Name:   copperline - Subject:   Dr. John Lott's research Date:   1/11/2013 12:14:28 PM

it’s more complicated than that to me.   Training makes a policeman more effective at managing violence, a skill set not easily learned but critical to how they do their job… and whether they get to go home at the end of each shift.   One hopes that a cop has the experience & knowledge to de-escalate a situation far better than my Aunt Harriet & Uncle Barney.   Thinking that training has no effect on safety and outcomes is just beyond my belief.  if that were the case, then there would be no need for a 14 yr old to get gun safety instruction at the beginning of hunting season, because he is just as likely to shoot his little brother with or without the guidance.

My thinking is that this problem is so complicated that we will have to chip away with improvements in several areas… like mental health, violence in the culture… lots of different facets contribute to the destructiveness of gun violence.     Since impulsive behavior and poor judgment are strong contributors to the problem, you have to try to address them too.

i think about it this way:  if you were an alcoholic who was trying to stop drinking, would you be more or less likely to relapse if you kept a bottle of Bourbon in the kitchen?        People with anger management problems are like that, too.   Easy access to weapons makes them seem like a solution if your judgment is already compromised by emotion or intoxication.   Would the positive effects of having to delay use of a gun…giving me time cool off….. outweigh the rare event of a surprise attack by a home invader?

But i don’t want to broaden this to a discussion of ALL guns.  For purposes of continuing, i’ll concede Dr. Lott’s arguments (for now) and restate the question:   if gun ownership generally makes us more safe, then does increasing the lethality of weapons we own just keep adding to our safety & security?   Are there any limits to that reasoning?