Valuable insights into the psychodynamics of responses to "Gun Violence"

[Hypnogator]

Philosophy professor Joseph Heath of the University of Toronto recently published a treatise "On the problem of normative sociology" in the Canadian Public Health Blog. I found it to be highly informative regarding the motivations of both sides of the debate which inevitably results from a highly publicized shooting incident.

Dr. Heath writes, "Often when we study social problems, there is an almost irresistible temptation to study what we would like the cause of those problems to be (for whatever reason), to the neglect of the actual causes. When this goes uncorrected, you can get the phenomenon of “politically correct” explanations for various social problems – where there’s no hard evidence that A actually causes B, but where people, for one reason or another, think that A ought to be the explanation for B. This can lead to a situation in which denying that A is the cause of B becomes morally stigmatized, and so people affirm the connection primarily because they feel obliged to, not because they’ve been persuaded by any evidence."

Thus we find that those who favor gun control to be convinced that the "cause" of the problem is unrestricted access to guns, and anyone holding a conflicting opinion is a reprehensible troglodyte. On the other hand, we in the "Gunny" community are convinced that armed citizens are the answer to mass shootings, when in reality most of the time all they can do is lower the casualty count. While the latter is a worthy goal in itself, it often can't prevent the shooter from injuring or killing anyone except himself.

I would recommend that those interested in a greater insight into anti-gun thinking, read Dr. Heath's article in its entirety. It may be found at: http://induecourse.ca/on-the-problem-of-normative-sociology/

Interestingly, I stumbled onto Dr. Heath's work from a blog article on The Economist website. It argues the interesting precept that while lax gun laws may cause mass shootings (wrong - psychopaths cause mass shootings) mass shootings may in turn cause lax gun laws, as more people desire to acquire guns for protection from such events. This article is at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/mass-shootings-and-gun-control

 

[Snyper]

It argues the interesting precept that while lax gun laws may cause mass shootings (wrong - psychopaths cause mass shootings) mass shootings may in turn cause lax gun laws, as more people desire to acquire guns for protection from such events.

Anyone who thinks gun laws are "lax" isn't very realistic

 

[MedWheeler]

Excellent reading.

 

[MedWheeler]

Snyper writes:

Anyone who thinks gun laws are "lax" isn't very realistic

Most of those who do believe that base it on the premise that lawful access to guns by members of the general public means "lax gun laws."

It doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong about what they believe. It matters that they're fighting for it.

 

[45_auto]

Anyone who thinks gun laws are "lax" isn't very realistic

Can you name a first or second world country that has less restrictive gun laws than the US?

I've spent a lot of time in Europe, western Asia, and central America. I can't think of a country off-hand where it's easier to legally get a gun than the US.

 

[JRH6856]

Some really interesting ideas in both articles, thanks for posting.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Can you name a first or second world country that has less restrictive gun laws than the US?

I've spent a lot of time in Europe, western Asia, and central America. I can't think of a country off-hand where it's easier to legally get a gun than the US.

Apparently the Czech Republic has less restrictions on acquiring, owning and carrying of firearms than the US, specifically states like New Jersey.

 

[JRH6856]

Just a guess, but Russia and China might be more lenient than New Jersey. (no, probably not)

 

[45_auto]

Sounds like the Czech Republic might be the place to be. Compared to China and Russia, New Jersey and California firearms laws are almost non-existent.

Czech Republic - A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody with a firearms license. Gun licenses are shall-issue and may be obtained in a way very similar to a driving license. Unlike in most other European countries, the Czech gun legislation also permits a citizen to carry a weapon for self-defense; concealed carry is mandatory while open carry is restricted.

China - Firearm ownership law in the People's Republic of China heavily regulates the ownership of firearms. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess firearms. Firearms can be used by law enforcement, the military and paramilitary, and security personnel protecting property of state importance (including the arms industry, financial institutions, storage of resources, and scientific research institutions).

