Sunday, December 16, 2012

Random thoughts on a school shooting

Since Adam Lanza shot 27 people in a Connecticut school, I've been having a number of conversations over the last several days, primarily on Facebook and in what we laughingly call "real life." (I have yet to work up the interest in trolling right-wing blogs, though. Not sure why - perhaps the open futility of logic in this case.)

It's surprising how often I've been hearing the same tropes, too.

You know, if one of those teachers had owned a gun, none of this would have happened!
Actually, one of them owned several guns. Her son used them to kill her, and 26 other people.

And in fact, if you review the data (and this analysis is slightly flawed, but data is data), of the 17 mass shootings he analyzed, 11 were, in fact, stopped by civilians. But only in one of them was the shooter gunned down by someone carrying a weapon (one other was wounded by a civilian with a firearm, but he escaped, and later shot himself). The most common endings for these situations is a gunman shooting himself, or getting tackled by unarmed civilians; police killing the gunman actually came in third.

In fact, the most common ending for armed civilians entering the fray? Increased confusion, more collateral damage, and more wounded bystanders. So, once again, the "conventional wisdom" turns out to be completely inaccurate.

Students were killed because liberals ended prayer in school!
Or any of a thousand variations on a theme. Really, there's only one answer to statements like that.
(On a side note and something of a non sequiter, Westboro Baptist Church announced their intention to picket the funerals of the children. And within hours, the hacker group Anonymous released the contact information of many of the more public members, so you can contact them and tell them how you feel. Just thought I'd mention.)

There've been a few new tropes of late, though. I had the following exchange after tossing out a simple picture like this:

Guy: I would only point out that they should be focusing on the societal issues that causes this piece of dirt to think this was a viable option.

Me: And one of the societal issues? The easy availability of guns. How is it that every other 1st world country can handle this problem but us? Why are we down with the 3rd world countries in per capita gun deaths?

Girl: It's been said many times before: guns don't kill people, crazy idiots with guns kill people

Me: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. By throwing bullets at each other.

Still me: 27 children. Dead. I'm just saying.

Guy: Lol at your wikipedia reference. it would be a little more believable if the dates the data was cherry picked from matched and if the US didn't have three years of data to every others one year (exception being Argentina)

Still the guy: and yes 27 people killed is a horrible tragedy. Maybe we should spend some time grieving first and then discussing why it happened at a more appropriate time.

Me: Huh. Interesting theory. Ignoring your wish to get all the data from a source that doesn't exist, there have been 4 mass shootings this year alone. There have been two a year for the last 3 decades. If we followed your advice and waited until an appropriate time, it's a discussion that would never happen. So, since we obviously need it, when do you suggest? And how many people need to die before we do?
Please note the two newest tropes on display up there:

We should take care of the societal issues that cause the problems, not the problems themselves.

and

Now is not the time to talk about this. There should be time to mourn. We should wait until emotions aren't running as high.

I believe Jon Stewart pointed out the problems with that last point.


So in the end, there are no new arguments. Just the same ones, louder.

12 comments:

  1. Nameless, I don't have the spirit to address your points with the attention that they merit. I can tell you that I find your thoughts rational and not at all random. I also love the use of the Jesus giving the finger image. I also agree that there are no new arguments and being louder isn't really of use.

    I still don't get why it's so important that Americans own as many guns of whatever type their heart desires. If people want to engage in target practice, why not darts or paint ball?

    Let people have guns, just confiscate all the ammo. Make live ammo difficult to get. Make gun owners have to present a plan for what they want ammo for and what they plan to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said it was important? Why is it important that we all need to have an identical set of needs or any need in fact, to make anything legal? Do I need to believe in some god to have freedom of religion? Do I need a reason to have freedom of speech? I can legally own a car that will do 100 over the limit anywhere in the US. Should I have it confiscated because 400 horsepower makes it easier to be a scofflaw -- make it easier to ram a school bus or run over a Sunday School picnic? Seriously?

      Please, recognize that people live in different kinds of places with different requirements. People make a living hunting alligators or feed their families with the family rifle. Ever live on a farm? Know someone who is stuck in a wheel chair in a trailer park that has a dozen home invasions in a year? I do. Why can't I shoot skeet on a nice weekend without justifying some sort of need and no, I can't throw pub darts at 2000 feet per second. Why should someone in Alaska or Montana not be allowed to carry protection against bears? What about some real figures about how many people are killed by cougars and Grizzlies and alligators. It's more than 27.

      And as to confiscating ammunition, I'll assume you're joking, because the logic level here is running a bit low.

      Delete
  2. One of the problems with the statement, "if everyone carried a gun..." is that normally in situations where everyone is shooting at everyone, you have to deal with additional bloodshed.

    At the recent shooting at the NYC Empire State where 2 died and 9 were wounded, all nine were wounded by bullets from the NYPD guns.

    We are to expect that if these teachers had guns, or if all citizens were armed their aim would be better than that of an NYPD police officer?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taospeaks speaks the truth here, but are we happy with the number of innocents the NYPD shoots every year and do we want to give them pepper spray and billy clubs to replace their Glocks? I don't even want to start in on the NOPD and all their murders. But hey, cops don't kill people, guns do.

      Delete
  3. Gunzloonz (not everyone who owns firearms) tirelessly quote "statistics*" such as, "300M guns, 100M gun owners,2.5M DGU**'s ands other numbers that they say prove that the number of criminal/negligent shootings are just a "drop in the bucket" and not evidence of a problem. They point to other countries that have considerably more restrictive laws than the U.S. on firearms use and possession where violent crime is much higher. They point to Japan which has, regrettably many thousands of suicides a year--by means other than shooting. They compare the numbers of persons killed by gunz with the numbers killed in motor vehicle accidents and say that there is equivalency and that we might as well outlaw cars as restrict their use of gunz. They say that people who commit suicide with gunz in this country would kill themselves by some other means if they didn't have the gunz. They accept the lies told by the NRA and people like John Lott as concrete fact.

