|
U-Know! Forum » Trump. Vaguely cheering news. |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Jul 19, 2018, 01:57
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Whilst loathe to put words into other people's mouths (apologies Nigel) I'm gonna try here. So in every Sandy Hook, more recently Las Vegas, tragedy I suggest that the damage and fallout would have been markedly less in the absence of firearms? So I'd suggest that - notwithstanding the 'issues' of the perpetrators concerned - their (seemingly easy) access to firearms is key in delivering the level of death and injuries that arise. You could go mad with a monkey wrench but the death toll would probably be lower? As to a solution - well that's much much harder - I've sympathy for the view that the genie is out of the bottle in terms of the sheer number of guns in circulation in the US, although that doesn't necessarily mean that steps shouldn't be taken to start to try to curb this? Best solution I heard was the comedian (real comedian) who suggested that you start to charge $1000 per bullet!?! Thanks for elaborating. The question that most concerns me is why such mass shootings are happening now, and at such an alarming rate. As I stated previously, America has had guns from the beginning. If you read accounts from the 1950s, teenage boys in rural areas used to bring guns to school, to go hunting afterwards. But the specter of school shootings is only a recent phenomenon. What has happened in the meantime to enable this? Why weren't kids in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s shooting up their classmates? A logical approach to solving the issue of gun violence would address the contributing cultural factors. Ultimately, these cultural factors are just as, if not more, important than material factors. True, from a material perspective, current high-capacity guns are going to increase the body count much more than the rifles and revolvers of old. But why do Americans today increasingly have the urge to go on shooting sprees at all? That is the question through which Americans need to frame their debate. Like it or not (and I'm not a gun owner myself), guns are a fundamental part of American culture. They are a signifier of "individualism," "freedom", "decisiveness", and all the other themes which together formulate popular perceptions of "America." Of course we can disagree with the appropriateness of that characterization, but nonetheless we have to admit that it's there. Guns are central to the American psyche. The issue then becomes, how to reduce gun violence in an area where guns (literally or metaphorically) form a core part of the culture? How to frame the topic in a way that does not immediately antagonize gun owners and cause them to adopt a defensive and uncooperative position? When we adopt an attitude of condescension, referring to gun owners as "guys named Butch who wear checkered shirts" and start disparaging the second amendment, is it any wonder that gun owners respond with "fuck you, I'm going to buy more guns and the only way you'll get them is if I die"? Wouldn't it be more conducive to treat the other side with respect? Do you think they are happy about school shootings? They are just as concerned as anyone else. Why can't we work together to solve this issue? By framing the problem as "guns", you immediately get two antagonistic sides - those who see guns as a central part of their identity, and those who find guns repugnant. Such decisiveness only serves to help our "leaders," giving both parties an energized base. But it never allows actual progress on the issue to be made. Even "common sense" gun reform is rejected, because, after repeatedly being called "deplorable," gun owners view such reform as the first step to taking away their guns. Of course, from the perspective of our "leaders," who cares if no progress is made? As long as they can count on our votes for eternity, everything is fine. On the other hand, by framing the problem as "culture," you open up space for genuine dialogue to take place. When we, the common people, treat each other with respect, we can circumvent the manipulation of our leaders, and create a better America for us all.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2018, 05:42
|
||
|
"disparaging the second amendment" You have a sacred cow that is running amok and killing tens of thousands a year and you think it's unhelpful to disparage it?
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Jul 19, 2018, 05:59
|
||
|
So essentially the points here are, when reduced, (1) guns are an essential part of US culture that we won't get rid of and (2) we have a cultural problem not a material one. It seems that if the first is true, you will never address the second. It also seems that any change on these points will take an enormous amount of willingness to change and a great deal of time. So how about dealing with the immediate problem by reducing access on the basis that there is a significant number of people who cannot be trusted not to go shooting people? If there is clear evidence (and there is) that reducing access to guns reduces gun crime, start there. Then you can work on "culture" as a longer term plan, which seems basically doomed anyway if having a gun is an essential requirement of being an "independent" and "decisive" American. But the NRA cheerleaders state that the better approach is more guns. Arm everyone. Children, teachers, everyone. What could go wrong?
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jul 19, 2018, 09:05
|
||
yes, but days later. He says one thing and then he later changes it to something else. So he gets his cake and eats it. It's becoming a bit of a repeat pattern (yesterday and the would/wouldn't being a case in point) and surprise surprise, people have noticed it. You can't say "there were fine people on both sides" of that rally, as he did. They were neo Nazis.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2018, 09:14
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: So he gets his cake and eats it. It's becoming a bit of a repeat pattern (yesterday and the would/wouldn't being a case in point) and surprise surprise, people have noticed it. And on the same theme, here are Nazis hailing him even if he has distanced himself from them. They know darn well whose side he's on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-38057104/hail-trump-white-nationalists-mark-trump-win-with-nazi-salute
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
Jul 19, 2018, 09:57
|
||
|
Firstly - interesting post - and I mean that genuinely (for the avoidance of doubt!!) A few observations (frankly in no particular order) I think you've answered your own question re the profile and levels of violence in recognising the advances in gun technology. 50 years ago it was seriously difficult to kill one person over a distance greater than say 20 yards with a hand gun - don't believe the westerns its seriously difficult to shoot accurately with an old revolver - now even a mildly proficient shot can take down many people at a distance due to the power and rapidity of fire of modern firearms. Second point - and probably where we're most at odds - I don't read this debate as just about guns. You're absolutely right to point that there are a myriad of issues behind all of these shootings (social alienation, the rise of mental health issues) which, even if there was the will to sort out (which I sadly doubt) would take many, many years to sort out. The reason that many people focus on the firearms question is the fact that - in the absence of solutions to the other contributing factors - guns are the frighteningly blunt, visible and bloody denouement tool in many of these scenarios. Restrict access to these and you might at least stem the body count whilst as a society you seek to address the other issues you (correctly) reference. Here in the UK we have a seemingly increasing mental health problem however, thankfully, the fact that it is pretty difficult for the average Joe to lay their hands on a gun mean that instances such as our Dunblane are mercifully few. Again to be clear, thats not meant to be smug (as a society we've our own share of issues), buts its the reality of the situation. We're probably no less beset by people who might chose to carry out these atrocities but, thankfully, they don't have easy access to the means of carrying them out. Anyway here'endeth the rant!
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Jul 20, 2018, 03:34
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: yes, but days later. He says one thing and then he later changes it to something else. So he gets his cake and eats it. It's becoming a bit of a repeat pattern (yesterday and the would/wouldn't being a case in point) and surprise surprise, people have noticed it. You can't say "there were fine people on both sides" of that rally, as he did. They were neo Nazis. For the Charlottesville protest, Trump's first response was to "condemn the hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides," while also stating that "there were many fine people on both sides." Two days later, Trump specifically condemned the KKK / neo-Nazi presence at the rally. Trump's second statement simply clarified what he originally said, it was not a case of "saying one thing and changing it to something later." Right-wing violence was obviously included in Trump's condemnation of "violence on both sides." A youtube search of the Charlottesville rally will uncover ample evidence of mutual carnage. Right- and left- wing extremists came to the rally hoping to fight. Trump's comment of "many fine people on both sides" was an effort to differentiate those extremists from those who were peacefully taking part in a legally sanctioned protest. It didn't refer to those who were violent or who were spewing hate. Least there be any doubt, Trump explicitly condemned the neo-Nazi presence at the rally two days later. One can of course argue that Trump's response was problematic. It would have been better to condemn the neo-Nazi presence explicitly at the beginning, instead of lumping it within the "violence of both sides". And I question how many "fine people" one could find at the rally, even if they were acting peacefully. Still, it's a stretch to read Trump's comments as an unequivocal endorsement of fascism. It makes more sense to simply see them as a bumbled initial response to a national tragedy.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Jul 20, 2018, 04:05
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: [quote="Rhiannon"] And on the same theme, here are Nazis hailing him even if he has distanced himself from them. They know darn well whose side he's on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-38057104/hail-trump-white-nationalists-mark-trump-win-with-nazi-salute Fascism is an insignificant force in American politics. Random photos of neo-Nazis and swastikas are not enough to make them a credible threat. That the BBC chooses to waste its space documenting the activities of fringe extremists instead of more substantial issues should cause you to question the political motives of the BBC.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited Jul 20, 2018, 08:20
Jul 20, 2018, 08:16
