America, Beers, and Gun Talk Times

How did I miss this conversation until now?

All y'all know Justin has a truckload to contribute here. Typing essay now. Stay tuned.

Suicides by gun are a very significant and meaningful death that should be included and studied in this context.

Studies have found that 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt do NOT try to kill themselves again (source). The likelihood of succeeding in gun-related suicide is 85%. The success-rate of drug overdose (most common method) is just 3% (source).

This accounts for tens of thousands of lives that could be saved if we continue to include suicide in gun deaths, since they DO very much directly account for increased death tolls in suicides (just as they do for increased death tolls in school shootings vs. school mass-stabbings).



All sources used here are from the internet for sharing purposes, but I recently finished an amazing, very comprehensive book on gun violence, gun politics, gun control, and just fucking everything about the gun. It supported the above sources, and has a very comprehensive list of studies and sources of its own. (found here)

And we’re back to the issue at hand lmao

Tools (a reply to some stuff above)
There was talk here of treating guns as the tool they are, and looking into mental health instead. Somewhat true, but that still starts at the ground level. Children are not taught that guns are a tool, they are taught they are a toy. It's cool and hip to take our kids hunting, buy them toy guns, and they play with them not as tools (like they would a toy hammer), but as toys - objects for entertainment, not self-defence or as a means to serve any particular function.

Culture, THEN Politics
Culturally, the US is basically now lost when it comes to anything guns, because at least half of the political population has abandoned following facts, data, and evidence, so no matter what is found, guns will not be removed from their readily-available state. The NRA has more lobbying power than most people even begin to understand. The book I mentioned in my previous post actually details the impact the American NRA has had on other countries foreign policies regarding gun control, in several cases having bills in other god damned countries defeated. That shit blew my mind.

Then, culturally now, the US is resistant to any non-Trump-induced policy that tries to protect them from a) others and b) themselves. Somewhere along the line, freedom meant "freedom to be shot in the face at school, and freedom to get a preventable disease"...but I digress. The point being that the reason I start with the cultural aspect is the US needs a widespread, generational shift in its views and attitudes to guns and gun violence BEFORE it can even BEGIN to look at solving the issue politically. Voters need to feel, on a large scale, that children dying is worth a limitation on their freedoms to do whatever the fuck they want.

In the US, because of the Dickey Amendment, the CDC is not allowed to issue positions or policy that promote gun control, or they risk losing government funding. How fucked up is that? "We think this is hurting Americans and American lives can be saved if we just..." "Stop right there. If you finish that sentence, you won't have an office Monday morning". They were afraid to even RESEARCH gun violence for 20 years after the bill, until 2018, when Congress specifically clarified they could. It's fucking mind-boggling.

Information/Misinformation/Common Sense
The problem I have experienced so much over the past 10 years of engaging in political or social debates is the truth is never simple, and rarely clear. But talking points are. Like "An eye for an eye". Cute, and to the point. But it's bullshit when put into real life practice. The same is true of guns as a means of self-defence.

Volumes and volumes of data support the notion that you are more likely to be harmed yourself if you have a gun than you are to defend yourself. It's counter-intuitive - "I have a gun so I'll just shoot the bad guy" - but it remains statistically true. This was researched with domestic violence, stranger violence, basically the whole damned spectrum. And time after time, it proved to do nothing for self defense other than increase the odds you would be putting yourself in more danger.

The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Coinciding with the misinformation section above, I think reading the second amendment, it's pretty clear there is nothing in there about an individuals right to carry whatever the fuck they want. I mean, the first 3 words clearly state "well regulated" for Christ's sake! But most look past that because who cares about facts when they disagree with what we want to be true.

But this is a fundamental freedom, an amendment to the Constitution of the United fucking States of America. This is incredibly important stuff! But then, if we ignore the well-regulated part, and pretend that everyone has the basic, fundamental right to a gun, as they do free speech for example, then NO ONE should be denied that right. Especially if you believe it's for self-defence.

Why, then, do we allow background checks? Why, then, are people with criminal records not allowed to purchase weapons? They don't lose their free speech when convicted of a crime, so why the right to bear arms, just because they have drug possession charges?

Further, guns are not free. Plenty of times in my life, I didn't have an extra $700 kicking around to spend on my right to defend myself as part of this basic, fundamental right. So should there not be major donation programs for the poor, so everyone can have a gun? Law revisions, so criminals are not revoked their Constitutional rights?

