Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fear-irrationality-insanity.

Universal Alien, in the OP, wrote:

'Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law.'

I have only just started reading this thread, but have to comment. This blatant ******** cannot go unchallenged.

Please check your facts, Universal Alien. While you are right that Australia had a similar incident (in 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people, and wounded 18 others) you are completely wrong in the rest of the above quote.

As a result of Bryant's actions in the "Port Arthur Massacre" Australia benefitted from a rare example of political leadership. Then Prime Minister took on the gun lobby, and even members of his government, to introduce the National Firearms Agreement (NFA). All guns were not banned, although 640,000 were bought back by the government, and scrapped. Private ownership of semi-automatics like Bryant used was banned, universal registration introduced giving police a record of ownership, along with rules regarding safe storage of weapons. These laws have not been rescinded

And the crime rate did not rise.

More facts: In the 18 years prior to Port Arthur, there were 13 gun massacres ( defined as 4 or more people killed) in Australia. Since then, there have been NONE.

Gun deaths have fallen from 600/year in the early '90s, to less than 250/year. These figures include gun homicides and suicides, and the overall figures for homicide and suicide show that the use of a gun has not been replaced by other means.

And there has been a huge economic benefit besides the obvious social benefits of so many lives not being lost or taken. Gun reform cost Australia about $500 million, and has result in estimated savings approaching $10 billion. Follow this link to the Harvard research if you don't believe me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

The (so-called) United States have a gun problem. Australia does not, nor do other nations which have taken serious action on gun control.

I second that, Robert. (We live in a relatively safe country)

Robert66: That's an interesting correction from a person who actually lives in the country in question.

I think your point about what Universal Alien says illustrates my point about the apparent paranoia and hysteria of some of the pro-gun lobby causing unnecessary polarization on an issue where there is more common ground than people think.

But, with you being Australian, I'd be interested on your thoughts about this: It seems clear that the american love of guns, and their conviction that they need to be personally armed to protect against oppressive governments, stems in large part from American history: from the fact that America was founded, relatively recently, in an act of throwing off an oppressive government.

Australia seems to me to have a similar frontier spirit. But not exactly the same. Former colony, but no revolutionary war. Do you think that history - in some ways similar to the US and in some ways not - has its own effect on Australians' attitudes to guns and to their role in protecting individuals from governments?

Steve.

For an understanding of why Australia and Canada are so different from the Us it is worthwhile to read the book "How the Scotts invented the modern world". The root of it lies in the Scottish highlands, inhabited by very independent people, who were treated harshly by the Brits, to the point of most of them migrating to the US.

Canada and Australia have benefited from English common law, where the society had rights as well as the individual, compared with the overriding rights of the one compared with the many in the US.

Regards, John .

John,

I guess you mean treated harshly by the English, not the Brits! But yes, that's an interesting point. The Scots (and the Irish?) do seem to have had a cultural influence beyond their size.

I have a naive tendency, based mostly on simple geography, to think of Canada as almost the same as the USA and of Australia a being essentially the same as Britain but without the class-system baggage and with better weather. But I guess it makes sense that Canada and Australia would have more in common with each other than either of them do with the USA or UK.

Hi Steve.

The biggest problem with guns in the US is handguns, not semi- automatic ones used in mass killing. Canada made it very difficult for private folks to own hang-guns in 1935, so that even most security personnel do not have them.

On a per capita basis Canada has less then one third the murder rate of the US and only one third of them are committed with guns compared with 70% in the US.

I have never been afraid for my life anywhere in my country, nor have I ever had thoughts of the need to overthrow our government, despite some of the stupid things it has done at times.

Perhaps a nation born in violence has a greater chance to remain violent!

Regards, John

Well, yes, this idea of being born in violence and remaining in violence: I was talking earlier on about arms races, and how they are dynamic processes, with each side constantly adjusting itself relative to the other. And they can gradually ratchet up or gradually ratchet down.

As I've just been saying to Spiral Out on the other gun control thread, I can't think of a knock-out argument against his desire to own various weapons. All I can say is that I personally wouldn't want to live in a society that seems so determined to ratchet up. For sure, the balance of power still keeps the peace, but the higher the arms race goes, the more explosive the result if anything goes wrong.

In a society where every law-abiding citizen owned a fully automatic weapon, I'm sure it's true that everybody would be very polite. But just imagine what happens if somebody isn't!

