Surrounded by Treasures: Reply to a post at Maria's place

« three things | Main | A Thursday Not-Thirteen Pity Party »

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Reply to a post at Maria's place

Well, you know, it's been a long time since I had a lot of activity here; might as well stir up some controversy, no?

Maria wrote a post about firearms ownership as it relates to the terribly tragic Virginia Tech shootings yesterday:

Warning: Unpopular opinions ahead. Proceed with caution.

I'd heard rumors of the VT shooting before I left for work this morning, but didn't have time to really look into what had happened until I was at work and was able to read the different news stories that you linked to. Thank you for the links. What a horrible, horrible tragedy. I felt like crying when reading what had happened. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to sit in one of those classrooms and see your classmates be shot down around you.

I think the worst thing was that he didn't just shoot to shoot - he shot to kill. He locked the doors so people couldn't escape, and made sure to shoot people not just once, but two or three times each. For some reason he'd just clicked.

Horrible!

And this is one of the reasons why I am SO glad that Denmark doesn't have as liberal a weapon law as the US does. In Denmark you can only buy firearms if you can prove that you have a reason for needing it - e.g. if you're a hunter, member of a shooting club or something similar. I know people who own riffles for hunting, but nobody who owns a gun. Not even police officers are allowed to carry guns when not on duty.

The US weapon law is one of the reasons why I would never move there.

I know that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people!" All very true, but 'people who kill people' might have a harder time doing so, if they didn't have a gun readily available. There would be fewer passion crimes if the murderer didn't already have the weapon in his/her house, ready for use. It wouldn't stop shootings - obviously not, as some people will ALWAYS know how to get hold of firearms illegally - but my opinion is that it would limit them.

In Denmark there hasn't been a single shooting at schools. Not. A. Single. One. Metal detectors at schools? Unheard of.

In the US 30,000 people are killed by gun wounds every year.

I think those numbers say it all really.

(If this post came across as horribly condescending then I'm really sorry. It wasn't my intention to sound all "Nya-nya, Denmark rules and US sucks", because I KNOW we have our problems as well. I just wish more people would realize what a bad idea such an unrestricted weapon law is, and act accordingly. *sigh*)

I wrote a comment, but then I discovered that LiveJournal has a 4360-character limit for its comments space. Who'd have thought? ;-) So I'm posting my comment here. Never say I'm not a brave individual.

I want to make clear that I have no intention of making light of the shootings at Virginia Tech AT ALL. What a terrible, sad day. Also, I may as well copy Maria's disclaimer: Unpopular opinions follow. Proceed with caution.

A few points to consider:

EDITED TO ADD point zero, after some research:

0) That 30,000 figure is not precisely accurate for the purpose intended, in that fewer than half of those deaths were homicides. In 2001, for example, there were in fact around 30,000 gun deaths, but nearly 17,000 of those were suicides (the vast majority of which, in all likelihood, would have happened regardless of the availability of firearms). Only 11,348 were homicides, and that figure likely includes gang violence.

1) The population of the US absolutely dwarfs the population of Denmark (or pretty much any European country, or Canada. The population of Canada, for example, lives in California. The population of Denmark lives in Maryland. The population of the U.S. is roughly sixty times that of Denmark. Those 30,000 gun deaths (see point zero above) represent less than one hundredth of one percent of the US population; a similar extrapolation on the population of Denmark would be 500 deaths. Not that you have 500 gun deaths, necessarily, just to show the difference in scale. According to a San Diego State University study on comparative criminology, the murder rate in 2000 was 4.03 for Denmark and 5.51 for USA. Yes, the US is higher, but it's not exactly the huge difference you might expect.

2) That population is a mish-mash of people from around the world, with widely different ideas about life and what is important and what is OK. This makes for more conflict than you see in more homogenized (yes, I realize European countries are becoming less so, but not to the degree that the US has been basically since its inception) nations, where (in Denmark, for example) 84% of people share not only the same religion but even the same denomination.

