Is the violence more about mental health and less about gun control?

ranalin wrote:

If you drop guns into everyone's hands then ya you'll have chaos, but i dont think that would happen if you gave them out and had mandatory training and tougher laws against folks who use them counter to that training.

Think about how bad the average driver is and think about how many car wrecks happen every single day. Apply those statistics to firearms.

SixteenBlue wrote:
ranalin wrote:

If you drop guns into everyone's hands then ya you'll have chaos, but i dont think that would happen if you gave them out and had mandatory training and tougher laws against folks who use them counter to that training.

Think about how bad the average driver is and think about how many car wrecks happen every single day. Apply those statistics to firearms.

Hopefully the mandatory training would be more robust than driver's ed, and there should probably be refresher courses every so often, but even with all that, there would be a lot of people (kids and adults) that will either kill someone or get themselves killed because they got into a gun-fight instead of a fist-fight. Like I said earlier, I've got nothing against everyone having a gun in their home, but I'd prefer that they'd leave them there (excepting hunting/target practice).

Tanglebones wrote:
Stengah wrote:

In my experience, whenever someone suggests that everyone be armed, they're usually suggesting that everyone carry a pistol at all times. I'm in no way opposed to people having hunting rifles or shotguns in their homes/trucks (I grew up in a rural area where it was common as well, though they weren't allowed on school property as it was post-Columbine). I would not be comfortable with everyone walking around with a loaded weapon on their person, though. It just seems to be begging for a situation that would normally end up in a fist-fight turning into a shoot-out. Especially if either party had been drinking.

Aside from the serious issues involved with taking this model and mapping it onto a dense urban landscape, does everyone really think it's a great idea to essentially give every hormonally challenged teenage boy essentially unfettered access to firearms?

Its like a lot of things it all depends about how responsible I was. I was probably a lot more safe with a gun at 16 (because I had spent 9 years learning safety and responsbility with one) than the first day I took my car keys. Looking at my own history I had 2 small gun accidents at age 8 (no one was hurt but I learned a valuable lesson) but since then I havent had an accident due to poor use since 1987. While I started driving at 16 and had 3 accidents, one of them major before I was 17. (and no accidents in the last 20 years)

mcdonis wrote:

I dont think its fair to say its a dumb idea. If that solution would indeed lower violence because of the preceived threat that it would be countered with deadly force then on the surface its worth considering. Granted our society especially in areas where guns are abnomral (I.e. you havent used them or lived with them all your life) would have a terrible reaction to this because of its current behavior issues.

But there is absolutely no evidence that arming every American would decrease violence.

In fact, the exact opposite has been shown in multiple studies: people who carry guns are much more likely to be shot and killed. A 2009 study by the University of Pennsylvania found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to get shot during an assault--and 4.2 times as likely to be killed--when compared to someone who wasn't armed. And if those people had the chance to resist, their likelihood of getting shot was 5.5 times that of someone who wasn't armed.

I wish there was more scientific studies out there to show that firearms aren't really the magical crime-reducing public safety devices gun advocates insist they are, but the NRA successfully defunded the group within the CDC that is tasked with studying such things, Injury and Violence Prevention, in the mid-90s when it published a report that found that simply having a gun in your house increased your likelihood of being murdered by 2.7 times. Now every CDC grant has the following verbiage in it: "none of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The first step in solving any problem is to get accurate information about it. Sadly, the leading gun advocate group in the country has aggressively moved to make sure that very little real information is available to contradict its story.

mcdonis wrote:

I think you can take my very small slice of american life and take several lessons from it. In my book the area I am from benefits from guns by and large, but it still pays a price. Do I think that would work in large cities, I dont know honestly. My main fear is that while I grew up with guns and know them about as good as anyone I dont fear me making a stupid mistake with one. However the person who hasnt and is only carrying one in fear does scare me. Perhaps if our country was more mature in general or widespread respect for firearm safety and use was common then yes it would possibly be a good solution.

A major problem this country has with even discussing guns stems from something exactly what you alluded to: different population groups have vastly different experiences with firearms.

