Ok so we try to focus on science here at the bayblab, and I think it's best to be apolitical as a scientist - but I can't resist commenting on
this story. I'm neither anti-left wing nor right-wing politics - we need both - but I am anti-stupid politics. And generally, the current Conservative government takes the cake in the stupid department.
Here's Nova Scotia Dr. (obviously never worked in an emergency room) Mike Ackermann's solution to gun violence in our schools:
"If even 1 per cent of the students and staff at Virginia Tech had been allowed to exercise their right to self defence, then this tragedy would have been stopped in its very beginning and dozens of lives would have been saved," Dr. Mike Ackermann, a Nova Scotia physician, wrote in a letter to the Ottawa Sun in April. "There are never any mass killings at shooting ranges; only at schools and other so-called `gun-free zones.'"
Yes, that's right Dr. Retard, schools are gun free zones. That's because, last I checked, people were supposed to be getting an education there, not meeting in the schoolyard at high noon for a shootout at 20 paces.
Sounds like Dr. Mike is more interested in representing the St. Mary's Shooters Association (he is President), rather than the health interests of Canadians. Good to know he's one of the many pro-wild west "experts" on the current parliamentry committee on gun control. Hmmm...I wonder what the recommendations will be? An AK-47 for every teacher??!!
Ok so we try to focus on science here at the bayblab, and I think it's best to be apolitical as a scientist - but I can't resist commenting on this story. I'm neither anti-left wing nor right-wing politics - we need both - but I am anti-stupid politics. And generally, the current Conservative government takes the cake in the stupid department.
Podcast
6 comments:
But see the thing is, we're not at the point where it's only possible to obtain a gun through legal means. If you really want to do something as crazy as shoot up a school, you can get a gun, whether they're legal or not.
This guy is absolutely right that if other students had been carrying guns during the VT shooting, there probably would have been fewer deaths. That's not where he's wrong. He's wrong because he assumes that the number of deaths prevented on AVERAGE by allowing students to carry guns would be more than the number of deaths that occur because of the crazy shooters who are likely to get the guns anyway. That's obviously something that's hard to evaluate under controlled conditions.
So here's my semi-scientific approach. Let there be three classifications of people: type 1, who would acquire guns and kill others regardless of the law; type 2, who would only kill people if guns were legal (say, in drunken fights, etc); and type 3, who would never kill anyone except in defense from a type 1 or 2. If there were absolute gun control, in that no one at all is allowed a gun (except maybe the police), then there would only be a basal murder rate by type 1s. Suppose you now start to increase the concentration of guns in the population. The number of deaths due to type 2s and the number of deaths prevented by type 3s carrying weapons would both increase concomitantly with the increase in gun concentration. The slope of these increases would likely be proportional to the percentages of type 2s and 3s in the population. If you assume that type 3s are more common than type 2s, then you'd have to say that at least some small increase in the concentration of guns would result in fewer innocent deaths.
The question is, of course, how exactly do you "set" the gun concentration? I suppose you can't. But I disagree with saying that total illegalization of guns is the right way to go.
maybe a bunch of ppl running around with guns during something intensely terrifying would result in MORE deaths, because these scared ppl just start shooting, trying to defend themselves? and they end up hitting random ppl...
and maybe over the course of the school year the amount of gun related deaths/accidents would be higher if everyone had guns, because hey, if i get into a fight with someone why use my fist when i have my nice shiny gun to wave around?
obviously you don't ban guns... ppl will still carry guns (making something illegal won't eliminate it :O ) but don't encourage the general public to arm themselves - most ppl don't have the training, and will carry a gun for the wrong reason...
anywhoos, did i mention it's almost wednesday? everyone knows what that means!
Gun control is stupid. The concept is naive and presumes that violent people have respect for the law.
You can't legislate culture. If a culture of peace doesn't exist then people will need the right to protect themselves.
Those who have had peace surround them all their lives should not impose their will on the minority who perceive an environment of violence. (besides the fact that this further alienates those rural folks who have a gun culture that is about a tool and not about urban handgun violence.)
Let's try to change the culture not the law. Letting the government decide who has guns and who doesn't has a history of problems.
If you are lucky, and don't see a need for guns (like me) then don't use them. But don't disarm those whose situations you know NOTHING about. Encourage a culture of peace not an enforced disarming.
Crazy people will do crazy things. We should all be attentive. Obviously there should be mechanisms in place to prevent people with psychological medical conditions from getting lethal weapons. But, perhaps a person versed in the reasons against gun control helps balance a committee whose purpose is to limit our individual freedom.
Very nice points - this is always a contentious issue. I tend to agree with anonymous, and my point in bringing up this story is not because I think we should be taking away people's rights, and I think by and large the current legal situation in Canada doesn't really need to be messed with. Basically there's a lot of responsible gun owners out there who I think are entitled to license weapons for hunting or sport or what not. I think that's a situation we could all live with. What seems to get the debate started every time is something like this, where some big-mouthed gun activist idiot in the public eye gives all gun owners a bad image by making some stupid endorsement of guns as a method for solving deep and complex social problems.
Why does this piss me off so much? 1) It's a cop-out that lets people ignore the deeper issues - ie the solution to violent crime in a decaying inner-city neighbourhood is for everyone to carry guns for self defence, rather than people taking responsibility to work with their government to address urban planning, drug problems, poverty, etc. OR for example, carrying a gun to school so you can get into a shootout with crazy would-be killers, rather than asking why such a person didn't get the psychiatric he needed, the effects of parenting, etc.
2) Having more weapons on more people just does not promote conflict resolution, but rather leads to more violence, creates a culture of fear and agression, and makes the world a more dangerous place. Period. That's why they call call it an ARMS RACE. It happens when each person thinks they need to protect themselves from others. It escalates. By this rationale, if one person has a gun, everyone has a gun. This mindset creates suspicion and stress. "What's that in his hand"? "Is he about to pull a gun...I better pull mine first...better yet, better shoot first, just to be sure...if he shoots, I won't have a second chance..." A society of stressed-out, paranoid, and well-armed people is a recipe for disaster. One accident or misunderstanding is all it takes, and before you know it people are dead. This is the exact same kind of thinking for example (applied at the national level), that provoked the US into the military blunders of Vietnam and led to millions of dead soldiers/Vietnamese civilians (McNamara himself has admitted the war was triggered by the paranoia of a Navy officer and misplaced interpretations of Russian aggression). Of course we all know of the damage caused by the industrial arms race that armed Europe to the teeth and saw the random shooting of one person trigger two world wars, millions of deaths and even the nuclear destruction of two entire cities a continent away. All this to say that the proliferation of technology designed to kill will never make you safer. Shit happens, always will...just nice if the consequences are not final.
"Why does this piss me off so much? 1) It's a cop-out that lets people ignore the deeper issues - ie the solution to violent crime in a decaying inner-city neighbourhood is for everyone to carry guns for self defence, rather than people taking responsibility to work with their government to address urban planning, drug problems, poverty, etc. OR for example, carrying a gun to school so you can get into a shootout with crazy would-be killers, rather than asking why such a person didn't get the psychiatric he needed, the effects of parenting, etc."
It's a 'cop-out' to think that you've solved the reasons behind violence by disarming people instead of addressing the deeper issues. It's not a cop out to leave people with more freedom, and it's not about social engineering. Taking away guns IS social engineering, and it ignores the reasons for violence while leaving the individual with fewer options.
As I said - I'm not talking about disarming people or taking away their rights. My issue is with people who justify their rights based on the false belief that guns solve social problems. That's just stupid because you don't actually need to make that claim to justify freedoms.
Post a Comment