CDZ Gun culture? or Disrespectful culture? Where does gun violence come from?

[emilynghiem]

Gov. Bevin explains that it isn't as simple as just blaming guns or gun culture.
But the gun violence we see reflects a broader cultural problem with disrespecting people and demeaning human values.



Do you agree, disagree, or think both arguments are right?
Does the gun violence we see come from
1. gun culture
2. social culture that demeans other people and doesn't value life and respect for others
3. both, the dangerous gun culture is a major part of the social cultural problems in #2
4. #2 made worse by people rejecting the gun culture that defends against #2

 

[Pogo]

A fine poll Emily, striking (and it's rare) at the real heart of the matter.

I voted #3, although I'm not sure how to read #4.

We live in a culture that celebrates death, literally. And the star player in that cultural paradigm is the Firearm, an instrument created for war, passed down to the streets as if we're each in an individual war that could erupt at any moment.

Any of us can turn on any television at any time of day or night and within a few minutes find some depiction of someone shooting somebody else, an event that happens extremely rarely in the course of an average person's life if it ever happens at all. That's a cultural fetish. And in this case an extremely destructive one.

This is all fueled by a perverted hypermasculinity cult that deems the solution to problems is to overpower them, destroy them, blow them up, or in the case of people, including oneself --- shoot them. The whole "might makes right" canard. That's why mass shooters, and gun violence in general, is virtually always committed by a male, the same source of War for much the same reasons.

Ultimately the despicable problem of rampant gun violence derives from a crisis of the Spirit. Until we turn around this perverse glorification of death and destruction and the blowing of each other up, it isn't going away.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you Pogo What I mean by #4 is to show both biases as choices.
#3 is negatively biased against gun culture as part of problems in #2
#4 is positively biased toward gun culture as lawful defense against #2

The division itself can be seen as a problem under #2:
if people with either bias (#3 or 4) cannot respect each other's beliefs,
that is part of the #2 problem about losing a sense of respect for others
but taking on the 'demeaning' approach in #2 of dividing competing and bullying
instead of sharing equal rights to equal beliefs with respect for all people.

 

[Pogo]

Gov. Bevin explains that it isn't as simple as just blaming guns or gun culture.
But the gun violence we see reflects a broader cultural problem with disrespecting people and demeaning human values.



Do you agree, disagree, or think both arguments are right?
Does the gun violence we see come from
1. gun culture
2. social culture that demeans other people and doesn't value life and respect for others
3. both, the dangerous gun culture is a major part of the social cultural problems in #2
4. #2 made worse by people rejecting the gun culture that defends against #2

I don't often watch posted videos here but this one is worth a look. Gov. Bevin is spot-on in his basic assessment. He does go off on tangents some of which are irrelevant, but he's got the basic foundation of cultural desensitization NAILED. Especially the bit about video games where you 'get points to finish him off'.

We need more voices like Bevin. This guy has his finger on the pulse and he's not afraid to say it, good for him.

This all started, I would submit, with television.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you Pogo What I mean by #4 is to show both biases as choices.
#3 is negatively biased against gun culture as part of problems in #2
#4 is positively biased toward gun culture as lawful defense against #2

The division itself can be seen as a problem under #2:
if people with either bias (#3 or 4) cannot respect each other's beliefs,
that is part of the #2 problem about losing a sense of respect for others
but taking on the 'demeaning' approach in #2 of dividing competing and bullying
instead of sharing equal rights to equal beliefs with respect for all people.

My feeling is that you overcomplicate by trying to insert "bias" into the question.

Whether we have a gun culture or whether we have a death culture should be objective questions with no emotionality. Just neutral analysis. I think trying to ask two different questions at the same time complicates unnecessarily.

I'm happy with my choice of #3 anyway. It was right on the mark.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you Pogo What I mean by #4 is to show both biases as choices.
#3 is negatively biased against gun culture as part of problems in #2
#4 is positively biased toward gun culture as lawful defense against #2

The division itself can be seen as a problem under #2:
if people with either bias (#3 or 4) cannot respect each other's beliefs,
that is part of the #2 problem about losing a sense of respect for others
but taking on the 'demeaning' approach in #2 of dividing competing and bullying
instead of sharing equal rights to equal beliefs with respect for all people.

