Gun control in the US

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by mihapiha, Aug 17, 2014.

  1. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi everyone,

    As a European I was always fascinated by the popularity of firearms in the US. The gun laws in place are (by our standards) very limited. Personally I don't like firearms of any kind because I was in Yugoslavia during the war and I did see what guns can do to people. Due to my experiences I am a big time pacifist. I can't even handle plastic toy guns, never mind a real one. But I'm an extreme I'd imagine of the other end of the US-gun debate. Still I wish to understand the other view on the matter.

    Reports here say, that gun-owners are fearful the government my act out and change the 2nd amendment right, although this seems quite impossible to happen. The NRA lobby seems to be very organized and loud and neither party really is openly trying to change the 2nd amendment. Every time gun laws (like after Newtown) try to get passed, even democrats show up on TV to say they are gun owners. Astonishing from a European point of view, 2nd amendment advocates speak out in protection of the 2nd amendment although it's not really threatened. It's an amendment! You'd need 2/3 of the house and senate to change that, which won't happen in the US - at least in the foreseeable future.

    Some arguments for gun ownership seem ridiculous to many Europeans. Personally I think the weirdest one might be "to overthrow a tyrant"-argument, in which people actually think that with their weaponry they could overthrow the US government if a tyrant would seize power. Ridiculous because they think that their limited arsenal could beat the US air-force; never mind the other institutions of the military.

    In Europe it is easy to get a firearm if you have good reason and you're trained to handle one. For example if you're a hunter or live in the woods, if you are security of some kind, etc. In my city, which including the suburbs has roughly 500.000 inhabitants there are two stores to purchase firearms. In other words: one per quoter million inhabitants.

    Here my questions in terms of the gun debate in the US: Considering the information I have (correct if I'm mistaken), is it necessary to be afraid in the US to loose your firearms in the foreseeable future due to gun regulations? Is it necessary to be scared that the 2nd amendment would seize to exist? And if so why?
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretty good post really.

    Your questions.

    It is always necessary to be diligent if you wish to keep your rights. Government is the enemy of the people. By that I mean it always develops to try and get more and more control over the people. What is happening is control and banning of certain firearms (usually because they look scary to some people) by drips and drabs.

    The 2nd amendment could cease to exist but only by another amendment or complete overthrow of the government and neither is likely to happen.
     
  3. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I think it's interesting to have a view that government is the enemy of the people. To me government is working for the people. I think it's also wrong to call something "government owned". Anything "government owned" is owned by us: the people.

    Well, firearms look scary because they're weapons. I'd imagine it is pretty scary to go shopping if the guy next to you is carrying fully automatic assault rifle. (I know it's illegal but I just want to paint a picture)
    I am not to scared if I drive on the highway, but if some people would be driving tanks, I'd be pretty scared. I don't trust that everybody knows what they're doing when they're carrying weapons and I feel less secure with if people carry weapons surround me. I prefer knowing nobody around me has weapons.

    Do you feel the love for weapons has maintained popular since the "wild west"-times?
    I personally assume one reason for the popularity of weapons in the US might be the lack of a serious war on US soil in the last century. The negative extreme of wars didn't occur for the civilian population in the US maybe...
     
  4. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The vast majority of amendments don't come through the Article V process - the Supreme Court just reinterprets the clause to have the same effect.

    While I don't think this is at all a convincing argument for gun ownership either - there is some merit to the idea. 300 million people with 350 million guns is a strong opponent to any military. It might seem like "well, they have nukes, jets, and tanks!" - but at the end of the day, they still have to a) convince the soldiers to go along with whatever it is they're planning, and b) actually go into homes and bring people into submission. Resistance is far easier if you have some power.

    One shouldn't have to show you have a legitimate reason, the justice and law enforcement systems should have to show I'm going to use it in a coercive way. The burden should be on them, not I.

