Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

[PanzerJaeger]

Great news (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html#ixzz1bzZHOmRH), for shooting enthusiasts such as myself, not to mention American freedom.

But what's behind the fundamental shift since the '50s?


Support for gun control is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

In fact, 26 percent of those surveyed think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized people, reports a Wednesday Gallup poll. On the other hand, 73 percent oppose such a ban — the highest percentage reflecting such sentiment since polling on the issue started in 1959.
Continue Reading

Over the past 50 years, the United States has changed its mind drastically on whether a handgun ban is appropriate. In 1959, 60 percent supported a handgun ban, while only 36 percent opposed it.

With regard to semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles, 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

Views on gun laws have changed dramatically over the past twenty years to the point where no key demographic subgroup favors a ban on handguns. Only those living in Eastern America, Democrats and those without guns in the household still have majority support for stricter gun laws generally, Gallup reports.

The polling firm suggested that the trend could be a reflection of a rising libertarian feeling in the American population or growing American comfort with guns. One 2008 Gallup poll found widespread agreement with the notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own guns.

The trend did not appear to be related to a rise in gun ownership, which has stayed steady over the past 10 years, or any major shifts in American attitudes towards crime, fear of time, or reports of being victimized, reports Gallup.

This poll was conducted on Oct. 6-9, with a sample of 1,005 adults. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points.

[Fragony]

Hardly surprising with crisis, uncertainty and all that

[drone]

It could just be that it's out of the news. By 2000, most politicians realized supporting gun control would only hurt their chances.

Gun control and abortion threads in the Backroom, yeah! I still say we need to arm the fetuses to make the procedure more sporting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

[Crazed Rabbit]

My educated guess is that it's the result of a lot of work by pro-firearms folks to push for gun rights over the decades.

Plus, a lot of the anti-gun arguments in US politics are based on fear mongering and lies. After a while it becomes clear that the blood in the streets the anti-gun folks always predict if some pro-gun law is passed isn't going to happen.

CR

[Catiline]

I can, at a push understand the justification for allowing handgun ownership, but assault rifles? Crackers.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I can, at a push understand the justification for allowing handgun ownership, but assault rifles? Crackers.

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

Also, what are called assault rifles all the time by anti-gun folks (and copied by the media) are actually semi-auto rifles. True, military, assault rifles have the capability to fire fully automatically.

Also, semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

Also, what are called assault rifles all the time by anti-gun folks (and copied by the media) are actually semi-auto rifles. True, military, assault rifles have the capability to fire fully automatically.

Also, semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime.

CR

The practical difference between a semi-auto and full-auto weapon is not as meaningful as the calibur, barrel type, magazine capacity and the type of action the weapon uses. Cut the full auto out of the M-16 and you actually have a more dangerous weapon in most instances because you remove the temptation to "rock and roll", which is pointless execpt for things like room clearence. Most battle rifles, including early version of the M-14 and FAL/SLR were single shot but their range and destructive potential is greater than their replacements, to the extent that reconditioned or similar weapons are being issued for the sort of long range firefights soldiers have in Afganistan.

Your "overthrow tyrannical government" tack is a complete non starter for two reasons.

1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

2. From the perspective of the Founding Fathers your government should already have been overthrown, although because of its sheer size and complexity rather than any percieved democratic deficit.

[CrossLOPER]

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.
Unless you add an amendment to include mechanized armor, warplanes, emplacements, the right to fortify centers of populations, SSMs, SAMs, anti radar and thermal jammers, coastal defenses, as well tactical nuclear weaponry and the means to delivery them, you don't stand a chance. You can mimic the tactics of partisan resistance movements that were common during World War II, but honestly, how much support do you think you would get? Could you push your family to live in filth for an unknown amount of time? Can you survive constantly moving through ruins and the wilderness, supplying yourself and others with the provisions you need? This includes stealing, destroying, and using innocents as tactical diversions, as well as other things that are difficult to justify no matter the situation.

Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

[econ21]

With regard to semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles, 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

It seems odd to me that only 43% want to ban assault rifles and 43% want stricter gun laws. Aren't assault rifles already banned in some places in the US? I would have thought more people would support banning assault rifles than would want stricter laws, as some may be happy with the status quo which is sometimes against assault rifles.

I wonder if the wording of the question on assault rifles confused some people - speaking of banning the manufacturing of the weapons? Interpreted literally, everyone should be against banning the manufacturing of assault rifles, at least for their own military. I guess many people in the US would not interpret the question so literally, but we do know that how you word a question can have large impacts on opinion poll data.

[Ronin]

those stats tell me more about the perceived average penis size in America than any actual information about guns.

[PanzerJaeger]

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

That's what I was thinking. I've been worried about gun rights since Columbine, but it seems the trend has gone in the other direction despite the recent spate of mass shootings.


1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.


Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

When the government starts confiscating guns! :grin:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

[Ronin]

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.


yes there is.
there is only way thing nowadays that can keep an overwhelming military force from just rolling over the most determined "insurgent" force.
and that's bad P.R.
the question is, "how far is the big guy willing to go to win?" are they willing to resort to absolute extreme measures if necessary? do they not care how it might look to the rest of the world?....or can they cover it up at the very least?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information. :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information. :shrug:

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

[Beskar]

Higher chance for a Militarist Coup then a 'Revolution' in America where the 'People' overthrow the government.

Based on common social trends and political views alone, nevermind the 'Hardware' involved.

[CrossLOPER]

to say nothing of the obesity rate
Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

But not for obese people. Obese people tend to roll over and die in such situations primarily because they've ruined the efficiency of their metabolism. That's why you'll find that obese people do not just eat “more” they also complain of being hungry sooner after their meal. By the way, it is a very similar story for those people who “hit the gym” so often but for them it is the energy saving features of the metabolism which no longer work well. (Their body being too big: idle muscle is rather inefficient.)

It's the people who are underweight to slightly overweight and don't work out for the sake of it that survive, or in other words those don't who didn't need a diet in the first place.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

If you don't die.

[Ronin]

If you don't die.

actually that also results in weight loss :P

[PanzerJaeger]

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

The success or failure of any insurgency is based on a rather large array of factors, such as popular support, size and scope, geographic distribution, resources, money and/or economic situation, political organization and alignment, foreign support, production capacity, and literally thousands more – and those apply to both the insurgent forces and the government. Without outlining a scenario that at least attempts to address some of those specifics, it is rather foolish to make a definitive statement about the success or failure of a hypothetical insurgency.

Further, basing such an assessment purely on the (unsupported) notion that Americans are too fat, lazy, and/or comfortable to mount such a insurgency in comparison to Afghanis reveals a dearth of critical thinking, not only about the potential advantages (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/) Americans might enjoy over Afghanis in such a conflict, but about the nature of insurgency itself.



The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

There was one before that.


@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

I have no idea. I don't spend much time thinking about the subject as I see it as such a remote possibility. My support for gun rights is based primarily on my belief in personal freedom and my enjoyment of shooting as a hobby and more distantly on the fact that I live in a city with a large, impoverished, and restive black population that very much resembles that which plunged Los Angeles into chaos in 1992. I do not fear government, but a lack of government - and it is good to know that I have options for my and my family's security apart from reliance on the government in case of a breakdown in social order.

A successful insurgency in the United States would likely conform to the conditions laid out in the 2010 RAND study (http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/04/22.html) on the subject. There would have to be significant popular support, international sponsorship, availible sanctuary, and a weakening of the federal government. None of these are out of the realm of possibility, especially considering that for a sizable insurgency to even develop, the US would likely have to undergo a signficant transition toward tyranny - one which would alarm the US populace and the international community.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control :shrug:

[Proletariat]

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

[Montmorency]

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.
CR

So if terrorists systematically attack federal agents, the federal legislature and most state legislatures will unanimously agree to the demands of said terrorists?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control :shrug:

Not really, it was basically the US military that toppled Gaddafi, and his military couldn't compete against the American one, who would bale you guys out? Canada and Mexico? Even assuming the UK and France wanted to help you, rather than back the government, how would we get our gear there? We have one rusty carrier between us and I seriously doubt we could put together a battlegroup around the De Gaulle capable of protecting her from American Carrier groups, subs and land-based air assetts.

More than anything else though, we Europeans (who generally have tighter gun controls and less polarised politcs) can't really imagine that any "rebellion" would be worthwile supporting from an ethical, logistical or political standpoint.


Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

Really? I wouldn't know, about that, but I remember that British mechanised infantry used to think of US LI as pretty unfit in compariseon to themselves. That could just be international rivalry though, and I don't know if your experience is repeated accross nations generally. I also don't know where you're from, come to that.


Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

This is pretty well known, hence Royal Marines being issued 7.62 calibre rifles without full auto capability to replace SA80II. A bigger bullet perfomrs better over longer ranges than a smaller, lighter, one.

[Centurion1]

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?


ummmmmmm, no that was not a revolution.....

[CrossLOPER]

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?
You think that the military cannot be turned against "domestic insurgents"?

[Major Robert Dump]

What a stupid conversation this thread had degraded to


People's support of gun ownership is going to increase in uncertain financial times for a whole host of reasons. In case some of you have been sleeping, the US Government is an abject failure that has failed to stave off even the most basic of problems they were warned about 20, 30, 40 years ago. Considering human nature, beuaracracy, entitlement attitudes of the have-nots and the big picture as a whole, anyone who trusts in the American government to protect them 100% from crime is living on another planet.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Major: it doesn't help that the USA clings on to a “stupid” constitution, or rather a particularly “stupid” amendment. As has been pointed out before, that amendment and its sentiments are on practical considerations alone completely irrelevant, outmoded and outdated in the modern world -- just like required longbow practice.

You are of course quite right that nobody is seriously expecting people lined up at the walls any day now. Equally, though, the real problem which you highlight might reduce to a failure to keep various services going such as infrastructure and the root cause for that is not necessarily the politicians alone.

[Ironside]

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

For a recent comparising of gun attitude. Gas station in neghtbour town got robbed by gun armed robbers. A costumer and two others came to the conclusion that the robbers weren't having serious guns (shot no warning shot), went driving (unarmed) after the muggers and catched them. The guns was shown to be soft air guns.
What are the odds of this making sense in the US?


There was one before that.

Victory or death vs victory or too much vasted resources. Somehow I think civil wars have slightly higher motivation involved, compared to colonial independence. Not counting how much different the equipment has changed.


Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

Hopefully people that is not intending to make a military coup or shoot at civilians? That's were the ideological battle to create or prevent as successful armed rebellion takes place.


People's support of gun ownership is going to increase in uncertain financial times for a whole host of reasons. In case some of you have been sleeping, the US Government is an abject failure that has failed to stave off even the most basic of problems they were warned about 20, 30, 40 years ago. Considering human nature, beuaracracy, entitlement attitudes of the have-nots and the big picture as a whole, anyone who trusts in the American government to protect them 100% from crime is living on another planet.

Reality vs ideas. Who will win?

You do know that the crime rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) is much lower today than 20 years ago? And lower than 30 years ago. THE GOVERMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ITS JOB, SO WE NEED THE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELF.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ummmmmmm, no that was not a revolution.....

STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS. PROTECT OUR FREEDOM FROM THE YANKIES



There was one before that.

You mean the one we pretty much lost if it was wasn't for the French coming to help us?

[Noncommunist]

At least in the US, I can't see any sort of coup actually succeeding. After all, with hundreds of years of democratic tradition and plenty of training not to kill civilians, I can't see the military firing at US citizens beyond just a few bad apples. Even in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, army units have defected to avoid shooting their own citizens. And the US trained Egyptian and Tunisian militaries refused to even stop the overthrow of their government.

[Major Robert Dump]

You do know that the crime rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) is much lower today than 20 years ago? And lower than 30 years ago. THE GOVERMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ITS JOB, SO WE NEED THE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELF.

