Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The original justification for gun ownership in the US was in order to provide an "armed militia", in the days when the country had no standing army. What possible justification is there for it today?

Ahem. Well, Harry, I don't know if you've been paying attention lately, but here, crime is out of control.


Prisons are full, judges are lenient, and the lawyers don't give a damn about the victims, only getting their dirtbag clients off and back on the streets.

When you are out and about, you'd best be watching your back. Not being vigilant is an invitation to be a victim.

We have become a society dependent on others to help us, rather than helping ourselves.


Justification? For gangbangers to continue being gangbangers, for dirtbags to continue being dirtbags.

For law abiding citizens, self protection.

Oh, Wait. You want us to call the police maybe? Uh, yeah, IF they aren't on a nuisance call, and IF one is available, maybe they'll get to you in time.....but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I have no qualms about taking the matter into my own hands.

No way could I defend myself with just my hands, and no way will I depend on calling upon someone who may or may not respond in time.

Taking guns away at this point really only guarantees that the criminals will have them. What, you think they're gonna follow the rules?

[Elfwreck]

I think gun laws in the US are "lax" for perfectly sensible and understandable reasons. When the US was started, guns already existed. They were used for hunting more than for killing people, and they were incredibly useful. And we had wars, and wanted an armed militia rather than, or as supplement to, a standing army, so we wanted to allow some kind of private gun ownership.

But I think the commonality of guns connects more strongly to the frontier activity and westward push than to the militia. Families living alone, more than 10 miles from the nearest neighbor, more than 50 miles from the nearest town of 150 people, needed (or thought they needed) guns as a basic survival tool. Tiny communities needed all the technology they could get; guns were part of that.

(I think some of Harry's grumbling's about the US fail to notice how BIG this country is. Occasionally I think we really should chop it up into 50 separate nations; a lot of our problems are caused by trying to apply the same solutions on too many diverse regions.)

And while we've always had problems with bandits-with-guns, there was never a point where it was harder for a bandit to get a gun than the citizens he'd consider attacking, and never a way to punish gun criminals in a way that deterred other ones; for most of our history, the "other ones" were too far away to know what kind of harsh punishments were being carried out in another city or state.

It wasn't until most of those small communities had grown into very large ones, and super-cities grew on the coasts, that we came to realize that we really do have too many guns, too easily available to people with hot tempers or grudges. But removing them won't be a simple matter of "make them illegal;" there are too many places in the US where they still are survival tools, and too many people with practical, obvious reasons to have access to guns (and that's before we get into the history buffs & collectors, whose activities might fall under free speech), to get rid of enough guns to make them harder to acquire on the black market.

[HarryT]

But gun ownership is not necessarily linked to rampant crime, Elfwreck. Eg, Switzerland, a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world, requires every man of military age to keep an assault rifle at home. Switzerland doesn't have the routine "mass killings" that the US unfortunately seems subject to. Why? I don't know.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But gun ownership is not necessarily linked to rampant crime, Elfwreck. Eg, Switzerland, a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world, requires every man of military age to keep an assault rifle at home. Switzerland doesn't have the routine "mass killings" that the US unfortunately seems subject to. Why? I don't know.

I suspect some of it (a lot of it) is that the US doesn't have a unified culture--we have so much damn space, and so many people, that we have a constant set of problems where how the laws actually work in one area (as opposed to how they're written; there's always some difference) is different from other areas... and where people from two different subcultures meet, and find they aren't operating on the same assumptions about laws and ethics and cultural standards, they opt for "no rules" on the grounds that "the other guy isn't following the rules."

I don't know what kind of solutions are possible, but I suspect that no amount of "top-down" rules are going to work--drafting new legislation on a national level won't help Oakland's crime rate a bit, because national legislation won't deal with the causes of crime here. (And if it does, it won't be dealing with the causes of crime in Pheonix, Arizona, nor in New York.)

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

"Some criminologists suggest the recent spate of shootings could be linked to the recession and the impact of job losses on personal finances and relationships."

What do you think?

I think it is related to the ease with which Americans can buy guns, especially guns and rifles whose only function is to obliterate (does one really need an assault rifle or a submachine gun to hunt squirrel?). Even my U.S. Senator, Kristin Gillibrand, baosts about how she sleeps with a loaded rifle underneath her bed. (If I were her husband, I'd be mighty nervous .)

The British did a lot of good things for us Americans when they forced us to revolt, but they screwed us royally () when they began confiscating our rifles in the 1770s, giving reason for the Second Amendment. Now we are paying the price.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(I think some of Harry's grumbling's about the US fail to notice how BIG this country is. Occasionally I think we really should chop it up into 50 separate nations; a lot of our problems are caused by trying to apply the same solutions on too many diverse regions.)

I think a lot of Harry's grumblings have to do with him failing to notice, or not understanding, a lot of things.

With the US, you are absolutely correct, we are no where near as homogeneous a nation as is Switzerland. We are one of if not THE least culturally and ethnically homogeneous nations on the planet. Our diversity and the influx of immigrants here is part of what makes living here interesting. It also causes a TON of crime.

