Just looking at one of Skippy’s pictures here, where he couldn’t be a better poster child for the local culture, confederate flag with its sometimes-undertones of racism, oh, and he’s got his forty-five dangling between his legs. I don’t think there’s any argument of being subject to our culture, informed by it, eg values, interests, emotional display rules, acceptable means to power.
Specifically, how frequently it's being advanced that an acceptable means to a feeling of power (or to power itself) is through the handle of a gun; or worse, esp by the more factious of the gun crowd, the response when you're angry, frightened, threatened is to have that weapon ready for use, the power of this instrument to level differences, etc.; and how this message not only filters into "normal" people, but into those with anger issues, poor impulse control, distorted thoughts (such as black people are "taking over the country").
What's interesting is there's a corrective reaction to one element of the boy's local culture, evident in those same photos (the racism and the confederate flag--talk now of removing it from the SC state capitol), yet nothing toward the other likely influence to the boy's actions, not just the gun itself, but ways in which our gun culture has informed him.
Nine people die, and you look at all contributory factors, links in the error chain, just as in any plane crash, train crash, factory accident, and each one you address. How is a gun culture and all its values, behaviors, "principles", not a contributing factor in this? And why aren't corrective actions taken there as well?
Thoughts? Certainly classic gun control measures are welcome, but how might the gun culture be revised too?
Love that pic OP. He’s looking over his sunglasses at us like he’s a 70-year old librarian about to scold us for talking too loud in the library. And the library was also a florist.
That boy’s got a mean green thumb.
Actually, most reports I’ve seen would seem to be kind of opposed to that idea. There are over 300 million guns in the country; if most gun owners felt that going out and shooting people to improve their self-esteem or to make themselves feel more powerful was now a good idea, we’d have tens of thousands of stories like this to tell.
If people weren’t convinced that guns were some sort of overall “solution” to what ails society, would there be 300 million guns floating around out there in the first place?
Why do they need to be some sort of solution to what ails society? There are probably more TV sets than guns “floating around”. Do we think TV sets are some sort of overall solution to what ails society? No.
All things being equal…no, wait-they’re not. The purpose of a television is to entertain and/or inform, and most of them are actively used for just that purpose almost every day. They aren’t stored in a shoebox in the closet, in a glovebox or in a holster waiting for that extremely rare opportunity when a re-run attacks them in a dark alley in the middle of the night.
Do you really think that most guns fit that category (emphasis added)? I’m not a gun owner, but I know lots of gun owners, and they take them out to target practice or hunt all the time. Point being, lots and lots and lots of guns are not as you describe.
I’m saying that there is no logical reason for that many guns to be out there. Something must have convinced people to buy that many guns-something that is out of proportion to almost every other country. Is our actual need for guns that for the most part are never used something that can be explained by anything other than societal influence?
Gotta say, if murderdork’s intentions were to look in any way badass, intimidating or rebel-ly in his picture, the end result is a very mixed visual message…
I’m not clear if you answered the question - I don’t think you did. Do you think that people are convinced that guns are some sort of an overall solution to what ails society?
Socieatal influence is not the same thing as what you originally wrote.
I just went looking for the most gun-friendly stats I could find, and apparently in 2012 there was an upswing in hunting after an 11 year downward trend, but still the total was only 13.7 million people that hunted at least once that year. What percentage could be called “regular hunters”(a definition, please), or ever intended to hunt again weren’t included in that story.
Nine people died because some monster chose to murder people. You object to his weapon of choice. Taking away one of the monster’s options doesn’t make the monster safe, or safer. He’ll still managed to justify murdering people he didn’t even know.
The biggest contributing factor to this monster’s actions was that he was batshit crazy. People knew it, and those people didn’t act earlier.
Also consider the number of such killings that have been done by people who could have passed any test proposed by gun-control advocates. Background checks, mental health checks, criminal records, strong ties to the community, all good. The only way that gun control laws could have prevented people from killing would have been to prevent them from buying a gun at all, regardless of background checks or otherwise.
The only change to the gun culture that would fix this would be for all people to change their minds and believe that they don’t need to own guns, get rid of the ones they’ve got, and don’t buy new ones, and that just is not going to happen any time soon.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to change people’s minds (I was trying to imply that we should). I was also trying to say we shouldn’t try to change the laws. Yet. Don’t waste the time or invest the political capital to change laws when they won’t make any difference.