My feeling is that you overcomplicate by trying to insert "bias" into the question.

Whether we have a gun culture or whether we have a death culture should be objective questions with no emotionality. Just neutral analysis. I think trying to ask two different questions at the same time complicates unnecessarily.

I'm happy with my choice of #3 anyway. It was right on the mark.

yes it describes your viewpoint.
while many others I know see the problem in #2
and believe that defending guns for defense is necessary
until that problem in #2 is solved. So they don't see gun culture
as a negative factor to blame, but a solution that allows us
to protect ourselves while we fix the problems causing #2.

Going along with "blaming" the gun culture is
itself "blamed" as part of the problem in #2.
So Pogo people like you who blame guns/gun culture
are seen as NOT respecting people's rights and beliefs equally.
Thus "rejection" and blame of guns is seen as making #2 worse not better!

 

[JGalt]

That depends on your definition of "gun culture". Most people, especially among the left, don't know the difference between "gun culture" and the culture of firearms violence portrayed in movies, on television, and in music.

Among legal and responsible firearms owners, the phrase "gun culture" is a positive description of values held by those gun owners.

The Oxford dictionary defines “culture” as a collective human intellectual achievement and our “refined” understanding and appreciation of it, particularly the customs, arts, social institutions, attitudes and behaviors characteristic of a particular social group.

I myself consider myself part of the gun culture, as the most important social group I belong to are other firearms owners, shooters, hunters, collectors, reloaders, etc. Nobody I know would even think of committing a crime with a firearm and losing our right to own one.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you Pogo What I mean by #4 is to show both biases as choices.
#3 is negatively biased against gun culture as part of problems in #2
#4 is positively biased toward gun culture as lawful defense against #2

The division itself can be seen as a problem under #2:
if people with either bias (#3 or 4) cannot respect each other's beliefs,
that is part of the #2 problem about losing a sense of respect for others
but taking on the 'demeaning' approach in #2 of dividing competing and bullying
instead of sharing equal rights to equal beliefs with respect for all people.

My feeling is that you overcomplicate by trying to insert "bias" into the question.

Whether we have a gun culture or whether we have a death culture should be objective questions with no emotionality. Just neutral analysis. I think trying to ask two different questions at the same time complicates unnecessarily.

I'm happy with my choice of #3 anyway. It was right on the mark.

yes it describes your viewpoint.
while many others I know see the problem in #2
and believe that defending guns for defense is necessary
until that problem in #2 is solved. So they don't see gun culture
as a negative factor to blame, but a solution that allows us
to protect ourselves while we fix the problems causing #2.

Going along with "blaming" the gun culture is
itself "blamed" as part of the problem in #2.
So Pogo people like you who blame guns/gun culture
are seen as NOT respecting people's rights and beliefs equally.
Thus "rejection" and blame of guns is seen as making #2 worse not better!

I don't think we're talking about the same idea when we use the phrase "gun culture". And we had this same discrepancy yesterday.

What I mean by "gun culture" is a social value system that glorifies violence. And killing and destruction in general, with all of it focused on the fetish of Almighty Gun. It has nothing to do with "defense" and nothing to do with anyone's "rights" --- that would be a legislative issue. What I mean by the term is purely the social value set that lusts over the idea of shooting things --- completely separate from any question of the "right" to do so.

 

[emilynghiem]

That depends on your definition of "gun culture". Most people, especially among the left, don't know the difference between "gun culture" and the culture of firearms violence portrayed in movies, on television, and in music.

Among legal and responsible firearms owners, the phrase "gun culture" is a positive description of values held by those gun owners.

The Oxford dictionary defines “culture” as a collective human intellectual achievement and our “refined” understanding and appreciation of it, particularly the customs, arts, social institutions, attitudes and behaviors characteristic of a particular social group.

