I’m still waiting for one of you clever EU gun hating types to explain to me how banning guns in the US or even gun control is gonna stop frustrated, teenage, white males from committing these acts in the first place? Ok it might mitigate them, unless they find a substitute, eg bombs. Yet, there is something about our culture that creates these people. What is it? Hmm? The guns didn’t do it. Lots of countries have guns.
Banning guns won’t stop all gun violence. However, it’s reasonable to believe that banning guns will stop a lot of gun violence. A good example is the elementary school shooting that just happened. Some introverted Asperger’s kid in a CT suburb does not have a network of drug dealer friends who can provide him with guns. He did, however, have access to an armory of registered firearms. Maybe these guns were not the cause of why he wanted to shoot 28 people. However, the guns did enable him to do what he did. I agree that there is something intrinsic in US culture that values guns, and this is probably related to the high gun ownership rate in the US to begin with. However, as public perception shifts towards pro-gun control, policy also needs to follow this. It’s also naive to believe that public perception is not influenced by changes in public policy.
Banning guns will reduce the ease and probability of Sandy Hook style mindless massacres but surely not eliminate the deeper and wider problem of frustrated, aimless youth. I never claimed it would. Might it have to do with parenting and the schooling system? I don’t know. May be it’s to do with accepting kids that are differently-abled in schools and not labelling them as losers. May be it’s to do with instilling values and confidence in kids that tell them that it’s OK to be different. If a kid doesn’t listen to the right kind of music, doesn’t wear the ‘cool’ clothes and accessories, isn’t into the the sports everyone else is into, he/she is bound to get marginalised in the current system. I also feel that the emphasis on winning in the American society is setting many kids up for disappointment. Somehow, we need to teach them to be gracious in defeat and in triumph. I saw an example of this in front of me at Wimbledon where Federer gave the most gracious smile to celebrate his victory while being sensitive to the player he beat (I think it was Roddick who was angry and frustrated and extremely vocal throughout the game). On the other hand, the celebration displayed by one of the Williams was over the top and very insensitive. In other words, American kids are told everyday that they are the best and the winners at everything they choose to do. Of course, they can’t win everything and bound to get frustrated. May be there is a wide-ranging issue of parents throwing money at their kids whereas what is required is their time not the latest gadgets. May be there is a problem with babies getting Prozac when all they need is TLC, including time and patience. My own country and society is guilty of a number of the above. There are a large number of dysfunctional families and angry kids in the UK but the difficulty in obtaining firearms prevents massacres. Knife crime in inner London is a different matter though. I think I read a while ago after the Summer 2011 London riots that the UK has the angriest kids in all of Europe and the Netherlands the happiest.
Nobody would be silly enough to say that banning guns would miraculously solve the psychological/genetic/societal roots that underpin American gun crimes but it wouldn’t be remiss to say that some stricter gun control may reduce the chances of unnecessary mass death in the future either directly (by formalising stricter control on availability) or indirectly. You may argue that the cost of reducing these massacres is embodied in lowering individual freedom to gun ownership. But why is gunownership so emblematic of individual freedom in the US anyways? Maybe it is time to replace this bias with another? Do not misunderstand me, i subscribe to the common notion that : Guns defend and protect, hunt and kill, but not on their own. But surely banning assault rifles/military type weapons in the market should be the low hanging fruit that supporters/opposers to gunownership can agree on? Remember, policy-and material- changes are easy to implement in the short term but culture/mentality takes time to change. Just look at China, the economic boom has created so many rich individuals but if you look at the behaviour of these individuals you still see a lot of backwards thinking hiding behind expensive skyscrapers.
armed resistance does not make the military step back or get international attention any more than peaceful resistance.In fact peaceful resistance has more of an edge. weren’t the rise of nazi gernany and facist italy mainly due to those countries being in economic ruin? 70 years might be a short time but the progress in philosophy,thought etc has been outstanding.the rise of democracy in so many countries and it being recognized as the benchmark for societies to function means there is little to zero chance of any western + a few other countries becoming totalitarian again.
