Why the US is violent place to live in?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wraith
To be blunt, if the guy trying to do the killing is pretty damn sure his target is going to be shooting back, he's much less likely to try in the first place. And when someone else nearby could come to his targets aid in the same manner... well, it gets pretty risky for the would-be killer.

Not necessarily true. It could also mean that criminals will escalate the level of violence more quickly. If a would be robber suspects I may have a gun, rather than threatening me, he might shoot first.

Pekka, the US is a violent place to live because on the one hand, our culture is very focused on the individual and instant gratification, and on the other, is very alienating, so that we feel alone and disconnected from other people. The other major factor is that we have a history of popular violence dating back to the settling of the Americas.

Going from first to last, defense in the colonie was originally something in whicheveryone particpated. When the Indians attacked (and they did), everyone had to pitch in to defend the settlement. Later, as settlers moved accros the Appalcians, they were islated from others, and relied heavily on indiviudla families using weapons to defend against Indian attack.

Rather than relying on the government to protect us, as in the Old World, in the New World it wasn't just necessary to defend yourself, it was also a political ideal. We felt that having a government powerful enough to protect us also meant having a government powerful enough to oppress us. Rather than having standing armies and state police, even our wars were largely civilian things (for a long time). Civilians formed regiments, and joined the army, which would then be led (hopefully) by a trained officer. This was seen as a necessary check on government.

Given what happened to the post-colonial states around the world, I don't think they were wrong. I can only think of four post-colonial countries that didn't become dicatorships at some point, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (technicall South Africa also, but apartheid was a dictatorship for the majority).

Violence was also "necessary" to enforce social stratification, i.e., white supremacy. While we all here deplore lynch-law and racial violence, it was/is a part of our history, a shameful part, one that we still haven't come to grips with, and still plagues us today. In the past, however, it was "organized" mob actions, often initiated by the elite. It distracted poor whites from their problems and their real oppressors.

Begining in the 1950s, violence began to stem from a different source, the alienation of modern man. No longer were we part of groups, of neighborhoods, or communities. We began moving to the suburbs, not knowing our neighbors, losing our connections between each other. When you lose that, everyone becomes the other, and the other is always a legitimate target of violence.

On top of that, with the rise of TV and advertising, we began to develop a "need" for instant gratification. No longer was it acceptable to work for something, you had to get it now! Why should I work for money when I can take it more quickly?

When you combine all of this together, you have a recipe for extreme violence.

[FemmeAdonis]

I find your presumptions about gun owners... wrong.

*yawns*

good for you.

move along little person..man..woman..whatever you are.

you are TIRING

[Saint Marcus]

don't people in the US own guns to compensate for something else?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
don't people in the US own guns to compensate for something else?

Yep, money, security, etc.

[Saint Marcus]

I was thinking of something more....fundamental

[chequita guevara]

That would fail to explain why so many women have guns, wouldn't it?

[Saint Marcus]

no, it makes perfect sense.

[Wraith]

--"I take it you're a gun owner..?"

I own a .22 Winchester rifle my grandfather left me, yes.

And perhaps you've heard of a group of people called hunters? Or target shooters? Plenty of reasons to own guns other than fear.

--"but most of the people own guns because of possible attack?"

Not really. Maybe in the cities, but in rural areas that's not going to be given as the reason.

--"Wouldn't maze do the job, or pepper spray and a baseball bat?"

Not often. Mace has a very short range, and is suseptible to the wind (you do not want your mace/pepper spray blown back in your face). Baseball bats are pretty short-range weapons; it's much better to be able to stand someone off at a distance. Guns have the nice property of being very intimidating; most defensive situations involving a gun don't go beyond simply displaying it.

--"If someone breaks into your house with gun pointed to you, you're pretty much dead anyway?"

This is where enforcement levels come into play. People breaking into houses aren't risking nearly as much as people breaking into houses with the intention of killing anyone they find inside.

--"It could also mean that criminals will escalate the level of violence more quickly."

As above, there's a whole risk/benefit trade off here. Someone intending to kill in the first place will escalate quickly, but someone not intending to kill isn't likely to just because of this.

Wraith
"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..."
-- George Mason

[chequita guevara]

I'm not so much thinking about those intending to kill, but those who are willing to kill. With somone who's intending to kill you, there is no way to de-escalate the situation. You're gonna die no matter whether you do everything you're told or not. With someone who's willing to kill, if you don't give them a reason to think you are a danger, you might get out of it alive. Nothing's a guarantee, though both will probably shot if they think you're going for a gun. Most, criminals, I expect, don't want to actually hurt you physically.

The problem is, it's very difficult to know who's who. Lot's of folks get them killed when they could have resisted, because the crook intended from the begining to kill them, and lots get themselves killed resisting when the crook just wanted to get in and out without much trouble. I wonder what the ratio of the former to the later is?

Police tell you to throw your money behind the person and run the other way screaming fire. Crooks will tend to go after the money than the loud, difficult target. Outside or in a store, the crook has the drop on you, so going for your gun would be detrimental. In a home situation, it's best to tell the crook you have a gun (if they don't have the drop on you), and let them leave rather than risking a shooting.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by FemmeAdonis
you really DO speak without thinking eh?

