Children and Guns - Photojournalism

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[LesPalenik]

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

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

[OmerV]

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.

[RSL]

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?

[RSL]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[RSL]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[Two23]

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

[Two23]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[OmerV]

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?

[Two23]

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