Sad times

[ahinton]

Millions of people buy guns in the US and they don't go out and do this. Nothing is straight forward, I suppose.

Sure, but the problem here is that US law allows a far greater proportion of US citizens to buy guns than is the case, say, in UK but, whilst many such people might only ever use them responsibly if indeed at all, the very right to bear arms will inevitably mean that more such people would use them irresponsibly than would be the case without that right.

[Richard Barrett]

Millions of people buy guns in the US and they don't go out and do this. Nothing is straight forward, I suppose.

It's pretty straightforward that if you have a gun in your hand you can easily kill someone, and if you have an assault rifle you can kill large numbers of people in a short time. Also that you surely wouldn't own such a weapon if you didn't in some way contemplate using it or at least threatening to use it. Do people in the USA feel that need so much more keenly than people in other countries? Or is it encouraged by various social factors including but not limited to ready availability of guns? (I spent large amounts of time in the USA in the 1990s and never felt this need at all.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

"Last year’s Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States."

[Beef Oven!]

It's pretty straightforward that if you have a gun in your hand you can easily kill someone, and if you have an assault rifle you can kill large numbers of people in a short time. Also that you surely wouldn't own such a weapon if you didn't in some way contemplate using it or at least threatening to use it. Do people in the USA feel that need so much more keenly than people in other countries? Or is it encouraged by various social factors including but not limited to ready availability of guns? (I spent large amounts of time in the USA in the 1990s and never felt this need at all.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

"Last year’s Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States."

But you and I wouldn't do a thing like that, even if we had a Kalashnikov in our hands.

[Beef Oven!]

Sure, but the problem here is that US law allows a far greater proportion of US citizens to buy guns than is the case, say, in UK but, whilst many such people might only ever use them responsibly if indeed at all, the very right to bear arms will inevitably mean that more such people would use them irresponsibly than would be the case without that right.

You can't let any Tom, Dick or Arif have a gun. This chap was even 'known' to the US intelligence agencies, but was able to buy some pretty serious weaponry.

[Richard Barrett]

But you and I wouldn't do a thing like that, even if we had a Kalashnikov in our hands.

No indeed, but (a) we would never think of acquiring one, and (b) if we did we wouldn't think let's just pop round the corner and buy one.

[ahinton]

You can't let any Tom, Dick or Arif have a gun. This chap was even 'known' to the US intelligence agencies, but was able to buy some pretty serious weaponry.

You presumably mean "you shouldn't", not "you can't", since most US citizens can be allowed to have one if they want one and can afford one. This particular case is especially questionable issue in that, from what's been stated so far, it rather sounds as though FBI saw insufficient reason to take much interest in him, so his right to bear arms was never questioned by the authorities.

Richard's questions remain pertinent; firstly "do people in the USA feel that need so much more keenly than people in other countries?" and, secondly, "is it encouraged by various social factors including but not limited to ready availability of guns?" and my best guess is that the latter is not only the case but also been largely responsible for creating the culture of the former. It would seem illogical that the makeup of the majority of US citizens is such that it's in their nature to feel an exceptional need for gun ownership; it must surely originate in what's been foisted upon them by generations of US administrations that have rarely given serious question to the right to bear arms and certainly never sought to overturn it.

That Richrd also states that he "spent large amounts of time in the USA in the 1990s and never felt this need at all" does not surprise me, since no one whom I know who lives or has ever lived in US has ever owned a gun; indeed, one of them once said to me that the only justification for using one would be when confronted with a threat from an armed person or persons and that what follows would then be down to who was the best shot.

[kea]

The shooter publicly expressed homophobic views (his father claimed he was motivated by disgust at seeing two men kissing), regardless of to what extent those were informed by religion. He chose a gay club and specifically one that would have the largest number of people, and one known as the safest space in the city (as far as I know). This was, very specifically, anti-gay terrorism (well, anti-LGBT) and has affected LGBT individuals around the world that way. I don't know anyone from the community who isn't afraid and worried and heartsick, for themselves or their loved ones. It has been a clear message that none of us are safe, and the copycat crimes have already started (there was another attack on a gay club in Veracruz, 5 dead 7 injured, just recently).

