Portland shooting

[BernardLanguillier]

My original intention was to point out some of the unique circumstances of the US as compared to, say, Japan and the UK. I lived in Japan myself for three years. Their per capita suicide rate was higher than our per capita murder rate at the time. Suicide by train was particularly common. That probably says something about the way Japanese people internalize their problems, whereas too many Americans externalize ours. But it doesn’t argue in favor of both countries having the same laws I think.

Nobody is denying the fact that there are important problems in other countries, such as Japan. The high suicide rate is a sad reality, but as sad as it is, a suicide is an act that doesn't affect other innocent by-standers (but we know of course that the emotional impact for the relatives is huge). You are seemingly saying that suicides in Japan are a natural consequence of the Japanese society and that gun killings is a natural consequence of the US society, but there is a very easy solution to the latter while the former is much more complex. There is nothing "natural" about free access to gun. It is absolutely not a logical and unavoidable consequence to the perceived "freedom" in the US.

The mention of insane people being the root cause of mass killings with weapons is not relevant. Until proven otherwise, there are as many insane people in the US as in other countries, yet the number of killing is much higher. So insanity is not a likely cause of the difference.

The mention of the number of casualities in car accident isn't relevant either. Yes, we need to strive to reduce that, but not using cars is not an option for many people and people sadly die in car accidents all over the world. Providing free availability to guns is definitely not something mandatory, or even useful, for the society. The obvious proof being that most countries do very well without guns, and, this being the point, much better than the US.

Guns are not a solution to a problem. They feel like a local solution to some gun owners, but the problem guns are a perceived solution to is, to a large extend, created globally by the very presence of those very guns. I would love this vicious circle if I were a gun manufacturer! I would like it so much that I would create an association lobbying for the free availability of guns. I would of course claim I am trying to help people defend themselves (and... amazingly... people would believe me), but my real goal would be the continuation of the vicious circle explained above.

The need to carry guns for some people in special areas where wildlife is a danger is understandable. But this should be tightly controlled and should only concern a few tens of thousand of citizens among 400 millions.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

Before a load of fascist-commie-atheist-muslim-liberal-pinko-homosexual-evolutionists, start trying to argue for the removal of the God-given right of all True Patriot Americans to own & openly carry machine guns, rocket launchers ...

I 'm all in favour of tasteful humour in some threads.
Not at all convinced that comments, such as the above, are appropriate when discussing something as tragic as this.

[Christopher Sanderson]

This thread will surely be locked at any moment...

Possibly but unlikely given the reasoned tone of the discussion.

I should point out however, that the use of irony can easily be misread - particularly by those who do not know you or whose mother tongue is not English. As to its appropriateness - I leave that to you.

[Misirlou]

You are seemingly saying that suicides in Japan are a natural consequence of the Japanese society and that gun killings is a natural consequence of the US society, but there is a very easy solution to the latter while the former is much more complex.

The mention of insane people being the root cause of mass killings with weapons is not relevant. Until proven otherwise, there are as many insane people in the US as in other countries, yet the number of killing is much higher. So insanity is not a likely cause of the difference.

The need to carry guns for some people in special areas where wildlife is a danger is understandable. But this should be tightly controlled and should only concern a few tens of thousand of citizens among 400 millions.

Cheers,
Bernard

No, I'm not saying that insane people are unique to the US. We have a particularly awful situation now where young men, having played thousands of hours of video games oriented around shooting people, and having seen endless hours of TV commentary about school shooting sprees ever since Columbine, have developed a national obsession with school shootings. If you're a miserable loner now, these things are constantly on your mind. That's a serious problem, and probably unique to the US.

Guns are not much more available now than they were fifty years ago. I grew up on a farm five miles from a small town. The family gun cabinet was in my bedroom, where my father stored, among other things, his M-1 carbine semi-automatic military rifle, and probably ten or so pistols. It never occurred to anyone that my brother or I would use the things to shoot people. We were both taught to shoot and hunt at about age five. Nothing unusual about that either. In my town, there was no school during the first week of deer hunting season, because most of the boys, and some of the girls, would be hunting with their families. Somehow, these student run amok school shootings just didn't happen in those days. Things have changed, and I don't believe it's the guns. Overall,our homicide rate has dropped steadily since the 1970s, but this teenage murder rampage got started at that time (See Bob Geldoff's Boomtown Rats song "I don't like Mondays").

You really think eliminating guns is "a very easy solution"? See mezzoduomo's comment. How would you propose to limit gun ownership to people who might travel to rural areas? I don't think that's an easy problem to work out either.

[Robert Roaldi]

As our gun laws have progressively loosened over the years there's been all the expected consternation, fear and loathing about the impending 'blood in the streets' that would surely be inevitable, and it simply has not come to pass. Yes, Gabby Giffords was shot in Tucson, and we certainly have tragic gun crime here, but all-in, I think I'll stay here and take my chances in the wild, wild west. Guns are part of our culture, and while some forum members might have a hard time believing it, most Americans are OK with that.

