While I take for granted that gun control is a proper response to the atrocity in Newtown, not all do. This is the second of a two part extended exchange (part 1, here ). My friend Thomas Cushman, who holds libertarian views, challenged me and proposed a different interpretation and a different course of action. I hope this will open a deeper deliberate discussion.

Tom: Jeff, I wonder if we as sociologists could bring some kind of understanding to this situation that does not sink down into the extreme positions on either side? Otherwise it’s just politics as usual. Consider, for instance, that Connecticut already has severe gun control measures. They did not stop the atrocity. Vermont is a state where any resident can buy as many guns, and as much ammunition as they want, carry concealed handguns, own assault rifles, and it has the lowest homicide rate in the country. I am not a fan of the gun culture by any stretch, but it seems shallow to imagine that some amorphous, state induced “gun control” is going to ever stop these kinds of things. As you know, the problem is cultural. We live in a degraded cultural environment full of simulated and prosthetic violence,. Our children, especially our boys, are immersed in violent culture produced by Hollywood. Why not start there?

Jeff: Agreed the problem at its base cultural. Gun culture, the culture of violence and its glorification.   And yes, violence in popular culture is a problem. But why have so many guns? I would like to work on all fronts. I would start with a discussion about gun controls in the political arena. Certainly some weapons shouldn’t be in private hands. Certainly, also, we should have a discussion about depictions of violence in films and music. If you want to start there, fine. Figure out how to address a degraded cultural environment, and do so. These discussions needn’t be in competition.

Tom:  There is a group of cultural producers who control the content of popular culture. They degrade the cultural environment with violence, yet,  many of them are liberals who clamor for gun control. That inconsistency bears as much scrutiny and critique as it is humanly possible to give….. To keep this on a positive note, we could do a study of how people react to events such as the CT shootings. I’ve become more and more vexed by trying to understand evil sociologically; the contingency and agency of it beguiles any explanatory/causative vocabulary. Theodicy seems better than sociology for me right now. I want to see cultural sociology address these issues. As for politics, I think a very appropriate action that would appeal to libertarians, conservatives, liberals –something everyone might like – would be to do a concentrated boycott of the next Hollywood film that glorifies violence. Everyone stays home and evokes the memory of those poor murdered children and their teachers and sends the message, without state intervention, that we’ve had enough. Ditto with the video games. Why not organize a “buy and burn day” nationwide? There is no censorship, just people using their 1st amendment rights to say “no more.”

Jeff: Hollywood liberals and conservatives make violent films. Why Hollywood liberals and not just Hollywood? I am not afraid of characterizations but of stereotypes. Last time I noticed Clint Eastwood was not a liberal. Nor are other heroes of violence whose names I don’t know. My ignorance about such cultural products is almost complete. I always boycott such products and recommend that all do. But I am rather convinced that gun violence occurs not by viewing films but by people having guns readily available, and I am not thinking about hunters in Vermont. Really why semi automatic weapons, handguns? Why not tanks and missiles?

Tom: I am trying to be a sociologist here. The fact is that most filmmakers and producers are on the political left. If they are truly concerned about violence, why do they continue to make films that saturate our children with it? It’s the hypocrisy that irks me. The cultivation hypothesis in media sociology is something I’ve taught for years: when the culture is saturated with violent depictions of murder and mayhem, people come to see it as normal and it provides the cultural base that activates action. That guns are are readily available makes it possible to translate more ideation into action. I agree with that. But my main point is this, sociologically: the ready availability of guns is not necessarily the main cause of massacres. I keep mentioning Vermont, because it is not all hunters, as you say, Jeff. The place is infested with guns. You can buy a gun, load it, conceal it and carry it, no permit, nothing. And huge numbers of people do. So the availability of guns has nothing to do with the rate of violence there: how do you explain that? If your theory that access to guns is the cause of violence, Vermont should be drowning in bloodshed, yet is has the lowest death by handgun rate in the nation. The person who committed these heinous acts in CT got his guns from his mother, who went through rigorous process to get them, permits, etc. Access was difficult. And he did not use assault weapons. One could also use the case of Brievik in Norway, one of the hardest place in the word to buy guns. I’m trying to understand this more sociologically?

Jeff: I too am trying and in fact am a sociologist. Most filmmakers are liberals, also a disproportionate number of Jews, but their work should not be reduced to their politics or their identity. Is there anything in the work that is a function of their politics or identity? My criticism of such reductionism has been central to my professional life as a sociologist of culture. As far as guns: we agree that the issue is cultural. For me the arguments for guns are pernicious. The arguments constitute a culture of violence: purported individual defense of the safety of the home and defense by oneself from state tyranny. These NRA positions are very dangerous, perhaps more dangerous than gun ownership. I think that having many guns at home make matters worse, as in the Newtown case. My fundamental concern is with the culture of guns in people’s lives, not as they and violence are fictively depicted. Though as I said, I agree it would be better to turn away from such depictions as individuals and as a society.

Tom: A libertarian would be as ferociously against the misuse of weapons to harm people as the liberal statist would. We live in a violent society where police powers are not sufficient to protect the basic right to life. The question is what we should do about that.

As with many others, I have been consumed by the tragedy in Newtown Connecticut. I wrote a post on Saturday, something I try not to do. Signed a couple of petitions (see here and here). Watched the memorial service last night. Was moved and inspired by Obama’s speech.

