It is a possibility that even within the judiciary there is that same vague sense of impending cataclysm as mentioned here (and other places) and a desire to see that the right side prevails.
Doesn't matter. I'm going to do my damnedest to pick up an AR-15 at some point and name it "Sarah" as well as take pictures of it and send to McCarthy just because I still can.
I'm sure Paul Helmke, Peter Hamm, and Josh Sugarmann have got their panties in a bunch over this one. One of my favorite bits of hypocrisy right now is on the front page of the Brady Bunch web site. In one, Paul attacks the Parker decision as going against the "democratically-expressed will of the people". Just below it, he attacks the democratically elected MD state Senator Brochin for following the will of the people.
See, Kevin, it's not as bad as you think. I like your blog. It's different than mine...more of an information and resource hub which is cool.
Here's a question for you and your readers...and I am not trying to be a dick....but is there any information out there about the number of accidental gun deaths vs. the number of lives saved as a result of firearm protection? You are more researched on this matter than I so I am asking for unbiased numbers and facts.
Also check out this story, very poignant I thought.
Accidental gun death has been declining as long as we've been keeping record. It is now as low as it has ever been, both in actual numbers and in the rate per 100,000 population - this despite the fact that there are far more guns in private hands today than there have ever been.
Now, as to your question about how many lives were saved? How do you determine that? The National Safety Council says that there were 347 deaths due to "legal intervention" in 2003 - but that's incidents in which a perpetrator died. What about the incidents in which the perpetrator(s) was wounded or merely frightened off? How do you tell if an assailant intends to kill, or might have killed feloniously, but unintentionally? There were, after all, 17,357 homicides in 2004, 11,624 by firearm.
We know this: Estimates of the incidence of defensive firearms use range as high as 2.5 million each year. The lowest I've ever seen came from a Bureau of Justice Statistics paper that put the number at 186,000 annually. How many lives were saved? Do you want to put a percentage estimate on that?
All you can say with any confidence is that well over 100,000 crimes were prevented or interrupted.
For Ms. Simmons and Mr. Cegon there is certainly a psychic toll involved in their defensive gun use. But at least it wasn't a double-murder/suicide. They'll recover. Mr. Richter will never threaten them or anyone else ever again.
My side of the debate prefers retaining the opportunity to suffer possible psychic stress.
My side of the debate prefers retaining the opportunity to suffer possible psychic stress.
Not to mention the opportunity to prevent the psychic stress of family members who would otherwise have to suffer the devastation of having a loved one murdered, raped, tortured, etc.
Thanks for the stats. Very helpful and it helps put much into perspective. Althought I am liberal on many issues, I have never been able to take that step towards gun control. It has always seemed to me that the guns themselves are not the problems. I don't have any problems with guns, I guess, it's Americans with guns that I have a problem with. I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms.
After reading some of your stuff, though, I think that maybe because our nation has those people in it is a reason in and of itself to own a gun. Hence the Eric Cegon story. In his place, I would do the exact same thing and react in the same way. The thought of killing another human being is so repugnant to me and yet, in our world, somtimes you just don't have a choice. I think it is devastating and sad that it has to be this way.
"I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms."
Not to put too fine a point on it, you see the nation that way because that's the portrait the media shows you, not the reality.
Cultural anthropologist Abigale Kohn wanted to study America's gun culture, here's something she has written about her image of America's gun owners:
"Our initial attempt to meet local militia members took us to a shooting range in the Bay Area, where we assumed local militia meetings would be held. We went on a Tuesday night, fully expecting the range to be seething with radical political activity. Why else would people congregate at a shooting range, if not to meet other like-minded, potentially dangerous right-wing gun nuts?"
I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms.
Filled?
See?
Pardon my French, but this is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read on this issue.
How do you "see" this? Do you "think" that everyone who owns a firearm is a "paranoid, fearful" individual who has no business doing so? Why? Because you have been told so or because you have seen so many of them go off the deep end and massacre their neighbors?
Sheesh.
Kevin, you have a remarkable ability to keep your cool, as you have stated before. I nearly lost mine with this statement. Thank you for jumping in before I did.
I don't think all gun owners are fearful and paranoid. My comment was directed at Americans in general, gun owners or not.
The media hasn't made me look at gun owners in a certain light. I have an immense amount of distrust for all of the media outlets as they serve the corporate world, not the public as they used to in the beginning. A great example of this change occuring can be seen in the film Good Night and Good Luck.
The media itself creates much of the fear and paranoia that the American public have and that's just the way the powers that be want it. Keep people afraid and they buy more stuff i.e. they are better consumers. Economically speaking, the way our culture is set up also creates an enormous amount of insecuirty thus leading to most criminal behavior.
My perspective on America comes from travelling and living in different parts of the world. When you live in another country for more than a year, you being to see America in a different light. The rest of the world views us as a violent culture. We are. Coming back from my travels and spending 4 years working with policmen and firefighters further colored my view of society.
Kevin listed some stats above...17,000 homicides is absolutely insane. You see that stat and you wonder why. Why? That's the question isn't it? I have gone back and forth about this over the years and came to the conclusion that it's not the guns...it's the people. American people in general,whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot. I see it in my family, friends, the people I work with, and the people I meet everyday.
So, experience has taught me that if we can find a way to eliminate that fear and paranoia ingrained in the way we live our lives two things will happen. First, there will be fewer homicides. Second, as a result of the fewer homicides, gun owners such as yourselves will no longer be threatened by gun control laws as there won't be any need for them.
The question is: what is that way? I have some of the answers but not all.
"I have an immense amount of distrust for all of the media outlets as they serve the corporate world, not the public as they used to in the beginning. A great example of this change occuring can be seen in the film Good Night and Good Luck."
Uh, Mark? If you think a fictionalized version of history as portrayed by Hollywood is a "good example" of how "media outlets" served the public "in the beginning," I think you need to delve much more deeply into the history.
In "the beginning," media outlets were openly partisan. The term "yellow journalism" dates way back to the 1890's, but that sort of propagandizing had been going on long before. Edward R. Murrow was an exception, not the rule. The difference now is that the partisanship is masked with protestations of media impartiality.
Sensationalist journalism has never gone away, though. It sells papers. It draws ears and eyeballs. It keeps the doors of the media outlets open.
The media serves itself. Informing the public is done as a side-effect if at all. And since television learned that "news" divisions didn't have to be loss-leaders, but could in fact be profit centers, all pretenses of unbiased "nothing but the facts" reporting has gone out the window.
Mark does not seem to understand that in the 19th Century, the name "Democrat" or "Republican" in a town's paper meant something.
Mark, I am *NOT* paranoid, or fearful, because I am concerned with the threat of an armed person breaking into my home. Especially considering that the Supreme Court has stated that the Police do not have a duty to ensure by protection.
Mark, do you think being concerned with terrorist attacks, or the collapse of civil order after a natural disaster, is Paranoia?
And speaking of disasters, Gov. Blanco is not running for re-election, THANK GOD!
American people in general,whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot. I see it in my family, friends, the people I work with, and the people I meet everyday.
Oh really? And what signs of 'fear' and 'paranoia' do they show?
...if we can find a way to eliminate that fear and paranoia ingrained in the way we live our lives two things will happen. First, there will be fewer homicides.
Why? 'Fear' and 'paranoia' aren't really the most common motives for murders/killings. How many deaths do you expect to prevent by 'eliminating fear and paranoia'?
Second, as a result of the fewer homicides, gun owners such as yourselves will no longer be threatened by gun control laws as there won't be any need for them.
I dare say gun owners will continue to be threatened by gun control laws for as long as the real fearful paranoids continue to press for them (it's interesting that you don't mention how fearful and paranoid the gun-grabbers must be, and the problems their fear/paranoia causes).
The question is: what is that way? I have some of the answers but not all.
You have some of the answers? Would you mind telling us what they are?
"When you live in another country for more than a year, you being to see America in a different light."
"it's the people. American people in general, whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot. I see it in my family, friends, the people I work with, and the people I meet everyday."
What we have here is another case of the 'wise, sophisticated non-American' fallacy, which says that Americans are a bunch of rubes and bumblers compared to non-Americans (especially Europeans). There is little evidence to sustain that opinion.
Someone once said: 'Man is not rational, merely capable of it.' (Yes,
that is gramatically incorrect.) No one is exempt from the human condition. I have lived in Austria and Germany, and they are much like us. The Czechs, Poles, Russians, and assorted Asians I've worked with were much like us as well.
But I don't have to look at my personal experience to know that
Americans do not have a monopoly on irrationality. If one reads the
international news critically, one should be disabused of the idea
that non-Americans are utterly rational.
Any number of foolish ideas have had a non-American pedigree: socialism, communism, fascism, islamism, etc. Americans are not perfect, but neither is any other people.
But there is one aspect in which we citizens of the United States differ from citizens of European countries, and even from our neighbors to the north. We are not subjects of our government.
Our ancestors threw off the yoke of kings and royalty when the population here was less than four million. Now we are over 300 million, all of us either having grown up here as a free people or having migrated here to throw off the yokes found elsewhere. Some of us take seriously any threat to our freedom.
