Enemy at the Gates and the Shooting in Oregon
One of my favorite World War II movies Enemy of the Gates opens with the Russians organising an assault on German positions in Stalingrad. The only problem is they only have half as many rifles as they have men and the unlucky half have to attack without weapons. The advice given is when (when!) the other man falls, pick up his rifle and continue the attack. And we the viewers were supposed to think: wow! Ruthless bastards!
So how different from that is the situation army veteran Chris Mintz found himself having to defend himself against an armed gunman with no weapon of his own? I don't know if Chris Mintz is a concealed permit holder but there was an armed concealed permit holder in the vicinity who was prevented by school personel from approaching the scene. I also know personally someone who is a concealed permit holder who has attended classes at UMPQUA but who did not carry in part because of their stupid policy. And we can see how effective the school's no gun policy in keeping that ass-hole who will remain nameless out of the school.
And now the left is of course again pushing this line about the need for 'common sense' gun control. (Aside: they always use the term 'common sense' because it is focus group tested!) The thing is they rarely have a concrete proposal. I was having this conversation yesterday on twitter.
"What's your solution?"
"We have to keep guns out of the hands of people who do these kinds of things."
"By passing common sense gun control."
"Like what? Give me a proposal."
"By keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people."
"How would you have screened out the guy in Oregon who by all accounts had no criminal or mental history?"
"By implimenting common sense gun control."
"Oh, you are just an NRA stooge who always oppose common sense solutions!"
And on it goes. Seriously. This is how those conversations go.
Take a look at the following picture:
Take note of the rifle the shooter who will remain nameless is holding. It is a Ruger 10/22. I don't know if that's the gun he used in the shooting but it is interesting to me that this rifle is legal in all 50 states, in Canada, Australia and in the UK. If every other gun in this guy's collection had been banned taken away, he could still have still used this gun which he could have obtain even in the UK and caused just as much damage. If the guy's record is clean and he is persistent enough, he will be able to obtain this gun even in very anti-gun places. And then he would have been able to go on his life's ambition shooting spree.
So a 'National Conversation' ensues and before you know it, 'gun death' statistics start getting tossed around. Watching an anti-gunner sling gun statistics is like watching an illusionist at work. You know it's a trick and you try to spot the bullshit in their stats.
"Numbers don't lie" a gal told me the other day.
Yea, they do. "Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics!" said Mark Twain once famously, and for a reason.
One thing about 'gun death' stats is that they include suicides. One minute we are talking about a gunman shooting people and in the next breath, we are talking about suicides. Except they don't tell you they are talking about suicides. You have to point that out to them at which point they point that that gun suicides are gun deaths too. Except we wouldn't be having this conversation except for the fact that some ass-hole decided to start shooting OTHER people. If he had simply shot himself TO START WITH we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
The other thing about including suicides in their statistics is an unstated but very important assumption that they have a greater claim over your life than you yourself do. Basic question: who has a greater claim on your life, you or the state? The state apparently according to anti-gunners.
There's another thing wrong with gun death statistics. It's that they are inherently deceptive. Gun death statistics only look at a carefully chosen subset of a much bigger picture. It excludes homicide by means other than by gun (killing someone with a knife is ok apparently). It includes justifiable homicide (defending your life with a gun is bad apparently).
Saying gun deaths are higher in places where there are more guns passes for wisdom amongst some and yet is one of the most idiotic statements out there. It's like saying car accidents went up after the invention of the automobile. Well no shit! Wow, you are a genius!
Imagine a small country before the introduction of guns. It has 100 murders a year. Imagine Sam Colt starts selling his new revolvers and instead of 100 murders you have zero murders and 50 people killing in self defense.
All Moms Demand Action would see is an increase of gun deaths.
It never occurs to these people that sometimes an INCREASE in 'gun deaths' would actually be a solution, not a problem!
The guns death statistics are total bullshit. Inherently and by definition. Bullshit.
Posted using BlogPress from my iPad