Michael Moore: It's the guns -- but, we all know, it's not really the guns

[Lumpy]

@foolsguinea

What’s weird is, even in the USA, this doesn’t work. There are police officers that have raped citizens, and quite a few that used excessive force, some that have shot citizens unprovoked. But I don’t think I’ve ever heard as a serious suggestion that the way to deal with that is by opening fire on a cop. I suspect even brandishing a weapon at a dirty cop would be a quick ride to lockup and the end of your life as a free citizen.

Awhile back I asked if anyone had ever been acquitted of assaulting a police officer on grounds of self-defense. To my surprise, some examples were cited.
Self-defense… against police

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s another and interesting take on the problem. A team of researchers try to work out why it is that these mass-shootings seem only to happen in small towns.

Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, the book that emerged from this inquiry, stakes a claim to a sociological interpretation of the tragic phenomena that most Americans understand through a psychological lens, with its focus on individual pathologies and its avoidance of the social context in which these disabilities become deadly. What contextual patterns matter? First, these shootings tend to happen in small towns with no history of background violence, rather than in big cities, which suffer almost every other kind of brutal attack except this one. There has been only one example of a rampage school shooting in an urban setting since 1970. All the others have taken place in rural towns miles from places like New York or Chicago, or in suburbs in the Western states.

What is it about these towns where no one locks their doors that generates these deadly outbursts? We argued the very thing most Americans celebrate about small-town life—close-knit neighbors, friendly families, adults engaged in the schools and churches—become sources of stultifying depression for marginal boys. We interviewed kids who were attending the same high school as their grandparents, in communities where very few left town for college, preferring to stay home and attend the local community college or state institution. For most people, this is a sign of social solidarity. For Michael Carneal, the shooter in a 1997 attack at Heath High School (outside Paducah), that solidarity felt like a life sentence of exclusion.

Everyone in town—not just the high school kids—celebrated the football heroes. What hope was there of social acceptance for a scrawny, short 14-year-old with glasses who liked ideas and books and was no good at sports? Always awkward, Michael found daily experience full of friction. He told jokes to get attention, stole CDs to impress the goths. None of that worked. He stole one of his father’s guns, and the goths told him it wasn’t cool enough; they wanted to see a shotgun. He worked overtime to impress and they turned their backs on him, until the day he started talking about shooting people. Now that was interesting! For the first time, Michael could glimpse a life surrounded by friends. All he had to do was follow through on his promise: to shoot people. All the ambivalence he felt about the act was drowned out by the dread that came from recognizing that those boys would turn their backs on him if he defaulted on this promise to kill. So he lived up to his commitment: three dead, one paralyzed for life and one badly injured.

[elucidator]

How do you “documentary” an obsession? By its very nature, the subject resists such an approach.

You could documentary obsessive people, sure. Recruit a few genuine primo gun-nuts…the kind who buy the gun porn at the 7-11… We Field Test the New Over-Under .45 cal Derringer with Laser Sighting!…kind of people who flock to gun shows like a blind moth to a dark flame.

But that would be open to the criticism of bias, and rightly so. Of course you can find half a dozen raving gun nuts, you can find thousands of people who will argue fiercely over Kirk vs Picard. So what?

If I say that I believe that Americans have an unwholesome obsession with firearms, I believe it. But I’m not going to pretend such a thing is provable. But it is persuadable, there are enough dots to connect for a pattern to emerge. Hence, propaganda, not documentary. And there’s nothing wrong with that, long as you know the difference.

[etv78]

To those pointing out VT was done with handguns: Don’t you concede semiautomatics, and automatic machine guns make such masscres EASIER!

[Stealth_Potato]

@etv78

To those pointing out VT was done with handguns: Don’t you concede semiautomatics, and automatic machine guns make such masscres EASIER!

We were just pointing that out because BrainGlutton suggested that removing semiautomatic rifles from the picture would reduce the body count when some nutball decides to off himself and take a whole bunch of others with him. The high body count at VT was just a counterexample.

To answer your question, though: yes, unquestionably semiautomatic firearms make killing easier. That’s practically the reason they exist, and it would be silly to deny it.

[Human_Action]

@Stealth Potato

We were just pointing that out because BrainGlutton suggested that removing semiautomatic rifles from the picture would reduce the body count when some nutball decides to off himself and take a whole bunch of others with him. The high body count at VT was just a counterexample.

Charles Whitman murdered 14 people and wounded 32 using a bolt-action rifle, a shotgun, and a knife.

[bdgr]

@Ibn_Warraq

neglects to talk about Switzerlands policies regarding allowing reservists to bring home ammunition(though they’re allowed to bring home their guns).
.

