Statistically speaking, are you more or less safe with a gun in your house. The answer is:
It depends.
Every statistic that I've seen can be countered with another. A specific study on one type of situation has another one that has the opposite results in a different specific situation.
It seems at the end of the day, there is no statistical proof that either owning or not owning guns is safer overall. There are simply too many variables with too many agendas at this point to get a clear study.
So if you want to debate whether or not Australia or Austria is safer because of their gun laws, and how we should copy their laws into the U.S., that's for another site.
Moving on.
"But what about the children?" Children die from guns. That's true.
You know what more children die from? Drowning.
According to this chart, 647 Children aged 1-14 died from drowning in 2014 in the U.S.
For the same age group, 220 died by firearm homicide. 174 died from firearm suicide, and 14 died from unintentional firearm.
This is also interesting:
"Minorities: Between 1999-2010, the fatal unintentional drowning rate for African Americans was significantly higher than that of whites across all ages. The disparity is widest among children 5-18 years old. The disparity is most pronounced in swimming pools; African American children 5-19 drown in swimming pools at rates 5.5 times higher than those of whites. This disparity is greatest among those 11-12 years where African Americans drown in swimming pools at rates 10 times those of whites."
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
So of the 647 children that drowned in 2014, the astonishing majority of them are African American? Where's Obama's outrage over them? What if Trayvon Martin had drowned?
If it's just about protecting the children or protecting minorities, why do we not have stricter pool ownership and swimming protection laws? Why do we not require permits and licenses to own your own pool? Shouldn't you be required to take lifeguard training before being allowed to own a pool?
Shouldn't hotels and recreation centers require certified lifeguards to be on duty any time the pool is accessible? Do you know how many children would be saved each year? If it's really about saving children, why are people not upset about the dangers of drowning?
Owning a swimming pool is not in the bill of rights. Laws could be easily passed that don't infringe on our right to swim.
But it's not about saving the children. It never really was.
It's about disparity of force.
Firearms are an extreme example of what's known in martial arts as a "force-multiplier."
In common terms, it's a strength equalizer.
Weapons are designed to maximize a person's strength to cause damage. A physically weak person with a club can hit harder than a strong person with a fist. Using leverage it multiplies the force to a greater amount. A spear or a knife takes the force and condenses it into a small cross section, effectively multiplying the force of the strike.
A gun takes a couple of pounds of pressure on the trigger to release several hundreds of ft-lbs of energy.
A 9mm pistol releases about 383 ft lbs.
A .357 magnum revolver releases about 640.
A .223 (What AR-15s shoot) is about 1,300.
A hunting rifle is between 1,300 and about 5,000.
Most anybody is strong enough to pull a trigger.
At a basic, almost primitive, level we don't like the idea of other people possessing more power than we do.
Swimming pools don't do that. They aren't force multipliers.
Swimming activities don't trigger that basic fear of allowing someone else to possess that kind of force over us.
Swimming is just fun that can be dangerous.
Someone else with a gun has more physical force at their disposal than we do.
So we have two simple solutions to the force disparity. (or you choose nothing)
Someone else has a gun. You either.
A.) Take their gun away.
B.) Posses your own gun.
Let's be honest about what it is we're fighting over with this gun debate.
It's not about the children. If it were, you would see the same amount of effort put into preventing drownings as you do with regulating guns.
It's not about fighting terrorism. Your average Israeli population is armed to the teeth. They still fear terrorism.
It's about how do choose to deal with the primitive fear of knowing that someone near you possesses more physical force than you do.
If I choose A, then I make the decision to take the gun away from those who chose B.
If I choose B, then I become a threat to someone who chooses A.
That's what we're fighting over.
Choosing A is an impossible situation. I would have to take everyone's guns away when they don't want me to.
I choose B and take responsibility.
Swimming activities don't trigger that basic fear of allowing someone else to possess that kind of force over us.
Swimming is just fun that can be dangerous.
Someone else with a gun has more physical force at their disposal than we do.
So we have two simple solutions to the force disparity. (or you choose nothing)
Someone else has a gun. You either.
A.) Take their gun away.
B.) Posses your own gun.
Let's be honest about what it is we're fighting over with this gun debate.
It's not about the children. If it were, you would see the same amount of effort put into preventing drownings as you do with regulating guns.
It's not about fighting terrorism. Your average Israeli population is armed to the teeth. They still fear terrorism.
It's about how do choose to deal with the primitive fear of knowing that someone near you possesses more physical force than you do.
If I choose A, then I make the decision to take the gun away from those who chose B.
If I choose B, then I become a threat to someone who chooses A.
That's what we're fighting over.
Choosing A is an impossible situation. I would have to take everyone's guns away when they don't want me to.
I choose B and take responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment