Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Alan Goldhammer on March 24, 2018, 08:18:52 am
-
This week's The New Yorker has an interesting photojournalism article that features children with their guns: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/26/the-gun-owners-of-the-parkland-generation I post this not to incite various readers of the Coffee Corner but to point to an interesting set of images, a couple which I find troubling. Let's not start a flame war about the US Second Amendment but just take in the pictures for what they are (I hope that everyone can access them; I have a subscription to the magazine and do not know whether one needs one to open the link).
-
Which ones do you find "troubling," Alan?
-
... I post this not to incite various readers of the Coffee Corner..l
Lemme go make some popcorn ...
-
Which ones do you find "troubling," Alan?
most of the ones with semi-automatics. In a way they look like troubling Diane Arbus images.
-
Which ones do you think are not semi-automatic (other than the shotguns)?
-
Which ones do you think are not semi-automatic (other than the shotguns)?
Why are you trying to make this about guns? It was meant to be about the pictures, no?
-
You need to read the title, Oscar. It's about "children" and "guns."
-
This week's The New Yorker has an interesting photojournalism article that features children with their guns
The increasing reliance on digital distribution by "legacy" publications like The New Yorker is ushering in a new golden age of photojournalism. I suspect this is partly because arresting pictures attract readers to the publications' websites and partly because it's now much easier to publish photographs than it was in the print era. The New Yorker also offers a photo booth compilation (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth) of its picture essays. The Atlantic brands its frequent photo essays "In Focus." (https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/) And the New York Times' publishes a well-curated "Lens Blog" (https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2018) of photographs by its staff and contract shooters as well as selections from other publications.
-
Why are you trying to make this about guns? It was meant to be about the pictures, no?
Well, pics are pretty unremarkable. Broad daylight, frontal, point & shoot (no pun intended) style. Perhaps that's why Alan found it "troubling"? I would.
-
I was able to acces and view the imaes here in NL, no subscription required.
The images and persons depicted didn't really disturb me. Most looked like they do indeed observe safety measures and were probably taught responsible gunning. (Is that a correct word:gunning?). I believe if you learn about safety measures around any hobby or activity then it will help you in other activities or life in general, regardless of the inherent danger of the activity itself.
What i find far more troubling for example to view is part of an episode i saw on Discovery, which is about first-person view of some US military operations. At some point they have to deal with a severe injury. While they deal with it professionally, adequately, and promptly (unsurprisingly, since they probably wouldn't air failure), the impact on the soldiers is quite evident. And the calousness with which they handle their arms right after the incident seems something to ponder.
And i find it especially disturbing, because those people are the ones that potentially form a problem in the future. Highly and correctly trained individuals that lose grip on reality later in life because they suffer very impactful psychological trauma at some earlier stage.
Which brings us to these images: in howfar can we view a handful of what appear to be responsible teenagers as in any way representative of the collective teenage formative years of the current generation of kids?
-
Well, pics are pretty unremarkable. Broad daylight, frontal, point & shoot (no pun intended) style. Perhaps that's why Alan found it "troubling"? I would.
True, art it ain't.
-
Well, pics are pretty unremarkable. Broad daylight, frontal, point & shoot (no pun intended) style. Perhaps that's why Alan found it "troubling"? I would.
Much of Diane Arbus's work was in a similar style and is highly regarded.
-
Much of Diane Arbus's work was in a similar style and is highly regarded.
Yeah, but by whom?
Rob
-
The increasing reliance on digital distribution by "legacy" publications like The New Yorker is ushering in a new golden age of photojournalism. I suspect this is partly because arresting pictures attract readers to the publications' websites and partly because it's now much easier to publish photographs than it was in the print era. The New Yorker also offers a photo booth compilation (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth) of its picture essays. The Atlantic brands its frequent photo essays "In Focus." (https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/) And the New York Times' publishes a well-curated "Lens Blog" (https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2018) of photographs by its staff and contract shooters as well as selections from other publications.
Quite right. IIRC, the first photographs to appear in The New Yorker were those taken by Richard Avedon. It's good to see the Internet being used for photojournalistic purposes. The Washington Post had a nice set of the Mississippi River a couple of weeks ago (I should have posted the link at that time but we were in Oakland CA visiting our daughter): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/03/14/a-photographers-7200-mile-journey-following-americas-longest-river/?utm_term=.27b9b9b3f63b
-
Okay. I'll say it. Every one of those kids is handling his weapon correctly. It looks as if they're being well trained. Instead of "troubling" I'd call it encouraging. We need more people who understand guns and who are trained to handle them properly. At the moment we have loads of articles in our news media written by people who obviously haven't a clue about guns, but who pontificate about them in profound ignorance, ignorance that's immediately obvious to anyone actually familiar with the subject. I'd guess the editors of the New Yorker were sure they were terrifying their urban readers with these pictures, and in the vast number of cases I'm pretty sure they were right.
-
Yeah, but by whom?
Rob
There have been exhibitions of her work in major galleries and there are books of her work still in print. There was also the dreadful film starring Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. I'm not a fan but did go to the retrospective here in DC a number of years ago.
-
Most of the photos are of kids shooting skeet/trap with shotguns. A few of the others are kids with a target-type .22 pistol or rifle. In the Midwest, this is a family activity like riding snowmobiles, little league baseball, or riding on the bike trails. I.e., this is entirely normal and I've never heard of a single problem. When I was in the 6th grade, i.e. 11 years old, I was allowed to save my money and buy a .22 rifle. I would go out after school and shoot rabbits and squirrels for dinner on our farm. Other kids I knew did the same. Parents were relieved we weren't doing something harmful like smoking dope or cigarretes. I taught both my kids how to load and fire shotguns and .22 rifle/pistol when they were 12 years old, the year they were eligible for a hunting license. It's entirely normal here. And because there is a dad in the home involved with the kids, it doesn't cause problems. The article seems to be pretty balanced, and to be candid that surprised me.
Kent in SD
-
There have been exhibitions of her work in major galleries and there are books of her work still in print. There was also the dreadful film starring Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. I'm not a fan but did go to the retrospective here in DC a number of years ago.
That's a side-step; it does not qualify but simply confirms numbers.
;-)
-
Okay. I'll say it. Every one of those kids is handling his weapon correctly. It looks as if they're being well trained. Instead of "troubling" I'd call it encouraging. We need more people who understand guns and who are trained to handle them properly. At the moment we have loads of articles in our news media written by people who obviously haven't a clue about guns, but who pontificate about them in profound ignorance, ignorance that's immediately obvious to anyone actually familiar with the subject. I'd guess the editors of the New Yorker were sure they were terrifying their urban readers with these pictures, and in the vast number of cases I'm pretty sure they were right.
Yes, they are correctly handling the weapons. I have no issues with this and I think the accompanying text is value neutral (you might disagree). Pistol, shotgun and rifle shooting are all participatory sports at the Olympic Games level (I used to do a fare amount of skeet and trap shooting many years ago and enjoyed it; you might be surprised that I also did a lot of bird hunting which was very enjoyable and I cooked what I shot). 19 year old Virginia Thrasher won a gold medal in Rio two years ago. I'll go out on the tightrope to say I don't see the point about assault style rifles either for sporting or target use.
-
That's a side-step; it does not qualify but simply confirms numbers.
;-)
One might say the same thing about some of Helmut Newton's works of which I am a fan.
-
As near as I can tell, within Luminous Lanscape there is a kinda agreement as to what constitutes good, artsy photography. The photographs in the article don’t toe that line but are effective nonetheless.
The context is somewhere within the issue of whether children understand just how dangerous guns are. So in that context the photographs work well. The photographer succeeded in showing the inocence and naïveté of the children who probably don’t understand the real consequences of a bullet brutally ripping through a body.
I think both monochrome and careful lighting would have put a veil between the photographs and the viewer. The color of their skin effectively connects the fragility of the human body to the machine, gray indifference of the guns. These are not photographs to put up in a living room but to point out a weird dichotomy of our gun culture.
-
Much of Diane Arbus's work was in a similar style and is highly regarded.
Not for her photography, but for her subjects. Just like the posting of those kids' pictures here (and by The New Yorker) is not about photography.
-
... the innocence and naïveté of the children who probably don’t understand the real consequences of a bullet brutally ripping through a body...
Oh, but they do. That is why they are not shooting bodies, but paper and clay targets. It is like saying that kids in cooking classes don't understand the real consequences of a chef's knife brutally ripping through someone's heart.
-
If you hunt for meat, you understand the consequences of a bullet or shot. It is useful education for a young person of any age. It can get you past the "cool" blow 'em up you see on video games and movies. Instead you get down to the real consequences of the act.
-
The photographer succeeded in showing the inocence and naïveté of the children who probably don’t understand the real consequences of a bullet brutally ripping through a body.
I disagree. Most of them are from Montana, Texas, etc., and a couple of the photos are taken of kids out hunting. I used to skin and prepare all the game I shot for dinner, and I assume many if not most of these kids do the same. If they are farm/ranch kids they certainly do.
Kent in SD
-
Most of the photos are of kids shooting skeet/trap with shotguns. A few of the others are kids with a target-type .22 pistol or rifle. In the Midwest, this is a family activity like riding snowmobiles, little league baseball, or riding on the bike trails. I.e., this is entirely normal and I've never heard of a single problem. When I was in the 6th grade, i.e. 11 years old, I was allowed to save my money and buy a .22 rifle. I would go out after school and shoot rabbits and squirrels for dinner on our farm. Other kids I knew did the same. Parents were relieved we weren't doing something harmful like smoking dope or cigarretes. I taught both my kids how to load and fire shotguns and .22 rifle/pistol when they were 12 years old, the year they were eligible for a hunting license. It's entirely normal here. And because there is a dad in the home involved with the kids, it doesn't cause problems. The article seems to be pretty balanced, and to be candid that surprised me.
Kent in SD
Kent, you beat me by two years. My maternal grandfather, who by the way had been a prosecuting attorney, gave me my first rifle when I was 13. I was on the rifle team in high school, and for a couple months in 1947 I was the Michigan state junior smallbore champ -- until a better (or luckier) shooter came along. I'd often borrow a shotgun and hunt pheasants with my uncle, and I'd usually borrow a 30-06 and hunt deer in northern Michigan during deer season. Later on I handloaded for a variety of weapons, cast bullets for the 38 Combat Masterpiece I'd carried in Korea, and for my Ruger 44 Magnum, and was captain of the pistol team at Richards-Gebaur AFB the year before I went to Vietnam. I taught my four sons to shoot and handle weapons safely. All that was normal stuff in those days. After I returned in 1965 I sold my guns and haven't had one since.
