|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: American 'gun culture' - fact or fiction?
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Oh, absolutely. My late grandfather was a hunter. By the time I started moving under my own power, he was retired, and he was my default babysitter because he lived in town. I can't remember a time when I didn't know that the gun case (which was locked) was strictly verboten to us kids.
A lot of the "gun rules" environment at the time was shaped by people who put meat on their tables during the lean early years of the last century by their hunting skills (taught by their grandfathers and fathers and uncles and older brothers), so there was a lot of training and very clearly understood social norms re guns, in addition to the fairly cohesive "small farm town" environment. Still exists to a large extent in hunter culture as far as I know.
[oops - top of page - this is in response to mirrizin]
[ 19. April 2007, 15:08: Message edited by: Amazing Grace ]
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
I can remember my grandad being tickled pink when I bore-sighted his .22 rifle and drove the nail from the bullseye at 100 yards. The target dropped! A thick layer of luck on top of the skill, no doubt.
Grace, you said it so much better than I. And also, what mirrizin quoted from TubaMirim.
Blessings,
Tom
(who just can't type...)
[ 19. April 2007, 15:14: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Yeah. I think, and the demographics will probably support me, that gun control makes more sense in metropolitan areas where there are fewer practical uses for firearms besides sport.
Rural areas really are a totally different situation, which might be what Brits (no offense intended) may not understand.
There are many, many American cultures, even within one state, and even within one city.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
TubaMirum said quote:
OK - but what about my friend, who purchased a handgun after she was raped? Does she have to live in fear, thinking she can't ever defend herself?
What you suggest is a good idea, until you get down to details like this.
People in the UK who have been raped don't usually have guns afterwards. I'm sure coping with the fear must be very difficult, and they might find it helps to have a mobile phone, perhaps a quick dial facility, a personal alarm, perhaps to change their lifestyle, take self-defence lessons, move house, install security lighting, or buy a fierce dog. No one will do all of these things, some people might do none. If someone can't do one of them - buy a fierce dog, say - they can't really complain that they're therefore being condemned to a life of fear. There are ways of building confidence, and not all of them are always open.
But what use is a gun as a defence against rape? I guess that many rapes begin with an unexpected violent physical assault. It might be very difficult to get a gun that is in a bag or pocket into your hand and ready to fire. To produce it in between blows from your assailant might only provoke greater violence. If you're disarmed, then you and the violent attacker are in a scenario that now includes a loaded gun. Not a great thought.
I would have thought that a gun was a very dubious benefit. Add to that all the dangers to yourself and others that come from having a handgun in close proximity all the time (just think of how many curious events might happen that lead to a child getting hold of it) and I just don't see the logic.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
True. I was thinking that a bowie knife made more sense for that kind of thing.
But still, it's a deadly weapon, and one could hurt one's self by owning one and not taking care of it.
A "fierce" dog, for that purpose, is also a weapon. I see lots of folks around here that own mastiff or pitbull-type, intimidating looking dogs apparently for that purpose. And these dogs have the same issues as other weapons. They could potentially express their fierceness on anyone.
I think the point remains that banning potential weapons isn't going to stop people from killing each other. They'll just find different means.
A more effective long range goal would be to focus on the people, rather than the tools, even though it's harder to do in the short run.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
People in the UK who have been raped don't usually have guns afterwards. I'm sure coping with the fear must be very difficult, and they might find it helps to have a mobile phone, perhaps a quick dial facility, a personal alarm, perhaps to change their lifestyle, take self-defence lessons, move house, install security lighting, or buy a fierce dog. No one will do all of these things, some people might do none. If someone can't do one of them - buy a fierce dog, say - they can't really complain that they're therefore being condemned to a life of fear. There are ways of building confidence, and not all of them are always open.
But what use is a gun as a defence against rape? I guess that many rapes begin with an unexpected violent physical assault. It might be very difficult to get a gun that is in a bag or pocket into your hand and ready to fire. To produce it in between blows from your assailant might only provoke greater violence. If you're disarmed, then you and the violent attacker are in a scenario that now includes a loaded gun. Not a great thought.
I would have thought that a gun was a very dubious benefit. Add to that all the dangers to yourself and others that come from having a handgun in close proximity all the time (just think of how many curious events might happen that lead to a child getting hold of it) and I just don't see the logic.
Come on. If in the U.S. there are literally millions and millions of guns, why aren't we hearing about millions and millions of children being shot?
My friend is single. She was raped by a breaker-in to her own apartment. She's not going to let that happen again; I suspect she'd rather die first. And she's a law-abiding and productive citizen. It's really not foranybody else to tell her how she should deal with her fears. I would think women in the U.K. would resent the fact that they can't protect themselves in a similar way.
I got a dog because I didn't want to have a gun. But maybe she's not allowed to have one - and I haven't been attacked and raped in my own home. You're not getting the point here: even most of us "liberals" don't believe that guns should be outlawed. We recognize that there have always been guns here - but that something has changed to make these sorts of events more prevalent.
It ain't the guns, IOW.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Rural areas really are a totally different situation, which might be what Brits (no offense intended) may not understand.