    The threat has never been that they're going to abolish the 2nd amendment and seize all guns: the threat is that they'll do something like Australia has - regulate guns into illegality. Sure, I can get a gun if I want, but I am restricted to the point where ownership is practically illegal. Carry certainly is, as are many of the firearms I'd quite like to have. The rest are heavily regulated for no reason (like the Glock 17a, which has a longer barrel because Australian regulations make the standard edition of the world's most popular handgun illegal). Armed self-defense is treated as manslaughter, even in a home invasion scenario, even if you have the right to defend yourself with your fists.

    This process has already started in the US with the NFA, the assault weapons ban, the 68' gun control act, etc. I for one hope they're able to retain their tradition, but don't hold out much hope. I'd give it another 50 years before they're in a similar situation. That's just the way modern society goes - it happened with tobacco, it'll happen with firearms - as soon as too few people utilize their right, it gets regulated into non-existence.

    No government thugs will come and demand your guns - they won't have to.
     
  5. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mihapiha - Your questions are good questions to have. I'll try to address them if I can.

    Our Constitution is based on the principle that all power is derived from the people. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. These rights were included as a limit on the power of the Federal government over the states and the people. Among these rights was the 2nd Amendment. This is a guarantee that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. The practical application is that people can protect themselves from crime, but the intent of the Amendment is to provide a deterrent to an overbearing government that does not represent the will of the people. An added benefit is that nobody is willing to invade a country whose citizens are armed to the teeth. Switzerland is another country that shares this history.

    State laws vary greatly across the US. Most states allow either concealed or open carry of guns in some form or fashion, but you have to be careful when crossing state lines to make sure that you are not breaking the law by doing so. I live over 100 miles from any state border and my CHL is recognized for every state within about 600 miles, so I'm pretty safe concerning breaking the law by driving over a border. There are over 11 million civilians across the US with Concealed Handgun Licenses. As a general rule, most have all been through state and federal background checks and been tested for proficiency with a firearm.

    Besides having a CHL, gun ownership is legal and carrying a gun on private property is perfectly legal in almost all states. Some states allow the people to carry in their cars without a CHL. A few states allow carrying a gun open or concealed without any type of license.

    Accidents with a gun are an unfortunate consequence of owning guns. While they are tragic, I feel they are offset by the occurrence of self defense and the deterrence of crime because the criminals fear that their target may be armed. Accidents have no excuse, as far as I'm concerned and should be prosecuted.

    Personally:
    I have had a CHL for over 5 years. I carry everywhere legally allowed except when I am working. While it may be legal for me to carry into many of the places I go to for work, my work can fire me for doing so. Because they pay me to represent them, I don't carry my gun into businesses.(I work as a field engineer and I repair and maintain emergency power equipment on site.) My CHL allows me to carry everywhere except courthouses, prisons, secure areas of police stations, inside schools and school sporting venues, and any private property where the proper sign prohibits me from doing so. Nobody has tried to rob me and nobody has ever seen my gun. I hope my overview of guns in America has helped. I'm sure someone will be along to tell you how my post is biased and all hype, but this is the truth as I see it and live it.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Government is the enemy of the people and history will bear that out. It is also necessary but it more often than not it becomes a tool for a few in power or morphs into something that ends up being bad. Governments have killed more people intentionally than anything else. The 20th century saw around 100 million killed by government action, often of their own people. The US Constitution was the first attempt to make government 'of the people' instead of over the people but as it grows with more power, it also attempts to remove the power of the people with more regulation.

    Guns are popular here because we take our freedom and rights seriously. Sure there are those that glorify guns and the liberal media (tv and movies) are the worst offenders but guns are a force equalizer and a tool. They can also be as much fun as any sport. They can stop crime before it happens by just the knowledge that you carry one. I would never want to shoot anyone but if it comes to defense of self or family, I would not hesitate. The police are not here to protect you and they most often cannot and come in later to take notes. You are your first line of defense. Now, nothing may ever happen in your life that you would need a gun and none ever has in mine, but I see that as something positive and to be celebrated.
     
