… so why not ban that as well.
I’ll say what I said earlier. The genie is out of the bottle and it won’t go back in. Drugs, alcohol, guns, cars, power tools, our society is built around these things. If you make them illegal, then all you are doing is creating a new source of prisoners. It’s been tried before.
Guns, alcohol, cars, drugs… all kill people, all the deaths are related to accidents. And all of it is because of stupid people doing stupid things.
People can be responsible… sometimes they aren’t… and sometimes people get hurt when others act stupidly.
Ogre: This is for you: http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2011/10/13/fallacy-something-else-is-worse-so-dont-worry/
You’ve committed an unnamed fallacy.
Facile equation of cars with firearms doesn’t really work: in the US we have managed to create a geography in which most of the population can’t get to work, or to groceries, unless they drive. So standards of competence for licensing are minimal, people drive with revoked licenses, in weather in which nobody should go out, when they’re full of alcohol, etc.–they’re faced with necessity. In contrast, the people for whom a firearm is a necessity: cops, military, farmers who have to protect livestock–must necessarily be marksmen. So are the good hunters @unbound. (My take on this matter is the same as his, although I have never owned a firearm–I live in a part of the US which is sparsely populated, largely agricultural and wooded, and full of competent hunters. The native hunters are no problem–the ones who come up for deer season, on the other hand, can manage to kill each other without ever leaving deer camp.)
Unfortunately, that leaves the rest of the possessors of firearms, some of whom are capable and some of whom aren’t, and AFAIK none of whom are required to qualify on a target range. Now that Scalia et al. have thought up a new construction of the phrase “well-regulated militia,” we can look for things to become even more interesting.
Maybe even many, or most, but my point is as misanthropic as I can be I try not to blanket the entire human race with such broad strokes.
The power tool analogy is apt; both are dangerous and potentially lethal, but with proper training in their use and keeping access limited appropriately (locked away from children and those who don’t know better) tragic accidents can be minimized if not eliminated.
I am a firm believer in education. Own a gun and have children? When they’re old enough to understand, teach them that a gun is not a toy. Even then, keep it locked, keep the key, and keep the ammunition separate. If your children know you own a gun teach them gun safety, demystify it and lessen any desire to want to play with it.
I agree that guns don’t usually make us safer and that we’d be better off with fewer guns and more restrictions.
I’m not the hugest fan of Original Intent arguments, but I really do think the Second Amendment meant to imply that states and communities should have the right to organize militias. You want a gun? Join the local militia, get trained, get your gun, and serve your community when called. I see this as an outgrowth of the English belief that large standing professional armies were a threat to personal freedom. From Charles II through Anne, England followed this tradition. Adam Smith, writing around the time of the American Revolution, discussed the militia vs. professional army issue. His sympathies were against the professional army, but he recognized that as industry grew and labor became specialized, a state would have to rely on professional soldiers. Wish I could find a cite, it’s in some obscure later part of Wealth of Nations. So I think the whole Militia=good, Professional Army=bad was part of the spirit in which the Second Amendment was written. So I really do think the 2nd Amendment was intended to support militias rather than to assert a general right to firearms ownership. And as Paula Poundstone pointed out, firearms were rather less deadly in the 1700s.
But gun control is a dead issue. Not a good time to take it on right now. I think Obama was smart to be silent and take no action on this issue. Could have cost the election Other issues are more pressing now. We’re just going to have to live with the kinds of incidents you have been writing about for a while.
Greg, please tell me you’re being hyperbolic. Because of course you must be aware that the gun lobby has its own cherry-picked anecdotes that make it just as quick to proclaim “Face Facts: You Need A Handgun For Self-Defense.” Both are based on confirmation bias and hasty generalizations and both are bullshit.
I’m not cherry picking, Dave. I’ve made no statistical claims. I’ve simply reported the last few incidents in the news in the US. I’ve done this a few times already. I’ll do it again. Then, it will become apparent that a quick glance at the news provides plenty of examples of people doing things that they should not have done and did not have to do and that they should not be allowed to do, mainly failing to secure their weapons or use them safely.
Regarding the question of absolving someone of the responsibility for the death of a toddler because they feel really really bad, there’s this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2011/10/13/hes-suffered-enough/
Hyperbole? Me? NEVER EVER!
