S/O Florida school shooting, do we jail shooters' parents?

amother

Honeydew

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 5:05 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

So, marina has proposed some very balanced and do-able gun control laws, such as background checks and mandatory gun safety training. While this would not, in my opinion, eliminate all, or even most of the gun related deaths in the United States, it would certainly eliminate some of the more senseless deaths. And I hope both political parties can work together, if they can somehow eliminate all the extremism on both sides, to implement these stricter laws within my lifetime!

But seafoam is going further in saying that all guns should be eliminated period, and this is where she (hopefully a she!) is not quite getting the American culture, as Fox has suggested earlier. This is not going to happen. End of sentence, full stop.

I can believe you that it isn't going to happen. That is definitely a disadvantage of 'American culture' though.

marina

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 5:08 pm

Here's a podcast clip, for example, showing how the NRA refused to back a very conservative legislator who wanted to create a reasonable law whose sole purpose was to protect children.

The law - which only involved fake gun-look-a-likes on school grounds - went nowhere because the NRA did not support it.

https://www.thisamericanlife.o.....two-3

southernbubby

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 5:12 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion on a specific type of gun (an earlier poster suggested that this type of gun is the preferred gun for women as it has less recoil), so I have no opinion about outlawing any specific type. But if you can work on creating a law that requires background checks and mandatory training, etc. then I will be forever grateful to Marina!

The NRA website recommends the AR-15 for women and if all it was going to be used for was target practice, there would be no problem with women or men owning them but unfortunately too often the target practice uses human targets.

If a woman is in the military or is a police officer, then by all means she should have one. It could do a great job taking out bad guys.

Raising the age for gun ownership could have helped in this case. If a person can't buy alcohol until age 21, and can't rent a car until age 25 unless they pay a fee, and can't run for president until age 36, then why can a 19yr old buy a semi-automatic rifle? He can however join the military at age 17 with parental consent, so maybe that would be the best outlet for a young wanna be gun owner. And I realize, in many places a 16 year old can drive but that is also with parental consent and training and it has a probationary period.

Mommyg8

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 5:19 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Not buying alcohol until 21 is one of the weirder laws in this country, and one this is so easily and so commonly bypassed, it's laughable. And there are valid reasons for the car rental rules as well (including the higher car insurance rates for boys under 25, which I am now paying).

Raising the age of gun ownership is actually a very common sense law. I hope it gets implemented.

Fox

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 5:45 pm

amother wrote:

Has a different viewpoint on what? Gun control? Please explain the viewpoint.

The viewpoint I have been discussing is not specifically about gun control. It is about the role of government. Americans, at least in many, many parts of the country, see government very differently than Europeans as well as others.

This is not my theory; this is very well-known and very well-documented. It impacts a lot of areas that non-Americans find strange, not just gun control, but health care, education, religious rights, land rights, etc. For those of you who find me boring, pedantic, or just don't like me, consider this your trigger warning and don't read further.

White People in America
A large majority of pink-skinned people in America are descended from English, Scottish, and Irish settlers. In certain parts of the country, particularly the Southeast, an overwhelming majority of white Americans are descended from Scottish/English settlers.

In fact, what we consider a Southern accent today is really just an evolved version of the Scottish accent of the early settlers.

Why Did They Come?
"They were searching for a better life," is the generic answer, but there are some specific reasons that brought people in the 18th and early 19th centuries to America, and all of them involved the government or legal system of their home countries.

Primogeniture -- in order to maintain land holdings, English law recognized that inheritances were passed on to the oldest living male offspring. Many of the founding fathers were children or grandchildren of so-called "second sons" who were forced by primogeniture to decide between the military, the church, or trying their luck in America.

Scottish Land Abuses -- starting hundreds of years before the founding of the U.S., England periodically attempted to annex land from Scottish sheep farmers. In many cases, this was done simply by seizure. By around 1825, the Highland Clearances had started. This was an organized effort to throw Scottish tenant farmers off the land. Starvation and illness were rife, and hatred of the English government and aristocracy was hardened. Those who could made it to America.

Religious Conflicts -- the long conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants was a factor in the migration of many English and Scottish settlers. The epithets "redneck" and "hillbilly" come from nicknames for Protestant settlers.

Irish Land Abuses -- although the famous Irish Potato Famine came in the mid-19th century, land abuses had started long before. Irish tenant farmers had almost no protection against English absentee owners and could be turned off the land legally with virtually no recourse.

What Did All These Groups Have in Common?
Of course, the English, Scottish, and Irish didn't get along back in Britain, so why should they get along any better in America? The one thing uniting them was that they shared a hatred of the English government and/or legal system.