  7. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Thank you guys for addressing this issue and trying to explain it to me. I must say that its odd from a European perspective to read that though, and I would like to explain why:

    This to me is an odd argument as it is generally very hard to agree on something when there are 5 people, never mind 300 million. Hitler rose to power although not even one-third of the German population supported him. Even if the approval ratings of any leader are as low as Bush's, one of the more recent presidents that comes to mind with poor approval ratings, he still has full support of the countries military force. Stalin was supported by around 10% of the county when he sized power. So I don't see a scenario where the military joins and helps out the people upon arrival of a tyrant. Maybe you can think of an example in history, but I bet there are exceptions.

    From a European point of view, guns are outdated and cause more harm in the hands of the civilian population than good. But I would imagine that this belief might not be too shocking. Since you mention smocking, I believe you're right. Guns are definitely a thing of the past. The USA is one of the last industrialized countries on the planet with loose gun laws (or looser than our's). I imagine, just as we look at women's rights in some Arabic countries as being odd outdated measures, Europeans tend to look at the US when it comes to gun laws and health-care, but that's another issue.

    What I want to know: In your opinion, do you feel you carrying a weapon 24/7 is more safe, than living in Japan for example, a country where you can be 100% certain that not even the criminal will have a firearm? And just to compare: over 10.000 deaths related to guns in the US with 330 million inhabitants, compared to less than 100 deaths in Japan with their 127 million inhabitants.
     
  8. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm Australian by the way, not sure if that was clear. We have similarly (if not more so) strict laws concerning gun ownership and use - so my perspective isn't that far off your own.

    This isn't really my argument, but I'll address it anyway. Gun ownership isn't meant to convince people that the government is tyrannical, which would have helped in Nazi Germany. When the populace is opposed to revolution, revolution is impossible. This is true whether people have guns or don't. Gun ownership is meant to increase the power of a populace who wants to revolt.

    Again, not really my argument, and I completely see where you're coming from. I just don't take such a strong view on the irrelevance of guns in the modern age. It's quite possible to fight a guerrilla war against a much more powerful party, provided you have some measure of power. Modern warfare has been pretty much nothing but guerrilla war.

    Where I don't agree with the rest of my pro-gun liberty colleagues is over using gun ownership as a measure to prevent tyranny. Why? Years before any American government would go full Hitler, they'd be passing modest reforms and the such. Sure, it's possible that you'd go from relatively free nation (with exceptions) to Nazi Germany overnight - but much more likely it'd be a gradual process - you know, like it has been in the 20th century. A government that would outlaw guns would be one such as my own or the UK - nothing the public would even consider revolting against. So they'd have their guns taken off them before revolution became possible, making the whole tactic sort of pointless.

    Whether guns are outdated is quite obviously a side issue. Whether you're coercing another person through ownership of an item has nothing to do with whether that item is outdated.

    I would also argue that whether it causes harm or not is also irrelevant, but that's a bit more contentious. I am very much opposed to consequentialist thinking. Harm does not necessarily entail coercion. Take car ownership: clearly the ability to drive cars harms a lot of people: around 40,000 people per year if my memory serves me right. But nobody (I hope) would propose car ownership is coercive. I'd be happy to go into greater detail on the reasons for my rejection of consequentialism, but if you're familiar with normative ethics it'll suffice to say I roughly fall on the side of Kant.


    As for whether I prefer to live in Japan with 100 gun deaths or the US with 10,000 - well I'll ask you the question: would you prefer to live in a country with legal car ownership and 40,000 car fatalities, or one with 400 and only public transport? Clearly, it will not suffice to use harm alone as your criterion for deciding if ownership of an item is coercive or not. The usual response here is a shift to intentional harm, but what difference at all does it make to the person getting killed if he's killed unintentionally by a car accident, or intentionally by vehicular homicide? Pretty much none.