Is paranoia a proper label for being concerned about efforts to drag us down the dark path toward being subjects instead of free citizens? Or is it simple pragmatism to be so concerned?
Consider: Hillary Clinton is trying to become President. If she succeeds, we can expect her to try once again to establish socialized medicine that will be run by gubmint bureaucrats. Under the plan she tried to cram down our throats when Slick Willie was President, I could be jailed and my doctor could be jailed if I paid him to provide medical services to me, as such would be a felony.
If the gubmint is in charge of my medical services but I am not, such that I can be imprisoned if I try to circumvent the state's control thereof, doesn't that mean the gubmint's interest in, and authority over, my body exceeds my own? Doesn't that make me a subject of the gubmint?
My response to that possibility is anger, not fear. As the danger gets larger and nearer, that just might change.
So, Mark, is that what you "see", or have you thought about it in those terms?
I'll work backwards starting with Dj's comments. I think you need to take a look at how Mitt Romney's plan has been working on Mass. for health care. You mention our neighbors to the North. Did you know that their system is privately driven? All of the things I have read about the health care system in Canada are about how awful it is...the long waits etc...but I did some digging and found out that, while some of the stories are true, it is not as bad as our media make it out to be...go figure.
I don't think that Hillary is going to take a plan from 1993 and make it work in 2009. Our country has changed dramitically since then and these new times call for a new plan. I have had many conversations with people who feel the way you do and for some reason they can't see the fact that if you are employed, as in Canada, you can choose your own health care. Same in Mass. The universal health care models that are out there now are for people who have no jobs and need some help. And even those people get to choose if they want Blue Cross, Medica, or whomever and thus can still choose their own doctors. That is what Romney made sure would happen in Mass. Your vision of the future-health care wise-will not happen. I guarentee it.
For the record, though, I don't want Hillary to be president at all. She is no different than George Bush in my eyes and our country would be so horribly divided it would continue the sickness that we are currently have.
rbarnes, I do consider myself to be wise and sophisticated and I also think that people are screwed up everywhere...no doubt...but why do we murder each other more in this country than Austria or Germany? Is it just because we have more people? Or is there another reason? I agree with your last statement...there is no perfect solution as long as greedy people run the countries of the world....and that's pretty much every country.
HR, I spent a week telling a friend of mine that North Korea was not imminently going to attack us. My brother in law has an arsenal in basement to protect him in case the niggers come for him. I have a friend who spent three months in a psychiatric ward because she was convinced that George Bush was trying to kill her by drafting her into the service. I could go on and on about the people meet everyday and they all are afraid of something. To one degree or another, people make decisions based on fear. The best two ways you can control a population is through fear and love and of the two, fear is the easiest so that's how most governments operate.
Eric WS, you should be concerned about terrorist attacks but not as much as natural disasters or accidents. The biggest threats to you, as a 21st Century Man, are: cardiac disease, prostate cancer, and automobile accidents....none of which require a gun for protection. I am not trying to say you don't have the right to have one but think about prioritizing the dangers that you face.
Kevin, I was speaking specfically of the scene where Murrow is told that his newscasts aren't generating revenue and they need to be more exciting. That was the beginning of the downfall of news...Cronkite tried to hold on as long as he could but when he retired, it was all over. Everything else that you say is true but just to clarify...the media serves itself by serving the corporation that own it...Time Warner owns CNN, GE owns NBC, Viacom owns CBS, News Corp owns Fox News, Disney owns ABC...they all benefit from the fear mongering that goes on in our media because people spend more money and buy things, not just guns, to make them feel better.
To give you all of my answers would take up too much space here (which I have already sorta done) but I plan on being around for future posts, if Kevin allows me, so I'm sure they will come out in time. I will say this, though, I think that many, many people in this country are in a great deal of pain. They are in this pain because their basic emotional needs are not being met. Sometimes I think if we could eliminate some of this pain, violence in this country would drop dramatically. Being a teacher, I think it starts with education.
HR, I spent a week telling a friend of mine that North Korea was not imminently going to attack us. My brother in law has an arsenal in basement to protect him in case the niggers come for him. I have a friend who spent three months in a psychiatric ward because she was convinced that George Bush was trying to kill her by drafting her into the service. I could go on and on about the people meet everyday and they all are afraid of something.
I love that last sentence, creating the implication that the 'exceptional cases', shall we say, are somehow representative of the norm. If that's how you define fear, then I think you'd better elaborate on whether you think all gun owners are as irrational as your associates, or not.
And the unanswered question remains...do you think gun control advocates are more rational, and less susceptible to fear and paranoia, than gun owners?
Mark, you apparently missed completely the essence of my concern about socialized medicine. I am not concerned here (that is, within this comments at the moment) about the quality of care it would provide, rather I'm concerned about the notion that it would be a crime for me to pay someone outside the gubmint's control to provide me with health care. Goddamnit, it's my body, not the gubmint's.
And, I have two other comments:
Our country has changed dramitically since then and these new times call for a new plan.
Horseshit.
Your vision of the future-health care wise-will not happen. I guarentee it.
Again, horseshit. You can't guarantee it any more than you can spell it.
Mark, since I do not smoke, or subsist entirely on red meat, cardiac arrest is not a huge concern to me. As I have never driven drunk, high, or even tipsy, and I wear a seat belt when driving my two ton, air bag equipped automobile, I do not fear traffic accidents.
So since my diet is not going to kill me, a traffic accident involving anything less than an 18-wheeler is not going likely to kill me, and I have at least decade and half before I need regular prostate exams, I return to the more substanial risks to my near term survival - Crime and idiots.
And Mark, the idea of you teaching any children, other than your own, absolutely terrifies me.
Thanks to drivel spewing teachers such as yourself, I had to educate MYSELF about the Constitution, the inalienable Rights of Man, the bloody history of Communism, the less savory aspects of human history in the Americas, Afica, and Asia (Europeans as murderers *was* covered - to death), the historical record of Islam's interaction with other faiths, etc.
Public School teachers taught me math, some English, a smidge of History, and the very basics of Science. That is it. Most of the time I got Multi-culti, Politically Correct Bullshit - aka NEA approved indoctrination.
Everything else I found through other sources, particularly the Internet. Men like Mr. Baker here, Fran Porretto, Kim du Toit, and others are far, far more instructive TEACHERS than almost all of the people I have met who get PAID to teach. And I suspect that they could teach, speak, and think circles around YOU, Mark.
But you did teach me a good lesson, old boy. You are not worth my time, or energy. So I will no longer waste either on you.
Happy Rampager, I have one main problem with gun control advocates and it's quite simple: if you take away all of the guns in America, how does that cure our culture of fear? It doesn't. So, the gun control folks are irrational in the sense that they refuse to fix the problem.
I also think it is fair to say that some gun owners are also irrational in their fear of the unknown. I live in Minnesota so many of my friends have guns...mostly for hunting...some of them are responsible some are most definetly not. If it were up to me, I would forget about gun control and focus on what are the root causes for people to feel the need to shoot or kill someone. Fix those first and then there won't be any need to control guns because it won't occur to people to shoot each other anymore.
DJ, I am about as liberal as they come on many issues but I would never support any plan that would make it a crime to pay someone for health care. It's not horseshit. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_health_care
Their sources are well documented at the end of the article. Here is a link on Romney's plan and how it worked.
There are several sources listed at the end of this column as well...some of which are links directly to the Mass goverment page. I am not sure how this would work on a national model but there are some interesting tenets to this program, the most intersting is that private industry is still providing the care.
As to the comments about me being a teacher, my central goal with every student I have ever had is to teach them to think critically....of everything. That includes the right, the left, and everything in between. Eric, why this would terrify you is perplexing to me. In fact, we took a peak at Frarn Porretto's blog last week in class. The reactions ranged from interest to outright disgust. The students repeatedly asked me what I thought about it and I wouldn't tell them because that's not what I am there for. We took a look at his views of Democratic presidents of the last 60 years and discussed it. It was a great class..you would've liked it.
Comments like this, however:
"Most of the time I got Multi-culti, Politically Correct Bullshit - aka NEA approved indoctrination."
do not help your cause as being a champion of indiviual rights or being open minded.
Kevin, don't hang your head. In addition to current events and political science, I teach several film classes. I read on your profile that you like movies alot...so...what are your favorites?
DJ, I am about as liberal as they come on many issues but I would never support any plan that would make it a crime to pay someone for health care. It's not horseshit.
Saint Hillary once tried to cram it up our collective kazoos. The threat is real. The notion that it won't materialize is indeed not horseshit, but your statement that you guarantee that it won't materialize is. You have no control or influence over the process, so the only definition of "guarantee" that applies to your statement is "to express or declare with conviction". Such use of the word is no more than hyperbole, and has no more significance than a fart in a hurricane. I stand by my opinion of your conviction.
I also think it is fair to say that some gun owners are also irrational in their fear of the unknown.
Be honest, by 'fear of the unknown' you mean 'caution in case of criminal violence'. I could say, 'some fire extinguisher owners are also irrational in their fear of the unknown' - after all, who knows that they're going to have to put out a fire? - and it would be every bit as sensible and fair-minded.
