Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky
I think it's a bit too easy to only focus on the weapons and wether to ban, what models to ban, and so on...
Both sides of this discussion can provide examples that support their argument. On one hand countries with a high distribution of weapon but low homicide rate do exist.
On the other hand there are some examples of homicide rates dropping after enforcing weapon control.
What this tells me, is that there must be more to it, than just the single variable "number of weapons per capita".
Here is one factor I think may be important:
The culture and society of the USA, as opposed to many other western nations, actively promotes (deadly) violence as a valid method for solving problems.
On the 'official' side we have:
- routinely starting wars, participating in armed conflict and using military force on the international level
- huge military expenses
- assassination of enemies of the state ('terrorists') by use of weapon force
- legal torture of enemies
- death penalty
- a variety of 'stand your ground'-like laws (ie quite liberal use, not only ownership of weapons, written into law)
This is important because to many people the world is quite simple: legal == good.
If it is legal to kill somone (ie the person trespassed on your yard) then it is also good and rightful.
It's their main moral compass.
The 'authorites' are a role model for what is proper behavior, because of their high status in society.
On the cultural side there is the general acceptance of violence in media as opposed to other socially unwanted behavior, such as obscenity, swearing, or political incorrectness.
This is apparent for example when looking at what gets you a high PG rating and what does not.
I wont go on about all the countless movies and games, in which you achieve Happy End, by killing off the bad guys. This is a dead horse by now and I wont beat it any further.
This is not meant to be a USA rant btw. This is a honest view from an outside observant. All these points are grossly different to place I live, so it might help you understand why there may be a different mindset towards weapons in general in another population of a western country.
I do believe, that this has a great impact on the actual use of the weapons, no matter the distribution levels.
However I do not think, that this is very much relevant to special cases, like the school shootings. These seem to be a very different problem.
It's more about the overall homicide rate involving firearms.
|
You're right to point out that the problem has more to do with things particular to the United States than in other countries, but your assessment about what those things ARE is just way too generalized and...well to be frank, not a very accurate outside view of the problems this country has.
Violent media? This is ludicrous. The rest of the world produces plenty of their own violent media, and more importantly, the rest of the world are some of the BIGGEST consumers for violent American media. American movie Blockbusters that feature violence and killing gross very well overseas, even in countries which have very little violence.
While there are lots of possible inquiries you could make between the connection between American foreign policy and US culture, I think this is a bit too hypothetical, and doesn't consider what the majority of all these homicides are connected with. In America, the greatest participants in homicides (as well as the most common victims) tend to be economically/socially disenfranchised ethnic minorities, or other economically disadvantaged groups. The politicians who control US foreign policy tend to overwhelmingly to be White Anglo Saxon Protestant social elite. I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time trying to find a connection between disenfranchised minorities who turn to crime because of social/economic situations and between extremely powerful White guys in suits.
Even American obsession with the death penalty and self defense laws are only the most superficial way to examine the problem. Because when you come down to it, these kind of measures are reactions to American concerns about crime. They're a sign of dysfunction that ALREADY exists. The death penalty is only issued allot because there ARE significant numbers of crimes committed that warrant the death penalty, out of some unrealistic idea that they'll deter future crimes.
The reason America has a high homicide rate is much simpler than what you're talking about. We have a high homicide rate because there is a large wealth gap in this country, and no comprehensive and well organized social safety net like European countries have. When you combine that with a war on drugs that punitively punishes non violent offenders by throwing them into jail with violent offenders, forcing them to learn to be more violent criminals, and then coming out of prison for even worse job prospects thanks to their criminal record...we're basically training people for criminal behavior. The War on Drugs is a much bigger issue than the death penalty.
Social and economic deprivation and lack of social safety net are parts of America are close to developing countries in terms of violence than they are to Europe. People who talk about stricter gun control being able to reduce this violence are SERIOUSLY underestimating how deep the core problems are. It's poverty and deprivation that cause violence, not weapons. Reducing the numbers of guns won't help as long as this poverty and deprivation remains. Look at the Philippines. They don't even have a tenth as many guns per capita as the United States does, but still only trail somewhat behind in terms of the overall firearms homicide rate. What does that tell you? When poverty and social disorder is widespread enough, you don't need THAT many guns to have significant gun homicides. This intuitively makes sense, considering that not THAT many people are murderers.
Trying to completely disarm the American populace is just plain unproductive compared to actually addressing systematic poverty in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083
As you can see, there is a commonality to all of these maps, and firearms has little to do with it.
What it does show is that we need to provide better education, put an end to the drug war to bankrupt the drug gangs, and have a cultural discussion about the violent image our youth find so appealing.
Especially in the "gangska" cultures of our minority communities.
Mindset plays a role in whether or not a person chooses to engage in criminal activity, it isn't always about lack of money and/or poverty (though I would imagine those play a factor).
|
The thing is, admiration of violence, and powerful figures capable of inflicting violence aren't unique to minority groups in America. Think about it. Some of the most beloved national icons even among respectable law abiding citizens are powerful characters. Action Stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis. Even our fascination with our moralistic super hero characters is based on their strength and capacity for violence. (Who would read Batman/Superman if they didn't punch anyone?)
What separates some black/mexican kid in the ghetto, or some Alabama redneck getting involved in a meth gang from all those nice middle class kids, is the white middle class kids have been afforded the economic/social opportunity to more easily do productive things. For the latter, indulgence in violent media is a pass time. For those who have nothing, know they have nothing, and have no other productive things to do, carrying out empowerment fantasies in a gang, and looking up to a powerful male figure comes much more naturally.