    The question we have to ask is: "does the liberty in question coerce others in itself; does it initiate force?" A good example is killing. Killing, as a whole, obviously harms a lot of people. But not all killing is alike - some is coercive, some is not. You should outlaw the coercive variety, and permit the voluntary - ie, outlaw murder and permit voluntary euthanasia, suicide, etc.

    So yes. I do intend to use retaliatory force against those who rob stores, shoot innocents, or signal imminent intent to do so - but not against those who have displayed no coercive behavior or intent. Same goes for everything: for drugs, knives, cars, anything.

    Oh, and if you want a direct answer - I'll take gun ownership with the 10,000 deaths any day of the week.

    [hr][/hr]

    On a side note, if you really want to understand the gun owner's perspective, I'd highly suggest you get down to your local shooting range and try it out for yourself. A quick Google informs me that Austria has legal shooting ranges. Have a go, ask the attendants about gun laws in Austria, and stay safe. I find no argument is as effective as a quick trip to the range ;)

    I hope this post answered your question. Anticipating your response,

    Steady Pie.
     
    stjames1_53 and (deleted member) like this.
  9. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Thanks for responding!

    Definitely the first part of your response makes a lot of sense to me and I fully understand what you mean, therefore I think this is fully addressed in my opinion. If anybody else wants to add something, feel free!

    In the second part I'd like to address though. You bring up the example of the car, which I've heard before. Any car these days has to fulfill so many safety-regulations, not to mention that the drivers have to pass exams before they are allowed to drive on public roads. And if you look at it from this point of view, guns and their owners would have to be hit with more safety-regulations to be comparable, right?

    And the regulations are I'd imagine what we have in Europe. You have to get a license to own a gun. In other words, you have to prove your sane and you know what you're doing before you can drive around or own and shoot weapons of any kind in Austria. And personally I'd actually agree with that. Shooting ranges are legal and guns can be used without licenses just like you can drive cars on excluded roads for practice. However with either, someone there is watching you and explaining what you have to do.

    I think - judging what I saw in America and Canada - getting a car-license is too easy, and people on the roads appear to be more dangerous than back home. I don't know if it only appears this way or if the rates per capita in terms of death accidents reflect that. I'm either way too lazy to google that and it's not part of the conversation anyways.

    My argument is this: If you agree with the limitations we have for cars and their owners (in terms of regulations they have to follow), why wouldn't you want the same regulations for guns to be in place, just to make sure only people who know what they are doing own these? I assume, if you want to own a weapon in Australia, you can still get one. The only difference I imagine is that you have to go through a similar process like you had to go through, when you tried getting a car license and buying a car after...

    Or do you by some chance believe it would be best to allow everyone to legally drive without passing a test?
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, first a gun is a simple machine and takes only about 4 rules to be safe.

    The Gun Is Always Loaded!
    Never Point The Gun At Something You Are Not Prepared To Destroy!
    Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It!
    Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target!

    The next thing is you don't have to get a drivers license or get the vehicle licensed to buy it. You can buy it and take it home and never use it, just like most guns.

    Roads are created using tax dollars so a citizen, to have the privilege of using public roads has to abide by public rules. Nothing like that is necessary for citizens to enjoy their rights. In most States, if you do want to carry in public you must have a background check.
     
  11. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I assume then guns cannot be compared to cars after all...
     
  12. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you are getting trolled by a subject, old friend.............
     
  13. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, what you saw was what people can do to people. And many of those bad people were backed by a state government. Gun control and gun bans will never disarm the state, just the law abiding people.

    Its interesting that you went through a war and think gun control is the solution. What if you and all the people had been armed and willing to defend yourselves? I'll bet it would have turned out a lot differently, if the war even happened. Genocide is a lot harder when the victims can shoot back.

    You think the "overthrow the tyrant" argument for the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous? How about Yugoslavia - it didn't have a 2nd Amendment and look what happened there.
     
