If they are hunting for food (more likely if they are rural poor), then physiological.
I think I am in agreement with @Enkita that the US problem with guns is cultural. Other nations manage to have legal gun ownership without having the problems the US has.
I think it’s because THE ARMY HAS FUCKING TANKS.
People can talk about Vietnam and Afghanistan all they want, but in both of those cases it’s a group of people they don’t speak the language of and are overseas.
Fighting another civil war is just in Tennessee and your pal Frank lives there and he’s not a bad guy and all, but, well, fuck Tennessee, we’ve got a fucking tank.
Seriously, you really think any of those guys in the wildlife refuge could have held out against the local police? Nobody wants to be part of an uprising.
If it comes to me having to pick up a gun, fuck that. I’ll leave the country first. I’m not going to kill a bunch of people to protect New York or whatever because that other guy over there wants to die for Trump. War sucks.
I take it you’ve never been too poor to afford a car.
We also have a responsibility to see that those freedoms are restricted in the least possible way, and that nobody is more or less affected than anyone else. You’re on a very slippery slope here.
Then I would argue (and often do) that the solution is to address the root socioeconomic problems which create our current gun culture, rather than applying bandages to the result. Happy, secure, fulfilled people with strong communities do not tend to cling to violent power fantasies or lash out at random targets. As I have said many, many times- As long as you have angry, desperate, hopeless people, you will have gun violence. Trying to fix that problem from the wrong end will only make things worse.
Well, there’s two parts to that- The first is that the 2A was intended to be in lieu of a standing military. I think it’s hypocritical to support gun rights in this country without also supporting a massive reduction of the military and the demilitarization of police.
You’re absolutely right that war sucks. Violence sucks. Nobody wants to be part of an uprising.
Least of all, the people who are part of it only because it’s their job.
Do I think the guys at the wildlife refuge could have held out? Fuck no. But I do think they could have done enough damage to make the police think twice about how they wanted to handle the situation- Something you didn’t see with Occupy or BLM where the police know that they can pepper spray, beat, shoot, or molest anyone they damn well please without any serious repercussions. It’s a very different situation when you know that doing something like that is likely to get you or one of your coworkers killed. It’s not about winning so much as it is about making it too risky to fight at all.
All of them. At least perceptually. That’s the problem.
We have an increasingly isolative climate where people have no faith in any kind of safety net, where they distrust those in power, where your status as a human being pretty much correlates to your dollar value, and where actions you have no control over- corporate directives, market crashes- provide a constant threat to your ability to obtain food, clothing, and shelter.
For many people, owning a gun provides reassurance that they can defend what little they have from those who would take it; A way to protect themselves when the authorities wont; access to a peer group just as desperate and paranoid as themselves; and the ability to overpower someone physically larger than themselves. This gives them a sense of power and independence.
And this, as I keep saying, is the real danger- Not that people own guns, but that they are so disempowered and insecure-so disconnected from real options- that a firearm feels like a solution to all their problems.
Edit: So, realistically, how do we think people will react to someone threatening to take that solution away? People aren’t afraid of losing their guns, they’re afraid of losing their last hope. Again, we’ve got to approach this from the other end.
No, see then they kick it up and bring in tanks “for public safety.”. Or drones or whatever. Escalating violence cannot work because it’s all the police have and they have a lot more of it.
If some passerby have to die along the way, well, that’s really the fault of the protestors, who shot back.
I usually stay out of gun threads here, but I think I have suggested in the past that more welfare would solve a lot of gun crime. It’s oversimplifying what would need to be done and it wouldn’t be perfect, but nothing ever is. The only problem I can see is getting it past the Democrats and Republicans.
I still think it is worth working towards. Bernie Sanders might be in favour of it, which is a start at least.
The government can only use so much force before the people decide to challenge it’s authority. 45 years ago, 4 dead college students were enough to make people demand an end to the war.
Today, turning tanks and drones on American citizens might be enough to make people vote. I’m not completely confident, but its possible.
Per capita is only one measure. You can’t look at that number alone. Expecially when you have one murder out of community less than the base measure, skewing the numbers. (ie 1 out of town of 10,000 when the stats are in number per 100,000). For example, there was one murder/suicide last year in my old home town, the first one in decades. Even if their per capita rate for that year was probably similar to neighboring Wichita who had 34 murders, which city would would you say has the bigger crime problem?