But the main point, and you made it, is that in those days most people had guns but none of the crap that's going on now happened. I think it partly was because people knew that other people had guns in their homes, and schools weren't gun-free zones. Plenty of principals had weapons secured in their offices. But more importantly the whole moral environment was different.
-
Which ones do you find "troubling," Alan?
I would say half of them, the half where the gun is pointed up into the air (aside from the shotguns). Who taught these kids gun safety; never point a gun into the air unless you are ready to shoot. At least none of them have their finger on the trigger.
-
i would say the photographer "posed" them to elicit an emotional response, not to demonstrate handling guns safely. The "Rambo" poses illustrate that.
-
Does anybody else find it ironic that kids today are protesting guns, NRA, grownups, politicians, Congress, anybody... but themselves. After all, it is kids, their schoolmates, who are shooting other kids. It is kids who are forming cliques, mercilessly mocking others who are not fitting in, bullying, physically and in social media. All this talk about diversity and inclusion... and yet there is zero tolerance for being different.
-
. . .never point a gun into the air unless you are ready to shoot.
Right, Joe. Point it at your foot.
-
But the main point, and you made it, is that in those days most people had guns but none of the crap that's going on now happened. I think it partly was because people knew that other people had guns in their homes, and schools weren't gun-free zones.
In the high schools around here many kids in the rural areas keep a 12 ga. shotgun in their car/truck and will go pheasant hunting with friends after school. I'm going to stray a bit from topic, but I honestly think the biggest difference between when I was growing up and now is I grew up with a dad in the home who was involved with his family. My own kids had their dark & scary moments when they were teenagers, and I was able to handle it. I locked up all guns in the house, removed key parts (trigger, bolt) and hid them in the attic, and ammo was kept locked in the trunk of my car while the kids got professional counseling. I don't see any way my wife could have handled those moody boys by herself, and it could have been a problem. And THAT is what I think the real problem is now.
Kent in SD
-
Does anybody else find it ironic that kids today are protesting guns, NRA, grownups, politicians, Congress, anybody... but themselves. After all, it is kids, their schoolmates, who are shooting other kids. It is kids who are forming cliques, mercilessly mocking others who are not fitting in, bullying, physically and in social media. All this talk about diversity and inclusion... and yet there is zero tolerance for being different.
Nothing new there. What is different is kids are able to act on their impulses and cause more harm to others, including their schoolmates. The magnitude has changed.
Now they are crying out for responsible control to limit the risk.
i grew up with kids that brought guns and explosives to school, not to mention drugs and other things. Things that happened were one on one until the bombings started. Fortunately, a quarter stick of dynamite or a pipe bomb can only do so much harm in a metal locker.
-
Oh, but they do. That is why they are not shooting bodies, but paper and clay targets. It is like saying that kids in cooking classes don't understand the real consequences of a chef's knife brutally ripping through someone's heart.
Do you believe any of these kids would not have been traumatized by being in one of the emergency hospital rooms during the night of the Las Vegas shooting? Not as a victim but as a fly on a shoulder of one of the attending doctors. Or perhaps having to take care, without adult supervision, the victims of that shooting.
As adults we protect children from as much savagery of the world as we can, and rightly so. Using clay and paper targets is one way, but a gun replaces the naturally intuited bodily force needed to harm with the simple, non-difficult and disconnected effort of pulling a trigger.
-
Right, but guns, explosives, kids and their impulses, existed for 200+ years in this country, without mass shootings. What has changed? Morality?
-
perhaps, on average, how we raise our kids and the social environment they grow up in. And access to materials and devices.
-
I think the underlying problem is television. I've been around since that pestilence began and I've watched it envelop the world. To get viewers the damned thing has to be exciting, and killings look exciting -- as long as you're not personally involved in them. To a kid, killing somebody with a gun looks like a game.
-
Right, Joe. Point it at your foot.
Better yet, the ground.
Lets not forget that the horizontal momentum of a bullet is not effected by gravity. Thus if you angle the gun enough towards the ground, even minimally, the lateral velocity of the bullet will still be fast enough to penetrate flesh. Although you may think it is safe to point a gun up, it is not.
There have been several instances of someone shooting a gun into the air, purposely or accidentally, and killing someone several yard away. In some cases, so far that no one around the person who was killed even heard the gun.
-
I generally keep all guns muzzle up when I'm out. Partly that's because the ground is often frozen hard and bullets are likely to ricochet, and partly because I don't want to chance getting the barrel packed with mud and then have it explode. Since I'm covering lots of ground when antelope hunting, rifle is usually shouldered on a sling anyway.
Kent in SD
-
One might say the same thing about some of Helmut Newton's works of which I am a fan.
That's a bit contrary, too. Helmut was into fashion and obsessed, by his own account, with the decadence of a certain level of wealthy Berlin society, an obsession that informed a great deal of his life's work. (His tenure with British Vogue was relatively brief, and I suspect that it was due to the different cultures of London and Paris, with Paris far more welcoming to his ways. God knows how he got on in Australia!)
Apparently, he came from that level of German society, and so it's not odd that it called out to him even after the family and it's fortunes were destroyed due to the intellectual cancer going down in that country and elsewhere. If there is a positive side to persecution, it's that it spread the Jewish diaspora far and wide, giving places such as the States a wealth of artistic talent it might never otherwise have managed to cultivate.
I have often wondered about the unusual level of artistic ability with the Jewish community; perhaps it's a part of being the so-called chosen people or, more prosaically, the result of hard work and hangin' in together, much as the Italians were once wont to do. Either way, it works well!
But regardless, unlike Arbus, Newton had an eye for beauty and sophistication (not something that I think anyone would accuse Arbus of harbouring!) even - or especially - in strange circumstances. I enjoy his work too, but never bought a monograph of his until Sumo. I would never buy Arbus.
Rob
-
Right, but guns, explosives, kids and their impulses, existed for 200+ years in this country, without mass shootings. What has changed? Morality?
pistols used to be revolvers that only fired 5-6 shots before they had to be manually reloaded. Growing up the police in San Diego carried S&W revolvers. Now everyone has access to Glocks with magazines that are easy to swap out. Sporting rifles fired few rounds before they had to be reloaded. The semi-automatic assault rifles can be used with high capacity magazines that are also easily swapped out. I've seen YouTube videos that show even without a bump stock one can get off a lot of rounds in a short period of time. I don't know when the assault weapons became popular but prior to that it would be difficult to carry out a mass shooting without having multiple weapons.
-
I think the underlying problem is television. I've been around since that pestilence began and I've watched it envelop the world. To get viewers the damned thing has to be exciting, and killings look exciting -- as long as you're not personally involved in them. To a kid, killing somebody with a gun looks like a game.
Not so much television but rather the first person shooter video games. I got a free game several years ago when I built my new workstation; it came with the graphic card. It was Metro: Last Light which is set in the dystopian future and was really quite violent with lots of different kinds of weapons. I played it through to the end just to see what it was like. The graphics were great and the violence was mighty. I've not been tempted by any game since that time.
I also don't by the TV thing as movies were violent since almost the beginning with lots of gangster as well as cowboy/Indian killlings. TV just picked up on this
-
I generally keep all guns muzzle up when I'm out. Partly that's because the ground is often frozen hard and bullets are likely to ricochet, and partly because I don't want to chance getting the barrel packed with mud and then have it explode. Since I'm covering lots of ground when antelope hunting, rifle is usually shouldered on a sling anyway.
Kent in SD
I was only a field bird shooter in the day and had a nice Beretta over/under. I always carried it split over my shoulder so it would never be able to fire. My pacifist wife made me sell it when we were married which was OK as hunting opportunities were few and there were very few skeet ranges around.
-
I understand that kids out on some huge farms, with few other homes in sight/range can be relatively safe with guns of some types, but accidents always can happen to the best of us. A shotgun doesn't have that much range, but at close quarters it can probably destroy a door or make a wide hole through your tummy.
I believe that a pistol makes sense as home defence, but carrying one outwith the boundaries of your home looks like being a good reason for losing your licence, at least. As for guns that shoot multiple rounds in seconds, how on Earth can anyone not in a war justify possession? You wouldn't hunt with one, would you? Maybe some would - improve their chances against a deer or a wolf? Or how about a bear? Being quite big and bulky, one might actually hit it.
The news often shows pictures of guys wearing towels on their heads standing still and shooting up into the air. I have never seen one falling down due to his action. Maybe falling bullets burn out, just like a rocket on reentry. (Joke. Probably a feeble one.) Perhaps somebody falls down out of sight. I was going to say out of shot, but thought better of it.
How any law can remove the millions of guns already out there, I don't know; it probably can't. But, that would not imply that carrying those weapons around with you should not carry a severe punishment if you get caught, whether using it or not: possession could facilitate removal, of at least the ones so discovered, from off the streets. Not making any more for sale outwith military controls is a great start, if you think it matters whether folks get killed by guns or not.
There's a not so subtle difference between home defence and carrying weapons in public.
I'm sure nobody wants to stop people enjoying target practice etc. but hey, not in public where somebody else can get killed.
Rob
-
pistols used to be revolvers that only fired 5-6 shots before they had to be manually reloaded. Growing up the police in San Diego carried S&W revolvers. Now everyone has access to Glocks with magazines that are easy to swap out. Sporting rifles fired few rounds before they had to be reloaded. The semi-automatic assault rifles can be used with high capacity magazines that are also easily swapped out. I've seen YouTube videos that show even without a bump stock one can get off a lot of rounds in a short period of time. I don't know when the assault weapons became popular but prior to that it would be difficult to carry out a mass shooting without having multiple weapons.
What do you think an "assault rifle" is, Alan? Please describe it.
The standard 1911, 45 caliber pistol, which was a military standard, and which by choice I carried in Vietnam and was widely available was/is a semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine. You can carry an array of magazines. Swapping an empty one for a full one is a three or four-second job if you know what you're doing.
-
Rob,
We are licensed to carry, concealed or openly (they are different) depending on the state.
Many pick up trucks have a rack added behind the seat, in the window, for holding rifles and shotguns....although in many cases it is only an umbrella. ;D
Perhaps it goes back to when we forcefully, with the help of France and others, separated from the Crown. If we had not the rifles then as part of life, it may never have happened, except perhaps by the way of India. That plus the necessity of being able to feed and defend oneself during the western expansion, created an ethos that stands 'til even today.
