Gun Culture

I do wish that we would become more proactive, as far as our children. The abused of today will be the abusers of tomorrow. Imagine what this country would be 20, 30 years from now, if starting today we said, From this day forward, no kid will have to want for anything. Not food, shelter, education, love, etc. I know it's a pipe dream, I am continually frustrated at our constantly trying to play catch up. Oh, and also, let's stop throwing everybody who draws outside the lines a little into the clink. I'm talking about non-violent offenders. Most of these guys are going to get out sooner or later, and not only do they have a helluva game of catch up to play, with little to no life skills, they're gonna be connected to the criminal community.

So close to 1%, or one out of a hundred to not be a source of embarrassment. Reminds me of that guy in Western NY who baited those fireman into a trap and then opened fire. A guy who'd killed his grandmother with a hammer and did only 17 years for it. Why? How is that possible? I wonder if it had anything to do with overcrowding in our prisons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nake-m-kamrany/incarceration-rate_b_1423822.html

Bebop said:

I do wish that we would become more proactive, as far as our children. The abused of today will be the abusers of tomorrow. Imagine what this country would be 20, 30 years from now, if starting today we said, From this day forward, no kid will have to want for anything. Not food, shelter, education, love, etc. I know it's a pipe dream, I am continually frustrated at our constantly trying to play catch up.

Click to expand...

It's a pipe dream, but a nice one -- and one shared by the entire world, I suspect.

But I'd say why not be proactive against the abused and disillusioned of now? There are people out there right now who could use our help (time or money, a little of either helps) and I think focussing on the kids of the future makes it too easy to ignore the people who are suffering right now.

Poverty, lack of money, lack of health care, unemployment and poor housing all contribute to the violence in our cultures in significant ways.

EMaree said:

It's a pipe dream, but a nice one -- and one shared by the entire world, I suspect.

But I'd say why not be proactive against the abused and disillusioned of now? There are people out there right now who could use our help (time or money, a little of either helps) and I think focussing on the kids of the future makes it too easy to ignore the people who are suffering right now.

Poverty, lack of money, lack of health care, unemployment and poor housing all contribute to the violence in our cultures in significant ways.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Let's address what's in front of our face before or simultaneous to providing an environment that's a lot less like an unnavigable maze.

Just ETA, I don't think my sentiment is one shared by the entire world.

This is going to be controversial, but I'm just explaining the local culture here, OK ?

Someone breaking entirely in to someone else's home out here in my rural area knows they are risking being shot and killed. (eta: the threat of murder or rape is too great in the local mindset. Protection against that inside one's home is thought to be a given right.) I can't say so much for breaking in while the owners are away; there is a much better chance they'll just get a scare and be able to flee.

I don't know how long it's been that way here, but it's not just the homeowner who knows the score. Folks who break into someone's house here are more determined/impulsive/strung out, etc than breaking into a cute little neighborhood in the Cotswalds

Likewise, as a kid I could not go play on my far-away neighbor's field in TN. You'd hear a shotgun being fired in the air! They were growing marijuana.

In Costa Rica, the neighbor's guard shot a burglar as he was escaping their house. The cops didn't even come out to do a report. They weren't interested in whether a burglar was going to die from a gunshot wound -- he could yell or call for help to get to a hospital and that was that. The poor guard was traumatized, but all the others assured him he did the right thing and it couldn't be helped.

I don't know that there's one right philosophy on this sort of thing that fits the entire world. At the very least, there is bound to be social differences, whether we agree that there should be or not.

backslashbaby said:

This is going to be controversial, but I'm just explaining the local culture here, OK ?

Someone breaking entirely in to someone else's home out here in my rural area knows they are risking being shot and killed. (eta: the threat of murder or rape is too great in the local mindset. Protection against that inside one's home is thought to be a given right.) I can't say so much for breaking in while the owners are away; there is a much better chance they'll just get a scare and be able to flee.

I don't know how long it's been that way here, but it's not just the homeowner who knows the score. Folks who break into someone's house here are more determined/impulsive/strung out, etc than breaking into a cute little neighborhood in the Cotswalds

Likewise, as a kid I could not go play on my far-away neighbor's field in TN. You'd hear a shotgun being fired in the air! They were growing marijuana.

In Costa Rica, the neighbor's guard shot a burglar as he was escaping their house. The cops didn't even come out to do a report. They weren't interested in whether a burglar was going to die from a gunshot wound -- he could yell or call for help to get to a hospital and that was that. The poor guard was traumatized, but all the others assured him he did the right thing and it couldn't be helped.