Why would he bring that up? I understood him to be talking about private gun ownership, which is very high in Switzerland. The government issued rifles are another story and yes, they now have to buy their own ammo, but it’s subsidized by the government. They used to be issued ammo with the gun.

[John_Mace]

@JCasey

Guns are not the problem.

Gun free zones are the problem.

Well, there you have it!

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@John_Mace

Well, there you have it!

It is incontrovertible!

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@JXJohns

Cho used handguns.

When I saw the more generalized term earlier in the paragraph I don’t think I read for detail afterwards.

@CannyDan

Are you including me in your “pro-any-gun crowd”? I strenuously object.

I should not have implied that.

@CannyDan

I’ve said before that if giving up my guns would solve or even significantly reduce the problem, I’d do it in a minute. I’m a 60’s hippie with solid liberal - progressive cred and I really have no generic issue with governmental solutions to societal problems. And, while I enjoy my guns, my enjoyment would instantly take a back seat to societal benefit.

In at least two countries, and most prominently on this board, Australia, comprehensive firearm regulations that covered all rapid fire weapons significantly reduced all types of firearm-related injuries (except accidents I think). In the USA, the prevalence of firearms is associated with deaths by firearm. It does work if the regulations are designed to cover the complete problem.

@CannyDan

But I made the point because I am concerned about the practical effect of whatever new regulation we decide to impose. I don’t hold with making laws just to make laws, absent a realistic expectation that they will have the intended effect and without significant unintended consequences. So first, I merely point out that regulating rapid fire weapons will, IMHO, do little or nothing to reduce carnage in spree shootings. Any gun, even a single shot bolt action, is capable of devastating effect when employed against the helpless.

This thread is about all firearm injuries and deaths. Regardless, I think you’re letting your imagination get away with you regarding your criticism. Can you address my criticism from my first reply to you: Why don’t terrorists and the suicidally homicidal use all the imaginative ways we come up with to kill lots of people? Is it possible to you that their plans are more complex than simply ‘kill lots’. That the means of performing the killings is relevant to their plans? Could the Aurora shooter have killed and injured as many with a bolt-action rifle in such a short amount of time? Do you think the Aurora shooter would have killed more people with his rifle with a 100 round magazine had not jammed?

@CannyDan

Second, I fear that a new variant of “assault weapons ban” having little effect (for reasons noted above) then the next obvious step is additional regulation. I think that prohibition of alcohol and the idiotic “war on drugs” have sufficiently proven that mere regulation, even with drastic penalties (the USA has a higher incarceration rate than any other country, most for drug offenses) creates an underclass of criminals but doesn’t remove the prohibited article.

Comparing firearms to alcohol and other drugs of potential abuse is faulty because weapons aren’t a chemical substance that replace or alter the activity of neurotransmitters in your brain. The side effects of which are highly desirable in most people. You’re not going to see kids in high schools waiting to fire their first black market obtained firearm.

If we ban the firearms, I am pretty certain we would not be criminalizing the current owners. A buy back program with real money attached to it would be far more effective.

@CannyDan

Rather than go down this ineffective road with guns, creating a whole new criminal class, I suggest we first examine the premise that prohibiting certain kinds of weapons will actually produce the results we all want – a reduction in spree shootings, and perhaps a mitigation of carnage in other gun homicides as well.

I just spent an hour doing so, of the studies I looked at, only a few found no effect of comprehensive gun regulations on firearms related homicides, suicides, and other injuries; the big argument seems to be over whether they reduce overall homicides, suicides, and other injuries.

@CannyDan

The number of semi-automatic weapons already held by the public suggests to me that any kind of removal program is doomed to failure except *possibly *after incredible expense and the passage of literally decades. Meantime, given the almost rabid resistance of many otherwise reasonable US citizens to even the suggestion of gun surrender, I’m quite sure the unintended effect of creating a new criminal underclass would be substantial. So this scenario violates both of my caveats with new regulation – ineffective at the intended result while causing serious deleterious unintended consequences.

The only programs that attempt to take weapons out of current owners’ hands are buyback programs and they are cheap and effective. We can ban the continued production of the highest-firing rate weapons and make sure only the most responsible gun owners can acquire the one currently present. A buyback program with sufficient funding can remove these weapons and also artificially increase their market value enough to be deemed ‘not worth it’ buy anyone but the most dedicated buyers.

Of course, you are free to use your imagination to come up with ways for how every last regulation just cannot work, but I urge you to actually do some investigation on a respectable database like PubMed before doing so.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Human_Action

Charles Whitman murdered 14 people and wounded 32 using a bolt-action rifle, a shotgun, and a knife.

