Gun Control in the US

[Meshugger]

At times like these...i do not really feel talking about gun control. At all.

But it's the only time it'll ever come up for discussion.

 

Times like this happen everyday. With some people there never is a time to talk about gun control.

 

Because i think, considering the nature of the shooting, that is simply exploitive and disingenous. "Ahaa, kids were murdered! My opinions on gun control must be heard and validated!".

 

I will stop posting now.

[WDeranged]

The issue in the US is not the guns, its the cultural acceptance of violence. The US embraces the idea of justified killing (you could just see the jubilation when Bin Laden was killed) and just wars - and the old eye for an eye principle.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

[casa]

Its amusing how its always the guns that are to blame, as if they were anything more than a tool. Anyone who really wants to get a gun and go on a spree can do it, anywhere in the world, regardless of whatever law is in place.

 

The point is that it's usually not "normal" criminals or, say, terrorists who go on such a spree, but mentally ill persons with no criminal background. I agree that harsh laws on guns won't prevent any terrorist attack, they won't stop organized criminals and all those with a source for illegal weapons. Every country with harsh gun laws has organized crime with lots of illegal weapons. It probably won't stop real psychopaths like Breivik either, people who plan for years and can easily pass any test for licenses as being mentally stable, because psychopaths like him are very good actors and appear like normal, civilized persons.

 

What a harsh gun control can prevent though is a lot of gun sprees like the last one, committed by youngsters or people with a momentary mental breakdown. As was stated above, the man who enters his bedroom and finds his wife with another man might still be able to do some bad damage, but without a gun in the next room it won't be as easy to kill her and the lover in a momentary loss of control.

Or, killing spree with a knife: 22 injured, 0 dead. A gun is probably the easiest way to kill a person, with a knife it's already much harder and there's a chance the person can be overwhelmed. Not even mentioning suicides.... I'd say it's much easier to put a gun into your mouth than a rope around your neck. Heck, if I wanted to commit suicide I'd look for a gun s the easiest solution, because the other ways appear very uncomfortable.

 

Let's for a moment assume yesterday's kid lived in Germany. To succeed with his plan he would've had to live in one of the households that actually has a family member with a gun license. Those exist, but they are much less than in the US, the average person has none. If he owned those guns himself he would've been through many checks and would've been shooting on a range for years. If it wasn't his own, then he would've had to gain access to the gun safe - and there are laws on how secure those have to be. Ammo has to be stored seperately. By no means he would've had access to the type of gun he used.

 

All those points can still happen, it actually happened here more than once and led to many discussions about gun laws again, and we already have a gun lobby that usually points at video games as the big evil and often succeeds with it. But as you can see, the hurdles are already much higher and the odds that a random kid goes on a spree are much lower. Also, in at least one case the guns weren't stored properly.

 

To gain access to an illegal weapon you must know exactly what you're doing, because I guess no normal person would have any idea where to start looking. When you start looking "clumsily", the Police is knocking on your door pretty quick.

So if you have the criminal energy to actually get your hands on an illegal one, you're very good at planning and surely don't do it out of a momentary depression, aka either Breivik or criminal/terrorist. In most cases, these people don't go into schools or kindergartens, again Breivik being an exception, but certainly not the kind of murderer you see regulary. To sum it up, strict gun laws can't prevent all killing sprees, but I'm sure they'd prevent the majority of those that happen out of a momentary loss of control. And most murders are relationship murders.

 

 

The issue in the US is not the guns, its the cultural acceptance of violence. The US embraces the idea of justified killing (you could just see the jubilation when Bin Laden was killed) and just wars - and the old eye for an eye principle.Every country in the world could be considered guilty of this at some point or another, but with the US its systemic. Taking a gun out to solve a problem may not be acceptable by law, but its so common that it can only be considered (at least partially) socially acceptable.

 

(...)

 

To wonder at the results of violence is the US is to embrace a voluntary blindness as to how violent and cutthroat the US system is, internally and towards other countries.

 

So the logic (in the minds of these killers) is simple:

They (whoever) wronged me > I'm going to get back at them > How am I going to do it? > I'm going to get myself a gun and shoot as many as I can

 

Can't agree more on this.

 

Social isolation helps. The more modern a country is the more of the old bonds of extended families and such are broken. In a traditional society few people are really socially isolated - in a modern one, many are. Its much harder to snap and go around killing people when you know each and every one of your supposed victims.