I can accept that. I'm not American (Canadian) and have no business telling you how to run your affairs, for much the same reasons that I don't want others telling us how to run Canada's affairs. Some might question your assertion that "Guns are part of our culture", but I guess if enough people believe that, then to that extent it's true.

But the question begs to be asked. Once you reach the point of having 74 school shootings in less than 2 years (just since Sandy Hook, although it's not clear from that article whether these were all looney-with-a-gun incidents), and once you feel the need to bring weapons into grocery stores or when running simple errands, doesn't that make you wonder if there aren't more deep-seated problems at play here that are not being addressed effectively by the current methods? Is it really a good idea to accept this as the new normal?

[Misirlou]

Are there Texan drug cartels?

Actually, yes, that's what we worry about now. The mayor and a few other city officials in a New Mexico border town were convicted a year or two ago of running guns to the cartels. The cartels are currently recruiting children all along the US side of the border to help them smuggle. I think the reason the cartels get away with their depredations in Mexico is because they can.

A week ago, the Mexican government decided to allow residents of one remote town to own guns, as they were insisting on the right to defend themselves against the drug gangs. It appears to be an experiment to see whether letting them have weapons would have prevented the cartels from taking over in the first place.

[Misirlou]

But the question begs to be asked. Once you reach the point of having 74 school shootings in less than 2 years (just since Sandy Hook, although it's not clear from that article whether these were all looney-with-a-gun incidents), and once you feel the need to bring weapons into grocery stores or when running simple errands, doesn't that make you wonder if there aren't more deep-seated problems at play here that are not being addressed effectively by the current methods? Is it really a good idea to accept this as the new normal?

I don't think any of us want this to be the new normal. I just dispute the assertion that it's simply due to private citizens being able to own guns. Some even believe that if ordinary citizens were suddenly deprived of the ability to fight back, the violence would explode, as it did in Mexico of late.

There are plenty of horrors to go around right now. Yesterday, a man in Vado, New Mexico decided to drive around looking for someone from whom to purchase heroin. He took his three year old son along for the ride. At some point, the boy unbelted himself from his car seat, and got out of the car. The father was unable to find drugs, and tried to drive away in great haste, running over and killing the boy as he left.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A 17-year-old St. Louis girl went out to her car to get something around 11p.m. Monday night (June 9th, 2014) when she was accosted by two armed men who held a gun to her head and ordered her to take them into her home.

One step back. Could it be that the availability of guns had something to do with it? Why would 2 men require a gun to over-power a girl?

Maybe home invasions and gunpoint rapes don't happen Norway or Belgium or other European countries, but they happen here, and the kind of defensive use of firearms described above also happens.

Indeed, gunpoint rapes are virtually non existing here. Wonder why ... Maybe a chicken and egg situation?

It's probably a result of conditioning, and presumably overexposure to 'reality shows' which tend to paint a one-sided image of society in general. This article may help to gain some insight.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

It's probably a result of conditioning, and presumably overexposure to 'reality shows' which tend to paint a one-sided image of society in general. This article may help to gain some insight.

Thanks for that linked article.

[BernardLanguillier]

No, I'm not saying that insane people are unique to the US. We have a particularly awful situation now where young men, having played thousands of hours of video games oriented around shooting people, and having seen endless hours of TV commentary about school shooting sprees ever since Columbine, have developed a national obsession with school shootings. If you're a miserable loner now, these things are constantly on your mind. That's a serious problem, and probably unique to the US.

Right... Japan didn't invent the Playstation and Nintendo is a company coming from outer space... there are no gaming addicts around in Tokyo and they also don't have access to satellite TVs, youtube,...

Irony aside, I totally agree with you that we live in societies that stress violence way too much (now, why is that... don't these media simply reflect the world some - at least one - country live in... a world full of guns?), but the key difference between the one country where this generates a large number of killing (the US) and the other ones is clearly, without the shadow of a doubt, the free availability of guns.

This should be easy to acknowledge. I have a hard time understanding why we can't get past this obvious fact and debate based on this common view. The free ability of guns in the US is the enabler of these killings. Putting it the other way, removing the possibility to access gun freely would fix those killings to a large extend. It is probably important to stress that I am not advocating the complete banning of weapons, but a strict control of their availability, just like we can buy some drugs in pharmacies with the prescription of a doctor.

Heck, why not amend the constitution further and make it possible to freely access drugs, remove speed limits because they are an obstacle to the great freedom of the West to drive your car at any speed you like?...

Now, a majority of citizens in the US may think it is OK to get those killings, just like we get road casualties (even with speed limits). They may see it as the price to pay for enjoying their gun ownership hobby.