For some rural residents, firearms can be part of longstanding family traditions and, as you talked about, people are trained from a very early age on how to use and respect them. But for urban residents firearms are primarily associated with crime and violence. And beyond that, gun violence is so prevalent in their community that it is considered a top public health issue. So which group's experience with firearms should be the baseline for policy decisions?

Another major issue I have with the idea that every American should be armed is that gun advocates have a very skewed perception on firearms. I'm not saying that to provoke a cheap reaction. I'm saying that because you pointed out what you considered a significant contributing factor to your community's approach to firearms: a large portion of the population (40% to 60% by your account) had served in the military.

The issue is that, nationwide, that percentage is much, much lower. So while your view on gun ownership has been shaped by a community that had significant and widespread firearms training, that wouldn't be the case for most communities if everyone was required to have a gun. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement that on the gun advocate side that proper training and respect of firearms is simply not the norm, especially when you consider that a significant portion of gun owners haven't bothered to get training nor do they even safely store their weapons.

I think that clouds discussions because one side all but assumes that every gun owner would be exactly like them--trained and ingrained with a respect for the weapon--when that simply is not the case.

That's why it really is dumb to even consider that the solution to gun violence is to arm everyone.

mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Stengah wrote:

In my experience, whenever someone suggests that everyone be armed, they're usually suggesting that everyone carry a pistol at all times. I'm in no way opposed to people having hunting rifles or shotguns in their homes/trucks (I grew up in a rural area where it was common as well, though they weren't allowed on school property as it was post-Columbine). I would not be comfortable with everyone walking around with a loaded weapon on their person, though. It just seems to be begging for a situation that would normally end up in a fist-fight turning into a shoot-out. Especially if either party had been drinking.

Aside from the serious issues involved with taking this model and mapping it onto a dense urban landscape, does everyone really think it's a great idea to essentially give every hormonally challenged teenage boy essentially unfettered access to firearms?

Its like a lot of things it all depends about how responsible I was. I was probably a lot more safe with a gun at 16 (because I had spent 9 years learning safety and responsbility with one) than the first day I took my car keys. Looking at my own history I had 2 small gun accidents at age 8 (no one was hurt but I learned a valuable lesson) but since then I havent had an accident due to poor use since 1987. While I started driving at 16 and had 3 accidents, one of them major before I was 17. (and no accidents in the last 20 years)

Yup, and you're quite responsible. Now think about the most f*ckup-y of your friends. Think about the people who bullied you. Give them all pistols. Give your jilted ex-girlfriend a pistol. Give the guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him a pistol.

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

It's a shame their study didn't distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's a shame their study didn't distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm.

Oh, you mean like a national database that tracks firearms and who owns them? Too bad the NRA won't let us have one.

So that means that to do what you asked, the researchers would have had to spend the bulk of their grant money on individually tracking down each weapon and rebuilding its history of ownership. Of course the legal status of a large portion of those possessions would be impossible to determine because no records are required for private sales.

Besides that, you know damn well were those "illegal" firearms come from. They come from people who exploit the massive loopholes built into our current system of firearm regulation, whether it was by bypassing background checks by purchasing firearms at gun shows, using straw purchasers, or simply borrowing or stealing a firearm from a legal owner.

mcdonis wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

That's why it really is dumb to even consider that the solution to gun violence is to arm everyone.

To be fair I am actually not sure myself if its a good thing or a bad thing for the reasons I stated before. I just wanted to point out that is unfair to say its a dumb idea and we cant even consider it. When some parts of the country have in fact lived that way for years and do so in a way the people find acceptable. Because of that reason I think its something that meritts an consideration, not that I am saying we should do it.

If pushed I would probably say its a bad idea off hand. I just didnt like we wanted to dismiss the idea without rational thought first.

I think Edwin did use rational thought to consider it, and then came to the conclusion it's dumb.

That's why he said it's not dumb to ask, because considering options is a good thing.

OG_slinger wrote:

That's why it really is dumb to even consider that the solution to gun violence is to arm everyone.

