Commentary in today's school paper: Gun nuts' have no real excuse

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seawolf

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
92
Location
Connecticut
The Daily Campus - Commentary
Issue: 2/1/05

Gun nuts' have no real excuse
By Robert Schiering

At first glance, the term "gun nut" would appear to be nothing more than an ad hominem against the more enthusiastic weapon owners of this country. However, as one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations, the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.


The gun lobby has adopted the same attitude toward politics as Rush Limbaugh: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've got my mind made up!" Gun nuts are so obsessed with opposing gun control laws that no amount of factual evidence against their position will sway them. Some call this "sticking to your guns." I call it "deliberate stupidity."


The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that a society that owns guns is a safe society. Throughout the pages of gun magazines are various ads which depict Joe Average wielding a hand cannon, defending his helpless family from a masked intruder who has invaded his home in the dead of night. Ignore for a minute that the probability of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim and look at the FBI's study on gun violence. In 1993, of 39,595 firearm-related deaths, only 251 were determined to be justifiable homicide. That is less than 1 percent of all firearm deaths for that year. Furthermore, studies in 1994 found that you are much more likely to be murdered by someone you know, not some masked boogey-man with an eye for your wife's jewelry. Suicides, homicides and accidental deaths far outnumber instances where someone has successfully used a firearm to defend themselves or their loved ones. Either these findings have not reached the NRA, or they are deliberately turning a blind eye to them.


Unrestricted ownership of weapons essentially follows the tenets of the classical theory of criminology. This theory is hardly modern, developing in the late 1700s through the works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The core ideas of classical theory are: the decision to commit crime is a rational cost-benefit evaluation and that crime can be prevented through administering certain, severe punishment. Gun nuts believe that if every citizen owned a weapon, potential criminals would be too afraid to commit crimes.


The right wing, not just the gun nuts, has become so enthralled by classical theory that they have completely ignored the mountains of evidence that contradict it. While America fairs better than its developed counterparts around the world in most areas of crime, it tops them all in the category of murder. While you stand a better chance of being robbed in Sydney, Australia than in Los Angeles you are 20 times as likely to be killed in L.A. A rational mugger would prefer to give up and flee should his activity lead to conflict (as murder comes with a much higher cost than mere robbery, while the benefit is relatively minute), but statistics point out that in the U.S., victims that put up a fight are typically killed. This is not rational behavior and all the guns in America haven't changed it.


When the chips are down in the debate on crime, a gun nut will always fall back on the Constitution. Gun nuts love to quote the Second Amendment, or at least they love to quote the second half. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not, in any way, clarify the issue of personal gun ownership. It is vague, leaving one to wonder whether or not gun ownership rights should be extended to the individual without mandatory enrollment in a "well organized militia." Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled that states have the right to enact gun control laws, as was determined by United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The NRA has conveniently ignored the first half of the Second Amendment, typically printing only the second half. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger denounced the NRA's editing of the Second Amendment as a "fraud."


Owning an arsenal is not a "way of life," it is a mental disorder. It is an unjustifiable paranoia that leads to thousands of unjustified deaths every year. Let's put this in perspective. Annually, about 17,000 people die of illicit drug use (illegal), 0 people die of marijuana use (also illegal), 20,000 people die of sexual behaviors (not illegal, but frowned upon), while some 29,000 die in a firearm related incident, 1 percent of which result in a "bad guy" eating a lead sandwich.


I'm not suggesting that people stop owning weapons or that the NRA disband and start crusading for rights that don't kill anyone, like smoking pot for example. What I want is an end to the lies that the gun nuts want so badly to believe in. I want them to face the fact that they are much more likely to kill their wife and children than defend them. I want them to realize that the only crime wave in this country is in homicide, a crime inextricably linked with firearms. Perhaps when gun nuts stop living in Charlton Heston's movies they will pursue a safer, more reasonable route to gun ownership and use.
http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2005/02/01/Commentary/Gun-Nuts.Have.No.Real.Excuse-847831.shtml
 
Typical...

I recommend writing a rebutal/ letter to the editor. I'd also find pro gun students and encourage them to do like wise.
 
I assume those 40,000 deaths include the roughly 60% that are suicide? And why are they using statistics from 93, something has to have newer facts.

Furthermore, studies in 1994 found that you are much more likely to be murdered by someone you know, not some masked boogey-man with an eye for your wife's jewelry.
That is less of a reason for you to defend yourself? I guess if drunk relative comes in and starts beating our wife, you are supposed to say, OK, they are family.

While you stand a better chance of being robbed in Sydney, Australia than in Los Angeles you are 20 times as likely to be killed in L.A.

What if we pick a little town like Houghton, MI, and a small town of about 3000 people in Australia? My guess is that crime rate is going to be about the same. Guns aren't the problem in big towns.

