Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Violence in America

I'm not one of those people who believes that any one thing leads to violence in America or in today's youth. I also have a feeling that people who blame things like the Internet, video games, movies and TV know that there is much more to it than that. I do believe that those things probably do desensitize us to violence and for people with other risk factors (for lack of a better term), violent forms of entertainment can further increase their likelihood of committing violent crimes.

I do not think that guns are inherently evil but I do think there need to be restrictions on gun ownership and that safety classes should be required for people who own guns. Responsible gun owners will take care of learning about their guns on their own and will make sure they know how to keep guns safe but you can't say that is true for every gun owner. A look at the statistics of accidental gun fatalities and injuries alone will tell you that.

I know that many gun rights activists believe this to be an underhanded way to restrict gun ownership but I disagree. If you have to have a license to operate a car, it should be required in owning a weapon and it makes sense for part of that license to include gun safety. If every air traveler has to go through intense security checks at airports for the safety of us all, it makes sense that gun owners would also have to take certain steps for the safety of us all as well. That's enough about guns for now, though. It's not something I intended to talk about but I also know there is always more to say on the subject.

I've heard a lot of people lament about today's youth, saying that this generation is more violent than previous generations. Most likely, this is true. It's hard to completely trust statistics, though. A lot more crime and instances of violence is reported today than may have been reported decades and even a century ago. That does not mean these things didn't happen, though.

When you look at the instances that have really grabbed the attention of the media like Columbine and Virginia Tech, you can argue that things like this haven't happened before ... but would you be correct? Well, there have been other instances in the past but not at this level and not for these reasons. For example, when Kent State happened, the Ohio National Guard was responsible for the death of 4 protesters. Then again, the school shooting with the third most fatalities in history took place over 40 years ago at the University of Texas in Austin at the hand of a lone, unbalanced gunman.

So, has something changed? Has something happened somewhere along the line where more and more people are resorting to violence? Perhaps it only took one highly publicized school shooting for others to find glory in such an action. The copy-cat theory is possible but I don't think that's everything either. Perhaps society has changed, perhaps families have changed, perhaps this generation (and I am of the Columbine generation, by the way) just have all their priorities fucked up.

There certainly is evidence for that. The recent incident in Lakeland, Florida where 8 students worked together to kidnap and video tape 6 of them beating a classmate lends evidence to the idea that this generation has the wrong priorities. These 8 students committed this act for two primary reasons that I know of: 1) the victim was talking trash online at MySpace and 2) for "fame" on YouTube.

For those of you out there who don't know this already, violence is no way to respond to trash talk. I don't care what someone says. This is especially true when the resulting violence is 8 against 1 ... 1 individual who refuses to hit back. As for YouTube fame, that is beyond disgusting. I know plenty of people who, long before this incident, said that sites like MySpace and YouTube were nothing but trash and should not exist. I disagree with that. For every questionable item on YouTube, I believe there are many, many worthwhile, timely and funny videos. I don't have a problem with MySpace either. It's a good place to keep in touch, to meet people and to find out about music, podcasts and more. Just like any form of technology or free speech, there will be people who use it improperly or even grossly abuse it.

While on the subject of YouTube, I think it's important to know that many people take part in something called Vlogging. Similar to Blogging but instead of coming from the term "weblog" it comes from "video log." It is just like blogging but to a video camera instead of to a keyboard. As you can imagine, many people who love and use YouTube had things to say about the Lakeland Florida incident. Afterall, this is the most highly publicized event of people using YouTube to become famous for an act of violence (although, it's definitely not the first time). Others who use YouTube want to distance themselves from such an act and say to the world that they are not such people.

If you watched some of the linked videos and other similar videos, you may have noticed one particular recurring theme and that is that a lot of these bloggers and those who commented on their videos are not only angry and desire justice but they also want all out revenge. They want to see these students beat down and there's little that would make them happier than if they could personally deliver the beatings.