Russia - Russian legislation on gun control is relatively strict, limiting the circulation of firearms to Russian citizens older than eighteen years of age with a registered permanent residence, and for the purposes of self-defense, hunting, and sports activities only. The acquisition of guns is based on licenses provided for a five-year period by local police departments at one’s place of residence after a thorough background check, including a review of the petitioner’s ability to store guns safely and an evaluation of his/her medical records. Mentally ill people and those who have been treated for substance abuse are not allowed to possess firearms.

 

[barnbwt]

"On the other hand, we in the "Gunny" community are convinced that armed citizens are the answer to mass shootings, when in reality most of the time all they can do is lower the casualty count. While the latter is a worthy goal in itself, it often can't prevent the shooter from injuring or killing anyone except himself."

What about those of us who don't think armed citizens are an 'answer,' but instead the only scenario with likely and possible scenario near/long term micro/macro scale positive impacts? The benefits of gun control on the other hand, always seem to be long term, just over the horizon, 'if we can only pass this next bill...'

More and more, I'm coming to understand the two mindsets increasingly polarized today*. You have the group that believes in Utopia, but for mankind's imperfection; and those with high regard for the capacity of mankind, but not its ability to change its own nature. One believes bodily iniquity can be eliminated by shedding our egos, the other that it may be overcome only by those so inclined to do so. The first group requires uniform (enforced) compliance from all present to pursue its goals, the other requires that personal ambitions not be in conflict with one another's freedom. Both are impossible to attain, but one yields a brief, glorious, tumultuous period of personal free expression & advancement before it ossifies and collapses under its own weight into the other, which then decomposes into corruption so thorough as to allow personal freedom to sprout once more.

"It argues the interesting precept that while lax gun laws may cause mass shootings (wrong - psychopaths cause mass shootings) mass shootings may in turn cause lax gun laws, as more people desire to acquire guns for protection from such events."

That's the dumbest theory I've ever heard. "Mad Bombers" and "Slashers" were the order of the day way back before gun control or effective handguns existed. Rampage killers are well documented as a phenomenon in history (IIRC, Alexander the Great would occasionally wander off to wantonly slaughter sheep in a rage, not to mention the ancient mythological recognition given "amok" by the Malay). Secondly, this current situation of highly publicized crimes causing an anti-restriction reflex comes on the heels of at least a solid century of the exact opposite. Highly publicized incidents of lower-class and minority crime led to Prohibition and early gun control, whose gangster-spawn justified national-scale gun control and federal police forces, whose grand standing and overreach attracted assorted crazies and revolutionaries in the '60's (your Panthers, Mansons, and assassins), whose front page crimes drove our modern system of gun control the whole nation over. It wasn't until a boneheaded overreach in the '90's, when anti-gunners foolishly believed their own propaganda that gun owners were sufficiently marginalized to receive a final coup de gras at the hands of the majority, that the pendulum seems to have begun slowing or even reversing in some areas.

We are presently in what appears to be a self-sustaining (thanks in very large part to self-reinforcing 'echo chambers' as people on the other side would classify this forum) mindset of "we won't get fooled again" for the time being, which is the only reason the reaction to highly publicized crimes from a large chunk of the populace is not towards more state intervention. And pretty much only as it regards gun rights, btw. It'll be interesting if this inflection point ultimately forces a political realignment among the powers that be, and we end up with a statist and libertarian party (which would be not unlike the situation we had from the 1700's through the 1960's)

"Sounds like the Czech Republic might be the place to be. Compared to China and Russia, New Jersey and California firearms laws are almost non-existent."
I hear Uruguay is also very good, with the added bonus of a comical surplus of unmarried women in some regions (I'm told the men leave for jobs in Brazil, etc.)

TCB

*history warns in red flashing letters of times when the general populace begins thinking hard about weighty issues, for whatever reason.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Finland is another country that is apparently pretty easy going about guns.

