When Charles Whitman became America's most famous mass murderer, citizens helped stop him. Could you do the same today?
Here in Austin this was a big day in the media, though not one recognized nationwide. Forty years ago today a troubled ex-Marine named Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower of the University of Texas administration building and began to gun down students and passersby on the south and west malls of the University and on nearby Guadalupe Street.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
we need to move forward, not backward.
The essence of conservatism is the idea that moving forward IS moving backward.
because guns are easier to change than society
This may be true, but what you end up with is validating the negative things which have happened in society and then rather than making nay effort to fix them you throw up your hands and take away one of our constitutional rights. That seems like a terrible choice. Like admitting defeat.
Dave
27 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, 3/4 of the population shouldn't be allowed to drive a car either, but we're not about to ban them. They account for enormously more deaths than guns do.
What people don't take into considerating in looking at the gun death and injury statistics is the enormous number of gun owners in America - about 180 million of them, and the fact that 99.9% of them don't shoot themselves or anyone else accidentally. The reality is that most gun owners are very responsible, but the tiny minority who are not really stick out like a sore thumb.
Dave
28 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
What does the ability to kill have to do with being responsible???
29 - zingzing
dave: "The essence of conservatism is the idea that moving forward IS moving backward."
right. and that's why conservatism sucks monkey-dick. it's a contradiction wrapped up in an old man's dream.
as for our consititutional rights... it was a constitutional right when guns were a positive thing, which they certainly aren't anymore. (it was also a more detailed constitutional right than gun-nuts want to admit.) and the guns are the negative thing we should no longer validate. i will never admit defeat in the face of a gun, (unless there actually is a gun in my face, at which point, i will admit to anything.)
um, are there really 180 million gun owners in this nation? that seems a bit inflated to me.
30 - zingzing
the only stat i could come up with is 80 mil, but that is from a pro-gun site... which has some funny statistics... not funny strange, funny haha... so i don't know if that number is high or low...
but 180 million? over half the people in this nation own guns? how is it that about 95% of the people i know won't even touch a gun? i call bull.
31 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
You know this might be just a little too far out there but did any one consider getting rid of guns AND adressing the problems with society Dave is talking about? Or do we really have to keep the guns before we can adress these problems... We've had guns forever and havent adressed these problems. So if they're not getting fixed anyways what's wrong with "validating the negative things which have happened in society?" as Dave put it.
32 - Condor
If a gun can save a life by taking a life.... it's a positive thing.
Stopping violent offenders from allowing us to exercise our rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) sometimes carries the consequence of having to put them down (i.e. shoot them).
Just last week a man in our office was forced to an ATM machine and withdrew the limit to give to the robber... who after calling him a "White MF" stabbed him in the neck for spite. A gun would have been nice right about then.
Sadly and often the defender gets put through the legal wranglings and comes out with a shattered bank account, jail time... and a ruined life. For what? Self-defence? Makes one what to shoot and run, which puts the citizen in the same category as the criminal.
911 isn't quick enough, and the police are NOT OBLIGATED to respond anyway.... the cell phone is not a defensive weapon... maybe you should just call for an ambulance, as you're likely to need one anyway... get medical aid enroute so you won't bleed as long.
Dave, the article was great.
Zing... Excuse me if I seem a bit exercised but you need to wash your mouth out with soap. Your use of the foul vernacular discredits every/any point you are trying to convey. Hence, you will never get any respect, ever.
I get the impression that most people would rather crap their pants and try to drive the criminal away with the stench, than actually demonstrate some free will on those with extreame prejudice, malice of forethought, and evil intent.
33 - zingzing
condor--what [the fuck] are you talking about?
just last week around here, a guy walked into an office with a couple of pistols and unloaded them into a bunch of jewish women. why? because he couldn't get a job or get laid.
foul vernacular... i'll say whatever the fuck i want to say it in whatever fucking way i want to. the point remains the point, and if you can't take it, don't talk about shitting your pants, just go do it.
34 - Victor Plenty
A lot more than 3/4 of the population cannot be considered safe drivers. If senseless death was what we really wanted to prevent, the number of lives we'd save by requiring every driver to pass a written exam or a driving test every year would be far greater than the number that could be saved by any gun control measure ever devised.
35 - Jet in Columbus
...and I bet not a single person blamed it on him being hetrosexual did they?
I'm old enough to remember this incodent, there was even a TV movie about it, and a rather good episonde of the Mod Squad based on it.