Interesting stat I heard on the radio this morning: Over the last 8 years we have lost 2000 (or was it 3000) soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan vs 96,000 Americans in the US due to gun related violence IMO if you need a gun to feel protected/safe then you are doing something wrong…
Another thing that I want to point out is our tendency to overreact. I’m not sure that, we’re worse than other people when it comes to this but I do think we do it too much. I believe we need to learn to turn the other cheek. In hindsight after 9/11 we should have said. FU terrorists. We got plenty more skyscrapers and frankly more bankers than we know what to do with, so killing 3k doesn’t mean a thing. We should have ignored Al Qaeda and not invaded Aghanistan, except perhaps to set up a base for drone strikes and tactical missions which do not risk American lives. We didn’t need to put in rediculous airport security or have the shit that we do. After this, my best guess is that we should ignore it publicly. Leave it out of the news as much as possible and see if teenagers keep doing this stuff as often. I bet they don’t. The bigger a deal we make out of this the more likely these attacks happen again and more frequently. The 27 deaths are a tragedy but completely insignificant in the big picture. We must not lose sight of that. Banning guns, might save a few lives but I don’t think the US is gonna give up on guns no matter how many europeans post comments about it on Facebook; I’d rather cure the problem than lessen the pain. I’m open to any ideas about root causes of this particularly white, male, teenage issue. P.S. I bet we will see more of these soon. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see them happening now in other countries en masse now that you guys have taken notice of it.
Really? Tell that to those that peacefully resisted the rise of Nazi Germany, facist Italy or those that peacefully resisted in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, or Syria before things turned violent. They were quietly locked away. But the second things step up to an armed conflict NATO and the news is all over it. Gunfire draws attention where quietly being arrested in the middle of the night does not. Peaceful resistance may bring change when you’re dealing with a Western democratized power that must answer to its people such as MLK and Ghandi were. But when you’re dealing with a regime, it’s not an option. As I said, it forces the military to either step up or step away.
The Nazi party grew during a period of economic ruin. But by the time Hitler rose to power they were an economic powerhouse. More importantly, there were many points where people could have resisted early on but lacked the means to, resulting in a much larger final conflict than there should have been, had it been handled internally through force or otherwise.
That’s hilarious given that similar sentiments were echoed just before the second world war. You know, when they called The Great War (WWI) “The War to End All Wars” because such a thing would never happen again in the west. People have a phenomenal capacity to convince themselves that this time is different.
are we still talking about 'merica? If we are the tie up between a army and upper level politicians is only possible in societies that are undergoing change a society that is being exposed to a new system of government. even in your example when mubarak’s time was up the army never turned on the people.the two candidates who are leading the elections are not militarily backed.for a nation to commit mass genocide on their own people usually in history it’s because they are vastly different to them and considered inferior ie linguistic/ethnic differences.most of the western world has moved on from this.the rise of concepts like equality blah blah.the rest of the world’s catching up too.china,india,nigeria,south africa have problems from time to time but genocide is not something you expect to see from these countries.perhaps nigeria as a long shot as a whole there just aren’t that many countries where it’s justifiable to arm the civilians as a defense against the army. just glanced through the syria part and 1) syria is an extreme extreme case and americans generally like to tell the world how much more civilized they are than the people in the middle east so why compare yourselves to them at the end by asking the question who will stop us? you were civilized enough not to continue your expansionist tendencies after WW2.no other country had done that prior.your government isn’t suddenly going to revert back to the stone age. and if they decide to take the drastic step of killing their own your ‘militia’ isn’t going to stand a chance. 2)syria is not in north africa 3)democracy flourished in iraq when you were still european 4)the yugoslav reigon at that time was relatively untouched by thoughts like freedom of speech and democracy.they were also under soviet influence which treated it’s citizens like dirt.in addition to that they had religious differences which was the main trigger.the examples you’re giving are mainly of religious differences and both sides being armed and it resulting in a massacre.if both sides were unarmed it would have been better. basically the thought’s,factors etc which have shaped your country make it highly unlikely that you need arms to protect yourself from your own government.
