Tucson Citizen.com
Caveat Lector - Politics, Government and the Free Press – by Mark B. Evans

Don’t expect much change to come from Newtown massacre; gun violence part of American culture

by on Dec. 27, 2012, under Politics

The conventional wisdom after the horrific killing of 20 young children in Newtown, Conn., was that this mass killing was finally going to be the game changer in the gun control debate.

This killing was so brutally tragic that the millions of Americans who’ve been on the fence about what to do about gun violence in America would finally jump down to the side of gun control.

The momentum would flip to gun ownership restrictions after years of being on the side of gun ownership rights. The answer to gun violence would no longer be more guns but fewer.

But while that may be what’s happening in the national discussion about guns post Newtown, it’s unlikely much will change. The Supreme Court says the Second Amendment says Americans are allowed to own guns. Any attempt to change that other than a repeal of the Second Amendment will be defeated. And repealing the Second Amendment is more than unlikely. Changing the Supreme Court’s makeup from slightly conservative to slightly liberal will take numerous Democratic presidential and Senate campaign victories over the next 10 to 20 years, which also is more than unlikely.

America is a violent country. We’re used to it. We’ve not only learned to live with it, we’ve come to glorify it in our culture.

Of the top 20 money grossing movies of 2011, 17 of them featured violence at the core of their stories and 10 involved homicide of one kind or another and 10 involved gun violence of one kind or another. All of them were movies directed at teens and young children. Among those featuring guns, two – Rango and Cars 2 – were directed at young children.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2009 (the latest year for which accurate statistics are available), a firearm was used to murder 31 people per day on average in America. That was 68 percent of all total homicides that year. Another 51 people a day on average took their own lives with a firearm that year. That was 51 percent of all suicides.

Between 2000 and 2010, more than 100,000 people were murdered with a firearm in this country and nearly 500,000 people were shot by someone else and survived the wound. Add to that the nearly 200,000 people who killed themselves with a gun in that decade and you’ve got a national gun casualty total of nearly 1 million people wounded or killed with a gun over 10 years in our country.

The national response to this carnage? A shrug of the shoulders.

We go merrily along about our business, unconcerned about the plague of gun violence in America We’re used to daily news reports that someone got shot in our city. That’s normal. It’s only when 10 or 20 people are killed all at once that we have a brief bit of hand wringing about gun violence.

If Americans are truly concerned about the level of violence in this country then there needs to be a wholesale change in our culture. We need to be as horrified at one person being killed with a gun as we are when 26 at once are.

Guns are not solely the problem. Access to mental health care is not solely the problem. It’s also America’s fascination with violence and ambivalence to murder that’s at the root of Newtown. If we want to prevent another Newtown, we need to change America, not just its gun laws.



  • Art_NJr

    Below is an article I wrote recently on this subject:

    ________________

    Americans are idiots. Blithering [expletive deleted] idiots! Knee-jerk reaction 6th-graders (average reading comprehension level) & the most gullible people in the world!

    When I went to grade school & high school it was common knowledge that many of the teachers carried a pistol with them — Mrs. Smith has a .38 Special in her purse, Mr. Jones has a .45 Colt military pistol in his briefcase or desk & so on — everyone knew that. And if anyone had tried to come into a school to go on a “shooting rampage” back then, they’d have been dropped in their tracks before they
    ever got into a classroom — shot dead before they hit the floor. There was no “call 911″ back then & we didn’t need it.

    And in the area where I live it’s common knowledge that many people are armed — since the “concealed carry” laws came into effect you don’t see people with a pistol in a holster on their hip much anymore (used to be commonplace), but that doesn’t mean they don’t still have it — you just don’t see it. And you can bet there’s a rifle or
    shotgun in many if not most homes — owned by someone who knows how to use it
    – and WILL use it if necessary. Guess what our crime rate is? Virtually -0-. And the Sheriff says he prefers an armed public– makes his job easier!

    Good Lord! How the people in this country have been duped into believing the Gov’t. will take care of you & there’s no reason for you to take any responsibility for your own personal safety or for the safety of your children — don’t worry about it, we’ll take care of it. Yeah, right.

    Know where the term “assault rifle” came from? The “news” media — there is no such term in the military (Hon. Dis. USMC) & a rifle never “assaulted” anyone! It’s not the tool you need to worry about, it’s the person using it!

    If I were to take my 28-ounce straight-claw framing hammer, turn it around so the claw side is facing forward & hit someone over the head with it (which would kill them instantly), would that make my hammer an “assault hammer”? Better ban all framing hammers immediately! And if you’ve had any military martial arts type training, you can kill someone with a pencil! Better ban all pencils!

