Like most of you the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech really has me thinking lately. I post quite a bit on a comic book message board and there's a poster there who has used the tragedy as an opportunity to spout off on how gun control isn't the answer, more people need to be armed, etc. He tells me all about his libertarian ideals and how he should have the right to own whatever weapon he want to. I've come to a conclusion over the past week or so: libertarianism sucks.
I know people who own guns, I have friends who own guns. The problem is that most folks in this world aren't as good or responsible as my friends are. This killer in Virginia had obvious mental problems yet was allowed to purchase an instrument of death without any regards to his mental state. Would it really be that much of a hassle for first-time gun owners to see a mental health professional before buying a weapon? I'm in favor of gun control, I could go on and on about it. (And if you really want to hear an ear-full just ask Carrie about gun ownership). But that's not really the point I'm trying to make.
My recent conclusions about libertarianism began to take shape over the weekend during our trip to Vegas. I love Las Vegas, I really do. I'm always down for a party and the party in Vegas never stops. The laws there are obviously quite easy on gambling and drinking and since I can do both responsibly I think Vegas is a great place. But it got me thinking, what if every state had the lax laws that Nevada does? Well, every city would be like Vegas. Think about it, Nevada allows all types of gambling and prostitution and as a result that's what the state is known for. The thing is, I don't want to live in Vegas or a city like Vegas. It's fun to visit a casino but I don't want one next to my son's elementary school. I think it's fine that there is safe prostitution there but I don't want my boy to see flyers for different hookers or strip clubs on his way to school (and you see many, many such flyers in Vegas).
So here's my first problem with libertarianism; there is an obvious disregard for the good of the overall community. A libertarian would say you have a right to own whatever weapon you like and run your business wherever you like, but is that really what is best for the people around you? The first thing I hear out of a libertarian's mouth is "I have the right to ..." and their argument usually starts and ends there. Well, how about thinking about those you interact with directly and indirectly on a daily basis? Is what's good for your pocketbook or your peace of mind really good for your neighbor's elderly parents or your child's classmates?
This leads to my second problem; the inherent hypocrisy of libertarianism. If you have libertarian ideals and are reading this saying "Lyman, that is crazy. Nobody wants a casino next to a schoolhouse" then I'm talking to you. Here are the questions I pose:
1. Should citizens have the right to own nuclear warheads?
2. Should citizens have the right to run cocaine/heroin bars within two blocks of a public school?
Those questions seem crazy, for sure. But if you say 'no' to them then you are saying that the government should limit a citizen's right to bear arms and right to run a business. And it's there that the whole thing breaks down. If the government can limit what kind of weapons that the people carry, what type of weapons should be limited? Who is going to make that decision? You?
Our rights are not absolute. They need to be scrutinized and voted on and re-examined by elected officials. Who knows how many more would've died in Virginia if the killer had easy access to fully automatic weapons?
If there is a silver lining to the tragedy it's that we will undoubtedly be debating and finding new ways to allow the right to bear arms.
Liberty
About this entry
Youre currently reading Liberty.
- Published:
- at 2:24 AM on Wednesday, April 18, 2007
- Previous:
- Older Post
- Next:
- Newer Post
-
6:16 AM
Not that my main response is to the gun issue, but to your question, "Who knows how many more would've died in Virginia if the killer had easy access to fully automatic weapons?", my question is, how many could have been saved had a responsible gun owner such as your friends had a weapon to take him out? Accourding to statisticts I found in a quick Google search, in Britain and Austrailia where it is illegal to carry a gun, "26% of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30% of its population victimized. The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime".
By the way, Va Tech was a "gun-free zone". It didn't help there any more than it would in society in general.
As to libertarians, of which I find myself moving towards as I get older, I believe you have mis-characterized their position. I believe their positiion on most issues is that I am free to do whatever I chose as long as it doesn't infringe on your rights. Having a "cocaine/heroin bar within two blocks of a public school", would in my opinion infringe on your rights. I also don't believe you will many libertarians who believe that gun ownership is completely unrestricted, much as free speech is not unrestricted. I believe nuclear warheads would fall into the allowable restrictions. -
6:20 AM
I love you and your beautiful heart and brain.
