Fireside Chat: Guns and a Culture of Violence?

[Haggis]

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....[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I don't see how gun ownership causes a need for violence. To me and most every gun owner I know, a gun is just another tool. Like a chainsaw or a tractor, it is a manufactured item that serves a purpose. In a guns case it is for hunting; to provide meat for the table. A gun has no more emotional or psychic pull than any other tool in your workshop, many of which are quite capable or inflicting harm. As a side benefit, guns also can be used to protect kith and kin. But like a chainsaw or that tractor if used irresponsibly someone can get hurt. Does watching chainsaw wielding maniacs in films create a culture of violence involving chainsaws?
Instead can it be that to many people in this country and others have not been taught personal responsiblity, to value themselves and others. To care about their personal honor and intergity. Todays it seems that we have to bend over backwards to excuses peoples behavior, to blame the society for all of a person's dark traits, instead of that individual or the family that did not care or was unable to provide a necessary moral foundation for them to build their life upon. Blame not the gun but the apathy that progessive societies breed.

 

[Lost Canadian]

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.
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.

I see where you are coming from, and I've given some thought to what Jonathan and Roseanne have said. I certainly don't think that respect for a potentially dangerous piece of equipment is what is displayed most often in American culture. I think it's great that most members here have displayed such respect, but I'm not sure that is the norm. We can turn on the TV, or visit other sites and see large number of peope posting pictures of their semi-automatic rifles, glorifying the weapon not as an object to be respected but simply bragging about its destructive nature.

So perhaps you're right. Maybe the problem is not the weapon but how a society on a larger scale perceives and embraces weapons. The question then is how do Americans on a whole perceive guns? Is there a general lack of respect? Are owners modest with their ownership, or do they flaunt it as something "cool" to have? If the problem is not with the weapon but how they are treated by a society then how do you rectify that? Obviously education is key but how do you undo a cultural staple. Some would prefer to remove guns from that society or at least restrict them to those who can prove capable of displaying the appropriate respect, while others think there are other ways. It's a pickle that's for sure.

 

[stevenmd]

Great food for thought Trevor. My only thing to add is that gun control or gun bans only effect good citizens. The criminal element does not, nor will it ever, abide by the gun laws. Only good citizens feel the sting of gun control. I am willing to bet that no matter where I am in the US, I can have an illegal gun in less than an hour for $100. What if I was a good citizen who needed protection b/c my family was threatened? Will law enforcement keep an officer posted outside my house 24/7 to protect my family? No. I would have to wait 2 - 3 weeks. But then again... I will have that restraining order to protect my family... maybe if I fold up that restraining order really small and tight and place it in the right spot, it will stop that bullet... OK, I am being sarcastic:ylsmoke: , but you get my point... gun control/laws do not effect the criminal element.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I'm sorry but I don't see how gun ownership causes a need for violence. To me and most every gun owner I know, a gun is just another tool. Like a chainsaw or a tractor, it is a manufactured item that serves a purpose. In a guns case it is for hunting; to provide meat for the table. A gun has no more emotional or psychic pull than any other tool in your workshop, many of which are quite capable or inflicting harm.

But that is where I disagree, if I go to TTORA right now you can look at a 34 page thread titled "gun pics thread." I don't see a "show your chainsaw", or "show your tools" thread. Just as all of us here are passionate about our vehicles, in America there is an equal perhaps greater passion for guns. The emotional pull guns have in American society is undeniable.

 

[teotwaki]

I see where you are coming from, and I've given some thought to what Jonathan and Roseanne have said. I certainly don't think that respect for a potentially dangerous piece of equipment is what is displayed most often in American culture. I think it's great that most members here have displayed such respect, but I'm not sure that is the norm. We can turn on the TV, or visit other sites and see large number of peope posting pictures of their semi-automatic rifles, glorifying the weapon not as an object to be respected but simply bragging about its destructive nature.