Anybody reading this own a gun? Where is it? Could a child find it, access it? If so, then kiss my ass.
To Greg Esres, you are totally wrong here. If someone is careless with his/her firearms (or other deadly weapon or even a power tool), and someone’s child or grandchild does, why would that carelessness be unpunishable? Note I didn’t specify who’s child dies. Anyone who is careless is responsible for the use of that weapon or tool.
And I just don’t understand this statement: “Makes more sense to punish those who engage in stupid activities where nothing bad happens.” What would that gain?
Never owned a gun, but my dad hunted a bit. I find it amazing that actual gun owners don’t understand that:
1) All guns are loaded by definition.
2) Safeties will be used at all times, but can’t be relied on.
3) Only point a gun at something you’re prepared to shoot.
Knowing how amazingly inventive children are at getting into things they shouldn’t, I wouldn’t feel secure without gun locks.
Not sure why a real gun aficionado wouldn’t know the same. If he doesn’t, he’s criminally stupid, full stop. “He suffered enough” wouldn’t cut it; he’ll do the same thing again.
Greg,
I am not committing a fallacy…
I am asking why you don’t have the same standard for other accidental injury.
I agree that these people should be punished.
What I want to know is why you rail against guns, but not against automobiles. They have the exact same death rate.
If your complaint is that these people should be punished, then just say so and be done with it. We all know the criminal justice system is screwed up. Heck, start a petition to have these people convicted of a crime and send it to the local area prosecutor.
BTW: I would like to point out quite a few errors that Corvis makes.
Interesting, so it’s the society’s fault that people have to drive cars. Why not a bus or a train or a bicycle?
However, we have this culture.
And again, because I don’t think people are reading me once they realize I own a gun, this isn’t about comparing cars to guns. I presented the statistics on cars to ask Greg a very specific question.
Why ignore the danger of cars and focus on guns? He’s had three/four posts in the last few days on guns. Where are the posts on deaths attributed to cars?
Again, if it’s only because deaths from automobile accidents are prosecuted, then the argument isn’t about guns, but about our criminal justice system.
So that makes it OK? Necessity?
Bull cookies. I’ll give you the farmers. But unless you are special forces, military are rarely marksmen. I think the figure from the first gulf war was 20,000 per casualty.
Cops are even worse. The training for the New Orleans area Sheriff’s department was 6 rounds at a target 10 feet away. If 4 or 6 hit the target, you qualified. This might have changed, but that’s what it was a few years ago when a friend of mine became a sheriff.
OK OK, I’ll use preview next time… sorry.
that’s 20,000 rounds fired for every casualty in the gulf war.
New orleans should be 4 of 6 rounds hit the target.
The stuff after “Your AFAIK” is mine, not corvis’.
What harm is done by taking guns away from people? None!
What harm is done by taking cars away from people? Millions of people will not be able to go to work, shop, travel, etc…
There’s a clear benefit to banning guns (or having stricter regulations.) For cars, its a balancing act, traffic deaths versus jobs/mobility/etc…
The moment public transport, or infrastructure for bicyclists becomes developed enough that people don’t need cars (and you start to see this in some cities), I am all for discouraging car use.
FYI: I have a bicycle, not a car.
Greg, I would like to point out something I call the “news fallacy”.
The news is interested in tragedy, comedy, scandal and interesting stuff, pretty much in that order. “If it bleeds, it leads” is cynical, but also accurate.
“Child prevented from reaching gun” will never be in any news outlet. “Child blows own head off” will be national if not global.
Shouldn’t those of us who do the right thing, and never get into the papers, get as much credit as those who bring the stpid get opprobrium?
That’s a form of cherry picking.
But your post wasn’t titled: “People Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Leave Guns Unsecured”, or “People Shouldn’t Be Alloed to Use Guns Unsafely.” It was “Face Facts: People Are Too Stupid to be Allowed Guns.”
I just want to make clear I in no way support absolving gun owners of responsibility for any harm caused by negligent storage or handling of their weapons.
Yes.
Locked in the gun cabinet. Ammunition in the separate fire safe.
No.
I guess the real question here is this:
Greg Laden, are you mad because these people are not being prosecuted?
Or
Are you mad because people are allowed to own guns?
Or
Both?
Because, in all honesty, you are claiming the first, but your actions are consistent with the second.
