Kidz ‘n Gunz
My buddy Sam King (a smart, libertarian-leaning conservative type) pointed me toward this 1993 piece in Reason magazine on the question of kids and gun deaths (and attending legal/policy debates). To his ears, the author’s argument made some sense. I guess my take sort of steps to the side of the issue the author wants to talk about.
____________________________________
Of course, this article is guilty of some of the same shenanigans it accuses the anti-gun forces of using. For instance, in graf 4 we get this: “Neither Brady nor Gerson suggested how many lives the Brady Bill might save.”
Right. Except that in the previous graf we see: “…it includes 18-year-old armed robbers shot by their victims. It also includes 19-year- old crack dealers shot by competitors….”
Well, if we’re going to insist on rigid quantification, how many 19 year-old crack dealers are we talking about? The answer is some, but not that many – the point is to make use of a nifty rhetorical misdirection, and it’s a technique that’s as intellectually dishonest as it is tactically effective. So as soon as I feel like you’re trying to play me, you lose me.
Now, all this being said, I’m hardly part of any anti-gun lobby. I own a few guns myself and don’t trust the government or the police enough to feel comfortable giving them up. But at the same time, those railing against the gun control folks are frequently as shrill and irrationally paranoid as those they’re warning us about. The NRA has been irresponsible as hell through the years, to boot. It’s hard to find anybody in the public “debate” to love.
And let’s face it. How much credibility can people expect me to accord them when they:
- raise mortal hell about Clinton, Reno, Waco, Ruby Ridge and jackbooted thugs, and then
- vote for the folks who brought us the “Patriot” Act?
And I don’t even want to hear the words “straw man” unless you’re willing to argue that no, that pretty much doesn’t describe millions of American voters.
This issue, like so many others, points up why American policies are so frequently fucked to the gills. We hear too much from people who know little and think less and not nearly enough from people who are smart, but too dull to make for good television. And this, sadly, goes a long way toward shaping public opinion, to our eternal detriment….
lullaby pit 
We hear too much from people who know little and think less and not nearly enough from people who are smart, but too dull to make for good television. And this, sadly, goes a long way toward shaping public opinion, to our eternal detriment….
I’m reminded of Chomsky’s video “Manufacturing Consent”. Sound bites are great for reinforcing that which the viewing audience already accepts, but 11 minute segments are just long enough to make a legitimate expert look like a Martian when espousing anything that goes against the status quo. And it’s a damn telling point concerning the state of our education system that news has to be so dumbed down. I generally find that intelligent folk are rather captivated by “dull” information as long as the information is provocative.
*shakes fist at sky*
We hear too much from people who know little and think less and not nearly enough from people who are smart, but too dull to make for good television. And this, sadly, goes a long way toward shaping public opinion, to our eternal detriment….
I’m reminded of Chomsky’s video “Manufacturing Consent”. Sound bites are great for reinforcing that which the viewing audience already accepts, but 11 minute segments are just long enough to make a legitimate expert look like a Martian when espousing anything that goes against the status quo. And it’s a damn telling point concerning the state of our education system that news has to be so dumbed down. I generally find that intelligent folk are rather captivated by “dull” information as long as the information is provocative.
*shakes fist at sky*
That was a really interesting article. It made me re-examine some of my beliefs on gun control.
I was quite fortunate to grow up in an environment of utmost respect for responsible gun-ownership. My dad was a cop and carried a gun at all times on duty, so I really learned to respect the power they have. He had many guns locked up in a cabinet downstairs the way a responsible gun owner should. He took me to the firing range once and let me fire a handgun, but it wasn’t an activity I enjoyed.
Now, what happens if I decide to have a kid? The author of that article said, “Unfortunately, children whose parents have no interest in firearms are unlikely to hear gun lessons. Firearm-safety programs ought to be expanded to reach more children.”
I think that is completely asinine. I don’t have any interest in firearms, but it doesn’t mean I won’t teach my kid “gun lessons.” Here’s my gun lesson: guns kill things, stay away. If my kid can’t be taught in school about condoms and other birth control methods, they can’t be taught about guns.
Guns are fine for those who like to kill animals and shoot cans and whatnot, but I don’t find pleasure in shooting a gun or killing animals.
The author of this article seemed to be entirely critical of us pacifists who do not like guns. Would I rather be killed than kill? Yes, I would if there was nothing at stake. If I’m defending the life of my child, I’d feel differently. But if I’m a single gal and someone comes in my home to rob me, I’d rather be killed, because material possessions are not worth killing for. I’d rather be a martyr than part of a gun-toting society, but that’s just me.
It’s just a shame that guns have become somewhat of a “necessary evil” in cities because people are so fearful of other people who have guns.
People should be allowed to have guns if they want them, but that is not the lifestyle I’d like to lead and teach my child(ren).
That was a really interesting article. It made me re-examine some of my beliefs on gun control.
I was quite fortunate to grow up in an environment of utmost respect for responsible gun-ownership. My dad was a cop and carried a gun at all times on duty, so I really learned to respect the power they have. He had many guns locked up in a cabinet downstairs the way a responsible gun owner should. He took me to the firing range once and let me fire a handgun, but it wasn’t an activity I enjoyed.
Now, what happens if I decide to have a kid? The author of that article said, “Unfortunately, children whose parents have no interest in firearms are unlikely to hear gun lessons. Firearm-safety programs ought to be expanded to reach more children.”
I think that is completely asinine. I don’t have any interest in firearms, but it doesn’t mean I won’t teach my kid “gun lessons.” Here’s my gun lesson: guns kill things, stay away. If my kid can’t be taught in school about condoms and other birth control methods, they can’t be taught about guns.
Guns are fine for those who like to kill animals and shoot cans and whatnot, but I don’t find pleasure in shooting a gun or killing animals.
The author of this article seemed to be entirely critical of us pacifists who do not like guns. Would I rather be killed than kill? Yes, I would if there was nothing at stake. If I’m defending the life of my child, I’d feel differently. But if I’m a single gal and someone comes in my home to rob me, I’d rather be killed, because material possessions are not worth killing for. I’d rather be a martyr than part of a gun-toting society, but that’s just me.
It’s just a shame that guns have become somewhat of a “necessary evil” in cities because people are so fearful of other people who have guns.
People should be allowed to have guns if they want them, but that is not the lifestyle I’d like to lead and teach my child(ren).