You really do think your opinion makes reality bend, eh?

if you had read through...I've already stated

quote:

doc...I wasnt saying gun owners are irresponsible....

I just thinking OWNING a gun is irresponsible in itself.....there really isnt any reason to have one, unless you're a cop..in the military...etc...


So...yes..i maintain...
quote:

guns are a cowards way of dealing with conflict though.

So you are saying you consider police officers and military personnel to be cowards, or are they on some sort of "exception" list in your prejudice against people with guns? Was asking for consistency, essentially.

...and my comment was another point: you mistake bravery for foolhardiness.

if you arent a cop...and you aren't gi joe...why do you need a gun?

Why do you need to know? But since you are so inquisitive, I currently don't own any firearms.

There are quite a few valid reasons for owning a gun, though. Recreation, self defense, because you wish to, etc.

again....points need validity...work on it

My point is that you are letting personal prejudices cloud your view of people who have done no wrong.

My hopes are probably quixotic. I doubt you will change simply because I reprove you for having those prejudices. I mean, people with other prejudices seem to cling harder to them when I comment on them, so I doubt you will surprise me.

[Dis]

Voiolence is in our culture like Moore says. This is evident by the fact you can have violence on tv but no sex. We'd rather kill each other than **** each other .

Why is violence our culture? Well this is debatable. But the events that led up to the creation of our country are one factor. The french and indian war may be another. And then the wild wild west bred violence with Indian uprsisings. And we've been in numerous wars. Now if we had our asses handed to us like Germany (who have also been in numerous wars) then we might learn a lesson and not be so violent. But until someone beats our ass, we will get into more wars. And war on tv is bound to give the message that killing is OK.

[korn469]

i think that another big reason for violence is once you are convicted of a felony in the United States, being able to make a decent legitimate living is very hard, almost impossible to do, since many of those convicted of drug related felonies can no longer integrate back into the legal economy they are almost forced to rely on drug trafficing then to secure any kind of a living for themselves so here is another link for violence and the drug war

here are the factors for crime according to the FBI

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial,
judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sinapus


You really do think your opinion makes reality bend, eh?

To quote Dilbert; "Those who are most insane control reality"

To further quote my Buddy at Texas A&M:

" Don't trust the opinion of someone who types like a drunken Longhorn."

[Spiffor]

I think Chegitz hits the nail.
Since I lurk in the OT, I've seen something common to almost all Americans here, which is a far greater individualism than anywhere else (incl. Canada). I'm sure a huge part of Americans would agree with the woman in Bowling for Columbine when she says she has to pretect here family herself, rather than relying on the police.
Unlike other developed countries, the police isn't the only legitimate source of violence in the US : the individual is as legitimate, if not more.

I'd like to see a poll with this question : "If you surprise a burglar in your house, would you shoot him ?" in different countries. I assume the Americans will be many, many more to answer YES than in other countries.

I don't think poverty is a cause of violence in the US. Rather, it amplifies violence, which has other deep roots. Every country has its slums, and a grim violence can be found there. But this violence can be very different in nature than what we see in the US.
Sure, unlike a civilized country, the US lacks a worthy social system, and one's social position can be extremely insecure. However, this insecurity probably has other consequences than physical violence.

Many gun supporters here consider gun ownership has nothing to do with crime rate. And this statement isn't completely invalid, since the very peaceful Canadians have tons of weapons.
But the number of guns in the US amplifies violence as well as poverty does. Many Americans can imagine themselves kill another person (rather than being killed), and so they're more likely to use their guns on people. The lack of strong regulations in the US makes it worse, because almost anyone without criminal record can own a m16 or some other SMG. It is incredibly easier to kill a human with such things than with hunting rifles.
Had the Americans very strict rules regarding gun ownership, with only low power guns being available to the citizens, there would be technically less killings, but their society would still be much more violent than any other developed country's one.

Another point is the division of the US in very small and exclusive communities : suburbia, slum, peasantry etc. I may be wrong, but I think these parts of the US really don't think to belong to the same country and to the same society, except when there is war.
A community can easily picture a member of another one as some mysterious but obviously dangerous stranger. Currently, it seems to be that black males suffer from the most prejudices, but even if the target of prejudices change, the American society still won't be one. (actually, the 'communautarization' is a phenomenon occuring in France, and violence -whether pysical or symbolical- is on the rise here as well ; those who suffer most prejudices here aren't black males, but your Arab males)

I don't think I've adressed all causes of American violence, but I do think this extreme individualism, and the implosion of the US in small communities are big reasons for the American society to be more violent. And since this is a societal reason, finding political solutions is difficult : you can try to fight the consequences by making weapon regulations and improving welfare, or you can try to educate people from their childhood to have an idea of what 'society' means (such a thing must be done very cautiously, because all attempts to indulge values to a population can be fascistic to some extent)

[Pekka]

Che, thanks for your long answer.. it was very educating.

Wraith, I'm agreeing with you in most of your points.