I don't know that there's one right philosophy on this sort of thing that fits the entire world. At the very least, there is bound to be social differences, whether we agree that there should be or not.

Click to expand...

There's definitely a rural/urban disconnect to this thing. I've never lived in the country, but it's not difficult for me to see why a rural person would feel isolated and a bit vulnerable, if unarmed. But let's not forget that there's a big problem with gun violence in the city as well. Where I grew up a lot of people had guns. More than a few people I knew well or just casually were killed on the street, usually as a result of a drug beef. So I know there are distinctions and then there are consistencies.. so what do we do? If it were up to me, which shockingly it isn't, I'd ban all assault weapons, limit the number of firearms any one person can own, either shut down the gun shows or force them to do background checks, ban the sale of a firearm from one individual to another and instill strict punishments for those who violate the law. We don't mind minimum mandatory sentences for drug violations, so why not have the same for weapons violations? Also, I'd like to see an annual or semi annual permit renewal law- there would be a psychological and access aspect to this, so that not only can we keep better tabs on gun owners, we can look at those that live with guns owners, as in the Nancy and Adam Lanza case. There will be no way to assure that there will never be another incident like Newtown, no matter what we do. But the point is to make it as unlikely and rare as possible. They are just numbers, victims of this or that atrocity, when we look back at them. But to their loved ones they are everything, and so we should try to be empathetic. You know, I would be less than forthcoming here if I didn't admit to wishing for a magic bullet, if you will, one that would eliminate all guns from the face of the Earth in a flash. But that will never happen, so compromise is the only way.

Eh, more strict gun control isn't going to stop events like Newtown. Solving the root problems that create mindsets like Adam Lanza's might.

Bebop said:

We don't mind minimum mandatory sentences for drug violations, so why not have the same for weapons violations?

Click to expand...

Who is "we"? Many of us think they're stupid.

Bebop said:

...
We don't mind minimum mandatory sentences for drug violations, so why not have the same for weapons violations?

Click to expand...

It might be useful to check how well those laws are working. Yes, indeed there are a lot of people behind bars in the US (we've had a thread on THAT One Percent, and the majority of those are in prison for nonviolent drug-related violations), but has it stopped or slowed down the sale and use of illegal drugs?

No, I hate mandatory minimum drug sentences. I know they don't work. I've seen it up close. My point was to say, if we are going to have new gun laws we'll have to strictly enforce them.

A fairly small part of my above statement. Just looking for answers, suggestions, if you think the status quo isn't working.

Bebop said:

No, I hate mandatory minimum drug sentences. I know they don't work. I've seen it up close. My point was to say, if we are going to have new gun laws we'll have to strictly enforce them.

A fairly small part of my above statement. Just looking for answers, suggestions, if you think the status quo isn't working.

Click to expand...

Prohibition's worked so well against alcohol and drugs, it makes perfect sense to base our gun laws on the same policy.

Don said:

Prohibition's worked so well against alcohol and drugs, it makes perfect sense to base our gun laws on the same policy.

Click to expand...

Funny how everyone is pouncing on the least significant part of my post- which by the way, was not meant to invoke the drug laws to suit gun violators, but to point out the hypocrisy of such harsh sentences for NON violent offenders. So what would you do Don? Or do you think what is happening all too frequently is just fine?

ETA- I guess you'll say it has nothing to do with there being too many guns in this country.

Aren't armed offenses already getting harsher sentences? Think armed robbery vs. robbery for example.

kuwisdelu said:

Along those same lines, am I the only one that's disturbed whenever people start talking about "the bad guys"?

I guess it's easier to "shoot the bad guys" than to think of it as killing another human being. It's disgusting.

Click to expand...

No, you're not the only one. I find it deeply disturbing for the implicit demonization of an undefined "other."

Haggis said:

I'm assuming it's someone breaking into your house, threatening you or your family with harm, someone stealing from your car, someone beating up someone else in the street....

Click to expand...

