You would think so, but already in the comments below: “This sort of killing only happens where the public don’t have guns”. So you’ve actually got people arguing that the solution is even more guns. Wtf?!
So you’ve actually got people arguing that the solution is even more guns. Wtf?! Not really a new argument. But as someone pointed out in a forum I read, Holmes wore body armor: shooting a mobile target in the head, in the dark, while under stress, is something very few people could ever be able to do. Anyway, I recommend the other piece linked to in the article, on the history of gun control: Battleground America. I’m not a US citizen, so I don’t know how much of this stuff is broadly known, but I found it very instructive (and poignant – the final section is particularly jarring).
“This sort of killing only happens where the public don’t have guns”. This is what we Australians like to call bullshit.
Li – ah yes, Australia. Where following the Tasmanian massacre, they tightened gun control and there have so far been no further massacres. But no, no reducing people’s access to guns is terrible and would do no good at all. /sarcasm. I’m having metaphor fail here, but as a non-USian, seeing these massacres happen and arse all being done to increase gun control/ repeated exclamations that access to guns isn’t the problem is infuriating and mystifying, to put it mildly.
@Schmorgluck – I read that article at your suggestion, and wow it was eye-opening (though, I too am not USian). This particular quote from that article stuck out for me: “When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.”
I already shared that article on Facebook, and sure enough, had one of my friends who’s gone off the Libertarian whackadoodle deep-end recently tell me that “declaring a war on guns will solve nothing” and that saying this is a uniquely American cultural problem is “self-absorbed as usual”. At which point I had a WTF FacePalm SRSLY You Just Said That? kind of moment. Sigh. 1st year graduate student teaching assistants in our department are trained in how to react if there’s a shooter at large on campus. WTFIdontEVEN.
“madness, ” “madman ,” “madmen,” “lunatic,” “madness,” “crazy.” Yeah, the insistence on language marginalizing the mentally ill; totally says it all.
1st year graduate student teaching assistants in our department are trained in how to react if there’s a shooter at large on campus. WTFIdontEVEN. We had a shelter-in-place drill a few weeks ago at work. I was very, very disturbed by the directions.
Not really a new argument. But as someone pointed out in a forum I read, Holmes wore body armor: shooting a mobile target in the head, in the dark, while under stress, is something very few people could ever be able to do. Unless I missed the part of the story where Holmes was wearing something like this, my understanding is that it doesn’t matter if he was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest still puts someone down. Anyway, that aside, the U.S. homicide rate is at a 40-ish year low. Gun ownership is similarly on the decline. I think the New Yorker would’ve served its readers better with a trend piece on how the U.S. has marginalized and failed to support the mentally ill. But that might’ve require some reporting.
He was in body armor, and he threw in tear gas bombs first. I have good friends who are excellent shots who freely admit that they could not take down and armored man in the dark, with screen glare, tear gas, and screaming and running people everywhere. A shot to the chest at fairly close range with a .38 or stronger will often stop a person, but that’s no guarantee. Also, Monday-morning quarterbacking a tragedy is uncomfortably close to victim-blaming (‘if they were prepared, they wouldn’t have suffered’ is frankly how it comes off). All that aside, while I am fine with licensed and trained gun owners, people who think they should be free to everyone are idiots. Are cars free to any jackass who buys one? No, you have to have a driver’s license, registration, and insurance. Why should guns be different? My hometown is aching right now, and people who are trying to say that they could have stopped it because of their fucking gun get to me. Seriously. Horrible, fucked-up people sometimes do horrible, fucked-up things, and once it was started, it couldn’t have been stopped, because horrible, fucked-up people can sometimes plan really well. Had he been caught beforehand, that would be different, but people who think they would somehow be a damn ninja in that theater make me want to break things. I see people everywhere spouting this, and it costs me so much to not lose my shit…sorry, but I spent an awful half hour wondering if my family was in there…luckily, they were tired and stayed home.
“madness, ” “madman ,” “madmen,” “lunatic,” “madness,” “crazy.” Yeah, the insistence on language marginalizing the mentally ill; totally says it all. So, the author’s use of ableist language? Is something I just mainly ignored because it was irritating and bollocks and I didn’t want to have to have that discussion OMG AGAIN. But obviously some people also took it seriously, because: I think the New Yorker would’ve served its readers better with a trend piece on how the U.S. has marginalized and failed to support the mentally ill. But that might’ve require some reporting. Is just filled with fail. Allcaps for emphasis: MASS MURDERERS ARE BY NO MEANS NECESSARILY MENTALLY ILL. People with mental illnesses are disproportionately targeted by violence, they do not disproportionately commit it. So let’s stop with the mental illness conjecture right now and just go back to pretending that the OP just has an archaic and obnoxious writing style.
There’s different kinds of crazy out there. And different people handle The Crazy, as it were, very differently. Most don’t become killers. I think it’s likely that Holmes *is* a “lunatic” in one sense of the word, and, well, there ain’t not shame in pointing that out – but it is also shameful to avoid talking about how mental illness does, in fact, lead to isolation in our society. We also just need less taboos surrounding mental illness. I don’t believe that all would-be killers can be turned from that path, however – that with enough compassion and understanding, people like Holmes can be persuaded to not go down that road, in the end. And as for gun culture – I think the problem is, we talk about it in isolation. Gun culture is part of a larger culture, one that is very pervasive in the U.S. There are historic and socio-economic factors behind it – as well as a mighty gun lobby whose members have friends in high places. One of the biggest arguments the gun lobby has is that “criminals don’t obey laws anyway” – so restricting gun sales in the States will only empower crime. Yet what’s being obscured here is that people like Holmes are no ordinary criminals. They’re not part of some criminal subculture – they are not gangsters, or thieves, etc. They are not “professionals,” in other words. The availability of guns does empower them. If they actually *needed* to get around the law to obtain weapons quickly – some of them could chicken out. If you have to buy weapons from some scary dude named, say, Vladimir, in some dark basement somewhere – you might think twice about what you’re doing.
Why did I read the comments? What’s most tragic about this, as an outsider looking in from the UK, is that it all turns into “Just another massacre in America”. Sometimes it feels like saying “It’s raining again”, just a declaration of something so mundane and ordinary. I was arguing with a gun-worshipper the other day, prior to the Aurora tragedy. He insisted that if everyone had a gun there would be no violent crime. There’d be no rape, assault, muggings, hate crimes or armed robbery, if everyone was armed. His logic? Nobody would ever dare to be confrontational or violent if they knew any potential victim could shoot them. How can you argue with such twisted ideology? The number of people in the comments on the New Yorker saying things like “We need guns, because HITLER! And Syria! What if the government go rogue and we’re not armed, huh? Look at how we wiped out the Indians, it could happen to us!”, it’s staggering. It’s such a warped view of the world. The collective and individual sense of exceptionalism infects America and her people. Collectively, with the idea of being the best country and culture on the planet, that if America does something then that must be the right thing, damn it. The individual, believing he alone has it sussed, that he has the divine, enshrined right to shoot to the death, that he could easily halt rogue government agents, or a lone shooter, and save everyone. There seems to be no idea of a social contract, of equal proportional responsibility to ensure that, from the top to the bottom, everyone has the right to be fed, educated, and cared for. You can’t have “Each man for himself, free to say what he wants to who he wants and the right to collect deadly weapons” and not end up with chaos and devastating tragedies unfolding daily. I doubt it can ever be changed, even though I wish it could. If just one person’s reaction to this is “Moar guns!”, if the reaction to people with no food, money, or healthcare provision is “Sucks to be them, I got mine, why should I care?”, then that culture is broken, damaged, dangerous. Can it ever be changed? Would. the US and her citizens ever come round to thinking that guns belong in the realms of sport and (corporate or agricultural) pest control? Because if not, Aurora’s going to keep on happening.
Natalia, I fail to see how referring the mentally ill as “lunatic(s)” will bring them into the societal fold. Your word choice is fundamentally stigmatizing. Your larger points are absolutely valid- i.e. psychopathy isn’t a treatable illness- but your language is very hurtful. Also, I never see guns rights advocates arguing for improved mental health care outside of the context of violence. Statistically, the mentally ill are no more violent than the rest of society. It’s fundamentally dishonest to suggest that mental health care alone will end violence in our society. As long as we glorify violence, our rates of violence will mirror our ideologies. Mental illness, furthermore, isn’t a bubble from the outside world. If the dude is in fact mentally ill, he was still impacted by USian society’s larger values.
Unless I missed the part of the story where Holmes was wearing something like this, my understanding is that it doesn’t matter if he was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest still puts someone down. Someone should have told that to Larry and Emil; officers fired 650 rounds at the two men before they were finally stopped. They shrugged off the handgun and 12-gauge shots the police directed at them for over 20 minutes. And, from what witnesses have said, in the darkness and the smoke and the chaos, a lot of people couldn’t even tell who was shooting, anyway.
“On another note, what sort of parent takes a child under the age of 12 to a midnight screening of a movie that goes for almost 3 hours?? ” One of the commenters asks on the NYT page. I was waiting for someone to blame the 25 year old mom of a six year old. Of course the actions of one horrible human being are all her fault for not being a “good enough” mommy.
I’d debated going anonymous for this but, you know what? Fuck that. I was going to comment on the issue of guns, I was going to talk about how the North Hollywood situation had more to do with distance and layered armor than with vests making someone invincible. I was going to talk about how alcohol destroys many lives and kills many people but we don’t seem too intent on banning wine or limiting access to 17 year scotch. I was going to talk about how spree killers pick gunfree zones. I was going to talk about constitutional rights and concealed carry and how gun culture and availability make any kind of serious gun control in the US an impossibility. I was going to talk about the number of CC weapons sold today with flashlights. But no. I’ve got my constitutional rights and everyone who has a beef with that can piss off because, frankly, the US is moving away from gun control and theres nothing anyone can do about it. So instead, lets look at language. Lets look at the fact that every single time one of these things happens we get another dose of “mad people are dangerous!” Lets look at the ways in which opposition to policy is painted as being crazy and, as an obvious result, bad. Lets look at the way in which one antisocial piece of garbage can bait the media and commenters who really ought to know better into riding the most disempowered and maligned group in the goddamn world just a little bit harder. Lets talk about how one man with a rifle won’t impact the rights of other men with rifles, after all us “gun nuts” (no loaded ableist language there…) have a powerful lobby and the political climate and privilege to protect our rights, but how we’re going to get another round of poorly thought out Laws Named After Dead People which will further restrict, restrain, and generally oppress mad folks on the assumption that they’re going to shoot up a theater someday. Lets talk about how the impotence that the gun control lobby will feel, and lets be honest just how forgone of a conclusion that is right now, is going to end up leading to mad folks being scapegoated and their continued oppression being a consolation prize. I don’t need to get up in arms for my guns, I’ve got the privilege of the constitution, the Supreme Court, and the overwhelming majority of states in the nation when it comes to my guns. Fears about their safety aren’t much more than political ads for people I wasn’t going to vote for anyway. My guns are secure. The huge swaths of mad folks (amongst whom I am stealthily numbered) who are going to be targeted because of that security, however, don’t seem to have anyone to look out of them. Calling Holmes a “lunatic” might seem like a fine rhetorical device, it might even appear to hold the power of truth (although I’m betting no one here has done an intake for him), but ultimately what it means is that mad folks are going to have less rights. Not just around guns, they’re already stripped of that by medical diagnosis in most cases, but around the privacy of their medical records, their general rights to be free from incarceration (after all, we need some means of getting dangerous people off the streets, don’t we? And it never is enough…), their freedom to seek care without the fear that it will be used against them. So go ahead. Scream about guns and how evil they are. Nothing is going to change for you because you don’t own guns. Nothing is going to change for gun owners because we’ll keep our guns. Nothing is going to change for spree killers because something will always be legal or easily founded if its illegal. Nothing is going to change for the politicians who use other people’s rights as means of staying in office long enough to get a nice pension and enough political clout to have an obscene paycheck at the end of it. All thats going to change is that people who are disempowered will be asked forced to suffer in the name of looking busy and Doing Something. Because its easier than actually doing something. Because its cheaper than providing the kinds of services that might prevent someone from falling so far that they’d shoot up a theater. Because we all want the illusion of security.
I was going to talk about how alcohol destroys many lives and kills many people but we don’t seem too intent on banning wine or limiting access to 17 year scotch. …not the best analogy, since we absolutely do regulate alcohol and limit access to it.
Natalia, I fail to see how referring the mentally ill as “lunatic(s)” will bring them into the societal fold. Your word choice is fundamentally stigmatizing. If anyone gave two tugs of a dead dog’s dick about the stigma us dangerous madmen faced we’d think about the words we used and not use every term we have for madness as synonyms for “evil” or “those who disagree with me.” Your larger points are absolutely valid- i.e. psychopathy isn’t a treatable illness- but your language is very hurtful. In a few cases, sure. But most things that get labeled “psychopathy” aren’t really that at all. See, when we say “psychopathy” what we really mean is Antisocial Personality Disorder, an Axis II diagnosis. But thats been used politically. Its not all Ted Bundys, in fact most of the people saddled with that diagnosis are men who end up criminals because the lives of poor folks are shockingly harsh and sometimes people have to adapt to survive. Those people can be treated, but its tough and expensive and requires a better social safety net, so instead we just lump them in with the tiny silver of humanity that seems to have been born without a conscience (rather than without a choice) and say theres nothing to be done. Then we create childhood diagnoses like Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder which we can say are precursors to the big untreatable things so we can throw our hands up and write off people even earlier in life. Sorry, this kid is a superpredator, theres nothing we could do (which really means theres nothing we could have done so lets not try). Thats how we transform oppression and deprivation into incurable madness. Thats how we shift the blame away from broken systems to the people who were broken by those systems. Thats how we make madness a moral failure of an individual. Also, I never see guns rights advocates arguing for improved mental health care outside of the context of violence. I suspect that that has something to do with being outside of gun culture, but thats not really the point here. Statistically, the mentally ill are no more violent than the rest of society. Untrue. Mad folks are actually less likely to be violent then the rest of society. Also, more likely to be victimized. But stats like that don’t have legs and they don’t make people feel safer, so no one gives much of a shit. Saying that mad folks are more likely to be victims than perpetrators suggests that “normal” folks are the ones doing to damage. Thats scary. Worse, it seems to be endemic to the human experience. What can we do in the face of the entire recorded history of our species being a competition for who can do the worst thing to someone else? No, better to just shit all over the mad and pretend thats going to keep us safe. Better to suggest that a rape survivor should be stripped of something that helps him feel safe. Nah, we’re not really interested in solutions here. We’re interested in more of what has made the TSA so successful.
@Athena I agree with most of what you said, but good God take it easy on that poor guy. He’s made out of straw, for pity’s sake.
@Samantha. – exactly. I mean, there is a connection between PWMI and violence, backed up by years of strongly supported studies written by respected experts. Sadly, it’s not quite the ‘connection’ people care about. Who cares about the amount of violence, sexual and physical, perpetrated against PWMI? That’s not sensational, doesn’t sell newspapers or garner clicks and pageviews, does it? Further stigmatising mental illness helps nobody.
I was waiting for someone to blame the 25 year old mom of a six year old. Of course the actions of one horrible human being are all her fault for not being a “good enough” mommy. Thou shalt not wait any longer. (Scroll down to point 2). Ugh.
“Only in America.” Oh barf. Please. Violence isn’t only in America. Japan may have not guns as available as in the US, but that didn’t stop a dude from going into the middle of Shibuya and stab random people with a knife. It doesn’t stop 30,000 Japanese from committing suicide every year. “It’s routine.” Define routine.
Let’s assume for a second that it would have been possible to take down a man wearing that much body armor with a handgun. How many people do you think that good samaritan is likely to have shot before hitting Holmes? In a dark room filled with tear gas and screaming, panicked people running in all directions? The idea that MORE GUNS would have fixed that situation is maybe the single stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You know what would have saved lives? If the shooter hadn’t been able to legally purchase a semi-automatic weapon that shot 50-60 rounds per minute. At this point, I’ve given up on the U.S. taking serious steps to curtail all gun ownership, but there is absolutely no reason that people who want to defend themselves need an assault rifle to do so. Yes, people who are determined to kill others will find ways to do so, but the other ways are likely to be more difficult and less effective.
@Partial Human — the US certainly does have a lot of mass shootings. However, mass shootings also occur in countries that are not the US. Does American exceptionalism also explain those shootings?
I could be wrong, but while mass shootings occur elsewhere, they occur in no-where near the numbers that they do in the U.S. In the U.K, I can think of 3 within living memory. In Colorado state alone, there have been 6 in 5 years.
Yeah Athenia, you’re so right. Knives are totally able to kill 60 people in a minute. Also, as we all know, knives have no other user, no function except stabbing. Guns, OTOH, can be used as door,stops, paperweights, steak tenderisers, and practical jokes. As for bringing suicide into the topic, again you’re totally right. A person completely devastated by a suffocating sense of failure (Japan’s in it’s 20th year of deep recession), totally convinced that they have no worth and would only make the world better by ending their own life is EXACTLY like a person opening fire on a crowd of people. You’re so gifted with a sense of perspective and thoughtfulness. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.
When people say “if I’d been there…” “If others had been armed…” I think that people want to believe that they are capable of handling a situation like that. Most people want to be heroes. I am a gun owner. When people ask me why, I have a list of reasons that I’m sure no one would consider a ‘need’. The fact is that as we look at things now, owning a gun is a right. Rights are very hard to give up. Even when we have someone who has never been considered a ‘criminal’ before does something horrific like what happened in Aurora. The laws did as they should they gave a gun to someone gave every apperance of being a responsible owner. In this instance, I don’t believe that removing guns from the hands of citizens would of prevented this particular tragedy. He had a plan that he carefully excuted. He had his home rigged to blow, so he understood how to work with explosives. With that knowledge he could of caused more harm in the theater than he did. Some bad things can’t be prevented. Some people are so determined that they will find a way to do the unspeakable things they fantasize of. Just like those who claim they’d of saved people if they’d been there, we want to come up with the ‘perfect’ solution. Sometimes, there just isn’t one.
I love how “The Constitution” is waved about like some kind of ace card. Sorry to break this to you, but people in countries with tough gun control aren’t generally looking upon the U.S with feelings of envy. Looking at the cries of “But my guns!” even on here, I would agree with Esti, that chances of tougher gun control happening in the U.S are nil.
Natalia, I fail to see how referring the mentally ill as “lunatic(s)” will bring them into the societal fold. Your word choice is fundamentally stigmatizing. Your larger points are absolutely valid- i.e. psychopathy isn’t a treatable illness- but your language is very hurtful. Except that’s not what she said. She didn’t say anything about referring to the mentally ill as a group as ‘lunatics.’ She said “it’s likely that Holmes *is* a “lunatic” in one sense of the word, and, well, there ain’t not (sp) shame in pointing that out.” You are the one who is referring to the mentally ill as lunatics. She said calling Holmes a lunatic isn’t a shame, you are saying that reflects badly on the mentally ill. So, surely it is you who refers to the mentally ill as lunatics.
I love how “The Constitution” is waved about like some kind of ace card. Sorry to break this to you, but people in countries with tough gun control aren’t generally looking upon the U.S with feelings of envy. Why not wave the Constitution around. The Second Amendment is pretty clear with it’s talks of a ‘well-regulated militia’. I think if more people pointed out opponents of gun regulation were at distinct odds with the Second Amendment there would be an entire segment of argument destroyed.
Past my expiration date – it’s not the shootings that scare me, it’s the attitude that guns are the right of every American, that no politician dare bring up gun control because ;MAH RIGHTS!”, and because every fucking tragedy is met with “See, we need more guns!” That’s the exceptionalism, the bloody-minded “ME ME ME! USA, NUMBER ONE!!” attitude, t hat rampant nationalism mixed with absolute conviction that God’s Country, that shining beacon on the hill, cannot be criticised. Dunblanehappened when I was 18. The reaction was horror,revulsion, despair, and grief. People and politicians alike petitioned for tighter gun laws, and we got them. I was only a kid when Hungerford happened, but I still remember the look on the newsreader’s face. Again, nobody stormed in demanding that guns were a right. And Derek Bird. oh my god. The sheer fucking horror of his spree. I feel sick and tearful thinking about it. It happened in a place I holidayed in as a kid. The town is a dead match for the place I live in now, rural, northern, poor, depressed, invisible to anyone south of the Watford Gap. Watching footage on the local news was just panic-inducing. Streets and scenery that looked like mine, houses like ours, people who looked like us, have suffered like us. and who sound very similar to us. Nobody said “If only the victims were armed”. In fact, one of his victims said “He was my mate, I’ll miss him so much. I wish we’d known he was. feeling so bad. I forgive him, it wasn’t him who shot me” Nobody said “Right to bear arms! Guns don’t kill people!’ Did Andrew Berwick/Anders Breivik promote a storm of angry idiots yelling about their right to possess murder weapons? Nah. They gathered in their thousands, roses in hand, and mourned. Not once in the last year, on any of the documentaries about the slayings, have I heard Norwegians saying how important firearms are to them. Not once, although anything’s possible. It’s the exceptionalism that turns the most reasonable, interesting, level-headed commenters into nationalists braying “It’s not just America! How dare you! Other places have murders!” That’s what “Only in America” is referring to your stubborn insistence, that besides a never-ending parade of gun violence and innumerable deaths, that guns are necessary and free ownership is good.
I love how “The Constitution” is waved about like some kind of ace card. According to the US Supreme Court, which gets to decide such things in the US, the second amendment to the US Constitution confers a right to gun ownership in the US.* So in a discussion about guns and gun control in the US, the Constitution actually is some kind of ace card. *Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Esti Let’s assume for a second that it would have been possible to take down a man wearing that much body armor with a handgun. How many people do you think that good samaritan is likely to have shot before hitting Holmes? In a dark room filled with tear gas and screaming, panicked people running in all directions? A 10mm Glock with a flashlight on the rail, not at all an uncommon carry choice, would have likely broken bones even if it didn’t penetrate armor and would have negated the issue of darkness. Hardcast ammo, not something I’d load but a choice a fair number of people make, would have gone right through the kind of light armor Holmes had. A red dot sight or reasonable training would likely mean relatively low likelihood of hitting innocent bystanders. Thats just considering common tools and responsible center mass shot placement (none of this headshot nonsense). Would it have been a great idea? Maybe not, but its not exactly a mythical situation. You know what would have saved lives? If the shooter hadn’t been able to legally purchase a semi-automatic weapon that shot 50-60 rounds per minute. I can clear 60 rounds per minute with a pistol, including time to reload. IPSC shooters routinely clear well-aimed shots at a fire rate substantially higher than that. Jill: …not the best analogy, since we absolutely do regulate alcohol and limit access to it. We regulate guns and limit access substantially more than we do alcohol. ID requirements are actually enforced, waiting periods are common, background checks are mandated, theres a fairly involved form required for any purchase. Safiya Outlines: I love how “The Constitution” is waved about like some kind of ace card. Sorry to break this to you, but people in countries with tough gun control aren’t generally looking upon the U.S with feelings of envy. I can genuinely say I do not care what people in other countries feel about my firearm ownership. I’ve got precedent on my side, I no longer need to give a shit about what anyone things. Thats why the 2nd Amendment is an ace card. I’m not looking for envy, I’m looking to be able to protect myself. That really is the end of the story for me.
On it’s own because its a different issue Fat Steve: You are the one who is referring to the mentally ill as lunatics. She said calling Holmes a lunatic isn’t a shame, you are saying that reflects badly on the mentally ill. So, surely it is you who refers to the mentally ill as lunatics. What a startling lack of context and critical thought. What is the purpose of referring to Holmes as a lunatic? What is the intention behind that word choice and it’s defense? The word lunatic means mentally ill, its just an old form that we don’t use anymore because its offensive. The only possible reason for referring to Holmes as a lunatic is to tie him to the general negative stigma of madness. Thats it. Its saying “this man is so evil he is beyond reason and this I will use this word which denotes being beyond reason” which is another way of saying “people who are beyond reason are evil.” There is shame in calling Holmes a lunatic because we do not know that it is true. We have little evidence. Even were it true that he was mad it would make little difference as many mass murderers are not mad and most mad people are not violent. We merely assert madness because he did something we find beyond the pale. By calling him a lunatic we are invoking the stigma of mental illness specifically by calling on the things which separate, other, and ostracize people deemed to be mad in order to rid ourselves of someone like Holmes. We’re demanding that the mad take responsibility for him because clearly he isn’t one of ours. Calling Holmes a “lunatic” is using the historical oppression, forcible social isolation, and dehumanization of a disempowered group in order to dehumanize someone we find repugnant. It is no different than referring to his actions as “black” or “perverse” in order to invoke negative associations with groups to whom those labels have been applied or calling him a “pussy” for attacking unarmed people in order to negatively associate him with women.
@Li The language in that article is far from merely irritating, bollocks, archaic, and obnoxious. Instead it feeds the exact conjecture you are saying shouldn’t be made: that the shooter was mentally ill. People are going to hear everyone calling the guy “crazy” and a “lunatic,” etc., and are going to again assume that all murderers are mentally ill. Gopnik’s article is part of that unconscionable trend. If you can ignore the way the fucking New Yorker–alleged bastion of liberal feel-goodism–includes articles that use language perpetuating a violent mythology about, well, people like me, I guess that’s…lucky for you? Otherwise, your point; I am missing it.
Thats why the 2nd Amendment is an ace card. I’m not looking for envy, I’m looking to be able to protect myself. That really is the end of the story for me. I call bullshit on that. Moving to a Western European country with much tougher gun laws makes you 27 times less likely to be a victim of violent crime. So you are either lying about wanting to protect yourself or just a complete imbecile. What you probably meant was ‘I want to protect myself by killing someone.’ Which basically means, ‘I want an excuse to kill humans.’
I can clear 60 rounds per minute with a pistol Congratulations, but that wouldn’t have helped you one bit in that theater unless you were also wearing a gas mask. The idea that anyone could have stopped this guy is asinine and when you go down that road you end up blaming the victims of this massacre for not bringing along a glock and a gas mask to a movie theater. Just stop.
Maybe it’s just a different perspective at work, but when I think of the 2 Amendments and self protection I think of Wounded Knee. Of Bloody Island. Of Sand Creek. Of The Peqout Massacre and The Great Swamp Massacre. So someone saying I don’t really need protection is coming from a perspective of privilege, and never needed protection.
Pheeno – on the New Yorker someone essentially said “Look at what we did to NAs three hundred years ago. What if it happens to us?” That’s so precious. I think he’s expecting an uprising, or a wave of mass immigration of brown people.
I call bullshit on that. Moving to a Western European country with much tougher gun laws makes you 27 times less likely to be a victim of violent crime. So you are either lying about wanting to protect yourself or just a complete imbecile. What you probably meant was ‘I want to protect myself by killing someone.’ Which basically means, ‘I want an excuse to kill humans.’ Can you list western European countries that would make it easy for two people with significant physical and mental health issues to move to with their two cats? Oh, and preferably where it’s not going to be a major issue that nearly all of both of our* immediate family lives within 5 miles of us currently and we like that. We live in the USA, which means well, living under the laws and culture of the USA. It means that criminals are more likely to have illegally obtained guns than illegally obtained knives and are therefore more likely to back off at the sight** of a gun than a bat. Although frankly if someone has broken into my home I would rather protect myself by killing a human being than end up a dead human being. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t find either result horribly traumatic (well, if I was dead, I suppose I wouldn’t be around to find it traumatic, but William would). *In case context is not clear, I would be the wife William has mentioned on occasion **Yes, sight — statistically, most gun related self defense does not actually require firing the weapon.
Yes, the old fear of ” we did it to others, so others will do it to us”. Only, it never works out like that. The victims always stay the same.
it’s not the shootings that scare me, it’s the attitude that guns are the right of every American, that no politician dare bring up gun control because ;MAH RIGHTS!”, and because every fucking tragedy is met with “See, we need more guns!” It’s the shootings that scare me.
Fat Steve: I call bullshit on that. Moving to a Western European country with much tougher gun laws makes you 27 times less likely to be a victim of violent crime. So you are either lying about wanting to protect yourself or just a complete imbecile Name calling? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given the source. Moving to Western Europe isn’t an option for me. Even if it was I made the decision a long time ago that I was going to live my life on my terms instead of based on perceived risk. Its unlikely I’ll ever have to use a gun but it makes me feel safer to have one. I’ve been a victim, I was small, I was powerless. Thats changed. S.H. Congratulations, but that wouldn’t have helped you one bit in that theater unless you were also wearing a gas mask. The idea that anyone could have stopped this guy is asinine and when you go down that road you end up blaming the victims of this massacre for not bringing along a glock and a gas mask to a movie theater. Just stop. I was just making the point that 60 rounds per minute isn’t state of the art or exceptional. Outside of a revolver (and there are probably a fair number of competition shooters who could come close with a wheel gun) or a single shot rifle I’m not sure you could buy a gun today that couldn’t clear 60 shots a minute in the hands of a passably competent shooter. As for your more substantive point, I think thats a real concern. I want to be clear, all blame for what happened lies in the shooter’s hands. No one is responsible for being a victim, full stop. Its not even a real concern here because the theater in question didn’t allow concealed weapons on the premises. I don’t think its reasonable to believe that someone was going to react well and manage to stop Holmes if they had had a gun. What I’m saying is that its pretty far from impossible and if I were in that position I’d like to have the ability to choose for myself whether to flee or fight. I also think theres a good chance that Holmes wouldn’t have chosen that theater if he thought there was a possibility someone would return fire. The primary benefit of concealed carry isn’t that CCW holders shoot criminals, thats actually pretty rare, the primary benefit is that criminals avoid situations in which they are likely to be shot which in turn leads to more property crime and less crime involving contact with a victim. Its a deterrent, not a cure. Partial Human: That’s so precious. I think he’s expecting an uprising, or a wave of mass immigration of brown people. Or, you know, maybe they were a brown person who remembers that most gun control laws in this country were aimed at keeping poor brown folk from having weapons. It wasn’t until relatively recently that “assault weapons” were targeted. Before that it was inexpensive weapons, concealable weapons, and weapons in the hands of people like the Black Panthers that were targeted. Theres a reason the Klan took guns out of the hands of freed slaves, and it wasn’t precious.
The only possible reason for referring to Holmes as a lunatic is to tie him to the general negative stigma of madness. I always thought its purpose is to make behavior of such person unexplainable.
Can you list western European countries that would make it easy for two people with significant physical and mental health issues to move to with their two cats? Oh, and preferably where it’s not going to be a major issue that nearly all of both of our* immediate family lives within 5 miles of us currently and we like that. Well, certain European countries make it a lot easier than the US (or other EU countries, to be fair.) Or are you seriously asking me to accept the idea that the US is the best place to be for people with mental and physical health problems, because I call bullshit on that too. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to live near your family, but if that wish conflicts with your protection, don’t act like that protection is your highest priority. Clearly you and WIlliam would rather kill someone than move somewhere foreign. I don’t get why you won’t admit that. It really is a hassle to put steps in place to protect yourself in a way that doesn’t involve killing other people. We live in the USA, which means well, living under the laws and culture of the USA. It means that criminals are more likely to have illegally obtained guns than illegally obtained knives and are therefore more likely to back off at the sight** of a gun than a bat. Although frankly if someone has broken into my home I would rather protect myself by killing a human being than end up a dead human being. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t find either result horribly traumatic (well, if I was dead, I suppose I wouldn’t be around to find it traumatic, but William would). What does having your home broken into have to do with this? You do know that anti-gun control advocates believe you should be able to shoot/kill people on your property WITHOUT them posing any physical danger to you? What we’re talking about is your right to massacre a movie audience. *In case context is not clear, I would be the wife William has mentioned on occasion **Yes, sight — statistically, most gun related self defense does not actually require firing the weapon.. So you’re saying on most occasions the gun does not have to be loaded in order to protect a person? Fine, just ban bullets then (facetious comment).
I don’t find the deterrence argument all that persuasive. For one thing, I think William’s definition of “passably competent shooter” is a standard that relatively few people in the general public meet, particularly when surprised in what should be a safe space and overwhelmed with tear gas and a panicking crowd. For another, there’s a serious arms race issue with that kind of mentality, and the fact that Holmes was wearing body armor is a big problem for the deterrence theory of gun ownership.
I’ve been a victim, I was small, I was powerless. Thats changed. Sure, having a gun makes you strong! And that penis-enlargement spam really works!
Maybe it’s just a different perspective at work, but when I think of the 2 Amendments and self protection I think of Wounded Knee. Of Bloody Island. Of Sand Creek. Of The Peqout Massacre and The Great Swamp Massacre. So someone saying I don’t really need protection is coming from a perspective of privilege, and never needed protection. Just to make this clear, I never said you (or anyone else) didn’t need protection. I am just saying that I don’t buy the argument that guns=protection. I am wholly without doubt that you know more about Wounded Knee, Bloody Island,Sand Creek, the Peqout Massacre and The Great Swamp Massacre, but everything I’ve heard about guns related to those events involved innocent NA people being killed them, not being protected by them. I guess what I’m saying is that guns don’t protect people, people protect people.
Name calling? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given the source. Moving to Western Europe isn’t an option for me. Even if it was I made the decision a long time ago that I was going to live my life on my terms instead of based on perceived risk. Your whole argument for buying a gun is based perceived risk, so you probably need to renegotiate that decision with yourself.
Yeah Athenia, you’re so right. Knives are totally able to kill 60 people in a minute. Also, as we all know, knives have no other user, no function except stabbing. Guns, OTOH, can be used as door,stops, paperweights, steak tenderisers, and practical jokes. As for bringing suicide into the topic, again you’re totally right. A person completely devastated by a suffocating sense of failure (Japan’s in it’s 20th year of deep recession), totally convinced that they have no worth and would only make the world better by ending their own life is EXACTLY like a person opening fire on a crowd of people. You’re so gifted with a sense of perspective and thoughtfulness. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. No problem! Apparently, you can get away with killing 7 people in a good ol’ stabbing. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812808,00.html Bah, what is a recession when you can have a boss tell you that you are horrible and you should kill yourself? Alright, you got me. America can have it’s “routine” massacres and Japan can keep its gas attack. http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
If, in the vanishingly unlikely event that someone starts a pogrom in the US against people with anxiety disorders, I’m not gonna save my ass by buying a gun, I’m just going to be kind of fucked. Because I’m not Rambo, I’m a normal human; I couldn’t fight the entire government if I wanted to. And succumbing to that *pretend* pogrom is a risk I’m willing to take in order for people to stop *actually* massacring each other with assault rifles every month or so.
But hey, maybe if my mental disorder were psychopathy then the loss of real human life to protect me from imaginary scenarios would seem rational to me. Too bad I have a conscience, I guess.
@William, So basically its your right to *feel* secure versus our right to be secure. And let’s not bullshit each other, we’re both smart enough to have read the research which has repeatedly shown you are more likely to harm yourself or another member of your household if you have a weapon than you are to harm an intruder. That gun isn’t making you safer, its making you feel powerful. But the price? You get to feel powerful, and lots and lots of people end up dead. And not just this shooting incident which is horrible, but the daily use of guns to harm others. And who usually is harmed? Is it the powerful abusers? Are these weapons used to protect the weak from the overpowering influence of the strong? No. That’s a fantasy. Guns are used to do further violence to those who are already disempowered and any assertion to the contrary is belied by the the evidence of who uses guns and why.
Moving to Western Europe isn’t an option for me. Er, I believe you missed the point, as did your wife. It’s not that you should move to Europe (huh?). It’s that we, here in the US, should tighten up our gun laws so as to lower the incidence of violent crime. Unless you think the difference between the US and Western Europe is something inherent in the people — like, we in the US are fundamentally violent assholes more than the Europeans, which I don’t think is true — then there’s a pretty good case that no guns = much much less violence.
but everything I’ve heard about guns related to those events involved innocent NA people being killed them, not being protected by them. Because they were unarmed. Wounded Knee consisted of the elderly, woman and children. They were unarmed and couldn’t fight back. To save bullets, infants were killed by having their heads crushed in. That these were unarmed people was not an accident. Nor was it coincidence. I guess what I’m saying is that guns don’t protect people, people protect people. Some people get left out of that protection plan and are left to fend for themselves. Honestly, you can get rid of every weapon but when you have a culture that is founded on and fed by violence, it won’t matter. That culture will be full of people who find a way to kill as many others as possible. Humans are creative like that, sadly.
So basically its your right to *feel* secure versus our right to be secure. And let’s not bullshit each other, we’re both smart enough to have read the research which has repeatedly shown you are more likely to harm yourself or another member of your household if you have a weapon than you are to harm an intruder. That gun isn’t making you safer, its making you feel powerful. But the price? You get to feel powerful, and lots and lots of people end up dead. And not just this shooting incident which is horrible, but the daily use of guns to harm others. And who usually is harmed? Is it the powerful abusers? Are these weapons used to protect the weak from the overpowering influence of the strong? No. That’s a fantasy. Guns are used to do further violence to those who are already disempowered and any assertion to the contrary is belied by the the evidence of who uses guns and why. After I read something so beautifully put as this, I always start to question my entire attack dog style of rhetorical banter as not only pissy, but ineffective. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that before my next comment I read something else which irritates me and forget everything I just told myself. Thanks Kristen!
like, we in the US are fundamentally violent assholes more than the Europeans, which I don’t think is true — then there’s a pretty good case that no guns = much much less violence. I think American culture is inherently violent. Until that issue is fixed, there will always be much more violence.
