people, and then on top of that we tell people they are only worth something if they "succeed," that is if they, in some sort of competition "beat" their opponents. This leads to a sense of isolation and a constant fear of being beaten or shamed. Combine that feeling of isolation and the fear of being shamed with the fear of the other that has developed into paranoia and you have a murderer and a murder and on top of that a death.

Someone's son or daughter, someone's husband or wife, someone's best friend -- killed and we do nothing to change our culture from one in which fear is nurtured to one in which trust and love are the norm.

That's what I mean when I say that our gun problem is really a cultural problem.

Our movies, our literature, our society tells us to watch out for that other one -- might be a terrible enemy. We really don't need to hear that all the time.

Social trust was a fairly common thing. It's subject to the tragedy of the commons, and has been badly abused. "Overgrazed", if you will.


I'd also point out that there are two kinds of honor that help classify cultures (a third variety's been pointed out as developing in the US). Recently a SCOTUS decision talked about "dignity" and used the language for what constituted dignity and its source for one of those cultures. That dignity is internal and can't be removed unless you let others remove from you, in which case you're complicit. Many, mostly low SES and/or Southern, found that laughable, because they only see honor as something you're given, something external to you.

Took a long time, and both the influence of certain varieties of Xianity and Enlightenment thought working together, to get to the internal-honor kind of culture that allowed duels to stop being common, to compel people to acknowledge the dignity that others have by virtue of being merely human. That view never caught on in many parts of US culture and it's being quickly rolled back.

That gun needs to go to jail for a long time.

When did DU become home for NRA talking points?

citing the NRA talking points, like mentioning "Chicago" whenever there is a discussion of the subject.

I just think that when someone harms someone else the responsibility for that action should be placed on the person who did it, not on the weapon they used. For instance, when a racist cop shoots an unarmed AA, I don't blame the cop's gun. I blame the cop and those that enabled him. I stand with BLM. You don't see them trying to shift blame from the bad cop to his gun.

several DUers, it seems that all they do is pimp for the NRA

Two angry men shooting two innocent women?

They were the victims of poor aim by the shooters.

So in your mind if a person carries a gun the gun takes control of the person's brain and controls his actions? If so, how can we let Secret Service agents protecting our president carry guns? The guns would take control of their minds and who knows who they would shoot.

Is that why police shoot black people? Could it be that the cops aren't racist but their guns are? Wow. Could the whole police shooting blacks problem be solved simply by developing non-racist guns?

I just reviewed the Chicago police shooting tape and your epiphany puts it in a whole new light knowing now that the racist gun was in control and not the cop's human nature. No wonder Rahm Emmanuel covered it up. It wasn't the cops fault. The gun was controlling him. I hope that cop's gun is severely punished. The new mantra should be "Racist cops don't kill black people. Guns do".

What a crock.

I've carried almost daily for years without my EDC taking over....maybe it's the tin foil or something that makes me immune.

Don't have to think too deeply to figure that out. Shifting the blame for the killings from the killers to the weapon let's the killers off the hook

bystanders have been hurt, much less killed?

Almost certainly not.

likelihood of violence to kill those who are not involved in an altercation between those who would bear such weapons - if avoiding these situations is a desired outcome.

Arguing not to blame the weapon is a straw man argument. The weapon is inanimate - it has no will. The users of a weapon are responsible for the use of the weapon. No one is blaming a weapon.

However, the availability of a weapon is is the responsibility of the society. If society wants to limit this kind of incident, society needs to restrict or regulate the availability of such weapons to a greater extent through gun licensing, gun insurance, operator's permits, etc., or by largely banning guns.

Apparently, incidents such as discussed above in the OP have your tacit approval. Is that a correct statement?

it makes deadly violence easier. as a "tool", it facilitates the translation of anger or fear into action far better than, say, a knife (so bloody - only OJ can get away with that), a car (they have to stand still), or a swimming pool.

ease of use is why you have those "tools", and why millions of angry yahoos in this country have them, too.

trying to separate the craftsman from the tool is an academic exercise designed to obfuscate.

something that eludes the paranoid

contribute to violent deaths, but that just blaming the guns as many do here ignores the culture of violence that many in our society exhibit. We need to change the way many people think about violence whether it is domestic abuse, hate crimes, sexual violence, crimes of passion, settling grudges, or just plain evil and meanness. Just taking about the evils of guns every time there is a killing does nothing to change the hearts of those who would resort to violence at the drop of a hat. Increased gun control will save some lives but there are millions of guns out there and the bad guys will still get them. It would be much better to change the hearts and minds of those who resort to violence to impose their will. Just saying guns are the problem is taking the easy way out.

many of these fatal encounters would have been a FISTFIGHT without the AVAILABILITY OF GUNS

*DONE HERE; I DETEST WASTING MY TIME*

" Increased gun control will save some lives". I guess I am just talking past a closed mind.