I myself consider myself part of the gun culture, as the most important social group I belong to are other firearms owners, shooters, hunters, collectors, reloaders, etc. Nobody I know would even think of committing a crime with a firearm and losing our right to own one.

Exactly JGalt
I don't even think left and right are talking about the same thing
when we use that term gun culture!

I guess similar happens when discussing LGBT culture.
If you are in it, most people are too busy trying to live and defend their own lives.
They don't get when others think they are politically out to impose this on everyone!

Likewise, many people on the left see the DEFENSE of guns
as somehow promoting gun violence. Like blaming defenders of same sex
marriage as promoting pedophilia and other things not related.

Respect for people's beliefs would stop a lot of this fear
that either side of either issue is trying to censor the others!
What's sad is when people feel attacked, and when they
try to defend themselves, they are seen as imposing on the other side.
So it goes in a vicious cycle where both sides fear the other is doing that!

 

[MikeK]

There are only two possible ways to effectively reduce the unlawful use of firearms in the U.S. One way is to empower government to disarm the civilian population by any means necessary. The second way is to substantially increase the number of armed civilians by licensing any citizen who is (a) able to pass a test affirming his/her sanity, clean, non-violent background, competence and capabilities equal to the average police officer, or (b) willing to acquire training sufficient to qualify for licensing to carry.

Either proven proficiency or sufficient training to qualify for licensing is critically important and will effectively minimize improper use of firearms.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you Pogo What I mean by #4 is to show both biases as choices.
#3 is negatively biased against gun culture as part of problems in #2
#4 is positively biased toward gun culture as lawful defense against #2

The division itself can be seen as a problem under #2:
if people with either bias (#3 or 4) cannot respect each other's beliefs,
that is part of the #2 problem about losing a sense of respect for others
but taking on the 'demeaning' approach in #2 of dividing competing and bullying
instead of sharing equal rights to equal beliefs with respect for all people.

My feeling is that you overcomplicate by trying to insert "bias" into the question.

Whether we have a gun culture or whether we have a death culture should be objective questions with no emotionality. Just neutral analysis. I think trying to ask two different questions at the same time complicates unnecessarily.

I'm happy with my choice of #3 anyway. It was right on the mark.

yes it describes your viewpoint.
while many others I know see the problem in #2
and believe that defending guns for defense is necessary
until that problem in #2 is solved. So they don't see gun culture
as a negative factor to blame, but a solution that allows us
to protect ourselves while we fix the problems causing #2.

Going along with "blaming" the gun culture is
itself "blamed" as part of the problem in #2.
So Pogo people like you who blame guns/gun culture
are seen as NOT respecting people's rights and beliefs equally.
Thus "rejection" and blame of guns is seen as making #2 worse not better!

I don't think we're talking about the same idea when we use the phrase "gun culture". And we had this same discrepancy yesterday.

What I mean by "gun culture" is a social value system that glorifies violence. And killing and destruction in general, with all of it focused on the fetish of Almighty Gun. It has nothing to do with "defense" and nothing to do with anyone's "rights" --- that would be a legislative issue. What I mean by the term is purely the social value set that lusts over the idea of shooting things --- completely separate from any question of the "right" to do so.

Bingo Pogo
If we can untangle this web we've woven with crossed meanings,
and clarify what we mean and don't mean, we can undo some of the
fear and damage that has gotten both sides so worked up in a frenzy.

Similar has politicized the abortion and the LGBT issues,
where people equate defending free choice with negative things as if that's what's being pushed. What a mess.

But one issue at a time.
We all want the right to security.
Where we disagee is on the most effective least restrictive ways to manage gun issues to ensure security rights and liberties, and not threaten the rights and beliefs of law abiding citizens who are not the targets of those measures.

 

[MindWars]

Someday one person who sees this will grow a brain and realize it is not the gun it is PRESCRIBED MEDS!
and how many kids are put on drugs in school hmmm lets figure that one out. OH wait that wont happen since libtards live of medical gods, and gov. gods telling them what is or isn't. They are never ever wrong.

 

[Pogo]

That depends on your definition of "gun culture". Most people, especially among the left, don't know the difference between "gun culture" and the culture of firearms violence portrayed in movies, on television, and in music.

