The latest incident of gun owners taking the law into their own hands happened in Missoula, Montana. A German exchange student was killed because he foolishly tried on a lark to snitch something from a garage. See “An Open Garage, a Dead Exchange Student and a New Debate on Self-Defense”, Jack Healy, New York Times, 2014-05-07
What is is about some gun-owners that they follow the supposed credo of the 20th Century Westerns to shoot first, ask questions second?
The most egregious killing was by Byron David Smith of Little Falls, Minnesota. He not only shot teen-age, unarmed invaders multiple times, but he waited three days before calling the police. He didn’t want to bother them on Thanksgiving!!! See “Bryon David Smith killings”. Smith was sentenced to life without parole.
Yoshihiro Hattori, killed in Baton Rouge in 1992 for going to the wrong house, didn’t receive similar justice. His killer, Rodney Peairs, was acquitted. He admitted at trial that he didn’t call the police first. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori. His parents did receive a cash settlement that they used for funds for high school students to visit Japan and for gun control. Peairs had said that he would never own a gun again.
This same Wikipedia article has a couple other cases of foreign visitors being killed by guns, including one who knocked on a door to ask for directions.
Maybe it was the movie Westerns of the 20th Century that fostered this cult of “self-defense”. See “How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America”, Ryan McMaken.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Assumptions of a gun slinger
A picture of a man with a gun at his hip accompanies an article about guns at the State Capitol, "Capitol debate triggers show of weapons", Jim Ragsdale, Star Tribune, 2013-08-20. The bearer of the gun said he feels safer with his own weapon.
His first assumption is that he is under threat of bodily harm by somebody. Are any of the state representatives or senators going to threaten him with a gun? Do any of these politicians carry a gun in the State Capitol? Maybe he is afraid Capitol security might throw him out.
His second assumption is that if he is threatened by someone with a gun that he can pull out his gun, take off the safety, aim, disable the other person before that person even fires a shot, and not hit any bystanders. Even police with extensive firearms training can't accomplish that very often. Think of the Fort Hood shooting where a police officer with a marksmanship award was downed before she could hit the shooter.
His third assumption is that nobody will sneak up behind him and grab his weapon. Many police officers have been killed with their own weapons.
His fourth assumption is that he is a "law-abiding" citizen with a permit to carry and therefore should be trusted to use his gun responsibly. "Law-abiding" citizens with permits to carry have deliberately killed others with their guns. The fired employee who killed the father of another hearing witness was such a "law abiding" citizen.
By contrast, Federal law prohibits guns in Federal facilities. The penalty for having "a firearm or other dangerous weapon" in a Federal facility is a fine or up to one year in prison or both. If the Federal facility is a court the prison term can be up to two years. See "18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities".
Interestingly, the Texas Legislature considers tampons more dangerous than guns. Its guards "confiscated tampons as possible threats to lawmakers’ safety" but waved those with guns through, "Guns at the Capitol? Beware of the recoil", Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune, 2013-08-23.
His first assumption is that he is under threat of bodily harm by somebody. Are any of the state representatives or senators going to threaten him with a gun? Do any of these politicians carry a gun in the State Capitol? Maybe he is afraid Capitol security might throw him out.
His second assumption is that if he is threatened by someone with a gun that he can pull out his gun, take off the safety, aim, disable the other person before that person even fires a shot, and not hit any bystanders. Even police with extensive firearms training can't accomplish that very often. Think of the Fort Hood shooting where a police officer with a marksmanship award was downed before she could hit the shooter.
His third assumption is that nobody will sneak up behind him and grab his weapon. Many police officers have been killed with their own weapons.
His fourth assumption is that he is a "law-abiding" citizen with a permit to carry and therefore should be trusted to use his gun responsibly. "Law-abiding" citizens with permits to carry have deliberately killed others with their guns. The fired employee who killed the father of another hearing witness was such a "law abiding" citizen.
By contrast, Federal law prohibits guns in Federal facilities. The penalty for having "a firearm or other dangerous weapon" in a Federal facility is a fine or up to one year in prison or both. If the Federal facility is a court the prison term can be up to two years. See "18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities".
Interestingly, the Texas Legislature considers tampons more dangerous than guns. Its guards "confiscated tampons as possible threats to lawmakers’ safety" but waved those with guns through, "Guns at the Capitol? Beware of the recoil", Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune, 2013-08-23.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Helping the sick and injured is age-old
Many hunter-gatherer cultures helped those who could not contribute fully. Many of us have read stories about hunter-gatherer cultures caring for the elderly and healing the sick, but do we know how much they cared for those younger who could never contribute a great deal to the group?
