welsh
Junkmaster
Dudes- Chill out. Now granted I called DB a racist idiot (but I have proof to that conclusion), and he's called me all sorts of variation of overly intellectual liberal weenie, but let's keep it somewhat contained.
As for what Dopemine Cleric is suggesting- I think a good source on this comes from the late Charles Tilly, who discussed the disarming of society in Europe as part of the state building process in his Coercion, Capital and European States. I also believe there is a discussion of the role of policing in Tilly's Formation of States in Western Europe. This is also discussed by Bates in Prosperty and Violence (a really simple and informative read.
And I can think Dopemine Cleric is right- at least with regard to fuedal Japan where weapons were a class based possession.
Also, Sander, I am not sure if your statement -
Is really correct. Fair enough, having guns alone doesn't lead to death- guns are inanimate and require an actor to use them. But, as I argued earlier, guns make violence more lethal.
This raises a question- does the increased power to kill increase the propensity of violence among some groups. For instance, we could ask whether urban ghettos would be more violent if everyone had swords but the police carried guns. Certainly, the police would be more capable of repressing the ghettos, but as others have argued, the police would also be more capable of repressing us as well.
Consequently, I think we have to take into consideration that guns afford individual a form of social power that they might not otherwise have. They can use this for good or ill. Some might use guns for home defense, for recreation use (hunting or target shooting) but others might use guns to intimidate or eliminate rivals, to coerce behavior to their interest or merely as a form of 'self-insurance' (for instance protecting a drug market from potential rivals). That power comes from increased propensity to do violence (In the old days they used to hunt with bows, spears and swords, but now guns make killing a bear a lot easier).
So guns may be inanimate, but they are a tool that can be used to impower an individual. Some folks can be trusted with the power (just like some folks can be trusted to drive a car). Others cannot.
The question then becomes how can we protect those we can trust from those we cannot. How do we identify who can have a gun, how do we stop the wrong people (criminals or children) from getting guns when they shouldn't. Should we create some barriers or controls through the trade of guns? What are the normative values at stake (my right to self-defense vs societies right to public safety).
That societies are more or less safe is also an interesting question and I think its safe to say it does relate to guns. For instance, as argued above, poor minority neighborhoods have generally benefitted and improved since the 1960s with notable exceptions being the increase in Heroin use following the Vietnam War, the increase in Crack use during the 1980s (a period that corresponded closely to Ronald Reagan's policy to cut social spending). The violence associated with Crack receded as the crack addict population finally fell. More recently, since about 2005, gun violence has also gone up at a time that President Bush was cutting social programs to inner cities (projects like creating programs and local schools for poor minority teens - a population prone to be the victims and cause of urban violence).
The danger is often a desire for causal simplicity in a socially complex world. Is it all about social programs and inequality? Is it about guns? Probably not in either case. Certainly folks that don't suffer the worst consequences of social-economic inequality also face the danger of violence. Poor kids may be more exposed to gun violence on the streets than they might in the schools, but that doesn't mean that a middle class kid escapes violence by being in a good school (even if they are in college VA tech, or in an Amish community in Penn).
It is more likely that crime and gun violence is subject to "push" and "pull" variables that may have differing consequences depending on the community. For example, some criminals may be deterred from committing crimes in communities where there is a high likelihood that people carry guns. But easy access to guns might also make gun violence more likely in other neighborhoods. Likewise deindustrialization towards a more service based economy helped New York City prosper and reduce the levels of gun violence through economic reform. But in Baltimore, deindustrializaiton may have promoted increased economic and social marginalization of the urban poor which, when added to drugs, increased crime rates. Consequentially, while states with high levels of gun ownership may promote more lax gun control legislation, those same communities may inadvertently become importers of drugs and exporters of firearms by entrepreneurs who are willing to take advantage of how law creates variation in economic opportunity.
In a complex world, looking for a simple answer might be reckless as can be gross generalizations. This is especially dangerous when the debate is as politically charged as the gun control debate where there are interested players on both sides trying to control the rhetoric and spreading misinformation. Given that, one should be skeptical of reaching quick conclusions or basically arguments on politically manipulated evidence- whether that comes from a side you believe in or not.
Its one thing to have an ontological assumptions, but one needs to be empirically critical, especially of positions that lead to extremes. This is one of those debates where you should think, rationally and logically, and be careful with one's evidence. That participants in this debate like to pull people to their extreme position is to be expected and should be challenged. Think for yourself.