  14. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Actually what happened during the war was that people who were in the military service didn't get persecuted by the law anymore. And since the boys in uniform and the people knew they were leaving and might not come back, they were given a pass about pretty much everything. Soldiers could go into a bar, dink a lot and start shooting up the place, maybe even kill someone, and nobody would do anything. If you as a civilian did something to what was considered "hinder the war effort" (which would be attacking a soldier) you could be sentenced to death easily as a "traitor". In other words, independent of who was winning, soldiers were excluded from all the laws the civilian population had to follow, and without rules or somebody to enforce them they went crazy quite often because they were 18 to 21 years old and realized they might not live to see the consequences of their actions in a few months.

    So I saw what armed people did without boundaries and laws. So I wished back then for the laws to be in place and enforced so I didn't have to fear our people in uniform.

    But it made sense to a degree, since nobody really is going around shooting their own soldiers if they misbehave, especially when their country is properly at war. The US hasn't been really at war since WW2 and maybe not even that counts, since only Perl Harbor was on their soil. I don't think the people of Texas did have to fear getting attacked by someone. So while the boys were dying somewhere, it was still peaceful back home.

    I lived about 10 miles away from the frontline, so it was a little different. The nearest artillery fire we got was 2 miles away from our home, and of course you're always afraid of bombers. I remember it was strictly forbidden to have lights on at night, because it could be seen from the air. A dare to say a scenario few Americans had to go through.

    I think "overthrowing the tyrant" argument is ridiculous because we had one in Yugoslavia just like you pointed it out. After WW2 everybody was armed to the teeth and nobody did anything against him. I mean the Germans and Italiens who occupied the land first left behind enormous amounts of hardware. 10 year old children back in the mid 40s played around with bullets and rifles, because they'd find it in the woods. I talked to many people about this time because I researched for my thesis as a historian, and I didn't hear a story were there wasn't an abundance of weapons and bullets in 1945 in their area. Even artillery was sometimes left behind when the German troops were retreating.

    In both scenarios I don't see people being armed as a solution or a lack of regulations and enforcement as a solution to the violence.

    BTW: Yugoslavia had about 16 million inhabitants after WW1, I think close to 22 million before WW2 and then 1.2 million got killed within 4 years. Never mind the injured. Every family suffered losses of some kind.
     
  15. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it interesting comparing the mindsets of Europeans vs Americans when it comes to firearms - especially having lived in Europe for a while. I really think the European mindset is exactly what you'd expect from people who have very little personal experience with something, and most of the experience they do have is over-dramatized or from extreme circumstances.

    Consider a fear of dogs. Often, people I know of who are afraid of dogs actually have very little personal experience with them. Their family never owned a dog, and they've never worked with them. The ones with strong fear are ones in the same situation (never having owned a dog) who also were bitten or just charged by a dog. The fear comes from a lack of personal experience, and is aggravated by a dramatic, negative encounter.

    Just like with dogs, most of the people I know who hate or fear guns, the ones who attack private gun ownership are ones who have never owned a gun of their own. Their parents never taught them how to use a firearm, and they never developed a personal understanding of what they actually are. This lack of experience is often aggravated by the overdramatized use of guns in movies and TV (which is very often far from a real shooting is) or from personal experiences like mentioned in the OP.

    Just as with a fear of dogs, I suspect that if more Europeans (and Americans for that matter) actually worked with guns, used them, learned how they work and saw them in action, they would probably lose their fear and dislike of them. For those of us who have extensive experience with them, we know that they are just a tool, an inanimate object. They are nothing to fear. The thing to fear is the criminal who might use the firearm to harm someone, not the inanimate object he might use.

    After all that, to the OP questions:

    A citizen absolutely has to be wary of any attempt by the government to infringe in any way on the rights of individuals. The most tyrannical governments in history often started out with a lot of personal freedom. Over time those freedoms were eroded until the government took full control over their citizens. The US government has proven itself to be unable to be trusted with very much control over its citizens, using such opportunities to put innocent people into concentration camps, or to sterilize people as parts of eugenics movements. More recently you have things like the patriot act and the white house authorizing the assassination of a US citizen without trial. Citizens must continually resist the attempts of politicians to take away individual rights or we will find that our rights have been lost in the name of "public safety".
     
