Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday January 09 2017, @08:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the second-amendment dept.

The love of guns in the United States has been well documented, as have multiple mass shootings across the country such as those in Orlando, San Bernardino, Newtown, and Virginia. The ease of access to guns in American society comes at a shocking cost.

As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Despite this high death toll, mass shootings in America show no sign of disappearing.

The Stateside obsession with guns can appear baffling to UK observers unfamiliar with its origins. So just how did this gun culture become so deep-rooted in the American psyche?

BBC source: Why Are Americans so Obsessed with Guns?

Wikipedia: Gun politics in the United States


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 09 2017, @09:19PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday January 09 2017, @09:19PM (#451640) Journal

    Those of you who claim that "violence never settles anything" are willfully blind [...] Violence is the human method of settling disputes. When the philosophers, the diplomats, the lawyers, and the clergy have all failed to settle things, the warriors come in and settle everything.

    I'm far from anti-gun, and I'll agree with a lot of what you said. But I don't know if "settle" is the right word to conclude your argument here. Violence, like any action, can easily enjoin others to take more action. Large-scale wars between many nations have often been started by Country A attempting to "settle" a dispute with Country B, but what actually happens several years later is that both Country A and B have suffered horribly, after Countries C, D, E, and F also got involved to "settle" things.

    And even once a truce is reached, if the losers feel unhappy about how things were "settled," they or their sons will likely rise up in a decade or two to "settle" things again.

    Those who say "violence never settles anything" generally don't mean that violence can't sometimes result in temporary truces or whatever. What they generally mean is that violent actions tend to encourage violent retaliations and escalations, whether immediate or years or decades later. It's all about establishing the "rules of the game." Look at what has happened recently with the beheadings and such with ISIS -- you have Americans who a generation ago or whatever would say torture should be outlawed and retaliation by killing families or whatever is unjust and horrific. Now, because the "rules of the game" seem to have changed, these same Americans are happy to behead, maim, and torture ISIS folks and likely even their families who have nothing to do with anything.

    Civilization is a based on a bunch of made-up "rules" and principles. We live in a much less violent time overall than 100 years ago, and most modern folks in the richer nations would find life a few centuries ago to be unfathomably violent. What changed? Not humans -- we all still possess the capacity for violence. What changed is widescale adoption of principles away from violence. When the state itself is executing people by disemboweling them or tearing them apart in a public square (e.g., drawing and quartering), it doesn't take a genius to realize that privately most people living in that state will think it's more reasonable to tear people apart in violent crime.

    So, violence perhaps can "settle" stuff temporarily along with diplomacy or whatever too. But whatever methods you use to "settle" something, you should be prepared for similar methods to be revisited upon you or your children in the future. Violence does beget more violence; history shows that too. Violence can also follow more peaceful actions, but with significantly lower frequency.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:25PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 09 2017, @09:25PM (#451649) Journal

    Good response, and I thank you for that. I expect a lot of nonsense responses to my post, but this one is really good. I will remind you, however, that some of those settlements have been very permanent indeed. I intentionally listed several citations of genocide and gendercide.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:50PM (#451709)

      I expect a lot of nonsense responses to my post,

      Interesting, why is this the case?

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:57PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 09 2017, @10:57PM (#451715) Journal

        Because he has a massively-inflated opinion of himself and his worldview, and any replies that don't mesh with it in several key ways are "nonsensical."

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:08PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 09 2017, @11:08PM (#451725) Homepage Journal

          If you can't refute what the guy says, insult him, eh? Weak Troll is weak.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:16AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:16AM (#451804) Journal

            That is not an insult; that is a fair description of his modus operandi. And yours, I notice. What made you come rushing to his aid anyway? No one was talking to you, and he's a big boy; he can handle this himself...riiiiight?

            Go back to your hugbox, carrion-breath. The grownups are talking.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:45AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:45AM (#451818) Homepage Journal

              What made you come rushing to his aid anyway?

              I enjoy pointing out when you're spouting worthless venom. It does amuse.

              The grownups are talking.

              +1 Funny

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:55AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:55AM (#451823) Journal

                Some part of you know what just happened here, Uzzard. Even you can't be so completely dense as not to realize it. We've gone down the wrong leg of the trousers of time, *again,* and this time when SHTF ain't *none* of us getting out of it alive. Even your insults are lacking the usual joie d'vivre.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:07AM (#451919)

                  Excessive vitriol is a GREAT personality trait to have post-apocalypse.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:01AM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:01AM (#451951) Journal

                    Ve haff sayink in old country: "CRY SUM MOAR!"

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:42PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:42PM (#452204)

                      Who will weep for you when you are gone?

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:16PM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:16PM (#452219) Journal

                        Who cares? This isn't my first time in the body, though I'm hoping it'll be the last. Throw all that away; the ego is temporary and transient.

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Monday January 09 2017, @10:59PM

        by Roger Murdock (4897) on Monday January 09 2017, @10:59PM (#451716)

        Because everybody else is wrong

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 09 2017, @11:33PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Monday January 09 2017, @11:33PM (#451741)

        Because people like Azumi like to respond to anything he says with knee-jerk insults.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:44PM (#451748)

          Because people like Azumi like to respond to anything he says with knee-jerk insults.

          Interesting. Why is that, do you think?