In your view 'caution in case of criminal violence' is a very, very, very big problem...leaving the question of 'why' for another day, let's say that in someone's case you do manage to persuade them to 'lay down their arms' and not make provision for a particular kind of emergency...your 'solution' wouldn't actually be of any use to them if such an emergency actually happened. Would it?
HR, yes, I would like to see criminals, and others that use firearms irresponsibly, lay down there arms based on all of us getting to the real roots of the problems of violence in our culture. If this ever happened, I have always said, as one my heroes Art Bell has said, guns still protect you from your government or in case you every have to take back your goverment...which I believe is in the spirit of our founding fathers. Emergencies, of course, do arise and I'm sure guns would find good uses then as well.
It's the behavior, not the guns, I have a problem with...change that behavior and the demonization of guns will be gone.
Don't we all wish that criminals would stop preying on others, that idiots and fools would stop doing idiotic and foolish things, that assholes would stop being assholes, that politicians would stop grasping for power, and so on? "... change that behavior and the demonization of guns will be gone." That such changes will be effected is slightly less probable than that pigs will sprout wings and fly in formation over the South Pole. So, why do you focus repeatedly on the notion that effecting such changes is the solution to those problems?
Having visited many places and people around the world courtesy of Uncle Sam, I'd have to say that Americans are a relatively violent people. There are cultural and probably genetic reasons for this (genetics are unproven and likely to remain so for the PC future).
Many of our ancestors were adventurous, restless sorts. The natives, by and large, had martial cultures. People who could and would resort to violence did better at surviving, our culture (and genetics, I believe) reflects this. We have more criminals per capita than anywhere else, and much more violent crime. America has a high percentage of human wolves compared to human sheep, emigration and survival selected for generations. That is looking at the downside.
The upside is that there is a high percentage of sheepdogs as well. We have a large percentage of rugged individuals not afraid to tell anyone off, and back up their words with action. Our military is simultaneously the most deadly and the most friendly ever seen. We are a society of successful people, who compete well in peace and war. I am not sure we can have the good without the bad coming along.
What I am sure of is that gun control laws only disarm the law-abiding. Many governments have predators running them, gun control laws work very well for them. The sheep and sheepdogs are disarmed, the wolves are free to wreak havoc without fear of immediate retribution (the only type that matters to most human wolves).
DJ, I'm sure people said that the violence in Northern Ireland would never end but it has. Why? Because someone there decided to dream for awhile, throw out some "crazy" notions, and presto: Peace! Call me an idealist but I think it could happen if we all starting believing it could...
Tweell, nice post and I completely agree with you about the US military. I have many friends and family in the service and have consequently met serveral others and they are all top notch in just about every way. I did meet a guy from the Army who thought it was his duty to shoot all Democrats but I don't think he was indicative of the military as a whole.
"Many governments have predators running them, gun control laws work very well for them"
We have predators running our executive branch right now. This statement is very wise and I am in complete agreement
Call me an idealist but I think it could happen if we all starting believing it could...
The key to that notion is "WE ALL". In all of recorded history, it hasn't happened yet. That's why I think it is more likely that pigs will fly.
There is a fine line between being an idealist and being a fool. Have you crossed that line, or do you realize that "WE ALL" aren't going to ALL start "believing it could ..."?
Well, I am the first one to admit that I have been a fool and done foolish things but in this particular case, I remain convinced that if we eliminated our culture of fear, there would be less criminal activity.
A lot of what I am talking about is in this book. I have taken Glassner's ideas a step further in saying that fear (and to a certain extent ignorance) breed crime.
Well, I am the first one to admit that I have been a fool and done foolish things but in this particular case, I remain convinced that if we eliminated our culture of fear, there would be less criminal activity.
So, if we stopped being afraid of crime, there would be less crime? Or, to say it in reverse, being afraid of crime is a cause of crime?
I think you have misunderstood me. It is our culture of fear that creates criminals. It is our culture of greed that creates crime. Most crime is committed by desparate, irrational people who a direct result of our society. Of course, there are always going to be your Zodiac types but they are very, very few. Ask any policemen...it's not the boogeymen that gets you, it's your dad, your son, your brother, your aunt, your neighbor, your best friend...it's the people who are around you everyday and our society treats the common man like garbage and purposefully instills fear, insecurity and paranoia in them in the hopes that they will consume more goods.
Add it all together and you get loads of crime every year. If we can get people to have their basic needs met...see this link...
I think the threat of crime will diminish. Seriously, we have some people in our culture that aren't even at level one of this graphic. It's up to us to change that. The government certainly is not going to help so it has to start with the people.
I guess I'm confused as to why you think its snake oil but let me give a real world example of this.
From 1993-1997, I produced a series of training videos for the police departments of Minneapolis and Bloomington. I spend a lot of time shooting crime scenes and hanging around police. In those days, there was a lot of crime in the area, some of it violent, all of it in poor areas. I remember watching the local news reports on crime scenes that I was actually just at and there was a disconnect to what was being reported and what actually happened. Here's a shocker for you...the media exaggerated the crime all of the time. They created more fear to make the story more interesting than it actually was. The police I knew would crack up every time they saw one of these stories and shake their head. One of my police friends would always lament how our local media crated more crime by making a mountain out of mole hill.
As my time went on there, though, I started to notice crime going down. I started asking some cops I worked with why this was happening. They said it was because people were starting to find jobs, they were forced off the dole with the welfare reform of the 90s, and the police had done a better job of connecting with the community. So, people were starting to have their basic needs met and thus, there were less criminals. There was less fear and general insecurity over people's everyday lives.
Incidently, in my own suburb of Minneapolis, I have seen something similar. Three years ago we had a tremendous Somali gang problem. Rather than crack skulls on a daily basis, the police and one Hennepin County Sheriff (a good friend of mine, actually) decided to reach out to the Somali parents and create community events, mostly sports and gaming related, that would be of interest to their children, who were causing most of the problem.
Since that program was started, we hae seen the gang problem go away completely. What was really cool about this is that the local goverment was not really involved. It was the people...people of good will who want a better place to live who eliminated fear by creating a foundation of support.
So, I don't know where you live or how crime is in your area but people can make a difference.
And what do you do about the people who are not having their sadistic needs met unless they go out and mug/rob/assault people for kicks? Such people being very common, perhaps more common than your analysis accounts for.
Mark, take a peek at some of your statments that I've cherry-picked from the comments you made on this post:
---
I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms. ... My comment was directed at Americans in general, gun owners or not.
The media itself creates much of the fear and paranoia that the American public have and that's just the way the powers that be want it. Keep people afraid and they buy more stuff i.e. they are better consumers.
Economically speaking, the way our culture is set up also creates an enormous amount of insecuirty thus leading to most criminal behavior.
American people in general,whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot.
I think that many, many people in this country are in a great deal of pain. They are in this pain because their basic emotional needs are not being met. Sometimes I think if we could eliminate some of this pain, violence in this country would drop dramatically.
If it were up to me, I would forget about gun control and focus on what are the root causes for people to feel the need to shoot or kill someone. Fix those first and then there won't be any need to control guns because it won't occur to people to shoot each other anymore.
I remain convinced that if we eliminated our culture of fear, there would be less criminal activity.
It is our culture of fear that creates criminals. It is our culture of greed that creates crime. Most crime is committed by desparate, irrational people who a direct result of our society.
... it's the people who are around you everyday and our society treats the common man like garbage and purposefully instills fear, insecurity and paranoia in them in the hopes that they will consume more goods.
If we can get people to have their basic needs met ...
Seriously, we have some people in our culture that aren't even at level one of this graphic. It's up to us to change that.
---
It reads like the slogan list from a socialist's wet dream.
I follow a different philosophy, to wit, that ...
... criminals are responsible for their own behavior. I am responsible for my behavior, and for no one else's.
... it is not my responsibility to make sure that everyone else has enough to eat, a roof to sleep under, and so on. I have such a responsibility to myself and to my family, but to no one else.
... that every living thing on this planet has an unfettered right to defend itself if it is attacked. The defender gives up no rights by defending and the attacker keeps no rights by attacking, as the attacker cannot logically claim to have rights of his own if he denies the rights of his victim.
... that crime happens largely because those who commit crimes see a benefit thereby, are not concerned with the rights of others, and generally are not bright enough to weight the benefits against the risks. This is true even of those who commit crimes but lack nothing personally in terms of survival, comfort, and security. To put it bluntly, some people are assholes, and no amount of social engineering will cure that.
... that guns are TOOLS, and perfectly respectable tools at that. Guns are particularly good tools to use in self-defense, as guns work well when used by most any defender against most any attacker.
... that to be ready to defend oneself is not evidence of fear, it is evidence of confidence, and of a mind-set that simply refuses to be a victim.
... that to be ready to defend oneself is not evidence of paranoia, it is evidence of pragmatic approach to the reality of living in society.
... that gun control laws are the products of power-hungry politicians in office, not of a population with emotional problems.