So perhaps you're right. Maybe the problem is not the weapon but how a society on a larger scale perceives and embraces weapons. The question then is how do Americans on a whole perceive guns? Is there a general lack of respect? Are owners modest with their ownership, or do they flaunt it as something "cool" to have? If the problem is not with the weapon but how they are treated by a society then how do you rectify that? Obviously education is key but how do you undo a cultural staple. Some would prefer to remove guns from that society or at least restrict them to those who can prove capable of displaying the appropriate respect, while others think there are other ways. It's a pickle that's for sure.

Good train of thought. From that I'd ask about the age and maturity of those who display less than desireable behavior with regards to firearms. We can draw parallels to 4x4 ownership: people driving dangerously, abusing the vehicle and the trails, glorifying the macho lifted look of their vehicles, etc. Based on their behavior alone we could make a case to heavily more restrict private car ownership too.

 

[VikingVince]

Roseann, everyone

It seems my post that is quoted first in this thread is gone/deleted. Unfortunate(???)...the overall meaning of what I was talking about is not here...just a few of my quotes out of context and no one can refer to the whole post.

I was primarily referring to the existence of a gun culture, its roots and ramifications (violence), NOT that we live in a "culture of violence" as seems implied in the thread title. There is a signifcant difference.

And I really don't feel like typing it again. OH well...
Over and out...

 

[DesertRose]

Roseann, everyone

It seems my post that is quoted first in this thread is gone/deleted. Unfortunate(???)...the overall meaning of what I was talking about is not here...just a few of my quotes out of context and no one can refer to the whole post.

I was primarily referring to the existence of a gun culture, its roots and ramifications (violence), NOT that we live in a "culture of violence" as seems implied in the thread title. There is a signifcant difference.

And I really don't feel like typing it again. OH well...
Over and out...

It's not gone, Vince - it's still in the other thread. Here is is in quotes:

My comment and opinion goes alot deeper than the simple statement I made. Did you notice that I said I also am a gun-toter? And that in itself does not make me violent either. 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. No other modern, "civilized" nation equals our homicide rate per capita or our gun ownership per capita. 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...We the people... believe in guns more than any other modern nation. This mindset can even be seen in the words of Pres. GWB, "Bring 'em on..." which he has since publicly acknowledged was a mistake and only contributed to violent reprisal. There are many other historic social, economic, and political factors contributing to our cultural disposition to violence which is not equalled elsewhere...I've only pointed to what might be some of the roots for this country...other than man's basic nature.

I'm not so sure that it's naive to think peace will someday exist in the human experiece. Philosophers have grappeled with that notion for centuries. I tend to think that mankind has made progress in that direction, albeit at a snails pace over centuries. Where will man be 500 - 1000 years from now? It seems to me that centuries of history show that man is slowly evolving - the decline of absolute monarchy, the Magna Carta, the rise of democracy and self-determination, habeas corpus, abolition of slavery, decline of communism, the beginnings of women's equality, the slow growth of polytheism....all these movements lead me to believe that mankind is slowly moving towards a more enlightened existence and is not stagnating or regressing. In light of this progression of man's consciousness as reflected in these movements and institutions, could living in peace be somewhere down the road, albeit hundreds of years? I think it could. I think history shows us there is hope 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?

In the meantime, I guess we'll both still be packing. :smilies27 :smilies27

 

[DesertRose]

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.
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.

Ah, now we're getting slightly into the infamous Nature vs. Nurture debate.

That which is inate or genetic (nature) vs. learned (culture).

A while back I posed a question based on Vince's original post that started this (which I reposted above, though it still lives in the other thread):

Can anyone name a country that wasn't born of violence or whose founders exercised violence, genocide, or economic terrorism on the original people?

To be arguing about America being a "culture of violence" is ignoring that, I believe, there are very few countries or cultures that are to some degree violent . . .

And further, to cite Steven Md (I believe), a gun is just a tool. It's the human that chooses to use it.

