Gun control

[Judah14]

Uncle Al, the problem in Australia with the US and guns is that the media paints a very one sided view of what is happening in the US, the result of this is that when I talk to my clients the comment is that they will not holiday in the US because it is too "violent" and countries like the US and Australia need tourists.

John

Don't they understand that media like to spin the stories? A little extra research beyond what is seen in the headlines won't hurt. Also, if ownership of firearms is restricted in your place, instead of complain why not try alternatives such as airsoft (as I had written before )?

[dillon]

Ray,

Gun violence in America would be barely worth tracking if you subtracted out a few neighborhoods in LA, Chicago, DC, Baltimore, NYC, etc. It is not like it is dangerous in the rest of the country.

And it really seems absurd that you pick now, with the recent European Muslim violence wave, as a time to mention that America has annoying but non-violent Christians.

The fact is that Americans have sort of bought into the inescapability of gun violence as a product of our society. Why? Well, it has nothing to do with religion, that's for sure. What it has to do with, statistically, is socioeconomic class divisions. We in the middle and upper classes have roughly the same low rate of gun homicide as Europe. But we don't take responsibility for the lower classes, where often even marital disputes are settled with firearms. We have failed to be "our brother's keepers," plain and simple. The lower classes who are the most afflicted with gun violence are Black, Hispanic, and Po' White Trash. And that's one place where some measure of limitation on the accessibility of guns and ammunition, at least to limit capacity and availability, might make a difference. How much difference is a matter of opinion. My own opinion is that if a single life can be saved, then all the inconvenience that it causes gun dealers and would-be gun buyers is 10,000% worth it. As I have before said, a law as simple as mandatory trigger locks might have prevented my Dad's dangerous situation. We have the NRA to thank for our laxity, and the gutless-wonder politicians the NRA keeps in its pockets. NC has a US Senator named Richard Burr, who, I swear, must wear knee-pads under his suit. I'm pretty sure whenever someone even breathes the name "LaPierre" Burr falls to his knees and purses his lips in pure Pavlovian submission. And I don't think, for him, it's ever even a question, figuratively speaking, of "spit or swallow."

[john62]

Here in Australia either people have given up thinking or there is no time to do research and if you do research who do you trust?

John

[crfriend]

Alright, this about the fourth or fifth time I've had to muzzle myself one this matter. Dillon is getting close with his notion on socio-economic divides, but doesn't seem to have it fully developed yet.

The NRA is a problem, yes, and its one-size-fits-all mentality is deeply flawed -- and is largely irrelevant. Face it, gun control relies on lawful behaviour of the governed -- and criminals, by definition, are not bound by those laws. The law is meaningless to the criminal (corporate or otherwise). Law requires the active consent of the governed, and that's something we haven't really had in this century -- and it's getting worse.

So, to crib a line from the first Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid!" And it still is, save that the societal pressure from a middle class that's been in free-fall for 30 years is starting to reach the flash-point. As more and more fall into the underclasses and lose all hope we can expect to see the violence situation get worse and worse. Fixing the economy would be a good starting point, but there's also all the "scar tissue" that's going to have to be healed as well. I'm starting to think that it's too late and perhaps it's time to scuttle this sinking ship before it becomes a hazard to navigation by others.

[dillon]

While we are on the topic of mass shootings, there is a grim anniversary approaching. On August 1, 1966, 50 years ago, one Charles Whitman, a former USMC sniper, ascended the tower at the main building on the University of Texas campus in Austin bearing a small arsenal of weapons and ammunition, and began systematically targeting anyone with the misfortune to fall in his sights; the "luckless pedestrians" later hailed in the 1976 Steely Dan song "Don't Take Me Alive", an amalgam of scenes of violent psychosis. In film, Whitman was also cited by R. Lee Ermey, in Stanley Kubrick's classic "Full Metal Jacket"; his fine role as Drill Instructor at Parris Island, touting Whitman to his young leatherneck charges as an example of the marksmanship skills of the trained Marine.

Not including his wife and mother, whom he killed the night before beginning his public rampage, Whitman shot 46, killing 14 on the campus. Weeks earlier, he had consulted with a therapist at the University, concerned about his mental health and complaining of severe headaches, but he never came to the scheduled follow-up sessions. He left a suicide note requesting an autopsy. In the procedure it was discovered Whitman had a brain tumor, which may have contributed to his psychotic episode.

[dillon]

Alright, this about the fourth or fifth time I've had to muzzle myself one this matter. Dillon is getting close with his notion on socio-economic divides, but doesn't seem to have it fully developed yet.