And what makes you think the "GOVERNMENT" is responsible for making the crime rate go down? Are you really that naieve? There are hundreds of stimuli that affect crime trends

I might also point out that as populations age and mature and progress, certain things become less illegal over time, which affects recording crime. 20 years ago, stealing anything with a value over $50 was considered GRAND LARCENY a felony in most US States. Now it's anywhere from $500 to $1000 to qualify for that....... Based on a change of values, there are fewer felonious thefts today than 20 years ago.

[Ironside]

And what makes you think the "GOVERNMENT" is responsible for making the crime rate go down? Are you really that naieve? There are hundreds of stimuli that affect crime trends

I might also point out that as populations age and mature and progress, certain things become less illegal over time, which affects recording crime. 20 years ago, stealing anything with a value over $50 was considered GRAND LARCENY a felony in most US States. Now it's anywhere from $500 to $1000 to qualify for that....... Based on a change of values, there are fewer felonious thefts today than 20 years ago.

The government is a factor, but I can agree on that's it's probably not the main driver in this case.

Main thing was that there's no (or very poor) correlation between "guns are needed, since the goverment fails to protect", gun ownership and crime.

Theft is completely irrelevant to gun ownership. Muggery and robbery is in some form, although I'm not sure how it's treated (theft or assult) in the data.

[Major Robert Dump]

Of course government is one of many factors in lower crime, but I might also point out that gun ownership is also a factor. That being said, there is plenty to correlate that people want guns because their government fails to protect. I am not making a statement of right or wrong, I am telling you how people feel. One thing that trips me up about the gun-control crowd from countires that have effectively had strict gun controls for decades, is that their arguments fail to consider the pure saturation of guns in this nation. We can argue and go round and round endlessly about what came first the chicken or the egg, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of bad people in this country who have guns, gun control would not convonce them to turn in their guns as they are crooks already, and citizens lacking guns will cause a field day for the criminals with guns. You, Ironside, may think it worthwhile to partake in such a social experiment for the greater, long term good, and that is probably where we will never see eye to eye.

Washington DC is one of the worst places in the nation. Chicagos gun ban has been fail. Meanwhile, states that enact conceal-carry laws see an almost immediate drop in victim-type crimes, while counties in adjacent states that dont have conceal-carry have an immediate increase in victim-crime, because the professional criminals are migrating targets.

Guns are not the solution, and neither is banning them wholesale.

[PanzerJaeger]

You mean the one we pretty much lost if it was wasn't for the French coming to help us?


Yes, state sponsorship is key to the success of an insurgency.

[Shaka_Khan]

I don't see why gun control automatically means a dictatorship. There are plenty of democratic countries out there that have gun control and no gun related crime.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't see why gun control automatically means a dictatorship.

Who said it does?

[Centurion1]

I don't see why gun control automatically means a dictatorship. There are plenty of democratic countries out there that have gun control and no gun related crime.

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

[Beskar]

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

According to Wikipedia -

0.1 Gun Death per 100,000 population in the United Kingdom
3.5 Gun Death per 100,000 population in the United States

That's a pretty big difference...

[Centurion1]

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

[Beskar]

Yet the argument present in the thread from some posters was that: "Gun control doesn't work". Since there is a massive statistical difference, I would argue it does.

Not a worthless statistic or point to demonstrate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

Britain has huge ghettoised immigrant populations and an underclass where no one has worked in three generations and most new parents are in their mid to late teens. We banned guns over here because of our social problems, banning guns did not create said problems or the violence that results from them.

[Major Robert Dump]

But the question for the last two posters is were guns saturated in that country inside and out? You cannot issue blanket statements on hgow gun control works without also addressing the amount of guns in the country when the ban is enacted.

Meanwhile, a large proportion of violent crime in the US involves a gun. If guns were banned, a large proportion of violent crime would still involve guns. How long would it take for that number to decrease significantly without making potential victims sitting ducks? Furthermore, prohibition of an item creates a blackmarket, and we can't even secure our borders. Crooks would still get guns.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yet the argument present in the thread from some posters was that: "Gun control doesn't work". Since there is a massive statistical difference, I would argue it does.

Not a worthless statistic or point to demonstrate.

And yet, the logic behind it is based on fallacy. :shrug:

[Shaka_Khan]

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.
There are plenty in Europe and Asia that have no gun crimes. Note that guns make it easier to hurt a person. Having no guns would make that crime more unlikely to happen. I'll name a few countries of a lot of countries that have no gun crime: UK, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, etc. I for one know for certain that the civilians in UK, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Cambodia don't own guns and there is no gun crime there. I also know for certain that the murder rate in those countries are much much lower than the US.

[Centurion1]

i love people who cannot grasp the concept of zero gun crime and LESS gun crime......

[Shaka_Khan]

Who said it does?
Someone said that we have the right to bear arms because the first US government wanted the civilians to be able to rebel in case the government becomes bad.


yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

i love people who cannot grasp the concept of zero gun crime and LESS gun crime......
I doubt you traveled much.

I have lived in NYC. My dad was robbed at gunpoint in the elevator of the building that we lived in. We moved out of NYC soon after our room got buglarized a few weeks later. We moved to a safer neighborhood in New Jersey. I watched news of at least one gun related crime in NYC each day. A lot of it was gang related and you would've noticed this if you were around in NYC or LA at that time. This was long before Gulliani became mayor of NYC and long before gun control in NYC. Even when the crime rate went down during the late 90s and the early 00s, I know of a person in San Francisco who experienced a gun related crime at that time. Imagine how much more worse it was before gun control in the major cities. Before gun control, gun related crime was happening more often in NYC at least from what I saw. The thing is that this really isn't gun control. It's hard to stop the flow of every single gun in a country that has plenty of it. The results of gun control is very different with a country like the UK. The UK has much much less gun problems than the US does. It does have crime. Now imagine if criminals owned guns in the UK. It would get a lot worse because guns make it easy for anyone to hurt someone.

What's the point of owning a gun in the US? Are you going to carry it around everywhere you go? A lot of the gun related crimes in the US happened in areas where a normal person wouldn't or wasn't allowed to carry a gun. Would you carry a gun in school or in a summer camp in the USA? No because you'd probably have the cops come over and aim at you pretty soon. The fact is that even the US of A isn't a guns-for-everywhere-for-an-innocent-civilian country. There are a lot of places in the US where you'd rather not carry a gun, but crime can still happen there. The right to bear arms hasn't protected a lot of American citizens because most Americans wouldn't own a gun. It just made it easier for a criminal to own a gun. In countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc., it's close to impossible for a criminal to own a gun. I'd really say 100% impossible because I know from what a lot of people from there told me and I have traveled to those countries for a long time. I haven't heard of a gun related crime in those countries for over a decade. Believe me, it's possible not to have a gun related crime for that long. Did you know that Cambodia banned guns? Cambodian civilians were urged to give their guns away to the government. Crime went down significantly over there. I traveled there to Angkor Wat by scooter and I felt much safer there than when I did in LA, NYC and San Francisco. The only thing I was concerned about were the mines that probably weren't found yet, but even that wasn't much of a big concern because the city areas and the tourist areas of Cambodia are safe from mines now.

Try walking the streets of Detroit or Washington D.C. I don't mean cruising around the neighborhood, making a few stops at the safer regions and return back home quickly. Then try walking the streets of Singapore, Tokyo or Seoul. You'll notice a huge difference.

[Major Robert Dump]

The previous post shows a lot about people's un-informed attitude, particularly the last paragraph.

"whats the point? are you carrying it everywhere?" Yes, I carry a gun everywhere I go. It does me no good leaving it in a closet. Yes, there are places we are not allowed to carry guns, like federal property and schools, and no, the "majority" of gun crimes in the US do not happen in places where you cannot carry a gun. Bot sities you mentioned, DC and Detroit, had gun bans. Oklahoma City does not, and the differences in the crime rate is staggering

[Shaka_Khan]

Yes, I carry a gun everywhere I go. Yes, there are places we are not allowed to carry guns, like federal property and schools, and no, the "majority" of gun crimes in the US do not happen in places where you cannot carry a gun.
I was saying that most Americans wouldn't own a gun. It's these whom the criminals would pick on. I wasn't talking only about you.



Bot sities you mentioned, DC and Detroit, had gun bans. Oklahoma City does not, and the differences in the crime rate is staggering
Then explain to me why cities like Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, etc. have very low crime? These are huge cities. So I don't think the right to bear arms have to be a factor to decrease crime.

If you read my earlier post thoroughly, you'd see that I said that it's hard to stop the flow of guns getting into the US cities because there's a lot of them in the US already. That's why we still see gun related crime in these cities. The entire country needs to ban guns, which I admit would be hard to do in a country as large as the US is and which already has guns. I added that there's a big difference in NYC before and after the gun ban over there. NYC is much safer than it was when I was a kid. NYC is much larger in size and population than Oklahoma City so I don't think Oklahoma City is a good comparison. I'm sure you'd think differently if you traveled and experienced other places more.

Tbh, I find it sad that you need to carry a gun to feel safe. I want you to experience the feeling of being safe enough not to carry a gun everywhere you go. I like how I can trust any stranger even when that stranger knows that I don't have a gun. There are many places out there where you could experience this even in many parts of the US. I have experienced many of these places and I'm experiencing one right now. Surprise surprise, I never carried a gun everywhere I went even in the dangerous areas of certain US cites.

[Centurion1]

Someone said that we have the right to bear arms because the first US government wanted the civilians to be able to rebel in case the government becomes bad.




I doubt you traveled much.

I have lived in NYC. My dad was robbed at gunpoint in the elevator of the building that we lived in. We moved out of NYC soon after our room got buglarized a few weeks later. We moved to a safer neighborhood in New Jersey. I watched news of at least one gun related crime in NYC each day. A lot of it was gang related and you would've noticed this if you were around in NYC or LA at that time. This was long before Gulliani became mayor of NYC and long before gun control in NYC. Even when the crime rate went down during the late 90s and the early 00s, I know of a person in San Francisco who experienced a gun related crime at that time. Imagine how much more worse it was before gun control in the major cities. Before gun control, gun related crime was happening more often in NYC at least from what I saw. The thing is that this really isn't gun control. It's hard to stop the flow of every single gun in a country that has plenty of it. The results of gun control is very different with a country like the UK. The UK has much much less gun problems than the US does. It does have crime. Now imagine if criminals owned guns in the UK. It would get a lot worse because guns make it easy for anyone to hurt someone.

What's the point of owning a gun in the US? Are you going to carry it around everywhere you go? A lot of the gun related crimes in the US happened in areas where a normal person wouldn't or wasn't allowed to carry a gun. Would you carry a gun in school or in a summer camp in the USA? No because you'd probably have the cops come over and aim at you pretty soon. The fact is that even the US of A isn't a guns-for-everywhere-for-an-innocent-civilian country. There are a lot of places in the US where you'd rather not carry a gun, but crime can still happen there. The right to bear arms hasn't protected a lot of American citizens because most Americans wouldn't own a gun. It just made it easier for a criminal to own a gun. In countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc., it's close to impossible for a criminal to own a gun. I'd really say 100% impossible because I know from what a lot of people from there told me and I have traveled to those countries for a long time. I haven't heard of a gun related crime in those countries for over a decade. Believe me, it's possible not to have a gun related crime for that long. Did you know that Cambodia banned guns? Cambodian civilians were urged to give their guns away to the government. Crime went down significantly over there. I traveled there to Angkor Wat by scooter and I felt much safer there than when I did in LA, NYC and San Francisco. The only thing I was concerned about were the mines that probably weren't found yet, but even that wasn't much of a big concern because the city areas and the tourist areas of Cambodia are safe from mines now.

Try walking the streets of Detroit or Washington D.C. I don't mean cruising around the neighborhood, making a few stops at the safer regions and return back home quickly. Then try walking the streets of Singapore, Tokyo or Seoul. You'll notice a huge difference.

