Masked assailants with grenades and automatic weapons attacked an engagement ceremony in southeast Turkey on Monday, killing 45 people. Two girls survived after the bodies of slain friends fell on top of them during the onslaught.NTV television quoted Deputy Gov. Ferhat Ozen of Mardin province as saying the nighttime attack occurred in Bilge village near the city of Mardin. Some media outlets reported that a "blood feud" among families had led to the killings in a region where tribal ties and rivalries sometimes eclipse the power of the state.
This area of the country is populated by rival groups of pro-government village guards who fight alongside Turkish troops against Kurdish rebels in the region. What that amounts to is a situation much like the pro gun crowd in the United States would like to see: little or no restrictions on weapons and little or no interference by the federal government.
What happens in South-eastern Turkey is the result of the attitude already prevalent in much of America. If you offend me, I blow you away.
Some people say this has nothing to do with the availability of guns. I say that's wrong. When you put guns in the picture, you're liable to have a slaughter, and that holds true in the Turkish village or the Florida dinner table (I'll write something about Troy Bellar today).
What's your opinion? Given less gun control and less government interference, what's to prevent this kind of thing from happening? Are the Turkish men who own guns fundamentally different from the American men who own guns? Do you think Islam has something to do with it?
Please leave a comment.
To say that Tueky has little or no restrictions on weapons and little or no interference by the government is disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteTurkey has the gun control laws that gun controllers in America dream of.
The only civilians who are permitted to own firearms are: the president, prime minister, ministers, legislative body members, officials and members of the state, municipality, private administrations and state owned enterprises that have been allowed to carry arms by a cabinet decree, and retired and non-commissioned officers. Of course all these people still have to have licenses and their weapons are registered.
The above mentioned people are not allowed to give their arms for the use of other person, even with consent, and are not allowed to sell their arms to anyone, apart from those with official permits.
And if your weapon is used in a crime, not only is the perpetrator guilty, but so is the owner of the weapon.
They also have numerous other gun laws that have been on the books since 1953.
Obviously, this has done nothing to curb illegal arms trade in Turkey. With little work, you can buy a fully-automatic AK-47 for $50 USD. And that's up from $35 USD from a few years ago.
On the other hand, automatic weapons are available to US citizens (at a much higher cost, with lots of paperwork) and the last time one was used in crime was nearly 30 years ago, with a police officer being the perpetrator.
Availability of guns is only a small component of gun-related crime. The most dangerous nations in the world have much stricter gun control laws than the US. That's because gun violence is a symptom of cultural and social problems, not availability of tools.
Creating more restrictions and government interference may in fact only make the problem worse. As they say, "Forbidden fruits are sweetest." You increase restrictions, you only make guns that much more attractive and profitable to the criminal element of society. And you end up with a situation like that in Turkey, Mexico, Russia, and a host of other nations where the only people who are armed are the government and criminals; A much worse situation than what we have in US.
What that amounts to is a situation much like the pro gun crowd in the United States would like to see: little or no restrictions on weapons and little or no interference by the federal government.
ReplyDeleteI think you're confusing two things here. "Little or no interference by the federal government", doesn't mean anarchy, it means respecting the restrictions the Constitution puts on federal power by balancing it against _state_ power. When I say "the federal government doesn't have the authority to restrict drug use", that doesn't mean nobody can tell me when, where, or whether I can shoot up heroin; it just means that our Constitution places responsibility for those laws in the hands of my state government, not Washington.
I know there are hardcore anarchists out there (in my experience, they're more likely to be in the far left than the far right, mind), but I've never heard a gun owner argue that we shouldn't have police because we should just "blow away" anybody who offends us. The cops serve a useful and essential purpose in modern society, and I love having a reliable, well-trained group of people nearby charged by my town with upholding the law. I'm just realistic about what they are and aren't able to do. My guns are only for bridging the crucial five minutes between the moment the cops are called and the moment they arrive, not for settling any scores.
From what I read, the people who "blow away" anybody who offends them are far more likely to live in hardcore liberal cities with gun-hating populaces than in the huge, sprawling rural America with high rates of lawful civilian gun ownership.
It is a question of values and culture mike.
ReplyDeleteTake the NRA convention for example. Thousands of folks all in an enclosed space, most armed and not a single incident.
Now round up a bunch of low-life gun-toting thugs from Philly and Wilmington and try that. You'll have a distinctly different result, despite the presence of guns in both scenarios.
The difference Mike, is in the values, culture, and morals (or lack thereof) rather than the fact that they have guns. There are reasons why certain areas of our country are violent cesspools. Values and culture Mike.
This illustrates a problem with ratio, not availability. One side has most of the guns, the law-abiding side can't do anything about an attack.