If I remember right, no one screamed for gun control over the incodent, no one yelled that it was because of the Vietnam war over it. No one even said, "Ah that stuff always happens to those hickes down in Texas" either.
It was a day when the root cause was identified, we recognized it, and moved on.
36 - Dave Nalle
What does the ability to kill have to do with being responsible???
Responsibility is not the ability to kill. Mindles forces of nature can KILL things, after all. Responsibility is having the ability to kill and choosing not to use it. That's the quality which is desirable and which is a hallmark of socially responsible man.
Dave
37 - Dave Nalle
but 180 million? over half the people in this nation own guns?
Last I heard it was around 60% who owned one or more guns.
how is it that about 95% of the people i know won't even touch a gun? i call bull.
95% of the people I know own more than one gun. We balance each other out.
dave
38 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
So I should learn how to kill just so I can have the pride of saying I know how to kill but am not going to kill because im responsible?
39 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Aight im gonna break the #s out on yall. While you all are claiming gun ownership is a great yankeedoodle way to defend yourself, the statistical truth of this is nonexistent. A gun in the home makes that home far more dangerous than it would have otherwise been.
The facts are as follows:
A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting than in self defense.
A gun in the home is 7 times more likely to be used to commit homicide or a violent crime than in self defense.
A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used to commit suicide than in sefl defense.
So how exactly do guns make you and your kids safer?
40 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
You are sacrificing your childrens safety for your need to feel like a responsible man.
41 - Chuck The Great
The sorce of the problem to gun cimes lies within the basic right an american has to own practically any gun he/she desires. The fact that I could walk down to my friendly neighborhood gun store and purchase a semi auotmatic machine gun and claim that I intend to to use it for self defense is absolutly absurd. I cant cary this gun down the streat to protect myself from being robbed and I cant use this weapon to go hunting. Clearly this gun has no use in defending a home since a much smaller and less dangerous weapon could do the job with more efficiency. The only use for a weapon like this is to kill extreamly large amounts of people in an extreamly short time (unless i intend to shoot one person a million times a minute.)
Gun ownership is completely unnecesary to defend ourselves from attacks. Instead we could get an alarm system, or use stronger locks. And if guns did not exist we would not have to worry about them in the streat, thus we wouldnt need to walk around with guns hidden behind our jackets. Statistics show (check blog #39) that owning a gun only increases the risk of crimes being commited.
42 - Dave Nalle
PETI, all you have to do is educate your kids about guns and 99% of those problems disappear. Teach them not to go near guns when they are young and how to use them properly when they are older, and they're no more dangerous than a number of other household items.
THAT is the responsibility I'm talking about. It's not the guns which cause problems in the home, it's having the guns there with parents not taking responsibility for educating and supervising their children.
Plus also think your statistics are debatable. The figures aren't all that recent, but the Bureau of Justice Statistics did a study which showed that far more crimes are prevented by firearms than there are rapes, homicides or accidental shootings. They estimate 83,000 crimes prevented by firearms in 1992, compared to a total of homicides, suicides and accidents of less than a third of that. Plus since that time Concealed Carry has become much more common, so the number of gun homicides is down and the number of crimes prevented is up since then.
It's not a neutral source, but you might find some of the seemingly pretty well researched information on the Gun Owners of America site informative.
Dave
43 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
They estimate 83,000 crimes prevented by firearms in 1992, compared to a total of homicides, suicides and accidents of less than a third of that.
That is manipulation of the statistics. You are comparing apples and oranges. The 83,000 crimes prevented by firearms include all crimes - not just homicide suicide and accidents. It also includes defense against rape, assault, unarmed household roberry, theft, auto-theft etc. There were over 2 million of these crimes committed in 1992. Of the 2 million+ only 83,000 crimes were prevented by the use of a firearm.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 83,000 number includes every possible crime imaginable. The 1/3 of that number you site is only for homicide, suicide, and accidents. It is not a useful comparison at all.
In response to my arguments on how much more likely a household gun is to be used in a crime rather than in self defense (22X more likely) you say:
PETI, all you have to do is educate your kids about guns and 99% of those problems disappear.
Oh Ok, I get it. So its everyone else failing to properly educate, just not you. The fact is, despite a parent's awareness of the dangers of a firearm, mistakes are made. Not all the time. But accidents happen.
Furthermore, education will not discourage a youth from using the gun in a crime or from killing themself. So even if you can eliminate the 4X more likely to have a gun related accident factor, the gun will still be 11X more likely to be used for suicide and 7X more likely to be used to commit a violent crime. Educating the kids does not always work. Many, not all kids, are not mature enough to have the responsibility, as the statistics show.