 

Here I don't agree again... social isolation of gun bearers can help of course, getting the message over that gun nuts are idiots.

But in the case of these gun sprees with murderers who are mentally unstable it's more often social isolation that caused the whole thing... and they usually shoot persons they know or believe to know or have some kind of personal hate on, like usually former teachers.

[pmp10]

It's interesting that no one questioned media coverage of mass shootings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l8rMYyegT5Y

Just food for thought.

[HoonDing]

[casa]

Video time?

Probably already well known in Murca, but for an outsider enjoyable heat:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObE-vEFVnww

[Diagoras]

Anyone who wants to approach the statistics of this issue should, at a minimum, read the 2004 National Academy of Science's Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Or at least skim it. Or at least read the summary, and the headers of each subsection. In a discussion as data-driven as the one around gun control, you really need to be familiar with the statistical consensus to talk about the issue intelligently.

[Gorgon]

It's interesting that no one questioned media coverage of mass shootings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l8rMYyegT5Y

Just food for thought.

I think this is rather poingant. The BBC is a public service channel funded by tax payers and they should insititute a version of the hippocratic oath. In other words 'Thou shalt promise not to do more harm than good in your reporting'.

 

Since the media spectacle is a catalyst for copycats and people seeking the same kind of notoriety they should indeed make it as boring as possible in the slim hope that some day expert knowledge rather than sensationalism will guide coverage of these things. The same goes for politically motivated terrorist attacks. It's not very likely to work, but you have to start somewhere.

[Hurlshort]

Speaking of the media, I was absolutely disgusted that there were news outlets interviewing children at the scene. How the hell does that seem like a good idea under any circumstance?

[Malcador]

Hey. gotta get eyewitness accounts to fill the air time.

[Volourn]

"The US embraces the idea of justified killing (you could just see the jubilation when Bin Laden was killed) and just wars - and the old eye for an eye principle.Every country in the world could be considered guilty of this at some point or another, but with the US its systemic."

 

I agree. And, I blame Britain for that. The US had to fight tooth and nail for their independence. That is now ingrained in the US where they feel if they need to fight for a cause, violence is the way to go. britain tauight them that.

 

Comapre that to my country where our 'freedom' was handed to us basically on a silver platter. That's the biggest difference between the US and Kanada. And, it's 100% because of Britain.

[Zoraptor]

Sheesh Volo, that's ridiculous. There's plenty of countries that "threw off the yoke of the oppressor" and didn't end up with the US's problems; Poland had to fight tooth and nail for independence on far more numerous occasions, for example. If you want an amateur psychological diagnosis then it's probably rooted as much in the Wild West as the War of Independence, of the Big Man walking into town at High Noon and settling things against Evil Doers with his Colt.

[casa]

Ya, almost every European country has a history of oppression... just take all those countries the Krauts invaded or tried to... the Brits, France, Poland, Denmark, Hungaria, etc. etc. could all justify gun ownership with that reasoning.

[Valsuelm]

Other than gun control, I think we need a massive change in our psychiatric care system.

 

The above is what really needs to be addressed. Not gun control.

[Valsuelm]

The issue in the US is not the guns, its the cultural acceptance of violence. The US embraces the idea of justified killing (you could just see the jubilation when Bin Laden was killed) and just wars - and the old eye for an eye principle.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

 

One of the better videos of recent times showing us how our 'leaders' are psychopaths.

[Malcador]

Not much horrible about that, they offed someone that was or was seen to be a national security threat. Plays well in domestic politics, and it's just the death of one man in any case.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its still a demonstration of extreme callousness, questionable morals and borderline sociopathic behavior.

 

That the general public doesn't feel that way and instead elects people of this caliber answers all the questions posed in this thread.

 

Its oh so convenient that the "socially awkward", "loner", "unpopular" individual should be the perpetual monster. No need to look inward then, because that's surely not one of us, eh?

[Gorgon]

It's not entirely fitting for a cabinet member to be all giddy that someone died even if he had it comming, but we are a long way from being a psychopath.

[Malcador]

Well, I imagine a certain level of callousness is needed to be involved in the leadership of a powerful nation. And meh, it's jubilation at the death of a foe that you see as one who has killed civilians. Wouldn't say it's convenient, is probably accurate that people outcast or troubled tend to do these things - granted in this case not sure if mental healthcare was offered and the nutter refused it.

