Gun Violence is Not Homogeneous. Why Do We Look for a Homogeneous Solution?

a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree. The only conflict is that different segments of society define success differently while the system generally speaking pigeonholes everyone into a straightline definition of the concept. Take the US education system for example, we're wasting our time teaching, for example, literature to a teenager who honestly wants to knock wrenches for a living. If that teen gets pushed far enough down the standardized path, he may well hit the wall and check out completely, resulting in a kid with good potential in a particular field instead becoming a thrown away dropout. Similarly with healthcare, why should discrete groups who overuse the system be subsidized by discrete groups who culturally are ingrained to not overuse the resource? Hell, I'll use myself as an example... in my personal world, success is just making enough money to leave society someday and manage to keep my sanity and my life until that happens. I want land, I want tools, I want fishing gear and hunting gear, and most importantly I want my kids, my wife, and myself to be happy and healthy. If I reach my deathbed as an old man in a small cabin out in the boonies with my close family at my side and can say those were achieved, then by God I've been a roaring success... clearly someone from, say, New York City isn't going to consider that very successful.

Anyone can reach personal success in America, but not if we're trying to define a consensus of what, exactly, success is.

Gun violence is an arbitrary term made up to scare the snip out of people.

There is no such thing as 'gun violence'.

If you really want to fix anything stop using political neologisms for so called problems.

a reply to: Aazadan

I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I am simply trying to demonstrate the problem is complex and not as straight forward as the MSM might lead one to believe.

This was from the original post in case you missed it.

Unless and until we accept the fact that success and failure are part of the diversity of Americans, in all things, we'll never stop spinning our wheels.

This was what I was responding to in case you missed it.

I have no meaningful metric to judge if the "system" is broken. The OP directs the reader to the conclusion violence in the US is not homogeneous by location or demographic. Therefore one-size-fits-all solutions are not appropriate.

a reply to: neo96

I agree. A problem is the MSM throws that phrase around on a daily basis. It creates a make-believe too many are unwilling or unable to think past.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I agree a correlation might exist. How strong that correlation is? I have no idea.

My only contention is incarceration is a down-the-road factor in an potential criminals life. The kids shoots another kid on the streets of Chicago and goes to jail for it.

Solutions would attempt to reach the kid before he shoots someone and ends up in prison.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I agree with much of this.

A problem is how life is portrayed in the media, political reaction to a manufactured public response, and the subsequent effect on all our lives.

Perhaps if folks took the time to look at issues facing us as a nation (how and why people shoot each other and themselves for example) those effects on our lives might be more appropriate.

This is why the authors of the constitution gave more power to the states. In those times, most states were more uniform in their cultures although in some cases very different from one another. In our time as the federal government has become more and more powerful, the states themselves have become more broken apart and have split into regions of different lifestyles, cultures and effective governing practices. New York is a prime example of one side of the state needing completely different policy than the other. The state is consistently deadlocked when it comes to creating new law.

The only powerful political positions left that are effective while being somewhat immune to big money are Mayors and Sherrifs. Both positions have lost most of their weight over the last century, but should have much more political pull over laws and regulations in their regions. If we are to really try and take on important issues like gun control, education, unemployment, environmental protection etc., we are going to have to relearn how to deal with these issues on a more regional level, and we’re going to have to give more power and control to those in low level government like mayors and Sherrifs that are playing more of a face to face role with their constituents.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I absolutely agree. However, it's a generational issue that seems systemic to certain neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are generally the ones where there are no male role models other than peers and the elderly. The criminal justice system and the welfare system are designed to keep poor families separated and then you end up with kids willing to risk it all for something stupid.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't really think the definition of success is local to an area, rather it's up to the individual. My definition of success is very different from yours. I want to meaningfully change the world for the better, and actually reach what I think is my potential. Quite frankly, I can't even understand the idea of not wanting to reach your potential. Then again, I grew up around Fortune 500 CEO's, casino moguls, and attended schools with the brightest minds in the country.

My entire life has been spent around high achievers so that's how I measure things, and one of the saddest things I see in the world is people who can't live up to their potential. I don't think high achievers have any special aptitude, they just had discipline and were in the right place at the right time. While not everyone can hold those jobs, everyone can do the things those people do in order to get more out of life.

The kid who wants to knock wrenches only considers dropping out, because someone tells him it's not worth getting educated, and that there's an easy way out. Remove the path of least resistance and they'll work harder. Who knows, maybe that kid will go into behavioral studies and be the one that makes a breakthrough to restructure society in such a way that we can cut down on violence. They have the potential to advance society. If they go turn a wrench all day, that potential is wasted.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
I have no meaningful metric to judge if the "system" is broken. The OP directs the reader to the conclusion violence in the US is not homogeneous by location or demographic. Therefore one-size-fits-all solutions are not appropriate.

I would counter that. I think gun control is a fantastic solution. We have gun control on fully automatic weapons now. How many crimes are committed by them? The answer is very few, they use less lethal and less expensive methods instead. If we expand gun control to cover more weapons, those weapons will eventually stop being used too.

a reply to: Aazadan

"Gun control" is an empty term. Specifically, what do you recommend?

I ask because the studies stated various legislative measures against guns themselves demonstrate almost no correlation in reduction of the violence.

What are you aware of that those who do this for a living are missing?

This is probably because America does not have a GUN problem. No more than we have a knife problem, or a baseball bat problem. A gun is just a tool. The line of inquiry needs to be why do people in the USA cause harm to other people in the USA. The tool they use is not really relevant. Why don't they care about the life of others? I don't have answers. Not sure anyone does. But removing guns completely from the USA will not cause the homicide or suicide rate to drop to zero. Some other tool will automatically become the top murder weapon. Ban that one too. Then it'll be a different tool. Violence will still occur. And eventually you'll have to circle back to find the root cause that was never addressed. Why do Americans not value life?

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Aazadan

"Gun control" is an empty term. Specifically, what do you recommend?

I ask because the studies stated various legislative measures against guns themselves demonstrate almost no correlation in reduction of the violence.

What are you aware of that those who do this for a living are missing?

So what's your alternative reason for why people choose to not use fully automatic weapons to commit mass murder?

a reply to: Aazadan

I asked for your clarification on your meaning of "gun control".

That is at the root of the discussion. The folks studying this are recommending specific, tailored solutions to the various problems.

If you are for "gun control", you must have something in mind.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
If you are for "gun control", you must have something in mind.

The specific policy doesn't matter much, as long as the end result makes remaining guns more expensive and eventually prices them out of most peoples hands.

I will say, that I'm not a fan of ideas like mental illness lists or even banning weapons to felons. That merely creates small subclasses of have nots. Apply it to everyone or none at all.

a reply to: Aazadan

Got it. Ban guns for everyone.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Aazadan

Got it. Ban guns for everyone.

Automatic weapon bans have shown that such a plan is quite successful in minimizing gun crime. Do you have a better plan?

Doesn't matter what the problem is. Sex, drugs, violence, rock&roll, or millions of other things we're unhappy about. In the end, more rules will be added and we'll eventually think it's the best thing. And people in the past were mostly idiot bigots. Moving on, we got big things to do.

I guess it really does boil down to sacrificing freedom for security. It's such a cliche--hard to believe it could be true. The missing component here is we never stop chasing security--and periodically losing it.