Murdered Over Dog Crap? - The Daily Beast:
When gun proponents talk about "defensive gun use," they invite us to imagine confrontations where one party is wholly blameless and the other party is murderously aggressive. Gayle Trotter conjured up just such a scenario in her imaginative testimony to Congress: mother alone at home with her babies; three or four or five bad men break into the house; what can she do other than mow them down with her AR-15? In real life, however, defensive gun use typically originates in confrontations to which both parties contributed - and in which the difference between aggressor and self-defender depends largely on the story told by the party who happens to survive.
Unless you run a home meth lab, you are exceedingly unlikely to face a home invasion by armed intruders. In order to defend against wildly remote contingencies, Americans are instead arming themselves to turn disputes over dog crap into lethal duels.
18 comments:
I'm not trying to play Steve here (and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong), but I think the last statement goes too far in that it suggests gun owners WANT disputes to be lethal. I think it would be more accurate to say that many feel having access to deadly force will protect their personal safety when a dispute occurs. I strongly disagree with this philosophy, but I think it is closer to the truth for the (probably vast) majority of gun owners.
My response to you or Steve would be that I certainly don't think that responsible gun owners are that way. But the gun culture I see, and I think Frum also sees, is one that doesn't discriminate between hothead irresponsible person and careful and sober person when it comes to guns. They both have the right to a gun, and by God they should have one.
I also think that what many are saying is that the threat of home invasion is vastly overstated, but is much of the justification.
My struggle with so many gun rights people (not here, btw) is that they either are convinced they will be killed in their home by a burglar if they don't have an AK, or that they will have to go into a Red Dawn type resistance against their own government at any point. I don't think either of those is terribly rational--doesn't mean they don't happen, but they aren't likely. Yet that those unlikely scenarios drive this debate.
Streak: I agree that the threat of home invasion is frequently overstated, and I understand you are not commenting upon individuals but on the rhetoric that is coming from those who comment on gun control laws and/or gun culture.
I wonder if part of the disconnect that is evident here (and probably in other places) at times is due to whether the term "gun culture" is meant to refer to the "collective of gun owners", to "organizations who speak out against gun control" or to "individuals who talk about guns in public or in the press." I think you've made it clear that most of your commentary is aimed at the 2nd and 3rd groups (with the understanding that none of those groups are mutually exclusive), and even then there has been some...ahem...lively discussion. But I think comments such as the one you quoted above often appear to paint the 1st group with the same brush, which is where I think hackles really go up.
Jay, I think that is absolutely correct. I have struggled myself with the use of the term "gun culture" and can see very much how that is confusing. Perhaps I need to think of another way to talk about it.
As far as I know, there has never been any major effort to study DGUs (defensive gun uses) by categorizing how much either party was to blame. They usually just say it is defensive if the person was never charged or found not guilty.
I disagree with the notion that a "typical" DGU starts off as an altercation between two parties that are equal and the person that lives is deemed the innocent one. There is just not any evidence to support that this is happening with any frequency.
Several things to consider. There have been studies that suggest some 80-90% of all DGUs don't even involve shots being fired. The vast majority of people shot, especially ones shot by handguns, survive to tell their side of the story.
Another thing to consider is that in most states, if you somehow contribute to being in the situation where you used a firearm, you may be in trouble. I know an attorney that lost one of his only criminal cases when his client made some poor choices and hurt his self-defense claim.
I know that criminals are more likely to also be victims of crime, but this doesn't change the fact that most victims are innocent. Ironically, gun-rights people use the same argument when looking at crime stats. Anti-gun people will use the high death toll as a reason for gun control and the other side will point out that some of those victims were gang-bangers and won't be deterred by gun laws.
I don't believe that the gun culture wants sociopaths to have guns, but I just don't see an easy way to take them away until they have demonstrated some level of dangerousness.
From my perspective, the fact that someone may get in trouble later for shooting someone or provoking a situation doesn't make me feel better. We are simply suggesting that this encouragement to have a gun, regardless of your maturity, sanity, anger issues, etc. is irresponsible. How to address that is a legitimate question, but the NRA can stop romanticizing the single person with a gun.
Responsible gun owners can stop romanticizing that and also the idea that everyone needs an AK to stop a home invasion or to repel the government. That would be a nice start.
From my perspective, the fact that someone may get in trouble later for shooting someone or provoking a situation doesn't make me feel better. We are simply suggesting that this encouragement to have a gun, regardless of your maturity, sanity, anger issues, etc. is irresponsible. How to address that is a legitimate question, but the NRA can stop romanticizing the single person with a gun.
Responsible gun owners can stop romanticizing that and also the idea that everyone needs an AK to stop a home invasion or to repel the government. That would be a nice start.
They will probably stop doing that when people, like Frum, stop vilifying people with guns by suggesting that they just want to shoot people over crap.
