Guns don’t shoot people, men do

Written By: - Date published: 6:33 am, November 7th, 2017 - 200 comments
Categories: gender, us politics - Tags: , , ,

With regard to the latest US shooting, I suspect we’ve already passed a marker in the road that suggests there is no turning back, and that whatever liberal solutions we have floating round in our heads about gun control are largely irrelevant, no matter how much we might like to think the US is still part of the civilised world. So this post isn’t about Sutherland Springs, nor gun control. It’s about what lies beneath.

I have a friend who lives in a self-sufficient, rural part of the US. She once asked me how women in NZ protect themselves from sexual assault if they don’t carry a gun. Where she lives that kind of protection is necessary and normal and she has a hand gun as well as her hunting rifles. It was a fair question, not easily answered, but most interesting for me is thinking about where my pro gun-control politics would be at if I lived in the part of the world she does.

It leads me pretty quickly to maybe we should be looking at the common denominator problem not as guns but men. Guns don’t shoot people, men do.

The media are reporting that there is no known motive yet for the Sutherland Springs shooting but that the victims included a pregnant woman and her children, and the town was where the man’s wife came from. No idea how much of that is true or relevant, but it led me to thinking again about the Montreal shooting in 1989 where a man went onto a co-ed polytech campus and shot fourteen women engineering students. The media covering that story at the time were complicit in downplaying the gendered nature of the crime.

Then Toronto Star journalist Shelley Page,

Looking back, I fear I sanitized the event of its feminist anger and then infantilized and diminished the victims, turning them from elite engineering students who’d fought for a place among men into teddy-bear loving daughters, sisters and girlfriends.

Twenty-five years later, as I re-evaluate my stories and with the benefit of analysis of the coverage that massacre spawned, I see how journalists— male and female producers, news directors, reporters, anchors — subtly changed the meaning of the tragedy to one that the public would get behind, silencing so-called “angry feminists.” We were “social gatekeeping,” as filmmaker Maureen Bradley later asserted in her 1995 film, Reframing the Montreal Massacre: A media interrogation.

Quebec journalist Francine Pelletier,

In hindsight, it’s obvious that the Montreal Massacre was too extreme — no one could draw a line between women being gunned down on a university campus and what women, as a rule, were being subjected to.

…

Unable to look the tragedy in the eye — to this day we have yet to acknowledge that this was not just a crime against women but against feminism, against women who dare go where only men have gone before — we have been paying lip service in the fight against violence against women.

So here we are nearly 30 years later. Maybe we should try and talk about it differently now. For instance there are the known connections between domestic violence and mass shooters, including with the alleged Sutherland Springs shooter (media report he was courtmartialed and convicted for domestic violence in 2012).

https://twitter.com/JennyKayNZ/status/927475319950393344

That video quotes a study done on 156 mass shootings between 2009 and 2016. Fifty four percent of those shootings were related to domestic or family violence. You can watch the video to see the inadequate legislative response to this despite it being a known issue.

Then there are the problems of talking about whether white loner men are terrorists. We can have another conversation about the definitions of terrorism, but in the context of the media coverage of the Montreal shooting let’s not pretend that the ways we define terrorism are determined by anyone other than the dominant culture.

The Montreal École Polytechnique shooter’s suicide note read,

“Would you note that if I commit suicide today it is not for economic reasons … but for political reasons,” it read. “Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker … I have decided to put an end to those viragos.”

(That note was not released at the time for fear it would spark copy-cat murders, but the non-release played into the ungendering of the crime)

Try arguing that’s not terrorism. Consider why we couldn’t say that it was a terrorist act against feminists thirty years ago and use that to inform our political understanding about gendered violence and mass shootings.

Think about the connections between domestic violence, my friend who carries a gun to protect herself from rape, and the phrase “shot fourteen women engineering students”. Think about what feminists of colour would be writing instead of this Pākehā feminist. Think about how it might appear if you related primarily with the class of people being shot. What if the women being shot were telling the story?

For those of us who followed #gamergate or who read and talk with outspoken and angry feminists online, that phrase about women in engineering carries immediate meaning three decades later. There are men in society who hate women and will kill them, and the ones that don’t kill will still terrorise.

Women by default live in a world where walking down the street at night carries risk of violence from men. They also live in a world where being in various kinds of relationships with men carries risk. Not all women, not all the time, but enough that we can generalise to widely shared experiences ranging from caution to hindering levels of fear.

When women then enter into traditional male territory, like tech, gaming, science, or engineering, the threat of those risks is often made plain. Prominent feminist bloggers routinely get threats of rape, murder, doxing, and attacks on their families including children. These aren’t by lone ‘nutters’, they are men operating intentionally in the context of a wider movement that has a political agenda. That political agenda promotes and sanctions violence against women.

Think I’m over-egging things? Writer Michelle Goldberg on writing as a feminist,

Feminists of the past faced angry critics, letters to the editor and even protests. But the incessant, violent, sneering, sexualized hatred their successors absorb is harder to escape. For women of color, racial abuse comes along with the sexism. “I have received racialized rape threats that I don’t think I would necessarily receive if I were white,” Wilson says. “A lot of things about anatomy — black women’s anatomy.” She talks about the online abuse in therapy. “There is trauma, especially related to the death and rape threats,” she says. Eventually, such sustained abuse ends up changing people — both how they live and how they work.

Read that again in the context of understanding that many women are actual victims of violence, overwhelmingly at the hands of man. This isn’t about getting one’s feelings hurt.

If the purpose of terrorism is in a dictionary definition – “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”, how is what I am describing not terrorism? Maybe it’s not unlawful enough. Maybe not enough women have been killed or raped. Maybe too many of the perpetrators don’t have a paid up membership to the club. Or maybe it’s just too common and widespread to be called terrorising. Perhaps it’s just that women don’t get to decide.

But consider this. The kind of ongoing, background fear that some in the US are now starting to experience because of mass shootings is not new to women. And feminists have been talking about this for a long time.

To be clear, I’m not commenting on the motivations of the shooter yesterday. I have no idea what that was about. But we do know he was a man out of control. This is an opportunity to rethink what terrorism is, and to move the conversation beyond the rather futile gun control debate. I still believe gun control is essential, I just think it’s a symptom and I’d rather we also look at the cause. Until we address much more fundamental issues of power, who has it and why they have it, and how it gets used, the gun debate will continue to circle impotently above people of all genders.

Because many people aren’t used to these conversations, I also need to point out that naming men as a common denominator doesn’t mean that men are inherently bad. It means that men as a class have a problem that needs to be sorted. There are whole political analyses about in what way it’s a male problem, and how men are also damaged by this, and what the solutions might be, but to have useful conversations about that we first need to learn how to talk about the gendered nature of violence.

This conversation isn’t primarily one of women against men either. Feminists have brothers, sons, fathers and male friends they love and care about, and thus most feminists have a vested interest in the wellbeing of men.

Here’s a radical thought to end on. When women have a free voice, when we not only let them talk about their experiences and politics in ways that are meaningful to them, but actively create space for them to do so, they tend to find solutions that work for all people. What would happen if we stopped and listened to women now?

200 comments on “Guns don’t shoot people, men do ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. chris73 1
    7 November 2017 at 7:30 am

    I dunno, its a tough one. From what I’ve heard the guy was disqualified (under Texas law) from having a firearms licence so it was an illegal weapon and, from, witness accounts, a civilian drove the guy off by returning fire

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/98620414/texas-hero-describes-gun-battle-and-150kmh-chase-with-church-shooter

    I own a bolt action and a semi-auto and I’m a responsible owner but what to do in the USA is difficult.

    Its difficult because the USA has more than enough gun laws but where it falls down (imho) is in its treatment of the mentally ill, I realise its not scientific but I think if you want to kill a whole bunch of people then you’re not right in the head and it seems like mental health treatment in the USA is woefully underfunded.

    But then how do you treat someone if they don’t want to be treated or go looking for treatment, we know he was discharged from the airforce for domestic violence (why he couldn’t legally obtain firearms) so maybe committing certain crimes means you have to undergo treatment but how do you make the person accept they need help?

    • Carolyn_nth 1.1
      7 November 2017 at 7:47 am

      The domestic violence charge is relevant to weka’s excellent post.

      RNZ reported that the shooter had an argument with his mother-in-law, he had previously been charged with assaulting his wife and child, and that his mother-in-law was a member of the congregation of the church where the shooting occurred.

      But the article doesn’t identify it as a hate crime because it wasn’t motivated by racism of religion – the gender component is overlooked.

    • boggis the cat 1.2
      7 November 2017 at 9:44 am

      how do you make the person accept they need help?

      There isn’t a choice. Either they take the course(s) and evaluation, or they get to sit in jail until they reconsider it. That is the rule for driving offences, so why not more serious issues?

      • Puckish Rogue 1.2.1
        7 November 2017 at 9:57 am

        So how do you make the treatment stick, like if they don’t want it in the first place then all they have to do is say the right things and get the tick in the boxes but nothings really changed

        • KJT 1.2.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 11:01 am

          So you want to forcibly treat the “mentally ill”. Now!

          Great to demonise at least a quarter of our population. Most of whom, despite being ill, do not harm other people. More likely to harm themselves, at least in part because of stereotypes about mental illness.

          Except that most crimes of violence against others are committed by “sane” people.

          • Puckish Rogue 1.2.1.1.1
            7 November 2017 at 11:10 am

            I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest that if someone wants to, and proceeds to, murder people then they probably do have some form of mental illness

            I also believe that if you are mentally ill and do want to murder people then yeah you should be treated

            • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 2:58 pm

              As someone who has actually experienced mental illness, I actually do think it’s unreasonable to assume that. Not all people who commit murder are mentally ill, even if I do think that all people who would consider unprovoked murder seriously are in need of therapeutic treatment.

              It’s good to point out that some people who kill others are considered legally insane and that that’s a valid defense under the law, and these people deserve our help and compassion because they are often unable to make the necessary decisions to avoid violence. But suggesting even that everyone who commits a mass murder must have some sort of underlying condition is fundamentally incorrect. Some of them are healthy people who are merely in unhealthy situations, and this is not mental illness, it’s a symptom of a dysfunctional society. As Weka points out, misogyny and violence towards women are, as bad and preventable as they should be in their own right, also warning signs for outright murder or even mass killings, and ensuring that everyone can integrate well with the entire population, including women, brown people, queers, etc… etc… will help prevent this kind of violence. It’s one reason why it’s so important to have an inclusive society.

