Feb 1, 2023·edited Feb 1, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
I have this argument with my parents when we discuss guns. I'm a pro-gun guy, and they are very much not. The problem is you're arguing logic vs. emotion, and from an emotional sense, numerous small, invisible issues (that wind up being a far bigger deal, like the suicide epidemic) are negated by the MSM screaming, "53 KIDS DIE IN MASS SHOOTING. AR-15 GUNS DOWN INNOCENT LIVES." I use a bit of hyperbole there, but not that much...
I think there is also a classist element to this as well, especially amongst the very rich and the very poor. Among the poor, especially those of color, owning and carrying a gun is a risk due to the widespread view that police target minorities and carrying a gun, even if legal, may cause issues. Thus, the only ones that are willing to risk it are those who are most likely to need it, someone who is going to quite possibly get in a gunfight, like a gang banger. This is a strictly anecdotal view, but it has been expressed by several of the drivers that work at my company, especially among the men of color.
The more interesting argument is among the well off. My parents are doing well, live in a nice area, and consider themselves 'safe.' Their neighborhood is 25-30 miles from the nearest bus stop, in an area that requires a car, and the police watch for vehicles that are a little too run down. They never have to deal with a homeless man drawing a knife on them, or a carjacking at a stop sign. They never go into the city because they don't think it's safe. They live in a bubble. I think why spree killers scare them so much is the randomness. It is the one instance where the reality of violence can invade their bubble of security, and potentially impact their lives directly, even if they do everything "right."
Unfortunately, I've lived a bit rougher than they have, though I'm doing well now. My time living rough taught me a few things, though. There are people in the world that will resort to force to get what they want, and the only way to stop them is to have an equal or greater force to stop them. I'm old, I'm fat, and there's only one of me. If a group of young in shape people attacked me, I'd be in serious trouble. That's why I carry...but my parents are convinced it couldn't happen to them.
Nicely laid out. Most gun opposition is purely emotional reactions to guns, without any logic or reason. If we really wanted to reduce gun deaths in America, we would engage in policies to improve the lives of poor blacks and help the mental health of men. Such policies are not well-appreciated by TPTB. And most anti-gun activists would rather scream about guns then solve the problem.
Very interesting post, thanks for sharing. I tend to be in the no-guns camp myself, but it was enlightening to read the data. While it might make sense based on these facts for *more* people to own and carry guns, I think one important but annoyingly unquantifiable element in this debate that both sides seem to keep "missing" each other on is: differing ideas of what safety means to them. For some, safety means the ability to arm themselves in order to protect against threat; for others, like me, safety means the ability to walk the world unarmed, and not fear intimidation or action by those who are. I get both sides of the debate, and neither view's "wrong", but to say that everyone (including people who genuinely just don't want to own a gun) should arm themselves for safety is the same rather myopic reasoning as saying that everyone (including people who want to own guns) should not own a gun for safety. We're all just trying to feel safe in the world, we just have different ideas of how to go about it. Anyway, appreciate the fair and reasonable discourse on the subject. :)
Feb 2, 2023·edited Feb 2, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
"Rocky Mountain Views" is *very* confused about who has the mental illness here. They're the ones that abhor an inanimate object, and think that with the proper incantation, they can prevent horrors.
I'm new to the blog, and I am just now reading through archives. The "homicide vs. genocide" argument is novel, but I need to read it some more to decide if it's convincing enough to really be convincing to someone who's honestly open to argument (I imagine Twitter anti-gun accounts are not in that set of people).
The OR GIS analysis was quite useful. It's just a pity that the gun issue, like others wedge issues, has become political. I too went to school in the 50's and saw many trucks with a rifle in the window. Oddly few worried about theft but wanted to hunt after school. Pleasant afternoons in a field were a reward. Somehow back in those dark ages there were no shooters going after schools or restaurants. Maybe in the aftermath of war we has seen enough killing overseas. OTOH we didn't have SSRIs to tame boys and our cannabis was not really very potent. And most of us knew about hard drugs we were aware of the hazards and limited ourselves to booze. My how the culture changed.
Thanks again for a thought-provoking post. You may have influenced my thinking on some things( more later on that.) I do have some quibbles though, which I believe are a bit more rational than those of Mr Rocky Mountain View, who is not really a fair representative if you are trying to have a legitimate debate.