3) The U.S. has a gang problem. Not saying that this guy was from a gang; it's likely he was just a guy who cracked and decided to take a bunch of people with him when he went. But the gang problem elevates our gun crime numbers, and these are people who would have guns no matter what laws you made against them.

3) Law-abiding people who own firearms (btw, you have a rare language mistake there. Rifles are guns, although firearms is a more general term; I think you mean 'handguns' when you say guns) use them to prevent crime at a rate higher than that at which guns are used to commit crime. But those stories don't even make the local news in large cities, let alone the international news. If, for example, my husband or a person like him, with his legally-possessed handgun and his frequent and careful firearms training, had been legally carrying it in that school building (unless the school has a specific anti-firearms policy, which, um, really worked, didn't it), the shooting spree would have likely ended a lot sooner. And that's just this example. The number of home invasions, rapes, assaults, etc that are prevented by trained citizens owning and carrying their own firearms is not quantified in gun crime statistics (especially in the most frequent cases, in which the defensive weapon is not even fired), but it should be, to present a more balanced view. No, I do not want legislation to take away my right to be able to protect myself and my family by a means that can, if properly used, equal the force that may be used against us.

4) In nations like Australia, where there have been relatively recent laws banning ownership of firearms, the crime rate (gun crime rate included) has gone up. The guesswork is taken out of it for the criminals; there's much less fear on the criminals' part of encountering a person on the other side of that door who can defend himself and his possessions. In states where gun laws are made less restrictive, the crime rate goes down (Arizona, for example, is still experiencing a very interesting downward spike in violent crime rates beginning in the mid-90's when their carrying regulations were made drastically less restrictive).

5) Out of curiosity, what's the crime rate like in Switzerland, where every male of legal age owns a firearm and is trained to use it, and everyone knows it? (edited to add: I just found a very interesting article on this very subject.)

6) You make light of "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but 'like all bromides, it's absolutely true' (never thought I'd quote LMM in a firearms-rights debate). A firearm is a tool. Sometimes that tool is used in crimes. Crimes are already banned, so the point of banning the tool that is sometimes used in them is a bit lost, especially when it's only the law-abiding who would turn in their guns, leaving a HUGE number of firearms still at large and in the hands of, well, the non-law-abiding, by definition.

7) Furthermore, to get into the Constitutional aspect of 'banning' guns: the Constitution of the US, written by men whose personally-owned firearms had, less than a generation previously, won them their independence, contains explicit protection for ownership of arms by "the people" (not "the states" or "the militia"). Reading the founders' writings, you see that they included this protection not for hunting or even for self-protection, but as a protection against tyranny. Not that the American public has the fortitude to use them in such a way nowadays, and not that the anti-gun lobby cares about what the founders intended, but it's an important point.

Maria, I used to hold your position. I used to say that if banning guns would save ONE LIFE, wouldn't that ONE LIFE be worth it? But this position doesn't make logical sense, because of the lives that are saved by firearms.

Posted by Rachel on April 17, 2007 10:39 AM in politics

Comments

I appreciate your careful dissection of the statistics. (I took isue with Maria's comparison as well.) One problem I have with the whole argument is that I don't think it's as simple as guns or no guns. We own a gun ourselves; it's not for protection but because my husband's grandfather is a master gunsmith and my husband wanted a gun made by him. It's kept unloaded and will probably only ever be used for target shooting. Sure it's a deadly weapon, but to me that particular gun symbolizes love, not hate. I also know people who hunt responsibly, which to me means eating what they kill. I find hanging tophies on the wall abhorrent personally, but I'm pretty sure a deer killed by a hunter has a better life up until that point than your average animal raised for meat. So I'm not entirely anti-gun.

Also, I can read. And I have read the Second Amendment, and I understand what it says.

But. But, fully automatic assault rifles didn't exist when the Framers wrote the Constitution. I have not yet seen any reason convincing me there's any reason to own one other than being able to kill lots of people very quickly. We do change the Constitution to deal with situations that the Framers didn't or couldn't anticipate (the idea of women as fully responsible members of the boy politic, for one) and I think this might be oe of those cases. And yes, I do realize that a ban on automatic or even semi-automatic weapons wouldn't have changed the situation in Virginia one bit. It might have changed the one in TX in 1960-whatever, though.