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:02AM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:02AM (#451760)

            Because it's much easier to respond with a knee-jerk insult than formulate an actual coherent argument?

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:09AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:09AM (#451827) Journal

              easier to respond with a knee-jerk insult than formulate an actual coherent argument?

              Could be. But it is very difficult to form a coherent counter-argument to batshit-insane right-wing NRA talking points, since they are incoherent to begin with. And it scares me when Runaway goes all "Internet scholar" on us. Sure sign of a red herring fallacy.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:56PM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 09 2017, @10:56PM (#451713) Journal

      All that proves is "if you're gonna use violence, use it very, very well." Which is true, of course; violence begets more violence in retaliation, unless you commit complete and utter genocide.

      Violence has its place. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes they prevent a third, fourth, etc. wrong. Just for the love of all that's holy, make sure you do it right...and be prepared to accept the consequences. Save it for a last resort, and use it like a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DECbot on Monday January 09 2017, @11:48PM

        by DECbot (832) on Monday January 09 2017, @11:48PM (#451751) Journal

        Not trying to invoke Godwin's Law, but I want to point out that what you said sounds eerily similar to German sentiment in the 1930's.

        A final solution...

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:23AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:23AM (#451807) Journal

          Actually, the inverse of that was my point: basically "If you're gonna go this route, you've already sold your soul. Go the whole hog. If you're gonna be evil, be evil with a capital E."

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:13PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:13PM (#452016) Journal

      I haven't seen any evidence of guns settling the problems in Syria. Nor did I see any evidence of guns settling the problems in Northern Ireland -- in the later case it was only when the guns were put down that the problems were reduced.

  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday January 09 2017, @10:02PM

    by Unixnut (5779) on Monday January 09 2017, @10:02PM (#451679)

    So, violence perhaps can "settle" stuff temporarily along with diplomacy or whatever too. But whatever methods you use to "settle" something, you should be prepared for similar methods to be revisited upon you or your children in the future. Violence does beget more violence; history shows that too. Violence can also follow more peaceful actions, but with significantly lower frequency.

    Welcome to the human condition.

    Not that I disagree with your premise, but the fact is that violence is the only universal solution to a problem. When all else fails, attempt to remove the problem by removing the opposing party.

    Generally you can make it permanent, but that does involve destroying your opponent. In the case of a people, it means destroying their culture and identity, to the point where they just meld into the rest of humanity. If this does not work, then you can try destroying them physically, but the Nazis were really the last ones to try something like that, and it didn't work out too well for them.

    When you don't go for a "final solution" type of violence, you can only really manage a temporary truce, just like you said. That is why you have wars ongoing now that have lasted for centuries, if not millennia. For example, the Shia/Sunni split in the middle east is not a new fight. Just that the collapse of authority in certain countries has allowed the violence to restart. That is a centuries long war at least, with breakouts of peace due to fatigue or the imposition of control by someone.

    Not much is different in Europe, who historically are the most violent humans, it is only the post WWII prosperity that has kept them more or less peaceful, along with remembering the atrocities of WWII, and the risk that nobody will really survive WWIII that they make an effort to get along.

    Also, There is a huge gun culture in Europe, looking online(1) there are three European countries in the "top 5 in number of privately owned guns per head of population" (Serbia, Switzerland and Cyprus), the Czech Republic has very liberal gun laws, and recently made noises about allowing full auto assault rifles to be owned by citizens.

    Yet they do not suffer from mass shootings like the USA. The USA has some specific issues, of which the mass shootings and other violence are just a symptom. Beats me what those issues are, I would hope the Americans themselves can work it out.

    *(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday January 09 2017, @10:44PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday January 09 2017, @10:44PM (#451697)

      > then you can try destroying them physically, but the Nazis were really the last ones to try something like that

      I hear that there are people in the Balkans, the Middle East, Rwanda, and Central and South Asia who would really love it if you grabbed a recent history book...

      > in Europe, who historically are the most violent humans

      [citation needed, unless you mean they are the best at recording themselves doing it]

      > For example, the Shia/Sunni split in the middle east is not a new fight. Just that the collapse of authority in certain countries has allowed the violence to restart.

      To be pedant, one will point out that that particular fight had mostly been on a really long hiatus, with decent cohabitation in places, and regular territorial/influence wars in others, until people had to find reasons to take sides when the shit hit the fan in places where political opposition has been tortured away. Baghdad, for example, had lots of mixed neighborhoods until 2003.
      While the US did not create the idea of the armed jihadi group, the influx of weapons and ideas to defeat the other empire in remote whogivesafuckstan is definitely the root of the recent revival ("recent" on a 1500-years timeline).

      > The USA has some specific issues

      Colonized by people who feared the locals could come express their land rights at any time.
      Landscaped by people who feared the slaves could revolt at any time.
      Formalized by people who feared the Brits could come back at any time.
      Strengthened by people who feared the Soviets could invade at any time.
      Surrounded in the South by jealous people who are feared for they're coming to steal the prosperity any time.
      Besieged by people with the wrong god who cultivate the fear that they'll retaliate for the meddling any time.

      The US people are supposed the be afraid. They have things to lose. If they don't have things to lose, they still have their freedom to lose, or their life, to all the bastards out there.
      So they need a gun.