44 - Dave Nalle
PETI, there is no perfect comparison to be made. Guns do prevent a substantial number of crimes. Most of the gun crimes - robbery and armed burglary and muggings and the like - would take place regardless of what efforts are made to control guns, either with an illegal gun or another weapon. So how do you discount those figures to take that into account? You can't do it exactly. What's more, perhaps 50% of gun violence is by criminals done to other criminals - drug dealers, gang members, etc. That really shoiuldn't be counted at all.
All that really matters to the individual is that he had a gun and it saved his life or his property or his family.
More valid for consideration, perhaps is the mounting evidence that the passage of concealed carry and castle laws have a substantial deterrent effect on all sorts of crime. You don't have to even have a gun to benefit from the general deterrent value of criminals knowing citizens have guns and never knowing when they'll run into an armed and trained victim.
As for educating kids, read some of the news accounts of the tragic events surrounding kids being shot. The kids usually have no training or preparation and the gun has been left loaded in an easily accessible location.
Most gun owners ARE responsible, but the few who aren't get all the attention.
You ought to check out that GOA link. There's a lot of useful information there.
Dave
45 - Dave Nalle
The real solution to the gun violence issue is the combination of concealed carry laws with castle laws and harsher sentences for those who use a gun in a crime.
Concealed carry deters a great deal of crime.
Castle laws protect homeowners from malicious prosecution if they defend their home with a gun.
Harsh sentences for those using guns in a crime will both deter crime and remove the most violent criminals from the population.
Dave
46 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Alright Ill make it real straightforward.
People who keep a gun in the house are 72% more likely to die at the hands of a firearm.
People who keep a gun in the house are 3.4 times more likely to commit suicide.
How can you honestly make the case that you and your family are safer on the off-chance you use your gun to defend against an intruder, when you increase the likelihood of a child committing suicide so dramatically in your house?
And just to demonstrate the correlation between handgun ownership and deaths by handgun here are some more statistics which you probably already know but might need reminding of:
373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
I know some of the deaths that might have occurred by a handgun in the other nations, probably were accomplished using another weapon (knife). Im in the process of finding statistics to compare gun ownership rates to homicide rates in general, not just by handgun.
47 - Clavos
PETI 39:
What is the source for the statistics you cite? Can you provide a link?
48 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Most of my facts are coming from ichv.org
2/3s down the page under "Special Report" are statistics on how much more likely suicide and homicide are in a house where a firearm is present.
Those statistics come from the Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771
49 - Clavos
Dave,
Interesting and informative read. The whole article, not just the gun ownership points, is well thought out; it's a shame so many of the comments are mired in the gun issue.
I liked this in particular:
As a people we are increasingly risk-averse and passive and indecisive.
Brother, are we ever! Increasingly, we reject responsibility for our own well being and ask, no demand, that the state "nanny" us, that it protect us from ourselves, failing to see that the corollary of this is to give the state increasing control over our lives.
The individualism and self reliance that were so important in the first century of our national history are no longer even held as values by many these days.
What a shame.
50 - Clavos
It might have been a little more intellectually honest, PETI, if you had mentioned in #39, when you first cited these statistics, that they were obtained from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, so we could all judge for ourselves their probity and impartiality.
51 - Dave Nalle
When doing research for another article on gun control I visited the ICHV site and found myself unable to use any of their data because they're very slipshod with their data and terminology. They consistently mix the words murder and homicide as if they are the same thing, and seem to be doing it for purposes of deception. They also repeatedly refer to the handguns killing people with apparently no awareness of human agency in the process. They also present raw figures without taking into account differences in population and overall crime rate as in the table which PETI quotes in #46.
If you take those figures and adjust them relative to population and overall crime rate suddenly the various countries are a LOT closer together. For example, the US has 5 times the population and 6 times the per capita violent crime that England does, so effectively divide that 11,789 by 30. But wait, then you need to adjust it for political correctness. If you take out gun homicides committed by African-Americans, you have to divide it by another factor of 5. So while the overall gun homicide rate is about 5 times what it is in England relative to overall crime, without counting in African Americans it's almost exactly the same. But let's be fair and do away with the race issue alltogether. If you break the figures down by region, and eliminate the gun homicides in the top 20 metropolitan areas, you have the same effect or more, bringing the US gun homicide rate down to the same level as most European countries without even adjusting for the overall crime rate - which would be unfair, because most of that crime is in the major urban areas too.
