MERGED--> all Gun Control discussion - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-21-2009, 09:00 AM   #271
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
legalize and control drugs and you eliminate a lot of gun crime


this is quite true.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 09:55 AM   #272
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I actually never understood this sheer feeling of threat that some Americans seem to feel on basically a daily basis and use as their justification for having guns. As somebody who grew up in a war zone, you'd think that a person like myself would be the one stockpiling assault rifles and what not to ensure that when I'm shot at again, I have a means of retaliating, but I don't. I absolutely don't comprehend on any level at all where this feeling, and the strength and conviction of it comes from. It's really bizarre.
I imagine it has to do with deeply entrenched cultural differences.

Not too long ago I read some interesting background on higher levels of violence and homicide in the southern US relating to the persistent culture of honour that has lingered since the frontier-herding economy of the early settlers.

Quote:
The South was largely settled by people who came from herding economies in Europe, most notably from borderlands of Scotland and Ireland (Nisbett, 1993). The North, by contrast, was setlled by Puritans, Quakers and Dutch farmers, who developed a more agriculturally-based economy (Nisbett, 1993). According to Nisbett, violence is more endemic to herding cultures because it is important to be constantly vigilant for theft of one's livestock. It was important in these herding economies to respond to any threat to one's herd or grazing lands with sufficient force to drive away intruders or potential thieves. Nisbett maintains that from this herding economy arose a culture of honor that persists in the South to this day. This culture of honor primes southern individuals for greater violence than their northern counterparts.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 02:59 PM   #273
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
legalize and control drugs and you eliminate a lot of gun crime

Yup.
__________________
HyperU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 03:42 PM   #274
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 02:33 AM
really the issue should be making people not want to kill eachother, rather than just BAN GUNS! BAN GUNS! BAN GUNS!

nobody ever answered a question i asked a few pages back: if we were all well educated, financially well-off, and healthy, would we still be killing eachother as much as we are?

instead of going after guns, why dont we go after these social problems that cause violence: poverty, poor education, bad economy, failed war on drugs, lack of jobs, breakdown of the family, lack of respect for eachother, etc etc
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 03:46 PM   #275
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
instead of going after guns, why dont we go after these social problems that cause violence: poverty, poor education, bad economy, failed war on drugs, lack of jobs, breakdown of the family, lack of respect for eachother, etc etc


because that would be socialism.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 03:53 PM   #276
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because that would be socialism.

notice i said WE, not the government

if our system worked properly, we would demand these things of the government and they would act based on what the people want, not just doing their own thing like bailing out banks and whatnot, which is kind of like socialism, right?
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 04:09 PM   #277
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
notice i said WE, not the government

if our system worked properly, we would demand these things of the government and they would act based on what the people want, not just doing their own thing like bailing out banks and whatnot, which is kind of like socialism, right?


who is going to make US do anything?

you?

who's values? who determines what people want? aren't officials elected to do just that and if they don't do what the people "want" then they are voted out of office?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 05:16 PM   #278
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
really the issue should be making people not want to kill eachother, rather than just BAN GUNS! BAN GUNS! BAN GUNS!
If only it were this simple. I don't think anyone thinks if you ban guns then all of life's problems will be solved.

I think most people who would like to see guns more CONTROLLED are also working on other solutions to better society to try reduce the want to kill as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
nobody ever answered a question i asked a few pages back: if we were all well educated, financially well-off, and healthy, would we still be killing eachother as much as we are?

instead of going after guns, why dont we go after these social problems that cause violence: poverty, poor education, bad economy, failed war on drugs, lack of jobs, breakdown of the family, lack of respect for eachother, etc etc
Then there would be no need for guns how would the pleasure seekers enjoy life?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:56 PM   #279
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
I imagine it has to do with deeply entrenched cultural differences.

Not too long ago I read some interesting background on higher levels of violence and homicide in the southern US relating to the persistent culture of honour that has lingered since the frontier-herding economy of the early settlers.
Nisbett's study was heavily criticized, both for leaping without adequate cause to an ethnic explanation for the 'culture of honor' (i.e., the finding that Southern white men are more likely to react aggressively to insults, which isn't itself much disputed), and because subsequent studies testing certain elements of his hypothesis by comparing Southern counties' homicide rates when adjusted for factors keyed to his work--land use histories, white poverty rates etc.--failed to confirm it, and in many cases found the reverse of his predictions to apply.

At any rate, the "borderlands of Scotland and Ireland" demographic generalization really only applies to Appalachia (which includes sizeable portions of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York, as well as of several 'Southern' states). That region was indeed originally settled primarily by so-called 'Scots-Irish' from Northumberland, Ayrshire, Ulster etc. (who were much looked down upon by 'Anglo' settlers). The rest of 'the South,' though--which is to say the majority of it--was orginally settled by English colonists just like most of 'the North' was, with the exceptions of Lousiana (French) and Florida (Spanish). And of course, from an early stage much larger numbers of Africans (as slaves), because these areas developed early on as aristocratic plantation economies, very unlike the 'North.' While poor sharecropping or small-farming whites still greatly outnumbered the wealthy landholding and merchant classes in these areas, nonetheless they were primarily of English ancestry, just like their 'betters' on the social ladder. (I don't recall ever hearing ethnic stereotyping entering into it where I grew up, but in non-Appalachian regions of the South, you'll find to this day that the locals love their pejorative stereotypes about those violent drunk hillbillies up in mountain country with their 'clan feuds' and whatnot, much as Northerners love their Dukes of Hazzard stereotypes about redneck rural Southerners.)