  16. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    agreed. it is better to educate through proper instruction and remove fear than it is to use terror as an educational tool.
    Two things happen when you use fear and terror to educate, it raises curiosity in the uneducated and leaves the door wide open to having Halo or Call of Duty to educate the young.
     
  17. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point is that its not the guns, its the people and their motivation. We have a lot of guns in my community, around 20-25% of the adult population has a concealed carry permit, almost everyone I know owns firearms, and based on car stickers the NRA seems to be the most popular organization. In fact, the company I work for holds its summer picnic at the gun range. We have almost no crime - we have less gun crime than Australia, the UK, or Canada. And that's typical of the USA, crime is highly concentrated in the big cities.

    Having the means to violence does not mean people are violent. Guns are not magical, they don't make people be violent.

    At the same time, people who are violent will get the means to be violent no matter what the law states. We see that here in the US, the most violent places in the US are also the places that have the strictest gun laws - even de facto bans. And you will never disarm governments and state backed bad guys. All gun bans do is disarm law abiding people.

    "Overthrowing the tyrant" is not ridiculous. You say you are a historian, history is replete with cases of armed people overthrowing the sitting govt. Sometimes it worked out well - as in the American Revolution - and sometimes it did not - as in Castro in Cuba. If the Libyan people had a 2nd Amendment, do you think Gaddaffi would have been able to take over or stay in power so long?
     
  18. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Fair enough: But why do you think the homicide numbers are higher in the US than in Europe or Japan?

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

    Eastern Europe has a higher homicide rate than the US, but I imagine you don't consider eastern Europe as developed as the US...

    Western Europe: 0.9
    Northern Europe: 1.4
    Southern Europe: 1.1

    USA: 4.8 homicides per 100.000

    Therefore nearly a five times higher rate than we have over here.

    (source homicide rates per 100.000 inhabitants)

    Oddly enough all the sources I read confirm that more guns tends to result in more violence. I think the stricter gun laws in cities in the US don't do much good because people can get a gun else where easily, and bring it to the city. Also I fear these laws might be enforced too poorly in cities.

    But we have a different approach definitely. I don't trust half the people I see on the street with either car or gun, so I feel that laws and police who enforce laws improves my security. You might not trust the police yet trust the guy three blocks down with a concealed semi automatic weapon at a family BBQ.

    Its fair. Just a different view on the matter I guess.
     
  19. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can give you a perspective from another Europeans point of view.

    Some of what you have written is quite correct, in countries that have seen bloody civil wars or invasions the idea of citizens carrying guns send shivers down their backs .. but then there are few (to my knowledge) that have had a 2nd amendment type thing in their constitution or laws and so the cultural and historical element is missing to some extent.

    On the other hand I also see the debate from the point of view of the Americans .. being a gun owner is part of "who they are", it is something that is bedded in their history, and while European countries have moved away from an armed population America has, so far, resisted that movement.. It is sometimes difficult to understand this when sees the number of deaths associated with guns and that a person is 5 times (I think) more likely to injure a member of their own family with a gun than it being used in self-defence etc, but again as another poster stated guns do not kill people, they are merely the tool used by another person.

    I grew up in the countryside and from an early age I was taught to use various firearms (some illegal) and I feel that is the key element .. having the right instruction on how to safely use a gun, the only thing I would mandate in the USA is that anyone who wishes to own a gun MUST undergo trained instruction on it's usage .. now that won't stop the criminals from getting hold of one . .but it may help cut down the number of accidental shootings. As I got older I joined the local army cadets where we regularly shot bolt action 202 rifles on the range, part of our training was at the local army base where we also got to shoot numerous other guns, including the L1A1 self loading rifle (SLR) each and every single time we were on the range it was repeated to us the safety measures when using guns it became second nature to us. My intent was to join the army when I left school .. however medical problems rendered that dream unattainable, for many years after that I legally owned shotguns and it was not until my children became active and mobile that I sold them all (I stress that my guns were always locked away in a cabinet) and I have not owned one since .. my philosophy now runs more along the lines of Gandhi ie peaceful protest.