First, the suicide argument. As a person who works in mental health, I can assure you that if a doctor believes or suspects that someone is suicidal, they will definitely think about the risks and pursue minimization of these risks. They will ask about firearms and they will do their best to convince the person to make it more difficult to have access to them, in just the ways you mentioned in that previous article. If they refuse and the doctor or therapist is truly concerned, they will have them admitted to a psychiatric unit involuntarily, which is not ideal but sometimes necessary. So that is a suggested change that's not really a change. More later, out of time for now.
Somewhere you say the number of children killed in school shootings is such a tiny portion of the deaths due to guns. I can’t find the exact quote, and it may not even be in today’s post – I printed out additional materials from the links, and I don’t know exactly where I read it.
I’d like to share a few thoughts about the way people react so strongly to school shootings, even though they are a tiny portion of the “gun death” tally.
When we think about suicides, we often feel sad, wish things had gone differently, and want to take steps to lower the number of suicides in the future – many useful steps you’ve mentioned in your posts. We may also have some feeling that who the person committed suicide contributed to this ending -- it was the end of their story.
One reason for the special impact of school shootings is their randomness, but I think it goes deeper than that. For most parents, and people who hope to be parents, the thought of their child dying or being injured by random bullets is a unique horror. No one could expect it. We all face potential random events – car accidents, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, a bolt of lightning. We know random events are part of normal life.
But no one expects random shootings at school. Did this happen fifty years ago? Seventy years ago? I don’t think so.
You think of the children, their whole lives ahead of them. Nothing they did contributed to their deaths. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their stories were cut off mid-chapter.
Most people feel horror when they learn fifteen toddlers were killed within two minutes. We don’t feel the same horror at fifteen people killed when cars pileup on the freeway – we know that happens occasionally and we accept it as part of freeway driving.
I’ve just started to read your posts within the past few months, and you’ve written a great deal on this subject that I haven’t had time to read yet. You’ve convinced me there are so many guns already distributed in the United States that efforts to withdraw them make no sense.
On the other hand, I think it will be a long time before people’s hearts accept the random killing of small children as a normal part of modern life.
Part two. Comparing gun homicides here to genocide homicides in Europe means you are comparing 2023 US to Germany 90 years ago or Eastern Europe post USSR. Are you?
Okay, say you are, and there is some kind of genocide or Civil War here. Even if the MAGAs and alt-right and Qanon people did turn against the US populace, they would not need to buy a single new gun to win, if they were really serious. And if you want to argue that someone is going to take their guns away, well, that's just arguing to argue, not to win. So perhaps your point is to encourage non-gun owners to buy guns? If any of them read your substack it might actually work to some small extent. But of course they don't.
I've followed enough links that I'm not actually sure in which piece I read what; but with respect to good guys with guns, the example you used in particular which I can't quite remember in which a non-expert shooter killed the bad guy shooter from a surprising distance seems to mitigate for mandatory training for gun owners. Is that something you would favor? I believe the reason most law enforcement are against concealed carry is because these good guys with guns can cause things to worsen pretty rapidly.
If I felt that the armed good guys were trained sufficiently, I would be fine with concealed carry though. I guess it was a combination of you and Uvalde that change my mind on that one.
Second question: to be honest I don't know whether concealed carry or open carry is considered to be worse, by anti-gun people. Personally I find open carry an alarming practice, especially when the carriers are in the Michigan State House, for example. Is one or the other considered more desirable by the pro-gun people?
Asking these questions with the understanding that you may not have time to respond to them.
I have this argument with my parents when we discuss guns. I'm a pro-gun guy, and they are very much not. The problem is you're arguing logic vs. emotion, and from an emotional sense, numerous small, invisible issues (that wind up being a far bigger deal, like the suicide epidemic) are negated by the MSM screaming, "53 KIDS DIE IN MASS SHOOTING. AR-15 GUNS DOWN INNOCENT LIVES." I use a bit of hyperbole there, but not that much...
I think there is also a classist element to this as well, especially amongst the very rich and the very poor. Among the poor, especially those of color, owning and carrying a gun is a risk due to the widespread view that police target minorities and carrying a gun, even if legal, may cause issues. Thus, the only ones that are willing to risk it are those who are most likely to need it, someone who is going to quite possibly get in a gunfight, like a gang banger. This is a strictly anecdotal view, but it has been expressed by several of the drivers that work at my company, especially among the men of color.
