Everyone else is talking today about the swine flu in Mexico and whether the disease could sweep through the U.S., so I thought I’d tackle something different. The National Rifle Association is bringing its annual convention to Phoenix in mid-May, just as there has been a rash of mass shootings in recent weeks. I expect to hear a lot of arguments in support of the Second Amendment similar to the view expressed in Friday’s Tribune by letter writer Mark Hawthorne. The basic contention is any mass killing by a firearm is little different than a mass killing by swords, knives or archery. Hawthorne wrote:
“Any tool, whether it is a pocket knife, baseball bat, shovel, et al., when placed in the hands of a murderous deviant, can achieve similar results. It’s an issue of personal responsibility.”
But this view is fundamentally inaccurate and most Americans know it. Different weapons bring different considerations to civilized society, and modern firearms deliver a level of lethality that simply can’t be ignored.
Think about being in a crowd or in your office, and you want to start slashing with a knife. You would have to physically engage your victims and stab for the most vulernable parts of the body. You would expose yourself to a counter-attack simply by promixity to your target, and you could be overwhelmed by others who might come to the aid of your first victim.
But with a pistol or revolver (as easily hidden as a knife), you can stand several feet away and fire bullets through a victim’s toughest bones. A victim can try to close the distance to counter-attack (assuming he or she isn’t disabled by the first bullet), but likely will be shot two or three more times before the victim can get in a single strike for defense. If on-lookers want to come to a victim’s aid, you can quickly quick point your gun in their direction and disable or kill them as well before they can reach you.
Even bow-and-arrow mayhem doesn’t offer this kind of lethality. In the time an average person would need to arm a bow, aim and let fly with a single arrow, a person with a semi-automatic Glock could fire 9 or 10 shots more accurately and do more damage. Of course, the lethal nature of firearms escalate exponentially when you talk about rifles and machine guns.
My guess is most people haven’t examined this argument in such a manner, but they inituitively understand the inherent difference between handheld weapons and firearms. And that’s why many people see all gun rights groups as slightly off-kilter, because a lot of Second Amendment advocates fail to acknowledge what is patently obvious — put a powerful firearm in the hands of a deranged killer and more people are going to die than if that murderer was armed only with a kitchen knife.
Personally, I believe a much stronger argument for broad Second Amendment protections takes an approach sort of like Mutual Assured Destruction. If more good people were armed (and took some safety training), potential killers would have harder time finding multiple victims unable to defend themselves. They are far too many guns in the world to expect we could keep them all out of the hands of outlaws. But outlaws would be less eager to reach for their weapons if they risked an immediate counter-attack from law-abiding citizens who can match their fire power.
Twitter
>put a powerful firearm in the hands of a deranged killer and more people are going to die than if that murderer was armed only with a kitchen knife.
Good point!
Guns don’t kill people, it’s men with mustaches that kill people!
Ban the mustache!
Interesting viewpoint LeTemplar but wrong. Anyone, with any weapon, can do significant damage if they are of the mind to do so. Can a gun cause more severe damage, yes.
But look at it in yet another light…If you were to be the victim of a crime of passion, which a large portion of gun crimes are, would you prefer to be shot once and die quickly, and perhaps somewhat less painfully..or would you prefer to be stabbed 5, 10, 20 times, or hacked to death with a sword, or beaten to death with fists, feet, a pan, a club or a baseball bat.
At the end of the day it is all about personal responsibility, but even more so it is about RESPECT, or the complete and total lack of RESPECT that liberalism encourages in our society today. Lack of respect for self, and for others!
The 60 year liberal expirement is a proven failure! The 200+ year success of the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendent is proof that our forefathers knew what they were doing when they gave us the right to own and possess firearms.
Let’s put the blame where it belongs, it’s not the weapon that is to blame. It’s liberalism and the root causes in the home that have created the hedonistic, no respect environment we live in today.
Banning guns won’t stop crime. It will just make the crimes that are committed that much more heinous as they have become in countries where guns have been banned.
