=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Trump. Vaguely cheering news.
Log In to post a reply
64 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
phallus dei
583 posts

Edited Jul 20, 2018, 08:20
Re: Trump. Vaguely cheering news.
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?
In reply to:
Re: Trump. Vaguely cheering news. (thesweetcheat)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index