The US, gun violence, and gun control

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you think that a mass shooting every 3 weeks is acceptable?

As currently defined...yes. That could be less than 100 people per year, when far more are killed in other than "mass shootings".

[WIP]

I've got a statistic for everyone.

100% of people die.

So there's no reason to ban guns.

It's going off on a tangent, but you just reminded me of a theory of human motivations called Terror Management Theory, that had been ignored by academics for a time apparently, but has started to be taken more seriously in recent years as other attempts to explain the behaviour of suicide bombers and random mass murderers have not been able to offer sensible explanations.

Proposed by German anthropologist - Ernst Becker in the early 70's, and developed by a trio of psychologists in the 80's; the theory proposes an all-encompassing explanation for much of human behaviour and culture as unconscious attempts to cheat death. So, people have lots of children to leave heirs to achieve a certain immortality; adopt restrictive and unpleasant religions for the promise of immortality; build monuments at their grave sites to try to leave a lasting mark; and on these issues of suicidal violence and the taking of lives of others - deliberately cause their own deaths out of exacting some sort of revenge on others in society.

It is particularly ironic that those who react with hostility and/or violence to any perceived threat, are not braver than those who refrain from acting out violently, or advocating that others act with violence on their behalf.....I only wish conservatives would look into that aspect of TMT a little more closely, and question their own "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, instead of running around acting like their the brave ones in society.....but, that's likely asking too much!

Anyway, I don't want to change the thread to a debate about TMT, just offer it up as something to look into to develop an understanding of these sorts of issue.

[Guest American Woman]

........ rather than dish out insults.

Sarcasm begets sarcasm.

[msj]

Sarcasm begets sarcasm.

I should know better than to try and have a serious discussion with you.

[WIP]

Really. Pointing out that there are 1/3 less mass murders by gun deaths that was claimed is splitting hairs?? So I can inflate Canada's homocide by gun statistics by 1/3 and when you call me on it, I could accuse you of "splitting hairs?"

Really. You don't see a 1/3 difference as "a great deal of difference??" Sorry, but that says a whole lot about you, and it tells me is that you don't know how do engage in an honest discussion about this.

Look lady, I'm not trying to take your gun away from you! Maybe someone else is, but I'm not! I appreciate that you aren't just trolling (like a couple of others here), but feel a personal stake in issues you care about; but it's possible to be too emotionally attached to an issue, and not be able to accept or evaluate contrary evidence.

Punked already asked whether a gun-related mass homicide every three weeks is acceptable any more than one every two weeks, and you haven't answered that question yet. And here's something else to add to the fire, that I heard on the radio last night - gun related homicide deaths in the U.S. are increasing, while accident-related deaths are on the decline. So, if present trends continue, gun deaths will be the no.1 cause of non-health related deaths by 2015:

Gun deaths in U.S. on pace to overtake traffic fatalities

I tried to make the case before that the pernicious forces that have combined to divide people today and take less of an interest in the wellbeing of others, combined with new technologies that promote isolation, the rising stresses many are feeling in dealing with job losses/ or having to work longer and longer hours to make ends meet, declines in wages, rising debt levels, threat of future job loss and eviction, worries about sickness in the face of cuts to health benefits etc., are all forces that are going to increase the likelihood of random acts of violence.

But those issues and changes in culture are difficult to address, especially if many are the product of neglect and underfunding for a number of decades. What worked before in a more stable, orderly society, may not work anymore! Australia had a similar story to tell as the U.S., until a pivotal mass murder 10 years ago, caused a national shift in attitudes about how much freedom to 'bear arms' could be tolerated:

Case studies for Sandy Hook? Australia, Scotland and Finland changed gun laws after mass shootings

Edited December 21, 2012 by WIP

[GostHacked]

No theres a big difference.

Try attacking a bunch of people with a bat or knife. Youll have a fight on your hands and youll probably get your ass kicked. Any coward can kill easily with a gun though.

Missing the point. Any weapon will do in the heat of the moment. Does not matter, ban, gun, knife, the real issue is why did the person 'lose it' and commit the crim in the first place?

Are you going to blame the weapons or how and why people use them in these situations?

[Guest American Woman]

I should know better than to try and have a serious discussion with you.

