I know the blog has been heavy with gun control essays of late, but the post-Sandy Hook Hysteria Express is the current runaway train wreck right now, with no end in sight. Michael R. (formerly just Michael) scores another Comment of the Day by focusing on one of the aspects of the President’s kids-and-guns show yesterday that set my teeth on edge but that somehow was left out of the post about all the other things that set me teeth on edge about the event. Well done.
Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, Ethics Quote of the Day: Blogger Jeff Dunetz:
“I always find it troubling when someone uses the sentence “If it just saves one life, it is worth [giving up one of our rights and freedoms]“. There is no way to say it without dishonoring the memory of the many people who have died to uphold those freedoms, to establish those freedoms. How many people have died to preserve these rights and freedoms? Will we willingly give them away so cheaply?
“As far as our problems go here are some causes of death:
Total deaths: 2,500,000/year
Murders by firearm : 11,000/year
Suicides by firearm: 20,000/year
(For contrast) Usage of firearms in self defence: 1.5 million/year (according to a 1994 Clinton-era DOJ study)
Murders caused by “assault rifle”: Less than 500/year committed with ANY rifle
Heart Disease: 600,000/year
Cancer: 570,000/year (brain cancer, 15,000/year)
Death by Medical error: 100,000-300,000/year
Death by car accident: 30,000/year
Influenza and pneumonia: 50,000/year
Appendicitis: 500/year
Illegal drugs: 40,000/year
Alcohol: 25,000/year
Pregnancy: 1600/year
Tuberculosis: 500/year
Intestinal infections: 10,000/year
“So will we give our freedoms away and bring our federal and state government to a standstill when our economy is teetering and our debt is at a crucial stage, just to try to work on a problem that kills as many people as tuberculosis or appendicitis? We could save a lot more lives than are taken by all firearms if we would just get the doctors and nurses to put their disease-ridden cell phones away and wash their hands! Hey, pregnancy causes three times as many deaths as rifles…ban pregnancy!
“Anyone who thinks controlling ‘scary looking guns’ is the problem we need to focus our time and energy on is either delusional, or has an ulterior motive. They definitely should not be in any decision-making role in any organization. They are just wasting your money trying to regulate my 1896 Swedish Mauser that I have no ammunition for (but it is a military rifle with bayonet lugs!).
“Now, I need to get back to eBay. There are a lot of Civil War era Springfield muskets for sale cheap from New York now that they are banned “assault rifles”.
Ethics Alarms 
What is with the line that reads:
“(For contrast) Usage of firearms in self defence: 1.5 million/year (according to a 1994 Clinton-era DOJ study)”
That can’t be deaths per year, and it’s way too big even to mean incidents where someone brandished a weapon without firing just to scare off a criminal. Even in Somalia the numbers wouldn’t be that high.
It is apparent that that means 1.5 millions instances of firearms used to deter criminals.
That sounds like a totally bogus number. 1.5 million incidents means it happens to 1 in 20 people once a year. Just speaking anecdotally, I know of no one who has used a gun in self-defense and I work in a decaying mill city in New England that has a fairly high crime rate.
1 in 200. Our population approaches 300 million if it hasn’t gotten there already. 1,500,000/300,000,000 = 1 in 200.
And there have been discussions before on here about how difficult of a statistic that is to gather, because it relies on people reporting instances in which they’ve used firearms to avert crime. So the number could easily be higher.
1:160-170 based on 1990s population
I think that statistic’s correct, Tex. What is unmentiioned is that a large number of those gun related murders were committed by career criminals. Fortunately, many were also committed by criminals on rival criminals.
Very likely so. I was merely correcting an error in math.
If that’s the study I’m thinking of, it does include brandishing the weapon — which is a legitimate self-defense tactic that wouldn’t have been possible without the weapon. The problem with the study is that participants self-reported whether they had used a gun in self-defense in the prior year, meaning many of them may not have been truly legal instances of self defense or might otherwise have been misreported.
I’ve seen several studies. Ranging from 100,000 to 2.5 mil.
Seems like the bell curve and ten depending on your definitions of reliable study, the more likely range is between 800,000 and 1.5 mil.
Pick the stat that supports your world view.
‘ten’ should say ‘then’. Typing from an iphone lends itself to frequent typos.
That first paragraph. Ill be damned if it isn’t one of the most powerful and well reasoned arguments I’ve seen in the whole of the gun control debate.
If it saves just one life, then it’s worth exploiting a child to make it happen. Freedom, and equal opportunity for freedom, is so ridiculously, so monstrously overrated; more control of all by the few – MUCH more such control – is so obviously necessary and overdue. FINALLY, we have EXACTLY those few, perfect people we need, to carry out that controlling!
[That is sarcasm.]
We need an edit feature.
Doesn’t that quote come from Obama in his recent speech?