To be fair I am actually not sure myself if its a good thing or a bad thing for the reasons I stated before. I just wanted to point out that is unfair to say its a dumb idea and we cant even consider it. When some parts of the country have in fact lived that way for years and do so in a way the people find acceptable. Because of that reason I think its something that meritts an consideration, not that I am saying we should do it.

If pushed I would probably say its a bad idea off hand. I just didnt like we wanted to dismiss the idea without rational thought first.

Tanglebones wrote:

Yup, and you're quite responsible. Now think about the most f*ckup-y of your friends. Think about the people who bullied you. Give them all pistols. Give your jilted ex-girlfriend a pistol. Give the guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him a pistol.

I get where you are going with this and mostly agree, however on the flip side I go back to that community and all folks had guns. Bullies, jilted lovers, ect...

Those same folks usually (remember I said there were at least 5 exceptions in 25 years) do not pull that gun. The reason is they know the other one likely has one too thus, it wont end well for both. When things went bad in that community was when someone decided they didnt care if they died, then really bad things happened.

I kinda get both sides in this argument. I tend to agree that if a society respects guns and are taught early in life about them you generally have a very safe society. Give them to teens and adults who know nothing and no morals and yeah its katie bar the door. I would say without measured consideration that I lean on the side of lets not issue them to everyone side.

Past that I do think there is enough meritt in the discussion to warent an actuall discussion.

I just don't want to live in a country where everyone carries a firearm. I want to live in a country where we don't need them, and where we trust the police to use them responsibly - and they are the only ones with handguns.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just don't want to live in a country where everyone carries a firearm. I want to live in a country where we don't need them, and where we trust the police to use them responsibly - and they are the only ones with handguns.

Maybe someday, man. Though we'd have to evolve out of the negative influence that power seems to have over us in general.

I will happily support arming every American if I can move abroad for 2 years, let the morons kill each other off, and leave only the responsible folks alive.

Sound good?

mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup, and you're quite responsible. Now think about the most f*ckup-y of your friends. Think about the people who bullied you. Give them all pistols. Give your jilted ex-girlfriend a pistol. Give the guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him a pistol.

I get where you are going with this and mostly agree, however on the flip side I go back to that community and all folks had guns. Bullies, jilted lovers, ect...

Those same folks usually (remember I said there were at least 5 exceptions in 25 years) do not pull that gun. The reason is they know the other one likely has one too thus, it wont end well for both. When things went bad in that community was when someone decided they didnt care if they died, then really bad things happened.

How diverse was that community? Racially, politically, religiously, economically? Add in a healthy dose of bigotry on top of bullies and jilted lovers and the situation will probably change quite a bit. Move the situation from a town/county of thousands to a city of millions and things will change even more.

Honestly, I'd regard mandatory gun ownership (to say nothing of mandatory carrying) as a gargantuan violation of my rights. Talk about creating commerce.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's a shame their study didn't distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm.

Oh, you mean like a national database that tracks firearms and who owns them? Too bad the NRA won't let us have one.

So that means that to do what you asked, the researchers would have had to spend the bulk of their grant money on individually tracking down each weapon and rebuilding its history of ownership. Of course the legal status of a large portion of those possessions would be impossible to determine because no records are required for private sales.

Besides that, you know damn well were those "illegal" firearms come from. They come from people who exploit the massive loopholes built into our current system of firearm regulation, whether it was by bypassing background checks by purchasing firearms at gun shows, using straw purchasers, or simply borrowing or stealing a firearm from a legal owner.

Illegal possession means people barred from owning a firearm. In other words, felony convictions. Their research already included criminals histories. I never said "illegally purchased".

Stengah wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup, and you're quite responsible. Now think about the most f*ckup-y of your friends. Think about the people who bullied you. Give them all pistols. Give your jilted ex-girlfriend a pistol. Give the guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him a pistol.

I get where you are going with this and mostly agree, however on the flip side I go back to that community and all folks had guns. Bullies, jilted lovers, ect...

