We, in the U.S., have experienced two horrific mass shootings in just something like 24 hours: the first in el Paso, Texas, the second, earlier today (Sunday) in Dayton, Ohio. I’m not going to comment directly on either because it’s too soon. What we are experiencing, mostly, from the media are a mixture of fact and fiction with a generous dose of pure speculation. I’ve not been watching the news, based on just those factors and when an incident occurs, I always avoid the news for at least a couple of days because no one has anything pertinent to add that would inform me as to the why of the situation. too many partisan voices. on both sides of the gun control debate, who have nothing to add concerning the actual event versus their own political agenda.
Media should, in my opinion, spend less time speculating and pontificating and more time attempting to discover the why. Of course, there are cases, like the Las Vegas shooter, that we’ll never know. Yes, the FBI actually closed the case without making a determination as to the provocation of that shooter. In other cases, like the two this weekend, voices are all over the place, it’s white supremacy, or something akin. Again, without any direct knowledge. when someone does attempt to interject, for a moment, something beyond what everyone else is discussing online or on television, it sometimes doesn’t go over very well.
Case in point is an article concerning a tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson, attempting to place some perspective in place and the immediate dog-piling he received. Here’s the tweet:
As most readers here are aware, I’m not a fan if Tyson, mainly because over the last decade at least, he’s become less a science communicator than a celebrity – a status I believe he enjoys more. So this tweet startled me, mainly because Tyson has become a mouthpiece for what I call left-wing causes over time. This tweet, however, does nothing to move the anti-gun lobby narrative forward and anyone looking at some of the responses he’s received, will quickly understand that point.
Some of the responses indicated that he should “stick with astrophysics”, something never heard from the same crowd when he discusses climate change. I’m pretty sure the same could be said on any topic he brings up outside of his specialty but that he didn’t support the narrative that people wanted or expected, his own supporters come after him in droves. that’ll teach him to discuss something he knows nothing about, won’t it? Yes, that was sarcasm.
Some replies focused on deaths due to car accidents and said things about how cars were regulated, unlike guns (a falsehood, BTW). Yes, there are lots of safety standards applied to vehicles, but that doesn’t prevent someone getting behind the wheel, drunk, and killing someone else, or themselves, in an accident. Maybe we should outlaw alcoholic beverages? Wait! We tried that didn’t we? The 500 that die everyday due to medical errors? I’m thinking we should do the same with medicine.
Yeah, I’m being ridiculous but it reinforces, I believe, the point that Tyson was making and that’s always going to be a problem when there is a political divide on a hot-button issue like guns and yet the same people ignore those other pesky statistics that just don’t move their agenda (pro or con) forward.
Conservative Skeptic 
I didn’t see it as going after the gun hysteria as much as you did. However, I heard on the news today that most gun owners favor responsible gun laws. I live in the state with the largest gun shows in the entire world. Everybody has guns except me. My nephew is a gunsmith and builds special tactical rifles for the police department. I have argued with everyone that I don’t see a need for the rapid fire ARs, and they all tell me you can rapid fire other types of guns and that I don’t understand. Of course, they are all avid hunters and target shooters and are extremely responsible. We have open carry and the whole shebang. They then give me a lecture about how anything can be a weapon if you are intent on being violent. It’s true, I believe, that it’s not the gun but the person with the gun. But I really am not crazy about the rapid fire weapons that do so much damage in such a short amount of time.
LikeLike
I’m a dun owner and I agree with having “responsible gun laws”, but if you take a careful look at the Federal, and then individual state laws, there are literally hundreds of laws regulating the possession of firearms already. When people respond that way, what is never asked is “what would you consider responsible gun laws?” You see? You can ask a general question and receive a positive response, but if you ask a more specific question, say about legal AR/AK style rifles, you will get a different response.
Example: I saw a tweet today from someone that claimed that when the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect (1994-2004) there was a 43% drop in murders with these weapons and it was “Republicans” that refused to reenact it. Well, 2 lies there: There was no significant change in murder by these firearms (up or down) in 10 years and also, not renewing the ban, was BI-PARTISAN because of that lack of any change. Of course, in the response thread, there were tons of replies that agreed with BOTH lies – people who had no knowledge of it at all. That’s the problem as I view it: Too many [people willing to accept a “truth” based on ideology instead of actual facts.
I think Tyson was attempting to have people view these tragedies with perspective ad that’s all. If you recall, he also pointed out that in the last 48 hours, statistically, there have been 40 murders by handguns. What is the solution to all of these he mentioned?
Yes, these incidents are shocking and horrible, Trying to place blame on anyone other than the perpetrator does nothing to even begin to attempt for honest and open discussion about sensible gun ownership.
I probably should have made this into another post. 🤠 I have more to say, but I’ll leave it there for now.
LikeLike
I’m with you on the only one to blame is the one who did it. And you’re right–I forgot that it was explained to me how many laws are already in place. What people don’t realize is that it’s the illegal guns on the street that are the ones being used to commit crimes. It has nothing to do with the responsible gun owners. I do have one additional problem which is that with so many illegal guns on the streets, I think this leads to more police shootings because the police have to assume everyone is armed where I live. There’s a fair amount of gang activity and reformed gun laws will do nothing to stop the illegal gun trade. Shoot, I could probably get an illegal weapon right now! I don’t know the answer and don’t understand why you get these different answers from different sources–as you were saying above. I have talked to people in Australia and in NZ on Twitter who think we’re all crazy and are very anti-guns. Some think they would be scared to come to the US because they think there are shootings all the time.
