Sunday, September 11, 2011

Putting 9/11 And Gun-Related Deaths In Perspective

On September 11, 2001, I had gone through my morning routine and driven to work as usual.   Oddly, I didn't listen to the radio on my way to work.  It was when I got to my office and checked in with my coworkers  that I learned about the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers.  Because I'm on the west coast, I didn't find out about what had happened until after the second plane hit.  We watched in horror, along with the rest of the country, as the event unfolded, the fires grew, the jumpers jumped, and the emergency personnel scrambled to save the people in the towers.  And then the towers fell, first one, then the other, pancaking in a plume of fire and dust, a windstorm of debris and dust rushing along Wall Street like a sandstorm, and loose paper fluttering through the wind like wayward ghosts. 

No work could be done that day, and we went home early.  I sat glued to my TV all evening, flag flying outside at half mast, learning all the details and seeing the towers fall, again and again, from a hundred different camera angles across New York.  It was the biggest declaration of war ever made, and a blow to those like me who wished for peace in the world.  I knew what would be coming next, from G.W. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president", but it surpassed even my jaded worries.

Nearly 3000 people died that day in the event.  As a direct result of the tragedy, planes ceased to fly for two days across the nation, a war was launched in Afghanistan which persists to today, another war was launched in Iraq (on false accusations of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and the supposed presence of weapons of mass destruction) which also hasn't yet fully ended, the Department of Homeland Security was created (the biggest bureaucracy ever created in the U.S.), the Patriot Act was enacted, curtailing some of America's freedoms, the TSA was created to presume every air traveler is guilty until proven innocent (with mixed results), and we still live in fear of extremists from beyond our borders (as the precautions in New York today can attest).  With all of this in mind, it is an easy argument to make that 9/11 is the one largest, single-day event ever to shape American policy, which cost the most American lives, freedoms, and gross domestic product as a result.

But while we are today mourning the loss of the 3000 who died in 9/11, I ask that you please keep another thought in mind.  The United States loses the same number of people to gun violence every 35 days or so.  That's around 31,224 people a year -- ten times the number who died in 9/11.  Another 66,768 a year are wounded but survive.  In the 10 years since 9/11, that equates to around 300,000 killed and 670,000 injured to gunfire on our streets and in our homes (compare that to the 5800 American soldiers who have died in that time in Iraq and Afghanistan wars).  Imagine, a million people shot in ten years!  But unlike the dramatic results that came after 9/11 -- the wars, the Patriot Act and other legislation, the trillions of dollars spent -- practically nothing has changed to slow the rate of civilian shootings in the U.S.  In fact, with cuts to the ATF, the lapse of the assault weapons ban, and numerous state-level legislative changes around the nation to relax gun laws, our nation has only become more dangerous.  To the NRA, these alarming numbers are collateral, insignificant compared to a warped sense of Second Amendment freedom.

For instance, those who are listed on the Terrorist Watch List are still permitted to purchase firearms.  From a press release by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

An earlier department report indicated that some on the Terrorist Watch List appeared to be making multiple attempts to purchase guns.  Some 1,228 purchase attempts through February 2010 were by just 650 individuals.  Nearly 70 percent of the individuals (450 of 650) were involved in multiple transactions and six were involved in 10 or more transactions.

In June, a month after the House Judiciary Committee rejected closing the terror gap in federal gun laws, one of al Qaeda’s terrorist recruiters – American-born Adam Gadahn  –  explained  how easy it is to acquire assault weapons in the United States:

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?" [see video in this post]


America has become numb to the daily deluge of shootings on the news.  It's a slow drip-drip of American blood which, though far more deadly, hardly garners the attention of a terrorist attack.  Make no doubt about it:  America is at war, but it is fighting an enemy within:  the ease with which criminals are able to get guns.  In Oregon, for instance, and most of America, private gun sales require no background check, no ID, and no paperwork.  It's just cash and carry.  A seller has no way of knowing if the buyer is a felon, an abuser, mentally ill, has a warrant for his arrest, or is even of appropriate age.  And since the seller isn't required to check, he isn't held accountable for the sale.

Every life is precious.  Is the death of three thousand people by gun any less horrifying and terrible than by plane? 

