Gun Culture = Blame-the-Victim Culture

[Moonwalk]

First off, let me say that what I'm going to point out is probably very obvious, very "duh!" and likely been said by many here before...but I really felt the need to post a little rant about it as I I've seen many a pro-gun person arguing this mode of thinking here and there. Second, let me say that I don't think this means that all gun owners think this way, but rather that U.S. gun culture, fostered by the NRA's particular propaganda, makes it more likely for us in the U.S. to think this way. And that certainly, our narcissistic culture is given to it. Also our very simplistic culture which seeks easy answers.

Let's start with this: There's been news about the teenager who shot a baby, and on one such thread the question was asked if the NRA's answer to this tragedy would be that mom should have had a gun (rather than that the teen should not have had access to a gun). One responder mentioned that his wife would have reached into her handbag and used her gun to shoot the guy threatening her baby. Which is all well and good, but there is a real problem with this train of thought. The end result of it--and one which we are seeing--is that we blame the victim.

Ultimately, this mode of thinking says that anyone who doesn't go armed all the time is to blame if they or a loved one is shot because if they'd been armed, they could have stopped the killer (Sandy Hook kids wouldn't have died if teachers had been armed, mom wouldn't have lost her baby if she'd been armed, etc.). So, okay, what if they had been armed? By this logic, isn't the victim also to blame if they fail to kill the killer? If they get shot instead? Wouldn't we then say: "They ought to have trained more and been ready for this"?

We already live in a blame-the-victim culture. This mode of thinking, saying that the victim should have had a gun--and using personal examples to support that like "my wife would have..."--disturbs me because it leads us to an even darker version of blaming the victim. One where the one who gets shot is judged and scrutinized instead of the killer, one where the victim is blamed and thought to have deserved it (not unlike a rape victim), because they never imagined such a scenario and didn't prepare for it. One where the killer gets off or ignored or even respected for being the superior shot.

Perhaps this is very obvious but: we need to fight and stop the blame-the-victim rhetoric and way of thinking even as we change gun laws. As so many in the anti-gun-control argument compare guns to cars (real apples and oranges, but let's use it anyway), the one driving the car is to blame in an accident with a pedestrian (non-car owner). Almost always. We don't hear about a crazy man crashing his car into a bunch of people and say, "Those pedestrians should have been in cars, too," we simply blame the crazy guy in the car. I don't know if we can get people thinking like that in regards to guns, but it would certainly make arguments over guns and gun control (IMHO) more realistic.

[tblue]

1. Right!

There is a 'blame the victim' instead of the bad guy in almost everything (poor people, uninsured people, overweight people, gay people). It's not right and we should call it out for what it is, as you have here.

I don't want a gun. I don't want to kill anybody intentionally or accidentally. But I want to live without fear of gun violence. I do my part by not supporting the gun industry and not buying what they sell. How the hell am I the one who is to blame when people get shot? (Not just me "me." That's a collective "me.&quot

It's crazy-making. You're right.

[rdharma]

2. If it bleeds, it leads! nt

[Mika]

3. Now, extend your argument out to political representation.

See where it goes.

[valerief]

4. If gunners only shot guns with their guns instead of victims, we could FINALLY blame guns! nt

[mgardener]

5. Thank you.

You are so right. We have this victim mentality thanks to the republicans as far back as Regan and his "welfare queens" and up to today's republicans and their "entitlements".

Victims of violence are not at fault. Why do we blame them? Why???

[livingonearth]

6. My question to those who want women to use guns to stop rape is this:

If a woman has a gun and kills a potential rapist, while living in a culture where we often blame a woman for getting raped (ie. what she was wearing, did she bring it on, was she actually consenting to sex, etc.) how is that same woman supposed to now defend herself for shooting someone?

Using guns is not as easy as some people think. Real life is not like a movie, where shoot- em- ups occur and the heroes doing the shooting are never questioned.

