Gun violence, and Gun Control (laws)
Gun violence is a major topic of debate, especially in America.
Lots of guns exist in America. And, in Switzerland.Â
Mass shootings in Switzerland are relatively rare, with two in the past 20 years.
The fundamental difference between Switzerland and the US:
In Switzerland, background checks are mandated, which is not always the case in the U.S.
The top 5 states for gun ownership comprise only .8% of the nationâs firearm-related homicides (185 homicides between all 5 states). The bottom 5 states for gun ownership comprise 4% of the nationâs firearm-related homicides (1,038 firearm-related homicides).
Texas has more guns than any other state, with 1,005,555 guns. Texas's Firearm Injury Death Rate 15.3 (per 100,000). [source: www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/texas/tx.htm]
Florida trails behind in second place, with 518,725 guns. Florida's Firearm Injury Death Rate 14 (per 100,000) [source: www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/texas/tx.htm]
Montana has the highest number of gun owners (66%). Yet, quite low rates of homicide due to guns.
What the data does prove to be true, however, is that where guns exist, suicide rates tend to skyrocket.
âŸïžSo a strong argument toward resolving suicide, is less guns.
âȘïžLess guns does not evidently prove true for lower rates of crime/assaults, however.
Yet, where gun violence does take place, that is amongst đč BLACK MALES in inner cities specifically, where poverty is rampant, and the victims themselves are statistically skewed toward BLACK ON BLACK violence.
đžMass shootings in AMERICA are majorly committed by WHITE MALES (54% of the time),
đžand by BLACK MALES only 17% of the time.
[source: www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race]
38% of whites own guns (highest percentage in the US).
However, amongst the leading causes of death among white men, gun violence accounts for only 1.5% of their deaths.
đ»24% of blacks own guns.
đșThe leading rate of death for Blacks (between ages 1-44) is homicide.
Thus, data plainly shows that the main cause of gun violence is due to mere gun ownership.
It hints to more nuanced variables of environmental and circumstantial factors being the cause.
For suicide, gun prevalence does kill people.
That's what the data shows, both in America, and in Switzerland, and across the world.*
My personal opinion and conclusion:
âȘïžI'm all for background checks. Background checks should be required (for anybody to access or own a gun).
But ultimately, guns don't kill people (except if pointed at themselves #suicide).
rather, People kill people. and People kill people due to
environmental and socio-economic factors (poverty, stress, culture; all a side-effect of capitalism, undoubtedly),
interpersonal factors (black on black violence based on personal conflict, not random serial killing),
and additional cultural factors (music, movies, video games, etc which i believe reinforces violence through validation/acceptability).
Sentiment of the normalization of gun violence in American culture, starting at Minute 9 [www.youtube.com/watch?v=u177HGnKoJA; #TonyYayo]:
One may logically rebuttal:Â If you take guns away, no more gun violence!
To which the question then posed is:Â And but then, who ends up ruling?
The bigger and stronger man? How do you defeat the bigger and stronger man if you donât have a weapon? And he doesnât either. You get a bunch of police to go fist fight him just to put handcuffs on him when he wants to fight back?
At a certain point, you need the threat of violence to keep order
The real threat of violence. Itâs what makes people respect the rule of law. Not their good hearts. But repercussions (for not following the rule of law).
thatâs the universal language that equates to ppl following laws: consequences in the form of âpenaltyâ (fines, jail, etc.)
Some ppl might follow laws because theyâre good ppl. That doesnât mean all will.
And usually youâll be surprised as to how many ppl, given the chance, time and again, to get ahead in life by doing illegal thingsâ how many will actually eventually succumb to the temptation to do itâŠ. This too is human nature.
Everyone has their price. Even you have a price, my friend. For some itâs money. For others itâs sex. For others itâs status. No one is perfect and above not having a price, whence given the contextual opportunity personal to their inner desires. This is the importance of and why religion is still very much a guiding force for humans. A true religion grants discipline through ritualism which grants a person control over their own base desires (I.e. infamously known as the 7 deadly sins).
In fact thatâs exactly what makes world history and our current day what it is â opportunism. Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan, etc.
So what youâre stating, naturally goes against the reality of nature, and human nature. At its most basic levels. When the human being is studied and understood.
Your approach, also, when trickled down to its most basic level of functionality,â I foresee it will result in an unrealistic idealism that self-defeats.