Robert, that was fascinating. Universal Alien makes a statement that as you pointed out is absolute poo-poo-ca-ca with supreme confidence, because the gun nuts are used to preaching to like-minded nuts who are happy as clams to believe anything that fits their delusions. That's characteristic of the extreme right wing of the US with all sorts of issues. Never let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.

When a teenager in the 1950s-60s, if there was a shooting in Australia it made front page. Since then I have watched the national psyche heavily influenced by mostly American film via theatre and TV - this is obvious for all to see? Violence is now trivialised to such an extent one cant help wondering if there was some hidden intent bringing generations up on a diet that instils fear, devalues human life which at the same time desensitises the individual and places them on the defensive. Endless films glorifying war, the hero and the villain, the goodie & baddie, etc, obviously must appeal to some lack in the individual who is amused by them. Have we unconsciously inherited America's hangups or has all this simply brought out our own inherent tendencies to violence? I remember my first trip to England and was struck by the police being unarmed which made me feel at ease. My first touch down upon return was Perth where I noticed some police toting hip guns and walking with a 'tough guy' demeanour. They walk into McDonalds, gun toting, which is full of children and I do wonder what affect this has on them/ Or is it already apparent?

Wooden shoe wrote:Perhaps a nation born in violence has a greater chance to remain violent!

How is Canada any different from the US in this regard? Are you aware of your own country's early history?

While every country may not have a "gun problem" it is irrefutable that every country has a "violence problem" because every country has people and all people have the propensity for violence through their emotions.

The primary argument is that if you restrict guns then the level of violence will subside. This is untrue. The only thing that subsides is violence using guns.

If you analyze the overall level of violence in any given country you will find that each has a general level of violence that is equal to the others. There is no discrepancy in overall violent incidents relative to domestic violence, hate crimes, random assaults, street fights, bullying, organized crime, corruption, etc.

If you pay close attention to the wording they use in these news stories about certain politically-oriented topics then you'll notice that "news" outlets such as FOX News invariably use sensationalism in their highly emotionally-charged terminologies when covering these stories. There's always an agenda attached to these things.

This so-called "gun violence" only appears to tip the scales because people feed off the media coverage of violence and the media outlets being fully aware of this Human trait "ratchet up" the coverage for the purposes of TV ratings and the perception of the level of violence goes up accordingly.

Human violence is identical across the planet, only we attach ourselves to the particular flavor of violence that either appeals to us and/or repulses us, and these usually go hand-in-hand.

TOOL outlined this phenomenon succinctly with their song "Vicarious":

Eye on the TV
'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be

Like:
"Killed by the husband" ...
"Drowned by the ocean" ...
"Shot by his own son" ...
"She used a poison in his tea,
Then (she) kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun til someone dies.

Don't look at me like I am a monster
Frown out your one face, but with the other (you)
Stare like a junkie into the TV
Stare like a zombie while the mother holds her child,
Watches him die,
Hands to the sky cryin "why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die from a distance
Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too - don't lie.

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowin'
Neither the brave nor bold
Will write us the story so
We won't give pause until the blood is flowin'

I need to watch things die from a good safe distance
Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same so why can't we just admit it?

Blood like rain fallin' down
Drum on grave and ground

Part vampire, part warrior,
Carnivore and voyeur
Stare at the transmittal
Sing to the death rattle.

La, la, la, la, la, la, la-lie (x4)

Credulous at best
Your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men
Pull your head on out (of) your hippie haze
And give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again.

The universe is hostile
So impersonal
Devour to survive
So it is, so it's always been ...

We all feed on tragedy.
It's like blood to a vampire.

Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies
Much better you than I.

Repulsion<->Attraction - a formidable tool in the hands of media & the entertainment industry.

Hi Spiral Out.

Perhaps you need to have an other look at Canada's history. Canada had no Indian wars, There was a Metis rebellion, metis being mixed French/Indian offspring, but perhaps the best example was the Klondike gold rush which occurred after the California gold rush. It is unknown just how many died in the California rush, some estimates as many as 5000, most of them Indian. With the Klondike no one died a violent death and yet many of the people came there from the California one. The secret? No guns were allowed.

A correction! Canada was involved in the Iroquois wars, also known as the beaver wars, initiated by the Dutch from New York who sold guns to the Iroquois.

For good statistics on violence and homicides go to the UN sites for better information. You will; find very differing numbers for developed nations.

Regards, John.

[quote="Spiral Out"]
While every country may not have a "gun problem" it is irrefutable that every country has a "violence problem" because every country has people and all people have the propensity for violence through their emotions.

Sounds reasonable

The primary argument is that if you restrict guns then the level of violence will subside. This is untrue.

