Guns

[Biggles]

@Danoff said it years ago on this board; the United States has a violence problem. Bottom line.

I think that's a deflection. Yes, The United States may have a more violent history and culture than other developed country, but non-gun homicides are only moderately elevated compared to other countries. Only when you factor in gun homicides does the homocide rate become massively higher.

The history of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment has created a fetish around gun ownership in the US. Average citizens are far more likely to own guns than elsewhere. The vast majority of gun owners nay never use their guns to killl anyone, but the presence of so many guns makes it far more likely that criminals and gang members will kill or be killed, that police will kill or be killed, that strangers will kill or be killed, that neighbours will kill or be killed, that family members will kill or be killed, and that individuals will kill themselves.

Consider this: it is apparently Louisville police department policy that the gun used by the bank shooter to kill 5 people and critically injure an officer will eventually be auctioned off to the general public. That's how insane it it.

 

[Joey D]

The history of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment has created a fetish around gun ownership in the US. Average citizens are far more likely to own guns than elsewhere. The vast majority of gun owners nay never use their guns to killl anyone, but the presence of so many guns makes it far more likely that criminals and gang members will kill or be killed, that police will kill or be killed, that strangers will kill or be killed, that neighbours will kill or be killed, that family members will kill or be killed, and that individuals will kill themselves.

How do you explain places like Switzerland then, where around 30% of homes have guns? In the US, around 40% of homes have guns. Yes, there are way more guns in the US, but we also have a population that's 38 times larger than Switzerland. And yet, the last mass shooting in Switzerland was in 2016 at a Zürich Islamic center. The homicide rate in the US is around 7.8/100k and in Switzerland, it's .54/100k.

The overwhelming access to guns in Switzerland doesn't cause many issues which suggest it's not the guns, but rather the people owning them. So no, I don't think what @Liquid said is a deflection. The US does have a major violence problem and one that needs to be solved. However, how do you solve it? As @Danoff said, a majority of Americans want some form of gun control. But, it's a case of the minority controlling the majority due to things like the minority bankrolling politicians and politicians being completely out of touch with the average American.

 

[Famine]

only moderately elevated

I wouldn't call a 50% higher rate "moderately elevated" - and bear in mind there'll also be a good chunk of people who murder with guns who'd still murder with something else if they didn't have guns to use...

 

[Danoff]

I think that's a deflection. Yes, The United States may have a more violent history and culture than other developed country, but non-gun homicides are only moderately elevated compared to other countries.

But you'd expect it to be lower. @Famine was comparing US non-gun homicides to ALL homicides in other countries. That's because guns are heavily regulated in some of those countries. But we can't assume that all of the gun homicides in the US would simply not take place if not for access to guns. This means if you could magically make all guns disappear in the US, our non-gun homicide rate should go up. Quite a bit.

The US non-gun homicide rate represents the portion of US homicide where the killer chooses NOT to use a gun... in the US. For the other nations cited the homicide rate represents all of the homicide. If the people in those nations had better access to guns, how many of the killers would opt to use one? Their non-gun homicide rates would go down as killers opted for guns.

 

[TheCracker]

How do you explain places like Switzerland then, where around 30% of homes have guns? In the US, around 40% of homes have guns. Yes, there are way more guns in the US, but we also have a population that's 38 times larger than Switzerland. And yet, the last mass shooting in Switzerland was in 2016 at a Zürich Islamic center. The homicide rate in the US is around 7.8/100k and in Switzerland, it's .54/100k.

The overwhelming access to guns in Switzerland doesn't cause many issues which suggest it's not the guns, but rather the people owning them. So no, I don't think what @Liquid said is a deflection. The US does have a major violence problem and one that needs to be solved. However, how do you solve it? As @Danoff said, a majority of Americans want some form of gun control. But, it's a case of the minority controlling the majority due to things like the minority bankrolling politicians and politicians being completely out of touch with the average American.

Seems to me that the difference in gun ownership between Switzerland and the US comes down to how they're perceived and the attitudes towards what guns represent. The origins on how the US and Swiss general population became 'armed' is quite similar, yet laws and regulations in both countries, at least in recent times, appear to be pulling in different directions.