Look at the stats I posted on Milwaukee. If you measured rate in each district you would see that some of them have nearly no murders, why other districts are absurdly high. Same with other cities like Chicago. If you include the whole city, MOST of it NOT awash in crime, the numbers even out. But analysis of where the most murder and crimes happen make it CLEAR there are localized spots where that is the issue. THAT is where one should be most addressing the social ills that lead to crime as that is where the bulk majority is. Not some small town in Kansas that had one murder/suicide that on paper made it look as bad as some other city with dozens or even hundreds of murders.
Is it? Overall the homicide rate is down. In fact we are at a 51 year low! Suicides ARE increasing, but again, the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of a felon or someone engaged in criminal activity, are much different than keeping them out of the hands of someone who wants to commit suicide. Honestly, I don’t see how any LAW can stop this. Well, gun law. A law helping to fund suicide prevention education and counseling may help.
I am not just saying “not much we can do about.” As some one who suffered from depression for several years, went to a psychologist, and still has some creeping bouts, I am intimately familiar with the hopelessness and despair that leads to suicide. I am suggesting that gun laws aren’t the problem here. I don’t under stand what “locking up” your gun will do. First off, the accident numbers I posted above were 50 deaths for people <14. And not all of those were self inflicted. So that right there is an indicator that among the ~80 MILLION, nearly all of them seem to be securing their firearms in some manner. But yes, I would agree if you have a child or young adult, one should secure them. And I concede there are people who kill themselves with their parents guns or someone else they know. Every year someone goes to a range and rents a gun and kills themselves. Though I don’t know how often that happens.
But I would imagine the overwhelming majority of people who kill themselves with a gun use their own gun. How, exactly, will locking them up help? What law can you pass that would stop people? How about the older adults who bought a gun 10, 20, 30, 40+ years ago, and only now want to kill themselves?
Suicide is a tragic problem, but I honestly think our times and money would be better spent on education, prevention, removing stigmas for counseling and mental health problems in general, and have affordable outlets for people to get help.
Show me some NRA advertising “that prey on fears of young black men”, because honestly I have never seen it. I honestly think this is a perception, but not the reality. Not some nutty shit Nugent did, but actual NRA literature or advertising. I don’t think CN would be associated with an org that did do that. Ironically, the first times I interacted with someone in the NRA directly 20+ years ago, it was a black man at a gun show running a booth.
Their advertising is mainly “The gov is passing more gun laws, act now!”, but hey, that is their job. They do beat the defense drum as far as defending the right, but that is because from a legal standpoint, it is probably the strongest argument.
Which was done because the CDC wasn’t just presenting data, but suggesting policy that was seen as more propaganda for a side on the issue. They still are allowed to gather and present all the data they want. They still DO track accident and suicide data, and homicide data, though the FBI is usually the go to for those. And there is no law stopping either the dozens of other government agencies from data gathering nor private 3rd parties. This one law that was made to address a specific act isn’t the reason we don’t have more data. We don’t have good data on a lot of things out there, who are we blaming for that?
Tell me, if the Trump administration started using the government to put out numbers and say anti-immigrant propaganda, would you be ok with that? I’d guess not.
I still contend, most people who are using guns for gun crimes are “criminals”. I am sure there are examples of people who never hurt anyone in their lives, one day killing someone. I am sure there are examples of people who never stole anything one day got up and robbed a bank. But based on the stats like the one I posted above and others, it is pretty clear must people committing homicides worked up to it,
Even in the rural murders, it is rarely the town doctor, but the guy who was arrested many times for domestic abuse or drunk driving or petty theft.
So, I don’t understand your point. Right now I am a responsible person. If I killed someone or robbed a bank tomorrow I WOULD be a criminal. Hopefully not a career one, but obviously I have committed serious crimes. What else am I?
The point the NRA has made, as well as me, is that out of 80,000,000 gun owners, ~0.015% of them use them to murder someone else. Adding the suicides and criminal injuries, you still get a fraction of a fraction of a percent. So yeah, an overwhelming majority of gun owners are handing their guns properly.
Are you suggesting that before I committed these acts someone should have looked at me with the assumption I could be a criminal and act accordingly? I get that every fucking month with my pain meds. It’s rather hurtful and insulting. Though I suppose I can’t bitch because I am sure my shooting buddy, Vince, gets the stink eye and suspicious glares way more often due to his skin.
But yeah, no, if that is what you are suggesting completely against it. Though I suspect maybe I am just missing your point.
I appreciate your commentary as well!
Again, Australia NEVER had the level of gun crime even BEFORE their gun laws were changed. Why was it the murder rate and gun crime rate was way lower back when the laws were the same? Maybe it has to do so something other than access to guns. And while they have enjoyed a lower murder rate, it isn’t gone! The US has a 51 year low murder rate with out sweeping reform.