For a fair comparison take any of the states which has no major cities - Vermont, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, for example. Compare their homicide rates with Britain's. Their total homicides per 100,000 population are lower than Britain's homicide rate from firearms alone. And these are some of the most heavily armed states in the union. Even larger states which have little in the way of urban crime, like Iowa, have lower per capita murders than Britain has.
It's not the guns, it's the level of crime in major urban centers whcih is the problem here.
Professor Gary Kleck of FSU has done some fascinating work debunking the apparent connection between gun ownership and gun homicides, basically proving that the problem is that the US is just a more violent nation, rather than that we have more guns. There's a neat article on Kleck here and you can read his analysis here.
Dave
52 - Dave Nalle
People who keep a gun in the house are 72% more likely to die at the hands of a firearm.
But here's the question you have to ask. Were they more likely to die because they had a gun in the house, or did they have a gun in the house because they knew they were more likely to be at risk because of lifestyle or where they lived? Looking at the statistics in more detail suggests that they had a gun because they knew they were at risk, rather than being at risk because they had a gun.
How can you honestly make the case that you and your family are safer on the off-chance you use your gun to defend against an intruder, when you increase the likelihood of a child committing suicide so dramatically in your house?
Again, the gun doesn't do the killing or cause people to commit suicide, and my children aren't statistics, they're individuals.
Dave
53 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Yes back to the old "guns dont kill people kill people" argument. Even if the gun isnt the one causing the suicide, it made suicide in that house 3.4 times more likely to occur. A number of reasons could be responsible for this other than the gun itself initiated mind control on the household children and told them to kill themselves. For example, swallowing pills slitting your wrists etc. probably have a much lower success rate at actually completing the suicide because medical attention in time can prevent the suicide. A shot in the head is final. Another reason other than the gun itself using mind control is that people dont have to think to kill themself with a gun. In the heat of the moment, with a gun at hand, who knows what might happen?
And Clavos -yes my source has an agenda- but most of their statistics are pretty straight forward. Dave points out the potential deceptiveness of straight #s of gun homicides in industrial nations. I didnt site those numbers to be deceptive - of course the population of the U.S. is higher than any of those nations, but I thought that would be immediately apparent, as would the fact that even adjusted for population the U.S. is still highest by far.
Furthermore, ICHV is not making up its own facts, doing its own research etc. It is taking its data from census data, the "Annals of Emergency Medicine," etc.
Yes any one source is only going to site statistics that fit its agenda - take Dave's Gun Owners of America for example, almost all of the data there is viciously deceptive - but I honestly cannot find a loophole in data showing that suicide is 3.4 times more likely in a house with a gun. If you think of one, I would be glad to hear it.
54 - Clavos
PETI,
I am researching the child suicide issue, and wanted to show this to you while I continue investigating. It's from a report by the Surgeon General and is published by the United States Public Health Service. I found it online in less than five minutes. As I said, I'm still looking for more data.
It has been proposed that the rise in suicidal behavior among teenage boys results from increased availability of firearms (Boyd, 1983; Boyd & Moscicki, 1986; Brent et al., 1987; Brent et al., 1991) and increased substance abuse in the youth population (Shaffer et al., 1996c; Birckmayer & Hemenway, 1999). However, although the rate of suicide by firearms increased more than suicide by other methods (Boyd, 1983; Boyd & Moscicki, 1986; Brent et al., 1987), suicide rates also increased markedly in many other countries in Europe, in Australia, and in New Zealand, where suicide by firearms is rare.
55 - Dave Nalle
The suicide argument is inherently deceptive. The correlation may exist, but can you show causation? Why aren't the same environmental/social factors which made a gun in the house necessary the ones which increased the rate of suicide there?
And, as Clavos points out, we have more guns here than other people do, so guns are a preferred method of suicide. If guns were taken out of the formula who is to say that those same folks wouldn't use other methods. It's more common in households with guns because in households with guns the person who's going to choose suicide has a gun to use to do it. That doesn't mean they wouldn't use a different method if no gun were available.
And the fact is that the US has a relatively low suicide rate compared to other countries. There's no indication that guns are increasing the number of suicides. The statistic just shows that those who commit suicide prefer guns.
Dave
56 - Clavos
PETI,
Here's a report by an advocacy group, the Children's Defense Fund 2006. CDF is actually pro gun control, so I never expected to find data which supports my point in their report.
On page 3, CDF points out that, from 1993 through 2003, gun-related child deaths declined by 50% nationwide. The same table on page 3 also shows that child suicide by gun declined by 20% during the same period.
