The Real Issues at Hand

[rDigital]

I think the real issues that are at the root of recent, and for that matter most violence in general, are threefold:

1. Mental Illness
2. Poverty
3. War on Drugs

Mental illness is self explanatory. Poverty is too. The War on Drugs is a factor because of the riches that it brings to criminals.

I think attempts to lay the blame for violence in the US on firearms is lazy at best and evil at worst. Lazy, in that antis think that if we get rid of all of the firearms that much of the violence in the US will stop or be slowed in some way. Evil, in that they have another agenda that requires a disarmed populace to be successful.

[Simo 1939_1940]

1. I like your short list, but would modify #2 to read

Poverty/Inequality.

[Callisto32]

41. I would modify your modification to read

Poverty/Inequity

[phantom power]

2. I think the problem people *most* want to solve is this one:

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/



I think there's a coherent case to be made that guns are not one of the root causes of violence.

Here's an interesting discussion in that vein:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021058436

(In fact, people's desire for self-defense firearms is quite possibly just another symptom)

In my opinion, I'd carefully consider calling people who are upset by mass killings "lazy." They might be wrong, but when people start feeling unsafe, and the reason is that people armed with things like rifles and 100-round magazines are going apeshit in movie theaters, I guarantee you that telling them they're just overreacting, or lazy (and why didn't they have their very own gun to shoot back with anyway) isn't going to make them feel any less like trying to ban guns.

Regarding your OP, it reminds me that a couple weeks ago I was thinking that if the NRA wanted to reduce their opposition, one way to do it would be to lend public support and/or funding for social programs like increased funding for mental illness support, reducing poverty and dismantling the war on drugs.

If violent crime, including gun-related crime, went way down, to the levels enjoyed by most other developed countries, there would be correspondingly fewer people worried about gun control. I also predict there would be correspondingly fewer people carrying guns for self defense.

[rDigital]

4. Solid post. : ). nt.

[Simo 1939_1940]

5. *Outstanding* post! (saved) NT

[Hoyt]

8. Might be true for new carriers, but ones now will not leave guns at home if rate were zero.

The odds of encountering a situation are very low now for most. Plus, I think people tote for other reasons. Crime has supposedly been declining, yet more tote, NRA pushes stand your ground laws, Tbaggers protest with guns (wanting to take their country back from you know who), etc.

While it may not be true of carriers here, most carry out of callousness, hatred, insecurity, bigotry, politics, etc. Does not bode well for future.

[rDigital]

10. Please keep your off topic bigotry and assorted carp out of this thread. nt

[Hoyt]

12. Sorry Digital. Does my bigotry toward gun carriers bother you?

While I agree with your three points totally, there are other factors just as significant, if not more so, than those three.

[rDigital]

13. No, but trying to paint gun owners with such a broad brush does your cause no favors.

People will look at what you say, then think to themselves about all of the gun owners they know. They will note that most of the gun owners they know are nothing like what Hoyt says and that Hoyt is probably wrong about more than just that. It does you no favors.

In calling other large groups of people names it makes you look like the bigoted one, which I don't think you are.

I know you want to change how society sees guns, but name callers don't change history.

[Hoyt]

14. And the last paragraph in OP shows how you feel about those who do not

believe guns -as currently promoted by the gun community - are good for our country.

I know there is a difference how some of you view guns, but to appease you guys, we have to allow truly callous people pollute our society with guns.

With that said, I will give it an honest effort to refrain from direct name calling. Not sure how successful I will be.

Maybe if you guys wouldn't cheer everytine some citizen shoots someone on their front porch, it would help.

I know there are times when it would be good to have a gun. But, I don't think it's on the streets, or by having a bunch of guns at home.

[rDigital]

15. : )

I like this version of you.

[Hoyt]

19. It's gonna take awhile and considerable effort.

[holdencaufield]

16. "Does my bigotry toward gun carriers bother you?"

No ... it only amuses me.