Don't assume things about people you have no idea about. I live in NYC for one, in the Bronx which im almost certain was likely worse than where you lived. I have lived in 5 different states throughout the US. I have been to Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo (doesnt count was at the airport). Seoul's safety is more a product of the south korean culture than anything else, tokyo has some of the worst organized crime in the world and singapore is one of the strictest countries on earth. Oh and I spent quite a few of my teenage years 30 minutes away from DC.

also do you realize how much easier it is to control guns in places like japan, singapore, and the uk.......... simply because of geography alone.

[PanzerJaeger]

Someone said that we have the right to bear arms because the first US government wanted the civilians to be able to rebel in case the government becomes bad.

Yes, but who said 'gun control automatically means dictatorship'? No one did, apart from the straw man you seem to be arguing against.

By the way, as I alluded to earlier, using comparative circumstances of different countries as a basis for policy positions (in this case crime rates and gun control) involves a number of fallacies; so many, in fact, as to render such arguments virtually worthless. Heavy reliance on anecdote is even worse. What you need to provide are statistics from the same test group both before and after a gun ban has been implemented. Those stats still ignore a lot of headwind-type trends and other potentially misleading information, but are at least somewhat more demonstrative.

Here are some examples of the kind of information that, while not perfect, is a bit more useful.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/england.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago_handguns.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/dc.jpg

[Shaka_Khan]

I live in NYC for one, in the Bronx which im almost certain was likely worse than where you lived.
You're the one who's making an assumption.


I have lived in 5 different states throughout the US. I have been to Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo (doesnt count was at the airport). Seoul's safety is more a product of the south korean culture than anything else, tokyo has some of the worst organized crime in the world and singapore is one of the strictest countries on earth. Oh and I spent quite a few of my teenage years 30 minutes away from DC.
If you lived in those countries then why did you posted these earlier?

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.
This sounds like someone who never left your neighborhood. I'll repeat what I said to MRD: I find it sad that you need to carry a gun to feel safe. I want you to experience the feeling of being safe enough not to carry a gun everywhere you go. I like how I can trust any stranger even when that stranger knows that I don't have a gun. There are many places out there where you could experience this even in many parts of the US. I have experienced many of these places and I'm experiencing one right now. Surprise surprise, I never carried a gun everywhere I went even in the dangerous areas of certain US cites.



also do you realize how much easier it is to control guns in places like japan, singapore, and the uk.......... simply because of geography alone.
I did mention that it would be hard to ban guns in the US because of geography and the US is already saturated with guns. But I believe it's possible. There are countries like Cambodia that banned guns when a lot of the Cambodians owned these. A lot of the civilians in China (which is larger and more populous than the States) don't own guns. I felt pretty safe there.


Yes, there are places we are not allowed to carry guns, like federal property and schools, and no, the "majority" of gun crimes in the US do not happen in places where you cannot carry a gun.
I mentioned schools because I saw some gun crime in US schools on the news. Even before Columbine, some schools had metal detectors at the entrance to ban guns because gun crimes were happening. Gun crime in a school is unheard of in places like the UK, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc.
I mentioned that a normal summer camp in the US bans guns because someone in this forum mentioned the need for everyone to own guns after that tragedy in Norway happened. I also saw someone claim that this wouldn't happen in the US because of the right to bear arms.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, but who said 'gun control automatically means dictatorship'? No one did, apart from the straw man you seem to be arguing against.

By the way, as I alluded to earlier, using comparative circumstances of different countries as a basis for policy positions (in this case crime rates and gun control) involves a number of fallacies; so many, in fact, as to render such arguments virtually worthless. Heavy reliance on anecdote is even worse. What you need to provide are statistics from the same test group both before and after a gun ban has been implemented. Those stats still ignore a lot of headwind-type trends and other potentially misleading information, but are at least somewhat more demonstrative.

Here are some examples of the kind of information that, while not perfect, is a bit more useful.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/england.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago_handguns.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/dc.jpg

Judging from those graphs, banning guns had no ill effect on the level of crime.

[Shaka_Khan]

Yes, but who said 'gun control automatically means dictatorship'? No one did, apart from the straw man you seem to be arguing against.
Someone mentioned the Constitution having the right to bear arms so that the people can rebel against a dictatorship.



By the way, as I alluded to earlier, using comparative circumstances of different countries as a basis for policy positions (in this case crime rates and gun control) involves a number of fallacies; so many, in fact, as to render such arguments virtually worthless. Heavy reliance on anecdote is even worse. What you need to provide are statistics from the same test group both before and after a gun ban has been implemented. Those stats still ignore a lot of headwind-type trends and other potentially misleading information, but are at least somewhat more demonstrative.

Here are some examples of the kind of information that, while not perfect, is a bit more useful.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/england.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago_handguns.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/dc.jpg
You're only showing the US and the UK. The US still has guns outside those cities, which makes it difficult to ban guns in those cities. And the UK still has a lot less gun crime than in the US.

I'm saying what I experienced in the US and my different experience in other countries that clearly has zero gun worries.

I'm not picking a side just to annoy you. I was angry that a person I knew when I was a kid was shot. I was angry when I saw a girl run into the lobby and cry that her boyfriend was shot. (Both of these happened many years ago). It's ridiculous and a humiliation that innocent people go through this. In both of these cases, the crime wouldn't have happened if guns were harder for the criminals to obtain. Having been to safer areas, I don't think it's normal if there is a situation that makes the general population need to own guns. That situation just shows how dangerous a country is because of guns.

[Major Robert Dump]

Offering anectodotal evidence of where you have been in the US, even bad neighborhoods, and felt safe w/o a gun has no bearing on the argument at hand, though. Get back to me when you have ventured into East St Louis or the rural meth belt. I might also point out that the only time I have been the victim of a potential deadly violent crime happened to be the one time I was unarmed because the place I was coming from did not allow personal firearms. Kind of funny, when you think about it.

I agree that it's sad I need a gun to feel safe. That is not my fault. It's also not going to change anytime soon. I don't make the world, I just live in it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Someone mentioned the Constitution having the right to bear arms so that the people can rebel against a dictatorship.

Yes, that does not equate to 'gun control means dictatorship'. The idea is not that taking away guns automatically leads to dictatorship (as your straw man would suggest), but that if at some point in the future the government does become authoritarian, the citizenry will have no means to resist.



You're only showing the US and the UK. The US still has guns outside those cities, which makes it difficult to ban guns in those cities. And the UK still has a lot less gun crime than in the US.

That's the point. The US and UK have historically had different violent crime rates long before gun bans came into existence, thus comparisons aren't worth much. Claims that x country has 'zero' gun worries are not evidence of the success or failure of gun control efforts. Remember, correlation does not imply causation. If you're willing to look beyond such poorly thought out comparisons and really dig into the data, you'll be surprised at how little an impact gun control efforts seem to have had on generalized crime trends of various places around the world.


I'm saying what I experienced in the US and my different experience in other countries that clearly has zero gun worries.

I'm not picking a side just to annoy you. I was angry that a person I knew when I was a kid was shot. I was angry when I saw a girl run into the lobby and cry that her boyfriend was shot. (Both of these happened many years ago). It's ridiculous and a humiliation that innocent people go through this. In both of these cases, the crime wouldn't have happened if guns were harder for the criminals to obtain. Having been to safer areas, I don't think it's normal if there is a situation that makes the general population need to own guns. That situation just shows how dangerous a country is because of guns.

Anecdote is just as worthless as false comparisons. You know, I feel really safe in the US and never feel the need to carry a gun for personal protection. That and a dollar will buy me something off the dollar menu at McDonalds. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not picking a side just to annoy you. I was angry that a person I knew when I was a kid was shot. I was angry when I saw a girl run into the lobby and cry that her boyfriend was shot. (Both of these happened many years ago). It's ridiculous and a humiliation that innocent people go through this. In both of these cases, the crime wouldn't have happened if guns were harder for the criminals to obtain. Having been to safer areas, I don't think it's normal if there is a situation that makes the general population need to own guns. That situation just shows how dangerous a country is because of guns.

I heard a story on the radio once about a woman whose ex-husband had been in the KKK. She got introduced to everyone in the local organization. After they broke up she volunteered for the police, wearing a wire to events and gatherings and such. Eventually they got caught on and she started getting threatening phone calls "we're going to kill your dogs, we're going to kill you"...when they showed up at her house one night with crowbars or something she met them on the porch with a shotgun and they scrammed.

[ajaxfetish]

There are plenty in Europe and Asia that have no gun crimes. Note that guns make it easier to hurt a person. Having no guns would make that crime more unlikely to happen. I'll name a few countries of a lot of countries that have no gun crime: UK, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, etc. I for one know for certain that the civilians in UK, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Cambodia don't own guns and there is no gun crime there. I also know for certain that the murder rate in those countries are much much lower than the US.

Data taken from this 2002 WHO report (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/9241545615.pdf), listing numbers for the most recent data-year available between 1990 and 2000.

Gun-related homicides

UK: 45 (1999)
Japan: 22 (1997)
South Korea: 19 (1997)
Singapore: 0 (1998)
Taiwan: no data
Cambodia: no data
Vietnam: no data
China: 3 (1996, data only for Hong Kong)

45 ≠ zero
22 ≠ zero
19 ≠ zero
3 ≠ zero

I'm not sure whether those countries with no data were excluded because there was no firearm homicide or because they chose not to report their data to the WHO. Considering there was data for Hong Kong, but not for the rest of China, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some cases were due to a lack of transparency. Also, these figures cover only homicides, not other gun crime. Singapore had 5 gun-related suicides in that year, if you include those as instances of gun crime, and I have no idea what the figures might be for armed robbery or any other form of gun crime. As Centurion pointed out, there is a difference between zero gun crime and less gun crime. Try to be accurate in the claims you make. If you want to make a case that many countries have lower gun crime rates than the U.S., you're on firm ground. If you claim that countries like Japan, South Korea, and the UK have zero gun crime, you're simply wrong.

Ajax

[Beskar]

45 ≠ zero
22 ≠ zero
19 ≠ zero
3 ≠ zero

...If you want to make a case that many countries have lower gun crime rates than the U.S., you're on firm ground. If you claim that countries like Japan, South Korea, and the UK have zero gun crime, you're simply wrong.

That is being rather pedantic though, he is evidently meaning relative to the numbers in the United States.

Using your own source:
United States of America (1998) 11802

Now let's compare it to the quoted, lets take the highest one.
UK: 45 (1999)

11802 versus 45.

Why "zero" is incorrect, he is simply using the literary device to insinuate that it is effectively 'nothing'/'zero' in comparison to the United States to make forth his point and considering the difference, I feel there should be some fair usage. It isn't as if the United States number was 68, then that would be raising eyebrows at his use of that particular literary device.

[ajaxfetish]

Well, I'm feeling rather like a pedant tonight, and I was getting frustrated by Centurion and Shaka_Khan talking past each other on this point. As I said, lower gun crime? Sure. Obscenely lower? Why not. Zero? False.

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

That is being rather pedantic though, he is evidently meaning relative to the numbers in the United States.

Using your own source:
United States of America (1998) 11802

Now let's compare it to the quoted, lets take the highest one.
UK: 45 (1999)

11802 versus 45.

Why "zero" is incorrect, he is simply using the literary device to insinuate that it is effectively 'nothing'/'zero' in comparison to the United States to make forth his point and considering the difference, I feel there should be some fair usage. It isn't as if the United States number was 68, then that would be raising eyebrows at his use of that particular literary device.

If one compares those numbers to population size, they might as well both be 'zero' if we're using the term figuratively. The dirty little secret that those quoting stats from other countries never mention is that the chance of getting into a violent crime in the US involving a gun may be statistically higher than in the UK or the Asian nations mentioned, but it is still incredibily small. The anecdote expressed in this thread seems to be more of a function of a fearful imagination than reality. Is anyone really deathly afraid to ride a scooter in San Francisco for fear of getting shot? :dizzy2:

The question is: Do we want to remove a fundamental freedom many Americans cherish and enjoy to to move the number from e-5 to e-7? (And that assumes that gun control does reduce gun crime, which has not at all been established.)

