Guns and Politics
The Soccer Dad notes,
A two time major party nominee inadevertantly shot and killed someone in his youth. To the best of my knowledge it never was much of an issue. (I believe the fact that he was divorced was considered more scandalous at the time.)UPDATE: Note the Reid reference the Soccer Dad makes is to a Viginia Rep who shot his gun off in the Virgina State Bldg.
That nominee was a fine civil servant; and my bringing this up in no way means to demean him. Just to point out that gun violence 50 years ago was not viewed quite the same way as it is now.
In 1913 when he was handling a hunting rifle, future two time Democratic nominee Adlai E. Stevenson, accidentally shot and killed Ruth Merwin.
It is hard to imagine that anyone who had been similarly involved with gun violence being a viable candidate for public office these days - even in the case of an accidental shooting. Times have changed. Reid and Cheney will be mocked now for some time. Their respective misadventures will not soon be forgotten.
26 comments:
Not Harry Reid... read the whole link,
Del. John S. "Jack" Reid had gone through this morning routine dozens of times. He'd reach into his pocket, pull out his small semiautomatic .380 handgun, release the clip and store the weapon safely in the desk drawer of his office on the seventh floor of the Virginia General Assembly Building.
I don't hunt or own a gun. Seems safer
And we think we're tough in Chicago,
Reid, a school administrator in Chesterfield County, said he has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon and regularly brings his gun to the legislative session to protect himself. He is the sponsor of several controversial bills this year, including efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. But he said he usually ejects the cartridge and carries the bullets in his pocket.
"All of us occasionally get some phone calls that concern us, so during the session I have been carrying it," Reid said. He has had a permit to carry a concealed weapon for two years and has one other gun.
I wonder if any of the "give guns to only the police and military" crowd would put up a sign in his/her front yard saying, "No Guns Within."
Cal-
You know none of the anti-gun crowd want to announce that they have gone gun free.
They wrongly assume that banning guns will eliminate them from the criminals. Criminals will always have guns. If tons upon tons of illicit drugs can make it into the country, guns will be smuggled in just as easily.
Meth heads will still kill meth heads, gang bangers will still kill gang bangers, both groups will still kill the rest of us.
Banning guns is a solution that treats a symptom but not a cause of violence.
-Gish
Chicago has gone gun-free, and crime has gone down.
Skeeter-
Gun crime or crime in general?
That makes a difference doesn't it. I never implied crime would rise. I simply implied that if you ban guns then the only people who will turn them in will be the people who are already obeying the law.
If you can, cite your reference so we can look at whether it is gun crime or crime in general. I would also be interested in seeing if Chicago's gun crime rate has dropped significantly more than the rest of the non-gun free state.
Want a statistic? How about this one. In 1997, the presence of a gun in a home made it 3.4 times more likely that a woman would become a homicide victim, and 7.2 times more likely that she would be a victim of a homicide by a spouse, intimate, or close relative.
Where are the "Pro-Life" people on this issue?
Skeeter-
You made a statement about guns and the crime rate in Chicago. I just wanted to know if it was gun-related crime or not.
Crime in Illinois is down overall irrespective of local gun regulations. If you didn't have the specifics just say so.
Let's look at your statistic though, shall we? What is the causal relationship here?
Is it the presence of guns unduly incites violence among spouses? No. Your putting up a straw man in the form of guns. The problem lies with people and how they manage anger.
Do you honestly think that banning guns will lower the incidence of domestic violence? No, it won't. You can't ban knives so people women would just be stabbed to death. You can't ban fists. I work for a law enforcement agency and have seen quite the variety in the way one spouse can kill another.
Maybe you could cite your statistic so we can have a relevant discussion on how banning guns have lowered the crime rate in Chicago.
You need to read my post.
The incidents of HOMICIDE -- and not GUN HOMICIDE went up when there was a gun in the house. That is directly on point.
Guns in the house = Homicides.
Regarding the stats on Chicago: It probably is possible, but not easy. You not compare it to Illinois for a number of reasons, notably the fact that ther towns in Illinois ban guns.
Crime in Chicago has gone down. We are doing something right here.