I know you’ll never admit that you liberals are the root cause of the problem, but hopefully a few people will open their eyes to the damage you’ve dne to our society.
I’m not sure Panzer read my entire post, as I note near the end that banning guns doesn’t end gun-related crimes. I simply point out what I think is a bad argument to convince the American public to continue supporting Second Amendment rights, and offer what I believe is a better alternative. And FYI, repeatedly calling me a liberal doesn’t make me one. Sorry, Panzer, but I’ll happily defend my conservative/libertarian credentials against yours on any day of the week.
I should think that adopting a philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction might actually increase the lethality of “a powerful firearm in the hands of a deranged killer.” Mass murderers, as we have seen recently, often do not expect to live beyond the period during which they make their final “statement.” Imagine some future mass killer, easily able to convey powerful firearms to his preferred location because the public has become immunized to their presence. Visualize the back of a filled auditorium or theater. How many might die before anyone spotted him standing there behind them? 50? 100?
You need a bit more research and a bit less generalization. For example, at between 20 and 30 yards the average compound hunting bow is both more accurate and more deadly than any unrifled pistol in the hands of a beginner. In the hands of someone who is proficient with it, at any distance over about 15 yards the bow is hands down a more accurate and deadlier weapon. You can hunt and kill bears with a bow, it’s fairly common. You can’t with a pistol.
Yeah, I’d defend Templar’s conservative/libertarian credentials, too. It’s annoying sometimes , but you always know where he’s coming from and he’s consistent. It seems as though these days, calling someone a ‘liberal’ is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Yes, a compound bow can be deadly. I got to say, though, I can’t remember the last time someone went a bow-shooting rampage and a number of people were injured or killed. Rick Russell points to one key reason when he refers to someone who’s “proficient” with the weapon. If you’re not proficient (many hours of practice), you’ll almost never strike an intended target. Pistols are much easier to aim and take much less skill at close range to use.
With the world the way it is today every home should have at least one gun of some type in it. It should be mandatory that every person from the age of 4 years old up be taught to shoot, and learn to clean and properly handle a gun. I taught my 3 daughters when they were young how to shoot and I made them also learn how to clean the gun. Only one was ever interested in going hunting with me, but the whole family always ate everything that was killed. I am a retired Police Officer from Ohio that moved to Arizona in 2004 and I see people carrying hand guns all the time in stores and other places. I don’t hunt anymore but I left the Sheriff Dept. know what guns I keep in my home just so they would know if I ever had a problem with a intruder after calling them for help I would be forced to take care of my family at all cost. With so many people out of work and running out of unemployment benefits there is going to be a lot more homes being robbed, like I use to tell the retired people back east you don’t have to shoot at a person shoot a hole in your ceiling when they hear the gun go off they will be running.
I wrote a blog early today and it never got posted, must be selective, only what the author wants to see. If you don’t own a gun get one with unemployment running out you can bet someone is looking at your house. If you are afraid to shoot someone then shoot the ground or a hole in the ceiling the robber is now going to stick around to see if you can hit him with the next shot. Learn to shoot and protect yourself.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
It is easy to cherry-pick a situation in which a gun is a superior weapon, argue that no other weapon is as effective in that situation, then pretend you have established that this is true of all situations.
Now, suppose a spree killer is not in a crowded office, but in a campground at night. Clearly he wants a weapon that is silent and jam-proof, like a knife. Plus, knives, never run out of ammo.
Or suppose he wants to take out everyone in a subway station, or even everyone in a small town. Clearly the handgun is a stupid choice compared to a canister of the right gas or liquid poison in a reservoir. Plus, the killer can be far, far away from the scene when the damage occurs.
And let’s not forget that the biggest mass murder in history was committed with a set of boxcutters, eclipsing the previous record-holder, which was committed with a jar of gasollne and a match.