And, finally, I believe that "if we can get people to have their basic needs met" is a catch-phrase for income redistribution. It is a solution to NOTHING. Have a look at pre-hurricane New Orleans. A very large portion of the population thereof had its needs routinely met by the gubmint, meaning by taxes that I paid, and yet it was one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country. This notion is not a solution, it is rather a recipe for parasitism.
Perhaps people like that are common in the city you live in but overall most violent crime is committed by someone you know, friend or more likely family memeber. Go to your local police station and ask them. They will tell you.
DJ,
I don't consider myself to be a socialist, capitalist, communist, or any other label that has been given a biased defintion by whichever country accepts one philosophy but not the other.
You are not responsible for a criminal's behavior but the society are a part of is partially responsible. You say you have a responsibility to yourself and family but no one else. So, do you have any friends that might need help from time to time? How about co-workers?
Yes, it's true. Some people are assholes. By a large percentage, however, those assholes will commit a crime to another asshole in their family. Or a close friend.
I would like to see some stats on the socio-economic status of violent criminals. Where would I find such information?
As far as New Oreleans is concerned, everything I have read says that it is an extremly poor city filled with corruput politicians who routinely steal city, state, and federal funds. Are those people really having their needs met?
I don't consider myself to be a socialist, capitalist, communist, or any other label that has been given a biased defintion by whichever country accepts one philosophy but not the other.
I don't quite understand that, but I wasn't pinning any labels on you. That might not be obvious, though. Your writings in these comments fit the "socialist" label to a remarkable degree, however, and such was the focus of my comments.
So, do you have any friends that might need help from time to time? How about co-workers?
Yup, I have both friends and family who have been in need at various times. I am generous to a fault and have helped them greatly. Being generous, i.e. being charitable, is not the same as being responsible for.
Yes, it's true. Some people are assholes. By a large percentage, however, those assholes will commit a crime to another asshole in their family. Or a close friend.
Or a total stranger. Or anyone who is handy.
I would like to see some stats on the socio-economic status of violent criminals. Where would I find such information?
You might find such information via the internet. Beats me; I've seen a few such stats over the years but I've never searched for them.
As far as New Oreleans is concerned, everything I have read says that it is an extremly poor city filled with corruput politicians who routinely steal city, state, and federal funds. Are those people really having their needs met?
Yes, most of them really were having their needs met. A very large portion of its population lived off the public teat. Their basic needs of food, shelter, and so on were being met by you and I through our taxes. Their response to a hurricane was to scream that the federal gubmint did not arrive immediately and make it all better the next day. The corruption of politicians there simply made it even less efficient and even more expensive, but it doesn't change the bottom line; these people believed, and so demonstrated in public repeatedly, that the gubmint owes them a living, without apparent regard or even thought as to how the gubmint gets the funds it gives. I described such behavior as parasitism because that description is accurate.
Perhaps people like that are common in the city you live in but overall most violent crime is committed by someone you know, friend or more likely family memeber. Go to your local police station and ask them. They will tell you.
My city? Try my country.
And also, you were telling us before about how rare sadistic and wantonly violent criminals are. When I indicate that such is not the case, and your assessment that sadistic criminals can be explained by reference to Maslow's heirachy of needs or whatever is in need of a little revision, you then say something about most violent crime being committed by family members/close relations...that's called 'changing the subject'.
I'm referring to an actual study that found that many if not most young criminals committed violent crimes because it was their idea of fun. That tends to show that your hypothesis of 'their needs not being met' is bunk, unless you admit that 'their needs' also includes 'their need to gratify themselves by making less violent people submit to their will'.
Do you have anything to say about that beyond the dismissive 'perhaps people like that are common in your city' (as if 'my city' was the exception to the rule as far as crime went)?
Well, of course I would like to see the study that says that most violent criminals are doing it just for kicks. Is it a national study? Or city by city?
Of course if every one was very happy and had all of their needs and wants met there would still be crime. It's true, some people are just plain psycho. But I submit to you that the media, which is much derided on this blog, exagerates that point to generate fear. The city that I live in has violent crime. The majority of it is gang related and they pretty much stick to shooting each other. Occasionally there are random acts of violence but for the most part they are rare.
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1089112.html
This proves my point. The conceal and carry law we have here did not raise or lower crime. Gun control advocates said the law would create a wild west show. It did not. Gun rights folks said crime would go down. It did not. It's not the guns. It's the people.
Ask yourselves this question: would you want to live in a country that has less violence? If it were within your power to decrease violence, would you help to do it? I am not talking about giving up your guns or giving money to the government for soical programs. Those tactics will not work.
I can safely say that I don't have all the answers but I think it starts with better understanding of why crime occurs, who is committing it, and what are proven methods for stopping it before it happenes.
'The (ESRC) report said previous attempts to explain violent street crime put too much focus on the desire for gain, and not enough on the aspect of "pleasure"',
"This research should not send a wave of fear through society," he said. "The people interviewed have a background of multiple serious offences and should not be seen as a typical sample of those committing robbery.
And I would like to see some stats of crime in the US. The homicide rate in the UK is much lower than here. Why? If there are similiar stats in the US, do those people who commit crimes for kicks pick random people or do they pick on their family? Or friends? Or neighbors?
See, your whole reply smacks of wilful ignorance and grasping at straws. That cherry-picked quote doesn't justify you completely ignoring the matter of criminals commiting crimes as a means of amusement, and we're not just talking about robbery here, we're talking about those 'multiple serious offences' that our young criminals have committed. We're also talking about those 'lesser' anti-social offences that the little scroats are never caught for, or are even unreported, or that they only face ASBOs for, not jailing. The findings of the study explain them very well.
Though I'm sure there's a point to trying to reassure us about what robbers have gotten up to in the past and I'm sure you can elucidate this point for us.
Obviously this person you quoted realised what the study really does say about criminality - people who actually have experienced crime, or know people who've experience crime, know better than to be taken in by bilge like 'The people interviewed...should not be seen as a typical sample of those committing robbery' - probably he, like you, really wants to believe in the 'crime is caused by lacking' model, despite the report in question indicating that the model doesn't explain crime as well as he or you would like it to.
Also you dodged the question again, so it's getting slightly obvious now that you have some sort of bias that leads to you not really wanting to accept that criminals can't be bought off, that they'll keep committing crimes (as they do now) because hurting other people is fun for them. You have no answer to this, you have no answer to the problems they'll keep causing for people, so you try your best to avoid the matter entirely.
Rampager, you might want to see this article in today's Oklahoman, the daily newspaper of Oklahoma City:
http://www.newsok.com/article/3035676/
The same story appeared on the TV news last night, but with an additional comment. One of the arrested vandals stated, after he sobered up, that destroying mailboxes "seemed like a good idea at the time".
I wonder what he thinks now?
I recall a similar story some years ago. A co-worker (and good friend, too) was one of many victims of a mailbox basher who was only fifteen years old. The basher was convicted in juvenile court and ordered to make restitution. A police officer took him around to every victim (there were about 50 or so, as I recall), explained the court's order, and the kid asked each one, "How much will it cost to fix your mailbox?" He then paid, from his own money, whatever the victim told him it cost. Some victims stuck it to him and the final tally was over $8,000. It consumed the college fund his parents had set up for him.
What do ya s'pose these idiots lack? Not enough video games? Not enough Ipods? Or not enough discipline?
My God. Your idiots seem almost civilized, compared to the utterly heartless and depraved bastards I've met and others have met. What your idiots do to mailboxes, they do to people, and they stab kids for wanting to go to college.
Though I do believe that our native criminals aren't very much different from the crims who walk around your more urbanized areas.
What question am I supposedly dodging? I think it is the one about criminals who commit crimes for the sport of it. Of course, there are people who do that but in the "pie of crime", what percentage are they?
That's the real question and it also brings together the two points that I am trying to make.
1. The majority of violent criminals commit crime against someone that is know to them.
2. Some of these same criminals and the more petty ones (robbery etc. )are largely of a lower socio-economic status.
If we, not the government, but we as human beings change the way our communities work by giving people some purpose in life, direction, education, higher wages etc...I believe that violent crime will go down. And much of the petty crime.
Will crime be elimintated all together? No, there are always going to be psychos. So, I have no issue if people still want to defend themselves in whatever way they see fit. But the great myth that is perpetuated by the media is that there are psychos around every corner coming to git us! And we better all be real scared!! Have you noticed that all of the major news staions devote hours and hours of programming "real" stories about criminals. Is that really news?
It's crap because, in the end, if you are a victim of violent crime it is more than likely a family member, friend, neighbor etc...
I hope that answers your question. If not, let me know.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/03/wait-minute.html (51 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
It is a possibility that even within the judiciary there is that same vague sense of impending cataclysm as mentioned here (and other places) and a desire to see that the right side prevails.
Ya think?
Hmm. Are we starting to see a snowball effect?
Doesn't matter. I'm going to do my damnedest to pick up an AR-15 at some point and name it "Sarah" as well as take pictures of it and send to McCarthy just because I still can.
I'm sure Paul Helmke, Peter Hamm, and Josh Sugarmann have got their panties in a bunch over this one. One of my favorite bits of hypocrisy right now is on the front page of the Brady Bunch web site. In one, Paul attacks the Parker decision as going against the "democratically-expressed will of the people". Just below it, he attacks the democratically elected MD state Senator Brochin for following the will of the people.