I've been all over the world, and most of the places we go in the military are dirt piles on poverty. Those that can take care of themselves, generally do. And as such we have no excuse to go liberate them from some enemy or pesky resources.

I did see a lot of guns in Israel, but again, pretty much a constant threat of war, and most of them were off duty military required to carry their weapons.

 

[Deaf Smith]

There ain't no such thing as "Gun Violence", since there is no such thing as "Rock Violence" or "Club Violence" or "Fist Violence."

Violence is violence. Take one weapon out of the equation (yea right, wishful thinking) and those prone to violence will just gravitate to the next best thing.

"Gun Violence" is just a term liberal anti-gun folks made up as a strawman. A fake argument designed to pull in the weak minded. It's a Gruber term people. And they think they can Gruber enough of the population to ban guns.

Deaf

 

[JRH6856]

"It argues the interesting precept that while lax gun laws may cause mass shootings (wrong - psychopaths cause mass shootings) mass shootings may in turn cause lax gun laws, as more people desire to acquire guns for protection from such events."

That's the dumbest theory I've ever heard. "Mad Bombers" and "Slashers" were the order of the day way back before gun control or effective handguns existed. Rampage killers are well documented as a phenomenon in history (IIRC, Alexander the Great would occasionally wander off to wantonly slaughter sheep in a rage, not to mention the ancient mythological recognition given "amok" by the Malay). Secondly, this current situation of highly publicized crimes causing an anti-restriction reflex comes on the heels of at least a solid century of the exact opposite. Highly publicized incidents of lower-class and minority crime led to Prohibition and early gun control, whose gangster-spawn justified national-scale gun control and federal police forces, whose grand standing and overreach attracted assorted crazies and revolutionaries in the '60's (your Panthers, Mansons, and assassins), whose front page crimes drove our modern system of gun control the whole nation over. It wasn't until a boneheaded overreach in the '90's, when anti-gunners foolishly believed their own propaganda that gun owners were sufficiently marginalized to receive a final coup de gras at the hands of the majority, that the pendulum seems to have begun slowing or even reversing in some areas.

I think it not so much a theory as an examplary possibility within the author's worldview. You have to remember that the progressive worldview sees history linearly moving in one direction while the ideas you offer in opposition are cyclical, or perhaps a cyclical spiral which may be a more accurate view.

 

[JRH6856]

"Gun Violence" is just a term liberal anti-gun folks made up as a strawman.

You are correct, and when we ignore the strawman instead of identifying it for what it is and rejecting it, we run the risk of giving it a veneer of legitimacy.

 

[goon]

I've gotten to know a few people who fall into the "more restrictions" camp.
Though I disagree with them, they often have real reasons for their beliefs. Most recently, I got to know a couple immigrants who came to the US from a country that had suffered a horrific civil war. They're generally opposed to guns, and especially don't want them in the hands of "young people." Child soldiers committed huge numbers of atrocities where they are from, so they doubt that someone under about the age of 25 can be trusted with a gun. Point of fact, young uncontrolled men commit a huge amount of the crimes here too.

I don't agree with them, but I can at least understand where their point of view comes from.

I also don't think having large numbers of armed people in every church service (or in schools or at the mall or wherever) is "the answer." The idea of a bloody shootout in a church is horrific. It's wrong. I don't want that.

But what I want even less is almost a dozen old people with no means of defense executed by a piece of human filth just because he felt like murdering some black people at a Bible study.

It's a matter of realizing that no matter what I want, there are two bad scenarios that we have to choose between. We don't get a good choice, we just get to make the one that is slightly less bad.

But even then, elderly church ladies are often not going to be gunfighters. They're old church ladies. Even a bunch of CCW carriers scattered throughout the population isn't going to solve all the problems. Occasionally one of those CCW carriers is also going to do something bad. But it's better than the alternative of ONLY the bad guys carrying guns.

 

[JRH6856]

It's a matter of realizing that no matter what I want, there are two bad scenarios that we have to choose between. We don't get a good choice, we just get to make the one that is slightly less bad.

But are those the only choices? Right now, the probably are but do they always have to be? Have we examined the possibilities carefully enough to exclude all but those two forever?

I carry to defend myself. In doing so, I may also benefit others, but I don't kid myself that the world is a safer place because I am carrying a gun. Or that it will be more dangerous for anyone other than myself if I am unarmed.

 

[goon]

But are those the only choices? Right now, the probably are but do they always have to be? Have we examined the possibilities carefully enough to exclude all but those two forever?

"Forever" is a whole other philosophical debate... one that will probably take a lot more than THR to hash out.

But should I ever find myself in your area, I'll buy a six pack of Shock Top Raspberry Wheat if you'll provide a back porch and a couple lawn chairs. I'd imagine that thus equipped, two reasonable guys could come up with solutions for most of the world's most pressing problems.

 

[JRH6856]

You're on, but maybe not the Raspberry Wheat. How about the Belgian White or Lemon Shandy?

 

[USAF_Vet]

You're on, but maybe not the Raspberry Wheat. How about the Belgian White or Lemon Shandy?

mmmm... make mine a Honeycrisp apple wheat, please. With a shot of Wild Turkey on the side.

 

[goon]

You're on, but maybe not the Raspberry Wheat. How about the Belgian White or Lemon Shandy?

A six pack of each should do the trick.

mmmm... make mine a Honeycrisp apple wheat, please. With a shot of Wild Turkey on the side.

If word gets out that someone is bringing Wild Turkey, it won't be long until the Marines invite themselves along. It'll take a lot more than one bottle of Wild Turkey to keep them occupied.

 

[Snejdarek]

Apparently the Czech Republic has less restrictions on acquiring, owning and carrying of firearms than the US, specifically states like New Jersey.

Checking into the discussion from the Czech Republic.

Just to avoid any confusions. In the Czech Republic you need a license to own any kind of firearm (unless you want to go black powder). So even to get a hold of a single shot rifle or shotgun legally , you need to get the license first. Correct me if I am wrong but I'd suppose that these kind of guns would be over the counter in New Jersey?

Getting the license: That is quite straightforward. You come to a police station, pick a date for gun exam. Nobody is asking you where or how you learned for that, you just need to pass (as far as I understand in most of US CC licenses require going through certified course). You go to your general practitioner to give you a stamp that you're fit to carry and shoot (or shoot only if you want non-carry license, but that almost never happens, unless you are younger than 21 and non-carry is your only option). Formally the cops have 30 days to issue license, but if you ask nicely you'll have it in a week or two.

Then you can buy basically anything but full auto (these are subject to may issue permit, so also not completely off limits). Semi-autos require "permit to purchase". You go to police station, fill in permit, they do background database check, and in 15 minutes you are good to go. You get one permit for one gun which is valid for one year, but you can ask for as many permits at the same time as you like.

No limits on number of guns (just tougher rules on safe storage for more than 2/10/20 - however police have no right to come check storage unless you have full auto), no magazine capacity limits, no "dangerous looking guns" limits, no limits on barrel length, in general no bull****.

Downside: all guns registered with police. No "higher wounding potential" ammo for self defense (e.g. hollow point).

The civilian population was basically disarmed 1939-1989, first by nazis and then by commies. Right now criminality is fairly low (apart from a couple of selected areas) and most people don't feel the need to be armed. So even though we have some of the most permissive rules in Europe, the gun ownership so far remains relatively low. The number of gun owners was rising up to about 2000. Since then it remained at about 3% of population; number of guns between these 3% continues to steadily rise.



