US Connecticut Shooting

ledboots said:
This website gives statistics and specific examples. They estimate that in the US, guns are used defensively about 80 times more often than they are used to commit a crime or kill. They also make the point that most mass shootings take place in gun free zones, and only stop when someone with a gun arrives. http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html
Click to expand...

My smartass answer of 3 is closer than the numbers that garbage web site provides. Really.
 
beancounter said:
Ok, fair enough. how do we change the culture?
Click to expand...
Dedalus said:
Cultural changes come about because society as a whole takes steps to change them. Laws aren't the only thing that need to be addressed - but it's a good start. And it's the low hanging fruit. Part of the evoloution of a society is to put parameters in place for what is acceptable and what is not. Why should we need to be over-sensitive and careful with a culture of people who love their guns, when in all likelyhood those people have all the guns and ammunition they will ever need? I fail to see why we are walking on eggshells about this. They are not the ones losing their lives.
Click to expand...

In regards to how to change culture, good question :) My view on how to fix the problem is somewhat hypothetical. My realistic answer is probably not going to be a popular one.

I don't believe we're ever going to change the violent nature of modern human society. Sorry to be pessimistic, but I am not a man of blind faith or hope not backed by evidence. I believe in data and cause and effect based on that data. I've previously stated my opinion regarding pre-civilization society, but that life is gone. Humans within the context of resource based society are violent, and there is about as much data to back that up as there is on the theory of gravity. The best we can do is create temporary bubbles of relative safety for ourselves, and that tends to result in conflict somewhere else. These shootings that seem to take place every few months are heart breaking, but that's only because they happen and are reported in a manner that triggers our empathy more so than the violence that takes place every day somewhere else, compared to which these shootings represent a grain of sand in the desert. Like I said before... 250 to 300 murders on an average day, and that doesn't even include the violence coming from the 60 countries currently involved in armed conflict. Yes, we and a few other industrialized countries have managed to carve out a little piece of paradise (comparatively) in the midst of it all, and if you're lucky enough to spend most of your life within the walls of that paradise you might be able to maintain some sense of hope. Perhaps I'm merely warped by my own experiences at the other end of the spectrum, but to me spending so much effort waging a fight against gun ownership in an effort to slightly reduce the frequency of events like the one that just happened is akin to trying to polish up a sand castle at low tide and, with any luck, enjoy it for an hour or two before the tide comes back and sweeps it away.

That said, and I do apologize for not being able to provide a more specific answer and instead only being able to point at what I see as flawed through the lenses of my possibly skewed world view, no matter how much effort we put into changing what's happening at a micro level, eventually the tide will come back in and sweep our progress back into the sea.

Thus, my pessimism towards the idea of a peaceful world where violence, whether internal or external, is rare, is why I call my view hypothetical. So... Hypothetically speaking, if I were a person who actually believed society as a whole was capable of existing peacefully, I would caution against attacking a people's way of life without first tackling the reason why they feel the need to maintain that way of life, otherwise the temporary progress will leave a trail of resentment that ultimately divides societies and leads them to collapse. The internal conflict that is inevitable with such collapse is typically much more devastating than a shooting here and there.

The hypothetical question I would ask, and the best answer I can come up with off the top of my head, in an effort to find a longer lasting solution to the gun problem would be as follows:
Why do people feel the need to buy guns?
- The same reason you feel the need to get rid of them. Fear. Remember the infamous rat experiment where two rats are shocked but one of them has a button it can press which it is trained to believe will mitigate the shock? Even though it doesn't, the perceived element of control results in a more stable, healthier rat even though they're both shocked the same amount. The violence of the world is the shock. With the gun fanatics, the guns are their perceived button. With the gun control fanatics, reduction in guns is their perceived button. Forget the button, it's not even functional. Get rid of the fear, and you negate the reason for having the button in the first place.