Let's take the man in New York who killed those people the other day. Recent immigrant. Didn't speak-a-da-English too well, and thought that people were making fun of him because of that. Well .... so what .... that's supposed to be an excuse for murder?

In Harry's world view (as I take it from his posts), that immigrant didn't have any responsibility for his actions. Heavens no ... it's the fault of lax gun laws. No criminal should have to take responsibility for his crimes ... it's the fault of the people who make the laws.

Unless, of course, Harry is arguing about recent file sharing laws. Then, he does an about face and argues that it's the fault of the person who was properly using his internet connection if someone hijacks it, accesses illegal content, and the original user is blamed and has his service disconnected.

Oh, and in that case, the law is absolutely correct and good (according to Harry) and the user (who didn't DO anything wrong, and won't get a real hearing before a real court on the matter), should simply not have done what he didn't do.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Ahem. Well, Harry, I don't know if you've been paying attention lately, but here, crime is out of control.


Prisons are full, judges are lenient, and the lawyers don't give a damn about the victims, only getting their dirtbag clients off and back on the streets.

When you are out and about, you'd best be watching your back. Not being vigilant is an invitation to be a victim.

We have become a society dependent on others to help us, rather than helping ourselves.


Justification? For gangbangers to continue being gangbangers, for dirtbags to continue being dirtbags.

For law abiding citizens, self protection.

Oh, Wait. You want us to call the police maybe? Uh, yeah, IF they aren't on a nuisance call, and IF one is available, maybe they'll get to you in time.....but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I have no qualms about taking the matter into my own hands.

No way could I defend myself with just my hands, and no way will I depend on calling upon someone who may or may not respond in time.

Taking guns away at this point really only guarantees that the criminals will have them. What, you think they're gonna follow the rules?

It's a circle which you can't just break. People are carrying guns to "protect" themselves because the crooks have guns too. So, the croocks will get more/better guns which causes the average citizen to get more/better guns, etc.

It is really easy to ban guns, but that alone isn't enough. The penalties for carrying a gun or shooting a gun (with or without casualties) should be so terribly high (like what they are in the UK, apparently) that people will think twice about it.

Those that want a gun (generally with evil intend) will still be able to get it, true, but if (and they most likely will) they are caught, they shouldn't be let off the hook that easily...

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Let's take the man in New York who killed those people the other day. Recent immigrant. Didn't speak-a-da-English too well, and thought that people were making fun of him because of that. Well .... so what .... that's supposed to be an excuse for murder?

In Harry's world view (as I take it from his posts), that immigrant didn't have any responsibility for his actions. Heavens no ... it's the fault of lax gun laws. No criminal should have to take responsibility for his crimes ... it's the fault of the people who make the laws.

It's the fault of the immigrant and the lax gun laws. If this was a shooting purely out of frustration, had that person not been able to get a gun easily, I doubt it would have happened. He would have gone through a lot of trouble just to get a gun, preferably with a long cool-down period. By the time he had gotten the gun, he probably wouldn't feel the same anymore. Unless he'd gotten it from the black market, but then it's premeditated murder without a doubt...

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But gun ownership is not necessarily linked to rampant crime, Elfwreck. Eg, Switzerland, a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world, requires every man of military age to keep an assault rifle at home. Switzerland doesn't have the routine "mass killings" that the US unfortunately seems subject to. Why? I don't know.

But note that the fatality rate per firearm in the US is much lower than the fatality rate per automobile. So surely we should ban cars first, as a matter of public safety!

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Oh, I forgot... that's also true if you consider only those routine "mass killings" -- there are more of those committed via automobile than with firearms. Go figure...

Xenophon

[rebarnmom]

It seems to me that something fundamental has changed in our society, and that a recession contributes to depression, suicieds, murder, etc. - but is it a main factor in what we see today as mass murders?
Don

Fundamentally...?
A total lack of respect and appreciation for the preciousness of life.
Maybe "total" isn't the right word but rather "increasing" ...

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

It's the fault of the immigrant and the lax gun laws. If this was a shooting purely out of frustration, had that person not been able to get a gun easily, I doubt it would have happened. He would have gone through a lot of trouble just to get a gun, preferably with a long cool-down period. By the time he had gotten the gun, he probably wouldn't feel the same anymore. Unless he'd gotten it from the black market, but then it's premeditated murder without a doubt...

So, the fact that he had a license for his guns, and had bought them legally, after a background check AND a cooling off period makes no difference??

All of your assumptions that make you "doubt it would have happened" just happen to be dead wrong.

He DID go through a lot of trouble to get his guns.
He WAS licensed to carry those guns.
He HAD the guns long before he decided to kill those people.

So, rethink your entire post. Read the entire story before you make assumptions about something.

In fact let me quote to you from the article, which stated, in part:

Jiverly Wong was upset over losing his job at a vacuum plant, didn't like people picking on him for his limited English and once angrily told a co-worker, "America sucks."

It remains unclear exactly why the Vietnamese immigrant strapped on a bulletproof vest, barged in on a citizenship class and killed 13 people and himself, but the police chief says he knows one thing for sure: "He must have been a coward."