Get over the car thing guys. It’s a comparison for showing the sole purpose that accidental deaths due to firearms and cars are equal. However, Greg’s attacks are NOT equal.
I want to know why they are not.
Robert: There is no harm in either case. If you take ANYTHING except food or shelter away from someone, no harm is done. Our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years without cars. We can too.
But let me ask you this. You (and whomever else) decide to take all the guns away from everyone in the US. What’s next? What will you decide is unallowable next? Power tools, that will be the next largest cause of accidental injury. Oh wait, I know… alcohol. Let’s take that away, because that’s a cause in some 24,000+ deaths each year.
Oh wait… they tried that already.
When catapults are outlawed only outlaws will have catapults.
Anyway. I’ll wait to see if Greg answers.
Just because I’m feeling a bit contrary, a story where someone with training averted an accident becoming tragic… even if it is anecdotal.
A friend of the family who is a Vietnam veteran and runs a hunting guide business on private property and whose house is not far from a (forget if it’s state or county) jail. There was an escape, and he was showing his wife how to use one of his hunting shotguns just in case. The shotgun was loaded and he was demonstrating the safety and the safety failed, but because he was observing proper safety measures he put a hole through the bottom of the wall rather than through his wife.
There was an incident here some years ago where a woman playing bingo went to the ladies room and when she pulled down her pants, the gun (which she had forgotten she had put in her underwear) fell to the floor and fired. Fortunately she was the only one injured.
The problem with comparing gun
accidentsincidents to cars or power tools or falling off a ladder is that guns were designed to do 1 (one) thing: kill. Period. Full stop. They serve no other purpose whatsoever. And while people can be killed with other implements, that is not the primary purpose of those objects, nor even a rationally reasonable intended purpose. So knock it off with that kind of bullshit.Gun control is pitiful and weak in the US and I support Greg’s attempts to shine a light on this subject.
I own several guns. They’re all inaccessible or unusable without special knowledge or a key. I also have a permit to carry in MN and I would strongly support making the same class that is required to acquire a permit to carry required to acquire a permit to acquire.
When I was a kid, I was required to memorize the three rules of guns before even being handed a BB gun. Any one of those rules would have saved every one of the people mentioned in this article. We have a gun culture in the US and I don’t know how much it can be changed, but it could easily be made safer.
By the way…every year, when I get my hunting license, there’s a line on there for safety training, but I’ve never had to show that I’m a safe hunter. MN does offer firearms safety classes for hunters though: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/safety/index.html
If you want others to knock it off with ‘bullshit’, don’t use any of your own. Guns get used all the time without anyone being in any kind of imminent mortal peril. A gun IS a tool, a tool designed to maim-kill-destroy but a tool nonetheless. Like any tool it can serve more purposes than what it was originally designed for.
Flare guns, non-lethal (or less-than-lethal, depending who you ask) loads for shotguns, target shooting (both recreational and competitive, skills and trick shooting). Hell, according to the technical definition of a firearm in the state of Michigan paintball markers qualify as a firearm (if not for a specific exceptions introduced to the law).
Guns have protected flocks (and farmers) from dangerous predators. Guns have defended liberty throughout the world (keep in mind that without guns in the hands of citizens, the American Revolution would never have happened).
Exactly like every other tool/object on the planet… they can be used for good or bad.
A stupid person with a computer and a blog can do inordinate amounts of damage to the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. I’m sure any one of you can point to an example of this.
A person can be killed with a ballpoint pen almost as easily as with a knife.
Heck, you could be strangled with a towel or a pillow.
A tool is a tool. It is the user of the tool which bears the responsibility. A carpenter who uses a damaged nail gun (one with a damaged safety) isn’t using the tool properly. In the two examples given here (bingo woman and shotgun) either the tools were not properly handled or they were damaged in some way. In either case, the fault is the owner/user, not the tool.
If you want to get rid of things that kill people, then you have to get rid of literally every tool in existence.
Isn’t it amazing how similar the anti-gun arguments here are to creationist arguments? I really am stunned.
People throwing out non-sequitors.
People throwing out examples.
Comments that are out-right wrong.
No links to references (i.e. did the bingo story even happen?)