We rightly mark the passing of those in the 9/11 tragedy today with somber remembrance and caution.  But tomorrow the flags will be folded, people will go back to work, and the evening news will return to daily reports of death by bullet.  After the passage of another 35 days, when we once again match the number dead on 9/11, what will you have done to help prevent  gun violence?


(See HERE for a good, related blog post by Dennis Henigan for the need to close the "Terror Gap").

26 comments:

  1. Thank you Baldr. This is an excellent post. Americans need to be reminded that there are deaths every day due to bullets that are not marked by our nation. Many of them go unnoticed by the public and the press. It's time for action about gun deaths as well as about peace, justice and more tolerance towards others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Baldr,

    "Terror Gap" gun legislation was supported by Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and was just one of many "War on Terror" proposals made by the Bush-Cheney administration -- many of which have been opposed by Americans concerned with Constitutional liberties.

    Baldr, we see that you approve of one of the "War on Terror" proposals made by the Bush-Cheney administration -- how many others do you support?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Baldr, perhaps the problem with the "Terrorist Watch List" gun ban proposal is that it doesn't go far enough.

    Although the Supreme Court established that the RKBA is a Constitutional right, we cannot let Constitutional rights stand in the way of the war on terror. Suppose someone is on the terror suspect list (who is on the list is a sectret, as is the criteria for being on it). It is not enough to deny their 2nd Amendment right to buy a gun, since they could already have some at home. So we need to also deny their 4th Amendment rights and search their homes without warrants. We also need to question them as to why they wanted a gun, without any right to remain silent. So we must also deny their 5th Amendment rights and punish them if they don't tell us what we need to know.

    This is the logical next step in the Bush war on terror policies (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a supporter of this very proposal on behalf of the Bush administration). The Bush administration had previously only supported the denial of Constitutional rights to those who were actually arrested for terrorism. The next step, as we are discussing here, is to deny Constitutional rights to those whom we just put on a secret list because we for some secret reason just suspect them of some sort of terrorist sympathy.

    Baldr, I would not have thought that you would be a supporter of Bush/Cheney-type war on terror measures, especially such an escalation -- but welcome aboard!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Believe it or not, JayF, I share many of your doubts about the Terrorist Watch List. This is one area where I feel the NRA has some good points. Changes need to be made to the nature of the list, but that doesn't mean I think it is useless for the purpose. I think a debate on this topic would be useful. I'll blog on it tomorrow or Tuesday, and we can discuss in the comments section. So please hold those thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check"

    No you cannot. You cannot. This is simply flat out wrong, and you should know better by now. We've been over the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon a million times now. You absolutely cannot just buy a fully automatic weapon like that. You can't. Stop repeating falsehoods, please.

    Furthermore, I cannot even comprehend why you could possibly support ANYTHING tied to the "Terrorist Watch List." Even calling it that makes it sound like it's a list of likely terrorists, when it is absolutely nothing of the sort. In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that they had over 700,000 names in the database, and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month. So that's what, like up to a million and a half names by now?

    You're trying to tell me that there are a million and a half dangerous terrorists in the country right now running around, and that instead of arresting and charging them with a crime, we should instead strip them of constitutional rights with no due process whatsoever? You even acknowledge in the comments that you have issues with the "Terrorist Watch List," but that didn't stop you from dedicating half of your post to how we should ban people on it from buying guns.

    This is a perfect example of how your reflexive dislike of guns (or gun rights, or whatever) completely and totally clouds your thinking and prevents you from thinking about topics rationally—there is absolutely no way in hell that if the firearms issue wasn't involved that you would ever in any way support the No Fly List, but tie in firearms and you'll back up any insane initiative and parrot Brady Campaign press releases and lies immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One more thought.

    "But unlike the dramatic results that came after 9/11—the wars, the Patriot Act and other legislation, the trillions of dollars spent—practically nothing has changed to slow the rate of civilian shootings in the U.S."

