The 2nd Amendment

[YetAnotherOne]

When considering international opinion it's worth remembering that a lot of European anti-firearms laws have their genesis in the early 20th century as attempts to combat the growing political violence of the time. Even before strict control of firearms became en vogue in Europe they had a far lower incidence of gun violence than their American contemporaries despite more similar rates of firearms ownership. It seems fair to say that it's as much or more the culture in America as the relative ease of availability of weapons.

It's also worth remembering that those same European politics were largely responsible for nearly 75 million deaths during WW I and WW II. I think we necessarily must consider the impact of military conflict when considering statistics regarding violent death rates. America may be a brash and somewhat violent place where conflict is nearly perpetual at some very low level but Europe is a boiling pot which occasionally explodes dragging the rest of the world down with it. At the current rate of 28,000 gun-related deaths per year it will take the US almost 2,700 years to reach a body count accomplished primarily by Europeans and primarily due to European politics in barely a decade's time. Just food for thought.

[Spivonious]

I don't think including bodycounts from two world wars is really fair here. And what about the Great Famine or the Black Death? IIRC Europe lost 75% of its population.

With that said, I agree that if you claim gun control laws are ineffectual against gun-related crime rates, then there has to be a difference in culture. So, what is that difference? One could claim that since the U.S. was formed by rebellion, this sort of violence = power feeling could be embedded in our culture. But most of western Europe was also formed by violence. French Revolution, anyone? So that gets thrown out.

Could it be the fear of the unknown? Xenophobia (no offense intended Xeno) is a real problem and can provide motivation to use whatever force necessary to keep those different people out. Since the U.S. is a "melting pot" of peoples, these tensions are naturally higher than a country in Europe, where most residents have deep ties to the countries they live in.

In my limited travels, I've noticed a real tension in the UK between the whites and the Pakistanis. Since scotty has related he doesn't notice a lot of gun crimes, one can infer that this tension has not translated to a higher rate of gun violence. Of course, WWII kind of disproves this, since Germans' fear of Jews was exploited and led to much higher violence against Jews.

Then there's the notion that Americans are simply loud, brash, mostly selfish people. This is supported by how badly Americans stick out when traveling in Europe. However, does this translate to a higher likelihood of "snapping" and using deadly force on another person?

It's really interesting to think about. I wish I were still in college so I could take some sociology and psychology courses.

[YetAnotherOne]

I don't think including bodycounts from two world wars is really fair here.

If you believe that violence is a societal problem then is it not fair to inquire into the violence a society visits not only upon itself but upon others as well? I'm not suggesting that as the only or even a proper perspective but I do believe that it merits a bit of consideration. In America we have a longstanding issue with casual, routine, and ongoing violence, Europe has a longstanding issue with open warfare that rages across the continent from time-to-time. And it isn't particularly difficult to locate anecdotal evidence that America might well be a more peaceful and tolerant place than Europe, at least in some circumstances. Consider, for example, the reaction to the murder of Theo Van Gogh as compared with the American reaction towards our Muslim citizens following 9/11. The far larger provocation of 9/11 seems to have produced a far smaller internal reaction among the citizenry. Might we have a far higher propensity for casual violence but a lesser capacity for reactionary violence? I'm sure I have no idea but it's an interesting question, no?

[Gino]

Sorry, wrong thread....

[lerxstcat]

Yet it could provide a viewpoint that you yourself would have never thought of. And I think I would be interested in my neighbor's opinion of my yard. Don't want to upset them

That's why we built our house where there's a large moat! :ROTF:

[Newc]

... international opinion on our gun laws is much like asking your neighborhood to tell you how you should landscape your back yard.

Precisely. If America was truly governed by "World Opinion" we'd be back under European rule.

The constant fact remains: if guns are made illegal, only criminals would have guns. This actually has two meanings: first, and the primary point of this statement, is to say that law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns to abide by the law, yet robbers, rapists, and other armed felons who would be armed felons regardless of banning guns or not will be the only ones to have guns, and they'd have an unarmed/defenseless pupulace to prey on.

The other half of that argument is that the average law-abiding gun owner who would rather die than give up their gun and be an unarmed potential victim, and therefore would be deemed a criminal under the law.

Unfortunately many people confuse the Wild West Days and John Wayne Cowboy crap as the reason why Americans like to own guns with the fact that as long as the criminals have guns, the law-abiding populace should be able to protect themselves with guns. I disagree strongly with keeping an unloaded weapon in the house. Yes I know some people cannot teach their children well enough about "don't touch". Too bad for them, but it's entirely their fault. The gun is an inanimate object. It never killed anyone. The person holding it did. You cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

A gun in the house that is kept for domestic protection should be loaded and ready to point and click, not hidden away and the ammo under the blankets in the bottom drawer of a noisy wooden chest. You think The Bad Guy is gonna wait for you to locate your ammo and load your gun? He's coming in with it cocked and ready to fire, why should yours not be in the same state?