Jiverly Wong had apparently been preparing for a gun battle with police but changed course and decided to turn the gun on himself when he heard sirens approaching, Chief Joseph Zikuski said Saturday.

"He had a lot of ammunition on him, so thank God before more lives were lost, he decided to do that," the chief said.

Police and Wong's acquaintances portrayed him as an angry, troubled 41-year-old man who struggled with drugs and job loss and perhaps blamed his adopted country for his troubles. His rampage "was not a surprise" to those who knew him, Zikuski said.

"He felt degraded because people were apparently making fun of his poor English speaking," the chief said.

Wong, who used the alias Jiverly Voong, believed people close to him were making fun of him for his poor English language skills, the chief said.

Until last month, he had been taking classes at the American Civic Association, which teaches English to immigrants and helps them prepare for citizenship tests.

Then, on Friday, he parked his car against the back door of the association, burst through the front doors and shot two receptionists, killing one, before moving on to a classroom where he claimed 12 more victims, police said.

The police chief said that most of the dead had multiple gunshot wounds. Wong used two handguns - a 9 mm and a .45-caliber - for which he had obtained a permit more than a decade ago.

__________________________

So, he'd had these guns, licensed no less, for TEN YEARS. Is that a long enough "cooling off" period for you?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by rebarnmom

Fundamentally...?
A total lack of respect and appreciation for the preciousness of life.
Maybe "total" isn't the right word but rather "increasing" ...

OK .... who's "society" are you talking about?? The man lived for most of his life in Vietnam, and thought that America "sucked."

So, he commits a crime, and that triggers a discussion about what is "wrong" with American society??

The people in the United States have no more (or less) respect for the "preciousness of life" than any other society on Earth. I will grant you that (in my own opinion) Christians in general have less respect for life than Buddhists, but anyone, regardless of faith, is capable of going off the deep end.

You think that "lack of respect" is increasing?? Take a look through history. Do even the tinniest bit of real research. You will find societies who routinely (1) exposed unwanted newborns leaving them to starve or be eaten by animals, (2) abandoned or forced out their elderly when they were no longer productive, (3) murdered thousands and thousands of people for the misdeeds of one -- you think I'm kidding? Look up Nishapur. Read about that and then you tell me about how people used to consider life "precious."

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

In Harry's world view (as I take it from his posts), that immigrant didn't have any responsibility for his actions. Heavens no ... it's the fault of lax gun laws. No criminal should have to take responsibility for his crimes ... it's the fault of the people who make the laws.

I don't want to put words in Harry's finger tips. But I do think he was saying that. I think the ability for this to have obtained the guns provided the "opportunity" portion of the crime. Isn't that part of the triangle of motive, means and opportunity?

Also, someone above said it is EASY to get assualt weapons and such. That is not true. Assult weapons have been banned in the US for quite some time. Although it may have expired in 2004 there are several attempts to re-instante it. With the dems in control again I am pretty sure it will happen this year.

BOb

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I don't want to put words in Harry's finger tips. But I do think he was saying that. I think the ability for this to have obtained the guns provided the "opportunity" portion of the crime. Isn't that part of the triangle of motive, means and opportunity?

Also, someone above said it is EASY to get assualt weapons and such. That is not true. Assult weapons have been banned in the US for quite some time. Although it may have expired in 2004 there are several attempts to re-instante it. With the dems in control again I am pretty sure it will happen this year.

BOb

Not to mention (again .... just read one of my posts below) that this particular individual had his licensed firearms a full 10 years (TEN YEARS) before he committed the crime. Ten years is an awfully long period of opportunity. That doesn't make it sound all that "easy" to get a gun and commit a crime. It may well be easier than it should be .... but anyone who tries to point to what happened in New York State yesterday as an example of that has their head screwed on backwards.

[taosaur]

With events like this one, it seems like people split two ways: some people only consider whose fault it is and how they should be punished, and others think about how to understand it and relate it to larger trends. When the two groups hear each other, wires get crossed and the 'enforcers' think the 'sociologists' are misattributing blame, while the 'sociologists' think the 'enforcers' are misunderstanding causality.

Responsibility =/= causality. Only individuals can be responsible for events, and in the case of the NY shooter, only one individual is clearly responsible, but the more we examine the event, the more causal factors we'll find at play: psychological, societal, social, and perhaps economic or legislative. Examining causality does not absolve responsibility.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

When you are out and about, you'd best be watching your back. Not being vigilant is an invitation to be a victim.

In my experience, the opposite is true: a defensive bearing identifies you as prey, and an aggressive bearing invites challenge. Fear invites danger. I'm not saying crime victims are in any way responsible for being attacked--the aggressor and only the aggressor bears responsibility. If the goal is to avoid crime and survive it if it happens, though, "fear thy neighbor" is bad strategy.

I've spent plenty of time in shady neighborhoods (I'm presently in one of the nation's most murder-prone metro areas) and grew up around some violent individuals, and would probably have no better chance in a brawl than you would, but I feel perfectly safe on the streets. I've walked away from two situations that could have been muggings and turned out as just odd conversations, because I was personable but not submissive, and firm but not aggressive. A more resolute criminal would have had me covered with a weapon or lying on the pavement before I could have hoped to pull a gun.