              Back to mential health and murder, it’s entirely possible for the motivations of these mass killers to be political, or discriminatory, or driven by alienation, and while all of these might merit therapeutic treatment, none is actually an underlying mental illness, they are simply situations that might make you come to justifiably excessive conclusions. (that’s not “justifiable” to your average, reasonable person in a healthy situation, it’s “justifiable” to someone in their frame of mind and with the same determinants of their emotional situation) Mental illness, by comparison, leads you to come to unjustifiably excessive conclusions when making decisions given the situation you’re in. For a relatively regular example, you might be a highly punctual person who never misses a bus, but you might also be constantly worried about doing so even when you arrive early. That’s a symptom of anxiety, which could have a number of causes.

    • KJT 1.3
      7 November 2017 at 10:57 am

      Except that most shooters in the USA are not mentally ill/different.

      Neither is Trump. He is simply an oversized child who has never been told he cannot have his own way.

      But, keep perpetuating the stereotype.

  2. Andre 2
    7 November 2017 at 7:49 am

    The Texas mass murderer’s history of domestic violence.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-church-shooting-domestic-violence_us_5a0095f7e4b04cdbeb351cd0?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    “Guns don’t shoot people, men do.”

    While female mass murderers are very rare compared to male mass murderers, the number is not zero. In the US, where guns are commonly available, the (very few) female mass murderers commonly use guns. Outside the US, where guns are not commonly available, other weapons are used.

    No argument that most of the world has a serious problem with males perpetrating physical violence on females, much more so than the other way around. In America, the problem is severely compounded by the easy access to guns.

    https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ppmzkk/the-sparse-history-of-female-rampage-killers

    • Cinny 2.1
      7 November 2017 at 7:54 am

      It’s like they get the rage on, then like you said Andre about guns been so accessible, it’s a recipe of disaster.

      Just like domestic violence, when they get the rage on they can’t stop and thank heavens guns aren’t so common in NZ homes.

      • Andre 2.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 8:03 am

        And in New Zealand, we have regulations around how guns and ammo are to be stored. So even with the rage on, and a gun in the house, there’s still the chance that the extra time it takes to actually get the gun and get it ready will cool the situation just enough to avert the murder that might have otherwise happened.

        • Cinny 2.1.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 8:09 am

          For sures Andre, for sures.

        • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.1.2
          7 November 2017 at 3:09 pm

          Yeah, I think by and large our regulations around guns in New Zealand are sensible. There’s some valid debate to be had about whether there should be some additional restrictions on the number of guns a licensed firearms owner should be allowed to keep on their own property, but I like that our approach is centred around ensuring that people know how to responsibly treat firearms before they can personally own them, and that they can be denied a license on reasons of character. (which, you would hope, would include reasons like those Weka is concerned about in this post)

      • James 2.1.2
        7 November 2017 at 8:21 am

        Actually they are common – about 22 firearms per 100 people. Finland, Norway And Canada also have higher rates also without the level of gun crime.

        So it’s not gun ownership or indeed “men” that are causing the problem – there is something else I’m the mix

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.2.1
          7 November 2017 at 8:25 am

          the bullets?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.2
          7 November 2017 at 8:52 am

          Something else? Not exactly.

          There are overlying factors that exacerbate what we might call “mens’ issues”, cf: James Gilligan on the effects of triggers like disrespect, loss of face and humiliation. And it’s still the men committing the violent crimes.

          Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval.

        • joe90 2.1.2.3
          7 November 2017 at 11:07 am

          there is something else I’m the mix

          Ya reckon….
          /

          Aurora: AR-15
          Orlando: AR-15
          Las Vegas: AR-15
          Sandy Hook: AR-15
          Umpqua CC: AR-15
          San Bernardino: AR-15
          Sutherland Springs: AR-15

          — Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) November 6, 2017

          Instead of sensibly prohibiting civilian use of assault weapons, they are still legal in most places and in the wake of the Las Vegas tragedy, you can still make one fire automatically with a “bump stock.” The fact that only semi-automatic, and not fully-automatic rifles are legal, isn’t the point. What is the point: a tool meant for combat situations is widely available in civil society for no apparent reason other than to let civilians feel like they are soldiers. So we wind up with men carrying a legally-purchased weapon of war. No, they are not designed exactly the same, but when the bullet leaves the barrel at subsonic speeds to shred bones and organs, the results are often the same.

          (my bold)

          http://www.newsweek.com/guns-texas-shooting-ar-15-assault-rifles-church-26-dead-devin-kelley-mass-703160

        • Cinny 2.1.2.4
          7 November 2017 at 11:10 am

          So if that’s the case James, maybe it’s because of the storage and accessability of firearms that it’s not so common here.

          In NZ the arms holder has to be registered and checked, it’s quite a process, the police come around and ask questions of the person applying for the license and check out their firearms storage etc, also the firearms holder has to do a mountain safety course etc etc. Not the case in the USA, from my understanding the weapon is registered rather than the owner and with gun shops a dime a dozen.

          The corolation between domestic violence, mass shootings by men etc is really interesting, would be good to see such findings acted upon. Would take a miracle in the USA for that to happen, gun lobbyists and all that.

          I guess what makes things even more difficult when analysing certain situations is the shooter often is either shot dead or kills themselves, so everyone essentially is guessing as to their motive and thinking at the time. Guns seem to be the preferred male weapon of choice over there.

          Edit… Joe is on to it, just read your comment Joe, makes sense to me.

          • joe90 2.1.2.4.1
            7 November 2017 at 12:16 pm

            The corolation between domestic violence, mass shootings by men etc is really interesting

            The majority of mass shootings—54 percent of cases—were related to domestic or family violence.

            Mass shootings significantly impacted children: 25 percent of mass shooting fatalities (211) were children. This is primarily driven by mass shootings related to domestic or family violence, in which over 40 percent of fatalities were children.

            In nearly half of the shootings—42 percent of cases—the shooter exhibited warning signs before the shooting indicating that they posed a danger to themselves or others. These red flags included acts, attempted acts, or threats of violence towards oneself or others; violations of protective orders; or evidence of ongoing substance abuse.

            https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

          • james 2.1.2.4.2
            7 November 2017 at 1:06 pm

            “it’s quite a process..”

            No its not. Ive done it – and its as easy as pie.

        • tracey 2.1.2.5
          7 November 2017 at 11:17 am

          Do tell James, on what basis did you eliminate “men” as a cause of the problem and what might the “something else” be?

          • james 2.1.2.5.1
            7 November 2017 at 1:14 pm

            Well – if you think its just guns, or just men that are the problem you are being simplistic.

            Yes – Men are involved in Gun killings more than women – but women still a reasonable number of people using guns.

            https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

            There are more factors at play – Picking on gender is I think not the primary reason.
            Mental state / financial pressures / drug use are issues that could be causes of gun crime more than just because of their gender.

            • tracey 2.1.2.5.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 1:21 pm

              Citations? Of course it is complex but your certainty that men are not a central part of the cause invites a request for supported reasons in reply.

              For example do men suffer from financial pressures, mental illness and drug use in much higher numbers than women?

              I note you seem to refer to more men involved in killing than women using guns. They are separate issues not to be conflated in the context of wekas post?

            • weka 2.1.2.5.1.2
              7 November 2017 at 1:50 pm

              “There are more factors at play – Picking on gender is I think not the primary reason.”

              No-one is suggesting that there aren’t multiple factors. The post is saying that it’s about time we looked at gender in mass shootings.

              If mental state, financial pressures, drug use were factors that overrode gender, then we’d see women committing mass shootings in much greater numbers. You might want to argue that there are specific ways that men respond to mental and financial stressors or use drugs, but then we are having a gendered conversation again.

              I suspect you are worried that looking at men means that men are somehow bad or wrong. But really that’s not what I am saying.

  3. Cinny 3
    7 November 2017 at 7:51 am

    Really good post Weka, very well written, fascinating and interesting.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      7 November 2017 at 10:32 am

      +1

    • tracey 3.2
      7 November 2017 at 11:23 am

      Agree.

      I do think in 2017 it is sad that when we put forward a view like this, or sexual violence against women, and we are female writers, we have to bend over backwards to point out we are not men haters, have brothers, fathers, sons, and partners we love.

      Great piece weka. Am reading about Charlotte Perkins Gillman at the moment. Her basic treatise (and to sum it up as succinctly as I am about to try is trite) was women are Humanists.

      • weka 3.2.1
        7 November 2017 at 12:55 pm

        I should look her up again. I read Herland a number of times as a young woman, would be interesting to revisit it now and see what was influential.

        “I do think in 2017 it is sad that when we put forward a view like this, or sexual violence against women, and we are female writers, we have to bend over backwards to point out we are not men haters, have brothers, fathers, sons, and partners we love.”

        quite. It’s getting better I think.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.2
        7 November 2017 at 3:18 pm

        Yeah, it’s unfair for sure. Hell, I had to be similarly careful when writing about pathological masculinity, because even as a man you’ll be accused of being brainwashed by “shrill feminists” and “not having a mind of your own.”

        Existing while female is still a bloody trial and men underestimate just how different it is on a social level. I have a lot of respect for women who put their hands up for being in the public spotlight and how much more difficult that is than for people like me.

        We just have to keep putting the complainers and harassers in their place over and over again, talking to people who are more moderate in that excessively reasonable way, until they come around and start telling off their less liberal friends to be behave like adults around women.

        And like all of these problems, it’s men talking to men that’s what’s needed to change it, and even though we’re beginning to make progress, (it’s a little surreal, for instance, watching people coming forward with stories of sexual abuse or harassment being treated seriously more often all of a sudden now) it’ll still be a while before that necessary attitude shift solidifies.

        • tracey 3.2.2.1
          7 November 2017 at 3:45 pm

          “And like all of these problems, it’s men talking to men that’s what’s needed to change it, and even though we’re beginning to make progress, (it’s a little surreal, for instance, watching people coming forward with stories of sexual abuse or harassment being treated seriously more often all of a sudden now) it’ll still be a while before that necessary attitude shift solidifies. “

      • Tony Veitch (not etc) 3.2.3
        7 November 2017 at 8:49 pm

        Tracey, I’ve just finished reading Charlotte Gilman’s novel ‘Herland.’ Available through Gutenburg.org in a digital form.