Expiration Date – so get your local representative to lobby for tighter gun laws. You should be scared of shootings, but if nobody will talk about tighter gun control? That’s scarier. That’s a big “Fuck you!” to the people of Aurora and elsewhere. People have got to start making serious noise about it, not just buying more guns to “stay safe”. That makes me as sad as I am angry. Shootings scare me too, but I know that because of the laws in my country I’m far more likely to be killed by a cow. Cow-tramplings kill and maim people fairly often (compared to gun deaths)* The vast majority of gun violence is confined to inner London and Manchester, thanks to drugs and gang activity. That’s being reduced year on year by dedicated police teams. Britain currently has it’s highest recorded legal gun ownership level, thanks to promotion of various sports. We’ve also got the lowest homicide rate in 29 years. Gun control works, we’ve seen it happen. Fewer guns out there on the streets reduces the need for others to have guns as protection. In the US it’s apparent that fear is the biggest motivator. More guns mean more guns mean more guns. Of course that means more accidents, injuries and deaths, because people are fallible, curious, and foolhardy. Decisions motivated by fear do not generally turn out well. Guns are not good, not every individual should have access to guns, and not every enshrined right needs te be practised by everyone to ensure that it doesn’t evaporate. * https://www.google.com/search?q=UK+deaths+cow+trampling&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new&sky=ee
Honestly, you can get rid of every weapon but when you have a culture that is founded on and fed by violence, it won’t matter. That culture will be full of people who find a way to kill as many others as possible. Humans are creative like that, sadly. But surely you could say the same thing about everyone having access to guns. What good did guns do the people in the Middle East we’ve been dropping bombs on? Ultimately the oppressor will outgun you, or the outgunner will opress you. So, even if I, for the sake of argument, agree that both theories are equally accurate and predictable, I would still argue that on a societal level, having unfettered access to weapons has literally never resulted in a more equitable society in other ways.
I think American culture is inherently violent Isn’t it at least plausible that our adherence to gun rule is a major part of that? Culture doesn’t just “happen”. We don’t have some savage violent DNA coursing through our veins that they’re missing in countries with strict gun laws.
Well, on this respect I’m tempted to bring death penalty into the debate, but maybe it’s a can of worms that should better be left closed.
TMK: I always thought its purpose is to make behavior of such person unexplainable. Those two things are deeply and historically related. I’d argue that they’re closely related enough to be practically indistinguishable from one another. Fat Steve: Clearly you and WIlliam would rather kill someone than move somewhere foreign. Clearly. I mean, you’ve asserted it! And offered unrealistic solutions! Yep, the most parsimonious answer is obviously some kind of insatiable blood lust rather than any bias on your part. I suppose the only real solace here is that your argument is so transparent it is unlikely to persuade anyone not already aligned to your cause. Well, that and that I’ll get to slake my thirst for blood, no doubt provoked by some combination of rap music, violent videogames, and exposure to the dreaded reefer. Esti: I don’t find the deterrence argument all that persuasive. Thats fair. Crime statistics in areas that have moved towards concealed carry in the last 30 years tend to bear out the deterrence theory, but a major problem with them is that there are lots of confounding variables and an overall downward trend in violent crime over the same period. For one thing, I think William’s definition of “passably competent shooter” is a standard that relatively few people in the general public meet, particularly when surprised in what should be a safe space and overwhelmed with tear gas and a panicking crowd. Thats a good point and its something thats a pretty common topic of debate in the gun community. One of the issues is that training and qualification requirements tend to be more focused on marksmanship than practical shooting. Learning how to react, and react well, under pressure is something that takes a lot of time and money to practice. Thats a big part of why so many police shootings tend to display such startlingly poor shot placement. For another, there’s a serious arms race issue with that kind of mentality, and the fact that Holmes was wearing body armor is a big problem for the deterrence theory of gun ownership. Again, vests don’t really do as much as we think they do. Even if he was wearing modern armor with trauma plates, getting shot (especially at close range) is pretty traumatic and there is an incredible amount of force that needs to be distributed. Body armor isn’t designed to be bullet proof, its designed to make getting shot more survivable. Armor spreads out the effect of a bullet, but you’re still dealing with an enormous amount of energy. A .40 S&W bullet (a relatively common carry caliber) fired from a four inch barrel (also common) generally possesses 500-600 joules of energy at point blank range distributed across less than half an inch. Even in a vest thats going to be a punishing impact. Bagelsan: Sure, having a gun makes you strong! My size makes me strong. A gun makes me more immediately dangerous. Those two things combined drastically reduce the chances of me being victimized again in my life. If Illinois allowed for carry I would. When the law changes, and thats just a matter of time as we’re the last hold out in the nation, I will. is a risk I’m willing to take in order for people to stop *actually* massacring each other with assault rifles every month or so. Define “assault rifle.” Because what Holmes used wasn’t a selective fire weapon. I’m honestly curious to know how you define the term. Actual assault rifles have been heavily regulated in the US since the National Firearms Act and are, to borrow your term, vanishingly rare in crimes. They’re expensive because there just aren’t many of them on the market, because you need to know exactly where the weapon came from, and because the ATF is deeply involved in tracking them. Fat Steve: I guess what I’m saying is that guns don’t protect people, people protect people. With guns. Guns don’t oppress people, people oppress people. Guns are tools, they’re also very good at evening disparities of power in the heat of the moment. Its not accidental that King always had a weapon within reach in his home or that the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam visibly armed themselves. Saying “hey, could you stop that” to a cop beating a kid in your neighborhood doesn’t do much. Saying it with a shotgun in your hands is likely to have a greater effect.
Again, multiple posts to separate the gun control stuff from the mental health stuff. Bagelsan If, in the vanishingly unlikely event that someone starts a pogrom in the US against people with anxiety disorders, I’m not gonna save my ass by buying a gun, I’m just going to be kind of fucked. No one is talking about a pogrom against mad folk. I’m talking about the very real limitations on the rights of mad folk that have been enacted specifically because we’re seen as dangerous. The fact that your medical records are less secure because the government is afraid you might be a spree killer, the fact that in many states it is startlingly easy to incarcerate you under the theory that you might be dangerous (or, in Illinois, that you’re showing signs that you might be entering a cycle in which you might potentially become dangerous even if its never happened before), the fact that some states actually require your doctor to break confidentiality to report you to the state police simply because you’re in treatment.
OK this is probably not going to be a popular opinion with many here, but I’m going to speak my mind regardless. First a disclaimer. I do not, nor have I ever owned any firearms in my life and it’s unlikely I ever will. Now I’m Canadian and as most of you probably know our laws regarding guns (handguns in particular) are much stricter than those in the U.S. But even if it weren’t for these laws and if they were more lax, I probably still wouldn’t want one for the simple reason that I’m just not interested in them. What I am interested in however is the control debate. My own political leanings are pretty liberal, left-of-center but there’s one thing about that debate that I have never understood; and that is why are so many — if not most — people who identify as liberal/progressive/whatever so anti-gun or maybe a better question would be do they realize the possible long term ramifications of what they’re advocating? Even the most strongly anti-gun people I know would argue that cops and military should still have them. Their argument seems to be that they need them, but civilians do not and can’t be trusted with them. This is a notion that does not sit well with me at all for one simple reason and that is that history is full of examples of what happens when such schemes have been implemented. There’s a very good documentary called “Innocents Betrayed” produced by Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). It looks at all the major Genocides of the20th century not just the holocaust, but Stalin’s purges, Mao’s China,Turkey, Uganda, and others. Outlawing civilian ownership of firearms preceded every single one of them and all ostensibly for the same reasons of making people safer and reducing lawlessness. This documentary is available on YouTube, last I checked although I should mention that it contains some pretty horrific images from historical photo and film archives. Look I totally understand why so many people – progressive, social justice activists in particular dislike guns, particularly handguns which were designed solely for the purpose of killing, injuring or intimidating another human being (yeah there’s target shooting, but the handgun developed as a weapon first and foremost, the sport came later). But speaking for myself, this one idea where I deviate from most other progressives. Because I just can’t in good conscience support the idea of a total civilian abolition of guns knowing what history has proven over and over again throughout the world when states put such ideas into action. In short, I’m not pro-gun but I’m not anti-gun either. My stance is more complex and nuanced than that. And at times I have to wonder if people, particularly other progressives have really thought about this.
I would still argue that on a societal level, having unfettered access to weapons has literally never resulted in a more equitable society in other ways. No one here has unfettered access to weapons. I live close to the border in a hub city. This is often where black market weapons and illegal drugs end up to be separated and sent on their way to the rest of the country. Whenever tighter gun control is brought up we get a rise in smugglers. You’re trying to stop a waterfall at the bottom, not the source. Isn’t it at least plausible that our adherence to gun rule is a major part of that? I think it’s the result of it. Not the cause. These people were murdered at a movie that glorifies vigilante justice.
Athenia – yeah, Japan probably loves having one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world. Seven killed in a rare knife rampage, a cult doing something disgusting, still VERY RARE events. I’m sure I don’t recall any weirdness and killings related to American cults… Oh wait! Get this straight – nobody is jealous of America. Nobody envies your violence, your ignorance of the outside world, the burgeoning theocracy, the denial of rights to anyone who isn’t a white, cis, straight, rich man. Nobody envies a country that is restricting the right to vote in order to manipulate election results, that rejects the right of it’s people to have healthcare, or a safety net. We’re not jealous of the growing numbers of scientifically illiterate people, where 40% of college graduates reject evolution over creation. We don’t envy the outrageous way that being a black man is almost a guaranteed path to prison, for crimes that would result in anyone else being slapped on the wrist. We don’t wish that we had groups of people that rightfully own the land, stuck out in the desert and being dead by 45. Wave your little flag, sing your anthem, and carry on pretending that, despite the fear and bloodshed, you’re #1,
Well, certain European countries make it a lot easier than the US (or other EU countries, to be fair.) Or are you seriously asking me to accept the idea that the US is the best place to be for people with mental and physical health problems, because I call bullshit on that too. My bank account and I are well aware that we’re not in the best place for dealing with health problems, but I’m also aware that multiple pre-existing health problems tend to complicate just about anything, including moving. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to live near your family, but if that wish conflicts with your protection, don’t act like that protection is your highest priority. Clearly you and WIlliam would rather kill someone than move somewhere foreign. I don’t get why you won’t admit that. It really is a hassle to put steps in place to protect yourself in a way that doesn’t involve killing other people. We’re talking about the fact that currently we have to balance location vs protection/safety, in that case. Moving away from our family, which is also our SUPPORT NETWORK is not really a functional option. So yes, if it is so important to you I will tell you that I will take the very very small risk that at some point in the next 60-70 years I may shoot someone rather than move away from that support network and not actually be able to live my life without worrying about the days in which I desperately need help. One of these things is NECESSARY TO MY LIFE and one of them is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. You’ve taken every opportunity possibly to misread what I wrote in order to defend your stance that anyone in the US who owns a gun (which, technically, I don’t) and won’t move to Europe is just itching for a chance to be a murderer, even though some people do really need to live near their friends and families. I ask a serious question about health related immigration policies and I get assumptions that, what, I’m not able to take off my OMG USA blinders and look at my own bank account every time I pay for a prescription? Frankly I’m not interested in that kind of discussion, and the ableism angle was a lot more interesting. Considering you seem to think everyone is able to pack their bags and move to another country, perhaps you should pay attention to it.
These people were murdered at a movie that glorifies vigilante justice Right, ’cause they hate Batman in countries without guns.
No one here has unfettered access to weapons Holmes seemed pretty darn unfettered. 50 deliveries, including semi-automatic weapons, in 2 months — where were these fetters you speak of?
This is a notion that does not sit well with me at all for one simple reason and that is that history is full of examples of what happens when such schemes have been implemented. There’s a very good documentary called “Innocents Betrayed” produced by Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). It looks at all the major Genocides of the20th century not just the holocaust, but Stalin’s purges, Mao’s China,Turkey, Uganda, and others. Outlawing civilian ownership of firearms preceded every single one of them and all ostensibly for the same reasons of making people safer and reducing lawlessness. This documentary is available on YouTube, last I checked although I should mention that it contains some pretty horrific images from historical photo and film archives. I suppose it’s probably completely irrelevant to the biases of this film that the group producing it is not called Jews Looking to Present an Unbiased Overview of Gun Control (JLPUOGC.) So I would have been better off had my Grandmother owned a gun than if she had fled Nazi occupied Austria? How dare you? Everyone of these gun worshippers says people will get guns no matter what, you can’t control guns, it won’t work, blah blah. But all off a sudden now gun control means people can’t get guns.
So basically its your right to *feel* secure versus our right to be secure Thats a false dichotomy. I am more secure for having a (well, many) gun. I’m more capable of defending myself. My wife is FAR more capable of defending herself. Its more than just a feeling. I couldn’t fight off three people reliably, but I can put a lot of hollow points downrange in a pretty short period of time. I hope I never have to, but if it came to that I could live with myself. I’ve even chose my ammunition based on the fact that I live in a building with other people. And let’s not bullshit each other, we’re both smart enough to have read the research which has repeatedly shown you are more likely to harm yourself or another member of your household if you have a weapon than you are to harm an intruder. Kristen, I like and respect you, but yes, lets not bullshit each other. The whole “harming yourself” thing is a boogey man. The vast majority of self inflicted gunshot wounds aren’t negligent discharges, they’re suicides. That number becomes even more steep when you talk about fatalities. I’m not going to hurt myself cleaning my guns because I’ve had proper training and am extremely diligent about gun safety. Even with weapons that are unloaded and disassembled I avoid sweeping, its basic training. More importantly, you know that when it comes to suicide I don’t feel its anyone’s goddamn business what someone does with their own body, so thats something of a nonstarter. Which brings us to hurting someone else in my home. Again, my high safety standards and high-quality modern weapons in good condition render the threat of a negligent injury just about moot. That leaves the spectre of me somehow flying off balance and killing someone. You’d have to ask Katie about her fear of that, but I’ll say that previous behavior is the best predictor of future behavior and in the ten years or so I’ve been a gun owner theres never been an unsafe use of a firearm. I’m also not an abuser, so theres that. The problem with statistics is that they’re trends. I don’t suppose there are many men with cerebral palsy, a history of having been raped, and chronic behavior problems in school who go on to earn doctorates, yet here I am. I’m glad for the opportunities I had, for the chance to shit on the trend, even when I had to fight for them. That gun isn’t making you safer, its making you feel powerful. I’d argue that it is making me safer. You’re right, it also makes me feel more powerful. Its taken a lot of time and a lot of things to get there. I’m not going to apologize for that. Nor will I be shamed, I had enough of that when I was a suicidal kid who didn’t have any idea what was so bad about him that these things had happened, I’m kinda done with it. You get to feel powerful, and lots and lots of people end up dead. Not by my hands. I’ve only ever seriously considered killing someone once. He was my rapist. I had a gun when I thought about it. I chose not to. Don’t confuse legal gun owners with the predictable consequences of prohibition and the utter abandonment of inner city communities. If you want fewer people to be shot dead the solution isn’t taking guns from me, its fixing the circumstances that lead to violence, especially gang violence. This is about choices, gun control proponents make the easy ones. And not just this shooting incident which is horrible, but the daily use of guns to harm others. And what is the general trend there? I live in Chicago and we’ve had a rash of killings. Most of those people have been shot. Guns have been heavily regulated in Chicago for 30 years and not much has changed. If you allow urban areas to utterly decay, if you imprison a generation and leave them with no reasonable means of supporting themselves, if you allow unemployment in entire communities to rise above 20%, if you allow police to behave like animals, if you make the only means of survival getting involved in violent drug gangs, this is what you will get. This is a predictable consequence. All those people dying? Focusing on guns is like looking at the banking scandals and saying fiat currency or the charging of interest is to blame. And who usually is harmed? Is it the powerful abusers? Are these weapons used to protect the weak from the overpowering influence of the strong? Once could look at the actual guns most likely to be used in violent crime and how they got into the hands of criminals. The Ring of Fire companies and their relationship to deadly shootings are an interesting phenomenon. You could look at the relationship states like Georgia have to illegal weapons and straw purchasing (a gun issue that could actually save a lot of lives if it was the focus of legislation). When you say “these weapons” there is a very real difference, not only in construction but in end use, between the fancy .357 revolver on my nightstand and the Phoenix HP25A or the Jimenez JA-32 used in the latest round of gangland shootings. I think one of the huge problems in these discussions is that the gun culture has been under attack for so long that a lot of us are unwilling to even enter into a discussion. At the same time gun control advocates tend to be completely ignorant as to how guns work, what kinds of weapons are generally used in crimes, and what gun culture actually looks like on the inside. There are things that could be addressed, that need to be addressed, but because of the politics surrounding guns just aren’t being addressed. California’s complicity in the creation of an enormous amount of weapons that aren’t just disproportionately used in crimes but are also just plain dangerous on their own, Georgia’s involvement in straw purchases, the way patchwork state laws actually reduce safety, the bizarre opposition of both gun control advocates and the gun community to better training and safety standards, all of these things could make the country safer. They’re also things which could actually be addressed instead of mythical disarmament that just isn’t culturally feasible.
Holmes seemed pretty darn unfettered. 50 deliveries, including semi-automatic weapons, in 2 months — where were these fetters you speak of? Unless he had a federal license he didn’t have a single firearm delivered to his home. He had to go to a store, fill out his 4473, and go through his background check like anyone else. All the deliveries you’re talking about were of gear: his costume, the body armor, cosmetic accessories for his guns, and ammo. I’ve got some problems with body armor being delivered to the home, but the parts and other gear are pretty innocuous on their own. Its worth staying clear, here. No weapons were delivered to his home and background checks happened. This guy didn’t have a history of violence. Even a ban on the kind of rifle he used would only mean a different kind of rifle or him “only” have a pistol and a shot gun.
Unless he had a federal license he didn’t have a single firearm delivered to his home. He had to go to a store, fill out his 4473, and go through his background check like anyone else. All the deliveries you’re talking about were of gear: his costume, the body armor, cosmetic accessories for his guns, and ammo. I’ve got some problems with body armor being delivered to the home, but the parts and other gear are pretty innocuous on their own. Its worth staying clear, here. No weapons were delivered to his home and background checks happened. This guy didn’t have a history of violence. Even a ban on the kind of rifle he used would only mean a different kind of rifle or him “only” have a pistol and a shot gun. You said: No one here has unfettered access to weapons Now you seem to be saying that people who can pass a background check have unfettered access to weapons. Remind me, have background checks ever been used as tools of oppression by fascist dictatorships?
Better prepare for the apparent coming genocide in Blighty. As the gun control laws were tightened in 1996, it’s obvious that the 16 years the shadowy forces have had to plan the coming genocide will make it a swift and brutal one. For fuck’s sake. It’s as stupid and evil as ‘Pastor’ Rick Warren implying that the teaching of evolution is to blame for the shootings. What the ever-living fuck is going in the US? I’d expect a pronouncement like that out of mediaeval England, not a modern country.
Everyone of these gun worshippers says people will get guns no matter what, you can’t control guns, it won’t work, blah blah. But all off a sudden now gun control means people can’t get guns. And you’d read my post you would have noticed I didn’t make that argument. In fact, that’s another argument from the pro-gun camp that I don’t agree with. Yes, those criminals who are determined enough will get their hands on them, but if reasonable and sensible restrictions on the sale of guns are in place, that means a lot of criminals won’t get them. Acquiring a black market gun isn’t easy and requires a lot of effort and substantial risks, and that makes it more likely that the only criminals who are willing to get a gun in this way are the upper level criminals of organized crime. And for them the risks are small anyway. Not so for average garden variety criminals. So no, I never believed the argument that criminals will always get their hands on them no matter what laws are in place, and I typically refute it whenever I hear it from the pro-gun crowd whenever it comes up. Regarding your assertion that I’m suggesting there are those who would like to see a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, I’ll just say this. Having read much of the literature from organizations like the Brady campaign, Handgun Control, and the Coalition for Gun Control here in Canada (our gun laws are already very strict, but these folks are pushing for even more), I strongly suspect that’s their long term goal, though they’ll never come right out and say it. And I’ve come across polls conducted in Canada and the U.S which show substantial numbers of the population believe that’s the way it should be. Also while I never made the argument that criminals will always be able to get guns, I did say cops and soldiers will always have them. While I don’t know much about the inside of the military I know that police everywhere are collectively corrupt as an organization and have a lot of power drunk, violent, racist, trigger happy sociopaths who are incompetent at best and dangerous at worst. My opinion on cops is pretty much the same as William’s – I don’t have a lot of respect for them. In fact you might even say I have nothing but contempt for them…and I sure as hell don’t trust them one bit. In fact I think the line distinguishing between cops and criminals is becoming increasingly blurred.
With respect William – nobody has a history of violence until they do. Michael Ryan didn’t, Thomas Hamilton didn’t, you know? I think that’s the reason my country tries to restrict ownership, because everyone starts out with a clean slate.
There’s a very good documentary called “Innocents Betrayed” produced by Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). It looks at all the major Genocides of the20th century not just the holocaust, but Stalin’s purges, Mao’s China,Turkey, Uganda, and others. Outlawing civilian ownership of firearms preceded every single one of them and all ostensibly for the same reasons of making people safer and reducing lawlessness. This documentary is available on YouTube, last I checked although I should mention that it contains some pretty horrific images from historical photo and film archives. I would also like to assert that any paragraph which starts one sentence with “There’s a very good documentary…” and another with “This documentary is available on YouTube…” seems both morally and qualitatively suspect to me.
Sorry for rapid fire comments, but on the subject of mental health stigma – UK commenters, there’s a prog called “Ruby Wax’s Mad Confessions” tonight. It’s started now but will be repeated on C4+1 at 11. It’ll probably be on the new 4/7 channel for the next week. It follows people coming out to their employers as mentally ill.
I googled that JPFO and well, words escape me, well words that don’t start with the prefix “douche-” Look at this article entitled ‘Why Jews Hate Guns’ http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/why-jews-hate-guns.htm It is little more than a KKK rant… It doesn’t even need comment it is so shockingly sickening. Rather remarkably though, they didn’t mention whether or not they thought the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip should be armed, but I’m sure they are, because hey all those people who’s gun rights are being threteaned stick together to conquer that evil guvmin dontchaknow?
@William, Your entire argument is constructed around why its okay for YOU to own a weapon…YOU aren’t likely to shoot your wife. YOU aren’t likely to accidentally shoot you neighbor. But YOU are not all gun owners everywhere. You having access to weapons – that freedom you’re fighing so hard for – means that people who are not responsible also get access to guns. And there are far, far more of them than there are of you.
I have a number of thoughts about this. First, ableism, because I want to address that first. I am tired of people using ableist language to dehumanize people, or, using people who commit horrible crimes to dehumanize those with mental illnesses. There are people in this thread, and Fat Steve, you are one of them, although I usually really enjoy your commentary, who are committing that wrong. Take a step, back, please, and think about this criticism instead of just firing back with denials. Please. Definitions of mental illness are often used to marginalize–we call people mentally ill who do not do what we want them to–many of those committed to asylums used to be lgbtqi, used to be women who were sexual, women who were raped, women who were inconvenient to their families. So when we label someone who does something truly, truly despicable as mentally ill, without any sort of information, we do very real damage to people who are actually mentally ill, who are already more vulnerable to violence, and who, as pointed out upthread, are *less likely* to do harm than the “sane.” And we do it because it makes us feel better–suddenly, we have a rational explanation for how this happened, and we don’t have to worry that we or any other “sane” people we know (for the “sane”) among us, would ever do something so horrible. Furthermore, there are people who have actual illnesses that affect their mental processes. Some of this we know through behavior patterns/symptoms, some of it through actual genetic markers, neurotransmitter levels, and on and on. Some of it (and people always have an easier time with this) is the side affect of a drug or a physical illness (see, e.g., thyroid conditions and depression.) Let me tell you, the nurses always treated my grandmother better when we were able to show them that the hallucinations and angry outbursts were drug-induced, not a result of mental illness. And she was in a really good facility. With regard to guns, I think that the high-capacity magazines and perhaps the sale of body armor, tear gas and smoke cannisters, SWAT gear, etc., should be banned. I would be willing to entertain contrary arguments on that one, but I personally cannot think of any. I do support concealed carry laws, and fairly free access to semi-automatic weapons, although I think waiting periods and more training would be ideal. In fact, I would have absolutely no problem with requiring people to train and take accuracy tests in order to carry concealed, and perhaps even to own firearms. Because the safety concerns are pretty serious. I do not think, regardless of whether it is good or bad, that we can ban firearms here like they have banned them in Europe. Mainly, because we are a large country, we already have a shit ton of guns, and we have large, porous borders with not one but two countries (one to the North and one to the South) where gun ownership is legal. We started out a frontier nation, with very few law men, and I do think that is the reason why people are more likely to own/want guns than in Europe–because in the not-too-distant past, owning them made more sense. Not only that, but we do have high crime rates, and for some of us who are smaller, weaker, disabled, or look like soft targets, guns are useful for self-defense. And as someone pointed out upthread, rigging explosives would be really, really hard to prevent. This was a horrible, horrible thing. I know people who have been shot at, in the service and out. It is terrible. And I think we should take a look at the laws that allowed him to amass this kind of stash of weapons, and see whether revamping them would make sense.
I would also like to assert that any paragraph which starts one sentence with “There’s a very good documentary…” and another with “This documentary is available on YouTube…” seems both morally and qualitatively suspect to me. Why? Many documentarians who are more interested in making a film about something important to them and distributing it than making money off it (which is hard as hell to do anyway) will distribute their film through open channels so that people can actually see it. Plenty of fantastic documentaries can be accessed online for free and plenty of shit ones have to be rented or purchased.
Banning guns will do precisely jack shit to stop lunatic spree killers. Elderly people who lose control of their Buicks have unintentionally killed more pedestrians than this loser managed to kill. Madmen in the early 20th century did murderous wonders with readily-available combustibles. If someone is hell-bent on murdering a bunch of people, it will probably happen, unless we screen out insane killers somehow. The real problem of violence isn’t spree killings anyway. In a country of 300 million, they’re actually extremely rare, freak events. The real problem is cities like Chicago (a “gun free” city btw) where gang bangers off each other with impunity, and innocents get caught up in it.
Why? Many documentarians who are more interested in making a film about something important to them and distributing it than making money off it (which is hard as hell to do anyway) will distribute their film through open channels so that people can actually see it. Plenty of fantastic documentaries can be accessed online for free and plenty of shit ones have to be rented or purchased. I wasn’t saying that being on youtube de facto makes a documentary bad, just suspect. There is no quality control on youtube. Here’s an excercise: do a youtube search for ‘the truth about Auschwitz’ and tell me if any of the movies represent the truth about Auschwitz. Then replace ‘Auschwitz’ with ‘global warming’ ‘9/11’ or ‘evolution’ and do the same. It was the preponderance of these biased ‘documentaries’ that I was referring to. I fully support the hard work of a filmmaker who can’t get financing and yes I understand that youtube is a powerful tool for an artist in that situation, (and people like me who just put up things recorded in 10 minutes in my apartment, like a ukelele version of Call Me Maybe.) I should have been more clear about that.
In all of these discussions I have seen in other places on the web (and maybe even here), I have to admit that I have felt erased in many ways. Evidently a lot of gun people think their audience are entirely white, upper-middle class people, and they lecture people about how shootings will not happen to them (the alleged white upper-middle class people), it will happen to POC in other environments and that these POC disagree with gun control (I do want to acknowledge pheenobarbidoll here, there’s not one universal POC experience with guns and though hers is different than mine, it’s just as valid), and gun control will hurt us anyway. I believe in at least some gun control, and I am so tired of the “MAH RIGHTS!” people like a lot of people are. I’ve grown up with gun violence. I know plenty of people who are dead or whose lives have been terribly damaged by someone with a gun. I know what it’s like to be afraid that someone with a gun will hurt you. I’ve had to tell someone I cared about that their friend had been shot and left to die near the entrance of the ER. Later on my mother went to the funeral for another man who died the exact same way. I’ve had to listen to a child say untruthful things about his father because the truth was too painful (that his father was dead because he shot a police officer), as a child I had once had to hide while undetected because a friend’s father had come to shoot my neighbor, his own nephew. There have been times where I have stayed in my house and avoid certain colors because Sureños had very bad plans that had been discovered. Some of it is due to living where I do, I live in Delano, CA, which has been contested territory between Nuestra Familia and the Sureños for decades, and for the last decade or so, more and more people are moving here from the Los Angeles area, changing the balance of gang affliations here, and making things even worse. So there’s that, but the thing is most of that violence, the worst of that violence, has involved guns, guns, guns. So yeah, I feel a lot of frustration that gun owners either think I don’t exist or that they can speak for me. Last night I did a lot of googling and reading of gun blogs and message boards about open carry, something that is a special bugaboo for me, because quite frankly, it’s a fucking PTSD trigger, and I’m glad California banned it. That was a relief, just as it was a relief in February of 2011 that I didn’t have to go to Bakersfield that month when the open carriers were all over the place. Anyway, I did a lot of reading, and it was very educational, and not in a good way. Open carriers actually try to appropriate the civil rights movement (even comparing themselves to Rosa Parks for Christ’s sake), the QUILTBAG rights movements, and they’ve even invented a phony mental illness for people who dislike or fear guns, hoplophobia. In addition to that, they have the nerve to call people with different feelings and perspectives on guns sheep or sheeple.
The idea that anyone seriously advocates for “total abolition” of guns is laughable. The problem, as the New Yorker piece points out, is that these things happen and yet we can’t even have a serious conversation about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership because MAH RIGHTS AND YOU’RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MAH GUNS THIS WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN ARMED IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF OBAMA HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. I mean, please. It’s a complete fantasy that this wouldn’t have happened if only the theater had allowed guns on site. More likely, it would have been an even bigger bloodbath as untrained armed civilians, blinded by tear gas and confused by noise, panicking crowds, and theater lighting, started firing away in the dark. Many of the people who were injured were in adjoining theaters. MORE BULLETS WOULD HAVE SOLVED THAT. I mean, it’s great to Monday-morning quarterback this thing from the safety of your home, but, William, do you really think that you could have made that nice clean shot to the chest to stop the guy under the circumstances? And do you think that you could have walked away from there without being shot yourself because you’d been misidentified by someone else as the shooter? NYPD officers fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo at close range in a goddamned vestibule, and only 19 of those shots hit him. You really think you’d be the guy to take down Holmes from the 23rd row, in the dark, while the people next to you are trying to crawl over you to get the hell out of there, panicking and screaming and trying to get out of the way, with one lucky shot that doesn’t endanger anyone else? Okay, Annie Oakley.
I’m talking about the very real limitations on the rights of mad folk that have been enacted specifically because we’re seen as dangerous. Oh noes, I won’t be able to buy guns! Which I don’t actually want people to be able to buy anyways! It might also make it harder to kill myself if I ever get suicidally depressed! Truly that is the height of oppression. Tell me, seriously, in what magical brain scenario does your owning (“many”) guns make us all safer from sane people? (Because apparently we are all safe as houses from heavily-armed you.)
I don’t know that you can make a direct comparison between the U.S. and other developed nations on this subject because the particularities of U.S. history have shaped our relationship with guns in some very specific ways. Think of freedmen being disarmed after the Civil War, or armed Southern blacks protecting themselves from white supremacist violence under Jim Crow, or the Black Panthers (and Malcolm X) insisting upon the right of black people to carry weapons for self defense. Being rigidly anti-gun and pointing to, say, Norway or Australia without any knowledge of this history is, I think, a mistake. I also think it’s a mistake to severely overstate the risk of a fascist dictatorship being implemented in the U.S. and to use that risk as a pretense for widespread gun ownership. That argument (which, I’d point out, is most often made by the right wing) presumes that dictatorships just spring up organically regardless of a particular country’s political climate and history. The U.S. is a plutocracy; our political faultlines lie elsewhere. Rather than ask whether guns could protect us from the impending fascist takeover, it might be better to ask how they relate to political lobbying, corporate profits, the war on drugs, border violence, and the particularly virulent strains of individualism and libertarianism that distinguish the U.S. from most of Western Europe or former Commonwealth countries. I mention this not to contradict my first paragraph but to point out that this is an incredibly complicated subject; it’s not as simple as “guns are good because they allow oppressed people to protect themselves” or “guns are bad because the only people who own and use them are paranoid young white men with grudges and itchy trigger fingers.” Unfortunately, our current conversation about guns doesn’t seem to allow a lot of room for nuance.
William, body armor makes it much more difficult to stop someone than you seem to think. In this case, for example, two bank robbers engaged in a prolonged shoot-out with police because the handguns used by police couldn’t do any real damage — the robbers weren’t stopped from shooting at police until SWAT teams showed up with AR-15s (you know, the gun Holmes used). Because of the body armor they wore, even police officers presumably well trained in both marksmanship and response to dangerous situations couldn’t neutralize those shooters. And as the article I linked in my last post notes, more powerful weapons just lead to more sophisticated body armor — and it makes less sense to outlaw protective devices than guns. And yes, most of the time when a gun causes the death of its owner or a family member of the owner, it’s a suicide. But if you just compare the number of times that a gun in the home is used to kill in self-defense vs. to commit homicide, the latter happens more than 4 times as often. And while you may scoff at the idea, guns in the home also cause more unintentional deaths than killings in self-defense. Maybe you are a super responsible gun owner who keeps everything under lock and key (though that makes it even more unlikely it would be helpful if an intruder burst into your home) and would never have an accident and would never turn a gun on a family member. But that’s not the case writ large. For an example, you can look to the tragic story from this past weekend about a retired police captain who shot and killed his adult son when he mistook him for an intruder entering their hotel room early Saturday morning. You can’t tell me that a New York City police captain isn’t trained on firearm usage and safety, but yet — accidents still happen. And when guns are involved, accidents — and crimes — are more likely to be deadly for more people.
Right, ’cause they hate Batman in countries without guns. Other. Countries. Do.Not. Have. The. Same. Culture. Of. Violence. Slapping a bandaide over cancer may make you feel good, but it doesn’t cure the problem. It’s very simple. To end violence you have to end the culture of violence. A fat steve You said: No one here has unfettered access to weapons I said that.
I do not understand why people on both sides of the gun issue have such a problem recognizing or admitting that American culture is the source of the problem. You want to deal with the results of the problem, but not the actual problem itself. Bizarre.
I do not understand why people on both sides of the gun issue have such a problem recognizing or admitting that American culture is the source of the problem. You want to deal with the results of the problem, but not the actual problem itself. Bizarre. I completely recognize and admit that, I just hadn’t mentioned it. The title OP does specifically mention culture, Gun Culture, which is spoken of in an American context. I think having stricter restrictions on guns could conceivably change the culture in a positive way and don’t see anyway in which culture will be made more violent by gun control. So if culture is not changed AT ALL and just one less innocent person dies that is a net positive. However, you will get no argument from me about your views on the violence in American culture and I wouldn’t be surprised if others who hadn’t mentioned it feel similarly.
Look at this article entitled ‘Why Jews Hate Guns’ http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/why-jews-hate-guns.htm It is little more than a KKK rant… And of course you ignore the fact that the authors of that article are in fact Jewish themselves, and one of the main reasons the org exist is because of their perception of a dislike of guns generally among the Jewish community and why this is a concern for them. As for your response to Jadey: Here’s an excercise: do a youtube search for ‘the truth about Auschwitz’ and tell me if any of the movies represent the truth about Auschwitz. Then replace ‘Auschwitz’ with ‘global warming’ ’9/11′ or ‘evolution’ and do the same. Oh for fuck’s sake… YouTube is accessible to just about everyone and anyone who has an internet connection, including conspiracy theory fanatics. It’s a total no-brainer that if you do a search with those keywords and phrases, you’ll get whole lot of shit denying the holocaust, that global warming is all a hoax, or that 9/11 was an inside job. Especially since these are all fringe opinions, youtube is one of the few places where they can share these views and find an audience. Not to mention the fact that the documentary was released as a DVD in the early 2000s. YouTube didn’t even exist until 2006 YouTube is full of stuff from excellent to shitty and everywhere in between. Knowing what has merit and what doesn’t takes some critical thinking skills. So if that’s the best argument you can come up with don’t expect it to carry much weight.
Partial Human- I am not exactly a flag-waving, gun-loving, patriot, but your little rant is really fucking annoying. We get it. We get it that the world doesn’t love us and want to be us. But you know what? Shit sucks everywhere. I don’t know where you’re from, I’ve met my share of racist and uneducated folks from all over. And there are places in the US that are incredibly well educated and progressive. So get off your high horse. I know that it’s fun times to try to knock on the US, but, really, it’s old, tired, and really obnoxious.
