Posted on Dec 2, 2015
Gun Control: Is it really the root of the problem?
6.59K
65
44
5
5
0
With the many mass shootings and issues, the usual rhetoric about gun control is already starting to spin up. The liberals are saying that better gun control would stop these things, the conservatives are saying that gun free zones and gun regulation makes it easier to identify soft target regions.
However, is gun control REALLY the problem? Switzerland has virtually no gun control laws and automatic weapons in most homes and has very low crime rates. Likewise, Australia and Japan have lower crime rates than the United States despite VERY tight gun control laws.
However it seems to me that the issue that we have is the desensitization to violence and the legitimization of violent attacks. With the release of American Sniper, there were people that said, "If you don't like this movie, you are un-American and we will murder you in your homes for treason for not supporting our troops." Similarly, I have seen comments from Trump opponents calling for murdering him, and some even saying to rape his wife.
Is gun control really the answer when we have so many people that don't understand the value of life? More responsible gun ownership will stop active shooters, but there are a reasonable number of people that have committed mass shootings that have NEVER risen to the level of having their weapons taken away. Tighter regulations can be used to disarm the public (i.e. veterans with PTSD, those with history of depression), so that's not an excellent answer.
Is gun control really an answer to stop these shootings? How do we combat these issues in a manner that can still enable responsible weapon ownership and still maintain the public safety?
(Disclaimer: This isn't an attempt to push an agenda, simply an attempt to get others' thoughts regarding this issue.)
v/r,
CPT Butler
However, is gun control REALLY the problem? Switzerland has virtually no gun control laws and automatic weapons in most homes and has very low crime rates. Likewise, Australia and Japan have lower crime rates than the United States despite VERY tight gun control laws.
However it seems to me that the issue that we have is the desensitization to violence and the legitimization of violent attacks. With the release of American Sniper, there were people that said, "If you don't like this movie, you are un-American and we will murder you in your homes for treason for not supporting our troops." Similarly, I have seen comments from Trump opponents calling for murdering him, and some even saying to rape his wife.
Is gun control really the answer when we have so many people that don't understand the value of life? More responsible gun ownership will stop active shooters, but there are a reasonable number of people that have committed mass shootings that have NEVER risen to the level of having their weapons taken away. Tighter regulations can be used to disarm the public (i.e. veterans with PTSD, those with history of depression), so that's not an excellent answer.
Is gun control really an answer to stop these shootings? How do we combat these issues in a manner that can still enable responsible weapon ownership and still maintain the public safety?
(Disclaimer: This isn't an attempt to push an agenda, simply an attempt to get others' thoughts regarding this issue.)
v/r,
CPT Butler
Posted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 15
8
8
0
Ignore "gun" control for a moment. Let's look at this logically.
1) The US has 320M people. We are the 4th largest Country in the world. We cannot compare ourselves to Switzerland, Japan, or Australia. We just run into "Scale" issues.
2) Stop looking at the problem as a "Gun" Violence issue, and start looking at it as a Violence issue. Then ask, do we have a Violence issue? Violence has been on the decline (steadily) for 40~ years. We do not have a Violence issue. Add Guns back in. "Gun" Violence has been on the decline (steadily) for the last 40~ years. We do not have a "Gun" Violence issue.
3) Types of guns. Rifles are used in a "minimal" amount of Homicide. Less than 10%. Most are handguns. 12000~ Gun related Homicides per year. 1000~ with Rifles. Rest with Handguns. Rifles are not the problem. "Scary Black Guns" are not the problem. They're great news though, and saying "assault weapons" sure makes headlines, and it's easily confused with "assault rifles."
4) Population density. Most Violence happens in High Population Density Areas. I can name the specific Cities off the top of my head. Oakland/SF, Atlanta, DC, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, & Los Angeles.. When you remove those cities. The US VIOLENCE problem goes away. More specifically, when you remove the areas within those cities with a higher than 5k/sqmile population density (Chicago has a 3sqmile area that accounts for MOST of their crime).
5) Most "crime" is socio-economic in nature. This is opposed to Terrorism, or Mental-Health. I bring this up because how we treat these subjects is different. Socio-economic is that Population Density piece. Education, standard of living, etc. This is the piece of Violence that is on the steady decline.
6) "Rampage Shooters" aka Mental Health or "Crazy" we are never going to stop. Our legal system is not designed to handle this. Because People have Rights.
