David comments below that he feels much safer in places where people carry guns and is therefore against any kind of gun control. Also, he comments that since guns are so ubiquitous there would be no way to get all the guns out the hands of the "bad guys."
My thoughts, in no particular order:
It is certainly true that there are a lot of guns around, and that getting them out of circulation would be a massive, probably multi-generational problem. However, all that means is that if we want to end gun violence, we ought to get crackin'
I think it is worth noting that a pistol-packing public is of small use against these mass shooters; they are almost all suicidal and take out their victims too quickly for anybody to respond before damage is done. Many victims are children; surely we were not expecting them to have guns?
Also, although this has not yet happened, even in pistol-packing parts of the country, it's easy to imagine that would-be heroes firing at a mass-shooter could kill bystanders in the fray (there's a reason police practice through their whole careers) and further the carnage.
While it will no doubt be true for a long time, even if we do get crackin', that bad guys will be able to obtain guns, it is also true that (1) at least some of these mass shooters, like the last one, seem to have "cracked" and done their violence without the kind of planning that it takes to get contraband, and (2) the fewer guns there are, and the more illegal they are, the more likely that the authorities will be alearted to a here-t0-fore law-abiding citizen bumbling around in the underworld trying to get a gun.
It seems that these mass shooters have a sense, not only of rage but of entitlement; they seem to think that using guns is a natural and reasonible thing for an angry person to do. That sense of entitlement would also be reduced. If only criminals had guns, people who considered themselves ordinary, law abiding citizens would be less likely to resort to them.
Finally, I certainly agree with Robin, that this epidemic of angry, violent men must be tackled with understanding and social interventions besides gun control if we are to al live well together in this increasingly small world.
8 comments:
While I do not agree with David about there being little or no gun control I do believe that he makes some very valid points that need to be taken into consideration, not the least of them being the fact that because guns are already so ubiquitous there is no viable way prevent the "bad guys" from obtaining guns if they really want them. You're suggestion that, regardless of that fact, "if we want to end gun violence, we ought to get crackin'" is somewhat naive in my view. For starters, even if guns of all kinds were completely eradicated, there are various other weapons or other methods of killing people that those who are intent on killing people can employ to achieve their aims aka act upon their criminal intent. To paraphrase a famous slogan -
Guns don't kill people.
Criminal intent kills people. . .
Except of course when killing is legalized as in warfare or indeed police intervention.
No amount of gun control is going to stop people from killing other people. All it means is that they will find other weapons of choice to achieve their ends. As you rightly point out,these mass killers (or would be mass killers) are almost always suicidal and they kill their victims too quickly for the police or anybody other than their intended victims to respond in time to prevent a mass killing. Need I remind you that the biggest mass killing in the U.S.A. in recent history did not use guns at all?
One thing that I noticed about your Google map is that there seemed to be few such mass killings in rural states where guns are part of the landscape as it were. Perhaps public education about the responsible use of guns might work better at preventing such mass killings than getting rids of guns entirely.
:at least some of these mass shooters, like the last one, seem to have "cracked" and done their violence without the kind of planning that it takes to get contraband,
Who needs "contraband" when there are all kinds of other perfectly legal and readily available "items that can be reasonably defined as weapons"* if someone chooses to use them as weapons?
:(2) the fewer guns there are, and the more illegal they are, the more likely that the authorities will be alerted to a here-to-fore law-abiding citizen bumbling around in the underworld trying to get a gun.
I expect by that point, if it were ever reached, that the "weapon of choice" of the here-to-fore law-abiding citizen would simply change to one that is less illegal and more readily obtainable. Guns don't *make* people kill people but people who want to kill people are pretty good at *making* things to kill people as human history clearly shows. Guns, to say nothing of weapons of mass destruction of various kinds, would not exist if that were not so.
:It seems that these mass shooters have a sense, not only of rage but of entitlement; they seem to think that using guns is a natural and reasonable thing for an angry person to do. That sense of entitlement would also be reduced.
Would it? I am not so sure. I think that sense of entitlement existed long before guns were invented Rev. Robinson. Once upon a time that sense of entitlement was exercised with swords or bows and arrows. Come to think of it. . . What do you plan to do about those items that can be reasonably defined as weapons?
:If only criminals had guns, people who considered themselves ordinary, law abiding citizens would be less likely to resort to them.
I would like to think that the kind of mass killers we are talking about here, or indeed other killers, pretty much understand that they are no longer ordinary, law abiding citizens when they go on their murderous rampages. . .
:Finally, I certainly agree with Robin, that this epidemic of angry, violent men must be tackled with understanding and social interventions besides gun control if we are to al live well together in this increasingly small world.
What "epidemic" of angry, violent men Rev. Robinson? Didn't you yourself acknowledge that these incidents were comparatively rare? For every "angry, violent" man there are a thousand or ten thousand or even a hundred thousand more who do not fit that bill at all, at least in terms of actually killing someone.