[SylviaD]

7. The gun culture in this country needs to be dismantled. n/t

[erpowers]

8. More Trayvon Martin Cases

It is possible that the only thing that would result from the thinking of those who are stating that if only the woman with the young child had been carrying a gun is more Trayvon Martin like shootings. In the case of the mother with the young child a gun might not have changed the results for the better. According to her story, the young men walked up to her and either asked for or demanded money. When she said she did not have any money she was shot in the leg and the ear. Next, her son was shot in the head. If the woman had been carrying a gun it is likely she would have had to reach for the gun in some way. The moment she reached for the gun the young men most likely would have shot her and then shot her son. So, the results likely would have been just about the same if this woman had been carrying a gun.

Considering the way things happened with this woman and her child the only way she would have been safe was to shoot the young men the moment they said hello, or the moment they got too close. As a result, you end up with more Trayvon Martin like shootings. Since you cannot wait to see if the person is a threat you just shoot the person because you think they are a threat. What happens if the person you shot turns out to not be a threat? Oh well, you were trying to protect yourself and you did not want to take a chance that the person was not a threat.

[Straw Man]

9. Trayvon?

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Considering the way things happened with this woman and her child the only way she would have been safe was to shoot the young men the moment they said hello, or the moment they got too close. As a result, you end up with more Trayvon Martin like shootings. Since you cannot wait to see if the person is a threat you just shoot the person because you think they are a threat.

This incident is very different from the Trayvon Martin incident.

West earlier told reporters that the incident occurred at 9 a.m. Thursday as she was walking home from the post office, pushing her son, Antonio, in a stroller. She said she saw two boys.

"A boy approached me and told me he wanted my money, and I told him I didn't have any money. And he said, 'Give me your money or I'm going to kill you and I'm going to shoot your baby and kill your baby,' and I said, 'I don't have any money,' and 'Don't kill my baby.'"

The boy tried to grab her purse and opened fire when she said tried to tell him she had no money, West said, with the shot grazing her head. She said the boy then shot her in the leg.

West continued, "And then, all of a sudden, he walked over and he shot my baby in the face."

-- http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed/?hpt=hp_t2

If her story is accurate, the first two shots would certainly have been sufficient justification and an opportune time for her to shoot back. She may have been killed herself, but she would have had at least a chance of saving her child.

In no way do I blame this woman, who certainly didn't expect anything like this to happen on an afternoon stroll. Nor do I blame people who arm themselves against such possibilities.

[Moonwalk]

10. I agree with both. If the woman had a gun in her purse--

--she likely would have reached in and shot back through the purse. Which doesn't insure her life or that of her child, but she certainly has a right to carry a gun and defend herself if threatened. I certainly wouldn't have blamed her for arming herself against it.

However, erpowers is right that insuring oneself against such events with a gun do lead to a scenario where a person shoots first and only after finds out that they shot someone unarmed, who meant no harm and only "looked" threatening. Again, in such cases, the victim is to blame. And think there-in is the comparison with Martin. It is less about the circumstances (a man going after a kid he was sure was criminal) as it is about the assumption (Martin wearing a hoody = criminal).

And, sure enough, after the shooting many said that Martin shouldn't have been wearing a hoodie. He was to blame for being mistaken for a criminal and, thus, getting followed and getting shot. And, yes, there were others that blamed him for not having his own gun.

Crazy.

[Straw Man]

11. Potential for harm.

However, erpowers is right that insuring oneself against such events with a gun do lead to a scenario where a person shoots first and only after finds out that they shot someone unarmed, who meant no harm and only "looked" threatening. Again, in such cases, the victim is to blame. And think there-in is the comparison with Martin. It is less about the circumstances (a man going after a kid he was sure was criminal) as it is about the assumption (Martin wearing a hoody = criminal).

I agree that the potential for abuse is there, but no law -- even "Stand Your Ground" laws -- permits one to shoot someone just for looking threatening. There is always some kind of stipulation about a reasonable fear of physical harm, etc. That's why education is essential, and that is a key component of training classes for CCW permits in most states.

Oddly, New York has no training requirement for a handgun permit, despite its current claim to having the toughest gun laws in the country. Some NY judges are using their discretionary powers to impose such a requirement, but it's not written into state law. One wonders why.