But is that really the case?

All I am saying is that it would make sense to measure, through an open referendum, what % of the US population in each state is really in favor of free fun ownership. Why would this be a problem? You seem certain about the outcome, right? Easy, more than 66% of the population is against it? You ban it. Regardless of whether the remaining 33% have more money or are represented by powerful lobbies.

That would be a great democratic approach in my view. In fact, I fail to understand why any other approach can be called democratic.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Short of some dream-state America where all guns are miraculously vaporized overnight, we need to face the facts that that criminals really don't care about the laws to begin with. Like, for example, the laws against murder and assault. Poor, young black men are gunned down by the scores month after month in Chicago, its harsh gun laws notwithstanding. I'd like to see CNN cover that like they cover each and every 'school shooting'.

One of these recent sprees began with 3 killings by the blade, then a few by the gun, then additional deaths by motor vehicle. I for one can clearly see the common denominator.

Well, nobody ever said that it would be easy, but is that a reason for not starting?

By the way, when I traveled in the US, I don't remember being controlled at interstate borders. Is there an active effort to prevent vehicles loaded with guns from entering states where gun ownership/purchase is controlled? If there isn't, then one state allowing free gun accessibility would pretty much be sufficient to flood the whole country. So this would probably have to be a country level law, right?

This is currently enforced pretty strictly at the border of countries, although it is of course far from perfect.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the key difference between the one country where this generates a large number of killing (the US) and the other ones is clearly, without the shadow of a doubt, the free availability of guns.

This should be easy to acknowledge. I have a hard time understanding why we can't get past this obvious fact and debate based on this common view. The free ability of guns in the US is the enabler of these killings. Putting it the other way, removing the possibility to access gun freely would fix those killings to a large extend...

Obvious fact? To you, sure. To many others, especially here, it is just an opinion. Common view? Now you are departing from a "fact" to a "view," which is good, but common? Again, not here. Common outside the US? Probably.

The differences between countries can not be reduced ab absurdum to just one "key" factor. Country cultures come as a package, i.e., as a totality of factors, and you can not cherry pick from one and transplant it to another. Many Americans would like to eat cheese and drink wine like French, and be healthy and skinny like French, but alas... By the same token, you can't just take guns out of the equation in America and still have... America.

As noted before, Chicago had guns banned for decades until recently, yet has had some of the highest gun violence rates in the country. As noted before, drugs are prohibited universally across the States, yet anyone who wants them can get them. If you ban guns universally, across the whole USA, not just certain cities, there will be a black market, just like for drugs. Another example on an international level: many war-torn countries are under arms embargo, yet they get theirs "freely" on the black market. American tried to ban alcohol universally, didn't work.

Just for the record, I neither have a gun, nor want one. I am all for a tighter control, definitely for a ban on high-power, military-style guns. However, I do realize it is only my personal choice and preference, my opinion, and realize there are other opinions too. I do not think that when each side sticks to their guns (pardon the pun), without listening to each other, without taking into account different viewpoints, we are not going to make much progress.

[BernardLanguillier]

To the first bit: I would posit that its a key difference, but perhaps not the key difference, and probably not the causative difference.

OK, and what would those be?

What are these other factors unique to the US?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What are these other factors unique to the US...

As a European who moved to the States, I can tell you from my own perspective.

Most Europeans have some sort of serfdom in their genes. They see themselves as 'subjects' of their kings, queens or tsars. The authority they've accepted through millennia is of a divine kind. God in heaven, king on Earth. Millennia of authoritarian rule is in their blood. Today, it is their government who gives and takes away, permits and forbids.

America was born in direct repudiation to all of the above. The power belongs to the people first, some of which is then transferred to the government, which serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around. To bring it back to the gun issue, people had guns before they had government. This is why their government does not have the authority to take them away, cemented in the Constitution.

Thus, I did not find it strange at all when you used this phrase in one of your earlier posts in this thread:

Providing free availability to guns is definitely not something mandatory, or even useful, for the society.

That is a typical European attitude. Here, it is not that somebody (government) "provides" guns to the population. Again, the population had it before the government "decided" to "provide" it to them.

These are the unique factors.

IMHO, of course.

[Chairman Bill]

I 'm all in favour of tasteful humour in some threads.
Not at all convinced that comments, such as the above, are appropriate when discussing something as tragic as this.

I'm in favour of tasteless humour, specially when it pokes fun at the sort of arguments that regularly get trotted out to excuse a society, that manages to kill so many of its children, with oh so chilling regularity

[john beardsworth]

Rape is as irrelevant here as suicide rates, car accidents, and the Chicago factoid.

As you say, the difference is "the US is #1 in gun ownership rate by a wide margin". The US may only lie down at #28 in murder rate, but who is it rubbing shoulders with? Countries like Jamaica, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa. The European countries with the serf mentalities (I hope I'll soon stop laughing at that one!) or post-Imperial Japan and China are a long way down the list.