[Centurion1]

its not my fault if people simply want to ignore what i say and twist it to their own devices. I said zero, when I say zero i imply a value of 0 or a value of nothing if you prefer. I reiterated it multiple times.

[a completely inoffensive name]

when I say zero I really mean 12.

[Major Robert Dump]

I like how we have 22,000 gun laws on the books yet people want to talk about how gun control works.

If we enforced current laws and closed that stupid gun show loophole it would be a done deal. IMO, the people who campaign to keep the gun show loophole open are just as bad as the liars on the anti-gun side

I'm also curious from you who think that guns vanishing is the magic solution:

If we take guns out of the picture, the murder rate per capita in the US still exceeds that of, say Japan.

[econ21]

If we take guns out of the picture, the murder rate per capita in the US still exceeds that of, say Japan.

I suspect Japan is rather a low crime country. I've heard it said that the US and the UK have quite comparable crime rates, except for the "obscenely lower" gun crime in the UK.

[Major Robert Dump]

Black males ages 16-24 also commit the majority of violent crimes in the US. We should consider a ban.

[PanzerJaeger]

Black males ages 16-24 also commit the majority of violent crimes in the US. We should consider a ban.

:laugh4:

That does bring up a good point, though. A significant proportion of those deaths are criminal on criminal and criminal on police homicides, which should be factored out if we're discussing the relative danger to the 'average' citizen.

[Major Robert Dump]

One trick the Brady lobby used in the 80s and early 90s, before the internet was widely available and people could find federal statistics on their own, was to include people up to the age of 24 as "youths" i.e. "children" and not factor out criminal-on-criminal activity, thus coming up with stats to pull the heartstrings like " a child is shot every 10 minutes in the USA." It also included suicides.

Guns = more gun crime is a no brainer. But based on the reactions of the general public, I would say the vast majority of Americans see it as a Few ruining it for Everyone Else and they won't be baited by bogus stats. The anti-gun lobby would have people believe that in order for a gun top be an effective deterrent/use against crime, that there has to be a gunshot, a bullet and blood, when in fact a guy walking into his backyard with a shotgun and scaring away a pack of burglars does not go into any sort of database. You see these stoeis in the news all the time, yet they aren't included in the "facts." There's a reason that Appalachia has one of the lowest home invasion rates in the nation, despite being in the meth belt ..............

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's a reason that Appalachia has one of the lowest home invasion rates in the nation, despite being in the meth belt ..............

... Though you have to admit that might partially be explained by lack of inhabited buildings and richer pickings elsewhere?

[Ronin]

... Though you have to admit that might partially be explained by lack of inhabited buildings and richer pickings elsewhere?

..and a certain....let's call it proclivity not to report a possible break in to the police....not with that science project going on in the back room.

[Centurion1]

none of you are from appalachia or have ever been there.

[Major Robert Dump]

I've had some cases in Appalachia. They are harder to solve because of lack of dental records and the the DNA being the same.

Good point about the disparity in population clusters, however the home invasion distribution should stay relatively the same per capita, which it is not. It is lower.

While I get the meth lab joke, to sya that people don't call the cops because they are up to something illegal is factually incorrect. In fact, if it were correct, it would hurt the anti-gun angle because it is suggesting that the people using guns are people who are multi-faceted criminals, which enfordces the pro-gun argument that the people who obtain and use guns legally are not the ones at fualt: it's the criminals.

A lot of people don't call the police for a lot of reasons.

[Ronin]

none of you are from appalachia or have ever been there.

true..but I didn´t want to mention that because it might sound like I was bragging.

[Beskar]

Guns = more gun crime is a no brainer.

There is actually evidence that supports the notion that the presence of a gun (even an inactive hunting rifle hung upon the wall) significantly increases levels of aggression, due to it being recognised as a "danger/aggression" mental cue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.


Here Here

[Noncommunist]

none of you are from appalachia or have ever been there.

I'm from there. And at home, I haven't ever been a victim of a crime, nor have I come across meth. Though my dad does have a few guns and we've occasionally used them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I want everyone who is not too insane and doesn't have a serious criminal record to be armed to the teeth at all times. I believe in this more and more as I get older, which is counter intuitive.

[a completely inoffensive name]

To be honest, part of me is actually serious about wanting guns so that a zombie outbreak is thwarted, if one ever arises. Even though I know the traditional scientific explanation of zombies is impossible.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdnwTR8kyk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THqDidIr4Xs

[Nowake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdnwTR8kyk0
I was less concerned with the shootings in the clips and more irritated by the presenter’s tone of casual, satisfied, Bible lesson speech. He was almost purring when he said:

“identified as a drifter with an extensive criminal past. But when he tried to take an officer’s life, he ensured he would have no future!”

His tone simply tosses away the whole gravitas of recording a person trying to kill another and dying in the attempt and makes it all into a sort of perverse, self-righteous “live gun porn”. Is that how these events are picked up on and disseminated in the US?



Moreover, since the bit of moral outrage above is not reason enough to warrant a post, I do have a dilemma.
Now, I should first add that I hold no clear stand for or against and I do not wish to involve myself in the thread per se.
Still, while the legalisation of weapons may not contribute to the crime rate in the sense that those weapons are actually used in criminal activities, I can’t see how they are not building up the phenomenon. When you commit the crime you may use an illegal weapon, yet you can very easily pre-train with their legal counterparts. A whole infrastructure is put in place, teaching you their potential and how to handle every calibre; instructors, shooting ranges, weapon shows allowing you to intimately understand what would suit your needs. Hell, children are in some cases tutored by their own parents, who are under the impression the kids need this sort of life-lesson. Thus when you actually wish to commit said crime, you know exactly what you’re after and how it feels to employ it; not only does it come that much easier to you to pursue that path, but it may even cross your mind solely because you are so familiar with the possibilities different types of guns open up to you. Over a few decades, the whole culture is transformed into... well, what you chaps have in the US at the moment. That’s where one of my small quandaries on the matter springs from at least.

[PanzerJaeger]

Still, while the legalisation of weapons may not contribute to the crime rate in the sense that those weapons are actually used in criminal activities, I can’t see how they are not building up the phenomenon. When you commit the crime you may use an illegal weapon, yet you can very easily pre-train with their legal counterparts. A whole infrastructure is put in place, teaching you their potential and how to handle every calibre; instructors, shooting ranges, weapon shows allowing you to intimately understand what would suit your needs. Hell, children are in some cases tutored by their own parents, who are under the impression the kids need this sort of life-lesson. Thus when you actually wish to commit said crime, you know exactly what you’re after and how it feels to employ it; not only does it come that much easier to you to pursue that path, but it may even cross your mind solely because you are so familiar with the possibilities different types of guns open up to you.

Your scenario of training with legal weapons and then obtaining illegal ones to commit a crime is not accurate. It is not the guns themselves that have a particular legal standing (apart from NFA type weapons), but the people who use them. Felons cannot be in possession of a firearm - ever. That means they cannot pass an ATF background check to buy a gun, they cannot (legally) train at a range, and if they are found to be in possession of a weapon, regardless of whether they plan to use it in the commission of a crime, they go back to prison.

That, of course, leaves the small group of potential felons who have not yet been convicted. They certainly could buy a weapon and train extensively with it before a crime, but such a chain of events is a rare occurrence. The vast majority of would be criminals obtain their weapons through illegal channels and only have a passing understanding of their functionality (pull trigger, insert mag, etc.). Apart from some sophisticated criminals, the kind of small time street thugs that your average American buys a weapon to defend against are not going to be spending money on a weapon and extensive range time and ammunition, all of which are pretty costly, especially if you are desperate enough to be holding people up.

As far as parents teaching their children proper firearms operation and safety - there should be more of it. If a person keeps a weapon in their home with kids, those kids need to be educated on its operation and lethality. If America has a gun problem, it is not with the statistically significant but functionally irrelevant higher gun crime rate versus certain Western European nations, but with accidental firearms deaths. These are usually a direct result of someone with no knowledge (many times a child) of firearms handling one.

As usual with the current generation of absentee parents in America, guns (drugs, unsafe sex, drag racing, etc.) are portrayed as sexy on TV and parents are not willing to take the time to correct that notion. Then comes the day junior wants to impress his friends and grabs daddy's pistol out of his night stand and a completely preventable tragedy is created. The US used to have a very popular Civilian Marksmanship Program much like the one found in Switzerland. I think it is still around in some rural areas. Kids were taught from a young age the proper handling, operation, and maintenance of firearms in a safety oriented environment. The sexy was stripped away as kids were taught that a gun is nothing more than a tool - one to be used responsibly. America would benefit from a resurgence in the program.


Over a few decades, the whole culture is transformed into... well, what you chaps have in the US at the moment. That’s where one of my small quandaries on the matter springs from at least

What exactly do we have at the moment? Despite the recession, violent crime has been steadily and precipitously declining. On the other hand, gun laws have been loosened and gun sales have been steadily rising.

[Nowake]

(i) the kind of small time street thugs that your average American buys a weapon to defend against are not going to be spending money on a weapon and extensive range time and ammunition, all of which are pretty costly, especially if you are desperate enough to be holding people up. (...)
(ii) What exactly do we have at the moment? Despite the recession, violent crime has been steadily and precipitously declining. On the other hand, gun laws have been loosened and gun sales have been steadily rising.

Let me restate, I do not hold a particular stand for or against legalising guns. I also think there have been no definitive studies produced yet, studies capable of tipping the balance towards or against the NRA. Moreover, as a teen, I was taught to handle guns myself by an adult – nothing too serious, pistols, Romanian AKs, Benelli shotguns and such – thus I do not deem this type of education wrong per se. And yes, I expected the argument (i) and it is why my point was that black kids shooting each other over corners are the result of a mentality that was developed in people by the infrastructure over decades and not that they’re topping marksman charts themselves.

It is why I ask if there isn’t a genuine cultural problem (ii). Take Romania for example, not Western European countries. And we’ll leave aside that weapon-related criminality is simply a lot smaller. Now, 90% of the weapon-related crimes here belong to gypsy gangs, the vast majority of them using white arms: "ninja swords" (I kid you not, this is the weapon of choice, they buy real factory produced katana in bulk) baseball bats, hatchets or, at best, air pistols – and not because they’d be a sort of cavemen, most drive SUVs. Here you’re simply seen as stupid if you want to engage in gun crime, no one is willing to be caught with them; you want to settle inter-gang disputes or mug someone, you employ white arms (cool arms I believe you call them). Over the pond, your criminals do not seem to even view it as a possibility. Employing guns in any sort of violent assault is the norm. Take the second clip Shaka Khan linked above – why on earth weren’t those kids using baseball bats to get their point across. Illegal guns are just as readily available here as in the US. It is reasonable to speculate this problem was created through the deep imagology of a society intimately acquainted with firearms.

[PanzerJaeger]

Let me restate, I do not hold a particular stand for or against legalising guns. I also think there have been no definitive studies produced yet, studies capable of tipping the balance towards or against the NRA. Moreover, as a teen, I was taught to handle guns myself by an adult – nothing too serious, pistols, Romanian AKs, Benelli shotguns and such – thus I do not deem this type of education wrong per se. And yes, I expected the argument (i) and it is why my point was that black kids shooting each other over corners are the result of a mentality that was developed in people by the infrastructure over decades and not that they’re topping marksman charts themselves.

It is why I ask if there isn’t a genuine cultural problem (ii). Take Romania for example, not Western European countries. And we’ll leave aside that weapon-related criminality is simply a lot smaller. Now, 90% of the weapon-related crimes here belong to gypsy gangs, the vast majority of them using white arms: "ninja swords" (I kid you not, this is the weapon of choice, they buy real factory produced katana in bulk) baseball bats, hatchets or, at best, air pistols – and not because they’d be a sort of cavemen, most drive SUVs. Here you’re simply seen as stupid if you want to engage in gun crime, no one is willing to be caught with them; you want to settle inter-gang disputes or mug someone, you employ white arms (cool arms I believe you call them). Over the pond, your criminals do not seem to even view it as a possibility. Employing guns in any sort of violent assault is the norm. Take the second clip Shaka Khan linked above – why on earth weren’t those kids using baseball bats to get their point across. Illegal guns are just as readily available here as in the US. It is reasonable to speculate this problem was created through the deep imagology of a society intimately acquainted with firearms.