I want them to face the fact that they are much more likely to kill their wife and children than defend them.

Yep, because for the hundred years that my family has been owing guns, lots of wifes and children have been shot up.

Ignore for a minute that the probability of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim

I don't have any hard figures (nor does he), but I would imagine that it is not all that rare.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not, in any way, clarify the issue of personal gun ownership. It is vague, leaving one to wonder whether or not gun ownership rights should be extended to the individual without mandatory enrollment in a "well organized militia."

Ah. Here we go again. 'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,' = why this amendment is being written. 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' Note that it is the same people in the 1st and 4th amendments. And note that none of the other BOR amendments deal with anything but individuals. 'shall not be infringed' Need I explain?
 
Ignore for a minute that the probability of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim

I don't have any hard figures (nor does he), but I would imagine that it is not all that rare.

It probably is rare outside of known high crime areas. I'm 31 and have never known anyone who's been involved in a "hot" home invasion (actually, I can't think of anyone who's had their home broken into either). That doesn't mean I don't want to be prepared though. I view it like seatbelts, I may not need them most of the time, but I still wear them for that slim chance that I do need them. That's all the justification I need.

Chris
 
Quote:
the probability of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim
------------------------------------------------
This is true in the United States, but not true in countries with severe restrictions on citizen gun ownership. Great Britain saw a huge spike in hot home invasions after they enacted their ban. If the author of this article had his way, you might see this statistic change.
 
I'm not suggesting that people stop owning weapons or that the NRA disband and start crusading for rights that don't kill anyone, like smoking pot for example. What I want is an end to the lies that the gun nuts want so badly to believe in. I want them to face the fact that they are much more likely to kill their wife and children than defend them. I want them to realize that the only crime wave in this country is in homicide, a crime inextricably linked with firearms. Perhaps when gun nuts stop living in Charlton Heston's movies they will pursue a safer, more reasonable route to gun ownership and use

I wonder what a "safer, more reasonable route" would look like?
Why am I more likely to kill my wife and children just because I have a gun in the house? I guess because I own guns then I am ipso facto a nut and nuts go off and do these things regularly.
So homicide is "linked" to firearms? I guess drunk driving is "linked" to both alcohol and automobiles so maybe we should campaign against those as well, rather than focusing on the individuals perpetrating drunk driving.
Finally, theoretically he is right: if you succesfully took away all guns then no one would get shot anymore. But that's only theoretically and we live in a very practical world where there are zillions of guns already in circulation and hardly any barriers to making more.
 
well.......

"of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim"

tell that to the victims of the b.g.'s who kick in the front door and somtimes start shooting.

"they have completely ignored the mountains of evidence that contradict it"

didn't bother to site what evidence, maybe the ones that show a crime rate drop in areas with ccw!?!?

"Owning an arsenal is not a "way of life," it is a mental disorder. It is an unjustifiable paranoia that leads to thousands of unjustified deaths every year."

funny i have a few firearms and not one has kill another human since i've owned it.

"start crusading for rights that don't kill anyone, like smoking pot for example"

oh yeah pot smokers don't committ crimes, you lie to your friends and i'll lie to mine but let us not lie to each other, potheads like drunks do those around them and socity in general a multitude of ills.
 
I'm not suggesting that people stop owning weapons or that the NRA disband and start crusading for rights that don't kill anyone, like smoking pot for example.

"A confused, helpless and dependent society, being necessary to the security of a strong central bureaucracy, the right of the people to smoke pot shall not be infringed".
 
What do you expect ... it's a school paper ... :rolleyes:

Sounds like the guy is really on a crusade to legalize pot (which I actually agree with) and is trouncing guns just to make a point (of which he has none).

But take heed, all YOU who want to make sure "felons" and "mental cases" don't get their hands on guns ...
You want a gun? Guess what ... you are "insane" and can't have one ... :p
 
In 1993, of 39,595 firearm-related deaths, only 251 were determined to be justifiable homicide.
Wow, amazing journalistic integrity here. He deliberately uses statistics over a decade old for their "shock value". Gun death rates have fallen 19% since 1993. See here for interesting info (third bullet point). *Note: I would have preferred to gather statistics from the CDC, but I was ripping my freaking hair out trying to navigate their site looking for a simple number with a year attached. :banghead:
Furthermore, studies in 1994 found that you are much more likely to be murdered by someone you know, not some masked boogey-man with an eye for your wife's jewelry.
Love how he cites his source here. So, I take it a firearm magically becomes less able to defend a person against somebody they've met? :rolleyes:
Gun nuts believe that if every citizen owned a weapon, potential criminals would be too afraid to commit crimes.
True, many would argue that plenty of criminals are cowards at heart, and less likely to commit their deeds when faced with the prospect of death by lead poisoning. However, even barring this seemingly common sense conclusion, concealed carry and the like aren't fought for solely on the basis of society wide crime deterrence, but on the need for immediate and effective self-defense in life/death situations.
...but statistics point out that in the U.S., victims that put up a fight are typically killed.
Again we see statistics cited with no source. Myth anyway. See here.
[The 2nd Amendment] is vague, leaving one to wonder whether or not gun ownership rights should be extended to the individual without mandatory enrollment in a "well organized militia."
Only vague to those with a gun control agenda. See here.
Owning an arsenal is not a "way of life," it is a mental disorder. It is an unjustifiable paranoia that leads to thousands of unjustified deaths every year.
He assumes that everybody who owns multiple guns does so out of paranoia. Couldn't be for fun or collecting. No, it's got to be because every gun nut spends his time huddled into a dark corner, surrounded by guns, muttering to himself as he waits for intruders and the gubmint. :rolleyes:
 