And Then There's Race
Then we get into the deeper issues relating to who ends up charged with offences and imprison anyway (which I will do my best not to dive too deeply into, but suffice to say, a disproportionate number of inmates in American prisons are persons of colour. As such, a disproportionate number of people who are revoked their right to bear arms are people of colour.

And lastly, for now, there's one of my favourite findings from my time studying the Black Panthers (an organization that in its early days, despite being vilified and investigated by J. Edgar Hoover, spent most of thier time operating breakfast programs to make sure the neighbourhood children were not going to school hungry.

With escalating violence from police during arrests against Black citizens, the Black Panthers decided to lawfully counter-act this by openly carrying weapons (as was their legal right to do at the time) and supervise police officers during arrests. They found police were WAY likely to beat the living shit out of a guy when they were all surrounded by people carrying weapons and keeping an eye on them.

Then, to the best of my knowledge the first and only time in their history, suddenly the NRA decided to support gun restriction, and guess who could no longer openly carry their scary guns?



I'll leave my rant there for now. Honestly, if you even kind of have real interest in this issue, read that book (The Way of the Gun: A Bloody Journey into the World of Firearms). It was shockingly unbiased, fact-driven, crazy insightful, and really looked at every angle you could possibly imagine regarding guns globally, from criminals and dictators, to self-defence, collectors, hunters, fetishization, accessorization, manufacturing, lobbyists, survivors, etc, etc list goes forever.

I'm not gonna argue the toy-vs-tool point in any way - I agree our approach is fucked up. We don't teach it well. My point is that it's a people problem, not a gun problem. IMO we need to look into people and human-related issues WAY more than we do - regardless of if there's guns involved or not.

The NRA is bullshit. No arguments there.

Respect for guns would go a LONG way - as I said earlier, I don't currently own a gun and honestly have no intentions of owning one. I respect what they can do. A lot of people don't. A lot of gun owners I know very much do respect them - they don't take them out except for practice or, heaven forbid, self defense. Any other time they're locked up, in one friend's case with three locks.

The CDC SHOULDN'T have jurisdiction over guns. It's the Center for Disease Control. As much as people like to say "guns are a disease" they aren't. They aren't a virus. They aren't bacteria. I wouldn't want the Food and Drug Administration telling me if I can drive or not - yes, what I eat or take can affect that, but that's a Department of Transportation issue, not an FDA issue. If any department had jurisdiction, it should be the ATF.

I live in a tiny village with essentially no crime. I currently have no need for a gun. Nobody's breaking in my house. However, if I lived in a big city, I don't care what the stats are. I'd rather put myself on an equal playing ground with an intruder - whether that's a gun, a crowbar, or even wasp spray to the eyes, I want a weapon available equal to what he has. I want a fighting chance to dictate what happens to me and my family. If I'm gonna go I'd rather go fighting to protect my loved ones and possibly give them a chance to escape.

Ah yes, the second amendment. 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's two parts to this. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," I take personally to mean the National Guard, the military, etc. These are very well regulated. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." These are two separate thoughts put together. It's not the guns that're well regulated. It's the militia. It's not clear at all when you break it down how it's intended to be broken down. Our militia is very well regulated, exactly as the amendment states.

We *do* regulate free speech though. There are consequences to saying certain things. I can't just go around saying I killed someone without being detained for potential murder. I can't just yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. You can't talk to someone who has a restraining order out on you without legal consequences. I'm going to get punished for those.

I'm not sure how the cost is related. I don't see anything about guns being free in the Second Amendment. Just that you have the right to own them if you choose. Bit of a strawman there if I'm being honest.

Our view on race is fucked up. We as humans seem to be scared of those who are different. I can't speak for countries outside of those I know, but for sure both Americans and Australians are in some way shape or form discriminating against someone. We don't like those who look or act different. Hence why religion pushes itself on people. Hence why those with different skin colors always oppose each other. I was, very luckily, raised by parents who were very mindful in teaching me that skin color, beliefs, gender, and such didn't matter at all. However, I fully recognize that that is not the experience most people have in this country. It's fucked up and needs to change.

I have weird conflicting thoughts on this whole topic - probably a result of my two country influence going on. If we could revoke the second amendment and guarantee every gun in this country could be removed and absolutely nobody would have one, I'd probably be behind that. However, banning things in this country has NEVER worked - see prohibition, weed, collecting rainwater. We as Americans naturally want to do the things we're told we can't. So banning guns will never work on that front alone. People will just want them more here.

There's actual legal limits on how much rainwater you can collect.