Here’s an interesting paper. I haven’t fully read it yet (it’s rather lengthy). Take a look:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
Ogre: One day, sooner than you might expect, driverless cars will hit the roads. Not long after that, they’ll become the norm. And then, in no time at all, human driving will be banned. Because yes, humans are indeed far too stupid to be allowed to drive. It’s just that there’s no practical alternative… yet.
As a motorcycle rider and someone who (usually) enjoys driving as a cathartic experience, the rise of self driving cars and presumed banning of human drivers is a day I hope never comes to pass in my lifetime. I think I would prefer to die as a greasy stain on the pavement than live to see that day, actually.
Ogre –
I don’t think anyone’s talking about ‘get[ting] rid of’ anything, so much as appropriately controlling access to dangerous devices, and appropriately punishing those who are negligent with those devices.
We don’t find it unreasonable that, before a person is allowed to legally drive a car, s/he is educated extensively on the use of that vehicle, is tested to demonstrate proficiency, and issued a provisional license that must be renewed periodically, and that is subject to revocation if irresponsibility is demonstrated.
That’s a fairly well-regulated system for car operation.
Where’s the well-regulated aspect of gun ownership?
ogremk5[16]
I am not committing a fallacy…
I am asking why you don’t have the same standard for other accidental injury….What I want to know is why you rail against guns, but not against automobiles. They have the exact same death rate.
I wrote about concern A and you’re response was to ask why I’m not talking about concern B. Let me respond this way: Why are you asking me to “rail against” automobiles when I prefer to “rail against” guns.
Seriously, all you are doing is clumsily trying to silence me when I speak about guns. Why do you do that?
If your complaint is that these people should be punished, then just say so and be done with it. We all know the criminal justice system is screwed up. Heck, start a petition to have these people convicted of a crime and send it to the local area prosecutor.
Interesting. You’ll allow me a petition but not an essay. What is it about my words that makes you wish I did not write them?
And, by the way, I’m with Robert: Take away the cars!!!!
Sundog:
Greg, I would like to point out something I call the “news fallacyâ€.
The news is interested in tragedy, comedy, scandal and interesting stuff, pretty much in that order. “If it bleeds, it leads†is cynical, but also accurate.
“Child prevented from reaching gun†will never be in any news outlet. “Child blows own head off†will be national if not global.
Shouldn’t those of us who do the right thing, and never get into the papers, get as much credit as those who bring the stpid get opprobrium?
I will say again, that I’ve made no statistical claims here. The things I mention here all happened, for real. That can’t be deined. They all happened or were reported in the last few days. Honestly. I could dip into the news stream and pull out four or five similar instances every week.
That does not mean that these things are frequent. Nor does it mean that they are rare. And, again, I have made no statistical claims. You are asking why I don’t “give credit” to the events that did not get into the news. Because I’m not giving credit, or failing to give credit, to anything.
Sundog and Dave: These cases are great examples to illustrate my point. The fact that you are asking me to shut up makes my point a bit more interesting, doesn’t it?
DaveL:
But your post wasn’t titled: “People Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Leave Guns Unsecuredâ€, or “People Shouldn’t Be Alloed to Use Guns Unsafely.†It was “Face Facts: People Are Too Stupid to be Allowed Guns.â€
Thank you for your concern about how I titled my post.
I just want to make clear I in no way support absolving gun owners of responsibility for any harm caused by negligent storage or handling of their weapons.
You just don’t want the part of gun ownership that is all sticky with blood and guts mentioned.
Locked in the gun cabinet. Ammunition in the separate fire safe.
Thank you very much, Go DaveL!
OgreMkV
Greg Laden, are you mad because these people are not being prosecuted?
Or
Are you mad because people are allowed to own guns?
Or
Both?
Because, in all honesty, you are claiming the first, but your actions are consistent with the second.
As yourself why you think that.
Sithrazer:
A friend of the family who is a Vietnam veteran and runs a hunting guide business on private property and whose house is not far from a (forget if it’s state or county) jail. There was an escape, and he was showing his wife how to use one of his hunting shotguns just in case. The shotgun was loaded and he was demonstrating the safety and the safety failed, but because he was observing proper safety measures he put a hole through the bottom of the wall rather than through his wife.
I suppose that depends on the wall!
Khan, that bingo story sounds familiar.
OgreMkV:
Isn’t it amazing how similar the anti-gun arguments here are to creationist arguments? I really am stunned.