        A bit dated, but the humanitarian and compassionate nature of women is stressed.

        Snap – just noticed Weka’s comment.

  4. Puckish Rogue 4
    7 November 2017 at 8:18 am

    NZ has pretty good gun laws, a good balance between the individual and society but then we have one set of laws for the entire country whereas the USA has different laws between the states

    One of the best things the USA could do (they won’t of course) is to one set of gun laws across the entire country

    • Andre 4.1
      7 November 2017 at 8:29 am

      And the reason the US won’t is that the Second Amendment starts “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

      So the argument that the Second Amendment is about states rights to regulate guns as they see fit is a lot stronger than the argument that it is about an individual right to bear arms.

      • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 9:14 am

        Yup

      • boggis the cat 4.1.2
        7 November 2017 at 9:54 am

        Parsing the Second Amendment as a ‘State’s rights’ issue is incorrect.

        At the time of writing, militia were envisaged to be required and were to be under local State control (“well regulated militia”). This was intended to prevent establishing a Federal army, which the early ruling elite were leery of (having just fought such an armed force). For practical reasons, the USA ended up creating an army and navy that came under Federal control.

        No militia exists now, however the National Guard is a close analogy.

        Individual right to own weapons is not guaranteed explicitly by the Second Amendment. If it were so, then why can’t a US citizen buy whatever weapon they see fit, up to and including nuclear devices?

        • Puckish Rogue 4.1.2.1
          7 November 2017 at 9:59 am

          Because, contrary to what some believe, there is gun control in the USA but gun control means a lot of different things to a lot of different people

        • Andre 4.1.2.2
          7 November 2017 at 10:09 am

          The US had the Continental Army over the relevant time period

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army

          The bill of rights including the second amendment was introduced in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Considering there was effectively a federal army before, during, and immediately after the second amendment was introduced and ratified, preventing such an army doesn’t seem to have been the intent. But ensuring states retained the power to stand up to a federal army on the other hand …

          • tracey 4.1.2.2.1
            7 November 2017 at 11:25 am

            You kind of need to be armed when you have been committing a genocide on those who occupied the land before you… angry retaliation and so forth.

            Interestingly however that Rights have been ammended so if the only reason given for holding on to something is that we can’t change the bill of Rights, we know that is not true.

            • Andre 4.1.2.2.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 12:22 pm

              By 1790 the risk of retribution from dispossessed and displaced original inhabitants had passed for white male land-owners on almost all of the coastal region from Norfolk through Baltimore, Philly, New York and Boston. Which is the vast majority of those whose interests shaped the constitution and early amendments.

              To be sure, genocide was ongoing on the edges of those areas. But I’m not aware of anything written in the constitution that appears intended to encourage and assist that genocide and land-grab. (However I’ve never read it with the intent of looking for provisions like that, so they may be there and I’ve skimmed over)

              It’s not impossible to amend the constitution, it’s just very difficult. Difficult enough that a few committed nutters can easily derail a proposed amendment. And gun nuts are as nutty and committed as they come.

              • tracey …
                7 November 2017 at 1:09 pm

                I didnt mean that the law was to help genocide but rather if you piss off enough people they get angry and might come after you so you need guns. I absolutely bow to you on this as you have hufe knowledge that I do not.

          • Exkiwiforces 4.1.2.2.2
            7 November 2017 at 3:03 pm

            You would find the Continental Army slowly became a small cadre of Officers and NCO’s, rather like the NZ Army before WW1 and WW2 and backed up with semi/ under trained troops from the Militia or in the case of NZ the Territorials.

            But that all change after the war of 1812 when some “bright spark of the president” decide to invade Canada, which went pear sharp rather quickly and if it wasn’t for the Royal Navy and the British Army tied up fighting old Boney over in Europe at the time. As it could’ve been a lot worst than just the White House being “Burnt Down” (just a side note some my Anglo Canadian relatives were there when they Burnt the bloody thing down) as the Anglo Canadian Forces lack the number in both men, material and Ships to push home the advantage over an under trained, under equip, poorly led US Army. During the defensive battles along the Great Lakes (The Battle of the Great Lakes) as the Anglo Canadian Forces withdrew as they need to shorted their supply line for the coming winter and with the UK fighting old Boney in Europe and additional men and supplies etc were to hard to come by. The Anglo Canadian Force though outnumbered still manage to out fight US Forces, but couldn’t push home the attack due to a lack numbers and material.

            The end result of the war of 1812 the apart from the current US/ Canadian Border and a few other things was the US Congress standing up full time Army, increased funding to the state militias (now known at as the State National Guard which have an Army and a Airforce to back up the Federal Army and USAF. Another side note is that Federal Army and USAF cannot be deployed operational within the United States only the Guard can) and expanding the US Navy with some really good designed Frigates.

            The standing up of a Federal Army and the State National Guard pretty well make’s the second amendment an outdated piece of history, that need’s to be amended reflect a more modern meaning. But I think I’ll more likely too see a four term Labour led coalition than the US House of Congress amend the 2nd amendment.

          • boggis the cat 4.1.2.2.3
            7 November 2017 at 3:56 pm

            No, the federal army was disbanded following the Revolutionary War — excepting a small contingent set to guard the artillery stored at West Point, and another small force tasked with securing the western frontier. Distrust of standing armies is precisely why the Second Amendment exists, to codify the right of individual States to maintain an armed militia.

            Note that the vagueness of the wording could be interpreted to allow for any weaponry, but in practice the States did not procure heavy armaments or naval forces.

      • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.3
        7 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

        The second amendment is not the actual reason that US gun law is so ridiculous. No reasonable judge would have interpretted the second amendment as anything other than a right to own a weapon to participate in the armed forces, back when you had to bring your own weapon, because at one time the US was that small and under-developed a country.

        For one thing, there probably wouldn’t have been a second amendment if it weren’t for slavery and the compromises to it that the US offered before the civil war. For another, there would never have been the modern interpretation of the second amendment as granting a right to firearms for personal defense as opposed to communal defense, if not for the NRA’s transmutation from an organization promoting gun skills in the northern US into what it essentially is now, an advocacy group for manufacturers of firearms. Combine that with the rampant culture of political corruption (sorry sorry, “legal use of money in political campaigns”) in the US, and you have a recipe for stonewalling of any sensible gun control measures despite their overwhelming popularity with voters. (This isn’t to say that the sorts of half-baked gun control measures that have been passed previously in the US are popular, rather that further reforms with common-sense rules poll well even among Republicans)

        • Andre 4.1.3.1
          7 November 2017 at 3:47 pm

          Uh, what’s the connection between slavery and the civil war, and the second amendment’s existence? The second amendment was signed and ratified in 1791, the civil war was seventy-ish years later.

          But yeah, the current judicial interpretation of the second amendment guaranteeing an individual right to own just about whatever weapons they want only goes back a couple of decades at most.

          • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.3.1.1
            7 November 2017 at 4:32 pm

            The connection is that a lot of the job of early militias was to put down slave revolts and pursue escaped slaves in the slave states. Guaranteeing people the right to own arms to participate in those militias was one of the compromises that kept the slave states part of the union in the early days, so the second amendment is deeply connected to slavery, well before the era of the american civil war. The slave states probably (but not definitely) wouldn’t have felt the need to enshrine their right to form militias in the constitution if it weren’t for the context of slavery, and then the modern day NRA wouldn’t have had the same legal leverage to oppose regulation of handguns, nor would they have had the social leverage of white men being so keen on firearms because of the traditions that started in a culture of trying to intimidate and control African-Americans.

            • Andre 4.1.3.1.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 4:45 pm

              Ok, I’ll need to look into that a bit more. Most of the articles that come up on a quick google seem to be very recent, rather than it being an interpretation going back decades.

              Gotta love that the most common citation is a dude named Bogus 🙂 !

            • Andre 4.1.3.1.1.2
              7 November 2017 at 6:34 pm

              Ok, had a bit more of a look into it. Seems to me the case has been made that the role state militias had in keeping slavery sustainable is an important piece of context for the time, and that it has been understated.

              But that argument is a long way short of making the case that slavery was a dominant factor, or even anything more than a minor contributing motive for the second amendment. It appears to rely heavily on inserting words [in brackets] into historical documents in some sort of modern interpretation of what those documents “really were saying”.

              If Bogus and Hartmann and co expect to achieve the extraordinary feat of revising the centuries-old understanding of the second amendment, they need extraordinary evidence. But they haven’t presented it.

  5. Antoine 5
    7 November 2017 at 8:20 am

    So true, violent men are the problem.

    A.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      7 November 2017 at 8:53 am

      …and those who stand by and pretend it’s nothing to do with them.

    • boggis the cat 5.2
      7 November 2017 at 9:59 am

      The issue is societal, I think. Our culture produces damaged people.

      Men are conditioned to be ‘in control’ and so anything that undermines that expected reality causes stress. Women are the obvious target for male rage because their lower status and expected subservience has been internalised by men.

      The solution is feminism: accepting that all human beings are of equal worth, regardless of gender or other distinctions.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1
        7 November 2017 at 10:14 am

        Not quite

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

        “Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 percent) were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.)”

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 10:38 am

          A narrow focus on crime and punishment deflects from the issue Weka raised in the OP:

          men as a class have a problem that needs to be sorted.

          And I don’t think the solution is that women should carry handguns, although I don’t think I’d die in a ditch to stop them.

          • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1.1.1
            7 November 2017 at 10:49 am

            No but I was responding to this: “Women are the obvious target for male rage because their lower status and expected subservience has been internalised by men” whereas the reality is that 77% of victims of murders by gun are male

            • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 11:16 am

              But how many of those 77% were because of rage? And then compare that to how many of the 23% were.

              In other words, you got your comparison wrong.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                7 November 2017 at 11:56 am

                I’ll admit this is conjecture but I’m guessing that most murders are committed by someone in a rage

                • McFlock …
                  7 November 2017 at 1:30 pm

                  In NZ, probably.
                  In the US – well, maybe, but also a mix of drug deals, gang issues, and status issues that wouldn’t really count as “rage” (seeing red, sort of thing). Probably a higher proportion of calculated/semi-calculated murders than in NZ. Robberies gone wrong, too.