Skeeter-
What is the causal relationship? Your statistic is meaningless. It is like a study that shows that a woman is x times more likely to be the victim of a homocide if there were golf clubs in the house.
Were guns the cause of the violence? Were guns a factor? Explain it instead of tossing off some statistic without backup.
By the way, I live downstate. Crime is down here even though we have had more stores selling firearms open. We must be doing something right.
-Gish
Laura Bush, I believe, killed her fiance. And yes you're right that that's a good ananlog of the Adlai Stevenson case.
Except ...
that in Adlai Stevenson's case he used a gun. What I was trying to illustrate was that Stevenson's tragic accident, had it happened nowadays would likely have stayed with him because it involved a gun.
Purely specualative, I'll acknowledge.
Gish,
1. If there was a direct correlation to golf clubs, I would say we should get rid of golf clubs.
There isn't and we both know it. There is a direct correlation to guns, and we all know why. If you want to say that there are reasons that guns are O.K. despite the increase of domestic violence, that is fine. But don't play the fool and act like it is mere coincidence. We both know that it is not.
2. Regarding the decrease in crime downstate: You may be right. The decrease in crime may not be from the gun ban. It may have been caused by the fact that Democrats now rule all branches of Illinois government.
Skeeter-
My point is that there is no correlation between the presence of guns and an increase in domestic violence. I would concede that there is a correlation between the presence of guns and gun related homocide in the home.
That wasn't your statement though. You said that guns in the house = greater rate of homocides (not gun-related homocides). It would be silly for anyone with a background to assume that the presence of X had a direct correlation with the incidence rates of Y without showing a causal relationship.
I would hazard a guess that the relationship between the presence of alcohol/alcohol consumption has a greater correlation to homocides/domestic violence.
You choose to state a correlation that involves no causation to the crime.
Once again I ask you:
What is the causal relationship between the presence of guns and the increase of homocides/domestic violence (not just gun-related as you stated)?
Show me how guns cause domestic violence and there can be a dialog.
As to the second point, that is simply ridiculous. You could just as easily state that it is due to the Republicans controlling the federal government. Both are silly statements and marginally, at best, related to crime statistics.
-Gish
"My point is that there is no correlation between the presence of guns and an increase in domestic violence. I would concede that there is a correlation between the presence of guns and gun related homocide in the home."
Response:
Yes, there is.
The numbers show that there is.
The numbers talk about an increase in all homicides in the home, and not just gun related.
Deny it all you want, but the correlation exists.
Source: James E. Bailey et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home, Internal Medicine 157, No. 7, 777-782 (1997).
Want more facts? How about this: Rate of female homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm death are higher in U.S. regions that have higher levels of gun ownership.
That shouldn't bother you, Gish, since you are not pro-life. Correct?
Skeeter-
If, by not pro-life, you mean I am not in support of abortion then you are correct.
If, by not pro-life, you mean I have no interest in preventing death then you are incorrect. I work for a law enforcement agency so homocides and homocide prevention are at the forefront of my daily work and, yes, I have an interest in preventing them.
I am calling your original statistic a bluff. I am asking you to show the causal relationship. Your statistics should be following the scientific method. You have shown observed phenomena. I would like you to further your stats with some hypothesis/theory on causation but you don't seem to want to do that.
Let me postualte a fictitious scenario which I will use as an analogy.
The incidence of choking deaths within the home is 200% higher when the home contains a bible.
Would you not agree it is ludicrous to assume that somehow bibles are related in any way other than coincidental to the incidence rate of choking?
If you wish to toss out a statistic, it better say the presence of guns in some way increases/decreases the amount of GUN-RELATED activity. Otherwise at least be so generous as to provide some sort of causal interpretation.
Your last statistic does a bit better it relates the presence of guns to unintentional firearms deaths. I agree that makes sense. It is as logical as the presence of backyard pools should result in a higer rate of unintentional drownings. Now, are the other statistics gun-related or general? If they are simply general, how do the presence of guns incite more females to commit non-gun related suicides?
Gish,
No reasonable person can look at statistics showing a clear correlation between domestic violence and guns in the home and not realize that there is some connection.
Keep your head stuck tightly in the sand. Better to do that than to face the ugly reality. It is the proper thing for you to do.