    So in essence, and I apologise for going on a bit, the "gun wars" in the USA have little to no effect on me and while I can see the reasoning behind some people wanting more gun control I cannot see that reasoning as fully justifying what their ultimate aim is.
     
  20. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,298
    Likes Received:
    3,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was against having a gun in the home and very much for gun control until Katrina happened. Katrina changed my attitude---the cops are not always there and having the means to defend yourself and your family and property---is a true right not to be taken lightly. The U.S has quite a few national disasters that leave people vulnerable.

    I wanted to say---you said : a person is 5 times (I think) more likely to injure a member of their own family with a gun than it being used in self-defence etc

    That can't be based on anything credible---because stats aren't kept regarding when guns are used for self-defense. At all. But of course stats are kept for gun accidents. Where I live--we have many more news stories about people defending their home and property with gun then gun accidents.
     
  21. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got no problem with a gun in the home, all I said was that in order to be a gun owner it should be mandated that you undergo professional instruction.

    It's a real chicken and egg situation. In order to decrease the reliance on gun protection the criminals need to have their guns removed first .. but .. while so many law abiding people own guns there are plenty of opportunities for criminals to get hold of them .. but .. if you start to disarm those law abiding citizens it gives an advantage to the criminals.

    I seem to remember reading it somewhere so I don't actually have the figure .. I did see this report though.

    According to a report filed by the Washington State Department of Social Health Services, a child or teen is killed once every seven and a half hours with a gun, either by accident or by suicide. In 72 percent of these cases, the firearm used was housed in the victim’s own residence. Many of these weapons were locked away in a secure place, yet 48 percent of those who own guns do not equip them with child safety and trigger locks.

    Hidden guns may be found and used by children often, yet in a third of homes where firearms are present, that type of hide-and-seek discovery is not necessary. A full 30 percent of gun owners keep their weapons at the ready in an unlocked, loaded state. Ironically, in order for a home to be protected against an intruder, guns need to be easily and quickly accessible and it is this very accessibility which makes firearms in the home so deadly.
    - http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/guns-in-your-home-a-statistical-accident-waiting-to-happen/

    and it does seem to make some sense - if the idea of owning a gun is protection then it being locked away defeats the object.

    There is also this report - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:

    Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

    METHODS:

    We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

    RESULTS:

    During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.


    Don't get me wrong I am not fully against gun ownership at all .. but, there does seem to be a need for something to try and get those figures down.
     
  22. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,298
    Likes Received:
    3,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think those figures are prone to be bias especially since the people conducting the study doesn't see the importance of including crimes prevented by guns---a major component. Not all criminals are shot. Some are scared off when they see a gun. Like in this case http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/19805180/broken-arrow-homeowner-opens-fire-on-burglary-suspects or this http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crim...cle_a56bbd24-b031-11e3-970b-0017a43b2370.html

    They wouldn't be able to get that information within the study using the materials they used.

    A credible researcher would make sure all the evidence is in before making a conclusion---or would at least have a disclaimer. Any study---for or against---is suspect on this subject.
     
  23. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    don't get me wrong, but are the demographics used for this study available?
     
  24. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really don't see the relevance of crimes prevented by guns, the study is centred around the number of actual injuries and death caused by guns in self-defence against their usage in other circumstances as this is really the only verifiable information, no one can know whether any injuries would or would not occur to the victim of those crimes which were prevented. It would be stretching creditability to say that all prevented crimes where a gun was present were prevented because of the gun.
     
  25. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    not sure, it is a report I have only come across today.

    Here is another more comprehensive report - http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf - not sure if it gives the information you asked for as I haven't had the chance to read it completely (it is 2:12am here in the UK)
     

Share This Page