Those two are pretty much interchangeable in my definition.

Good, let's work this out.

The Oxford dictionary defines “culture” as a collective human intellectual achievement and our “refined” understanding and appreciation of it, particularly the customs, arts, social institutions, attitudes and behaviors characteristic of a particular social group.

I agree with that definition. Now let's plug it in.

I myself consider myself part of the gun culture, as the most important social group I belong to are other firearms owners, shooters, hunters, collectors, reloaders, etc. Nobody I know would even think of committing a crime with a firearm and losing our right to own one.

Outside of "nobody I know would even think of..." none of that incorporates what I mean by "gun culture". It's about cultural values, meaning desires. The desire to vanquish, overpower, shoot, blow up, obliterate, destroy, dominate, eliminate, wipe out, extinguish, "take out" and all the other copious euphemisms we have. Those are disrespectful of Life. And that's the basis of a culture of death.

For our purposes here "culture of death" and "gun culture" may be also interchageable, as the firearm is our obvious instrument of choice, whether it's direct in our hands or indirect watching it vicariously on a TV show or virtually handling it in a video game. It all begins with a compulsion to destroy.

Here's my model starting point for the concept of "gun culture" --- this was the hot topic at the moment I joined this site, and the issue I came for:

​

The reader will notice the video is described as a "gun control" rant. In fact out of hundreds of uploads of the same thing you'd be hard pressed to find one that does not describe it as such. Yet the speaker never once mentions anything about 'gun control', never once mentions anything about any "laws" or "rights" real or suggested, never mentions the Second Amendment. His entire commentary is about Gun Culture, which means a mindset. And yet allllllllll these video uploaders call it a "gun control" speech, which tells us that they're not listening.

It's exactly what I've been talking about on this site for five years and generally nobody listens to me either, preferring to shift back to an imaginary point about "laws" or something, which are irrelevant to it. And that in turn tells me it's very uncomfortable to bring up, because it hits close to home, and that means it's an emotional investment, i.e. once again -- a fetish.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are only two possible ways to effectively reduce the unlawful use of firearms in the U.S. One way is to empower government to disarm the civilian population by any means necessary. The second way is to substantially increase the number of armed civilians by licensing any citizen who is (a) able to pass a test affirming his/her sanity, clean, non-violent background, competence and capabilities equal to the average police officer, or (b) willing to acquire training sufficient to qualify for licensing to carry.

Either proven proficiency or sufficient training to qualify for licensing is critically important and will effectively minimize improper use of firearms.

Yes MikeK I believe we are heading to that standard
of either requiring military service / training for all citizens (including
noncombat alternatives for people who want to serve in health care, education or
other means of keeping the peace)
or at least offering it as a requirement for all people who want to use arms for defense and law enforcement. And that would include comprehensive mental health screening and counseling/treatment for any disorders, abuses or addictions that otherwise prevent someone from being competent and able to comply with laws and authority. All that should be part of citizenship training as we currently require tests for naturalized citizens. Why not expand on this, and require training and compliance with the laws and law enforcement procedures in order to live in this country and claim rights and privileges as citizens.

If liberals want safe zones, why not crime free zones?
Where all residents agree to comply and not commit any crimes or face deportation from that district?

As long as all residents of a district AGREE to ordinances and regulations,
it is legal for them to adopt standards to remove anyone who doesn't agree to follow laws. So that would take care of the gun abuse problem by removing anyone with criminal intent or requiring those with disorders or disabilities to get supervised treatment and under a legal guardian if they are not legally or mentally competent.

 

[emilynghiem]

That depends on your definition of "gun culture". Most people, especially among the left, don't know the difference between "gun culture" and the culture of firearms violence portrayed in movies, on television, and in music.

Those two are pretty much interchangeable in my definition.

Good, let's work this out.

The Oxford dictionary defines “culture” as a collective human intellectual achievement and our “refined” understanding and appreciation of it, particularly the customs, arts, social institutions, attitudes and behaviors characteristic of a particular social group.