While in the rest of Europe the most common guns are hunting rifles, in the Czech Republic its mostly pistols. And most gun owners here do have guns for self defense primarily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_Czech_Republic

In case anyone's interested, here is an interview with US Olympic Sport Shooter Matthew Emmons who has recently moved to the Czech Republic. Via Google translate. It seems he has already hunted in the Czech Republic so I suppose he's got the Czech gun license. He bought a house here, got Czech citizenship but will still represent US in Rio de Janeiro.

 

[SFsc616171]

re:valuable insights

I have never taken too much stock on folks that get paid to tell me how, what, and why I think as I do. That is an unsettled science, with the next generation throwing the curve balls.

When I was growing up, it was my DAD that taught me what was right and wrong, and how to approach matters.

Today, as I have seen it many times, it is the MOTHER doing the teachings, including kneeling in front of a four year old explaining, in plain english, why they can't have what they wish.

Violence, in any matter of least to worst, is part of the human condition, and cannot be ignored. The DADs would teach how to approach and negate that violence. The MOTHERS recoil at the very hideousness of any amount of violence, and teach accordingly.

Gun violence is no more violent than if the tool used was a screwdriver. It damages, injures, wounds, and kills. The result is the same.

The simple question is this:
Do YOU shrink in recoil at the nastiness that was done, thereby YOURSELF accepting to be a second-hand 'victim', or do YOU react to find, seek, and exact what is due of the violent one?

In April of 1970, my high school sweetheart was raped and killed in one of the many inter-building staircases, during the school day. The guy was never caught.

In 1966, I went to my girlfriend's house, after school, only to find that her dad shot her, then himself. I was the one who called the cops to report it.

So, my premise question is not just 'an academic exercise'.

 

[hammerklavier]

Small flaw in the good professor's logic. He stated that armed citizens can only reduce the casualty count, and cannot prevent the shooting altogether. But if the good folks at this church in SC had been known to be proud carriers of arms, the shooter would never have entered that church in the first place. In other words gun free zones should either be eliminated or secured by armed guards.

 

[entropy]

You have to remember that the progressive worldview sees history linearly moving in one direction while the ideas you offer in opposition are cyclical, or perhaps a cyclical spiral which may be a more accurate view.

Not may be. Is a more accurate view. Actually, a combination of the two is more accurate still, but it's a long, slow corkscrew trip up that spiral.

Any who doubt this need but read The History of the Decline and Fall of Rome by Edward Gibbon, and compare it to Great Britain's history of the last 150 years, and US history of the last 100. Civilizations rise and fall in a predicable pattern, though the time for this cycle has varied through history. Industrial capability and Technology seem to be accelerating the process.

 

[JRH6856]

Just to avoid any confusions. In the Czech Republic you need a license to own any kind of firearm (unless you want to go black powder). So even to get a hold of a single shot rifle or shotgun legally , you need to get the license first. Correct me if I am wrong but I'd suppose that these kind of guns would be over the counter in New Jersey?

Depends on what you call "over the counter" A lifetime purchaser identification card (FPIC) is required for purchase of rifles and shotguns, as well as for purchases of handgun ammunition. A permit to purchase a handgun, valid for 90 days is required for each handgun purchase. Only one handgun can be purchased within a 30 day period.

Once you own a gun, all you can do with it is take it to the range (unless you have a permit to carry a handgun). You can transport it from place of purchase to home. Home to a Certified Shooting Range. Going hunting but must have a valid hunting license. You just can’t have it in your vehicle. Again the law says you must have a FPIC or NJ Carry Permit to even transport firearms in NJ.

New Jersey calls its permit a "permit to carry a handgun" and is a "may-issue" state for firearm carry, either openly or concealed. Permit applicants must "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." As a result of this tough standard, New Jersey is effectively a "no issue" state unless one is a retired law enforcement officer. Armed security officers and armored car drivers typically get restricted permits limited to carry while on duty only. A letter of need from the security company is required.

Open carry is allowed only with a permit to carry a handgun and is generally not practiced except by security officers and others who carry firearms on duty.