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

amother

Honeydew

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 10:16 am

Fox wrote:

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.

This history is all very nice (and yes, I did find it an interesting read), but the American revolution, including the passing of the second amendment, took place over 200 years ago.

The United States was not the answer to all prayers at that time, when it was founded, as you are making out. What about all the racial discrimination, as well as the slavery? It took years until that was abolished, even in the land of the free.

None of the issues you mentioned in the other countries exist at this time either because many things have changed in the civilised world.

Policies, governments and borders have evolved worldwide since then.

It therefore doesn't explain why in the 21st century, America doesn't have a tougher stance for gun control as needed, like in the rest of the western world.

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 10:43 am

amother wrote:

The history simply shows why change is so hard. There is a culture of not wanting government interference.

I do believe that the young people today don't identify with that culture and will probably change it.

amother

Honeydew

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 10:49 am

southernbubby wrote:

The government does have jurisdiction over so many things though. I guess that's why I don't understand why the culture card should make more of a difference with guns than with anything else.

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 10:55 am

amother wrote:

The government does have jurisdiction over so many things though. I guess that's why I don't understand why the culture card should make more of a difference with guns than with any other governmental policies.

I see it as the same reason that we don't enact socialist policies. America is a country of rugged individualism rather than collectivism. If we are a collective, we would theoretically have less reason to kill each other because we all depend on each other and feel connected to one another.

As individuals, however, we reject policies such as the Obamacare mandate that requires us to purchase insurance that will inevitably help someone older or sicker, rather than us ourselves. We see no benefit to ourselves in paying premiums that ultimately help someone else.

As Fox said, guns represent the ability of the individual to defend himself if the government were to try to take away his freedoms.

There is always the question of how the Holocaust would have turned out had the Jews had a heavily armed and well trained militia.

keym

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 11:26 am

Fox, im wondering. I always understood that the issue is actually "federal government". That colonial times the discussion was giving as little to federal government and as much to the individual states.
Hence when it comes to many laws, mariuana, gay, abortion, gun, and even drivers license laws, the states by states make the laws historically.
So there is really nothing problematic with pushing massive gun restrictions on the state level just leaving the federal government out.
Reading the 2nd ammendment, it was always taught that the "right to bear arms" is also not necessarily each persons right to own guns, rather the states right to raise its own army, and have a well armed militia for the states protection and rights.
But it was and always is the states right vs federal rights vs individual rights.

marina

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 12:39 pm

sushilover 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.

Had you listened to the podcast, you may have learned that she (a tea partier who believes Obama was born in Kenya) wanted to ban fake look-alike weapons (not toys) from schools after a gun that looked 100% real almost got a child shot by the police. And the police came to her asking for this legislation, so she sponsored it. For legitimate safety concerns based on a real incident - to actually keep kids safe. But yeah, good for the NRA for opposing it. Woo hoo! You go NRA!

Next time a child is shot by the cops who see a real gun when it is actually fake, the NRA can pat themselves on the back for standing up to the evil liberals who want to eviscerate all our rights.

marina

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 12:42 pm

keym wrote:

no, 2nd amendment applies to states also under Heller decision

keym

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 12:46 pm

marina wrote:

no, 2nd amendment applies to states also under Heller decision

Understood. I actually meant the founding fathers reasoning. They may have not expected every crazy to run around with a gun. Just prevent the federal government from implementing the rules; instead allow "friendly personal state" to make the rules.

marina

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 12:57 pm

keym wrote:

Quote:

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

I think the 2nd Amendment as written back then makes no sense now. Any state or local group that would take up arms against the federal government would not be protected under the militia part of this amendment. They would just be wiped out or imprisoned. I'm not sure who the second amendment realistically protects and from what. I guess you'd have to argue that this protects the right to form or maintain an armed militia, but not to actually do anything with it against the federal government- pretty impotent amendment. But not as bad as the 3rd lol.

morningsickness

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:16 pm

I must admit, that an Israeli, this all seems really stupid..

In a nutshell, it seems that All American's must have guns, to protect themselves from all the American's who must have guns... seems like an endless cycle to me.

If not as many ppl were allowed to have guns, then maybe not as many guns would be needed to protect ppl from the so-called threat of ppl who have guns..

Whatever, I am probably rambling and making no sense as I am operating on no sleep..

Here in Israel, where we actually do live in constant, real danger of being attacked, we STILL have strict gun rules. Not sure why the American's don't.

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:20 pm

morningsickness wrote:

as Fox said, America has been around a bit longer that the modern state of Israel and possibly would have had more progressive gun laws if the America and Israel were the same age. It is easier to compare America to Canada.

amother

Honeydew

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:32 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I still don't understand this reasoning. America isn't stuck in a time-warp in regard to anything else.

morningsickness

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:33 pm

I am actually Canadian, technically... Still don't get it..

Why isn't anyone willing to try something NEW for a change? Obviously, the policies used until now aren't working..

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:38 pm

amother wrote:

I still don't understand this reasoning. America isn't stuck in a time-warp in regard to anything else.

America is really antiquated in many ways that have changed in the rest of the world. The way our medical system works leaves many without any type of care and our life expectancy is not what other countries have.

