[lbo-talk] Collective idiocy....

[Sean Andrews]

Indeed. One thing mentioned in relation to that scatterplot data was that
the US was way ahead of the heard in terms of guns per 100 people. But
comments here point out that this is per capita, which skews when the issue
is that there is more of a culture here of a small group of people (4.2
million?) having a large number of guns per person, which then skews the
rest of the the numbers.  I don't know how that scatterplot takes this into
consideration and I don't have the energy to trace the permutations this
conversation has taken over the past few days. I thought for a brief
moment, there was a glimmer of clarity or agreement, but then even I was
convinced there might still be something to talk about here.

I've just noticed how the highly emotionally charged conversation about gun
control and shooters and mental health - and just the CT shootings in
general seems to have captured the cultural attention at precisely the
moment that Obama starts rolling out his nasty little safety net cuts. It's
hard to pay attention to the argument for one measure of inflation over
another in indexing benefits when they are burying children. Gun control,
however vital a conversation you believe it to be, is taking a lot of
oxygen from what should be a full on push against the looming and far more
deadly austerity that could be coming our way.

Funny how that works.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Some interesting discussion in the comments regarding Canada.  I, too,
> blame Micheal Moore.
>
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2012/12/talk-to-me-like-i-am-stupid-understanding-international-gun-ownership-rates/266517/
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > To elaborate, frightened and reactionary whites fantasized they would
> need
> > > to defend themselves in a coming race war with angry young black
> > militants
> > > who were renouncing non-violence. Or that they would need arms to
> defend
> > > their homes and stores and neighbourhoods against black rioters. Or
> that
> > > they would need weapons to protect themselves on the streets, subways,
> > > jogging paths, and in underground garages against non-white muggers and
> > > rapists.
> > >
> >
> > If you want to make up your own fantasy history, sure. But the motives
> you
> > describe have a lot more to do with the imposition of gun control than
> with
> > whites (or anyone else) organizing/arming in opposition to it.
> >
> >
> > > There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this; it doesn't
> require
> > > volumes of research as some have demanded in this discussion.
> > >
> >
> > I trust that your reliance on "anecdotal evidence" will speak for itself,
> > and requires no further elaboration by me. (The claims I could make
> backed
> > by "anecdotal evidence"! My mind reels at the possibilities ...)
> >
> >
> > > Your statement that the NRA "reacted most strongly to a racist backlash
> > > against black gun ownership" is somewhat ambiguous, but I understand
> you
> > to
> > > mean they were part of the racist backlash, rather than opposed to it.
> > >
> >
> > No, rather the opposite (although anti-racism doesn't seem to have been a
> > major factor in its opposition to the new gun control policies imposed
> > during the Black Power era). Apologies for my lack of clarity.
> >
> > --
> > "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> > lytlað."
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andy
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>