            • tracey 5.2.1.1.1.2
              7 November 2017 at 11:28 am

              How many of the women murdered by men are partners or spouses? How many of the victims of men’s rage, both convicted and not convicted have been domestic violence?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                7 November 2017 at 12:01 pm

                From the same link:

                Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 37.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2 and 10.)
                rom the same link

        • Matthew Whitehead 5.2.1.2
          7 November 2017 at 3:28 pm

          Have you stopped to consider that maybe men killing men is also driven by some of the societal attitudes opposed by feminists that are often known as “toxic masculinity?” That in fact, if we got the equality that feminists and their allies want, that men would also feel less responsible for high-pressure jobs, less isolated, and more able to solve problems without violence?

          Just because men are the majority of murder victims doesn’t entirely undermine Boggis’ point- it is likely the men with toxic attitudes to women who are disproportionately committing the violence, even if their victims are more often men.

          • boggis the cat 5.2.1.2.1
            7 November 2017 at 4:15 pm

            Women are simply an easier target (and more ‘logical’ — especially if they are not conforming to the expected subservient role).

            There is no good evidence for men being innately more aggressive and predisposed to violence without the acculturation / indoctrination that occurs. You just need to read the comments thread below any YouTube video that attacks (or supports, or sometimes doesn’t even mention) ‘feminism’ to see an outpouring of rage predicated on expectations that young men develop. They don’t come up with this by themselves, in a vacuum: it is cultural.

            • Matthew Whitehead 5.2.1.2.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 4:25 pm

              I didn’t say innately more agressive. I said conditioned to be more aggressive by societal attitudes to the place of men, so you don’t even disagree with me.

            • tracey 5.2.1.2.1.2
              8 November 2017 at 8:20 am

              Or when a party with 44% of votes doesnt get to form a govt!

      • Fred H 5.2.2
        7 November 2017 at 6:07 pm

        Let’s see if boggis’s rational argument works when we substitute a couple of words:

        The issue is societal, I think. Our culture produces damaged people.

        Southerners/Nazis are conditioned to be ‘in control’ and so anything that undermines that expected reality causes stress. Jews/Slaves are the obvious target for Southern/Nazi rage because their lower status and expected subservience has been internalised by Southerners/Nazis.

        The solution is equality/abolition: accepting that all human beings are of equal worth, regardless of religious beliefs/ethnicity or other distinctions.

        Looks like it stands up, I think Unichem sells some creme for all those butthurt ‘what aboutism’ men out there…grow up and see your bullshit culture for what it is…f**kin misogynstic

    • james 5.3
      7 November 2017 at 1:16 pm

      “are” the problem?

      What about Violent women? could they not be part of the problem also?

      I dont think that this is a subject that can have the “problem” referred to in absolutes.

      • weka 5.3.1
        7 November 2017 at 1:24 pm

        By all means bring forth an argument about women doing mass shootings, but I’d prefer you put it in the context of the post.

        There are very obvious differences in how men and women do violence. That apparently needs restating.

        I did refer to the problem in an absolute. I said that male violence is a male problem I don’t see what’s particularly controversial about that.

        • Matthew Whitehead 5.3.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 3:30 pm

          Indeed, a good starting point is actually looking at the disparity in how women who commit violence do so. For instance, women are much more likely to use poisoning than men, and it’s often (although not always) in response to men taking away their autonomy or commiting violence against them first, and therefore a desperate attempt to escape.

          Naturally women committing mass murders and using firearms is going to be more common in the USA because of the other compounding factors not related to toxic masculinity.

      • tracey 5.3.2
        7 November 2017 at 1:25 pm

        Would you like to see a reduction in violence in society?

      • Antoine 5.3.3
        8 November 2017 at 4:54 am

        > What about Violent women? could they not be part of the problem also?

        Not a big part, no.

        Tell you what, if you could first sort male violence out, I’d be happy for the focus to shift 100% on female violence after that

        A.

  6. greywarshark 6
    7 November 2017 at 9:28 am

    Humans need to understand ourselves inside and out. The primitive drives, what has been found about the unconscious and subconscious. How our minds are programmed. The quiet perceptions of the powerful and how they influence the politicians that we elect because we think they are worthwhile people with their own minds and skills, and often they are not, just puppets and filled with entitlement talk.

    One thing that appears important is that there is likely to be in every society a scapegoat person or entity that people blame for their misfortune, or for society being under par. At present in NZ it is housing – the idea that all people who need housing should get it and that every social problem will then go away. Also it is beneficiaries, many of whom are women. And so those women get a double dose of disdain, and if they are Maori, probably a triple dose. The ideas are like an addiction that people go to first when there is dissatisfaction, unease, difficulty. Add drugs and alcohol that provide the outward chemical addiction to the inner one and domestic violence is sure.

    And social systems are set up here in a way that goes beyond men being irritated by women in the main, to being declared to be fathers and being landed with responsibility to pay for having a child, which they never wanted. So unsatisfactory men, because they have never learned to be thoughtful, responsible, kind etc. are forced by the state to take responsibility but have no abilities or commitment to gain them. And the woman is saddled with this male with festering dislike, that can turn to hatred – she, they spoil my life. It’s all her fault, she caught me, she should have been taking the pill.

    The rigid, moralistic style of National epitomised by Shipley and Richardson and probably most of the females and males too, also in some Labour pollies, has led to a rotten social system that is part of the drop in services and humaneness towards narrow Victorian times.

    • tracey 6.1
      7 November 2017 at 11:33 am

      Perhaps our social, political and financial systems, devised by men to serve and favour men, are at the root of the problem? That is not to say I blame all men today for that.

      Sadly, it is hard to unwind, in a democracy, something so embedded and to get those whom it favours to agree it needs to change. As important as being able to recognise our prejudices, bias etc is being able to acknowledge our privilege and how we do or do not use it.

      Thanks for your thoughtful piece. The love of money seems to be at the root of alot of problems and in NZ it certainly forms the basis of our definitions of success in private and public discourses. Education matters IF it leads directly to a nameable job for example. Health is immediately accessible to, and of a quality, those who can afford medical insurance…. even ACC has become something you need a lawyer to fight for…

  7. JanM 7
    7 November 2017 at 9:44 am

    It seems he’d just had a row with his mother-in-law and the church was the one she attended – just happens she wasn’t there that day

    • mpledger 7.1
      9 November 2017 at 4:38 pm

      Yea. I thought his reason for driving away and not killing himself at the church was because he hadn’t killed who he wanted to.

  8. Bill 8
    7 November 2017 at 10:23 am

    Until we address much more fundamental issues of power, who has it and why they have it…

    Well, we know that society focuses power through a cultural lens of patriarchy.

    So (and this is just a loose thought) if men are to be the main benefactors of that arrangement – the ones who can expect to be ‘lifted up’ and advantaged – then maybe deeper senses of hopelessness, anger and/or alienation result when that “rightful” position is shifted out of reach, or if cultural or social markers for it are taken away – or when there’s a perception that “the other” is threatening avenues to attaining that supposed apex of entitlement?

    The higher we are, or perceive ourselves to be – or are “expected” to be – the higher we fall. And similarly, perhaps, the further we are from where we believe we rightfully ought to be, the deeper the perceived shortcomings bite and gouge.

    Power’s essentially a zero sum game.

    If we concentrate it in fewer hands, it’s always by way of taking it away from other hands. One potential reaction to dis-empowerment is violence, to oneself as well as to others, that can find form and expression from across a spectrum that runs from the psychological/emotional through to the physical.

    Anyway. Why do we tolerate this nonsense that sees some of us being systemically and disproportionately empowered in relation to others – whether by way of expectation or in actual fact?

    It seems to me it isn’t working out too well.

    • RedLogix 8.1
      7 November 2017 at 10:49 am

      When power and authority are lodged with the individual, almost always there is a corrosive downside. Part of the humanity of this person dies, and almost always that power is misused, either intentionally or carelessly.

      Yet outside the rarefied circles of anarchists, most people acknowledge the critical need for sufficient power and authority to order and regulate society.

      The big idea is to formally decouple the individual from power. I would argue that authority can only be legitimately vested in a collective institution, be it family, community or political in scope. The individual’s role is to serve the institution and the community it works for.

      It is this inversion of thinking which is the path forward. We already have many examples of great leaders, selfless and sacrificing people who have made their special mark on history for their service to humanity. We know it is possible, yet the general adoption of it eludes us. We still suffer the abuses of power at all turns in life.

      But it is fear that holds us back; we grasp at every vestige of power in order to attempt to control the world we live in, to tame it’s unpredictable whims, protect from the rapacious, defend from the outsider and define our social status, roles and identity. There are deep mammalian instincts at work.

      What we struggle with is trust, trust that if we serve others selflessly that we in turn will be looked after ourselves. Not so much in terms of a simple transactional reciprocity, but that if we work to build better, healthier and more connected communities, that this long-term investment will be repaid with the joy of living happily and wisely with all around us.

      • Bill 8.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 11:23 am

        So you don’t understand, or you mis-understand anarchy. All good. (Hint – it’s not about individualism)

        Or, perhaps more constructively, as AB suggests (below) [Power is] inherently illegitimate unless it stems from profoundly democratic processes and contains an element of consent.

        And then you drop (yet again) into arguing biological essentialism. Which is a hopeless and pointless perspective. (“It’s in our inescapable nature/genes. Help us God!” 🙄 )

        • RedLogix 8.1.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 11:44 am

          So you don’t understand, or you mis-understand anarchy.

          Fair enough I did skate very quickly past an entire political edifice there. Apologies.

          But to be honest the rest of you comment eludes me and I prefer to leave there.

      • weka 8.1.2
        7 November 2017 at 11:27 am

        Red, can you please pop into the back end, I left a note there for you.

    • Carolyn_nth 8.2
      7 November 2017 at 11:47 am

      My understanding of the meaning of patriarchy, is that it is a hierarchical system, with some men having more power than other, while generally speaking women have less power than all/most men.

      The original meaning is “rule of the father” or chief. It has tended to be extended to mean a system where men have rule over women. But, I think all or most patriarchal systems are hierarchical, while also privileging most men over most women. Some women can be deemed honorary men and given pretty high status within the system.