This view was hardened in colonial times by corrupt or incompetent governors; high taxes; and the general treatment of the colonies as a cash cow.

Making a New Country
So the U.S. wasn't formed by people who necessarily shared positive characteristics. It was formed by people who hated the government of their home country. Fueled by Enlightenment thinking and classical liberalism, they believed that governments will ultimately become corrupt and that citizens must be prepared at any time to overthrow a corrupt government.

That may sound farfetched to us today, but that's what they'd just done! Virtually all the early writings and documents connected with the U.S. concern keeping the government from getting too powerful. The experience of these people was that a powerful government will eventually come to misuse its power against its own citizens.

Non-White People in America
If white people in America had bad experiences with government, people of color, whether slaves or indentured servants, had even less reason to view government as their friend and protector.

So whites hated government because they'd been reared to do so, and slaves hated government because it enforced their slavery.

What Does This Have to Do with Guns?
Two things:

1. Americans, particularly those whose families immigrated before 1900, have long history of believing that government is, at heart, the enemy of its citizens. Nobody sits down and says, "Your great-great-great-great grandfather was thrown off his land in Scotland, so 150 years later, we hate the government." But those attitudes are still very present. They will fight and resist anything that might potentially result in government interference.

2. While most people don't practically envision overthrowing the U.S. government, even with an AR 15, many Americans are keenly aware that one of the first actions of tyrannical governments throughout history has been to confiscate any weaponry or any ability the citizenry might have to mount a rebellion. They point to the fact that the American Revolution was only possible because citizens were able to own weapons.

What Does All This Have to Do with Ending Gun Violence
Because if you don't understand why Americans are stubborn about guns, health care, or baking wedding cakes, you will never be able to reach the compromises necessary for solutions. In fact, "banning" guns would demonstrate that they were correct -- that the government is behaving precisely in the autocratic way the founding fathers warned it might.

The other option would be simply to wait until the cultural legacies have weakened, but we're probably talking hundreds of years. Hardly any Japanese people cultivate rice paddies today, but their habits and attitudes still reflect what you need to do to successfully grow rice. When people say, "But all that happened a long time ago," they are ignoring how human attitudes develop.

Personally, I don't believe there is a single answer to ending gun violence, just as there is no single cure for cancer.

In some cases, it involves guns -- we already ban assault weapons, for example. In other cases, it might involve banning large-capacity magazines. We clearly need a better way to keep disturbed people from falling through the cracks so easily. We need fathers or even career criminals to keep gang violence from escalating in urban areas. We obviously need to examine how law enforcement responds to threats. Right now, as one meme put it, "If you see something, say something, and we'll ignore it."

Obviously, I've glossed over a lot of the historical details here, despite the length of this post. But solving social problems without acknowledging the underlying culture and history is like prescribing medicine without taking into account the size and weight of the patient.

I happen to believe Gabby Giffords' organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, does a decent job of balancing the need for change with the cultural legacy. Instead of students walking out of class for 17 minutes, I wish the organizers would urge students to give money to any her organization or any one of the half-dozen or so groups that is legitimately working on all fronts. If each student who plans to walk out of class instead gave 17 cents, $1.70, $17.00, or even $170, these constantly underfunded groups could make a lot more progress. And if some affluent students gave a little extra to cover those who can't afford to give, it would be even better.

southernbubby

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 5:54 pm

The kids need to do both: march and give.

They need to show that this their world now and they are going to make of it what they want to make of it and I agree with their effort. The students are kids and probably don't have lots of money but they need to start to build their clout and make their mark on the world.

I also agree that Gabrielle Gifford has a sensible approach. It is a shame that conservatives have aligned themselves with the NRA and fail to see that they have protected gun ownership at the expense of the American people and some sort of compromise between their demand of open gun ownership and the extreme liberals wanting to confiscate all guns has to take place.

Fox

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 6:31 pm

marina wrote:

Sorry, Foxter. I ain't gonna be taking Miss Manners lessons from someone who defended Milo and explained how his despicable comments about women who take birth control ( fat ugly depressed etc) were acceptable and maybe even humorous. Take your outrage elsewhere.

Here's a link to where you defend an author for writing that all women on birth control are fat sluts who aren't going to get the man meat that they all crave : http://www.imamother.com/forum.....35657

Tell me again how impolite it is to call American laws crazy.

So denigrating someone's nation or culture has been downgraded to the equivalent of putting your napkin in the wrong place or not sending thank you notes for wedding gifts in a timely manner?