don’t know enough bout nazi’s and facist’s so ill take your word for it.again none of those countries have been exposed to democracy/freedom of thought/equality etc etc for quite some time.ill give you the above except iran and egypt.like i said america is a western democracy where freedom etc is written in the fabric of your culture.i got no axe to grind if you want to buy a gun good for you but im not seeing the whole ‘armed militia’ to keep the govenment in check and i wont ever agree to such a justification except for drastic countries like the ones you mentioned. the gap b/w ww1 and ww2 was not really enough for such thought’s to expand and embed themselves.you’re having a laugh if you think humanity hasn’t moved on and advanced from 1945
That doesn’t mean they would be willing or able to fight, particularly against well armed and exceptionally well trained professional soldiers. Most people wont even defend themselves if you walked up to them and started beating them on the street. Im serious, i’ve seen it and done it. Knowing that, there is no one you could even get a significant minority of the population to defend themselves violently. The majority of people in the world just lack the heart to be violent, thats why they immerse and train soldiers using the principles of opperant conditioning, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to do what they are supposed to do.
Bodhi, That might be the case in Western society, but in many of the places where I live now I can say that people are always up for a fight - the culture has programmed them that way. Just get in a fender bender here in India and you’re headed to a punchup. And India is one of the more peaceful places I’ve been to. Jesus, parts of Russia, if you don’t fight back they pound you into submission. Russian mothers and fathers teach their children to always hit back and stand up for themselves. It’s a matter of respect and survival. When I explained to them that we’re not even allowed to throw snowballs at our elementary schools they were shocked. I’ve had another thought, maybe our stiff suburban culture where nobody is allowed to fight and must be super peaceful and politically correct doesn’t create an outlet for pissed off teenagers. My outlet was always football or lacrosse. I could always just beat the crap out of someone there. But these shooters are almost never the contact sports types. Hmm. Maybe we need autistic nerdy geek fight club?
I agree with BS, peaceful demonstration against dictators are of now use… If you need proof, just take what Anna Hazare achieved now by going on hunger strike in India… What happened?? nothing!!! And ChikkenTikka, mate you are seeing one region in India… The problem (as well as advantage) with this country is there are some myriad cultures within this country and each region is different. Culture is different. South India is far far far different from the North… South Indians are generally more politically correct and never ever up for fight… You head up North to Punjab, they will be up for a fight anytime… You are correct cultural up bringing… May be you are right… The country (US) needs an outlet for emotion which is unfortunately coming out the wrong way… I agree I dont know enough about the country as I have stayed in Texas and NY alone for whats like a few months…
Sooraj, I’ve lived in India for six years. I’ve been just about everywhere here and frankly probably seen more of the country than 99% of Indians. Yes, they are all different, I get that. Indeed Seikhs love a good punch up and a beer, and Kashmiris get offended easily. South Indians are gentler and speak a language nobody understands. Delhi is where you to go get raped. Goa to drink beer and try and rape russian chicks. Karela is like Goa except you have to hide your alcohol. Mizoram is where imitation Thai masseuses come from. Need I go on? Guju’s speak far too loudly and are cheap as hell. And well, if you meet a snake and a Cindy [sic] then kill the Cindy.
Crawford?
double post
Why is everybody dancing around the solution? We all know who the perpetrators of these heinous acts are. We know that they are typically young privileged white males between the ages of 16 and 25. I have a bold solution. I propose we racial profile these SOB. The FBI and NSA needs to start monitoring their facebook, twitter, and text for for words like depression, AK47, FML, n----rs, hate, etc. I know that’s probably half the people you know and you may feel like cousin Richard is “different” and he cant hurt anybody, I am here to let you know that you are mistaken. White males in this demographic are a menace to our society and are highly susceptible to going postal.
^ Agreed. And for once, I’m allowed to say this, as a white male, without being called a racist. These teenage crackerz be crazy!
Stormy, I think you’d have to redefine the search terms. FML? Hate? “I hate homework, FML” etc. Too many false positives to track effectively.
My question would be *why* are they going postal? People are just products of their environment.