'Taking the easy way out' means it's more likely to work. Why should society refuse to do something with a chance of success because you think it's "too easy"?

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

restricting the free speech rights of kids who are bullies. But society would be much better off if we could change attitudes and values.
Take domestic abuse for example. We could take away an abusers guns, then their knives, then the baseball bats, golf clubs, frying pans, belts, plates, vases etc. Each time we may be making the victim safer but it would be much better to change the values and attitude of the abuser to one where it is just not acceptable to hit or abuse your spouse. We are making progress to that end in this country when it comes to domestic violence. We need to extrapolate that to all forms of violent behavior.

Some domestic violence situations end up with the abuser using a gun to kill their spouse. Sure we could save lives by taking the guns away from domestic abusers and it should be done. But if we just blamed domestic violence on guns and did not put the stigma on domestic violence itself and work hard on domestic violence in general we would not have made the progress we have made. Domestic abusers are now stigmatized in our society.

The KKK used to have wide support among whites in the South for killing blacks and their supporters. They are now a very small group and are vilified by almost everyone. This progress didn't come from taking away their guns. It came from many people working very hard and making big sacrifices(sometimes their lives) to change peoples attitudes and values. They did it the hard way.

I could give example after example on issue after issue such as the environment, gay rights, and women's equality to name a few where changing attitudes and values is the way to make progress. There's no reason violence should be any different.

and that's why we need to do other things as well, and not dismiss them as 'the easy way'.

Are you saying that all gun owners should undergo psychiatric evaluation to try and detect the "crazy violent people" before they can own or carry a gun?

women's suffrage, women's rights, racism, gay rights, hate crimes etc. by working very hard to change peoples attitudes and values. And they do change for the better when that hard push is made. Violence should be no different. But just always blaming violence on the guns and that banning guns is the answer to our violence problems detracts from the goal that all criminal violence should be stigmatized and offenders should be shunned.

Changing attitudes and values works. We have proven it on so many issues. Violence is no different. Changing attitudes and values should be the goal not getting rid of guns. Gun control can be a part of getting to the goal but not being the long term goal.

MLK, Malcom X, and many other civil rights workers were killed with guns. Was the reaction to rail against gun violence and calls to ban guns? No. The answer was to work hard to change attitudes and values and since then much progress has been made on civil rights.

change public attitudes to them?

Changes in the laws can help us get to that goal.

and can tell you, from personal and professional experience, that people lose their temper all the time and act stupidly. Drugs, alcohol, infidelity, car crash, fear, adrenaline, just a random and dumb argument about nothing - you name it. When a weapon is available at this time, the stupid translates to a shooting. This could be a poorly-trained and/or racist cop in a detention situation, a husband arguing with a wife, or two people involved in a traffic accident. They didn't plan to shoot, but their salamander brain took over in the situation and they did. It happens all the time. Without the gun, there is less of a chance of the person acting irrationally.

chance of being violent, and much less of a chance of killing someone - especially a bystander.

Not his/her weapon. I grew up in a rural northern state where most everyone had guns. It was very, very rare that anyone shot someone for the reasons you describe. The odd hunting accident was about it. I moved to the deep South and found that what you describe does happen frequently there. I was dumbfounded that someone would even think to go out to their car to get a knife or a gun just because they lost a bar fight. It's cultural I guess. That just didn't happen where I grew up. I think we need to work on the culture of violence we have in many parts of the country.

I think we have made progress in some areas. Domestic abuse is finally being taken seriously. Same with sexual violence and hate crimes. We need to continue to change the culture on those crimes and make a big push on the culture of the violent crimes of passion you describe. And it is a culture. Using a gun in a crime of passion was very, very, rare in the culture I grew up in.

Perhaps we can emulate yours because ours loves violence and using firearms to settle grudges.

loves violence and using firearms to settle grudges. Far from perfect culture but at least we didn't shoot or knife each other. Oh, and it has nothing to do with race just in case that is what you are implying. It's culture.

the gun isn't the problem, until it IS - because it is available

The single comment on the story when I clicked on the link indicated that this was basically inevitable, as some people (read: African Americans) are "killers by nature" with violent traits that "haven't been bred out...."

See how much more polite and civil guns are helping us to be?