      But, within contemporary patriarchy, it seems to me, there is a tendency for society to socialising men into measuring their power against each other, and part of that includes the status achieved in controlling, or being higher status than, the women in their lives.

      And this is often the source of male-on-male violence.

      • marty mars 8.2.1
        7 November 2017 at 12:22 pm

        Well patriarchy is brutal. For instance women are ridiculed – all women. Ridiculed because they are not considered even in the race. They are an appendage to a man. And a commodity – an item of exchange or value to the man, a status symbol, a direct fuck you to other men. Obviously a lot of men don’t or can’t fit into this and the system also abuses them, as well as men abusing them. They are in the game but as cannon fodder.

        So this is the situation that must be changed. This is the toxic meta culture men and women are born into – we fight this shit every day in support of our mothers sisters and daugters and for our fathers brothers and sons too.

      • Bill 8.2.2
        7 November 2017 at 1:36 pm

        I might extend that idea of power out beyond “rule” and throw some other stratifiers in there – like notions around “social standing” and ideas of what marks someone as “better” or of what constitutes “success” etc.

        Not so long ago, subjugated/exploited/oppressed pink skinned men could nevertheless imagine themselves as ‘belonging’, and experience a sense of power (however vicariously) simply because “pink skinned’ – no matter how ‘done in’ or ‘done over’ they were a part of “what mattered”

        Now, for a host of reasons, there’s turmoil and fall-out.

        And I guess we can choose to ‘row through it’ and wait for a new hierarchy to bed itself in – the makeup of the strata perhaps altered somewhat (eg – less white, less male or whatever) – but fundamentally just the same shit.

        Or maybe we’ll discover it just collapses in on itself, if or when enough of us find the wherewithal to simply walk away…

  9. One Two 9
    7 November 2017 at 10:33 am

    Human beings, kill/maim/displace/violate other human beings..

    The ‘weapons’ used are, as you point out..not ‘the cause’…

    Nor is the sex of the abuser…

    Every human being walking in this world, is being abused in some way..

    • greywarshark 9.1
      7 November 2017 at 4:03 pm

      1,2
      Bit of an empty argument. More substance please.

      • One Two 9.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 4:25 pm

        Hello GW, thanks for the offer

        What was it about the comment you feel is missing?

        Something attracted you to ask for more..

        I would be interested to hear what that was, as my thoughts on the matter are succinct, as per the comment..

  10. joe90 10
    7 November 2017 at 10:39 am

    Religious loon – god was answering the prayers of the victims and fully defeating evil, eternally, by letting them get shot. Sick.

    Despite the horror that madman made the saints of First Baptist endure, those who endured it with faith in Christ have received his victory. Although the murderer filled their eyes with terror, God has now filled them with his glory. Although he persecuted them with violence, God seized that violence and has now used it to deliver his faithful into a kingdom of peace. Although this madman brought death to so many, God has used that death to give them the eternal life won for them in the blood of Jesus.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/saints-first-baptist-church-murdered-god-answering-prayers/

  11. Keith 11
    7 November 2017 at 10:50 am

    Wow, men eh? Bastards.

    Take one massacre in the US and all Klan-like, use it to the max to denigrate the race/gender/religion for your own purposes. Muslims will know how the evil creature men feel!

    For your friend in the States who carries a gun to prevent her being raped, is that not the reason for arming oneself in the US, to stop the theoretical boogeyman coming into your trailer at night and doing all kinds of bad things? Its worked brilliantly for politicians over there, instil fear, fear and more fear and then say you have the answer.
    Then have the NRA back you up, Second Amendment style.

    No one admits becoming aroused by having a gun, oh no, its to protect me from the …… just add whatever is topical or feels good.

    Just like brown/black people need to take a look at themselves because they are over-represented in crime statis and jail.
    Just like the Jews were to blame for Germany’s woes.
    Just like homosexuals are sick.
    Just like the Tutsi’s.
    Just like Muslims
    Take your pick, there’s an awful lot of examples to enjoy!

    “Men” (the word is written with contempt) are the last bastion for trouble free biggotry/racism/stereotypical prejudicial rant, you can write up a good ol’ storm about these arseholes whilst equally insanely writing the virtues of the angelic blamefree female.

    But just like any other bullshit like that it is wrong, way wrong

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      7 November 2017 at 11:02 am

      That isn’t what Weka said. So yeah, what you wrote is bullshit and wrong.

      There’s not one ounce of contempt in the OP. That’s all you.

      provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed

      And look at the angry pushback!

      • tracey 11.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 11:37 am

        Thanks for saying it so articulately OAB. For what it is worth I took “men” to be in quote marks to emphasis it was not a universal condemnation of every man on the planet, but there you are.

        Cos Wow, just wow Keith.

    • weka 11.2
      7 November 2017 at 1:21 pm

      What OAB said re most of your comment.

      But this requires more response,

      “For your friend in the States who carries a gun to prevent her being raped, is that not the reason for arming oneself in the US, to stop the theoretical boogeyman coming into your trailer at night and doing all kinds of bad things? Its worked brilliantly for politicians over there, instil fear, fear and more fear and then say you have the answer.
      Then have the NRA back you up, Second Amendment style.”

      Given my friend is a rape survivor, the threat isn’t theoretical, it’s literal. And she wasn’t raped by a bogeyman she was raped by an actual man. Like most women, she knows other women who have also been raped by men. She works in an area where women are at particular risk from men, including risk of death. At times she has lived in places where I’m pretty sure the incidence of rape is much higher than the US as a whole, but the incidence of rape in general in the US is still high. Her carrying a gun seems entirely reasonable to me.

      For liberals there’s a conflict there, because if they take the guns away then what happens to women who are at risk? I still support gun control, and I’d guess the US would be a safer place if it had a similar laws for being in possession of a firearm as NZ does. But that still doesn’t protect women. From men.

      Fear of men doesn’t come from politicians. It comes from eons of experience with men. Men can of course choose to do something about that.

      And it’s always useful to have out in the open the men who blame women for being victimised. The rest of your bigoted rhetoric is abhorrent and noted too. I suggest you read the Policy.

  12. KJT 12
    7 November 2017 at 10:54 am

    Of course, endless US movies about the “gun totin” cowboy, whether the old Western version or the new cop/spy/soldier/disgruntled right winger, solving his problems, and angst, by “shootin the shit” out of them, have no bearing on the matter.

    • Cinny 12.1
      7 November 2017 at 11:16 am

      Add the kill em all video games etc and the electronic babysitter (devices tv etc) in to that mix please.

      • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 12:03 pm

        Except that these movies, games and everything else are readily available in NZ and yet we’re not seeing the same (not even close) results in NZ or anywhere else

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 12.1.2
        7 November 2017 at 5:27 pm

        You understand that those games are pixels on screens and we gamers know the difference between what is real and what is not.

        If you don’t know the difference between the two then I would worry.

        Next we’ll be blaming rock and roll music or comics.

        I also see the economic violence perpetrated on society as part and parcel of the physical violence. The aggressiveness shown economically quite easily manifests itself as physical violence.

        Violence begats violence begats violence.

    • weka 12.2
      7 November 2017 at 11:54 am

      I think how society socialises men absolutely has bearing on the matter, including how popular media does that (and is used to do that). I think the context that socialisation happens within is important.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1
        7 November 2017 at 12:39 pm

        I’d like to see some breakdown of by-country statistics. Or rather, a useful breakdown.

        For example, Business Insider confidently states that NZ is in the top 23 “least sexist” countries, based on economic and political participation, education and health, and yet our rate of domestic violence is pretty high.

        Sweden scores very high on sexual violence, but that’s because Sweden takes the issue seriously.

  13. AB 13
    7 November 2017 at 11:05 am

    “Until we address much more fundamental issues of power, who has it and why they have it, and how it gets used, the gun debate will continue to circle impotently above people of all genders”

    Yes, and I think that insight will apply to just about every significant problem if you widen it to consider all types of power – physical, emotional, economic, political, the workplace etc. So in this case there is not only the assumed power of men in a patriarchy to control the behaviour of others (especially women) by force, but also the economic and political power of the NRA and the arms manufacturers.

    The place I increasingly start from is to regard the power of any individual over another as inherently illegitimate unless it stems from profoundly democratic processes and contains an element of consent. (Parents and children being a limited exception)

    • tracey 13.1
      7 November 2017 at 11:42 am

      Well said.

      ” So in this case there is not only the assumed power of men in a patriarchy to control the behaviour of others (especially women) by force, but also the economic and political power of the NRA and the arms manufacturers.”

      …and that economic and political power of the NRA and Arms manufacturers is inherently driven by masculine perspectives.

  14. McFlock 14
    7 November 2017 at 12:42 pm

    Thanks weka, very interesting post.

    • Puckish Rogue 14.1
      7 November 2017 at 12:45 pm

      I’ve been impressed that no one here has called for the banning of MSSAs and/or semi-autos in NZ

      • weka 14.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 1:02 pm

        Probably because that’s not what the post is about.

        Cheers McFlock.

        • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 2:35 pm

          Its not (and that’s good) but you know topics like this can be somewhat…contentious at times 🙂

          • weka 14.1.1.1.1
            7 November 2017 at 2:40 pm

            I’ll stick up a post sometime about guns in NZ and then I can pick your brains about various things where I have unanswered questions 🙂

            • Exkiwiforces 14.1.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 3:06 pm

              Look forward to that post weka.

              • weka …
                7 November 2017 at 3:14 pm

                cheers, your input would be great too.

                • Exkiwiforces …
                  7 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

                  Not during late Nov as i’m going to be in NZ for a RNZAC Reunion and i’m more likely to have very sore head and it was bad enough after lay up the NZ Scots colours in Dunedin last yr. Lol

                  BTW, if you in wellington I have a few hours on the afternoon of 22nd or around Palmy from 23 to 29th Nov, but not the weekend as i’m in Waiberia.

            • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1.1.1.2
              7 November 2017 at 3:11 pm

              Probably fair to point out I have a slight bias in this area although one law change I would make, in NZ, is that I would remove the MSSA classification altogether and instead make the E endorsement apply to all centre fire semi auto rifles

              Shot guns and rimfires would still be exempt but it just doesn’t make sense, to me anyway, when a couple of minor adjustments turns a MSSA AR-15 into a rifle you can buy on a firearms licence

              • Exkiwiforces …
                7 November 2017 at 3:36 pm

                Some MSSA’s are very easy to convert to full auto and some require the skills of a Gunsmith/ Armourer. Unless you have a heavy barrel fitted to the weapon its rather pointless as you wear the barrel more quickly and you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn door unless you have a stable fire position aka bipod or firing control bursts of 2-3 rds. The only time I’ve full auto is when I’ve been a lead scout or doing Close Quarter Battle Drills aka Force entry into buildings, bunker type complex’s where its the quick or the dead in those scenarios.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  7 November 2017 at 3:52 pm

                  Best times was always getting rid of ammo instead of returning it but yeah its interesting comparing Hollywoods depiction compared to real life especially the concept of recoil

                  As I say you take an AR-15 and its an e endorsement but make some changes to the stock or magazine size or whatever and suddenly its considered the same as a bolt-action, doesn’t seem right to me

                  • Exkiwiforces …
                    7 November 2017 at 4:01 pm

                    “Best times was always getting rid of ammo instead of returning” yeah it was always good especially when you are on the gun (Machine Gun), but now’s it a chargeable offence to have yippee shoot unless its under sanction training and even then its with blanks for safety reasons.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      7 November 2017 at 4:22 pm

                      Yet at the same time the army is getting some really good weaponry in, .338 Lapua and .50cal sniper rifles and M4 rifles

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      7 November 2017 at 5:20 pm

                      You’re found they are Lewis Machine Tool Rifles (a very bespoke version of the M4) not M4’s. What I found funny about the new Rifles that NZDF are getting is our EF90 Rifle the ADF are getting didn’t even pass the NZDF paper broad selection.

                      .338 Lapua is very round and actually I use their .308 round to zero my Howa 1500. By god you pay though the nose for a box 20 full jacket, but again I have a mate who shoots buffalo using .445 or .455 I can’t remember and anyway he pays close to a $100 bucks a box.

      • joe90 14.1.2
        7 November 2017 at 1:07 pm

        I guess people have confidence in our licensing system and a police force intent on enforcing the laws around the security of weapons and hoovering up as many illegal/illegally possessed firearms as possible.

        • Puckish Rogue 14.1.2.1
          7 November 2017 at 2:38 pm

          I agree with your first but I think the police are a bit lax when it comes to enforcing laws in this country and the penalties in courts around illegal firearms need to be toughened up

          • Exkiwiforces 14.1.2.1.1
            7 November 2017 at 3:08 pm

            You’ve hit the nail on the head with that one: “police are a bit lax when it comes to enforcing laws in this country and the penalties in courts around illegal firearms need to be toughened up”

            • Puckish Rogue 14.1.2.1.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 3:14 pm

              I’ve always felt owning firearms is a privilege and we have opportunities here others around the world are envious of so to protect that I think its better to come down hard on those that want to ruin it for others

              • Exkiwiforces …
                7 November 2017 at 3:46 pm

                Since I was kid shooting the Slug gun and later the .22 single shooting bunnies from the lounge room (can’t do it now as the area where parents live it all built up), later on in the Air Scouts, Army Cadets and later as I got older on the coast or up around Nelson area. I was taught the Owning a firearm was a Privilege not a God given right and I still hold that value to this day even when I lost my privilege after I was section under the NT Mental Health Act after Australia Day during PTSD induce Suicide attempt.

                • tracey …
                  7 November 2017 at 4:00 pm

                  Thanks for your insights. It is great to get input on topic/s I know bugger all.

                  Sorry to hear of the impact of your service. Kia kaha

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  7 November 2017 at 4:02 pm

                  I’m sorry to hear that, if you ever need help let me know and I’ll help as best I can

                  • Exkiwiforces …
                    7 November 2017 at 4:16 pm

                    Thank guys, for your support. My treatment team and the NT Firearms Section is happy for me to re-apply for my licence once my treatment team gives the ok, I still have issues here and there until i’m stabilise with my PTSD which might next yr in 3-4 yrs time etc.

              • tracey …
                7 November 2017 at 4:02 pm

                Where do you sit with respect to the possible (probable) push by the Police Association under its new Union boss toward arming all police? You too exkiwiforces if you see this

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  7 November 2017 at 4:12 pm

                  As I understand it most police cars have weapons stored away but its a tough one. On the one hand we expect police to protect us from criminals yet we don’t give them the adequate tools to do the job (especially sole charge coppers) on the other hand theres a more than a few people that don’t want police walking around with pistols on their hips in the belief it will embolden criminals to arm themselves

                  I err towards keeping the police safe so if they feel they need to be armed then I’d, grudgingly, support it as long as they get a lot more time on the range to practice

                  • tracey …
                    7 November 2017 at 4:24 pm

                    Bugger wrote a long reply and it disappeared.

                    I will support side arms for sole charge IF IPCA gets resourcing to ensure much quicker decision times and police statements taken at same time as they would if civillian involved in shooting. And we try and have an evidence based discussion rather than polarised he said/she said….

                  • Exkiwiforces …
                    7 November 2017 at 4:45 pm

                    It’s tough one, on one hand they there to protect the public and uphold the law, but they need all the right tools in their tool box as the government and public put an awful lot of pressure on the Police force when they have to deal with people up to their eyeballs in drugs aka ice, the rundown of mental health sector within our public health system, the under staffing of the police as well and that’s leads too a WHS issue.

                    I think and still believe the current system in NZ and like the UK one is still the best model for arming Police. But they really need to spend more time on the range or as we called “train the way you are doing to fight” it may sound a bit hash. But there is evidence to back this up by reading:

                    On Killing and On Combat/ Law enforcement both are by the same author. Where he talks about training, during the shooting event and the after effects from active shooting event.

                    There one thing I do really hate about NZPF (well its not their fault its funding issue from central Government) is their one man stations and one man police cars attending possible accidents that may involve someone being armed. Then we are pretty awful lot of pressure on some poor sod, who has to have a split second to decide what tool to use and if he or she opts to use a firearm its shoot to kill policy none of this Hollywood bullshit of shooting in the leg or arm etc as this is more chance of shooting a bystander than actual target.

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      7 November 2017 at 4:57 pm

                      Whoops, that was for Tracey’s comment.

                    • Fred H …
                      7 November 2017 at 7:17 pm

                      No, it’s an easy one. Considering the vast majority of corpses(that have died in a traumatic manner) the police encounter, are killed via suicide or murder box collision this makes the necessity for being constantly armed questionable at best. Remember murders number between 40-50 per annum and the majority don’t involve firearms.
                      Secondly the belief that firearms or deadly levels of violence are an effective deterrent has to got to be the biggest joke that only the most sheltered of morons could think up.
                      Picture you’re a member of the taleban in pashtun country, firstly you haven’t received formal education, are highly religious, believe in the afterlife and your cause, disagree with foreign occupation, have lived through 30 years of civil war, and suffer from a myriad of mental health issues making your appreciation for life threatening situations a little muddy. To top it off you know that western conventional armies in the late 20th and early 21st century have proven to be as effective as tits on a fish(though they like to think otherwise) when it comes to forcibly dictacting the will of a people who choose to fight in an asymmetrical manner. How is answering this person with violence somehow going to bring about a nice cordial relationship? He speaks fluent violentese there’s plenty more where he came from and you can’t negotiate with an IED…
                      Or picture you’re a drug dependent, mentally unwell New Zealander, you suffer from a neglectful, violent, and poverty stricken background, at times you don’t think rationally, you’d like to receive some help, you aren’t concerned with long term consequences such as assets and liberty, so the concept of a cop with a glock or a life sentence doesn’t hold quite the same respect as it does for the lovely law abiding homeowner with wifey, 2.1 kids, and a picket fence. And you’ve previously attempted to top yourself and are also relatively fluent at violentese, but not as proficient as terry that we described above…
                      The concept that the Police should act in an ultra violent and adverserial manner with their own citizenry undermines the reason for their very existence, a society that seeks to dress the wounds of it’s own people can do far more than one that believes it is at war with itself, a society with decent mental health provision, rehabilitative justice, and a comprehensive ‘free’ education can prevent and bring about changes that will see the absence of such high levels of violence that cause such reactionary statements as ‘shoot them’, ‘lock em up’, ‘execute them’. A broken person with nothing to lose cannot be reasoned with with more violence.

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      7 November 2017 at 9:54 pm

                      Fred, there is no need to lecture me about the Taleban which date right to the time Soviet Russia invaded the Gan and I’ve had Ex troops who transferred to RAAC and was blown up twice in one day while conducting a bullshit political task that had no reason to undertaken. This poor lad is more **** up than I am atm.

                      As for the second question,

                      We are putting an awful lot of pressure on our police force who like every other government department that has been run into the ground. These guys every need tool in the toolbox and why is it Fred? It because they are last line in public safety because mental health/ drug rehabilitation clinics are broken. IRT drug related and mental health call outs, the government and joe public thinks it Safe for a single PC blogs to attend to an incident where member or members are or armed due to drug or mental health issue. PC blogs has to make a life or death decision in a split second the because no else wants accept responsibility for the individual or individuals. We are really asking to much from our police forces to make what is really heath system problem.

                      Thirdly I take umbrage that you have brought my mental health problems in the picture which is way below the belt.

                      i’ve Been to hell and back. There are days I wish I wasn’t here or somewhere else. Than having to put with shit from might tough key broad warrior like you when The Department of Dead Veterans Affairs is bad a enough as the police have a union I don’t. In your spare time go to a PTSD clinic to the mess we put our people in or going Peacekeeping like South Sudan, the Congo and my case it East Timor as I handle the Gan Middle East Shit. But Peacekeeping is something else you Muppet.

                      People who PTSD suffer are fighting for there life everyday for the rest of their life regardless of who they are.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      7 November 2017 at 10:21 pm

                      (Supposed to go here)

                      Like my grandfather said. “It’s never the machines fault, it’s always the operators fault.” And. “To forge a weapon you need 3 things, 1) the right metal, temperatures over 1400°, and you need some one who is willing to kill.”

                      Believe it or not. A weapon is also a machine with complex moving parts. An energy source (chemical explosives) and some one with the imagination to use it.