Now, I'm not trying to say that revenge isn't a natural human emotion but I definitely think it is a natural emotion that we need to rise above. Mostly, I find it interesting that when we as a society see these atrocious acts of violence, we want to answer with violence. The idea of an eye for an eye is very pervasive throughout our culture. The truth of the matter is, though, violence begets violence. As I've stated before, I'm not a particularly religious person but I don't think you have to be religious to appreciate the grace in the idea of turning the other cheek. Most importantly, though, violence begets violence. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

For those of you who don't like the idea of turning the other cheek, I'm not suggesting that we forget about any kind of justice. All I'm saying is that vengeance is not justice. There is punishment in justice, yes, but that should not include violence. Furthermore, we as a nation need to figure out a better way of including more rehabilitation and helping criminals readjust to life after prison or jail. That too is for another journal entry, though.

I said before that I wanted to talk a bit about how we can learn from Cho's shooting at Virginia Tech last year. Part of that will hopefully be better care for the mentally ill and even less stigma for the mentally ill. I remember hearing a DJ on a local radio station last year talk about how anyone who has these homicidal and suicidal thoughts is insane, abnormal and that they need to get themselves committed immediately. I wouldn't be surprised if many people agree with that sentiment. Few people want to admit to ever having had such thoughts so it's easy for some people to dismiss such thoughts as "insane" and "abnormal." I do not disagree that people having such thoughts should seek help but many people need help for many mental health aliments. It does not help to alienate any of these people; in fact, it makes such people more likely to act on their thoughts.

Similarly to having more respect and compassion for those with mental health problems, we all can do better about treating those who are different than us better than we do. This starts in grade school with the bullying that occurs and continues on through adult life. The day before the anniversary of the Tech shooting, a local school had an informal "Kick a Freshman Day." I was shocked when I heard about this for a number of reasons, but mostly because students at the school are hyper-aware of the VT tragedy and yet many of them stupidly took part in the same kind of bullying that separates, humiliates and leads to more violence. This is the kind of thing that needs to stop. It's no longer just kids being kids.

We as a society are not a lost cause but we can and need to do better. Luckily, for every act of violence, there are examples of amazing humanity. If you need a reminder of that, just read this article that Chris Fowler wrote last year about the Virginia Tech students' response, grace and dignity in the face of such a tragedy. There is always hope. This generation is not lost.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You say:

"If you have to have a license to operate a car, it should be required in owning a weapon and it makes sense for part of that license to include gun safety. If every air traveler has to go through intense security checks at airports for the safety of us all, it makes sense that gun owners would also have to take certain steps for the safety of us all as well."

I don't necessarily disagree with you in practice, I just thought I'd point out that there is, at best, only an implied right to travel in the Constitution, whereas gun ownership "shall not be infringed" according to the Second Amendment. So your analogy kinda doesn't work. Not a sermon, just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I forgot to mention that you need a license to DRIVE a car, but not to buy one. Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

Dang, I wish they'd just let you edit a posted comment...anyway, if we are being really persnickety (and I guess we are because I am), then I have to be fair and say that the right to travel probably isn't in the Constitution because it seems so fundamental that the Framers probably thought it would be superfluous to add. I guess my only point was, gun ownership seems explicitly protected whereas driving a car is not. So there... I'm done.

LiberalTendencies said...

Thanks for the comments! You have the honor of having the first (3) comments here!

I agree with a lot of what you're saying and need to be persnickety in response but not until later tomorrow because A) it's late now and B) I can't access this at work.

Thanks again and I'll make my real reply soon :)

LiberalTendencies said...

Re Comment 1: You're no doubt going to be better about understanding application of the Constitution but I'm going to give it a whack. Before I try, I do think I should say that I don't disagree that my analogy has holes. That said, let's take a look at the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is an odd sentence for me to get my head around. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this Amendment is about protecting the People's right to protect themselves from the State. Simplifying the weird grammar a bit, we could say: a well regulated militia as well as the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "Well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" is a bit of an oxymoron to me. We can't infringe on the right to a militia but we can regulate it, right? Does it not follow that you can also regulate the right to keep and bear arms without infringing it? I don't know. But while I do agree that people need to be careful in how far they go to regulate guns, it's also not ridiculous to say that with all the gun violence in America, there may be a need for more regulation.