I think that a great many Americans are not willing to put aside their needs/desires secondarily to community good. My personal feeling is that what makes my community strong, makes me and my family strong. When people live in the close proximity that we all do, we have to have rules to protect us. Gun control is a must in my opinion.
Drew kind of ignited a similar fire several months ago with his post on the ban of trans-fats in NYC. It eventually devolved into a one-on-one between me and his Dad as to whether the Constitution protects the right to bear arms for purposes other than an organized militia. I have only one thing to add to what I said then: people can't shoot each other if they don't have guns.
Sure, they can stab and otherwise kill but firearms make it much more easy to kill haphazardly and without a lot of effort.
BTW---I happened to catch a photo of Lindsay Lohan wearing a T-shirt that read:
I (picture of uzi) L.A.
Are you kidding me??????? -
6:21 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
-
6:23 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
-
6:23 AM
I failed to add that the worst school mass murder occured on May 18, 1927 at the Bath Township school system in Michigan. 45 peoeple were killed and 55 were injured by a school board member who set off a series of bombs,
I believe Timothy McVey used fertilizer and fuel oil. Terrorist on 9/11 used box cutters and airplanes.
If someone is intent on killing, they will, gun or no gun. - 6:27 AM
-
6:33 AM
Kathy, not sure what "right" it would infringe, but it sure wouldn't do much for your "strong community".
Oh by the way, did you see the recent court ruling overturning the D.C. ban on gun ownership. According to the NY Times, "The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias". -
6:44 AM
Gingerly said, nothing about DC government should set the standard for the rest of this Country in my opinion. Having close knowledge of DC-proper's programs to serve and protect, I'd have to compare their ability to do so to ... FEMA's response to Katrina. Perhaps not that bad, but still; we're talking about a government where the Mayor is repeatedly busted for engaging in illegal and illicit conduct? And subsequently re-elected to office? A government that was in Federal receivership over their seriously dubious fiscal activities? We'll just all have to sit back and wait to see what the appellate decision is. As you say, no court has ever submitted this opinion.
Just flipping, here: what about guns in my strong community?
Nice to chat again, Don! - 6:52 AM
- 9:07 AM
-
10:18 AM
I don't see how guns make my community stronger. I do see how they make schools unsafe however. And if every student at Va Tech was carrying a gun I could see more deaths happening due to confusion and miscommunication. Not to mention the number of firearm accidents that would occur throughout the year.
As time goes on we see that gun ownership is infringing upon our children's right to a safe education.
And the unfortunate thing about bombs is that the materials used to make them aren't illegal. Farmers need fertilizer. You could drive into a classroom to kill children as well. Airplanes have killed many.
The difference is this; cars and airplanes were designed to transport people and an unfortunate by-product is that they kill people. A gun is designed to kill someone by puncturing a hole in them and as an unfortunate by-product they kill someone by puncturing a hole in them.
Why make it so much easier?
The Constitution used to restrict our rights to drink alcohol, it was created to be amended so as the nationwide-community changed, the interpretation of our rights could change as well. And if you don't believe that community can change your rights then you don't see in line with our founding fathers and the point I make in my original post holds true. -
12:02 PM
I'm going to get all probabilistic on this, since Lyman got pragmatic (and I liked it).
Consider: What is the probability that a person buying fertilizer is going to build a bomb and kill people? What is the probability that a person purchasing a semi-automatic handgun will shoot someone, intentionally or otherwise? How do those two compare when you consider the total number of people purchasing one or the other? Drawing from your own estimation on the relative probabilities and the density issue, what should we expect the total impact of purchasing fertilizer or handguns be on a community? Which would be larger?