Those same folks usually (remember I said there were at least 5 exceptions in 25 years) do not pull that gun. The reason is they know the other one likely has one too thus, it wont end well for both. When things went bad in that community was when someone decided they didnt care if they died, then really bad things happened.

How diverse was that community? Racially, politically, religiously, economically? Add in a healthy dose of bigotry on top of bullies and jilted lovers and the situation will probably change quite a bit. Move the situation from a town/county of thousands to a city of millions and things will change even more.

lol... Diverse..... um no

Same Faith (Pros)
Politicaly (Strong Dem majority)
Same Race (white , western euro)
Same Economic background (poor)
Bigotry existed in huge quantites and was expressed all too often, thankfully however not with guns

mcdonis wrote:

To be fair I am actually not sure myself if its a good thing or a bad thing for the reasons I stated before. I just wanted to point out that is unfair to say its a dumb idea and we cant even consider it. When some parts of the country have in fact lived that way for years and do so in a way the people find acceptable. Because of that reason I think its something that meritts an consideration, not that I am saying we should do it.

If pushed I would probably say its a bad idea off hand. I just didnt like we wanted to dismiss the idea without rational thought first.

It's a dumb idea *because* of rational thought and consideration.

You're talking about tripling the number of people who have firearms. Even if we would ignore all the possible shooting deaths and injuries that would happen because of bullies, jilted lovers, people who had one too many to drink, etc. and just focused on firearm accidents, you're talking about an additional 1,200 or so deaths and some 30,000 injuries per year.

And that's assuming that the two thirds of the population who never owned a firearm before and and who didn't grow up around guns will have the same level of gun safety as people who did.

It seems very strange to claim that arming everyone will reduce deaths and make people safer when accidental shooting data alone shows that a lot more people would be killed or injured.

mcdonis wrote:

I get where you are going with this and mostly agree, however on the flip side I go back to that community and all folks had guns. Bullies, jilted lovers, ect...

Those same folks usually (remember I said there were at least 5 exceptions in 25 years) do not pull that gun.

Was that community a large urban city? If not, you're really making an apples to oranges comparison.

Besides that, you've already said how the community you grew up in was exceptional when it came to the levels of firearms training, acceptance, and respect it had:

mcdonis wrote:

I grew up in a part of the us where guns mounted in vehicles (even at school) were common place and never noticed. Everyone I grew up with had at least one firearm and everyone used them and knew how to use them. In this society darn near everyone was trained to use a firearm by age 6 or 7 and thus learned to respect them.

...

Military service was extremely common in my area (prob about 40-60% of all males serve in the US military) so weapon training wasnt an issue for us.

Your experiences with firearms are not what most of the country had. It's wrong to assume that because firearms weren't really an issue for community you grew up in that they won't be an issue for every other community, especially those that are dramatically different than yours.

mcdonis wrote:

I kinda get both sides in this argument. I tend to agree that if a society respects guns and are taught early in life about them you generally have a very safe society. Give them to teens and adults who know nothing and no morals and yeah its katie bar the door. I would say without measured consideration that I lean on the side of lets not issue them to everyone side.

Past that I do think there is enough meritt in the discussion to warent an actuall discussion.

How is there any merit in the discussion when the starting point for it to make any sense is that everyone has to be raised like you were when it came to guns?

How, exactly, would you replicate your experiences growing up with firearms in New York, Detroit, or any urban community? People there don't hunt. They don't have a backyard or empty field where they can safely plink away with their .22 rifle.

mcdonis wrote:
Stengah wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup, and you're quite responsible. Now think about the most f*ckup-y of your friends. Think about the people who bullied you. Give them all pistols. Give your jilted ex-girlfriend a pistol. Give the guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him a pistol.

I get where you are going with this and mostly agree, however on the flip side I go back to that community and all folks had guns. Bullies, jilted lovers, ect...

Those same folks usually (remember I said there were at least 5 exceptions in 25 years) do not pull that gun. The reason is they know the other one likely has one too thus, it wont end well for both. When things went bad in that community was when someone decided they didnt care if they died, then really bad things happened.

