Fireside Chat: Guns and a Culture of Violence?

[DesertRose]

Note: We were asked to move this discussion out of the Do you carry firearms on trips? thread . . .

Vince, excellent commentary - this is such a great thing to debate, I'll try to just respond to a couple things and then we'll have to resume this over a campfire and some good libation for sure :campfire:

That's not really the point I was trying to make.

I'm commenting on the gun culture in this country and the disposition to violence.

Ah, I see now where you were going with the comment.

No other modern, "civilized" nation equals our homicide rate per capita or our gun ownership per capita.

I'm not a big fan of quoting rates and per capitas and statistics for the simple reason they can be easily skewed to support a view (I'm not saying you're doing that though).

Why? Part of the answer, I believe, lies in our heritage and the cultural mindset that is consciously and unconsciously passed on from generation to generation, i.e.our nation was born of violence, our ancestors committed systematic genocide of native peoples, the Wild West was 'tamed with guns' and is embedded in our mythology...

As for the cultural mindset and mythology, that's an interesting point of view, somthing I'm going to mull on, but there is a danger it's too simplistic to try to pin one "cultural mindset" or "mythology" on such a huge country with the most diverse assemblage of "cultures" on Earth. We all carry, create, or adopt our own mindsets and mythologies.

Your comment on our nation being borne of violence and genocide really got me thinking.

Can you name one nation on earth that was not borne of violence, or its earliest founders/settlers exercise force, genocide, or economic terrorism over the people who came before?

I haven't quite come up with one yet . . .

There are many other historic social, economic, and political factors contributing to our cultural disposition to violence which is not equalled elsewhere...

My experience in other continents/countries says otherwise (Africa, Mexico; remember we're talking about "cultural disposition" here).

Remember that our access to media simply brings incidents closer to us every moment, every second; that doesn't mean we're more violent. It means we have more TVs, computers, PDAs, & radios.

Ultimately, that's why I believe it's important to think about our culture of guns and violence...just as we think "green" to save Mother Earth for future generations...what can we think and do to save us from each other?

I thought about this a lot, and I guess I just don't see it as a culture of guns and violence - so I don't fret about it. But I understand that it's an important issue to you, and you have thought deeply about it , which is really great (and clearly you are much more of an optimist than I).

I am going to keep thinking about these things so we can continue this great fireside debate!

 

[erin]

Rob, you make some very good points, but I think to say that people become more aggressive when they carry during a confrontation, is a bit much, especially for the informed and trained person. There are always people who will be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, I feel, and have heard the same from many others, that carring a firearm actually makes you more aware of your surroundings and also makes you seriously consider your actions during any type of confrontation. I have carried legally in AZ for over 13 years, have worked in the gun industry running a local gun shop, trained for the certification of CCW permits and instructed classes and done training work with law enforcement.
Everyone who I was ever involved with who choose to carry legally and take our course, did so with a very serious mind frame. Especially since, in AZ, you have to have very good cause to protect yourself with a firearm. Some states vary, but here it is spelled out very clear when and when not you can defend yourself, and you had better be sure of it if you do.
Just remember, we're not all cowboys

 

[Skillet]

Just remember, we're not all cowboys

Speaking as a native of Santa Cruz, CA., born and raised here in liberal city by a couple of flower children, I concur.
Because we either enjoy shooting or our right to carry and protect ourselves and our family, does not make us cowboys, violent or "pitiful".

 

[teotwaki]

before the "Wild West"/gun "culture"/History Of Violence comparisons are unfurled I wanted to throw out an interesting sounding book that I recently discovered on line and am checking for at my local library

The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking The History Of The Old West (Paperback) by Stewart L. Udall

Book Description

"The West is so cluttered with misconceptions that it is hard to have a serious discussion about its history." - Wallace Stegner.

For most Americans, the "Wild West" popularized in movies and pulp novels - a land of intrepid traders and explorers, warlike natives, and trigger-happy gunslingers - has become the true history of the region. The story of the West's development is a singular chapter of history, but not, according to former Secretary of the Interior and native westerner Stewart L. Udall, for the reasons filmmakers and novelists would have us believe.

In The Forgotten Founders, Udall draws on extensive research and his vast knowledge of and experience in the American West to make a compelling case that the key players in western settlement were the sturdy families who travelled great distances across forbidding terrain to establish communities there. He offers an illuminating and wide-ranging overview of western history and those who have written about it, challenging conventional wisdom on subjects ranging from Manifest Destiny to the importance of Eastern capitalists to the role of religion in westward settlement.