Re Comment 2 ... Here is my persnickety moment: I was careful to say that you need a license to operate a car, not own it. Again, my analogy is not perfect but I still stand by the reasoning behind it. Guns and cars are not the same and with the inherent danger in guns, it stands to reason that safety requirements should be met for ownership, while safety requirements for cars are necessary for operation. I know plenty of people who are very responsible gun owners who would not need any such safety classes as I proposed but I also know plenty of people who were skilled drivers before they completed any driver education courses necessary to obtain their license. I know the main point is, though, that the Constitution does not give cars the same recognition. I'm speaking in terms of what I feel to be rational and, while a regulation, not an infringement of gun owners. I'm sure many gun owners would disagree with that distinction, though.

Re Comment 3: Yes, I think you are right that the Framers probably felt that travel was a fundamental right that need not be mentioned. Considering how means of travel have changed considerably since the Constitution was written, it's almost surprising that there hasn't been a need for a travel Amendment.

Unknown said...

Leaving the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights out of this for now, I will post a comment under the hypothesis that it is even legal to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms, because without that assumption the rest of this post is pointless (and you may find it pointless anyway).

I'm not sure I agree that firearms are inherently more dangerous than motor vehicles (or any other "tool" for that matter). I believe that, generally speaking, injury or death as a result of the use of a firearm (intentional or accidental) seems more "violent" than injury or death caused by the use or misuse of a vehicle (or other tool); therefore it is easy to convince yourself that firearms are more dangerous than vehicles. But reflect on your personal experience: do you personally know anyone that was injured or killed (accidently or intentionally) by someone using a firearm? Compare that number of people you personally know that have been injured or killed by someone using a motor vehicle.

Where would you feel more in danger: a) at a shooting range where several young people are being instructed in the use of a firearm or b) standing next to the “driving range” of your local high school where teenagers are being taught to operate a motor vehicle?

If you are lucky enough to survive your teenage years without being run over you get to look forward to the top 10 killers of adults in the US (heart disease, cancer, stroke, lower respiratory diseases, accidents (non-firearm), diabetes, influenza, Alzheimer’s, kidney diseases, and blood poisoning) none of which are firearm related. I list these only to make the point that deaths caused by the use or misuse of firearms are not very common in the Unites States. When is the last time you heard your local news broadcast list the names of everyone in the region that died of heart disease or cancer that day? I never have, but if even one person is shot (fatal or not) today in your region I guarantee it will be on every news broadcast.

Why? My theory is that most people are for some reason (and I believe irrationally) afraid of firearms.

I would venture to say that anyone exposed to the responsible use of firearms from a very young age (as many of us are with motor vehicles) would feel more at ease at the shooting range than the driver’s education course and statistically speaking you would be much safer at the shooting range.

With regards to the regulation of firearm ownership and use, there are currently no less than 250 code sections pertaining to firearms in the state where I reside (who can own a firearm, where a firearm can and can not be taken, what you can and can not be doing while in possession of the firearm, et cetera) and that is not taking into account the Federal laws, of which there are many (the federal level is where legislators go into great detail about what type of firearm you can legally possess).

Is this rant too long to be considered a "comment"? Should I just start my own blog?

LiberalTendencies said...

Good to see you here, Jochen. And while I don't consider your comment to be either a rant or too long, I would definitely be interested in reading a blog you write.

As for your point about teens learning to drive a car versus teens learning to fire a gun, you probably have the wrong audience. Most people may agree with your point but since my mom has been a driver's ed instructor for so long and I spent so much time in a vehicle driven by driver's ed students, it really wouldn't phase me at all to be standing on the range where kids are learning to drive. I will admit, though, that I also would feel safe at a shooting range where teens are learning to shot, especially if I am standing behind them and not beside them.