7) Terrorism we are never going to stop, because Terrorists keep trying until they succeed.
CC: Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette Capt Richard I P.
1) The US has 320M people. We are the 4th largest Country in the world. We cannot compare ourselves to Switzerland, Japan, or Australia. We just run into "Scale" issues.
2) Stop looking at the problem as a "Gun" Violence issue, and start looking at it as a Violence issue. Then ask, do we have a Violence issue? Violence has been on the decline (steadily) for 40~ years. We do not have a Violence issue. Add Guns back in. "Gun" Violence has been on the decline (steadily) for the last 40~ years. We do not have a "Gun" Violence issue.
3) Types of guns. Rifles are used in a "minimal" amount of Homicide. Less than 10%. Most are handguns. 12000~ Gun related Homicides per year. 1000~ with Rifles. Rest with Handguns. Rifles are not the problem. "Scary Black Guns" are not the problem. They're great news though, and saying "assault weapons" sure makes headlines, and it's easily confused with "assault rifles."
4) Population density. Most Violence happens in High Population Density Areas. I can name the specific Cities off the top of my head. Oakland/SF, Atlanta, DC, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, & Los Angeles.. When you remove those cities. The US VIOLENCE problem goes away. More specifically, when you remove the areas within those cities with a higher than 5k/sqmile population density (Chicago has a 3sqmile area that accounts for MOST of their crime).
5) Most "crime" is socio-economic in nature. This is opposed to Terrorism, or Mental-Health. I bring this up because how we treat these subjects is different. Socio-economic is that Population Density piece. Education, standard of living, etc. This is the piece of Violence that is on the steady decline.
6) "Rampage Shooters" aka Mental Health or "Crazy" we are never going to stop. Our legal system is not designed to handle this. Because People have Rights.
7) Terrorism we are never going to stop, because Terrorists keep trying until they succeed.
CC: Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette Capt Richard I P.
(8)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) - As you'll note, Sir, I'm VERY opinionated on this issue, but my above doesn't actually push an agenda. I TRY to lay out the issues as I see them. There are certain realities that makes the US "different" than any other country. The major one is size. We're HUGE. Both geographically, population (total, and density in major city centers), & diversity. We're just not comparable to any other Nation. Let alone another civilized Nation. There is no country we can create an Apples to Apples comparison to.
After you get past size, we get into Constitutional issues, and our Protected Rights statuses. More specifically the fact that Americans don't trust our Government. And we're not afraid to say it. It's bred into us. Our Constitution is built around the fact that our Government doesn't trust our Government. Think about that for a second. We're Paranoid, and we're aware of the fact. We don't trust anyone, and we have no problem acknowledging it, in writing. The first few Amendments are there to ensure our ability to mount a rebellion...even if you completely ignore the 2a.
As for the reporting side... never forget the Press works for themselves. Not for us. They are a Profit Generating Organization. And there are no Good or Bad organizations, just organizations with strong or weak Oversight. The problem with the Press is that they have NO oversight. The People don't control them. The Government doesn't control them. We're both "product" to the Press. As such, we are "profit" to them, and a means to push their agenda.
After you get past size, we get into Constitutional issues, and our Protected Rights statuses. More specifically the fact that Americans don't trust our Government. And we're not afraid to say it. It's bred into us. Our Constitution is built around the fact that our Government doesn't trust our Government. Think about that for a second. We're Paranoid, and we're aware of the fact. We don't trust anyone, and we have no problem acknowledging it, in writing. The first few Amendments are there to ensure our ability to mount a rebellion...even if you completely ignore the 2a.
As for the reporting side... never forget the Press works for themselves. Not for us. They are a Profit Generating Organization. And there are no Good or Bad organizations, just organizations with strong or weak Oversight. The problem with the Press is that they have NO oversight. The People don't control them. The Government doesn't control them. We're both "product" to the Press. As such, we are "profit" to them, and a means to push their agenda.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - We're not the "customer." We're the "product." We're being sold to the real customer, other corporations who will profit off our purchases. The media sells access to us (demographically) to others.
Want to sell a car/pizza/message? You'll need access to consumers. We'll be happy to sell you airtime... for a price.
I'm jaded though.
Want to sell a car/pizza/message? You'll need access to consumers. We'll be happy to sell you airtime... for a price.