Well you are right that it is a cultural problem, but that problem is limited to a very specific subculture. The vast majority of gun crimes in the US are committed by poor, urban street thugs with illegally obtained weapons against other poor, urban street thugs. Second to those are the crimes committed by poor, urban thugs against non poor, urban people who are their targets. The rise of gun violence starting in the '70's and peaking in the early '90s can be directly correlated with the rise and relative decline of urban street gangs in America's cities. (The recent rise in gun crime in Britain over the last decade has been traced to the same problem.)

That is why lawful gun owners are so offended by broad brush, politically correct gun control measures and, in turn, why they have made the NRA so powerful. Studies have shown that those who have concealed carry licenses, ie, those who are law abiding gun owners, are far less likely to commit crime than the general population. And yet, they would be the only ones effected by gun bans and the like, as street thugs do not legally obtain and carry their weapons anyway. Most responsible gun owners support efforts like Project Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile), which actually target the inner city problem effectively instead of stripping law abiding citizens of their freedoms. However, there will always be a gun violence problem in the slums as long as there are slums. Remedying that issue goes far beyond gun control. :shrug:

[Major Robert Dump]

The Phillipines is a good example of gun culture gone awry. Too much too fast, methinks. And in 30 days I will get to find this out first hand on R&R :2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

More on ATF's "Fast and Furious" program (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/) - they encouraged sales of guns to suspect people, then used said sales in a push for greater gun regulations.


Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

More on ATF's "Fast and Furious" program (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/) - they encouraged sales of guns to suspect people, then used said sales in a push for greater gun regulations.



CR

It's funny, that theory has been circulating around gun forums and blogs since F&F broke and has been met with a lot of disbelief. 'Sure the administration seriously fuddled itself, but there is no way this was a false flag op. Those only happen in the movies.' Guess not.

Jack booted thugs, indeed. :shame:

[drone]

At this point, the ATF is so dysfunctional it just needs to be disbanded. The Director position is a revolving door of acting personnel, their old revenue collection role for booze and tobacco was removed when the ATF shifted to DoJ, and their reputation is in shambles. Just roll their responsibilities into the FBI and DEA and be done with it.

[drone]

Enough acronyms! I demand an organization that will have a name short and easy-enough-on-the-tongue to be comfortable spoken in two or three syllables, without any confusion!

Like, the "Action Group" or something.
They could just make "Jack Booted Thugs" official.

[drone]

Revenuers. Where I come from, people already call them that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html

I guess we have to employ vast swathes of malicious idiots somehow, and what better than the federal government?

CR

[Hosakawa Tito]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html

I guess we have to employ vast swathes of malicious idiots somehow, and what better than the federal government?

CR

So according to Holder, Jerry Sandusky didn't rape those boys because he didn't intend to abuse them, he loved them and they loved him, they begged for it.

Eric Holder, the attorney general -- number one law enforcement officer in the country -- sent letters and documents to Congress filled with lies. They were part of a cover-up, and Holder hasn't given up on that. Obama's attorney general is participating in a scheme to undermine gun laws, a scheme to undermine the Second Amendment. The attorney general of this country and the president are participating in a scheme to undermine the Constitution of the United States.

They make the Nixon administration look like pikers. Nixon could only dream about getting away with this kind of corruption because unlike the Obama regime he didn't have the media covering up for him. This is an impeachable offense and Holder & Obama should be brought up on charges.

[Cecil XIX]

So according to Holder, Jerry Sandusky didn't rape those boys because he didn't intend to abuse them, he loved them and they loved him, they begged for it.

Eric Holder, the attorney general -- number one law enforcement officer in the country -- sent letters and documents to Congress filled with lies. They were part of a cover-up, and Holder hasn't given up on that. Obama's attorney general is participating in a scheme to undermine gun laws, a scheme to undermine the Second Amendment. The attorney general of this country and the president are participating in a scheme to undermine the Constitution of the United States.

They make the Nixon administration look like pikers. Nixon could only dream about getting away with this kind of corruption because unlike the Obama regime he didn't have the media covering up for him. This is an impeachable offense and Holder & Obama should be brought up on charges.

It's a hell of a lot worse then a third-rate burglary, that's for sure. Worse motives, too.

[Shaka_Khan]

On recent news:

2 Dead in Virginia Tech Shooting: Shot by Same Gun (http://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-tech-shooting-slain-officer-deriek-crouse-father/story?id=15118431)

2 students shot, wounded at Texas middle school (http://news.yahoo.com/2-students-shot-wounded-texas-middle-school-005252364.html)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I used to hate guns. Then I shot one. Now I just hate people with guns.

[Tellos Athenaios]

... And then you shot one... :creep:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I used to hate guns. Then I shot one. Now I just hate people with guns.

I thought gutmensch loved diversity?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Who are you, Fragony, and what did you do to Hosakawa?

[Shaka_Khan]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/gun-cleaning-ax-mile-away-kills-amish-girl-27652095.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fus-15749625%252Fgun-cleaning-ax-mile-away-kills-amish-girl-27652095.html
I'm very sure that a lot of casualties from accidents or crime in the US wouldn't have happened if guns weren't so easy to get in the US. Many people have said that it's the criminal who owned the gun who's to blame for many many decades. But we still continue to see gun crime in the US because guns are so easy to get in the US. It's the gun that makes it so much easier for it to happen. Gun supporters will be surprised that there are many countries where criminals don't own guns. Those countries have very low casualty rates from criminal or accidental assaults.

Btw, can a bullet hurt someone a mile away when shot in the air and then go back down? I think the bullet would've slowed down by then. That's why the bullet falls back down.

[Shaka_Khan]

I think that's when they don't aim high enough. That's how the bullet in the article landed about a mile away. I don't see a difference between a falling penny and a falling bullet. The bullet shoots up but doesn't shoot back down when shot closer to a right angle up in the air. Does the bullet tend to point towards its sharp point due to aerodynamics? Would that sharp end be enough to hurt someone?

[Shaka_Khan]

Not a good reason to ban guns, in my opinion. Just a good reason to stop shooting them in the air.
It has been said that people should be careful with guns for a long long time, but we still see these accidents happen because a lot of people will take risks or just stay careless despite knowing the dangers.

[Ironside]

I think that's when they don't aim high enough. That's how the bullet in the article landed about a mile away. I don't see a difference between a falling penny and a falling bullet. The bullet shoots up but doesn't shoot back down when shot closer to a right angle up in the air. Does the bullet tend to point towards its sharp point due to aerodynamics? Would that sharp end be enough to hurt someone?

To be specific. Without any air drag, the bullet would fall down with the same speed as it was shot out with. The drag does a significant slowdown though.

The bullet is potentially lethal when the sharp point is down. That usually happen with bullets shot in an angle, while the bullet fired straight up tends to fall down flat.

[PanzerJaeger]

An interesting article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/buddhist-packing-bond-pistol-shows-american-warm-embrace-of-guns.html) about the societal shift reflected in the Gallup poll I posted in the OP, especially considering the source. Guns are not really a Left-Right issue in America anymore. People of all political and social stripes are waking up to the fact that even the best police departments cannot stop violent criminals until they show themselves to be violent criminals, and by that time, it is often too late for their victims. And as is often the case in the United States - even adequate policing is hard to come by. More and more Americans are taking an active role in their personal protection, and the predicted Wild West style bloodbath in the streets has failed to materialize.


Robin Natanel picks up a compact black pistol, barrel pointed down range. Gripping the gun with both hands, left foot forward, she raises the semi-automatic and methodically squeezes off five shots. The first one creases the left edge of a red bull’s-eye on a target 25 feet away. The four others paint a three-inch pattern around the first. If the target were a person’s head or heart, he’d probably be dead.

Natanel is a Buddhist, a self-avowed “spiritual person,” a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She is 5-foot-1 (155 centimeters) and has blonde hair, dark eyes, a ready smile and a soothing voice, with a hint of Boston brogue. She’s a Tai Chi instructor who in classes invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

Two years ago, an ex-boyfriend broke into her house when she wasn’t home. The police advised a restraining order. Instead, she bought pepper spray and programmed the local police number on her cell phone’s speed dial. “I was constantly terrified for my safety,” she says.

Ultimately, she got the Walther, joining a confederacy of people who might once have been counted on in the main to be anti-handgun -- women, liberals, gays, college kids. They are part of a national story: Domestic handgun production and imports more than doubled over four years to about 4.6 million in 2009, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun-industry trade group.

‘Societal Change’

The surge has been propelled by shifting politics and demographics that have made it easier and more acceptable than at any time in 75 years for Americans to buy and carry pistols. Post-9/11 fears also seem to be a factor, as has been the relentless pro-gun politicking of the National Rifle Association and marketing, particularly to women, by handgun manufacturers. Events like yesterday’s fatal shootings on the Virginia Tech University campus reinforce a feeling that the world is an unsafe place, even as violent U.S. crime rates fall.

Natanel found it was no trouble to purchase the Walther, a brand favored by movie superspy James Bond, or to locate experts to train her. Her circumstances won her a conceal-carry permit in a state with tough gun-control laws. Her friends have been broadminded about her conversion.

“I’d never considered a gun,” Natanel says. “I thought they were scary. I wanted nothing to do with them. I didn’t think anyone should have them.”

Twenty years ago, 76 percent of women felt that way about handguns, and 68 percent of all people in the country were wary enough of firearms of any kind to tell Gallup pollsters that they backed laws more strictly limiting their sale. Then what Gallup calls “a clear societal change” began.

Democrats, Women

In October, a Gallup poll found record-low support for a handgun ban -- at 26 percent among all, and 31 percent among women. The poll, which has tracked gun attitudes since 1959, documented a record-low 43 percent who favor making it more difficult to acquire guns and record-high numbers of women and Democrats saying there is a firearm at home. Forty-seven percent said someone in the household owns at least one gun, the highest reading in 18 years.

The growing acceptance of guns echoes a transformation in the politics of weapons. In 1987, Florida joined a handful of states that by law or tradition allowed people to carry hidden guns; now Illinois is the sole conceal-carry holdout, and the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 16 sent to the Senate a bill advocated by the NRA that would require those that issue concealed gun permits to recognize licenses from other states.

[Shaka_Khan]

The drag does a significant slowdown though.
Yes, that's my point.
And the bullet doesn't have any up or down speed at the top point. When it falls, it falls the same rate as it would when dropped.

[Shaka_Khan]

Not strictly so for bullets shot at an angle. Think of a baseball being thrown from the deep outfield to the catcher--it's slowed significantly along the way, but it's still moving faster than if it had just fallen from the sky.
I was talking about shooting close to 90 degrees up. There's no difference when just dropping it down and when the bullet comes back down after being shot up close to a right angle.
I mentioned before that the bullet could be a danger when shot at a lower angle because there's more horizontal motion, which is the same situation as your baseball except the bullet is moving much faster in this case.

[PanzerJaeger]

A recent example (http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605) of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. This woman waited in sheer terror for 21 long minutes on 911 for police while a man went from door to window to door trying to get into her home. The police cannot protect you. They can try really hard to find a criminal, but they will not be present during the crime.


A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

Stewart soon turned himself in to police.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

[Husar]

Why do American burglars always break into homes when the homeowners are there while here they always seem to wait until the homeowners are not at home and just rob them in absence?

By the way you Americans describe that you'd think hundreds and thousands of gun-abstaining Europeans would die every year because of the nasty burglar-killers invading their homes while they are defenseless.

That's not happening. So what exactly is the point?