* such as the long sharp knives that are undoubtedly still concealed in the drawers of the Franklin Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Actually, Robin, without a gun, I think it would have been very difficult for that man to have killed all five of his children, who were something like 16, 14, 12, 8, and 7. He could have fed them poison, I suppose, but even had he wielded a knife, some of them probably would have survived. You can drive your babies into a lake, or strangle them one by one, but older kids can fight back...anything but a gun.
As for the epidemic, the number of people who stay well do not make an epidemic. It's the number of people who come down with the same disease in rapid succession that make an epidemic.
Let me point out That I did not say I wanted no gun control as some of you claim, I am quite in favor of most of the control we already have to keep guns less freely available from crazy people and children. Plus, guns being quite expensive actually I don't know if "freely" available puts the right conotation on things.
The was a man in the news who beheaded his five year old sister while the cop stood in the door and watched. He had stabbed another sister to death and was attacking yet another sibline when the cop used his GUN to shoot him dead. All of this with a buthcher knife in a fit of rage. Crazy people have no trouble beheading their sister with a knife, so lets not blame guns.
Epidemic -
1. Spreading rapidly and *extensively* by infection and affecting *many* individuals in an area or a population at the same time: an epidemic outbreak of influenza.
2. Widely prevalent: epidemic discontent.
Your use of the word "epidemic" implies that *many* "angry, violent men" are murdering people with gun violence when in fact this is not the case. I agree that guns make it easier to kill people, that is why they were invented in the first place, but even if every single gun on this planet was to magically disappear overnight the problem of people killing other people would not magically end. Keeping with your medical analogy you are trying to decrease but one symptom of the disease rather than trying to treat or indeed cure the disease itself.
Robin said, "* such as the long sharp knives that are undoubtedly still concealed in the drawers of the Franklin Unitarian Universalist Fellowship"
Robin, I've been a UU all of my life(Except that I was a Unitarian before the merger), and I have never seen a UU church whose kitchen knives were actually anywhere near sharp!
:-)
Am I seeing a common thread throught the multi-cultural and gun conversations that will get us back to multi-cultural, part II--Satisfication? If not, may I suggestion one? Identity.
The adaptive challenge of dealing with the dissatisfaction factors that compromise our value and desire to be multi cultural is one of identity. All of the UUs who weren't born UU became UUs because as Rev. Peter Morales likes to say, "we found our people." We identified and felt connected & safe.
The gun connection--American's weapon of choice is the gun. It's part of the American identity, guns represent individualism and independence. In this country we "stick to our guns," and "shoot from the hip." The royalty among our Socinian fore bearers wore wooden swords. The swords were an emblem of their royal status (only royals could carry such weapons). The wooden sword represented their religious pacificism. Guns represent our anti-monarchy, democractic, independent, constitutional identity. UUs advocate gun control for reasons similar to our ancestor's choice of wooden swords. Arguing gun control in the larger culture is like arguing abortion--it's a stuck issue. I'm more interested in the motivation behind the weapon of choice, then the American preference for gun violence.
I think the rage that motivates these terrible acts of violence is the far, far end of a spectrum that includes the petty verbal indignation, disgust, scorn and shame that UUs level at each other in our all too human attempts to maintain our group identity. I'm not even going to try to expand on that.
How does all this connect to Multi-cultural Part II--Satisfaction? In the last UU World both the Revs. Robinson and Morrison-Reed address the need for more spirit. Morrison-Reed specifically counsels to worry less about inclusion and more about spirit. Spirit will supply the satisfaction. The challenge is to get there UUs are faced with an identity crisis. Ironically it is not a crisis of spirit or not, Rev. Robinson is right, the majority has already spoken. Our adaptive challenge is how to move forward without letting go of or excluding the minority who feels their identity is threatened. The second irony is that we struggle with this because we don't understand the evolutionary mechanisms of shame that we share with violent,humiliated and enraged murders. The third irony is that if we're going to share "spirit" with the other cultures that have been humiliated by our privileges, we've got to come to understand, not original sin, but original shame.
Sir, I applaud your feelings. I understand that you wish the world to be a safer and more peaceful place. But this idea: If only criminals had guns, people who considered themselves ordinary, law abiding citizens would be less likely to resort to them.is not true. In every case in which the law abiding are disarmed, the law abiding suffer.
In every single case in which a potential victim has a firearm, mass shooters were stopped before many innocents attacked.
Police do not practice their whole careers. They qualify according to state laws. Many CCW owners practice to a much greater extent than do police. Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away; and sometimes they arrive then wait for the SWAT team.
Firearms are restricted in Britain, Australia, and Germany. Crime is up in all three and Germany just had a mass shooting. Mexico has draconian gun laws and contrary to the media, most guns have not come from the US except those that were taken from the Mexican military.
The Columbine killers are known for the guns because their many BOMBS failed.
The Pearl River High School killings were prevented from escalating because the vice principal had a gun.
In all cases, possession of firearms by responsible people will safeguard the citizenry.
Cargosquid, I'm publishing your comment, but it is full of assertions that are questionable. It's been shown that most home guns are used on family members, not intruders, that even well trained citizens people do not use guns effectively in emergencies. Of course there are other ways to kill people, but guns remain by far the most dangerous.
Post a Comment