    You're confusing reaction and result. Yes, we reacted (I would say overreacted) in many ways to 9/11, but has any of them made us safer? We invaded Iraq and squandered trillions, and our country is much weaker today because of it, both socially and financially. We passed the Patriot Act, and did that enhance our freedom and security? Those reactions did not have the desired results. Just because we reacted militarily, legislatively and socially to those 3,000 deaths doesn't mean we should have, or that every time people die we should "take action."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, I know, the al-Qaeda guy said you can get fully automatic guns at gun shows. He's wrong. But it doesn't diminish the fact that anyone can walk in and buy as many guns as they wish, and in most states they can buy from a private seller there without even showing ID or getting a background check. That's his main message to his would-be terrorist pals. As I'm sure you are aware, there are also books sold at most of those shows that detail how to modify your semi-automatic rifle to become fully automatic. So if this mis-statement of his is a hang-up for you, then you're mincing words.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As I said above, I'll be happy to debate my thoughts on the Terrorist Watch List in my next post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Guav, from your last comment, are you seriously suggesting that when 3000 people die (from anything), that it's not worth taking action of some sort?

    I don't disagree with you that the actions taken after 9/11 were the wrong actions, and that the desired effect wasn't achieved. My point is that the government *reacted*. But when ten times that number die from gunfire in a single year, and the government does nothing at all about it, there is obviously a disconnect that shouldn't be there. The government SHOULD react in a way that protects the welfare of the people by inacting laws to protect us.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Guav, from your last comment, are you seriously suggesting that when 3000 people die (from anything), that it's not worth taking action of some sort?"

    I'm suggesting that it's not worth taking action simply for the sake of taking action. Because as you can see, taking action, if the wrong action, can actually be harmful. I understand why when something happens, people "want something done," but just reacting emotionally to disasters or tragedies and demanding action—"any action, we don't care what, just do SOMETHING!"—is irrational and not a very good way to formulate policy and craft laws.

    "I don't disagree with you that the actions taken after 9/11 were the wrong actions, and that the desired effect wasn't achieved. My point is that the government *reacted*."

    Yeah, but so what? They reacted wrong, and set us back. That's my point. Reaction for reaction's sake is terrible policy.

    "But when ten times that number die from gunfire in a single year, and the government does nothing at all about it, there is obviously a disconnect that shouldn't be there. The government SHOULD react in a way that protects the welfare of the people by inacting laws to protect us."

    I am all for the government pursuing actions that have a good chance of producing the results I want—lower homicide rates (not just one subset of homicide) and lower crime rates. If I don't think a certain action will produce those results, I'm not going to support it. And I do not, in fact, believe that ANY law can lower suicide rates.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "As I'm sure you are aware, there are also books sold at most of those shows that detail how to modify your semi-automatic rifle to become fully automatic."

    Ahh -- that explains all those recent US shootings using semi-automatic rifle modified to become fully automatic by ordinary people using books from gun shows.

    Oops -- for some reason, I can't seem to recall many. But there must be many, if what you say is true -- Baldr, can you help?

    ReplyDelete
  12. What most of you don't realize is, most of these homicides are committed by criminals, not law abiding gun owners.Homicides among the law abiding gun owner is extremely low and when it is committed, it is usually in defense of their life. Since it would be imposable to get the all the guns off of the criminals, then it would be asinine to take guns off the law abiding gun owner. As far as suicide by gun, would you feel better if they killed themselves by hanging or pills, they will find a way regardless of the method. With the amount of home invasions, I am glad I have a gun at my disposal and I will use it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sepsis and pneumonia, two infections that can often be prevented with tight infection control practices in hospitals, killed 48,000 patients and added $8.1 billion to heath care costs in 2006 alone, according to a study published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine.


    While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are 1.7 million hospital infections and 99,000 associated deaths each year, he says, those numbers don’t calculate deaths caused by, rather than merely associated with infections patients get in the hospital. The CDC figures also are based on voluntary reports by hospitals, whereas the new study is based on data about patient diagnosis, hospital treatment and exposure to infections prior to hospital admission.

    these are just two parts of an article in the WSJ's health blog. 99,000 deaths of people that got infections while in the hospital or deaths associated to those infections.
    i don't hear you whining about these deaths.here's one from the CDC---


    According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. Remember that in the same year, 43,664 were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintention falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke.