It would appear that the Swiss largely see domestic guns as sporting equipment, like they would a pair of skis. Gun owners are strongly encouraged to use gun clubs. Where as the US population primarily see guns as home or personal security equipment. The Swiss also have compulsory military conscription, so a vast majority of citzens will have had military training and those attiudes towards weapons as well as the fact that those issued weapons are stored in their own homes - this at least used to be the case, whether it still is or not i'm unsure.

 

[Danoff]

This link attempts to break down differences between the US and Canada. I think they include different statistical methods than @Famine cited earlier, but this is a key figure:

Published in 1994:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0882.htm

"The rate for nonshooting methods of killing was 1.79 in Canada and 3.31 in the U.S. "


The context for that sentence is just as damning:

"They found that the average killing rate (per 100,000 population) using handguns was 0.28 for Canada and 4.05 in the U.S. The rate for firearms other than handguns was 0.67 in Canada and 1.32 in the U.S."

Edit:

I absolutely despise the fact that suicide continually gets lumped in with our gun deaths. It shouldn't be a crime, it shouldn't be included.

Here we go:

 

[jjaisli]

How do you explain places like Switzerland then, where around 30% of homes have guns? In the US, around 40% of homes have guns. Yes, there are way more guns in the US, but...

Seems to me that the difference in gun ownership between Switzerland and the US comes down to how they're perceived and the attitudes towards what guns represent. The origins on how the US and Swiss general population became 'armed' is quite similar, yet laws and regulations in both countries, at least in recent times, appear to be pulling in different directions.

It would appear that the Swiss largely see domestic guns as sporting equipment, like they would a pair of skis. Gun owners are strongly encouraged to use gun clubs. Where as the US population primarily see guns as home or personal security equipment. The Swiss also have compulsory military conscription, so a vast majority of citzens will have had military training and those attiudes towards weapons as well as the fact that those issued weapons are stored in their own homes - this at least used to be the case, whether it still is or not i'm unsure.

I was about to respond to Joey but you beat me too it. And I don't have too much to add, except for a few caveats.

First, I think it's important to further clarify your point about Military service. The vast majority of firearms in Swiss homes, that count among the official statistics, are military weapons. Switzerland has a long history of mandatory military service starting at age 19. And you continue to serve in a type of reserve unit usually until your late 30s or early 40s. During that time, most soldiers keep their weapon stored at home. So aside from having the training to use a high powered weapon, during military conscription, you go through some hefty psychological training, and those people who probably SHOULDN'T be charge of a firearm are mostly weeded out. Further, it's drilled into you (no pun intended) that if you ever use your weapon to shoot a civilian in a civilian setting, you will be tried in a military court. And let's just say the reprocussions of that process are made pretty clear. Or at least, they used to be.

And as you said, shooting is a popular sport in Switzerland. Nobody, or almost nobody owns a gun in Switzerland for personal protection. Or at least the premise of personal protection. And those taking part in marksmanship competitions are not bringing home fresh kills to strip and eat.

So yeah, while gun ownership is a strong tradition in both countries, in practice and in the context of the larger conversation taking part in this thread, it's quite different.

 

[UKMikey]

Do Swiss army guns have all kinds of different barrels that fold out of the stock like their knives? Just wondering

 

[Joey D]

So yeah, while gun ownership is a strong tradition in both countries, in practice and in the context of the larger conversation taking part in this thread, it's quite different.

Which I believe backs up what some of us have said. Gun ownership isn't the problem in America, it's the predisposition of so many people to violence. Clearly, they don't have that predisposition in Switzerland because the homicide rate is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

I think it does fit with this thread too, because Switzerland has shown that you can have a country with high gun ownership and a low homicide rate. Yes, there is mandatory military service in Switzerland, but I don't believe that fully prevents violence from occurring. Take police officers in America for example, they've been trained yet they're significantly more likely to commit domestic violence. The military isn't immune to that either and is probably about on par in terms of violent crime.

I don't know enough about Swiss culture to say why that is though, but on paper they just appear to be a less violent society overall.

