guns prevent violence!

[Fellows, Jeffrey]

I think I see what you mean. The "availability of firearms" (guns include BB
and pellet rifles) is one of those empirical artifacts that only has meaning
within a specific historical setting of a society. So like the nature of
economic transition, we learn little if anything by suggesting firearms
cause the problem without knowing why firearms are there, why they were
used, and what might have happened if the firearms weren't available.
Firearm availability is an intermediate indicator of a particular historical
situation that is being taken out of context of the conditions that effect
it. In this sense, it is a lot like the new institutionalist vision that the
cause of industrial development "success" is the institutional structures of
capitalist nations, without so much as a tip-of-the-hat to the material
conditions that create and alter the character of these institutions. 

What is needed is a extensive examination of our economic system and culture
that lead to the availability of firearms and other lethal weapons and the
predilection to use them. To get rid of the former does nothing to the
latter, indeed it will just change the way we resolve our inter-and
intra-personal conflicts. Changing the latter makes the first issue moot.  

Be that as it may, I think it still makes sense to either get rid of most
firearms or severely regulate their use. IMHO, the immediate gain
(preventing injuries and deaths and their associated costs ($42 billion in
1996$s: my estimate, which I presented at a violence prevention conference
last week) far outweighs the adverse impact such restrictions could have on
our real ability to protect ourselves from "tyranny." 

Jeff

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:dhenwood at panix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 5:18 PM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: RE: guns prevent violence!

Fellows, Jeffrey wrote:


>Can you explain the analogy a bit more clearly?
>
>Jeff
>
>You wrote:
>
>But why are guns so available? Isn't this like the question of why some
>formerly socialist countries were able to "reform" more than others?

I think there's a deceptive getting-to-the-bottom feeling about the
explanation that those transitions countries succeeded best that reformed
most that's a bit like the explanation of U.S. murder rates by the
availability of guns. You also have to explain the reasons behind varying
degrees of transition reform & the ubiquity of guns in the U.S. Why do
Americans love guns so much, and why are the laws so lax?

Doug