Selma: 1965.
Black Panther Party: Started in 1966.
So, no, Selma was not against some backdrop of riots and Black Panthers. It was a bunch of guys in riot gear turning water hoses on people walking across a bridge and getting the shit kicked out of them. Three times. MLK was never going to get violent coming across that bridge. The fact that there was zero threat was what horrified people. What terrifies people who rely on violence to get their way is when violence doesn’t work in any way. That getting more violent doesn’t change the resistance.
Montgomery Bus Boycott is another one, back from '55.
I agree that, when framing policy and strategy for small areas, absolute numbers make sense. When looking at the epidemiology of the problem, however, one must frame it in epidemiological terms. It takes at least one person to be harmed by a firearm in an accident or suicide, and it takes at least two people for firearm homicide. Therefore, one cannot evaluate prevalence rates without correcting for population density. It’s prevalence rates that matter for prevention policy.
The perception that crime and gun violence/gun deaths predominantly occur in “bad neighborhoods” in big cities is verifiably false. The FBI crime statistics make it pretty clear that the idea of the “safe, small town America” requires a time machine, not a car, to reach. Or, to look at it from the other direction, big cities have gotten safer while small towns/rural America has become less safe, over time, to meet in the middle.
I will also acknowledge that we may be talking apples and oranges. Since the origin of the thread was a video of an accidental discharge that almost caused injury, I’m looking at all-cause firearm deaths. You’ve focused on homicide, and your points may be valid for that. But I don’t think that’s the whole picture.
Yes.
CDC - 2014
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,599
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5
There are two aspects of suicide, and firearm suicide to consider:
The majority of suicide attempts are spontaneous and transitory.
-You cite the example of people who go to a gun range, rent a gun, and attempt suicide. You are correct that the people who plan and execute a suicide attempt would probably not be hindered by a secured firearm. However, that is a small percentage of the suicide attempts in the United States. The majority are unplanned, and the most likely things to successfully prevent a suicide attempt, once decided, from succeeding are, 1. interaction with another person, 2. interruption (in process, such as difficulty opening a pill bottle), 3. time. Most suicide attempts are abandoned after 5 minutes.
Suicide attempts by firearm are by far the most likely to end in death, and do so faster than other means.
What I’m proposing is that the logistical and methodical interruption of removing a firearm from a safe would dramatically decrease the firearm suicide rate.
Yes, all of the above, especially funding mental healthcare and changing the perception of mental illness in the US. But also taking reasonable steps to reduce the constant, immediate availability of a firearm is part of the solution. It’s not either-or.
Yes, the CDC was doing epidemiological research, and their findings pointed to firearm proliferation in the US associated with increased firearm fatalities and injuries. They came to the (logical) conclusion that reducing proliferation would reduce the increase. The law does specifically ban the CDC and NIH (or any part of the DHHS) from doing research on firearm deaths or injuries. They depend upon (as you pointed out) flawed sources of data instead of original, statistically-powered research, without which we can’t even establish correlation much less causation.
You can contend that, but building it into statistics to back a pro-gun agenda makes those statistics dodgy, at best.
The point is this: it is disingenuous in a population study to say, “look at the 79.5 M responsible gun owners who do zero harm vs. the 0.5 M criminals who do 100% of the harm” when some of the latter group weren’t in that group until they committed gun violence, and some of the former group will join them later once they commit gun violence. That’s the NRA’s public position. In reality, there are some criminals who have done harm with guns, there are some criminals who have not done harm with guns. There are “responsible gun owners” who have done harm with guns and there are responsible gun owners who have not done harm with guns. There are even former criminals who have not done harm with guns. What I’m saying is that it obfuscates meaningful analysis of gun violence and other forms of harm to use a “no true Scotsman” argument around classification of “responsible gun owners” and “criminals.”
Actually, quite the opposite. I think that classifying people into buckets of “OK to have a gun” and “not OK to have a gun” dehumanizes everyone. I’d rather work in solution-space than throw labels around. For instance, the firearm instructor in the video; he needs some re-training on firearm safety before he gets his gun(s) back, wouldn’t you agree? Or would it have taken the accidental discharge into the face of one of his students before you’d go that far?
Seriously? I’m not talking about perception. I’m talking about the specific part of the pyramid that is satisfied in reality by firearm ownership.
Physiological: OK, for a very, very tiny fragment of US gun owners, the firearm is used as a tool for subsistence. Moving on to the other 79.999 M…
Safety: Debunked, if you look at the statistics. Again, a very small percentage can reasonably claim that their safety or their family’s is enhanced by firearm ownership due to a specific, credible threat. As a population, demonstratably, having a firearm in your home increases the safety risk to everyone who lives there. Moving on to the other 79.998 M…
Social: Maybe we’re finally getting somewhere, now. Guns and Coffee. Hunting buddies. Marksmanship competitions. The biathalon. A social benefit to a significant portion of the population. Recognizing firearm ownership as a social benefit, though, opens up the balancing discussion of social harm. It is that dialog that the NRA works very hard to suppress. “You can pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers” doesn’t leave much room for a debate of benefit/risk balancing.
So it’s way up at Esteem? You’re right, that aspect needs to be approached from the other end of the problem. So then, why the vehement opposition to any and all regulation? That’s what I have trouble understanding. And why not approach it from both ends? They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’m trying to jump back so I can focus on work that pays bills, but this is it for me as well.
Personal Freedom as it pertains to
Inherent Right of Self Defense
Property Rights
Technological Freedom
I do understand the counter argument which I believe is mostly based on: Utilitarian harm reduction Good of society being separate and distinct from individual freedom
And those differences are personal value judgments, which is why the points of view are usually firmly entrenched and often only move when some one experiences a personally perspective shifting event such as themselves or someone close to them being involved in a tragic event, which causes people from either side to jump to the other depending on the circumstances.