To me it just looks like the USA have a far more violent society in general.

[Major Robert Dump]

A recent example (http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605) of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. This woman waited in sheer terror for 21 long minutes on 911 for police while a man went from door to window to door trying to get into her home. The police cannot protect you. They can try really hard to find a criminal, but they will not be present during the crime.



I cannot believe she shot that guy. H probably just wanted to ask for some pills. The knif was obviously to cut the seal on the narcotics bottle. If Blanchard, Oklahoma had a free pill program for pillheads this would not have happened.

All kidding aside, the story fails to mention a couple fo things that the local media digs into a little more.

First, Blanchard is a town of seriously like 2000 people, with an oversize police force due to the town being a speed trap because it is on a spur that connects two major interstates. I cannot imagine what took the cops so long....

And second, these guys cased her house for weeks. They poisoned all of her dogs over the course of the week and the cops did nothing about it. Some of her property was "vandalized" in a manner consistent with a breaking and entering abandoned mid-crime. The cops should have been watching this girls house. Nevermind that she is a recent widow and young mother, these dudes doing the break in were simply the scum of the scum, they knew she was vulnerable... what dirtbags

[PanzerJaeger]

Why do American burglars always break into homes when the homeowners are there while here they always seem to wait until the homeowners are not at home and just rob them in absence?

The article and video made it sound as though the intruder may have been looking for something more.


By the way you Americans describe that you'd think hundreds and thousands of gun-abstaining Europeans would die every year because of the nasty burglar-killers invading their homes while they are defenseless.

Who is saying that? Do home invasions not exist in Europe anymore? That certainly was not the case when I was last there. I am sure that there are Europeans who have been victimized in their homes who may have been able to defend themselves had they been armed. Hundreds of thousands each year? Surely not, but no one is claiming that.


That's not happening. So what exactly is the point?

I think your confusion results from the misunderstanding described above. The chance of being involved in a violent crime that would necessitate responding with deadly force in the US is extremely small, albeit probably statistically higher. Like Europeans, most Americans will never encounter such a situation in their lives. For most, gun ownership is like an insurance policy. The chance of your home burning down is extremely small, but when it happens, that policy is invaluable.


To me it just looks like the USA have a far more violent society in general.

Yes and no. The vast majority of violent crime in any society is concentrated in very small geographic pockets correlated to the poverty rate and the population density, usually inner cities. Are America's ghettos more violent than Germany's? Probably, especially in comparable gun violence stats. Is American suburbia more violent than comparable German communities? Probably not.

[Don Corleone]

This story has caused a broo-ha-ha on radio here in the greater Boston area. There's a camp that believes the woman should be sent to jail and never allowed to see her son again. They believe that she should have offered herself physically to the intruder to slow things down until the police could arrive. They also say that the intruder has as much right to be in the home. One caller on WTKK said Thursday morning "This is all because of private property". (editorial humming: Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs...)

Then there's the folks that are supporting the mother to the extreme, saying that people have a moral obligation to shoot first and ask questions later, that the moment the guy entered the house, his life was forfeit.

Thankfully, most of us are a bit more nuanced and fall somewhere in-between. Had the intruder been content with larceny, and collected valued items from the living room and absconded, there would have been no need to shoot him. I stick to what I learned in my concealed-carry class... "If somebody's life is in jeopardy, you do what you have to do. But if you shoot somebody in the back carrying a television, you're no better than he is".

Echoing PJ's comments: @Husar.... is it your contention that if brutal home invasions happen infrequently, we should tolerate them? How many rape/killings a year are "acceptable"? And for Shaka, I can play the anecdotal evidence game too. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html).. Christmas at the Petit family house would have been very different this year had this family been able to defend themselves? The police's role? They arrived after the house was on fire... and couldn't save the 3 women (including a 12 year old girl) who had been repeatedly raped and beaten for days, who ended up being burned alive, quite possibly the most excruciatingly painful way of dying.

I believe among other things gun ownership is fundamentally a women's right issue. As the old saying goes "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal".

[Husar]

No, there's absolutely no reason to tolerate a home invasion, but pro-gun people and the US media make it appear like the good guys always win the gun fights.

The real question is how the self-defense cases weigh up against all the murders and mistakes that are enabled or made simpler by guns.

If guns keep 100 people alive each year who would be dead otherwise but also kill 1000 people who could've gotten away otherwise then is there really a benefit?

It's easy to look at an isolated and emotional case like a mother defending her child from the evil knife rapist, but what about the other case where a family member goes crazy and shoots all the family members and then herself?

Like this (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/12/07/ex-ohio-woman-shoots-kids-then-kills-self.html).

Or this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077557/Wendy-Warren-shot-dead-children-boyfriend-bi-polar-disorder.html).

I would personally never deny someone the right to self defense with whatever means necessary and a gun makes this easy.
But given what others have said about this case it may not have been necessary for her to defend herself if the police had done their job properly.

Then again police seem to be so nervous with so many guns around in the whole country that they may just make horrible mistakes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD_TE0OtRJg).

I also happened over this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann) who found out that more people seem to die to gun-related homicides than people use guns to kill an intruder etc.

So yeah, guns are a great tool for self-defense but they're at least equally a great and handy tool for murder.
The real question is not what they're good for but whether the benefits outweigh the downsides.

On that note, Germany is far from devoid of guns, but far less gun crime happens here.(Link (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100042136/after-the-killings-in-cumbria-what-should-we-do-about-guns/)) So yeah, it's also the culture that is to blame, but in the end it's the same culture that embraces gun ownership after all. ~;)

I'll agree that just banning guns in the US is not an answer, but neither is embracing their use every chance you get and cheering teenage mothers for killing a man. It's not unlikely that she will have a lot of mental trouble over it anyway. Better than being dead, yes, but even better if the chance of such an incident is a lot lower in the first place.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wish I had a gun to protect myself. I live in the bad part of town.

Or a tazer. That would work too.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I just got my pistol license in NY. 8 months.

[Centurion1]

surprised you managed to get one.

look i like guns. that being said i don't even give a damn about self defense. I like guns because i like hunting. end of story.

[ICantSpellDawg]

surprised you managed to get one.

look i like guns. that being said i don't even give a damn about self defense. I like guns because i like hunting. end of story.

I don't have any interest in hunting. I don't have any interest in killing an animal that I know I won't eat all of or even really enjoy it. I believe that people should arm themselves to the teeth to go out and get the paper in the morning. I want everyone to be a mirror image of Duke Nukem.

[Centurion1]

It's really not that hard to get a gun anywhere. There's a few really bad spots where it is difficult, but for most of the country it's very easy. Oregon's a long-time democrat strong-hold, but you can get a gun and a concealed carry permit here easier than anywhere but Florida, last time I checked.

Go to NY especially the City

[a completely inoffensive name]

Go to NY especially the City

Then order online bro. There are no more gun bans since SCOTUS ruled on Chicago. Nothing is stopping you. Don't act as if waiting two weeks is some big inconvenience.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Then order online bro. There are no more gun bans since SCOTUS ruled on Chicago. Nothing is stopping you. Don't act as if waiting two weeks is some big inconvenience.

:inquisitive:

The authoritarians in charge in places like NYC and DC are doing their utmost to prevent people from owning guns. In NYC they charge $440 to apply for a permit to own (not carry) a gun, and they reserve the right to disqualify you for any reason they want (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#HowDoIApply):

Your application may be disapproved for any of the following reasons:

A history of arrest or conviction, depending upon the severity of the charges and the amount of time that has elapsed since your last arrest or conviction.
Your failure to disclose your full criminal history, including sealed arrests, on your application;
A history of domestic violence incidents;
A history of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI, DWI, DWAI);
Your failure to cooperate with the investigation of your application;
A poor DMV history, including moving violations, failure to appear and answer summonses or failure to pay fines.

This list is not exclusive. If your investigation results in a determination that you lack character and fitness for a license or permit, your application will be denied.

So that's basically a gun ban on people who the cops don't like.


I'll agree that just banning guns in the US is not an answer, but neither is embracing their use every chance you get and cheering teenage mothers for killing a man. It's not unlikely that she will have a lot of mental trouble over it anyway. Better than being dead, yes, but even better if the chance of such an incident is a lot lower in the first place.

And how would a gun ban lower the chance of men armed with knives from breaking into a house? :rolleyes:

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

:inquisitive:

The authoritarians in charge in places like NYC and DC are doing their utmost to prevent people from owning guns. In NYC they charge $440 to apply for a permit to own (not carry) a gun, and they reserve the right to disqualify you for any reason they want (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#HowDoIApply):
So that's basically a gun ban on people who the cops don't like.
CR

Just sue and you will win due to the SCOTUS ruling. Government can't deny you a gun on a subjective parameter like "character", that would get absolutely destroyed in court. The government can have set rules of, if X then no, if not X then yes. Anything other than that is up to the discretion of the gun store owner, if it is different, you should have a case.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just sue and you will win due to the SCOTUS ruling. Government can't deny you a gun on a subjective parameter like "character", that would get absolutely destroyed in court. The government can have set rules of, if X then no, if not X then yes. Anything other than that is up to the discretion of the gun store owner, if it is different, you should have a case.

Suing will takes years to get to SCOTUS, after you find people who have been denied and will make good plaintiffs. And considering SCOTUS just barely said the 2nd protects handgun ownership against a complete ban, I am not sure they'd strike down the character requirement.

And authorities can still pile on defined rules (like the rule that moving violations (traffic tickets) can disqualify you) until no one hasn't broken at least one.

Or they do as DC is and only allow one business to legally even transfer guns in and out, and only allowing people to buy guns after a permit process designed to be long and arduous.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Suing will takes years to get to SCOTUS, after you find people who have been denied and will make good plaintiffs. And considering SCOTUS just barely said the 2nd protects handgun ownership against a complete ban, I am not sure they'd strike down the character requirement.

And authorities can still pile on defined rules (like the rule that moving violations (traffic tickets) can disqualify you) until no one hasn't broken at least one.

Or they do as DC is and only allow one business to legally even transfer guns in and out, and only allowing people to buy guns after a permit process designed to be long and arduous.

CR

I am sure the CATO institute can send their best lawyer to help the plaintiff tear apart the excessive requirement on the basis that it is exactly what you say it is, a work around the SCOTUS ruling, AKA a gun ban under a different system. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck any decent lawyer that has experience in the subject can tear apart what is essentially a de facto gun ban.

The DC situation might be taken care of by suing under anti-trust laws. As for permits...yeah you might be screwed there but that's not a ban, just weeks of waiting.

[Husar]

And how would a gun ban lower the chance of men armed with knives from breaking into a house? :rolleyes:

It wouldn't.

A culture that doesn't embrace violence and recklessness as a means to get what you want and a police force doing their job are more likely to prevent that than a gun ban in itself.

Not having a gun ban certainly doesn't reduce the chance of armed intruders either and one case doesn't make a survival chance statistic.

[rvg]

Not having a gun ban certainly doesn't reduce the chance of armed intruders either and one case doesn't make a survival chance statistic.

It does however vastly increase the intruders' chances of ending up dead. From the public safety perspective, this is the optimal solution. Bang.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's all about the culture. Having a very liberal (not in the american sense) policy with guns is perfectly fine if you reinforce the culture to be responsible with incentives, such as subsidized target training and tax breaks for shooting ranges.

Demonizing and alienating people with guns creates the exact opposite effect, with the NRA at times in the past being incredibly absurd in how they behave.

[rvg]

Ted Nugent put it best...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

[Husar]

I respect that Europeans have a very different view on the sanctity of criminal life, but my view is that if you're going to break into my house you had better be willing to suffer the consequences.

It's not that different really.

The difference for me is that I rather live in a country where 2 relatively harmless people want to steal my stuff and I don't need a gun to defend myself usually than in a country where 20 armed gunmen/knifemen would like to rob my stuff but I get a chance to shoot back. Neither guns nor self defense are illegal here after all. We're just don't worship and propagate either of them all the time whenever we get a chance.
We also seem to have less guys with knives who are after our families. I'm just saying there may be a connection.