Nisbett's ethnic 'culture of honor' hypothesis ignores any potential influence from this rigidly hierarchical aristocratic society, as well as from virtually all the Civil War having been fought on this region's soil, from the psychological experience of federally-imposed 'Reconstruction,' from the subsequent paranoia among white Southerners about freed slaves owning guns, etc. etc. Even if you narrowed the focus to Appalachia (though violent crime isn't higher there than in the rest of the South; it's pretty much the same), what about the centuries-old resentment of lowland elites who exact taxes but ignore mountain regions when it came to roads and other civic improvements (unless there's a mine to be acce$$ed); the far more frequent violent clashes with Native tribes during colonial times; the extensive guerrilla warfare that plagued the region during the Civil War; the greater geographical isolation of residents from one another; the virtual absence of 'town living' and generally more rugged living conditions; etc. Finally, it's always struck me as the sort of 'explanation' one could only get away with when it's white Southerners we're talking about--what sort of reception do you suppose someone'd get who suggested that, say, actual Irish people, or Irish-Americans from Massachusetts, are more violence-prone than their English or Anglo-American counterparts because, after all, they're closer to their "herding roots"? Even if the 'violence-prone' part were statistically true (which it might be; I'd have no idea).
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 07:12 PM   #280
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:33 AM
California: The Ninth Circuit Court on the 2nd Amendment

Ninth Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Incorporated to States
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 10:37 AM   #281
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Nisbett's ethnic 'culture of honor' hypothesis ignores any potential influence from this rigidly hierarchical aristocratic society, as well as from virtually all the Civil War having been fought on this region's soil, from the psychological experience of federally-imposed 'Reconstruction,' from the subsequent paranoia among white Southerners about freed slaves owning guns, etc. etc. Even if you narrowed the focus to Appalachia (though violent crime isn't higher there than in the rest of the South; it's pretty much the same), what about the centuries-old resentment of lowland elites who exact taxes but ignore mountain regions when it came to roads and other civic improvements (unless there's a mine to be acce$$ed); the far more frequent violent clashes with Native tribes during colonial times; the extensive guerrilla warfare that plagued the region during the Civil War; the greater geographical isolation of residents from one another; the virtual absence of 'town living' and generally more rugged living conditions; etc.
I find this stuff fascinating. I wasn't reading Nesbitt's work directly so not really familiar with his full hypothesis or where his geography may be wrong. What I find so interesting is the idea that the earliest origins of a culture and its economic structure at a basic level may still manifest today albeit in a very different way (strong gun culture?) as it evolved over time and circumstances as you've pointed out. Most of your examples would loosely support culture of honor as a lingering or cumalative influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Finally, it's always struck me as the sort of 'explanation' one could only get away with when it's white Southerners we're talking about--what sort of reception do you suppose someone'd get who suggested that, say, actual Irish people, or Irish-Americans from Massachusetts, are more violence-prone than their English or Anglo-American counterparts because, after all, they're closer to their "herding roots"? Even if the 'violence-prone' part were statistically true (which it might be; I'd have no idea).
My intention wasn't to touch north/south soft spots and actually it would be interesting to know if there are similar studies on the Irish/English differences or what resident FYMers from those areas would say about it. Maybe it's also too sensitive or takes the thread off point.

Just an attempt to understand why some regions may be more gun-prone than others and where there's influence beyond surface explanations like poverty and racial tensions.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 01:35 AM   #282
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
What I find so interesting is the idea that the earliest origins of a culture and its economic structure at a basic level may still manifest today albeit in a very different way (strong gun culture?) as it evolved over time and circumstances as you've pointed out. Most of your examples would loosely support culture of honor as a lingering or cumalative influence.
Oh, I agree, the general idea of looking to a region's socioeconomic history for insight into its social psychology is an interesting one, and as I said the findings of his behavioral research (that white male Southerners are more likely than their Northern counterparts to react aggressively when insulted) aren't really disputed. I just think that the rigidly stratified, aristocratic nature of Southern society historically (on into the late 20th century, albeit in a loosened form), which does give rise to distinctly different ideals of masculinity, is a much more plausible explanation as to why.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 01:49 AM   #283
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
legalize and control drugs and you eliminate a lot of gun crime
Agreed. I've said this for a long time.

It would also make life a whole lot safer for the addicts -- drug addiction treated as a medical issue instead of a criminal one. (but that's a different topic)
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 08:58 AM   #284
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post
Agreed. I've said this for a long time.

It would also make life a whole lot safer for the addicts -- drug addiction treated as a medical issue instead of a criminal one. (but that's a different topic)

too bad it will never happen because there is waaaay too much money generated and jobs involved in enforcing illegal drug laws.
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:03 PM   #285
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,600
Local Time: 12:33 AM
i skimmed through the thread and didn't find any discussion on this so i figured i'd share this.

story: tennessee gun laws;guns and restaurants; guns and bars - WREG
recently, the state of tennessee passed a bill allowing guns to be brought into bars. so now if you want to go to a bar over the weekend to have a drink or grab a bite to eat and watch the game, the person next to you who's drunk off his ass might have a gun. needless to say, there's been a lot of people as well as restaurant/bar employees upset over this. what if someone's had a few too many and you cut them off as that's your responsibility as a bartender, and they put a gun to your head and demand you give them another beer? as long as they have their permit and it's between 5 a.m.-11 p.m., they're not breaking any laws.

not to even really get into a huge gun control debate, i don't even see why this was brought to the floor in the first place. tennessee's unemployment is at nearly 10% (yippee, i'm part of a statistic!) and this is what they're debating about? that's another issue of course, but when did tennessee become the wild west where debates had to be settled out back with a duel?
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com