Also, the above qualities aren’t necessarily going to absolutely correlate with your conservative/liberal democrat/republican axis, they do to a certain extent, but both parties embrace the above qualities, but sometimes with different applications for different subject areas. (war on drugs, privacy, abortion, guns…)
First off, I understand the dislike for the law passed in the 90s about the CDC. But honestly, using that very specific law and blaming the NRA as the reason we don’t have great data is really like saying you can’t change the channel because the remote is out of reach.
The CDC STILL does gun death stats. Still does accident stats. So does the FBI. But even the FBI who has no restrictions doesn’t do a lot of details in stats. I am sure there are other government agencies who track it to a degree. Nothing is stopping any other government agency from stat gathering. Nothing is stopping 3rd party groups. City and states have even BETTER stats, as my example above showed. There are even more like that out there, they are just a PITA to find. Like I said, I should make a link list someday. But as an other example, we have no real idea how many cops kill people per year.
But again, I am confused as to your point about the “no true Scotsman”. You sort of make a clearer point below, but I still don’t quite get what you’re after here.
Ok, so it sounds like you are asking for degrees of punishment for infractions. Such as a suspension of rights. Similar to how one can lose their drivers license for DUIs or reckless driving.
Hmmm. Actually that sounds reasonable. There are a few things that do currently get rights suspended, mainly domestic abuse and restraining orders, as far as NICS checks go. Other than that it usually requires a felony conviction, and then it is more or less forever unless you can get a judge to reinstate your rights. I am sure there are currently consequences of a negligent discharge somewhere OTHER than the range, as well as say leaving your firearm somewhere. (Probably varies wildly on the local and what law enforcement wants to do.) Though probably more like fines or community service.
So say reckless use that involves property damage or injury would result in month(s) long suspension of use outside the home and court ordered training course to reinstate? I guess I can’t find anything wrong with something like that. Putting other people in danger, whether it be with your firearm or car should have some consequences. That may help reduced the accident rate.
Except for the chilling effect of what the NRA did to the CDC. Start annoying the NRA, and they will use their disproportionate political power to shut you down.
You have asserted before that almost all gun homicides are done by criminals. You cite statistics from the NRA. When I dig into the statistics the NRA uses, I see some major flaws, such as classifying a firearm homicide by someone who gets their weapon from someone else who acquired it legally, who had no prior criminal background, as having been committed by a “criminal.” I see that kind of statistic as being manipulated to fit the narrative rather than informing it.
OH if only they were THAT powerful. I wish to remind you of the climate of the time, which included the pass of the Brady Bill, the pointless assault rifle ban, executive orders restricting some imports, and later a pretty shady deal with Smith and Wesson. AND the leaders of the CDC made open statements showing a bias, some of them wanting to frame guns as a public health menace like what happened to smoking. So given all of that, I think even if one disagrees with it, one can at least appreciate WHY they pushed for it. And again, that law only restricts one specific thing, “to advocate or promote gun control.” They can and still do all sorts of data gathering on gun deaths and injuries.
And I know I got the snarky derp image before, but you’re telling me you can’t imagine the Trump administration using a government office to push a narrative you disagree with?
To clarify, that is what most murders in the large city data show. At least the ones I have read, and I doubt that would change in any other large area. Combined with the arrests records of both victim and murderer, and how the violence is mostly localized in certain district, I believe it shows that MOST of the violence is carried out by a small niche group. That isn’t to say they are responsible for ALL murders. One only has to watch 48 Hours or some other docudrama to learn of some guy who killed his wife on a camping trip, or of course the headline grabbing serial killer found (like the BTK killer), or a mass shooting. Domestic abuse situations are also one of the more significant reasons for murders (also usually called out in those statistics). Nor does am I attempting to completely ignore murders in more rural areas. Such as the KKK guy who was just killed and dumped. Murders happen in the sticks as well. But by shear volume, if we want to address gun violence, I think we should focus mostly on where the most damage is. ie, stop my cut off arm from bleeding out, and then we can look at that ugly mole that might be cancer later.
So when I use the term criminal, it would be people who appear to be mixed up in crime in general. Theft, fraud, drugs, assault and robbery, etc. Yes people who have lead other wise normal lives do sometimes commit crimes (ranging from theft to murder), but I contend the worst of the violence is in areas where there are groups of people engaged in these illicit actives on a regular basis and who are more likely to end up killing someone or getting killed. I am not sure why that idea is controversial.
And numbers wise, that is where the worst crime and death is, that is where I think we should be concentrating on efforts for change. I can’t remember if the Milwaukee numbers showed the economic break down, but other reports have, and it squarely shows the worst crime correlates with the poorest areas. Combine that with our hundreds of years of oppression, our separate but equal laws that failed, visible and invisible racial bias, our laws enforced unequally, the “war on drugs”, the much higher conviction rate of minorities (making what may be a one time mistake into a life time of less opportunity), etc etc and I think it is pretty clear this mess is largely a mess we, society, created. Which I guess is a good thing, because that means we can fix it.
One other quick note: One theory for the rather dramatic lowering of violent crime, murder included, since the 90s was our reduction of lead in the environment. I wonder if this too is one reason contributing to the violence in poor areas. Wouldn’t these houses more likely have old sources of lead still around from paint to pipes or pipe solder? Possible soil contamination too? This is just a pet theory of mine, but it wouldn’t surprise me if lead in old, poorer ares isn’t a contributor.
Actually no I haven’t, I don’t believe. I never cite them for the very reason no one in a discussion such as this would trust anything they posted. I try to keep my numbers from official sources, ironically including the CDC.
