While there are certainly those in the U.S. that use guns as tools for hunting and target shooting, it's clear that these are not the primary purchasers of guns, since the guns usually mentioned in the news are handguns, which are expressly created to create holes in people, (even if some manufacturers of large caliber revolvers insist that they have hunting utility, like the Smith & Wesson 500 or high powered rifles/assault weapons. I can't help but wonder why the question of what makes consumers want to own handguns isn't explored with more interest. I'm not an expert on guns or on politics or social psychology, but it does seem like what people are after is a tangible object that gives them power over their own lives. Maybe it's no surprise that a powerful country would be home to so many people that feel powerless, but that's a far cry from the image we're sold of ourselves as Americans.
...that was kind of the entire premise behind Bowling for Columbine.I can't help but wonder why the question of what makes consumers want to own handguns isn't explored with more interest. I'm not an expert on guns or on politics or social psychology, but it does seem like what people are after is a tangible object that gives them power over their own lives.
So, since 2002 when the movie was released, nothing has changed? No new data has emerged that could help form a more complete picture? Somehow, I'm not content to let one movie answer all of my questions. I don't think about gun control much, but maybe others do and are satisfied with Michael Moore's decade-old answer.
Hang on now, I don't remember arguing that it hadn't been studied. I did say this: I wasn't saying that I thought it hadn't been done, I was saying that I don't understand why it's not a question that seems to be explored by people in general. I know in my experience, I don't hear people asking "why do people want to own guns?" I hear people saying, "we should do X about guns!" I also have not seen any studies related to that topic, or come across people discussing it. Sure, I haven't looked very hard, but I do check out link aggregators and try to stay informed. I feel like I would have come across something of that nature if it's something the general public were concerned about.I can't help but wonder why the question of what makes consumers want to own handguns isn't explored with more interest.
And what I'm saying is that when a major-release documentary makes $60m worldwide in box office alone, it's a misnomer to say that it isn't being explored "with interest." I'm guessing you don't have any gun-nut family members. I have this discussion with dreary regularity.
Again, I said "with more interest". I generally don't talk about gun issues on the internet, so maybe what I've been saying is late to the party for those that discuss these things often. Anyway, I learn best by interacting with people who know something about issues I take interest in, rather than by reading alone. I do have family members that are gun nuts, but they're not Americans, so this discussion doesn't happen within my family. As for my family in America, they don't own guns or if they do, views on gun-related issues are generally not something we talk about. We have other conversations over and over again.
Maybe we'll get some new data soon, since it's no longer illegal to use federal money to study gun violence (yes, it was illegal; that's how fucked we are).So, since 2002 when the movie was released, nothing has changed? No new data has emerged that could help form a more complete picture?
It's telling that someone like you, a well informed, intelligent person, didn't know this was a thing. I also consider myself reasonably well informed, and I didn't know it was a thing until they had a bunch of coverage about it after the Sandy Hook shootings. This points to a vast media failure. In their attempts to not look like raging liberals, they fear even nudging the boat that is the NRA. Scientific inquiry isn't political when done properly. Fear of information is far worse than any gun law that could be passed. Censorship is the thing that offends me most in life.
At this point, I don't know that it is censorship as one might automatically think of it, but the effects of misdirection, and intentional obfuscation are the same. I can understand that people are interested in maintaining the status quo, but an unwillingness to change is hurting the U.S. (and other countries) on many fronts. If I had to choose the one thing that I am most offended by, I would have to say it's fear; it limits the possible at all levels and twists the elegant and the functional into something less, far too often.
It's not traditional censorship, in the sense that no one is explicitly telling them not to print something. But it is implicit censorship, in the sense that they won't run certain important stories for fear of a giant backlash. Implicit or explicit, it's still censorship, and it's still wrong.
Gun culture is a really interesting animal. I've been to a few gun shows and the whole thing ranges from hunters, survivalists, collectors, zombies (really), and then of course self-defense. Now I don't think the people who are going to gun shows are the same people who shoot each other, but I do think they play an important role in creating the culture around guns. However, I do think that these are the owners of the majority of guns sold, because there is so much importance placed on having a collection (or an arsenal, depending on which breed of gun owner your talking to). Many of these people see themselves in the way that the article mentions, the good guy, who is either protecting their home or family and they all hope they can stop a major shooting at some point. They may not go on a major shooting, but they do play a big role in increasing the amount of guns in circulation. Like many laws I think gun control is misinterpreted as being against the typical NRA member. While it may will affect them (thus their protest) the law is targeted at reducing guns used for illicit purposes.
I hadn't really considered the gun collectors, but yeah you're right. Personally, I like Chris Rock's idea for gun control. Who says that guns have to be affordable? If the government can tax smokers, why not tax gun owners? There are many more opportunities to tax gun owners as guns require regular maintenance and people buy accessories for them like different scopes, triggers, types of bullets, gun oil, etc. This might not address the guns in circulation currently, but it would certainly cause people looking to buy a gun through legal channels to consider whether or not they can live without owning one.
Its an interesting idea, but the people going out and buying a whole bunch of accessories for their guns aren't the ones that being targeted by the law and most of them right-wing anti-tax as they come so there is an even slimmer chance of anything laws passing. At the end of the day I think somebody is going to have to bit the bullet and push a gun law through and let the results speak for themselves, because I don't think that talking or debating about it more is going to give us a better law.