That said, I still feel like guns are inheriently more dangerous and, even more importantly, guns are intented to be dangerous but motor vehicles are not. It is true that there are more motor vehicle accidents than gun accidents but I would agrue that there are a lot more vehicles out there than guns. Furthermore, people may use their vehicles on a daily basis but not their guns. It wouldn't be a defining issue but it would be interesting to see a study looking at the ratio between motor vehicle use and injuries/fatalities verus the ratio between gun use and injuries/fatalities. Again, it wouldn't make or break someone's argument but I do think it would be a better testament of the issue than basing it on personal knowledge of injuries/fatalities.

You make a good point about the news coverage of guns in comparison to news coverage of deadly disease. I suppose the reason for that is that gun shootings are newsworthy. They don't happen all the time (a point for your argument) and they don't happen by natural causes. There's plenty of talk out there, though, about what causes deadly disease, including smoking, environment, nutrition and heredity. So, it's not like there isn't any coverage for the culprits of these diseases.

I want to go back to your point about teens learning to use guns in a shooting range. To elaborate on something I've said before, I wish that everyone who owned a gun for any reason had to take one or two gun safety courses ... I imagine those courses would take place at a shooting range. So I have no problem with shooting ranges or with hunters or with people who want to own a gun for personal protection or with gun owners in general. I do have a problem with the idea that the right to bear arms is some God given right that should not be restricted at all. I believe that it is a priveledge and a responsibility. If someone choses to be a gun owner, they need to be responsible for the care and safety of their gun. And since there are many people out there who do not take proper care of their gun, I do not think there is any reason why the government should not force citizens to take care and safety classes before they purchase their first gun. I'd even want gun owners to prove they have taken steps to keep their guns safe but I'm not sure how that could be proved without invading privacy. Perhaps receipts showing they have bought a lock box or other necessary equipment, I don't know. I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about the gun safety class.

Unknown said...

LT,

I wanted to drag the specific issue we were discussing on your Obama post to this thread since it seemed more at home here…

Please do not take this as an insult for it is not intended as such, but I think your lack of knowledge of firearms (both the actual weapon and the current laws and regulations to control them) is serving to confuse some of the issues. I think that many of the concerns you have about the public and firearms are probably already addressed by existing legislation but these laws are primarily at the state and local level.

Semi-automatic firearms:
These are not FULLY automatic weapons, which are highly restricted and rarely (compared to over all firearm ownership) privately owned and have been since the federal law known as the National Firearms Act which was enacted in 1934. Semi-automatic firearms are firearms that will fire one round, and only one round, each time the trigger is activated. I don’t know this for a fact, but as someone who tries to stay on top of trends in firearm industry I would venture to say that semi-automatic firearms are the most common type of firearm sold and owned in the US. It would be virtually impossible to enact a ban on semi-automatic firearms in the United States based purely on the mass quantities that exist.

So why would a politician even discuss a ban on semi-automatic firearms? Most likely because they have no idea what they are talking about and think that semi-automatic weapons are even remotely similar to fully-automatic firearms and they can get away with it because their audience doesn’t know the difference either. The “anti-gun” crowd shamelessly characterizes firearms with terms like “assault rifle” in an effort to gain support by scaring the general public who know no better.

Supporting all out gun bans (like the one in DC):
Gun bans are based on the theory that if something is illegal then the general public will not do it. Well, this is basically true, but there is a group of the public that have no regard for laws, these people are typically referred to as “criminals”. Criminals that are already engaged in a criminal activity with a firearm are not going to be hindered by the fact that possessing a firearm is illegal. THE CRIMINAL IS USING THE FIREARM TO MURDER SOMEONE, WHY WOULD THEY CARE IF THE FIREARM IS LEGAL??? The fact that murder is illegal didn’t stop them from murdering someone, so how is making the firearm illegal going to prevent them from using it?