For the record, Australia has a strong culture of violence, especially drinking-related. What we don’t have is (aside from within organised crime circles) a culture of gun violence, and that substantially drops the potential lethality of drunk men picking fights. It is, simply put, much harder to kill people when you don’t have lethal weapons widely available/ lying around houses/ being carried around the streets by randoms.
Just to support Partial Human and Kristen J. William seems to have no idea what a social contract is. It’s about the greater good, fairness, equity and sometimes giving up individual desires for the greater good. But with William, as long as you get to feel powerful and secure, who cares about anyone else? A question for USAians. Most people on this thread would like greater controls over guns. Do you think this a minority or a majority position in the USA? Why is the gun lobby so powerful and why isn’t there a powerful anti- gun lobby? Is it possible to change your Constitution? In Australia it is, although it’s difficult to do so. We have to have a compulsory referendum and the majority of people in the majority of States have to support the change.
There are people in this thread, and Fat Steve, you are one of them, although I usually really enjoy your commentary, who are committing that wrong. Take a step, back, please, and think about this criticism instead of just firing back with denials. Looking back retrospectively I can see that my defense of the word ‘lunatic’ as a synonym for a mass murderer was not informed by myself ever been having called a ‘lunatic’ for merely having a mental illness. So yes, I take that on board and apologize. I probably would have even done so even if you hadn’t complimented me 😉 but, thank you for that.
Liz, on your last question: it is possible to amend the U.S. constitution, but for a variety of political reasons it’s virtually assured never to happen for anything remotely as controversial as gun rights.
Thank you, Annaleigh. I also grew up in one of those poor violent gun-ridden cities and also feel completely erased by the way this conversation has been going. I grew up being (rightfully) terrified as a child that a stray bullet might someday come through the picture window in my bedroom (which was technically a living room, but our rowhome only had one bedroom, which is where my parents slept) and kill me in my sleep. I remember every time shooting started outside (which was not uncommon), my parents and little brother and I would huddle together on the hallway floor, as far away from the windows as we could get until it stopped. My husband and I bought a house in a poor but nice enough neighborhood, and in the course of a year and a half that neighborhood went completely to shit. There were shootings. There were drugs tossed into our backyard. We were terrified of being seen talking to the police about the crimes and violence that we witnessed. Just a week or so before we left that house for good, there was a screaming fight right outside our house. A man was threatening to shoot a woman if she didn’t shoot another man. I’ll never forget being six months pregnant with my firstborn, terrified and hiding from the windows of my own house, and hearing that voice scream into the night “Shoot him, bitch! Shoot him! Fucking shoot him before I fucking shoot you!!! KILL HIM!!” I can’t say much more about this topic – even writing this little bit has made me feel ill. I have more to say but can’t bring myself to say it.
And of course you ignore the fact that the authors of that article are in fact Jewish themselves, and one of the main reasons the org exist is because of their perception of a dislike of guns generally among the Jewish community and why this is a concern for them. I don’t ignore that, I just don’t care. Whatever these extremists say their religion is, that article is Anti-Semitic, and their stance that the Holocaust took place because Jews didn’t defend themselves is victim blaming, it’s bullshit, and it is in fact tantamount to Holocaust denial, especially as most ‘Holocaust denial’ doesn’t deny every aspect of the Holocaust, they just a) twist the facts of the Holocaust to suit their agenda and b)blame the Jews for their own destruction.
Here’s something I’m hoping we all can agree on. The victims of the Aurora massacre need help, and I’m not prioritizing one person over another but there is a page set up to help Caleb Medley, a young comedian seriously injured in Aurora massacre. His wife, his childhood sweetheart, to be precise, just gave birth today, so obviously they could use the help, but I’m sure there are similar pages set up for many of the other victims, including those in professions that don’t have as good twitter networks. Here’s his page: http://calebmedley.com/help
Other. Countries. Do.Not. Have. The. Same. Culture. Of. Violence. Slapping a bandaide over cancer may make you feel good, but it doesn’t cure the problem. It’s very simple. To end violence you have to end the culture of violence. Look, you’re the one who said “violent culture” and held up the evidence of the existence of Batman. So let’s please not act like I’m the one being the snot here, k? I think it’s perfectly reasonable to postulate that guns are part of and a fuel to our violent culture, not somehow separate or simply a symtom of it. Since you brought up cancer: if the country has a widespread problem with lung cancer, making it difficult to get cigarettes doesn’t cure all cancer, and it doesn’t even cure all lung cancer, but it sure as hell helps a whole lot more than throwing a fit about why cigarettes are awesome and having them around is a such a god-given right that we should all be smoking in every place where people exist. And you know what? Putting great effort into heavily discouraging cigarettes has, in fact, changed the culture surrounding them. Furthermore, pretending that “To end violence you have to end the culture of violence” is anything close to an actual solution, or more feasible, than regulating guns, is a pretty silly. I’m not sure if your insistence that my comment about gun violence going down if people don’t have guns is in connection to the fact that it’s not politically probable, but if that’s what you’re going for, just magically expecting the culture to change is quite a bit less a feasible solution.
More likely, it would have been an even bigger bloodbath as untrained armed civilians, blinded by tear gas and confused by noise, panicking crowds, and theater lighting, started firing away in the dark. Many of the people who were injured were in adjoining theaters. MORE BULLETS WOULD HAVE SOLVED THAT. This scenario/argument comes up a lot regarding gun rights and shootings, and it certainly has some logic to it, but how often does this happen? How often are seemingly-random mass shooters (not muggings, home invasions, or more personal violence) confronted by armed bystanders? And how do such confrontations go? I’ve never seen any statistics, nor do I recall any prominent examples, and I’d love to know.
Damn, tmc. Nobody should have to go through that. I’m shaken up and upset just by reading it; I can only imagine how you feel having lived it. I’m so sorry.
American gun culture: because we’re full of people like William who all think they’re the fucking exception to statistics.
Surely one way to end the effects of this culture of violence, is to make it much, much harder to get guns. As Li points out, we also have violence in Australia. But, people usually only have access to their fists, or a knife , so it’s far more unlikely that people get killed. Importantly, that means innocent bystanders, such as annaleigh and tmc, aren’t going to get killed by the murderous fools arguing outside their window.
I do not understand why people on both sides of the gun issue have such a problem recognizing or admitting that American culture is the source of the problem. You want to deal with the results of the problem, but not the actual problem itself. Bizarre. I pretty much agree, although dealing with the results of the problem is not pointless. Gun restrictions can go away only when our gun culture disappears.
This scenario/argument comes up a lot regarding gun rights and shootings, and it certainly has some logic to it, but how often does this happen? How often are seemingly-random mass shooters (not muggings, home invasions, or more personal violence) confronted by armed bystanders? And how do such confrontations go? I’ve never seen any statistics, nor do I recall any prominent examples, and I’d love to know. One of things I am hearing repeated a lot lately is that for all of the bluster of gun rights proponents about how so much more people would be safer if more people had more guns in more places, citizen intervention by someone who carries a gun with them seems to be awfully rare. I do know that when the Tuscon shooting happened, there was one man who was carrying a gun, but he thankfully decided not to intervene in that manner, which was fortunate because the person he had assumed was the gunman was actually an (unarmed) who had just gotten the gun away from the actual gunman. And the Tuscon shooting occurred in broad daylight in a open parking lot, so you can just imagine the potential for confusion in a dark, smoky, enclosed movie theater with a ton of scared people trying to get to safety.
Fat Steve: Now you seem to be saying that people who can pass a background check have unfettered access to weapons. Remind me, have background checks ever been used as tools of oppression by fascist dictatorships? I see your memory and attention are as selective as your reading. You seem to be confusing me with Pheenobarbidoll @71. Try harder next time, an attack dog that can’t accurately follow a target is just an out of control animal. Kristen J Your entire argument is constructed around why its okay for YOU to own a weapon…YOU aren’t likely to shoot your wife. YOU aren’t likely to accidentally shoot you neighbor. Remember when you were in school and the teacher, usually all pissed off that their authority had been disrespected and looking to channel social pressure bullying to make their point, stormed into the classroom and said that everyone lost a privilege because little Jimmy couldn’t be trusted with it? I found that argument to be asinine as a child. As an adult I heard it again and again with regards to speech, and the freedom to be secure in one’s person and effects, and bodily autonomy. As a professional I hear it every single time someone is looking to clamp down on some violent madmen. I still find it asinine. The vast majority of gun owners never hurt anyone. We’re safer than cops, our nations bootlicking standard for moral rectitude. I’ve never felt threatened at a firing range. Hell, I’ve been to a range out in rural Indiana with transfolk and all went well. More than once. Your argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that, because some people are violent, all people must be prevented from having tools which might be misused. The problem is that, historically, the people who made that same argument have been oppressors and monsters. The problem is that, even if there will never again be a revolution, I simply cannot imagine taking away someone’s ability to defend themselves against a cop or a criminal or a rapist. Maybe its because I’ve been there, maybe its because its been reality for me, maybe its because I’ve been attacked and barely came out on top and I look at my wife and think “the only way she’d make it out of that situation is if she had a gun,” maybe its because I’d rather watch someone bleed out on my living room floor than see myself or my family in even the hint of danger in our own homes. I get that some people might be uncomfortable with that. A lot of people are uncomfortable with abortion, birth control, and people of the same gender* bumping uglies. I’ve the same response, too: tough fucking shit, heres a copy of McDonald for you to wipe your tears on. Guns have a strong lobby, we’ve got the SAF and the GOA and the CCRKBA and Alan Gura if the NRA happens to falter or fail. I’ll put my advocacy energy into other things because they need that energy more, but a rights a right and people who want to take them away are despicable. As far as I’m concerned gun control advocacy stands on the same moral ground as obscenity prosecutions, raiding medical marijuana dispensaries, restricting access to birth control, and the 700 Club puking up and down in morbid faith about the latest natural disaster being some dark God’s judgement for people falling in love in some way other than a fifth divorce for serial heterosexual philandering. I’m sure a lot of people have a problem with that. I’m equally sure I don’t care. Right now the left has a choice: they can either come to the table, and be a part of the rapid and intense expansion of gun rights that is coming after McDonald, or they can stick their heads in the sand and get whatever the organizations that make the NRA look like the Brady Campaign manage to develop. Its happening. 49 states in the union have concealed carry, the vast majority of those are shall-issue states, open carry is expanding, stand your ground is expanding, overturning or repealing the NFA is the next big win the gun community is looking for. Stay on the fringe at your own peril. *or different but not in the ways God intended. Zuzu: William, do you really think that you could have made that nice clean shot to the chest to stop the guy under the circumstances? I’ve already said that I’m somewhat more risk averse than many and I’d be headed for the door rather than into the breach. I’m not really interested in being a hero. I wouldn’t be comfortable at my skill level doing that so, being a responsible shooter, I wouldn’t fire unless there wasn’t another option. That said, I certainly do know people who I think would be capable of making that shot. Why? Because the tear gas isn’t going to be crippling in the middle or rear of the theater. Because .223 has substantial muzzle flash and is going to be pretty visible in the dark. Because a lot of modern guns have flash lights that are going to be able to illuminate at that range. Because a red dot sight makes a 20 or so yard shot at center-mass a lot less difficult than one might expect, especially for someone used to doing El Presedente or Dozier Drills. Esti: You can’t tell me that a New York City police captain isn’t trained on firearm usage and safety, Actually…police are notoriously poor shots. Thats especially true for someone whose been riding a desk because they’ve been brass long enough to make captain. As for the Hollywood Shootout, there a lot of difference between Holmes in his mail order body armor and those guys in layers with metal trauma plates. Theres also a lot of difference between .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 9mm +P+ chamberings carried by most police and concealed carriers today and the old .38 Special and 9mm pistols the LAPD had during that shootout. Modern self defense ammunition used by police and most concealed carry holders is also substantially better at penetrating body armor than older jacketed hollow points. And thats to say nothing of the practice of loading hardcast into the last two or three rounds of a magazine. Bagelsan American gun culture: because we’re full of people like William who all think they’re the fucking exception to statistics. So which is it, am I bad at gun safety because all the Hoppe’s has gone to my head, am I just a DV offender in waiting because clearly having a gun in my home makes me a monster, do I have dozens of keys out to loved ones I’ve forgotten about and thus will accidentally shoot them in the dark, or am I not rational enough to make a decision to end my life if I so chose. Which statistic am I erroneously assuming myself to be an exception from? I’m just dying to hear.
Bagelsan: Oh noes, I won’t be able to buy guns! Which I don’t actually want people to be able to buy anyways! It might also make it harder to kill myself if I ever get suicidally depressed! Truly that is the height of oppression. Lets be clear, when I’m talking about the rights of mad folks I’m not talking about their right to buy guns. In Illinois psychologists are required to break confidentiality to report persons in their care to the Illinois State Police. The idea is that their gun cards can be revoked and their guns collected for everyone’s safety (yay! social contract!) but that concept runs directly contradictory to the reasons for confidentiality and prevents people from seeking care. It makes everyone less safe. But ok, maybe we want to stay away from guns? Not too long ago we had a school shooting at NIU here in Illinois. The shooter had had some mental health contacts, everyone wanted to Do Something. So a bunch of legislators looked busy and expanded the involuntary commitment rules. Families were happy as pigs in shit because now they had a new tool for dealing with their mad relatives. The expansion allowed for commitment if: a person with mental illness who: refuses treatment or is not adhering adequately to prescribed treatment; because of the nature of his or her illness is unable to understand his or her need for treatment; and if not treated on an inpatient basis, is reasonably expected based on his or her behavioral history, to suffer mental or emotional deterioration and is reasonably expected, after such deterioration, to meet the criteria of either paragraph one or paragraph two above; Read that a couple of times. Because a guy shot up a school now every person in treatment can be involuntarily commited if they either refuse treatment (something which used to be a right) or don’t “adequately adhere” to treatment because the law assumes that they cannot make decisions for themselves based on being mad. I’ve seen it abused, first hand, even when there wasn’t a gun remotely involved. All you need to throw someone in for 72 hours is to assert that you feel this person is going to go downhill unless something is done. Similar things are happening all over. Enforcement of treatment is almost always suggested after something violent happens. Expanding commitment standards are also common suggestions. Maybe those things don’t scare you, maybe you’ve got a great family that would never abuse those things in order to further control you, maybe you don’t live in a residential facility where meds and hospitalizations are used as forms of punishment. Thats great for you, but there are a lot of people who aren’t so privileged.
Well. I was supposed to go to the mental health clinic today on the main street of town, and I’ve just found out that the police shot and killed someone a few hours ago right there on Main Street. Glad I didn’t bother trying to leave the house. Don’t know close to the clinic it was, but it’s close enough that the street was shut down anyway. There are people who like guns who don’t intend to hurt people with them, and I accept that they have certain rights, but for those having to live under the gun in one way or another, it’s an entirely different experience for us, and we have rights too.
Look, you’re the one who said “violent culture” and held up the evidence of the existence of Batman. I didn’t hold up Batman as the evidence. I found it ironic. So shove your assumptions right up your ass, k? Furthermore, pretending that “To end violence you have to end the culture of violence” is anything close to an actual solution, or more feasible, than regulating guns, is a pretty silly. Given that you can’t actually regulate guns (you can try. But it will fail, because black market gun sellers don’t do background checks or submit to ANY regulation and the people you’re talking about won’t hesitate to buy/sell them this way. They already DO.) but you CAN change cultural views, it’s not silly. It’s harder work. But it’s not silly. It’s no different than how we fix the rape culture. Rape is already illegal. You can have mandatory death penalty attached to it, but until you fix the fucking broken mentality behind rape, it will not ever go away. I don’t care what gun regulations are enacted. (since you seem to be operating on the assumption I’m all WOO GUN) But when it doesn’t work, don’t say I didn’t warn you. You’re trying to herd cats. Have fun with that.
Now you seem to be saying that people who can pass a background check have unfettered access to weapons. Remind me, have background checks ever been used as tools of oppression by fascist dictatorships? I see your memory and attention are as selective as your reading. You seem to be confusing me with Pheenobarbidoll @71. Try harder next time, an attack dog that can’t accurately follow a target is just an out of control animal. A. Whether or not I mistakenly thought roro80’s comment @75 was a response to you has no bearing on my argument. I wrongly attributed a comment made by P.B., which is similar to an argument you made, to you, it’s been noted. I’ll will try not to let it happen again B. Having said that, the comment you quoted above your response is not P.B.’s comment so I’m finding it a bit rich that you would criticize anyone’s memory, attention and reading.
Lets be clear, when I’m talking about the rights of mad folks I’m not talking about their right to buy guns. Just curious, as you think gun ownership is a basic right of U.S. citizens, what other basic rights would you withhold from mentally ill people? I would like to point out that, unlike young William, those of us who support gun control have never suggested that one particular marginalized group should be banned from owning guns…and we’re the ones being accused of exactly that!
I agree with pheenobarbidoll. The problem with guns is that they were even invented in the first place. They are instruments of domination. And in the long term, I don’t think the government regulation of guns combined with the continued ownership of guns (and worse) by organized crime, the police, and the military will do much to undermine systemic violence or oppression in our society. If you support gun control, I don’t think that’s always a bad thing. . .but I also think many of the discursive frames used to advocate gun regulations are problematic and obscure or even justify other horrible things that are going on in our world. For example, these frames can imply or outright state that our government is democratic and trustworthy (it’s not) or that the police exist to protect the public (they don’t).
Your argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that, because some people are violent, all people must be prevented from having tools which might be misused. Yes. Exactly. Because some people are violent, we don’t allow everyone to have the tools of mass murder. Shall we allow everyone access to anthrax? What about giving everyone access to nuclear materials? The absurdity of your argument is self-evident. People have demonstrated time, and time again that they cannot be trusted. The problem is that, historically, the people who made that same argument have been oppressors and monsters. I want you to back up this assertion. Name the people who have supported disarmament that were oppressive monsters. I’ve the same response, too: tough fucking shit, heres a copy of McDonald for you to wipe your tears on. I’m sure that would be a great comfort to the families of the seven women I’ve buried in the last decade. It certainly makes me feel better about the times I’ve been threatened with a (legally obtained!) gun. As far as I’m concerned gun control advocacy stands on the same moral ground as obscenity prosecutions, No third parties harmed. raiding medical marijuana dispensaries, No third parties harmed restricting access to birth control, No third parties harmed and the 700 Club puking up and down in morbid faith about the latest natural disaster being some dark God’s judgement for people falling in love in some way other than a fifth divorce for serial heterosexual philandering. No third parties harmed Legal and nearly unfettered access to weapons? 11,000 per year killed 500,000 per year injured 800,000 per year victimized Sure, same moral ground.
Given that you can’t actually regulate guns (you can try. But it will fail, because black market gun sellers don’t do background checks or submit to ANY regulation and the people you’re talking about won’t hesitate to buy/sell them this way. They already DO.) but you CAN change cultural views, it’s not silly. In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, the Federal Government didn’t just institute new regulations for self-loading rifles and pump action shotguns, they also held a buyback. That buyback removed 643,000 guns from the community. That sure as fuck made those guns less available on the black market even if it didn’t dry the source entirely. We can talk about gun control and regulation but what’s ultimately required is disarmament. I’m not sure, with the industry interests involved, that the US can do that. But it’s not just about deciding who is and who is not responsible enough to own guns, but dramatically cutting the number of guns in the community as well as the number of guns you are producing as a society (which, btw, would actually make the rest of the world somewhat safer as well).
For example, these frames can imply or outright state that our government is democratic and trustworthy (it’s not) or that the police exist to protect the public (they don’t). One of the reasons I support disarmament is that the fewer guns that are on the streets in non-police hands the less armed cops need to be in response, and thus the less able they are to kill people.
Oh, and not to mention all the ableism that often comes from the pro-regulation of guns side, as others have pointed out. I found the ableism in the New Yorker to be offensive and intellectually lazy. (Not to imply that much of the advocacy by the gun rights people isn’t also highly fucked up).
Not to mention if this guy wasn’t white we likely wouldn’t be having a discussion on mental illness in the first place. Mental illness is only an excuse or option when it comes to white people. It can’t be terrorism or gangs or drugs or fundamentalism because those things are reserved for every other group whenever one of us does something wrong. With a white man we slap a “mad” label on him because he has to be othered somehow, or else that means white people can be just as evil as the rest of the world.
As I said last night, I did a lot of reading about open carry at the blogs and message boards geared to gun owners, and they have their share of ableism too, by literally implying that if guns are upsetting to you, that you are mentally ill and shouldn’t be taken seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
One of the reasons I support disarmament is that the fewer guns that are on the streets in non-police hands the less armed cops need to be in response, and thus the less able they are to kill people. That’s an interesting point, and one I don’t recall having heard much before. Outside of a single criminology class I took in college about 5 years ago, most of my knowledge about gun politics just comes from the mainstream debate here in the U.S., which seems pretty fucked up to me on both sides. Your point makes me think I should do some research on more radical perspectives on guns/disarmament.
Given that you can’t actually regulate guns How in the world do people come to this conclusion? Can’t regulate? It happens all the time in plenty of countries. Guns aren’t an inevitable fact of life like air, or something.
One of the reasons I support disarmament is that the fewer guns that are on the streets in non-police hands the less armed cops need to be in response, and thus the less able they are to kill people. Exactly.
Hmmm. . .yeah that’s really messed up Annaleigh. An “irrational fear of weapons?” Isn’t one of the main purposes of weapons to instil fear in others? So I’m not sure why these gun owners are annoyed that their guns are serving their intended purpose. Yeah, the idea of “hoplophobia” is ridiculous and ableist.
Yeah, the idea of “hoplophobia” is ridiculous and ableist. I agree with that. I guess the rare cases mentioned in that wiki article of people who do have a genuine irrational fear of weapons do deserve a diagnosis. But what does it tell you that it took a gun control advocate to invent that word, not a mental health professional?
and if not treated on an inpatient basis, is reasonably expected based on his or her behavioral history, to suffer mental or emotional deterioration and is reasonably expected, after such deterioration, to meet the criteria of either paragraph one or paragraph two above; Based on the above, I feel like perhaps the first two paragraphs might be helpful in interpreting whether or not this law actually does allow the state to lock folks up if they’re just noncompliant, so here they are: Sec. 1-119. “Person subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient basis” means: (1) A person with mental illness who because of his or her illness is reasonably expected, unless treated on an inpatient basis, to engage in conduct placing such person or another in physical harm or in reasonable expectation of being physically harmed; (2) A person with mental illness who because of his or her illness is unable to provide for his or her basic physical needs so as to guard himself or herself from serious harm without the assistance of family or others, unless treated on an inpatient basis; It’s one thing for the state to lock up someone who simply decides against the course of action their therapist recommends, or whose family is unwilling to deal with them. I’ll gladly join you in railing against that. I’m even a little uncomfortable with the idea that someone can be prevented from harming themselves, if that’s what they really wish to do. It’s another thing entirely for someone who is (probably) going to harm another human being unless they get inpatient care to be prevented from doing so. I just don’t have it in me to get upset that if my ex tells his therapist that he’s considering killing me or makes what appear to be threats against my life, and she believes he’d do it, she can take action to protect me. Also, can we not compare people’s discomfort with the idea of you being okay with shooting someone to other folks’ discomfort with “abortion, birth control, and people of the same gender bumping uglies”? Not being forced to conceive, give birth or carry a fetus to term, and being able to have sex with anybody who consents to having sex with you are all matters of bodily autonomy. Having easy access to the tools to kill another human being (and the permission to do so, if they intrude on your property)? Not so much. My right to do with my body as I wish is not the same as your right to do TO someone else’s body as you wish, and frankly, the comparison is more than a little insulting.
But what does it tell you that it took a gun control advocate to invent that word, not a mental health professional? It wasn’t a gun control advocate who invented the word, it was a gun rights advocate who invented the word.
Right now the left has a choice: they can either come to the table, and be a part of the rapid and intense expansion of gun rights that is coming after McDonald, or they can stick their heads in the sand and get whatever the organizations that make the NRA look like the Brady Campaign manage to develop. Its happening. 49 states in the union have concealed carry, the vast majority of those are shall-issue states, open carry is expanding, stand your ground is expanding, overturning or repealing the NFA is the next big win the gun community is looking for. Stay on the fringe at your own peril. I’ll remember to keep that logic in mind for things like reproductive rights and women’s health. Come to the table with your compromised principles, kids, everyone’s doing it! Be part of the solution, not the problem–we’re all getting forced ultrasounds these days, the question is do you want to be a part of regulating the exact depth a tech can probe you or not?
Hmmm. . .yeah that’s really messed up Annaleigh. An “irrational fear of weapons?” Isn’t one of the main purposes of weapons to instil fear in others? So I’m not sure why these gun owners are annoyed that their guns are serving their intended purpose. Well, from what I’ve read, they whine that people being afraid of and/or disliking guns is very inconievient for their goals. Some of them have referred to open carry as “therapy” for people in public places for their so-called hoplophobia, never mind people are never consulted as to whether we want that kind of “therapy”. Others apparently blame open carry advocates here in California for getting open carry banned in the state by scaring people when they brought their guns everywhere ranging from grocery stores to libraries etc. etc., and causing an outcry resulting in the ban.
It wasn’t a gun control advocate who invented the word, it was a gun rights advocate who invented the word. Yes…of course.., It’s getting a bit late. the sentence didn’t make any sense… REwind: What does it tell you that it took a gun rights advocate to invent that word, not a mental health professional?
@Liz But how can you make your gun culture go away, without getting rid of guns, in the first place? Good question. I personally think that the impetus behind American gun culture is an ethos consisting of misguided libertarianism and an emphasis on domination and violence (which fits with the whole dog-eat-dog attitude in American culture). As soon as a contrary ethos emerges, our gun culture will probably disappear even if guns still exist. This gun culture we have doesn’t exist just because of guns; it exists primarily because of our attitudes towards firearms in general. That’s how I see it.
I can *only* speak for myself here, not for any of my fellows, but I think talking about mental illness in a polite, even somber fashion is silly. Because mental illness is not polite, and it is not somber. The longer I live, the more I become convinced that most people in the world are crazy to one degree or another, regardless of whether or not they’ve had some doctor diagnose them or not. Thats because different life situations will bring out the crazy in all of us, in the end – it’s just that statistically, most of us won’t make the headlines for a violent rampage, and most of us won’t get comitted. More often than not, keeping out of an institution is a function of luck, or class, or whatever – and not necessarily a marker of health to begin with. I think that admitting that will do a whole lot more for mentall illness than “don’t call Holmes a lunatic.” I like that word – lunatic. I also like the phrase “batshit nuts.” I think “batshit nuts” is, in the end, much truer and less stigmatizing than a lot of the more refined psychobabble out there. I am always going to be in the minority on this website, but I will say this, if you had the choice between saying, “The violence that Natalia experienced from an early age lead her to develop with stress and anxiety. How awful” vs. “Natalia’s a crazy bitch. She reads tarot cards, for fuck’s sake. And drinks too much grape vodka.” I want you to go with the latter. I’m tired of the *gravity* people associate with these things. I think this gravity is part of the reason why we have a fucked-up mental health culture in the United States (and elsewhere) to begin with – and why people even need to *worry* about being associated with someone like Holmes the minute a dude like that pulls the trigger. I think it’s self-defeating.
American society has gifted its citizens with the idea that you can shoot people. The cat is out of the bag. Other nations have less gun violence because it simply doesn’t occur to people. Unless you have the thought, you can’t have the act. That’s why millions of people hand over their credit cards to underpaid starving waiters with no concerns, it’s why doctor’s offices and hospitals and inpatient clinics and fucking McDonalds job applications ask for your social and you give it over without thinking, and the person on the other end never even thinks to steal it. Well, the thought happened–it’s codified in our national consciousness. If you reach your breaking point, kill someone. It’s not about the availability of guns, its about the awareness of what you do with them. And the natural consequences of repeatedly telling people that they can shoot people is that, occasionally, one will go off and shoot a bunch of people. It’s going to happen, and I get slightly irritated every time either gun proponents or gun control proponents act surprised that people do it. OF COURSE someone is going to get shot.
William, your words really condemn you. You’d rather see ‘someone bleeding out on your loungeroom’ than see your family in the slightest bit of danger. How about some poor black kid who breaks into your house, but who turns out to be unarmed? All right to kill that kid, is it? Bad luck for him if he was unarmed? Bad luck for his family too, I guess? Vigilante justice rules. And you get to be judge, jury and executioner. I guess you have no problem in George Zimmerman killing that poor, black kid either. The problem I really have with this, is that it creates a society full of violence, hatred and extreme fear. I’d be very frightened of you, if you lived in my neighbourhood. You’re not building anything good, or progressive here. Your building a world which is the complete opposite if a free one. It’s just a suburban arms race in which everyone would be expected to go around armed with assault rifles to feel safe. Where would it end?
Shoshie – you’re missing the point. My rant is in response to Athenia. I was hoping to shock some sense into a person so infected with nationalism that she believes random, regular, fatal shooting sprees in America are somehow better than two one-off incidents in Japan. Here’s the thing- no other country in the world* describes itself as ‘ #1’, as “God’s Country”, as “The shining beacon on the hill”. Other countries don’t yell “FREEDOM!” and storm into countries and ‘liberate’ them into oblivion on the basis of a lie, while real cases of appalling human rights abuses and terrorism are ignored by the US at best, and at worse are funded by it. No other country is so riddled by exceptionalism that they refuse to look introspectively at the lessons of the past, in order to make a better future. The constitution is right, has always been right, and will always be right. The American way is the best way. Abstinence-only education funded in the States? Why not force it on Sub-Saharan Africa, and deny crucial funding to condom promoters. So what if it turns back all progress made on HIV/AIDS and causes an uncontrollable crisis? That’s just the first example off the top of my head. Meanwhile, back in the Land of the Free, people are dying due to lack of healthcare, starving due to grave economic inequality, while billions are spent on the ‘liberation’ campaigns. But anyway, universal healthcare is commienazi evil socialism, and it might work just fine everywhere else, but the American way is the right way, damn it. The education system is broken. There’s no standardisation, no broad countrywide curriculum, and myths are taught as fact. Again, there’s no changing it, it’s been done that way forever, it must be right. LGBT people having rights? Nope, not in God’s country, founded to be a Christian Nation. The world will end. It hasn’t when other countries have seen sense, but AMERICA! Now you know the nation wasn’t founded to be that way, I know it too, but that’s what’s being taught as truth. Ask the man on the street, that’s what he’ll tell you. Change appears to be absolutely terrifying. Better to ignore problems than rectify them, that would be weakness and heresy, admitting that a document like the Constitution is not perfect. That’s the problem. Nobody’s saying it’s the worst place in the world, that nowhere else has problems. But, when pride turns to jingoism, when people like Athenia believe that the occasional tragedy in one country is worse than regular atrocities in her own? It’s gone too far. It’s scary. What’s so bad about accepting that the USA is not #1? If you believe you’re already the best then there’s no point in trying to get better. Why not, as a nation, accept that nowhere is absolutely better than anywhere else, and that progress and change can be positive, powerful forces? It shouldn’t be such a quasi-blasphemous opinion to say “We’re fucked up. We need to change”. *Maybe North Korea would qualify, but I don’t think dictatorships count. Also, I’m acutely and painfully aware that the UK trotted after Baby Bush like a chihuahua in the wake of 9/11. We paid for it dearly, in blood. Bush said he had God on his side, and our newly-minted-catholic-but-hiding-it in chief, Tony, believed him. They should both be tried for war crimes, under the Geneva Convention. We’re suffering because people, annoyed by Tony-Boy’s lapdog act, voted against his former party instead of for someone else. That’s led to a disastrous regime that has, in two years, put us back to Thatcher-era conditions. The wanker in chief, who wasn’t even voted in, is a capitalist nightmare. He’s trying to reverse rights, freedoms and the social contract, because he too believes that America is a good example to follow. We have more failings than I can name or address, but we know that. People want change, they believe in the social contract rather than the individual freedom to do and say whatever. ‘Liberal’ and ‘socialist’ aren’t insults or dog-whistles. We don’t claim to be right, or the best, or anything like it. That’s the difference.
One of the reasons I support disarmament is that the fewer guns that are on the streets in non-police hands the less armed cops need to be in response, and thus the less able they are to kill people. Yup, this. I’ve lived in Ireland for the past four years. Guns are heavily regulated here, to the point where it’s hard to get one unless you’re actually in the military. Police here don’t carry guns; they actually have to put on a different kind of uniform if they’re going armed so that people know they’re carrying. And you know what? Gun crime is virtually nonexistent. William, comparing gun regulation to gay marriage and abortion is fallacious. If I go and get an abortion, there is no risk of innocent bystanders also getting an abortion. If I get married to another woman, the people around me don’t have to worry about suddenly also being married to a woman. My (hypothetical) child won’t take my wife to school and use her to harm other children. Those are rights that do not pose a threat to the people around me who choose not to take advantage of those rights. But if I start firing a gun, innocent people around me might get shot.
… I think talking about mental illness in a polite, even somber fashion is silly. Because mental illness is not polite, and it is not somber. I don’t think the objection is the way you talk about mental illness, I think the objection is the way you refer to mentally ill people. Mentally ill people are not necessarily impolite (some are, I’m sure, like any other group,) so surely they are as worthy as anyone of politeness, if not more, due to the impoliteness to with they are frequently subjected both on the street and in the healthcare system.
I guess you have no problem in George Zimmerman killing that poor, black kid either. I believe what you mean to say was “I guess you have no problem in that middle class white guy killing Trayvon Martin.” If we’re going to reduce one of the protagonists to a racial stereotype, then certainly it should be the killer.
I guess you have no problem in George Zimmerman killing that poor, black kid either. I believe what you mean to say was “I guess you have no problem in that middle class white guy killing Trayvon Martin.” If we’re going to reduce one of the protagonists to a racial stereotype, then certainly it should be the killer. Seriously. How fucking disgusting is it that George Zimmerman gets remembered, but Trayvon Martin has been reduced to “that black kid” in people’s minds.
Also, while I’m not sure that I’m fully on board with William’s arguments, I find using Trayvon Martin as an argument against him offensive. It gives Zimmerman’s (and the press’s) claims that Trayvon was a possible security threat more credit than it deserves in a civilized conversation.
Shadow, I think the point of that analogy is that Trayvon Martin was not a security threat. Accidents — and racism — are more likely to be deadly when one of the people involved has a gun.
One of the reasons I support disarmament is that the fewer guns that are on the streets in non-police hands the less armed cops need to be in response, and thus the less able they are to kill people. HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh yeah, the police force here is really going to go into minority areas without guns. Sure. And they’ll be riding pink unicorns and handing out Martian candy too. Everyone knows POC are violent criminals! The cops will need weapons because we have 10 illegal guns per POC man woman and child. Hell, even a cellphone in a Black man’s hands earns 57 gun shots. This country feared armed Black people when it was illegal for them to so much as touch a gun. Think that’s actually going to change by banning guns from the populace? Most of our gun controls now are Black gun control laws anyway. What planet do you people live on?
@Esti If that’s what Liz meant then, fair enough, and she has my apologies. Her wording, however, implies that this is the logical extension of William’s arguments. If that’s the case then I stand by my original criticism. Also, this Most of our gun controls now are Black gun control laws anyway. I don’t have faith that stricter gun control laws won’t just mean a greater disparity between White gun owners and POC gun owners, and that does nothing to make me feel safer.
I don’t have faith that stricter gun control laws won’t just mean a greater disparity between White gun owners and POC gun owners, and that does nothing to make me feel safer. Prepare yourself for 5,000 WP comments on how this won’t happen or how XYZ in other countries means it will go the same way here.
I don’t have faith that stricter gun control laws won’t just mean a greater disparity between White gun owners and POC gun owners, and that does nothing to make me feel safer. It’s an easily enough testable theory…the particular piece of ‘gun-control’ being brought up in regards to this shooting is a ban on assault rifles. Find the percentage of POC gun owners who legally own assault rifles and compare it with the percentage of white gun owners who legally own assault rifles, and you will have your answer about disparity. No faith needed.
Natallia. . .IMO not using ableist slurs like “crazy” or “lunatic” as slurs has nothing to do with politeness. It merely involves recognizing that there’s nothing inherently wrong with a person having mental or emotional disabilities. So to use them as slurs is not so much impolite as inaccurate. And oppressive. Now, I think it’s a totally different thing if individuals want to reclaim these words for themselves. If you identify as mentally ill, I think you’re totally justified in calling yourself “crazy” or anything else along those lines. But I don’t think people should judge you as inferior or somehow prone to violence for these aspects of who you are.
And when white people can buy off licenses and special requirements that exempt them from the rules (like they do for everything else) and they and only they have access to assault rifles, what happens to the people with the skin color that defaults them as walking criminals out to terrorize the poor white folk?
No faith needed. The faith needed (that I don’t have) is that racism won’t fuck it all up for POC. Gun control won’t be a magical exception to that rule. Again- fix the real problem.
