Agnostic.com

6 0

People need to stop saying that the catalyst for gun violence can be sourced to one reason. There is no "one reason." There can be some things that a have a more predominate effect on gun violence, and some that only have a little effect. Eventually you can break it down into a nature vs nurture argument. Then break down the nurture/environment part and try to distinguish which kind of environment can cause a person to act a certain way. Then realize that humans naturally have certain balance of chemicals in the brain and sometimes these chemicals can be affected by and his/her experiences in different ways. It's hard to separate humans into categories such as violent or nonviolent, obsessive or sociopathic. We have to try our best to research the best way to curtail violence in general. Is it by maintaining a society in which a basic standard of living is the norm such as providing universal healthcare and common sense regulations? We have a very difficult time understanding the ourselves and probably always will.

Jarucker 5 Nov 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

We understand why violent behavior occurs and the catalysts that drive sociopath/psychopathic/disassociative behavior, that was never in doubt. Though the issue is most certainly a human one, the debate about it skips over a most important detail, lack of a "one true method" to curb gun violence doesn't mean no methods should be experimented with. We need to treat the symptoms while we wait for a cure. For example, firefighters put out the fire before figuring out how to prevent it from happening again, they don't question it's genesis and reasoning before stopping it from hurting anything else. We will never suppress violence as a species, it is too natural to us, it is in our DNA, but taking away the tools needed to indiscriminately kill people by the dozens in a matter of minutes or even seconds is a way to keep the inevitable violence of an individual from effecting the lives of hundreds. The gun debate isn't about stopping the human propensity for violence, it is about stopping the devastating violence of people who otherwise would not have killed anyone if not for access to a tool whose only purpose is to kill and to make killing easy. Violence can be sourced back to human nature and environmental factors as well as a genetic predisposition to mental disorders, but the exponentially increasing trend of brutal gun violence can be traced to one source, guns. It is the gun itself that empowers the mentally weak and disturbed to act on their violent thoughts because if all they had was a knife or sword they would of probably never even attempted or if they did it would of never affected the lives of so many innocents. Also it IS easy to group humans based on behavioral patterns and mental health, there is a whole field of study and science dedicated to it. There is historical precedence and a clear pattern showing what increases violence, inequality, and by the laws of equivalency, in this case material equivalence, increasing equality would decrease violence. Among the many known effects of inequality on a society are social unrest, a decrease in health, and a distinct lack of solidarity; all of which lead to violence in one form or another. Unfortunately humans have never been good at decreasing inequality peacefully, as historically, the only effective methods for doing so have been plague, massive warfare, or revolution. So in essence we will never be rid of violence nor will we be able to prevent it all together, but what we can do, as a society, is work towards making it harder for those who wish to commit violence, regardless of why, to actually do so, so that we may discuss and figure out solutions without more bodies piling up.

I mostly agree. I just wanted to make the point that psychology, in general is a field in which it’s very hard to definitively say that person 1 is definitely this, or person two is showing signs of this category of mental illness mixed with a subcategory of this.. but yeah you’re right I think we do have a pretty firm grasp on some of the catalysts for violence. Inequality is a big one I think, as you mentioned. Lack of basic resources and lack of common sense regulations.

1

Let me start by stating that I sold firearms for a living and own firearms for self-defense and sport shooting. Now that that is out of the way...

It is hard to say what the cause of gun violence is seeing that in each case the reasoning is different. Mental illness is minor on the list. Domestic disputes, general anger towards society or occupation, The "boys" involved in the Columbine massacre were not mentally deranged but angery at their fellow students for not taking them seriously. The guns were purchased by a fellow student legally as a straw purchase which was not considered a problem in 1999. Since then most of the mass shootings (where five or more have been shot and killed per the FBI) where committed out of anger, a few because of terrorism and a small number because of mental illness. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings)

The problem is, in part, that it is so easy to purchase a gun in the US. The Las Vegas shooter purchased his rifles legally, transported them "legally."

Th US has more mass shooting than the next ten industrial countries combined. We need to allow studies of gun violence by the CDC and others, paid for by the government, which is currently prohibited because of the lobbying efforts of the NRA. If we cannot study the problem, how will we find a solution to what seems to be a weekly occurrence?

Totally agree.

0

You ramble all over the landscape. Again, your point?

I implied that working toward a society with basic needs met like universal healthcare(mental health) and basic gun regulations (background checks and closing loopholes might curtail some of the gun violence.

Despite the ramble he had good points like the regulations. The criminal who has a gun doesn't have a gun manufacturer in their backyard, they are buying it through legal means that are not really regulated, as in there are no background checks. I know of two people who do not have the right to own a firearm and have been flagged by the FBI when trying to purchase from a retailer but they have both bought multiple online, shipped right to their doors. Tighter regulations like making private sales illegal is a good start.

2

I agree that 'violence' can develop from many different influences. Guns are means of killing, a tool to enable violence. I'm anti-gun. I've lived in other parts of the world where guns are under stricter control and there is a liberating feeling about that.

I agree that guns are a tool that can enable violence. I wish, as an American that we can get over our gun obsession. That being said, I’m not totally anti-gun. I understand the need of ballistic firepower, theoretically.

2

The NRA will try to get anybody to blame gun violence on anything if it gets them to not blame it on the availability of guns. That's the influence of money for you.

Mr_Dj Level 5 Nov 27, 2017
2

having guns is one fairly universal reason

Yes, generally speaking, where there are more guns, there is more gun violence. Although, it’s still a little more complicated.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:5530
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.