3 ms·

I know HN frowns upon any kind of "political" discussion, so I'll won't elaborate too much, but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three

I know HN frowns upon any kind of "political" discussion, so I'll won't elaborate too much, but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol?? She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do. I cannot understand for the life of me why the focus here is on guns. Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history, but mass shootings are a comparatively new phenomena that are sadly becoming increasingly frequent, so 'ready access to guns' doesn't seem like a particularly compelling explanation. Neither does the influence of media reporting, since this reporting is worldwide but the mass shootings remain predominantly American. As an immigrant to America, I wonder if the emphasis on individualism and dynamism that makes America so appealing also comes with costs. People here may be more likely to take bold action to solve their problems (or perceived problems), and this includes the segment of the population that's criminal, evil, or mentally ill. Now if so, this is nothing new - America's been a dynamic culture of entrepreneurs and dreamers long before this outbreak of mass violence. However, America previously combined this dynamism with stronger forms of moral education and social control - primarily religious ones, but also bonds to local communities and extended families. The gradual weakening of these bonds has coincided with the rise of mass shootings. To sum up, America's individualistic, energetic culture minus a strong moral foundation and community ties = very bad news. Of course, this is just my own theory, and it's probably wrong. Societies are complicated things. But I do wish people would dig about a bit more under the cultural hood before reflexively pinning the blame on firearms.

bambax 14y ago
> She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do. She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? And she needed to keep the gun (and ammunition) in her home? It isn't true that "Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history"; talking about the "Second Amendment" makes it seem that nothing has changed since the 18th century, but the truth is the current situation started no earlier than the 1960s. And about media reporting: 1/ Media reporting abroad is nothing compared to the US -- as with most news, big events are talked about a lot in the country of origin, and are just a topic among others in all other nations; right now the five first articles on the front page of Slate is about this, for example, whereas here in France, it's hardly a topic of conversation (it did make the front page of Le Monde on paper, but not on the web where all news are in a section called "Americas") 2/ Where things happen matter a lot. If it happens in a distant country it will not influence you the same way as if it happens in your own neighborhood (or somewhere perceived as such).
- evan_ 14y ago
  > She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? Yes??? What do you think a glock is, just out of curiosity? It's a completely boring handgun. Semi-automatic doesn't mean what you think it does. Basically all modern guns are semi-automatic. It's a broad classification.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    It's a completely boring handgun This illustrates an interesting cultural divide. Many people don't have any real experience or understanding of guns, and let half-truths from pop-culture drive their emotional response.
  - bambax 14y ago
    > It's a completely boring handgun That's the point. "Boring" means failsafe: good for the shooter, not so good for the victims. A gun that would threaten to explode in the face of the shooter every other round, or that would make it almost impossible to hit the target, would be completely non-boring. It would also make it a poor choice to carry on a mass-shooting. The Glock is the Mercedes of guns.
    - evan_ 14y ago
      Hm, I'm afraid I don't totally understand your point. Why shouldn't a recreational shooter want reliability?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jcromartie 14y ago
I think it's quite simple: a bullet to the vital organs was just as deadly 200 years ago as it is today, but you could only shoot one at a time (for some non-negligible value of "a time"). Now, handguns and rifles with high rate of fire and replaceable magazines are plentiful and easy to get ahold of, and they just have a much higher potential for death on a large cape.
- clarky07 14y ago
  To be fair, bullets are much much better now and it's much easier to have accurate and much faster traveling bullets. That neither here nor there though. We also had all this technology for the last hundred years and yet didn't have this problem for the most part until the last 10-20 years. (the 1911 semi auto handgun is still one of the best and most popular in the world, and it is over 100 years old). That tells me that the gun isn't the problem.

bambax 14y ago

> She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do. She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? And she needed to keep the gun (and ammunition) in her home? It isn't true that "Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history"; talking about the "Second Amendment" makes it seem that nothing has changed since the 18th century, but the truth is the current situation started no earlier than the 1960s. And about media reporting: 1/ Media reporting abroad is nothing compared to the US -- as with most news, big events are talked about a lot in the country of origin, and are just a topic among others in all other nations; right now the five first articles on the front page of Slate is about this, for example, whereas here in France, it's hardly a topic of conversation (it did make the front page of Le Monde on paper, but not on the web where all news are in a section called "Americas") 2/ Where things happen matter a lot. If it happens in a distant country it will not influence you the same way as if it happens in your own neighborhood (or somewhere perceived as such).

evan_ 14y ago
> She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? Yes??? What do you think a glock is, just out of curiosity? It's a completely boring handgun. Semi-automatic doesn't mean what you think it does. Basically all modern guns are semi-automatic. It's a broad classification.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  It's a completely boring handgun This illustrates an interesting cultural divide. Many people don't have any real experience or understanding of guns, and let half-truths from pop-culture drive their emotional response.
- bambax 14y ago
  > It's a completely boring handgun That's the point. "Boring" means failsafe: good for the shooter, not so good for the victims. A gun that would threaten to explode in the face of the shooter every other round, or that would make it almost impossible to hit the target, would be completely non-boring. It would also make it a poor choice to carry on a mass-shooting. The Glock is the Mercedes of guns.
  - evan_ 14y ago
    Hm, I'm afraid I don't totally understand your point. Why shouldn't a recreational shooter want reliability?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jcromartie 14y ago

I think it's quite simple: a bullet to the vital organs was just as deadly 200 years ago as it is today, but you could only shoot one at a time (for some non-negligible value of "a time"). Now, handguns and rifles with high rate of fire and replaceable magazines are plentiful and easy to get ahold of, and they just have a much higher potential for death on a large cape.

clarky07 14y ago
To be fair, bullets are much much better now and it's much easier to have accurate and much faster traveling bullets. That neither here nor there though. We also had all this technology for the last hundred years and yet didn't have this problem for the most part until the last 10-20 years. (the 1911 semi auto handgun is still one of the best and most popular in the world, and it is over 100 years old). That tells me that the gun isn't the problem.