Do you know that that particular bit of concern trolling is right on the gun-nut bingo card? Please don’t lay that bullshit down here. We’re all better than that.
You just want to see what I’d look like as a road pancake.
Just got home and now have the time to look something up that I didn’t want to say before because I was unsure. According to Michigan State Law (obviously this only applies in MI, but similar laws are likely enacted in other states) states that: (paraphrased) any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, shall cause or allow any firearm under his immediate control to be discharged and injure/kill another person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in state/county jail for not more than 2/1 years (respectively) or a fine of no more than $2,000. Took effect Sept. 18 1952.
Perhaps time and energy would be better spent getting the laws on the books enforced, first.
Perhaps time and energy would be better spent getting the laws on the books enforced, first.
That is not being overlooked.
Sure, you’re not saying they’re frequent, you’re just drawing a conclusion from them – namely, that people (note: not some people) are too stupid to be allowed guns.
No one’s telling you to shut up. We’re pointing out the examples you cite do not warrant your conclusion.
Again you dodge my point that your examples do not warrant your conclusion.
Please stop making stuff up. I’m actually a regular reader of Ohh Shoot and I’ve never had a problem with you bringing up incidents like this. The problem is your conclusion, or rather your reasoning for it, which doesn’t follow from the examples you cite.
No one’s telling you to shut up. We’re pointing out the examples you cite do not warrant your conclusion.
And my conclusion is? I’m not sure you know.
Well, I’m quite certain I DON’T know what your conclusion is. I would have thought that your title for this piece would have given a clue (or at least a position from which you are arguing) but you seem to be denying that.
In fact, I’m having some trouble getting a good sense of where you are at, as it seems to be shifting. Seriously, you put out a positional statement in your title, appear to be supporting that with (as you say, unarguably true) evidence, but you then seem to deny it being your argument. I am unsure.
(Oh, and for the record, I would never ask someone to shut up on their own blog. That would be rude.)
So you’re denying that you think people are too stupid to allow guns? That the examples you’ve brought up “illustrate your point” but that your point is not “Face Facts: People Are Too Stupid to be Allowed Guns?” Well, out with it then. State plainly what exactly is this super-secret thesis of yours?
My super secret thesis is cleverly hidden in the blog post, above. Try looking there instead of inside your head.
Sundog, I think your problem is that you’ve probably only met people with your own view or the diametrically opposed view, which is not that surprising since most people who claim or pretend too have a view on guns, gun ownership, and gun control or regulation simply adopt one of the two cardboard cutout views.
Oh, and a hint: A headline is not a conclusion. Almost never, anyway. I hope this information helps you in the future.
Greg,
My creationist line is not trolling bullshit. I’ve asked you several times and you STILL haven’t answered.
Are you mad because people are allowed to have guns
Or
Are you mad because people that cause accidents are not prosecuted.
It’s very easy.
Just answer the question.
I’ll point out ANOTHER fallacy that compells me to point out the similarities to creationist ‘arguments’ here.
State, with a quote, where I said you couldn’t do an essay. You can say anything you want. It’s your blog, you could ban me for all I care.
I don’t wish you wrote them. I’m glad that you did. I have done quite a bit of actual research into both sides of the argument (some of which I have posted as links here). That research causes me to ask some interesting questions that you have, so far, failed to address.
What I’m trying to do is get you to recognize your own irrational biases here.
If it’s the deaths that you are upset about, then why are you not also making similar arguments against cars (which have equal numbers of accidental deaths)? If it’s the non-prosecution, why are you railing against guns instead of the criminal justice system which decided not to prosecute?
The only logical conclusion is that you, Greg, hate guns and don’t want anyone to have them. There are a number of major issues with that, which have been pointed out to you before, but not really addressed.
If my conclusion is incorrect, then feel free to answer my question so that I will understand.
As far as the difference between driver training and firearm training. There really isn’t one. In some states, you go to the DMV, taking a 20 question multiple choice test and drive an officer around the block. Then you have a license to drive.
There is no training on wet driving, snow driving, performance driving, large vehicle driving, trailer pulling, etc. etc. etc. And yet, someone with less than 3 hours behind the wheel and taking a 20 question test CAN do all of those things legally. (BTW: That was my DL test and sum total of my training, then again, much like my guns, I’ve never had an auto accident in over 25 years of driving.)