Suddenly, after countless pointless responses to me, you're trying to have a serious discussion with me? And I'm supposed to just jump at the opportunity?

For the record, my response was serious. I didn't respond with an insult as you accused me of - as I said, I responded in kind. I repeat. Sarcasm begets sarcasm.

[msj]

Suddenly, after countless pointless responses to me, you're trying to have a serious discussion with me? And I'm supposed to just jump at the opportunity?

For the record, my response was serious. I didn't respond with an insult as you accused me of - as I said, I responded in kind. I repeat. Sarcasm begets sarcasm.

Of course those responses are "pointless."

If showed the math as being for 3 or 4 weeks you would be all over it. You would be "listenin' to what I say."

But since it shows somewhere between 2 and 2.5 weeks it's pointless.

----------------------

I see today that a gunman has killed 3 people and himself in PA.

Fortunately for AW this does not meet the definition of a "mass shooting" so we will have to wait until next week-ish for another one to show up.

[Guest American Woman]

Look lady,....

Lose the attitude and maybe I'll read the rest of your post. Your "look lady...." is disrespectful at best.

[dre]

Missing the point. Any weapon will do in the heat of the moment. Does not matter, ban, gun, knife, the real issue is why did the person 'lose it' and commit the crim in the first place?

Are you going to blame the weapons or how and why people use them in these situations?

Iv explained this very clearly already, youll have to go back and read it again.

[WIP]

Lose the attitude and maybe I'll read the rest of your post. Your "look lady...." is disrespectful at best.

Read the rest of the post please! I was trying to come to an understanding with you.

[Wilber]

Missing the point. Any weapon will do in the heat of the moment. Does not matter, ban, gun, knife, the real issue is why did the person 'lose it' and commit the crim in the first place?

Are you going to blame the weapons or how and why people use them in these situations?

It's a question of scale and effort. To kill someone with a knife you have to get up close and dirty with the possibility your intended victim might take it and stick it in you. Guns are by remote and take no effort at all.

If Lanza had walked into that school with the weapon the people who wrote the second amendment knew, after he fired his first shot and quite likely missed, there would have been plenty of time to walk up, take the gun and beat him to death with it before he could reload. I think those same people would be appalled with what has been done in their name and might very well be having second thoughts about what they had written.

[eyeball]

I think those same people would be appalled with what has been done in their name and might very well be having second thoughts about what they had written.

I think those same people would take one look at the NRA and it's network of lackeys throughout the government and wonder where the hell the well regulated militias they wrote about had disappeared to.

[Guest American Woman]

Read the rest of the post please! I was trying to come to an understanding with you.

Ok, I read it. I appreciate your understanding regarding where I am coming from.

Look lady, I'm not trying to take your gun away from you! Maybe someone else is, but I'm not!

First of all, I want to clarify again, that it's not "my gun." I don't own guns. Never have, never will. It's not about me personally. I also support other rights which don't pertain to me personally.

I appreciate that you aren't just trolling (like a couple of others here), but feel a personal stake in issues you care about; but it's possible to be too emotionally attached to an issue, and not be able to accept or evaluate contrary evidence.

In what way do you believe I am "too emotionally attached?"

Punked already asked whether a gun-related mass homicide every three weeks is acceptable any more than one every two weeks, and you haven't answered that question yet.

What's unacceptable to me is presenting incorrect data. I said that the 'gun-related mass murder every two weeks' scenario was false - because it is. It has nothing to do with my "acceptance" of the reality; I just feel an honest discussion requires an honest presentation of the facts. I also think it's important, in a discussion about mass murder and guns, to point out that 1/3 of the mass murders occurred without the use of guns. That some are trying to downplay 1/3 as insignificant is either due to an anti-gun agenda or not having a very good grasp on the reality that 1/3 is not insignificant.

It's ironic that in a discussion focusing on mass murders and guns - mass murders accounting for only 1% of all homicides - the same people are speaking of 1/3 as if it's nothing. So evidently on the one hand, 1% is significant, but on the other hand, 33.33% is insignificant. Surely you see what's wrong with that picture.

And here's something else to add to the fire, that I heard on the radio last night - gun related homicide deaths in the U.S. are increasing, while accident-related deaths are on the decline. So, if present trends continue, gun deaths will be the no.1 cause of non-health related deaths by 2015:

Gun deaths in U.S. on pace to overtake traffic fatalities

Accident deaths on the decline is a good thing, no? Would it be better if there were more traffic related deaths? I'm not sure what point such a comparison is supposed to be making.