 

[Biggles]

I wouldn't call a 50% higher rate "moderately elevated"

It's moderately elevated compared to the gun homicide rate which is around 12,000% what it is in the UK. As a general rule, the more guns that are present, the higher the gun homicide rate. While Switzerland has a much lower overall homicide rate than the US, it has a gun homicide rate that is 4,000 times higher than that of the UK. Canada, which has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, also has a relatively high gun homicide rate and the same goes for most countries with higher gun ownership levels.

But you'd expect it to be lower. @Famine was comparing US non-gun homicides to ALL homicides in other countries. That's because guns are heavily regulated in some of those countries. But we can't assume that all of the gun homicides in the US would simply not take place if not for access to guns. This means if you could magically make all guns disappear in the US, our non-gun homicide rate should go up. Quite a bit.

The US non-gun homicide rate represents the portion of US homicide where the killer chooses NOT to use a gun... in the US. For the other nations cited the homicide rate represents all of the homicide. If the people in those nations had better access to guns, how many of the killers would opt to use one? Their non-gun homicide rates would go down as killers opted for guns.

There's no doubt that there are a bunch of variables at play. The gun homicide statistics in the US are heavily affected by drug and gang violence - remove those and the gun death rate would be lower. However, gang and drug violence is also a problem in other countries, but in those other countries they are less likely to result in deaths because the use of guns is much less prevalent and other methods of violence tend to be less deadly. Similarly, mental health is a problem in other countries, but the actions of disturbed individuals are much less likely to lead to multiple homicides because those individuals don't have easy access to guns.

 

[Famine]

It's moderately elevated compared to the gun homicide rate which is around 12,000% what it is in the UK. As a general rule, the more guns that are present, the higher the gun homicide rate.

Nuh doy. What does that have to do with any of what I actually said?

Americans who don't have access to guns already decide to kill at a 50% higher rate than the citizens of any other comparable country with all weapons, and then there's all the gun homicide on top of that.

It's clearly a violence problem. The guns just make it easier - and easier to be more violent to more people. As I also originally stated.

 

[Liquid]

As far as I am aware, Switzerland doesn't have a cult grooming and indoctrinating people about gun worship.

 

[Danoff]

Americans who don't have access to guns already decide to kill at a 50% higher rate than the citizens of any other comparable country with all weapons, and then there's all the gun homicide on top of that.

Strictly speaking it's likely that a big portion of the non-gun killers also had access to guns and just decided for whatever reason not to use them.

 

[Famine]

Strictly speaking it's likely that a big portion of the non-gun killers also had access to guns and just decided for whatever reason not to use them.

I recall seeing a stat that said women are more likely to not use a gun to murder even where a gun is available.

 

[jjaisli]

Which I believe backs up what some of us have said. Gun ownership isn't the problem in America, it's the predisposition of so many people to violence. Clearly, they don't have that predisposition in Switzerland because the homicide rate is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

I think it does fit with this thread too, because Switzerland has shown that you can have a country with high gun ownership and a low homicide rate. Yes, there is mandatory military service in Switzerland, but I don't believe that fully prevents violence from occurring. Take police officers in America for example, they've been trained yet they're significantly more likely to commit domestic violence. The military isn't immune to that either and is probably about on par in terms of violent crime.

I don't know enough about Swiss culture to say why that is though, but on paper they just appear to be a less violent society overall.

There's no doubt that there are a bunch of variables at play. The gun homicide statistics in the US are heavily affected by drug and gang violence - remove those and the gun death rate would be lower. However, gang and drug violence is also a problem in other countries, but in those other countries they are less likely to result in deaths because the use of guns is much less prevalent and other methods of violence tend to be less deadly. Similarly, mental health is a problem in other countries, but the actions of disturbed individuals are much less likely to lead to multiple homicides because those individuals don't have easy access to guns.

I believe Switzerland's stats are skewed to some degree just by the extremely high correlation of gun ownership and military service, a condition where they receive proper training (and psychological testing). The fact that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun fatalities compared to the rest of Europe is a no brainer just by the fact that there are so many firearms. We can't get away from the concept that lots of guns will inevitably lead to gun fatalities. And many of them in Switzerland are suicides. Take away the guns and there would be far fewer deaths. At the same time, if it wasn't for the military training, psychological testing and high probably of prosecution, I believe gun violence in Switzerland would be much higher than it is considering how many firearms there are.