Udall argues that the overblown and ahistorical emphasis on a "wild west" has warped our sense of the past. For the mythical Wild West, Udall substitutes a compelling description of an Old West, the West before the arrival of the railroads, which was the home place for those he calls the "wagon people," the men and women who came, camped, settled, and stayed. He offers a portrait of the West not as a government creation or a corporate colony or a Hollywood set for feckless gold seekers and gun fighters but as primarily a land where brave and hardy people came to make a new life with their families. From Native Americans to Franciscan friars to Mormon pioneers, these were the true settlers, whose goals, according to Udall were "amity not conquest; stability, not strife; conservation, not waste; restraint, not aggression." The Forgotten Founders offers a provocative new look at one of the most important chapters of American history, rescuing the Old West and its pioneers from the margins of history where latter-day mythmakers have dumped them. For anyone interested in the authentic history of the American West, it is an important and exciting new work.

 

[Lost Canadian]

My experience in other continents/countries says otherwise (Africa, Mexico; remember we're talking about "cultural disposition" here).

Remember that our access to media simply brings incidents closer to us every moment, every second; that doesn't mean we're more violent. It means we have more TVs, computers, PDAs, & radios.

But the violence that does exist where does it stem from? You have to ask what is it that drives crime in a community. If you look at Africa and Mexico, the level of poverty is far greater then that of the US. Not that the US doesn't have its share, but certainly it is not to the same level as that of Mexico or Africa. So when speaking of crime in places such as the aforementioned you have to wonder is it a violent cultural which is to blame for the level of aggression seen, or is it driven more by feelings of great need and despair.

What I think Vince was referring to is America has created a culture of violence that does not stem from need or despair so much, but more from a place of learned aggression. A nation preoccupied with guns is going to be more inclined to want to use those guns at some point, and not everyone is going to have good intentions when doing so.

I would prefer guns to be seen and treated as an earned privilege, just like a car. Having a birthright to bear weapons provides opportunity to feed that culture of violence. In Canada we have the ability to obtain guns but because we were not born with a birthright to own one most simply don't concern themselves with every having one. Are we safer because of it? On a per capita basis stats seem to suggest so. Is it that we are less impoverished then the US, I don't think so. I think it comes down to a culture and a state of mind, one which is not preoccupied with violent instruments.

....and yes I own a hunting rifle.

Great discussion by the way.
Cheers

Edit: I removed my friend's comments about guns and bombs as I wrote it at 5 in the morning after a night shift. After reading it more awake I realized the point expressed was not the point I was trying to relay.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Trying to correlate a "gun culture" with the level of crime or violence in a society is futile, because there is neither correlation nor any causation. If you point out countries such as England and Japan, where gun laws are strict and the murder rate is low, I'll simply point out countries such as Mexico and South Africa, where gun laws are strict and the murder rate is much higher than the U.S. rate, or Switzterland, where nearly every home by law contains an assault rifle and the murder rate is low.

Gun control proponents use Japan as their poster country for a non-violent society. Those same people claim restricting access to guns in the U.S. would lower the suicide rate here. Yet Japan has a far higher rate of suicide than the U.S., some might say because of the highly restrictive, conformist social mores which in part gave rise to restrictive gun laws.

The murder rate in England has been low for decades, long before restrictive gun laws were enacted. England now has a skyrocketing crime rate, especially for so-called hot burglaries, where robbers enter a house they know to be occupied. They also know the occupants cannot defend themselves.

Even within the U.S. the myth does not hold water. Our highest crime and murder rates are in states and cities with the lowest per capita gun ownership and most restrictive gun laws. Gun laws are usually enacted - futilely - in reaction to a rising crime rate, not proactively to prevent it. And they do not prevent crime - witness New York City and Washington D.C. "Oh, but it's the easy availability of guns in nearby communities that causes that," some cry. Then why is the crime rate lower in those communities with easy availability? Because there is no causation.

So: discussions about crime and society are great. But guns don't cause crime.

 

[DesertRose]

But the violence that does exist where does it stem from? You have to ask what is it that drives crime in a community. If you look at Africa and Mexico, the level of poverty is far greater then that of the US. Not that the US doesn't have its share, but certainly it is not to the same level as that of Mexico or Africa. So when speaking of crime in places such as the aforementioned you have to wonder is it a violent cultural which is to blame for the level of aggression seen, or is it driven more by feelings of great need and despair.