Misguided soul writes:
"Ignore for a minute that the probability of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim"

By similar logic: I have never had a house fire, therefore I will never need a fire extinguisher. So, tonight, I am going to go home and throw out my fire extinguisher...
 
Is the number of murders committed with legally held firearms by their legal owners available in the US?
 
Yup. Another vicious attack by one of those 'word nuts.'

I think he should be limited to one word a month, after all, there is no reason for anyone to have all those words, is there?

lpl/nc
 
someone with nothing better to do can send a rebuttal that explains the whole 'more likely to be shot by someone you know' crap....

in a nutshell, the majority of homicides in big cities tend to be 'gang-related'. all it takes is for one gang banger to know the street name of the gang banger he is out there to murder and it becomes 'shot by someone he knew, possibly a close friend' to the media.

it certainly is NOT from friends/family killing one another.
 
I'm really getting sick of the term "gun nut". It's merely a way to subconciously de-legitimize those who you disagree with and those who you stereotype into sub-humanness. The term "gun nut" is equivalent to hateful terms like "gook", "spick", and "******" :cuss: . The fact that it is socially acceptable does not change the fact that it is derived from the irrational dislike of a class of individuals.
 
I have another theory in reguards to the author. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't tried shooting before. I will also suggest that he couldn't hit the paper at seven yards. I will also suggest that those who were with him laughed uncontrollably. His fragile ego wouldn't handle the pressure. He doesn't have the will to practice and become better. It is easier to condemn everybody else especially shooters and gun owners. Whiney weasley coward would fit.
 
Oh yes, and while we are on the "body count' fallacy ...

I suppose it would be easy to show that statistically, guns are used more often to commit murder than by the police to kill a bad guy - so therefore the police shouldn't have guns either ...? :rolleyes:

As if the police are required to KILL every bad guy they meet in order to justify carrying a gun.


Gun nuts believe that if every citizen owned a weapon, potential criminals would be too afraid to commit crimes.
Well, just exactly WHAT - if anything - WILL deter criminals from committing crimes ?? :confused:

The traditional answer is that more cops on patrol (armed with those nasty guns of course) would make them afraid to commit crimes.

So cops with guns will deter crime, but COPs (Citizens On Patrol ;) ) with guns will NOT deter crime ...? :rolleyes:
 
Well, just exactly WHAT - if anything - WILL deter criminals from committing crimes ?

ooo ooo ooooo! i know! since posting signs on buildings stops us from carrying into them, then obviously we just need to post signs stating which laws criminals cant break while around us or on our premises.

gee, why hadnt anyone thought of this sooner?

i'm off to make a sign to hang around my neck that says "Murder of this individual is STRICTLY prohibited. So is mugging, assault, battery, and showing disrespect. Sexual assaults may only be commited on this individual by females between the ages 19 - 39 and between the weights 100 lbs to 135 lbs."

did i leave anything out?
 
'lol'
That's all I have to say.
Oh, this too:
I can't believe someone would write something like this...decade old statistics...prejudice and all around stupidity.
 
Anti's quote (what a predictable crock!) -
The gun lobby has adopted the same attitude toward politics as Rush Limbaugh: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've got my mind made up!" Gun nuts are so obsessed with opposing gun control laws that no amount of factual evidence against their position will sway them. Some call this "sticking to your guns." I call it "deliberate stupidity."
Change a few key aspects and what do we get? yep - ''old familiar''!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
The anti lobby has adopted the same attitude toward politics as Sarah Brady: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've got my mind made up!" Anti's are so obsessed with making gun control laws that no amount of factual evidence against their position will sway them. Some call this "deliberate stupidity." I call it "sticking to our guns."
 
While America fairs better than its developed counterparts around the world ...
Idiotic. Ignores the CDC report, the Congressional report, and both AG reports.

For a college newspaper, though, one would think either a writer or his/her editor might know the difference between "fair" and "fare."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top