NRA is too radical

[drone]

In allowing weapons for all, you in fact increase the danger on you freedom. You give power to individual the right to shoot who they want (even after the classes) when they want.

No, we give the power to the individual the ability to shoot who they want. There is no right to taking another life. The actions you take with your firearm will be judged based on the circumstances and the laws of the locality.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

[Fisherking]

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

What?

People don’t usually put themselves in danger just so they can shoot someone.

What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?

[Beskar]

What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?

American movies?

[Tellos Athenaios]

People don’t usually put themselves in danger just so they can shoot someone.

Please read:

No, we give the power to the individual the ability to shoot who they want. There is no right to taking another life. The actions you take with your firearm will be judged based on the circumstances and the laws of the locality.

We're well past the self defence argument now. You are, apparently, given the ability to shoot who you want but you are expected not to exercise that ability. Which is not at all unlike telling people how to get the apple and then telling them to no do that anyway.

[Fisherking]

Please read:

We're well past the self defence argument now. You are, apparently, given the ability to shoot who you want but you are expected not to exercise that ability. Which is not at all unlike telling people how to get the apple and then telling them to no do that anyway.

The Constitution of the United States gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to shoot whom you will.

This is more of a deliberate misunderstanding or misreading rather than what is a right.

Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.

Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.

In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The Constitution of the United States gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to shoot whom you will.

This is more of a deliberate misunderstanding or misreading rather than what is a right.

Please read again. If that were my understanding, I'd've omitted “not” somewhere in my apple story wouldn't I?
My issue is that from a self-defense perspective guns are not that useful: as Brennus hinted at those who you would trust with a gun are those who would think twice about using it, but the situations wherein a gun is truly useful mean those people won't get that opportunity because the other type doesn't. In other situations, guns are overkill --literally. Much more useful to go on a self-defense course if you feel you need it.

EDIT: I should add that I apply the logic of “time and a place for everything” on guns. This leads me to think that you can play with guns to your hearts content, but not en plein public: that hobby does not belong there. So I strongly disagree with the notion that the “right to bear arms” implies the right to do that wherever you please.

Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.

Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.

Really? Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?

In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.

In my experience you help other people out about as much as other people help you out. But then again, that's small things. The help from government is a completely different relationship. Mainly because the government does not expect something equal in return; government is like a charity here. Incidentally, that is the basis for this part of government.

Don't mistake that for the other part of government which says “thou shalt not murder” to you: that part is the bit where your current and past society tells you what is and more often what is not accepted behaviour. But I take it you don't actually have a problem with that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

So killing people without cause is being compared to eating a tasty apple?

I think I need to reiterate something for our non-American friends: your doomsday scenarios and worrying about people going about shooting others because they can (just like others go about running people over with cars just because they can ) are totally without basis. We know this to be true because most states allow people to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. Some, Alaska and New Hampshire, allow anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without any permit so long as they aren't a convicted criminal.

And still these states do not resemble your imagined dystopias.

In terms of self defense, the facts state that using a gun for defense means you're less likely to be injured.

Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?

And no one should be starving or sick in this world either. Let's not base policy on unattainable utopias, shall we?

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

So killing people without cause is being compared to eating a tasty apple?

I think I need to reiterate something for our non-American friends: your doomsday scenarios and worrying about people going about shooting others because they can (just like others go about running people over with cars just because they can ) are totally without basis. We know this to be true because most states allow people to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. Some, Alaska and New Hampshire, allow anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without any permit so long as they aren't a convicted criminal.

And still these states do not resemble your imagined dystopias.

To reiterate then, we do not need to make any assumptions about dystopias just yet. We merely have to observe a few key things:
(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.
(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.

In terms of self defense, the facts state that using a gun for defense means you're less likely to be injured.

Because the other person will be? The facts also state you're less likely to be injured in certain places where guns are de facto banned and self-defense using guns is therefore not an option. Vastly less likely, in fact; see the point I reiterated above.

And no one should be starving or sick in this world either. Let's not base policy on unattainable utopias, shall we?

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

Seamus, at least, admits that to him to interpret the right to keep and bear arms unconditionally is worth 21000 deaths a year. (That's what the stat of 7 per 100K works out on the USA population rounded down to 300M.)