I don't think, then, that it's a "gun culture".

And further further, I say again: I think you're magnifying America's supposed "culture of violence" because that's what is fed to you in the media.

We aren't any more violent than any other nation, we just have more TVs. :elkgrin:

 

[DesertRose]

I was primarily referring to the existence of a gun culture, its roots and ramifications (violence), NOT that we live in a "culture of violence" as seems implied in the thread title. There is a signifcant difference.

Can you explain the difference, then? If it's a "gun culture" with roots in violence, isn't that a culture of violence as the source?

Would like to understand so we stop misquoting you!

 

[Lost Canadian]

Good train of thought. From that I'd ask about the age and maturity of those who display less than desireable behavior with regards to firearms. We can draw parallels to 4x4 ownership: people driving dangerously, abusing the vehicle and the trails, glorifying the macho lifted look of their vehicles, etc. Based on their behavior alone we could make a case to heavily more restrict private car ownership too.

True, but the difference is with a car there are at least requirements that have to be met and displayed prior to handing over a set of keys to a person of age. Imagine what it would be like if our streets were full of untrained drivers. I've never heard anyone complain and say that having to pass a set of driving tests is unfair, or that doing so only effects good drivers.

I also just want to take the time and say that I don't propose to have any answers because quite honestly I don't know where the root of the problem lie. I enjoy challenging thought though and really appreciate everyones comments so cheers to you all.

Now back to what Steven said, "that there is no empirical data to support your hypothesis." That is true, there is not. But what do we know about human nature in general? We know that typically once we become accustom to something we find it hard to change. That is the "reinforced need" I refer to. We have electricity, running water, gas to heat our homes, cars to take us to work, all of which most people would say we "need" and could not live without. We are programed by our culture to see things that way. This group better then any know that we do not "need" those things to survive though, but because we have them we see ourselves as naked and vulnerable without. We become so entrenched in our ways in fact that the thought of doing without spurs us to literally move heaven and earth to maintain that standard.

I think the same could be said for gun culture seeing that guns are tools which are designed for violent means. That is why I said 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 guns/violence solve problems then when a problem exists you're more apt to act violently.

Trained as we are, if most people were sat next to a crystal clear mountain steam to their left and given a bottle of water on their right and then told to drink, what do you think they would do?

One final thought if you don't mind. When I look to Buddhist societies I can't help but be filled with the emotional impact of overwhelming wonder. Buddhists are human just like us but because their train of thought differs so greatly from ours, their levels of community violence are extremely low. What if we did like the Buddhist and didn't see ourselves as potential victims, and what if we saw our attacker not as an enemy but as a freind who is lost? What would happen to our culture? One can only imagine.

 

[stevenmd]

Ah, now we're getting slightly into the infamous Nature vs. Nurture debate.

That which is inate or genetic (nature) vs. learned (culture).

:elkgrin: And not to mention religion... the Bible states we are born into a sinful nature... :snorkel: but now we are getting to deep?

 

[DaktariEd]

I snipped these (images below) from a website looking at homicide rates using WHO data from the UN. (Murder Rates) . I can't vouch for the site, I just snagged the data...

Both of these sources of statistics give as least as much evidence for the difficulty of getting accurate homicide data as they do of homicide rates. Among the top ten countries in the Interpol list, only Jamaica appears on the "Nationmaster" list. Neither list includes Brazil, which THE ECONOMIST (19-June-1999) cited as having a murder rate of about 23, with the highest percentage (88%) of murders being committed by firearms in the world.

Even in 2002 the statistics gathering for world-wide homicide rates shows huge gaps. The 2002 WORLD REPORT ON VIOLENCE AND HEALTH published by the World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva) lists murder rates for 75 countries. Eight of the ten countries included in the 1970s Interpol list do not appear in the WHO list. (bold mine) Such huge countries as India, Pakistan and Indonesia are omitted -- as are all African countries. Jamaica appears in the list reporting a dubious 2 murders for 1991. Trinidad & Tobago are shown as having 11.4 murders per 100,000. I have extracted the ten worst countries for murder from the 75 listed by the WHO report.