As has been pointed, Australia had a gun buy back scheme in 1996. 643,000 guns were bought back by the government at a cost of over 500 million dollars. That’s in a country of only 20 million people, at that stage. Extrapolate that out to the USA’s population. It would be millions of guns taken off the streets. There were no gun raids. No- one was even forced to hand in their guns. It was done as an amnesty. I’m curious as to who has the most chance of being murdered by a gun in the USA. I suspect it might be POC. Surely, it might be to the benefit of those communities to have fewer guns, so there would be fewer murders. All this isn’t hypothetical. It’s what every other country does. And every other country has a much lower homicide rate than the USA.
My apologies for forgetting Trayvon Martin’s name. But, I meant the reference in the way esti has read it, i.e. when you have access to a gun it’s very easy to feel threatened and kill someone. If Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, Martin would be alive.
@William That said, I certainly do know people who I think would be capable of making that shot. Why? Because the tear gas isn’t going to be crippling in the middle or rear of the theater. Because .223 has substantial muzzle flash and is going to be pretty visible in the dark. Because a lot of modern guns have flash lights that are going to be able to illuminate at that range. Because a red dot sight makes a 20 or so yard shot at center-mass a lot less difficult than one might expect, especially for someone used to doing El Presedente or Dozier Drills. Did the people in the middle and back of the theater somehow have a bubble of calm surrounding them where they weren’t also panicking and trying to run? Sure, someone theoretically could have dropped the guy given perfect conditions. But a dark theater full of screaming people trying to climb over you to get the fuck out and get the fuck away from the guy with the gun isn’t perfect conditions. Where are you going to stand to get a clear shot? In your seat? Someone’s probably in the row right in front of you. In the aisle? That’s where everyone’s trying to get out. And who’s to say you won’t get shot yourself by someone who misidentifies you as the shooter? I’m sure it’s nice to think that you would have been the hero, or that someone you knew would have been the hero. But that’s just not the way it works out in practice. Snipers and sharpshooters take rooftop and hilltop positions under cover because it takes time and patience to get a clear shot, which is something that doesn’t exist in a mass shooting situation. Cops and soldiers are trained to aim for central mass, and they’re not expected to hit their targets accurately for the very reasons it would have been difficult for anyone in the theater to shoot Holmes: noise and confusion. Their training helps them go in when everyone else is panicking, which is something you can’t expect from a civilian even with a red dot sight and Dozier drills. But glad your penis substitute makes you feel all manly. Personally, I feel safer without one.
I have my doubts. Zimmerman’s account of the attack to police would have had them ready and willing to shoot on sight. After all, a dangerous black man was roaming around viciously attacking unarmed citizens. When you can be killed by cops for matching the description, you’re not safe. Ever.
Again- fix the real problem. Do you disagree with the idea that easy access to weapons is part of the culture of violence? I don’t think its the root of it, but I do think its a contributing factor.
I think it’s a result of supply and demand. If fewer people WANTED guns, there would be fewer in people’s hands. People who don’t want guns don’t own guns.
I think it’s a result of supply and demand. If fewer people WANTED guns, there would be fewer in people’s hands. People who don’t want guns don’t own guns. I disagree. I think people buy guns when they’re afraid because other people have guns. Its an arms race. Hell, moving to AZ and having someone attempt to intimidate Mr. Kristen and I in a bar by flashing their concealed weapon (with fun racist overtones!) made me consider whether we should have a weapon. And the prevalence of weapons normalizes them and their use.
think it’s a result of supply and demand. If fewer people WANTED guns, there would be fewer in people’s hands. People who don’t want guns don’t own guns. How can you be sure that the effort won’t go only in to convincing POC that they don’t want guns?
Do you [pheenobarbidoll] disagree with the idea that easy access to weapons is part of the culture of violence? I don’t think its the root of it, but I do think its a contributing factor. Just chiming in here: Easy access to arms doesn’t necessarily lead to a widespread possession of arms, especially in a nonviolent culture.
Partial Human- Except that when you describe “America” you’re only describing a certain percentage of the country. Go ahead and ask people in Boston or San Francisco or Seattle what they think of gay rights and reproductive rights. Ask people in Chicago what they think about abstinence only education. The US is not a monolith. We have a serious political divide and it’s not a tiny number of people who want comprehensive health care or gay rights. It’s not a tiny number of people who want better gun control, though probably not if you define gun control as gun bans. It’s not a tiny group that’s wants the fuck out of the Middle East, and never wanted in to begin with. That’s why I get cranky about generalizations about the US, because, like any country, we’re quite diverse in our political beliefs. And I really can’t believe that I even have to say this.
It’s harder work. But it’s not silly. It’s no different than how we fix the rape culture. Rape is already illegal. You can have mandatory death penalty attached to it, but until you fix the fucking broken mentality behind rape, it will not ever go away. It’s about as silly as saying that because rape culture exists, we should just make rape legal until we can change the culture.
I have a response to Pheeno in mod about arms races. Easy access to arms doesn’t necessarily lead to a widespread possession of arms, especially in a nonviolent culture. Agreed. But if you have violent culture and guns, I think you have to ratchet down everyone’s fear level as part of reducing violence. My view is that for a large portion of people fear drives the desire to dominate and the desire to dominate leads to violence.
It’s harder work. But it’s not silly. It’s no different than how we fix the rape culture. Rape is already illegal. You can have mandatory death penalty attached to it, but until you fix the fucking broken mentality behind rape, it will not ever go away. It’s about as silly as saying that because rape culture exists, we should just make rape legal until we can change the culture. Legalizing rape and legalizing firearms are significantly different in their consequences. The former would inevitably lead to a great amount of suffering, whereas the latter would only lead to suffering in a culture of violence.
Partial Human- Except that when you describe “America” you’re only describing a certain percentage of the country. Go ahead and ask people in Boston or San Francisco or Seattle what they think of gay rights and reproductive rights. Ask people in Chicago what they think about abstinence only education. The US is not a monolith. We have a serious political divide and it’s not a tiny number of people who want comprehensive health care or gay rights. It’s not a tiny number of people who want better gun control, though probably not if you define gun control as gun bans. It’s not a tiny group that’s wants the fuck out of the Middle East, and never wanted in to begin with. That’s why I get cranky about generalizations about the US, because, like any country, we’re quite diverse in our political beliefs. And I really can’t believe that I even have to say this. Shoshie, you are of course correct. However, I agree with Partial H. that diversity of opinion doesn’t always translate into actual positive change. To give the example of attitudes towards LGBT people- I never hear anti-gay attitudes amongst the people I encounter in my neighborhood in Brooklyn- I have encountered plenty of anti-gay attitudes in the part of London where I stay for work (Canning Town.) However, gay marriage was legal in the UK before it was in NY.
It’s about as silly as saying that because rape culture exists, we should just make rape legal until we can change the culture. Good thing no one said that then isn’t it?
Legalizing rape and legalizing firearms are significantly different in their consequences. The former would inevitably lead to a great amount of suffering, whereas the latter would only lead to suffering in a culture of violence. …which we all agree we do live in? No? Also, I consider rape a subset of violence. If we didn’t have a violent culture, there would be a lot less rape, too. In any case, I agree that it’s not a perfect analogy, but in my defense, it was pheenobarbidoll who brought it up.
How can you be sure that the effort won’t go only in to convincing POC that they don’t want guns? History. Take a good look at the existing gun control laws in this country. Start from the beginning and count how many were due to a backlash against POC. This country is no less racist than it was when Martin Luther King Jr was denied a gun permit after his house was fire bombed. Or when cloaked and hooded white men patrolled their counties lynching Black people found to own guns. Or when carrying guns into State Capitols just “coincidentally” followed the Black Panthers protest against disarming citizens. So what makes you think racism won’t taint it today?
Good thing no one said that then isn’t it? You made the comparison to rape culture, not me. You said the culture of violence is like the rape culture, so, and I quote, “[you]don’t care what gun regulations are enacted”. Your comparison. Not mine. I was pointing out the absurdity of saying it doesn’t matter what the laws are because culture by using your analogy.
Easy access to arms doesn’t necessarily lead to a widespread possession of arms, especially in a nonviolent culture. Exactly. I hate jellybeans. They could fall free from the sky and I wouldn’t have any in my house. Access to something you don’t want doesn’t change the fact you don’t want it.
While my other comment is in mod — pheeno, you made the comparison to rape culture, not me. You said you don’t care what the laws are around guns.
I hate jellybeans. They could fall free from the sky and I wouldn’t have any in my house. Access to something you don’t want doesn’t change the fact you don’t want it. The fact that I love jellybeans doesn’t put you in danger.
Also- you can add any extra bans and penalties you want for something, but the result is the prison system gets filled with more criminals. Someone refresh my memory- who makes up a disproportionate number of prisoners in the US?
The fact that I love jellybeans doesn’t put you in danger. Banning all jellybeans won’t make you stop liking them.
So what makes you think racism won’t taint it today? That’s why gun control has to be full disarmament to work. No guns, no ammunition. The only exceptions I would consider reasonable is single shot weapons for hunting – and then only with limited ammunition and licensed shooting ranges where you are not permitted to remove the weapons or the ammunition from the facility.
That’s why gun control has to be full disarmament to work. No guns, no ammunition. The only exceptions I would consider reasonable is single shot weapons for hunting – and then only with limited ammunition and licensed shooting ranges where you are not permitted to remove the weapons or the ammunition from the facility. So you’ve now just upped the cost of illegal guns and ammo. Who can most afford higher prices and access to hard to find items in this country?
Banning all jellybeans won’t make you stop liking them. It will probably keep me from eating them, though.
Legalizing rape and legalizing firearms are significantly different in their consequences. The former would inevitably lead to a great amount of suffering, whereas the latter would only lead to suffering in a culture of violence. …which we all agree we do live in? No? Well, rape is never acceptable under any circumstances, whereas the usage of firearms is acceptable in certain circumstances. And surely you agree with that whether you support firearm regulations or not.
It will probably keep me from eating them, though. People who think jellybeans are the best thing on the earth, that they’re entitled to eat them and are willing and able to pay for them won’t.
I hate jellybeans. They could fall free from the sky and I wouldn’t have any in my house. Access to something you don’t want doesn’t change the fact you don’t want it. The fact that I love jellybeans doesn’t put you in danger. Way to miss the point of that analogy: Access to something you don’t want doesn’t change the fact you don’t want it.
Also, this is inane. Guns are not jellybeans. They are nothing like jellybeans. Not my problem you focus on the wrong thing. When you figure out the point, let me know.
Way to miss the point of that analogy Jesus. Uh, yeah. I got it. You missed the point of my comment, which was that whether or not someone wants something does not have to go into the decision to ban it. If jellybeans were super dangerous to those who consumed them, they would be banned, even though many people do love them. Lots of people loved Fen-Phen. And that diet soda from the 70s that tasted amazing but killed people. And dry-cleaners that use CFCs.
So you’ve now just upped the cost of illegal guns and ammo. Who can most afford higher prices and access to hard to find items in this country? Is this an objection? I don’t think Random Dude is going to go pay a 10k for an illegal weapon with with to kill his wife. I don’t think Random Dude 2 is going to have a gun in his house that his kid is going to take to school and shoot a classmate with.
When you figure out the point, let me know. I got it. It’s an irrelevant point. We have laws against a bazillion things that people want.
whether or not someone wants something does not have to go into the decision to ban it. You still don’t get the point. It’s not the reason to avoid banning something, it’s the reason THE BANS DON’T FUCKING WORK. Fen-Phen is still available. It’s not widely available so people STILL BUY IT. It didn’t go away. The obsession with being thin still exists. Coincidence? NO.
Jesus. Uh, yeah. I got it. You missed the point of my comment, which was that whether or not someone wants something does not have to go into the decision to ban it. If jellybeans were super dangerous to those who consumed them, they would be banned, even though many people do love them. Lots of people loved Fen-Phen. And that diet soda from the 70s that tasted amazing but killed people. And dry-cleaners that use CFCs. Pheeno brought up that analogy as an indirect response to someone saying that guns should be regulated because they contribute to our gun culture. It has nothing to do with banning firearms.
Countries with gun control = fewer people dead as a result of gun violence. Is fewer dead people not a good enough result for you? Or is it that the US is somehow too super special for methods that work in every other country to work in the US? You keep saying culture of violence and then bringing up racism but you have no actual proof that gun control won’t reduce the number of gun related deaths.
P.S. Second Amendment-ers: Did you know that the Second Amendment was AN AMENDMENT, eg, a modification, to the original sacred text we like to call the Constitution (a document which originally did not allow women to vote, among other things)? Did you know that we now have twenty-seven of those amendments, and that some amendments have been passed and even then repealed (ahem, alcohol ban, yes)? See, you can indeed change the Constitution. It’s just a lengthy and difficult process- with reason. But it can be done, and it should be done, because it was drafted by a group of men who were trying to do better than the system they were feeling oppressed by, and because we are a different country now, and because we will continue to grow and to change or we will eventually collapse.
It has nothing to do with banning firearms. Other than they won’t work. And they won’t work in one groups favor, but another’s disadvantage. POC will be the disadvantaged. You can bet that the police will hit them first looking for illegal weapons. (they already do now, when guns are legal to own.) More POC will be in prisons. WHITE people will still have guns, because those violent POC are criminals and we all know criminals purchase illegal weapons. Just look at the prisons for proof. It will be totes different when white people have illegal weapons though, they need it to protect them from the brown menace. The cops will still have guns. Black people will still be assumed to have guns and will be killed. Gun violence will still exist. More POC will be in prison though. Win win for certain people in this country.
You keep saying culture of violence and then bringing up racism but you have no actual proof that gun control won’t reduce the number of gun related deaths. Oh I see. Certain privileged views don’t count being shot by cops as gun violence. Because only Black people in possession of guns get killed by cops. If Black people couldn’t own guns because guns were banned, then fewer Black people will be shot! MAGIC!!
What exactly are people afraid will happen if you make it harder to stock up on guns? People from outside the U.S. keep trying to tell you that there is another way, and that there are other countries whose laws are successful at keeping gun violence at bay. Gun control is not a question of hypotheticals. The hypothesis has already been tested for you. A country with restrictions on access to firarms does not descend into apocalyptic anarchy with the rich menacing the poor at gunpoint. In fact, that country will have substantially fewer deaths and its people will feel more safe. Why is America always so special that solutions that work perfectly well for other countries will simply fail when applied to you?
I’m pretty sure that victims of spree killings and domestic gun violence tend not to just be white. These are pointless, needless and preventable deaths. I’m not seeing how it’s bad or racist to try and prevent them.
P.S. Second Amendment-ers: Did you know that the Second Amendment was AN AMENDMENT, eg, a modification, to the original sacred text we like to call the Constitution (a document which originally did not allow women to vote, among other things)? Did you know that we now have twenty-seven of those amendments, and that some amendments have been passed and even then repealed (ahem, alcohol ban, yes)? See, you can indeed change the Constitution. It’s just a lengthy and difficult process- with reason. But it can be done, and it should be done, because it was drafted by a group of men who were trying to do better than the system they were feeling oppressed by, and because we are a different country now, and because we will continue to grow and to change or we will eventually collapse. *giggles* As if I give a shit about the Constitution. I support the right to bear arms regardless of what the Constitution says.
Fen-Phen is still available. It’s not widely available so people STILL BUY IT. I’m not sure if you missed a word in there, so I’m not exactly sure what “It’s not widely available so people STILL BUY IT” means. However, not having it prescribed by every doctor and available at every pharmacy has significantly brought down its use and the subsequent deaths from it. Not a little, but a lot. At least the people who go to great lengths to skirt the law and get it anyway know that it’s got a pretty good chance of killing it’s users. Nobody is saying “Phen-fen doesn’t kill people, people kill people”. One might even say that banning it, and educating people on why it was banned, changed the culture surrounding that particular drug.
If a weapons ban happened in a vacuum, I’d be all for it. However, every single thing that has been outlawed in this country has pretty much led to the screwing of POC. Cocaine was said to make Black people shoot better. There was mention of Jews in possession of it peddling to Black men that incited them to rape white women. Heroin- Those sneaky Chinese people lured poor little white boys into Opium dens. Alcohol made Injuns violent. Marijuana- Black persons drug and supposedly made Mexicans violent and angry with white people. Black people are arrested for drugs far out of proportion to their drug use. Black people, at 12% of the U.S. population, account for 12% of illegal drug users. They account for 38-44% of illegal drug arrests. But it will be different with guns. First off there will be more dead POC’s in the first sweeps for weapons. Because cops are seriously going to enter the house of a POC gun owner unarmed. Again- what planet do you people live on because the one I live on enjoys killing POC and uses every excuse possible to do it.
Shoshie – Your country has one government, one leader, and one set of federal laws. To that end, saying that states X, Y and Z support LGBT rights, and states 9, 10 &11 believe women are fully human, means fuck all. You are Americans. That’s the location on citizens’ passports, the name on the map, the place that’s listed as place of origin for anyone born there. Doesn’t matter if Portland’s full of hippies, Utah’s full of clean-cut ‘traditional’ families, and one bit of a huge state has a thriving gay subculture. You share a constitution, a bill of rights, and a president. Doesn’t federal law trump state law? Being a bit different in every place isn’t special, the whole world is like that! It’s just that most people freely admit that, and say “I’m British” or “I’m German” or whatever. I don’t share a vocabulary with people from Hertfordshire, who don’t have a pottery history like Staffordshire, which doesn’t have beaches like Devon, which doesn’t have a thriving party scene like Newcastle. We all share the same laws. Gay civil unions are legal, and our first right-wing PM in a decade is about to make gay marriage legal (despite the protracted whining and foot-stamping of the Church of England). It is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their sex, gender, sexuality, race, religion, or disability status. Our laws aren’t written county by county, that would just lead to chaos. There are slight differences between the countries that make up the UK, for example; The criminal and gun laws are slightly different in Scotland, but just as tight. They’re mostly procedural, as the Scottish legal system is slightly different. Abortion and birth control are free and legal, except in Northern Ireland (thanks Vatican! ), so women have to come here and pay for one. But, we’re all in the UK. Our passports may say Wales, England, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, all different countries and cultures, but we’re in the United Kingdom together. Each county (state) belongs to it’s own home country. There aren’t special laws in Nottinghamshire that don’t apply in East Anglia. So the attitudes of people in one pocket of land don’t matter, because it’s the law of the land that counts.
I’m not sure if you missed a word in there, so I’m not exactly sure what “It’s not widely available so people STILL BUY IT” So should have been but. At least the people who go to great lengths to skirt the law and get it anyway know that it’s got a pretty good chance of killing it’s users. Unlike gun owners who ignore all stats showing their own guns have a better chance of killing them than an intruder. Do you see the problem yet? Does banning anything stop addicts? No. What does? Dealing with the reasons they turn to their addiction in the first place.
This country is no less racist than it was when Martin Luther King Jr was denied a gun permit after his house was fire bombed. I may be incredibly naive, but I do not agree with this statement, if only because it implies that the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has had no net positive effect on racism in this country. I was born in the year MLK was shot and looking back at the past 43 years, I’d be the first to say we’ve got along way to go but I am not about to call him a failure. Far, far from it.
It’s not the reason to avoid banning something, it’s the reason THE BANS DON’T FUCKING WORK. Fen-Phen is still available. It’s not widely available so people STILL BUY IT. It didn’t go away. The obsession with being thin still exists. Coincidence? Fenfleuramine is banned in the US and was withdrawn by its manufacturer (who held the patent), so, no, “Fen-Phen,” which is a combination of two prescription drugs, isn’t still available. Phentermine is still available since it wasn’t proven dangerous, but is less effective for weight loss than the combination of the two drugs. What *is* available is “Herbal Fen-Phen,” which is not subject to a ban in the US because it’s not regulated at all, being outside the FDA’s jurisdiction. You’re right that the obsession to be thin is still there, and the pharmaceutical industry is more than happy to accommodate it regardless of whatever unpleasant side effects may arise, but you’re not serving your point well with this example.
If Black people couldn’t own guns because guns were banned, then fewer Black people will be shot! MAGIC!! Um…yeah. Again, having a gun greatly increases the likelihood of getting shot. Police will still be racist assholes, but police aren’t the only people shooting black people.
@ Partial Human Shoshie – Your country has one government, one leader, and one set of federal laws. To that end, saying that states X, Y and Z support LGBT rights, and states 9, 10 &11 believe women are fully human, means fuck all. It does if you understand fuck all about a federal system.
Um…yeah. Again, having a gun greatly increases the likelihood of getting shot. Police will still be racist assholes, but police aren’t the only people shooting black people. So fuck em, as long as it’s just the police with the ability now. Got it. It’s too hard to come up with a real solution and deal with the problem. That POC will still be collateral damage? Well, pesky detail that can be swept under the rug.
pheenobarbidoll what yr advocating is one of the most stupid things i’ve heard theres no point doing gun control because you live in a violent culture, u need to cut off the violence at the root and all this bullshit… well why dont we just get rid of the criminal justice system altogether? clearly its just a stop-gap solution and doesnt solve the actual problem of the cultural factors that encourage people to do crime.. if you really think that stopping people from having guns isn’t going to reduce gun crime then yr living in a moron bubble. for people talking about rights… how about the right not to get shot by some nobhead?
Shoshie – Your country has one government, one leader, and one set of federal laws. To that end, saying that states X, Y and Z support LGBT rights, and states 9, 10 &11 believe women are fully human, means fuck all. You are Americans. That’s the location on citizens’ passports, the name on the map, the place that’s listed as place of origin for anyone born there. Doesn’t matter if Portland’s full of hippies, Utah’s full of clean-cut ‘traditional’ families, and one bit of a huge state has a thriving gay subculture. You share a constitution, a bill of rights, and a president. Doesn’t federal law trump state law? Yes, absolutely yes. The federal law is the supreme law of the land. That is why it’s only somewhat comforting when a state broadens its definition of civil marriage, for example. Because it can always be taken away from us if some fuckwads in Congress decide to ban non-hetero-marriage across the land. On the other hand, it’s comforting when a state makes cockamamie restrictive laws against abortion to know that what happens in Wyoming doesn’t automatically have to happen in Idaho.
Does banning anything stop addicts? No. Physical addiction is different than just wanting things. But making things significantly harder to get, and educating people on the dangers of those things, does have the potential to greatly reduce the use of those things. Cigarettes, to use an example from upthread. Pheeno, it seems that you’re just talking in circles. Yes, all of the things we are talking about, including guns, have significant cultural value to large portions of the population. No, banning or heavily regulating those things will not magically change those cultural issues. But it could be a good start toward reducing the deaths which, while they have their deepest roots in the culture of violence, are also carried out much more easily with the tools being used. Like many other aspects of culture, having guns be readily available, very common in many households, and having constant messaging that they are great tools of protection and not really a cause of death (“people kill people”), inures many to gun violence.
@pheeno: Oakland, California. From Philly. I hear what you’re saying. However, I still support an overall renewal of the assault weapons ban and more restrictive gun laws. AND better training for police officers who carry weapons and better screening? And better urban planning which doesn’t denigrate some areas to be projects and therefore trap poor residents there, and also? BART police should not carry guns. Ever. Full stop.
So fuck em, as long as it’s just the police with the ability now. Got it. Huh? I didn’t say anything of the sort, and you know it, so knock it off. I mean, do you think that guns are helping black people fight back against racist police officers? That one doesn’t seem to be working out too terribly well, eh?
While the federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that doesn’t mean that federal laws control all. Even though the Supreme Court has taken an expansive view of federal power, some things are indeed within the control of the states. Like marriage. That said, when state or federal laws conflict with the Constitution — such as when the federal government denies federal benefits to couples married legally in a state, or when states had anti-miscegenation statutes, the Constitution controls. But it takes a long time to get the right argument in front of the right court to recognize that and to make it enforceable. Parts of DOMA have already been declared unconstitutional, and DADT was years before Congress got around to doing something, but in a federal system with different jurisdictions, there are issues of which law is controlling when, and the Supreme Court doesn’t have to take every petition that comes its way. Federalism is a complicated enough issue that there are entire courses dedicated to it in law school. Maybe let’s avoid making pronouncements about it here, especially when the understanding goes no further than “You have one government.”
Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine are still available in Mexico. I can have it in a 3 hour drive. Good for you. Not everyone lives within three hours of Mexico, so what’s your point, exactly?
Oakland, California Yeah, me too, Oakland. The idea that somehow having guns is helping the people in our communities protect themselves against asshole police officers is … well, let’s just say it’s not born out by anything resembling evidence.
However, we really need to get our heads out of our asses about guns in this country, stop being so defensive, and think of serious solutions to a huge problem. Several years ago, I went to the funeral of a 21 year old man I worked with. He had been killed, senselessly, by another young guy. A guy who could get his hands on a gun far too easily. A guy who maybe would have punched him in retaliation for whateverthefuck insult if he didn’t have access to a fire-arm, but instead shot him in cold blood on a weekend night.
Physical addiction is different than just wanting things. Really carefully listen to the people who want to keep their guns. They’re afraid. Fear is an addiction. Owning guns gives them their fix. Violence is an addiction. Owning guns gives them their fix. Addicts are going to get their fix, no matter what it takes. No matter how hard it is to get. No matter what laws they must break. Unless and until people start dealing with the root cause, you’re not going to fix the problem. There will still be gun violence. People will still be afraid of that and seek to get a fix for their fear. There will still be gun violence. People will get angry at this and respond with violence, and seek their fix. Any solution that does not involve fixing the real problem will only be a temporary solution that only benefits a select few.
Good for you. Not everyone lives within three hours of Mexico, so what’s your point, exactly? The internet reduces that drive time to 0.
Not everyone lives within three hours of Mexico, so what’s your point, exactly? Exactly, zuzu. Plus, many fewer who are that close will go to the trouble to get the drug. As I mentioned before, those who do know very well that it could kill them. The messaging prior to figuring out it killed people was that it would actually help people’s health by helping them lose weight. Likewise, we know that guns are a bigger danger to the owner and others than they are a tool of protection or a fun toy on the range. That is not the message we get most often.
Really carefully listen to the people who want to keep their guns. They’re afraid. But one of the things they’re afraid of is other people having guns.
Aaaannnddd…whoops you missed the entire rest of my comment. Did you forget to read it? Just ignoring it?
The internet reduces that drive time to 0 You’re right. Just as many people use Fen-Phen and die from it as prior to banning it. Oh wait, no, that’s actually not the case at all. But hey, if you say “change the culture!” it magically makes that a correct statement somehow.
do you think that guns are helping black people fight back against racist police officers? No, I’m saying that gun bans will be the reason more POC are shot dead by racist police officers seeking to “uphold the law” by going after the stereotypical criminal first. WHO are the stereotypical gun owning criminals in this country? POC. POC are already racially profiled for weapons and drugs. How is a gun ban going to take away from this? How will it reduce the chances of POC being killed by cops during a “routine” check to make sure no weapons are in possession? There are other consequences not being considered here. All you see is ” get rid of guns and taaadaaaa all is well”. I see how the implementation of a ban will have other consequences that aren’t quite so positive. I’m not cool with those other consequences. And I’m not going to pretend it’s less than or unimaginable or worth the risk.
But one of the things they’re afraid of is other people having guns. Yes. And after gun bans are enacted only criminals will have guns. I’ll ask one more time- WHO ARE THE STEREOTYPICAL DEFAULT CRIMINALS IN THIS COUNTRY? Who will be the first gun raid victims targeted? You think the police are going to raid white bread suburbia first or the projects?
Police are assholes and racism exists, so we should continue to give everyone wide and easy access to guns. Huh?
Yes. And after gun bans are enacted only criminals will have guns. I’ll ask one more time- WHO ARE THE STEREOTYPICAL DEFAULT CRIMINALS IN THIS COUNTRY? Who will be the first gun raid victims targeted? You think the police are going to raid white bread suburbia first or the projects? Who said we disarmament involved gun raids? You’ve turned this into violent confrontation but it doesn’t have to be that way. Also you haven’t mentioned any concrete solutions to reduce that fear. This is a concrete solution to reduce fear and consequently violence.
Police are assholes and racism exists, so we should continue to give everyone wide and easy access to guns. Huh? Who will be the first gun raid victims targeted? You think the police are going to raid white bread suburbia first or the projects? Your short sighted solution has consequences. The fact you refuse to consider them at all is pretty telling.
Is getting some guns off the street right away a fix-all? No. Will it relieve some of the immediate pressure on communities suffering from a “high intensity gang area” like mine? Probably. I definitely believe in changing the USA’s gun culture and general gun culture, but some of us can’t wait while everyone sits around talking about how they’re going to get around to talking about. Just saying “we should talk about the culture of violence” or about mental health or other related subjects and do nothing else sounds ludicrous to me when I couldn’t even go to my mental health clinic yesterday because there was a fucking shooting just a few feet away from it. As for it raining jellybeans, when my town recently had a gun buyback event, one woman traded in a gun she randomly found in her backyard for crying out loud for a grocery store gift card. When it “rains” guns in communities so to speak, people are not going to have an oh boy! reaction they way they might to jellybeans. It’s a sign of a sick community that needs both immediate and long-term HELP.
Who said we disarmament involved gun raids? You’ve turned this into violent confrontation but it doesn’t have to be that way. Whatever on earth makes you think it won’t? The War Against Drugs is a pretty good example. Houses get raided by SWAT last I checked. Specialized killers for marijuana. Are you telling me that law enforcement is going to a)believe all people have voluntarily turned over their weapons peacefully and b) this won’t be the perfect opportunity to clean up “bad” neighborhoods (yanno, not white neighborhoods) and c)won’t assume the residents of bad neighborhoods are going to violently resist
The War Against Drugs is a pretty good example. Houses get raided by SWAT last I checked. Specialized killers for marijuana. Yeah, and that’s completely broken. I wasn’t suggesting we perpetuate the same injustice. In my view the appropriate legal structure is (1) ban import/export of weapons; (2) ban manufacture of weapons in the US; (3) make possession illegal and punishable by *forfeiture* of the weapon; (4) confiscate all weapons found in the course of investigating other crimes; and (5) offer continuous gun exchanges. Just because things are fucked, doesn’t mean we repeat the pattern. We have to set a new pattern.
Your short sighted solution has consequences. The fact you refuse to consider them at all is pretty telling. Also having consequences on the very same communities you are talking about: doing nothing. The fact that you prefer to wait until the culture has changed into Hugga-Bunch Land to do anything is pretty telling. Again: police aren’t the only people who shoot black people. Yes, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to keep racist police officers from being violent assholes. That needs to happen anyway, and is actually a separate problem. That doesn’t mean we continue with current gun policy. And if you’ll notice, there are a number of different strategies I’ve brought up, and we haven’t talked about details about rolling them out at all (more, perhaps, than you have talked about your brilliant plan to change the culture so nobody wants guns). So seriously, again, knock it off.
Pheeno, there are non-punitive ways to go about reducing the number of guns in the community. How would you feel, for instance, about buybacks on assault weapons, restrictions on sales of guns but not possession, bans on advertising guns? I know the standard gun control model is focused on the consumer and not the industry (which I have a problem with, especially when talking guns in the US, where your industry is such a giant factor), but that doesn’t have to be the case.
Also having consequences on the very same communities you are talking about: doing nothing. I have yet to suggest doing nothing. Sorry.
I can’t imagine why The New Yorker would conclude that we can’t talk about gun control in this country.
I have yet to suggest doing nothing. Sorry. So, what are you suggesting. If your suggestion is “change the culture,” how are you going to do that?
Yeah, and that’s completely broken. And it’s the system we’re in. How would you feel, for instance, about buybacks on assault weapons, restrictions on sales of guns but not possession, bans on advertising guns? Buyback programs should be enhanced. If I paid 500 for a gun, I’m not going to sell it for a 100 dollar target gift card. Real money is going to have to be directed to this. At the same time, there needs to be a concentrated effort to eliminate the allure of violence, the saturation of violent images sold as sexy or cool, and an extensive and intense education program that shows people up front and personal exactly what damage is done. Not just 30 second blips on a tv station with a school picture of some kid. Not as “human interest” stories. The Scared Straight tactic comes close. Hand in hand with these efforts- we’re going to simply have to deal with poverty. Otherwise, you can install every ban you’ve stated and in 20 years we’re going to be right back here, discussing gun violence and wondering how the hell to stop it when weapons are already banned.
Otherwise, you can install every ban you’ve stated and in 20 years we’re going to be right back here, discussing gun violence and wondering how the hell to stop it when weapons are already banned. Okay, what is your evidence for saying this? Can you give an example of a blanket ban on weapons applied equally throughout a community which led to an increase in violence?
do you think that guns are helping black people fight back against racist police officers? That one doesn’t seem to be working out too terribly well, eh? The Black Panthers did an excellent job of that back in the 1960s and 70s. When they did their armed patrols of Oakland and other inner city areas where the Panthers had a presence. Police brutality dropped significantly during that time. That’s why politicians in California were in such a hurry to push the Mulford Act in 1967, which effectively made their armed patrols illegal. I don’t see why it couldn’t be done again. All that’s missing is the political will.
At the same time, there needs to be a concentrated effort to eliminate the allure of violence, the saturation of violent images sold as sexy or cool, and an extensive and intense education program that shows people up front and personal exactly what damage is done. Not just 30 second blips on a tv station with a school picture of some kid. Not as “human interest” stories. The Scared Straight tactic comes close. You don’t think that kids who live in neighborhoods where people are routinely hurt and killed by gunfire are getting an up front and personal view of the damage caused by guns?
Also in addition to my above post, the Panthers had a long term impact. At that time predominantly black communities were patrolled by an almost entirely white police force. That seems to have changed quite a bit now, where the cops in so many of these areas are also predominantly black, or at least there are significantly more of them in others. Not that it’s a cure all in terms of police conduct and brutality. There’s the whole problem of internalized racism, but at least it’s an improvement from how things were.
And it’s the system we’re in. And that is of course immutable. We couldn’t ever do anything.g different than we do right now.
The way I see it, guns can be very good defense. But the same things that make them a powerful defense -an ability to use them while at a distance from your attacker, their effectiveness at killing or disabling- are the same things that make them a powerful OFFENSE. And what bothers me most about the guns lobby is this, their refusal to see that guns are as powerful an offense as they are a defense, and for exactly the same reason. People will, for instance, say again and again that any given crime could have been committed as easily with a knife as with a gun, but in the same breath say that a gun is the only thing that could have prevented any given crime. Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways: guns are either powerful or they aren’t.
You don’t think that kids who live in neighborhoods where people are routinely hurt and killed by gunfire are getting an up front and personal view of the damage caused by guns? You think they’d have to see it that way had those before them been raised in a different culture in regards to guns and violence? Teach people to a new way to live and give them the tools to achieve a better way of life and they tend to go for it because it’s BETTER. Send jack booted thugs in, and watch the death toll rise and people resist. It’s as if you don’t actually want a permanent, real solution. Which, I suspect motivates many people. You’re not interested in solving the problem, you’re interested in punishing people while claiming it will solve the problem. Using the very thing people distrust, using the very thing that abuses more people…yeah. That’ll work. Like it or not, there are a whole hell of a lot of people who do not trust any cop, or any law maker and the majority of them have legitimate reasons to distrust them. That’s going to matter in your approach.
I have yet to suggest doing nothing. Sorry. Oh right. Your suggestion was “change the culture”. While continuing to allow guns into the hands of whomever wants them.
Send jack booted thugs in, and watch the death toll rise and people resist. This is hilarious. The gun control supporters are now making use of heavily-armed “jack booted thugs” to go shoot brown people? Pheeno, are you even trying to get the point of what people here are saying, or do you honestly believe no one here has thought about the mechanisms of gun control before you?
Send jack booted thugs in, and watch the death toll rise and people resist. Good thing no one’s suggested sending jackbooted thugs in, then. It’s as if you don’t actually want a permanent, real solution. I don’t see you offering one. All you’ve suggested is making kids who are already aware of the toll that guns take on a community… aware of the toll that guns take on a community. It’s as if you don’t actually want a permanent, real solution. Which, I suspect motivates many people. You’re not interested in solving the problem, you’re interested in punishing people while claiming it will solve the problem. I don’t recall advocating for punishing people. In this thread, I’ve questioned William’s armchair heroics, corrected a few baseless assumptions people have had about the federal system and the availability of fen-phen, and interrogated your claim to have offered a solution to gun violence that is something more than nothing. I’ve also agreed with you that we do need to change the culture. But doing so is not enough. We do need to have some kind of control of the weapons. Which means going after the manufacturers and dealers with penalties, and offering incentives to individual gun owners. It means limitations on the number of guns one can acquire. It means limitations on the ability to amass sufficient ammunition to take out a theater full of people. It means bans on assault weapons that serve no purpose other than to kill more people more efficiently. It means rational discussion about solutions, not a lot of accusations about jackbooted thugs.
Oh right. Your suggestion was “change the culture”. While continuing to allow guns into the hands of whomever wants them. This culture change would naturally consist of singing “Kumbaya” and maybe some hippie drumming. Like Occupy Wall Street, that unstoppable force of social change*, did. ;p *sarcasm!