How diverse was that community? Racially, politically, religiously, economically? Add in a healthy dose of bigotry on top of bullies and jilted lovers and the situation will probably change quite a bit. Move the situation from a town/county of thousands to a city of millions and things will change even more.

lol... Diverse..... um no

Same Faith (Pros)
Politicaly (Strong Dem majority)
Same Race (white , western euro)
Same Economic background (poor)
Bigotry existed in huge quantites and was expressed all too often, thankfully however not with guns

That's a big reason why your experience growing up (which is pretty similar to mine growing up on the coast of Maine) won't translate well to the whole country. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of the monkeysphere (which is just a humorous take on Dunbar's number), but it also comes into play on why your experience won't translate well to places with large populations.

OG_slinger wrote:

How is there any merit in the discussion when the starting point for it to make any sense is that everyone has to be raised like you were when it came to guns?

How, exactly, would you replicate your experiences growing up with firearms in New York, Detroit, or any urban community? People there don't hunt. They don't have a backyard or empty field where they can safely plink away with their .22 rifle.

lol, I wouldnt ask you to be me

There is merit in only the fact it has worked for others. To then say, well thats fine for them but because of x it cant work here is just fine with me. I was only saying something because it seemed others wanted to claim the concept itself wasnt worthy of even thinking or talking about. That I think is a bit unfair, if only just a touch.

To say well in x city it cant work because of y is fine with me. I havent lived in New York (well not more than 3 weeks anyway) and I wouldnt understand how things function in the BIG BIG city. But on the small scale it does work on some level and has for generations. And for that reason and that reason alone I think its something worthy of discussion.

The problem here might be one that usually pops up in P&C: A newcomer to P&C wants to have an actual conversation about topic X. People who've been here awhile have already gone over it in a previous thread (or several threads) and came to conclusion Y, so they respond with Y as soon as X is broached, leaving the newcomer bewildered and a bit hurt because the impression they get is that no one even bothered to think about it and just jumped in with Y wanting to shut down the conversation. The "What if we armed everyone?" question has been raised here before, and the general consensus was that it'd only work in a very specific situation that's never going to happen, so it's not a good idea.

I do see ONE meaninglful way to "arm everyone" -- a well regulated militia.

mcdonis wrote:

But on the small scale it does work on some level and has for generations. And for that reason and that reason alone I think its something worthy of discussion.

But has it really worked?

You're still basically saying that firearms made the community you grew up in a safe place. But was it really safe because people carried guns around in their cars or was it safe because it was a small, largely homogeneous community where everyone shared similar values and (correct me if I'm assuming here) everyone pretty much knew everyone else either directly or by a just few degrees of separation.

I'd make the argument that it's the later, not the former, that minimized crime and violence in your community.

OG_slinger wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

But on the small scale it does work on some level and has for generations. And for that reason and that reason alone I think its something worthy of discussion.

But has it really worked?

You're still basically saying that firearms made the community you grew up in a safe place. But was it really safe because people carried guns around in their cars or was it safe because it was a small, largely homogeneous community where everyone shared similar values and (correct me if I'm assuming here) everyone pretty much knew everyone else either directly or by a just few degrees of separation.

I'd make the argument that it's the later, not the former, that minimized crime and violence in your community.

Very good point, sir.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I do see ONE meaninglful way to "arm everyone" -- a well regulated militia. :)

/golfclap:)

OG_slinger wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

But on the small scale it does work on some level and has for generations. And for that reason and that reason alone I think its something worthy of discussion.

But has it really worked?

You're still basically saying that firearms made the community you grew up in a safe place. But was it really safe because people carried guns around in their cars or was it safe because it was a small, largely homogeneous community where everyone shared similar values and (correct me if I'm assuming here) everyone pretty much knew everyone else either directly or by a just few degrees of separation.

I'd make the argument that it's the later, not the former, that minimized crime and violence in your community.

Yes you are correct on the just a few degreees of separation part...