[Hurlshort]

Its still a demonstration of extreme callousness, questionable morals and borderline sociopathic behavior.

 

That the general public doesn't feel that way and instead elects people of this caliber answers all the questions posed in this thread.

 

Its oh so convenient that the "socially awkward", "loner", "unpopular" individual should be the perpetual monster. No need to look inward then, because that's surely not one of us, eh?

 

I'd probably like to see the entire interview before I went out and proclaimed her a psychopath. It is clearly taken out of context. It's also not about Bin Laden, it is about Ghaddafi, who the US did not kill. So at worst she was making a tasteless comment on what happened, rather than reveling in some sort of victory.

[Gorth]

Speaking of the media, I was absolutely disgusted that there were news outlets interviewing children at the scene. How the hell does that seem like a good idea under any circumstance?

 

It makes for good ratings? That's capitalism and free market economy in action.

 

I wonder if somebody could enlighten me about something (since I don't live there), but isn't there an enormous stigma associated with being a "loser", in a country where success is everything and failure seems to be regarded as a crime and/or divine punishment. Maybe somebody need to run an information campaign for young men, since they seem to be the majority of the shooters, that it is perfectly Ok to seek help? Just a thought.

[Valsuelm]

Speaking of the media, I was absolutely disgusted that there were news outlets interviewing children at the scene. How the hell does that seem like a good idea under any circumstance?

 

It makes for good ratings? That's capitalism and free market economy in action.

 

I wonder if somebody could enlighten me about something (since I don't live there), but isn't there an enormous stigma associated with being a "loser", in a country where success is everything and failure seems to be regarded as a crime and/or divine punishment. Maybe somebody need to run an information campaign for young men, since they seem to be the majority of the shooters, that it is perfectly Ok to seek help? Just a thought.

 

There used to be. In better days. Our culture has become much more corrupted since then.

 

The stigma still exists in some segments of the population but over the last 20 or so years the stigma of being a 'loser' has been turned on it's head and in much of pop culture it's cool to be a 'loser' now. The 'why' of this is a somewhat huge topic as it encompasses many things, and much of the why is even taboo to speak about, but a great deal of the reason behind it is what people see on TV and in the movies.

 

If I have more time maybe I'll write more on this to better answer your question. But in short, no... the stigma is gone. The race to the bottom is in.

[Azrayel]

I'm sick to my stomach right now about the shooting at the Connecticut school. It makes me want to rush out of work and go pick my daughter from kindergarten, and then take my family in the RV and live off the grid for awhile. I also keep staring sadly at my students, which they probably find a bit odd. Anyways, I know these are all emotional reactions to a very tragic situation, but I decided a good way to take my mind off of the horror is to discuss what we can possibly do to stop these things from happening. I realize we don't know enough about this case to really reference it yet, but I think there are enough recent shootings going back to Columbine to have a discussion.

 

So I want to talk about the big issue of gun control. I've always been on the fence about it, but after the shooting in the movie theater in Colorado, I started to really question why certain weapons are needed by anyone in a non-military or law enforcement role. The Oregon mall shooting could have been much worse if the gun hadn't jammed, and now we have this shooting in Connecticut.

 

I don't know a lot about firearms, so I am hoping some of you can educate me. Are there any restrictions we can place on rate of fire or something? Can we limit some of these guns strictly to gun ranges or something? I'm not sure what the answers are here, I just think something needs to change.

 

Other than gun control, I think we need a massive change in our psychiatric care system. But I suppose we can start another thread for that.

 

Thing is, laws don't matter.

 

There have been whole documentaries where people go to gun shows with people who, via lobbyists and other wonderful untouchable groups, have arranged on a federal level to be able to peddle fully automatic guns to "license people"-- and they don't even demand to see their driver's license before selling them the guns.

 

The guy who does the asking's kid died in at Columbine IIRC.

 

Also,

 

I hope that we can work towards a society where things like this don't happen because people won't do them, and the kind of people who would can be identified and stopped before this becomes an issue: everything else, however "realistic" it may seem, is nothing but a functional band-aid or a swing towards police state.

[Gorgon]

I realise that there are other factors at play, but it's remarkable how many people are psychologically incapable of making the connection between gun availability and gun deaths.

 

Every other stone gets turned, but it's like it's sacrosaint to even suggest that fewer people would get shot if fewer people had guns to shoot with.

[Malcador]

Nice and feasible solution from that thought as well too.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Malcador