They are looked at as necessary tools, not a means to react to perceived slights. That has been lost with the change to an urban population.
-
The TV per sé wasn't the problem, but i'm fairly certain the story telling is. The previous generation read books. The stories help to form your character. Imagine next TV: about 90% of the stories is about revenge. The initial deed that needs retribution ever more horrific. The revenge similarly so.
Now imagine videogames with again 90% the same theme and a first-person world view to ensure you can fully experience the sweet taste of revenge.
And then you enter high-school and somehow feel mistreated. Clearly then you have the emotional bagage and maturity to make a sound decision what to do about it.
-
Rob,
We are licensed to carry, concealed or openly (they are different) depending on the state.
Many pick up trucks have a rack added behind the seat, in the window, for holding rifles and shotguns....although in many cases it is only an umbrella. ;D
Perhaps it goes back to when we forcefully, with the help of France and others, separated from the Crown. If we had not the rifles then as part of life, it may never have happened, except perhaps by the way of India. That plus the necessity of being able to feed and defend oneself during the western expansion, created an ethos that stands 'til even today.
They are looked at as necessary tools, not a means to react to perceived slights. That has been lost with the change to an urban population.
Yes, some states do permit carrying, but that should not be thought as written in stone; that's where legislation could make at least an attempt at a start to the ending of the tragedies.
True, urban populations look at life differently, but if anything, that makes the matter even more pressing as people increasingly move away from the country to the cities.
Independence battles are one thing, and laws drawn up in an era when folks poured powder and shot down barrels do not make a lot of sense today. I'm pretty sure no legislator of the day would have suggested folks have an eternal right to bear arms if they'd known what weaponry was coming down the line. But then, did a gun lobby exist in those days, too?
Rob
-
I distinctly remember this was supposed to be about pictures
-
Independence battles are one thing, and laws drawn up in an era when folks poured powder and shot down barrels do not make a lot of sense today.
Rob
And that is the crux of the matter. It is enshrined in the amendments to our constitution that requires 3/4 of the states to approve a change ( if i remember my government class correctly). They can be regulated up to the point where the regulation would interfere with the right to bear arms.
-
Back to the OP about children and guns.
Here is the Reuters photo reportage with 40 pictures from the anti-gun demonstrations:
https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/pictures-report-idUSRTX5B5A0
-
The TV per sé wasn't the problem, but i'm fairly certain the story telling is. The previous generation read books. The stories help to form your character. Imagine next TV: about 90% of the stories is about revenge. The initial deed that needs retribution ever more horrific. The revenge similarly so.
Now imagine videogames with again 90% the same theme and a first-person world view to ensure you can fully experience the sweet taste of revenge.
And then you enter high-school and somehow feel mistreated. Clearly then you have the emotional bagage and maturity to make a sound decision what to do about it.
Well said, Oscar. And I'd agree with you except for this: As you say, the generation prior to TV read books. I'm part of that generation. The essential thing about books is that a book is just a book. It doesn't require the publisher to fill hours and hours of air time with stuff that'll draw viewers. I remember the stuff that was on TV in the beginning. One of the most violent things on there was "Have Gun, Will Travel." I watched it every week. Beyond that was stuff like Ed Sullivan showing off that shocking kid, Elvis. In the beginning it was all pretty tame.
When all this was getting under way I was stationed in Great Falls, Montana. I had a friend who had a friend who was the news guy on the only local TV station. The three of us used to go pheasant hunting together. We could get permission to go onto any ranch in the area and hunt. As soon as the owner opened the door and saw the TV guy we were in like Flynn.
But the need to draw viewers changed the nature of the beast. I watched it happen, and then, about ten years ago stopped watching TV altogether. It just got more and more violent and crappier and crappier. For a long time I didn't think it could get any worse, but I always was wrong. My wife watches it when she's cooking, and I can see the same process is still going on.
According to what I can get on Google, the average US adult watching time on TV is five hours and four minutes a day. It's more for teen-agers, and growing. Did you used to spend five hours and four minutes a day reading violent crap?
See a problem?
-
What do you think an "assault rifle" is, Alan? Please describe it.
The standard 1911, 45 caliber pistol, which was a military standard, and which by choice I carried in Vietnam and was widely available was/is a semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine. You can carry an array of magazines. Swapping an empty one for a full one is a three or four-second job if you know what you're doing.
Would the Las Vegas shooting had been as tragic had the shooter used some 45s? Even hunting rifles would not have caused that carnage.
I’m not an expert on guns, but except for the shotguns, there didn’t seem to be a traditional hunting rifle used by those kids.
-
What do you think an "assault rifle" is, Alan? Please describe it.
The standard 1911, 45 caliber pistol, which was a military standard, and which by choice I carried in Vietnam and was widely available was/is a semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine. You can carry an array of magazines. Swapping an empty one for a full one is a three or four-second job if you know what you're doing.
I don't know why you are asking about the definition of assault rifle, I think the term is pretty well understood but here goes anyway, "...any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire..." At the time the 2nd Amendment was written the typical musket could fire only one round before reloading and a good rifleman might be able to get off three rounds in one minute. Muzzle velocity was 1000 feet/sec with an effective range of 50 meters. The AR-15 has a 30 bullet magazine with an effective fire rate of 45 rounds per minute in semi-automatic mode with a muzzle velocity of 3260 feet/sec and an effective range of 550 meters. I wonder what the founding fathers would make of the advance in weaponry.
Regarding your second point, I only note that during the time I lived in California both local police and highway patrol carried revolvers and not magazine loaded pistols of the type you mention. I don't know when the newer model of weapon became standard police issue.
-
Would the Las Vegas shooting had been as tragic had the shooter used some 45s? Even hunting rifles would not have caused that carnage.
Probably not, but it would have been a lot worse if he had parked a propane truck along the curb there and detonated it with explosives.
Kent in SD
-
Would the Las Vegas shooting had been as tragic had the shooter used some 45s? Even hunting rifles would not have caused that carnage.
I’m not an expert on guns, but except for the shotguns, there didn’t seem to be a traditional hunting rifle used by those kids.
The shooter was approximately 365 meters from the crowd. Most handguns that I am aware of only have a 50 meter range. An AR-15 depending on the type of ammunition has a range of 400-700 meters. Sniper rifles with appropriate ammunition have a very long range but require careful sighting and I'm unsure whether semi-automatic sniper rifles exist.
-
Probably not, but it would have been a lot worse if he had parked a propane truck along the curb there and detonated it with explosives.
Kent in SD
A propane truck would look out of place at a concert venue and I believe these are heavily regulated by DOT so it is a real stretch to think that this would happen.
-
The shooter was approximately 365 meters from the crowd. Most handguns that I am aware of only have a 50 meter range. An AR-15 depending on the type of ammunition has a range of 400-700 meters. Sniper rifles with appropriate ammunition have a very long range but require careful sighting and I'm unsure whether semi-automatic sniper rifles exist.
Although the original discussion has taken a tangent (with my help,) I appreciate your posting the link to the photo article. It is interesting. Thanks.
-
1. I believe that a pistol makes sense as home defence,
2. but carrying one outwith the boundaries of your home looks like being a good reason for losing your licence, at least.
3.As for guns that shoot multiple rounds in seconds, how on Earth can anyone not in a war justify possession? You wouldn't hunt with one, would you? Maybe some would - improve their chances against a deer or a wolf? Or how about a bear? Being quite big and bulky, one might actually hit it.
4. The news often shows pictures of guys wearing towels on their heads standing still and shooting up into the air. I have never seen one falling down due to his action.
5. How any law can remove the millions of guns already out there, I don't know; it probably can't.
I'm sure nobody wants to stop people enjoying target practice etc. but hey, not in public where somebody else can get killed.
Rob
1. I have a small sized shotgun (20 ga.) for that. Kept unloaded, but with four rounds of medium powered birdshot hidden nearby. I once shot a coyote ten feet away with that combo, and it tore it in half. Birdshot is less likely to penetrate walls, and aim is less critical.
2. I actually have a license to carry concealed pistol, but have yet to do it. I photo at night a lot and am mostly afraid of mountain lions. Lately there's been an uptick in robberies/assaults carried out by meth addicts too. My strategy has always been to wear black and disappear into the shadows when sketchy charecters turn up, but if I'm ever actually attacked I would not hesitate to turn the tables with my little Sig .380 pistol. Police are often an hour away out here, and there isn't even cell phone coverage in many places. I'm on my own and take precautions. I always have a razor sharp Swiss Army knife with me, but have only needed the screwdriver bits on it.
3. People do hunt with them in the West. I've hunted problem coyotes on a sheep farm a few times, and I know they are popular for hunting in Alaska. I think they use them because of quick follow up shots, and they are lightweight. Most of these guns are .223 rounds which are low powered though. I've hunted deer with mine (a Ruger Mini-14) but greatly prefer the .30-06. Don't have to track an animal hit with that.
4. I asked my physics professor about that once. Here's the deal--the projectile goes up very quickly, reaches apogee, and then returns solely propelled by gravity. It will only go as fast as the speed of gravity, which is dramatically slower than the 3,000 feet per second muzzle velocity. While not harmless, a bullet coming straight down has nowhere near the kinetic energy as one being propelled by the initial explosion.
5. No one I know will ever surrender their semi-automatic rifles, no matter what the penalty. They will simply hide them well. There is pretty massive distrust at the moment of central government, as well as a realization that in times of turmoil (LA riots, NOLA riots, etc.) there are too few police to protect you.
Kent in SD
-
I'm unsure whether semi-automatic sniper rifles exist.
They certainly do. The one preferred by the military can punch a hole through a car's engine. One of my friend's has one and shoots prairie dogs with it, of all things.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/759446278
Kent in SD
-
A propane truck would look out of place at a concert venue and I believe these are heavily regulated by DOT so it is a real stretch to think that this would happen.
How about a minivan with a propane tank inside it, of the sort you see in the yards at many farmhouses? Or, a propane truck repainted and disguised to look like a septic tank cleaning truck?
Kent in SD
-
Probably not, but it would have been a lot worse if he had parked a propane truck along the curb there and detonated it with explosives.
Kent in SD
Actually, probably not. Immediate ignition would have been a fireball. Sure some fatalities in the immediate vicinity from the flash fire and more from the fireball radiation. He would have had to rupture a connection on it or punch a hole in the side, let the cryo LPG flow and form a large pancake cloud and then light it off. Something similar happened to a LPG tanker in France one year. They overfilled it and thermal expansion from solar heating ripped it apart just as it was passing a campground a few meters below. Needless to say everything in the campground burned.