Note that the city with the highest murder rate has the most stringent of gun control laws. A city where average citizens have no right to protect themselves (actually that's debatable- the constitution gives us the right but the politicians have taken those rights away...I know, different thread ).

 

[Haggis]

Not to sound dense, but could you state what your definition of "gun culture" is. I feel like two alien races are trying to communicate but neither species has a frame of reference of the others experiences to make a clear connection. Here's where I've come from. Having grown up with firearms, some of my favorite memories have resulted in activities involving them. Rabbit hunting with my grandpa, early morning dawns in a field goose hunting, my Mom and Dad's pride when I won a muzzleloading championship, plinking with the kids in the back yard, all the critters I've seen and let walk by because the gun was just an excuse to take a walk in the woods, a feeling of pride when the freezer is full and a game supper is cooking on the stove. I don't see a gun as violent, because my experiences with them have all been positive.

 

[DaktariEd]

A "gun culture"...difficult to know its origin and subject to interpretation/misinterpretation...
I suspect it was coined by anti-gun groups to try to marginalize those who support gun ownership.
In response the gun owners took ownership of the term in an attempt to turn the tide...

For example (from the web):

"The gun culture is one shared by people on one of two sides in the gun politics debate, generally those who advocate preserving gun rights and who are against more gun control. In most countries, the term is used solely to identify gun advocates who are legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self defense, sporting uses (hunting), and target shooting. It is also used indiscriminately and with bias in the UK to include both law-abiding target shooters and people who own guns illegally for criminal purposes, although this is not consistently applied."

"The following are general traits often shared today by those within the gun culture:

* They share a belief that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates an individual right. Generally they see people as trustworthy and believe that others should not be prevented from having guns unless they have proven otherwise.
* They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it's good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny.
* They are generally responsible with respect to firearms handling. They have an awareness (or internalization) of either Jeff Cooper's Four Rules [1] or the NRA's Three Rules [2], providing for some level of safe handling of guns and try to abide by them when handling firearms.
* They are shooting enthusiasts. Few members of the gun culture do not practice shooting on a regular basis.
* Gun rights associated with hunting and other outdoor sportsmen activities are widely supported in principle, although these activities are not always practiced by all within the gun culture."

Gun Culture.

A culture where guns are recognised as tools, respected but not feared. Where criminals are punished, but the ordinary citizen is trusted.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Tuesday decried the negative "gun culture" in America

 

[DesertRose]

Not to sound dense, but could you state what your definition of "gun culture" is. I feel like two alien races are trying to communicate but neither species has a frame of reference of the others experiences to make a clear connection. Here's where I've come from. Having grown up with firearms, some of my favorite memories have resulted in activities involving them. Rabbit hunting with my grandpa, early morning dawns in a field goose hunting, my Mom and Dad's pride when I won a muzzleloading championship, plinking with the kids in the back yard, all the critters I've seen and let walk by because the gun was just an excuse to take a walk in the woods, a feeling of pride when the freezer is full and a game supper is cooking on the stove. I don't see a gun as violent, because my experiences with them have all been positive.

I really like this post, thank you Haggis (I love your screen name - as a fellow Celt, inexplicably married to a Viking ).

To enter some levity and perspective to this thread, here is a great photo:

This is my mother, circa 1953. (Coincidentally, this is also DaktariEd's mother)

Her father was a cop.

This is her plinking with my (future) dad's Webley.

Now, I ask you: I grew up perfectly comfortably with firearms, no big deal, always be safe, serious stuff.

I - and all the ladies in our family, down to the grandkids - are comfortable with firearms.

Furthermore, we (ladies) all love gorgeous clothes, and I'm a total whore for high-heeled shoes (!).

Nature vs. nurture?