Posted by: dichroic at April 17, 2007 12:17 PM

Let's see how long a comment typekey will allow me to enter ;)

Only 11,348 were homicides, and that figure likely includes gang violence.
Point well taken. I saw the figure in a newspaper article about the VT shooting, and just assumed that this was merely homicides.

Those 30,000 gun deaths (see point zero above) represent less than one hundredth of one percent of the US population;
I was actually going to comment on this in my post, but forgot it again. I know that one should never compare absolute numbers, but rather percentages. I still think it's about 30,000 gun deaths too many, but that's just a stand-alone statement, and not intended to be compared to Denmark. But then I *know* you agree with me there ;-)

2) That population is a mish-mash of people from around the world, with widely different ideas about life and what is important and what is OK.
I understand the point you want to make, but I think this is a cop-out as I don't know of any culture at all where shooting people is OK.

Oh, and as a complete aside, Denmark has a state church which all Danes who can't be bothered to opt out of are automatically members of. It's probably true that 84% of all Danes belong to this church, but only about 1-2% actually practice it.

Thank you for the correction :-) I did indeed mean handguns. I thought handguns=guns and guns+rifles+other shooting things=firearms.

3) Law-abiding people who own firearms use them to prevent crime at a rate higher than that at which guns are used to commit crime. But those stories don't even make the local news in large cities, let alone the international news.
You're right. I don't think I've ever heard stories like that... Interesting...

6) You make light of "guns don't kill people, people kill people",
I apologize, I didn't mean to sound as if I made light of it. I only mentioned it because I know it's a typical argument for this debate, and I don't agree with it being an argument for either side. Of course guns don't kill people, and they may be used for good as well as for evil. I just think a lot of crimes of passion (i.e. not commited by gangs etc.) could be avoided if the person who cracked didn't have easy access to a gun once he cracked.

7) Furthermore, to get into the Constitutional aspect of 'banning' guns:
Not living in the US I don't understand the Constitution. Or rather... the 'sacrity' (sorry, I have NO clue what the proper word would be) of it. Sure, we have a constitution in Denmark as well, but if we decide that it's grown out of date - we change it! Naturally this is a lengthy process and takes not one but two votes to do, but it is done occasionally. Hasn't happened yet in my life-time, but it did in my parents'. So I'm sorry, but I disagree with you that what the founders' intended is all that important so many years later. However, this is only my (very) humble opinion obviously :)

I really appreciate you taking the time to type this out for me - even if we do disagree :-)

Posted by: Maria at April 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Maria, I never meant the comment about the different cultures that come together in the US to mean that shooting people was OK. Of course it's not. That comment was originally part of a discussion on crime rates in general -- and I do think it's part of the reason we have more crime than other nations -- but that discussion got chopped up and moved around and that comment got left on its own, where it didn't make as much sense. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Rachel at April 17, 2007 12:27 PM

Ah, that DOES make a lot more sense, and I completely agree that the mish-mash is probably one of the reasons for the higher crime rate. Thanks for clearing it up for me :-)

Posted by: Maria at April 17, 2007 12:29 PM

I wanted to add that we also amend our Constitution. It's happened twenty-seven times, including the original ten amendments passed just after the ratification of the Constitution. The last time was in 1992. The fact is, though, that there would never be enough support for an amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, which is the one that concerns firearms. Maybe after a couple more generations of old-school, fiercely independent Americans have died off, leaving Generation Y and its apathy in charge... who knows. I hope not.

Posted by: Rachel at April 17, 2007 12:33 PM

Thanks for the post, Rachel!
The bit about Switzerland surprises me, so I'll have to go read that article, once I'm more fully awake...