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah, and in classes people are taught to be polite, no swearing, to be respectful of the elders and to never hit a woman. And we all obey the rules

Obviously the classes and/or common sense are paying off. In 2007, in a nation of 302 million people, there were 613 fatal firearms accidents. Again, it seems that these hypotheticals of people shooting their friends in a drunken stupor and jumping into random firefights and shooting innocents or being shot themselves are very rare.

Stop kidding, please:
I was in the Army. And I know what is this strange feeling to have weapons in your hand. The power of Death and Life, the fear mixed with “Respect” when you arrived in a village during a night exercise, faces blackened, dirty, smelly but with your Assault Rifle…
Do you ever, ever, experiment this Power when an Armoured Division deployed in an open plain, with the ground shacking under your APC’s caterpillars.

Just because you experienced some sort of weird power trip while handling weaponry does not mean that it is a common occurrence.

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

Lol, what?

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

The stats say differently. Gun restrictions/bans here in the States and in Europe have had no noticeable positive effect on violence and public safety. It could even be argued that in some places they had a negative one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

“Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?”

“Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.

Don't worry. They all looked at me funny too, when I asked about nuclear arms to defend against government tyranny. They see things in a different light, the gun debate runs along different lines.

[drone]

American movies?

And we all know how accurate these are.

[Brenus]

“Just because you experienced some sort of weird power trip while handling weaponry does not mean that it is a common occurrence.”
May be true, may be true…
But I won’t trust somebody carrying a weapon and who wouldn’t have the feeling of what power he/she is supposed to unleash or control…
And I spoke with colleagues and former colleagues/comrades in arms… The first time you’ve got your weapons, when you are finally allowed to carry a weapon, you feel something, like when the flag goes up the sky…
If you don’t, you miss something…

[Beskar]

And we all know how accurate these are.

Well, he asked where you see Hollywood American Cow-boy Gunho... so they are pretty accurate at doing that.

[Ice]

And we all know how accurate these are.

Yeah I know. I'm sure all the firearms in the movies the "The Town" and "Heat" were legally obtained.

[drone]

Well, he asked where you see Hollywood American Cow-boy Gunho... so they are pretty accurate at doing that.

No, he asked:

What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?

People on this board constantly rail about how Hollywood portrays historical events. Why would you think they portray modern life without spicing it up some?

[HoreTore]

No, he asked:

People on this board constantly rail about how Hollywood portrays historical events. Why would you think they portray modern life without spicing it up some?

Why would one need movies, when you've got people like the 911-call about a guy who told the operator he was going to kill the guys who were looting some stuff from his neighbor? And the tons of people who supported him?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just a few points:


1. On one very important level, all of this argumentation is moot. The citizens and residents of the USA possess millions of weapons, most of them firearms. To this point, our Constitution has been construed (rightly in my opinion) to protect the personal ownership of arms by US citizens. ANY attempt to alter this would involve, on some level, an effort by government (local or federal) to cofiscate weapons from citizens. As TinCow has correctly pointed out, that simply will not happen. Even were the government to attempt it seriously, a civil revolt of unheard-of magnitude would be the result -- and many of those who bear arms for the government would not support the effort in the first place (and might well line up on the other side of the dispute). So this argument is really on a somewhat hypothetical level anyway.

2. TA makes some good points. However, as has been noted by historical researchers, for example W.E. Hollon's Frontier Violence: Another Look or Hill & Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?

3. Even if we accept the notion that the prevelance of firearms itself begets violence and more deadly violence, and therefore accept TA's argument that public safety is not better served by individuals protecting themselves, the reason for firearms was not, according to the founders, primarily for the purpose personal protection or of hunting, but to provide citizens with the werewithal to resist tyranny should it arise. It is this latter reason that leaves me inclined toward the opinion that almost any restriction of arms is unconstitutional.

[a completely inoffensive name]

2. TA makes some good points. However, as has been noted by historical researchers, for example W.E. Hollon's Frontier Violence: Another Look or Hill & Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?