As it is, archeologists have found cases of primitive societies caring for people that couldn't even feed themselves or could not keep up as the group traveled. See "Ancient Bones that Tell a Story of Compassion", James Gorman, New York Times, 2012-12-17.
The archeologists, Lorna Tilley and Mark Oxenham, ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it."
These pre-historic cultures were close-knit communities that knew all of their members. It is hard not to care for those in a small community. But what happens as the community becomes larger, more diverse, and more dispersed? Children move to another city or even another country. People associate more with those at the factory or office than they do with people on their own block. Driving out the garage and down the street we may not even meet many of our neighbors. We don't know who is sick and disabled. Even when we know our own neighbors, we aren't aware of all of their problems. It took a mail carrier asking a neighbor about my step-father before anybody realized that he had died.
Even when we know a neighbor is ill, do we have the skills needed to care for the neighbor? Our expectations of health-care are much higher than in pre-historic times. In the last few centuries, charitable groups established hospitals to take care of people who couldn't be cared for at home. But our expectations became even higher and many of those groups could not raise sufficient funds to give care to all who needed it. Hospitals needed to charge all comers in order to have the funds; those without enough money often did without needed care.
If we are to replicate in today's dispersed societies the attention given to the sick and injured in primitive societies, wouldn't we need to have universal health care? We still must ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it." We certainly have many politicians who are more concerned with guaranteeing people access to guns than guaranteeing people access to health care.
As it is, archeologists have found cases of primitive societies caring for people that couldn't even feed themselves or could not keep up as the group traveled. See "Ancient Bones that Tell a Story of Compassion", James Gorman, New York Times, 2012-12-17.
The archeologists, Lorna Tilley and Mark Oxenham, ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it."
These pre-historic cultures were close-knit communities that knew all of their members. It is hard not to care for those in a small community. But what happens as the community becomes larger, more diverse, and more dispersed? Children move to another city or even another country. People associate more with those at the factory or office than they do with people on their own block. Driving out the garage and down the street we may not even meet many of our neighbors. We don't know who is sick and disabled. Even when we know our own neighbors, we aren't aware of all of their problems. It took a mail carrier asking a neighbor about my step-father before anybody realized that he had died.
Even when we know a neighbor is ill, do we have the skills needed to care for the neighbor? Our expectations of health-care are much higher than in pre-historic times. In the last few centuries, charitable groups established hospitals to take care of people who couldn't be cared for at home. But our expectations became even higher and many of those groups could not raise sufficient funds to give care to all who needed it. Hospitals needed to charge all comers in order to have the funds; those without enough money often did without needed care.
If we are to replicate in today's dispersed societies the attention given to the sick and injured in primitive societies, wouldn't we need to have universal health care? We still must ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it." We certainly have many politicians who are more concerned with guaranteeing people access to guns than guaranteeing people access to health care.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Guns and poses
U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio of Florida has been quoted as saying that the Iranian people should have more guns. I forgot where I saw that framing, but what he actually wrote on Twitter was "I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours." The National Journal has a more detailed explanation from a Rubio spokesman.
This comment is all over the web and the comments on it are multiplying even faster. On one side are people who say our freedoms are being protected by guns in the hands of the people. Others point out gun in the hands of the people have begot even more violence, like ethnic cleansing. One commentator said that Saddam Hussein required every family to have a gun and many had AK-47s. Well, the AK-47s didn't protect the people against Saddam but they certainly were used against the invasion by Americans.
Guns in the hands of the people have not worked against the U.S. Government: Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and Waco. Let's not forget the Civil War and all the Indian tribes defending their homes and lands with rifles. The government will always have more and bigger guns.
Suppose the Iranian people had more guns. The government is now fighting the people mostly with batons, water cannons, and tear gas. If the people counteracted with guns, more than the Basaji will be shooting. If the people kept fighting with guns, don't you think the Iranian Army might be coming back with tanks? How many people keep a tank in their garage? Think Tiananmen Square.
This comment is all over the web and the comments on it are multiplying even faster. On one side are people who say our freedoms are being protected by guns in the hands of the people. Others point out gun in the hands of the people have begot even more violence, like ethnic cleansing. One commentator said that Saddam Hussein required every family to have a gun and many had AK-47s. Well, the AK-47s didn't protect the people against Saddam but they certainly were used against the invasion by Americans.
Guns in the hands of the people have not worked against the U.S. Government: Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and Waco. Let's not forget the Civil War and all the Indian tribes defending their homes and lands with rifles. The government will always have more and bigger guns.
Suppose the Iranian people had more guns. The government is now fighting the people mostly with batons, water cannons, and tear gas. If the people counteracted with guns, more than the Basaji will be shooting. If the people kept fighting with guns, don't you think the Iranian Army might be coming back with tanks? How many people keep a tank in their garage? Think Tiananmen Square.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)