    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_America_how_many_deaths_are_caused_by_guns_annually#ixzz1Xpi06By4

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, Anonymous, a great many people die from a great many things. Luckily, there is a huge effort and massive government spending to overcome the various diseases, along with academic research. I think those are being attended to. You guys love to make it seem as if we on the gun control side care not at all for other forms of death, but it's an empty argument. Feel free to volunteer yourself to help advocate for sufferers of those diseases.

    By comparison, almost nothing is being spent to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. Thank you for making my point for me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ John E: Your statement is nonsensical, and is merely a sounding board for NRA propaganda. All criminals are law abiding until they commit the crime, and previously law-abiding gun owners commit gun-related crimes all the time. Here is a link to a site that highlights those:
    http://alawabidingcitizen.blogspot.com/

    Plus there are plenty of accidental deaths by law-abiding owners. Here's a link where you can find some highlighted: http://ohhshoot.blogspot.com/

    Also, defensive shootings account for only a small number of shootings.

    As for suicides, statistical studies have shown that gun usage is one of the most popular, and it is FAR more deadly (likely to succeed) than the alternatives. More than 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal. In comparison, only 3 percent of attempts with drugs or cutting are fatal.

    source for statistics: Miller, Matthew, David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael, "Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast," Journal of Trauma 57 (2004):626-632.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I should also add, John E., that home invasions while the homeowner is present happen, but are extremely rare. So it's not worth being paranoid about.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is massive government spending poured into research, yes—so that we can try to find out how to cure diseases that we don't know how to cure. However, I don't believe there is massive government spending poured into trying to prevent people from falling down stairs, for example. There are some things that money can help solve, and there are those that they cannot. What sort of government spending would you like to see to address firearm violence?

    At the end of the day, you don't really want spending per se, you want laws and regulations. They are not the same thing.

    It's not that I think you don't care about deaths, it's that I think preventing deaths actually takes a backseat to regulating firearms; you guys care more about what you feel are the means—gun control—than the purported ends, saving lives. Because if it were just about saving lives, the gun control crowd would focus their time and money on things that have been proven to actually drive down crime/homicide rates, of which gun control is not one of them (I've provided examples in the past).

    Furthermore, since you think the way to prevent gun deaths is to pass more restrictive firearm legislation, then if after all your blogging and countless hours of advocacy you don't get that legislation passed, then you've not saved one life. On the other hand, since suicides account for more than half of all firearm deaths, if you spent the time you spend writing this blog instead volunteering for a suicide hotline or something, you'd actually be saving tangible lives you could actually count.

    When people who claim to want to devote their time to saving lives ignore things that actually save them, and focus on things that may or may not work (assuming they even get the legislation passed), I have to wonder how seriously they really are about saving lives.

    No offense, I'm just explaining how it seems to me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Plus there are plenty of accidental deaths by law-abiding owners. Here's a link where you can find some highlighted: http://ohhshoot.blogspot.com/"

    There is no mention in those stories about whether or not the gun owner was law-abiding. Regardless, accidental gun deaths are at all time low, despite our population and the number of guns in private hands being at all time highs. Less than 700 people a year die accidentally with guns, in a country with 311 million people and 200 million guns. That's exceptionally low, and firearms accidents are one of the least common ways Americans die accidentally.

    But let me get this straight—that relative handful of accidental deaths is an argument in favor of not owning guns, but wanting to protect yourself from a criminal—much more commonplace than 700 instances a year—makes a person paranoid? You're far more likely to be a victim of crime than you are to accidentally shoot yourself to death, so who's really paranoid here?

    "home invasions while the homeowner is present happen, but are extremely rare. So it's not worth being paranoid about."

    I'm not sure what statistics you're using to declare that home invasions are rare, but according to Wikipedia, "home invasion" is not technically a specific crime in most states, so statistics about home invasion found on the internet are often false and/or misleading, and people arrested for what we'd call a home invasion are typically charged with such other crimes as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.

    That being said, regardless of how common they actually are, it's happened to me—I was burgled as I slept—so this is not a hypothetical discussion for me, and I'm not paranoid.

    "As for suicides, statistical studies have shown that gun usage is one of the most popular, and it is FAR more deadly (likely to succeed) than the alternatives."