As for what Dopemine Cleric is suggesting- I think a good source on this comes from the late Charles Tilly, who discussed the disarming of society in Europe as part of the state building process in his Coercion, Capital and European States. I also believe there is a discussion of the role of policing in Tilly's Formation of States in Western Europe. This is also discussed by Bates in Prosperty and Violence (a really simple and informative read.
And I can think Dopemine Cleric is right- at least with regard to fuedal Japan where weapons were a class based possession.
Also, Sander, I am not sure if your statement -
Is really correct. Fair enough, having guns alone doesn't lead to death- guns are inanimate and require an actor to use them. But, as I argued earlier, guns make violence more lethal.
This raises a question- does the increased power to kill increase the propensity of violence among some groups. For instance, we could ask whether urban ghettos would be more violent if everyone had swords but the police carried guns. Certainly, the police would be more capable of repressing the ghettos, but as others have argued, the police would also be more capable of repressing us as well.
Consequently, I think we have to take into consideration that guns afford individual a form of social power that they might not otherwise have. They can use this for good or ill. Some might use guns for home defense, for recreation use (hunting or target shooting) but others might use guns to intimidate or eliminate rivals, to coerce behavior to their interest or merely as a form of 'self-insurance' (for instance protecting a drug market from potential rivals). That power comes from increased propensity to do violence (In the old days they used to hunt with bows, spears and swords, but now guns make killing a bear a lot easier).
So guns may be inanimate, but they are a tool that can be used to impower an individual. Some folks can be trusted with the power (just like some folks can be trusted to drive a car). Others cannot.
The question then becomes how can we protect those we can trust from those we cannot. How do we identify who can have a gun, how do we stop the wrong people (criminals or children) from getting guns when they shouldn't. Should we create some barriers or controls through the trade of guns? What are the normative values at stake (my right to self-defense vs societies right to public safety).
That societies are more or less safe is also an interesting question and I think its safe to say it does relate to guns. For instance, as argued above, poor minority neighborhoods have generally benefitted and improved since the 1960s with notable exceptions being the increase in Heroin use following the Vietnam War, the increase in Crack use during the 1980s (a period that corresponded closely to Ronald Reagan's policy to cut social spending). The violence associated with Crack receded as the crack addict population finally fell. More recently, since about 2005, gun violence has also gone up at a time that President Bush was cutting social programs to inner cities (projects like creating programs and local schools for poor minority teens - a population prone to be the victims and cause of urban violence).
The danger is often a desire for causal simplicity in a socially complex world. Is it all about social programs and inequality? Is it about guns? Probably not in either case. Certainly folks that don't suffer the worst consequences of social-economic inequality also face the danger of violence. Poor kids may be more exposed to gun violence on the streets than they might in the schools, but that doesn't mean that a middle class kid escapes violence by being in a good school (even if they are in college VA tech, or in an Amish community in Penn).
It is more likely that crime and gun violence is subject to "push" and "pull" variables that may have differing consequences depending on the community. For example, some criminals may be deterred from committing crimes in communities where there is a high likelihood that people carry guns. But easy access to guns might also make gun violence more likely in other neighborhoods. Likewise deindustrialization towards a more service based economy helped New York City prosper and reduce the levels of gun violence through economic reform. But in Baltimore, deindustrializaiton may have promoted increased economic and social marginalization of the urban poor which, when added to drugs, increased crime rates. Consequentially, while states with high levels of gun ownership may promote more lax gun control legislation, those same communities may inadvertently become importers of drugs and exporters of firearms by entrepreneurs who are willing to take advantage of how law creates variation in economic opportunity.
In a complex world, looking for a simple answer might be reckless as can be gross generalizations. This is especially dangerous when the debate is as politically charged as the gun control debate where there are interested players on both sides trying to control the rhetoric and spreading misinformation. Given that, one should be skeptical of reaching quick conclusions or basically arguments on politically manipulated evidence- whether that comes from a side you believe in or not.
Its one thing to have an ontological assumptions, but one needs to be empirically critical, especially of positions that lead to extremes. This is one of those debates where you should think, rationally and logically, and be careful with one's evidence. That participants in this debate like to pull people to their extreme position is to be expected and should be challenged. Think for yourself.
