In the past four months, three of the country's leading gun nuts have been shot to death. Not one defended himself, although at least two -- and probably all three -- were armed.
To anyone familiar with the data assembled in the accompanying infographic (from numbersleuth.org), this will not be a surprise.
Guns in the USA
At the same time, the Pew Center released a survey which found that about a third of households have guns. Those who do not, Pew said, feel that having guns around is unsafe. We refer to these as the reality-based community.
Many who do keep guns say they feel safer. This is the delusional, or rightwing, community. They may feel safer, but the facts are that they are more at risk, by about an order of magnitude.
Being safe and being at risk are different states of being. The argument from the gun nuts is that their guns keep them from being attacked, not just that they keep them from being attacked successfully.
This is impossible. Given the huge overhang of the unarmed, if being unarmed really increased risk, there would be a huge and obvious excess of victims among the unarmed. There are not.
The subtext of all this is that the gun nuts are timid, frightened people, afraid to walk unarmed down streets that unarmed old women and children traverse without a care every day.
This fear goes a long way toward explaining the strong bias among gun nuts to be rightwingers. It is fair to say that liberals are generally optimists, while conservatives are pessimists. Whether ideology leads to personality, or personality leads to ideology, or both walk forward hand in hand, you are more likely to survive unarmed.
Harry,
ReplyDeleteThat's not what the "gun nuts" say, at least not the ones I know (I don't personally own guns so I guess I'm not a "gun nut").
You keep setting up this straw man and whacking it down. Doesn't do much for the debate. But if it makes you feel better, go for it.
Wade into any comment thread on the 2A at, say, Volokh Conspiracy, and you will find numerous gun nuts saying just this.
ReplyDeleteIt is the special favorite of the unrestricted concealed carry enthusiasts. Another verion (historically incorrect) is that all college mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones.
The gun nuts can ring the changes on the basic idea in many forms.
This thinking is also behind the panicked amendment denying the national government funds to actually study what happens where guns are.
This would have been a good place for private money to have stepped in, and I do not understand why it didn't. Nevertheless, such studies as have taken place show (as the graphic indicates) that the person most likely to be shot with a household gun is a member of the household.
So I went to Volokh Conspiracy, picked the "guns" category, looked at the comments, and after looking through a couple of hundred comments, couldn't find anyone who stated, "that their guns keep them from being attacked, not just that they keep them from being attacked successfully."
ReplyDeleteHow about a link?
Those who do not, Pew said, feel that having guns around is unsafe. We refer to these as the reality-based community.
ReplyDeleteWhat bollocks.
Having any manner of things around is unsafe. In fact, the unsafety that results from those things is greater than for guns.
To pick one example: what thing killed more children than guns in 2011?
Answer: water.
Many who do keep guns say they feel safer. This is the delusional, or rightwing, community. They may feel safer, but the facts are that they are more at risk, by about an order of magnitude.
My preceding comment reveals this as a silly truism.
In my community, walking the dog means being in bear country. In my community, virtually everyone has a gun.
In my community, there have been more bear attacks in the last several years (four) than shootings of any kind (none). None of those attacked was carrying. Last summer, my across the street neighbor caused a charging bear to think differently when fired a round into the adjacent river.
Delusional?