Skeeter-
Every time I ask about a causal relationship, you avoid it. Consider me stupid or whatever but please, please, please, can you elaborate on what you think the causal relationship betweens the presence of guns in the home and domestic violence is?
Instead you choose to avoid the issue. I prefer a discussion on the validity/merits etc. I am asking for one simple thing.
Call me whatever you want or imply I am whatever nut I am interested in a discussion but I am not so simple as to believe everything you toss out. Please back it up or provide some additional interpretation.
I provided:
1. The facts; and
2. The citation for those facts.
Mere coincidence? Statistics show that where there are guns in the house there is a dramatic increase in violence in the house. You claim mere coincidence?
If you really believe that the fact that where there are guns in the house, a woman is 7.2 times more likely to be a homicide by a a family member is mere coincidence, then you and I should talk. You see, I sell bridges. Nice ones. And you look like my kind of buyer.
Skeeter-
So you are implying I am gullible. Nice of you to resort to being demeaning.
All I have asked and I even made it fairly simple was to find out what YOU thought the causal relationship was between guns and the greater incidence of homicide/suicide.
You refuse to do that. Why?
Do you think that an inanimate object can somehow incite a person to commit some harm on another?
All I am asking for is a causal relationship to discuss.
I provided the facts.
What more do you want?
Do you want an interview with each victim describing the nature of the offense?
What exactly are you looking for?
The numbers are not even close. We are not talking about a 2% difference. We are talking about a massive difference. If you could look at that massive difference and still conclude that the existence of the gun was not a factor, then yes, you are gullible.
Now, about that bridge. I'm telling you, it is the best. It can be yours, cheap. Interested?
Skeeter-
Once again you attack me personally. You apparently cannot come up with a good causal relationship so you resort to implying I am gullible.
Let me help you out here.
Q: What is the causal relatioship between guns in the house and a higher incidence of domestic violence? (Your post of 11:24a)
A: There is none.
The James Bailey study involved homocides and suicides not all of which were gun-related and not all of which were incidences of domestic violence.
Of the independent risk factors for suicide, having 1 or more guns in the house was last behin both history of mental illness and living alone.
Of the independent risk factors for homocide, having 1 or more guns in the house ranked next to last behind living alone, illicit drug use in the house, prior domestic violence of others and ahead of prior arrest records of others. To which the finding was an increase of 3.4 not 7.1 like you say. Even the VPC quotes it as over 3 percent on their site.
Guns are not causal factors. If you want to learn something read the NIJ's journal #250, I believe, which actually assesses the real indicators of increased probability of becoming the victim of a domestic violence related homocide: Prior domestics, alcohol and drug use, controlling, jealous or violent behavior.
Guns are not among these. Guns should be properly removed with orders of protection etc and that is what the report suggests.
Personally I don't think you have any intention of having an honest discussion. That is too bad. I won't say it was nice having you be demeaning but if that is all you can offer then so be it.
Interesting.
You apparently concede that guns are a factor, as I had stated.
Is that correct?
Let me get your argument straight: According to you, since alcohol abuse is also a factor in domestic violence, we should just ignore the fact that guns are also a factor.
Is that your argument? If not, please explain.
Sorry for coming late to the discussion. I would argue that there evidence shows a correlation between guns in the home and domestic volience, but, as I tell my statistics students, correlation may imply but does not mean causality. I would look for another factor that impacts both and would be willing to bet men who engage in domestic violence are also more likely to own guns than the general population
Skeeter-
Sorry for the delay in responding.
My argument is this:
There is no causal relationship between guns in the home and domestic violence.
I have repeated this throughout. I have asked you what you thought the causal relationship was.
Statistics could be used to show that men with tattoos are 8 times more likely to rape a woman. That could be true but it is meaningless because tattoos do not incite a man to rape. It is an independent variable that has been isolated.
Your cited study isolated independent variables but from what I could read from the abstract did not divine any causal relationship between guns and domestic violence. Like I said they could have isolated homocides/suicides based on the presence of golf clubs, children, kool-aid (grape) or any variable but it doesn't mean anything unless you delve deeper to show some form of causation.
That is my argument and it has been consistent. The word 'causal' has permeated my previous comments.
-Gish
Post a Comment