If it sticks, this looks like an ideal inroad to have the evil Lautenburgh (sp?) amendment squished.
See, Kevin, it's not as bad as you think. I like your blog. It's different than mine...more of an information and resource hub which is cool.
Here's a question for you and your readers...and I am not trying to be a dick....but is there any information out there about the number of accidental gun deaths vs. the number of lives saved as a result of firearm protection? You are more researched on this matter than I so I am asking for unbiased numbers and facts.
Also check out this story, very poignant I thought.
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_056162059.html
I think it is the closest thing to unbiased reality I have read regarding some of the issues you have raised.
Mark:
Accidental gun death has been declining as long as we've been keeping record. It is now as low as it has ever been, both in actual numbers and in the rate per 100,000 population - this despite the fact that there are far more guns in private hands today than there have ever been.
According to the National Safety Council in 2003 the number of unintentional firearms deaths was 730. The Centers for Disease Control agrees in 2003 it was 730, and in 2004, an even lower 649.
Now, as to your question about how many lives were saved? How do you determine that? The National Safety Council says that there were 347 deaths due to "legal intervention" in 2003 - but that's incidents in which a perpetrator died. What about the incidents in which the perpetrator(s) was wounded or merely frightened off? How do you tell if an assailant intends to kill, or might have killed feloniously, but unintentionally? There were, after all, 17,357 homicides in 2004, 11,624 by firearm.
We know this: Estimates of the incidence of defensive firearms use range as high as 2.5 million each year. The lowest I've ever seen came from a Bureau of Justice Statistics paper that put the number at 186,000 annually. How many lives were saved? Do you want to put a percentage estimate on that?
All you can say with any confidence is that well over 100,000 crimes were prevented or interrupted.
For Ms. Simmons and Mr. Cegon there is certainly a psychic toll involved in their defensive gun use. But at least it wasn't a double-murder/suicide. They'll recover. Mr. Richter will never threaten them or anyone else ever again.
My side of the debate prefers retaining the opportunity to suffer possible psychic stress.
My side of the debate prefers retaining the opportunity to suffer possible psychic stress.
Not to mention the opportunity to prevent the psychic stress of family members who would otherwise have to suffer the devastation of having a loved one murdered, raped, tortured, etc.
Thanks for the stats. Very helpful and it helps put much into perspective. Althought I am liberal on many issues, I have never been able to take that step towards gun control. It has always seemed to me that the guns themselves are not the problems. I don't have any problems with guns, I guess, it's Americans with guns that I have a problem with. I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms.
After reading some of your stuff, though, I think that maybe because our nation has those people in it is a reason in and of itself to own a gun. Hence the Eric Cegon story. In his place, I would do the exact same thing and react in the same way. The thought of killing another human being is so repugnant to me and yet, in our world, somtimes you just don't have a choice. I think it is devastating and sad that it has to be this way.
"I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms."
Not to put too fine a point on it, you see the nation that way because that's the portrait the media shows you, not the reality.
Cultural anthropologist Abigale Kohn wanted to study America's gun culture, here's something she has written about her image of America's gun owners:
"Our initial attempt to meet local militia members took us to a shooting range in the Bay Area, where we assumed local militia meetings would be held. We went on a Tuesday night, fully expecting the range to be seething with radical political activity. Why else would people congregate at a shooting range, if not to meet other like-minded, potentially dangerous right-wing gun nuts?"
Where do you think that perception came from?
I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms.
Filled?
See?
Pardon my French, but this is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read on this issue.
How do you "see" this? Do you "think" that everyone who owns a firearm is a "paranoid, fearful" individual who has no business doing so? Why? Because you have been told so or because you have seen so many of them go off the deep end and massacre their neighbors?
Sheesh.
Kevin, you have a remarkable ability to keep your cool, as you have stated before. I nearly lost mine with this statement. Thank you for jumping in before I did.
"I nearly lost mine with this statement."
That's because you're a fearful, paranoid gun owner! ;)
I don't think all gun owners are fearful and paranoid. My comment was directed at Americans in general, gun owners or not.
The media hasn't made me look at gun owners in a certain light. I have an immense amount of distrust for all of the media outlets as they serve the corporate world, not the public as they used to in the beginning. A great example of this change occuring can be seen in the film Good Night and Good Luck.
The media itself creates much of the fear and paranoia that the American public have and that's just the way the powers that be want it. Keep people afraid and they buy more stuff i.e. they are better consumers. Economically speaking, the way our culture is set up also creates an enormous amount of insecuirty thus leading to most criminal behavior.
My perspective on America comes from travelling and living in different parts of the world. When you live in another country for more than a year, you being to see America in a different light. The rest of the world views us as a violent culture. We are. Coming back from my travels and spending 4 years working with policmen and firefighters further colored my view of society.
Kevin listed some stats above...17,000 homicides is absolutely insane. You see that stat and you wonder why. Why? That's the question isn't it? I have gone back and forth about this over the years and came to the conclusion that it's not the guns...it's the people. American people in general,whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot. I see it in my family, friends, the people I work with, and the people I meet everyday.
So, experience has taught me that if we can find a way to eliminate that fear and paranoia ingrained in the way we live our lives two things will happen. First, there will be fewer homicides. Second, as a result of the fewer homicides, gun owners such as yourselves will no longer be threatened by gun control laws as there won't be any need for them.
The question is: what is that way? I have some of the answers but not all.
"I have an immense amount of distrust for all of the media outlets as they serve the corporate world, not the public as they used to in the beginning. A great example of this change occuring can be seen in the film Good Night and Good Luck."
Uh, Mark? If you think a fictionalized version of history as portrayed by Hollywood is a "good example" of how "media outlets" served the public "in the beginning," I think you need to delve much more deeply into the history.
In "the beginning," media outlets were openly partisan. The term "yellow journalism" dates way back to the 1890's, but that sort of propagandizing had been going on long before. Edward R. Murrow was an exception, not the rule. The difference now is that the partisanship is masked with protestations of media impartiality.
Sensationalist journalism has never gone away, though. It sells papers. It draws ears and eyeballs. It keeps the doors of the media outlets open.
The media serves itself. Informing the public is done as a side-effect if at all. And since television learned that "news" divisions didn't have to be loss-leaders, but could in fact be profit centers, all pretenses of unbiased "nothing but the facts" reporting has gone out the window.
Mark does not seem to understand that in the 19th Century, the name "Democrat" or "Republican" in a town's paper meant something.
Mark, I am *NOT* paranoid, or fearful, because I am concerned with the threat of an armed person breaking into my home. Especially considering that the Supreme Court has stated that the Police do not have a duty to ensure by protection.
Mark, do you think being concerned with terrorist attacks, or the collapse of civil order after a natural disaster, is Paranoia?
And speaking of disasters, Gov. Blanco is not running for re-election, THANK GOD!
American people in general,whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot. I see it in my family, friends, the people I work with, and the people I meet everyday.
Oh really? And what signs of 'fear' and 'paranoia' do they show?
...if we can find a way to eliminate that fear and paranoia ingrained in the way we live our lives two things will happen. First, there will be fewer homicides.
Why? 'Fear' and 'paranoia' aren't really the most common motives for murders/killings. How many deaths do you expect to prevent by 'eliminating fear and paranoia'?
Second, as a result of the fewer homicides, gun owners such as yourselves will no longer be threatened by gun control laws as there won't be any need for them.
I dare say gun owners will continue to be threatened by gun control laws for as long as the real fearful paranoids continue to press for them (it's interesting that you don't mention how fearful and paranoid the gun-grabbers must be, and the problems their fear/paranoia causes).
The question is: what is that way? I have some of the answers but not all.
You have some of the answers? Would you mind telling us what they are?
"When you live in another country for more than a year, you being to see America in a different light."
"it's the people. American people in general, whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot. I see it in my family, friends, the people I work with, and the people I meet everyday."
What we have here is another case of the 'wise, sophisticated non-American' fallacy, which says that Americans are a bunch of rubes and bumblers compared to non-Americans (especially Europeans). There is little evidence to sustain that opinion.
Someone once said: 'Man is not rational, merely capable of it.' (Yes,
that is gramatically incorrect.) No one is exempt from the human condition. I have lived in Austria and Germany, and they are much like us. The Czechs, Poles, Russians, and assorted Asians I've worked with were much like us as well.
But I don't have to look at my personal experience to know that
Americans do not have a monopoly on irrationality. If one reads the
international news critically, one should be disabused of the idea
that non-Americans are utterly rational.
Any number of foolish ideas have had a non-American pedigree: socialism, communism, fascism, islamism, etc. Americans are not perfect, but neither is any other people.
But there is one aspect in which we citizens of the United States differ from citizens of European countries, and even from our neighbors to the north. We are not subjects of our government.
Our ancestors threw off the yoke of kings and royalty when the population here was less than four million. Now we are over 300 million, all of us either having grown up here as a free people or having migrated here to throw off the yokes found elsewhere. Some of us take seriously any threat to our freedom.
