13569940:Bogs said:
Great post, but the whole "well the 2nd amendment exists, therefore I deserve guns" argument is just as idealistic as anything the left says. People who make this argument will hide behind the constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't just as idealistic as whatever leftist ideas you are thinking of.
Most mass shooters weren't hardened criminals at the time they committed the shooting. Most of them, as far as I know, had perfectly clean or nearly clean records. Many of them also acquired their guns legally. Fact of the matter is, we don't know how these mass shooters, who almost always seem to suffer from mental illness, would act if it were more difficult for them to get guns. We don't know if they would be willing to break laws to do so. Please don't act like we can just assume that they would have the know how and means to break the law to acquire guns illegally, because we can't. This is, of course, directed at the shootings we hear so much about in the news, not gang or otherwise criminal related ones.
Here’s the problem with gun violence.
The problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the United States and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.
In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.
The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more but enough of that lets stop comparing and get down to the core of the problem.
Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?
REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than all of you are conditioned to believe.
In order to FIX these PROBLEMS, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!
I think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do. We also know that mass shootings seem to get the bulk of attention, yet suicides comprise a majority of gun deaths. No one seems to talk about this.
All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. We have politicians already introducing legislation before they understand what the problem stems from.
For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a ‘subset' of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.
We need to mandate the gun laws that are already in place. In many states it’s a long and tedious process to obtain a firearm and rightfully so. Most people who complain about how purchasing a firearm is like buying candy from a candy store, have probably never attempted to purchase a firearm. Background checks, the ATF paperwork and waiting periods (not all states) are still required. The anti-gun crowd would have you believe it's quiet easy to waltz into any skeezy gun store, drop $50 on the counter and moonwalk out with a bazooka. And people who've never actually tried to buy one believe it. I would also like to point out that not only has violent crime DECREASED by 51% from1991-2011 and murder rate 54% but nonfatal firearm related crime has decreased from 1993 to 2011, 69%!!
Furthermore, the anti-gun propaganda has worked marvelously. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased. Reality tells us that crime is way down but the perception is that violence is up. There’s a DISCONNECTION here and this disconnect prevents us from having an honest dialogue about what causes violence and what we can do to fix it. This misperception is utilized to justify legislation without understanding the problem, which more often than not infringes on our individualistic rights. Stop choosing between two extremities and start piecing together the problems with logic and reality. It seems as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns. Violence most often than not follows a logic.
There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?
We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an almost immediate celebrity. Violence just might be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.
This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for survival is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.
Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.
Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.
Maybe we ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand that logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.
There’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, theres a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.
Logic most often than not is due to environment. The most affecting genetically worst thing for a developing mind is the environment. We can fix many of these mental illness problems by fixing behavior and addressing their environment and susceptibility. A mind without stimulus to develop would go into trauma as a rejection and then it begins to change chemically. Imagine having your father beat on your mother constantly a a child?
I think we need to think about environment and behavior to fix this problem, and this has been going on for generations so it is going to take many more to fix. It isn’t as simple as banning guns or passing a few laws, it doesn’t and never will work like that.
But hey what do I know I’m a stupid conspiracy theorist. Right?