I'm jaded though.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Thank you Sir. You've captured a number of points that I didn't really elaborate on, such as the uninformed public and the biased/abbreviated reporting. It is disheartening to know that the more information that we have available the less desire we have to strike out and learn ourselves.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - "Lies by omission" is how I view much of it. Confirmation bias is VERY strong, and it takes a lot of training to bypass it. Especially so with the emotional responses.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I could go on and on about this, but in the interest in brevity - if I could boil it down to one factor, it would be the breakdown of the family. How many of these people that do these crimes are the product of broken homes? Mothers abandoned by baby-daddys?
Were the families together, odds are they would be in a much better social-economic place, and less prone to live in a crime-ridden area or contribute to criminality themselves.
Families with engaged parents have far fewer kids spiral out of control. It still happens of course; just not nearly as much.
Some will disagree with me, but the decline of religion is a factor as well. Amoral behavior is a plague tearing at the very fabric of our culture. Now that people think they can do whatever they want, they do whatever they want.
I can't fix society, but I can take care of my corner of it and raise my children right.
Were the families together, odds are they would be in a much better social-economic place, and less prone to live in a crime-ridden area or contribute to criminality themselves.
Families with engaged parents have far fewer kids spiral out of control. It still happens of course; just not nearly as much.
Some will disagree with me, but the decline of religion is a factor as well. Amoral behavior is a plague tearing at the very fabric of our culture. Now that people think they can do whatever they want, they do whatever they want.
I can't fix society, but I can take care of my corner of it and raise my children right.
(4)
(0)
CWO2 James Mathews
I tend to agree with you that the background of people have a great deal to do with how they deal with anger, and frustration However, the question that overides al the discussions about guns and gun control is what can we do about it. It has been pointed out that guns are tools, and not weapons without the human hands.. Other elements are also used to kill innocents such as planes, trucks, and other machines, all of which must be guided by a human hand. Illegal weapons crossing our easily crossed borders provide illegal guns to illegal people. So it would seem that the basic concern would be directed at people control and not "gun control." However, now the question is how to deal with people, I would say that we tighten our rules about dicipline in our schhols I served for a time as a civil school teacher, and found the students so rude, undiciplied, spoiled and downright dangerous, that I gave it up and went to work in industry. My evaluation of teachers that I have dealt with over the years is very poor. We should make a greater effort to block terrorist talk from abroad, and clear our streets of those who do have mental probems instead of allowing them to go unattended or without either assistance or confinement based on need. We also need to tighten our laws in regard to riot action, looting, terrorism and the court systems that hold the law over them. Now, I am fully aware that most of those tasks would be both difficult, and a long time solving, together with being expensive, but perhaps the US needs to look to its own wounds for a decade or two! Some politicals want to doit the easy way, with "Gun control" knowing full well that such won't work any better than it does now, simply because it is not the root of the problem!
Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
MCPO, TM (SS), CWO-2 (temp.), USN (Ret.)
Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
MCPO, TM (SS), CWO-2 (temp.), USN (Ret.)
(0)
(0)
Such a touchy and tricky question/situation. You have a point with your question though. How is it that those other countries can do what they do with what they have/don't have in place? Perhaps a higher regard for life as a whole in their society? The ability to better track where those weapons are sold/stored? Do they have anything close to HIPPA so that firearms stores have better database of those that have diagnosed and documented mental illnesses? I don't think there could ever be a proper answer to these questions and with our society as it is, there will never be a good, effective solution to these mass shootings.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Japan has about 120~M people, but mostly homogeneous. They also have a very high suicide rate.
Switzerland has about 8M, again homogeneous.
Australia has about 22M, not as homogeneous, but way less dense than the US.
It's really hard to get an Apples to Apples comparison between any of these countries.
Switzerland has about 8M, again homogeneous.
Australia has about 22M, not as homogeneous, but way less dense than the US.
It's really hard to get an Apples to Apples comparison between any of these countries.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Depending on your tilt on the issue, people tend to cherry pick concepts and irrelevant data to attempt to be logical. Both sides suffer from it. So for all the supposed connections, the real answer is maybe yes, maybe no. So here's something to chew on. We're a different country than everyone else. Our states are different from each other as well as our cities. So things that work in some places, don't work in others. So the one size fits all notions will have a hard time on implementation mostly everywhere. Our forefathers chose to have a Second Amendment for better or worse. They thought at the time it was for the better. People will say it's a problem because we're a different society now. We are different and in several ways for the worse. I'd suggest more effort be spent on recovering our collective decency vs. blaming everything but ourselves.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I fully agree with you on this regard Sir. This is why I attempted to ensure the question is tailored towards ensuring that I'm not trying to push an agenda, but simply gain information to help with processing and objective discussion. Personally, I feel that our society has moved from a hard-working, innovative, and forward-leaning society to a group that is arrogant and resting on the laurels of our forefathers. We have freedoms that people from other nations only dream of, which is also part of where the problems come from (which I can tolerate). However, the shift in being the best has changed, and now we seem to be gearing towards a society loaded with self-important people that are so hypersensitive that they will never be able to grow because we are unable to accept criticism and support the "everybody's a winner" philosophy.
