Statistics, Word Semantics, and Gun "Control"

Just because it's infuriating me at the moment, let me take an instant to talk about the paranoid causality people like to make of gun death statistics.

Every time the subject of guns comes up, people like to wave around statistics that show the more gun ownership there is, the more gun-related deaths there are. You know what I say to that?

WELL, DUH.

You know what else has a high body count? Automobiles. In fact, in places where governments allow more car ownership, there is a statistical increase in car related deaths. So where is our movement to get rid of cars?

Now, before any of my non-existent readers segue into the "but you don't use cars to run over a grade school full of kids" argument, please realize that my beef is with the often quoted statistic and the implications behind it. I will leave the broader issues of where and why I think we have a gun violence problem in this country to another post.

When you allow something dangerous into your life--drugs, needles, knives, cars, guns, prescription medications, ladders, etc.--you are increasing the possibility you will die from it. When you allow it on a wide spread basis, then that statistical probability goes up even more. YES, more people die from guns in countries that allow guns, YES, in countries where guns are sparse on the ground so are gun deaths. DUH. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

An increased chance of being hurt by a dangerous item is the agreement you make when you take said dangerous item into your home. It is, in essence, the price of ownership. And the price we pay as a country to allow guns in our borders is the knowledge that, sooner or later, someone will misuse them.

The question we should be asking is not how to ban or control guns, because we've pretty much collectively agreed we either like the buggers, or just like the right to keep our options open. We don't want to ban or control guns, at all, ever, period. So be it.

What our question should be is: how do we respond to those who would use guns in a criminal manner?

Do you see the distinction? Our focus should not be guns, but people. Focusing on guns is simply a rehash of the same old question--do we want guns in this country and if so, to what capacity? The answers have been resounding after every crisis--yes we do, and in any capacity we damn well please. Asking the question again and again is not changing the answer, so it's time to start asking different questions. And it's time to start focusing our answers, not on the object, but on the person holding it.

How do we ensure that we can keep bad people/crazy people from getting guns? How do we regulate the use of our accepted tools (yes, a gun is a tool, ask any hunter) so that we can play with our toys in the safest manner possible, so that enthusiasts can collect, so that poor families can hunt, so that we can have home self defense without fear that that defense will blow up in our faces?

And to correct a rather widespread misconception, this isn't gun control. You'll notice we don't call getting a license or obeying speed limits "vehicular control." Why? Because it isn't. It's our way of making one of the tools we need to survive (cars/transportation) as safe for ourselves and others as possible. It's our way of controlling the people behind the wheel, not the vehicles themselves. Just like we have laws about proper road behavior, we should have laws about proper gun behavior, a series of laws that outlines the hows and whys of use so that we can drastically reduce the incidences of people harming other people using these items. People control.

So, if you want to see meaningful changes, stop buying into the spin by calling it gun control, and  by all the gods, stop using stupid statistics in trying to call for said "gun control." It really makes those of us who aim for responsible and safe gun ownership look like dumbasses, and that isn't helping our argument any.

Rant-o-matic complete.