The more interesting argument is among the well off. My parents are doing well, live in a nice area, and consider themselves 'safe.' Their neighborhood is 25-30 miles from the nearest bus stop, in an area that requires a car, and the police watch for vehicles that are a little too run down. They never have to deal with a homeless man drawing a knife on them, or a carjacking at a stop sign. They never go into the city because they don't think it's safe. They live in a bubble. I think why spree killers scare them so much is the randomness. It is the one instance where the reality of violence can invade their bubble of security, and potentially impact their lives directly, even if they do everything "right."
Unfortunately, I've lived a bit rougher than they have, though I'm doing well now. My time living rough taught me a few things, though. There are people in the world that will resort to force to get what they want, and the only way to stop them is to have an equal or greater force to stop them. I'm old, I'm fat, and there's only one of me. If a group of young in shape people attacked me, I'd be in serious trouble. That's why I carry...but my parents are convinced it couldn't happen to them.
Nicely laid out. Most gun opposition is purely emotional reactions to guns, without any logic or reason. If we really wanted to reduce gun deaths in America, we would engage in policies to improve the lives of poor blacks and help the mental health of men. Such policies are not well-appreciated by TPTB. And most anti-gun activists would rather scream about guns then solve the problem.
"War and genocide are horrible. Nothing to do with guns in the USA"
We don't have war and genocide here, and we have a lot of guns.
Europe has war and genocide, and not a lot of guns.
Correlation isn't causation, but it makes you thonk.
Very interesting post, thanks for sharing. I tend to be in the no-guns camp myself, but it was enlightening to read the data. While it might make sense based on these facts for *more* people to own and carry guns, I think one important but annoyingly unquantifiable element in this debate that both sides seem to keep "missing" each other on is: differing ideas of what safety means to them. For some, safety means the ability to arm themselves in order to protect against threat; for others, like me, safety means the ability to walk the world unarmed, and not fear intimidation or action by those who are. I get both sides of the debate, and neither view's "wrong", but to say that everyone (including people who genuinely just don't want to own a gun) should arm themselves for safety is the same rather myopic reasoning as saying that everyone (including people who want to own guns) should not own a gun for safety. We're all just trying to feel safe in the world, we just have different ideas of how to go about it. Anyway, appreciate the fair and reasonable discourse on the subject. :)
"IF NOBODY HAD GUNS"
Yeah. But millions and millions of people do and are not gonna give them up just because you want them to, so your worldview is irrelevant.
All of their arguments seem to be predicated on this fantasy, and as long as they cling to it, there is absolutely no discussion to be had.
"Rocky Mountain Views" is *very* confused about who has the mental illness here. They're the ones that abhor an inanimate object, and think that with the proper incantation, they can prevent horrors.
(Edit: "who", not "how". Dangit.)
Thank you very much Mr. Campbell. You put all the relevant data in one place. You have saved me so much research time it's unbelievable.
Have you tried pointing out their posts are so cringe you’re considering suicide?
I'm new to the blog, and I am just now reading through archives. The "homicide vs. genocide" argument is novel, but I need to read it some more to decide if it's convincing enough to really be convincing to someone who's honestly open to argument (I imagine Twitter anti-gun accounts are not in that set of people).
Just a reminder about decals of your logo. You said to hit you up about it
After a MedPage editorial (https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/102879) lamenting how guns are causing all these awful deaths, I tried to respond with data showing deaths/100 k by guns is slowly returning to 1950's levels after rising badly in the late 1960's to late 1990's. I found this study from 2014 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535 that shows that data and https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ plots it as well. Now I really wanted to blame the increased secular shift in culture of the 1960's where we arrived at relative morality and a collapse of any notion of public shame. Well the decline in deaths since the late 90's destroys my viewpoint. OTOH, this article https://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/per-capita-firearms-vs-murder-rates-u-s-1950-2014/ shows the large increase in people buying guns. Seems logical that a well armed public might discourage shooters and those intent on harm. My comment to MedPage didn't get by moderators and I'm not sure just anybody can access their site.
The OR GIS analysis was quite useful. It's just a pity that the gun issue, like others wedge issues, has become political. I too went to school in the 50's and saw many trucks with a rifle in the window. Oddly few worried about theft but wanted to hunt after school. Pleasant afternoons in a field were a reward. Somehow back in those dark ages there were no shooters going after schools or restaurants. Maybe in the aftermath of war we has seen enough killing overseas. OTOH we didn't have SSRIs to tame boys and our cannabis was not really very potent. And most of us knew about hard drugs we were aware of the hazards and limited ourselves to booze. My how the culture changed.