When Gabby Gifford and others were shot at a shopping center in her district, news reporters interviewed just about anyone who was anywhere near the spot. One man who was interviewed by MSNBC said that he was recently retired from the military, well trained in combat responses, licensed to carry in the state, and at that time carrying a loaded gun on him. He was inside one of the nearby stores when the shooting happened. He drew his weapon and ran out into the parking lot. He saw a man with a gun in his hand. He was just about to shoot at him, when he heard other people yelling that he, the man with the gun, was not the shooter. In fact, the man holding the gun had just assisted in disarming the shooter, Jared Loughner, who was at that moment being pinned to the ground by two other people. If the man telling the story had not heard the calls from onlookers, he would have shot and possibly killed one of the "good guys," thinking he was the "bad guy." And that tragic mistake would have been made by a man trained in combat situation decisions and gun handling.

So I guess I'm not as confident in what you or others might assume when determining who "the bad guys" are.

muravyets said:

No, you're not the only one. I find it deeply disturbing for the implicit demonization of an undefined "other."


When Gabby Gifford and others were shot at a shopping center in her district, news reporters interviewed just about anyone who was anywhere near the spot. One man who was interviewed by MSNBC said that he was recently retired from the military, well trained in combat responses, licensed to carry in the state, and at that time carrying a loaded gun on him. He was inside one of the nearby stores when the shooting happened. He drew his weapon and ran out into the parking lot. He saw a man with a gun in his hand. He was just about to shoot at him, when he heard other people yelling that he, the man with the gun, was not the shooter. In fact, the man holding the gun had just assisted in disarming the shooter, Jared Loughner, who was at that moment being pinned to the ground by two other people. If the man telling the story had not heard the calls from onlookers, he would have shot and possibly killed one of the "good guys," thinking he was the "bad guy." And that tragic mistake would have been made by a man trained in combat situation decisions and gun handling.

So I guess I'm not as confident in what you or others might assume when determining who "the bad guys" are.

Click to expand...

1. Nowhere in this thread have I called anybody a bad guy or attempted to determine who was a bad guy. Though I hardly think those folks I mentioned could be classified as "good guys." All I did was ask for clarification from Kuwi.

2. For the record, I did respond to Xelebes who asked "who are the bad guys?"

3. I said "I'm assuming...."

4. I'm fine with calling them an "intruder" or "a shooter." Call them "Skippy" for all I care.

5. If the retired military guy had happened to kill the guy he saw holding the gun because he identified him as "a shooter" or an "intruder" the guy would be just as dead as if he had thought he was a "bad guy."

I thought of another reason I dislike the term. When we say "bad guys," the question of "who are the bad guys" does naturally come up. And then we get people like LaPierre suggesting national registries for the mentally ill.

kuwisdelu said:

I thought of another reason I dislike the term. When we say "bad guys," the question of "who are the bad guys" does naturally come up. And then we get people like LaPierre suggesting national registries for the mentally ill.

Click to expand...

I have no problem referring to LaPierre as one of the bad guys.

Don said:

Prohibition's worked so well against alcohol and drugs, it makes perfect sense to base our gun laws on the same policy.

Click to expand...

it's not an issue of "prohibition". It's an issue of regulation (which I know you consider the same thing, but . . . ). Prohibition of alcoholic drinks was, as we know, a complete disastrous failure in social engineering. But we do have regulations on alcohol consumption to this day. You can't drive drunk, you can't drink while you drive, you can't drink alcohol in public places (local regulations here, pretty much). Likewise tobacco use, never prohibited, but there are restrictions, reasonable ones in my opinion, on where you can smoke, those, too, being largely local in practice and enforcement.

And it's obvious that the prohibition on use of many drugs is an utter failure, and something that should be addressed, with an understanding of the effects of specific drugs on human behavior and health, rather than the huge wet blanket we throw across all the them uniformly.

We also already have some regulations on firearms which have withstood court tests. I can't see any philosophical reason why gun/ammo/firearm accessory regulation should be undiscussable. Which is, of course, the NRA position, as embodied by the fatwa of Ayatollah LaPierre.

caw

Bebop said:

Funny how everyone is pouncing on the least significant part of my post- which by the way, was not meant to invoke the drug laws to suit gun violators, but to point out the hypocrisy of such harsh sentences for NON violent offenders. So what would you do Don? Or do you think what is happening all too frequently is just fine?

ETA- I guess you'll say it has nothing to do with there being too many guns in this country.

Click to expand...

How many guns should there be?

Haggis said:

Aren't armed offenses already getting harsher sentences? Think armed robbery vs. robbery for example.

Click to expand...

