Donal & Mike,
We are still reacting against King George over here. However, we can
see his point of view. If you are in charge of a country and there are
a bunch of your citizens who might very well get rowdy, it would be a
good idea to keep them unarmed if you can. Although one can't really
generalize about "what Americans think" one can break America down into
elements, something Walter Russell Mead did in his /Special Providence:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415935369?keywords=walter%20russell%20mead&qid=1444051543&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
/Using Mead, the Jacksonians are the "gun nuts." Or rather, a gun nut
is most likely to be a Jacksonian. The country really needs them and
their attitude. Mead lists their attributes. They want to be left
alone which expands into their politically wanting America to be left
alone. They don't want to be interfered with or interfere with others.
They don't want the US to be involved in foreign wars, but if (and here
the Wilsonians are required) wiser heads convince them that war is
required to secure American interests, they are the first to rush down
to the recruiting offices to sign up. You really need them if you are
president and you want to start a war. And oh yes, their independence
is secured at home by their right to bear arms. No president who thinks
he might need them to fight a war is going to take their guns away.
Mead wrote that the Jacksonians were most likely to join the NRA. The
Jeffersonians on the other hand were most likely to join the Civil
Liberties Union. The Wilsonians are the ones who think they can solve
the problems of the world. They have been prominent in our foreign
policy since the days of Wilson. The Jacksonians are at heart
isolationists -- not the Wilsonians. The Jeffersonians want everything
to be settled in court. The Jacksonians and Wilsonians think
otherwise. This leaves only the Hamiltonians who are the money people
-- get all the other countries on the same page economically, trading
with each other, in each others pockets economically, and all the rest
will take care of itself. The world is moving in their direction. The
big stuff is working out their way. These four elements cover the
governments big important stuff.
Less important from the government's point of view but attention-getters
for citizens are such things as guns and the way they are used. Tell
Americans that you want to take away their guns and the Jacksonians are
going to come out (politically) in force. Let the media sensationalize
a crime like the killings in Oregon and the Jeffersonians are going to
rush out demanding more laws. It isn't that simple of course -- or
rather Mead didn't make it that simple. He was concerned about foreign
policy, but his four categories are illuminating. Maybe red-necks are
pure Jacksonians but most people will be combinations.
My brother retired from California to Utah. He said anyone up there can
get a carry permit that wants one. He's under the impression that there
isn't as much violent crime up there. If the criminal thinks there is a
good chance that the prospective victim is carrying a gun, he is more
likely to back off than he would be in a state with more restrictive gun
laws. Are there more murders proportionately in Utah? Yeah probably,
but a Jacksonian would gladly accept the chance of being murdered rather
than give up the right to defend himself.
You said,
*It also seems that the US debate becomes strangely heated and not
evidence-based: for example Lawrence's use of guns as a possible means
for fending off rape is highly charged and raises more questions than it
answers (including how an armed rapist might be more deadly and
difficult to fend off than an unarmed one; how many rapes could feasibly
be fended off by a gun; and the scope of self-defence).
*
*
**
*
I meant to show that one sensationalized event in Oregon could be
countered by a sensationalized rape event. Before the Jeffersonians
could get us to the polls to vote money for a bureaucracy to take away
all guns the Jacksonians could sensationalize other events, such as
rapes of little girls, that would pluck the chords of the Jacksonian
voters hearts. Who can doubt that there are many more rapes occurring
than mass murders, and yet they are not sensationalized to the extent
that a school shooting is. And don't forget what the Oregon shooter
said, that the more people you killed, the more notoriety you received,
something he wanted; so the media sensation-gauge was being watched, at
least by him. Maybe it isn't being watched as much by potential rape
victims. But ask a rape victim if she wished she'd had a gun in her
purse. I've read that many rape victims begin carrying guns, law or no
law after they've been raped. Apparently the risk of their being
apprehended by police for carrying an unauthorized firearm is slight --
police have no probable cause for checking their purses. They would
have to use it in their own defense for anyone to notice -- that is
unless it was used but the victim didn't actually kill the rapist. In
those cases the rapist isn't going to turn her in even if he was
wounded, and she isn't going to report that she deterred a potential
rapist with an unauthorized fire arm.
As to patterning ourselves after Europeans, it is probably too late for
that. We were the great democratic experiment. For a long time the
monarchs of Europe predicted we would fail. We influenced the French
but they botched it. It wasn't until the Second World War and its
aftermath that American Democracy really caught on -- at least that's
the way many of us see it. Are Europeans more civilized than
Americans? In the days of T. S. Eliot and Henry James it was thought
so. You had to go to Europe to engage in civilized writing. But then
Europe discovered fascism and all that changed. Europeans, if they
could afford it, moved back here. And then there was the Cold War
during which the U.S. protected Europe against threats from the USSR.
So it isn't going to occur to Jacksonians that they should follow
European examples. Jeffersonians are another matter. President Obama
is a Jeffersonian. He would like the U.S. to emulate Europe which is
much more bureaucratic, much more controlling, much more cradle to
grave welfaristic; something appalling to a Jacksonian.
Interestingly, Mead and others have pointed out, blacks in America are
largely opposed to gun control because during the slave era they were
not allowed to own guns. To order their guns taken away is a bit
frightening for some. Maybe Geary could add to that. Were their blacks
in the pub you frequented in your drinking days?
Lawrence
On 10/5/2015 3:31 AM, Donal McEvoy wrote:
*>Sure, guns should be restricted to government use only. We can trust the government to do right, and prohibiting guns to law-abiding citizens will drastically reduce the population of gun holders to soldiers, cops, and crooks.>*
*
*
*Sarcasm aside, this raises the point that gun legislation has two broad effects (a) between citizen and citizen (including citizens who are crooks) (b) between citizen and state.