I think that most Brits would understand that rural situations are different. I suspect that if people in the UK were asked to think of a legal gun owner, near the top of their list would be farmers; we get this stereo-type of the farmer with a stalk of straw in his teeth patrolling his land with a shot gun (breach open, cartridges in his pocket) in case a fox appears to worry his hens. Also near the top of the list would be the country gent taking pot shots at pheasant or the businessman taking a jaunt in the Highlands to bag a stag (ignoring the fact that most people shooting deer or pheasants aren't country gents or wealthy businessmen but people just like them). I suspect most brits would have difficult with figuring out why anyone would need a handgun, it's not exactly the most useful weapon for hunting.
The only person I've ever talked to about owning guns (though, not the only person I know who's owned one) was raised on a farm in Texas. They regularly had assorted 'vaa-rmin' (as he, approximately, called them) come onto the land and raid the trash or worry the hens. Usually opening the door and letting the dogs out was sufficient, but occasionally they needed to get a gun out. They did have a handgun, because it was the best way of quickly finishing off something the dogs had mauled or where they were close and were restraining a dog with one hand. But, usually it was the shotgun or rifle they used to dispatch the critter.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
TubaMirim, I'm with you in many respects, although as hatless pointed out, it could become problematic.
But even so, your friend needs to be properly trained. And one of the biggest thoughts se has to drill into her head is, that if the gun comes out, she will fire immediately and to the most effective end.
Too many people have a gun for just such a reason, then they get the idea from TV that they can pull it out and hold off the attacker. Then they have it taken off of them and used gainst them.
Cardinal rule: Don't produce it if you aren't going to fire.
Blessings to you and your friend,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Alan:
Thanks for explaining. Those are the sorts of cases I'm talking about.
And I agree that there's some sense in putting closer restrictions on handguns in many areas. Unfortunately, given the number of them that are out there, I think such a process would be practically impossible to accomplish on a federal level and rather difficult on a state or local level.
Not to mention that cops might not want to or be able to enforce it properly.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Yeah. I think, and the demographics will probably support me, that gun control makes more sense in metropolitan areas where there are fewer practical uses for firearms besides sport.
Rural areas really are a totally different situation, which might be what Brits (no offense intended) may not understand.
There are many, many American cultures, even within one state, and even within one city.
Well, of course, there is the perennial Ship Pond War chestnut of hunting US vs. hunting UK general (please note my qualification) class differences. But people who live in the country also may need to defend themselves against varmints.
There isn't really the cohesive social structure these days to support a laissez-faire attitude such as existed in my rural childhood decades ago in most places in the US*. Which is why I support sensible gun regulations.
* story time ... a net.acquaintance of mine lives in small town South Dakota. When he came to visit, he thought he was going to shock me by showing me his concealed carry permit. He didn't, because at the time he was telling me the process of getting it: the sheriff knows him personally (or, in places like that, he would know someone who could vouch for him), and was keeping his eyes and ears open and could pull it at any time. Sounds like a fairly cohesive social network with checks and balances to me. I told him it was like the place I grew up, but it certainly wasn't the case where I was living at the time.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
TubaMirim, I'm with you in many respects, although as hatless pointed out, it could become problematic.
But even so, your friend needs to be properly trained. And one of the biggest thoughts se has to drill into her head is, that if the gun comes out, she will fire immediately and to the most effective end.
Too many people have a gun for just such a reason, then they get the idea from TV that they can pull it out and hold off the attacker. Then they have it taken off of them and used gainst them.
Cardinal rule: Don't produce it if you aren't going to fire.
Blessings to you and your friend,
Tom
She trained diligently. She goes back to the police regularly for re-training. Believe me, she's not a dingbat in any sense of the word. I'm sure she'd rather not feel this way at all.
Hatless, I'm sorry for getting a little worked up there. My friend was really scarred by the experience - it changed her life and her way of looking at the world completely - and honestly I'd rather she be willing to preserve herself and her life (as she sees it) than to have her feel that kind of fear and anger, and experience the damage it does.
It may be that she'll come to the point you're talking about; maybe she'll get rid of the gun someday. Another woman I know was also raped, and she handled it differently.
Gun control, yes. Registration: yes. A long discussion about this topic: yes. But banning guns completely is just not the right answer, I don't think. We do have a problem here, but I think it lies elsewhere.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Cardinal rule: Don't produce it if you aren't going to fire.
IME most gun 'experts' amend that to
Don't produce it if you aren't willing to fire; and to kill, not maim.
I once had a gun guru dude tell me mere brandishment was notably effective in deterring threats. I can't confirm or deny the allegation but ISTM to be supported by 'common sense'.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
What is that song in Oliver-- "reviewing the situition?"
A few years ago came a bill in congress that would "preserve standards of broadcast decency" (merely, as the propaganda had it) by upping the ante to the point where either compliance or non-compliance threatened to bankrupt anyone who didn't operate a whole string of stations.
In the case of firearms, perhaps we should be similarly dubious about the agendas and claims of corporate persons, who are immune to gunshots, when they result in flesh-and-blood persons, who are not immune to them, winding up in hospitals and graveyards every day by the hundreds.
I don't want to repeal the second amendment any more than I want to see the airwaves turn into a cesspool of obscenity. But the problem is that gun crimes, often committed by teenagers, have increased sharply in the past few years and reached an epidemic level in Philadelphia among other cities. In a discussion on the radio this morning, an authority (whose main point was that someone needs, at last, to care about these kids in a one-on-one, quasi-parental way) suggested a state law to restrict purchase of firearms to one gun per person per month.