What do you think the NRA should be doing. Gun owners outnumber hunters like 10 to 1, so sucking up to them exclusively, is not smart. They certainly shouldn't romanticize idiots, criminals, and kooks, but self-defense, though rare, seems to be a legitimate use.
Yes. There we are. Those of us who fear gun violence are the problem. Gun owners have no responsibility here. Nicely done, Steve.
I never said anyone was the problem. I only offered a possible reason as to why the NRA felt the need to provide examples of people using firearms in self defense.
You kind of did. It is people like Frum and myself who are badmouthing good gun owners. I can't speak for Frum, but I have tried very hard to differentiate.
And seriously. Everytime you defend the NRA you look like one of those goobers on Fox defending Todd Akin. The fact that you don't see the difference is the problem. Check with your keg friends other than me. See if I am the only outlier. I know Tony has some of the same frustrations.
When I mean "people like Frum," I mean people in the media, not people that have a negative opinion. The first group has a lot more influence and is seeking to sway opinions.
Every time some nutcase shoots his neighbor or has a gun go off, you tie this in to the NRA, as if they attended some NRA "how to shoot your neighbor and have negligent dischanrges...10 easy steps" class. Do you really think you are being rational and logical?
As for the ATKers, I know a fair number of them personally, so I know how they feel.
Jay made a good point that it isn't clear when we talk about the gun culture who we reference. I get that. I am unsure how to talk about the irresponsible people that makes you happy. Nothing I do works, evidently, because you clearly don't get what I am talking about.
These nutjobs don't have to join the NRA for them to be topical. What you don't get is that the NRA promotes this idea--that the individual has a right to a gun no matter how irresponsible or irrational or hotheaded or whatever. They don't distinguish. They don't talk about responsibility. They just reference those who have guns legally. They, and you, take no responsibility when those people are arrested for using their guns--at that point, you have decided that they are automatically out of the club. They are arrested and now are criminals.
But my point is that the NRA encourages this sentiment--that defensive gun use is a good thing, and always a good thing. They encourage the idea that anyone who feels afraid or concerned should buy a gun. I have explained all of that to you before.
Yet you continue to conflate my discussion above with any law-abiding and responsible person who would never shoot someone over a ridiculous conflict. Clearly you don't understand.
The NRA doesn't talk about responsibility? You are delusional if you believe this. They constantly preach safety and responsibility. Seriously?
If you want to talk about irresponsible gun owners, that is fine, but please be honest. You think that "Americans are instead arming themselves to turn disputes over dog crap into lethal duels."
Can you point me to one thing that the NRA opposes that would improve responsibility?
Like I said, Steve, you are a rational person on most topics. On this one, you have not heard me much at all. You certainly don't understand my point. And to be honest, you don't really understand what the NRA is doing outside your experience. I have said some of this so many times that I wonder why I repeat myself--but I know that the NRA has been involved in training and safety. That was my own experience with them growing up.
But what you don't acknowledge is that they flog much of the paranoia that leads people to buy guns when they don't necessarily need them. They encourage the deep distrust of the government--in fact, they ride that pony as hard as they can. They repeat the idea that people at home are going to be killed in a home invasion if they don't have an AK to defend themselves.
These are not rational fears. They sell a lot of guns, but they are not rational fears.
I posted another one on this topic, but would note that I really do understand that the NRA is more than LaPierre. But he is the one robocalling me about the UN. He is the one on TV saying that Obama wants to take away all guns. He is the one saying that Obama is a hypocrite for protecting his kids with Secret Service protection. He is the one denouncing any efforts at gun regulation with the lame, "the criminals will get theirs anyway." If we applied that to other issues, we would have no laws on the books. Why bother?
My sense is that Steve and others dismiss LaPierre's public rantings as politica gamesmanship. But they don't dismiss Feinstein's statements that way. No, those are real threats. It isn't a level playing field here.
As a result, the responsible people have decided to let the NRA speak for them.
This is a good example of the kind of rhetoric that is not helpful for us as a people. If there is a natural disaster, conservatives are saying, we, as a community won't help you, you have to help yourself with a gun. If you are in a classroom somewhere, we won't help you. You have to shoot someone. If you are on a streetcorner, postal facility, mall, etc.--conservatives are not going to help you. You have to be armed.
Please don't tell me this is rational nor interested in the public good. And for the love of Christ, please don't attack Robinson because you don't like his column. Keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum. Yes, he is a pundit, and yes, he is pro-gun control. I posted this just for the source of where I read the quote.
Eugene Robinson: The NRA’s tone-deaf, uncompromising rhetoric - The Washington Post: In Senate hearings last week, LaPierre portrayed life in the United States as one long horror movie. “What people all over the country fear today is being abandoned by their government,” he said. “If a tornado hits, if a hurricane hits, if a riot occurs, that they’re going to be out there alone, and the only way they’re going to protect themselves, in the cold, in the dark, when they’re vulnerable, is with a firearm.”
Post a Comment