Zuzu- I never pretended to be an expert on US law. Of course the law’s complicated, I simplified UK law too, because I’m not teaching in law school. We have UK law, EU law, and international conventions to abide by. My point is, America isn’t special, and it thinks it is – even in the face of astoundingly clear-cut evidence to the contrary. What’s it going to take? Why not rely on water to nourish the tree of liberty, rather than blood?
You think they’d have to see it that way had those before them been raised in a different culture in regards to guns and violence? Pheeno, you keep moving the ball here. People asked what your solution to changing the culture was, and you said scared straight programs came the closest. Then people pointed out that scared straight-style programs are unlikely to do much good because there are already a ton of kids out there who know first-hand how devastating gun violence is, and you said “of course they know violence, they grew up in a violent culture!” That’s obviously true but it doesn’t get us any closer to understanding what concrete things you think we should do to change the culture. I’m all for combatting poverty and racism, but I’m unwilling to wait for a day when cops aren’t racist to start reducing access to guns. And as others have pointed out, you can take steps to reduce the availability of guns — and to encourage people to get rid of the ones they have — that don’t involve the kind of tactics we saw in the War on Drugs. If your answer is that the government is racist and will do things the wrong way — well, that same problem exists with the poverty-reduction efforts or other “culture change” you favor. Workfare was billed as a poverty-reduction measure, and that didn’t magically protect it from being punitive or from disproportionately affecting POCs. Which brings us back to… we can do more than one thing at a time to combat gun violence, and there’s no evidence to suggest that restricting the sale of assault weapons, for example, is worse for POCs than any other violence-reduction program the government might try to implement.
Yes, Bagelsan, I’m imagining Mr. Mackey saying “Um, guns are bad, mkay? So don’t use guns, because they’re bad. Mkay?”
My point is, America isn’t special, and it thinks it is – even in the face of astoundingly clear-cut evidence to the contrary. The point you made that I responded to was a dismissal/hand-wave of the complexity of the federal system. You scoffed at the idea that there are differing laws in different places within the US. It’s not a unique system — hello, Germany! — but it does exist, it’s not the same as yours, and you run the risk of an asshole like me on the internet (who does indeed teach law) correcting your facile assertions. Also, it’s not really news that American exceptionalism is delusional. But that wasn’t your real point, was it?
If your answer is that the government is racist and will do things the wrong way — well, that same problem exists with the poverty-reduction efforts or other “culture change” you favor. Workfare was billed as a poverty-reduction measure, and that didn’t magically protect it from being punitive or from disproportionately affecting POCs. Things can work the other way, too — culture change often follows changes in the law, even when that is an ongoing process. See, for example, equal pay legislation or workplace safety rules or child labor law. Just because there are abuses of these laws still does not mean that the culture has not moved to the point where the idea of child labor, or the idea of differing pay scales by race or gender for the same work isn’t now culturally unacceptable.
I honestly find discussions like these on gun control terrifying in the willful ignorance of the pro-gun faction. Until I started reading North American news, gun-related deaths was something that happened during terrorist attacks or professional assassinations, not as widespread and COMMON as it seems to be here. I can count the number of accidental shootings I read about in two years of living in Mumbai on one hand. And in the rural district where I grew up, there hadn’t been a gun-related death (except for the one instance of a cop firing in self-defense) in…. well, at least three decades. The population of my district, ftr, was about a quarter million; it’s not inconsiderable, and is certainly the size of small cities in the US. And if anyone here wants to argue that India doesn’t have at least as toxically violent a culture as the US, I will laugh myself sick. Seriously. I can’t believe there are people here arguing for any solution to this epidemic of massacres and accidents that doesn’t involve restricting gun access. I just can’t believe the cognitive dissonance involved in that. Just fucking WOW.
Interesting headline on Yahoo: “Gun sales spike in Colorado after shooting, just like they did in Arizona” Why are we so fucked up? :/
Pheeno, you keep moving the ball here. People asked what your solution to changing the culture was, and you said scared straight programs came the closest. Then people pointed out that scared straight-style programs are unlikely to do much good because there are already a ton of kids out there who know first-hand how devastating gun violence is, and you said “of course they know violence, they grew up in a violent culture!” That’s obviously true but it doesn’t get us any closer to understanding what concrete things you think we should do to change the culture. I said the scared straight tactic was ONE of SEVERAL things that had to go hand in hand. The kids who already see the affects of violence as a way of life need the rest of the things I listed. But they’re not being shown any significant alternative as much as they’re being shown guns=badass. Violence=’s sexy. This is life, and life is violent. Kill or be killed. They are saturated with those messages. And then numbed with it. This is not a problem that can be addressed by ticking things one by one off a list. It won’t work that way. It has to be addressed from several angles at the same time. Just banning isn’t going to work. Good thing no one’s suggested sending jackbooted thugs in, then. Ah, so cops aren’t jackbooted thugs to you. Must be nice. Unless there’s some other way to enforce a ban other than using the police that I’m not aware of. All you’ve suggested is making kids who are already aware of the toll that guns take on a community Happens when you read one sentence and ignore the rest. Like Occupy Wall Street We send in SWAT to deal with protestors, but sweet little kittens are going to be used to de-arm the populace. I didn’t get the memo.
I can’t believe there are people here arguing for any solution to this epidemic of massacres and accidents that doesn’t involve restricting gun access. I can’t believe people here are arguing that only restricting gun access is the solution, but there you have it. Passing a law that restricts/bans guns is easy. Laws and bans get passed every day. Ending the culture of violence with hard work, education and giving up violent movies/images/games until it’s no longer mainstream? Well that takes too much time and effort I guess. Can’t be done at the same time. That would be impossible.
Unless there’s some other way to enforce a ban other than using the police that I’m not aware of. You persist in equating any action by the police with raids by jackbooted thugs. This is why we can’t have nice things.
There were no gun raids. No- one was even forced to hand in their guns. It was done as an amnesty. Which is fine. I’m pretty sure I said real money needs to go to buyback programs. Buyback programs should be enhanced. If I paid 500 for a gun, I’m not going to sell it for a 100 dollar target gift card. Real money is going to have to be directed to this. Yup. My quote.
I can’t believe people here are arguing that only restricting gun access is the solution I can’t, either. Who’s done that?
You persist in equating any action by the police with raids by jackbooted thugs. Have any guesses as to why? WHY oh WHY would a WOC have an inherent mistrust of the police? Just boggles the mind.
Pheenobarbidoll, other countries see the same films/games, listen to the same lyrics, as the USA. Yet their citizens don’t choose to murder each other at the same rate. Why do you think that is?
This is not a problem that can be addressed by ticking things one by one off a list. It won’t work that way. It has to be addressed from several angles at the same time. Just banning isn’t going to work. There is not a SINGLE PERSON IN THIS DISCUSSION except for the strawman that you constructed who is arguing that we should ban guns and do nothing else and that will solve things. There is not a SINGLE PERSON IN THIS DISCUSSION saying “let’s ban guns, and get all the guns off the street, and then we’ll tackle underlying causes of violence like poverty.” All that gun control advocates are saying here is that reducing the number of guns needs to be part of the conversation about how we can reduce gun violence. I seriously cannot fucking believe that is a controversial statement.
I never pretended to be an expert on US law. And yet you posted about it anyway. There are lots of real, live, actual (well, virtual) Americans having it out about the topic of the post (namely, the Aurora shooting and gun culture). You might learn something from what they (we) are saying.
So, Pheenobarbidoll, if you think gun by- back schemes are fine, then why keep talking about cops doing gun raids. You know it doesn’t have to work like that. You say the problem has to tackled in multiple ways. Sure. But, one of those ways is to restrict guns. You can’t get people to change their culture when they’ve been murdered.
WHY oh WHY would a WOC have an inherent mistrust of the police? And yet you seem to be okay with buybacks, which are also run by the police. Even though you’ve said that any action by the cops is a raid by jackbooted thugs, and anyone who proposes any action that isn’t just culture change is supporting jackbooted thuggery. There’s justified distrust of the police, and then there’s just straight-up dishonest goalpost-moving.
“let’s ban guns, and get all the guns off the street, and then we’ll tackle underlying causes of violence like poverty.” Saying ” I’m not willing to wait until cultural shift/poverty/racism is tackled” is saying exactly that. Ban/restrict guns first, then we’ll deal with all the rest. (like that ever happens)
Saying ” I’m not willing to wait until cultural shift/poverty/racism is tackled” is saying exactly that. Those goalposts are awfully mobile.
And yet you seem to be okay with buybacks, which are also run by the police. They don’t involve cops showing up on my doorstep. And I can give my guns to someone else to go drop them off if I don’t have faith that I won’t be arrested because I might have an unpaid parking ticket or two on my record.
Saying ” I’m not willing to wait until cultural shift/poverty/racism is tackled” is saying exactly that. Ban/restrict guns first, then we’ll deal with all the rest. (like that ever happens) Please don’t attribute words to me that I didn’t say and that are, in fact, VERY DIFFERENT from what I did say. My actual words were: I’m unwilling to wait for a day when cops aren’t racist to start reducing access to guns In other words, I don’t think we should wait until racism has been solved to start reducing access to guns. I think we should work on BOTH the underlying causes of violence AND the access to weapons that make such violence more likely and more deadly AT THE SAME TIME.
Other countries are racist. Australia was built on genocide, just like the USA. Other countries have poverty. Yet, other countries don ‘t have their citizens murdering each other at such high rates. Why would that be?
You know it doesn’t have to work like that. It doesn’t have to. I’ve never claimed it HAS to. I keep asking HOW a BAN will be implemented without it and get no response. I give examples of very realistic ways it can go VERY BAD. I support buyback programs (along with several other approaches at the same time- since that gets “missed”), but what about the people who do NOT want to relinquish their guns voluntarily? HOW do we go about getting them? WHO is in charge of that? WHO will be looked at first as the most suspect in not voluntarily turning in their guns? Do you CARE? I’m not moving goddamn goalposts, I’m having 15 conversations with people and trying to explain it 15 different ways so that at some point someone might figure out what the fuck I’m saying. To give yet another example – When NA woman call the cops after a crime has been committed they have a HIGH CHANCE of being revictimized BY THE COP THAT SHOWS UP. SO WHY WOULD I TRUST THE COPS TO REMOVE MY BANNED WEAPONS WHEN I CANT EVEN TRUST THEM TO TAKE MY FUCKING POLICE REPORT WITHOUT HURTING ME. I can’t. I can have options available that reduce my contact with them (such as buy backs), but that’s the best I’m going to be offered by anyone here, right? And I’m not the only non criminal who has to wonder if in the process of returning my gun I might be arrested. Then or later when it’s more convenient. So I want to know how do we get around this little wrench? Do we just ignore it? How does that help the gun problem? What do you do about those who have even deeper distrust of the police? I know they don’t fucking count any other goddamn time or place but I would have thought they counted HERE. And there are other issues, but evidently bringing anything more complicated into the conversation is too much.
So you’re okay with exposing your friend to arrest? What a peach. I have white friends who evidently don’t have to consider such things before bopping off to get their target card.
Pheeno, another example several people have given is to institute a ban on selling certain types of guns. That doesn’t involve anyone storming into POC’s houses or you having to interact with the police. All of the enforcement happens with respect to businesses selling weapons, not individuals buying them.
Other countries are racist. Australia was built on genocide, just like the USA. Other countries have poverty. Yet, other countries don ‘t have their citizens murdering each other at such high rates. Why would that be? And other countries with the same background have stricter gun laws and higher murder by gun rates. South Africa comes to mind. Assault rifles are the most used, and have never been legal or available to citizens. Maybe, just maybe we need to expand the culprit. It’s not just the gun. And it’s not just the people. It’s BOTH. So again- to simplify- Restrict availability of guns AT THE SAME TIME you fix the problem with the people. Not one then the other. And yes, this is going to be hard work and time consuming. And the consequences of things like genocide and poverty and racism are going to muddy the water. That things like genocide and poverty and racism complicate the hell out of real life is nothing new. That it could possibly complicate gun control here is a problem we’re just going to have to FACE instead of ignore. What may go smoothly in one country may be a cluster fuck in another. That’s a problem that needs facing, not saving for later.
Pheeno, another example several people have given is to institute a ban on selling certain types of guns. That doesn’t involve anyone storming into POC’s houses or you having to interact with the police. All of the enforcement happens with respect to businesses selling weapons, not individuals buying them. Certainly. But not selling those guns doesn’t get the existing ones out of anyone’s hands. Guns don’t have an expiration date, it’s not like an assault rifle manufactured yesterday is going to stop working tomorrow if it’s no longer sold.
So again- to simplify- Restrict availability of guns AT THE SAME TIME you fix the problem with the people. So we all agree, then?
I don’t see how, looking at American history, people are surprised that POC are wary of new laws. They’re always based on wonderful ideals, and then they get enforced and POC get a new hell, especially poor POC. What we’re saying is that you guys all have wonderful, peaceful resolutions, but it ain’t you we’re scared of. I’m scared of the cops that stop me 2 minutes away from my own home to ask me what I’m doing. I’m scared of the cop that was all set to arrest us for smoking weed until he saw my white friend in the backseat. I’m scared that cops that shoot POC for pulling out their wallets, and barely get a warning, now may have more backing to shoot even more POC. So excuse me if I think attacking gun culture from a societal level rather than a legal level is safer for me and mine, and other POC.
I think I’m maybe seeing a convergence of points of view here? It seems like pheeno is saying she supports voluntary buyback programs, as many of the pro-gun control posters here do. And it sound like most of the pro-gun control posters are saying they don’t support police raids or punitive measures. So they agree with pheeno on that. And we all agree that gun violence is bad, and racism is bad, and that the police are problematic. Am I missing something, or are people’s actual positions pretty similar even if their emphasis is very different?
I can’t believe people here are arguing that only restricting gun access is the solution, but there you have it. Whu? I didn’t see anyone arguing that… I did see people arguing that gun access restriction AND cultural changes would be the right way to go, but you seem to think the latter would make the former redundant, which, uh, just NO. That’s not how it works.
I agree Pheenobarbidoll. Restrict the sale of guns while working on those underlying problems. But, that isn’t what you were saying before. BTW, guns aren’t banned in Australia. They’re just highly restricted and those restrictions are different depending on the type of guns. You need a ‘Genuine Reason’ to purchase a gun. Those reasons don’t include self-defence. I guess with the buy back here, it was acknowledged that not everyone was going to give up their guns. But, there was no coercion. I think the government was scared of a huge backlash, if they used bullying tactics.
– The NYPD is running Stop & Search on 87% POC and juking crime stats *INSTEAD* of investigating & prosecuting actual rapes and assaults; – AZ has pretty much MANDATED that police stop POC & examine their papers and priors; – SF / BART police shoot unarmed Oscar Grant w/o prosecution; – 68yo Kenneth Chamberlain shot to death by police responding to a LIFE ALERT call; – et fucking cetera AD FUCKING NAUSEUM So I’d say there is every reason to think that POC would be targeted by gun bans, and that such laws would be used PROACTIVELY in search and seizure ops – that would FURTHER juke the crime stats in ways our pols could capitalize on during elections. I also grew up in a poor urban neighborhood with a pretty much constant threat of violence – gun and otherwise. There is not a DOUBT in my mind that the effect of any ban on weapons would, IN PRACTICE, be used in the way pheeno describes in my old neighborhood, or in the neighborhoods of S. Bronx where I used to hang, or E. St. Louis, or the US/Mexico border towns, or anywhere with concentrations of poor people and POC. While KristenJ’s proposed legislation would be great, I just don’t see an equitable buy-back program, or any program that really required major capital aimed at poor people, going forward in these Austerity(TM) times. Besides, that would be Soft On Crime (also TM). I would think that any reactionary gun regulation legislation drafted in our current climate will lean towards the punitive rather than the restorative. And we are not going to get anywhere until people like Holmes are called out as the predictable outcomes of our violently white supremacist society rather than anomalies. Aside from the ableism of the madness rhetoric, this guy isn’t some incident of random noise. Rather he’s a metabolite of what our – USian – culture is feeding us. IMO, gun control laws are going to have to wait until AFTER the revolution. Whether the US finally leans towards plutocracy (where we retain the right to vote for the rich guy we think will throw us more crumbs) or fascism (where democratic pretense is eschewed), right now we’ve lost our democracy. Any law enacted NOW will not serve a populist good, but serve as a further tool of oppression.
PMED – so fucking sue me. I talked about it REALLY vaguely in one sense and you know that. I didn’t say anything more specific than the apparently heinous statement that while you’re a full citizen in AMERICA under AMERICAN law, under the AMERICAN president, and using AMERICAN dollars, that you are an AMERICAN. You don’t get to wave your flags, stamp your feet and shout “USA! USA!” when it suits you, and then turn round and say “oh but I’m not like those other Americans” when they’re meking you look bad. It doesn’t work like that. If you don’t like people associating violence, nationalism and ignorance with your country, then do something about it, other than saying “UR JELLIS!” or ‘HDU even talk about us!’ When straight commenters stop discussing LGBT issues with absolute conviction, and CAB and neurotypical people here stop deciding what’s best for PWD, PWMI and non-NT people, and stop deciding that asking for the right to breathe is whiny and attention seeking, then I’ll never discuss what’s happening in Shiny Beaconia.
You don’t get to wave your flags, stamp your feet and shout “USA! USA!” when it suits you I’ve never done any such thing, and I’m willing to bet that neither have most US commenters here. If you don’t like people associating violence, nationalism and ignorance with your country, then do something about it What, precisely, would you like me to do? I mean, I’ve been active around US political issues for decades, but clearly I’m doing it wrong.
You don’t get to wave your flags, stamp your feet and shout “USA! USA!” when it suits you… Oh but it’s so much fun, especially late at night when I get out the sparklers and wear my Uncle Sam outfit!
I keep asking HOW a BAN will be implemented without it and get no response. No, you keep telling us all about HOW a BAN will never work, and how you don’t care what regulations there are, because they will never work. So again- to simplify- Restrict availability of guns AT THE SAME TIME you fix the problem with the people. Not one then the other. Holy hell…that’s what everyone, including me, has been saying the whole damn thread while you’ve been very clear that you don’t care what regulations are in place, because gun regulations will never work. No, getting guns off the streets won’t be easy. No, it doesn’t have be a home-raiding thing (I’ve brought up heavy regulation/taxation and education, like we do with cigarettes, many times here on this thread. Nobody has come to my door looking for my smokes.). Yes, it has to be handled in such a way that does not punish or further marginalize already marginalized communities. OF COURSE it has to come with things like education and work on the culture, like just about everything in well-done activism and policy. No, it does not make anyone an asshole to say there are things that can be done in parallel, and working on a way to get fewer guns, and particularly few of certain types of guns, is one of them.
I did see people arguing that gun access restriction AND cultural changes would be the right way to go, but you seem to think the latter would make the former redundant, which, uh, just NO. That’s not how it works. Um, I’ve been the only one arguing for both happening at the same time that I’ve seen. Those arguing with me have been saying ban/restrict first then later deal with cultural changes. Here’s my quote (one of several because I’ve had to repeat it a hundred time) So again- to simplify- Restrict availability of guns AT THE SAME TIME you fix the problem with the people. and another Any solution that does not involve fixing the real problem will only be a temporary solution that only benefits a select few. That does not involve fixing the real problem…. The culture of violence has to be involved. Gun bans and gun restrictions alone will. not. work. You have to work on the underlying cause at the same time. Otherwise, the solution is only temporary. If you don’t address why people are using them, then even a total ban won’t be effective because too many people will still want them. And get them. It’ll just be illegal to have them if they get caught.
Um, I’ve been the only one arguing for both happening at the same time that I’ve seen. Those arguing with me have been saying ban/restrict first then later deal with cultural changes. What? I’ve been saying from the beginning that a ban was only PART of the solution and you specifically argued against that point and claimed there was no way to have a ban, even in concert with other changes.
No, you keep telling us all about HOW a BAN will never work, and how you don’t care what regulations there are, because they will never work. Jesus fuck. I’m pointing out issues that no one wants to hear about. Issues that are, in fact, pretty damn crucial to address if the problem is to be solved. Not just patched up. Solved. Like this- (I’ve brought up heavy regulation/taxation and education, like we do with cigarettes, many times here on this thread. Nobody has come to my door looking for my smokes. Does absolutely nothing to get existing guns off the streets. Say right now (just an example) there are 679,000 guns on the streets. Tomorrow you regulate and tax gun sales. There will still be 679,000 guns on the streets, already bought and paid for. What now?
Tomorrow you regulate and tax gun sales. There will still be 679,000 guns on the streets, already bought and paid for. What now? Couldn’t you just regulate and tax ammo sales in the same way? The guns would still be out there, but when the ammunition they need runs out, they’d only be good as blunt objects.
I didn’t say anything more specific than the apparently heinous statement that while you’re a full citizen in AMERICA under AMERICAN law, under the AMERICAN president, and using AMERICAN dollars, that you are an AMERICAN. You will seriously never understand America is that’s the level of nuance you apply. Seriously, try to think of the states more like mini-countries, because culturally (and even politically) that’s a lot more accurate than what you say up there. I’m not saying that you have to pass a citizenship test or something, but when it comes to gun rights the whole “states rights” thing is a huge factor. (And slightly off-topic, you do realize that Bush got fewer popular votes than Gore did in 2000, right? Americans literally did not elect him. You can’t blame “Americans” for that particular shitstain.)
What? I’ve been saying from the beginning that a ban was only PART of the solution and you specifically argued against that point and claimed there was no way to have a ban, even in concert with other changes. 1) I’m not arguing against banning. I’m bringing up complications that will (because they have in the past and present) screw a whole bunch of people who always get screwed and the problems with implementing bans without considering these complications. If a gun ban doesn’t even work on paper (because of said complications) how will they ever work in real life? 2) I’m saying that because of these complications (like racism and trust issues and the tendency of law enforcement and government to employ shoot the brown people first ask questions later) a ban isn’t going to work unless they are addressed. 3)Some of these complications have to be worked out first. Or else the implementation will bite us in the ass. 4) Most, however, have to be implemented hand in hand with several other tactics. 5) I hadn’t even brought it up yet because I can’t even get to it but I will now While we are trying to resolve the gun issue, we can also start restricting things such as violent video games and movies. Start heavily fining companies that create violent images. Anything children are exposed to should have violence removed from it. Rated R shouldn’t mean “except with a parent or permission”. It should be over 18, period. Gun control has been discussed to death and nothing of substance has come of it. There’s no reason to believe anything will happen soon. In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping us from working on the cultural aspect. And 6) Have you noticed the number of posters speaking to me? If I miss something, you’ll just have to forgive me. I’m not so fantastic at multi tasking that I can have 10 conversations at once without mistakes.
Couldn’t you just regulate and tax ammo sales in the same way? The guns would still be out there, but when the ammunition they need runs out, they’d only be good as blunt objects. Reloading bullets is very cheap and can be done at home. You can regulate and tax reloading machines, but lots of people already them. Good way to cash in on gun control if you’re criminal minded. Make a box of bullets for a few bucks, sell it for a big profit. Cash under the table. Cha- ching! This is the scope of the problem. The gun problem is, I think, far bigger than anyone really truly understands. What seems like a small loophole is actually not so small. And before people flip their shit, I’m NOT saying this as an argument against regulating and taxing ammo. I’m saying- this needs to be included in the considerations.
Oh and the NRA and other gun advocacy groups are going to have to be dealt with. Arguing with them isn’t going to stop them from paying off politicians. It has to be more lucrative for the Fat Takers before they give one single inch. This has always been true.
While we are trying to resolve the gun issue, we can also start restricting things such as violent video games and movies. Start heavily fining companies that create violent images. Anything children are exposed to should have violence removed from it. Rated R shouldn’t mean “except with a parent or permission”. It should be over 18, period. Absolutely not. That’s a freedom of speech and censorship issue for adults, and it is yet another way to restrict minors’ lives. I don’t get to watch Aliens or The Road Warrior because some assholes can’t be trusted with guns? That makes no sense whatsoever. Is there any actual evidence that watching violent movies/playing violent games causes violent actions? Given how often movies and video games have been the target of right-wing ire, I suspect that if there were, we’d all know about it. And if you think censorship like that won’t be wielded in a racist, classist way–to say nothing of misogynist–you need to look at what happened with Canada’s anti-porn law.
Good way to cash in on gun control if you’re criminal minded. Make a box of bullets for a few bucks, sell it for a big profit. Cash under the table. Cha- ching! Sure. That’s what gangsters do–they make money from things that legit entrepreneurs can’t. But that’s not an argument against regulation. It’s like saying that making the sale of exotic species illegal means that gangsters will profit from smuggling in exotic species. Sure. But it will also make exotic species significantly harder to get.
Besides, won’t banning/regulating violent speech just lead to the criminally-minded making bank off of under-the-table violent films and games? I don’t see how that isn’t subject to the same objections you raise vis-a-vis gun control.
Gun regulation is a joke. The problem isn’t the law, it’s the enforcement. Since owning a gun is a second amendment right, in the interest of protecting the masses there should be more security. It’s obvious that the sack of shit who did the shooting in Aurora could give two fucks about a law, but what if a metal detector went off, what if there were armed security guards? There is no logical/legit reason to allow a civilian person to walk around in full metal body armor. Case in point: for years owning a gun AT ALL was illegal in Washington, DC but if you pretended like such a regulation was saving lives an offended mother who buried her son or daughter to oh so familiar gun violence might verbally slap the shit out of you.
I don’t believe there’s much evidence that violent films/games etc cause violence, or contribute significantly to violence. As I pointed out above, Canada, Australia, Western Europe sees the same films and plays the same games. Yet, still the murder rate is much lower v
But that’s not an argument against regulation And before people flip their shit, I’m NOT saying this as an argument against regulating and taxing ammo. I’m saying- this needs to be included in the considerations.
I don’t believe there’s much evidence that violent films/games etc cause violence, or contribute significantly to violence. You don’t think being saturated with violent images every day of your life has any significant contribution to a culture of violence. That’s like saying being saturated with Patriarchial beliefs every day of your life doesn’t have any significant contribution to a culture of misogyny. Or being saturated with racist images don’t significantly contribute to a racist culture. Make something seem normal and it becomes normal. Look at the reaction after the shooting. Gun sales went up. Everyone here can agree that’s a bit fucked up, yes? But to everyone who went out and purchased a gun, it was NORMAL.
Besides, won’t banning/regulating violent speech just lead to the criminally-minded making bank off of under-the-table violent films and games? It probably will. But those images won’t be on the covers of billboards, magazines, movie posters, game posters, music, tv shows and every single bit of mainstream culture that every single human in this country is exposed to from birth. And people who grow up NOT thinking gun violence is normal and cool don’t buy guns. And don’t require blackmarket bullets. You have to hit both supply and demand for an item to go away forever. Part of what contributes to the demand is what we see and how we’re shown. Tattoos used to be considered tacky and only appealed to the fringes of society. Now just about everyone and their dog has one. There are reality shows about them. ( this is not saying tats are bad. This is simply an example of people wanting what they see, and enough people following trends until it becomes mainstream) We’ve banned ads for smoking. Why? We’ve banned TV ads for guns. Why? But we can’t ban things that are entertaining advertizements for violence? Why the hell not?
You don’t think being saturated with violent images every day of your life has any significant contribution to a culture of violence. Actually…I don’t. I see a huge number of violent images. I enjoy lots of them. I’ve never committed a violent act (well, except for hitting my little sister when we were kids, but I stand by that; she totally had it coming). The same is true for most people I know. If violent images caused violence, there would be a lot more violence in the UK, as has been pointed out. Or being saturated with racist images don’t significantly contribute to a racist culture. Culture is different from action. A racist society produces a racist culture, not the other way round. Misogynist cultural products don’t cause misogyny; they are caused by it. I want to see evidence, not rhetoric, if you’re making a case for censorship. And no, I don’t think that going out and buying a gun in the wake of this most recent shooting is “weird.” It seems like a pretty clear fear-response. Not necessarily a logical, or well-thought-through one, but not an unusual one, either. Other countries have far less gun violence even though they glorify violence in their cultural products just as much as we do. Violent images serve many, many purposes: adrenaline rush, catharsis, enacting interior emotions. There’s a real difference between fantasy and reality, and it’s a mark of pro-censorship forces that they can’t distinguish between them. But I can, I do, and I will.
While we are trying to resolve the gun issue, we can also start restricting things such as violent video games and movies. Start heavily fining companies that create violent images. Oh hells no. I’ll freely admit that I take 1st Amendment rights way more seriously than 2nd, and that tramples all over them. Much better to take the route of making violence explicitly not okay in real life than pretend your normal human being doesn’t understand that The Matrix isn’t real. No peaceable-minded person ever accidentally killed someone with a movie like they do with guns everyday. And c’mon, public entertainment used to be hangings in the village square; we’re not way more violent-minded now than we used to be. We’re just now individually packing heat that puts small countries to shame. Let’s focus on that specific change before trying to suppress human nature too much.
But we can’t ban things that are entertaining advertizements for violence? Why the hell not? We certainly can. Countries do that all the time. It’s called censorship, and I’m strongly opposed to it. You’re also not addressing the issues, by the way, you feel so strongly about when it comes to banning guns: the enforcement of any censorship is going to hit poor people, nonwhite people, women, gay people the hardest. That’s how these things shake out. Every. single. time. So you’ll ban every horror movie, every action movie, every fairy tale, every Bugs Bunny cartoon, and you think that will work better than banning guns? Not only do I find this idea morally reprehensible, but I find it completely impractical. People enjoy stories about violence. They always have. And stories about violence hurt nobody. Is this what you’re suggesting? Guns don’t kill people; stories kill people?
Pheenobarbidoll, you would need to define violence in media. Which films would you ban? Who would decide that? What’s the research that underpins this? Can you point to any? I’ve read plenty of research about the effects of violence in the media on people and thee’s very little evidence that backs your idea. Again, if it’s an issue, why don’t other countries have the same problem when we’re all watching the same stuff? I think you’re confusing reality with imagery. People bought more guns after the Aurora shooting because it was real. It specifically wasn’t a set of images. I remember when the Yorkshire Ripper was caught he was asked if there was any film etc. which had influenced him. He said there was and it was ‘Crime and Punishment’. Logical when think about it. Raskilnikov kills someone because he can. So, do we ban that novel? Anything can be fodder for the murderous imagination.
And c’mon, public entertainment used to be hangings in the village square; we’re not way more violent-minded now than we used to be. Seriously. We used to publicly torture people. We used to bait bears. We used to watch gladiators and animals rip each other to bits. But somehow, now that all that violence that we’re watching is pretend, it’s the make-believe that’s to blame for all our problems?
Plus, I can’t wait to live in a society in which people repress every single violent thought and never get the catharsis of Jaws or Mad Max. That’s not a society just waiting to blow or anything.
I’ve also heard the theory that a certain amount of violent imagery exposure is healthy for a child’s development; they don’t have to play Grand Theft Auto but children’s stories do tend to have an element of the grisly or morbid about them. It’s an expression of the strong and occasionally violent feelings that small children can and do feel, and it acknowledges the existence of such dark thoughts. It’s part of learning to be a human, balancing those violent impulses with your rational and empathetic sides.
While we are trying to resolve the gun issue, we can also start restricting things such as violent video games and movies. Start heavily fining companies that create violent images. Anything children are exposed to should have violence removed from it. Rated R shouldn’t mean “except with a parent or permission”. It should be over 18, period. Gun control has been discussed to death and nothing of substance has come of it. There’s no reason to believe anything will happen soon. In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping us from working on the cultural aspect. So after all this your big solution is let’s ban movies and video games? Are you fucking serious? Gun access isn’t the big problem, it’s the movies? WTF? Yeah no, unless you think an American’s brain is sooooo different from a Canadian or an Aussie or Britt, that some how these movies poison American minds at an astronomically higher rate (or really at all) then it does just about anyone other comparable country I can’t believe in the same paragraph you say gun control isn’t going anywhere we need to censor movies instead. Can’t believe it.
Hey–can we ban Catcher in the Rye? Isn’t that the book that Mark David Chapman was into? I mean, I don’t think it caused the murder of John Lennon or anything, but Holden Caulfield is such an insufferable whiner and Salinger is such a pompous ass that I’ll take any excuse. People bought more guns after the Aurora shooting because it was real. It specifically wasn’t a set of images. Precisely. It’s not stories that beget violence. It’s violence that begets violence.
In all fairness, I’d really love to see a push to make violence less sexualized and glamorized… but totally banned? No.
Gun control has been discussed to death and nothing of substance has come of it. There’s no reason to believe anything will happen soon. In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping us from working on the cultural aspect. And I have to address this. Sure, gun control has been discussed to death but…censorship has never been tried? It’s been tried. It has never resulted in anything but oppression.
Holden Caulfield is such an insufferable whiner and Salinger is such a pompous ass that I’ll take any excuse. Seconded! And naturally we’ll ban Twilight while we’re at it. 🙂
Holden Caulfield is such an insufferable whiner and Salinger is such a pompous ass that I’ll take any excuse. Seconded! And naturally we’ll ban Twilight while we’re at it. 🙂 Y’all can pry my Catcher in the Rye from my cold dead hands!
I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. I thought I could avoid bringing this matter. I can’t hold it. To everyone, EVERYONE, who stated that there is a culture of violence to get rid of before considering introducing a sane gun policy: do you think the same about death penalty? Do you think the culture of violence should be eradicated before the USA gets able to do the only sane thing about death penalty: totally abolish it? Really? Do you know anything about causes and consequences? And loops?
Hey–can we ban Catcher in the Rye? Isn’t that the book that Mark David Chapman was into? Him and I think John Hinkley Jr, maybe a couple others. Does this eventually lead to us banning religious texts and going all Brave New World? “Was and will make me ill, I take a gram and only am.”
@Pheeno, Sorry, I didn’t realise that you were arguing for both approaches. I agree with pretty much everything else you say wrt the effects of strict restrictions being applied more harshly on POC.
To everyone, EVERYONE, who stated that there is a culture of violence to get rid of before considering introducing a sane gun policy: do you think the same about death penalty? Do you think the culture of violence should be eradicated before the USA gets able to do the only sane thing about death penalty: totally abolish it? Schmorgluck, this would be less disingenuous if there was a single place in the world that didn’t have a culture of violence. As it stands, there isn’t, so you’re pretty much chucking up shit for no reason.
If we’re going to ban any cultural product that promotes violence, I think we should ban The Bible. Its glorifying of genocide and torture as morally righteous do a lot more to encourage violence than Grand Theft Auto, especially since its biggest fans actually think the book IS reality and not just fantasy. Somehow censorship efforts never seem to actually target the cultural products that might be leading to the harms being deplored, however. A real culture of violence isn’t caused by passing fads or things at the margins. Its caused by a rot that’s at the essential core of a culture. . .the things pastors tell their congregants, that parents tell their kids, that teachers tell their students, etc.
Schmorgluck, this would be less disingenuous if there was a single place in the world that didn’t have a culture of violence. As it stands, there isn’t, so you’re pretty much chucking up shit for no reason. I’m not the one who brought this up. My post was a rebuttal. Learn to read.
Y’all can pry my Catcher in the Rye from my cold dead hands! You’re just supporting a culture of whiny, self-involved adolescence, you know.
Actually…I don’t. I see a huge number of violent images. I enjoy lots of them. I’ve never committed a violent act (well, except for hitting my little sister when we were kids, but I stand by that; she totally had it coming). The same is true for most people I know. If violent images caused violence, there would be a lot more violence in the UK, as has been pointed out. h ttp://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_tv_violence While TV violence is not the only cause of aggressive or violent behavior, it is clearly a significant factor. h ttp://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/11/28/violent-video-games-may-alter-brain-function-study “We found that functioning has been changed in the brain by violent video games,” said Dr. Yang Wang, an assistant research professor in the department of radiology and imaging sciences at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. “We found that activation [of an area of the brain that controls emotion] is decreased after playing violent video games.” But, exactly what those changes mean, if anything, is still unknown. “Clinically, we don’t know what these changes mean, but it does affect your brain somehow,” Wang said. “The pattern we found is similar to what we’ve seen in past research, and in adolescents is similar to what is seen in disruptive behavior disorders.” So…what’s the real problem with restricting the violence children are exposed to? Oh yes, you (an adult) want to watch Mad Max. How, exactly, would removing violent images from movie posters, magazines, game posters etc stop you, an adult, from purchasing such things? Covering the breasts of a woman on the cover of a skin mag doesn’t prevent any adult from purchasing it. Restricting access to the barrage of violent images kids are shown won’t actually hurt you. People aren’t born racist, or sexist or murderous. They’re taught. Very few people actually sit their children down and say ” Now listen, Black people are all criminals”. The kids learn from all the racist images and messages they receive from society around them. This includes media. Raise people in an environment that doesn’t glorify and romantisize such things and you’ll have a far better toehold in telling them they don’t actually require an assault rifle to protect themselves. Adults will still have access to zombies and death and gore. Maybe we just won’t wallow in it like violence junkies.
You will seriously never understand America is that’s the level of nuance you apply. @Bagelsan, only an inhabitant of flag-waving, “USA!USA!”-yelling, violent, ignorant, theocratic, racist, scientifically-illiterate, colonialist Shiny Beaconia, where every last one of the 312 million inhabitants agrees on absolutely every issue (as proven by the unanimity in the comments here), would assume that anybody has even the slightest interest in understanding America. Sheesh.