[Husar]

By that I mean many Americans view Europe as dangerously self-absorbed and not willing to stand up for itself.

Well, a lot of people still blame us for looking after ourselves too much and standing up for our own interests too much.

It's funny when Americans think of Europeans as self-absorbed though, it reminds me of people putting their hand on their chest, singing the national anthem while looking at the star-spangled banner, bombing other countries to bring them democracy and the absolutely unshatterable belief that America are the good guys and that the rogue nations better admit and accept that and submit to America's hegemony and will.
Which, funny enough, runs contrary to the notion that everybody should strive to be in first place all the time, usually propagated by the same people.

Which brings us back to guns being the greatest tools on earth and everybody who doesn't like them hates freedom and is just begging for their family to get hurt, sometimes I get the impression that having a gun in your pocket also makes your body bullet-proof, because a good guy with a gun always wins a fight apparently, it never happens that a bad guy wins.

And no, I don't hate America or Americans, or guns. :laugh4:

As for the chronic apathy, you already have a congress that votes on tons of pork or how you call it all the time with lobbyists ruining every sensible law, how could it get any worse? ~;)
Oh yeah, you also have just one party with two logos and roughly 50% of Americans fighting to have their favourite logo on top. ~;)

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EX3km583Dw

Fox News seems to agree with your sarcastic note, Husar.

[Husar]

Oh yes mister Cube, if you were to join the chat more often you'd find me rant about european issues quite often as well.

Just out here in the open I adopted the American idea of corporate identity and would never say anything bad about Europe, we're the greatest, we rule, our kindergarten kids could beat your marines and then conquer China without even using guns, man!
Europe is far from being ideal, it's just annoying when Americans try to tell us our countries would be more secure if we had a similar love-relationship to guns like they do. ~;)

In the same way it has to be annoying when I tell them that their country still is more violent and would be better if they didn't have that gun-culture.

But the difference is that I'm right and they're wrong. ~;)

For the US to ban guns now it's a bit late indeed, but maybe if you stopped embracing violence as your favourite means of "getting things done", there'd be less violence around overall.

Europeans trying to rely on the state and getting everything from the state is a myth anyway as you said yourself, not to forget that the Americans harping on that always assume that most Americans would completely rely on welfare if there were a little bit more than there is today as well.
So that effectively means most Americans would want to be more like Europeans but the good, american, hard-working folks are preventing that? ~;)

Now that would be an unfair view as well, my point is actually to vote democrat!
Because a donkey logo is more peaceful than an elephant logo.

As for our own faults and problems, well, we currently have a president who likes to threaten the press whenever they want to release an article about him that he feels uncomfortable with.
Then he promises unforeseen transparency and to answer 400 questions before taking that back and releasing nothing. :rolleyes:

Arguably that has nothing to do with Americans loving violence and having power phantasies about guns like never before though.

In other news a man who got sentenced to a year on probation for not paying 44k€ in welfare for his employees didn't just walk out of court, he shot at the judge (and missed) and the prosecutor instead, killing the prosecutor. Happened in Bavaria. Link. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/6244833/Man-shoots-prosecutor-in-court)
I'm not sure what that says about guns being a good thing, especially since his was illegally obtained.

As for the opinion of the german people on this, I actually read comments saying that it is understandable given how the german state harasses the small job creators with these insurance payments...
Sounds quite American, doesn't it?

How it's understandable to shoot a prosecutor doing his job over a monetary and political issue is beyond my neo-liberal euroweenie brain though. I think it's just nuts. :shrug:

[Tellos Athenaios]

And, there's an awful damned lot more of you. Something like double our population? What gives Europe?

You are asking this in a gun thread? ~;)

That's perhaps the easy way out, but it prompts a few interesting questions:
1) What makes people choose to live in Europe?
2) And how is it that Europe can accommodate them all?

And:
3) How many more people do we need for the French telco's to start offering decent price/performance ?

[rvg]

... it's just annoying when Americans try to tell us our countries would be more secure if we had a similar love-relationship to guns like they do.

It's not about guns. It's about freedom, specifically the freedom to possess and carry them. I do not own a gun, but if I wanted one I could walk into a sporting goods store today and pick me up a nice rifle. Just like that. This kind of freedom deserves all the praise it gets and should be defended at all costs.

[drone]

Fox News seems to agree with your sarcastic note, Husar.
She is correct, just for the wrong reasons...

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's about freedom, specifically the freedom to possess and carry them.
Funnily enough you have that same freedom in Europe as well. All you need to do in order to exercise such freedom is obtaining a licence which is not too difficult.

Us Europeans walk into a bar at age 16 and buy a drink, just like that. A matter of priorities, I guess. :shrug:

[rvg]

Funnily enough you have that same freedom in Europe as well. All you need to do in order to exercise such freedom is obtaining a licence which is not too difficult.

Us Europeans walk into a bar at age 16 and buy a drink, just like that. A matter of priorities, I guess. :shrug:

In Germany for example you have to get a separate permit for each firearm you're planning to buy. Oh, and you have to prove that you *need* a gun (i.e. being a hunter or a professional marksman). That's not quite free. That's almost freedom but I prefer to be free, not almost free.

[Husar]

What about your freedom to smoke weed? When was the last time you praised and campaigned for that? I know some do, but there is no National Weed Association yet.
We don't have that freedom here either mind you, but what makes the freedom to buy guns so much more precious when most people never really need them anyway (just like weed)?

And there's the argument we had before. What about the freedom to buy a working tank or F-22? The freedom to check everything your government does? There are quite a few things governments reserve for themselves almost exclusively and whether guns are one of them or not doesn't seem like the biggest freedom issue to me. As Tellos said, your 16 year olds aren't even free to buy beer while ours are.

And please don't say guns keep the government in check, your hear about as many complaints about congress than almost any comparable european institution.

The notable difference seems to be that despite guns, more Americans are really worried about someone coming into their home and harming them or their family.

Here we prefer to be free of such worries. ~;)

[rvg]

... but what makes the freedom to buy guns so much more precious when most people never really need them anyway (just like weed)

Because guns allow you to protect yourself.

[Husar]

Because guns allow you to protect yourself.

So does a bullet proof vest.

Are they legal in the US?

[rvg]

So does a bullet proof vest.

Are they legal in the US?

Of course they are.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guns and gun control at the heart of the issue aren't about self defense from burglars, but about overthrowing tyrannical governments.

And I'd much rather live in a free country than a "safe" country.

CR

[Ironside]

Guns and gun control at the heart of the issue aren't about self defense from burglars, but about overthrowing tyrannical governments.

And I'd much rather live in a free country than a "safe" country.

CR

That's why you have draft. It's impossible for the goverment to have monopoly on the military violence that way. :devilish:

[Ironside]

There we go. How do people have trouble recognizing the intent here? If gun-control activists would just come out and say "We disagree with the founding fathers, let's change the constitution." then I would have much less of a problem with them. Although I still think they'd be dead wrong. Instead people like to play revisionist, and pretend that this country was not forged in violence with the intent that violence can and SHOULD be used again if our freedom is threatened in any capacity. By foreign invaders or, far more likely, by our own government.

Deal. I'll convince the gun regulators of this, while you convince the gun activists.
"Calculates the need to post for me compared to GC on the matter in this forum. Smiles. Goes on vacation. :flybye:"

I've been in arguments were my opponent have claimed that the first and second sentence in the second ammendment was totally unrelated and I'm close to Husar in opinion.

[Husar]

Well, our country was not forged in violence, in fact Americans had a lot of say in the making of our current constitution etc. so why do they now say that we are not free because our constitution doesn't allow us to have guns?

And then I would ask where you draw the line? Where is the point where you see your government as tyrannical? Patriot Act and the government banning people from airplanes wantonly and for minor reasons? SOPA? Or just when they want to take your guns away because that alone defines whether people are free?

Do you seriously think Europeans are less free just because of guns? And do you seriously think that guns are THE great enabler for people to tear down a government? The Libyan rebels had a lot of guns but were still losing ground against the government's tanks until NATO bombed those tanks.

I think the idea that guns secure freedom is about as old and outdated as the constitution and some of the ideas your country is based on. ~;)

That doesn't mean America is a bad country but I don't think it's wise to try and apply every last of those 18th century wisdoms to the modern world, it's quite obvious when you think about what they thought of black people back then etc.
Not that that's anywhere in your constitution but it shouldn't hurt to question some of these ideas as well given that many, many years have passed since then.

Guns being so threatening to "the government" is probably a reason for some police officers being so incredibly harsh and quick with their trigger finger, something you complain about often and see as a sign of police tyranny. But noone has formed a mob and used their guns to go and kill the police tyrants yet, which brings us back to where do you draw the line?

[Husar]

Your country was indeed forged in violence. I believe you have to dig deeper than politics, and look at the character of your people. We have a lot in common, actually. Germany, as you well know, was a confederation of like-minded states long before it was a nation--and it became a nation through a quick and effective war that characterized the way most people view "German" warfare even today: quick and decisive.

What war would that be? IIRC there were three relatively short ones when Germany was founded for the first time and a really long one before Germany was founded again as it is today.
Germany as it is today is quite different from Germany as it was first founded. The Germany of today was not built on violence, it resulted out of violence but for that very reason it was built on justice and prevention of violence ever playing a big role again.
Our constitution, that was co-developed/heavily influenced by Americans after WW2 doesn't give us the right to bear arms and use them against the government like the second amendment does.
So when Americans say that guns are a fundamental requirement for a people to be truly free, it reads to me like either americans of the late 1940ies didn't want us to be free at all and didn't apply any ideals to us (you might say that's understandable after WW2) or they simply agreed that there are other checks and balances in the constitution that would save the german people from being enslaved by their own government. Or is there something I'm overlooking?


That said, I'm certainly not saying you're not free. Whoever is saying that, they are dead wrong. Germans are not Americans, and this is something that goes way beyond blood and into the idea of national character. I would never presume to tell a German how to run his country.

That's okay, coming from the better country it would be more appropriate for me to tell you how to run your country anyway. ~;)


I think we crossed the line long ago, but until the majority of Americans feel that way there's really nothing to be done about it. Eventually, it will get bad enough for people to realize something has to be done, but whether that's accomplished through violence or talk is yet to be determined. Talk would be noble and ideal, but violence is often necesarry and should not be abhored simply for being a course with intense risk. Any American not willing to get gunned down for his freedom really doesn't deserve it, but we're a long ways off from people needing to prove it, I hope.

Ah yes, but then is freedom not more dependant on education and the will of the people to work for it than whether or not they have guns?
We got our first green minister president here (president of one of the 16 countries) when the people didn't like how the previous government handled building a train station.
While I think it's a bit silly to oppose a new train station that much, no guns were required and heads rolled without more than a few clashes between police and some guys going too far by throwing rocks.
The people can exert a lot of power in a working democracy and voting for the right people can be a lot more powerful than having a gun IMO.
And that's where I see the problem with the USA's near-identical-two-party-system where loads of change and differences are promised but in the end you always get more or less the same with a slightly different tint.
There are some similarities here actually but these parties also lost a lot of votes to smaller parties, a danger that they don't seem to face in the US (where both parties are usually nearly balanced etc.) and that seems to put them back on track and rethink their positions. Signs of a working democratic system for me.

Now the USA aren't exactly undemocratic but the two parties seem very bland to me anyway and even Obama who promised so much change was unable to achieve a lot of it.
It just doesn't seem like the government is very worried about all the gun-wielding citizens anyway and passes a lot of unwanted regulations anyway.
Gun ownership may thus be a small part of the huge puzzle of things that are a sign for freedom in a country but by itself it seems so minor that the embracement it gets seems way over the top to me.
It is neither fundamental nor sufficient in ensuring that a democracy doesn't turn into a dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever.