The NRA is a problem, yes, and its one-size-fits-all mentality is deeply flawed -- and is largely irrelevant. Face it, gun control relies on lawful behaviour of the governed -- and criminals, by definition, are not bound by those laws. The law is meaningless to the criminal (corporate or otherwise). Law requires the active consent of the governed, and that's something we haven't really had in this century -- and it's getting worse.

So, to crib a line from the first Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid!" And it still is, save that the societal pressure from a middle class that's been in free-fall for 30 years is starting to reach the flash-point. As more and more fall into the underclasses and lose all hope we can expect to see the violence situation get worse and worse. Fixing the economy would be a good starting point, but there's also all the "scar tissue" that's going to have to be healed as well. I'm starting to think that it's too late and perhaps it's time to scuttle this sinking ship before it becomes a hazard to navigation by others.

I think we need to discern between "control" and "prohibition"; I favor the former, not the latter. The objective is to effect a long-term change in our culture. We have made it essentially "uncool" now to smoke cigarettes, and the rates of tobacco use have fallen. We don't allow a TV episode to show someone smoking; yet you can't count on your fingers and toes combined the numbers of gun homicides shown across the multitude of channels on the boob-tube on any given night's viewing. Today's NRA is effectively the tobacco industry of yesteryear, trying to defend a serious public health issue as being, somehow, a value intrinsic to American culture. The first step in fighting a disease is in addressing it's epidemiology.

[crfriend]

I think we need to discern between "control" and "prohibition"; I favor the former, not the latter. The objective is to effect a long-term change in our culture. [...] The first step in fighting a disease is in addressing it's epidemiology.

Indeed addressing the epidemiology is the first step, but what happens if we're not looking in the right place. If we're not asking the right questions, there's no way to achieve a correct diagnosis of the condition.

What happens if guns are merely tools that are convenient to use but the actual cause of the violence turns out to be stress, fear, and hopelessness brought on by economic deprivation? Any and all of those may be brought on by mental illness, but are all of these acts committed by folks who are demonstrably ill? Are the symptoms situational and provoked by external stimuli?

The fact that the place is awash in guns doesn't help matters, but the seemingly new level of violence tends to indicate that there's some other causative agent at work here. The popular media is one problem in this regard, and one needs only watch a few of the newer cop shows to see ultra-violence -- much of it provoked by the police in such shows -- in action. Watch enough of that and the level of violence becomes seemingly normal -- and in an altered state of reality, compounded by situational hopelessness do to the entirely dysfunctional political system and economy (for the masses, it's dysfunctional; for the elites it's running perfectly), and you've got a toxic brew. Are we experiencing a world where life imitates art?

[Judah14]

The fact that the place is awash in guns doesn't help matters, but the seemingly new level of violence tends to indicate that there's some other causative agent at work here. The popular media is one problem in this regard, and one needs only watch a few of the newer cop shows to see ultra-violence -- much of it provoked by the police in such shows -- in action. Watch enough of that and the level of violence becomes seemingly normal -- and in an altered state of reality, compounded by situational hopelessness do to the entirely dysfunctional political system and economy (for the masses, it's dysfunctional; for the elites it's running perfectly), and you've got a toxic brew. Are we experiencing a world where life imitates art?

That's why I prefer watching anime such as Macross, where wars are not won by defeating the enemy but through resolving misunderstandings. Plus Macross has cool music and love triangles to spice up the story, much better than over-the-top (and unnecessary for the situation) violence.

[Ray]

Judah, I'm not entirely sure your post added to the debate.....

[Judah14]

Judah, I'm not entirely sure your post added to the debate.....

It has something got to do with ultra-violent media fuelling shootings, as usually in those shows the last man standing after bloodshed is the "good guy", as mentioned elswhere in this forum. Macross, a military science fiction anime with a pacifist theme of resolving misunderstandings with an enemy, is in stark contrast to those violent shows.

[crfriend]

It has something got to do with ultra-violent media fuelling shootings [...]

Indeed, and I am familiar with the Macross Saga, but I rather suspect that many, if not most, in the USA (and likely elsewhere) are not. Anime in the USA is very much an "edge" pastime and not well understood by the masses who view it as "cartoon" in the same guise as Bugs Bunny.

[... A]s usually in those shows the last man standing after bloodshed is the "good guy", as mentioned elswhere in this forum. Macross, a military science fiction anime with a pacifist theme of resolving misunderstandings with an enemy, is in stark contrast to those violent shows.

True enough, but US popular culture is awash not just in guns -- which in the hands of stable individuals who are not ill or overtly perturbed by surroundings are perfectly safe objects -- it's also awash in hyper-violent media imagery. The US collective psyche also seems to be increasingly having a difficult time discerning fantasy from reality (and this may have been one of the factors that brought down my last relationship). It's a very, very, nasty brew.