That is much more subjective though....
v/r,
CPT Butler
That is much more subjective though....
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
CPT (Join to see)
CPT Ahmed Faried - In the past, BOTH sides use these tragedies to push their agendas, so either side claiming innocence is a ridiculous concept. Liberals have called for gun control, Conservatives call for more open carry/relaxed laws.....both push motives, whether it's a "religious fanatic" (both a Christian in the case of a Planned Parenthood attack or a Muslim shooting spree in a public space).
Rather than posting a political and divisive rant, the intent of this post is to discuss what you think the solutions are rather than just attempt to stir up controversy by reposting an inflammatory meme.
v/r,
CPT Butler
Rather than posting a political and divisive rant, the intent of this post is to discuss what you think the solutions are rather than just attempt to stir up controversy by reposting an inflammatory meme.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(2)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
CPT (Join to see) - but you know this particular meme isn't too off the mark. Though impolitic.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT Ahmed Faried - It isn't, but it disgusts me equally as much as those that talk about how gun control can stop every mass shooting/ "How I'd save the world!" vs. those that try to take every little "fact" to push their own agenda. "He was Muslim, so he clearly shot everyone up because he was radicalized", or "He was Christian, so CLEARLY this was trying to silence anti-Christian values."
People that turn these tragedies into "pulpit-pounders" to advance their agendas before the bodies are even cold are repulsive in my book. This is a cultural flaw that I think creates the environment, because it is reducing the victims to a "cause" and dehumanizing them. Honestly, I blame the media for a very large percentage of these shootings. Many of these people I think are "inspired" on the ideas of these shooters, because these terrorists can achieve "legendary" status for committing horrible actions. Many people know Timothy McVeigh, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Mohamed Atta, etc. How many people remember Sean Collier? Kyle Velasquez? Matt McQuinn? The first group are shooters/bombers/terrorists. The second group are the innocent victims that lost their lives to these animals, and then forgotten. Those that committed the heinous acts are given "glamour shots" on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Seems a bit backwards?
The fact is that the American public thrives off of chaos and carnage and the American mainstream media exists to spread panic. I cannot speak to the facts surrounding many news stories, but I CAN speak expertly about the media's misrepresentation of the Ebola threat to the United States. This disease NEVER posed a significant threat to the American general public, but the widespread hysteria that it created because of "alarmist reporting" created much undue tension. Rather than broadcasting "calming" broadcasts and allowing the judicial process to play out, the media has helped escalate tensions and played a role in inciting multiple riots due to the manner with which they selectively broadcast the facts to twist a story to "slant", rather than attempting to objectively get to the bottom of an issue and bring it to public light.
It's really sad when the British do a better job of objectively representing American current affairs than our own mass media does. (Yes, this is equally guilty regardless of whether you are talking about MSNBC or FOX).
v/r,
CPT Butler
People that turn these tragedies into "pulpit-pounders" to advance their agendas before the bodies are even cold are repulsive in my book. This is a cultural flaw that I think creates the environment, because it is reducing the victims to a "cause" and dehumanizing them. Honestly, I blame the media for a very large percentage of these shootings. Many of these people I think are "inspired" on the ideas of these shooters, because these terrorists can achieve "legendary" status for committing horrible actions. Many people know Timothy McVeigh, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Mohamed Atta, etc. How many people remember Sean Collier? Kyle Velasquez? Matt McQuinn? The first group are shooters/bombers/terrorists. The second group are the innocent victims that lost their lives to these animals, and then forgotten. Those that committed the heinous acts are given "glamour shots" on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Seems a bit backwards?