Should we have mandatory training for firearms? Sure, I can go with that… if it’s provided by the state in the same way that driver training is.
Did you read the report I provided a link to?
Look, humans have the desperate need to do stupid things. You can’t prevent stupidity. If we could, can we? It’s not a philosophical question… it’s the same question about ANY right.
Who decides? And what will they decide next is their responsibility to regulate or remove?
In conclusion, Greg, you still have a question to answer. Is it the lack of prosecution or the fact that there are guns? If you don’t like the way I asked the question, then feel free to answer it with an explanation for why you choose not to answer my question.
I’ll remind Greg and the others (since they apparently can’t read) that I FUCKING AGREE that those people were stupid and should have been prosecuted, for reckless endangerment if nothing else. I would find it very difficult to support a murder charge on the grandfather for example. That sets a very poor precedent. Reckless endangerment, child neglect, etc. those would work well.
What I still don’t understand is why you are so against guns and not against cars.
The fact that, in America, we need cars to get around has NOTHING to do with it.
ogremk5, state, with a quote, where I’ve told you can’t own a gun.
Your right to own a gun is constitutionally protected. At the moment, there is no reliable way to sort out people cited above who clearly should have never owned a gun in the first place from those who can do so responsibly. I would like to see that problem worked out. Wouldn’t you?
In the mean time, since we can’t tell the geniuses who understand that you MUST lock guns away from the children as well as the gun nuts who insist that we not lock the guns away from the children because it violates their false sense of “rights” from those people who chose to own guns AND lock them away, the title of this post is appropriate, the facts presented are sad, and my position on gun ownership (which is not represented in this post but is well known to my readers, check it out here if you like … http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/politics/gun_ownership/ .. stands.
What I still don’t understand is why you are so against guns and not against cars.
Really, really, bad idea to place the thoughts that are in YOUR head into MY mouth. Again, that never, ever ends well.
Fine, whatever Greg. You won’t tell me what you think after being asked several times… what else am I supposed to do?
I fully agree that people should behave responsibly, but we both know they won’t.
1) Nice dodge on not answering either question OR showing where I made the claim that you seem to have claimed. If you think that you did not make a claim against me, well, I guess you’re a good enough writer to avoid declarative statements.
2) I picked three posts at random from your list that you sent me to… one of the comments actually asked you what you wanted to accomplish and you declined to answer there as well. I’m sorry, I’m not going to read 30-40 posts that don’t have the info I’m asking for. You posts in all that category are just news article and rants (Texans=Morons… really?). At least two of them have information that is countered by data I linked to.
If you don’t want to say what you want, that’s fine. I guess we’re done.
What’s very interesting is that I cannot find a single statistic for deaths, homicides, accidental deaths, or suicides that are reported the same in any document (pro gun or anti-gun) for the same age group or even area. It’s very frustrating for someone like me who wants useful information.
If I run through a red light and kill my son on his bike, shouldn’t I be charged?
So many people here are way off topic. We are talking about real negligence, not just a freak accident. Target shooting in a field without knowing if people could be behind the targets should be criminal negligence; target practicing at a gun range and having some stray ricochet hurt or kill someone is a freak accident. Driving your car down the road, running a red light and killing someone should be criminal negligence; having a tire blow out and being in a fatal wreck is a freak accident.
No. Not when I see you responding to people with stuff like this:
You expect people to be able to reference your position with specific quotes – but you refuse to provide any explicit statement of your position. This is not reasonable, nor is it honest.
DaveL, again, I fully support your right to own a gun. I don’t know how I could possibly be more clear about that. I’ve probably said that in print fifty times.
I am not being dishonest, but again, I really do think you are demanding that I hold one of the positions that you know about and feel everyone should decide among. I’ve never held a position on guns that is like one of the standard positions, and I won’t just because you want me to! Really!
No, Greg, my problem is that I take people to mean what they say.
I actually haven’t been following your blog all that long. Your positions and opinions appear to me to be reasonable, thought out, and fair, even where they do not entirely accord with my own. But when you come out with “People are too stupid to be allowed guns”, and then do nothing in the following paragraphs to disabuse me of the notion that you believe precisely that, I do generally assume that you’re serious.