Is paranoia a proper label for being concerned about efforts to drag us down the dark path toward being subjects instead of free citizens? Or is it simple pragmatism to be so concerned?
Consider: Hillary Clinton is trying to become President. If she succeeds, we can expect her to try once again to establish socialized medicine that will be run by gubmint bureaucrats. Under the plan she tried to cram down our throats when Slick Willie was President, I could be jailed and my doctor could be jailed if I paid him to provide medical services to me, as such would be a felony.
If the gubmint is in charge of my medical services but I am not, such that I can be imprisoned if I try to circumvent the state's control thereof, doesn't that mean the gubmint's interest in, and authority over, my body exceeds my own? Doesn't that make me a subject of the gubmint?
My response to that possibility is anger, not fear. As the danger gets larger and nearer, that just might change.
So, Mark, is that what you "see", or have you thought about it in those terms?
I'll work backwards starting with Dj's comments. I think you need to take a look at how Mitt Romney's plan has been working on Mass. for health care. You mention our neighbors to the North. Did you know that their system is privately driven? All of the things I have read about the health care system in Canada are about how awful it is...the long waits etc...but I did some digging and found out that, while some of the stories are true, it is not as bad as our media make it out to be...go figure.
I don't think that Hillary is going to take a plan from 1993 and make it work in 2009. Our country has changed dramitically since then and these new times call for a new plan. I have had many conversations with people who feel the way you do and for some reason they can't see the fact that if you are employed, as in Canada, you can choose your own health care. Same in Mass. The universal health care models that are out there now are for people who have no jobs and need some help. And even those people get to choose if they want Blue Cross, Medica, or whomever and thus can still choose their own doctors. That is what Romney made sure would happen in Mass. Your vision of the future-health care wise-will not happen. I guarentee it.
For the record, though, I don't want Hillary to be president at all. She is no different than George Bush in my eyes and our country would be so horribly divided it would continue the sickness that we are currently have.
rbarnes, I do consider myself to be wise and sophisticated and I also think that people are screwed up everywhere...no doubt...but why do we murder each other more in this country than Austria or Germany? Is it just because we have more people? Or is there another reason? I agree with your last statement...there is no perfect solution as long as greedy people run the countries of the world....and that's pretty much every country.
HR, I spent a week telling a friend of mine that North Korea was not imminently going to attack us. My brother in law has an arsenal in basement to protect him in case the niggers come for him. I have a friend who spent three months in a psychiatric ward because she was convinced that George Bush was trying to kill her by drafting her into the service. I could go on and on about the people meet everyday and they all are afraid of something. To one degree or another, people make decisions based on fear. The best two ways you can control a population is through fear and love and of the two, fear is the easiest so that's how most governments operate.
Eric WS, you should be concerned about terrorist attacks but not as much as natural disasters or accidents. The biggest threats to you, as a 21st Century Man, are: cardiac disease, prostate cancer, and automobile accidents....none of which require a gun for protection. I am not trying to say you don't have the right to have one but think about prioritizing the dangers that you face.
Kevin, I was speaking specfically of the scene where Murrow is told that his newscasts aren't generating revenue and they need to be more exciting. That was the beginning of the downfall of news...Cronkite tried to hold on as long as he could but when he retired, it was all over. Everything else that you say is true but just to clarify...the media serves itself by serving the corporation that own it...Time Warner owns CNN, GE owns NBC, Viacom owns CBS, News Corp owns Fox News, Disney owns ABC...they all benefit from the fear mongering that goes on in our media because people spend more money and buy things, not just guns, to make them feel better.
To give you all of my answers would take up too much space here (which I have already sorta done) but I plan on being around for future posts, if Kevin allows me, so I'm sure they will come out in time. I will say this, though, I think that many, many people in this country are in a great deal of pain. They are in this pain because their basic emotional needs are not being met. Sometimes I think if we could eliminate some of this pain, violence in this country would drop dramatically. Being a teacher, I think it starts with education.
Oy. You're a teacher? (*hangs head*)
HR, I spent a week telling a friend of mine that North Korea was not imminently going to attack us. My brother in law has an arsenal in basement to protect him in case the niggers come for him. I have a friend who spent three months in a psychiatric ward because she was convinced that George Bush was trying to kill her by drafting her into the service. I could go on and on about the people meet everyday and they all are afraid of something.
I love that last sentence, creating the implication that the 'exceptional cases', shall we say, are somehow representative of the norm. If that's how you define fear, then I think you'd better elaborate on whether you think all gun owners are as irrational as your associates, or not.
And the unanswered question remains...do you think gun control advocates are more rational, and less susceptible to fear and paranoia, than gun owners?
Mark, you apparently missed completely the essence of my concern about socialized medicine. I am not concerned here (that is, within this comments at the moment) about the quality of care it would provide, rather I'm concerned about the notion that it would be a crime for me to pay someone outside the gubmint's control to provide me with health care. Goddamnit, it's my body, not the gubmint's.
And, I have two other comments:
Our country has changed dramitically since then and these new times call for a new plan.
Horseshit.
Your vision of the future-health care wise-will not happen. I guarentee it.
Again, horseshit. You can't guarantee it any more than you can spell it.
Mark, since I do not smoke, or subsist entirely on red meat, cardiac arrest is not a huge concern to me. As I have never driven drunk, high, or even tipsy, and I wear a seat belt when driving my two ton, air bag equipped automobile, I do not fear traffic accidents.
So since my diet is not going to kill me, a traffic accident involving anything less than an 18-wheeler is not going likely to kill me, and I have at least decade and half before I need regular prostate exams, I return to the more substanial risks to my near term survival - Crime and idiots.
And Mark, the idea of you teaching any children, other than your own, absolutely terrifies me.
Thanks to drivel spewing teachers such as yourself, I had to educate MYSELF about the Constitution, the inalienable Rights of Man, the bloody history of Communism, the less savory aspects of human history in the Americas, Afica, and Asia (Europeans as murderers *was* covered - to death), the historical record of Islam's interaction with other faiths, etc.
Public School teachers taught me math, some English, a smidge of History, and the very basics of Science. That is it. Most of the time I got Multi-culti, Politically Correct Bullshit - aka NEA approved indoctrination.
Everything else I found through other sources, particularly the Internet. Men like Mr. Baker here, Fran Porretto, Kim du Toit, and others are far, far more instructive TEACHERS than almost all of the people I have met who get PAID to teach. And I suspect that they could teach, speak, and think circles around YOU, Mark.
But you did teach me a good lesson, old boy. You are not worth my time, or energy. So I will no longer waste either on you.
Happy Rampager, I have one main problem with gun control advocates and it's quite simple: if you take away all of the guns in America, how does that cure our culture of fear? It doesn't. So, the gun control folks are irrational in the sense that they refuse to fix the problem.
I also think it is fair to say that some gun owners are also irrational in their fear of the unknown. I live in Minnesota so many of my friends have guns...mostly for hunting...some of them are responsible some are most definetly not. If it were up to me, I would forget about gun control and focus on what are the root causes for people to feel the need to shoot or kill someone. Fix those first and then there won't be any need to control guns because it won't occur to people to shoot each other anymore.
DJ, I am about as liberal as they come on many issues but I would never support any plan that would make it a crime to pay someone for health care. It's not horseshit. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_health_care
Their sources are well documented at the end of the article. Here is a link on Romney's plan and how it worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute
There are several sources listed at the end of this column as well...some of which are links directly to the Mass goverment page. I am not sure how this would work on a national model but there are some interesting tenets to this program, the most intersting is that private industry is still providing the care.
As to the comments about me being a teacher, my central goal with every student I have ever had is to teach them to think critically....of everything. That includes the right, the left, and everything in between. Eric, why this would terrify you is perplexing to me. In fact, we took a peak at Frarn Porretto's blog last week in class. The reactions ranged from interest to outright disgust. The students repeatedly asked me what I thought about it and I wouldn't tell them because that's not what I am there for. We took a look at his views of Democratic presidents of the last 60 years and discussed it. It was a great class..you would've liked it.
Comments like this, however:
"Most of the time I got Multi-culti, Politically Correct Bullshit - aka NEA approved indoctrination."
do not help your cause as being a champion of indiviual rights or being open minded.
Kevin, don't hang your head. In addition to current events and political science, I teach several film classes. I read on your profile that you like movies alot...so...what are your favorites?
DJ, I am about as liberal as they come on many issues but I would never support any plan that would make it a crime to pay someone for health care. It's not horseshit.
Saint Hillary once tried to cram it up our collective kazoos. The threat is real. The notion that it won't materialize is indeed not horseshit, but your statement that you guarantee that it won't materialize is. You have no control or influence over the process, so the only definition of "guarantee" that applies to your statement is "to express or declare with conviction". Such use of the word is no more than hyperbole, and has no more significance than a fart in a hurricane. I stand by my opinion of your conviction.
I also think it is fair to say that some gun owners are also irrational in their fear of the unknown.
Be honest, by 'fear of the unknown' you mean 'caution in case of criminal violence'. I could say, 'some fire extinguisher owners are also irrational in their fear of the unknown' - after all, who knows that they're going to have to put out a fire? - and it would be every bit as sensible and fair-minded.