It's not mentioned in the report, but gun ownership nationwide increased during that period. I don't have specific data on that at hand, but I'll bet Dave does.
57 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
It's more common in households with guns because in households with guns the person who's going to choose suicide has a gun to use to do it. That doesn't mean they wouldn't use a different method if no gun were available.
Yes it does. When there is no gun present they are 1/3.4 times less likely to commit suicide. My statistic is not for suicide with a gun. It is for suicide in general. When there is no gun present in the household suicide is 3.4 times less likely.
Why aren't the same environmental/social factors which made a gun in the house necessary the ones which increased the rate of suicide there?
So you're acknowledging that the social factors that made the parent own a gun in the first place also contributed to the parent's poor parenting skills such that his/her daughter committed suicide? In other words parents that buy a gun may have certain attitudes, such as perhaps a more violent attitude than other parents, and pass these attitudes onto their children, while providing an easy means to commit suicide, which in combination result in the child using the gun to commit suicide. You are saying the same social factors that cause gun ownership cause suicide. So gun owners just tend to be worse parents? Personally I don't think it's the social factors of gun owners that cause suicide, I think it's mostly just the fact that they own a gun and may use it rashly in anger or depression. Whether it's the social factors of gun ownership, or gun ownership itself, you are acknowledging one or both are contributing to suicide.
58 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
First of all Clavos, your first quote says suicide rates increased, your second says they decreased. Obviously they are different time periods, but wouldnt your second quote tend to invalidate your first?
Secondly, your first quote points out the obvious correlation between certain social factors that were on the rise during that period and suicide.
Im not denying social factors as causation! Obviously suicide is a personal choice caused by environmental factors and the gun is not initiating mind control on the teen to commit suicide. What your statistics do not show is the relative difference in suicide between the nations, it just says the rate increased in all the nations probably because of the rise of certain social factors. Even if the rate in the U.S. were lower than in all of the other nations, it might not be because we have more guns but because we have less of the social factors causing suicide. None of this information refutes the fact that in a house where a gun is present, suicide is 3.4X more likely to occur. If, hypothetically, we already have less of the social factors causing suicide, the rate would be even lower if we didnt have ready access of guns to teenagers potential wanting an easy way out of life. ICHV sites a survey in which something like 40% of teenagers say they could get access to a gun if they wanted one. Guns obviously do not increase suicide rates because the site of them cause suicidal thoughts, but because they make suicide easy, relatively painless, and thoughtless.
59 - Clavos
PETI,
Regardless of whose statistics are used, the incidence of in-the-home gun deaths (suicide or otherwise) is a miniscule proportion of the total number of gun owning households. Why should ALL gun owners be disenfranchised because of this? Would it not be more reasonable to find another solution to the problem?
60 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
In response to your seond post #56 Clavos, again you are showing the correlation between social factors and suicide rate. The period 1993-2003 was a relatively prosperous one that saw nearly all types of violent crime diminish. Prosperity may not be the only social factor involved, but logically it's a good one.
So again, im not saying guns cause suicide. Im saying that when a gun is present suicide is 3.4X more likely to be executed. That is a fact, for which you have had no explanation yet. As Dave says, this may have to do with social factors of gun ownership that also cause suicide (in other words gun owners make worse parents on average statistically), but it is also likely largely due to the fact that guns make suicide easier and have a higher completion %. The latter is my preferred explanation but I am not sure the one Dave offers says anything better about gun ownership.
61 - Clavos
And even if teenagers in gun owning households were committing suicide at an alarming rate, is their parents' choice to own a gun in the face of the data not a personal decision in which the state has no business interfering pre-emptively?
I don't have children, but do have guns. If my neighbor's kid offs himself with his dad's gun, is it right that I lose my right to own guns as a result?
62 - Clavos
PETI, Your point in #60 doesn't address the point that, according to the data, child gun deaths for ALL reasons declined during that period?
63 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
In response to Clavos #59, so increasing a teen's chance of sucessful suicide attempt by 340% is acceptable? Even if nearly all gun owning households do not have a suicide problem, as you point out, the chance that the gun will be used in self defense is miniscule to the chance that it will be used to commit suicide. As i said earlier, a household gun is 11X more likely to be used to commit suicide than to be used in self defense.
64 - Clavos
PETI, I find nothing to refute your point that suicide is 3.4x more likely in gun households, so I accept it.
There ARE ways short of banning guns altogether to solve that problem, however. Parental education comes to mind, there are very good gun locks available, etc.