Thousands of people are killed every year with handguns. Would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?

[Cleveland Metal]

A gun in the house that is kept for domestic protection should be loaded and ready to point and click, not hidden away and the ammo under the blankets in the bottom drawer of a noisy wooden chest. You think The Bad Guy is gonna wait for you to locate your ammo and load your gun? He's coming in with it cocked and ready to fire, why should yours not be in the same state?

Yeah, I live in a pretty bad area and sleep upstairs in my large house. I keep a loaded and chambered (w/safety on) 9mm on the stand at night. I also have a loaded (00 Buckshot) and half chambered (w/safety on) 12 gauge Shotgun as well as a weapon that wil neutralize a vehicle easily available. The latter two are there just because I have them anyways, same for the pitbull and rottweiller that are sleeping at my bedside (they're pets and not really there to protect me).

I keep the bedroom door locked, and have intercoms that monitor the front and rear of the house (mostly for smoke alarms really, as I figure burglars hitting a house that is obviously occupied will be quiet while breaching me premises) so I have some bit of warning.

Sounds whack. At least to me it does. But, I feel good knowing I'll never wake up to a situation I can't handle. Having training in this area (weapons handling, tactical, some self defense etc) doesn't hurt either. This probably why I'm sensitive to these things and prepare the way I do.

[hippietim]

The constant fact remains: if guns are made illegal, only criminals would have guns. This actually has two meanings: first, and the primary point of this statement, is to say that law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns to abide by the law, yet robbers, rapists, and other armed felons who would be armed felons regardless of banning guns or not will be the only ones to have guns, and they'd have an unarmed/defenseless pupulace to prey on.

Newc, this is already the case. First off, I doubt the die hard gun owners would actually turn in their weapons. Secondlyg, about 70% of the country does not have a gun of any kind. I don't know the statistics but I suspect that a large percentage of the remainder doesn't have their gun handy for such situations. And a lot of the remainder that do have a gun handy for such situations will not be effective with it.

Thousands of people are killed every year with handguns. Would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?

Yes. Buy more copies of Windows. Vista is out. Please upgrade.

[Carbuff]

This thread reminds me of a Family Guy episode. When all this stuff is being drawn up one guy asks if the term "the right to bear arms" is clear on what it means. And the rest of the guys respond that its perfectly clear what it means, that everyone has the right to own a set of bear arms and proudly display them in their home. They are pointing to a set of stuffed bear arms mounted on the wall. Funny stuff. While the 2nd ammendment gives it reasons as for the militia, does it say anywhere about having a gun just for a hobby or self protection? It seems that this is what most people have them for. Does anyone own a gun because they might be called up by the militia?

[Cleveland Metal]

While the 2nd ammendment gives it reasons as for the militia, does it say anywhere about having a gun just for a hobby or self protection? It seems that this is what most people have them for.

Well...

you’ll also find that the constitutions written by the separate colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, spoke of firearms ownership specifically as an individual right encompassing personal protection, and not just a tool to facilitate state militias.

Does anyone own a gun because they might be called up by the militia?

No, it's more likely I'll want mine for personal protection during a major civil disturbance like the LA riots. But, I could imagine the situation could someday turn into having a need for protection from the gov somehow...

[Tashtego]

Nevermind...

[Cleveland Metal]

No doubt... Sad state of affairs...

[marcus]

How about domestic opinion?

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1645

For those who don't want to click, this gallup poll found that as of Jan. 2007, 49% of Americans supported more strict gun sale laws, while only 14% thought they should be less strict.

Well, I didn't personally attack him, however I did feel a need to correct him on a point that he made.

I'm no longer a gun dealer, but international opinion on our gun laws is much like asking your neighborhood to tell you how you should landscape your back yard.

[Evol]

You're citing Michael Moore. Need I say more?

:ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:


The most up to date stats I could find on murder in the U.S.(since this conversation was sparked by murder) was from the FBI's 2005 report - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Interesting to note that when it's listed by weapon like this how many states the gun murders are only a little over half the total murders with a few states being less than half. Then we have California producing almost 75% gun murders,most of which are most likely in the L.A. area,and are being commited by gangs and/or illegals,whom aren't very likely have legal firearms anyhow.

I would be VERY interested to see any figures that indicate how many of those that were caught and the firearm confiscated how many,if any at all,are legal firearms.

Comparing the U.S. to any other country as far as crime goes is like comparing apples to oranges.

We DO have cultural differences,unique ones at that,such as residual effects from segregation/slavery(congested poor minority urban areas) and an open fence border policy with a country that produces notorious violent drug gangs that other countries just do not have.