Policy makers, legislators all have to prioritize issues and check themselves against the important, but often unclear, guidance of a handful of documents from two centuries ago. Cost-benefit analyses are critical in such priority setting. We talk of a measure called Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLLs, like nipples). Gotta tell ya---handguns account for more YPLLs in certain communities than any other known entity.
If you were a legislator, what kind of mandate would that suggest to you? -
12:20 PM
I assume that you are refering to the changing of our Constitution. If so, of course I understand that the Constitution can be amended. I just don't believe we should give away our rights, just to feel safe, as I think that is a false sense of security. Unlike others, I believe it is a personal responsibility to protect myself and my house and not count on the government to do it for me, because as they have demonstrated, and you have pointed out, most times they will let you down, just as the victims of Katrina. If the Patriot Act is a bad as you and others think, you may wish you had that gun you so easily give away, to protect yourself at sometime in the future.
-
1:08 PM
So you do feel an obligation to own a gun to protect yourself. How far does that extend? Just guns or missiles and grenades as well?
And that's quite a jump in logic you present; I disagree with the way the gov't handles disasters or intelligence gathering therefore I need to arm myself against my gov't?
I actually love our system of gov't. I don't have complete faith in our elected federal officials so I vote otherwise (many others felt the same way last election). I'm in favor of strict gun control so I will vote accordingly.
It's like this Don, your argument has still come back around to my basic point, the libertarian ethos is a selfish one. Too concerned with one's own right no concern for the rest of the public. If it is up to the individual to defend himself from crime then what about my elderly neighbor or single mother with three children or the mentally challenged? -
1:47 PM
I think it's interesting too that the one amendment you chose to reference (the 18th) is the only one to me that looks like it limits what everybody can do (the others seem to provide additional rights, abolish slavery, women to vote) and three amendments later (the 21st) it was repealed. What good did the 18th amendment do besides create an underground liquor industry and more work to repeal the amendment?
I would think that abolishing the 2nd amendment would have a similar situation. Whether guns are illegal in this country or not (for civilians), other countries are still going to have them as well as your military and police personnel. If it's available to them, it will be available to others. The difference being that the ones obtaining the guns aren't going to be your good hearted kinds of people. It will be the ones who are willing to break the law to have one. Gun control doesn't stop that kind of mentality.
Related to your casino next to a school comment, why do you think Las Vegas has millions of tourists every year? Outlawing gambling and prostitution in the rest of the country didn’t eliminate either. It found a location where it was okay. Actually, both are still here in Indiana where it is illegal. If gambling was legalized here, do you really think that there would be a casino next to a school? Only if the community allowed it. That’s where it is our job at citizens to speak our minds letting our local government know that it is unacceptable. A private business isn’t going to build where they know they can’t make a profit. It is not our federal government’s responsibility to do this for us.
I love having these debates with you and Kathy (specifically you two since I think everyone else is afraid of speaking their minds for fear of not being informed enough), but despite my efforts, I can’t understand your logic. You complain about FEMA’s handling of Katrina, social security is no longer a viable option for our generation, and yet you are willing to give more control of your life to the federal government when you and your local governments should be the ones addressing some of your concerns. Why give more responsibilities to the federal government when it has consistently shown that it is incapable of handling it (I sound like I’m channeling my dad right now)?
I won’t claim to be an expert on the libertarian ethos, but I don’t think they are saying that there shouldn’t be a government funded police force that protects us all from crime. What I think they are saying is that the individual shouldn’t be denied the right to protect themselves as well. - 1:53 PM
-
2:03 PM
I never said I wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment. I just want to limit who buys them. Of course guns would still be available in other countries but it would be a lot harder for a gang member in my city to go to another country to obtain them rather then picking one up at the local gun store. The more obstacles I can put between a criminal and a gun the better.
I also never said anything about the federal gov't making gambling and prostitution illegal (I'm really surprised you are putting word in to my mouth). I agree that it's up to each community to decide weather or not to allow casinos. And that's where it all breaks down for me. If we say you can't build a casino here, as a community, then why can't we say you can't own a fully automatic weapon as well?