Example: Even prison guards have guns and weapons. PRISON GUARDSâŠ. Theyâre dealing with guys who are in prison with zero weapons and who are locked and chained.
Or is it that prisons spend wasteful amounts of money on weapons all around the world because they just donât know betterâŠ. They just donât understand that they donât need any weapons at all to be successful in maintaining the orderly conduct of criminals...
hell, muh man, if thatâs the case they all ought to hire you as a warden... Youâd transcend prisons and optimize their whole mode of function it sounds like.
Your theory would prove true that even prison guards themselves do not need guns (since the people they are watching over are way more compromised in strength and positioning than the average free citizen of the world). â
I understand your approach. But itâs not realistic in the current world.
I think you need to preface it by saying that a government needs to be a certain way (socialist, communist, ?), for no guns by no one (not even the government) to actually benefit, via no threat of violence and crime, subsequently, occurring. â
What form of government would work best, under the pretext of â*If you take guns away, no more gun violence.
To which a further rebuttal becomes: I get what you mean ⊠Thereâs lots of problems in society, and banning guns not gonna sort everything out, but I think would help to reduce amount of violence⊠and previous examples as Australia (or Serbia) show ways of tackling it. ⊠my basic position is this one: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/10/serbia-acts-two-mass-shootings-us-done-nothing-despite-200-this-year
To which we begin with the example of Serbia.
"A mere day after these senseless shootings, Vucic [President of Serbia] announced several measures that would prevent further tragedy. The measures include a ban on new gun permits, tougher penalties for illegal weapons possession, psychological checks of gun owners and an amnesty for the surrender of illegal weapons."
^ this sounds like the beginning of martial law.
And reminds me very much of the laws that took away freedoms of Americans (in terms of violation of civil liberties) after September 11, 2001, occurred (I.e. The Patriot Act covering a whole gambit of violations in the name of supposed âsecurityâ).
It especially sounds interesting when I read how fast the laws were implemented â âIt only took two days, after two horrific mass shootings, for Serbia to act.â âŠđ€Šđ»ââïž
Iâm just surprised at how âeffectivelyâ fast the laws changed. It feels to me just a bit too good to be true that good intentions were behind such quick and swift changes in the law.
Side note from Wikipedia that aptly would fit the script: "Observers have described Vucic's rule as an authoritarian, autocratic or illiberal democratic regime, citing curtailed press freedom and a decline in civil liberties" . . đ€Š
âA ban on new gun permitsâ ââ this is a danger to the freedom of a citizen-populace⊠the founding fathers of America strictly warned against citizens losing their rights to bear arms (to keep government in check, and the powers that be, to keep their power non-absolute).
âtougher penalties for illegal weapons possessionâ ââ this is arguably a good measure. đ
âpsychological checks of gun ownersâ ââ I think this shall be mandatory in America.
âan amnesty for the surrender of illegal weaponsâ ââ somewhat threatening for citizens, and dangerous for the well-being of democracy.
â(American) lawmakers will do little to prevent the next mass shooting.â â an unfortunate truth. The NRA and other âpatrioticâ lobbying groups and organizations buyout politicians behind scenes, to push pro-gun agendas at all costs, unfortunately, even if it continues to cost human lives. A sad reality.
âthe USâs inaction boils down to the gun industryâs political influence.â ââ đđŒexactly
âby creating an extremist view of the second amendment that is antagonistic towards any and all firearm restrictions and safeguards.â ââ true too. Iâve heard a paranoid perspective about this out of political mouths myself, I remember.
âThey blame mental health.â ââ this is an interesting point; gun accessibility for those who commit suicide is strongly linked. I think we can all agree that anybody committing suicide or attempting to, does have a mental illness condition, by default (it's not a normal nor healthy mind that wants to self-destruct).
Albeit, interestingly enough, it appears that a small percentage of mass shooters had 'mental illness', per this source: www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness | www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/a-look-into-the-traits-of-a-mass-shooter
To take away arms from 99% of ppl because 1% act on mental perversion, I disagree with. Especially in America. And especially under a Democratic governance (matter of fact, let's have all citizens vote whether guns should be completely banned or not; let the public decide! I guarantee that the majority would state to keep guns accessible, respectively speaking).