-
This week's The New Yorker has an interesting photojournalism article that features children with their guns: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/26/the-gun-owners-of-the-parkland-generation
I found this interesting from the article: (emphases mine)
With gun-advocacy groups investing heavily in youth recruitment and manufacturers catering to an emerging children’s market, the shooting sports are gaining in popularity. (Before Nikolas Cruz was expelled from Stoneman Douglas, he was a member of a varsity riflery team that benefitted from a ten-thousand-dollar grant from the National Rifle Association.)
So, Cruz benefited from a grant from the NRA...
Hum...
I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment (although it's not what the NRA likes to think it is) but I do have a problem with the following people who have guns; crazies, drunks, addicts, domestic abusers, criminals and anybody else who represents a danger to society. Figure out a way that those people won't have guns and I'm ok with regular people who may like to hunt or shoot for recreation having guns as long as they are well trained an licensed and have passed a background check. However, high capacity mags and bump stocks and "assault rifles" should only be in the hands of the military and police...it really sucks when the police are outgunned by the criminals.
-
Please people! Timothy McVeigh called... wants his truck back.
-
I actually know a lot about guns. I've had them around since I was a kid, I was in the military, I belong to a rifle range, was a long-time hunter (though I quit a few years ago.) With a few exceptions, most gun-range sports (target shooting) can be practiced with low-energy, low-rate-of-fire weapons. The exceptions would mostly be combat simulations. But why protect those sports in which the very purpose is to simulate killing others?
Some gun sports, like hunting, require heavier weapons -- but not high rate-of-fire weapons. It's a hunting truism (and I was a hunter for decades) that if you have to fire more than twice, you're almost certainly going to miss the target that you missed the first two times, and worse, you've probably shooting in haste, which is when you hit unintended targets, like other hunters. There are exceptions, of course, but most ethical hunters don't take multiple shots at a single target.
But here is a "constitutionalist" argument about guns -- the framers of the constitution didn't care about shooting sports. The reasons the people should be armed was for the very reason that they might be necessary to create an effective militia, whose purpose would be to kill people. In other words,what the framers were really protecting was the 18th-Century assault rifle.
But that's not all they did -- they also gave the government to regulate the militia. The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Therefore, the federal government has the full right to regulate their militia. If I were king of the US, I would say that the potential militia man must arm himself with a .308 bolt-action rifle, and furthermore, must report for a month of physical training each year: essentially, a month of Marine Corp physical training under the eye of Marine drill instructors. That should thin the militia herd considerably.
As far as the photos were concerned, I think they deliberately cast a lot of the photos with that kind of here-but-crazy look that Arbus specialized in. I started shooting when I was a kid, on an Iowa acreage, under close supervision of my father and an uncle. Do you see any adult supervisors in those photos? I think if you did, they would be much less unsettling. It's the small-child with big-gun vibe that makes you nervous.
-
But the main point, and you made it, is that in those days most people had guns but none of the crap that's going on now happened. I think it partly was because people knew that other people had guns in their homes, and schools weren't gun-free zones. Plenty of principals had weapons secured in their offices. But more importantly the whole moral environment was different.
I think you're missing the biggest component. Population. The US had only 40% of the current population in 1943 and it was far less urbanised. Not only has the population more than doubled, in the cities and urban areas that's much higher. Also, about 1/3 guns per person back then compared to more then 1/1 as there is now. Those two combinations, I would suggest, have a significant impact on the issue.
-
Nice said, John.
-
As far as the photos were concerned, I think they deliberately cast a lot of the photos with that kind of here-but-crazy look that Arbus specialized in. I started shooting when I was a kid, on an Iowa acreage, under close supervision of my father and an uncle. Do you see any adult supervisors in those photos? I think if you did, they would be much less unsettling. It's the small-child with big-gun vibe that makes you nervous.
Interesting. I don’t see that at all, though some of the boys may be posturing a bit. Still, it is clear from the text that the parents were concerned about how the photographer might present their children. To me, the kids seem innocuous and naive just as they should be. Also, the kids seem more like proxies of the unseen adults that must surely be just out of sight of the camera.
-
How about a minivan with a propane tank inside it, of the sort you see in the yards at many farmhouses? Or, a propane truck repainted and disguised to look like a septic tank cleaning truck?
Kent in SD
both those scenarios would be a violation of DOT regulations. Those who sell propane have to keep extensive records and would not sell this kinds of amounts to someone with a mobile tank or one that was not labeled appropriately. Even large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer are controlled these days.
-
Please people! Timothy McVeigh called... wants his truck back.
now that would be a miracle!!
-
both those scenarios would be a violation of DOT regulations. Those who sell propane have to keep extensive records and would not sell this kinds of amounts to someone with a mobile tank or one that was not labeled appropriately. Even large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer are controlled these days.
irrespective of DOT, there is not the energy density or specific impulse in propane (or any other ordinary liquid hydrocarbon) that would generate significant blast. That's why some have used ammonium nitrate/hydrocarbon mix for that purpose.
And McVeigh didn't give a rats about DOT.
-
I think I may have discovered a reason why some young Americans have problems interacting with the opposite sex, and find themselves embroiled in accusations of rape and other politically incorrect actions (and if anything is incorrect, it must be rape).
Can you imagine dating that girl with the three-weapon superiority over you? Can you imagine the fear if you suddenly find yorself not in love as you'd imagined yourself to be? How do you react? Do you tell her, and risk being shot in three different ways whilst she's chasing you across a field or down a road? Think of it: seventeen years old, all those hormones (and pride and self-esteem questions) running riot, and three different ways of breaking your balls as well as the rest of you. Wow! No wonder shrinks make a lot of money.
They say Ferraris and Lambos are but penis extensions; what, for a girl, is a multi-shot, military-grade gun?
Rob
-
800,000 people took part in the Washington March for Lives which trumps the Trump's inauguration crowd size.
And that's not counting the participants in other US cities and other countries in the March For Lives solidarity demonstrations.
-
And what, exactly, is the "march's" solution to the problem? Oh, and the marchers left all their trash behind. That doesn't seem like a solution.
-
And what, exactly, is the "march's" solution to the problem?
Mobilization of voters for the upcoming elections?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The right to bear arms is a funny thing. When back in the 1960s, the Black Panthers called themselves a militia and turned up carrying weapons, nobody like it much.
There is an interesting discussion of the NRA and its political lobbying efforts on this Radiolab podcast. I suspect that not many people know the history. http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show/ (http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show/).
It's too bad that the CDC is prevented from doing research on gun violence. It would be interesting to test the idea that people successfully use them in self-defence. You would think (hope) that proponents would welcome the opportunity.
-
Mobilization of voters for the upcoming elections?
Cheers,
Bart
Yes.
-
It's too bad that the CDC is prevented from doing research on gun violence. It would be interesting to test the idea that people successfully use them in self-defence. You would think (hope) that proponents would welcome the opportunity.
The recently passed budget legislation removed the prohibition against the CDC carrying out research on gun violence. Whether they have funds to do so is an open question.
-
They certainly do. The one preferred by the military can punch a hole through a car's engine. One of my friend's has one and shoots prairie dogs with it, of all things.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/759446278
Kent in SD
I did not do a comprehensive look up of all the listed sniper rifles, but the 12 I did look up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sniper_rifles are all bolt action. they may have detachable magazines but they require the shooter to manually chamber a new round after firing.
-
It's too bad that the CDC is prevented from doing research on gun violence. It would be interesting to test the idea that people successfully use them in self-defence. You would think (hope) that proponents would welcome the opportunity.
There may be a reason why research on gun-violence is avoided. And then there is this food for thought:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/during-nra-conventions-gun-injuries-drop-20-nationwide-63-in-hosting-state/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/during-nra-conventions-gun-injuries-drop-20-nationwide-63-in-hosting-state/)
A bit hard to capture in an image, so maybe too much off topic, although better than dead kids.
Cheers,
Bart
-
To get back to the original post, I suspect the New Yorker gathered these pictures hoping to panic people who are ignorant about firearms. I also suspect whoever made the pictures didn't know anything about the subject because, for the most part, the kids are handling the guns correctly. I'd bark at a couple if I were training them, but all in all they're doing fine.
Bart had the right answer. The intention was to mobilize people for the upcoming elections. The thing has little to do with guns and everything to do with politics, which always is the case when we hear about marches for this or that political position.
Maybe these people just don't get it. I'd be willing to bet that the past week brought a huge jump in firearms purchases. The point is that this kind of public political demonstration isn't solving anything. People aren't going to give up their guns. As far as the idea of laws solving the problem we have years and years of demonstrations of the absurdity of that idea in Chicago, which for decades has had very restrictive gun laws and extremely high murder rates with guns.
Legislation isn't going to solve the problem. A return to the kind of morality we had when I was a high-school gun-slinger would solve it, but we're not going to return to that kind of morality as long as we have Hollywood showing kids that murder with guns is a game.
-
Legislation isn't going to solve the problem. A return to the kind of morality we had when I was a high-school gun-slinger would solve it, but we're not going to return to that kind of morality as long as we have Hollywood showing kids that murder with guns is a game.
Superficially, that would seem to make sense. However, in the rest of the world, watching the same Hollywood productions, gun violence and related mortality is in general at a small fraction of the USA numbers (even when corrected for 'per Capita').
Cheers,
Bart
-
To get back to the original post, I suspect the New Yorker gathered these pictures hoping to panic people who are ignorant about firearms. I also suspect whoever made the pictures didn't know anything about the subject because, for the most part, the kids are handling the guns correctly. I'd bark at a couple if I were training them, but all in all they're doing fine.
I agree with you on this point (!!!!!!!) photojournalism in general is seldom value neutral.
Bart had the right answer. The intention was to mobilize people for the upcoming elections. The thing has little to do with guns and everything to do with politics, which always is the case when we hear about marches for this or that political position.
The best way to protest things is to actually get out in vote. Americans are dismal in this respect with most mid-term elections not even reaching 50% since 1016: http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101 If you don't vote, don't bitch about the way things are.
Maybe these people just don't get it. I'd be willing to bet that the past week brought a huge jump in firearms purchases. The point is that this kind of public political demonstration isn't solving anything. People aren't going to give up their guns. As far as the idea of laws solving the problem we have years and years of demonstrations of the absurdity of that idea in Chicago, which for decades has had very restrictive gun laws and extremely high murder rates with guns.