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: So essentially the points here are, when reduced, (1) guns are an essential part of US culture that we won't get rid of and (2) we have a cultural problem not a material one. It seems that if the first is true, you will never address the second. It also seems that any change on these points will take an enormous amount of willingness to change and a great deal of time. So how about dealing with the immediate problem by reducing access on the basis that there is a significant number of people who cannot be trusted not to go shooting people? If there is clear evidence (and there is) that reducing access to guns reduces gun crime, start there. Then you can work on "culture" as a longer term plan, which seems basically doomed anyway if having a gun is an essential requirement of being an "independent" and "decisive" American. But the NRA cheerleaders state that the better approach is more guns. Arm everyone. Children, teachers, everyone. What could go wrong? Thanks for the reply. If I could, I'd like to modify your summary of my main points: (1) guns are a core component of longstanding US culture (2) gun violence, at its root, stems mainly from contemporary social / cultural trends, though material issues are also a factor (3) switching the debate from "guns" to "uncovering and addressing the factors which make gun violence a growing phenomenon" offers a better possibility for stemming gun violence than trying to somehow limit access to guns. The proposal you suggest seems reasonable, and may indeed work in a country where guns were not so highly prized and so easily available, and where politicians had not already turned "guns" into a wedge issue, around which there is seemingly no room for compromise. Even eight years of Obama, a president opposed to the NRA, could not pass "common sense" gun reform. Such proposals, on a national level, are DOA. But let's say that gun reform advocates are able to obtain the necessary 51% of the vote to pass stricter laws. Would that really make a difference at this point? Relatively speaking, Illinois has stricter requirements for purchasing guns than most states. Yet Chicago has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the US, due largely to gang members who have obtained their guns illegally. How will they be dealt with? And what about all of the high-caliber guns which have already been legally sold? Short of a massive police / military venture to "round up the guns" (which would inevitably provoke a massive backlash by street gangs and pro-gun advocates), I don't see how it would possible to make America safe from guns at this point, even with stricter laws. On the other hand, it is possible to address the economic problems which give rise to inner city violence, it is possible to increase the counseling services available to the mentally ill, and it is possible to address the needless promotion of violence in the media. Further, all of these issues could be tackled in a manner that doesn't immediately divide the population into those who are "pro" and "anti" gun. Dealing with these issues would indeed take time, but slow progress is better than no progress at all. Aside from stoking hate among opposing sides, what progress has been made in the approach taken thus far?
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited Jul 20, 2018, 08:44
Jul 20, 2018, 08:40
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Firstly - interesting post - and I mean that genuinely (for the avoidance of doubt!!) A few observations (frankly in no particular order) I think you've answered your own question re the profile and levels of violence in recognising the advances in gun technology. 50 years ago it was seriously difficult to kill one person over a distance greater than say 20 yards with a hand gun - don't believe the westerns its seriously difficult to shoot accurately with an old revolver - now even a mildly proficient shot can take down many people at a distance due to the power and rapidity of fire of modern firearms. Second point - and probably where we're most at odds - I don't read this debate as just about guns. You're absolutely right to point that there are a myriad of issues behind all of these shootings (social alienation, the rise of mental health issues) which, even if there was the will to sort out (which I sadly doubt) would take many, many years to sort out. The reason that many people focus on the firearms question is the fact that - in the absence of solutions to the other contributing factors - guns are the frighteningly blunt, visible and bloody denouement tool in many of these scenarios. Restrict access to these and you might at least stem the body count whilst as a society you seek to address the other issues you (correctly) reference. Here in the UK we have a seemingly increasing mental health problem however, thankfully, the fact that it is pretty difficult for the average Joe to lay their hands on a gun mean that instances such as our Dunblane are mercifully few. Again to be clear, thats not meant to be smug (as a society we've our own share of issues), buts its the reality of the situation. We're probably no less beset by people who might chose to carry out these atrocities but, thankfully, they don't have easy access to the means of carrying them out. Anyway here'endeth the rant! Thanks, Locodogz, for the "rant." It was a refreshing read, and gave me more to consider. It may be that I am not giving sufficient weight to "advances" in gun technology, which make it increasingly easy to kill large numbers of people. Material factors are certainly an important factor and should not be overlooked. Nonetheless, I still think that advocating for a "cultural/social approach" is the most realistic, and ultimately most effective, way of tackling the problem of gun violence in the US. On a personal level, I have no affinity for guns, gun culture, or the NRA. But I am aware of the broader culture and history of the country in which I live. That culture and history may be fundamentally screwed, but it's what we've got to work with.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