If I remember correctly, in the book Freakonomics, the authors actually claimed that the data doesn't hold up that statement at all but it continues to be repeated because it is such a great talking point politically.

[Vuk]

My issue is that from a self-defense perspective guns are not that useful: as Brennus hinted at those who you would trust with a gun are those who would think twice about using it, but the situations wherein a gun is truly useful mean those people won't get that opportunity because the other type doesn't. In other situations, guns are overkill --literally. Much more useful to go on a self-defense course if you feel you need it.

Really? I have handled guns since I was five years old, and guarantee you that if it was necessary to protect my life or the life of my family, I would not hesitate for a moment. If you do not know when it is appropriate to use a firearm in self-defense, and you have questions about whether you could or not, it will still serve as a deterrent. How many times have people been able to hold criminals at bay while the police were called? Some times with an unloaded gun! :P

(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.
(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

Oh really? No place in the home? So I guess the fact that I target shoot right out side my house and hunt in the property outside of my house isn't enough to make the house a place for non-violent (toward humans) gun use? Do I really have to drive for an hour to go to the nearest gun range when I could just shoot on my own property?

@Tellos Athenaios
You insist that guns cause violence and that if you give someone the means to kill someone they will. How do you explain that my father and mother, myself, and all five of my siblings have been shooting since we were children, and not only never had a firearm accident, but have never decided to go kill someone? I have over 30 guns in my house and thousands of rounds of ammunition, surely that is means enough for you, and yet all I have ever done is target shoot with them and hunt occasionally.
Your argument is really not a good one, because a car, your hands, a butter knife, a sharp stick, etc could all be effective means of killing an unarmed person. I guess that means that even Canadians and Euros have the means to kill people, and yet (shockingly) they do not!

Criminals own guns to kill people (and usually obtain them legally), the legal gun owner owns them to collect, to hunt with, to target/sports shoot with, etc.

[Tellos Athenaios]

suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?

Such rates are a function of multiple inputs, one of them being the number of conflicts between people which depends on population density (for obvious reasons). One can surmise that this particular input is of a higher than linear order in population density. To draw a wildly inaccurate analogy here: since in a large modern city like Detroit there live about as many people as in the 13 founding states when the constitution was drawn up together, statistics from that time -- which, by the way, probably do not include figures from Native Indian populations -- are quite meaningless in the context of modern Detroit. A more fitting comparison would be Paris back in the day, with its ban on duels. (And when arms were eventually banned in the city of Paris, it resulted in a marked drop of all sorts of violent crime rates.)

3. Even if we accept the notion that the prevelance of firearms itself begets violence and more deadly violence, and therefore accept TA's argument that public safety is not better served by individuals protecting themselves, the reason for firearms was not, according to the founders, primarily for the purpose personal protection or of hunting, but to provide citizens with the werewithal to resist tyranny should it arise. It is this latter reason that leaves me inclined toward the opinion that almost any restriction of arms is unconstitutional.

This is a completely different argument. You could go down the historical context lane of arguments and then arrive at the conclusion that de-facto this particular argument/issue has been rendered completely and utterly irrelevant for well over a century now. Try and stand up against the tyranny of the USA armed forces & their evil taxes, and see how long exactly your prised weapons will last if they're determined to suppress you... Then the obvious question is: if the wherewithal to resist state tyranny has been rendered de-facto obsolete, why would this reasoning still apply to (fire)arms?

Now, I am not from the states so I might be lacking a certain emotion or attachment towards the USA constitution, but to me the utility of this argument is about as much as of complaining to the Federal Government for being “biased” towards American English when in fact American English is not even an official language of the USA. Or of that register of subversive groups plotting to overthrow the USA Federal government.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Such rates are a function of multiple inputs, one of them being the number of conflicts between people which depends on population density (for obvious reasons). One can surmise that this particular input is of a higher than linear order in population density. To draw a wildly inaccurate analogy here: since in a large modern city like Detroit there live about as many people as in the 13 founding states when the constitution was drawn up together, statistics from that time -- which, by the way, probably do not include figures from Native Indian populations -- are quite meaningless in the context of modern Detroit. A more fitting comparison would be Paris back in the day, with its ban on duels. (And when arms were eventually banned in the city of Paris, it resulted in a marked drop of all sorts of violent crime rates.).

Clearer argument/analogy (though I'll substitute NYC vis-a-vis the numbers, since Detroit is at 25% of its former population these days).

[Crazed Rabbit]

To reiterate then, we do not need to make any assumptions about dystopias just yet. We merely have to observe a few key things:
(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.

That is not borne out by lower crime rates in cities with higher legal gun ownership (ie Seattle [lower crime] vs Chicago [high crime]). There's other factors of course, but it means the crime rate doesn't rise with gun ownership.

Indeed, across the US, violent crime has fallen as more handguns are owned and more people are able to carry concealed firearms.

(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.

Violence does not occur in the public space? Just where do muggings, assaults, and the like occur?

Your final point rests on false logic.

Because the other person will be? The facts also state you're less likely to be injured in certain places where guns are de facto banned and self-defense using guns is therefore not an option. Vastly less likely, in fact; see the point I reiterated above.

Do they now? So Chicago and New York City are much safer than Seattle? Did Britain's gun injury rate go down or up after the handgun ban?

And by other person, do you mean the criminal attacker is more likely to be injured? If so, I must wonder why we should hesitate to do something that increases the safety of law abiding citizens because criminals would be more likely to be injured.

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

No, banning guns outside of ranges does not improve conditions. I don't know why the facts about defensive use of guns against criminals seem to be ignored, but I'll reiterate; a LOT of people use guns to defend themselves each year in the US. Banning guns would leave them injured or dead. And the people misusing guns - criminals - would not pay attention to your ban.

So, no, limiting guns to ranges doesn't help anyone.

Seamus, at least, admits that to him to interpret the right to keep and bear arms unconditionally is worth 21000 deaths a year. (That's what the stat of 7 per 100K works out on the USA population rounded down to 300M.)

Actually, only about 10-15k people are killed by people using firearms per year.

If I remember correctly, in the book Freakonomics, the authors actually claimed that the data doesn't hold up that statement at all but it continues to be repeated because it is such a great talking point politically.

Link please. I don't remember that from the book.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Link please. I don't remember that from the book.

Google books doesn't have the specific page I wanted to quote available, but if you open the book to page 177, I believe it starts talking about the idea of "More Guns= Less Crime" and it debunks it on the following pages. I am back in Uni so my actually copy of the book is 7 hours away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I do recall it looked at the "More Guns, Less Crime" book by Stephen Lott (IIRC), and that the conclusion for them was that it's a wash in the modern USA in terms of guns and crime. I might have a copy of the book in the house, I'll see if it addresses the Wild West in particular.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I happen to have a copy of Freakonomics right in front of me right now. In a British Penguin edition. Chapter 4, on page 121, Lott is discussed, and basically dismissed.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Just to clafiry from my OP I mean having a ban on assault rifles (AK-47's, AR-15's, those types) and not regular guns (pistols,hunting guns (since I do own shotguns from my grandfathers )

[ajaxfetish]

Just to clafiry from my OP I mean having a ban on assault rifles (AK-47's, AR-15's, those types) and not regular guns (pistols,hunting guns (since I do own shotguns from my grandfathers )

And just to clarify, the reason so many are finding fault with your argument is that regular guns (mostly pistols) are used in crime, rather than assault rifles.

Ajax

[drone]

And assault weapons are already de-facto banned.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just to clafiry from my OP I mean having a ban on assault rifles (AK-47's, AR-15's, those types) and not regular guns (pistols,hunting guns (since I do own shotguns from my grandfathers )

You need to clarify further.

Assault rifles can fire in a fully automatic mode and are extremely restricted in the US.

Semi-automatic rifles, often called assault rifles by fear mongering or ignorant reporters, can only fire once per pull of the trigger, and there's a goodly number of them in the US.

Also - are you saying that you support banning only guns you don't own? What a selfish way to approach civil rights.

Finally, rifles, of either semi-auto or actual assault weapons, are very rarely ever used in crimes. So you should also clarify why you want to ban 'assault weapons'.

CR