Legislation isn't going to solve the problem. A return to the kind of morality we had when I was a high-school gun-slinger would solve it, but we're not going to return to that kind of morality as long as we have Hollywood showing kids that murder with guns is a game.
I don't think it's as much Hollywood as it is the shoot 'em up video games which transfix those who play them for many hours whereas one usually only sees a film one time. Legislation rarely solves any societal issues as things in controversial areas will always move into the underground economy. look at the 'war on drugs' which after many years is still not won at the expense of billions if not trillions of $$$s. The reason the AR-15 is such a destructive weapon is the ease by which the magazine can be changed (a capable user can swap out an empty magazine for a new on in 1-2 seconds). I don't know about the interchangeability of rifle loads that the AR-15 uses with more conventional hunting/sporting rifles but it strikes me that this is one area that reasonable regulation can be put into place. Do we need high velocity loads for these kinds of weapons if they are used for "purported" sporting use? the other approach would be to put a stiff tax on such ammunition in the same way we have cigarette and spirits tax. This would not be violative of the 2nd amendment nor would it penalize those using rifles for sporting purposes.
I don't know if they knew how many rounds were fired in the Las Vegas massacre but it certainly was way more than anyone would require for sporting purposes.
-
The recently passed budget legislation removed the prohibition against the CDC carrying out research on gun violence. Whether they have funds to do so is an open question.
Thanks for this, I was not aware.
-
As far as the idea of laws solving the problem we have years and years of demonstrations of the absurdity of that idea in Chicago, which for decades has had very restrictive gun laws and extremely high murder rates with guns.
I don't think that this demonstrates anything.
-
It would be interesting if some photo magazine printed photos of children in inner cities handling their guns in a "safe manner". One could make the argument that those kids need weapons for self defence much more readily than some kid on a farm in Kansas. But I suspect that the photo set would not necessarily be interpreted in that way.
Another thought experiment. What if that photo spread from the New Yorker was placed on a NRA info page, with different captions maybe. Interpretations of their meaning would differ, I suspect. Instead of being suspicious of the publisher's motives, many people would view it as a sensible and positive presentation.
-
Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership, kids shooting competitions, and no mass shootings.
About 11% of citizens keep their military-issued gun at home, but concealed-carry permits are tough to get in Switzerland, and most people aren't allowed to carry their guns around.
Switzerland is obsessed with getting shooting right. Every year, it holds a shooting contest for kids aged 13 to 17.
Zurich's Knabenschiessen is a traditional annual festival that dates back to the 1600s.
Though the word roughly translates to "boys shooting" and the competition used to be only boys, teenage girls have been allowed in since 1991.
Kids in the country flock to the competition every September to compete in target shooting using Swiss army service rifles. They're proud to show off how well they can shoot.
Swiss laws are designed to prevent anyone who's violent or incompetent from owning a gun. People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland. The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.
Switzerland is also one of the richest, healthiest, and, by some measures, happiest countries in the world.
But the Swiss aren't perfect when it comes to guns. Switzerland still has one of the highest rates of gun violence in Europe, and most gun deaths in the country are suicides.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-high-rates-gun-ownership-why-doesnt-no-mass-shootings-a8230606.html
-
I find this conversation, and others, about guns, to always missed what actually would make an effect, funding. Alan kind of pointed it out, but nearly everyone seems to look over it.
Do I believe in higher gun regulations, yes. However, more then likely any new law is not going to have a funding passed along with it, which means no one is going to try and enforce it. It will make almost no effect. It will be just like prohibition was at first; all law enforcement agencies will be looking at each other to enforce it. It becomes someone else's problem.
Insofar as the original article trying to scare people, I always find this kind of funny too. A gun is a tool, and if you are scared by a tool that is a problem with you.
I can't tell you how many times, when I worked is the restaurant industry, a server would get freaked out by the act of us cooks sharpening our knives. Knives are meant to be sharp; if they are not they do not work. But so many horror movies have taught the collective public to be freaked out by the process of making a knife sharp. Same thing with guns.
-
I find this conversation, and others, about guns, to always missed what actually would make an effect, funding. Alan kind of pointed it out, but nearly everyone seems to look over it.
It's why a tax on certain kinds of ammunition may be the most effective solution. Taxes are easy to impose and hard to avoid.
-
Another thought experiment. What if that photo spread from the New Yorker was placed on a NRA info page, with different captions maybe. Interpretations of their meaning would differ, I suspect. Instead of being suspicious of the publisher's motives, many people would view it as a sensible and positive presentation.
Yes.
-
I don't think that this demonstrates anything.
Really? Severe gun laws combined with a high rate of murders with guns. What would demonstrate the ineffectiveness of those laws to you?
-
I agree with you on this point (!!!!!!!) photojournalism in general is seldom value neutral.
The best way to protest things is to actually get out in vote. Americans are dismal in this respect with most mid-term elections not even reaching 50% since 1016: http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101 If you don't vote, don't bitch about the way things are.
I don't think it's as much Hollywood as it is the shoot 'em up video games which transfix those who play them for many hours whereas one usually only sees a film one time. Legislation rarely solves any societal issues as things in controversial areas will always move into the underground economy. look at the 'war on drugs' which after many years is still not won at the expense of billions if not trillions of $$$s. The reason the AR-15 is such a destructive weapon is the ease by which the magazine can be changed (a capable user can swap out an empty magazine for a new on in 1-2 seconds). I don't know about the interchangeability of rifle loads that the AR-15 uses with more conventional hunting/sporting rifles but it strikes me that this is one area that reasonable regulation can be put into place. Do we need high velocity loads for these kinds of weapons if they are used for "purported" sporting use? the other approach would be to put a stiff tax on such ammunition in the same way we have cigarette and spirits tax. This would not be violative of the 2nd amendment nor would it penalize those using rifles for sporting purposes.
I don't know if they knew how many rounds were fired in the Las Vegas massacre but it certainly was way more than anyone would require for sporting purposes.
I agree with you, Alan, about the shoot-em-up games, but they're games that ape the movies. And the "war on drugs" has been a political play from the very beginning. If you let people suffer the consequences of their actions when they abuse drugs, the problem will solve itself. At the turn of the last century, when you could walk into a drugstore and buy any damn thing you wanted to buy, we weren't suffering much drug abuse. Even Sherlock Holmes was careful how he used his morphine.
I also agree with you about huge magazines for the AR-15. There's no reason to have a magazine that large on any rifle unless you're shooting something like an M-16 on full-automatic (which usually is stupid. Go to a range some time that allows you to shoot an M-16 on full-automatic and see if you can hit anything. On the other hand, if you're up against a crowd, full-automatic probably has a calming effect on the crowd.)
But I wouldn't get into things like muzzle velocity unless you do some research. Most rifles used to hunt deer and bear are much bigger guns than the AR-15. Compared with some of them the AR-15 is a popgun. But the AR-15 looks SCARY, and that's why the people out there screaming about gun control want to ban it. It's asinine, but then most of the stuff they shout about is asinine.
-
Really? Severe gun laws combined with a high rate of murders with guns. What would demonstrate the ineffectiveness of those laws to you?
Quite right, I should have elaborated. Having an island of restricted gun purchases in the middle of a sea of easy (easier) gun availability accomplishes nothing. It's not difficult for someone in Chicago to drive out of jurisdiction to buy a gun. So what I meant was that it is silly to expect the restriction to accomplish anything, but it is also silly to point to it as a failure of gun control, since it isn't gun control. I presume it was put in place to give the police an additional charge with which to indict someone.
-
So what you're saying is that the only way gun control laws will work is if we confiscate everybody's gun and put all gun sources out of business? I suspect that won't be wildly popular.
-
Well, I'm not saying anything of the kind. As it happens I don't believe that there is any "solution" possible. This is a cultural issue, not a gun problem.
I have read in previous threads (now deleted) that some believe that the occasional school shooting is the price to be paid for "freedom". So long as people believe that they might need to defend themselves against a central government that has gone mad or that they need to have loaded guns with them at all times for self-protection, then things are pretty well set, aren't they? There's no changing those beliefs, so far as I can see. Insofar as you (the USA) is happy with that, then that's pretty much it.
However, you must appreciate how odd some of this sounds to many people. The idea that you could actually defend yourself against government forces with a few rifles seems particularly odd to me. Surely no one really believes this, it has to be a rhetorical stance. It might have been true(ish) in 1776 maybe, but today?
The ideas of having guns in schools or on your person for self-protection is at least something that data will eventually show to be either legitimate or not. If there is any validity to these ideas, other than anecdotal or emotional ones, then those societal experiments should eventually demonstrate some alleviation of the problem. In a few years' time, we'll see whether these tactics worked.
-
So what you're saying is that the only way gun control laws will work is if we confiscate everybody's gun and put all gun sources out of business? I suspect that won't be wildly popular.
Now that's a novel idea! Popular or not, it would cure the illness.
A smaller industry, catering exclusively to the military, should release lots more funding to spend on health, yet another too novel an idea to become popular. The rabbits would vote for ithe former reform, as I'm sure the deer. Of course, you'd need to find alternative work for the lobbyists.
Guns out of the equation, a start could be made on the questions surrounding the carrying of baseball bats outwith sports arenas.
There's no limit to the opportunities for legislation.
:-)
Rob
-
It's why a tax on certain kinds of ammunition may be the most effective solution. Taxes are easy to impose and hard to avoid.
You can cast your own bullets and load your own brass casings. Just like everything else, if there's a demand for something a source for it will appear. In the Midwest there were once meth labs springing up all over. A crackdown (pardon the pun) ensued that was very effective in shutting them down. However, the production simply moved to Mexico and because of the porous border there is a considerably bigger meth problem now than what we began with.
The fundamental questions are why do so many now feel the need to arm themselves, and what's now happening to our older teenage boys in our society? Few are asking these questions.
Kent in SD
-
However, you must appreciate how odd some of this sounds to many people. The idea that you could actually defend yourself against government forces with a few rifles seems particularly odd to me. Surely no one really believes this, it has to be a rhetorical stance. It might have been true(ish) in 1776 maybe, but today?
A mere 20,000 Isis fighters in open desert stymied Obama for four years. Only an estimated 60,000 poorly armed Taliban are still around after 17 years of pounding by the US army and air force. There are something like 25 million people here who own the kind of rifles you are talking about. As for having armed teachers or school administrators, I don't think that would be effective. Statistically these incidents are extremely rare. Makes no sense to arm 90,000 schools in the off chance a couple of them might have an incident in a particular year.