Finally, you make the classic error of obsessing over the costs without balancing them against the benefits. In the USA, guns are used about 30,000 times per year to kill somebody (more than half of these are suicides, which don’t really count unless you maintain that the subject was too unimaginative to substitute any other method). In the same year, they are used in incidents of self-defense about 1.2 MILLION times per year.
Even using the most pessimistic of all self-defense figures, firearms are AT LEAST 2.5 times as likely to be used in self-defense than in suicide, homicide, or fatal accidents; using the most widely-accepted figures, they are more than 100 times more likely to be used in self-defense.
Le writes:
“I canâ��t remember the last time someone went a bow-shooting rampage and a number of people were injured or killed.”
Like this “school shooting” in Australia (can’t get guns there, you know) with crossbow and bombs?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962883322.html
Or how about these?
Man murders four with dagger:
http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg01686.html
Man kills five family members across three cities with axe:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355562,00.html
Student slashes eight at Indiana high school
http://crimene.ws/2004/11/28/knife-attack-in-indiana-high-school/
Asian school stabbing sprees kill dozens, injure more than 80:
http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2008/02/asian-school-stabbings.html
Gangs turn to machetes in gun-control utopia of Boston:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/08/16/city_gangs_turning_to_machetes_police_say/
Really, Le, it’s not about the weapon used, it’s about the user.
Sorry about that, Rick. I have to approve people who are commenting on this blog for the first time. I don’t always get to check for pending comments as often as I (or a new visitor) would like.
I haven’t had a chance to check out all of the links posted by Henry Bowman for alternative ways that criminals have attacked and killed people. My original post never claimed all killings would end in a world without guns. That would be silly. But in Bowman’s first link about the crossbow attack, other people were able to tackle and disarm the attacker after only two victims were injured. How often does that happen in mass shooting with a gun? Right now (because most Americans still aren’t armed in public), we have to wait for police to arrive to shoot the murderer, or for the killer to run out of ammo or shoot him or herself.
Many have forgotten the basic reason for the Second Amendment.
A well armed citizenry is the bottom line protection against an errant government.
As a ’son of the revolution’ I will never forget that reason. I will never forget the power of a kings and tyrants.
The path is deep and lined with blood. First come private owned militia, with private owned prisons. Disarmament follows closely on the closing of the free press.
Wake up and smell history. There may always be the killers and they will always have the guns, legal or not.
My weapon choice is the Word. It travel the speed of light; able to leap vast oceans; and command militia.
Le writes: “But in Bowman’s first link about the crossbow attack, other people were able to tackle and disarm the attacker after only two victims were injured. How often does that happen in mass shooting with a gun? Right now (because most Americans still aren’t armed in public), we have to wait for police to arrive to shoot the murderer, or for the killer to run out of ammo or shoot him or herself.”
Ah, and here is where your preconceptions collide with reality. And it’s important that you understand how.
Take our infamous school and church spree shootings for example. NOT A SINGLE ONE of these shootings was stopped by police before the shooter exhausted or satisfied himself and committed suicide. That record pretty much sucks, wouldn’t you say?
However, four of these shootings WERE stopped with only zero to two victims shot, and in all cases they were stopped by ARMED CITIZENS who were already on site. In two of these cases, the citizens happened to have immediate access to their arms and at most one victim was killed. In the other two, they were forced by gun-free school zones laws (victim disarmament laws that you notice never disarm the shooter) to fetch their guns from offsite before they could confront the shooter, and the resultant death toll was slightly higher (though still a lot better than the ones that weren’t stopped).
So when you write, “How often does that happen in mass shooting with a gun?” the answer is, “Not often enough, which will continue until THE LAW STOPS DISARMING THE VICTIMS.”
Since you seem to be inclined to check these claims out (and I would expect no less of an honest journalist), these shootings were at the Pearl (MS) High School, 1997; Parker Middle School dance, Edinboro PA, 1998; Appalachian School of Law, Grundy VA, 2002, and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007. You can probably name by yourself all the ones that WEREN’T stopped by their unarmed victims — they became famous for high body counts.