Sure. That’s what gangsters do–they make money from things that legit entrepreneurs can’t. But that’s not an argument against regulation. It’s like saying that making the sale of exotic species illegal means that gangsters will profit from smuggling in exotic species. Sure. But it will also make exotic species significantly harder to get. This is true, EG, but it’s a lot harder to smuggle exotic animals than to make bullets. To smuggle exotic animals you need to first get to where the animals are, track them down, trap them, find someone willing to fly you back, hide the animals in a way that customs won’t notice, etc. You can make bullets in an afternoon in a shed or a basement using supplies you picked up in a hardware store. While that, alone, isn’t an argument against regulation, I think that it’s a factor to consider. What’s the cost to enforce such a regulation? What’s the practical outcome? I’m not opposed to taxing bullets, but I think it’s a balance–there comes a point where the hassle of dealing with too much regulation and taxation is greater than the hassle of just doing it yourself or buying them from someone who did. But banning violent media? I’m… not a fan of that idea. In my experience, censorship, as EG pointed out, leads to oppression. It also leads to the people in power conveniently deciding that anything that casts them in a bad light suddenly falls under whatever guidelines are being used as the basis for censoring. Oh, POC are complaining about racism and the history of oppression in this country? Man, that’s some violent shit. We better get rid of those books.
1) I’m not arguing against banning. I’m bringing up complications that will (because they have in the past and present) screw a whole bunch of people who always get screwed and the problems with implementing bans without considering these complications. If a gun ban doesn’t even work on paper (because of said complications) how will they ever work in real life? You’re not arguing against banning, but your last sentence is a rhetorical question implying banning will never work. How exactly is this anything but an argument against banning?
You can make bullets in an afternoon in a shed or a basement using supplies you picked up in a hardware store. While that, alone, isn’t an argument against regulation, I think that it’s a factor to consider. Well, sure. And it’s even easier to make violent images. But I think a reduction in the ease of access to bullets, even a minor one, is not a terrible idea.
@Bagelsan, only an inhabitant of flag-waving, “USA!USA!”-yelling, violent, ignorant, theocratic, racist, scientifically-illiterate, colonialist Shiny Beaconia, where every last one of the 312 million inhabitants agrees on absolutely every issue (as proven by the unanimity in the comments here), would assume that anybody has even the slightest interest in understanding America. Sheesh. Oh, pumpkin. Unanimity in the comments here? It is to laugh. Also to laugh: a Brit tweaking anyone on colonialism.
Fat Steve- I totally agree that public opinion != speed of public change, though they are related. A lot depends on the system, and in the US, our systems are made so that change happens very slowly, except perhaps on a very local level. I say systems, because, contrary to Partial Human’s assertion, in the US we do indeed have MANY systems of government. Not just counties and Federal, but 50 state governments. If you spend any amount of time looking at US politics, then you see that there is serious tension between politics of the Federal government and the State governments. So there may be tiny differences in government between London and Nottingham, but there are huge gulfs in government between Washington State and Mississippi. It’s deeper than county or city politics, which effect things, but not as much as state politics. Even the way that law is passed is different. Like, in Washington, we have laws that can be brought to vote by the people. That wasn’t the case when I lived in Illinois. And it makes a big difference in the way that government is run. This isn’t too say that the US is unique, just that it’s a country with a strong state-based governmental system. And you say that everyone is just “from the UK”, but I have a Scottish friend who was pretty vehement that he was Scottish, so I’d be curious to hear other opinions on the matter. Also, WTF with the suggestion to ban movies and games? Free speech is a part of US law that I really like!
(To clarify — I personally am also an inhabitant of flag-waving etc. etc. etc. Shining Beaconia. I wonder if “Shining Beaconia” would be a good band name.)
Well, sure. And it’s even easier to make violent images. But I think a reduction in the ease of access to bullets, even a minor one, is not a terrible idea. And I think a reduction in the ease and access to violent imagery/movies/tv/games for children is not a terrible idea. There’s no need to eat, drink, live and breathe it. This isn’t a what about teh childrens!! concern either. This is “look at what we’re creating, look at what we’re turned our environment into….no one can survive this long”.
Oh, pumpkin. Unanimity in the comments here? It is to laugh. Also to laugh: a Brit tweaking anyone on colonialism. Some people apparently have trouble recognizing sarcasm.
And I think a reduction in the ease and access to violent imagery/movies/tv/games for children is not a terrible idea. It is a “what about teh children” argument, first of all. Second of all, yes, I understand what your position is. I just find it horrible, oppressive, and a fundamentally bad and impractical idea Children, like adults, have always enjoyed violent imagery and entertainment. No connection between that and actual violence has ever been shown, and there is no evidence whatsoever that restricting children’s access to cultural products makes us any safer.
And you say that everyone is just “from the UK”, but I have a Scottish friend who was pretty vehement that he was Scottish, so I’d be curious to hear other opinions on the matter. Sorry if I wasn’t clear but I just meant ‘from the UK’ in terms of being subject to the laws of the UK in the way that all of those people are ‘from the EU’. I didn’t mean to imply that within the UK, there are no different nationalities. However, until there is Scottish devolution, the Scottish government can’t ban same-sex partnerships, as it is UK law.
However, until there is Scottish devolution, the Scottish government can’t ban same-sex partnerships, as it is UK law. maybe im not following but where do you get the idea that the scots are interested in banning same-sex partnerships? the impression i got was that their party is quite liberal despite being nationalists, more liberal than labour/libdems even
It is a “what about teh children” argument, first of all. No, it’s not. I’m more concerned with repeating cycles of violence that have to stop somewhere and it’s easier to teach kids new ways than it is to convince adults to re-learn something. Just look at the responses against gun control, and even your very own response to the idea that maybe violence 24/7 doesn’t contribute to a healthy, non violent society. Children, like adults, have always enjoyed violent imagery and entertainment. People enjoy lots of shit that doesn’t contribute to a good environment to live in. and there is no evidence whatsoever that restricting children’s access to cultural products makes us any safer. There was no evidence anywhere that sexist jokes led to discrimination against women. Until there was. What we’re surrounded by colors our perception of the world. From body image to gender to violence to sex. We receive those messages. And they’re transmitted constantly. Access to weapons doesn’t account for the drive to reach for them.
Pheenobarbidoll, I haven’t participated in this thread, but I have been reading through it, and I found the points you brought up about the effects of gun control on POC to be valuable. My question is why you don’t see similar problems with censorship of violent imagery. Why do you trust the government to be able to handle censorhip any better than it handles gun control? Don’t you think that censorship will have a disproportionate effect on POC (as well as LGPT people, and other groups).
Pheeno, you still haven’t addressed the fact that many countries outside the US are watching the same damn TV.
Pheeno, you still haven’t addressed the fact that many countries outside the US are watching the same damn TV. Russia has a very high murder rate, and in 2003 had the highest homicide rate. They have very strict gun control. They also fall right behind the US in incarceration. So it’s not across the board access to guns. A society that gorges itself on hate, violence and death is a sick society. That one uses guns, another uses dirty bombs and another uses their bare hands isn’t as significant of a difference as some people want it to be. The source remains the same, no matter the tool. Keep feeding that wolf. You’re witnessing the results, whether you admit it or not.
Why do you trust the government to be able to handle censorhip any better than it handles gun control? I don’t. It’s going to have to be a result of ordinary citizens willing to sacrifice and willing to call for a change. Businesses refusing to sell over 18 games and movies to minors, voluntarily covering violent images, not selling ad space to them , parents making sure their children aren’t exposed etc etc. But it won’t happen. No one is willing to sacrifice a damn thing. Gun bans won’t happen for the same reason. Nothing will change. People will keep dying horribly. And everyone will point their fingers at others and never themselves.
http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Columbine:_Whose_Fault_Is_It%3F Still one of the best things ive read on the subject
Russia has a very high murder rate, and in 2003 had the highest homicide rate. They have very strict gun control. They also fall right behind the US in incarceration. So it’s not across the board access to guns. A society that gorges itself on hate, violence and death is a sick society. That one uses guns, another uses dirty bombs and another uses their bare hands isn’t as significant of a difference as some people want it to be. The source remains the same, no matter the tool. Keep feeding that wolf. You’re witnessing the results, whether you admit it or not. So that’s your answer? Our point that everyone else watches these same movies and doesn’t have the same problems, is to say nuh-uh look at Russia? Really? Seriously?
*everyone else watches the same movies and rarely have the same problems Because I’m sure one of the biggest causes of violence in Russia is fucking Hollywood action movies.
Russia has problems with rule of law – and highly sophisticated, organized criminal networks that, in most cases, operate with the actual blessing of local law enforcement officials. It’s not just gun laws that are not followed in Russia, it’s most laws. Many power structures are merged with shady criminal structures – so it only makes sense. I’m not really sure that Russia makes for a good example to use in this debate.
That one uses guns, another uses dirty bombs and another uses their bare hands isn’t as significant of a difference as some people want it to be. Actually, it’s a pretty significant difference. I’m much less likely to get killed when somebody uses bare hands. I’d call that significant, personally. And again, in the west, we gorge ourselves on far violent entertainment than we ever have before. Because what we have now is make-believe. That is another significant, drastic improvement. What most people who advocate censorship have in common is the idea that art works on a monkey see, monkey do level. It doesn’t. Kids don’t smoke pot or have sex because they read or watch or play stories about people who smoke or have sex. People don’t shoot each other because they read or watch or play stories about people who shoot each other. And there’s nothing to suggest that it does work that way, no matter how many different phrasings you use to say it does.
And again, in the west, we gorge ourselves on far violent entertainment than we ever have before. Far less, that should say.
But it won’t happen. No one is willing to sacrifice a damn thing. Gun bans won’t happen for the same reason. Nothing will change. People will keep dying horribly. And everyone will point their fingers at others and never themselves. And so the solution is not to try a damn thing! Except commenting online about how gun control will never ever work. Awesome.
No, no. You see, the solution is for people to voluntarily give up freedom of speech, which is totally cool, because individuals and businesses would never enact that in a racist, classist, misogynist way, and it’s not like freedom of speech is an essential human right or anything, whereas giving up guns is neither acceptable or practical.
Keep feeding that wolf. You’re witnessing the results, whether you admit it or not. The results? Like that the crime rate in the United States has been pretty steadily falling for a long time, now? That, despite being the terrible economic situation (something that usually corresponds to an increase in crime), murder rates have fallen five years running, and are approaching the lowest ever recorded in this country? The way you’re talking, one would think that we were hitting crime rates approaching record highs. Spree killings are a problem, and the fact that the murder rate in the United States is higher than other country’s is certainly cause for concern, but I think it’s important to keep some perspective on what is actually happening. Part of what is happening is increased media awareness. We have access to the news everywhere at all times in a way that we’ve never had before. Ever expanding internet use makes it much, much easier to keep up with what is happening around the country in ways that, even 15 or 20 years ago, we couldn’t. In addition, the news media have become much more invested in spectacle than reporting. So, when there is a terrible incident like this, they’re all over it, pushing it like it’s a movie of the week. Stories about bizarre murders or spree killings or violent kidnappings… the news media goes apeshit for that stuff, now. Which means it’s almost impossible not to know about them. It also leads to the perception that our society is crumbling and we’re living in a violent hellhole, when, in fact, crime rates keep falling. It’s certainly possible that these particular types of killings are happening more often, and we should definitely be working to figure out why and how we can prevent them, but I don’t think that the answer is going to be censorship. I think that the answer is probably going to involve difficult conversations about how we treat marginalized people, how we treat people who are depressed, how we deal with bullies and the people they bully, etc.
It’s going to have to be a result of ordinary citizens willing to sacrifice and willing to call for a change. Businesses refusing to sell over 18 games and movies to minors, voluntarily covering violent images, not selling ad space to them , parents making sure their children aren’t exposed etc etc. That’s not what you said before. You said high taxes, strict regulations, and laws regarding what movies minors are allowed to see.
Serioiusly….violent movies are where we focus our attention? How about the socioeconomic problems that result in the dehumanization of our fellow human beings. How about recent research that links that lack of human interaction and physical intimacy (not sex) with increases in teen violence. Do I think violent movies should be shown to children…hell no,but I also don’t think movies make kids violent.
You said high taxes, strict regulations, and laws regarding what movies minors are allowed to see. Which won’t happen either because they’re already regulated. R ratings for movies already exist and movie tickets are already ridiculously priced. Kids aren’t supposed to be able to purchase certain games and the V chip was invented. What no one has put the effort into is changing our cultural appetite for violence. See the issue yet?
The way you’re talking, one would think that we were hitting crime rates approaching record highs. You realize that not everyone in this country has noticed any change? There are places where life is lived in a violent hellhole? Reminds me of all the FB posts my NA activist friends made when Occupy Wall Street started. No one on the rez noticed a difference. And our crimes rates are higher, not lower. Can we please stop leaving out rez conditions when we talk about the US because last I checked, we’re in the US.
Serioiusly….violent movies are where we focus our attention? How about the socioeconomic problems that result in the dehumanization of our fellow human beings. How about recent research that links that lack of human interaction and physical intimacy (not sex) with increases in teen violence. Do I think violent movies should be shown to children…hell no,but I also don’t think movies make kids violent. Don’t be absurd; we violent Americans can’t differentiate between televison and real life! The problem here is solely violence in the media. Kids today with their Batmans and their GTAs and their Nerf darts.
Serioiusly….violent movies are where we focus our attention? Yes. When I give more examples like video games, posters, tv shows, billboards, advertising in commercials and magazines what I really mean is JUST MOVIES. And when I say all these things contribute to an unhealthy environment I actually mean ARE THE SOLE CAUSE. How about the socioeconomic problems that result in the dehumanization of our fellow human beings. Sure. Why can’t we also talk about what we’re shown is OK to do to these people that have been dehumanized? ( like, kill them.) How about recent research that links that lack of human interaction and physical intimacy (not sex) with increases in teen violence. Sure. Why can’t also talk about how they’re being supported in this with violent messages? When children play cowboys and Indians, where do they get the idea that killing Indians was the fun part? When white suburbanites arm themselves against possible intruders, who do they have in mind? A white guy or a black guy? Where do they have this idea reinforced? Think they’ve received any messages from any media sources? When Black people see themselves only filling out the role of Bad Guy, what message does that send? What message did Twilight send to little girls about boyfriends? What message do the Disney Princess movies send? What does it say about people when one of the most beloved super heroes goes on destructive rampages because he got mad? Contributing to, aiding, supporting, allowing to flourish does not = CAUSES. And it sure as shit doesn’t = has no impact whatsoever
Don’t be absurd; we violent Americans can’t differentiate between televison and real life! You couldn’t differentiate between dime store novels about savage Indians and real life.
Which won’t happen either because they’re already regulated. R ratings for movies already exist and movie tickets are already ridiculously priced. Kids aren’t supposed to be able to purchase certain games and the V chip was invented. What no one has put the effort into is changing our cultural appetite for violence. See the issue yet? You keep saying that there’s a culture of violence like there’s some disagreement about that issue and we all needed to be enlightened. We all, from the beginning, have agreed that this is not just a gun issue and that there are underlying causes, including a culture that encourages and fosters violence, that also need to be addressed. But when you disagree with people’s suggestions for fixing a problem, they want to know what you think should be done. And every time you give an example and people point out problems with it, you say “that’s because there’s a culture of violence!” It’s circular and unproductive. If you think that the real problem is a cultural obsession with violence and don’t know how to fix it — well, you’re far from alone there. No one has a good solution to a problem this complex. But you’ve shot down every idea anyone else has proposed as impossible or designed to fail or not addressing the real issue. If none of those things are worth trying, and we all agree that someone needs to try something, then propose something you think might work and stick with it. If you think that banning all violence in video games and movies is the solution, I would at least be interested in that discussion. Instead, you suggest that, and then some people disagree, and then you say “well of course it won’t work because culture of violence!” I can’t get behind that level of defeatism. Something needs to be done. I’d rather work on identifying the most-promising option and figuring out how to minimize the ways it might be harmful and then advocating for that.
So does anyone wanna see how scary blaming “Hollywood” can really get? Read this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/hurt-letter-christopher-nolan-sean-penn-warner-bro/?page=all
You keep saying that there’s a culture of violence like there’s some disagreement about that issue and we all needed to be enlightened. The disagreement seems to be over what’s contributing to the culture of violence….and then only when it mentions something people like. Much the same as the disagreement over gun control. But I like guns and humans have always liked weapons is the exact same as but I like violent stories and humans have always liked violent stories. If you think that banning all violence in video games and movies is the solution, I would at least be interested in that discussion. Instead, you suggest that, and then some people disagree, and then you say “well of course it won’t work because culture of violence!” I can’t get behind that level of defeatism. I’ve said it has to be several approaches not just one. Banning all the things is self defeating because you haven’t touched on the root cause, or the saturation of violent messages that support that root cause along with the desire to have tools that are used. You can’t just say ” You can no longer have X, because Y happens” without doing something about the desire to have X and having people constantly told that X is good, and Y is entertaining.
But I like guns and humans have always liked weapons is the exact same as but I like violent stories and humans have always liked violent stories. Oh like hell it is. There’s a big difference between liking something fictional and liking (more specifically liking having something) that can actually fucking kill people.
You couldn’t differentiate between dime store novels about savage Indians and real life. Way to assume my ethnicity. I’m well aware of the difference between life and fiction, and I’m also well aware that I’m not going to go on a killing spree just because I like violent movies.
You still haven’t addressed why other countries (other then you boogeyman Russia) can watch Hollywood violent films and not go kill happy like the US (relatively speaking)
Oh like hell it is. There’s a big difference between liking something fictional and liking (more specifically liking having something) that can actually fucking kill people. Remember, Lara, guns don’t kill people, violent fiction kills people. If you disagree, then your worldview must have been formed by dimestore novels about savage Indians.
Much the same as the disagreement over gun control. But I like guns and humans have always liked weapons is the exact same as but I like violent stories and humans have always liked violent stories. Funny how the last time I read a Matthew Reilly novel nobody around me just spontaneously dropped dead…let alone 14 people. Jesus. Look, I get your point about a culture of violence. But, um, you’re not special. You’re really not. Everywhere has a culture of violence. Every country has incredibly oppressed populations (google “Narmada Andolan” if you really don’t believe me). Every damn country in the world practices internal colonisation. And pretty much only a handful have spree killings on the scale and consistency that you lot have, and nobody quite on the joyous scale of the US. And you can’t blame all of that on people wanting to persecute POC, either, sorry. Not when most of the spree killers, AND most of the victims, tend to be white. But of course it doesn’t have anything to do with the guns, or how you can kill/wound way more people with a gun than with a knife, and selling assault rifles is the only goddamn solution.
Also btw just for the record (though I imagine you won’t care, hell you might even be overjoyed), your proposal (which I imagine you feel is relatively modest) of essentially slapping NC-17 on anything remotely violent (I’m guessing this includes the Nolan batman films and other currently PG 13 films with violence) would in fact have the same effect as a flat out ban. NC-17 is a death sentence for any film (look it up, NC 17 means most theatres won’t touch your movie). This in turn means these films won’t make money, which means they’ll become too risky to produce, which means we’d be left with a crap load of awful family films, comedies (though not R rated ones, I’d imagine they’ll become NC-17 too) and the few dramas that can pass off as sufficiently non violent. Also I note that your rating suggestion is actually worse then NC-17, as you’d have it become NC-18. Congratulations you just killed the movies industry.
You still haven’t addressed why other countries (other then you boogeyman Russia) can watch Hollywood violent films and not go kill happy like the US (relatively speaking) Why don’t other countries invade the world looking for oil? Why don’t other countries spend the same amount on their military? Why don’t other countries assume they’re the center of the world? Why don’t other countries have a problem with a Black President? A woman President? As many people in prison? We’re all just the same after all. We see the same things, read the same stories and watch the same tv!
. This in turn means these films won’t make money, which means they’ll become too risky to produce, which means we’d be left with a crap load of awful family films, comedies (though not R rated ones, I’d imagine they’ll become NC-17 too) and the few dramas that can pass off as sufficiently non violent. Well isn’t that just tragic. However will we survive? I might not get to see my beloved zombie shows. I might as well lay down and die right now.
Isn’t (USian) societal violence a feedback loop? I mean, you don’t enact policies that result in dehumanization if you ALREADY value those lives your policies marginalize, right? So how *is* it that you grow up to be a Mittens or Dubya (or Zimmerman or Holmes) in the first place? By growing up in an environment with an emphatically impoverished world view. By constantly receiving messages that (Rich) Straight White Dudes are the default human, and everyone else are your serfs. Bombard kids with images of objectified, enpornulated women, they grow up internalizing women as less-than sex objects. Bombard kids with images of Straight White Dudes ruling the world, they grow up internalizing SWD as the model to aspire. Bombard kids with images of violence as admirable and legitimate problem solving … and what do you expect to see? The best meta analysis to date shows that violent video games ARE a risk factor for violent behavior both in the short and long term. Part of the mechanism of action is that they negatively impact empathy and effect desensitization to violence (Anderson, Psychological Bulletin 2010). It’s not so much “making” kids violent as *preparing* kids to expect violence, to want to resort to violence, to feel that violence is a NORM. Banning shit, besides being problematic w/r/t the First Amendment, misses the point. Video games and guns in an empathetic society would not be expected to be a problem – which of course, is what pheeno’s been saying. Teaching children MORE empathy is needed. Our whole culture could use more empathy, really. Setting up a society that values equality, that is NOT gamed to benefit RSWDs – or any one group – and that glorifies behavioral flexibility, compassion, and compromise over dogma, bootstraps, and My Way or the Highway is of course the ultimate answer. Our government is waging war in 5 countries, do you think there is any actual interest in making people LESS violent? Austerity and BOOTSTRAPS! are being foisted on us so the plutocrats can continue to extract every last drop of our economic and natural resources, do you think there is any actual interest in fostering empathy? Unless and until there is a populist revolution to stop this runaway train, there is no ban that will help. But, again, to boost what pheenobarbidoll already has said (and said and said), it’s going to require giving up some personal safety, taking on risk, and taking responsibility for taking our democracy back. From Bill Moyers’ “Welcome to the Plutocracy” ” But let’s be clear: Even with most Americans on our side, the odds are long. We learned long ago that power and privilege never give up anything without a struggle. Money fights hard, and it fights dirty. Think Rove. The Chamber. The Kochs. We may lose. It all may be impossible. But it’s OK if it’s impossible. Hear the former farmworker and labor organizer Baldemar Velasquez on this. … They took on North Carolina growers – and won, using transnational organizing tacts that helped win Velasquez a “genius” award from the MacArthur Foundation. … Velasquez says: “It’s OK if it’s impossible; it’s OK! Now I’m going to speak to you as organizers. Listen carefully. The object is not to win. That’s not the objective. The object is to do the right and good thing. “
If you disagree, then your worldview must have been formed by dimestore novels about savage Indians. Oh I’m sorry, I must have just pulled that one out of my ass. Because people don’t believe what they read and see and always differentiate between reality and fiction! That’s why racial stereotypes are so harmless. And why it’s not really a big deal if science books promote creation not evolution. Porn is simply harmelss fiction, not reality and has absolutely nothing to contribute negatively towards women. After all, there’s no evidence anywhere to suggest that throughout history people have had a little issue with that whole fantasy/fiction thing.
Lara, how dare you care about censorship in the film industry. You spoiled, privileged monster. Now let me go back to avoiding giving an actual answer on what makes the US so much more suspectible to our awful, evil violent television than the rest of the world.
Romney on Aurora: “Well, this person shouldn’t have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what’s essential, to improve the lots of the American people.” Pheeno, when your point so closely resembles Mittens’ that I do a double-take… I normally really like your posts and agree with your thoughts on things fully, but you’re so far off from the practicalities of “bigger weapons=more damage, restrict the goddamn weapons” that I’m kind of baffled by your ideas in this thread.
So because some people will pick up stereotypes from fiction, we should censor fiction for everyone. And it’s fine to assume a person is influenced by fiction and has no idea about anything just because they disagree with your point of view. Okay, then.
Why don’t other countries invade the world looking for oil? Why don’t other countries spend the same amount on their military? Why don’t other countries assume they’re the center of the world? Why don’t other countries have a problem with a Black President? A woman President? As many people in prison? We’re all just the same after all. We see the same things, read the same stories and watch the same tv! Ahh so you admit then that America’s cultural problem really has nothing to do with works of fiction and everything to do with real world values and fucked up priorities. Hey you were the one that said violent fiction makes humans more violent. Never knew your argument was violence fiction makes only well and those fucking Russians ) violent Wait wait wait I got it the cold war has completely mutated both American and Russian’s brains, so that their brains are actually physiologically different then the brains of Brits, Aussies, Canadians etc… Hence they and only they can be made violent by the villainy that is Hollywood There I have solved the case
Thank you Irish Up. Bombard kids with images of objectified, enpornulated women, they grow up internalizing women as less-than sex objects. Bombard kids with images of Straight White Dudes ruling the world, they grow up internalizing SWD as the model to aspire. Bombard kids with images of violence as admirable and legitimate problem solving … and what do you expect to see? Exactly.
Pheeno, when your point so closely resembles Mittens’ that I do a double-take… Even a stopped clock….
We’re all just the same after all. We see the same things, read the same stories and watch the same tv! ….which, if anything, suggests that the TV and the stories aren’t the root cause, yes? Or else everywhere would be just like the US. There’s, like, 60,000 things that are unique to USian culture (let’s start with Manifest motherfucking Destiny, move on to exceptionalism and imperialism, etc, etc) that are fucking you – and enabling you to fuck us – over. Give dismantling those a shot instead.
Even a stopped clock…. Lol, fair enough. I’m sorry if I’m coming across annoyed, I just…really have such a different cultural background about guns that this whole discussion feels really scary to me.
Like I said before this thread is ridiculous. Ban movies before we work on gun control, we need to remove fiction before we work on limiting the real thing. Guns don’t kill people, movies make people want to kill people. What the holy fuck is going on here
Now let me go back to avoiding giving an actual answer on what makes the US so much more suspectible to our awful, evil violent television than the rest of the world. If I had to hazard a guess- An overabundance of fear and privilege for starters. Do other countries excuse large scale terrorist acts like 911 with ” THEY’RE JUST JEALOUS OF OUR FREEDOM!!!!” No. But we do. I don’t see a whole lot of people from other countries screaming about unworthy people wanting to take what’s mine and why can’t they just help themselves and stop being lazy and the rest of the world is populated with socialist lazy thieves and heathens. And if they can’t afford health care or dare to not be here legally then they should actually be allowed to DIE. And that’s not even getting into what appears to be a concentrated effort to dumb the hell out of everyone starting in the sorry excuse we call public schools. Conformity is the name of that game, critical thinking is not.
er my comment in moderation has a really bad word omission so I’m just gonna repost it cause to it’ll be next to impossible to correct later. Mods feel free to either delete the earlier one or leave it in moderation forever heh Why don’t other countries invade the world looking for oil? Why don’t other countries spend the same amount on their military? Why don’t other countries assume they’re the center of the world? Why don’t other countries have a problem with a Black President? A woman President? As many people in prison? We’re all just the same after all. We see the same things, read the same stories and watch the same tv! Ahh so you admit then that America’s cultural problem really has nothing to do with works of fiction and everything to do with real world values and fucked up priorities. Hey you were the one that said violent fiction makes humans more violent. Never knew your argument was violence fiction makes only Americans (well and those fucking Russians ) violent Wait wait wait I got it the cold war has completely mutated both American and Russian brains, so that they are actually physiologically different then the brains of Brits, Aussies, Canadians etc… Hence they and only they can be made violent by the villainy that is Hollywood There I have solved the case
Anderson’s article is hardly bullet-proof. In fact, it’s been strongly criticized for methodological biases likely to inflate the perceived effect of the video games, and for the weakness of its findings despite those biases. In fact, according to another researcher, In his research, Patrick Markey, PhD, determined that a certain combination of personality traits can help predict which young people will be more adversely affected by violent video games. “Previous research has shown us that personality traits like psychoticism and aggressiveness intensify the negative effects of violent video games and we wanted to find out why,” said Markey. Go figure. People are complex and different with a number of different traits, and they can be affected differently by the same things. Who would have thought? Cultural products do not have a simple effect on people. Kids don’t learn to smoke from the movies; they learn it from parents. Similarly, they don’t learn lack of empathy from video games; they learn it from their parents and how we treat other people in real life.
Guns don’t kill people, movies make people want to kill people Hey, don’t forget the Satanic backward masking in heavy metal music that makes kids kill themselves and each other. Welcome to 1985!
which, if anything, suggests that the TV and the stories aren’t the root cause, yes? Or else everywhere would be just like the US. I’m not saying Tv and movies are the root cause. I’m saying they contribute to the overall problem. Take entitlement and feed it messages that violence is the way to solve your problem and you get a violent response when those feelings of entitlement are threatened. Take fear and feed it messages that violence is the way to solve your problem and you get a violent response when fear is felt. Take privilege and feed it messages that violence is the way to solve your problem and you get a violent response when that privilege is threatened. Take plain old human nature and tell it that not only are certain things the way to problem solve, but they’re entertaining as well, and feel good...you get a whole lot of violence in return. Then you get more messages that say violence is good and the way to solve problems and hey!on top of all that it’s FUN and entertaining. Throw a dash of “it’s a dog eat dog world” mentality in that mix and you get a society that turns to violence as the default.
I love that gun control is just too damn impossible to even really consider but getting rid of all traces of violence in fiction, is not only an obtainable goal, but one of your priorities.
Yes, pheeno, I’m not disagreeing with your statements. What I’m taking exception to is your idea that this isn’t a problem that happens EVERYWHERE. EVERYWHERE HAS THESE ISSUES, Christfuck, how is this difficult to grasp? But everywhere does not have spree killings that are staged with weapons of mass fucking murder. That is a USian problem (largely), caused by awful gun control policies that are wrapped up in “MAH RIGHTS” rhetoric. Also, may I point out that the end result of “working on culture first” is that until it’s done, racists are still going to have easy, convenient access – within a racist framework, with approval from racist oversight systems! – to weapons of mass murder, with which they will disproportionately target… wait for it… well clearly I mean white people, because POCs are only adversely affected by gun control laws, according to you.
But everywhere does not have spree killings that are staged with weapons of mass fucking murder. No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
110 famiclidies in the US, more then all of Europe’s totals and only 21 less then the rest of the world (excluding Europe naturally) Just saying.
@Pheeno, From your list: Americas 116 spree killings, population 906 million (2008) Asia 121 spree killings, population 2.1 BILLION (2008) So, you are two point something times as likely to die in a spree killing in the Americas as in Asia. Well done proving MY point. Yeah, totally, there’s no disparity in those populations at all. (Particularly when you take into account that there are active war zones in Asia (Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Maoist Nepal among others just in South Asia), and none in the US/Canada, which take up around 400 million of that number.) The US does not appear in the top five of racial/religious/political killings. In the top ten, it appears once. On the other hand, of the top 5 in school killings, three are from the US. (But we all know what systematic oppressive racists those pre-teens are, amirite? Those are totally the scary scary people – influenced by their toddler-age viewings ofTom and Jerry, no doubt – that us POC need to defend ourselves from, not the Zimmermans of the world.) Oh, and! Total number killed in US school killings from the top ten: 104 Total number killed in ALL others from the top ten: 76. Yeah, sure, dude, there’s no problem with your gun laws. Your gun laws are A-okay. There’s no need to control guns until we control everything else.
You know your link basically shows that it happens way more in the US right? But everywhere does not have spree killings that are staged with weapons of mass fucking murder.
Sorry, that should be zones of conflict, not war zones. There’s spree killings going on aplenty in Kashmir (which also, btw, has the subcontinent’s most booming gun industry), but there’s no declared war in the area.
But everywhere does not have spree killings that are staged with weapons of mass fucking murder. And now you’re mixing up who’s saying what. All right, so there’s spree killings going on in other countries… fair enough, one example disproves a “never”. I take what I said back. Would you like to address my statistics, now? I can see my little cousin in India off to her elementary school without worrying that one of her classmates is going to blow her head off with an automatic because he got an F in history or the teacher called him a prick or something. But I guess that’s not as important to you as UR RIGHTS. Keep right on with the “fix everything before installing gun controls” train, how’s it working for you so far?
Yeah, totally, there’s no disparity in those populations at all. You weren’t snarkily remarking about disparities, you were snarkily remarking about But everywhere does not have spree killings that are staged with weapons of mass fucking murder. From the looks of it, just damn near everywhere does have spree killings staged with weapons of mass fucking murder. So, you are two point something times as likely to die in a spree killing in the Americas as in Asia. I’m 5 times more likely to be shot by the cops in America. Accidentally, of course. But the murder rate for cops is lower than most large cities homicide murders. Are they just dealing with fewer people with access to weapons?
. Keep right on with the “fix everything before installing gun controls” train, how’s it working for you so far? I’ve said it has to be several approaches not just one. Banning all the things is self defeating because you haven’t touched on the root cause, or the saturation of violent messages that support that root cause along with the desire to have tools that are used. You can’t just say ” You can no longer have X, because Y happens” without doing something about the desire to have X and having people constantly told that X is good, and Y is entertaining.
@pheeno, I think you missed my point. If you banned all the violent movies in the US, I don’t think that would stop even one violent incident. Violence doesn’t come from external sources, it comes from inside…when people are angr or frustrated. Do our cultural artifacts feed into our beliefs about entitlement and dehumanization…absolutely, but that belief structure is not solely dependent on media as a source. Other things including the views of our peersand parents are far more important in creating that belief structure than any movie or television show could ever be. Changing one piece of that wihtout the others is entirely irrelevant. And the flip side, thecost of doing so is that many people would not be able to describe the violence they experience…so as an approach I think its completelyflawed.
But I guess that’s not as important to you as UR RIGHTS. Keep right on with the “fix everything before installing gun controls” train, how’s it working for you so far? 1)where in the world have I said that owning a gun is my right or brought up gun rights? 2) no one has actually tried to approach it the way I’ve suggested.
And yet you want a defacto ban on violent fiction (while not showing any signs of even really wanting to consider even basic gun control)
absolutely, but that belief structure is not solely dependent on media as a source No, it’s not. But media is not an insignificant factor that can just be ignored. And the flip side, thecost of doing so is that many people would not be able to describe the violence they experience…so as an approach I think its completelyflawed. Ok just so I’m clear- are you saying that without access to violent imagery we wouldn’t be able to describe acts of violence we experience?
Can we please stop leaving out rez conditions when we talk about the US because last I checked, we’re in the US. Wow, that was an incredibly disingenous bait-and-switch. You suggested our society is becoming more violent due to the proliferation of violent media. Pointing out that no, in fact, our society is becoming less and less violent does not erase the fact that in some places, violence continues. Your rebuttal re: the rez is utterly unrelated to the question of whether violent media makes populations more violent, and you know it. You are consistently shifting your positions, employing extraordinarily basic logical fallacies (we didn’t know that sexist jokes caused mistreatment of women, until we discovered they did; therefore, the fact that we don’t know if violent movies cause violence means they do), and inserting irrelevancies. If you don’t have an actual argument grounded in evidence and facts, then please just admit it and move on.
(while not showing any signs of even really wanting to consider even basic gun control) We have basic gun control. And I’d be all for a total weapons ban if it could be implemented correctly, and not as a knee jerk reaction with very little consideration of the actual logistics of it given that the wrong approach could very well lead to the very thing we’re trying to stop. Murder of innocent people. SWAT does not show up to remove violent posters from your walls. If (for example) all violent posters were banned, they wouldn’t start ripping them from your walls. SWAT/ATF already shows up to remove weapons from people’s homes so the claim that it doesn’t have to be that way (which has been made) is like saying the sun doesn’t have to shine. Well that’s nice, but the sun does shine. Knowing this is being translated into – you don’t even want to consider basic gun control. How am I not considering it because I see something very very bad that could happen during it? That to me at least seems like some pretty careful consideration and thought behind it. I can see how banning movies/tv have issues too. But do those issues lead to the ATF burning you alive in your home? What I WANT isn’t perfection. What I WANT though is something better than what’s being proposed so far. I want results that last, get fewer people killed in the process of implementing them and have a better chance at really working. And no, I don’t actually care how it gets done in some other country because I do not live in some other country, I live here and as has been pointed out (by someone you’ve been agreeing with), not all people react the same to the same things.
To expand the problem with what you said: it’s basically the equivalent of “we can’t say Americans in 2012 are on average more literate than in 1800, because look here’s a person who never went to school and can’t read.” You seem to be having a really hard time understand that a single exception doesn’t disprove statistical trends, both with the “Russia has violence therefore everywhere is violent” and “there is still lots of violence on reservations therefore violence has not declined in the US” posts. Here is a great resource which hopefully will be educational; I strongly reccomend taking a look, at least (sincerely- no sarcasm intended).