*
*
*
*Surely (b) is much more important than (a)? Using guns to resist tyranny by the state is (arguably) a political right (if we are democrats). Legislation, that would remove or restrict a citizen's ability to use arms in exercise of this political right, needs careful scrutiny in the interests of democracy [i.e. the avoidance of tyranny]. Otoh, while the state need not have a monopoly of force, in a democracy the state still needs a preponderance of force - for we should not have a state so weak that it could be overthrown by tyrannical citizens.
*
*
*
*There are serious dilemmas here and serious alternatives: a strong democratic ethos within the state and its institutions [underpinned by laws] may be much more important a safeguard than a citizen's right to arms, especially given the preponderance of state force.
*
*
*
*Despite this - as per Lawrence's comments - it seems (a) becomes the focus of much of the argument - premised largely on the availability of guns as a method of crime prevention [mere appeal to 'freedom' here strikes me as too weak to justify the carrying of guns in civil society].
*
*
*
*These arguments in favour of arms for citizens re (a) strike me as much weaker both in terms of evidence that liberal gun-laws have a greater overall deterent effect on crime (than more restrictive laws) and in terms of the political dangers were we to try to take guns out of the equation of relations between citizens.
*
*
*
*Few in Europe who read of these mass killings in the US think it would be an idea to promote a gun-carrying culture here or feel Europeans are less protected against their fellow citizens because of our much more restrictive laws. Quite the reverse.
*
*
*
*D*
*L
*
On Monday, 5 October 2015, 6:16, Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike,
I see on so-called social media that you and another friend of mine got embroiled in a go - nowhere Imbruglia ( damn this autocorrect!). He's a once - friend - turned gun nut. Unfortunately, there's no discussion to be had on this subject. Not with him. Years have passed yet we hold the same views we did in the 1990s. Dan hard to feel optimistic.
Ck
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 4 mini ™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:10/03/2015 10:42 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The United Gun Guys of America
I'm not looking to get into an argument over guns. I've been in hundreds and never once was I convinced of the necessity or the efficacy of owning a gun and never once have I swayed a gun owner that society would be immeasurable better without citizen ownership of weaponry. My world view (as opposed to my non-existent religious view) is that private ownership of guns is insane for any society. The manufacture of guns should be against the law and punishable by stoning. Guns exist to kill and only to that end. Yes, there are other means of killing -- strangling for instance, but hands have other uses. Guns do not. Knives have other uses, guns do not. Dynamite has other uses, Guns do not. The various poisons have many different uses. Guns do not. Etc., etc., etc. We do not need to shoot game for food. We haven't for quite some time now. And yet it is estimated that 1 in 3 Americans owns a gun. WHY??? Because they're afraid of that "other guy" -- who just might own a gun. It's insane. Confiscate ALL the goddamn guns and melt them all down, each and every one. I suppose it's amazing that our suicide and murder rates are so "low" given the amount of weaponry around. What am I bitching about? So 9 college kids get blown away. So what, we've still got the Constitutional right to own our own guns. It's in the Constitution -- the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights: *"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." To hell with those 9 kids. *It's just another day in Amerika. Flip Wilson had the best answer to guns. Let people have their guns. Just tax ammunition so much that each bullet costs $5000. I'm not looking to anger people, just wanting to get rid of the guns.
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I don't disagree with the criteria disparities. I found that to
be true as well. I have heard something a bit different about the
Homicide statistic in America, namely that if you shoot someone
who has invaded your home or in any other way defend yourself such
that an attacker is killed, the event is initially called a
homicide until someone later on, perhaps even a jury decides that
it isn't. In the meantime it is called a homicide and entered
into statistics as such. There probably isn't anything that can
be done about that. Local police forces aren't given the
authority to determine when a death is a homicide and when it isn't.
As to the definition of violent crimes, probably we in the U.S.,
many of us, wouldn't accept the idea that it is more acceptable
that our wives and sisters be raped than that we kill the rapist,
e.g, he had your sister down and had pulled her pants off and you
shot him??? Did you have to do that? Attempted rape isn't as
serious a crime as an actual rape. we're going to call that a
homicide and you are in a whole lot of trouble.
Would a few cases like that get gun owners stirred up so that they
would strenuously fight having their guns taken away? The way the
media works, just one case has gotten Geary stirred up -- a lot of
other people as well. If the threat of the creation of a
bureaucracy to take away the guns of normal American citizens
became serious enough, counter examples could be produced in
abundance.
Having said all that, I was a rifle instructor in the Marine Corps
at one time and all the coaches I knew would agree that some of
our shooters couldn't be trusted with weapons. You get a shooter
who falls well below a qualification score, forgets that he needs
to keep his rifle pointed down range, fires a shot into the air by
accident and you tell the coach next to you, "I sure hope I never
end up living next to that guy." If "that guy" had a family that
cared about him they ought to make sure he didn't have access to
any guns once he got out of the Marine Corps.
Heck, a lot more people get killed by cars than guns, and each
time my son is in a car with me, he watches me suspiciously (even
more so now that I've entered my 80s) and threatens to take my
keys away if I start showing any signs of senility. He laughs and
jokes about it, but he'd do it. I read an article in this
morning's paper about the Oregon shooter showing homicidal
inclinations. He was living with his mother and had tantrums like
the ones he had as a child. Also, he had a fascination for
murderers who killed a lot of people. If we are going to
authorize the intrusion of a governmental agency into anyone's
life to take their guns away, I would much prefer you do it to
people who are inept with firearms (as my shooters of old) or
people with a fascination with homicides -- than old fashioned
folk who think its okay to protect their wives and sisters.
Lawrence