    Studies have also shown that when restrictive gun measures are passed, the firearm suicide rate drops significantly. Unfortunately, other forms of suicide surge, the end result being the overall suicide rate remaining unchanged. I provided examples here, with no response from you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ JayF: It's nearly impossible to know if the many assault weapons used in crimes were modified, since it isn't typically reported in the media. One rare example is the North Hollywood Shootout:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

    But it doesn't really matter, does it? Why allow the possibility, given the potential for destruction? There is no valid reason for a person to have the capability unless they are in a war zone or wanting to commit a crime. We wouldn't want to allow that any more than we would want to allow people to legally make and possess their own grenades or mortar rounds.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "It's nearly impossible to know if the many assault weapons used in crimes were modified, since it isn't typically reported in the media."

    On the contrary, crimes committed with fully automatic weapons, legally owned or illegally converted, are so astoundingly rare—statistically negligible—that when does happen, we know about it. It's certainly mentioned in media reports and we don't soon forget about it. That's why the North Hollywood shootout is the example that's always used: it's the only significant example we have. It just virtually never happens. Almost all gun crime is committed with semi-automatic weapons, usually handguns.

    "But it doesn't really matter, does it? Why allow the possibility..."

    Because, Baldr, you cannot protect everyone from POSSIBILITIES. The possibilities are literally endless. We cannot, nor should we, attempt to prevent or legislate every single possible thing that someone might conceivably do. That's insane. What you do is address the things that actually happen, not the things that might.

    That's why so much energy spent trying to ban "assault weapons" and .50 cal weapons makes no sense, because those simply are not the weapons that most people use for crime. It makes no sense. It's just silly.

    It's another one of those things that makes me question the motivations of the anti-gunners. If the goal was saving lives instead of reflexively banning any guns you possibly can, then no time whatsoever would be spent on rifles—not "assault rifles," not .50 cal, not shotguns—all the energies would be focused on what's actually used most to people—handguns.

    "We wouldn't want to allow that any more than we would want to allow people to legally make and possess their own grenades or mortar rounds."

    People already can illegally make and posses grenades or mortar rounds. What they can't do is legally do so. Same goes with automatic weapons. The POSSIBILITY is there, but in both cases, it's a federal crime to do so. And that's enough to prevent almost everyone from even trying. Can't make it "illegal-er."

    ReplyDelete
  21. "It's nearly impossible to know if the many assault weapons used in crimes were modified, since it isn't typically reported in the media."

    As if the media and gun ban advocates like the VPC would not go nuts publicizing any such use.

    Yes, I know of the No Hwd story -- it's telling that we have to go back that far. Still no answer to the glaring question: If it's so easy, why doesn't it happen more often?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Almost nothing is spent to prevent gun related deaths and injuries

    ...and the NRA is spending more than anyone else on useful prevention. Abstinence-only is a stupid idea for sex ed, didn't work for alcohol, isn't working for drugs, and won't work for guns.

    defensive shootings account for only a small number of shootings.

    So using a gun to prevent a crime only counts if you injure someone?

    More than 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal. In comparison, only 3 percent of attempts with drugs or cutting are fatal.

    I knew a guy who 'attempted suicide' by eating a bottle of Tylenol after he was dumped. I don't think he really wanted to die, I think he wanted attention--and deliberately chose a method of suicide that left him likely to survive. Worked out for him, he survived, and she married him not long after. There's a slogan in certain circles "Down, not across", a macabre reference to the proper method of slashing your wrists to commit suicide if you really mean it. People who really mean it will pick an effective method among many available choices, people who don't really mean it will take a handful of pills, or scratch across their wrists.

    There is no valid reason for a person to have the capability unless they are in a war zone or wanting to commit a crime

    So why do the overwhelming majority of police carry assault weapons in their holsters?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Sevesteen: Whenever I point out that non-firearm methods of suicide are statistically less likely to result in death, you guys always pull out the ridiculous argument that those committing the other forms "don't really mean it," only "wanted attention", and didn't really want to die. There certainly are some, but it only puts on exhibit your callousness toward those who are suicidal. I know for certain, after having talked with survivors, that their intentions were death. Had they access to firearms instead of their other methods would almost certainly have resulted in a fatality. Knowing what I know, and having been suicidal myself for a spell in my late teens, I would argue that the majority of survivors are not just crying out for attention. Your friend with the Tylenol was just, um, an idiot, but I'm glad he wasn't harmed.