Posted by: Michael at April 18, 2007 04:15 AM

Maria's place.
The U.S. weapon laws is one of the reasons why I would never move there?
It must be nice to live a life of fantasy in Denmark. Where do you think Denmark would
be today if the U.S. and "its weapon laws" had not come running to Denmark's aid back in WW2?
Yes good old Germany invaded your little "weapon's free Denmark" and you didn't have a single weapon
to resist him with, did you? Do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that you make
sure that you don't have any weapon's around, just to keep yourself safe?
You don't seem to understand what you are saying. If another Hitler came to power today and invaded
Denmark, Denmark would DEPEND on the U.S. or someone else, to shed its peoples blood to defend you.
There are no free lunches when it comes to being responsible for your own. Denmark is attempting to
obtain a "free lunch" by obtaining the benefits of banning weapons while forcing the rest of the world to
defend it if someone try's to invade Denmark.

Things did not just happen by chance back on April 9, 1940, in Operation Weserübung. Denmark did
not resist Germany's invasion because it had nothing to resist Germany with. Denmark could not fight back
because it had spent years living the fantasy of thinking, Oh, we will just couldn't live in a place which
had actual weapon! Where people are actually allowed to defend themselves....
Hitler would never have stood a chance of invading the U.S. because everyone of his people would
have been picked off on every street corner in the U.S.A. Yes the U.S.A. has a lot of weapons and it may pay a heavy price for having those weapons but no foreign power stands a prayer of taking over the U.S.A. without substantial resistance. Someone has to take care of you people when you
get yourselves into trouble, so you had better say God Bless America.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 18, 2007 12:36 PM

Wow, that anonymous commenter sounds a little bitter. This wasn't even about me, yet I felt a little berated by it. I just want to say (And don't post this comment if you don't want) that perhaps taking a deep breath before commenting could prevent hurting one's feelings. I speak from experience ;-)

This was a great conversation to read. I came away with some knowledge I didn't have before. I only have one thing to say...With or without guns people would be killing each other. That guy could have walked into that school with a Dadao, locked the doors and started chopping people's heads off. He may not have killed as many in such a short time but he still would have killed.

I do agree with the idea that machine guns are lame. I mean, for civilians - it just seems excessive.

I miss you dear friend. I hope all is well with you.

One more thing...God bless the whole world. He loves us all equally as far as I know.

Posted by: jenn at April 18, 2007 07:56 PM

Anonymous: Perhaps your comments would be less painful to read if you learned some grammar and some history. It's notable that Rachel and Maria have a fundamental disagreement on this issue, where neither is likely to change the other's view and they know it - yet they can read and learn from each other's opinions because they each have both of those, plus a mutual respect. Yes, Denmark was overrun by Germany in WWII, but a bit more knowledge of history would teach you about some of the extraordinary bravery shown by many Danes during that occupation. (Lois Lowry's "Number the Stars" is one fictional story that accurately reflects an aspect of this, if you want somewhere to start.)

Also, given the part where Denmark had about 1/18 the population of Germany (I looked it up: 3.8M vs 69M) do you really think the lack of a ban on private ownership of guns would have made a difference? The military should certainly have been better prepared (in hindsight), but that would only have slowed the invasion. After all, Germany took only a few weeks to roll over the Polish military.

I will note that while I do think it's an important debate, I do not think that either more gun control *or* less gun control would have helped against the psychopath at VA Tech.

Posted by: dichroic at April 19, 2007 12:43 AM

I don't know if the anonymous commenter will ever be back, but if you're reading this, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, maybe giving your name would at least show that you have the courage of your convictions. Further than that I don't need to go, since dichroic and Jenn handled their response to your comment so well. (I too love Number The Stars.)

Jenn, I miss you too. I am totally calling you today.

Posted by: Rachel at April 19, 2007 09:22 AM

Prix Officiel Cialis France

Posted by: Viagra at August 26, 2021 11:55 PM

Amoxil Dose Calculator

Posted by: finasteride buy online at August 29, 2021 07:03 PM

Viagra

Posted by: Evisestat at August 31, 2021 12:55 AM

Confido

Posted by: Cialis at August 31, 2021 06:25 PM

http://buypropeciaon.com/ - Propecia

Posted by: Hypsums at September 4, 2021 09:45 PM