-
You can cast your own bullets and load your own brass casings. Just like everything else, if there's a demand for something a source for it will appear. In the Midwest there were once meth labs springing up all over. A crackdown (pardon the pun) ensued that was very effective in shutting them down. However, the production simply moved to Mexico and because of the porous border there is a considerably bigger meth problem now than what we began with.
The fundamental questions are why do so many now feel the need to arm themselves, and what's now happening to our older teenage boys in our society? Few are asking these questions.
Kent in SD
I guess older teen boys were always a problem; neither man nor child, they can't always cope with themselves, their urges and, when confronted with peer groups, even more introspection and self-evaluation takes place in an attempt to find their slot in the general scheme of things. The gun becomes a kind of equaliser, where the weak are as able to destroy as are the strong. Survival, for a teen, is not the considered thing it represents for an adult, which is not, for a moment, to suggest that all adults should be let loose on the world.
Teens often still think they live for ever. I sure did, not that I worried about it that much.
Rob
-
Now that's a novel idea! Popular or not, it would cure the illness.
A smaller industry, catering exclusively to the military, should release lots more funding to spend on health, yet another too novel an idea to become popular. The rabbits would vote for ithe former reform, as I'm sure the deer. Of course, you'd need to find alternative work for the lobbyists.
Guns out of the equation, a start could be made on the questions surrounding the carrying of baseball bats outwith sports arenas.
There's no limit to the opportunities for legislation.
:-)
Rob
Where do you live Rob?
-
So what you're saying is that the only way gun control laws will work is if we confiscate everybody's gun and put all gun sources out of business? I suspect that won't be wildly popular.
As tense as things are (mostly driven by the media I think), I would bet that would spark a civil war at this point. We need to deescalate tension, not blow it up.
Kent in SD
-
You can cast your own bullets and load your own brass casings. Just like everything else, if there's a demand for something a source for it will appear. In the Midwest there were once meth labs springing up all over. A crackdown (pardon the pun) ensued that was very effective in shutting them down. However, the production simply moved to Mexico and because of the porous border there is a considerably bigger meth problem now than what we began with.
They were easy to find because of tracking the precursor chemicals. Also, pseudoephedrine became a regulated substance as well. Regarding casting bullets and loading, you are probably correct but I'm unsure about the ready availability of gun powder. When I still owned a shotgun I never got into the reloading side of things as I was not that frequent of a shooter and the time/cost wasn't favorable.
The fundamental questions are why do so many now feel the need to arm themselves, and what's now happening to our older teenage boys in our society? Few are asking these questions.
It's mysterious why so many insist on buying pistols for personal protection. I wonder how many of these pistol owners ever used one for personal defense either on the street or in the home. that would be an interesting statistic. Regarding older teen age boys and I would add girls; a large component of this is bullying which leads to disaffection. Firearms are more readily available than when I was growing up but that was a long time ago. BATF keeps statistics on gun manufacturing and permit requests: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/astonishing-growth-american-gun-culture-three-graphs/358385/ pretty dramatic growth and it's not all for hunting and sport.
-
Switzerland has the right idea: MORE guns in the hands of GOOD people and FEWER guns in the hands of BAD people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/30/d0/7e/30d07eb6ef525fd92eeb1c1ac165baa6--vending-machines-nd-amendment.jpg)
-
As tense as things are (mostly driven by the media I think), I would bet that would spark a civil war at this point. We need to deescalate tension, not blow it up.
Kent in SD
Well, the Second Amendment will never be amended to mitigate the proliferation of guns. But it may indeed take a gun caused apocalypse to get effective gun control. It's a bit unnerving to consider what that apocalypse might be. I mean, if even the mass murder of children won't change anything, then what will?
-
Switzerland has the right idea: MORE guns in the hands of GOOD people and FEWER guns in the hands of BAD people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/)
Did you read the article you linked to?
"For one thing, Switzerland’s rate of gun ownership is still substantially lower than America’s—in Switzerland the rate is roughly one gun per four people, whereas in the U.S. it’s more than one per person,"
-
Quite right, I should have elaborated. Having an island of restricted gun purchases in the middle of a sea of easy (easier) gun availability accomplishes nothing.
That's why most of the political effort to enact more stringent gun control here involves proposals for new legislation by the federal government. The longstanding federal ban on fully-automatic weapons ("machine guns"), for example, seems to have been quite effective.
So what you're saying is that the only way gun control laws will work is if we confiscate everybody's gun and put all gun sources out of business?
Any proposal to prohibit all sales of firearms—and certainly any proposal to confiscate those which had been legally acquired—would be a political non-starter. The latter no doubt would also face a constitutional challenge. I'm not aware of any serious proposals for either from the most ardent gun control advocates. (I can't even imagine any Congress that might result from a "wave" election in November being persuaded to enact a voluntary buy-back program in conjunction with a renewed ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.)
-
... Having an island of restricted gun purchases in the middle of a sea of easy (easier) gun availability accomplishes nothing. It's not difficult for someone in Chicago to drive out of jurisdiction to buy a gun...
And that gun would become illegal upon return to Chicago. It is irrelevant how easy or difficult it is to obtain an illegal gun, what matters is that it is illegal. Criminals and gangs do not want legal guns. Making it more difficult would not reduce the number of illegal guns, it would simply raise the cost of obtaining one. Which means more crime, robbery, theft, etc. will be initially committed in order to get enough money to buy an illegal gun. So, yes, Chicago example is the right example why gun controls do not work if there are other underlying causes for gun use.
-
Although quite simple, the photos do tell an effective story of how American youth are socialised into seeing guns as normal, everyday objects to be cared for and grow attached to.
A worthy follow-up project would be to show the effects of gun violence on youth: organs obliterated by weapons like the AR 15, brain-damaged kids who need to be cared for for the rest of their lives, and of course the endless funerals and grieving family members.
In the small American city in which I currently live, not so far from the Luminous Landscape headquarters, three 17 year old kids have been killed by gunfire so far this year. It's become routine here in this profoundly individualistic society, like prescription drug addiction, broken families, unaffordable health care, homelessness, endless wars, and lives lacking meaning.
Despite all this, Americans get some things right. Smoking rates have plummeted, for instance. Americans are much better than Europeans in this respect! And in some places in America, the education system does foster critical thinking, innovation, and an aspiration to improve society. Those kids protesting in DC this weekend are a product of that. Although racism is still deeply embedded in American culture and the socioeconomic structure of its society, white violence against blacks has reduced. It's no longer routine for mobs of whites to hang blacks, which is in the living memory of some LL forum members should they care to look to the past with a more critical eye.
-
Although quite simple, the photos do tell an effective story of how American youth are socialised into seeing guns as normal, everyday objects to be cared for and grow attached to.
A worthy follow-up project would be to show the effects of gun violence on youth: organs obliterated by weapons like the AR 15, brain-damaged kids who need to be cared for for the rest of their lives, and of course the endless funerals and grieving family members.
In the small American city in which I currently live, not so far from the Luminous Landscape headquarters, three 17 year old kids have been killed by gunfire so far this year. It's become routine here in this profoundly individualistic society, like prescription drug addiction, broken families, unaffordable health care, homelessness, endless wars, and lives lacking meaning.
Despite all this, Americans get some things right. Smoking rates have plummeted, for instance. Americans are much better than Europeans in this respect! And in some places in America, the education system does foster critical thinking, innovation, and an aspiration to improve society. Those kids protesting in DC this weekend are a product of that. Although racism is still deeply embedded in American culture and the socioeconomic structure of its society, white violence against blacks has reduced. It's no longer routine for mobs of whites to hang blacks, which is in the living memory of some LL forum members should they care to look to the past with a more critical eye.
Well said.
-
There are many things that could be done, that are constitutional, that would discourage gun buying and gun ownership. I think those things should be done, especially in regard to the ownership of handguns. Although people tend to focus on the slaughters resulting from crazies getting possession of black rifles, there are many, many more people killed annually with handguns. Why aren't those things done? Because of the politics of it. Voters generally have a murky philosophy that they vote (I'm a conservative or I'm a liberal) but the NRA-style rabid gun owners vote on that one issue, and they have very high rates of voting, which makes them much more powerful. They will vote against a conservative who opposes guns (if there were such a thing) and for a liberal who supports gun ownership, if push comes to shove. And that's the reason; the voting rates. The NRA may scream "Second Amendment!" but there's nothing in the Second Amendment that protects any particular class of guns. That's why you don't see people carrying around machine guns.
One of the comments here has been that many of the gun opponents don't know anything about guns. That may be true, but they know one thing: thousands of Americans are killed every year by guns. You don't need to know the difference between a semi-auto Glock and a S&W revolver to understand that quite clearly. You also don't need to be a gun expert to know that there is no real sporting use for black rifles that couldn't be fulfilled by guns that would be much less dangerous to have in circulation. That's why rallies like the one yesterday can't be denigrated: those people know everything they need to know.
-
a liberal who supports gun ownership,
A number of years ago Senators Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillebrand received A ratings from the NRA. Gillebrand was in the House at the time but I believe Sanders was already in the Senate. Go figure.
-
... but they know one thing: thousands of Americans are killed every year by guns... those people know everything they need to know.
That feeling, that they "know everything they need to know," that ignorant arrogance, barking up the wrong tree, is what makes those protests so scary. Following that kind of "logic," many more thousands are killed by cars, drunken drivers, and drunken teenagers, and yet no mass protests against cars, alchohol, or teenangers.
-
That feeling, that they "know everything they need to know," that ignorant arrogance, barking up the wrong tree, is what makes those protests so scary. Following that kind of "logic," many more thousands are killed by cars, drunken drivers, and drunken teenagers, and yet no mass protests against cars, alchohol, or teenangers.
Geez, have you not heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is precisely the protest kind of activism that has in fact made a difference in many ways. Following your kind of cynical logic we'd all have our heads buried.
-
That feeling, that they "know everything they need to know," that ignorant arrogance, barking up the wrong tree, is what makes those protests so scary. Following that kind of "logic," many more thousands are killed by cars, drunken drivers, and drunken teenagers, and yet no mass protests against cars, alchohol, or teenangers.
77 dead, and 161 injured across the USA due to gun-violence/shootings in the last 72 hours, and counting.
-
. . .thousands of Americans are killed every year by guns.