âHow do we know itâs gun access? Because when governments, particularly state governments, put into place commonsense safeguards, we see fewer killings, less death and less trauma.â âââ I can agree with this too, to a certain extent. But it calls for data presentation. And nuance in implementation. Like I said, if I am wealthy and it shows via the neighborhood I live in and the car I drive or the clothes I wear, and I know there is poverty and high crime neighborhoods less than 1 or 2 miles away⊠a gun for self-protection at my home to protect myself (+ children, and wife if I have), I should have the ability and right. Period. No discussion.
Because I imagine I wonât be able to hire 24/7 police protection for my home. And I am not waiting 5 minutes after a break in, for the police to show up to save me.
So any law prohibiting me from exercising this right to self-protection, to me, and millions of others, is compromising personal safety and the very basic sense of right I have to mere self-preservation.
Others love to shoot guns, as a hobby.
Or to hunt (especially knowing the American landscape and the edible game provided, albeit bows and arrows are also effective).
These two hobbies should also be enabled to man if man desires to be and feel free to live.Â
Hunting is natural to the human species. And even translates into the most natural form of dietary nutrition (no hormones, nitrates, preservatives, additives, coloration, etc. added to the food).
When people keep crashing cars and injuring themselves and others â you donât prohibit cars. YOU ENSURE FOLKS HAVE LICENSES FOR DRIVING CARS BY PASSING DRIVING TESTS AND INCREASE THE REPERCUSSIONS IF THEY DO NOT ABIDE. AND YOU ALSO LOWER SPEED LIMITS IN AREAS OF INCREASED ACCIDENTS AND DANGEROUS ROAD CONDITIONS.
When people keep owning guns and shooting others, you donât prohibit guns. YOU INCREASE BACKGROUND CHECKS, AND RESOLVE *CAUSES* OF MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND SOCIETAL ATTRITION.
To eliminate the ârightsâ of citizens is what governments always attempt, and it is done through new laws. YOU NEVER HEAR OF GOVERNMENTS DELETING OR RETRACTING LAWS. WHY IS THAT? To garner greater control over more people. I say, people should not enable the government to do that so easily. â
In fact, small changes added to gun accessibility would enable a better, more nuanced and realistic approach and understanding to gun violence. The moderate and balanced approach of neutral concessions is whatâs necessary. Not the extreme position of zero guns allowed to any citizens. Thatâs nonsensical and goes against, again, the right to bear arms â which was the 2nd amendment and a part of the BILL OF RIGHTS (and CONSTITUTION) for good reason â through thorough foreshadowing of the protection for democracy to maintain itself as the balanced means of governance between citizens and their leaders in power. #genius
âban assault weaponsâ ------ Iâm not against banning assault weapons â ; that sounds somewhat reasonable, but I would have to see more evidence on the impact assault weapons have on mass shootings and also personal conflict situations. đĄ
âBuyback programâ ------ Also sounds reasonable for those who wish to get money or whatever their incentive is. â
âWhen states put more stringent safeguards into place, fewer people die by firearms.â ------ I agree with this as well â ; but my demand would be that the safeguards are nuanced. Not extreme and a complete banning of every firearm. â.
The US government can in fact stop gun violence like other countries have, but only if our policymakers start answering to the people, not the industry. â
Israel also needs to be held to account for their usage of US tax-paying dollars. And the amount of aid given to Israel, and specifically for what, needs to be audited.
AIPAC also needs to be registered as a foreign entity lobbying group. JFK attempted to do this.
These countries that ban arms so swiftly and quickly arenât at the caliber nor level of influence of efficiency or effectiveness that democracy and capitalism provide to American productivity and efficiency and organization and institutionality.
So to compare their results with America is something to learn from, but by no means something to be implemented so swiftly, revolutionarily, and uninhibitedly in America.
The buckshot dangers of doing it at such a threshold pace outweighs the foresight, purpose, intention, and wisdoms of the founding fathers -- certain data provided countering that guns in general are the cause for violence, and the sensible inalienable right of self-preservation and protection (especially when it is not Law for the police to mandatorily protect citizens).
Make this the law, with proven time-response data, particularly in places where gun violence is rampant (i.e. the hoods of America), and Iâll be closer to accepting the extreme approach of gun prohibition.
Originally published: 09/02/2024.