And I would consider myself a gun nut of sorts, not that I'm a gun-expert but a rather interested/fascinated person so I don't just hate these things. ~;)


Once again, I don't think you're less free because you have less guns. If Europeans are less free (and I don't know that they are, mind you) it would be for completely different reasons. And no, guns won't fight a modern Army, but they symbolize the right and the freedom to try. This is an important part of American psychology. Once again, I would never presume to understand your culture even though I do try. Is it too much to ask the same in return? Blanket generalizations are the weak-minded answer to a smaller world. We need to stop that trend.

Yes, that's fine, still doesn't help to cling to a symbol that is essentially useless though. And get on other peoples' nerves by pretending that it actually is useful and insinuating they need it too to be truly free. ~;)
I know you didn't do that but some other statements here read like that to me.


I completely disagree. This nation was founded on ideas and revolution--not Borders, Dynasties, or any other common unifying factor. Those ideas ARE this Nation. It is appropriate to revise where appropriate--i.e.: where there is absolutely no precedent, or where a political reality has changed to allow for MORE freedom (i.e. Emancipation, giving women the vote, ect.). It is not okay in order to tear down a fundamental ideal. That would be an even bigger insult on our National heritage than the gaggle of corrupt and lazy politicians we have sitting in the capitol.

Oh no you don't. If the idea of gun ownership was so fundamental then why did they forget it at first and then add it in an amendment? ~;)
I completely agree that such changes should be well thought out and carefully made and not touch all the ideals. But then I already said changing it now wouldn't help a lot and it's not the second amendment as such that I see as problematic but how many people worship it, i.e. the culture around it.


We have done a fairly good job of adjusting our laws for the modern world. Amazingly, we've accomplished more in less time with our quaint and outdated ideals than any nation or Empire ever could have (or ever did) under a tyrant or dictator. I'm of the firm belief that our power on the international scene is by far more of a cause for harm than good, and if anything needs to change it is that. And what would it change to? Right back to the non-interventionist policies that were (shocker!) envisioned by the founders.

Ah yes, this interventionism is coming from that culture that thinks violence and being proactive about everything is the best way to get what you want, many other have it, too, mind you.
It's not US-exclusive but indeed somewhat troublesome.
Our original founder also favoured non-interventionism and diplomacy but then we ended up with Hitler! :stare:


The behaviour of Police is due to bad training, too much money (and not nearly enough of it going where it is needed), and a tendancy for the wrong kind of person to want to be a cop. Once again, this comes down to respecting the subtle differences between cultures. The Police in most places are a class and culture unto themselves.

Yes, there are tendencies of police being too much among themselves here as well, I think it's typical group behaviour and can be seen in the military, fire service and almost any other tightly-knit group as well. Having a dangerous life-threatening job just exaggerates the group behaviour. And being around even more people willing to use their guns makes it even more life-threatening and thus increases the "us vs. them"-thinking within the group...
Thus is my argument, it's hardly perfect anywhere, but there isn't just black and white either.


I hope that's been somewhat helpful, without being too inflammatory.

I think I'm on fire. :laugh4:

But wait:


lol, I was about to finally go to bed, but this topic got me all riled up. Looks like I get to start the day early. :sweatdrop:

Maybe it was too inflammatory after all...

[Husar]

Understand something, and understand it well: At the end of WWII, your nation was shattered, beaten, and still considered incredibly dangerous. For decades following the war, the UN would argue over whether or not Germany could ever be trusted again. There was little to no idealism involved on our part--just practical necessity.

Also, I was talking about the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. Unless I'm mistaken that's how Germany came to be, and it came to be through war. But any other way you want to define it still works. Is Germany the result of Roman intervention? Bloody and warlike. The result of hundreds of years of being involved in the Holy Roman Empire? No less bloody and warlike. The result of WWII? So bloody and warlike, it defies any other description. I understand where your argument is coming from, and honestly this is a tangent anyway, but your country was forged in violence whether you want to admit it or not.

No, it wasn't. If we see West Germany as the precursor to the nation we have now, it was forged in 1949, WW2 ended in 1945. While the war was what destroyed the Reich and ultimately lead to the forging of the nation, it wasn't forged in a violence but in a post-war climate of never wanting to go to war again and certainly as you say, the Americans not wanting us to go to war again.
It was forged as a most peaceful nation and not as one that uses war and violence as a means to achieve it's goals, which is what your nation thrives on since it had to wage and win a big war in order to come to existance. The idea of what war and violence achieve is a completely different one in our two nations.



While it seems over the top to you, I find your inability to understand where I'm coming from to be just as irritating. If not more. We're quickly approaching a day and age where people may need to actively stand up for their freedoms. If that scares people, or if that makes them uncomfortable, good. Nothing is worth it that's not earned.

I understand where you're coming from, I just wish you came from somewhere else. ~;p

As I always understood it, our forefathers fought and died so we would never have to fight and die again and can solve our issues at the ballot box.
If you say we will definitely have to rise again and die and fight to resolve our issues then that means our forefathers have failed and died in vain.
It also means that our entire systems and democracies are not working, which I think is not the case, at least over here. It's not perfect but not beyond repair either.
If the USA are a nation built upon the idea of recurring civil war and bloodshed, that's okay if you like it but please keep me out of it because that's not the kind of nation I want to hand over to my children.

Also China would intervene and conquer you while you're busy. ~;p




This is integral to our being. This is the concept of ultimate and unblemished freedom, and the idea that death is preferable to being chained. And before you say it: I know that's unrealistic and idealistic, but that's the point.

It's just silly and I would also divide it by religion.
As a Christian, the argument works because heaven is great, then again as a Christian you believe that you will worship god all the time in heaven and not run around toting guns, you also believe that killing is a sin and violence shouldn't be used to get anywhere. And that doesn't fit with the second amendment at all.
Now that we have established that all Americans (except the Amish and so on of course) are actually atheists, why is *the end*/*nothing*/*blackout*, the ceasing of neurochemical activity or what you want to call it preferable to watching the nice blue skies and lush green grass with a chain on your hands and a chance to become free without actually dieing?
And why do people in prison not kill themselves?




Oh yes I do. The Bill of Rights (of which the 2nd Amendment is part) is the perfect example of appropriate revision. It was specifically added so that people would not have to fear their own government. Every amendment in there is for the same larger purpose: to protect the citizens from a government that might eventually not care all that much for what they think. Rather than disproving my point, all that does is re-enforce it.

Don't get me wrong, though: there are countless examples of our idealogies and freedoms being betrayed by our own government and our own people. The only thing I can really say about it is that we're a free country, for now at least, and it is up to the people as a whole to regulate their government in the end. Many Americans simply can't be bothered.

That's because the two-party system seems to be unable to achieve the regulation they want at the ballot box. Some people in Germany thought that about our two major parties and so they made a new party which is actually taking votes away from what were our previous major parties, similar to how our smaller parties grow stronger at times where people grow tired of the major ones.
This is a system where you can actually achieve some political change and get a say in government without having to despair because the system is pretty much locked between two parties that no other party can compete with.

Your people fear the government quite a bit and even you think it's ultimately out to get you and you will have to fight it any maybe die fighting it. If the second amendment reduces fear of the government, then it seems like you'd all be terrified of your government without it. Time to rethink the system perhaps? ~;)




I find your version of history intrigueing. Let's twist it for my point of view, for a moment, okay? Let's say Germany had never made those entangling treaties with Austria. Would they have been dragged into WWI? Would WWI have ever started? Would Hitler have ever come to pass, then?

Hahahahaha.
Seriously? You think I meant Kaiser Wilhelm II. when I said non-interventionist leader? :laugh4:
He sent gun boats around, insulted other nations' leaders and wanted to get colonies.
The person I meant was Bismarck and he didn't use treaties to entangle us, he used them to prevent war.

And I was joking anyway, using a terribly simplified version of history.


I know what-if scenarios are dumb, but come on.

They're fun.
And a requirement for proper risk-assessment. :cool4:


There are very, very few examples of interventionism ever being a good thing for the little people--and the little people are the only ones that should matter in America (Actually, I phrased this poorly. The poor and weak are the responsibility of the rich and powerful. The American Dream, and the riches and wealth associated with it, come with a responsibility to the people under you that should not have to be regulated--it should be understood as basic decency).

There's trickle down so that's not an issue at all. :sweatdrop:


If the poor and the weak can't be treated properly, then the rich and powerful are directly to blame. That's my personal belief, and something that even a lot of Americans would scoff at. Even other people of a Libertarian bent.

The lazy leeches are being treated properly! :rolleyes:


Kind of. Close enough, really. In the Army, you see exactly what you're talking about, but you also see the positive side of risking your life and facing danger. There are emotional and psychological benefits to be reaped from risking your life, just like there are incredible pitfalls and disasters.

Yes, but that depends a lot on strength of character and not all people assess that and the risks associated with it properly before going to risk their lives. Which also means that having to risk your life in order to be free is a pitfall some people cannot avoid and an inherently dangerous idea that doesn't take into account the weak which is a requirement that should be met by the powerful as you just said.
As such any political system that works on the premise of requiring people to risk their lives in order to restore it after unevitably getting corrupted as per it's design, is rotten and badly designed. ~;)


In my town, at least, the cops like to troll the streets at night looking for homeless people to beat up--which says to me that they're cowardly people who joined the police just to exert power over people better than themselves.

I'm not sure whether these lazy commie leeches are better than hard-working police officers but they should be fired for beating up people without a reason and never get a job again so I can call them lazy commie leeches when they inevitably end up homeless.


Burn baby burn... :laugh4:

:smiley2:

[Husar]

Yarr, once more into the crack in the wall.

Does that mean I'm a horrible person to debate with or just that you think I'm actually angry?


I won't do the quote-monster thing this time

Hmm, yes, I only saw how long my last post was after I posted it and I actually wanted to try and shorten the post length, so here goes:

2. I can actually agree with that, but still find it preferable to have a police force that actually does a good job in keeping criminality low, including their own.

3. I'm not denying anything, I'm saying our system is not beyond repair yet and it's always preferable to avoid a revolution if possible.
Whether guns are enough for the people to defend themselves against tanks is a completely different question though, in case a of a modern revolution it's best if the army isn't very loyal to the rulers as the arab spring has shown.

And yes, I always talk about Bismarck! ~;)
He's my hero because he didn't cause any intervention to destroy our nation. :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

As I always understood it, our forefathers fought and died so we would never have to fight and die again and can solve our issues at the ballot box.
This is true.


If you say we will definitely have to rise again and die and fight to resolve our issues then that means our forefathers have failed and died in vain.
This is true. It was in vain.


It also means that our entire systems and democracies are not working, which I think is not the case, at least over here. It's not perfect but not beyond repair either.
No system "works". Every system breaks down after a certain period of time.


If the USA are a nation built upon the idea of recurring civil war and bloodshed, that's okay if you like it but please keep me out of it because that's not the kind of nation I want to hand over to my children.
Well, that's your prerogative.

[Ironside]

Neither! It means I'm enjoying this. Its a fun debate. I just brain-farted on how to spell breech (breach?).

And the product of this debate is that we now have a better understanding of the cultural difference here. You have different priorities, but at the core you have the same democratic values that put the safety and wellfare of the people above that of the leaders. Where we differ is how to go about it, and even then not by much. The biggest difference is that I see danger as being much more imminent than you do. Whether that's a product of cultural difference or personal difference is hard to discern, but it would need a whole new debate: How bad is it? Just how imminent is social collapse, to one degree or another?

I think the big difference is how much the system is based on trust. Here and I think in Germany (we're quite similar) it's a much higher trust in the goverment and the faceless bureacrat and even the crook isn't supposed to be going that far.

The US? The corrupt goverment robs you, the bureacrat screws you and the crook is going into your house guns blazing. According to some.

[rvg]

...The US? The corrupt goverment robs you, the bureacrat screws you and the crook is going into your house guns blazing. According to some.

Which is why the crook needs to die. It'll brighten my day.