65 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
In response to Clavos 62, yes it does. I acknowledged that guns are not causation. The overall social factors causing gun violence declined during that period. However, the household's with a gun were still much more likely to have a child commit suicide using the household gun. Even if overall suicide/violence rate declines, that fact remains unchanged.
66 - Clavos
PETI 63, You ain't gonna like my response, but increasing the probability of any ONE teenager's suicide by 340% IS acceptable to me when taken in the greater context of ALL gun owner's rights, yes.
And the 11x figure only tells me that the incidence of suicide in a gun household is 11x greater than that of it being invaded, not that the presence of the gun increases the likelihood of suicide.
It's a numbers game, and in my opinion, the numbers don't warrant abrogating everyone's right to own guns.
67 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Re #64, ok good so we agree gun's do create a problem. The issue then becomes adressing a problem.
Perhaps you are right, a very strict and well enforced gun control program that falls short of seizing guns is a more moderate and agreeable solution. Strictly enforced laws against unsupervised use or access to guns by minors comes to mind; mandatory sale of mechanisms to prevent child use and/or lockable storage devises with the sale of the gun; mandatory instruction in safe gun use, storage, and risks with the purchase of a gun (a 2 hour class or something); are all things that come to mind. Either way, when 40+% of minors, who society increasingly infantalizes, regards with contempt, and denies the right to vote because they are not responsible enough have access to a gun, there is a problem. If they are not responsible, mature enough to vote, then they certainly are not responsible, mature enough to have the power over life and death.
68 - Clavos
BTW, PETI,
Dave did NOT say this:
(in other words gun owners make worse parents on average statistically)
What he said was:
Why aren't the same environmental/social factors which made a gun in the house necessary the ones which increased the rate of suicide there?
Meaning the environmental/social factors in the vicinity of the home, not those factors inside the home.
69 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Re # 66, I suppose this an acurate description of the situation. Once you acknowledge gun ownership increases suicide rates among teens, then the matter essentially becomes an issue of weighing the right of the child to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness against the gun owner's right to liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. Im not all that up on legal precedent on this, but I wonder if the court would side on the side of greater numbers (gun owners) or on the side of greater loss to the individual (loss of life liberty and pursuit of happiness >> loss of liberty and pursuit of happiness).
70 - Clavos
Either way, when 40+% of minors, who society increasingly infantalizes, regards with contempt, and denies the right to vote because they are not responsible enough have access to a gun, there is a problem. If they are not responsible, mature enough to vote, then they certainly are not responsible, mature enough to have the power over life and death.
Very good point, PETI. See the portion of your words I've emphasized. I would broaden that part to include the "adult" 60% as well, because of the way we have been creating a nanny state in recent years. But that's another rant.
71 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Re # 68:
My statement holds true if you hold parents responsible for the suicide of their child.
First of all I would assume suicide is much more a reflection of factors within the home than outside the home. Plenty of kids grow up in bad neigborhoods, but parents can adequately support the child at home.
My statement is not intended to deny the influence of outside factors, but rather reflect the ability of parents to deal with outside factors. Ultimately, I think the blame of suicide falls on the parent for failing to provide a nurturing home and/or failing to recognize signs symptoms of potential suicide and/or providing an easy means to execute the act by providing a gun.
72 - Clavos
PETI 69, Don't forget that the child's loss of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is the result of a conscious act on his part, even if the presence of the gun DID precipitate it, whereas my loss of my guns would not be because of anything I did.
73 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
# 70, if society has been infantalized and is no longer responsible enough to have the power over life and death, then I would think the solution would be to take away the power until the child prove's himself/herself responsible enough to wield it.
In fact, I find it incredibly backwards that after an article about how infantalized society has become most people are defending the merits of gun onwership. The logical solution to an infantalized society is not to give them more guns and hope they learn how to use them, but to take away the guns until they show they learn how to use them. But as I said earlier, perhaps compromise measures are possible since there certainly are responsible gun owners.
74 - Clavos
Ultimately, I think the blame of suicide falls on the parent for failing to provide a nurturing home and/or failing to recognize signs symptoms of potential suicide
Agree completely.
and/or providing an easy means to execute the act by providing a gun.
If it's a well-parented home, the presence of a gun shouldn't be a problem.
75 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
#72, perhaps you did nothing, but it would be because of irresponsible use of guns by other gun owners. Usually society claims some responsibility in protecting the safety of minors, even if the minor himself wants to commit suicide. As for adults committing suicide, that would be a different issue for which society has little or no responsibility. (nanny the actual children not the adults).