    They use all of the numbers, make all of the arguments of equivalency and regurgitate the propaganda of the NRA and other organizations with a monetary interest in the proliferation of firearms for one reason; that reason is to "justify" the collecting, carrying, brandishing and shooting of their gunz.

    Many of their statistics are dubious, their equivalencies false and their paranoia about the gungrabberz, frankly, pathetic.

    If only they weren't so deadly in their armed and delusional millions.

    There's a number that they don't want to hear, today; that number is "27".



    * Numbers which they like, numbers which "sound good", without knowing where they come from of if they are genuine.

    ** Defensive Gun Use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They? Really? Are we putting words on someone's mouth by associating him with a category we created to make it possible to do such a thing. Accepting comfortable lies as correct is hardly the habit of only one group and that universal habit is feeding my general distaste with this entire discussion.

      Delete
  4. The strict constructionist wing of SCOTUS nullified the 'well-regulated militia' clause a few years back. That, of course, was the reason for the
    right to bear arms. Did they not negate the entire amendment by leaving no
    constitutional reason or justification for it? [not a lawyer]

    ReplyDelete
  5. BB,

    When the law gives a reason for assuming a right already exists and asserting that it shall not be infringed upon, it is not asserting, nor did the authors assert that the only reason it shall not be infringed was in order to facilitate a citizen militia. It would be a fallacy of the order of "We need x for this reason. That need no longer exists, therefore we no longer have a right to X." Was any syllogism ever more false?

    They didn't nullify the clause, they recognized that the the amendment did not begin with the word ONLY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I say, I'm no lawyer. But if I apply your syllogism to slavery v constition, it seems that slavery was recognized by the founders, there was a need according to cotton interests,etc. It took a civil war to straigten that out. As a retired ammunition scientist, I've been following along here and sense the all around frustrations. I will only submit that there are many, very many, legitimate gun owners from hunters to collectors. ...and there are some who simply should not possess them, but do. For some they are a toy that makes a little man big. For some, like me, they are an fascinating combination of chemistry, physics and engineering. I do not own one, never have and never will. I used to think I understood both sides of the issue, but it gets foggier and foggier. I someone, any one, can explain why kidnergartners end up with as many as 11 rounds of 1200 ft-lbs of shredding force in their tiny innocent bodies...please inform.

      Delete
  6. I just want to make this clear -- we should ignore factors that contribute to high crime levels and make cynical comments about anyone who does? I'm asking, you know because when liberals suggested we look at reasons for terrorist attacks and wanted to figure out why it happened, we were accused of being pansies and terrorist sympathizers and liberals which they said was the same thing. I mean it's always been described as "coddling the criminals" by the far right and I'm wondering if I didn't see the memo explaining why we are now correct in using the same kind of crap. Or did I stumble into the wrong forum?

    You know it's a pretty right wing notion, that "soft on crime" thing and we've long been accused of being less than masculine for being analytical and actually seeking to reduce crime rates rather than to ignore it and just punish people -- especially people who just might spontaneously go nuts and shoot up a school. And no, let's not talk about other countries -- who cares what foreigners do -- we're number one!

    And about gun control -- is it all of equal value? Is anything going to work if it's "gun control?" Do w have none at all right now or do we have a crazy pastiche of band aids passionately advocated by passionate liberals for 50 years that have done nothing whatsoever?

    I guess it's wrong to look at that analytically too when we could just pass more laws, snicker at "gun nuts," just assume everyone is a potential criminal or psycho and accept anything we can call "gun control" just because some citizens group without portfolio assures us it's gonna make everything all right.

    I'm getting a little fed up, which is my way of saying angry as hell about endless calls for things people refuse to define or discuss or justify while casting aspersions on other peoples logic and sanity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First of all, engaging the trolls on Facebook is a banal waste of time and it annoys the trolls. You'd have more success arguing with a garden gnome.

    And as for meaningful changes to our gun culture, here's a thought: As long as assault rifles are easier and cheaper to obtain than quality mental health care in this country, we'll continue to bury our kids and hide behind closed curtains... (probably clutching a firearm)

    There are more reasons for these tragedies than can be quickly summed up for generic tastes, so lashing out at one another with stereotypical slurs isn't helpful. But surely we can agree that something has to change? Are we to accept this as the new normal in America? Will it become so common we don't even react, at some point?

    "How many died? Only fifteen? Bah... what a piker!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They? Really? Are we putting words on someone's mouth by associating him with a category we created to make it possible to do such a thing?

      I am not creating any categories. The figures I cite are those that are parroted to me by people who are delusionally convinced that their RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment, to bear arms is irrevocable and unlimited and that their RIGHT to carry a gun wherever they go trumps my right, forever, to simply live in peace. I'm not making anything up. Your wording makes it sound very much like you are accusing me of lying. If you think I'm lying then just say so.

      "Accepting comfortable lies as correct is hardly the habit of only one group"

      Not only accepting them, but retelling them, repeatedly, even when they have been refuted by competent authority. Making false equivalencies about deaths cause by guns and deaths caused by motor vehicles is a favored meme in the ranks of gunzloonz nation.

      "and that universal habit is feeding my general distaste with this entire discussion"

      You're telling me this, immediately after telling me that I might have "created" a category so that I might be "putting words on someone's mouth". I'm sorta baffled.

      Please tell me what lies I've told here and I'll be happy to defend my comments or withdraw them.

      When you say that the problem is everything, except guns, then you are exhibiting a level of cognitive dissonance that is, just, wow.

      Delete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.