Does not sound reasonable. Where is your evidence? The 'level of violence' has clearly subsided in Australia, because the absence of a gun in many households previously containing one has resulted in far fewer homicides - typically man killing wife - and far fewer suicides. Suicides leave behind trauma which can translate to further violence against others or self-harm.

The only thing that subsides is violence using guns.

'Violence using guns' subsiding would be seen as a good result, would it not?

If you analyze the overall level of violence in any given country you will find that each has a general level of violence that is equal to the others.

Leave out 'equal' and this may be credible, but again, where is your evidence?

There is no discrepancy in overall violent incidents relative to domestic violence, hate crimes, random assaults, street fights, bullying, organized crime, corruption, etc.

Is there not?

If you pay close attention to the wording they use in these news stories about certain politically-oriented topics then you'll notice that "news" outlets such as FOX News invariably use sensationalism in their highly emotionally-charged terminologies when covering these stories. There's always an agenda attached to these things.

This so-called "gun violence" only appears to tip the scales because people feed off the media coverage of violence and the media outlets being fully aware of this Human trait "ratchet up" the coverage for the purposes of TV ratings and the perception of the level of violence goes up accordingly.

Human violence is identical across the planet ...

This could only be true in the limited sense that to be violent is, to a greater or lesser degree, a part of each human's nature. Human violence differs greatly across the planet if measured by a propensity to act violently, and more pertinently the kind of violent action undertaken,

... only we attach ourselves to the particular flavor of violence that either appeals to us and/or repulses us, and these usually go hand-in-hand.

TOOL outlined this phenomenon succinctly with their song "Vicarious".

Maynard Keenan is an impressive person, and this song has powerful lyrics, but it isn't really true. The opposite is true: Not everybody loves a tragedy. Just ask any survivor, witness, family member or friend of one of the many massacres in the USA.

Hello Wooden shoe,

I'm well aware of the numerous historical violent incidents and conflicts involving the Canadian territories.

>>>

Robert66 wrote:The 'level of violence' has clearly subsided in Australia, because the absence of a gun in many households previously containing one has resulted in far fewer homicides - typically man killing wife - and far fewer suicides. Suicides leave behind trauma which can translate to further violence against others or self-harm.

I'm not buying any of that one bit. How many of those "fewer homicides and suicides" ultimately resulted in prolonged abuse and other forms of violence? The answer is all of them. Unresolved violence doesn't just evaporate in the absence of an outlet.

'Violence using guns' subsiding would be seen as a good result, would it not?

Not necessarily when it ultimately results in other forms of prolonged violence, which is inevitable.

Leave out 'equal' and this may be credible, but again, where is your evidence?

As I had stated, "there is no discrepancy in overall violent incidents relative to domestic violence, hate crimes, random assaults, street fights, bullying, organized crime, corruption, etc." meaning that violence will manifest itself regardless of the outlets available.

Where's the evidence? Look around you and pay attention to what you see. There's your evidence. Will a woman who gets bitch-slapped by her husband make the news? Nope. But it happens every day. Will a man who is emotionally abused by his wife make the news? Nope. But it happens every day. If you rely on the news for your evidence then you're hopelessly naive.

Is there not?

No, there is not. How could there possibly be?

This could only be true in the limited sense that to be violent is, to a greater or lesser degree, a part of each human's nature. Human violence differs greatly across the planet if measured by a propensity to act violently, and more pertinently the kind of violent action undertaken,

Not true. Every person has the potential for a level of violence that they would never think possible. Every single person. They simply have not been exposed to the necessary circumstances. Human violence does not differ greatly across the planet when the violence being taken into account does not differentiate between any particular type or method of violence, unless one is trying to manipulate statistics in order further some ideology.

Maynard Keenan is an impressive person, and this song has powerful lyrics, but it isn't really true. The opposite is true: Not everybody loves a tragedy. Just ask any survivor, witness, family member or friend of one of the many massacres in the USA.

People who have been through traumatic experiences do not actively avoid exposure to negative news. There are many psychological therapeutic reasons why they continue to engage in the same behaviors as they did prior to any traumatic experience.

One such reason is to affirm that they share similar experiences with others and that their experience may not be the worst of experiences and also to reassure themselves that other people have successfully made it through experiences worse than theirs.

Another is to share their emotional attachments to a traumatic event that others are experiencing or have experienced.

Yet another is to further analyze their emotions relative to their experience and to move past their attachments to those emotions and to advance into a more stable and healthy emotional state. And the list goes on.