                      People have fantasies of driving machines like Ferrari’s really fast. People also need to have fantasies about hunting rifles in order to select the correct weapon for the job. Some may choose a bow for the silence, some may choose .22 calibre for rabbits. Others may choose a semi auto for use on aerial deer hunts when it’s essential to maximise your shots per fly over in helicopters that typically cost $400 per hour just in fuel. But when some one fantasisiese about purchasing a semi auto with out consideration of the practical purposes in obtaining the correct license. Then you have to question that persons sanity. And his eligibility to purchase the weapon.

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      7 November 2017 at 11:08 pm

                      I had a two .22 mag’s (bolt action& semi auto) fitted with a silencer for the rabbits, ferrets and posiuims.

                      .308 Parker and Hale bolt action for Thar and deers etc.

                      SKS for pigs and goats. Got some good scars from using a old .303 Martini Henry rifle as a youngster and hence why I use a SKS after that.

                      SLR, and M14 for Heli shooting, they were use also for service rifle match shooting to maintain a my shooting/ marksmanship standard due to the defence cuts in 90’s under the National Government and it was the same for the L4 Bren Gun (the 7.62mm version of the old .303 Bren Gun)

                      When I was living in NZ before I left in 98 and my dad took care of them before his license expired as I was only expecting to be away for 10yrs.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      8 November 2017 at 12:07 am

                      Pig dogs was my style back in NZ all those years ago. Went for a walk mostly. But when it was time to deliver my dogs new what to do. Styles make fights I suppose. Kept my dogs in a caged enclosure with a balcony. Never let the kids fumble around with them, not at all. But when I put there impact vests on they all respected what needed to get done in order to make a delivery of prime New Zealand wild pork.

                      Got into bow hunting for abit. Found it a different kind of chase. Quite technical in many respects, just took a bit more time to set everything up. Iv got some found memories of my APEX bow. Now I just dive for crays off the west coast of Australia. Never could quite kick the habit of just taking off for a bit.

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      8 November 2017 at 12:53 am

                      I never use dogs and fact they are one our biggest problems atm in almost of all the state pastoral area which gone feral either by dumb redneck piggers or feral camp dog from the communities as attack young stock and evidence suggests they cross breeding with native dingo. The wild pig the second biggest issue in the NT followed horses/ donkeys camels down south of New Castle waters and the buffalo in the very top end.

                      I have mate that does bow hunting for buffs, pigs etc and I think he bloody mad as they are as blind as a bat, but then again I use a 12g double barrel coach Gun with solid shot and he thinks I’m the crazy one.

                      With the wet season slowly upon us, I’m usual out with the 30.30 lever action rifle stalking the wee piggy”s for the spilt, the smoker and goes towards my carb bit / fishing bait. But since I was section I’m now using traps and a bloody big knife which is a bit hit miss.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      8 November 2017 at 11:53 am

                      Yeah, I keep all my tools locked away in its proper place including my chefs knives and power tools and just take the correct tool out for the appropriate occasion. One of the reasons I don’t hunt wild boar in Australia is because they are diseased. So I don’t put my dogs on them, prefer to keep them locked away just in case they catch something ill, worms and all that.

                    • exkiwiforces …
                      8 November 2017 at 1:25 pm

                      The wild pigs around where my bush block are pity good to eat, but I always check first and any waste goes into the crab pot or fishing bait. Further south and around QLD/ NSW where the big razor backs live are full of worms which only good for baiting wild dogs and wild cats. Once I get firearms licence back I’m hoping to try get into Arnhem Land and have crack at the wild cats as they causing all sorts of problems along with wild dogs to the native birds and other native animal species.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      8 November 2017 at 1:40 pm

                      Ah yes. New an old soldier who talked like that. Stalking brought the best out of him as well.

                    • KJT …
                      8 November 2017 at 2:12 pm

                      The job of the police is to protect the public.

                      Beating, tasering, chasing them into a tree and shooting them to make it 100% convenient for themselves, is not the job description.

                      It seems from most deaths when the police have guns, that armed police, in most cases make the public, and police, less safe.
                      The USA may not be a good example considering their shoot first culture, but Armed police in Australia havn’t been as effective as some would think.

                      Just as the police were once required to be large and intimidating, (Bigger weapons) it has been found that less physically imposing people, especially women, are more effective in defusing dangerous situations.

                    • exkiwiforces …
                      8 November 2017 at 3:10 pm

                      I love the stalk as I was taught by my elders and was later re-enforce when I joined the Army as assault trooper (now called Recon Scout) in NZ Scots Sqn especially when we still had a lot of Vietnam/ South East Asia era guys in at the time like Sam Hoki, a teacher in the fine/ or the dark art of tracking, basic battle/ field craft, Mr Giddens an ex RM from 3Cdo and few others I can’t remember there names. How find sign to track, use the wind to track, smell, understand the weather, vegetation to find water/ what’s eatable and when vegetation is used to cam a ambush site or as a cache site.

                      The Stalk is battle of skill and wits against the animal or human and it’s probably why VC/NVA soldiers in South Vietnam hated the Kiwi’s more than Aussies. Two yrs ago I was the Nui Dat, Dat Do area and I got to talk to some VC vets when I visited VC/ NVA war cemetery off the cuff. The stories they said were wonderful to hear especially where I told that was trained by Vietnam Vets in the NZ Army and later with RAAF ADG’s as they passed on info there was a wee smile from the VC Vets. There was a lot of respect for the ANZAC’s who served in Nam as they knew they were there for Political reasons.

                    • exkiwiforces …
                      8 November 2017 at 3:38 pm

                      KTJ,

                      It comes down to training, there was case in NSW last yr at Hornsby when a female copper use a whole mag from he 44mag Glock on a person carry a knife run towards her. Of the 80% of the rounds fired only 2 or 3 rd hit the knife carrying person and rest hit 3 to 4 bystanders or into the gardens/ shop fronts.

                      With drugs like ice and this Zombie/ Hillbilly heron on the streets now the cop’s have to make really fast decision’s on what their course of action is and when they the poor copper is by her or his self like they do in NZ unlike here in OZ or UK and Canada etc. They really don’t have many options left to them especially when the last NZ government has ran the health, mental health systems and Drug Rehab clinics into the ground. It then left to the cops to pick up the pieces because the everyone doesn’t give a crap about some dope up drug or mental health individual until after the poor copper has either tasered or shot the dope up drug individual or if its mental health patient where both person should under the care of the health or their family.

                      If see me go off, I go from Zero to Warp 10 in less than a second, my partner and others who have seen go off say its very scarier and no wonder the poor bloody copper has to use a taser, pepper spray or has use a firearm.

                      It’s going to be fun in late Nov when I travel myself to NZ for a Army reunion especially if I lost the plot at the Airport either in Oz or in NZ over something.

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      8 November 2017 at 4:02 pm

                      We called him ‘Dingo. Sir, yes sir, right away sir. My pleasure sir. Or would you like that in a pint, stubby, or stubby holder.’ Thoroughly enjoyed his freedom. Was very honest about enjoying his Liberties. I recall Dingo standing around the entrance to a pub with a few of his boys, some of whom were working the doors when a drunk stumbled over. The drunk looked like he had just come off his swing (rostered hours/days/weeks of work) still in his dirty work gears. So the drunk was denied entry into the pub. An argument ensued, the guy started saying “I earn more money, I’m an MMA fighter blah blah blah.” Angry the drunk pulled a knife and started swinging. Every one immediately stepped back. As that happened the drunk fell to the floor. What happened to the guy happened so fast no one noticed the blade sticking out of the guys bum (his own knife), but not to deep so the guy could hobble home under his own steam. In that respect Dingo was very wise.

                      So it is the responsibility of intellectuals to expose lies and truths. Exposing the deepstate neoliberalism masquerading as capitalism is a primary concern, hopefully no one agrees neoliberalism is wonderful. Never the less capitalism is imperialisms older brother which is a stupid development, no doubt about it. So where does all this come from? Was it developed 30 years ago?

                      It came from colonisation and imposing on the indigenous inhabitants from all over the world, trade barriers, fines, draconian labour laws. And a system of power and control over the population, most notably the police force. Just to protects the rights of foreign interests to control land and profits derived from the land and we are puzzled about how to deal with it.

                      Police brutality didn’t come out of no where. Actions have consequences.

                      So when any one threatens the rights of capitalist to control the population the police will move in and shut the whole game down. But if you ask police officers themselves and they put out plenty of publicly available surveys about what some of them might be thinking. Overwhelming the notions of community policing and reducing harm to the public emerge. But that has nothing to do with the functions they are ostensibly payed to do.

                      What police where payed to do from the beginning was to protect the rights of settlers to till the land that was important to Auckland or any other big capital city globally. It was the responsibility of the police to arrest those that interfered with this form of capitalism. And push every one up into the hills that didn’t conform to the way settlers spoke, thought, or acted. Any one who deviated from the settler way of doing things was labeled a rebel. Today they are typically labeled activists and terrorists, who threaten the rights of transnational corporations to make profit. Never mind that it might destroy the prospects of future generations.

                      If the opinions of the public to protect the prospects of future generations was reflected in the policies that governed the constitution that controls the police. Then a useful set of land rights will have been enabled.

                      So now the shadowy lies are not so opaque and we can go about finding out the truth for an informed decision come the next 2020 elections.

                    • Fred H …
                      8 November 2017 at 10:30 pm

                      Firstly you clearly didn’t read the statements I made or counter answer the argument but just doubled down on a non-existent ad hominem attack, which you then proceeded to rebut with an ad hominem response yourself, ‘key broad warrior’ I think you wrote, both an assumption and poor spelling.
                      And where did I mention you personally or your mental health? Or did you want to see that to avoid answering the question?
                      Secondly, claiming you know about the taleban because someone you once knew ran into them (probably more like some cheapo sympathisers that planted a device or shooted and scooted I’d imagine if it was against the kiwi forces) is like saying Rachel Hunter knows loads about music because she used to shag Rod Stewart?
                      And the taleban were formed in 1994-1995 by Mullah Omar and some former Mujahadeen in Kandahar Province in response to the devastation and extortion by the warlords that took power following the Russian occupation….clearly needed a lecture, and how would you know I haven’t served, and maybe in places clearly more horrible than you’re describing? Maybe I just don’t chops off about it and see the failings in thinking that getting rounds down is going to fix domestic issues?