I would agree that SOME people really are too stupid to be allowed guns. But to tar the entire human race with such a broad brush seems a tad unfair.
We start with the headline: “People are too stupid to be allowed guns†…
It is true. It works as ta healine, and it is just a headline. It being a headline does not have to do all the work a longer comment or essay does. “People” need not mean all people or some people. “Allowed guns” is vague and “stupid” is an obvious case of sniping from a position of frustration and, yes, even anger.
Hardly anybody is stupid all the time, but those that are seem not to be systematically excluded from gun ownership by any existing rules and seem to exclude themselves either by chosing to not own a gun or owning one for a while and then killing themselves with it by accident. Otehrwise they are just a menace.
Hardly anybody (maybe more than the above category, maybe not, I am not sure) will never make a mistake with a gun because of their own qualities (as opposed to random chance).
Most people are quite capable of doing something stupid at some time or another. Most people who drive (and though I can’t cite the studies, they exist, I blieve a guy named “ellison” is author of one) claim that they are better than the average driver. The average driver (on average) can’t be better than the average driver. but on average they make this claim. Same for gun safety. Most people are quite capable of doing something tupid at some time or another, but a lot of them claim they are not.
And that is probably the vast majority of gun owners.
If you screw up using the toaster you get bad toast. If you screw up using a gun, you probably don’t get a really bad outcome most of the time but when you do the cute little four year old who lives across the street is laying there convulsing in a pool of blood. Or whatever. So it is serious.
So yes, we will START quite reasonably with the statement “people are too stupid to be allowed guns” and then work out from there with various caveats. We’ll recognize the extremes and we’ll recognize the potentially huge safety gap that exists in the main and try to fix both.
I’m not sure how to fix the extremes other than with more of the same and better implementation of laws that keep guns from people who like to play with them while drunk or who are mentally unstable, and to identify those people, but I have no idea how to advance that without doing things I’d prefer to not see happen. But in this huge middle … the average person who is quite capable of making a misake ranging from getting mad and pulling a gun out of a glove compartment to not securing a gun so that the 8 year old gets it … and figure out how to reduce those incidents.
And currently (blog wise) I’m focusing on accidents. Previously, I’ve focused more on suicide. We’ll get back to that later. But, it is about to be hunting season so accidents are good to contemplate just about now!
I’m pretty sure I’d rather go with “The Entire Human Race is Stupid” than “The Entire Human Race is NOT Stupid” but of course, the truth in this case lies in between. Or more exactly, the truth lies beyond the headline.
Excuse this late hit, but I hope that dear, sweet ogremk5 will try to spell my name correctly next time. As for substantive matters:
The transportation geography of the US has been consciously constructed in such a way as to force us to drive whether we’d really like to or not, and the accident rate can quite reasonably be blamed on the culture without denying the importance of individual stupidity. (The cultural element is particularly important with respect to metropolitan areas, in which public transport would have been easiest to build.) Eisenhower’s cabinet-buddy Charlie Wilson (no, not that Charlie Wilson), former GM chairman, (in)famously declared that what was good for GM was good for the country, then proceeded to make the converse hold also. Transportation policy was pushed toward Autobahnen, single-passenger auto commuting, and the replacement of street rail and interurbans by buses–and look what happened to the buses. Some of drive-or-die is due to this part of our political culture. Moreover, there are parts of the country in which public transportation has never existed and the winter weather precludes walking or riding your bicycle. I live in one of these, settled by my subsistence-farmer antecedents in the early 19th c. If ogremk5’s planet has no such regions, he might consider watching the movie “Fargo” to get an idea of what the weather can be like here in the US of planet Earth.
Note that I have not argued against guns, or certainly not against long guns, particularly as used in agriculture. Anybody who is of age and does not suffer the usual disabling conditions can buy them in most states including my own. Firearms accidents do not require pistols and can easily be implemented with the “safer” shotguns of, e.g., New Jersey. It’s nice to know that Texas has stringent concealed-carry laws, but in the context of my comment that’s something of a red herring.
Hi, Neat post. There’s a problem along with your site in internet explorer, might test this… IE nonetheless is the market leader and a large component to other people will miss your wonderful writing due to this problem.
“Herman Cain said he wants people to know that there’s more between his ears than pepperoni and pizza sauce. He says there’s also a few napkins and crazy bread.” –Conan O’Brien