Thanks again for a thought-provoking post. You may have influenced my thinking on some things( more later on that.) I do have some quibbles though, which I believe are a bit more rational than those of Mr Rocky Mountain View, who is not really a fair representative if you are trying to have a legitimate debate.
First, the suicide argument. As a person who works in mental health, I can assure you that if a doctor believes or suspects that someone is suicidal, they will definitely think about the risks and pursue minimization of these risks. They will ask about firearms and they will do their best to convince the person to make it more difficult to have access to them, in just the ways you mentioned in that previous article. If they refuse and the doctor or therapist is truly concerned, they will have them admitted to a psychiatric unit involuntarily, which is not ideal but sometimes necessary. So that is a suggested change that's not really a change. More later, out of time for now.
ROFL, the delusion in that one.
Makes even Gavin Newsom look sane.
Somewhere you say the number of children killed in school shootings is such a tiny portion of the deaths due to guns. I can’t find the exact quote, and it may not even be in today’s post – I printed out additional materials from the links, and I don’t know exactly where I read it.
I’d like to share a few thoughts about the way people react so strongly to school shootings, even though they are a tiny portion of the “gun death” tally.
When we think about suicides, we often feel sad, wish things had gone differently, and want to take steps to lower the number of suicides in the future – many useful steps you’ve mentioned in your posts. We may also have some feeling that who the person committed suicide contributed to this ending -- it was the end of their story.
One reason for the special impact of school shootings is their randomness, but I think it goes deeper than that. For most parents, and people who hope to be parents, the thought of their child dying or being injured by random bullets is a unique horror. No one could expect it. We all face potential random events – car accidents, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, a bolt of lightning. We know random events are part of normal life.
But no one expects random shootings at school. Did this happen fifty years ago? Seventy years ago? I don’t think so.
You think of the children, their whole lives ahead of them. Nothing they did contributed to their deaths. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their stories were cut off mid-chapter.
Most people feel horror when they learn fifteen toddlers were killed within two minutes. We don’t feel the same horror at fifteen people killed when cars pileup on the freeway – we know that happens occasionally and we accept it as part of freeway driving.
I’ve just started to read your posts within the past few months, and you’ve written a great deal on this subject that I haven’t had time to read yet. You’ve convinced me there are so many guns already distributed in the United States that efforts to withdraw them make no sense.
On the other hand, I think it will be a long time before people’s hearts accept the random killing of small children as a normal part of modern life.
Part two. Comparing gun homicides here to genocide homicides in Europe means you are comparing 2023 US to Germany 90 years ago or Eastern Europe post USSR. Are you?
Okay, say you are, and there is some kind of genocide or Civil War here. Even if the MAGAs and alt-right and Qanon people did turn against the US populace, they would not need to buy a single new gun to win, if they were really serious. And if you want to argue that someone is going to take their guns away, well, that's just arguing to argue, not to win. So perhaps your point is to encourage non-gun owners to buy guns? If any of them read your substack it might actually work to some small extent. But of course they don't.
I've followed enough links that I'm not actually sure in which piece I read what; but with respect to good guys with guns, the example you used in particular which I can't quite remember in which a non-expert shooter killed the bad guy shooter from a surprising distance seems to mitigate for mandatory training for gun owners. Is that something you would favor? I believe the reason most law enforcement are against concealed carry is because these good guys with guns can cause things to worsen pretty rapidly.
If I felt that the armed good guys were trained sufficiently, I would be fine with concealed carry though. I guess it was a combination of you and Uvalde that change my mind on that one.
Second question: to be honest I don't know whether concealed carry or open carry is considered to be worse, by anti-gun people. Personally I find open carry an alarming practice, especially when the carriers are in the Michigan State House, for example. Is one or the other considered more desirable by the pro-gun people?
Asking these questions with the understanding that you may not have time to respond to them.
(gross overgeneralization)
DNA and violence:
most violent gene pools/regions:
black/south
hispanic/latin/roman
celtic/border reivers/appalachians
slavs
one commonality: low social trust, social order: honor systems, moots, extended family "clannishness" (inbred)
less violent:
frankish manorials (english, germans, dutch)
commonality: high-social-trust, Constitutional order (formal law), nuclear family (outbred)