[Hoyt]

18. I think laughter is very good for society.

[Simo 1939_1940]

20. Your "respectable bigotry" aids the cause of the RKBA - so by all means.....have at it!!

4. Respectable Bigotry


We are so inured to the vituperative terms in which the gun debate is carried on that it may be useful to consider the issue in a wholly different context. Recently a psychiatrist publicized the terrifying story of her repeated vain attempts to control, or have incarcerated, a malicious bi-sexual patient who continues to have promiscuous, unsafe sex with people who don't know that he has the AIDS virus.{20} Doubtless other examples could be cited of people who spread AIDS irresponsibly or even deliberately. But enlightened, liberal people would not jump from the few such examples to vilifying bi-sexuals or gays or gay rights activists, in general. Enlightened, liberal people rightly see it as bigotry to blame the wrong-doing of an irresponsible, aberrant few on a whole group of innocent, responsible people.

Returning to gun control, studies trying to link gun ownership to violence rates find either no relationship or a negative, i.e., cities and counties with high gun ownership suffer less violence than demographically comparable areas with lower gun ownership.{21} Summarizing these and other studies, a recent National Institute of Justice analysis finds: It is clear that only a very small fraction of privately owned firearms are ever involved in crime or violence, the vast bulk of them being owned and used more or less exclusively for sport and recreational purposes, or for self-protection.{22} Concommitantly, it has been estimated that 98.32% of owners do not use a gun in an unlawful homicide (over a 50 year adult life span).{23}

In sum, murderers comprise only a small, highly aberrant (and malignant and irresponsible) subset of all gun owners. Why, then, is it enlightened and liberal: to vilify the 50% of American householders who have guns as barbaric and/or deranged ("Gun Lunatics Silence Sounds of Civilization"{24}), "gun nuts", "gun fetishists", "anti-citizens" and "traitors, enemies of their own patriae"{25}, as sexually warped{26} "bulletbrains"{27} who engage in "simply beastly behavior"{28} and represent "the worst instincts in the human character"{29}; or to traduce pro-gun groups as the "pusher's best friend"{30} and their entire membership as "psychotics", "hunters who drink beer, don't vote and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend"{31}; to characterize the murder of children as "another slaughter co-sponsored by the National Rifle Association"{32} and assert that "The assassination of John Lennon has been brought to you by the National Rifle Association"{33}; and to cartoon gun owners as thugs and/or vigilantes, intellectually retarded, educationally backward and morally obtuse, or as Klansmen?{34}

The NIJ Evaluation accurately describes how the anti-gun advocates sees gun owners: as "demented and blood-thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death upon innocent creatures both human and otherwise." It is really quite remarkable for such calumnies to issue from people who, rightly, regard it as egregious bigotry when other bigots: seek to blame AIDS deaths on gays whom they revile as sexually warped, moral degenerates who engage in simply bestial behavior; or blame gay rights activists for AIDS because they lobby against ordinances that would close bath houses; describe abortion rights activists as murderers, "baby butchers" and abortion clinics as "merchants of death"; dismiss all homeless people and welfare recipients as slackers, drug addicted, alcoholic or retarded; or traduce the ACLU as the "best friend" of criminals and drug pushers.

The fact that anti-gun crusaders are commendably eager to oppose racism, gay bashing and other evils they recognize as bigotry does not excuse their inability to recognize their own bigotry. On the contrary, it compounds that bigotry with myopia, if not hypocrisy.

Don Kates from "Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment"

[Hoyt]

25. I am bigoted against guns in public - I admit it. I'm bigoted against swastikas and

confederate flags in public too.

[Simo 1939_1940]

43. "I am bigoted against guns in public....."

You do understand the definition of bigotry, yes?

Nice of you to admit that your position is based on emotion and illness rather than reason.

[trouble.smith]

24. "Crime has supposedly been declining, yet more tote"

perhaps crime is declining because "more tote". In areas where CCW are not authroized, like Chicago, it seems like violent crime is more common than in areas where CCWs are the norm. This view is further supported by the 16 year Lott/Mustard study on the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent homicides.

[Hoyt]

26. Yea right. Your toting reduces crime. Even your buddies here know Lott is a fool.

States with high gun ownership have more violent crime on average - look at South. Plus, people still tote in Chicago.

[gejohnston]

27. The west has higher handgun ownership than the south

compare Idaho with Louisiana. Wyoming has the highest in the US. As for Chicago, not legally other than a few politicians,.

