But the question was about, say, people like my neighbors. Katz is talking about criminals. There are three unarmed homes on this block of 10 I learned at a Christmas party the other night. What you've described is criminal behavior. They aren't criminals. I never thought about who does and doesn't own guns - save for the one neighbor who interrupted a crime outside his home. One of those incidences of people involved in criminal activities, chasing one another from a crime-prone neighborhood to a nearby, not-crime-prone one. In this case, the weapon used by the criminals was a taser. The neighbor interrupted the tasering while walking his dog.
And Andy's statement was interesting in so far as he said he thinks about going to the range. But, before he actually goes there and interacts with people who own guns, he imagines that some among them are clearly there with an eagerness to kill people.
It's an interesting projection.
Swing back to what I said above. If 70% of the households on my block have weapons and some of those householders carry daily, and it isn't anything *I* even know about (until something in the knews means it become party conversation) because it just doesn't come up, then maybe it's what goes on in your neighborhood. Or maybe it isn't. In any case, what seems to be happening is that you aren't interacting with people who own guns or you are, but because you don't know they own guns, you don't fantasize their proclivity for violence.
At 08:52 AM 12/21/2012, Wojtek S wrote:
>Andy: " I start noticing the
>eagerness among some to be ready to kill people (God forbid), and a
>thousand other neglected pastimes beckon."
>
>[WS:] I suggest you read Jack Katz "Seductions of Crime"
>http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-05/books/bk-86_1_jack-katz
>
>"Katz's claim is that criminals seek not material rewards but the
>sensual experience of the crime itself. The adolescent shoplifter, for
>example, savors not the trinket she steals but the challenge of
>sneaking it past the clerk, the thrill of having outsmarted the
>system. With stickup men, as with members of adolescent street gangs,
>it is the transcendent joy of dominating an adversary. With the
>impassioned killer, it is to vent the rage triggered by humiliation or
>by a threat to some cherished moral value."
>
>See also:
>criminology.fsu.edu/.../SeductionsofCrimeJackKatz.ppt
>
>I would imagine that shooting a fire arm evokes similar emotions -
>those of power and invincibility that comes from dominating an
>adversary. Of course, for the great majority of people it ends with
>just that - a short lived thrill - after which they go back to their
>homes and offices and live long and normal lives. But a few less
>stable or deranged individuals will carry that thrill further.
>
>I am not saying that guns cause this kind of emotions, but rather that
>they are one of many things that trigger them. I recall taking part
>in a few demos where people demolished cars and other property or
>fought the cops or counter-demonstrators with sticks and stones - I
>noticed a sense of thrill, empowerment and invincibility I experienced
>from merely being a part of such a crowd. Holding a rock or a stick
>elevated that thrill to a much higher level - the fact that you could
>use that rock or that stick to dominate your adversary (a cop or a
>member of a counter-demo) was a source of enormous motivation to keep
>going even if from a rational point of view the potential cost of
>"going" was very high (injury, arrest or both) and potential outcome
>rather low. (PS In all cases, I could not get close enough to the
>action to actually use these implements, but being a wuss I wonder if
>I that inability was not a form of a "Freudian slip".)
>
>I do not think any rationalist arguments can adequately address the
>emotions evoked by the acts of dominating an adversary - regardless of
>whether such acts are real (such as breaking the law or physically
>attacking someone) or symbolic (e.g. shooting a weapon or watching an
>action movie). I think such emotions are in every one of us, we only
>handle them differently. Some (including myself) try to suppress them
>and subject to rational control, others (probably the majority)
>relegate them to the realm of fantasy and enjoy them by engaging in
>symbolic acts (watching movies, playing video games, or shooting
>weapons), and a few cross the socially acceptable line and enjoy them
>by engaging in real life acts (be it riots, gang violence, or mass
>shooting.)
>
>
>--
>Wojtek
>
>"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)