Loads of people are on opioids here with no way to overcome the addiction.

Our jobs are being rapidly outsourced.

Childcare, college education, maternity leave, etc are behind what it is in other countries.

We have a broken immigration system.

Our elections appear to be run by Russia, Facebook, etc.

Our infrastructure is aging which Trump is addressing but I am not sure that he is spending enough on it.

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:40 pm

morningsickness wrote:

I am actually Canadian, technically... Still don't get it..

Why isn't anyone willing to try something NEW for a change? Obviously, the policies used until now aren't working..

Some of those charming AP students such as Emma Gonzalez in Florida are taking on the system and trying to get those incoming voters to pressure politicians toward gun control. She is on the ball and is too busy with changing gun laws at the moment to bother with class when it reopens but what she is doing is more important anyway.

keym

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:50 pm

In a basic nutshell, America is not one culture. Never was. Its actually These United States. A group of individually states who each fall under the banner of one federal government, one president, one Supreme Court, and 1 constitution with only 26 ( I think) ammenments.
People are loathe to have some Big Government take away their personal liberties. For example Wedding Cake battles which is basically my religious discomfort on homosexuality vs a couples right to good cake service.
It has to be an ongoing emerging conversation because its not simple to just ban everything. And not all Americans share common language and culture.
The Alaskan descended from Eskimo, the NW Pacific, the LA, Texan, etc.

morningsickness

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 2:56 pm

Thanks for taking the time to explain the culture to me...Still sounds crazy to me Rolling Eyes

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 3:02 pm

keym wrote:

Well the reason that I disconnected from Facebook was because of extremists on both sides of the political fence. Trump realized that he would have zero to show for 4 years in office if there was no compromise with the Democrats. Somewhere there is a middle ground between no guns and giving every citizen the right to own a gun no matter what.
The government apparently took religious liberty away from the marketplace some time ago when it became against the law to refuse service to someone with a protected status. That was to protect the public against turning anyone or group into second class citizens. Anyone who opens a business needs to know under what circumstances he or she can refuse service. This doesn't mean, however, that religious people appreciate having to accommodate others but they would be the first to sue in court if someone were to tell them 'we don't serve your kind'.

Fox

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 4:10 pm

amother wrote:

Understanding the historical and cultural influences on a particular country does not mean you are an advocate for whatever behaviors and attitudes resulted. It's not a way of comparing countries or cultures.

In fact, most cultural legacies have both good and bad aspects. Or, more accurately, well-adapted and maladapted aspects.

This is a famous example I've mentioned in the past:

Most East Asian cultures have a cultural legacy that has resulted in strong social hierarchies. Not only do you treat people differently based on their age and status, but there are even features in the languages that change depending on whom you're speaking to. Not just the "formal" and "informal" of Romance languages, but much more complex.

This makes for a very polite, well-ordered society with a low crime rate. Maybe a little formal based on what we're used to, but kids don't mouth off to adults and the elderly are treated as national treasures. Great, right? Really, really admirable!

But not so admirable when Korean Airlines had a significantly higher rate of crashes than other airlines because co-pilots and navigators did not feel comfortable pointing out when the pilot made a miscalculation or error. So virtually all East Asian airlines make sure that their pilots receive special training to, essentially, teach them to ignore their culture. They even do a lot of role-playing because the pilots are so uncomfortable telling a superior that he/she is wrong.

Cultural legacies, like husbands, are a package deal. You get the good with the bad. This is true in every culture and country. In terms of cultural legacies, 200 years is a blip in time. There are many, many people who can trace their families back 200 years. So while it's a long time in terms of the human lifespan, it's a very short time in terms of how people think.

For non-Americans (or Americans) who are confused and disgusted by gun violence in the U.S. and the role of guns in American culture, here's the way I recommend thinking about it:

American attitudes, government, and law developed as a result of easily-identified historical and cultural influences. Ironically, most immigrant groups to the U.S. are attracted by precisely those attitudes. Some American attitudes are well-adapted and even admirable, such as the lack of a formal or informal caste system based on birth. Other American attitudes, such as extreme skepticism about government and extreme individualism, are often self-defeating.

You could go to any country/culture in the world and say the same thing.

Gun violence happens to be a negative outcome of America's cultural legacies, and we need to figure out how to address that particular bad effect. Korean Airlines didn't try to re-program thousands of years of East Asian history and culture. They focused on addressing the specific maladaptation.

Characterizing a country/culture based on the maladaptations of their culture is, at best, simple-minded. At worst, it's bigotry. Moreover, it's an especially bad move because it leaves you open to having your own culture's maladaptations flung back at you.

So when a Korean Airlines jet literally flew into the side of a mountain many years ago, killing nearly 300 people, because the co-pilot and navigator felt uncomfortable pointing out the pilot's error, we don't say, "What on earth is wrong with those South Koreans? What kind of people value some ridiculous social hierarchy over 300 lives?" That's arrogant and obnoxious -- and counterproductive. Instead, we (and in this case, Korean Airlines) say, "Okay, given the culture of the people involved, how can we solve this problem?"

southernbubby

Mon, Feb 19 2018, 4:23 pm

we still haven't let go of the wild wild west or maybe the civil war