Drug and gang violence in the US skewing the stats the other way is a good point. There clearly is a propensity for violence in American society. Take away the guns (as a concept in theory) and there would still be violence but clearly far fewer deaths.

Do Swiss army guns have all kinds of different barrels that fold out of the stock like their knives? Just wondering

No. But fun fact, REAL Swiss army knives are not red. The sides are brown. Or used to be.

 

[Biggles]

The guns just make it easier - and easier to be more violent to more people.

That's exactly the point. The gun culture - and the resulting proliferation of guns - makes it easier to exercise more deadly violence. It also leads to more killings by police and of police, more accidental killings, more spur-of-the-moment rage killings, and more suicides.

 

[Famine]

That's exactly the point. The gun culture - and the resulting proliferation of guns - makes it easier to exercise more deadly violence.

A point I already made:

The guns don't make them kill each other; they seem to want to do that anyway. They (or the bullets they carry) just make it easier - and less personal, aside from the "I want to kill you" aspect; shooting someone from several metres away is more disconnected than sticking a knife into them or bludgeoning them with a wheelbrace - to kill each other once the "decision" has been reached to kill each other, and then easier to kill more people afterwards since you've already screwed the pooch killing the first one, and then yourself once there's no way out.

[...]

It seems pretty clear that guns aren't the problem, they're just a symptom of the problem: an incredible, endemic lack of respect for life. But the fact they're so readily available to so many people who shouldn't have control over anything more dangerous than a sock is a clear and obvious exacerbation of the problem.

It also leads to more killings by police and of police, more accidental killings, more spur-of-the-moment rage killings, and more suicides.

... and they already have at least 50% more of that than any other comparable country before you include the guns. Not "moderately elevated": 50% more, minimum. And then there's 400% more with the guns too.

Magic the guns away and they still kill each other 50% more than any other comparable country - 500% more than Japan - even before you factor in all the people who still want to kill other people but now have to find other means to do it.

It couldn't be any more clear that it's a violence problem. The guns exacerbate it, but they don't create it: it's a violence problem.

 

[Biggles]

A point I already made:


... and they already have at least 50% more of that than any other comparable country before you include the guns. Not "moderately elevated": 50% more, minimum. And then there's 400% more with the guns too.

Magic the guns away and they still kill each other 50% more than any other comparable country - 500% more than Japan - even before you factor in all the people who still want to kill other people but now have to find other means to do it.

It couldn't be any more clear that it's a violence problem. The guns exacerbate it, but they don't create it: it's a violence problem.

The 50% may be a "violence problem" but the extra 350% is a gun problem - it's statistically self-evident. And that's aside from the bizarre nature of many of these mass shootings. It's hard to imagine most of them - from Columbine to the Louisville bank shooting - taking place at all, let alone the number of casualties, without the easy access to guns. Actually shooting people is clearly part of the appeal.

 

[Danoff]

The 50% may be a "violence problem" but the extra 350% is a gun problem - it's statistically self-evident.

You think that the 50% (absolute minimum) increase of homicidal crime without guns doesn't affect gun crime? If anything, the violence problem disproportionately inflates gun homicide statistics.

And that's aside from the bizarre nature of many of these mass shootings. It's hard to imagine most of them - from Columbine to the Louisville bank shooting - taking place at all, let alone the number of casualties, without the easy access to guns. Actually shooting people is clearly part of the appeal.

There are other ways. Oklahoma City and Nice France have something to say on that. In general I agree with you that most of the sensational of the cases would be eliminated if we could magic away guns (which we cannot). But lots of people would still be getting killed.

Do other countries have a lot of this kind of crap?

Celebrities and politicians getting angry about absolutely nothing and immediately taking out their anger violently? Because we have a lot of public advocacy for violence and a fair amount of destruction of effigies basically at the drop of a hat here. It's almost like we have a violent culture.