ReplyDeleteIf you offend me, I blow you away.If you offend me without violence, I'll be offended. If you try to blow me away, I'll shoot back. Once your side learns that there are consequences for shooting at people, they don't do that as much.
And if I limit my shooting to defense, it isn't escalation--as soon as you stop shooting, all the shooting stops.
Well put Mike
ReplyDeleteMy guns are only for bridging the crucial five minutes between the moment the cops are called and the moment they arrive, not for settling any scores. I couldn't agree more. I carry a gun because I can't have a cop with a gun at my side all the time. If I'm the victim of a violent crime and I don't have a gun what do I do? I call the police, who send a man with a gun to engage in defensive violence on my behalf. What's more useful to the victim, a gun on his/her person or a holstered gun that's 5 or 10 minutes away?
From what I read, the people who "blow away" anybody who offends them are far more likely to live in hardcore liberal cities with gun-hating populaces than in the huge, sprawling rural America with high rates of lawful civilian gun ownership.Most of the gun violence in the US is committed in major urban areas. These areas are generally more liberal and have more gun control than the surrounding areas. In gun control was an effective solution and "gun availability" was the issue we should see exactly the opposite. We should see clear evidence of low crime rates anywhere where there is strict gun control. We don't.
Philadelphia has much more strict gun control than PA as a whole, yet their violent crime rate is far worse than the rest of the state. Why? because of the people who live there.
Mike W. says about the violence in Philadelphia, "Why? because of the people who live there."I think that's an over simplification. It's because of many factors, economics, education, overcrowding, cultural and societal influences, and last but not lease, gun availability.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou are right and you are wrong.
"I think that's an over simplification. It's because of many factors, economics, education, overcrowding, cultural and societal influences, and last but not lease, gun availability.Gun availability is the LEAST of the factors.
All the others are more important then availability.
We've presented tons of data to support that position. To show you it is true.
How is what you propose going to affect those other factors?
Without changing those factors, it doesn't matter how many guns are available, we will still have an incredibly high crime rate.
You consistently ignore the fact that 90% or more of all violent crime is committed without firearms.
Michael, I wanted to respond to your comment about the car comparison. I couldn't find it just now but I read it carefully last night; it must be on another thread around here somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy makes pretty good sense when it's about the speed limit the way you described it. So, given that, I might have to say yes. If 60% of the drivers opposed the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit and it failed to go into effect, they would be responsible for the bad results, similar to the way I say the pro-gun folks are.
It's a bit sloppy, as far as comparisons go, but that's the basic idea.
The reason I reject all of these comparisons is because there is no serious movement to ban cars or institute such a low speed limit, meanwhile there are serious movements gun bans and gun control.
So, given that, I might have to say yes. If 60% of the drivers opposed the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit and it failed to go into effect, they would be responsible for the bad results, similar to the way I say the pro-gun folks are.
ReplyDeleteI think this may help to illustrate where both sides are coming from, and I'm grateful for your consistency. :)
Most drivers would consider a 20mph speed limit on the highways to be far, far too restrictive, and would oppose it as too burdensome (and unlike burdensome gun laws, the speed limit really _would_ just be an inconvenience). And that's just where we gun owners are coming from. Even if we assume that the presence of privately owned guns increases the overall number of deaths by some amount, the burden of capricious gun laws is more than we're willing to accept to prevent that increase.
As in all cases, we balance freedom against safety. It's reasonable to assume the police could prevent more crimes and save more lives if they didn't have to get warrants to search people they know are dangerous, but I still won't give up my freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. There are definitely murderers out there who we _know_ are guilty (and may murder again) but can't get enough evidence to convict, but I still won't give up my right to due process. Lots of people think that violent media causes crime and tragic deaths, but I'll still fight to the end to preserve some schlock filmmaker's right to produce offensive torture-horror movies.
People die. And if I could wave my hand and make all that suffering go away, I would. But I won't buy an unproven chance of preventing some deaths at the price of my freedom.
With your clarification, I accept your premise that by opposing burdensome gun laws, I'm partially responsible for any increase in deaths that may have resulted from the greater availability of guns. And I'll continue to oppose most laws that try to trade freedom for safety, making my partially responsible for a lot of other death and suffering, too. But as far as I'm concerned, that _also_ gives me partial credit for the greater amount of freedom in this world, and I'd make the same choices again in a heartbeat.
I regret the suffering that exists in this world, and I regret any increase in suffering that my beliefs and advocacy may contribute to. Just understand that I'm weighing that against something that, to me, is far, far more valuable than safety.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBob, Please try that comment again, this time without any "icky" misspellings.
ReplyDelete