To me, the classic Michael Moore anecdote is from his short- lived television show. He did a segment with Yaphet Kotto, testing the willingness of New York cabdrivers to pick up blacks heading uptown, presumably to Harlem. He belabored the point that the majority of cabbies were more willing to pick up well- dressed white men. What he didn't mention was that the majority was narrow (if memory serves, about 51% to 49%, and therefore within the margin of error), and that black cabbies were equally biased, if bias existed. These things came out later.
As far as gun culture material goes, analyses that I have seen are generally superficial. For example, I have never seen anyone raise the question if the fact that Europe has endured two World Wars on its soil might not have affected its current attitudes and practices. Maybe most of their violence prone individuals were killed off by 1945. Or, in the alternative, perhaps the freedom of American society has been conducive to allowing criminal enterprises like the Mafia or the Triads greater scope for their activities. Just taking immigration, only about 7% of the French population is from immigrant stock, whereas most Americans have some immigrant blood in them, at this point, and we still let in more immigrants than any other country per annum. Similarly, the figure for non- whites in Canada is unimpressive, when about 15% of our population is black, about 12% is Hispanic, and about 4% is Asian--- we have twice as many people who are non- European, on a percentage basis, many more in raw numbers.
Since most gun violence occurs in cities, which are in the Blue Zone, it is not very useful, I think, to investigate suburban gun culture to get at the problem of gun violence. (If the Blue Zone only incorporated the Upper East Side, Georgetown, Beacon Hill, and so forth, you might have a point). I realize that the film revolved around outbreaks like Columbine, but clearly these are not even typical actions of NRA types, but the acts of people with sociopathic tendencies. The suburbs, or even better, exurbs and rural areas where true "gun nuts" reside are not notable for their rates of violent crime. If "the gun culture" can be blamed for anything, it is only the ready availability of guns for criminal types, not for violence per se.
The United States is the freest country in the world, and the most affluent. It therefore has black markets in all kinds of contraband. We have more of a problem with illegal immigrants (black market labor), the ubiquity of drugs, and the ready availability of guns. Most guns used in crimes are themselves contraband, not legally purchased. True, if it were not so easy to gain guns through local theft, the price would rise, and make it harder for punks to arm themselves, but considering the ease with which drug gangs obtained Uzis, which are not readily found among most legitimate gun owners, it is likely enough that plenty of guns would remain in circulation.
Thus, I offer as an hypothesis that there is more gun violence in the United States because more guns are in circulation; that the black market in guns, though perhaps dampened, would nevertheless continue to be vigorous if severer measures were enacted to curtail gun ownership; and that the only way to stem the tide would be to militarize our borders and invest much more money in customs work....... |