And what on earth does Milo have to do with any of this? He poses with guns for publicity photos occasionally, but I don't think he actually sees well enough to shoot at anything. But if you're bringing him up just to demonstrate what a wretched person I must be, I'll lend a hand:

Not only does that awful Fox find Milo to be amusing and thought-provoking, she also listens to Dave Rubin now and then. And even Gavin McInnes and Chadwick Moore! She follows Jordan Peterson on Twitter! She thinks everyone should listen to Camille Paglia now and then and skim a little Jack Donovan. She openly admits to reading Ben Shapiro (not listening, though; his voice is too grating)! Run! Run for your lives!

marina

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 7:13 pm

Fox wrote:

I didn't say you're awful or wretched. I said I wasn't going to take your criticism seriously.

You sort of lose the moral high ground to get all indignant about someone calling Americans crazy if you're also simultaneously explaining that an author who refers to all women on birth control as fat ugly sluts is actually "amusing" and "thought provoking."

marina

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 7:15 pm

I will, however, agree with you that Gabby's organization looks really good!

sushilover

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 7:39 pm

marina wrote:

The National Rifle Association, a very powerful organization, opposes any such laws and works tirelessly to fund politicians who will categorically refuse to develop such laws. That's pretty much why these laws don't exist.

Is the ACLU also an evil, powerful organization? After all, they care more about civil liberties than gun legislation sometimes.

The NRA is an organization to protect the second amendment rights of law abiding gun owners. No more, no less.

sushilover

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 8:01 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I realize that this article is from the liberal NY times but if anyone can refute that CTs gun restrictions have brought down the incidents of gun violence, please post what you found:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0......html

I'm confused. I quickly looked it up and according to the CDC, the rate of gun deaths in CT has remained virtually the same for the past ten years. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press.....m.htm
I'd love to look into how the NYT got their numbers. Maybe the CDC didn't count suicides and the NYT did?

Fox

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 8:01 pm

marina wrote:

You sort of lose the moral high ground to get all indignant about someone calling Americans crazy if you're also simultaneously explaining that an author who refers to all women on birth control as fat ugly sluts is actually "amusing" and "thought provoking."

I still think my point has merit, but since we are pretty close to agreeing on this particular topic, we should probably save our fancy swordwork for another occasion.

Marriage seems to have taken the edge off Milo's abrasiveness, though it did make it a bit dicier for him to argue against same-s-x marriage in Australia. Not long ago he said something on his podcast that I really objected to, so I emailed the current Milosphere Mom, who happens to live in Chicago. She passed the message along to Milo, who emailed me to say I was right and he'd try to watch himself. So that was nice.

sushilover

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 8:07 pm

marina wrote:

Eh. I find lots of people amusing and thought provoking who have said way worse things. I think they are gross, but they can still be amusing.

Mommyg8

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 8:48 pm

I don't have anything to add to this topic at this moment, but I would like to thank sushilover for providing me with much food for thought. Thank you for your excellent and obviously well-researched posts!

sushilover

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 10:08 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

That's so sweet! You made my night!

marina

Sun, Feb 18 2018, 11:45 pm

sushilover wrote:

1. Plse note I did not use the word evil at all, so not sure why you inserted that in there. Or why you're bringing in the ACLU here.

2. Plse review my comments on the second amendment on page 6 of this thread. The NRA's positions are often completely beyond the reach of the second amendment. For an example, plse see the podcast link close to the top of this page.

Fox

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 12:40 am

marina wrote:

The NRA's positions are often completely beyond the reach of the second amendment.

This is based entirely on conversations overheard while drinking Diet Cokes at the shooting range, so take it with a grain of salt: there seem to be quite a few people in the gun community who feel that the NRA has morphed into a lobbying group for firearm manufacturers and has less and less connection with gun owners or enthusiasts. They join their state rifle associations and the 2A Foundation, but they are cynical about the NRA itself.

marina

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 1:31 am

Fox, it came to mind that you would prob like the first part of that podcast, it will make you smirk maybe https://www.thisamericanlife.o.....t-say

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 8:23 am

This is a must read article that states that the NRA is not as powerful as everyone makes it out to be and that often the ACLU agrees with the NRA when a group of people is needlessly denied access to guns.

The article goes on to say that just as handgun cannot be legally sold to someone under 21, this should extend to all firearms and this is enforceable.

It also says that Obama's tweet is something that he out to know better by now. Common sense cannot be a law. Laws have to be specific.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/1......html

sushilover

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 9:40 am

marina wrote:

I thought you were implying that you think the NRA is an evil organization, manipulating our government. I'm glad I misunderstood. I apologize.

I'm not going to listen to a 25 minute podcast. If they are referring to the Louisiana lawmaker who wanted to ban toy guns within a thousand yards from schools with a six month sentence for first time offenders, I have to say I agree with the NRA for opposing it.
I think other rights groups would have opposed it as well, even if the punishment were not as extreme.