Let’s neglect the fact that 2 of those murders were his family while unconscious. Let’s neglect the fact that it took him nearly 2 hours to shoot all those people. Let’s neglect the fact that this kind of mass killing was not widely reported and obsessed over by the news for weeks at a time like it is now.

I mean, those people were so stupid! Why didn’t anyone call 911 on their cell phone!!!???

[JXJohns]

@etv78

To those pointing out VT was done with handguns: Don’t you concede semiautomatics, and automatic machine guns make such masscres EASIER!

Nobody is talking about automatics. Yes semi autos make it easier to a degree to kill with or defend, regardless if they are “assault weapons” or regular handguns. The point that is being raised is that ANY gun can deal out death, many regular hunting shotguns can be far more dangerous than a puny semi auto pistol, in a mass shooting scenario. See the Columbine killings for an example.

[Lumpy]

@elucidator

How do you “documentary” an obsession? By its very nature, the subject resists such an approach.

You could documentary obsessive people, sure. Recruit a few genuine primo gun-nuts…the kind who buy the gun porn at the 7-11… We Field Test the New Over-Under .45 cal Derringer with Laser Sighting!…kind of people who flock to gun shows like a blind moth to a dark flame.

But that would be open to the criticism of bias, and rightly so. Of course you can find half a dozen raving gun nuts, you can find thousands of people who will argue fiercely over Kirk vs Picard. So what?

If I say that I believe that Americans have an unwholesome obsession with firearms, I believe it. But I’m not going to pretend such a thing is provable. But it is persuadable, there are enough dots to connect for a pattern to emerge. Hence, propaganda, not documentary. And there’s nothing wrong with that, long as you know the difference.

AFAIK, the notorious shooters of the last few years did not display a prior obsession with guns. Suggesting that gun aficionados are the reservoir of such shooters is a flat-out slander.

[BrainGlutton]

@Stealth_Potato

To answer your question, though: yes, unquestionably semiautomatic firearms make killing easier. That’s practically the reason they exist, and it would be silly to deny it.

Well, it’s the reason all firearms exist . . . auto and semiauto were invented, I think, for military situations where launching a big cloud of lead in the enemy’s general direction is expected to be a more effective tactic than trying to sharpshoot.

[Evil_Captor]

Well if we’re bargaining about gun control here, let’s ask a few questions:

1. If 20-odd children murdered in one go doesnt make you think there should be some serious curbs on gun ownership, how many will it take? Is there a threshold definable in CMPY (Children Murdered Per Year) that would make you accept some limits on gun ownership? 200? 2000? 20,000? 200,000? Please let us know when things get creepy. We already get 10,000 people a year murdered with guns in the US, so I have to imagine the figure has to be WAAAAAAY up there.

2. Since 10,000 people a year murdered with guns is an acceptable price to pay for the widespread availablity of guns, what number of people in general … not just children … would faze you. 10,000 fazes me, but then, I have little interest in playing with guns.

You may say that the number is irrelevant, as guns have nothing to do with the murder rate, that a madman with a car or a knife is just as dangerous as one with a gun. If so, I ask you: why do we arm soldiers with guns and not cars or knives? We USED to arm them with spears and large knives, i.e., swords. But we stopped, when we had gun technology. Perhaps you can explain why that does not prove that guns are by far the most effective tool for killing people.

[CannyDan]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Of course, you are free to use your imagination to come up with ways for how every last regulation just cannot work, but I urge you to actually do some investigation on a respectable database like PubMed before doing so.

We are all using our imaginations here. Real world data may be informative but it isn’t likely to be definitive. Clearly America is exceptional when it comes to guns in everything from our attitudes to them to the sheer numbers of them we possess. And of course the number of our own people that we kill with them.

I haven’t said nor do I believe that “every last regulation just cannot work”, I’ve said that certain regulations are unlikely to work. And I’ve suggested that we examine proposals to enact those regulations for both efficacy and likelihood of deleterious consequences before we rush to enact them. You state with some apparent certainty that “buyback programs … …are cheap and effective” but at best you ignore my earlier comment:

@CannyDan

The number of semi-automatic weapons already held by the public suggests to me that any kind of removal program is doomed to failure except *possibly *after incredible expense and the passage of literally decades. Meantime, given the almost rabid resistance of many otherwise reasonable US citizens to even the suggestion of gun surrender, I’m quite sure the unintended effect of creating a new criminal underclass would be substantial. So this scenario violates both of my caveats with new regulation – ineffective at the intended result while causing serious deleterious unintended consequences.

Cheap? There are a couple hundred million guns already in private ownership in the USA. I don’t know the average value of these but, if I were to voluntarily participate in a buyback program I’d expect at least fair market value. Some of my guns are worth a couple hundred dollars, others maybe a grand. If we guess at an average of, say, $250, the total is a metric shit tonne of money. Not counting administrative costs. And it’s an endless market too, since if the price of smuggling in a gun is less than the “government buyback price” then enterprising people will take advantage.

Not counting the enforcement costs either. Look at any message board discussing this topic, even SDMB which is very liberal compared to most, and note the “almost rabid resistance of many otherwise reasonable US citizens to even the suggestion of gun surrender”. Criminal underclass, here they come. Effective? At alienating a lot of people from their government, yes. At actually removing large numbers of guns from circulation, probably significantly less so. And as for putting guns so far out of reach as to deter a lunatic potential spree shooter – well, that’s what I’m questioning. Will it really?

[RickJay]

@Evil_Captor

You may say that the number is irrelevant, as guns have nothing to do with the murder rate, that a madman with a car or a knife is just as dangerous as one with a gun. If so, I ask you: why do we arm soldiers with guns and not cars or knives?

I’ve now asked this question three times on the SDMB, directly to people who made the claim that “well, you can kill with a knife too.” It’s never been answered.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@CannyDan

We are all using our imaginations here. Real world data may be informative but it isn’t likely to be definitive. Clearly America is exceptional when it comes to guns in everything from our attitudes to them to the sheer numbers of them we possess. And of course the number of our own people that we kill with them.

There will always be some percentage who simply have to have some kind of semi-automatic weapon. They will go through the time and expense to get them. I sincerely doubt anyone interested in defending their home, hunting, and target shooting will feel the loss at all.

@CannyDan

I haven’t said nor do I believe that “every last regulation just cannot work”, I’ve said that certain regulations are unlikely to work. And I’ve suggested that we examine proposals to enact those regulations for both efficacy and likelihood of deleterious consequences before we rush to enact them.

Name a regulation that you think will work to reduce deaths caused by firearms.Just one.

@CannyDan

You state with some apparent certainty that “buyback programs … …are cheap and effective” but at best you ignore my earlier comment:

Cheap? There are a couple hundred million guns already in private ownership in the USA. I don’t know the average value of these but, if I were to voluntarily participate in a buyback program I’d expect at least fair market value. Some of my guns are worth a couple hundred dollars, others maybe a grand. If we guess at an average of, say, $250, the total is a metric shit tonne of money.

I would agree if we were talking about every firearm in the USA but we both know that’s not what I am talking about. It wouldn’t be cheap, and it would not be instantaneous, but it would be effective.

@CannyDan

Not counting administrative costs. And it’s an endless market too, since if the price of smuggling in a gun is less than the “government buyback price” then enterprising people will take advantage.

Make your case then. What’s so special about semi-automatic weapons that they will be smuggled in with high enough numbers to make a difference except in very localized circumstances?

@CannyDan

Not counting the enforcement costs either. Look at any message board discussing this topic, even SDMB which is very liberal compared to most, and note the “almost rabid resistance of many otherwise reasonable US citizens to even the suggestion of gun surrender”. Criminal underclass, here they come. Effective? At alienating a lot of people from their government, yes. At actually removing large numbers of guns from circulation, probably significantly less so. And as for putting guns so far out of reach as to deter a lunatic potential spree shooter – well, that’s what I’m questioning. Will it really?

Nobody, in any thread, at any time, has suggested confiscation. It’s just not part of the argument except among people who own lots of guns.

Since you still want to focus on mass shootings. Where would the kid in CT get a semi-automatic rifle if his mother didn’t already have one. How would he get the money and criminal connections to buy these things? How would a failed, mentally unstable graduate student get the money and connections in Aurora, CO? They simply would not unless they live in a society that makes guns freely available as long as you have the money.

[jasg]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Nobody, in any thread, at any time, has suggested confiscation. It’s just not part of the argument except among people who own lots of guns.

What do our resident constitutional scholars say about this? Would confiscation pass 2nd amendment muster? If not, is it feasible to get rid of the 2nd amendment?

If no to both, then what is the rational source for the fear of confiscation?

[Evil_Captor]

@RickJay

I’ve now asked this question three times on the SDMB, directly to people who made the claim that “well, you can kill with a knife too.” It’s never been answered.

Well I’ve noticed the pro gun crowd has been cherry-picking the questions they’ll answer. Clearly, they have nothing to respond with on this one, so avoiding it is a lot easier than conceding on it. I don’t expect them to come up with answers on my other points, either. WRT an acceptable level of casualties for children or adults in exchange for the easy availability of guns, there’s really not an answer they can make that will win them any converts among those who are not committed to their viewpoint already, though on the evidence, 10,000 people of varying ages killed is hunky-dory with them, so I expect further silence on this issue as well.