There's "Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony" and googling that leads to listings of lots of other gun laws. Depending on what else one is doing (being on school property) and on one's previous record (legal, mental, and drug/alcohol offense), committing a crime while carrying a gun can lead to a cascade of other charges, as this page demonstrates:
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_42/21-4204.html

Haggis said:

1. Nowhere in this thread have I called anybody a bad guy or attempted to determine who was a bad guy. Though I hardly think those folks I mentioned could be classified as "good guys." All I did was ask for clarification from Kuwi.

2. For the record, I did respond to Xelebes who asked "who are the bad guys?"

3. I said "I'm assuming...."

4. I'm fine with calling them an "intruder" or "a shooter." Call them "Skippy" for all I care.

5. If the retired military guy had happened to kill the guy he saw holding the gun because he identified him as "a shooter" or an "intruder" the guy would be just as dead as if he had thought he was a "bad guy."

Click to expand...

Kinda missed my point, Haggis (though I think you did illustrate it pretty well).

To the numbered points:

1 & 2: Yeah, I know. I read the thread, too. I was responding to your response to Xelebes.

3: Exactly. The potentially deadly problem of people "assuming" they know how to tell who the bad guy is was the whole point of the story I referred to and the crux of my objection to your answer to the question of "Who are the bad guys?"

4: So not the point.

5: So far off the point that I have no idea what you're trying to say in this context, aside from an observation to which the only response I can think of is, "Uh, yeah, no duh."

Haggis said:

Aren't armed offenses already getting harsher sentences? Think armed robbery vs. robbery for example.

Click to expand...

Not many criminals manage "robbery" without being armed, or threatening that they are armed. Which the law regards as the same thing. Are you looking for polite robbers?:

"Excuse me sir, I wish to rob you. I don't threaten you with a weapon or anything, but I would appreciate your acquiescence in handing to me your valuables."

"Oh, most gracious. Here they are. Thank you for being so considerate."

"You are most welcome. Have a nice day."

caw

blacbird said:

Not many criminals manage "robbery" without being armed, or threatening that they are armed. Which the law regards as the same thing. Are you looking for polite robbers?:

"Excuse me sir, I wish to rob you. I don't threaten you with a weapon or anything, but I would appreciate your acquiescence in handing to me your valuables."

"Oh, most gracious. Here they are. Thank you for being so considerate."

"You are most welcome. Have a nice day."

caw

Click to expand...

Never been mugged, then?

The five dudes who robbed me weren't armed. But they sure as hell weren't polite about taking my phone.

Albedo said:

Never been mugged, then?

Click to expand...

At gunpoint, the pistol jammed against my temple, having been grabbed by three men a block from my house in New Orleans, told to give them everything, including my wedding ring, or they would kill me.Which I did, for which they all spent some time kicking me just for fun.

Try that one on for size.

CAW

blacbird said:

At gunpoint, the pistol jammed against my temple, having been grabbed by three men a block from my house in New Orleans, told to give them everything, including my wedding ring, or they would kill me.Which I did, for which they all spent some time kicking me just for fun.

Try that one on for size.

CAW

Click to expand...

Well when I were a lad I got decapitated by an axe-wielding maniac, five times a day to be sure, between school and home, which was an empty refrigerator box on the riverbank. And it were LUXURY.

And this comes back to American Gun Culture, and the difference between there and here, I think. Most robberies in company in Australia would be 'unarmed', which is why I found it vaguely amusing you regard that as an absurdity.

To the point of the thread, I can't imagine that having a gun, or being from a culture where it's conceivable I might have been carrying a gun, would have improved things the night I got rolled.

Albedo said:

To the point of the thread, I can't imagine that having a gun, or being from a culture where it's conceivable I might have been carrying a gun, would have improved things the night I got rolled.

Click to expand...

It sure made a difference for me the night it wasn't my wallet I pulled out of my hip pocket. Suddenly, waving a kitchen knife in my face and demanding my stuff wasn't something the knife-wielder wanted to be doing any more. He was too busy simultaneously trying to run backwards, pee his pants, and dropping the knife. Nice knife, btw.

No muggers were harmed in this particular case, unless you consider damage to his ego and the chaffing from running in wet pants.

blacbird said:

Not many criminals manage "robbery" without being armed, or threatening that they are armed.

Click to expand...

Most states define robbery as the taking of personal property "by means of force or fear."

A purse snatching on the street is a robbery. All robberies are felonies, no matter what is taken.

Any time a weapon is involved it becomes an aggravated robbery, which raises the degree of felony and increases the possible sentence upon conviction.