Orlando can't catch a break. Reason can't either.
In the wake of the most recent gun-enabled mass murder, I find that the defensive logic of hardcore gun enthusiasts becomes even murkier than usual. Statistics and facts are touted by those who claim that, were they in the situation (armed with their .45, or whatever), they would have been able to fend off the surprise rampage of a psychopath with a rather obvious history of violence and instability. This belief is so strong and so widespread that I have seen Facebook posts from a 60+-year-old, overweight grandmother from a rural part of the state in which I live claim that had she been in the general vicinity of that Florida nightclub, she would have mustered the courage, bravado, and reflex of Jason Bourne out of thin air (in addition to the intense, specialized training she lacks) and shut that shooter down before he killed 49 people. This idea that owning any kind of firearm suddenly makes one useful in a live shooter environment is not only horrifically optimistic, it's counter productive to the real issue.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," claims NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre. I feel the need to amend Mr. LaPierre's statement:
"One of the things that might stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun who is highly trained in the use of that gun, is familiar and experienced with the kinds of situations one might encounter this sort of bad guy and gunfire of any sort, and has the premonition to sense that a murder spree is about to happen with enough time to legitimately help."
Now, I am deeply empathetic to those who feel the need for some sense of security, some individual protection that they feel a firearm affords them. But that seems to be all that it is - the feeling of protection. Numerous studies* show that having that .45 on your person actually makes one more likely to get shot. For many reasons, this makes sense. According to a study done by Professor Charles Branas at the University of Pennsylvania**, carrying a firearm has a significant psychological effect on the carrier. That assumed grandmother's bravado is amplified to the point where effective decision-making ability flies out the window and a heightened sense of survival is point into play. There is a greater chance of a neutral object being perceived as a firearm, not to mention the increased sense of power that may make an otherwise resolvable situation into one that is ultimately life or death for someone.
Facts aside, though, the real point I was initially trying to make was about the skewed data and falsely represented statistics that are the bread and butter of the 2nd Amendment defender's arsenal, no pun intended.
One of the regulars, or at least one I've seen touted about frequently on my own social media, is the claim that "States/cities/countries with the strongest gun control laws actually have the highest levels of gun violence." They then go on to list "liberal" cities like Chicago, LA, Manhattan, and "socialist utopias" like Venezuela (really?), Honduras, and Uraguay being conveniently chosen because the man in question, Bill Whittle of "Firewall", found them to be both non-democratic AND high of the gun-death list. He/they claim that because Honduras (#1 in gun deaths per capita, mind you) has strict gun control laws in place, and it as a country ranks first in that pesky little chart, that there is actually a firm connection between the two. These brings up my personal favorite logical fallacy employed in these arguments: correlation does not imply causation!
Despite the fact that these two things happen to occur at the same time does not, in any way, imply that they are related. Despite the fact that both deal exclusively with gun-related topics, these two things to not *by themselves* make for a sound and valid argument. Saying that, "Hey, look, Honduras, Venezuela, Chicago, New York...they have the strictest gun control laws of their respective municipalities and still have higher per capita gun deaths. That must mean that there are more gun related deaths because of the stricter gun laws!" is egregiously unfair, and it fails to consider the fact that there are more variables at play in these places. It also misconstrues what the presented statistics actually mean.
As someone who works in the finance and insurance industry, I deal with numbers and percentages all the live long day. As someone who has studied LSAT-style logic for longer than 30 minutes, I can tell you how easily people are tricked by the differences between hard, quantifiable numbers and percentages. When someone says, "Honduras is incredibly dangerous, they have 67.18 gun deaths per capita. The USA, on the other hand, only has 10.54 deaths per capita," they are missing an important piece of the puzzle: population.
So what does 67.18 gun deaths per 100k translate to for Honduras? 5,440.23 deaths
What does that measly little 10.54 gun deaths in the US actually mean? 33,612.06 deaths
While the odds of getting shot in the United States are technically lower than they are in Honduras (though it certianly doesn't feel that way), we account for almost 6 times as many lives lost. This doesn't take into account the deaths of our servicemen and women (and the deaths caused BY them), but I'll save that rant for another post.
One might say that it makes sense that we have more deaths, we have more people! I find that unacceptable. Honduras is riddled with crime and propped up by a poorly run government that was, for almost it's entire history, headed up by dictatorships masquerading as fairly elected officials. We claim to be the leaders of the free world, but we bicker our bipartisanily-locked issues like one side is rubber and the other is glue. We need to have fair, productive conversations about the future of this country.
It is unacceptable that these things keep happening. Whether they're done in the name of Chris, Allah, C'Thullu, who the fuck ever, they're done in the name of hate, and hate cannot be the future of this country.
*https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
**http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
No comments:
Post a Comment