What I think Vince was referring to is America has created a culture of violence that does not stem from need or despair so much, but more from a place of learned aggression. A nation preoccupied with guns is going to be more inclined to want to use those guns at some point, and not everyone is going to have good intentions when doing so.

Good points, but I'm still not convinced.

When I referred to Mexico and countries in Africa where I've been, I am referring even to historical societies, say before Europeans even got on the scene. Tribal cultures on both continents were based on aggression, dominion, slavery, and violence.

That's not to say I think they are suffused with violence today - the average community today in Africa is not (Sudan and Somalia and others notwithstanding) - I was referring to the historical basis, as Vince was.

Also - I'm just not convinced America is a culture of violence! I think nearly all nations and their cultures (exceptions do exist of course) are evolving to more peaceable state overall.

I don't think gun ownership or lack of it has anything to do with it, personally, though.

 

[DaktariEd]

First, Africa is indeed a violent continent. My experiences in Kenya show their violence is mostly with pangas/machetes, gangs in the cities...these crimes are not reported and quantified/over-analyzed as in western nations. Nor the Middle East where violence is a way of life going back millenia and with no changes in sight.

I don't have the time to formulate a complete reply but will cut and paste quickly from notes I store in my Pam:

***********
22-Year Low
Gun Ownership At All-Time High/Violent Crime At 22-Year Low

If anti-gun activists and anti-gun politicians share a common trait, it is their unwavering belief that gun ownership, and nothing else, automatically leads to crime. Cultural, economic, environmental, and policing factors--the things that sociologists, criminologists, and law enforcement professionals universally agree determine crime levels--are irrelevant, as far as anti-gunners are concerned.

The flaw in anti-gun thinking is starkly demonstrated by a confluence of two trends. Simply stated, while guns have been going "up," crime has been going "down."

The number of privately owned guns rises several million every year and is now at an all-time high. There are more of every kind of firearm today--big handguns, small handguns, semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and all the other kinds of guns that anti-gun groups and politicians single out in their various smear campaigns. There are more of every other kind of gun too. And there are more gun owners than ever before. First-time gun buyers, including people who used to support "gun control," are contributing to a significant increase in gun purchases following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The number of states that have Right to Carry laws is also at an all-time high--33, up from 10 states only 15 years ago. Today, 54% of the U.S. population, including 64% of handgun owners, live in Right-to-Carry states.

According to anti-gun thinking, crime should be rising by leaps and bounds. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The nation`s violent crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 population) has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 22-year low. And murder is at a 35-year low. (FBI, www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) The trends include the following highlights:

* Since 1991, the nation`s violent crime rates have all decreased substantially. Total violent crime (the aggregate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), has decreased 33.2%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter has decreased 43.7%; rape has decreased 24.2%; robbery has decreased 46.9%; and aggravated assault has decreased 25.3%.
* National violent crime rates in 2000 were the lowest in years. Total violent crime, the lowest since 1978; murder, the lowest since 1965; rape, the lowest since 1978; robbery, the lowest since 1968; and aggravated assault, the lowest since 1985.
* Further demonstrating the irrelevance of "gun control" to crime rates, between 1991 (when violent crime started declining nationally) and 2000, states that had the greatest decreases in violent crime generally, and in murder in particular, included both those that have some of the nation`s least restrictive gun laws (such as Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and West Virginia) and those that have some of the most restrictive (such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut).
* In 2000, as in previous years, firearms were used in less than one-fourth of violent crimes. Most violent crimes were committed with hands and feet (32%), blunt objects and other weapons (28%), and knives (15%).
* In 2000, states that had Right-to-Carry laws had lower violent crime rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. Their total violent crime rate was 21.9% lower, murder was 28.4% lower, robbery was 37.7% lower, and aggravated assault was 16.5% lower. (Rape, the violent crime least likely to involve firearms, was 0.8% higher.)
* The only states that experienced increases in their murder rates between 1991 (when violent crime began declining) and 2000 were Rhode Island (16%), Nebraska (12%), Kansas (3%), and Minnesota (3%), all of which still do not have Right-to-Carry laws.