I agree with that definition. Now let's plug it in.

I myself consider myself part of the gun culture, as the most important social group I belong to are other firearms owners, shooters, hunters, collectors, reloaders, etc. Nobody I know would even think of committing a crime with a firearm and losing our right to own one.

Outside of "nobody I know would even think of..." none of that incorporates what I mean by "gun culture". It's about cultural values, meaning desires. The desire to vanquish, overpower, shoot, blow up, obliterate, destroy, dominate, eliminate, wipe out, extinguish, "take out" and all the other copious euphemisms we have. Those are disrespectful of Life. And that's the basis of a culture of death.

For our purposes here "culture of death" and "gun culture" may be also interchageable, as the firearm is our obvious instrument of choice, whether it's direct in our hands or indirect watching it vicariously on a TV show or virtually handling it in a video game. It all begins with a compulsion to destroy.

Here's my model starting point for the concept of "gun culture" --- this was the hot topic at the moment I joined this site, and the issue I came for:

​

The reader will notice the video is described as a "gun control" rant. In fact out of hundreds of uploads of the same thing you'd be hard pressed to find one that does not describe it as such. Yet the speaker never once mentions anything about 'gun control', never once mentions anything about any "laws" or "rights" real or suggested, never mentions the Second Amendment. His entire commentary is about Gun Culture, which means a mindset. And yet allllllllll these video uploaders call it a "gun control" speech, which tells us that they're not listening.

It's exacty what I've been talking about on this site for five years and generally nobody listens to me either, preferring to shift back to an imaginary point about "laws" or something, which are irrelevant to it. And that in turn tells me it's very uncomfortable to bring up, because it hits close to home, and that means it's an emotional investment, i.e. once again -- a fetish.

Close Pogo I know you mean well
but please be careful
someone can have religious beliefs about the Bible or Bill of Rights
and it's not necessarily an obsessive fetish

You'd have to break this down more
so you aren't painting all beliefs as fetishes.

Which are positive for defense of laws
and which are negative and become oppressive
(this is similar to breaking down the difference between
peaceful Muslims, oppressive Islamist regimes,
and the most dangerous Jihadist terrorists.
These three levels of faith or belief are not the same at all)

otherwise, that's what's happening on the left,
the focus on gun control as the solution is painted as a fetish

So this isn't helping either side
We need to be more clear on both counts.

 

[Pogo]

There are only two possible ways to effectively reduce the unlawful use of firearms in the U.S. One way is to empower government to disarm the civilian population by any means necessary. The second way is to substantially increase the number of armed civilians by licensing any citizen who is (a) able to pass a test affirming his/her sanity, clean, non-violent background, competence and capabilities equal to the average police officer, or (b) willing to acquire training sufficient to qualify for licensing to carry.

Either proven proficiency or sufficient training to qualify for licensing is critically important and will effectively minimize improper use of firearms.

Neither of those addresses gun violence, the latter makes it worse, and it does not go unnoticed that the poster moves the goalposts from "gun violene" to "unlawful use of firearms". We can readily point out that gun violence may be either lawful or unlawful.

And the entire post seems to operate from the starting point of the myth articulated above, that "guns are the answer to everything" and the only question is who gets one. This issue needs a far more basic questioning than that.

"The law" is irrelevant here. Unless one is prepared to make the case that the law either causes, or solves, the issue of gun violence. It cannot do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are only two possible ways to effectively reduce the unlawful use of firearms in the U.S. One way is to empower government to disarm the civilian population by any means necessary. The second way is to substantially increase the number of armed civilians by licensing any citizen who is (a) able to pass a test affirming his/her sanity, clean, non-violent background, competence and capabilities equal to the average police officer, or (b) willing to acquire training sufficient to qualify for licensing to carry.

Either proven proficiency or sufficient training to qualify for licensing is critically important and will effectively minimize improper use of firearms.

Neither of those addresses gun violence, the latter makes it worse, and it does not go unnoticed that the poster moves the goalposts from "gun violene" to "unlawful use of firearms". We can readily point out that gun violence may be either lawful or unlawful.