Would someone in the NRA like to explain to us how and why this proposal is not reasonable? (I'd have thought, why not one firearm per year under normal circumstances.) But, our speaker sighed, no such bill will never pass in the current legislature.
Personally, I wish I could demand of an individual who marches in to a gun shop regularly and walks out with another purchase to show me all the guns he has bought. Where is he keeping them? What does he do with them? It's a good bet that he sells them illegally in the black market. But gun registration is a no-no, for reasons we can understand if we've heard or read our real gun-control freaks, so we can't make such inquiries.
Qui Bono? This looks increasingly like a war between the human race and an alien breed of creatures with a different lifeform, and incarnate flesh and blood are losing it.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
If nothing else, this thread has demonstrated the nature of the American gun culture, which was the what the OP wanted to know about.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
206:
Well, that was what I meant. And brandishment only works from a safe distance, and then you must be sure there's only one of them, no one is behind you. And then, if they do anything but obey your order to lie down, or else run away, you fire to effect.
Still the bottom line is, if the will isn't there, don't pull it out.
Alogon:
Your're probably right about the black market sellers. Many guns are also stolen, or at least reported as stolen. There's also quite a market for foreign weapons smuggled in outside of the registration process altogether. That's where the NRA gets their old saw about"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," and to an extent they are correct.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it.
tclune:
You're right, but I think there is a big difference between criminal use and psycopathic use of a gun. FWIW.
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I would think women in the U.K. would resent the fact that they can't protect themselves in a similar way.
Well, you would think wrong, for the most part. There may be some women who think that, but I've never in 38 years heard a UK woman of my aquaintance express resentment that she can't carry a gun in her handbag*. For most people it really wouldn't be an issue they'd give any thought to.
Which is a pretty good illustration of why many non-Americans would think of America as a 'gun culture'.
* She could, of course, own various sorts of legal gun, subject to the same restrictions as everybody else.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I would think women in the U.K. would resent the fact that they can't protect themselves in a similar way.
Well, you would think wrong, for the most part. There may be some women who think that, but I've never in 38 years heard a UK woman of my aquaintance express resentment that she can't carry a gun in her handbag*. For most people it really wouldn't be an issue they'd give any thought to.
Which is a pretty good illustration of why many non-Americans would think of America as a 'gun culture'.
* She could, of course, own various sorts of legal gun, subject to the same restrictions as everybody else.
I don't remember saying anything about a "handbag." My friend was violently raped in her apartment, which is where she keeps her gun. It's also legal and "subject to restrictions."
Otherwise, spot on.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If nothing else, this thread has demonstrated the nature of the American gun culture, which was the what the OP wanted to know about.
This is the kind of snide comment that really undermines any kind of honest conversation about these types of cross-pond differences. There is a rich and diverse American culture, some of which involves owning guns. Yes, it's true.
But you can't just take the laws of London and drop them into Los Angeles expecting them to work the same way. That's why some comments about "obvious this" or "clearly that" sound so ignorant.
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
For people from the UK, it seems a no-brainer that if the problem is gun crime, then putting more on the streets through outlets like Wal-Mart is not the solution.
You know, I haven't heard anybody say that the solution to gun crime is selling guns at Wal-Mart. I've heard people say that guns in the right hands could prevent or deter some gun crime. There's a difference.
A lot of the confusion is causality. People assume that since:
More guns in America. More violent crime in America.
Less guns in UK. Less violent crime in UK.
that this necessarily (and obviously) implies:
More guns --> More violent crime
Less guns --> Less violent crime
when it could just as easily be explained:
More violent crime --> More guns
Less violent crime --> Less guns
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
Brits are so (IMO quite rightly) befuddled by American culture. When the problem is guns that are available in Wal-Mart, it's very hard to see why the solution would be putting more on the street.
Whereas to the British mind, if the problem is gun crime, you make them equally unavailable to all. Then you've only got your pointed sticks to contend with. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The American logic is, to me, a non-sense.
First of all, the problem isn't "guns that are available in Wal-Mart". Second, I find your assumption that "making them equally unavailable to all" would be so easy and foolproof to be rather naive.
quote:
By that logic, everybody should be given access to the kind of explosives that what's-his-name in Oklahoma City had in 1995 -- because you never know when you're going to have to defend yourself against his ilk having their moment of glory.
If I see you with explosives about to blow up a building, how exactly do you suppose I'm going to stop you with more explosives? Now, if only I had a gun...
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Yeah, it seems that "guns in handbags" and "more guns at Walmart" are getting all the attention here, so let me try again, too.
I know exactly one person who has a gun. She's the friend I mentioned, and she lives 600 miles away from me. Nobody here discusses guns at cocktail hour.
So I fail to see how this constitutes a general "gun culture." There are places in the country where a "gun culture" does exist - but this is only a problem, anyway, if people are getting killed because of it. I shot rifles at summer camp - target-shooting for sport - and nobody got hurt.
My argument is simply that a person should not be prevented from purchasing a weapon for self-defense - and particularly not, IMO, a woman who lives alone and who has been attacked previously. People do hunt, and they should be allowed to.
There should also be gun control. There should be restrictions on purchases, and registration of firearms. There should be better communication between the mental health care system and gun sellers. There should be waiting lists. There should be aggressive gang-control measures in urban areas, so that people who live in poor parts of towns and cities don't have to live in fear.
