Responsible gun-owner kills two adults and two children, self

He killed two adults, one of which was his ex-wife. Then he shot four children, between the ages of 7 and 15; two died and the other two are in critical but stable condition.

Why do they kill themselves? Because they realized they have done something horrible, something that they could not live with for the rest of their lives. Something that, had they not had access to a firearm, perhaps they would have never have done.

Responsible gun-owner claims black person shot him.

Responsible gun-owner claims black person shot him. 

Gun rights = institutional racism.

3-year-old girl shoots her parents with a loaded gun.

The gun was purchased that day, and left on a dorm-room type refrigerator, in easy reach of the child ... loaded ... in a purse. After they were shot, the father put the weapon back into the purse back onto the refrigerator! And the gun was not confiscated?


 

Shooting at Pittsburgh Mall, Feb. 8th, 2015

Ohio open carry laws are restricted to whites

Man in Ohio Walmart picks up a pellet gun, is witnessed by someone who alerts police.  Police appear and shoot man dead.  Man was black.

When even the well-trained make mistakes

Have you heard of the tragic story of the 9-year-old girl on a trip with her family.  They stopped in to shoot some automatic weapons in Las Vegas at a shooting range called Last Stop, and it was then, when the girl was offered the opportunity to shoot a fully automatic Uzi machine gun, that she accidentally killed her instructor.

I have to wonder why, if automatic weapons are illegal, they are permitted to be fired in particular shooting ranges, but I imagine some state is somehow responsible.

Like the 8-year-old boy killed in 2008, this was completely avoidable.  Who is more responsible, the parents or the instructor?  Of course, I suppose we might say one horrible scarring accident every 6 years is to be expected.  Or we could just save everyone from their bad judgment.  The argument contrary is that we cannot legislate every problem to solution.  And it has some right.

Still, guns seem to be an area where sensible restrictions are easily available.  

Research: Guns in the Workplace Do Not Make You Safer

Given the conversations that I've put myself through on pro-gun rights sites, you'd think that all research led to the conclusion that everyone was safer with a gun in tow.

In fact, some research shows that this is not the case, and that, in the case of a workplace, policies that allow guns increase the probability of homicides, as opposed to those that forbid bearing firearms.

This article was published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2005.  The authors concluded that the risk of homicide was 7 times greater in workplaces that permitted firearms, than in those that prohibited all bearing of weapons. 

So let's be clear here: according to this study, the risk of being killed is higher where guns are allowed than in workplaces where they are not.  In other words, being allowed to bring guns to work does not make you safer, but in fact makes you less safe.

Now, for the partisans of doubt (i.e. guns rights advocates), the study examined only North Carolina and what's more, nearly 10 years ago (probably longer, considering that the research is usually done long before publication).

Thus, for the sake of guns rights advocates, I say, let's do more research! And for sane people, I say, I'm not terribly surprised, and I'm disappointed that state legislatures (like South Carolina) have ignored these kinds of studies.

Provisos: there are lots of things this type of research does not take into account.  First, people in NC are crazy.  Just kidding.  I'd say they are the highest IQ state of the South (although that's not saying a lot) (more seriously, I'd point out that Nascar, which is based in states like NC and Tennessee, has the fans with the highest IQs, of the fans of different sports, on average).

Second, this doesn't explain if the workplaces that permit firearms require licenses, or what kinds of businesses they are, etc.  And lots of other things that I simply am not going to take the time to think about right now.

Third, things can change a lot in 10 years time.  This is one of the reasons why research needs to continue.  The anti-scientism of some of my interlocutors will certain express itself as, don't spend my taxpayer dime for this (when instead you can defund the VA and let vets come back, without a support network, and kill themselves ...) and all scientists lie, yadda yadda yadda.