You have to remember however that law in that area bascily doesnt exist in any form that we would call law in a city. Also remember that the area has been in economic freefall since the turn of the last century (1900) when Iron production and the timber industry died. With that in mind logically we should have had a heck of a lot more problems than we did. You want to rob old man brooks? Who is going to stop you?

Seriously there is nothing stoping them from doing what they want unless that prevention comes from the community. And when things get tight it doesnt matter if you know the guy or not folks do bad things.

Most folks felt very very safe and it wasnt just because they trusted their neighbors it was because they knew their protection was totatly up to them. And that protection came from not just their guns but the neighbors guns too.

Right, but the thing you must remember is that all of those distinctions work both ways.

I live in Pittsburgh now, and grew up in Spokane. Both of those are cities, but not by any means the largest urban areas around.

In Spokane, we knew a few neighbors in our light urban residential neighborhood. I'd say we knew the names of seven or so families who lived in the block or so immediately around us. Some just because they were our next-door neighbors. Some because they had kids that I became friends with in school. But the key point to take from this is: that's less than one of our residential area's blocks worth of homes.

I currently live in a small apartment building in a mixed residential/commercial neighborhood. There are seven apartments in my building. I know none of my neighbors in the building by name. I know two of them by sight well enough to recognize them as belonging in the building if I happen to see them. (Which is to say: If I saw them trying to break in because they'd locked themselves out, I'd be pretty sure that was legit. Other people, I wouldn't know one way or the other.)

Sure, the law won't help you in your low-population area. But that doesn't change the fact that when you don't know the people they live right next-door to, there's nothing but tragedy that will happen if you try to take the law into your own hands. (And, of course, it's not like there's any great expectation that the police will actually help you in the city, either.)

The folks you're talking about may have known that protection was totally up to them—but they could also identify threats pretty damned easily. If you don't know somebody, that's a reason to keep an eye on them. If you do know somebody and they're a hothead, that's a reason to keep an eye on them.

In the city, in a "safe" neighborhood that you know well, you can't tell the difference between a neighbor and a threat until they actually come at you.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I do see ONE meaninglful way to "arm everyone" -- a well regulated militia. :)

Pretty much.

I used to play hockey with a former Swiss Army officer who commented that just about every male citizen in Switzerland is required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle in his home, but that they never ever ever have crimes committed with them. He posited that it was because the Swiss have compulsory military service and that no one operates under the delusion that they operate outside both the confines and support of the community. I told him that compelling an American to do anything including breathing would be construed as precisely the sort of "tyranny" that folks would blow up federal buildings over and he just shook his head and said we were doomed.

momgamer wrote:

I also don't know how to explain that difference in perspective about weapons growing up like that gives you. Others who came from other backgrounds seem to see a gun as a horrible thing only used to hurt. I see it the same as anything else in a toolbox, to be cared for and managed and used for it's intended purpose. And I would no sooner use it on a person than I would bludgeon them with my monkey wrench. Actually, I would be more likely to use the monkey wrench.

A conversation with friends recently ended up with this conclusion that stances on guns almost always comes down to whether you grew up with them or not. There are exceptions of course but it's a noticeable trend.

I'm not really sure whether that changes my opinion on anything though. I know some people who believe some really stupid things because they grew up in a family that believes them. I'm not comparing those stupid things to guns, just thinking out loud really.

Paleocon wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I do see ONE meaninglful way to "arm everyone" -- a well regulated militia. :)

Pretty much.

I used to play hockey with a former Swiss Army officer who commented that just about every male citizen in Switzerland is required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle in his home, but that they never ever ever have crimes committed with them. He posited that it was because the Swiss have compulsory military service and that no one operates under the delusion that they operate outside both the confines and support of the community. I told him that compelling an American to do anything including breathing would be construed as precisely the sort of "tyranny" that folks would blow up federal buildings over and he just shook his head and said we were doomed.