Being such a large and wealthy nation means crime pays much better than in a much poorer country. One can actually have quite a lucrative criminal career here as well.Where someone in a smaller country might rob to eat,we got people doing it for vacation money

And we have our share of plain old crazy ass people.

We have produced a culture where our heroes all wore guns,and we could pretend we were them with our toy guns and shoot the imaginary bad guy.Water guns,rubber band guns,cap guns,cork guns,BB guns,pellet guns....hell,even chocolate guns! But none of that is to blame.I certainly have an arsenal of guns in my gun safe,but never once has the thought even crossed my mind to even so much as think about pointing one at someone let alone using it in anything but self or property defense.

Millions upon millions have guns,but we only have gun crime figures in the thousands. That simple fact alone makes it silly to blame or start talk of banning guns.Let's ban criminals instead! I think we're just not tough enough on crime,ANY crime,but especially violent crime.

Less guns will not produce less crime,the numbers just don't support that theory.Less guns will not produce fewer suicides,as someone that desperate to do so will find a way.

Less guns would obviously cut down on gun related accidents,but this is something that can be easily reduced with other mechanisms as well as education and training.

We don't need more gun laws or bans,it just won't work.We need fewer criminals and crazy people.Stiffer punishments,better border security,more jails,etc. However the one thing that is needed the most no law could ever be effective in enforcing is simply good parenting.Teaching responsiblity,respect to your fellow man and woman, and right and wrong.

[scotty2]

In my limited travels, I've noticed a real tension in the UK between the whites and the Pakistanis. Since scotty has related he doesn't notice a lot of gun crimes, one can infer that this tension has not translated to a higher rate of gun violence. Of course, WWII kind of disproves this, since Germans' fear of Jews was exploited and led to much higher violence against Jews.

Then there's the notion that Americans are simply loud, brash, mostly selfish people. This is supported by how badly Americans stick out when traveling in Europe. However, does this translate to a higher likelihood of "snapping" and using deadly force on another person?

There are racial or ethnic tensions within the UK which as you quite rightly say, have not translated into acts of violence with firearms, however we did have the suicide bombings on 7/7/2005 & the attempted follow up on 21/07/05 for which a group of males are currently standing trial in London. The 'tensions' you speak of have existed since the 1950's when we had a mass influx of immigrants when the colonies such as India, Pakistan & others were granted independence. These immigrants came to the UK to work & they & their families have in the main done so ever since. The fact that the people immigrating into the UK arrived in a society where firearms are not easily available could be a factor as to why anyone disaffected has never picked up a gun & a large quantity of ammunition on a frequent basis & has gone on a rampage. Maybe it is also not in the nature of the immigrant communities to act in such a violent manner. Yes we have had so called 'race riots' in areas where there are a high populus of ethnic minorities & the catalysts for these events have been varied ranging from Police activity that is perceived to be directed at one racial group to allegations of a member of a minority community being raped by a member of another community.

Don't get me wrong, gun crime & 'firearms incidents' still occur in the UK but not with the frequency they do in the US & rarely with the multiple fatalities that have occurred in the US (see my earlier post for details of the two main ones that have taken place in the UK in the last 20 years).

The perception of Americans as being "simply loud, brash, mostly selfish people" is perhaps a stereotype similar to that of the English 'toff' or 'snob'. I've got very good friends in California whom I have visited & met their friends & I can say honestly I have rarely met a friendlier bunch of people. Same goes for New York where we stayed for a week & had a whale of a time & found the people very helpful & friendly despite what a number of my colleagues have said about their experiences. Christ at one point New York was seen as being Soddom & Gomorrah all rolled into one. I felt really safe everywhere we went, not because all the cops have guns but because they are actually out & about in numbers & can be seen in numbers.

The issue about American culture & the relationship between the extremely violent mass shootings is an interesting question. As has been pointed out, you guys have all grown up with guns as part of every day life so the few, & it is still a few, people who have committed acts of mass murder have been driven by some inner reason, either real or imagined, which few were even aware of. Take the Virginia guy for example, he is on TV over here telling the world after his death how he was forced to what he did etc, etc. By whom???? I saw no one holding a gun to his head or taking a family member hostage & telling him to do what he did. The sad fact is that this guy was known to the Police at a very low level & as such no one could have foreseen that he would resort to the actions he took a few days ago. Trust me there are those whom you can see as trouble a mile away & there are others who keep their thoughts to themselves & suddenly they turn & we have a massacre. You cannot legislate for people like this unfortunately.

The TV station where he sent the tapes & images to, in my view have acted irresponsibly in showing the videos to the world. This is hardly the time to jump in & get the viewing figures up.

We will all be talking about this event for a long time to come I'm sure.