At any rate, this is a good example of why statistics in and of themselves don't tell the whole story. While the number of gun related homicide deaths apparently went up, so did our population. The reality is that the instance per capita went down. Here's the reality: The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens - the lowest of any year since 1963, when the rate was 4.6, according to the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The fact is, the 2011 homicide rates are, according to Randolph Roth, professor of of history at Ohio State University, "at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years.”

I tried to make the case before that the pernicious forces that have combined to divide people today and take less of an interest in the wellbeing of others, combined with new technologies that promote isolation, the rising stresses many are feeling in dealing with job losses/ or having to work longer and longer hours to make ends meet, declines in wages, rising debt levels, threat of future job loss and eviction, worries about sickness in the face of cuts to health benefits etc., are all forces that are going to increase the likelihood of random acts of violence.

I've acknowledged that there are several factors to consider when looking at such occurrences, so I feel it's good that you have, too; I don't think anything is ever going to change if we don't address multiple factors. I've pointed out, too, that in the past, people with social disorders were often institutionalized rather than integrated into society. Integrating such people in itself presents risks - but does that make it wrong? Is the right thing to do to go back to institutionalizing everyone that might conceivably commit such a crime?

But those issues and changes in culture are difficult to address, especially if many are the product of neglect and underfunding for a number of decades. What worked before in a more stable, orderly society, may not work anymore! Australia had a similar story to tell as the U.S., until a pivotal mass murder 10 years ago, caused a national shift in attitudes about how much freedom to 'bear arms' could be tolerated:

Case studies for Sandy Hook? Australia, Scotland and Finland changed gun laws after mass shootings

I understand what other countries have done, but we're the U.S., we're not those other countries. For argument's sake, do I think their solutions would have the same effect in the U.S.? Not necessarily. One cannot compare Australia and Finland to the U.S. We are not the same countries, with the same issues, with the same populations, with the same diversities - both culturally and geographically. I really don't understand the 'the U.S. is the only nation that does such and such' argument - and I'm not saying you have used it, as I don't recall if you have or not - because it presents no argument. It reminds me of my growing up years when I used to say to my parents "but everyone else is doing it!" Just because everyone else is doing something doesn't make it right, or the only way to do things. Also, what's 'right' for one and what works for one, may not be right or work for another.

At any rate, while it is so trite, it is also true: with freedom comes risk. Is more and more control over people's actions the answer? Would it be better to start institutionalizing everyone who poses a possible risk? Taking away more and more of our freedoms? It's not that I find gun related deaths "acceptable," whether they happen once every two weeks or once every three weeks - or once every four years, for that matter. Such deaths are never "acceptable," no matter what the number, any more than I find the talk of the KKK and White supremacists "acceptable" - but I support their right to say it. I also don't find deaths due to drunk driving acceptable, but I support the legality of alcohol.

[bush_cheney2004]

...... Such deaths are never "acceptable," no matter what the number, any more than I find the talk of the KKK and White supremacists "acceptable" - but I support their right to say it. I also don't find deaths due to drunk driving acceptable, but I support the legality of alcohol.

Yes, this is the essence of the debate, and having lived outside of such a constitutional framework, many here either cannot understand that or disagree with the constitution itself. Banning "hate speech" is acceptable to them, even as it renders freedom of expression a moot concept. The very idea of individual liberty is lost to the "loyal", collectivist mindset, having already given up liberty for presumed security (even as gun homicides and mass shootings occur in other such nations).

[betsy]

I see today that a gunman has killed 3 people and himself in PA.

Fortunately for AW this does not meet the definition of a "mass shooting" so we will have to wait until next week-ish for another one to show up.

I think the question we should be asking is how come there are more and more of these people who commit murders/suicide? It wouldnt matter what weapon there is available if the mindframe is set to kill others before ending your own life.

[eyeball]

I really don't understand the 'the U.S. is the only nation that does such and such' argument

It's really simple, your constitution is as unique as the society it's shaped along with much of what it does.

Yes, this is the essence of the debate, and having lived outside of such a constitutional framework, many here either cannot understand that or disagree with the constitution itself.