Criminal gun violence in DC is just as rampant now as it was prior to the gun ban because the guns are not the cause of the criminal activity, the criminals are. Banning firearms in DC had the same impact on DC criminals that RICO had on the mafia, it only altered the method they use to operate (they just figure out another way to purchase the handguns).

Who is really impacted by the DC gun ban? The man who wants to keep a gun in his home for protection against the criminals, but can not because it is illegal. The woman who wants to carry a pistol in her purse because she is afraid to walk home after work down the dark streets of DC, but can not because it is illegal. The off duty police officer from Virginia, Maryland, or any other local or state jurisdiction outside of DC (and yes, believe it or not that is also illegal) going to visit his or her grandmother in a nursing home in DC, but he or she can not because it is illegal. So I can not agree with any statement about how “reasonable gun restrictions” do not hurt the majority of gun owners because that is exactly who it hurts.

This may also give you some insight into what we passionate 2nd amendment defenders refer to as the “slippery slope” of gun control. It always starts as a restriction (ban) on this type of firearm or that type of firearm because they are the most dangerous, too dangerous to be in the hands of criminals. And what logical person doesn’t want a safer America, right? Well that turns into a restriction (ban) on the second most dangerous firearm and then the third most dangerous until little by little every firearm is illegal. Well, there is no way that would happen, right? We are just trying to get the dangerous gun out of the hands of the criminals, right?

So now, in this example which could never happen in the United States because we are too “reasonable”, all of the firearms are illegal so therefore all of the obedient citizens have turned them over to the government for destruction. Now who has all of the firearms? The government and the criminals. But this should be of no concern to the obedient citizens because the government will always be there to protect us from the criminals, both foreign and domestic. Just dial 911 for all emergencies and the good guys will be there in about five or ten minutes, or maybe a little more if they are busy at that particular moment.

Does Obama not understand the DC gun ban, or does he actually consider an all out ban on hand guns a “reasonable restriction”? If he pleads ignorance and retracts his support for it, I may have a change of heart, but if a ban is his version of “reasonable restriction” then he and I are going to continue to have opposing views on the 2nd amendment.

Basically, banning guns to prevent gun violence is no different methodologically than banning cars to prevent speeding or banning sex to prevent rape or banning paint to prevent graffiti or banning fire to prevent arson because cars, sex, paint, and fire do not cause speeding, rape, graffiti, or arson just like guns do not cause gun violence. I will concede that if there were no guns there would be no gun violence, but then we would just be having this conversation about knives or sharp sticks.

Unscrupulous dealers:
You said “It is clear to me that many dealers target minority youth and only contribute to the problem of violence in the poorest parts of our country.”

You are going to have to give me at least one specific example of a firearm dealer or even a manufacturer targeting minority youth, poor minority youth at that. Why would you target a market with an obvious inability to purchase your product? Taking the age restriction out of the equation, even the cheapest firearms cost several hundreds of dollars and for the “assault rifle” the anti-gun crowd is always protecting us from you are going to spend around $1000 on the cheap end. Where are the poor youth getting this kind of money?

Gun dealers don’t sell guns to poor people, because poor people can’t afford to buy guns (this is not a prejudice against the poor, it’s the same reason you don’t see poor people driving BMWs and living in mansions). Gun dealers do not give guns away, as a general business practice; if they do then you won’t have to worry about them for long because they will be out of business. So this brings up the question, where are the young poor criminals in these “poorest parts of the country” getting the guns? I doubt very many were purchased from gun dealers.

Are there gun dealers that knowingly sell guns to people that should not (for either legal or ethical reason) possess them? Yes, absolutely. And when you find that dealer you arrest him and stick him in jail. You don’t punish the rest of the dealers that are following the laws regulating that industry. Just like I won’t stand by and let the government take your car away, LT, because some people use cars for criminal activities.

Powered by WebRing.

blogger templates