Now posts ↓

Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

America + guns: should the world intervene?


This photo is from a post I wrote in March of some of the families of the Newtown shooting victims at the White House. This is their reaction on learning that the US Senate had rejected expanding background checks for gun purchases.

I wrote then that “it should shame America”.

Henry Porter wrote for The Guardian:
In a country where people are better armed and only slightly less nervy than rebel fighters in Syria, we should note that dealing with the risks of scalding and secondary smoke came well before addressing the problem of people who go armed to buy a latte. There can be no weirder order of priorities on this planet.
That’s America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks - last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC’s navy yard - and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis - a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families - the maiming and killing of children - just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.
The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn’t qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.
To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it’s worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.
That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US is a staggering fact, particularly when you place it in the context of the safety-conscious, “secondary smoke” obsessions that characterise so much of American life.
Everywhere you look in America, people are trying to make life safer. On roads, for example, there has been a huge effort in the past 50 years to enforce speed limits, crack down on drink/drug driving and build safety features into highways, as well as vehicles. The result is a steadily improving record; by 2015, forecasters predict that for first time road deaths will be fewer than those caused by firearms (32,036 to 32,929).
Plainly, there’s no equivalent effort in the area of privately owned firearms. Indeed, most politicians do everything they can to make the country less safe.
More >> American Gun Use Is Out of Control. Shouldn’t the World Intervene?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Postscript: America's shame in one photo



After suggesting that the world shun America over guns and their lack of control I see that The Daily Show has a better idea: Mockery.

They sent John Oliver Down Under to investigate Australia's 1990s conservative-led tightening of gun control laws. Americans are even aware of Australia's example probably because former Prime Minister John Howard published a New York Times Op-Ed post-Sandy Hook, titled 'I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too'.

Oliver speaks with him, drops the "Whoopty-f—ing do" bomb on him even (word is Howard approved), as well as opponents from then who have changed their mind now and an obligatory deranged American. Oh, and there's a man in a kangaroo suit. Oh, and ...
(Song plays throughout: Land Down Under – Men At Work)

JOHN OLIVER: Mr Prime Minister, let's begin in the formal Australian way. G'day.

JOHN HOWARD, FORMER AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: How do you do?

JOHN OLIVER: Obviously gun control doesn't work, it can't work, it will never work. So how was your scheme a failure?

JOHN HOWARD: Well my scheme was not a failure. We had a massacre at a place called Port Arthur 17 years ago and there have been none since.

JOHN OLIVER (Voiceover): Zero gun massacres? Hold on... did gun control actually work?

PHIILIP VAN CLEAVE, AMERICAN GUN LOBBYIST: It stopped one thing, that could also be a statistical anomaly.

JOHN OLIVER: Yeah. It was just their mass shootings disappeared.

PHIILIP VAN CLEAVE: But there were so few of them. Woopty-doo.

JOHN OLIVER: Woopty-doo?

PHIILIP VAN CLEAVE: Yeah.

JOHN OLIVER: Woopty-doo?

PHIILIP VAN CLEAVE: Yes. Mass shootings were rare anyhow.

JOHN OLIVER (Voiceover): Exactly.

JOHN HOWARD: There were about 13 in the previous 18 years.

JOHN OLIVER (Voiceover): But perhaps there were other non-woopty-doo side effects.

JOHN HOWARD: The homicide rate involving the use of guns has declined significantly by factors of up to 50 and 60 per cent.

JOHN OLIVER: Woopty-f*****g-doo.
Pleased to see Comedy Central has loosened the strings on geoblocks and, even better, Youtube clip uploads so enjoy, in three parts, after the jump:

Monday, 11 March 2013

Gun fetishism hits new low


One of the arguments being advanced by US gun fetishists post Sandy Hook is that if you regulate guns you stop women defending themselves from rape.

This may be a Madison Avenue-sourced, audience-broadening approach, as the gun manufacturers increasingly find their front organisations on the defensive, as the 'their sending the black helicopters for your guns!' war cry finds less and less resonance. But it's out there.

One commentator took to the Fox News bear pit after she'd writen that encouraging women to buy guns is hardly a best-practice rape-prevention strategy.

Zerlina Maxwell made the same point that women, all sorts of women, have been making for a looong time now:
I think that the entire conversation is wrong. I don’t want anybody to be telling women anything. I don’t want men to be telling me what to wear and how to act, not to drink. And I don’t, honestly, want you to tell me that I needed a gun in order to prevent my rape. In my case, don’t tell me if I’d only had a gun, I wouldn’t have been raped. Don’t put it on me to prevent the rape.
She pointed out that there is plenty of evidence that rape prevention is a-real-thing:
Men can stop rape and men can stop violence, they train young men to not rape.
This exasperated the Fox host: "You think you can tell a rapist to stop doing what he’s doing?"

Then all hell broke lose.

The wingnuts thought that she had argued for "forcing all men to go through ‘do not rape’ classes". This was a typical headline: Democratic Strategist’s Shocking Claim: Women Don’t Need Guns for Self-Defense, Just Tell Men ‘Not to Rape Women’ (she never said the former and WTF is the latter idea 'shocking?).

What was especially telling about the reaction is that one of the ideas advanced by gun nuts post Sandy Hook was - don't look there, look over here! - that America has a cultural problem with violence (video games, Hollywood) and fails to deal with mental health problems. Yet when someone who isn't from their camp advances a solution to a gun violence problem they get:
Bombared by conservatives on Facebook and Twitter purposefully misquoting and misunderstanding my point in order to call me dumb, bitch, idiot, and at worst threaten to gang rape common sense into me.
On blog chicksontheright.com the 'ridicule' of Maxwell was defended through believing that:
Her entire argument was about why women SHOULDN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH GUNS.
No, it was:
Men can stop rape and men can stop violence, they train young men to not rape
Like they do through prevention campaigns like one called 'Don’t be that guy' in Canada which led to a ten percent drop in sexual assault rates. Or the efforts of anti-rape campaigners in South Africa. Or these Americans saying that Men Can Stop Rape.

Part of the immediate context for this peculiar, American insanity is that - post Sandy Hook - milquetoast gun control is actually winning in some places. In Colorado for example, and underneath that 'Shocking Claim' headline was a link to one of that conservative news website's related articles: Colorado Dem to Rape Survivor: A Gun Wouldn’t Have Helped You Against Rapist Because ‘Statistics Are Not on Your Side’).

More 'shock' ensues as someone dares repeats the facts that guns get turned on their owners, shoot innocents and result in increased suicides. Another fact: The gun manufacturer lobby really doesn't want those realities known so one of their targets has been scientists surveying the carnage and producing statistics.

When we (that is Brits, Australians and actually many Americans) know that mass ownership of guns produces carnage the senselessness of American gun fetishism - 'founding fathers!' 'liberty!' 'cold, dead hands! - reaches its all-pervasive zenith, a low perhaps only seen for what it is from afar, as Maxwell herself writes:
If a woman chooses to go out and buy a legal gun for self-defense, that’s fine.
Update: BBC investigative programme Panorama has 'America's Gun Addiction' tonight. Here is a clip from the show of them going undercover at a Texas gun show: