Original post made
on May 18, 2013
This story contains 143 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
We need to get guns off the streets.
Google 'gun fail' for stories of all the lives ruined by Americans who think guns make them safer. Dozens of deaths every week by gun accidents. Hundreds of children killed this year.
But as I stated, we need to get guns off the streets.
Even the die hard gun owners, the 'you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers' crowd, need to take better responsibility for getting guns off the streets.
Or shall we call them the 'You can have my gun when you pick it up off the street because I put it on top of my car, whoops! forgot about it, and then drove away' crowd?
A found gun was turned over to police, and for some reason they gave it back to the owner: "The owner of the gun, Huelon *****, was asked to verify the whereabouts of his weapon, and he reported his .38 revolver missing.
He told (the sheriff) his wife had placed the gun, in its case, on top of the car before driving off that day.
Both the gun and card were returned to Thrift."
Let's keep guns off the street!
How about we get the gang bangers that perpetrate these crimes off the street? Much more effective when you eliminate the people pulling the triggers than trying to eliminate the triggers themselves.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation - and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
This Darwin Award winner shot himself. Doh!
Major Caudell apparently doesn't understand facts - if you keep a gun in your house, it is far more likely to hurt you or a loved one than to ever be used for defense.
do you have something to back up that oft repeated peice of information?
"here, let me google that for you."
Gun fans, please cite YOUR peer reviewed research.
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Its not about guns. Its about these animals running around.
Yes, criminals are bad and we need to lock them up, as soon as we make room in one of the most crowded prison systems in the world, by releasing non-violent drug offenders. Let's break up the prison/industrial/political complex.
But the math is clear: if you keep a gun at home, it is far more likely to be used on you or someone you love.
Sleep well at night, @Animals.
Fred, thanks for the LMGTFY, the CDC also have similar studies and data. Then the NRA got their republican pets to shut down further gun studies involving, you know, guns and American health and stuff. Gun manufacturer lobby dollars at work!