First one is kid rock. Second one is Mike Collins, Georgia congressional representative.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think America has an entitlement problem wrapped up in capitalism and the narrative of the American dream combined with relentless marketing of success as the only suitable life goal. Goes like this:

1. Americans grow up with the expectation of success and fulfilling the American dream. The problem is that this actually takes effort.
2. With financial success being pretty much the only unifying cultural touchstone in the USA, pretty much every interaction with people is the kind of zero-sum, cold, and arms-length kind of procedure Donald Trump has popularized. People exist to be used to enrich oneself, there isn't really another purpose for other humans. Not only this, but financial success vs other people is a key metric of self worth in the USA which goes pretty friggin deep.
3. We have seriously messed up perspective on sexuality in the USA
4. Anger, especially male anger, has been strongly associated with entitlement and not meeting expectations (with regards to relationships with women, careers, etc)

So we have a lot of people, particularly young to middle-aged men (of all races, to be clear) that are angry about not achieving what they feel entitled to have without any real empathy or connection to other people outside of transactional ones who, in the end, have a wanton disregard for human life and essentially nothing to live for. And they can pretty easily get guns. Criminal shootings (like gangs in inner-cities like Oakland/Chicago) are different, but have a lot of the same drivers except instead of an act of rage we get turf wars over resources - which goes back to point #1 & 2 again.

The whole epoch of influencer-driven media has supercharged all of this of course, because the success flexes (which are nearly always delusionaly exaggerated anyways) and the sexual denial are now inescapable.

The sad part is that I don't think the USA was always so singularly focused on financial success - yes, we've always had the tycoons and more recently the celebrities, but there seemed to be fairly stable content with kind of ordinary life. Something weird flipped in the 70s and 80s when investment and the finance industry went from a background process to a very conspicuous part of everyday life and everything became so cash-money oriented. Probably a combination of the descending interest rate era from roughly 1980-2022 and the invention of the securitization of everything and Reagans destruction of faith in American institutions just really broke this country - nobody trusts anything, everyone wants all of the money as a virtue signal, and everyone is boiling with rage for not getting what they think they are owed. And ALL of them can get guns to vent this rage.

 

[Danoff]

I think America has an entitlement problem wrapped up in capitalism and the narrative of the American dream combined with relentless marketing of success as the only suitable life goal. Goes like this:

1. Americans grow up with the expectation of success and fulfilling the American dream. The problem is that this actually takes effort.
2. With financial success being pretty much the only unifying cultural touchstone in the USA, pretty much every interaction with people is the kind of zero-sum, cold, and arms-length kind of procedure Donald Trump has popularized. People exist to be used to enrich oneself, there isn't really another purpose for other humans. Not only this, but financial success vs other people is a key metric of self worth in the USA which goes pretty friggin deep.
3. We have seriously messed up perspective on sexuality in the USA
4. Anger, especially male anger, has been strongly associated with entitlement and not meeting expectations (with regards to relationships with women, careers, etc)

So we have a lot of people, particularly young to middle-aged men (of all races, to be clear) that are angry about not achieving what they feel entitled to have without any real empathy or connection to other people outside of transactional ones who, in the end, have a wanton disregard for human life and essentially nothing to live for. And they can pretty easily get guns. Criminal shootings (like gangs in inner-cities like Oakland/Chicago) are different, but have a lot of the same drivers except instead of an act of rage we get turf wars over resources - which goes back to point #1 & 2 again.

The whole epoch of influencer-driven media has supercharged all of this of course, because the success flexes (which are nearly always delusionaly exaggerated anyways) and the sexual denial are now inescapable.

The sad part is that I don't think the USA was always so singularly focused on financial success - yes, we've always had the tycoons and more recently the celebrities, but there seemed to be fairly stable content with kind of ordinary life. Something weird flipped in the 70s and 80s when investment and the finance industry went from a background process to a very conspicuous part of everyday life and everything became so cash-money oriented. Probably a combination of the descending interest rate era from roughly 1980-2022 and the invention of the securitization of everything and Reagans destruction of faith in American institutions just really broke this country - nobody trusts anything, everyone wants all of the money as a virtue signal, and everyone is boiling with rage for not getting what they think they are owed. And ALL of them can get guns to vent this rage.