And I'll tell you why I can complain about our gov't and still take issue with the way they handle things. If an elected official had been in charge of FEMA instead of one of Bush's cronies maybe things would've gone more smoothly. Like I said before (you obviously didn't read) I have faith in our gov't because I can vote to change it. I'll hand over more responsibility to the gov't as a whole if that means less responsibility of one person with one set of ideals (ie the president).
And I don't know where you picked up that I was making a big distinction between federal and local gov't because I never did. -
4:51 PM
Lyman says, "Of course guns would still be available in other countries but it would be a lot harder for a gang member in my city to go to another country to obtain them rather then picking one up at the local gun store."
Would it be as hard to smuggle guns across the border as it is to smuggle people across the border. Will it be as hard to get guns across the border as it is to get illicit drugs from central America? Will people have to work as hard to ship guns into the country as they do to ship perscription drugs from Canada? Maybe we can keep guns out the same way we keep Cuban cigars out. What do you guys think? -
4:56 PM
In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]
Gun homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for young people 10-14 years of age and the second leading cause of death for young people 15-24. [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.]
Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death for both African-American and white teenage males [Journal of the American Medical Association].
Nine out of ten young people who are murdered in industrialized countries are slain in the United States [United Nations Children's Fund report, "The Progress of Nations" quoted in St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/93]. -
5:22 PM
Patrick, do you know where to buy Cuban cigars? I don't but I certainly wish I did. I'm a freakin' musician and I don't know how to get a hold of some coke.
I can however point you to the nearest gun store.
Laws against contraband cigars and drugs are effective. They may not be %100 effective but every little bit counts. You can't just throw your hands in the air and say "well, it doesn't work for X and Y, it won't work for Z!"
(I didn't touch the immigration and
prescription drugs issues because that's a whole other bag of worms) -
6:21 PM
I am one of the friends who owns guns and I agree that there are people in the world who are not as responsible as myself and other gun owners with guns. I have never been hunting, that is not a part of gun ownership in my life. Gun ownership in my life is learning about guns, knowing what they are capable of and learning how to use them in a safe manner. I enjoy going to a range and practicing on targets, a skill challenge if you will. The end all with practicing is knowing my capabilities with a gun should I ever need it in a protection situation.
I personally hope I never have to use a gun in a protection situation. My guns are kept unloaded in a case in my closet. I do not carry a gun on a daily basis though I have a permit to do so. I have carried a gun with me at times when my travels or job have me going into areas where I personally feel it is warranted.
When I turned 18 or 20 I went to the local Police Department and applied for a concealed carry gun license, I gave them all of my personal information and had my fingerprints taken. They ran their check and a week or two later my license arrived in the mail, this process is repeated every four years at the moment. The first hand gun I purchased was bought for multiple reasons though the one that weighed the most was the multiple safety features built in. I have since bought a few more for various reasons.
I agree that a level of gun control should be in effect however I think that there are too many radical views as to what the control should be. What the level should be, I don’t know. I do believe it was easy for me to get a gun permit, that may be because I’ve done nothing adverse in my life to create a notch on my record. Seeing a mental health professional seems a bit radical to me, however if I was personally seeing a mental health professional should that information be available when a check is ran. Should any prescription drugs I may be taken be listed on these checks so that they could determine if the prescription drugs would change my behavior with a handgun. Where is the line drawn, I do not know. I will and do listen to reasonable(in my opinion) ideas. I agree with Lyman that we should vote for representatives whose ideals are what we agree with and what we think will help change things for the better, yet unfortunately there may be different views as to what “for the better” means. -
6:36 PM
John R. Lott author of “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.
Wikipedia
United Kingdom vs. Switzerland
A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels between the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, to Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]
These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn. In addition, the prevalence of firearms in Switzerland is a direct result of its rigidly-controlled citizen army comprising most of the adult male population, who keep their service weapons at home, and so can be viewed as an exceptional case not directly comparable to other countries, even those with a high level of private firearms ownership.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban correlation with crime in the US
The 1994 federal Assault Weapons Ban, which recently sunset, led to no obvious change in firearms crime rates during its ten year run, and no statistics are currently available to show if the removal of this ban has had any effect.