Thing is, that sort of well regulated militia works really well in an argrarian, rural environment. I grew up with enough guns in the house to call it an armory, and for all the violence in that house (and believe me, there was), none of it ever happened with a gun. And that was true of all my neighbors. Guns were tools that were used to put things in the freezer. They were not for using on people except in the most egregious circumstances and anyone who was that far off plumb would use whatever was to hand anyways.

Awful things did happen. One guy went ape and shot up a large percentage of the village of McCarthy in 1983, but he was an unemployed computer programmer from California who had only moved there three years before. He killed six people, wounded 22 more, and then was on his way to sabotage the Alaska Pipeline; he was going to save the Alaska Wilderness and kill himself in the process when they caught him. Was it the ready availability of weapons, or being stuck in that frozen hunk of Beyond for eight months in the winter and the failure of his marriage and businesses that was more of the problem here? Who knows?

There is a state militia in Alaska - the Alaska State Defense Force. And they are very much armed. According to Google, we have them in 23 states. I don't have any numbers to indicate any fluctuations in crime or gun violence in those states. In real life, these guys behave sort of like the National Guard guys.

I don't own any guns. I live in a town, and the land is so regulated down here I've never bothered to try to figure out what it would take to even go rabbit hunting. I did teach my children how to shoot several weapons down at the local gun range because I consider that part of the skills a person needs. My eldest did a hitch in the Army, but he's home now and I know he doesn't have gun. My younger son collects knives, but while he was in Texas there was a fair amount of guns around.

From my perspective, it's not the guns. It's the people. What I don't know is how to instill the value that guns aren't for use on people outside of very specific circumstances on people who don't grow up in that situation. I can't make them eat whatever it was they shot like my stepdad did to my brother. He had to eat a raven and a squirrel, and nearly a neighbor's cat (that was an accident - he was aiming for a sprucehen and didn't see the furry idiot). If it hadn't survived, he would have had to do it, and the neighbor would have applauded the notion. All of us girls figured it out without that.

I also don't know how to explain that difference in perspective about weapons growing up like that gives you. Others who came from other backgrounds seem to see a gun as a horrible thing only used to hurt. I see it the same as anything else in a toolbox, to be cared for and managed and used for it's intended purpose. And I would no sooner use it on a person than I would bludgeon them with my monkey wrench. Actually, I would be more likely to use the monkey wrench.

SixteenBlue wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I also don't know how to explain that difference in perspective about weapons growing up like that gives you. Others who came from other backgrounds seem to see a gun as a horrible thing only used to hurt. I see it the same as anything else in a toolbox, to be cared for and managed and used for it's intended purpose. And I would no sooner use it on a person than I would bludgeon them with my monkey wrench. Actually, I would be more likely to use the monkey wrench.

A conversation with friends recently ended up with this conclusion that stances on guns almost always comes down to whether you grew up with them or not. There are exceptions of course but it's a noticeable trend.

I'm not really sure whether that changes my opinion on anything though. I know some people who believe some really stupid things because they grew up in a family that believes them. I'm not comparing those stupid things to guns, just thinking out loud really.

The problem here is your disconnect between belief and action. I believe a gun is a tool, and I believe anyone waving a gun around is an even bigger tool. Some little punk believes waving that gun around makes him a bigger man and he's defending himself (mostly from his own demons as far as I can see). As long as he doesn't wave it around, and I don't try to put him in the freezer, it's irrelevant what we believe. It's what we do that counts. The actions I will or won't take with the same object are the difference.

There is a lot to be said for the argument that our system is built on a firm foundation of what a person would or would not do, rather than what they are prevented from doing. And the erosion of the systems that supported and defined those self made and policed limits are is a source of some of the problems we're currently having.

I want to make something very clear here. I believe in intelligent gun control. But I believe trying to crack down on the object isn't going to solve the user issue. And the ones who have the user issues could give a rat's bikini about any sane gun control. It's too easy to get around it, and even if they can't, they'll just use something else. Take a look at Japan, for example. Incredibly stiff gun laws. Take a look at their knife-crime issue. People who are pushed to the wall, or going to do those things, will simply use what's available to do it.