In your view 'caution in case of criminal violence' is a very, very, very big problem...leaving the question of 'why' for another day, let's say that in someone's case you do manage to persuade them to 'lay down their arms' and not make provision for a particular kind of emergency...your 'solution' wouldn't actually be of any use to them if such an emergency actually happened. Would it?
HR, yes, I would like to see criminals, and others that use firearms irresponsibly, lay down there arms based on all of us getting to the real roots of the problems of violence in our culture. If this ever happened, I have always said, as one my heroes Art Bell has said, guns still protect you from your government or in case you every have to take back your goverment...which I believe is in the spirit of our founding fathers. Emergencies, of course, do arise and I'm sure guns would find good uses then as well.
It's the behavior, not the guns, I have a problem with...change that behavior and the demonization of guns will be gone.
Don't we all wish that criminals would stop preying on others, that idiots and fools would stop doing idiotic and foolish things, that assholes would stop being assholes, that politicians would stop grasping for power, and so on? "... change that behavior and the demonization of guns will be gone." That such changes will be effected is slightly less probable than that pigs will sprout wings and fly in formation over the South Pole. So, why do you focus repeatedly on the notion that effecting such changes is the solution to those problems?
Having visited many places and people around the world courtesy of Uncle Sam, I'd have to say that Americans are a relatively violent people. There are cultural and probably genetic reasons for this (genetics are unproven and likely to remain so for the PC future).
Many of our ancestors were adventurous, restless sorts. The natives, by and large, had martial cultures. People who could and would resort to violence did better at surviving, our culture (and genetics, I believe) reflects this. We have more criminals per capita than anywhere else, and much more violent crime. America has a high percentage of human wolves compared to human sheep, emigration and survival selected for generations. That is looking at the downside.
The upside is that there is a high percentage of sheepdogs as well. We have a large percentage of rugged individuals not afraid to tell anyone off, and back up their words with action. Our military is simultaneously the most deadly and the most friendly ever seen. We are a society of successful people, who compete well in peace and war. I am not sure we can have the good without the bad coming along.
What I am sure of is that gun control laws only disarm the law-abiding. Many governments have predators running them, gun control laws work very well for them. The sheep and sheepdogs are disarmed, the wolves are free to wreak havoc without fear of immediate retribution (the only type that matters to most human wolves).
DJ, I'm sure people said that the violence in Northern Ireland would never end but it has. Why? Because someone there decided to dream for awhile, throw out some "crazy" notions, and presto: Peace! Call me an idealist but I think it could happen if we all starting believing it could...
Tweell, nice post and I completely agree with you about the US military. I have many friends and family in the service and have consequently met serveral others and they are all top notch in just about every way. I did meet a guy from the Army who thought it was his duty to shoot all Democrats but I don't think he was indicative of the military as a whole.
"Many governments have predators running them, gun control laws work very well for them"
We have predators running our executive branch right now. This statement is very wise and I am in complete agreement
Call me an idealist but I think it could happen if we all starting believing it could...
The key to that notion is "WE ALL". In all of recorded history, it hasn't happened yet. That's why I think it is more likely that pigs will fly.
There is a fine line between being an idealist and being a fool. Have you crossed that line, or do you realize that "WE ALL" aren't going to ALL start "believing it could ..."?
Well, I am the first one to admit that I have been a fool and done foolish things but in this particular case, I remain convinced that if we eliminated our culture of fear, there would be less criminal activity.
Check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid-Things/dp/0465014909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2155276-5802457?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175106000&sr=1-1
A lot of what I am talking about is in this book. I have taken Glassner's ideas a step further in saying that fear (and to a certain extent ignorance) breed crime.
Well, I am the first one to admit that I have been a fool and done foolish things but in this particular case, I remain convinced that if we eliminated our culture of fear, there would be less criminal activity.
So, if we stopped being afraid of crime, there would be less crime? Or, to say it in reverse, being afraid of crime is a cause of crime?
DJ,
I think you have misunderstood me. It is our culture of fear that creates criminals. It is our culture of greed that creates crime. Most crime is committed by desparate, irrational people who a direct result of our society. Of course, there are always going to be your Zodiac types but they are very, very few. Ask any policemen...it's not the boogeymen that gets you, it's your dad, your son, your brother, your aunt, your neighbor, your best friend...it's the people who are around you everyday and our society treats the common man like garbage and purposefully instills fear, insecurity and paranoia in them in the hopes that they will consume more goods.
Add it all together and you get loads of crime every year. If we can get people to have their basic needs met...see this link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.png
I think the threat of crime will diminish. Seriously, we have some people in our culture that aren't even at level one of this graphic. It's up to us to change that. The government certainly is not going to help so it has to start with the people.
Yup. I'm really pleased that I don't have any children for you to educate.
Uh, why exactly?
"It is our culture of fear that creates criminals ... If we can get people to have their basic needs met ... It's up to us to change that ..."
You're peddling a brand of snake oil that I'm not interested in.
Oops. That "anonymous" comment was mine. An alzheimers moment, perhaps?
I guess I'm confused as to why you think its snake oil but let me give a real world example of this.
From 1993-1997, I produced a series of training videos for the police departments of Minneapolis and Bloomington. I spend a lot of time shooting crime scenes and hanging around police. In those days, there was a lot of crime in the area, some of it violent, all of it in poor areas. I remember watching the local news reports on crime scenes that I was actually just at and there was a disconnect to what was being reported and what actually happened. Here's a shocker for you...the media exaggerated the crime all of the time. They created more fear to make the story more interesting than it actually was. The police I knew would crack up every time they saw one of these stories and shake their head. One of my police friends would always lament how our local media crated more crime by making a mountain out of mole hill.
As my time went on there, though, I started to notice crime going down. I started asking some cops I worked with why this was happening. They said it was because people were starting to find jobs, they were forced off the dole with the welfare reform of the 90s, and the police had done a better job of connecting with the community. So, people were starting to have their basic needs met and thus, there were less criminals. There was less fear and general insecurity over people's everyday lives.
Incidently, in my own suburb of Minneapolis, I have seen something similar. Three years ago we had a tremendous Somali gang problem. Rather than crack skulls on a daily basis, the police and one Hennepin County Sheriff (a good friend of mine, actually) decided to reach out to the Somali parents and create community events, mostly sports and gaming related, that would be of interest to their children, who were causing most of the problem.
Since that program was started, we hae seen the gang problem go away completely. What was really cool about this is that the local goverment was not really involved. It was the people...people of good will who want a better place to live who eliminated fear by creating a foundation of support.
So, I don't know where you live or how crime is in your area but people can make a difference.
And what do you do about the people who are not having their sadistic needs met unless they go out and mug/rob/assault people for kicks? Such people being very common, perhaps more common than your analysis accounts for.
Mark, take a peek at some of your statments that I've cherry-picked from the comments you made on this post:
---
I see our nation filled with paranoid, fearful individuals who have no business owning firearms. ... My comment was directed at Americans in general, gun owners or not.
The media itself creates much of the fear and paranoia that the American public have and that's just the way the powers that be want it. Keep people afraid and they buy more stuff i.e. they are better consumers.
Economically speaking, the way our culture is set up also creates an enormous amount of insecuirty thus leading to most criminal behavior.
American people in general,whether they are gun owners or not, are a fearful and paranoid lot.
I think that many, many people in this country are in a great deal of pain. They are in this pain because their basic emotional needs are not being met. Sometimes I think if we could eliminate some of this pain, violence in this country would drop dramatically.
If it were up to me, I would forget about gun control and focus on what are the root causes for people to feel the need to shoot or kill someone. Fix those first and then there won't be any need to control guns because it won't occur to people to shoot each other anymore.
I remain convinced that if we eliminated our culture of fear, there would be less criminal activity.
It is our culture of fear that creates criminals. It is our culture of greed that creates crime. Most crime is committed by desparate, irrational people who a direct result of our society.
... it's the people who are around you everyday and our society treats the common man like garbage and purposefully instills fear, insecurity and paranoia in them in the hopes that they will consume more goods.
If we can get people to have their basic needs met ...
Seriously, we have some people in our culture that aren't even at level one of this graphic. It's up to us to change that.
---
It reads like the slogan list from a socialist's wet dream.
I follow a different philosophy, to wit, that ...
... criminals are responsible for their own behavior. I am responsible for my behavior, and for no one else's.
... it is not my responsibility to make sure that everyone else has enough to eat, a roof to sleep under, and so on. I have such a responsibility to myself and to my family, but to no one else.
... that every living thing on this planet has an unfettered right to defend itself if it is attacked. The defender gives up no rights by defending and the attacker keeps no rights by attacking, as the attacker cannot logically claim to have rights of his own if he denies the rights of his victim.
... that crime happens largely because those who commit crimes see a benefit thereby, are not concerned with the rights of others, and generally are not bright enough to weight the benefits against the risks. This is true even of those who commit crimes but lack nothing personally in terms of survival, comfort, and security. To put it bluntly, some people are assholes, and no amount of social engineering will cure that.
... that guns are TOOLS, and perfectly respectable tools at that. Guns are particularly good tools to use in self-defense, as guns work well when used by most any defender against most any attacker.