There shouldn't be a total ban on firearms. That is what most of us are saying, yet it seems to get ignored in favor of making the case that Americans are all gun-crazy. We're not.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If nothing else, this thread has demonstrated the nature of the American gun culture, which was the what the OP wanted to know about.
This is the kind of snide comment that really undermines any kind of honest conversation about these types of cross-pond differences. There is a rich and diverse American culture, some of which involves owning guns. Yes, it's true.
But you can't just take the laws of London and drop them into Los Angeles expecting them to work the same way. That's why some comments about "obvious this" or "clearly that" sound so ignorant.
I find your response to my observation puzzling. Not only was it not intended to be snide, for the life of me I can't see what you are viewing as snide. I am from the US, not the UK, and have no knowledge of what UK gun laws actually are.
The thing that struck me was the extent to which many people in the US find the gun an important part of their psyche. It is much like the attitude many Americans have to the automobile (no, that's not a shot either). From a purely sociological standpoint, the gun culture is fascinating. My comment was purely reflective of that sociological interest, although I personally would be quite content if guns were outlawed, so that only outlaws had guns (the way God intended...)
I am honestly perplexed by the fury of your response to a bland post.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
A lot of the confusion is causality. People assume that since:
More guns in America. More violent crime in America.
Less guns in UK. Less violent crime in UK.
that this necessarily (and obviously) implies:
More guns --> More violent crime
Less guns --> Less violent crime
Well include me out of 'people'. My assumption is:
Fewer available guns --> Less use of guns in violent crime
and
Less use of guns in violent crime --> fewer deaths
I am aware that it is people who kill not guns - that is true in the UK too, but - generally speaking - people without guns kill fewer than people with guns. So, yes address the people side of the equation, but don't neglect the guns side. What I find hard to comprehend is not that people won't ban guns - that seems to me to be unrealistic - but that there seems to be little willingness to increase regulation or licensing at all.
I guess the phrase 'gun culture' is open to interpretation. In Britain we have one kind of gun culture in gangland Manchester and London where it is becoming a matter of fashion and kudos for young men to go about armed. A different kind of 'gun culture' exists where the citizen's right to bear arms *appears* to trump any sort of possibility for the government appointed by the citizen to regulate more tightly the way in which the citizen does that.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think we were perplexed by your post because you were stating that we clearly had a gun culture when many of us still don't see good evidence that we do. I am persuaded that some parts of the US have a gun culture, but I still see no reason to apply such a generality to the whole country. I have only seen a real gun twice in my life and never seen a handgun unless you want to count seeing a policeman's gun bulge. If I live in a gun-culture I must be pretty damn out of the loop!
There are various things that we say with respect to American cultures that need not apply to all people in the culture. It has been said that America is a Christian nation. You may disagree with that, but if someone pointed to, e.g., the Christian broadcast stations and called them examples of that Amerian Christian culture, my guess is that you would know what was being said -- even if you personally never listened to them.
As I tried to indicate, I think that the cultural artifact that most closely approximates the place that guns hold in some Americans' iconography is the automobile. You may not own a car. You may seldom ride in cars. You may own a car and not feel that it is noticeably a part of the definition of who you are. But I would guess that you could make sense out of someone suggesting that there exists an American car culture, and that the place that the automobile occupies in many people's self-image is not limited to the utlitiy of the object.
None of this is an attack on anyone in any sense that I can discern.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I am aware that it is people who kill not guns - that is true in the UK too, but - generally speaking - people without guns kill fewer than people with guns. So, yes address the people side of the equation, but don't neglect the guns side. What I find hard to comprehend is not that people won't ban guns - that seems to me to be unrealistic - but that there seems to be little willingness to increase regulation or licensing at all.
But I think people here do agree with this, and have said so.
Are you talking about what's generally true in the U.S.? I think we will have that discussion, too. The NRA is a powerful organization, though, it's true. But once people get fed up with this sort of thing - and I get the sense that this event may help that process along - they will do something about it, NRA be damned.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Gwai. from my (uk) perpesctive your posts *would* make me think America has a "gun culture". I guess its a question of definitions. As others have tried to point out, over here it is highly unusual to find someone who thinks we should have a "right" to a gun, and indeed very few people that would want to have them in their homes for a number of reasons.
By "gun culture" I think you could read something like "acceptance of guns in society" or more specifically to america the fact that a *right* to own a gun is tied in with American culture/identity. The very fact that so many Americans dont even question guns for sale in wallmart/ right to bear arms etc looks to *outsiders* to be a "gun culture" as its a culture we dont have. (it may well be its just the NRA and lots of people *are* anti-guns, but were talking about how it appears to outsiders - through posts here etc)That isnt to say every single american owns 6 guns and is desperate to shoot them.
Regardless of what you believe about guns, the fact that as a country America appears (to the outside world) proud of the fact that every one has a right to have a gun, or even blissfully unaware that others might find the law unusual suggests to cultures that *dont* find guns to be usual, a gun culture.
I think... ?
[ 19. April 2007, 19:10: Message edited by: Emma. ]
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Gwai. from my (uk) perpesctive your posts *would* make me think America has a "gun culture". I guess its a question of definitions.
I don't think I get it. I've reread my post to find what I said that suggests a gun culture and I'm missing it. Elaborate please?
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
By "gun culture" I think you could read something like "acceptance of guns in society" or more specifically to america the fact that a *right* to own a gun is tied in with American culture/identity.
It sounds like you all have as much a right to own a gun as we do. It's just more regulated. Acceptance of existence doesn't seem to be enough to create a culture. After all, I suspect they accept the existence of moose in Alaska, but I'd scarcly call Alaska a moose-culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
The very fact that so many Americans dont even question guns for sale in wallmart/ right to bear arms etc looks to *outsiders* to be a "gun culture" as its a culture we dont have. That isnt to say every single american owns 6 guns and is desperate to shoot them.
We also don't question that books are for sale in walmart and most of us would say we have a righ to own books. Does that mean we have a book culture even though most people can't be bothered with books?
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There are various things that we say with respect to American cultures that need not apply to all people in the culture. It has been said that America is a Christian nation. You may disagree with that, but if someone pointed to, e.g., the Christian broadcast stations and called them examples of that Amerian Christian culture, my guess is that you would know what was being said -- even if you personally never listened to them.
As I tried to indicate, I think that the cultural artifact that most closely approximates the place that guns hold in some Americans' iconography is the automobile. You may not own a car. You may seldom ride in cars. You may own a car and not feel that it is noticeably a part of the definition of who you are. But I would guess that you could make sense out of someone suggesting that there exists an American car culture, and that the place that the automobile occupies in many people's self-image is not limited to the utlitiy of the object.
I can't agree with this at all. Guns literally make up no part of my life, while both cars and Christianity do (and Christianity would, even if I wasn't Christian myself, since it is my heritage - and since we have to deal with it in politics these days).
Yes, we are generally a car culture; most of us own one, or want to. And we are a Christian culture; there's a church on practically every block.
But since only about a third of us own guns, or have any interest in the matter, I really don't see how the other two-thirds of us are implicated in any sort of "gun culture." I haven't fired one in years, and have no plans (or even desire) to.
I'm not part of the "sports" culture, either, and that's more ubiquitous in fact.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
FYI, the Walmart near me doesn't sell guns. I don't think any non-gun shop around here does, except for the outdoor stores that sell hunting equipment. They sell bows and arrows, too. Bowie knives. Golf clubs, baseball bats, and pool filters.
It really does sound like you have similar policies in Britain; the guns-in-handbags post was starred with the information that women could, indeed, own guns.
So what's the big difference here, then?
Is it just our 2nd Amendment? We're generally suspicious of government here, and don't trust the powers-that-be to run our lives (even when they say it's for our own good). It IS in the Constitution, though, and something we can't discard without huge majorities voting to do so.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
You know, I haven't heard anybody say that the solution to gun crime is selling guns at Wal-Mart. I've heard people say that guns in the right hands could prevent or deter some gun crime. There's a difference.
If I recall, the NRA and similar groups pretty much advocate a gun in every household as the best deterrent to gun criminals.
In fact, back in the 1980's they passed a law in a town in North Georgia to that effect -- Kennesaw, I believe it was: that every household must have a gun.
Perhaps you do your shopping at K-Mart, but the net effect is the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
A lot of the confusion is causality. {etc., etc., etc.}
you misunderstand.
I make the following assumption:
human nature ---> violent tendencies sometimes.
then, all other factors being equal ...
violent tendencies --> guns in America --> violent attacks and more gun crime
equal amount of violent tendencies for the sake of argument --> not so many guns in Europe --> violent attacks of the same level of viciousness, but not so much damage, because available weapons not nearly as efficient at doing their job.
quote:
First of all, the problem isn't "guns that are available in Wal-Mart".
oh, yes it is.
quote:
Second, I find your assumption that "making them equally unavailable to all" would be so easy and foolproof to be rather naive.
This thread has gone a long way since those comments, and I've expanded and clarified.
But, for the record, I don't think it would be easy and foolproof. (As I've said, I grew up in a gun heartland. And, also for the record, I'm one helluva good shot with a small-calibre rifle.)
I just think it would be worthwhile.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Well include me out of 'people'. My assumption is:
Fewer available guns --> Less use of guns in violent crime
and
Less use of guns in violent crime --> fewer deaths
I am aware that it is people who kill not guns - that is true in the UK too, but - generally speaking - people without guns kill fewer than people with guns. So, yes address the people side of the equation, but don't neglect the guns side.
Yeh. What he said.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Gwai - I wasnt trying to argue as such, just trying to give an indication of how it looked from outside the situation if thats possible.
Given your book example, I think that yes, *if we didnt have books for sale/read them/hmade a big deal of right to own them* then we *would* call your culture a "book culture" even if only 1/3 of Americans ever read them.
From what Ive read on this thread it is far far harder to own a gun here than in America (rightly or wrongly, I dont really know either way!) and like derf said, I wouldnt even know where to start to try and get hold of one. RE the woman being raped with a gun situation - culturally we (and obviously huige sweeping generalisation here) stereotypically have different responses. It appears you are saying in America the usual response would be to defend her right to own a gun, over here it really wouldnt factor at all, and wouldnt be a reason to own a gun it just woudlnt be thought of. We dont have a culture that accepts gun ownership as "normal" or a "right" (especially not one written into law) unless farming etc. Certainly not a handgun.