                    • Sam aka clump …
                      8 November 2017 at 10:40 pm

                      What was that mountain down south? Maybe you might know. You know the one with the volcanic rock and if you made the mistake of digging in a place that had already been dug up you were informed where to go? It’s on the tip of my tongue just can’t get it out.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 November 2017 at 10:53 pm

                      Damn, I quite enjoyed that hunting discussion.

  15. Sparky 15
    7 November 2017 at 2:19 pm

    More men are actually victims of gun homicide than women but more women are victims of homicide at the hands of spouses and partners in the US.

    So yes guns are a problem for people in the USA both male and female.

    • weka 15.1
      7 November 2017 at 2:38 pm

      In both cases overwhelmingly the person shooting is a man. People of all genders are victims of violent crime. Who commits violent crimes is specifically gendered.

      Because women are particular victims of violence by men, I’m suggesting we spend more time listening to what women, feminists in particular, are saying about this. In this case, mass shootings, where the violence is overwhelmingly done by men and there is a clear link with gender in terms of victims.

      • Keepcalmcarryon 15.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 7:06 pm

        We can break this down all sorts of ways weka
        Above, you unfairly label Keith’s comments bigoted but insist on the title you have given the above piece and it reads like “blame men”
        That’s fine and you have form on such issues.
        We could equally look more broadly at gun violence than just multiple shootings and realize in America gun deaths affect men and in particularly black men more than women.
        https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-different-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/
        This doesn’t mean men aren’t the main perpetrators, but it does mean we should concentrate on social factors and sensible gun control ( such as we already have) rather than beating all men around the head with this ( and yes that is exactly what you are doing)

        • weka 15.1.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 7:35 pm

          I’m really happy to amplify the voices of other classes of people who are victims of male violence too. Black men, transgender people, children, men in prisons, all have useful things to share about their experiences and what needs to change.

          But you appear to be saying that we shouldn’t look closely at the perpetrators of male violence. You haven’t said why. Is there is reason?

          “you unfairly label Keith’s comments bigoted”

          The man said that homosexuals are sick and Jews were to blame for the problems in Germany. How is that not bigotry?

          As for blame, I’m sorry you’ve taken it that way, because I went to some trouble to make it clear that in order to talk about solutions we have to be honest about the gendered nature of violence but that this isn’t about making out that men are inherently bad.

          I think men have a particular accountability, you can call that blame I guess but it begs the question of why you appear to want to let men off the hook.

          “but it does mean we should concentrate on social factors”

          Agreed, gendered violence is one of those factors.

          “and sensible gun control ( such as we already have)”

          Which is pretty much what I’ve said, I just don’t think focussing on it in the US situation is going very well.

          “rather than beating all men around the head with this ( and yes that is exactly what you are doing)”

          Interesting how most of the men in this thread didn’t take it that way.

          • Keepcalmcarryon 15.1.1.1.1
            7 November 2017 at 8:24 pm

            A reasoned response and I thank you for that.
            I think you misunderstand What Keith was saying.
            What I inferred was that it is prejudice to frame a situation as ” men kill people” just as it is to say “muslims car bomb people ” because the huge majority of people in those subsets do not.
            Keith’s examples were- I think- illustrations of the same point. That you found such claims bigoted might further illustrate his whole point.
            Because most men here didn’t claim offense doesn’t make something inoffensive.
            Think of a man cracking sexist jokes that most women at the party didn’t object to but which quietly offended others as a comparison. Also (fortunately or not) the subset of men who post here are not a balanced representation of either the population of nz or the web.
            Lastly yes, repressed feelings of disempowerment are all too often mixed with macho aggression with violent consequences and that cycle should be broken.

            • Carolyn_nth 15.1.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2017 at 8:54 pm

              Probably most guns don’t kill people, either. But guns do kill a helluva lot of people – one of the main weapons used to kill people.

              Weka didn’t say ALL men kill people. Statistically, it’s mostly men who kill, especially these mass public shootings – and that was what weka is referring to – and it has been discussed well here today.

              Car bombs have been used a lot in recent years in the Middle East, but, over time, there have certainly been a lot of non-Muslims using them, including the IRA, Vietnamese, Colombian mobsters…

              But, more usually the negative stereotype is that Muslims are terrorists – and basically, there are people from diverse groups using terror tactics, and against civilians – it’s no predominantly a Muslim thing.

            • weka 15.1.1.1.1.2
              7 November 2017 at 10:20 pm

              It’s possible I misunderstood Keith’s comment. I did read it a number of times and found it hard to parse. When I called him a bigot that was me taking his words at face value, that he thinks homosexual people are sick. He’s welcome to come and clear up what he meant.

              You still didn’t answer my question,

              “But you appear to be saying that we shouldn’t look closely at the perpetrators of male violence. You haven’t said why. Is there is reason?”

              Other than it looks to me like you are taking personal offence at something I am not doing (blaming all men for the acts of a few). I might be wrong about that but what I am seeing from you is a number of assertions (e.g. about what I am doing) without backing that up or demonstrating why you might be right.

              I’m also not seeing much in the way of refutal of the post apart from getting that you don’t like it.

              IME these conversations can’t really go anywhere unless both sides are willing to dig deeper and explain what they mean.

  16. Priss 16
    7 November 2017 at 2:43 pm

    Americans could live in a more peaceful society if they didn’t insist on playing with their lethal toys. Here in NZ we can walk along a street, go to a mall or theatre or church or college, and not risk being shot by a crazed gunman.

    It is a crazy situation, allowing lethal weapons to be freely available and then being surprised when lunatics go on a shooting rampage. What did they expect would happen??

    The “right to bear arms” should have gone out with “the right to own slaves”. Both are way past their use-by date.

    Until Americans realise this simple truism they will continue to live in a blood-drenched society.
    What a place to raise children in!

  17. Cinny 17
    7 November 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Wows I’ve sure learnt something today… NRATV… no bloody wonder there are problems.

    Check out how the marketing is directed, this is highly crafted propaganda from every angle.

    • Cinny 17.1
      7 November 2017 at 4:10 pm

      Far out…

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1
        7 November 2017 at 4:18 pm

        On the other hand we have this:

        I’d ask each and everyone of these celebrities how much money they made from movies or TV shows that glamourized the use of firearms or how many of their security are armed, how many live in gated communities, how many have the police close by

        • Cinny 17.1.1.1
          7 November 2017 at 7:39 pm

          Good point, do they walk the talk with this ad? Thanks for posting it PR

          I’m still amazed at the lengths of the NRA propaganda machine

        • Fred H 17.1.1.2
          7 November 2017 at 8:07 pm

          So that bullsh*t ad hominem argument somehow invalidates their point?? Peter Dinklage glorified dragons, he so can’t criticize the illegal trade of komodo lizards the hypocrite as he somehow benefited, I heard Beyonce benefited from glorifying 1970’s British spies with bad teeth so she can’t criticize terrorism laws or the MI6

          • Cinny 17.1.1.2.1
            7 November 2017 at 10:10 pm

            Fred, it carries a bit more weight if they walk the talk, don’t you think?

            A Dutch take on the NRA

            • Fred H 17.1.1.2.1.1
              8 November 2017 at 10:52 pm

              Without a massive platform(the above individuals all have one) walking the talk is merely going to get you heard at the local bar/church/blogsite, it’s why so many personalities with platforms get elected as heads of state and the honest sorts are ignored…walking becomes irrelevant in a world of mass media

  18. mpledger 18
    9 November 2017 at 6:49 pm

    The first segment of This American Live episode 545 is about a women who talks to a man who had been trolling her and they talk quite openly about what his motivations were.
    https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/545/if-you-dont-have-anything-nice-to-say-say-it-in-all-caps

    It’s worth listening too.

  19. Juno 19
    11 November 2017 at 7:37 pm

    Hi, The evidence is that carrying a gun will not protect against gun crime. You are buying into an NRA fuelled myth that has contributed to the current situation in the USA. I cringe to see the following paragraph presented in this country as sensible comment. Very few USA women carry guns and the vast majority of USA women support gun control. There is a concerted ongoing effort to persuade women to buy and carry guns but it appears to be largely a failure. I feel deeply sorry for your friend and her fantasies about self-sufficiency.

    “I have a friend who lives in a self-sufficient, rural part of the US. She once asked me how women in NZ protect themselves from sexual assault if they don’t carry a gun. Where she lives that kind of protection is necessary and normal and she has a hand gun as well as her hunting rifles. It was a fair question, not easily answered, but most interesting for me is thinking about where my pro gun-control politics would be at if I lived in the part of the world she does.”

    I recommend subscribing to and reading The Trace if you are interested in firearms issues and research in the USA.
    Here is there archive. https://www.thetrace.org/category/data/
    They have reported directly on research about the impact of owning guns on outcomes but I can’t see that as a topic. You might want to email them and ask.
    Kind regards,
    Juno

    • weka 19.1
      11 November 2017 at 8:24 pm

      Thanks Juno. I wasn’t suggesting that women in the US carry guns to protect themselves, nor that they should have to. Nor was I suggesting that my friend’s situation applies to all or most women in the US. It’s not a fantasy for her, she lives that shit and makes her choices accordingly. She’s not been propagandised by the NRA either, but simply lives in a part of the country where women having guns is normal. Given her lifetime of experience with male violence I don’t think you get to tell her she’s fantasising.

      The reason I wrote about her situation was in the context of the overall point of the post. That violence is gendered, both in that men commit most of it, and often they target women. I’m not saying women in the US should arm themselves, I’m suggesting to NZ liberals who react to another mass shooting by exclaiming ‘gun control!’ that they also need to focus on solving male violence. Yes gun control is needed and will save lives, but it’s not sufficient. I personally no longer believe that the US will be able to do anything substantial about gun violence and mass shootings until it addresses male violence in general.

  20. Angel Fish 20
    12 November 2017 at 12:24 am

    Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia, women are only now enjoying their right to drive vehicles!
    But yeah, let’s make no mention of the degeneracy of Ideologies like Islam
    and it’s oppressive effects on women. Let’s just vilify all men by the actions of a few lunatics, eventhough there is literally nothing that connects all men in general, other than possessing certain sex organs… What a joke.
    Women are thriving in the west, especially in higher education.