But that's the tricky part... If you're more optimistic than I am, then good luck. If you have the same bias towards the nature of modern society as I do, I would suggest that the best place to solve the problem is inside your own mind. I'm happy with my life and I live without fear not because I believe the violence of the world will end, but because I've learned to accept my mortality and not feel the need to micromanage it. I'm not completely inactive in regards to trying to promote change, far from it. I just acknowledge that the actions I take (including but not limited to being vegetarian) are more for the maintenance of my sanity than because I believe in any long term benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiSis, thefadedone, ledboots and 4 others
yakherder, I really agree with your first long paragraph. I've been thinking some very similar things myself in regard to the most recent and other senseless shootings. You just put it so well.
 
One thing I'd really wish more people would look at is the differences.

The state I live in has more than half the homes reporting possession of at least one firearm. Yet the murder rate is on par with Croatia. The state to the south of me has about the same percentage of guns in the home, yet has a murder rate better than the United Kingdom. While the state to the east of me has a far higher murder rate - over double that of the state to the south, yet the gun possession percentages are roughly the same.

Maybe one could argue that the state to the south of me is a very rural state. True. But my state and the state to the east are very similar, yet the murder rates are very dissimilar.
 
Yakherder, That makes more sense than anything I've read. I know everyone wants these horrible incidents to stop, but there is no easy solution. Not gun bans, video game censoring, movie and tv violence censoring, video cams on every corner, cops in schools, none of it.

President Obama setting up some kind of hokey task force to look into a federal assault gun ban is just a panacea to attempt to assuage the fear. There already is an assault weapon law in Connecticut, for example.
 
This is from "Mindfulness In Plain English"By Ven. Henepola GunaratanaIn.
In our society, we are great believers in education. We believe that knowledge makes a cultured person civilized. Civilization, however, polishes the person superficially. Subject our noble and sophisticated gentleman to stresses of war or economic collapse, and see what happens. It is one thing to obey the law because you know the penalties and fear the consequences. It is something else entirely to obey the law because you have cleansed yourself from the greed that would make you steal and the hatred that would make you kill. Throw a stone into a stream. The running water would smooth the surface, but the inner part remains unchanged. Take that same stone and place it in the intense fires of a forge, and the whole stone changes inside and outside. It all melts. Civilization changes man on the outside. Meditation softens him within, through and through.All the best
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiSis, kazyeeqen, Pickle Juice and 1 other person
ledboots said:
There already is an assault weapon law in Connecticut, for example.
Click to expand...

Let's say there's a law against slavery, but it excepts out owning redheaded people as slaves. Does that mean that laws against slavery are ineffective and there's no point to them, or does it mean that the law should be revised so that no one, including redheaded people, can legally be owned as slaves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: beancounter
mlp said:
Let's say there's a law against slavery, but it excepts out owning redheaded people as slaves. Does that mean that laws against slavery are ineffective and there's no point to them, or does it mean that the law should be revised so that no one, including redheaded people, can legally be owned as slaves?
Click to expand...

I am a slave to a red head. Where does that fit into the picture?
 
mlp said:
Let's say there's a law against slavery, but it excepts out owning redheaded people as slaves. Does that mean that laws against slavery are ineffective and there's no point to them, or does it mean that the law should be revised so that no one, including redheaded people, can legally be owned as slaves?
Click to expand...
So you think all guns besides the government owned ones should be, what, outlawed, made more expensive, made to only hold one bullet? Or should the police go confiscate weapons people already own? Can we have swords? Cleavers? Baseball bats? Cars? Potassium? Pillows?
 
ledboots said:
So you think all guns besides the government owned ones should be, what, outlawed, made more expensive, made to only hold one bullet? Or should the police go confiscate weapons people already own? Can we have swords? Cleavers? Baseball bats? Cars? Potassium? Pillows?
Click to expand...

Well, Finland has a higher non-firearm murder rate than my state's combined (non-firearm and firearm) murder rate...

Logically, if the murder rate in my state is high enough to expand gun control, then the murder rate in Finland is high enough to take steps against the weapons used in that country to commit murder.
 
ledboots said:
So you think all guns besides the government owned ones should be, what, outlawed, made more expensive, made to only hold one bullet? Or should the police go confiscate weapons people already own? Can we have swords? Cleavers? Baseball bats? Cars? Potassium? Pillows?
Click to expand...