Sure. But also, every solution to every problem is one that involves violence. You don't like that someone said something? Punch them. You don't like that you got cut off in traffic? Ram them. Did bud light advertise using a trans individual? Time to shoot up a beer company.

It is astonishing how quickly Americans advocate violence when considering how to address something... anything... they don't like. Honestly we act like a nation of abused children, which I suppose we are.

 

[Famine]

The 50% may be a "violence problem" but the extra 350% is a gun problem - it's statistically self-evident.

It's a symptom of the violence problem.

The not-gun homicide rate being overwhelmingly higher than the all-implement homicide rate in any other comparable country also manifests as the huge gun homicide rate. Americans want to kill each other way more than citizens of similar countries, and pick up a gun to do it four times out of five - but even when they don't they're still killing each other at least 50% more often.

It's a violence problem. It couldn't be more obvious that it's a violence problem. Getting blinded by the guns being used in so much of the violence misses the root cause.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sure. But also, every solution to every problem is one that involves violence. You don't like that someone said something? Punch them. You don't like that you got cut off in traffic? Ram them. Did bud light advertise using a trans individual? Time to shoot up a beer company.

It is astonishing how quickly Americans advocate violence when considering how to address something... anything... they don't like. Honestly we act like a nation of abused children, which I suppose we are.

Yeah, I agree and I think its a result of our the ends always justify the means scorched earth mentality that has arguably accelerated since the 1980s. It just dehumanizes everything, and dehumanization is an effective tactic to get people to kill other people. You can't expect people to have empathy for other people if they only see other people as creatures that are either in their way, holding them down, or as opportunities for enrichment. So we get urban people joining gangs to try to get the easy money, regardless of the body count (body count including drug ODs also), and we get suburban and rural people lashing out at the complete desolation of their self image (as the economy has largely left those areas completely behind) with the body count being the goal. Both scenarios paint a pretty bleak picture of how Americans see one another and how broken on an individual level Americans are.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Guns are normalised in America in way that other methods of killing lots of people with little effort aren't. It's little wonder that it's the favoured method of killing other people over there. Injecting fecal matter into everyone you bump into on the Subway might yield you a higher bodycount, and AFAIK, owning a hypodermic needle isn't a crime, so why don't more people do it? Is the right to bare arms exclusive to Fire-arms? If that became a thing, would the gun lobby be okay with it...? Or not? Would you get nut-job politicians showing their christmas card with syringes full of disease laden dog **** in their kids hands....

 

[Danoff]

You can't expect people to have empathy for other people if they only see other people as creatures that are either in their way, holding them down, or as opportunities for enrichment.

...alright so... it's hard for me to avoid the soap box here.

When you have a huge percentage of the population believing that their god is going to send most of the people around you to literal eternal torment, it's not that hard to dehumanize. Whenever you see rampant dehumanizing and advocacy for violence, religion seems to be not far away. The recent freakout of transgender individuals is a part of that. As is the desire for an authoritarian father figure (Trump) needed to dispense commandments and deal out harsh punishment.

We have "hell houses" designed to show children the tortures awaiting all people that stray from god's commandments. This isn't just (supposedly) reality, it's held up as moral perfection.

 

[UKMikey]

We have "hell houses" designed to show children the tortures awaiting all people that stray from god's commandments. This isn't just (supposedly) reality, it's held up as moral perfection.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" -- William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 1, Scene 2

 

[Danoff]

@Biggles

I suspect that you saw this argument about the US having a violent culture as a way to argue that gun control is not needed. I suppose it sounds like it it's advocating for culture shift instead of gun control. I think the reality is that given that we are so violent here in the US, we need gun control that much more. The last people who can be trusted to handle guns properly are the first people to call for violence in every conflict. I found myself musing yesterday if we could devise some kind of test that revealed a propensity for resorting to violence for conflict resolution. Kid Rock's social media account should be strong evidence that he can't handle the responsibility.