Ok just so I’m clear- are you saying that without access to violent imagery we wouldn’t be able to describe acts of violence we experience? We wouldn’t be able to use violent imagery to describe the acts of violence we experience. We couldn’t even document the violence we experience through a visual medium.
I’ve said it has to be several approaches not just one. Banning all the things is self defeating because you haven’t touched on the root cause, or the saturation of violent messages that support that root cause along with the desire to have tools that are used. This, of course, explains why there’s no violence in the Amish or Quiverfull communities, which forbid pretty much all the media/books/pop culture that promote violence… Except OH WAIT. Yes, a culture of violence promotes the use of easily available weapons of mass murder. (Yes, guns are weapons of mass murder in a way that knives aren’t, simply because I can use a knife to do other things than kill people, or shoot at targets that prepare me to better kill people. Unless I made last night’s stew with a rifle and just didn’t know it.) Take the weapons away, though, and you’ve decentralised violence enough that you can break it down further. Oh, and incidentally? Violence preceded guns. Violence preceded knives. Violence preceded anything but claws and teeth, frankly. Gun control is pretty much damage control. There’s never going to be a complete lack of violence in society, no matter what people do, but the difference between one guy taking out one guy with a knife, and one guy murdering fourteen people in under a minute with a semiautomatic is thirteen lives, and maybe that doesn’t mean much to you, but it does to me.
Wow, that was an incredibly disingenous bait-and-switch. No, it was assuming here people had a little more common knowledge and didn’t constantly forget to include marginalized people’s in their considerations. Which you (and others) have shown me pretty clearly is not the case. I, unlike you, don’t have the luxury of forgetting certain things or deciding they don’t get to count or are the exception. Your rebuttal re: the rez is utterly unrelated to the question of whether violent media makes populations more violent, and you know it. I think I may have to add a signature to every single post since people don’t understand the difference between CAUSING something and CONTRIBUTING to something. Either that or I’m going to start taking credit for creating every single thing I’ve ever contributed to. Rescuing animals? I’ve contributed to that so I created the whole idea! I’ve contributed to education. My god, I am the CAUSE of education!
Other comment went into mod… Can we please stop leaving out rez conditions when we talk about the US because last I checked, we’re in the US. Uh, I agree with amblingalong, this is incredibly disingenuous. Of course crime rates aren’t even, of course they are worse in reservations, given the level of racist as well as lateral violence in NA communities. But it’s a little like saying that all of India’s crime rates should be compared to Kashmir’s crime rates because it has the highest, or all of its rape stats should be compiled from Rajasthan, because it has the worst. Bullshit.
I, unlike you, don’t have the luxury of forgetting certain things or deciding they don’t get to count or are the exception. Saying that something is abnormally high/low is not the same as saying it’s an exception. Indians suffer from higher risks of diabetes, it doesn’t make us an exception, it puts us at an end of the bell curve, ffs. It’s not that they don’t count, it’s that they’re only a part of the greater statistic.
We wouldn’t be able to use violent imagery to describe the acts of violence we experience. We couldn’t even document the violence we experience through a visual medium. And this is clearly an issue that needs to be thought about, and included in any discussion yes? Not ignored so I can get immediate results.
And this is clearly an issue that needs to be thought about, and included in any discussion yes? Not ignored so I can get immediate results. Yes…which is why I brought it up.
No, it was assuming here people had a little more common knowledge and didn’t constantly forget to include marginalized people’s in their considerations. Which you (and others) have shown me pretty clearly is not the case. I, unlike you, don’t have the luxury of forgetting certain things or deciding they don’t get to count or are the exception. Have you had a chance to follow the link to the statistics primer? It’ll help with this conversation. Imagining you are painting your house white (it was blue before). You are only halfway done; the first floor is all white, but the second floor is still blue. Now, consider: 1) Is the house more white, on average, than it was before you started painting? Yes. 2) Is some of the house still just as blue as ever? Yes. 3) Do there two facts contradict each other? No. Hopefully the parallel is clear. Saying that the overall US crime rate has fallen – does not contradict the assertion that there are places which have not become less violent over time. And no, it does not exclude marginalized people to say “The US has become more literate, with less violent crime, over the last two hundred years” just because those trends are less true among marginalized people than privileged people. Saying that something is abnormally high/low is not the same as saying it’s an exception. Exactly. By pheeno’s logic, saying “x% of people have diabetes” is mariginalizing NA peoples, because they’re more likely than x% to have diabetes.
Saying that something is abnormally high/low is not the same as saying it’s an exception. That high is static, though so when you’re saying that violence is decreasing in general it does kinda mean ” oh, except for them”. It’s not disingenuous to say ” Don’t forget us” or desire to have the overall positive affects actually include positive affects for those over here at the low end of the bell curve.
Yes…which is why I brought it up. You mean it’s not just you saying MY RIGHTS or You Don’t Even Want To Consider Media Bans or You’re Just Arguing Against Me?
I just had a conversation on FB where I contributed to helping a person learn dog potty training techniques. I am the CAUSE of dog potty training!
You mean it’s not just you saying MY RIGHTS or You Don’t Even Want To Consider Media Bans or You’re Just Arguing Against Me? First, I never said either of those things to you…so whatever. Second, media and gun bans are not comparable or even analogous. You ban guns to prevent the amount of harm a violent person can do to others and *maybe* reduce the impetus for further violence. You change media to change culture which is not effective in isolation.
I just had a conversation on FB where I contributed to helping a person learn dog potty training techniques. I am the CAUSE of dog potty training! The evidence you have cited that violent movies contribute to violence in society is that a) Russia also has violent movies and violence and b) we didn’t realize sexist jokes causes sexism against women for a long time. Yeah, contribution is a lower bar than causation. You’re still wildly striking out. And even if you weren’t, there are all kinds of things that contribute to negative social phenomanon- like, say, sugary drinks contributing to diabetes, which kills way more people in this country than even guns. Doesn’t justify censorship.
First, I never said either of those things to you…so whatever + No, but you made my point easier to get across to those who have. Seeing issues that need to be considered more carefully does not mean I’m simply refusing to consider gun control at all!!! Just like seeing issues that I had not thought of did not mean you were refusing to consider media bans at all!!! It means you considered them from an angle that *I* had not, and presented it to me. The fact that it would present issues with the ability to define and describe violence committed and hide atrocities committed is not something to ignore. THAT is a legitimate issue with media bans/restrictions. That is important. That negatively impacts lives in a serious manner beyond ” well I won’t get to watch shit get blown up”. That is a reason, unlike ” well we ALL like this and we ALL watch this so it must be fine”. And THAT? Changes my mind. Telling me how people like it or it’s always been this way or if works here so it will work everywhere does not. So if the resulting harm than banning violent media could lead to makes you resistant to banning all violent media then why on earth wouldn’t this? (im quoting from a post still in mod) And I’d be all for a total weapons ban if it could be implemented correctly, and not as a knee jerk reaction with very little consideration of the actual logistics of it given that the wrong approach could very well lead to the very thing we’re trying to stop. Murder of innocent people. SWAT does not show up to remove violent posters from your walls. If (for example) all violent posters were banned, they wouldn’t start ripping them from your walls. SWAT/ATF already shows up to remove weapons from people’s homes so the claim that it doesn’t have to be that way (which has been made) is like saying the sun doesn’t have to shine. Well that’s nice, but the sun does shine and I can see how banning movies/tv have issues too. But do those issues lead to the ATF burning you alive in your home? What I WANT isn’t perfection. What I WANT though is something better than what’s being proposed so far. I want results that last, get fewer people killed in the process of implementing them and have a better chance at really working.
Yeah, contribution is a lower bar than causation. How nice of you to finally notice. like, say, sugary drinks contributing to diabetes, which kills way more people in this country than even guns. Sugary drinks don’t tell you that murder is fun. Diabetes doesn’t tell you that armed invaders are just waiting to kidnap your daughter, shoot your wife and turn you into a vigilante hero that blows up 10 city blocks.
Also: I think that there’s a difference between sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. media and “violent” media. Sexism is inherently bad. Racism is inherently bad. And so on. Now, I’ve known things that I thought had redeeming value despite being homophobic, say. There are lots of books and movies where the prose is particularly beautiful or the cinematography is brilliant, even though the author reveals some gross sexism, for example. but I can’t think of anything where I thought that “That racism sure is good.” Certainly there are times where it’s debated whether something is racist, but almost nobody doubts whether racist things are bad, do they? Violence just doesn’t seem to line up that way. I don’t believe that violence is inherently bad. Violence is a very, very broad concept that includes a lot of behaviors of varying moral values. As far as violent media goes, you’re talking about everything from Saving Private Ryan or Rambo to Pac-Man eating a ghost or Bugs Bunny hitting Daffy with a pie. Some kinds of violence are bad, but I don’t see how all violence is bad. Playing the drums is violent by virtue of the fact that you’re beating on something with a stick. Doesn’t seem like it’s inherently bad to me, though. Is yelling violent? Certainly it’s violent if you hit someone. Is it bad to hit someone? What if they’re trying to attack you? What if they’re attacking someone else? Football (both real football and the US version) is pretty violent. A snowball fight is violent. All things depend on context. And on subjective experience. I like some games that are very violent–shooting zombies is definitely violent. It doesn’t bother me, but I know plenty of people for whom that holds no interest, and a couple people where it might even be triggering due to the guns and gore involved. I’m not saying that the ways that violence is portrayed in this country are never problematic. Absolutely not. But, I’m not convinced that censorship is the best option, and I’m not convinced that it’s as simple as saying “Violent media makes us violent.”
Diabetes doesn’t tell you that armed invaders are just waiting to kidnap your daughter, shoot your wife and turn you into a vigilante hero that blows up 10 city blocks. Well, no. That is factually true. Diabetes does none of those things. It does, on the other hand, cause about 72,000 deaths a year. Which is a lot more deaths than caused by all of the armed kidnappers or vigilante heroes in the United States combined.
How nice of you to finally notice. Huh? I’ve posted maybe three times on here, and you have yet to respond to anything I’ve said, so I’m not sure what you mean here. Sugary drinks don’t tell you that murder is fun. Diabetes doesn’t tell you that armed invaders are just waiting to kidnap your daughter, shoot your wife and turn you into a vigilante hero that blows up 10 city blocks. Can it be that you actually have gone your whole life without grasping the concept behind analogy? Anyways, this particular point is academic, because the part you’re still studiously ignoring (along with, I presume, my best efforts to explain how averages work) is the first barrier you’ve got to overcome: The evidence you have cited that violent movies contribute to violence in society is that a) Russia also has violent movies and violence and b) we didn’t realize sexist jokes causes sexism against women for a long time.
It does, on the other hand, cause about 72,000 deaths a year. Which is a lot more deaths than caused by all of the armed kidnappers or vigilante heroes in the United States combined. Hell yes. And as I recall, banning sugary drinks (in certain sizes) was the end of the fucking world, but now banning (most) media is okie dokie? :p
That high is static, though so when you’re saying that violence is decreasing in general it does kinda mean ” oh, except for them”.It’s not disingenuous to say ” Don’t forget us” Well…yes. That’s how abnormally high/low statistics go. India is generally improving on its casteist economic policies (…except for the northwest, which is getting worse). India is generally moving towards a less balanced gender ratio (…except for the south, which is actually getting better). Neither exception makes the general fact wrong, and there’s no forgetting involved in stating a general trend. The marginalisation comes in when you’re stating things like “there is no place in which India has a good gender ratio” or “everywhere is getting better for low-caste people in India”. So no, stating that crime rates are falling across the US isn’t wrong; it would be, if all the reservations were concentrated in one particular region, say the southwest corner, or one particular state, say Texas. As I understand, though, that isn’t the case (and stating that all NA people live in X state or region would be marginalising in itself), so the statement isn’t incorrect, as it stands, in terms of geography/statistics terminology.
I’m still waiting for the science based evidence that shows that violent images contribute to people murdering each other. ‘Cos wouldn’t you like policy to be evidence based? I’m also bemused with the view that ending violent imagery is something we should be working on, but regulating guns – just too damned hard.
As I understand, though, that isn’t the case ( There are 332 Reservations across 25 states, and 121 of them are in California. (this is just in case you wondered, or for people who weren’t aware)
I’m also bemused with the view that ending violent imagery is something we should be working on, but regulating guns – just too damned hard. Again- I haven’t said anything of the sort. Jesus. What part of AT THE SAME TIME is confusing? I’ve said X, Y and Z need to happen and all some of you hear is X. The Y and the Z just fucking disappear.
Huh? I’ve posted maybe three times on here, and you have yet to respond to anything I’ve said, so I’m not sure what you mean here. I’ve yet to respond to anything you’ve said. Ok. Sure.
There are 332 Reservations across 25 states, and 121 of them are in California. Ah, I see. I looked up the rest of it, too, and there’s a concentration in the southwest (please don’t kill me if I get the directions wrong, lol, I am awful of that). In that case, yeah, there’s problems with saying “the United States” rather than “the eastern US” or “most of the US”, though it’s my understanding that the population in general still isn’t enough to do more than be a blip in the stats, rather like tribal status holders in India. Which is… ugly, frankly.
Well, no. That is factually true. Diabetes does none of those things. It does, on the other hand, cause about 72,000 deaths a year. Which is a lot more deaths than caused by all of the armed kidnappers or vigilante heroes in the United States combined. Several anti gun control people here have mentioned that other things kill people. I’ll refer you to the response they got- It doesn’t kill 3rd parties. Killing yourself isn’t killing other people. Doesn’t contribute to killing other people in any way. Hell yes. And as I recall, banning sugary drinks (in certain sizes) was the end of the fucking world, but now banning (most) media is okie dokie? :p If it’s in the interest of Public Health, you should be all for it. Besides, blackmarket stuff will still be available for you to purchase so what’s the problem? (wasn’t that your argument? Fatties can get their fatty gorge on in other places?)
Pheeno – you’ve repeatedly asserted that there’s no way to introduce gun control laws that doesn’t adversely affect POC, except buybacks, and have stated that there’s no way buybacks will work unless the culture of violence is dismantled and people willingly give up weapons (I’m trying to summarise your arguments, please point out if I’ve gotten anything wrong). Isn’t the logical extrapolation that a) people advocating gun control are being passively racist, as they’re advocating something that will necessarily make POCs’ lives worse, and b) the culture of violence has to be eradicated before the measures you’re advocating can be useful, so there’s no point instituting them until said culture is removed?
It doesn’t kill 3rd parties. Killing yourself isn’t killing other people. Doesn’t contribute to killing other people in any way. Also true. I’m afraid that I don’t think that a book/movie/cartoon/video game kills other people, either, though. People kill other people. Figuring out why is hard, and not something we’re doing a great job of. I don’t think that consumption of violent media (which, again, is a pretty vague term) registers very high at all for “reasons why someone decides to go on a shooting spree.” I’m not sure why this guy did what he did, but I’d bet that there are some decidedly more significant factors at play than too many hours playing Counter Strike and watching Batman Begins.
Ah, I see. I looked up the rest of it, too, and there’s a concentration in the southwest (please don’t kill me if I get the directions wrong, lol, I am awful of that). In that case, yeah, there’s problems with saying “the United States” rather than “the eastern US” or “most of the US”, though it’s my understanding that the population in general still isn’t enough to do more than be a blip in the stats, rather like tribal status holders in India. Which is… ugly, frankly. You’re right, it’s heavily Southwest. 25 states out of 51 have areas with extremely high violent crime stats.
I’m afraid that I don’t think that a book/movie/cartoon/video game kills other people, either, though. People kill other people. Figuring out why is hard, and not something we’re doing a great job of. I don’t think books/movies/cartoons/video games kill people either. I think they reinforce the message that killing is fun, violence is the normal response to anger, and a good tool for problem solving. When you’re trying to teach someone to use words not fists, it’s far more difficult when you’re swimming in a sea of fist examples.
Pheeno – you’ve repeatedly asserted that there’s no way to introduce gun control laws that doesn’t adversely affect POC, except buybacks There are ways, but jumping the gun (forgive the pun) to get the most immediate quick fix is NOT the way. Why can’t we even have the discussion about possible collateral damage? Why is the mere suggestion that an action may have really negative consequences greeted with such resistance? I’m not imagining these consequences because they already DO happen this way. I don’t see how passing a law will change that this is how it already happens. Do you? Police already send ATF and SWAT into the homes of POC (sometimes not even the right damn home)looking for illegal weapons. How does gun control change this? Can we discuss it and come up with something that will?
Pheeno, Fair enough, and coming from a country where gun access is heavily restricted, I probably just jump to “do not possess” simply because the end result seems rather workable to me. Police already send ATF and SWAT into the homes of POC (sometimes not even the right damn home)looking for illegal weapons. How does gun control change this? Can we discuss it and come up with something that will? Wouldn’t gun control be a…parallel issue rather than a causative one in those cases? As in… if easy-access hasn’t stopped racist police action, how would gun access restriction stop that particular racist train in its tracks? (I can see where it could increase it, though, as I said way upthread.) So what practical suggestions would you apply that wouldn’t affect POC more? Would tougher access controls (say, no sales to domestic violence offenders, people convicted of stalking, violent sex offenders etc) be applied equally to whites and POCs? Considering the level of lateral violence in both NA and AA communities, not to mention the epidemic of domestic abuse in South Asian communities that I can see escalating much more quickly to violence in the presence of firearms, AND the fact that POC are much more likely to be convicted of all these crimes than whites, that would be an even more overtly racist move than current laws. Similarly, laws that restrict people on certain medications, with certain mental conditions etc would also be fairly ableist (and they already exist, in part, don’t they?) Frankly, given the racial/gender/sexuality breakdown of spree killers I found in the stats I looked up, if they stopped giving straight white guys guns, gun crime would probably drop radically. But maybe I’m just cynical and reverse-racist 😛
Way more people die in auto accidents in this country a year than by gun related incidents. The only difference is the latter gets more press coverage. Considering that Alcohol is a major contribution to auto related deaths should we ban that too?
There are more gang murders per year than white guys going on shooting sprees like this so no the murder rate probably wouldn’t drop that much.
Way more people die in auto accidents in this country a year than by gun related incidents. The only difference is the latter gets more press coverage. The last I checked, nobody could ride their gun to work.
If my comment 426 pheenobarbidoll 7.26.2012 at 2:55 pm will ever come the hell out of moderation I’d be pretty happy.
Wouldn’t gun control be a…parallel issue rather than a causative one in those cases? As in… if easy-access hasn’t stopped racist police action, how would gun access restriction stop that particular racist train in its tracks? (I can see where it could increase it, though, as I said way upthread.) That’s what I’m asking, and the only responses are “it doesn’t have to happen that way, it didn’t here” which isn’t an answer IMO. How would gun access restriction stop the racist law enforcement agencies from sending ATF in to take your guns (that are now illegal) and shoot you in the face while doing so? Right now the ATF comes into homes and takes illegal guns away, and shoots people in the face while doing so. Buy backs are a helpful tool, but they have to be applied realistically because why would I turn a 500 dollar gun in for a 100 dollar gift card when I know I can sell that gun for at least 375 and feed my family or pay bills? Start offering some really decent money to bring those guns in and more people would be willing to. I may lose 125 bucks, but that’s better than 400. Taking a loss of 125 hurts, but 400? Hell no. That could mean the ability to pay rent one month. And like it or not, we are going to have to look at what we are surrounded by. Batman and Halo aren’t going to turn someone into a gun wielding death machine but I’m alittle more concerned about the kid who was raised to see violence and death as badges of manliness. And gets that message reinforced by what he see’s in his neighborhood, watches on TV and hears on the radio. I’m more concerned with the guy who thinks guns are macho and Black people want to kill whitey, so the solution is to get them first. And has THAT message reinforced by a steady diet of COPS.
Way more people die in auto accidents in this country a year than by gun related incidents. The only difference is the latter gets more press coverage. Considering that Alcohol is a major contribution to auto related deaths should we ban that too? Yes. I do. I think there should be laws against driving an automobile while under the influence of alcohol. If only there was somewhere willing to enact these laws! What? Oh, yeah. Hmmmmmmm…
Way more people die in auto accidents in this country a year than by gun related incidents. Which is not, actually, relevant in a discussion about guns. Not to mention that, according to the CDC, that’s not even true. For 2009, the CDC has 31,347 firearm deaths and 34,485 motor vehicle traffic deaths. Firearm deaths include terrorism involving firearms (homicide); accidental discharge of firearms; intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms; assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms; discharge of firearms, undetermined intent; legal intervention involving firearm discharge. Deaths from injury by firearms exclude deaths due to explosives and other causes indirectly related to firearms.
Way more people die in auto accidents in this country a year than by gun related incidents. The only difference is the latter gets more press coverage. Considering that Alcohol is a major contribution to auto related deaths should we ban that too? This is just a deflection. One avoidable death is too many. If you could prevent any deaths from happening, why on Earth wouldn’t you? Since you mention it, people have not actually been ignoring vehicle safety concerns because they aren’t as flashy and attention-grabbing as gun massacres – just compare your average economy sedan today to one even 15 years ago. People didn’t just throw up their hands and glibly point out an even worse problem to try and ‘put things in perspective.’ They gave a shit, and applied themselves, and saved countless lives as a result. It’s amazing, what people can accomplish if they actually bother. Not to mention that removing guns from the streets could accomplish a world of good with pretty negligible downsides, but removing cars altogether would…you know…destroy the economy.
If only there was somewhere willing to enact these laws! What? Oh, yeah. Hmmmmmmm… http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/friends-still-let-friends-drive-drunk/ MADD unabashedly heaped criticism on people who willfully drank and drove without regard to the threat they caused. The connection of alcohol and driving, formerly celebrated on television, in movies and in advertising, became stigmatized. Drunken driving deaths began to decline. Hmmmmm indeed
The way you’re talking, one would think that we were hitting crime rates approaching record highs. I’m going to have to stand with pheeno on this particular statement of yours. Please don’t erase those of us for whom violent crime is a constant around us. This is what is going on in my backyard. The article is four years old, and things are even worse now: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/24/local/me-gangs24
But if the issue is the effect of pretend violent stories on violent crime rates, then the overall pattern in the US really, really matters, unless the argument is that people living in high-violent-crime areas somehow watch more violent movies and play more violent video games than in areas with dropping rates of violent crime.
Why don’t other countries invade the world looking for oil? Why don’t other countries spend the same amount on their military? Why don’t other countries assume they’re the center of the world? Let me point out that other countries, historically speaking, have done this constantly, even without the benefit of film, the internet, or video games to spur them on.
I’m certainly not trying to erase anyone. We were, I thought, talking about the United States as a whole. The act that prompted this, and the conversation about how spree killings are more common, and how the culture of the US is causing these things all point to a large discussion of the country in general. In which case, looking at overall trends is useful. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. Having spent almost three decades living in the Detroit area, I’m well familiar with the ways that racism and poverty and corruption can cause an area to deviate from the trends of the nation. There will always be areas that fall above or below the average, and it’s important to find out why, but, as EG points out, since the larger cultural interest in violence is being blamed for spree killings (and, it seems, for the higher rate of violence compared to other countries), then seeing what is happening overall matters, too.
Let me point out that other countries, historically speaking, have done this constantly, even without the benefit of film, the internet, or video games to spur them on. Who’s doing it NOW. What other country has spent the past 10 years or so pretty much alienating the hell out of the globe with obnoxiousness? Asking why Americans are more gun violent while other people seem to be less gun violent is the same as asking why Americans are more rude when traveling abroad. The answer isn’t that we have more access to passports, it’s that we’re taught we’re hot shit and CAN.
Asking why Americans are more gun violent while other people seem to be less gun violent is the same as asking why Americans are more rude when traveling abroad. The answer isn’t that we have more access to passports, it’s that we’re taught we’re hot shit and CAN. Except that…just doesn’t stand up. Gun violence wasn’t nearly as widespread in, say, early 20th century Britain, even though they were exactly as much entitled fuckshits then as USians generally are now. This bullshit is directly rooted in the US obsession/reverence for guns.
This bullshit is directly rooted in the US obsession/reverence for guns. And we pulled that reverence out of thin air? No. Why do we hold the gun in such reverence if everyone everywhere else is exactly the same? How do we reinforce that reverence/obsession? Does removal of an object stop the obsession or turn that obsession into a bigger monster?
Who’s doing it NOW. What other country has spent the past 10 years or so pretty much alienating the hell out of the globe with obnoxiousness? Asking why Americans are more gun violent while other people seem to be less gun violent is the same as asking why Americans are more rude when traveling abroad. The answer isn’t that we have more access to passports, it’s that we’re taught we’re hot shit and CAN. Not only was there less gun violence in the UK during the height of the British empire, there was exactly zero gun violence in Ancient Rome, not because they were benevolent spirits with a peaceful culture, but because nobody had any guns. The issue isn’t the content of stories. Stories do not cause gun violence.
Who’s doing it NOW. What other country has spent the past 10 years or so pretty much alienating the hell out of the globe with obnoxiousness? Asking why Americans are more gun violent while other people seem to be less gun violent is the same as asking why Americans are more rude when traveling abroad. The answer isn’t that we have more access to passports, it’s that we’re taught we’re hot shit and CAN. 10 years? are you kidding?
And we pulled that reverence out of thin air? No. Well…that point would stand, if people who weren’t exposed to much pop culture (hardcore fundie Christians etc) weren’t violent in the same rates, as I’ve said repeatedly. The people who don’t have access to those apparently violence-inducing media are every bit as brutal as those who do. As for violent media reinforcing stereotypes: yes, it does, when the violence relies on stereotypes (black guys are violent, kill those pinko commies etc). I don’t think anyone’s going to get any violent stereotypes reinforced by Tom and Jerry, other than maybe “mice are assholes”.
Why do we hold the gun in such reverence if everyone everywhere else is exactly the same? How do we reinforce that reverence/obsession? Does removal of an object stop the obsession or turn that obsession into a bigger monster? Because your entire country was forged by the gun, the gun is your creation story. History has a much bigger influence on gun violence in the States then any fictional work ever will
History has a much bigger influence on gun violence in the States then any fictional work ever will Seriously. Real violence begets real violence. Movie violence just begets adrenaline.
Well…that point would stand, if people who weren’t exposed to much pop culture (hardcore fundie Christians etc) weren’t violent in the same rates, as I’ve said repeatedly. The people who don’t have access to those apparently violence-inducing media are every bit as brutal as those who do. Those people get all sorts of violent messages, what are you talking about??? Different source, same message. Violence is Good. You Solve Your Problems With Violence. Other people deserve it. Earn it. Warrant it. You are the one to dish it out. Testify!(justify!) You’ll notice these types don’t often quote Jesus, but instead favor the Old Testament High Octane Wrathful God. The one stop shopping source. If I feed you oatmeal from the same bowl and I feed Jane, but use a different spoon, it’s still the same oatmeal.
I’m beginning to get the disturbing idea that the inability to recognize violent messages is not unlike the inability to recognize privileged messages. People with the privilege do not see how that’s reinforced by society (which includes our media sources). Yet, people here can clearly see how media that degrades women colors our perceptions, interactions and reinforces the message women are hysterical, emotional, gold digging nags not quite human and not deserving of equal treatment. Hell, sexist JOKES told have an impact. But showing violence against them doesn’t?? We can clearly see how racial stereotypes in the media color our perception of POC, affect interactions with POC and reinforces the message that POC aren’t quite human and not so deserving of equal treatment. Apply that to violent messages and suddenly it’s different? What do you think propaganda is? Pictures of Black people eating watermelon and stealing from white people….THAT was frequently seen in our media not too long ago. Did that HELP racism or hurt it? Were people not susceptible to it? Being saturated with those images did NOTHING?? Spreading lies via the media of the time about Native Americans, showing offensive cartoon drawings, reading stories of brave cowboys killing Native Americans and saving poor poor innocent settlers, NONE OF THAT HAD ANY IMPACT WHATSOEVER????? Are you shitting me??
@46 absolutely true. I get to spend holidays with some of my thankfully alive relatives because of their ownership and ability to use a firearm. Guns are tools, so are cars, airplanes, etc. We did not talk about banning airplanes after 911. Why, because we all use them. Because only some people use guns (ex. self defense, hunting) everyone else feels free to jump on the ban wagon as it will not effect them. What’s needed is control over the sale of assault weapons. We control the ownership of WII era machine guns, you have to have a collector’s permit from ATF to own one for example. What’s missing from this country is the concept of community. If you walked into a store where you were known and asked for piles of ammo, without some reason (only competitive shooters buy the quatities this guy was buying), the shopkeeper might just sense you were thinking about doing something wrong, maybe he would call, someone who knows?…in today’s anonymous society we buy lethal ammo on the internet, even the weapons themselves in some states. There’s nothing incompatible with Western Europe style rules and the gun ownership of legitimate owners – in many places you need to be a member of a shooting club or other organization to own certain weapons – this creates accountability and oversight at a very local level. No system is perfect (see Norway) but we can do better here.
Okay, so once we wipe out every violent media image and religion in the world, we’ll be allowed to reduce the gun load in the US. …Well, that should be any day now!
Okay, so once we wipe out every violent media image and religion in the world, we’ll be allowed to reduce the gun load in the US. …Well, that should be any day now! You can get rid of every gun in the country but that does not explain why so many people would murder another person in cold blood if it was easy. I can’t kill someone in cold blood, I don’t care if all it took was snapping my fingers. But evidently, a great deal of people CAN. You say it yourself whenever you say the easy access to guns is the cause of high murder rates. If they’re killing because it’s easy to kill, then there’s a bigger problem at hand. Namely, what’s leading them to believe they’re entitled to taking a life, and have so little respect for life that they’ll reach for a quick, easy solution. I’m completely fine with making it more difficult to kill someone, but I’m also rather keen on trying to eliminate the motivating factors (all of them, as crazy as that seems to be) that contributes to them killing in the first place. And somehow, I’M the odd/unfair one for wanting to reduce murders in even HIGHER numbers than simply restricting/banning guns will accomplish. I don’t want innocent people killed by guns, knives, sticks, rocks or bare hands. This is a problem? I’ve seen people go on and on about even if it saves one life it’s worth it. But that stops being the case if there’s even a hint of actual sacrifice on their own part and it stops if there’s even a little itty bitty hint that something they enjoy just might contribute to an environment where such violence flourishes.
Those people get all sorts of violent messages, what are you talking about??? Different source, same message. *flails madly* Uh. Okay. I think I get what you’re arguing, and I finally put my finger on why it’s bothering me so much. It’s because by that criteria, people culturally as far back as, oh, US Independence were also steeped in a culture of violence. The Roman Empire was steeped in a culture of violence. Harappa was steeped in a culture of violence, Neanderthals were steeped in a culture of violence, every damn body ever born that was identifiably human or near-human is steeped in a culture of violence. Yay! I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that every living creature is pretty much violent, either in self-defense or to survive, and evolution’s bred a certain level of battle-readiness into our bodies and psyches that is harmlessly channeled through fiction, tales and images that act as catharsis in order to maintain the social framework even in the absence of active threat? Nah, it’s probably the other way around, because as we all know, the culture of violence totally preceded the time when humans were engaging in a battle for survival in a world where pretty much everything is stronger/faster/more poisonous than we are. Because that time was in the distant past, y’know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate List of countries with highest intentional homocide per capita. See far down you have to scroll before you get to the US. Seems like people are doing just fine being violent on their own with or without gun control laws.
Yeah sure but more important then who has more homicides is who has less, you know, all the countries who are actually comparable to the USA
List of countries with highest intentional homocide per capita. See far down you have to scroll before you get to the US. Seems like people are doing just fine being violent on their own with or without gun control laws. See how much further you have to scroll before hitting Canada, Australia, and the UK, which are probably the most comparable nations to the US that also have gun control. Regardless, you’re still deflecting. America could have the lowest murder rate in the world and it would still be worthwhile to lower that rate even further. None of what you’ve said is an actual argument against gun control.
Asking why Americans are more gun violent while other people seem to be less gun violent is the same as asking why Americans are more rude when traveling abroad. ARE Americans more rude when traveling abroad? (I’m assuming here that Pheenobarbidoll is not referring to war-related travel, which “rude” seems like an inadequate descriptor of.)
One avoidable death is too many. If you could prevent any deaths from happening, why on Earth wouldn’t you? Because the cost might be too high? There are all kinds of things we could do to reduce mortality that wouldn’t be worth it from either a civil-liberties or cost-effectiveness standpoint. I’ve yet to respond to anything you’ve said. Ok. Sure. You have a nasty habit of taking a single largely line out of my posts, which is typically tangential to my main point, and then responding with some sort of openly fallacious dismissal (russia has violent movies and lots of violence- clearly violent movieswhile ignoring the substance of my post. I give up. You clearly are more interested in convincing yourself you’re right than actually discussing issues, which is evidenced by the fact that everytime someone clearly explains why what you said is factually incorrect, you move the goalposts or just pick some other, less relevant part of their post to respond to.
See far down you have to scroll before you get to the US. Seems like people are doing just fine being violent on their own with or without gun control laws. You’re kidding, right? You’re not actually saying that the US is in fine shape because it has a lower murder rate than many non-first-world countries, are you? Even though it’s outrageously higher than any country in Western Europe?
So, perhaps this will be of interest. I was emailing with my grandfather about a different topic altogether (fairy tales, actually). He’s a reasonably eminent research psychologist (I’m not bragging, this is just for context) who has written on the enjoyment of horror movies, and according to him, enjoying such entertainment is correlated with sensation-seeking, but not with psychopathology. So there’s another data point.
@EG, Have you ever heard of Eric Rabkin? He’s teaching a course at coursera.org right now on Fantasy and Science Fiction. His view is that these types of stories (including the greusome fairy tales) give us an opportunity to work out the conflicts we have as a society. Extrapolatingfrom thatit would seem that those tales are both useful to exploring conflict but harmful in that they often perpetuate harmful stereotypes that serve to heighten or illustrate the conflict. So I see Pheeno’s point when it comes tothe harm (which I don’t think we should completely dismiss), but I agree with you that on balance we have to protect speech and find other ways to resolve the problems.
I have indeed heard of Eric Rabkin–he’s huge in my field! Nothing but the highest respect from me! I certainly agree that stories can and do perpetuate ideas and feelings. But I also think there is a huge gap there between ideas/feelings/stereotypes and actions, and I don’t think stories cause violent actions. I think we need to do more to raise consciousness of that difference (I have no idea how).
Cool! Good to know that I’m learning from someone so well-respected. His lectures so far have been really fascinating. I’m less certain about the disconnect between harmful steepotypes and harmful action. I don’t think there is a directcasual link, but I would argue that our tendancy to dehumanize others in times of conflict (rhetorical conflict or actualconflict) is the fundamental problem with humanity. I think if we could tell these tales without falling into that trap we might be able to make some headway over the next few centuries.
Hmm. It may be a chicken and egg issue, but my understanding is that we tell ourselves dehumanizing stories in order to enable us to do the violence we want/need to do, which is to say that the will to action comes first, and then the stories bolster it (I’m talking here about acts of violence, not acts of omission). My personal experience is that of somebody who had a real bloodthirsty passion for violent stories and images between the ages of 5 and, oh, 15, but who has never done a violent deed (aside from the aforementioned sister-smacking, which I maintain was totally justified), and who has a number of incredibly gentle, humane friends who write horror stories and are avid consumers of horror movies.
Um, sorry to go off-topic for a bit, but I just looked up coursera.org and it looks really, really interesting. I’d love to do some (read: an obscene amount) of courses with them, but I have a ridiculously busy few weeks coming up, so will Eric Rabkin’s course be offered again in the future? Can I sign up for it and do the work later? Or is that not how it works?
I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that every living creature is pretty much violent, either in self-defense or to survive, and evolution’s bred a certain level of battle-readiness into our bodies and psyches that is harmlessly channeled through fiction, tales and images that act as catharsis in order to maintain the social framework even in the absence of active threat? I don’t equate submerging beings -with the already existing ability to be violent- into a violent environment as harmless. Take people who can be violent, and give them a steady flow of violent images then combine that with the message that violence is good and normal… you don’t see how that can be problematic? I guess I shouldn’t have a problem with sexist stereotypes in the media now either, since it doesn’t cause any harm. It’s just tv. And racial stereotypes in movies? No biggie. Doesn’t harm anyone at all. We don’t need commercials or ads against smoking either, because no one receives any sort of message from it. It’s just a waste of time. No need to show breast feeding as natural and good, it’s not as if those images help evoke a change in mentality surrounding it.
I guess I shouldn’t have a problem with sexist stereotypes in the media now either, since it doesn’t cause any harm. It’s just tv. And racial stereotypes in movies? No biggie. Doesn’t harm anyone at all. …and you’ve just made the case that sexism and racism are innate to the human condition as an evolutionary strategy (as in, skills for hunting foodz are exactly as important evolutionarily as oppressing women). What the actual fuck? (Also, racism, sexism, body-shaming and smoking. One of these things is not like the others…one of these things just does not belong…)
Well, my comment went into mod, pheeno, but another point: “The Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first to use the term catharsis with reference to the emotions – in his work Poetics. In that context, it refers to a sensation or literary effect that, ideally, would either be experienced by the characters in a play, or be wrought upon the audience at the conclusion of a tragedy; namely, the release of pent-up emotion or energy.” Catharsis. It does not mean what you seem to think it means. It’s emotion-by-proxy, and intended to release or cleanse negative emotion. If it’s exacerbating or causing negative emotions, it’s not catharsis, it’s provocation.