    Get a grip people!

    Test for all Americans — what was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment — what do the writings of the “Founding Fathers” say? Surely someone besides me knows the answer?

    It’s quite simple — the original intent was that the citizens would ALWAYS be better armed than the Gov’t., so if the “checks & balances” in the Constitution failed, as a last resort the citizens could ALWAYS overpower the Gov’t. & create a new one if that became necessary.

    There’s no discussion about arms “for sporting purposes” or any of that “liberal” nonsense, the intent being you can own & use the biggest, baddest weapons known to mankind. Today it would mean if you want an F-16, can afford & know how to fly one, get one. Your & your buddies want an M-1 tank? Get one of those if you can afford it! Just don’t drive it on the public highways — unless you have to.

    One of Thomas Jefferson’s memorable quotes is this: “When the people fear the government you have tyranny. When the government fears the people you have liberty.” That’s the whole point of the 2nd Amendment — the Gov’t. will fear the people because the people can forcibly replace the Gov’t. @ any given time.

    And don’t tell me the “deterrent factor” doesn’t work because I know for a fact it does!
    __________________________

  • Flaming_Liberal

    …and what about the 4000 fetuses that are murdered EVERY SINGLE DAY? Gun control?? WTH, How about self control.

  • jay

    Its funny that the cdc data was mentioned and cited how over a decade almost a million people in the U.S. had been murdered, shot, or taken they’re own life with a gun. Yet cdc stats from the same year show 784,507 abortions took place that year alone! Looks like I have better chances of surviving in a world full of guns than a baby has surviving in a liberals womb

  • alohapuna

    I’m afraid your assessment is quite accurate. There can only be change when more people actually desire change. Today’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the NRA and gun enthusiasts is more of a perversion than in keeping with its intent.

    First of all, the articles of the Constitution should be taken in context with the Preamble. which governs the entire document. “…..in order to for a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare of the people….etc..”

    The US is anything but tranquil with all the bloodshed we’ve seen. “…..a well regulated militia…..” clearly corresponds with “…..provide for the common defense…..” and “…..the right of the people…..” In the minds of the authors this was obviously meant as an organized group and not an individual. Had the authors, as articulate as they were, intended it as it’s interpreted today, it seems logical they would have expanded the bill accordingly.

  • Ado Egbdf

    “gun violence part of American culture”?

    Why did you limit it solely to”gun” violence? Violence in general is part of this culture. Violence is culturally instilled in individuals from the earliest age(Wylie Coyote v. Roadrunner), especially if it’s a more culturally acceptable form of violence such as boxing, football, hockey, electronic game violence, and the whole field of the various martial arts. Little Johnnie(and more recently Janie as well), are schooled in being violently competitive right from the get go. “Gun” violence is just not the more acceptable form of violence in the society… unless of course you happen to have a law enforcement badge, or are a person defending life and/or property. What needs to be addressed is not gun violence, as if gun violence is somehow different, but the notion of violence in general in our society.

    That being said, privacy laws, as they relate to people with mental health issues, should be accessible to those doing background checks on gun purchasers. All of the mass murders committed in recent memory were done by someone with mental health issues, someone who ought never been allowed to purchase a handgun. The privacy advocates will scream, but weapons purchases are a valid reason to access someone’s psychiatric or psychological records, IMO. That may not stop weapons being stolen and used in a crime, but it’s a good first step to controlling who has access to buying firearms. The gun show loophole should get fixed as well if people are allowed to make weapons purchases at gun shows without background checks. Government needs to get involved in a more meaningful and useful way than it now is. That means more bucks for better computer systems that have more accurate data bases. Mental health professionals will have to be required to enter names of patients. There will undoubtedly be a lot of push back in this area from privacy advocates. We have a choice. IMO, banning manufacture or sales of weapons based on cosmetics and how bad they look is no solution at all. One of the “criteria” for an “assault” weapon was whether it had a bayonet lug to mount a bayonet on. Ask yourself how many mass murders were done with a bayonet mounted on a rifle? Last recorded bayonet charge by US military, I believe, happened at Gettysburg in the 1860′s. But I digress, it’s mentally sick people that are committing mass murders. It’s not law abiding legal firearm owners and collectors. As a nation, we should be identifying and addressing the actual problem rather than the type of weapon they employ to carry out their acts. To do otherwise is to invite continuation and repetition of the problem.

    One more afterthought, government may take away weapons, but that won’t take away the desire to kill that a mentally sick person may have, and they will find a way to kill. For example, click on this website… http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/12/mass-school-bombing-in-1927-puts-sandy-hook-in-context/