Cato Institute:
Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. -
7:46 PM
Thanks for the insight there Jason.
I could give a flip how many bikes kill kids. Bikes are made for fun, guns are made for puncturing holes in flesh. How many children need to die before it becomes and official problem? 2,000? 3,000?
And I've actually been to Switzerland before. Twice. Let me tell you, its nothing like the US. Its very hard to move and become a citizen there, its very rural and mountainous, it has a neutral stance in world politics, and it has lax drug laws. The class and race issues are not a hotbed like they are here. You show me a place in Switzerland where you can drive from $10 million dollar homes to poor destitute projects like you can in NYC or LA or DC then I'll listen to a Switzerland comparison. -
8:06 PM
Lyman, I didn't mean to sound like I was putting words in your mouth. It must be the written aspect and me now being able to express my opinion the way I had intended. You are right, you did not explicitly say anything about abolishing the 2nd amendment or making gambling or prostitution illegal.
However, to me, placing restrictions on a casino in my community and gun control in my community are on completely different levels. To me, any discussion of gun control at a local level will end up with a federal skew to it because of its connection with the second amendment. Any "meaningful" gun control on a local level has to be a result of major changes on a national level and the constitution, which to me, means an abolishment of the 2nd amendment. That was a jump that I made and I apologize if I made it seem as if that was what you were stating.
This is probably going to bug Kathy, but Kelly, you can do a lot with statistics and not tell the whole story. New Zealand had 2 deaths by handguns, but NYC has twice as many people as the entire country of New Zealand. The United States has 50M more people than the other four countries listed combined (current population estimates). Yes, the U.S. still has more, even on a percentage basis, but the number shown is 0.003% of the population. How do the numbers look for those other countries for strangulation deaths or poisonings or swords? Maybe the numbers are skewed the other direction.
Thank you Patrick for saying what I was going to say. Lyman, as Kathy said in her very first response, you have a beautiful heart and brain. If you didn't, I would almost guarantee that you could locate Cuban cigars and cocaine. If guns were outlawed, the same would be true. Those who really wanted them could find them.
One final thing for the night (from me at least) concerning a hypothetical situation. Kelly gave the statistic that "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense." Seems like an easy solution, right? Get rid of the guns, no more accidental deaths. Right now, if someone wants to rob me and my family, they are taking a risk that I might have a gun for protection. On the flip side, assume that guns are illegal. Now a person with that same malicious intent mentality has a significantly lower risk of me having a gun because I'm a law-abiding citizen. Now maybe your accident numbers go down but your murder numbers go up because people are trying to defend their homes against a gun with their golf clubs and baseball bats. -
9:42 PM
Mark Twain said,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics."
You all stop throwin' the numbers around. I like Kelly's numbers best (go figure---get it??) but I'll be the first to tell you that any statistic can be "put into perspective" to persuade the audience to your point of view.
Since I'm now unemployed, I'd be happy to do just that for almost anyone---for a small fee, of course.
And perhaps finally: because a task is difficult, is its value reduced? Does it become less urgent? I mean, if a cause is righteous (I don't think I've ever said that before) but perhaps doomed, aren't you supposed to try your best anyway?
OK, one more: let's look at the rate of severe/life-threatening injury caused by bikes versus handguns (e.g., if a handgun accidentally discharges, how likely are you to come home with a skinned knee for a bandaid and some mercurochrome?)...any wagers which way that will go?
I think I'm getting snarky. Sorry. - 10:14 PM
-
11:05 PM
As far as gun control not being possible on a local level without effecting the 2nd Amendment, why is it so much easier to purchase a gun in Virginia than California? Why does Texas allow people to own guns without a permit?