It may well be that large parts of America *dont* agree with gun ownership/dont own a gun, but to those outside looking it it still looks like, as a nation, America defends the right to own a gun. That to us looks like a "gun culture".
Not sure I can explain any better than that really (which i realise wasnt great!) but was just trying to say that from the posts on this thread, because they hit our ears so differently (ie the rape victim and the gun) people do see things differently as a result of the culture theyre in I guess.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Psst: They don't sell guns at the Wal-Marts around here.
This probably does happen in some parts of the country, but it doesn't happen where I am (NY Metro). Why are people refusing to listen to what we're saying here?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
PS apologies Gwai ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I think Ive conflated your posts with a couple of others on this thread in my head,
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
It may well be that large parts of America *dont* agree with gun ownership/dont own a gun, but to those outside looking it it still looks like, as a nation, America defends the right to own a gun. That to us looks like a "gun culture".
[Emma, I'm not responding directly to you, but using your quote to make a point to the thread]
A culture is a set of shared beliefs, values, and attitudes. It doesn't need laws to restrict it because it is considered to be right and is socialized into the people who belong to it.
Now, if many (perhaps most) Americans do not buy or use guns, how can they be participating in a "gun culture"?????
Even among those who use guns, it would be hard to make a case that these people all share the same beliefs, values, and attitudes.
Collectively, they may live in a country which does not restrict gun ownership as much as other countries do (or, restricts gun ownership more than other countries do).
So when speaking of the "gun culture" in the US, it's best to be very specific about who belongs to that sub-culture. It is not helpful at all to assume that there is some sort of generalized "gun culture" here or anywhere else.
sabine
[ 19. April 2007, 19:54: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM "gun culture" would include the almost knee-jerk reaction that I quoted from the Governor of Virginia. It is so ingrained in the public discourse of the US that "guns are part of what we are" that no politicain dare offer a small suggestion of some sort of registration or training, without being quite viciously attacked by a large minority of the voters. And those attacks would be supported by another large minority on constitutional grounds, EVEN WHEN the Constitution expressly says "well-regulated"
There are almost no industrial countries except the US where this would be the case.
Being dismissive of this doesn't help the discussion.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Psst: They don't sell guns at the Wal-Marts around here.
Psst: They do in Texas.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
A culture is a set of shared beliefs, values, and attitudes. It doesn't need laws to restrict it because it is considered to be right and is socialized into the people who belong to it.
Now, if many (perhaps most) Americans do not buy or use guns, how can they be participating in a "gun culture"?????
There is a sense in which "culture" means what you indicate. It is not the case that "gun culture" or "car culture" or the like mean that at all. We have laws restricting the use of cars, but that does not mean that the term "car culture" is therefore vapid. It just means that you can't define "culture" in the phrase "car culture" in the way that you would like.
Rather, the core concept to my mind in this use of "culture" is that the automobile has iconic significance for people (whehter they own one or not) that goes well beyond the utility of the car itself. Some people identify with their cars in a way that has little to do with moving from point A to point B. They judge other people's merit or whether another is sympatico on the basis of what car they drive, etc. they see the car as a window into the owner's soul in some deep-seated sense.
Now, guns have a similar iconic place in the consciousness of a very large segment of Americans (and other people, too. I saw on a show recently that some African youth are called "Kalash," for Kalashnikov (sp?). That sort of identification of their manhood with a weapon is an excellent example of what I would term a "cultural" icon.)
I was raised on cowboy movies and given toy pistols as part of my acculturation into what "little boys were made of." I was take hunting on Grandpa's farm when I was 12 in a way that was rather like a secular bar mitzva: it was part of coming of age to lug a 20 gauge around the back fourty, hoping to bring down a deer and make dad proud. Like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story," I had fantasies of protecting the family with my trusty long gun against ne'er-do-wells. I don't know whether this is true of other countries -- it may well be. I don't know whether they have a gun culture or not. But I sure as shootin' know that we have one.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM "gun culture" would include the almost knee-jerk reaction that I quoted from the Governor of Virginia. It is so ingrained in the public discourse of the US that "guns are part of what we are" that no politicain dare offer a small suggestion of some sort of registration or training, without being quite viciously attacked by a large minority of the voters. And those attacks would be supported by another large minority on constitutional grounds, EVEN WHEN the Constitution expressly says "well-regulated"
There are almost no industrial countries except the US where this would be the case.
Being dismissive of this doesn't help the discussion.
I wasn't being dismissive; I was trying to bring some clarity to the use of the word culture----and if we're talking about a minority--even a passionate and vocal one--we can't be talking about a culture. It might be a movement; it might be a sub-culture; it might be a regional trait; but it's not an "American gun culture" unless everyone in it has the same beliefs, values, and attitudes. Even at the regional level or the sporting level, it's hard to make a case that it is more than a sub-culture.
I would say that if someone is afraid to bring up a subject because of political fallout, then you specifically don't have a culture (which would have an internal cohesion)--you have political pressure.
I don't deny in the least that people can get and use guns more freely here than some other places, that there is a big gun lobby, that some politicians are afraid of that lobby, that some people are afraid of other people and use that to justify gun ownership, that some people are afraid of the wrong people having guns, that the Constitution has been interpreted in various ways on this issue, that violence is glorified in the media, that there are situations in which people feel they have no other options but to use violence.