*********
It has now been several years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender
640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

 

[DaktariEd]

But the violence that does exist where does it stem from?
What I think Vince was referring to is America has created a culture of violence that does not stem from need or despair so much, but more from a place of learned aggression. A nation preoccupied with guns is going to be more inclined to want to use those guns at some point, and not everyone is going to have good intentions when doing so.

Violence is so complex as to be truly impossible to define clearly in any forum or context (lectures, symposia, books, media). Just impossible. Where one may claim it is natural (hormones, instinct, etc) others will claim it is societal teachings, family values, etc. There is no answer and doubtless never will be one.

Your initial statement says "America has created a culture of violence" but you then twist that to say "preoccupied with guns." That does not follow; it is a non-sequitur. But it is understancdable given the determined work of the gun control folks and their word-smithing.

When I have been approached by parents about their children acting violently or aggressively, I have to dig into the history. In almost every case, we find the child witnessing violence: usually on television and video games. One I remember in particular was a boy kicking his siblings repeatedly. His favorite show: Power Rangers. He was restricted on what he watched and the behavior disappeared. Similar stories abound. Other cases involves domestic violence; usually dad hitting mom or either parent hitting a child.

It's not a "gun culture". It is sooooo much deeper...
And I have to return to work...

Later...
:sombrero:
Ed

 

[calamaridog]

I work around violent people and violence is, unfortunetly, a daily routine for me. Many of the most dangerous, callous, and frightening people I have come in contact with were born in countries other than the United States.

We don't have the corner on violence in this country by any means.

 

[SOAZ]

Not in regards to any one post in this thread or the other except some that start to compare gun deaths in different countries.
I think it makes more sense to compare violent crime to violent crime to get an idea of how dangerous a society.
Taking gun violence only into account when comparing a country without many guns and one with right to carry skews the numbers.
If you compare murder in Japan and the US I think it is a more worthwhile comparison. Obviously there will be less gun related murders, but the real issue here is death, not how it was committed. Compare those numbers. We may still be the worst, but at least its a comparable topic.

 

[calamaridog]

Tim,

The other thing to consider when you are looking at violent crimes and murder rates is how many of the victims are "random" or "innocent". In many of our large cities where the rates are high the "victims" are actually criminals being assulted or killed by other criminals, such as gang violence.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Your initial statement says "America has created a culture of violence" but you then twist that to say "preoccupied with guns." That does not follow; it is a non-sequitur. But it is understancdable given the determined work of the gun control folks and their word-smithing.

I agree Ed, it is so much deeper, but are guns not a part of American culture, just as good wine and food are part of French culture? Americans are passionate about their guns, and guns are inherently violent instruments. I'm not saying that guns alone create violence, all I'm saying is that embracing guns as part of a culture aims to reinforce a "need" for violence, be it for good or bad. If you are preconditioned by culture to believe that violence is needed to solve problems then when a problem exists you're more apt to act violently. What the problem is can be pretty much anything, but if we feel that violence will bring us closer to relieving that itch then....

 

[stevenmd]

I'm not saying that guns alone create violence, all I'm saying is that embracing guns as part of a culture aims to reinforce a "need" for violence, be it for good or bad.

There is no empirical data to support such a hypothesis. On the flip side to carry your hypothesis further, does it reinforce the "need" for violence or does it reinforce respect for a potentially dangerous piece of equipment. As a culture, we are dependent upon vehicles for transportation but those vehicles kill more people every year than guns do. To spur the debate even further, it's not really the vehicles that kill people... it's the people driving those vehicles that kill people. In the same context, I can't remember the last time a gun pulled the trigger... I believe people pull the trigger.

If you are preconditioned by culture to believe that violence is needed to solve problems then when a problem exists you're more apt to act violently. What the problem is can be pretty much anything, but if we feel that violence will bring us closer to relieving that itch then....

Again, no empirical data to support that hypothesis. Although I would venture to break your hypothesis down even further and ask it is a cultural phenomenon or is it a family value phenomenon? Is violence, such the same with racism, taught?

The whole issue is difficult. Finding empirical data ~ from studies that can be replicated ~ is difficult as most studies are funded by constituents. However, the fact that cities with the strictest gun control laws are often the cities faced with the most gun violence is pretty difficult to ignore.

This is a great continuation to a great thread. Although I may not agree with a lot of the opinions here, I appreciate them.

 

[Skillet]

Although I may not agree with a lot of the opinions here, I appreciate them.

Agreed.

Well, most of them.