The claim that people disagree with constitutions because they don't understand them, and vise versa, is as old as many constitutional governments. It's a universal circular argument used around the world, especially by those who can't seem to tell or care that there is a difference between possessing a belief and being possessed by one.

[eyeball]

I think the question we should be asking is how come there are more and more of these people who commit murders/suicide?

I think it's the result of a lot of stress and pressure myself. I chalk much of that up to a heavy moral imperative pressing down on people to produce an increasing amount of wealth in a world in which it's increasingly more difficult to do. The waterhole is getting smaller and the animals are getting meaner resulting in a behavioural sink.

It wouldnt matter what weapon there is available if the mindframe is set to kill others before ending your own life.

It wouldn't matter that the result of picking up a chair instead of a gun would be far far fewer deaths?

Edited December 22, 2012 by eyeball

[WIP]

Ok, I read it. I appreciate your understanding regarding where I am coming from.

First of all, I want to clarify again, that it's not "my gun." I don't own guns. Never have, never will. It's not about me personally. I also support other rights which don't pertain to me personally.

It's been quite a few years since I actually fired a gun. In Canada for the most part, unless you live out in the country, you're better off without one, because guns are less common and harder to come by, so having a hunting rifle in the city, makes you more likely to have a break-in if word gets out to anyone that you've got guns. Burglars will make them a higher priority than jewelry or even drugs. I wouldn't advocate banning the private ownership of firearms entirely, but, unless you're a hunter, there is no useful purpose, and a lot more extra risk involved for a city-dweller to own them, and have them around the house. It's different for someone living out in the country - especially in remote areas. And that's where the greatest divide on gun ownership has always existed - between urban and rural dwellers. When urban dwellers feel that they need to start packing handguns, it's a statement about how too many guns are already out there.

What's unacceptable to me is presenting incorrect data. I said that the 'gun-related mass murder every two weeks' scenario was false - because it is. It has nothing to do with my "acceptance" of the reality; I just feel an honest discussion requires an honest presentation of the facts. I also think it's important, in a discussion about mass murder and guns, to point out that 1/3 of the mass murders occurred without the use of guns. That some are trying to downplay 1/3 as insignificant is either due to an anti-gun agenda or not having a very good grasp on the reality that 1/3 is not insignificant.

Let's keep in mind that the study which was posted a few days ago, did not use any statistical method to weigh the severity of the mass murders, whether it was 2 or 20 people killed in them, although it did mention that many of the non-firearm killings involved more than one assailant. Methods cited were fire, knives and blunt objects. Just from simple observation of the capabilities provided by the technology - it is much easier for a lone maniac to kill a lot of people with a firearm than with a knife or a baseball bat....or trying to set a room full of people on fire. Most of the fires are likely similar to cases I recall where a vengeful divorced ex-husband breaks in and kills his ex-wife and children.

But the problem here with trying to focus on non-firearm-related murders is how do you ban knives and baseball bats, and gasoline...the usual accelerant found at the scene of arson?

At any rate, this is a good example of why statistics in and of themselves don't tell the whole story. While the number of gun related homicide deaths apparently went up, so did our population. The reality is that the instance per capita went down. Here's the reality: The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens - the lowest of any year since 1963, when the rate was 4.6, according to the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The fact is, the 2011 homicide rates are, according to Randolph Roth, professor of of history at Ohio State University, "at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years.”

Those more recent numbers indicate that there is a rising trend in gun crimes....faster than population increase. That's why they project firearms overtaking accidents within three years if the trend continues. Considering the state of the economy...especially for lower classes, and the increasing availability of firearms, the odds are the trend will continue or increase.

I understand what other countries have done, but we're the U.S., we're not those other countries. For argument's sake, do I think their solutions would have the same effect in the U.S.? Not necessarily. One cannot compare Australia and Finland to the U.S. We are not the same countries, with the same issues, with the same populations, with the same diversities - both culturally and geographically.

Australia is a good comparison with the U.S. in fact. It's history is similar, on a smaller scale, with a smaller population. A national mystique created around individualism and wide open spaces. And Australia also had a powerful gun lobby as well. And just like the U.S., as the nation became more urban and less rural, there was clash with trying to bring the 'wide open spaces' attitudes into crowded cities.