It's somewhat disheartening to see straight people using this as a platform for their own pro- or anti-gun control or pro- or anti-religion arguments, without seemingly recognising this.

[Beef Oven!]

No indeed, but (a) we would never think of acquiring one, and (b) if we did we wouldn't think let's just pop round the corner and buy one.

But that means (and I can't believe I'm saying this!) guns don't kill, people do.

[Richard Barrett]

guns don't kill, people do.

To be precise, people with guns do.

[Beef Oven!]

The shooter publicly expressed homophobic views (his father claimed he was motivated by disgust at seeing two men kissing), regardless of to what extent those were informed by religion. He chose a gay club and specifically one that would have the largest number of people, and one known as the safest space in the city (as far as I know). This was, very specifically, anti-gay terrorism (well, anti-LGBT) and has affected LGBT individuals around the world that way. I don't know anyone from the community who isn't afraid and worried and heartsick, for themselves or their loved ones. It has been a clear message that none of us are safe, and the copycat crimes have already started (there was another attack on a gay club in Veracruz, 5 dead 7 injured, just recently).

It's somewhat disheartening to see straight people using this as a platform for their own pro- or anti-gun control or pro- or anti-religion arguments, without seemingly recognising this.

It's a terror attack against western society and a crime against humanity. I agree with you that it's not a gun control issue, but neither is it specifically anti-gay/LGBT, as you describe it. Don't forget, this bloke was considering Disney Land as a target, too.

[Richard Barrett]

It's somewhat disheartening to see straight people using this as a platform for their own pro- or anti-gun control or pro- or anti-religion arguments, without seemingly recognising this.

Seemingly. Just because one or other important aspect of an event like this hasn't featured heavily in the discussion so far in no way indicates that it isn't being recognised. This was of course a homophobic crime, to which one could add: one among very many that take place all around the world every day, in some parts of the world far more often and even more violently than in the USA, and as you must know there are places where gay people live in mortal danger every day of their lives. The fact that homophobia on this kind of level still exists in supposedly civilised parts of the world is yet more evidence of the brutalising effect of the way society is organised, and is one of the dehumanising effects of that system, another being the availability and use of deadly weapons, another being the use of religion as "the distorted expression of real needs denied by class society"... these things are not disconnected from one another.

[Beef Oven!]

........The fact that homophobia on this kind of level still exists in supposedly civilised parts of the world is yet more evidence of the brutalising effect of the way society is organised, and is one of the dehumanising effects of that system .....

But we can't know that. There is nothing to say that any alternative that might be proposed would change any of this. It could be simply that we are a brutal creed. A quick survey going back to the year dot tends to support this view.

[Richard Barrett]

It could be simply that we are a brutal creed. A quick survey going back to the year dot tends to support this view.

I think the "human nature" argument against more equal conceptions of society has been discussed here before. There are at least as many arguments for humanity as a cooperative species ("going back to the year dot") as there are for it being a brutal species. It shouldn't be a question in any case about what happened in the past but about what could happen in the future. It requires the same leap of faith to think society isn't capable of improvement as to think it is. I make the latter choice.

[ahinton]

But we can't know that. There is nothing to say that any alternative that might be proposed would change any of this. It could be simply that we are a brutal creed. A quick survey going back to the year dot tends to support this view.

Well, there is at least the alternative of a US president forcing through a revision or abolition of the right to bear arms as now it stands, which would bring us back to the question of the particular powers that such a president actually has; there should come a point at which a nation that has so much gun crime and so many victims thereof stops to think about this more proportionately than is the case when "self defense" continues to be put up as a catch-all justification for maintenance of the status quo. US has only to consider that it's pretty much out on a limb in maintaining its gun rights and laws as it has done for so long - and it ought to be able to see the results of that for itself. Richard's observation about a leap of faith in the right direction is very much to the point here.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think the "human nature" argument against more equal conceptions of society has been discussed here before. There are at least as many arguments for humanity as a cooperative species ("going back to the year dot") as there are for it being a brutal species. It shouldn't be a question in any case about what happened in the past but about what could happen in the future. It requires the same leap of faith to think society isn't capable of improvement as to think it is. I make the latter choice.

Indeed: how can one mistrust, when the very instrument of that mistrust is its own object? To do so one has to be in direct self-contradiction.