    To compare yourself to police is a hollow argument. Police, as part of their job, put themselves in harm's way, including potential shootout situations. Few carry assault weapons. Those who do are usually part of SWAT teams, which put themselves in the worst of the worst situations, and need to outgun the bad guys. It is almost unheard of for law-abiding citizens to be in such a situation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "you guys always pull out the ridiculous argument that those committing the other forms "don't really mean it," only "wanted attention", and didn't really want to die.."

    Uhm, that's because it's true. From Assessment and Prediction of Suicide (1992):

    "The intent and motivation of the suicidal individual may also determine the method selected. For example, Fox and Weissman (1975) studied 258 suicide attempters and compared those who had used pill ingestion to those who had used violent methods (shooting, jumping, wrist cutting). Among those ingesting pills, the suicide attempt was found to be more impulsive, the attempter's intention of actually killing themselves was low, and the act was more often motivated so as to obtain attention from others. On the other hand, the actions of the violent attempters were more carefully planned, their intent to die was higher, and their motivations centered upon self-directed hostility. Thus, the methods chosen by these individuals appears to depend at least partially on the level of their intention to die and on the effect they desired."

    Many studies have shown severity of intent to strongly influence method of suicide chosen. More examples here and here.

    There is something called the SIS, Suicide Intent Scale. This tool is used as part of suicide prevention programs to determine who is a high risk for a future suicide. Just the fact that experts acknowledge that people have different intent levels in the first place backs up my argument—Not everyone who tries to commit suicide is absolutely determined to die—but the SIS is fairly accurate as well:

    "Five hundred patients who had completed a suicide intent scale after self injury were followed up over five years ... The future suicides tended to have high scores on the scale for their original self injury episodes and had very high scores for the penultimate self injury before suicide."

    Someone determined to kill themselves will find a way to do it whether they have guns or not (just ask the Japanese, they are always coming up with new and exciting non-firearm methods of killing themselves).

    It only makes sense that the level of intent influences the method one chooses in their attempt. It's safe to say that someone who jumps off the Empire State Building has a very high level of intent, and someone who swallows a bunch of pills and then dials 911 has a much lower level of intent.

    Those who take this totally uncontroversial position are not "callousness toward those who are suicidal," they are simply acknowledging reality.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Of course they say they wanted to die, and at a conscious level probably believe that. But the data I've seen says that the completed suicide rate is not correlated with gun availability--methods change, but not the overall rate. My own observations tell me that the method of the attempt is correlated with the seriousness of the cause--attempts associated with debilitating illness or life-ruining events use effective methods, those associated with more trivial causes use more trivial methods.

    Virtually all police carry pistols that were banned from civilian sale under the 1994 AWB. Oddly, a few of these same guns as carried were also restricted from import to civilians under the Saturday Night Special provisions of the 1968 GCA.

    If you aren't talking about magazine capacity here, what other features of assault weapons make them more deadly than 'acceptable' guns?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The United States loses the same number of people to gun violence every 35 days or so."

    No, it doesn't. There you go again, deliberately lumping suicides into "gun violence" to make it sound like murder. Let's be clear—people who kill themselves, regardless of method, are not "victims of violence," in fact, they are not even victims. They killed themselves. If someone slits their wrists, we do not say they are a "victim of knife violence." If they asphyxiate themselves in their garage, we do not say they are victims of vehicular manslaughter. No, they committed suicide, period. They are dead because they killed themselves with one method or another.

    Nobody, absolutely nobody, calls people who commit suicide "victims of violence." That is, except for anti-gunners, who have a vested interest in making people think their chances of getting randomly shot on the street are far higher than they really are. When you say that, you are being deliberately misleading.

    Anyway, I was in Manhattan the morning of 9/11. I was literally there, Baldr, and even so I realized immediately afterward that—unlike some in the country that put terrorism to the forefront of national dangers—my chances of dying in a terrorist attack were still extremely slim. So I went on living normally, knowing that hyperventilating about terrorists was totally irrational when the biggest day to day threat to my life was actually cab drivers.

    ReplyDelete