[trouble.smith]

34. crime is a highly complex issue not conveniently explained

it's explanation is made worse by the extremely polarizing nature of the firearms debate. I think the CCW figures into the complex equation though it doesn't necessarily affect the final results of the equation because in a world full of predators and prey, the predators will always manage to find prey. Knowing that their prey may be well armed only forces them to work a little harder at selecting the weak and vulnerable prey within the herd (who will always be present) but they will still seek them out and find them. occasionally they select poorly and we of the herd read about it and laugh at the stupid predator's misfortune.

So I think anywhere where you have a high number of prey, you will also have a high number of predators and while the presence of well armed prey doesn't confer complete herd immunity to violence it almost certainly affects prey selection. I'm also reminded of the final justification for the various stimulus bills: things would have been much worse without it. that is probably true but we'll never know for sure because we simply can't know that. Similarly, I believe it is safe to say that without CCWs, the crime rate, as bad as it is, would likely be worse especially given: a.) the economic conditions we find ourselves in B.) the inability of our court system to effectively cope with the growing number of criminals c.) spreading urban decay d.) the growing population of homeless people that suffer from mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and combinations of all of the above; and e.) a general increase in depravity and inhumanity.

[Hoyt]

35. First off, I don't really feel like prey. Second, when criminals think it is likely you are armed,,

they'll shoot you in the head before you know what happens. Finally, a bunch of Zimmermans, Loughners, Stwickis, etc., walking around in public ain't my idea of society. Nor is the influence of right wing groups - such as NRA - on politicians good for us.

The sooner we bite the bullet and do something, the better.

[trouble.smith]

36. I'm sure lots of victims didn't feel like prey until they became prey.

furthermore, criminals are no different than any other predators, they'll go after the weak, the sick, the slow, and the vulnerable. If that's you, you're prey whether you feel like it or not. if that ain't you, then you probably need not worry. It sounds like you're terrified of the zimmerman's and the loughners of the world. Statistically, they're insignificant and not what you should worry about. you're more likely to get shot at the car wash or the gas station unless you live in Mayberry, USA of course.

[Hoyt]

37. Thanks for the right wing view of guns. It must be tough feeling lije prey.

My point is simple, more guns - in the hands of more yahoos - is not the answer.

[trouble.smith]

44. that means a lot coming from a self proclaimed thief.

that was sarcasm btw.

[rDigital]

46. He's banned now. You won't be getting a rebuttal.

[krispos42]

39. If the rate was near zero, then that would mean that...

...people carrying guns legally in public would have a very-near-zero rate of using the guns illegally, and thus should not be prevented from doing so.

But that won't change your mind, will it?

No, what bothers you is that people spend a lot of time thinking about hardware to kill with, studying effective ways to kill people, and about what that person could do in a worst-case scenario.

You must be a boatload of fun to drive with on the Interstate.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Really? Better check your statistics again.

The U.S. violent crime rate is below that of the UK, Austria, South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

It is true that we have more gun violence than they do, but they make up for it with overall violence. It looks to me like thugs are emboldened by helpless victims.

[DanTex]

22. While guns may not be a "root" cause of violence...

...there is very strong evidence that guns make violence worse, and also more lethal.

The fact is that the levels of violent crime in the US are already down to the levels in other developed nation. We are not an exceptionally violent country. The only place where we really stick out is homicide -- and gun homicide specifically. Our homicide rates are something like 5X higher than the rest of the developed world. And the explanation for this, which criminologists have pointed out for some time now, is that American criminals have much easier access to guns, and crimes committed with guns are much more likely to result in homicide than crimes committed without guns.

[spin]

28. So we need to find better ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. ...

I would suggest:

1) Requiring an NICS background check for the sale of any firearm including private sales.

2) Increasing the penalty for the straw purchase and/or smuggling of firearms to in the inner streets of our nation or to other countries.

3) Charging anyone who straw purchased any firearm to be an accessory to any crimes committed with the weapon.

4) Treating drug gangs as terrorist organization (which they are).

5) More pro-active law enforcement to combat both criminals and gangs.

