Aractus:
The idea of socio-economic factors leading to gun violence is part of the conversation here in America - the thought being that people who have less to worry about economically are less prone to outbursts of violence in frustration or desperation, among other things. The problem with this is, in my opinion, that it only addresses general hand-gun violence of the sort you find amongst the poor. It doesn't address people with mental health issues OR the people who have a decent amount of money and health care and are goddamn careless about the way they keep their stockpile of guns. Having a better mental healthcare system also doesn't absolve gun owners of the need to be more vigilant in the way they store their guns, which I think need more active licenses, required training classes (we don't need any here in North Carolina - you just send away for a permit - I don't know how it's done in other states) and signature requirements on how something is going to be stored so that there begins to be more accountability over the fact that the person who owns the gun is being held responsible for it.
Despite being a left leaning individual I'm actually not for the banning of guns, although like many people here I'm mystified as to why anyone should feel the need to own anything more powerful than a 9mm or a hunting rifle. The first I can understand as a home defense mechanism. The second I see as a tool for a hobby and as an economic supplement for food (I know plenty of country guys and gals who stock their meat for the winter and spring with what they've hunted for in the fall). This bullshit about needing to defend themselves in the case of a militant gov't regime is, so far as I've seen, born of Glenn Beck-fueled paranoia (and others like him) and more recently a deep racist hatred for our current president. These people hide behind the second amendment thinking that it gives them the right to have the same sort of fire power as the military just in case they get to have the movie-hero-slot at taking down the "evil" empire our country has apparently become.
Meanwhile, every one of the Iraq vets I know has turned in their weapons happily along with their retirement from service. This also goes with the 'Nam vets and others of my father's era - my father, who, crazy Repub that he is, still manages to be law-abiding with his hunting rifles and 9 mm's. [shrugs]
Articles like this would suggest that I'm taking too lenient a stance on it: http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control-an-...omparison/
I'm trying to find you a good article about relating it to socio-economics that isn't bogged down in a TL;DR sort of way - I ran across something some time ago and didn't save it.
The idea of socio-economic factors leading to gun violence is part of the conversation here in America - the thought being that people who have less to worry about economically are less prone to outbursts of violence in frustration or desperation, among other things. The problem with this is, in my opinion, that it only addresses general hand-gun violence of the sort you find amongst the poor. It doesn't address people with mental health issues OR the people who have a decent amount of money and health care and are goddamn careless about the way they keep their stockpile of guns. Having a better mental healthcare system also doesn't absolve gun owners of the need to be more vigilant in the way they store their guns, which I think need more active licenses, required training classes (we don't need any here in North Carolina - you just send away for a permit - I don't know how it's done in other states) and signature requirements on how something is going to be stored so that there begins to be more accountability over the fact that the person who owns the gun is being held responsible for it.
Despite being a left leaning individual I'm actually not for the banning of guns, although like many people here I'm mystified as to why anyone should feel the need to own anything more powerful than a 9mm or a hunting rifle. The first I can understand as a home defense mechanism. The second I see as a tool for a hobby and as an economic supplement for food (I know plenty of country guys and gals who stock their meat for the winter and spring with what they've hunted for in the fall). This bullshit about needing to defend themselves in the case of a militant gov't regime is, so far as I've seen, born of Glenn Beck-fueled paranoia (and others like him) and more recently a deep racist hatred for our current president. These people hide behind the second amendment thinking that it gives them the right to have the same sort of fire power as the military just in case they get to have the movie-hero-slot at taking down the "evil" empire our country has apparently become.
Meanwhile, every one of the Iraq vets I know has turned in their weapons happily along with their retirement from service. This also goes with the 'Nam vets and others of my father's era - my father, who, crazy Repub that he is, still manages to be law-abiding with his hunting rifles and 9 mm's. [shrugs]
Articles like this would suggest that I'm taking too lenient a stance on it: http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control-an-...omparison/
I'm trying to find you a good article about relating it to socio-economics that isn't bogged down in a TL;DR sort of way - I ran across something some time ago and didn't save it.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