I could go on--but I don't believe that the US is a gun culture.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is....are we trying to solve a problem here, get to the heart of the issue (in which case, my posts culture are surely are relevant) or just point fingers and keep using a phrase that is innacurate in the act of pointing fingers?
AGain, I mention countries in which people have free access to weapons and use them to oppress--Rwanda, East Timor, Zimbabwe, Colombia. The list could go on--and these are countries where children are trained to use weapons and then sent out to be soldiers. Now, if anything approaches being a gun culture or a weapon culture of any kind, that would be it.
And I would want to ask folks to think about what we can do to stop violence world-wide. I think we could have a pretty good conversation about that.
Sometimes discussion that do not demonize can be more fuitful than those that do.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There is a sense in which "culture" means what you indicate. It is not the case that "gun culture" or "car culture" or the like mean that at all. We have laws restricting the use of cars, but that does not mean that the term "car culture" is therefore vapid.
Tom, I agree. But as with the word, "myth," the word culture has been distorted in popular. I think because I am both an anthropologist and a social worker, I've seen things that allow me to believe that we need to get our language straight if we are going to transcend generalizations in order to have a dialogue that will result in greater awareness and answers.
I think your examples were very good ones, esp. the iconic examples--but at the most, they are sub-cultures. I also think that many of us were not part of this iconic world. It's very risky to label something as being a cultural underlay of a whole country when that country is so large and includes so many diverse peoples and POVs and, yes, sub-cultures.
sabine
[ 19. April 2007, 20:45: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Psst: They don't sell guns at the Wal-Marts around here.
Psst: They do in Texas.
And? I've never been to Texas, and have never had any desire to go.
In my area we talk about gun control, not about "guns in every household." Stop projecting your issues onto the rest of the country. And maybe start listening to what we're saying at some point?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
When he was small my little brother never went anywhere without his toy gun in a holster, but as an adult, apart from shooting (hopelessly) at rats in his garden with our dad's old air pistol, I've not seen him show the slightest interest. My son loves shoot-em-up games and beat the adults into a cocked hat at a fairground shooting range, but is spooked seeing police with the real thing. I teach kids who boast about their "straps", whether truthfully or not I couldn't say. Shootings happen, still rarely enough to make the news and worry people. Mostly "black-on-black", which makes whites complacent at least until it happens on their doorstep. And here there's talk of an incipient gun culture, though again mostly seen as a black thing. Black or white, knives are still far more popular, as they were when I started teaching a quarter of a century ago. A woman who taught in Glasgow in the fifties told me how she'd disarm each class as they came in, lining up knives, chains, knuckle-dusters on her desk, to be collected as they left at the end.
Violence is everywhere, I suppose, and such people will use whatever weapons locally are easy to come by, though if you can avoid those weapons being guns I'd call it a wise move. In France, Italy and Greece of course they just drive.
[ 19. April 2007, 21:18: Message edited by: Bean Sidhe ]
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
It's really quite annoying, I have to say, to be told what our "culture" is about by people who don't even live here. I frankly can't see why we should pay any attention whatsoever.
In any case, I'm sure 100 times more people die in car accidents every year than die from gunshot wounds. So why isn't anybody talking about banning the sale of cars?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I must see if I can find the statistics, because I don't know them, but I'd guess that your automobiles kill two or three times as many as your guns, not hundreds.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In my area we talk about gun control, not about "guns in every household." Stop projecting your issues onto the rest of the country. And maybe start listening to what we're saying at some point?
Fair enough. You'll find some interesting and useful statistics here .
According to the surveys in question, you'll find on p 4 of the first report that New York scores 27% out of 100% by this particular measure of toughness of gun control laws, with 100% being the most stringent. Hardly glowing. New York ranks the lowest of the 'moderate control' states. But, in fairness, it's relatively high compared to many others. 'low control' is zero to 20. 'abysmal control' (my word, not theirs) is in the negative numbers. The highest two are Hawaii and Massachusetts, with 71 and 76. Most of New England and the Northeastern States rank in the 'low' or 'moderate' categories.
The national average was 9%.
At a pure speculative guess, I'd guess that most of Western Europe would score at or above Hawaii and Massachusetts levels.
As far as what you're saying goes, I think other oeople -- including females -- have responded to the most convincing of your criticisms, and have done so far better than I could do. I hesitate to place myself in the shoes of a raped woman, because I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like or what my reaction would be. Confronted face to face with such a person, I'd be far less likely to spark up a debate on gun policy with her than simply to express what Christian / human love and care I could in whatever way seemed most sensitive and appropriate and, hopefully, the least presumptuous.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM "gun culture" would include the almost knee-jerk reaction that I quoted from the Governor of Virginia. It is so ingrained in the public discourse of the US that "guns are part of what we are" that no politicain dare offer a small suggestion of some sort of registration or training, without being quite viciously attacked by a large minority of the voters. And those attacks would be supported by another large minority on constitutional grounds, EVEN WHEN the Constitution expressly says "well-regulated"
There are almost no industrial countries except the US where this would be the case.
Being dismissive of this doesn't help the discussion.
I believe that the Governor was trying to tell people to wait until the investigation is over, or at least started.
And yes, I know it seems odd that it seems that Americans don't automatically decide that since guns were used to kill people, then we ought to get rid of guns.