Most of them in Chicago and other "gun free zones."
-
Geez, have you not heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is precisely the protest kind of activism that has in fact made a difference in many ways. Following your kind of cynical logic we'd all have our heads buried.
What difference? Were they successful in banning cars, alcohol, or teenagers?
-
What difference? Were they successful in banning cars, alcohol, or teenagers?
Careful Slobodan, if enough teenagers get wind of this, it will be old photographers (most of us here) who will have their cameras confiscated. Then we’ll be the ones protesting! :D
-
Back to the societal changes and their influence on recent events. As noted, guns exist in this country for 200+ years, but mass shootings are relatively new. Why? One potential answer is that guns have become more lethal and more easily available, which is perhaps true. The other potential answer is morality, the decline of nuclear family, for instance, and absence of fathers. The role of violent video games have not be fully confirmed, although there are studies that show increased levels of aggression in those who play. But one factor has been missing so far from the discussion: the rise of social media, which almost coincides with mass shootings. The "15 minutes of fame" effect, that spreads events via social media like a wildfire, is, in my humble opinion, what is driving mass shootings, in particular school shootings. Which then creates copy cats, etc.
Bottom line, it is a complex phenomenon, which would require a multi-prong response. Reducing it simplistically to a single cause (guns) is more dangerous than helpful. That said, I am not against restricting access to assault-style guns with high capacity magazines, closing loopholes, raising age limit, improving mental health access, etc.
-
... Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is precisely the protest kind of activism that has in fact made a difference in many ways...
Coincidentally, CNN has this on their web page:
Do protests really work?
Black Lives Matter. Occupy Wall Street. The Women's March. All big movements that didn't really lead to any policy change. Will the March for Our Lives be different? Source: CNN
-
Most of them in Chicago and other "gun free zones."
That is completely, utterly and laughably wrong. Top states in gun violence (i.e. most dangerous) per capita, in order: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Montana, Missouri, New Mexico, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee. Least gun violence, in order: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, New Jersey, Minnesota, California, Maine, Washington.
The more anti-gun a state is, the safer you are.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
-
That is completely, utterly and laughably wrong...
As is your counter-argument about "top states." Totally irrelevant statistics. Crime is localized. In Chicago, it is not even Chicago, let alone Illinois, but South Chicago. My former hometown, Naperville, IL, has been recently named "the safest city in America." And it is only 33 miles from Chicago.
-
Wouldn't it be good to just do a referendum among all Americans to figure out what a majority of the population wants?
I have not been able to find a single survey will clear data on this.
The second amendment is just that, a modification of the original constitution, so there is no reason why it couldn't/shouldn't be amended again if a large majority of the population wants it to be.
What would be democratic for a change and would once for all shut up all the people (me included) who think the US isn't a democracy but a plutocracy (where a tiny minority of powerful families drive the country towards their own interests, including lobbies).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As is your counter-argument about "top states." Totally irrelevant statistics. Crime is localized.
Okay Slobodan, for argument's sake let's assume you're an expert in this topic, well versed in the literature. You explain these three facts, taken from various news sources (NY Times, Financial Times, and Vox):
- More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries (https://web.archive.org/web/20170105171544im_/http://tewksburylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-and-death-rates.jpg), among American states (http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/ownership-vs-deaths630.png), among American towns and cities (https://books.google.com/books?id=iANw1pb4fPAC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=david+hemenway+%22more+guns+in+a+community+lead+to+more+homicide%22&source=bl&ots=GMTIi0MHC2&sig=x63NBQltDDNYkxHQeADfEl1EOis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2nQIVLiKFY6wyATa5YGoCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=david%20hemenway%20%22more%20guns%20in%20a%20community%20lead%20to%20more%20homicide%22&f=false) and when controlling (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975) for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895) of 130 studies from 10 countries. This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.
- There was one gun death, not including suicides, in Japan in 2015, the lowest in the developed world and compared with 13,500 in the US for the same year. Japan has strict gun control laws.
- Switzerland has one of the highest gun related death rates in all of Europe per capita. It fits very well the general trend of more guns = more gun deaths:
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KhPN3acmjQCfkkHcxxNnj8hqazA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10328765/GUN_SCATTERPLOT_2x.png)
-
...more guns = more gun deaths...
Well, duh!
Just like saying more cars = more car deaths. "This suggests that the guns cars themselves cause the violence deaths."
Remove suicides from the stats and the correlation between gun onwership and murders is non-existent in the US. This graph includes gang-related deaths, and illegal guns, without which murder rates with legal guns and legal gun ownership is even less statistically relevant.
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27752147_10156110303726505_783255403282739384_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f1b8d5018045a03dcde4888dd2024280&oe=5B39FDDF)
-
... The second amendment is just that, a modification of the original constitution, so there is no reason why it couldn't/shouldn't be amended again if a large majority of the population wants it to be..
Sure, why not? There is a process for that:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Constitutional_amendment_process_%28USA%29.png/260px-Constitutional_amendment_process_%28USA%29.png)
-
Wouldn't it be good to just do a referendum among all Americans to figure out what a majority of the population wants?
I have not been able to find a single survey will clear data on this.
The second amendment is just that, a modification of the original constitution, so there is no reason why it couldn't/shouldn't be amended again if a large majority of the population wants it to be.
What would be democratic for a change and would once for all shut up all the people (me included) who think the US isn't a democracy but a plutocracy (where a tiny minority of powerful families drive the country towards their own interests, including lobbies).
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, Bernard, we had a referendum in November of 2016 on who should be the next President, and Hillary Clinton won by ~3,000,000 votes. As you can see, her administration is not thriving.
If we were to have a referendum on gun control, there would be strict controls, but America doesn't work that way. California has slightly less than 40 million residents. Wyoming has about 580,000 residents. Both states have two senators. There are many more small, rural gun-favoring states than large, populous, urban states, and there's no way in hell that the senators from those states are going to vote for gun control.
-
1. In Switzerland, the evidence shows that strengthening gun legislation reduces gun-related deaths.
2. They have only a quarter of the number of gun-related deaths and an even smaller fraction of gun-related homicides (0.5 per 100,000 inhabitants) than the United States (5 per 100,000). Furthermore, a large proportion of gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders.
3. In Switzerland, all automatic weapons are banned for civilians.
In the wake of the devastating school shooting in Parkland, Florida, an American former police officer and current Swiss resident argues it’s time for the US to follow the example of Switzerland in regulating firearms. "I believe the most significant difference between Switzerland and the United States is the relationship between citizens, their government, and guns".
Switzerland arms its militia with the understanding that those weapons are for the protection of the country. A culture of responsible gun ownership means that if a threat of abuse or mishandling is detected, the weapon can be confiscated. Outside of border protection, the only other legitimate purpose for a firearm in Switzerland is for hunting or sports, and shooting clubs are popular among both children and adults.
In the United States, the relationship with firearms is different. Two-thirds of American gun owners cite personal protection as their primary reasonexternal link for obtaining a firearm even though they are actually less likely to perceive gun crime as a serious problem. Tellingly, most gun owners in the US cite gun ownership as intrinsic to their sense of personal freedom, whereas the Swiss perceive gun possession as intrinsic to their sense of national freedom. To put it another way, the Swiss have guns because they trust their government, and Americans have guns because they don’t.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/florida-school-shooting_what-can-the-swiss-teach-the-us-about-guns-/43923350
-
As is your counter-argument about "top states." Totally irrelevant statistics. Crime is localized. In Chicago, it is not even Chicago, let alone Illinois, but South Chicago. My former hometown, Naperville, IL, has been recently named "the safest city in America." And it is only 33 miles from Chicago.
Totally irrelevant point. We all know there are "bad neighborhoods," but statewide statistics based on per capita violent crime demonstrate quite clearly that states that have looser gun controls have more violent-crime gun deaths per capita.
By the way, Naperville was the 7th safest city in *Illinois* and 33rd in the US in 2017, not first in the US. Which is still good. It's so good because Naperville is a highly educated, extremely affluent community with a median family income of a bit more than $130,000, and given those demographics, and given Illinois' strict gun laws, it should be safe. It's south Chicago that's the anomaly, not Naperville.
-
... In Switzerland, all automatic weapons are banned for civilians...
As are in the US.
-
Nobody ever mentions the crimes thwarted by guns.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=221s&v=CQAWmAISxGg (https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=221s&v=CQAWmAISxGg)
(https://1899281406.rsc.cdn77.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/newby-pinterest.v3-768x432.jpg)
-
Where do you live Rob?
Spain. Lots of armed police, as well as Guardia Civil, and glad of it!
There are many people who have guns for hunting on private estates. The only gun crime one hears of is when drug cartels are discovered and busted, the weapons confiscated. I don't remember hearing of any actual shoot-outs between them and the forces of law and order; I suspect the guns are for inter-gag control and threat, rather than actual shooting. On the other hand, a few nutters get done for arma blanca crimes: knives.
Baseball has not caught on - yet!
;-)
Rob
-
Well, Bernard, we had a referendum in November of 2016 on who should be the next President, and Hillary Clinton won by ~3,000,000 votes. As you can see, her administration is not thriving.
If we were to have a referendum on gun control, there would be strict controls, but America doesn't work that way. California has slightly less than 40 million residents. Wyoming has about 580,000 residents. Both states have two senators. There are many more small, rural gun-favoring states than large, populous, urban states, and there's no way in hell that the senators from those states are going to vote for gun control.
And the reason is:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html
The beginning of a solution seems simple, collectively do not vote for recipients of NRA money, and make it clear that that is the reason. Follow the money.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What difference? Were they successful in banning cars, alcohol, or teenagers?
Nobody ever talked about banning cars, alcohol or teenagers [sic] (though some of us wish their children would have gone from pre-teen to adulthood without all the 'sturm und drang' of the teenage years).. Courts and judges have become less lenient in letting drivers off on DUI charges which is huge progress.
-
The other potential answer is morality, the decline of nuclear family, for instance, and absence of fathers.
There is a control group that somewhat disproves this and that is the black family where there is an abundance of sociological evidence. Fatherless families were documented in the 1930s and onward yet there was little gun violence. During the racial unrest which I believe first started in World War 2 in Detroit have had very few gun related fatalities. Most of the damage was from arson and looting. I think gun violence began to escalate during the gang wars beginning in the 1970s when handguns became readily available. Just an anecdote, the gang issues in my area of San Diego in 1960-61 were nothing more than fights with no firearms involved. There were a couple of uses of knives and chains but that was the extent of things.