And the entire post seems to operate from the starting point of the myth articulated above, that "guns are the answer to everything" and the only question is who gets one. This issue needs a far more basic questioning than that.

"The law" is irrelevant here. Unless one is prepared to make the case that the law either causes, or solves, the issue of gun violence. It cannot do that.

Pogo
The use of the law that would solve the issue of gun violence
is included in the training that MikeK is prescribing

when people like NRA members AGREE the use of arms is for defense of law,
then nobody breaks laws.

So teaching and enforcing the laws correctly
(as in the Bill of Rights that includes right to security in our
persons houses and effects and not to be deprived of liberty
life or property without due process of laws)
means everyone within that group or district
agrees to comply with laws.

Proper education and training solves its own issues.
We use the law to check against abuses.
That's teaching due process!

P.S. as for mentally sick, addicted or otherwise incompetent people
who cannot comply with laws authority or due process, that's where
MindWars brought up the issue of proper treatment instead of medications.
Spiritual Healing as practiced effectively by nonprofit ministries such as
Drs. Francis and Judith MacNutt in FL not only successfully diagnoses
causes by early intervention but treats and cures both mental and physical illnesses.
and also heals the RELATIONSHIPS between people, so this helps with #2 the
whole cultural issue springing from internal causes. We need to treat all these ills.
And spiritual healing is not only natural and free but works better than medication alone
that only placates symptoms, while the healing therapy addresses the deep root causes.

Nikolas Cruz still needs this level of treatment
and 17 people might be alive today had he gotten help in time before he went on his rampage.

 

[Pogo]

That depends on your definition of "gun culture". Most people, especially among the left, don't know the difference between "gun culture" and the culture of firearms violence portrayed in movies, on television, and in music.

Those two are pretty much interchangeable in my definition.

Good, let's work this out.

The Oxford dictionary defines “culture” as a collective human intellectual achievement and our “refined” understanding and appreciation of it, particularly the customs, arts, social institutions, attitudes and behaviors characteristic of a particular social group.

I agree with that definition. Now let's plug it in.

I myself consider myself part of the gun culture, as the most important social group I belong to are other firearms owners, shooters, hunters, collectors, reloaders, etc. Nobody I know would even think of committing a crime with a firearm and losing our right to own one.

Outside of "nobody I know would even think of..." none of that incorporates what I mean by "gun culture". It's about cultural values, meaning desires. The desire to vanquish, overpower, shoot, blow up, obliterate, destroy, dominate, eliminate, wipe out, extinguish, "take out" and all the other copious euphemisms we have. Those are disrespectful of Life. And that's the basis of a culture of death.

For our purposes here "culture of death" and "gun culture" may be also interchageable, as the firearm is our obvious instrument of choice, whether it's direct in our hands or indirect watching it vicariously on a TV show or virtually handling it in a video game. It all begins with a compulsion to destroy.

Here's my model starting point for the concept of "gun culture" --- this was the hot topic at the moment I joined this site, and the issue I came for:

​

The reader will notice the video is described as a "gun control" rant. In fact out of hundreds of uploads of the same thing you'd be hard pressed to find one that does not describe it as such. Yet the speaker never once mentions anything about 'gun control', never once mentions anything about any "laws" or "rights" real or suggested, never mentions the Second Amendment. His entire commentary is about Gun Culture, which means a mindset. And yet allllllllll these video uploaders call it a "gun control" speech, which tells us that they're not listening.

It's exacty what I've been talking about on this site for five years and generally nobody listens to me either, preferring to shift back to an imaginary point about "laws" or something, which are irrelevant to it. And that in turn tells me it's very uncomfortable to bring up, because it hits close to home, and that means it's an emotional investment, i.e. once again -- a fetish.

Close Pogo I know you mean well
but please be careful
someone can have religious beliefs about the Bible or Bill of Rights
and it's not necessarily an obsessive fetish

You'd have to break this down more
so you aren't painting all beliefs as fetishes.