6) Better mental healthcare and a better system for flagging those who might suffer from a mental illness that could lead them to commit violence.

7) Requiring the states to update the NICS background check system on a timely basis and to report the names of those legally adjudged as having a serious mental problem to the system. (This may require federal money to enable the states to afford the expense.)

8) Enforcing existing laws.

Of course we also need to work on overcoming many social problems in our nation. There's a LONG list of items we could work on if only both parties were willing to work together and compromise.

[Callisto32]

42. You forgot one.

End the "war on drugs."

[rDigital]

29. "Developed World" ? More weasel words. Everyone knows the score here

Canned Brady Bunch talking points? Credibility....out the window. Russia's murder rate is 3x our total murder rate and handguns are totally illegal there. What's not developed about Russia?

There is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.

Why are so many people dying in Russia than the US? It's the guns....errrr.. right?

[ellisonz]

30. "What's not developed about Russia?"

US Nominal Per Capita Income $48,386

vs.

Russia Nominal Per Capita Income $12,993

[rDigital]

31. So... because they don't make as much money as us on average they don't count?

[ellisonz]

32. Per capita income is an easy ways to compare levels of development.

In short, Russia is only 1/4 as economically developed as the United States. If you want to make comparisons you need to pool countries with similar levels of economic development such as Western European nations, Australia/New Zealand, and Japan.

This isn't rocket science. When was the last time you paid any attention at all to what life is like in Russia?

[rDigital]

33. It's not "rocket science" it's weasel science. More weasel words fueled by hoplophobia.

[DanTex]

38. Umm... to a gun nut, that is rocket science...

You haven't been here in a while, maybe you need a reminder: gun nuts don't know or care about anything that happens outside of 'murka. And they also don't know or care anything about statistical or sociological methods.

Reminds me a lot of this video:

[gejohnston]

40. how is that different than

anti gunners who only pretend to know? Many of the pro gunners here have actually traveled abroad. Not always by choice, they they still traveled.

[4th law of robotics]

3. Ah but addressing any of those issues doesn't reduce our freedoms

so what's the point?

/gun control was never, and have never, been about making anyone safe.

[rDigital]

45. You're right, it's about control. nt

[Jenoch]

6. Poverty?

There are lots of people in poverty in the U.S. that do not resort to violence. Your list also is a bit mistaken on number 3. Even if there were no 'war on drugs' the drug dealers would still be at war with each other. I would add at least a 4th category that somehow included lazy ass individuals who would rather steal from others rather than doing something to help themselves.

[rDigital]

7. I used the WOD

because its a convienient term. I think most drugs should be legalized, purified and taxed to pay for mental health care and job training for at risk youth.

Legal drugs bankrupt the dealers. Less turf war violence.

[X_Digger]

9. Poverty has little to no effect on violent crime, surprisingly.

When you actually look at the numbers, violent crime does not correlate with a) poverty, b) unemployment, or c) economic conditions (recession / depression).

You can compare the same area with high unemployment versus low (no different, or the opposite of 'common sense' in some areas), you can compare really poor rural areas to middle class rural areas (no appreciable difference if they're in the same state / area), or the same area during good economic conditions versus a recession (no different.)

Much of the comparison you can do online- compare the 1990's to today w/r/t unemployment, or compare 1980's to 2000's for 'bust v boom' cycles. It even goes back pretty far- look at the violent crime rate during the great depression compared to the 20's or the 40's.

People think it's "common sense", but this is one time where what seems logical isn't actually borne out by data.

[rDigital]

11. What makes an area more violent?

Why is Chicago so violent and the entire state of Vermont is almost murder free? Urban vs rural? Is it a cultural issue? I think there are some hard questions that need to be asked.

[X_Digger]

17. Criminologists and sociologists have their pet theories, but for every supposed correlation..

... there's enough examples of an inverse to it as to make it meaningless.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/poverty.htm

I do think that the War on (Some) Drugs has a lot to do with it- look at crime trends during prohibition versus the period after the 21st amendment.

[rDigital]

23. A revised & improved list then?

1. Poverty/Inequity of wealth and opportunity
2. Mental health
3. War of Drugs/poor US DRUG POLICY
4. Minority oppression