I was actually thinking about fairy tales and horror movies earlier (both are areas of interest [personal and academic]), EG. I wrote a little about horror (movies and literature) in undergrad, and I’m always interested in academic research on the subject. I think that some part of the interest in horror movies is like the thrill of a roller coaster–intentionally exposing yourself to frightening situations to trick your body into thinking you’re in danger when you’re really not. I’d be interested in seeing the sorts of things your grandfather wrote about if you felt comfortable sharing (but totally understand if you don’t). I also think that there’s something to be said for the ways that violence in the media can be therapeutic or can be used to criticize or reflect aspects of our society. I think that you can tell a lot about a society by the sorts of things that they find scary. Fairy tales and horror stories reveal a lot of interesting things about people and the societies they come from.
Catharsis. It does not mean what you seem to think it means. It’s emotion-by-proxy, and intended to release or cleanse negative emotion. If it’s exacerbating or causing negative emotions, it’s not catharsis, it’s provocation. I know what it means. I also believe that being surrounded by violent messages the same way we are surrounded by racist messages and sexist messages, is not catharsis. Any more than getting the Straight White Male message from birth is cathartic. And both violent messages and SWM messages are sent through all the same channels. It’s no different than receiving the message that white is right. If we weren’t just as submerged in it, sure. But we are. We’re swimming in it.
I think that you can tell a lot about a society by the sorts of things that they find scary. Except it’s taking more and more to be found scary. The Blob scared the crap out of people when it came out. Now? Comedy gold. And you can also tell a lot about a society by the sorts of things they find entertaining. Rape. Murder. Domination. Senseless killing. Not a pretty report card when those are on it.
I know what it means. That’s a whole whack of not-speaking-to-my-point, then. I also believe that being surrounded by violent messages the same way we are surrounded by racist messages and sexist messages, is not catharsis. Any more than getting the Straight White Male message from birth is cathartic. My comment’s out of mod at 486, but to reiterate: racism and sexism are not evolutionary strategies, please to not be shifting the goalposts on my point. On the other hand, I think you and I (and pretty much every other human on the goddamn planet) is within four centuries of one of our ancestors engaging in subsistence hunting/self-defense against large predators. And not that many people would have to look that far into their history, either; fuck knows my grandfather had to worry about leopards, or accidentally scaring/enraging wild elephants or boar, just on his way back from school. “Kill black people because they’re criminals” isn’t a survival/hunting strategy in the same way that “Kill large things with big teeth that think you taste good with ketchup” is, sorry.
I guess I shouldn’t have a problem with sexist stereotypes in the media now either, since it doesn’t cause any harm. It’s just tv. And racial stereotypes in movies? No biggie. Doesn’t harm anyone at all. I talked above about why I think that the comparison you’re making doesn’t work. To expand on it, though–we don’t ban any of these things, either. We don’t ban sexist movies and tv shows. We don’t ban racist books or games. I’m all for critical engagement, though. If you think that the violence in something is bad, I’m all for hashing it out and telling people why you think something is harmful. I think it’s important to educate and encourag the more responsible production and consumption of media. I have issues with slasher films, for example–I don’t like the shift from the perspective of the protagonists to the killer’s POV. I think it creates a situation where the audience begins to root for the villain, and leads to an obsession with the most graphic death scenes (and leads to films trying to one-up each other in gore and death). I don’t think they should be banned, but I don’t like them, and I think they’re bad films. I won’t watch “torture porn” movies for some of the same reasons. I think that it’s important to be able to critically engage, though, and I don’t think that the solution is censorship.
I talked above about why I think that the comparison you’re making doesn’t work. To expand on it, though–we don’t ban any of these things, either. We don’t ban sexist movies and tv shows. We don’t ban racist books or games. In a post pretty far back up, when Kristen J and I were discussing how people might be harmed by not being able to describe abuses, I said that this made me change my mind about banning. So I haven’t been discussing banning for some time now.
My comment’s out of mod at 486, but to reiterate: racism and sexism are not evolutionary strategies, please to not be shifting the goalposts on my point. Neither are rape, mass shootings, suicide bombings etc. And again- do you see any problem at all with taking beings that have these existing instincts and surrounding them with messages from birth that tell them these existing instincts are fine to unleash upon anyone, and to solve any problem?
Bombard kids with images of objectified, enpornulated women, they grow up internalizing women as less-than sex objects. Bombard kids with images of Straight White Dudes ruling the world, they grow up internalizing SWD as the model to aspire. Bombard kids with images of violence as admirable and legitimate problem solving … and what do you expect to see? I’m quoting Irish Up here, but I’m curious to the answer. What do you expect to see? And because it was in mod forever 426 pheenobarbidoll 7.26.2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink THAT is a legitimate issue with media bans/restrictions. And THAT? Changes my mind. Telling me how people like it or it’s always been this way or if works here so it will work everywhere does not. it was in mod for an extremely long time so people have missed it, in regards to bannings.
And again- do you see any problem at all with taking beings that have these existing instincts and surrounding them with messages from birth that tell them these existing instincts are fine to unleash upon anyone, and to solve any problem? Okay, scratch whetehr you understand catharsis…do you understand fiction? It’s proxy. It’s a replacement that channels pent-up energy away from violent action to violent sympathy. Humans are never not going to be violent, because we’ve been bred to be efficiently and creatively violent to make up for the fact that we’re not that strong or fast or what have you. Yes, there are racist/sexist messages tangled up in violence, and those are wrong… but because they’re racist and sexist, not necessarily because they’re violent. Neither are rape, mass shootings, suicide bombings etc. Uh-huh, and please find me a work that considers suicide bombings to be an A-Okay way of solving all your problems. Seriously. I’ll wait. But then again, I’m Indian, of course I don’t know the fine points of suicide bombings or the literary language surrounding them. I mean, when was teh last time India had any suicide bombings?
Uh-huh, and please find me a work that considers suicide bombings to be an A-Okay way of solving all your problems. 2:31 And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Think God gave you land but there are people already on it? Solution- Kill them all. Down to the last child.
“Samson said to the servant who held his hand, “Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them.” Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD, “O Sovereign LORD , remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.” Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. (From the NIV Bible, Judges 16:26-30)”
Except it’s taking more and more to be found scary. The Blob scared the crap out of people when it came out. Now? Comedy gold. I think that the issue is a little more complicated than you’re suggesting, but I’ll readily agree that movies today are more graphic than movies were in the past. That’s true not just in terms of violence, but in terms of…well… everything. I’m not sure that’s a bad or good thing, but it seems true. Part of that is the technology. Part of that is changing sensibilities. And you can also tell a lot about a society by the sorts of things they find entertaining. Rape. Murder. Domination. Senseless killing. Not a pretty report card when those are on it. Without context, it’s hard to say. Lots of people found Saving Private Ryan really entertaining, and it’s certainly got a very, very violent opening, but the point point wasn’t “Wee! Violence is fun! Shooting people solves everything!” The point was “Man, war sucks. It’s scary as hell and awful and the people who stormed that beach went through some pretty horrible shit.” Does the context of the scene matter, or do we say “Well, that’s a violent scene. Cut it. It reflects poorly on society that someone would watch this”? A movie that makes rape “sexy” or tries to say “rape is cool and fun and awesome! Enjoy this!” (for example) would be absolutely disgusting, and I’ll be right there with you criticizing it. I still won’t call for censorship, but I’d do what I could to point out why it’s fucked up and encourage people to avoid it.
426 pheenobarbidoll 7.26.2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink THAT is a legitimate issue with media bans/restrictions. And THAT? Changes my mind. Telling me how people like it or it’s always been this way or if works here so it will work everywhere does not. it was in mod for an extremely long time so people have missed it, in regards to bannings. …..
All right, assuming you’re asking in good faith… here’s what I, personally, get out of violent movies. 1) Escapism. Seriously, I watched Tom and Jerry without developing species dysphoria, I think I can watch someone pretend-beating up someone else without turning into Jeffrey Dahmer. 2) Catharsis. Yes, there are times when I look at yet another terrorist attack, race riot, caste riot, communal violence and go “fuck me, if only there was This One Bad Guy and beating him up would end all of that”. It’s nice to have that outlet in fiction, because it sure as fuck doesn’t exist in real life. 3) Language. I can’t speak to the emotions I’ve felt at various traumatic things, without the language of that trauma being given to me. The first Indian movie I ever saw that dealt with child sexual abuse, I watched at the age of 23. It would have been nice to have had the affirmation of “this is sexual violence” during the ten years I was being molested and didn’t bother talking about it because I figured I was blowing shit out of proportion. 4) Therapeutic change of perspective. I find movies about communal riots incredibly difficult to watch, but also really humanising and providing me with more perspectives than mine – particularly useful because I was a child while seeing most of that go down, and I didn’t really have a nuanced view of anything beyond “those people want to hurt me”. 5) Empathy. Watching violence that I haven’t necessarily experienced exposes me to traumas others feel, increases my ability to understand. Watching movies from the terrorist’s perspective is also powerful – reminds me not to just treat them as evil robot drones but people. (Incidentally, this is a reason to make movies about suicide bombings, has that occurred to you?) 6) Release. Sometimes I’m just fucking angry. I’d rather watch a movie in which lots and lots of shit blows up, than blow up myself at my wife or stepkid or random passersby. Meaningless violence occasionally equals temporarily emotionally exhausted and relaxed Mac. Awesome, I shall do that, and fuck you if you think that’s dysfunctional, perhaps you’d like to deal with Asshole Me instead. I’m given to understand she’s oodles of fun. 7) Power by proxy. I’ve been small and powerless, as William said way upthread, I’ve been a victim. He chose to respond by owning murder weapons, I respond by seeing people be inhumanly strong and overcoming massive cartoonish villains and sinking into that feeling of being powerful – not just NOT-powerless, not just capable, but outright fucking powerful. For someone with multiple disabilities, there’s an element of fantasy that’s incredibly attractive. Please go ahead and tell me how I’m totally a serial killer in the making.
*headdesk* Except people who’d act on the Bible do not consider the BIble to be a work of fiction, so it’s still not a work of fiction, and those who think the Bible is fiction won’t exactly . Unless you also think terrorist manuals are fiction. A movie that makes rape “sexy” or tries to say “rape is cool and fun and awesome! Enjoy this!” (for example) would be absolutely disgusting, and I’ll be right there with you criticizing it. Yeah, I’m right there with you, roymac. It’s the reason I’ve religiously boycotted military movies that glorify war since I was, oh, what, eight years old?
Right. What on earth could people get out of art or fantasies about experiences they wouldn’t actually want to happen in reality? Everything. That’s the point of fantasy and art. I mean, unless you think I secretly want to be attacked by a great white shark, or have a dangerous xenomorph burst out of my chest or something.
I think a lot of violence in movies is “justified” in-universe. Movies and games with rapes often have them violently avenged, movies and games with invading armies often have them violently repelled. Movies and games up the ante on the violence considerably, but it’s usually at least vigilante “justice” more than flat-out killing sprees. Not many people would have rooted for the Avengers if they just started killing people for no reason; they were badass and heroic because they were violent in the service of “right.” I’m not saying that violence and vigilante justice are cool with me in reality (they’re not) but even our extreme fantasies aren’t all about mindless senseless violence; it’s violence to survive or protect or punish. I think that speaks deeply to the human psyche.
What on earth could people get out of art or fantasies about experiences they wouldn’t actually want to happen in reality? Everything. That’s the point of fantasy and art. I…I legitimately want a telepathic dragon though. Damn you, Anne McCaffery! ^^
I’m not saying that violence and vigilante justice are cool with me in reality (they’re not) but even our extreme fantasies aren’t all about mindless senseless violence; it’s violence to survive or protect or punish. I think that speaks deeply to the human psyche. Quoted for the motherfucking truth.
@EG, Agreed. It is very chicken/eggie. But I think culture is highly iterative. Particularly when it comes to how children learn about ethics…but that is another post altogether and one that I’m far less qualified to talk about than Mr. Kristen who has devoted a lot more study o the subject. @macavitykitsune, coursera is possibly the greatest thing on the internet besides project gutenberg. I don’t know how often the classescycle around again. But if I’m understanding the initial lectures correctly, he does expect to have this class again in the future.
Except people who’d act on the Bible do not consider the BIble to be a work of fiction, so it’s still not a work of fiction, and those who think the Bible is fiction won’t exactly . Honestly, I have always had serious doubts that people who act on these things truly believe it’s not fiction. It’s a harder excuse to touch, and makes justification unnecessary. You don’t have to believe in God to know shouting Because God!! is a fast way to shut down questions.
I think you and I (and pretty much every other human on the goddamn planet) is within four centuries of one of our ancestors engaging in subsistence hunting/self-defense against large predators. Not unless you substitute “Christians” for “large predators,” and “escaping from” for “hunting.” Four millennia, maybe.
Honestly, I have always had serious doubts that people who act on these things truly believe it’s not fiction. Well…okay, and I agree with you in general, but in this case, I asked for mainstream fiction that presents suicide bombing as a logical solution to a problem, you quote a religious text, I point out that people acting on this text aren’t presenting it as fiction but as a manual for life, and you responded by “but they secretly do in their heads and I know it”. I really don’t know what to say to that. I mean, that’s not even shifting goalposts, that’s changing sports. If someone takes the roadrunner show seriously and hunts coyotes to extermination, that doesn’t make the show reality. If some people secretly think the Bible’s bullshit, if that doesn’t change how they’re acting in any way whatsoever, you can’t actually claim to know for sure that they’re treating it as fiction. Religion’s one of those things you take at face value.
Not unless you substitute “Christians” for “large predators,” and “escaping from” for “hunting.” Four millennia, maybe. Well, it’s good to know that no Jews have ever had, or had cause to fear from, wild animal attacks in the last 4000 years! o.O (For the purposes of this discussion, though, frankly, I would say that the systemic persecution Jews have faced in pretty much all that time makes just plain living a high-risk activity along the lines of, as I mentioned, commuting to school through woods with large predators, for my own family.)
Less snarkily, though, Donna, I see where my statement was unclear… I meant subsistence hunting OR self-defense against larger predators. I thought the example I provided in my case clarified that, but apparently not.
4000 years! If you’d said millennia, that would have been fine. My point was that I don’t think my family was worried as much about wild beasts in the forest four centuries ago as they were worried about Christians, who probably were both large and predatory compared to themselves.
The best bet would be around 10,000 – 12,000 years since people on the whole were small band hunter-gathers. Maybe more, but not past around 15,000. There are still small groups of hunter-gatherer societies today, but farming started around 12,000 years ago.
Well…okay, and I agree with you in general, but in this case, I asked for mainstream fiction that presents suicide bombing as a logical solution to a problem, Um no. That’s not what you asked. Uh-huh, and please find me a work that considers suicide bombings to be an A-Okay way of solving all your problems. You didn’t ask for mainstream fiction that presents suicide bombing as a logical solution to a problem. You asked for a work that considers suicide bombing an A-ok way to solve problems and I gave you a very, very popular book. And studies on suicide bombers suggest they do it because it pays off, not because they’re devout followers of God. The question that I asked earlier (which is asking in good faith) was- Bombard kids with images of violence as admirable and legitimate problem solving … and what do you expect to see? Not, what do you get out of it. I don’t know if you were answering me or another poster when you listed all the things you like about violent stories.
You didn’t ask for mainstream fiction that presents suicide bombing as a logical solution to a problem. You asked for a work that considers suicide bombing an A-ok way to solve problems and I gave you a very, very popular book. Seriously? The WHOLE CONVERSATION so far has been about fiction. TV, movies, comic books. You don’t get to randomly fucking rearrange it to mean “nonfiction too, haha” just because I didn’t ultra-ultra-specify in every goddamn comment. I don’t know if you were answering me or another poster when you listed all the things you like about violent stories. You mentioned that if anyone had provided any “real” reason why someone should consume violent things you’d pay attention. I guess my reasons weren’t real enough to count. Bombard kids with images of violence as admirable and legitimate problem solving … and what do you expect to see? Well, since we’ve looped back around to “what about the children”, is all violence being presented as legitimate problem-solving as much as the fantastical catharsis I discussed in my list above? Because dude, I take in action movies as avidly as anyone (though less and less as I’ve gotten my anxiety/anger under control) and no one really thinks John McClane is, like, a model of rational and appropriate behaviour or anything. For the rest? If only there was some handy-dandy system whereby we could tell whether a movie has excessive violence…some…rating system… that maybe says things like “rated for violence”… oh wait! We do! Lol. When something’s rated PG-13, respect the 13 not the PG. It’s what most parents I know who were concerned about violent imagery did with their kids. (I acknowledge that the rating system has issues that need fixing, that similar warnings do not exist for books and that is a genuine problem, and if you want to have that conversation, we totally can and I suspect we’d be on the same page there.) Now, I may be taking a non-USian view (I know, the horror, because no one anywhere was as persecuted as everyone everywhere in the US and so other countries’ examples cannot possibly apply), but if we’re discussing violence as a problem-solving tool, let’s talk about how taking guns/weapons out of poor communities would leave them with substantially fewer real-life actual human examples of how violence is admirable and legitimate problem-solving. I’m a lot less concerned about kids in my village watching Govinda beating up some cartoonish zamindar in the latest masala blockbuster than I am about my former students coming home to let their fathers beat them and their mother up and if they’re real lucky maybe he’ll only rape their mother. I don’t think as many of my friends would have survived childhood if the whole village had been equipped with handy-dandy, easy-operate-while-drunk, one-lethal-finger-movement weapons. And you can fucking bet their dad didn’t get that idea from movies as much as every man around him egging him on to just that, because they didn’t have TV until eight years ago, they didn’t have literate adults until my parents turned up and helped with that, most of the adults still can’t read (most of the ones who can are kids we taught who grew up) and so your theory that media backed them up in any way is fucking bullshit. tl;dr you have your cause/effect mixed up. Banning movies or whatever other weird-ass ideas you have is exactly like putting duct-tape on a deep cut. Sure, you can’t see the cut anymore, but you’ve removed the only source of healing air without providing any actual assistance. And the real problems affecting my community of origin (female infant/foeticide, violent domestic abuse, alcoholism, gambling, cycle of poverty, inadequate mental health care) aren’t generally presented positively in the media anyway. If they were getting all their violent ideas from movies, they’d be much more likely to kill cops, rob banks or murder rapists in their sleep.
lara emily foley—–please define hate speech—- liz—im glad you were able to scare off an intruder w/o a gun—but really? telling me what i need and what i dont need? isnt that the sort of patronizing nonsense that we’re all supposed to be against here? bagelsan—thank you for your very balanced comment—-as for hyperbole it is a time-honored american cultural tradition—paul bunyan, anyone? one commenter called another one an imbecile for disagreeing with him—isnt that ableist language? as well as an ad hominem attack? true, no one on this thread has actually said great satan—so i withdraw that remark igglanova—how do you know what i routinely confuse when you’ve never spoken to me before? macavitykitsune—-again—define hate speech—if invective alone is not hate speech, what is? one last question for everyone—and its an honest one—-is sensitivity for all people, or not?
https://watertowermusic.moontoast.com/estore/embed/1336 Hans Zimmer (Composer of Dark Knight Rises) composed and recorded a track with all the proceeds going to the victims. It’s an amazing piece. If you are outside of the States like me, just make up an American address and it’ll get you to the credit card section, from there input whatever credit card you have and it works fine
Because your entire country was forged by the gun, the gun is your creation story. History has a much bigger influence on gun violence in the States then any fictional work ever will I think this is true. The American government first came about as the result of armed anti-government actions. And that anti-government strain is behind the more absolutist defenses of the 2nd amendment, whether from those on the right who fear, eg, being overrun by POC, or those on the left who fear, eg, attacks on POC from a frightened right. I think the need for better regulation of personal weaponry is self-evident. At the same time, it’s not terribly hard to imagine conditions developing where one side or another does feel the need to resort to what one recent major party candidate called “2nd amendment remedies” (highlighting how gun ownership is not an end, but a means.) True, such imaginings do require at least a little paranoia, but that’s never in short supply nor always unwarranted. Comparing guns to dicks and talking about gun-love in terms of fetishization can be pat, but I think, in the case of the US, exactly BECAUSE the gun is so central to its creation myth, and the one-dimensional “rugged individualism” arising from it, the comparison is pretty apt. Sometimes a gun fetish really is a gun fetish. That’s why the American right is crazy scared. They’re not hanging on to their guns as a modality but rather as an identity.
im late coming to this debate, as this is such an emotionally charged subject for me and i wanted to be able to respond with a cool head i used a firearm to defend myself and my newborn baby when someone tried to break into my house(my husband at the time worked the night shift)—i never had to fire a shot—whoever it was heard me charging the weapon and took off running—-i heard his footsteps ppl who want 2 ban all firearms, thinking it will make us safer and less violent simply do not understand the nature of bullies—-im also not going to take the position that arming the population is a magic cure-all—-but it does give the weaker members of society a fighting chance and i absolutely DESPISE the outpouring of anti-american hate speech on this thread—if it were any other group of ppl, it would definitely have been called out as hate speech
Except the US is the dominant power so stronger words are allowed. And yeah no, none of this is hate speech, please don’t abuse such an important concept to shame and shut down debate
except that many of the criticisms of the US here have been put-downs and cheap shots—-and i intensely dislike that style of “debate”—-its the reason i dont watch talk shows i was halfway expecting that kind of thing, which is why i stayed off this thread for a few days—i say foolish things when i respond in the white heat of passion—- my country certainly is not above criticism, but this attitude many have that we are the great satan seriously makes my ass tired
Really? Great Satan? No one has said that no one and that’s seriously an offensive accusation to throw at us And cheap shots (the very few that may be here do not hate speech make
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/florida-man-kills-door-to-door-salesman-i%E2%80%99ll-kill-anybody-that-steps-on-my-property/
maggie may, I had a similar experience as you. A couple of years ago I heard an intruder on my front verandah. You know how I defended myself? My running out to the front verandah and yelling obscenities at him. It was only after he ran away, that I remembered I sleep without clothes. So, one very small, very angry naked woman was enough to make him run away. Your anecdote is what makes people shake their heads and say ‘only in America’. You don’t need a gun to defend yourself. This is part of the belief system that breeds so much gun related violence.
and i absolutely DESPISE the outpouring of anti-american hate speech on this thread—if it were any other group of ppl, it would definitely have been called out as hate speech Well, yes. We’re all clearly reverse racists here. Or something. Put-downs aren’t hate speech, for fuck’s sake. my country certainly is not above criticism, but this attitude many have that we are the great satan seriously makes my ass tired You’re really not the great satan or whatever other criticisms your persecution complex has insisted we non-USians have been calling you. Seriously, there has been very little criticism of the US on this thread that even verges on “hate speech”. That aside, I will endeavour to say nothing but fuzzy things about Shining Beaconia from now on, so as to save you from your ass-fatigue. You’re welcome.
I suppose it must be hard to walk from all that butthurt when you routinely confuse ‘anti-American sentiment’ with ‘saying true stuff about America that I didn’t want to hear.’ The rest of the world does not adore your fucked up country. That this strikes anyone as offensive speaks volumes about one’s own arrogance and entitlement.
I don’t think the US is more fucked up than other countries; I think we’re all fucked up in different ways, and frankly the US is a lot less fucked up than say, North Korea or Syria. But also no one’s calling us the “great Satan” on here either. So enough hyperbole.
I don’t think the US is more fucked up than other countries; I think we’re all fucked up in different ways, and frankly the US is a lot less fucked up than say, North Korea or Syria. But also no one’s calling us the “great Satan” on here either. So enough hyperbole. Word.
bagelsan—thank you for your very balanced comment—-as for hyperbole it is a time-honored american cultural tradition—paul bunyan, anyone? lolwut? Will somebody please call the language police? macavitykitsune—-again—define hate speech—if invective alone is not hate speech, what is? And the vocab army? one last question for everyone—and its an honest one—-is sensitivity for all people, or not? The US has abused its power and become a major colonizer and instigator of violent conlficts around the world. Why should an abuser get any sensitivity from its victims?
I wouldn’t worry too much about the anti-Americanism expressed on this thread, maggiemay — I always take that sort of a thing with very large grain of salt, given that I have no doubt that whatever countries Igglanova and others come from (*especially* if they’re European!) have equally fucked up presents in all sorts of ways. And, I suspect, far more fucked up pasts in terms of numbers of dead bodies per capita for which their governments and people have been responsible. Nobody in a European country has much standing to criticize anybody, so far as I’m concerned. Regardless of how many guns people have or how many violent movies they watch. Perhaps in a few thousand years you all will have collectively atoned for your sins through stellar behavior, but not yet by any means.
I am, by the way, very much in favor of gun control. And think that censorship of violence in media — whether government-imposed or “voluntary — is a truly awful idea for solving anything. I just happen to be allergic, for the most part, to Europe and Western Europeans. Who, speaking of exceptionalism, are very much an exception to the rule throughout the world in terms of homicide rates. I notice that the USA is somewhere around 35th on that list, and that Russia and a number of other former Soviet Socialist Republics (several of them in Europe, the last time I checked) rank higher. As for Partial Human’s comment regarding LGBT rights, there are many states in the USA where I’d far rather live than anywhere in the UK. Especially as a trans person, given that despite the dubious benefits of the Gender Recognition Act, open transphobia is still far more common in the progressive media in the UK, as well as in mainstream feminism, than it is in the USA. I always get the feeling that it’s about 1990 every time I read the Guardian. And then there’s the anti-Semitism, and, no, I’m not talking about anti-Zionism, as ludicrously over-the-top and hypocritical as that may be. So please get your own house in order before you stop implicitly blaming progressive people in the USA for all the things wrong here.
Seriously? The WHOLE CONVERSATION so far has been about fiction. TV, movies, comic books. Oh jesus. MY whole conversation has been how we’re surrounded by violence in our culture via media. I didn’t exclude non fiction.The conversation became simply non fiction because people got pissy at the idea they might be deprived of something. You excluded non fiction, not me. So I didn’t suddenly include it just to be unfair to poor you. You mentioned that if anyone had provided any “real” reason why someone should consume violent things you’d pay attention. No. I told Kristen J that her example of REAL HARM being caused was what had me pay attention. You either misunderstood that or were reading someone else’s post. Well, since we’ve looped back around to “what about the children” This isn’t what about the children. This is what the fuck do you expect when people are submerged in certain cultures from birth. Violent cultures do not churn out pacifist societies full of calm, empathetic adults. and no one really thinks John McClane is, like, a model of rational and appropriate behaviour or anything. No, they just adore his no bullshit fuck you harder than you fucked me attitude. that maybe says things like “rated for violence”… oh wait! We do! Lol. If only we had laws that said things like “don’t stroll into a movie theater and shoot everyone in sight” OH WAIT. WE DO!
Violent cultures do not churn out pacifist societies full of calm, empathetic adults. What culture does? Literally, has there ever been a culture like this?
I am, by the way, very much in favor of gun control. And think that censorship of violence in media — whether government-imposed or “voluntary — is a truly awful idea for solving anything. I just happen to be allergic, for the most part, to Europe and Western Europeans. Who, speaking of exceptionalism, are very much an exception to the rule throughout the world in terms of homicide rates. I notice that the USA is somewhere around 35th on that list, and that Russia and a number of other former Soviet Socialist Republics (several of them in Europe, the last time I checked) rank higher. As for Partial Human’s comment regarding LGBT rights, there are many states in the USA where I’d far rather live than anywhere in the UK. Especially as a trans person, given that despite the dubious benefits of the Gender Recognition Act, open transphobia is still far more common in the progressive media in the UK, as well as in mainstream feminism, than it is in the USA. I always get the feeling that it’s about 1990 every time I read the Guardian. And then there’s the anti-Semitism, and, no, I’m not talking about anti-Zionism, as ludicrously over-the-top and hypocritical as that may be. So please get your own house in order before you stop implicitly blaming progressive people in the USA for all the things wrong here. I disagree with this sort of tit-for-tat point scoring on either side. As someone who maintains dual residency in the EU and USA, I would say that both places have their positives and negatives and it silly to compare the two. Donna, I have a lot of respect for your point of view based on my experiences with you here, but I feel your comments about the UK and Western Europeans are filled with as many crass generalizations as Partial’s comments about the US.
I just happen to be allergic, for the most part, to Europe and Western Europeans. seriously? you object to people making generalisations about the USA but you’re happy to say that you are allergic to “europe and western europeans” as if its some kind of monolith? europe is actually a continent made up of multiple countries with different governments different laws different cultures. have you ever been to europe or do you just get your ideas about it from the guardian? a newspaper which barely accurately represents culture in the south of england let alone england as a whole, the UK, or the rest of europe
I feel your comments about the UK and Western Europeans are filled with as many crass generalizations as Partial’s comments about the US. That was my point, deliberately so. Notice the howls of outrage? Oddly enough, Europe may have 50 countries, but the USA has 50 states! Not that that stopped any of you. Sauce, etc. It’s actually rather entertaining. Be that as it may, I don’t think any of you is remotely qualified to challenge what I had to say about open transphobia in the British media and in British feminism, as compared to the USA. It isn’t just my opinion, I assure you. And if you truly doubt that the general level of anti-Semitism in the UK is greater than the USA, you are not very well-informed. Being Jewish can still be a severe professional handicap in some fields, certainly more so than in the USA — and even more than being trans, I have it on excellent authority. PS: Yes, I’ve been to England, more than once, as well as to the Continent several times. My mother and her family were from Germany, and she lived in England for five years. My son has spent substantial time in both Austria and Germany. I expect to have dual citizenship in the USA and Germany within the next 6 months to one year. My sister lives in Hungary, and used to live in Austria. And so on. And if I genuinely did feel allergic to Europe in general, I would have every right to feel that way. With the exception of a few countries — Denmark, Bulgaria, perhaps a few other others.
Donna, while I disagree with you on some things (the cultural differences in Europe are much greater than the US, for one) I definitely have to back you up on the horrible, terrible, disgusting record of anti-Semitism in the UK. I have British Jewish friends and they’ve been fairly open about having issues in the workplace/academia because of their religion. (Also, India was much more Jew-friendly before the Brits colonised it and passive-aggressively evicted much of its Jewish population. The others, post-Independence, have reported little discrimination under Indian government, so there’s that anecdata.)
Considering the size of the continental US compared to the size of Europe, it’s pretty similar. Ohhhhhhh wow cause physical size totally is what we’re talking about here. And btw who the fuck is saying that other countries aren’t without faults? Seriously. But no we’re all just haters who are bigoted against and throwing out hate speech towards the US This thread is fantastic: We need to basically ban (and while no one has said flat out ban, every suggestion has the end result of a defacto ban) violent fiction (and non fiction now) before we even talk about gun control and Everything negative in this thread is all just hate speech against the US and apparently because other countries are problematic everyone needs to just shut up about what’s wrong with the US
Oh jesus. MY whole conversation has been how we’re surrounded by violence in our culture via media. I didn’t exclude non fiction. Fine, you want to talk REAL HARM (TM) then? It’s what happens when people (read: the media and the religious political parties) censor the news of portrayals of “unnecessary violence” which means other people (read: me and my fucking family when I was four) don’t know that a city’s in flames and people are killing each other in the streets until they get there from their village, and the streets are deserted except for the riot gangs. Because we shouldn’t expose people to “violent imagery”. Because knowing what’s happening is less important than some uber-religious fucknut’s abstract concept of not showing things on TV because what about the children. (I still have nightmares about empty streets, that’s what was about the children.) That’s real fucking harm, and it happened to me. Am I happy with the violence plastered all over Indian TV without warnings or ratings today? No. Does that mean I want people deciding not to cover violent news, or downplaying it? Fuck no.
Oh jesus. MY whole conversation has been how we’re surrounded by violence in our culture via media. I didn’t exclude non fiction. Oh good, so now we’re censoring reports of real violence, too! Hey, I think there’s a Take Back the Night rally going on next week- lets find some cops and see if we can make everyone shut up. After all, think of the children!
Oddly enough, Europe may have 50 countries, but the USA has 50 states! Not that that stopped any of you And the US has one official language and India has 18, what’s your point?
And the US has one official language and India has 18, what’s your point? off-topic, but that’s not exactly true . (Just a pet peeve of mine, because of all the assholes who love to holler “you’re in America now, learn ENGLISH!” Without realizing the irony of it– as a country we have no designated official language)
That was my point, deliberately so. Notice the howls of outrage? Oddly enough, Europe may have 50 countries, but the USA has 50 states! Not that that stopped any of you. Sauce, etc. It’s actually rather entertaining. The ‘howls of outrage’ seem to be nearly identical to the reaction to Partial’s comment. My very first response to you about the UK and LGBT issues @170 compares and contrasts them with New York, which is in fact, one of the 50 states. Be that as it may, I don’t think any of you is remotely qualified to challenge what I had to say about open transphobia in the British media and in British feminism, as compared to the USA. It isn’t just my opinion, I assure you. And if you truly doubt that the general level of anti-Semitism in the UK is greater than the USA, you are not very well-informed. Being Jewish can still be a severe professional handicap in some fields, certainly more so than in the USA — and even more than being trans, I have it on excellent authority. I’m sorry, but you don’t have it on excellent authority unless you have the facts and statistics to back it up. I believe you are confusing ‘excellent authority’ with ‘hearsay.’ I have no doubt that Anti-Semitism is both better and worse there, in various situations, but you are kidding if you think the US is anything to go by. How many Jews have been a major party candidate for president in the US? PS: Yes, I’ve been to England, more than once, as well as to the Continent several times. My mother and her family were from Germany, and she lived in England for five years. My son has spent substantial time in both Austria and Germany. I expect to have dual citizenship in the USA and Germany within the next 6 months to one year. My sister lives in Hungary, and used to live in Austria. And so on. And if I genuinely did feel allergic to Europe in general, I would have every right to feel that way. With the exception of a few countries — Denmark, Bulgaria, perhaps a few other others. Every one feels they have a ‘right’ to their prejudices. Honestly, to me yours seem as ludicrous as PartialHuman’s.
2000 years of history, some of it not so long ago and directly affecting my immediate family, would give me that right if I genuinely felt that way — for example, if I hated all German people — which I already indicated I don’t. (The mentions of Denmark and Bulgaria should have been a clue as to what I’m talking about. And the fact that I’m in the process of obtaining dual citizenship should have been a clue as to my actual feelings.) The fact that your own background has affected you differently would give me no less of a right. There would be nothing ludicrous about about a Jewish person feeling a general hostility towards Europe. And if you want statistics, the rates of anti-Semitic belief as reflected in various surveys you can easily find — based on rates of agreement with various statements like “Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country,” “Jews have too much power in the business world,” “Jews have too much power in international financial markets,” “Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust,” “Jews are more willing to use shady practices,” “Jews stick together too much,” and, of course, “Jews were responsible for the death of Christ” — all show that such beliefs are considerably more prevalent throughout Europe than in the USA, even if they’re lower in the UK than in, say, Poland or Hungary. In terms of candidates with Jewish backgrounds, are you seriously suggesting that this is a relevant indication? That, say, the fact that Benjamin Disraeli preceded Barry Goldwater by 100 years somehow means that anti-Semitic attitudes were equally prevalent in 19th-century England and the mid-20th century USA? Or that either has anything to do with employment discrimination today? And I notice you don’t even bother challenging what I said about transphobia. Macavity, I brought up “50 states” only as a response to someone’s mentioning “50 countries.” Obviously there are greater cultural differences among the latter than the former, but if someone condemns generalizations about the latter, they should at least be willing to acknowledge that it isn’t so wonderful to do so about the former, either, especially if you’re talking about attitudes towards guns, etc.
Regarding antisemitism in Europe, I have never been to a synagogue in the US that had weekly military security outside. Or ones that required photo identification to enter. I cannot say the same for synagogues that I have visited in Europe. And I’ve been to a lot of synagogues. Shit’s fucked up everywhere.
In terms of candidates with Jewish backgrounds, are you seriously suggesting that this is a relevant indication? That, say, the fact that Benjamin Disraeli preceded Barry Goldwater by 100 years somehow means that anti-Semitic attitudes were equally prevalent in 19th-century England and the mid-20th century USA? Or that either has anything to do with employment discrimination today? That was in response to your comment about Jews being blocked from rising to a certain level, not about overall Anti-semitism. Just over the course of the last two general elections, all three major political parties in the UK have run a candidate of Jewish extraction for Prime Minister. I think that says something, about opportunities. And I notice you don’t even bother challenging what I said about transphobia. It’s not that I didn’t bother, I am 100% willing to take your word on this issue, as I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge your knowledge/expertise in this area is so far greater than mine. I’m willing to believe that British feminists and left wing media are appreciably less progressive with regards to trans-issues as their US counterparts, which is disappointing. I also see from the first google search I do that there is more per capita violence against trans-people in the US than in the UK. Both things should be fixed- not ranked as to which is better.