At any rate, while it is so trite, it is also true: with freedom comes risk. Is more and more control over people's actions the answer? Would it be better to start institutionalizing everyone who poses a possible risk? Taking away more and more of our freedoms?

That's why I believe the focus should be first on what instruments of destruction they would have at their disposal. A crazy person yelling at imaginary people at a bus stop may not be scary, but the same crazy person holding a loaded gun is!

I read somewhere online yesterday or the day before, that there had been 100 gun-related homicides in the U.S. since the school massacre! Aside from wishes, hopes and prayers, the only concrete steps to reduce gun crimes in the new year are going to be to tighten up restrictions and make them less prevalent. Anyway, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I hope everything goes well for you and your family in the new year.

[WIP]

I think the question we should be asking is how come there are more and more of these people who commit murders/suicide? It wouldnt matter what weapon there is available if the mindframe is set to kill others before ending your own life.

I've mentioned some of the mitigating factors in previous posts. Are you calling for steps to be taken to address some of the issues like home foreclosures, poverty, and declining affordability of health care....especially when it's related to mental health issues?

[GostHacked]

Iv explained this very clearly already, youll have to go back and read it again.

I have read it and I don't agree that banning guns solves the issue. Sure gun control could help, but that does NOT address the issue of the mental states of the people who commit these mass murders. Ban guns, and these people might resort to other deadly items that inflict mass casualties.

We have two cases here where James Holmes and this Adam Lanzar (suspected) to be on medication for mental issues. When we take a look at most of the mass shootings of the last 10 years we see where mental issues are the most common reason and many were on medication for depression, ADHD and other mental health issues.

So ban guns all you want, and you may reduce mass murders, but you will not eliminate them just on the notion of banning guns.

In many cases (and was my situation as well) a doctor takes 15 minutes to diagnose you and put you on some medication (for me it was depression ... or so I thought). I did not feel myself when on the mild medication, and my sister who was on Prozac had admitted to suicidal thoughts to me a couple times. Both of us pulled through and took ourselves off the medication without consulting the doctor. I felt numb, and my body was constantly shaking due to the effects of the drugs. For me my depression went away as soon as I got out of the craptastic relationship I was in.

So sure, deal with the gun issue, but also deal with the pharmaceuticals many of these murderers were on. The more we prescribe a pill for whatever condition the psychiatric industry deems a problem (like shyness??!?!?) then we are going to have a problem either way.

Take the guns away and people will use other methods. The man in China with a knife stabbing 20 kids is proof of that. Sure no kids died, but since he did not have a gun, was is the real underlying problem here?

[GostHacked]

I've mentioned some of the mitigating factors in previous posts. Are you calling for steps to be taken to address some of the issues like home foreclosures, poverty, and declining affordability of health care....especially when it's related to mental health issues?

Those are other important factors to take note of as well. As Gerald Celente says .. ' When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it'. So they lose everything and now have lost their minds because they simply cannot take anymore and break. They snap, and commit some of these mass murders.

We know that banning guns do not address the issues you have brought up here, and I think they are very important to this discussion as well. It's a narrow view just to focus on the guns.

[Bonam]

I've mentioned some of the mitigating factors in previous posts. Are you calling for steps to be taken to address some of the issues like home foreclosures, poverty, and declining affordability of health care....especially when it's related to mental health issues?

Those are other important factors to take note of as well. As Gerald Celente says .. ' When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it'. So they lose everything and now have lost their minds because they simply cannot take anymore and break. They snap, and commit some of these mass murders.

Any data to back this up? I don't believe poverty or home foreclosure has been a commonality among the many mass murders. Rather, it has been mental illness, quite unrelated to the economic background of the shooter.

[Guest American Woman]

Any data to back this up? I don't believe poverty or home foreclosure has been a commonality among the many mass murders. Rather, it has been mental illness, quite unrelated to the economic background of the shooter.

Certainly Lanza came from an affluent background.

[cybercoma]

Stricter regulations on guns has to be part of the solution. It was to be the first step in a wider program to address the broader issues that foster the gun violence. Why on earth are people in the US allowed to have in their possession 30 round magazines for AR-15s? Why not restrict them to 5-7 rounds? The NRA doesn't even want to humour that. It's pathetic.