... that to be ready to defend oneself is not evidence of fear, it is evidence of confidence, and of a mind-set that simply refuses to be a victim.
... that to be ready to defend oneself is not evidence of paranoia, it is evidence of pragmatic approach to the reality of living in society.
... that gun control laws are the products of power-hungry politicians in office, not of a population with emotional problems.
And, finally, I believe that "if we can get people to have their basic needs met" is a catch-phrase for income redistribution. It is a solution to NOTHING. Have a look at pre-hurricane New Orleans. A very large portion of the population thereof had its needs routinely met by the gubmint, meaning by taxes that I paid, and yet it was one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country. This notion is not a solution, it is rather a recipe for parasitism.
Happy Rampager,
Perhaps people like that are common in the city you live in but overall most violent crime is committed by someone you know, friend or more likely family memeber. Go to your local police station and ask them. They will tell you.
DJ,
I don't consider myself to be a socialist, capitalist, communist, or any other label that has been given a biased defintion by whichever country accepts one philosophy but not the other.
You are not responsible for a criminal's behavior but the society are a part of is partially responsible. You say you have a responsibility to yourself and family but no one else. So, do you have any friends that might need help from time to time? How about co-workers?
Yes, it's true. Some people are assholes. By a large percentage, however, those assholes will commit a crime to another asshole in their family. Or a close friend.
I would like to see some stats on the socio-economic status of violent criminals. Where would I find such information?
As far as New Oreleans is concerned, everything I have read says that it is an extremly poor city filled with corruput politicians who routinely steal city, state, and federal funds. Are those people really having their needs met?
I don't consider myself to be a socialist, capitalist, communist, or any other label that has been given a biased defintion by whichever country accepts one philosophy but not the other.
I don't quite understand that, but I wasn't pinning any labels on you. That might not be obvious, though. Your writings in these comments fit the "socialist" label to a remarkable degree, however, and such was the focus of my comments.
So, do you have any friends that might need help from time to time? How about co-workers?
Yup, I have both friends and family who have been in need at various times. I am generous to a fault and have helped them greatly. Being generous, i.e. being charitable, is not the same as being responsible for.
Yes, it's true. Some people are assholes. By a large percentage, however, those assholes will commit a crime to another asshole in their family. Or a close friend.
Or a total stranger. Or anyone who is handy.
I would like to see some stats on the socio-economic status of violent criminals. Where would I find such information?
You might find such information via the internet. Beats me; I've seen a few such stats over the years but I've never searched for them.
As far as New Oreleans is concerned, everything I have read says that it is an extremly poor city filled with corruput politicians who routinely steal city, state, and federal funds. Are those people really having their needs met?
Yes, most of them really were having their needs met. A very large portion of its population lived off the public teat. Their basic needs of food, shelter, and so on were being met by you and I through our taxes. Their response to a hurricane was to scream that the federal gubmint did not arrive immediately and make it all better the next day. The corruption of politicians there simply made it even less efficient and even more expensive, but it doesn't change the bottom line; these people believed, and so demonstrated in public repeatedly, that the gubmint owes them a living, without apparent regard or even thought as to how the gubmint gets the funds it gives. I described such behavior as parasitism because that description is accurate.
Perhaps people like that are common in the city you live in but overall most violent crime is committed by someone you know, friend or more likely family memeber. Go to your local police station and ask them. They will tell you.
My city? Try my country.
And also, you were telling us before about how rare sadistic and wantonly violent criminals are. When I indicate that such is not the case, and your assessment that sadistic criminals can be explained by reference to Maslow's heirachy of needs or whatever is in need of a little revision, you then say something about most violent crime being committed by family members/close relations...that's called 'changing the subject'.
I'm referring to an actual study that found that many if not most young criminals committed violent crimes because it was their idea of fun. That tends to show that your hypothesis of 'their needs not being met' is bunk, unless you admit that 'their needs' also includes 'their need to gratify themselves by making less violent people submit to their will'.
Do you have anything to say about that beyond the dismissive 'perhaps people like that are common in your city' (as if 'my city' was the exception to the rule as far as crime went)?
Well, of course I would like to see the study that says that most violent criminals are doing it just for kicks. Is it a national study? Or city by city?
Of course if every one was very happy and had all of their needs and wants met there would still be crime. It's true, some people are just plain psycho. But I submit to you that the media, which is much derided on this blog, exagerates that point to generate fear. The city that I live in has violent crime. The majority of it is gang related and they pretty much stick to shooting each other. Occasionally there are random acts of violence but for the most part they are rare.
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1089112.html
This proves my point. The conceal and carry law we have here did not raise or lower crime. Gun control advocates said the law would create a wild west show. It did not. Gun rights folks said crime would go down. It did not. It's not the guns. It's the people.
Ask yourselves this question: would you want to live in a country that has less violence? If it were within your power to decrease violence, would you help to do it? I am not talking about giving up your guns or giving money to the government for soical programs. Those tactics will not work.
I can safely say that I don't have all the answers but I think it starts with better understanding of why crime occurs, who is committing it, and what are proven methods for stopping it before it happenes.
The path to better understanding starts here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6194122.stm
'The (ESRC) report said previous attempts to explain violent street crime put too much focus on the desire for gain, and not enough on the aspect of "pleasure"',
Good article. Except what about this quote?
"This research should not send a wave of fear through society," he said. "The people interviewed have a background of multiple serious offences and should not be seen as a typical sample of those committing robbery.
And I would like to see some stats of crime in the US. The homicide rate in the UK is much lower than here. Why? If there are similiar stats in the US, do those people who commit crimes for kicks pick random people or do they pick on their family? Or friends? Or neighbors?
See, your whole reply smacks of wilful ignorance and grasping at straws. That cherry-picked quote doesn't justify you completely ignoring the matter of criminals commiting crimes as a means of amusement, and we're not just talking about robbery here, we're talking about those 'multiple serious offences' that our young criminals have committed. We're also talking about those 'lesser' anti-social offences that the little scroats are never caught for, or are even unreported, or that they only face ASBOs for, not jailing. The findings of the study explain them very well.
Though I'm sure there's a point to trying to reassure us about what robbers have gotten up to in the past and I'm sure you can elucidate this point for us.
Obviously this person you quoted realised what the study really does say about criminality - people who actually have experienced crime, or know people who've experience crime, know better than to be taken in by bilge like 'The people interviewed...should not be seen as a typical sample of those committing robbery' - probably he, like you, really wants to believe in the 'crime is caused by lacking' model, despite the report in question indicating that the model doesn't explain crime as well as he or you would like it to.
Also you dodged the question again, so it's getting slightly obvious now that you have some sort of bias that leads to you not really wanting to accept that criminals can't be bought off, that they'll keep committing crimes (as they do now) because hurting other people is fun for them. You have no answer to this, you have no answer to the problems they'll keep causing for people, so you try your best to avoid the matter entirely.
Rampager, you might want to see this article in today's Oklahoman, the daily newspaper of Oklahoma City:
http://www.newsok.com/article/3035676/
The same story appeared on the TV news last night, but with an additional comment. One of the arrested vandals stated, after he sobered up, that destroying mailboxes "seemed like a good idea at the time".
I wonder what he thinks now?
I recall a similar story some years ago. A co-worker (and good friend, too) was one of many victims of a mailbox basher who was only fifteen years old. The basher was convicted in juvenile court and ordered to make restitution. A police officer took him around to every victim (there were about 50 or so, as I recall), explained the court's order, and the kid asked each one, "How much will it cost to fix your mailbox?" He then paid, from his own money, whatever the victim told him it cost. Some victims stuck it to him and the final tally was over $8,000. It consumed the college fund his parents had set up for him.
What do ya s'pose these idiots lack? Not enough video games? Not enough Ipods? Or not enough discipline?
My God. Your idiots seem almost civilized, compared to the utterly heartless and depraved bastards I've met and others have met. What your idiots do to mailboxes, they do to people, and they stab kids for wanting to go to college.
Though I do believe that our native criminals aren't very much different from the crims who walk around your more urbanized areas.
Well, we have our share, too, but overall this is a damned fine place to live.
What question am I supposedly dodging? I think it is the one about criminals who commit crimes for the sport of it. Of course, there are people who do that but in the "pie of crime", what percentage are they?
That's the real question and it also brings together the two points that I am trying to make.
1. The majority of violent criminals commit crime against someone that is know to them.
2. Some of these same criminals and the more petty ones (robbery etc. )are largely of a lower socio-economic status.
If we, not the government, but we as human beings change the way our communities work by giving people some purpose in life, direction, education, higher wages etc...I believe that violent crime will go down. And much of the petty crime.
Will crime be elimintated all together? No, there are always going to be psychos. So, I have no issue if people still want to defend themselves in whatever way they see fit. But the great myth that is perpetuated by the media is that there are psychos around every corner coming to git us! And we better all be real scared!! Have you noticed that all of the major news staions devote hours and hours of programming "real" stories about criminals. Is that really news?
It's crap because, in the end, if you are a victim of violent crime it is more than likely a family member, friend, neighbor etc...
I hope that answers your question. If not, let me know.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>