On Airsoft: The mere act of carrying one of those devices in public likely raises one's likelihood of being shot dead on sight by the "police" by a factor of several dozens. There are plenty of reports that whilst it was plain that the deceased was NOT carrying a firearm the police who shot the individual dead faced no charges, nor any discipline whatsoever. This effect is further magnified if one has a dark complexion. Part of the problem is that "police" in the USA are no longer regarded as a civil force; hence the inevitable attitude of "us versus them" and the impunity that results from elevated status. This manifests most obscenely in the "police" referring to the general population as "civilians"; that alone is enough to make my blood boil, and I hope it makes Robert Peel turn in his grave.

I greatly enjoyed the original Macross Saga, but it's just not applicable in this situation.

[dillon]

I think we need to discern between "control" and "prohibition"; I favor the former, not the latter. The objective is to effect a long-term change in our culture. [...] The first step in fighting a disease is in addressing it's epidemiology.

Indeed addressing the epidemiology is the first step, but what happens if we're not looking in the right place. If we're not asking the right questions, there's no way to achieve a correct diagnosis of the condition.

What happens if guns are merely tools that are convenient to use but the actual cause of the violence turns out to be stress, fear, and hopelessness brought on by economic deprivation? Any and all of those may be brought on by mental illness, but are all of these acts committed by folks who are demonstrably ill? Are the symptoms situational and provoked by external stimuli?

The fact that the place is awash in guns doesn't help matters, but the seemingly new level of violence tends to indicate that there's some other causative agent at work here. The popular media is one problem in this regard, and one needs only watch a few of the newer cop shows to see ultra-violence -- much of it provoked by the police in such shows -- in action. Watch enough of that and the level of violence becomes seemingly normal -- and in an altered state of reality, compounded by situational hopelessness do to the entirely dysfunctional political system and economy (for the masses, it's dysfunctional; for the elites it's running perfectly), and you've got a toxic brew. Are we experiencing a world where life imitates art?

I think there is something to that, but it is not wholly true. Perhaps the fact of the difference between socioeconomic groups makes violence more likely, however, poverty alone does not. I have taught in Ethiopia, and despite the most abject poverty imaginable, the incidence of interpersonal violence is relatively low. I felt safer there than in US cities. But Ethiopia did not have the vast difference between rich and poor. The fact remains that if substantial firepower was not relatively easily available, I think rates of violence would drop. A gun makes a "man" out of a nobody.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Even if the level of violence didn't drop, the carnage would.

Few solid citizens get murdered by criminals; it's themselves or the ones closest to them who are the usual perp.

[crfriend]

Perhaps the fact of the difference between socioeconomic groups makes violence more likely, however, poverty alone does not. I have taught in Ethiopia, and despite the most abject poverty imaginable, the incidence of interpersonal violence is relatively low.

I managed to miss mentioning it, or perhaps left it only implied, but there's also the factor of the feeling of disenfranchisement -- that the citizenry have no say in, or control over, the entity that's governing them. This has always been the case, sadly, for the underclasses in the USA, but in the past 30 years has grown to encompass everybody save the oligarchs. It's not poverty, per se, that's the root of this, but rather the feeling that there's nothing that can be done within the legal framework to change things for the betterment of society. It's more nuanced than, "I'm broke and desperate". One feels much more bitter if one is on the wrong end of a bad deal that they no control in than if things are pretty much equally rotten for everybody. Unfortunately, blind random outbursts are often the end result of such frustration and bitterness.

But Ethiopia did not have the vast difference between rich and poor.

The gap was there, but I suspect there was more of a societal feeling of, "We're all in this together" than there is in the US where clearly that is not the case. This, of course, discounts other triggers which tend to incite violence.

The fact remains that if substantial firepower was not relatively easily available, I think rates of violence would drop. A gun makes a "man" out of a nobody.

Point conceded, but it'll take several decades for the number of firearms available in general circulation to corrode to the point of uselessness -- and that's assuming a total prohibition on the production, importation, and possession of them. Of course the elites will still have access to unlimited firepower, as will what passes as "police" going forward -- with both classes having license to kill at whim -- further dividing things.

[Disaffected.citizen]

Well, I feel this topic should rear its ugly head again in light of the sad events in Munich, Germany; the sad killing of nine by a lone "sick" gunman. Thankfully, this seems not, at early investigation, to be the act of a terrorist cell, but a "lone wolf".

The result politically has been a call for stricter gun controls. My question is, how would stricter controls have prevented this? The weapon was a Glock that had had its serial number removed and was likely an illegal firearm from a criminal background.

I don't think having readily available firearms in the hands of the general public would have either prevented the events, nor deterred the perpetrator; but I cannot see that banning them would have done so either. Just my observation.