There are gun control laws that are controlled locally just as there are business laws that are controlled locally. -
6:51 AM
The DC-suburbs of Virginia are home to NRA headquarters... I'm sure I've probably driven you past it a time or two. I wouldn't imagine they'd move into hostile territory...
When Don and I last faced off on this issue, I asked Tracy (the attorney sister)to give me a primer on Constitutional Law. I'm sure Don and others know that the framers of the Constitution intended for issues not specifically governed by the Constitution to be determined by States, localities.
It becomes sticky when individual states implement their legislation differently from one another and create disparities that must be resolved judicially and with regard to equality and all the protections of the Constitution. That's where we are with gun control. We need a case that asks the precisely right question to end up on the US Supreme Court's docket. A decision either way might provide sufficient fodder for a Constitutional Amendment that would standardize the issue from the top down.
Of course that's antithetical to Libertarian,and even mostly Republican, thinking.
Legislators also could introduce federal laws on their own but you know that won't happen given how contentious the issue is. They couldn't risk being wrong about their Constituents' views and lost their jobs, right? -
7:04 AM
Sorry to keep going but I need to comment on the specific statistics presented by Kelly and Don.
Without closer scrutiny to the methods that produced them, there's only one that, as a professional wielder of statistics (don't try this at home), I would accept and that would be Kelly's NCHS citation of gun-related injuries being the fourth leading cause of death among 10 - 14 year olds.
The total number of deaths and their causes is probably one of the few accurate, timely and absolutely complete sources of health information available which is an entirely different issue (death being a poor indicator of health status in general).
As a professional, my suspicion of number-tinkering always escalates when investigators do what John Lott did in Don's citation: mix apples with oranges and stagger readers with multiple comparisons in varying dimensions (i.e., use total numbers versus rates, subdivide the population being discussed). I think Mr. Lott's assertions are suspicious just as I wouldn't accept the JAMA or NEJM findings cited by Kelly, no matter how much they corroborate my opinion, without reading the methods and results of those papers. - 7:34 AM
-
10:00 AM
Lyman said..."Well my previous statement still stands. How many children's deaths does it take to necessitate a problem?
1,300 is more than enough for me."
That's because you don't like guns. What if 1,300 accidental bicycle deaths was enough for me. Is it okay then if we outlaw bikes? I know, I know, bikes were designed to get us from A to B faster than walking and a gun is designed to put a hole in something. That's why they are called accidental deaths. You can't outlaw everything that accidentally kills X number of kids, whatever you determine X to be. So why should it be okay to do it for guns? - 11:26 AM
-
11:29 AM
Oh, and to make one other distinction, just in the interest of having a very comprehensive discussion---
bikes are intended to facilitate travel and recreation. Neither of those activities is illegal.
Handguns are made to kill, perhaps injure badly, but we don't have to argue that (?). Killing is pretty much illegal except when you piss off the legal authorities, then its fine if they do it to you. But they don't use guns.
I'm just sayin'....
Lym---you're closing in on Drew's 42-comment mark. - 12:18 PM
-
1:38 PM
Very true Kathy, 1300 is not the total deaths from guns, but I didn't say it was. I was using the number that Don provided, Lyman referenced, and was for accidental deaths.
If you add the comments here and the ones that have trickled over onto my blog, we have already passed the 42-response mark. Has the discussion changed anyone's mind at all though or are we all just spinning our collective wheels? My guess is the latter since I have heard everything that has been said, but my mind hasn't really changed much. At least we are all still talking to each other though about the things that affect us all. - 3:58 PM
-
6:13 PM
gosh, and I was really hoping we'd take a swing at capital punishment next...
For the record, I don't try to change anyone's mind on charged issues like these. What I try to do is to kindly express my particular concern and LISTEN to what folks on the opposing side of the issue think. That's the only way we're ever going to make any progress: slowly begin to understand each others' concerns, motivations and needs. Negotiate some common ground.
Cheers! - 8:25 PM
- 8:38 AM
- 5:16 PM
40 comments: