Gun Culture and the "right to bear arms" in America

[Joe]

I think the point here is that in a sane society, guns are not a problem, but in a sick society, they are.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think the point here is that in a sane society, guns are not a problem, but in a sick society, they are.

I think that's it in a nutshell!

 

[Nook]

I think the point here is that in a sane society, guns are not a problem, but in a sick society, they are.

I think that's it in a nutshell!

I have to agree. And we do live in a sick society. But I'm still not sure if letting some potentially insane/Greenbaumed neighbors have guns is better than letting the gov have total control over firearms. In the latter case, if they were to actually outlaw guns - whoever would want to get a gun, they still could, there's always ways to get things even if they're illegal - they would only need one incident or even just the 'suspected threat' of one incident that Might happen to declare Martial Law.

I just read the following in my study textbook "Abnormal Psychology" by Nolen-Hoeksema that I thought could perhaps be worth posting here (bolded by me):

Guns and Suicide

In the United States, 57 percent of suicides involve guns (National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], 2002). A longitudinal study of people who had purchased handguns in California found that their risk of suicide increased 57 times in the first week after the purchase (Wintemute et al., 1999). The majority of people who commit suicide by gun, however, use a gun that has been in their household for some time; the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide by 4 to 5 times (Brent & Bridge, 2003).

Indeed, the most frequent use of a gun in the home is for suicide. Researchers examined 398 consecutive deaths by gun in the homes of families who owned guns (usually handguns). Of these deaths, only 0.5 percent involved intruders shot by families protecting themselves. In contrast, 83 percent were suicides of adolescent or adult family members. Another 12 percent were homicides of one adult in the home by another family member, usually in the midst of a quarrel. The final 3 percent of deaths were due to accidental shootings of a family member (Kellermann, Rivara, Somes, & Reay, 1992).

The mere presence of a firearm in the home appears to be a risk factor for suicide when other risk factors are taken into account, especially when handguns are improperly secured or are kept loaded (Brent et al., 1991). These suicides do not occur only in people with mental disorders. One study found that while the presence of a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide by 3 times for people with a mental disorder, it increased the risk of suicide by 33 times for people without a mental disorder (Kellermann, Rivara, Somes, & Reay, 1992; see also Brent et al., 1993). This apparently counterintuitive finding is the result of the dramatic increase in impulsive suicides conveyed by having a loaded gun in the home, even among people without a known risk factor such as psychopathology (Brent & Bridges, 2003).

Can the number of such suicides be reduced by laws that restrict access to guns? Although not all studies find this to be the case (Ludwig & Cook, 2000), several studies have found that suicide rates are lower in cities, states, or countries with strict antigun legislation that limits people's access to guns (Brent & Bridges, 2003; Leenaars, 2007). For example, one international study showed that the proportion of suicides by gun decreased proportionately with the number of households owning guns; in addition, after countries enacted stricter gun control laws, the proportion of suicides involving guns decreased (Ajdacic-Gross et al., 2006; see also Bridges, 2004). Similarly, in the United States, states with nonrestrictive firearm laws (e.g., Alaska, Kentucky, Montana) or modest firearm laws (e.g., Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania) were shown to have 50 to 65 percent higher rates of suicide by firearms than states with restrictive firearm laws (e.g., California, Illinois, New York), even after controlling for differences in socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and urbanization (Conner & Zhong, 2003).

Although people who are intent on committing suicide can find other means to do so when guns are not available, restricting ready access to them appears to reduce impulsive suicides with guns. In addition, some studies suggest that suicides by means other than guns ... show no increase when access to guns is restricted, suggesting that people do not consistently substitute different means of committing suicide when guns are not available (Conner & Zhong, 2003; but see Brent & Bridges, 2003). Instead, the unavailability of guns seems to give people a cooling off period, during which their suicidal impulses can wane (Brent & Bridges, 2003; Lambert & Silva, 1998).

Very interesting. Banning firearms would not prevent people from owning guns imo. If someone really wants a gun, they'll get a gun, someway, somehow.

And people with ANY sense left in them would also just sit down with the gun and think about suicide before actually committing it. As there's no 'return button' when it comes to firing a gun. Walking to the middle of the bridge, fresh air, standing on the edge, yes, they have more time to reconsider. Than again, I shouldn't count on people having any sense left in them...I thought I made up my mind when I started replying, now I'm contemplating on what would be a good call objectively... and I have to agree with Guardian. It saved her life and as she said, guns are tools. They can be used for survival, hunting or to do harm.


http://www.sott.net/article/254746-Man-slashes-22-children-near-school-another-slashes-women-on-the-subway-in-China
The other incident yesterday, two, actually in China involving knives:
People don't even need any tools to kill, even if they outlaw kitchen knives and baseball bats, people would beat each other to death with a chair or some other everyday household item.


Also the fact that Obama 'signaled' he will push for more gun control:

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248307/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Barack-Obama-signals-push-gun-control-Connecticut-massacre.html

It IS a sick society we live in but everything that the PTB is pushing for is questionable, especially since most of the time, the opposite would be in our, the people's best interest, fwiw.
Also, the way they talk about Obama's speech is just ridiculous, saying how emotional he was, when in the first picture, it's clearly a blank emotionless stare imo.

 

[anart]

Also the fact that Obama 'signaled' he will push for more gun control:

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248307/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Barack-Obama-signals-push-gun-control-Connecticut-massacre.html

If this is the tack they are taking, it's only to foment revolution (of some sort) in the States. The reality is that there is no way that they can take the guns from the people who already have them. It won't happen - realistically - they would have to go door to door and search houses and the folks who have guns have more than just one and they have no intention of giving them up. Most of them aren't even registered with the state, at least in the southeast, and I imagine most of rural america. So, the whole idea of 'gun control' is entirely imaginary since there is no realistic way that they could implement it anyway unless it was merely the cessation of all sales of all guns and I don't see that happening either. In short, I think the entire newly burning conversation is another psyop on the country with the intent to raise tensions further and push those who are a bit more unstable into doing something stupid against the government, which will provide the necessary justification for round ups and all that follows. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Gimpy]

In short, I think the entire newly burning conversation is another psyop on the country with the intent to raise tensions further and push those who are a bit more unstable into doing something stupid against the government, which will provide the necessary justification for round ups and all that follows. Of course, I could be wrong.

Could be wrong, but I don't think you are. Its a big, messy, hot button to hit with all the 'end of the world' meme's flying around. The timing alone makes me suspicious. (Though I'm suspicious by nature.)

 

[Guardian]

If this is the tack they are taking, it's only to foment revolution (of some sort) in the States. The reality is that there is no way that they can take the guns from the people who already have them. It won't happen - realistically - they would have to go door to door and search houses and the folks who have guns have more than just one and they have no intention of giving them up.

Then there's the fact that you can easily buy everything you need to make quality guns at the local hardware store. Computerized mills and lathes are running about $800.00-$1000.00 so even if the gov did manage to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens, criminals would just begin to manufacture (as well as smuggle) them, as they do meth, crack, and other illegal substances and items.

You just can't put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Joe]

If this is the tack they are taking, it's only to foment revolution (of some sort) in the States. The reality is that there is no way that they can take the guns from the people who already have them. It won't happen - realistically - they would have to go door to door and search houses and the folks who have guns have more than just one and they have no intention of giving them up.

Then there's the fact that you can easily buy everything you need to make quality guns at the local hardware store. Computerized mills and lathes are running about $800.00-$1000.00 so even if the gov did manage to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens, criminals would just begin to manufacture (as well as smuggle) them, as they do meth, crack, and other illegal substances and items.

You just can't put the genie back in the bottle.

pretty much, and apparently gun sales go up sharply in the immediate aftermath of such massacres. Given that we suspect that at least some of these events are the work of shady government departments using 'mind controlled' patsies, it just doesn't make sense to suggest that the specific objective in these operations is to "take our guns away" when they actually increase gun ownership. Looks to me, like anart says, that the goal might be to get some people to try and use them against the government, with predictable results.

 

[Persej]

I was talking with my grandma who lives in the village a couple of days ago, and she told me that I should move from the big city because a lot of bad things are happening in the big cities, and it is much safer to live in the smaller ones. But truth is that horrific things are happening in the rural areas as well.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvamMHPOSLE

So far we know nothing about the motive.

 

[Argo]

I was talking with my grandma who lives in the village a couple of days ago, and she told me that I should move from the big city because a lot of bad things are happening in the big cities, and it is much safer to live in the smaller ones. But truth is that horrific things are happening in the rural areas as well.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvamMHPOSLE

So far we know nothing about the motive.

You have some good clues in comments on the video. Also it is probably related with the political situation, message to the government, to the region. Fear inducing and control, on the region (Balkans people don't see themselves affiliate to the western Europeans so the killings in Norway and Finland doesn't mean anything to them, doesn't "do the job", this does) and the world, not only Serbia. You notice that all big news agencies are reporting this now. They didn't report anything when mad policeman killed 9 people also in Serbia.

Also, the story just doesn't hold the water, the gunman very conveniently died in the hospital yesterday, his wife who is the only witness is having very vague remembrance on what happened, didn't saw him shoot . . . "Civil rights" organizations, NGOs and other CIA "friends" start their jobs almost instantly, the police main director had, very conveniently just the new law for reducing the number of the guns (they wish :) ) and so on . . .

 

[Cosmos]

People Petition to Confiscate Guns From Tea Party Supporters and Repeal the Second Amendment:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2diNojgJF9c

Edit: And another one:

Did You Hear We NUKED China Last Week?:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOquwb1B0Rs