-
The beginning of a solution seems simple, collectively do not vote for recipients of NRA money, and make it clear that that is the reason. Follow the money.
The NRA is an interesting organization with a checkered history. It was originally established to promote shooting safety and was the organization that managed the US shooting teams in international competitions. In the late 1970s a 'reactionary' gun rights group took over at their annual meeting, installed new officers and changed the by-laws of the organization that makes it almost impossible to get rid of the leadership. I read through the by-laws in the belief that a lot of us could join and evict the leadership. One has to be a paying member for FIVE years before being able to vote in member elections. Even then it is only for 1/3 of the Board of Directors. They have also arranged it so that is very difficult for the membership to propose their own Board slate. There are certain life members who are guaranteed Board seats and IIRC the current Board appoints 1/3 of the Board members. Membership dues are very low and the organization gets most of its operating money from the gun industry (manufacturers and dealers).
It's interesting that there are now gun dealers who refuse to sell assault style rifles and associated equipment. Remington firearms just declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
-
The NRA is an interesting organization with a checkered history. It was originally established to promote shooting safety and was the organization that managed the US shooting teams in international competitions. In the late 1970s a 'reactionary' gun rights group took over at their annual meeting, installed new officers and changed the by-laws of the organization that makes it almost impossible to get rid of the leadership. I read through the by-laws in the belief that a lot of us could join and evict the leadership. One has to be a paying member for FIVE years before being able to vote in member elections. Even then it is only for 1/3 of the Board of Directors. They have also arranged it so that is very difficult for the membership to propose their own Board slate. There are certain life members who are guaranteed Board seats and IIRC the current Board appoints 1/3 of the Board members. Membership dues are very low and the organization gets most of its operating money from the gun industry (manufacturers and dealers).
It's interesting that there are now gun dealers who refuse to sell assault style rifles and associated equipment. Remington firearms just declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Beards are fashionable. Follow the money whiskers.
Rob
-
I think gun violence began to escalate during the gang wars beginning in the 1970s when handguns became readily available.
Alan, why do you think handguns weren't "readily available" prior to the 1970's? What you saw may have been one of those peculiar California things. When I was a kid in Michigan I could walk into any hardware store and buy a handgun.
-
...the general trend of more guns = more gun deaths...
About that "trend":
"Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says
Since 1993, the United States has seen a drop in the rate of homicides and other violence involving guns, according to two new studies released Tuesday. Using government data, analysts saw a steep drop for violence in the 1990s...
... There were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people in 1993, the Pew Research Center study says, which dropped to 3.6 gun deaths in 2010. The study relied in part on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The study also notes that while the number of gun homicides has dropped, the number of guns in America hasn't.
Noting that it isn't clear how many Americans have guns in their households, the Pew researchers found that the "2009 per capita rate of one person per gun in the U.S. had roughly doubled since 1968."
So, homicides dropped 50%, while gun ownership doubled... some "trend"!
-
About that "trend":
"Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says
So, homicides dropped 50%, while gun ownership doubled... some "trend"!
I doubt the downward trend in gun violence is due to the increase of gun sales. However I'm sure the gun industry has been happy to take the credit. Personally, I think social media, better education, access to news, the work of neighborhood social agencies, and yes, gun control advocates for their constant advocacy, can all take credit. No empirical data, just my opinion.
Does GAS stand for gear acquisition syndrome or gun acquisition syndrome? Considering the cost of camera gear, it seems many folks have decided to go for the gun version. Just a little levity, there.
-
... Does GAS stand for gear acquisition syndrome or gun acquisition syndrome? Considering the cost of camera gear, it seems many folks have decided to go for the gun version. Just a little levity, there.
Even better: "Teach your children photography... they'll never have enough money for drugs." :)
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/08/teachyourkidsphotography.jpg)
-
ROTFL. Gun sales and NRA memberships have experienced a huge jump in the past few days.
-
Remove suicides from the stats and the correlation between gun onwership and murders is non-existent in the US.
Apparently you missed the part of the statement that says "More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis". I don't think you're destined for a career as a researcher Slobodan.
-
Show me a credible study that proves responsible, well-trained and emotionally stable gun owners are more likely to be killed or robbed, and I'll have my Dirty Harry melt down today.
Otherwise...
(https://i.imgur.com/O3mzUwg.gif?noredirect)
-
Show me a credible study that proves responsible, well-trained and emotionally stable gun owners are more likely to be killed or robbed, and I'll have my Dirty Harry melt down today.
Otherwise...
(https://i.imgur.com/O3mzUwg.gif?noredirect)
Show me an emotionally stable gun owner and we're off to a start.
-
Show me a credible study that proves responsible, well-trained and emotionally stable gun owners are more likely to be killed or robbed, and I'll have my Dirty Harry melt down today.
Alright, now that we've established that more guns corresponds with more gun murders, you're retreating to the idea that as long as people like you are able to legally amass powerful weapons whose only purpose is to kill, you're just fine with the stunning level of gun murders in the U.S. You portray yourself as "responsible" and "emotionally stable". But when it comes down to it, what you're really saying is the only person you truly care about is you. Thanks for so openly sharing your real values with us!
-
Alright, now that we've established that more guns corresponds with more gun murders...
In your own mind. In reality, far from the truth.
-
But when it comes down to it, what you're really saying is the only person you truly care about is you. Thanks for so openly sharing your real values with us!
It's not my fault you don't own a gun.
-
Apparently you missed the part of the statement that says "More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis". I don't think you're destined for a career as a researcher Slobodan.
Maybe not a career as a researcher, but I know a thing or two about how to read and interpret a research.
Btw, the chart your provided clearly says "deaths," not murders, thus including suicides (which represent about 2/3 of all gun-related deaths). I responded with a chart that plots only murders. That "statement" you quote is just that, a statement, not a proof.
Ever heard of data massaging? While it might have a legitimate use, I am referring here to selecting data that supports your argument and ignoring data that does not. In case of your "research," it means looking for a set of data (countries) that prove your preconceived ideas of the end result.
Why that particular set of countries? Why comparing countries with vastly different history and culture? Most of Europe is based on serfdom history and mentality, with no guns allowed for its "subjects," in order to protect their kings and queens. The United States was born and expanded based on guns.
Barbados!? Qatar!? Really? Why not Bahamas, which happen to have the world's highest murder rate per capita. Great Britain? They murder with knives, so, obviously, their gun-murder stats will be lower. Etc., etc.
Besides, I provided a much more recent research, published by the National Public Radio (left-leaning in itself), with data from CDC and other official sources, that proves the opposite in the US: murder rates down 50%, gun ownership doubled, since 1993.
But if you want to play with choosing different sets of data, how about this: red line indicates a group of countries with practically the same gun-ownership rates, but up to five times higher murder rates. Or the blue line: the same murder rate, but vastly different gun ownership. There are several other horizontal and vertical line on that graph that I can draw, each time drawing a conclusion that suits my goal.
-
Btw, the chart your provided clearly says "deaths," not murders, thus including suicides (which represent about 2/3 of all gun-related deaths).
"Deaths" also will include accidents, and there always are a few of those by people who never learn how to handle firearms.
-
It's not my fault you don't own a gun.
Some gun owners are goodhearted people who happen to be naïve about the effect of mass gun ownership on gun death rates, including murder. Due to many factors, they've never experienced life in a society where guns are not the norm. It's possible to reason with such people.
Then there are gun owners who are simply selfish, mean, paranoid, and fearful.
-
Maybe not a career as a researcher, but I know a thing or two about how to read and interpret a research.
In that case, let's focus on murders, and put aside suicide, accident etc. Do share with us your analytical skills to interpret this research, which I linked to earlier: "Multivariate analyses found that [U.S.] states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children."
And this, which again, I linked to earlier: "Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community lead to more homicide."
And to turn to a chart that focuses on gun murder (mass murder in this instance) worldwide, see the attached chart. It shows, more guns = more murder, worldwide, across different cultures and histories. (And it also shows what an extreme outlier the U.S. is when it comes to gun ownership.)
-
Some gun owners are goodhearted people who happen to be naïve about the effect of mass gun ownership on gun death rates, including murder. Due to many factors, they've never experienced life in a society where guns are not the norm. It's possible to reason with such people.
Then there are gun owners who are simply selfish, mean, paranoid, and fearful.
Then there are gun rights opponents who aren't as good at mind reading as they think they are. I'm sure it won't be long before liberals start accusing gun rights advocates of being racists. But there I go mind reading...bad Texshooter (slap slap).
(https://media2.fdncms.com/arktimes/imager/u/original/3972705/ku-klux-klan_3153153b.jpg)
-
Once again, your chart doesn't show what you claim it does. What is shows is that the largest cluster of dots (in my blue rectangle) does not show any correlation between ownership and mass shootings. And the blue line shows that the same ownership results in vastly different mass shootings. Besides, mass shootings in most countries, including the US, represent only about 1% of all gun deaths, thus statistically not significant to draw conclusions.
-
Then there are gun rights opponents who aren't as good at mind reading as they think they are. I'm sure it won't be long before liberals start accusing gun rights advocates of being racists. But there I go mind reading...bad Texshooter (slap slap).
As long as you are allowed to legally stockpile as many weapons as you wish, I think you've made yourself loud and clear that you're not interested in any pesky facts about the correspondence between gun ownership and murder. Access to powerful weapons is what you care about.
-
Once again, your chart doesn't show what you claim it does. What is shows is that the largest cluster of dots (in my blue rectangle) does not show any correlation between ownership and mass shootings. And the blue line shows that the same ownership results in vastly different mass shootings. Besides, mass shootings in most countries, including the US, represent only about 1% of all gun deaths, thus statistically not significant to draw conclusions.
The author of the study from which the chart is derived concluded "a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting." So who are we to believe? The researcher, who is a professor at the University of Alabama, or Slobodan Blagojevic, gun enthusiast? You seem to believe your more qualified to interpret his data than he is.
You didn't respond to any of the other studies, which are fairly decisive in their findings. Your attachment to guns is based not on careful research into the effects of gun ownership on murder, suicides, or accidental death, but on ideology and emotions. For most men like you, a gun is a symbol of power and independence.
-
I think we have exhausted the photography aspects of this topic and things are starting to get too heated. I'm going to save our moderator some time and lock the topic. If anyone wants to discuss the statistics of gun deaths they should open a new thread just for that purpose. I would like to thank all who participated in this discussion for raising some good points!!