Which are positive for defense of laws
and which are negative and become oppressive
(this is similar to breaking down the difference between
peaceful Muslims, oppressive Islamist regimes,
and the most dangerous Jihadist terrorists.
These three levels of faith or belief are not the same at all)

otherwise, that's what's happening on the left,
the focus on gun control as the solution is painted as a fetish

So this isn't helping either side
We need to be more clear on both counts.

I have never said, or implied in the slightest, that "all beliefs are fetishes". Where are you even getting that? I pointed out ONE (1) fetish and described it --- I said nothing about "all beliefs" or about "religions"

A "fetish" is the worship of an inanimate object. Has nothing to do with "religion". Another fetish for instance is memorialized in the phrase "I pledge allegiance to the flag" (not to a country but to a "flag"). Worship of an inanimate object.

 

[Pogo]

There are only two possible ways to effectively reduce the unlawful use of firearms in the U.S. One way is to empower government to disarm the civilian population by any means necessary. The second way is to substantially increase the number of armed civilians by licensing any citizen who is (a) able to pass a test affirming his/her sanity, clean, non-violent background, competence and capabilities equal to the average police officer, or (b) willing to acquire training sufficient to qualify for licensing to carry.

Either proven proficiency or sufficient training to qualify for licensing is critically important and will effectively minimize improper use of firearms.

Neither of those addresses gun violence, the latter makes it worse, and it does not go unnoticed that the poster moves the goalposts from "gun violene" to "unlawful use of firearms". We can readily point out that gun violence may be either lawful or unlawful.

And the entire post seems to operate from the starting point of the myth articulated above, that "guns are the answer to everything" and the only question is who gets one. This issue needs a far more basic questioning than that.

"The law" is irrelevant here. Unless one is prepared to make the case that the law either causes, or solves, the issue of gun violence. It cannot do that.

Pogo
The use of the law that would solve the issue of gun violence
is included in the training that MikeK is prescribing

when people like NRA members AGREE the use of arms is for defense of law,
then nobody breaks laws.

So teaching and enforcing the laws correctly
(as in the Bill of Rights that includes right to security in our
persons houses and effects and not to be deprived of liberty
life or property without due process of laws)
means everyone within that group or district
agrees to comply with laws.

Proper education and training solves its own issues.
We use the law to check against abuses.
That's teaching due process!

Laws are irrelevant to culture. Culture cannot be "legislated".

Ready example --- far far fewer people smoke cigarettes now than did say 75 years ago. That wasn't because we passed "laws". It's because we shifted the culture to make it uncool. The same movie house that still shows endless gratuitous violence --- also doesn't show everyday people smoking, as it used to. That's cultural shift. It's getting inside hearts and minds. You can't do that with "laws".

So the idea here is to shift the cultural idea that "killing is cool" and make it UNcool. Will it still happen? Of course, but when you dampen the collective desire, a desire based on a value of destruction --- it happens a lot less. As smoking did.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We would be remiss if we did not mention the fact that culture (particularly in the information age) does not just evolve organically. There are people who have the power to influence the direction of the culture, and who benefit greatly from a culture of violence. A dangerous combination.

Politicians who want an increasingly militarized police force and looser “search and seizure” restrictions may find justification by declaring “war on drugs”. War profiteers have a vested interest in unending conflict, and find a steady stream of revenue from unwinnable wars like the “war on terror”. Those who want to disarm the population to foster greater governmental control and create a monopoly on physical force may use mass shootings to further their cause.

The worldview poisoning via mass media has everybody thinking the world is orders of magnitude more dangerous than their first-hand experience would suggest. This makes people cling to the false promises of protection offered by the politicians, and abide greater infringements into their personal liberty. Never mind the fact that governments are historically responsible for more deaths than anyone else (by a mind-warping margin). And not just deaths of “enemies” in war, but of their own people as well. One man’s “protector” becomes another man’s aggressor.

This leaves one wondering how much of this cultural trend is by design. I would never put it past ambitious people of wealth and influence to manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. A phone call to a friend in the media; a financial contribution to a political candidate... When you’re high atop the hill, it only takes a little nudge to get the snowball rolling... momentum takes care of the rest.