I vote for pillows! :up: :) . Stuffed with foam, not feathers, of course.
 
The United States has more guns (~300 million), the loosest gun laws, and the most gun-related deaths than any other developed country.

"But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one." - Bill Hicks
 
"Switzerland is Europe's gun capital. It has more firepower per person than any other country in the world yet it is said to be one of the safest places on Earth. Despite the prevalence of lethal hardware, the country has virtually no violent crime, there are only minimal controls at public buildings, and politicians rarely have police protection, although yesterday's events are bound to bring about a review of that situation. Year after year, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest murder rates while sending machine guns to every member of their citizen army. All males between 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for the purposes of national defence and they are not kept in safes or with trigger locks. They are kept at the ready. It was the Swiss passion for guns matched by their determination to keep their liberty that kept the Nazi war machine at bay. When the Swiss government thought an invasion was imminent, it ordered every able-bodied man to stand by his post and defend it to the last round. Their determination, shooting skills, and the sheer quantity of weapons at their disposal persuaded Hitler that an invasion of Switzerland was not worth the cost and he should concentrate his efforts on conquering countries with strict gun control laws. The nation's militia system requires males over 18 to be ready for a call to service. Every Monday and Friday, men wearing uniforms and carrying weapons can be seen on commuter trains travelling to and from military camp for compulsory training. Other countries have tennis courts and golf courses, the Swiss have shooting ranges. Almost every town has one, where reservists have to fire a set number of rounds each year to keep their weapons. In restaurants and coffee shops, tourists sometimes find themselves competing with guns for places to hang their coats. However, Switzerland is facing pressures for gun control. Neighbouring countries are clamouring for tougher restrictions and the state parliament building shootings are likely to accelerate the demands."Link MainPagehttp://www.rense.com< CENTER> This Site Served by TheHostPros
 
ledboots said:
"Switzerland is Europe's gun capital. It has more firepower per person than any other country in the world yet it is said to be one of the safest places on Earth. Despite the prevalence of lethal hardware, the country has virtually no violent crime, there are only minimal controls at public buildings, and politicians rarely have police protection, although yesterday's events are bound to bring about a review of that situation. Year after year, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest murder rates while sending machine guns to every member of their citizen army. All males between 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for the purposes of national defence and they are not kept in safes or with trigger locks. They are kept at the ready. It was the Swiss passion for guns matched by their determination to keep their liberty that kept the Nazi war machine at bay. When the Swiss government thought an invasion was imminent, it ordered every able-bodied man to stand by his post and defend it to the last round. Their determination, shooting skills, and the sheer quantity of weapons at their disposal persuaded Hitler that an invasion of Switzerland was not worth the cost and he should concentrate his efforts on conquering countries with strict gun control laws. The nation's militia system requires males over 18 to be ready for a call to service. Every Monday and Friday, men wearing uniforms and carrying weapons can be seen on commuter trains travelling to and from military camp for compulsory training. Other countries have tennis courts and golf courses, the Swiss have shooting ranges. Almost every town has one, where reservists have to fire a set number of rounds each year to keep their weapons. In restaurants and coffee shops, tourists sometimes find themselves competing with guns for places to hang their coats. However, Switzerland is facing pressures for gun control. Neighbouring countries are clamouring for tougher restrictions and the state parliament building shootings are likely to accelerate the demands."Link MainPagehttp://www.rense.com< CENTER> This Site Served by TheHostPros
Click to expand...

Except that the US has the most powerful military in the world. There is no need for citizen militias.
 
beancounter said:
Except that the US has the most powerful military in the world. There is no need for citizen militias.
Click to expand...
The point I was making was that just because they have lots of guns, everyone in Switzerland isn't running around killing each other. In fact, that 20- year old Newtown killer wouldn't have had to shoot his mother in the face with her gun; he could have used one of his own guns that he would have been required to keep at the ready in the home had he been Swiss.
 

Similar threads

robert99
Burlington's Cascade Mall shooting
Replies
4
Views
1K
USA
robert99
robert99
Top Bottom