It is at moments like this that I am relieved and proud that Barack Obama is president. He gave a powerful speech. He got to the heart of the matter. I am confident a real response to this tragedy will happen.

Moving from alarm, to depression to hope, I discussed with friends on Facebook the events as they have been unfolding. I think the discussions were informative and re-produce slightly edited versions here. The discussion crossed intellectual gated communities, an interesting exchange on my left was initiated by my Israeli friend, Orly Lubin, joined by American based friends Peter Manning, and Esther Kreider-Verhalle. In the second, from the more libertarian side of things, there was a civil exchange with my friend Tom Cushman, which I will post tomorrow. I hope we can continue these discussions at Deliberately Considered.

The discussion on the left was between those, including me, who saw a major change in Obama’s approach to leadership and gun policy, and those who see a pattern of compromise and ineffectiveness in domestic and foreign policy.

Orly: You Americans are the masters of understatements – Hannan and me were furious – between Jesus and god bless America, couldn’t hear the word “gun” nor the word “control” – but what do I know, don’t speak american, I guess.

Jeff: Yes, I think you don’t. Though I also don’t like certain religious aspects of American.

Orly: OK, I will stop assuming. I can understand.

Peter: I think this is at the Gettysburg address level. It was brilliant. The hard politics will come after this masterful speech. Wait and see.

Orly: Shoyn (really?), as they say in Yiddish, will wait and see. though waited for him in Israel for four years and saw nothing… and doubt I’ll see him do anything on that front during the magical “second term,” as well — what we are doing in the West Bank and Gaza is not that much different than Newtown.

Esther: “This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.” Obama should use whatever power his executive office holds, not just to engage, but to take action. And yes, very good speech. I realize that asking for less religion in it is not the American way….

Jeff: He may be himself clinging to his religion but he is moving against guns. He can’t do everything, i.e. there have been profound constraints on him in Israel Palestine, Orly.  But perhaps now, he is gaining power. This is indicated by how forcefully he is coming out on the domestic fiscal front, and now on guns.

Orly: OK, so I don’t understand Americneze. This is from a friend of mine, highly versed in american language: from an article on the Huffington Post:

“But like the three speeches before, the president stayed vague on the methods of seeing that change through. This could very well be out of a sense of proper setting. A vigil isn’t always the best time to make policy points. But that may not be much comfort to those who are tired of the debate being ducked.

Obama’s advocacy for gun control has, to this point, had an inverse relationship with his rise in elected politics. The state politician who once touted a comprehensive plan to get guns off the streets of Chicago was absent from the debates once he came to Washington. The Senate candidate who said it was a “scandal” that the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004 became a president who pledged to pursue gun-control reform only within existing law.

Over time, caution was how the president became defined on the issue, his eloquent words of sympathy no longer sufficing.

‘The president’s tears were nice,” said Toby Hoover, director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, shortly after Obama addressed the Newtown shootings in a statement on Friday. Hoover lost her husband to gun violence when she was 30 years old, and was attending a candlelight vigil outside the White House gates. “But he was supposed to lead us. He told us that if we elected him, he’d give us hope. I need hope.’

See, this whole thing has become so utterly ridiculous…when you have to spend a bunch of your speech rattling off the names of other massacres and even that is a short and cursory list [“Well, I’ll stop there. If I went on listing other places with massacres, well, we’d be here all night!”] it just all sounds pointless and silly. And when you have this record of having been very pro gun control while a senator an a candidate then crept away from it the entire first term…well, come ON. And let’s be clear here: During obama’s first term, the only serious gun -related legislation that got passed was to permit guns to be carried in National Parks. Yes, now you can bring your AK-47 to yellowstone. Since you were trained in its use as a youngster, I’m sure this will make your visits to our fine national parks even more momentous. I realize that there are no Grizzly Bears in Israel–you folks don’t even have bison and let me tell you, as an American, I have been way too close to bison and they are creepy. Smell bad. You’ll WANT to pop them one. National animal, my ass! Also!! I do believe but check me on this, another fine piece of lawmaking since ’08 allows people to carry their concealed weapons into states that don’ot have conceal/carry laws. Something like that. Lucky us! Conceal your AK-47 and carry it to a National Park for a season of family fun; if that wildlife gets too crazy, you can blow it away. And let’s not get started on the ‘revised’ castle laws in Florida, Wyoming, and so on. You act edgy in a public place, i dont like your face, and I can blow you away and then claim self-defense.”

Please. This is all such crazyland stuff. Normal people would not be here. A normal country would not be here. Gettysburg shmettysburg.

Jeff: I think that Obama opened a door yesterday. He committed himself to action. His tactical maneuvers of the past are irrelevant now. I can’t be sure what he will do, but do know that after the speech many politicians are speaking out in favor of gun control. A decade of silence by the Democrats is over and as I said, Obama can’t turn back. If that isn’t an important move, Orly, I don’t know what is. And more could come.

Peter: This speech was a ‘set-up’ for later action. Who can criticize looking after children? Then the gun people will have little ground on which to stand: defend what? Freedom bought with the blood of children massacred almost before our eyes? Why ‘defend freedom’ with guns?Surely, it is an abstract concept; not reduced to having “my guns”‘ Obama’s stance makes concrete the objections to ideological, reactionary and primitive thinking.