LikeLike
Austrailia and NZ still have murders – with guns! In 2018 they had 289 murders total in Australia which doesn’t seem like a lot but it has to be placed in perspective that their population 1) already went through some(most) guns being confiscated from responsible people of course. And their population is what? Somewhere around 25 million? NZ, I just read recently, only 7% of gun owners have complied with the new law there. What are they going to do, put everyone in jail that refuse to comply? My question has always been this: Why does everyone need to be punished for the crimes of a few? That question may be used in any instance where government decides that something is a problem and that they need to place greater controls on whatever it is. Think e-cigarettes.
LikeLike
There was a kind of funny little news story here this week. A man was out watering his lawn and three kids — two teens and one in twenties, approached him in broad daylight to rob him. They didn’t bother to notice he was strapped up, as I think they say, and he pulled his gun and they hit the road. One ended up jumping into someone’s back yard to get away and that homeowner shot that kid. What a mess.
LikeLike
While I’m about as Pro-Second Amendment as it gets, I do feel like it is our responsibility as responsible, law-abiding gun owners to tell the truth about firearms; and the truth is some people probably shouldn’t own them. Even though I 100% believe that a gun in the hands of a responsible, trained gun owner is a good thing, one in the hands of some guy who has never bothered to take a firearms safety course, or learn how to use that firearm in a self-defense situation is downright dangerous.This really comes down to proper training. Far too many gun owners have the mentality that because they have or carry a firearm they are somehow protected from bad guys and violence.
Even though a firearm may level the playing field, having one without taking the proper training courses is gonna get you killed. When I’m at the shooting range, I often hear some loudmouth say something like, “no one will ever get the drop on me,” or “I’d like to see that guy break into my house.” That’s usually when I take a break because it’s usually the same guy who the range officer singles out because he’s doing something that is a danger to himself and everyone on the range. Equivalent to someone drinking before driving and saying something like” I got this”. It’s not about having a Wild West mentality, it’s about proper safety, training, & responsibility.
Every year, law-abiding citizens draw their guns over 2.5 million times in personal defense, saving a countless number of lives and serving as a serious deterrent to criminals. Sometimes, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop a criminal dead in his tracks, without ever having to fire a single round.
While the government and the media would like you to believe that banning guns will somehow solve the world’s problems, the truth is, criminals by their very nature don’t follow the law. Anti-gun laws do very little good when you’re staring down the barrel of some psychopath’s gun.
But what about all those mass shootings, couldn’t they have been prevented by passing more gun control bills?
Since 1950, all but two of this country’s mass shootings have taken place in a designated gun-free zone.
Yes, the criminals had guns; the good guys didn’t! The law and all those fancy gun-free zone signs did nothing to stop the bad guys from killing people. The only thing that could have made a difference in these cases would have been a law-abiding citizen allowed to lawfully carry his gun in these areas.
It always amazes me how some people can be so caviler with their family’s lives. In my opinion, if you have a family you should have and know how to use a gun.Sometimes we hear the anti-gun crowd say things like, “people don’t need firearms, that’s why we have cops.” Well, cops can get kinda heavy to carry around. But in all seriousness, when seconds count, you simply can’t count on 911 to keep you safe. Law enforcement does not have a legal obligation to protect you from criminals.
In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police officers do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. The ruling backed up an earlier court case, Warren v. District of Columbia, where the Court ruled that official police personnel and the government employing them owes no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection. When it comes to protecting yourself from that threat, you are the only person who can do something to stop the crime and put down the threat. You cannot count on law enforcement to respond in time to protect you from the chaos. According to the Department of Justice, police response times range from 4 minutes for the best in the country to the worst clocking in at over an hour. The national average response time for law enforcement responding to a high-priority call is 11 minutes.
Like most things, I look at firearms from a preparedness point of view. And from that lens, owning a firearm is no different than buying fire insurance or a fire extinguisher. I hope I never need to use either one of them. But like the saying goes” it’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. ”
Safety should be the FIRST concern for any gun owner, especially a first time gun owner.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for your perspective. It’s always welcome here.
LikeLike
Excellent addition to Jim’s article, Anon.
I don’t care much for deGrasse-Tyson, either, but appreciate that he was attempting to bring perspective to a national conversation. As with airplane crashes that so horrify because they kill so many in one place at one time, mass shootings bring about the same sort of illogical thinking. Yes, the details are horrifying, but if all the transportation deaths from a week or all the murders from a week are brought together each Sunday on the news, people would be traumatized from the knowledge that others are dying all around them every minute of every day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was listening to Sam Harris on this. He is not really a no guns advocate, but he does advocate for more stringent training laws, like driving a car or flying a plane. I think here you just buy a gun and you don’t have compulsory training. We also have the largest gun shows in the world. I always figure I wouldn’t be fast enough to grab a gun in a threat. I had a first degree burglary–a person entered my house thru an unlocked door. I don’t think he was armed nor was his accomplice who didn’t enter. He knew it was my son’s house but my son was only friend’s with his brother so he said my son invited him over during school hours–nope. I believe there was a beat down arranged which kind of made me happy. The cops wouldn’t listen to me. They thought it was innocent until they found out he was part of a large burglary ring and had stolen someone’s heirloom sword from a war. All the sudden they were interested in my story. They were worthless. My stupid dogs didn’t even react. I was furious.
LikeLike