MERGED--> all Gun Control discussion

[Irvine511]

legalize and control drugs and you eliminate a lot of gun crime

this is quite true.

 

[AliEnvy]

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.

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.

 

[HyperU2]

legalize and control drugs and you eliminate a lot of gun crime

Yup.

 

[bigjohn2441]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[bigjohn2441]

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?

 

[Irvine511]

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?

 

[BVS]

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...

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?

 

[yolland]

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).

 

[the iron horse]

California: The Ninth Circuit Court on the 2nd Amendment

Ninth Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Incorporated to States

 

[AliEnvy]

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.

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.

 

[yolland]

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.

 

[indra]

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)

 

[bigjohn2441]

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.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

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?

 

[HyperU2]

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?

More people scared about what could happen. I doubt anyone that has shot someone in a bar in TN to date has cared about whether it was legal to carry a gun inside. I wouldn't carry while drinking but since this obviously includes chain restaurants that serve alcohol, yeah I might carry there.

 

[BVS]

More people scared about what could happen.

Um, yeah... It's kinda stupid to get scared after the fact.

I don't want drunk people operating machinery or guns, simple as that.

I doubt anyone that has shot someone in a bar in TN to date has cared about whether it was legal to carry a gun inside.

But now it's legal. So what do you think the likelihood of more guns being carried into a bar now? More or less than before?

 

[HyperU2]

I don't think it's really a bar thing as much as restaurants like Applebees and I'm surprised that in TN it wasn't already legal.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I don't think it's really a bar thing as much as restaurants like Applebees and I'm surprised that in TN it wasn't already legal.

given that forbes just put out an article listing memphis (where i live) as the second most dangerous city in america and nashville in ninth place, i'm not exactly convinced this is no big deal. and given it's been legalized in all bars, it's more an issue of someone going to the local bar and having one too many beers than someone at applebee's getting drunk off mudslides.

 

[HyperU2]

As scared as Applebees is to serve booze that won't be a problem. I seriously doubt you have to worry about random crime, most people here get shot when they leave the bar because whoever was looking for them knew where they drink. A lot of the people doing your killing really don't care about laws.

 

[BVS]

A lot of the people doing your killing really don't care about laws.

Well this is obvious, for once you pull the trigger you've broken the law, but did they care about laws prior to that, obviously some did since they weren't in prison.

 

[HyperU2]

Well this is obvious, for once you pull the trigger you've broken the law, but did they care about laws prior to that, obviously some did since they weren't in prison.

When you look at the number of murderers who were felons in possession of a gun despite the law against that, no. Just because they weren't in prison doesn't mean they never went.

 

[BVS]

I never said all. It's just a weak argument. Gun crimes are commited by criminals. Well no shit.

But the whole point that many of us have been making is that more laxed gun laws put more guns into the hands of and makes it much easier for law abiding and criminals alike to be carrying and using guns.

 

[HyperU2]

I don't want them to be more lax. They're fine as they are.

 

[BVS]

No, they aren't. When you remove waiting periods, allow assault rifles, allowed to carry on college campuses or bars they're becoming too lax...

 

[HyperU2]

They weren't allowed on campus during Va Tech. More laws don't do anything but give criminals something to ignore and politicians a way to get elected.

 

[BVS]

Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see how many more shootings that will occur now that more and more campuses will start to allow guns...

 

[HyperU2]

I'm sure it'll be equal to now. I didn't realize many campuses were going pro carry.

 

[BVS]

It looks like they soon will be in Texas...

College campuses are already unique environments when it comes to violence; the stress, alcohol, etc... the idea of throwing guns in the mix is pretty scary to me.

 

[Irvine511]

were all these people criminals before they had guns?