But for some people in America, guns are a tool that can be used for ill or for good.
My best guess right now from listening to the American media is that then end game will either be 1) stricter laws about people who are mentally ill being comitted easier or 2) a much better way to check to make sure that people who have been committed, even if for a short time, don't have access to guns.
I know it seems strange, but America seems to be dealing with this as a mental health issue not a gun control issue.
And that's where the gulf is, and probably will be for awhile.
(And yes, I've seen guns for sale at Wal-Mart. Strange, but true. But then again Wal-mart also sells hunting licenses and ammo.)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's really quite annoying, I have to say, to be told what our "culture" is about by people who don't even live here. I frankly can't see why we should pay any attention whatsoever.
I'm sure Mr. Bush thought much the same thing when his flunkies said, 'Oh, they'll welcome us as liberators'. Never mind what they think of America, and never mind what the administration might have tried to learn about Iraqi culture(s) before blundering on in. How'z that working out for him?
It's failure to grapple with one anothers' cultures that causes the kind of misunderstandings that lead to wars -- and cold wars -- and and and ...
If you don't like it that you're perceived as a 'gun culture', then maybe the answer lies as much within as without.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Except as TubaMirum has proved over and over and over, she doesn't live in a gun culture although some Americans do.
I t hink the main solution to this problem is for people throughout the world to admit that not everyone is the same. If you love guns, please remember most of America doesn't. If you hate guns, please remember most of America agrees.
Please tell me, oh ye people who don't live in the USA that you don't remember that we have as many sketchy news outlets and reporters who exaggerate for effect as you do.
Emma, I think I understand where you're coming from now. Still, I don't accept being defined by how we differ from you . Just because we have more of X or less of Y than you doesn't mean those facts define our society.
On a different note, those of you who insist the USA is all one monolithic gun culture, would you call every other feature that represents a large minority to be a culture? For instance, is Britain an Asian-culture (in your sense of the world Asian not ours) since a large minority of Brits are Asian?
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Except as TubaMirum has proved over and over and over, she doesn't live in a gun culture although some Americans do.
I t hink the main solution to this problem is for people throughout the world to admit that not everyone is the same. If you love guns, please remember most of America doesn't. If you hate guns, please remember most of America agrees.
Oh, absolutely I agree that not everybody is the same. But this is in Tuba's own words:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
My argument is simply that a person should not be prevented from purchasing a weapon for self-defense ...
Elsewhere she suggested that British women who'd been attacked should resent not having them readily available.
This from someone who has made all the other remarks (which, to correct my own wrongs, I've just gone back and read far more closely in this rapidly-expanding thread; and I see she's said more than I gave her credit for).
Notwithstanding that, other people have said that here in the UK, it wouldn't even occur to us to go out and buy a gun. Still others have suggested that victims of crime (including rape) have many options, of which the gun is merely one.
In that light, Tuba's insistence that they *should* be available to all --and the assumption that we should resent not having them -- is exactly what I meant when I stated in the OP that there's a gun culture in the US -- and, to clarify, I think it goes beyond ownership. It's the tolerance and passive acceptance of that they're out there and *should* be out there that I find problematic.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
According to the surveys in question, you'll find on p 4 of the first report that New York scores 27% out of 100% by this particular measure of toughness of gun control laws, with 100% being the most stringent. Hardly glowing. New York ranks the lowest of the 'moderate control' states.
Here's an article about New York and Massachusetts, and about what's going on in gun control here:
quote:
The mayor appears to be taking an interest in the gun laws of other states, such as Virginia and Georgia, which supposedly are so lax that Empire State criminals just hop on Interstate 95 to buy their weapons. A number of lawmen we respect enormously, including the police commissioner and the Manhattan district attorney, are extremely concerned about this factor. But the mayor might want also to zip up I-95 in the other direction, toward Boston, where the mayor there has taken to criticizing neighboring states, especially "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire, for making it too easy for criminals to buy guns that then kill innocent people in Beantown's streets.
It turns out, however, that the United States Attorney in New Hampshire, Thomas Colantuono, recently disputed that claim, citing data showing that the majority of gun crimes in Massachusetts are committed with guns originally purchased instate. This mirrors a national trend, according to the senior vice president of a gun-industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Lawrence Keane of the NSSF told us yesterday that across the country, the top source for guns used in crimes is almost always the state in which the crime is committed.
What does work? Strict enforcement of laws that are already on the books. New Yorkers already have ample experience with this phenomenon - witness the spectacular success of Mayor Giuliani's crime control program that focused on zero tolerance not just for violations of the gun laws but for all crime. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. Enacting more laws for them to break won't exactly change that. But fair, ruthless, committed, steady leadership in the uniformed services, such as we've had in recent years, and a practice of backing up the police during controversies will do a lot.
Here's something else. These are just two random finds; there are many more. Commissioner Kelly is very strong on gun control, and so are the police in other localities around here.
Again: no one here has disputed that gun control is necessary; we all (I think) support licensing. What we are arguing against is banning guns completely. And we don't agree that we live in a "gun culture" - unless support for ownership by sane and law-abiding citizens (just as they are allowed to own cars) constitutes such a culture.
I haven't been convinced by anything women on these boards have said, BTW; I am convinced, though, by the experience of my friend.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