That is pretty messed up that the concept of being responsible so that ones firearm doesn’t end up in the hands of a criminal or a child or whomever isn’t enough to motivate him to do the right thing, but a few extra bucks a month in an insurance premium would.
OK - better get to work - take care.
And a bunch of people being beaten coming over a bridge was enough to make a nation get behind civil rights.
In both the cases we’re talking about, non-violence won. Not arming up to fight.
I want nothing to do with a gun thread at the moment, so suffice it to say that my phrasing was crappy: I don’t like the Glock’s light trigger pull with no safety.
AKA, the research papers had introduction and discussion sections that explained the context, implications and limitations of the findings. Same as every other scientific paper ever published on any topic.
Raw data is just raw data. The intro and discussion is where the science and scholarship happens.
While I mentioned the racist history of gun control in passing upthread, my main concern here really is increasing best practises concerning safety, etc., keeping them out of the hands of criminals, children, and the violently mentally ill, and being more mindful of why they need to keep that weapon.
On the latter count, “democratisation of power” is a particularly bad reason in the context of a society where the authorities, for good or bad, are given special leave to use the power of firearms (and to use more powerful firearms and other weapons) as they see fit. Until that changes, democratise access to firearms all you want but your Orange Fascist or Mooslim Kenyan Usurper or militarised sheriff’s dept or the like will still have a big edge in weapons power when it’s time for the uprising.
Also, as the scholar Ben Parker said, with great power comes great responsibility. Except, apparently when you have a Second Amendment as interpreted by conservatives. Then it’s just “power without responsibility is mah rahht.”
Finally, the Bundys of the world aside, the Second Amendment was not intended by the Framers to be the Constitution’s suicide clause.
Their weight is adjustable. NYC has a hella heavy trigger, which is probably part of the reason their marksmanship his horrible. The stock one is 5lb, NY-1 is 8lb, and the NY-2 is a whopping 11lb. I don’t really like them either.
o_0 Said no one ever. Really, the cowboy oil tycoon on the Simpson’s is a caricature and parody. Funny, but not actually representative of most of reality.
In my perfect world, we’d take the original intent of the Constitution and combine it with an extreme version of the Swiss or Israeli model:
The standing military consists of the Coast Guard, nuclear launch personnel, and a National Guard with all the resources it needs to train and lead a mass deployment. Upon finishing high school, everyone goes through an expanded boot camp and 2-4 years service, with another few weeks of refresher course every few years until say age 50. Everyone is responsible for maintaining their service weapon and sidearm in good working order and safe, secure storage.
This gives you a standing military capable of securing the borders, and not much else- With the ability to raise 200 million trained reservists if it’s ever really necessary, or the population as a whole really thinks it’s that important. Foreign military aid is given on a genuinely volunteer basis- Not “you volunteered for two years to go where we say”, but “Allied country X needs help to stop a genocide- Anyone who wants to help, plane leaves on Tuesday”. It also gives you a population who is formally trained in safety and how to function in high-stress or emergency situations.
Most importantly, this cripples the military-industrial complex. No unpopular protracted conflicts, no pork spending on buildups. There is no military or police force physically capable of suppressing the civilian population, because the civilian population is that force.
Throw in a UBI, universal college, and free healthcare, you end up with a population both fully invested in their own country and community, as well as able to defend or dismantle their own government as necessary.
That’s what I’m talking about with the democratization of power.
Nonviolence never wins by itself. It is only effective when paired with either a free and democratic system, or an underlying threat of violence.
Kent State shocked people into taking political action- People who had a voice and a vote. They didn’t need to defend themselves with violence.
King marched against a backdrop of riots and Black Panthers. Gandhi’s country was on the verge of a bloody revolution. Both of them provided a peaceful alternative, but that change was going to happen one way or the other.
I’d be fine with that to a degree. In fact, the National Guard already fulfils a lot of the provisions of the Second Amendment. I’m not OK with mandatory boot camps for all citizens (Americans do not face the same national security issues the Swiss or Israelis do), but those who are interested in keeping firearms under the terms of the Second Amendment should be members of well-regulated (i.e. regularly trained and drilled by experts) state militias.
Throw in those things and after one generation you’ll probably have a lot fewer yahoos creating Bundy style militias. But since those moron militias follow American conservative values that are most assuredly opposed to such universal programmes (which would give taxpayer dollars to black and brown “undeserving” people), I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
GDR in 1989? Neither the people nor the important players (US, USSR, France, UK) used (or threatened) violence, in the end it was the decision of the East German government that putting down the rebellion by force was not worth it and started a reform program that lead to a reunion.