Gun ownership stats in comparable First World countries don't reflect the kinds of guns that can be owned. In countries with sensible gun control, you can't generally go out and buy semi-automatics, for example. You also have to be undeterred by compliance checks such as annual inspections - these even affect reproduction muskets of the type meant in the Second Amendment.

It's as self-evident as all men being created equal that gun availability is the problem - but I doubt the cork can ever go back in the bottle. Americans haven't got that serf mentality, have they, so they'll just stay free and make endless excuses for events like Newtown.

John

[Chairman Bill]

Most Europeans have some sort of serfdom in their genes. They see themselves as 'subjects' of their kings, queens or tsars. The authority they've accepted through millennia is of a divine kind. God in heaven, king on Earth. Millennia of authoritarian rule is in their blood.

You speak for yourself, Slobodan, it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor anyone else I know. Us Brits once chopped off a king's head, and the French chopped off lots of aristocratic craniums.

Today, it is their government who gives and takes away, permits and forbids.

Governments that we elect. The government came down hard on gun ownership after the Dunblane school killings, and it was public outcry that brought that about.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The suggestion above is that lots of societies stress violence, but the free availability of guns is the sole 'something' about the US that generates the killing. Wouldn't it necessarily follow that other countries where guns are available would then also be plagued by carnage? If not, then there's at least one additional 'something' at work in the US, or a missing 'something' in Finland, Greece, etc.

It is well established that there are lots of guns in peaceful (i.e., no tragic school shootings) European places like Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Czech Republic...even France.

Exactly. The availability of guns doesn't help to reduce the risk of someone using it inappropriately, but it's also another, deeper, cause that is at the root of the frequent carnage in the USA.

Check the attached overview of a number of European countries (first attachment). Apparently the above average concentration of firearms is in Scandinavian countries, i.e. Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. If we compare those, and a few other continents to the USA, we see that the USA does lead the pack, more than double, but not by an order of magnitude (see second attachment). So with everything else being the same, we would expect about double the number of casualties if availability alone were the cause.

See attachment 3. Apparently, with the exception of Finland, the average number of gun deaths in the USA is 5x as high as most others with already above average availability. Hmm, something is wrong with the availability hypothesis alone ...

Maybe it's the gang related crime that boosts those figures (which would be an interesting topic but hard to compare), so let's look at something else, accidents (one could also look at suicides). The fourth attachment shows there is apparently something odd going on in the USA, with 5x (yes, FIVE times) as many unintentional deaths compared to those Scandinavian gun slingers.

I'll leave it to you to peruse the very interesting http://www.gunpolicy.org/ website (from which the attached charts came), which allows to drill down much further into the specifics. Anyway, although availability plays a role, there does also seem to be a 'cultural component' that causes an abnormal number of deaths by firearms.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chairman Bill]

I suspect one major difference is the legislation, that in Europe tends to require firearms to be safely stored, usually locked away in a safe gun cabinet or similar. Add-in licensing, age-restrictions on ownership, and laws regarding the carriage of weapons. Firearms in Europe are for hunting & sport shooting, vermin control, and that's about it. In addition, in the US, the mindset for many people seems to be quite different - guns for personal protection & defence against a tyrannical government ('cos an AR15 will always stop a tyrannical Abrams MBT, or something).

[Ben Rubinstein]

I've never quite understood the 'tyrannical government' argument. The first thing a dictatorship is going to do is strip the citizens of their guns. Happened in Germany in '38 I believe. Those who hide and secret their arms away will be spread out, untrained, have practically no sources of ammunition resupply on what is essentially a huge island and hopelessly outclassed by regular military never mind that every shooter having different guns and different calibers of ammunition is a joke in a combat situation. Even then, um, didn't the last time the South try to gain independence from a government whose policies they disagreed with, go really badly? With fully mechanised arms and modern technology the militias and individuals would not stand a chance at being anything more than a nuisance to any government, lethal nuisance perhaps but nothing more. Similar to the resistance/terrorist forces in occupied territories of Europe during the past century.

To be honest I don't personally believe that guns are the problem. I work at present in a city (Jerusalem) where every street has people walking along with fully automatic assault rifles and many carry pistols. This is due to compulsory army service and the terrorist situation. Every school and mall has armed guards. Strangely enough the civil murders with firearms are almost non existent. My brother in law in Switzerland keeps his army assault weapon at home. So do most apparently. Still a lack of massacres. I don't think the guns are the problem. It's attitude to guns which is the issue. But heck what do I know, I've never been in the States and don't intend to be yet another patronising European armchair know it all comparing the US to countries with vastly different mentalities, education, histories and government control and most of all a tiny fraction of the population of the US.