The fact is that the American public thrives off of chaos and carnage and the American mainstream media exists to spread panic. I cannot speak to the facts surrounding many news stories, but I CAN speak expertly about the media's misrepresentation of the Ebola threat to the United States. This disease NEVER posed a significant threat to the American general public, but the widespread hysteria that it created because of "alarmist reporting" created much undue tension. Rather than broadcasting "calming" broadcasts and allowing the judicial process to play out, the media has helped escalate tensions and played a role in inciting multiple riots due to the manner with which they selectively broadcast the facts to twist a story to "slant", rather than attempting to objectively get to the bottom of an issue and bring it to public light.
It's really sad when the British do a better job of objectively representing American current affairs than our own mass media does. (Yes, this is equally guilty regardless of whether you are talking about MSNBC or FOX).
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I think mental health is a factor --albeit a very large factor. When I was living on Camp Pendleton, a man stole an M-60 tank from the local National Guard armory and went on one hell of a joy ride. Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone. But, he destroyed a lot of property and endangered a lot of lives. For all the anti-tank laws on the books, it didn't stop him --For in his mental state, he had no regard for the law.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) - They (FBI) do however have a VERY clear definition (legal) of "mass killing" (referenced above).
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Quite so. I don't think we're meant to readily distinguish the difference. Nor are people who infer that shooting a person automatically kills tem.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) - I believe this, like the Assault Weapon/Rifle terminology is "intentionally misleading" and creates confusion to the layman. I have specifically started using Rampage Killings/Shootings instead, as I believe it is a more apt descriptor. Regardless of the number of people killed or injured, when we think of "Rampage" we have the correct type or event in mind. We're not thinking about "Gang Violence" which is Socio-economic in nature, as opposed to these Mental Health or Terrorist based events (or some 4th category).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Switzerland | Law Library of Congress
A report on the firearms-control laws of Switzerland.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Gun control is a scapegoat for not dealing with a deeper issue. We don't focus on what's pulling the trigger. We have a myriad of psychoses everywhere in the world. All violence is environmentally charged. When someone is bullied in school and is not allowed to defend him/herself but forced to be in that environment, chances are, if they have access to a firearm, they will use it. If they don't have access to firearms, they will improvise to obtain the desired effect. It may not be bullies, it may just be the fact that these shooters feel like they've run out of options. They tell people that are in charge or in the enforcement chain, nothing gets done, and they take matters into their own hands. So the focus shouldn't necessarily be gun control, it should be life options and opportunity management. Cause if you don't get the opportunity to thrive you're going to be taking the opportunity to survive. Sometimes that means negotiating the course the best way you know how. Sometimes people would rather kill the problem rather that negotiate with it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
So here's my two cents on the issue.
And I want to echo CAPT Kevin B. 's sentiments here. One of the things I study as an academic is causal inference. Is there an actual causal pattern to the arguments being laid out. Not rhetoric, but actual factual causation?
Most of the rhetoric on both sides has a huge issue. They confuse correlation with causation. People look at declining crime rates and rising gun sales say it is because more people are armed that less crime is committed. But frankly, there is no causal evidence for this to be true. In the same vein,
Ultimately, people generally fall into two counterfactuals. A lot of guns will stop this violence from occurring, and eliminating guns will stop this violence from occurring. The fact of the matter is that we actually don't know the result of either case. If we armed and trained every American, would that reduce crime and gun deaths? Who knows? If we got rid of every gun in America, would that reduce crime and homicides? No one knows. It is all conjecture.
And I want to echo CAPT Kevin B. 's sentiments here. One of the things I study as an academic is causal inference. Is there an actual causal pattern to the arguments being laid out. Not rhetoric, but actual factual causation?
Most of the rhetoric on both sides has a huge issue. They confuse correlation with causation. People look at declining crime rates and rising gun sales say it is because more people are armed that less crime is committed. But frankly, there is no causal evidence for this to be true. In the same vein,
Ultimately, people generally fall into two counterfactuals. A lot of guns will stop this violence from occurring, and eliminating guns will stop this violence from occurring. The fact of the matter is that we actually don't know the result of either case. If we armed and trained every American, would that reduce crime and gun deaths? Who knows? If we got rid of every gun in America, would that reduce crime and homicides? No one knows. It is all conjecture.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - Thank you Sir for the levity of the conversation. Yes, this is conjecture and I am not attempting to validate either point, but rather attempt to illustrate whether others feel there are other significant variables. Both sides can successfully argue a point, and while there are many factors that differ from these nations, the reactions of the individuals from within these cultures indicates to me that perhaps a more significant contributing factor may be a cultural "deficit".
v/r,
Jon
v/r,
Jon
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google