It’s not about the profit

On Saturday evening Michel Martin, host of All Things Considered discussed America’s gun violence problem with Adam Winkler of UCLA School of Law and Priscilla Imboden of Switzerland Radio. Some highlights:

Winkler noted a big difference between Europe and America. Starting before WWII there was a big push to disarm the civilian population. Since WWII America has armed up.

Looking at the political climate Winkler notes people who support gun availability are highly mobilized and make sure lawmakers hear from them. People who support gun control are not organized and thus aren’t politically influential.

I see that Imboden was invited to the discussion because Switzerland has a similar rate of gun ownership compared to America. But in Switzerland all young men are required to do military or civilian service. Half the guns belong to active military people. There is also an active culture of recreational shooting.

And their last mass shooting was 2001.

Some reasons for that:

* Those who have guns are well trained in their use.

* Mentally unstable people are barred from the military and do not get guns.

* Nobody in Switzerland buys guns to defend themselves, including as a defense against the state.

I add another reason. America has a high level of ranking, a strong belief that some people (straight, white, Christian men) are important and others (LGBT, people of color, non-Christians, women) are not. This ranking has been around since the founding of the country and is quite strong. Guns are a way to enforce that ranking.

I would guess that Switzerland, a much more homogeneous country, has a much lower belief in ranking.



On the NPR program The 1A today the first hour topic was whether letting citizens carry guns actually makes us safer. Host Joshua Johnson had a good mix of people on the show, which meant I wanted to growl at half of them. I didn’t take notes while listening and don’t want to listen to it again, so I’ll relate only one story.

Suzanna Hupp witnessed a mass shooting in which a man entered a diner and opened fire, killing 26 people, including her parents. She wished she had access to her gun (it was in the car) to be able to take him out. This incident sparked her personal campaign to make sure citizens are armed.

Yes, a horrific story.

Kris Brown, Co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence responded. In this situation an armed citizenry would have helped. But at what cost to society? The prevalence of guns means children find them and accidentally shoot themselves. A gun in a domestic squabble is much more likely to be deadly. Even in mass shootings a citizen with a gun is more likely to make the situation worse. She had a few more examples.

I’ll add one more. When citizens are allowed to carry guns they are more likely to be used to intimidate, to either enforce ranking or try to flip ranking.

And something not mentioned during the show – what would have happened if the shooter in the diner wasn’t able to get a gun?

I’ve changed my thinking a bit as a result of the current political climate and the Las Vegas massacre. The previous view (shared by many) is that the NRA and gun makers were in it for the profit and that profit was so important to them they were insensitive to the deaths that resulted from their product.

My current view is that while the profits are sweet, the NRA and gun makers really want the resulting deaths. The killings are the point. I’ve talked a lot about ranking – misogyny, racism, homophobia, and supremacy of all kinds. I’ve frequently quoted Melissa McEwan of Shakesville who says elimination is a big part of supremacy. A supremacist is uncomfortable with those people and the contrast between what he has and they do not. A supremacist isn’t supposed to feel uncomfortable, so tries to eliminate the source of his discomfort. The NRA and gun makers are taking this eliminationist thinking to its deadly conclusion. No big deal if bullets hit people other than those people.