=================================

When I was a child, Christianity was in a very different place in the US. At least that's how it seemed to my child mind. Christianity was an evolved religion, not the Christians of the Crusades. They were modernized Christians who preached love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that jazz. The time period from then to now has been so short that either I was mistaken, or it was a facade. Because many of those same Christians are alive today, and calling for war. Not figurative war, but literal war against everyone who goes against their beliefs.

Christians in the US are significantly more likely to be gun owners than non-Christians. Republicans are far more likely to own guns than non-Republicans. Idiological extremists mass murders are almost entirely right-wing in the US today (eg: colorado springs recently). Of the remainder of the mass murder, who among us is expecting that it's coming from the left? The ones less likely to own guns?

Christianity, at least in the US, is sliding back toward a "Crusades" mentality. It's not particularly surprising - the bible repeatedly dehumanizes everyone that isn't a true believer (and male). What we have is a authoritarian movement galvanized with a religious crusade against sinners and sinner-apologists, and they are OF COURSE the ones who are most protective of their weapons. Who are they warring against? Who are the "sinners and sinner-apologists"? That's everyone on the left. That is why increasingly we see the US political system breaking, because political adversaries are no longer seen as human beings, but fodder for hellfire.

Do we think it's an accident that the governor of Texas is pardoning a murderer because that murderer happened to shoot at his (perceived) political enemies? This is exactly why they are protective of their guns, because they just know the system will let them get away with their rage. Our violent culture is coming from the right. And they have their guns so that they can use them against the "tyranny" of free speech and representative government.

Props to the guys in these two photos for their trigger discipline. Not loving the old lady's finger on the trigger there.


=========================================

I'll give myself a counter argument to discuss:

"Most of the school shooters are children who wouldn’t know a conservative from a communist," said Jack Levin, Northeastern professor and co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict. "The idea of associating politics with these mass murders is absurd. It has absolutely nothing to do with it."

Lipman agreed: "There is absolutely no evidence to show that mass killings are motivated by political ideologies of any type. All of the mass killings we’ve seen have been motivated by a lethal combination of a small subgroup of mental illnesses, and easy accessibility to weapons of mass killing during the peak symptomatology of those illnesses."

I believe that it is true that most mass killings are not identified as political in nature. But I also believe that political and religious ideology, including the political and religious ideology of the parents, is relevant. Not because the killers necessarily believe in the cause, or because they identify the cause as a reason for the killing. Generally speaking shooting up a school or business doesn't tend to further a political or religious cause at all. Shooting up sinners at a drag show does. Shooting at BLM protesters does.

The reason I'm focused on the political and religious ideologies of the shooters (or parents of the shooter), is because I believe that right-wing political ideology and Christianity in general is fostering violence as THE method for conflict resolution. Even children are listening to that message. And when a kid believes that violence is the proper solution to their conflicts, they just might shoot their teacher or classmates.

 

[Tornado]

Columbine seems like a particularly poor example to raise in regards to it being a gun problem first and foremost when the only reason Columbine wasn't far worse than it was was because simply shooting up the school was the fallback plan.

Maybe if those two didn't also have Tec-9s they ultimately give up entirely. Then again maybe two weeks later Columbine looks like the Alfred P. Murrah building.





Anyway...

Alec Baldwin thanks wife Hilaria as criminal charges dropped in 'Rust' case: 'I owe everything I have to this woman'

Baldwin faced up to 18 months in prison for involuntary manslaughter. The actor's attorneys say they're "pleased with the decision" to dismiss the case.

www.yahoo.com

Huh. Sure wish we had some "lawyer types" to comment on this.

 

[Danoff]

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust' film shooting

The Santa Fe District Attorney's Office has announced charges in the 2021 fatal shooting on the New Mexico set of Alec Baldwin's film "Rust."

abcnews.go.com

From everything I know about this story (which is a passing understanding), this charge seems like a mistake.

Anyway...

Alec Baldwin thanks wife Hilaria as criminal charges dropped in 'Rust' case: 'I owe everything I have to this woman'

Baldwin faced up to 18 months in prison for involuntary manslaughter. The actor's attorneys say they're "pleased with the decision" to dismiss the case.

www.yahoo.com

Huh. Sure wish we had some "lawyer types" to comment on this.

Called it.

 

[TexRex]