Guns - a topic from the 911 Board...

[CamB]

General summary - many American's believe being able to carry guns means:

a) their Consitutional right to bear arms is being upheld (I recognise that some people actually only want the right rather than to actually carry one around at all times; and

b) carrying a gun makes for a safer society.

I personally think guns make for a less safe society, but that it is a problem that can't be easily "fixed" in the US. First up, I have dug around and found a publication by the NZ Dept of Justice:

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/international-comparisons-of-violent%20crime.pdf

Which basically says (see page 4) that there is a crapload more violent crime in the US.

I have a hard time finding recent info on the degree to which firearms impact this. The best comparative info I have found is:

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp#FINDINGS

It is a bit like Sesame St - one of these things is not like the other...

[tabs52]

I want to present a coherent arguement to U. Probably over several replys in this thread.

But first I am not going to debate the point that Americans tend to be violent. But Guns don't cause violent behavior, they are just a deadlier means of expressing it.

The place where I get off the boat with the Gun control crowd is that they blame the Guns and not the tendency of people to use violence as a means of solving their problems disputes or whatever U want to call it. They are treating a symptom and not the diease...

Let me use an example of the tendency towards violence in American society. In America if 2 boys have an arguement on the playground the accepted method of resolution is to fight it out. This has been reinforced by the American media since at least the turn of the century.

For example: In the movie Broken Arrow 1950 starring the All American Hero Jimmy Stewart.......when called a "Yellow Indian Lover" in a Saloon scene Jimmy Stewart hits the guy with his fist. Thus the use of violence as a means of resolving a conflict.....

Until other means of conflict resolution are ingrained in our society we will resort to the use of violence and no amount of Gun Control will stop that predispostion. Only the means of expressing that violent behavior will change, and then it will be too late.....

On an abstract level in this country weapons in the hands of the citizenery guarntees that America remains a Repblic and doesn't resort to a Dictatorship. Remember that in any country there are forces that want to abridge the freedom of the citizenery. We in America take if for granted and think that nothing can take away our freedom of expression etc. However there is no guarntee and the rights we enjoy as Americans were hard won with the Blood, Sweat, Tears and Treasure of people who were willing to sacrafice. Our society has largely forgotten that. Guns in the hands of the citizenery implies that the citizenery can resist the forces of dictatorship if necessary.


The well regulated militia issue.......very simply the Minute Men of Concord and Lexington weren't a sanctioned by the Crown militia. Furthermore the British troops were on their way to do a little gun control by seizing those supplies that the Minute Men had. Thus no Guns no United States of America. Interesting Huh?

[nostatic]

I'll preface this rant by saying that I really don't like guns for a variety of reasons (not the least of which being I came about 8" from being shot and killed by one in my own bedroom).

The 2nd amendment argument is trotted out by gun lovers, but it is NOT carte blanche for any public citizen to own a gun. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was so that a militia could be maintained...not so that Joe Sixpack could have a Glock and an AK-47 for grins and/or "protection".

I'll agree that people kill people, but guns make it sooo much easier to do the deed, and depersonalize the act. Given the violent nature of our society, the last thing I want is to make it easier for every yahoo to have a 9mm in their glove compartment. While I expect my 6 year old to have some impulse control and anger management issues, the sad fact is many adults are almost on par with my son. Would I give my son a Glock? Nope. Would I give Joe Schmoe one? Nope.

What about the hunters? I don't dig it, but sure, they can have their fun. A nice 30-06 should do nicely. I don't think they need an AK or any sidearm.

Handguns are designed for one purpose: killing a person. If everyone was armed would criminals think twice about doing the crime? I doubt it. Other "deterrents" don't seem to have much effect. If everyone was armed would there be more accidental deaths? My guess is yes.

Much of society is designed to make people feel bigger/better. Our cars are a classic example, guns are another. While a 911 can kill someone, if used in its intended manner, it won't. A handgun on the other hand...

[tabs52]

I've had bullets whiz by and I have seen what a bullet in the head can do. I also have met the guy who shot himself in the leg with a 44 mag playing quick draw. Yet with 250 Million guns in the United States and a population of about 280 million it seems that MOST gun owners are responsible owners considering that there are less than 40,000 gun deaths in the US a year. Most of those deaths occur as a result of some other type of criminal activity. Gun Crime is on the rise in extreme Gun Control countries such as the UK, France and Australia. why because the criminal element has no fear of law abiding people having firearms. Look at the Big Gun Control states and the murder and violent crime rates in those states vs the states with right to carry laws. Right to carry states have a decrease in violent crime rates, why because the criminal doesn't know if he or she is armed. Better to have a stick and not use it than to need a stick and not have it.

Now believe me I am a FIRM believer in responsible Gun ownership. The NRA has MANY firearms training programs, yet the PC crowd dinigerates these programs which could prevent accidents.


PS: Nostatic what do U think I play on, on these boards except the folks who have little impulse control. Just look at the list of names I have been called by the quick to judge crowd. If they read through and thought about most of my posts they might come to a different conclusion as to what I am saying. And most of those guys are your friends, Now i can see why U don't want anybody having a gun....... Oh yes I couldn't resist the jab after all...

[CamB]

I pretty much come from Todd's viewpoint and I'm gonna focus on handguns. Rifles and shotguns - lots of hunters in New Zealand. Probably quite a few people who like target shooting too. Good on them I say.

But as someone living in a country where handguns are used only by:

- some police (heavily restricted)
- armed forces (I think)
- a negligible # of criminals (they usually end up with a sawn-off shotgun if they have anything)
- collectors and Olympians

I never see or even think about handguns. As far as I am concerned they only really exist for shooting people (or targets/collecting).

From what I've seen in certain US states you can wander around with a handgun on your hip as long as your permit is ok with that. Why is that deemed socially acceptable? I'm pretty sure if I wandered around with a sword on my hip people would think I was a nut...

I'll put it another (slightly tongue in cheek) way. If I were to mouth off at some punk in the street here, there would be any number of things that might happen, but having a gun pulled on me is not one of them. Handguns are just way too tightly controlled here, and I think society is better for it.

I think those stats I linked to above show that in NZ, most of the deaths caused by guns are suicide or accidental.

Tabs - yeah, maybe Americans are more violent (the stats I linked to showed that too). If there were no handguns, I figure at worst less people get shot and more people get knifed or pummeled.

And I would be keen to see some evidence that gun crimes are increasing in Aussie (rather than hearsay).

[pwd72s]

BS52 is FOS...Cam, read the writings of Mason, a founder of our country, one of those dead dudes who helped write our constitution, and declaration of independence. Pay attention when he writes of whom he considers to be part of the militia. Why do I think BS is FOS? He made a post on another board...something about not, in the USA, being able to bring a mini 14 into California...botttom line? With guns, of any type, I feel more secure against home invasion. That's because I am armed. It gives me, pushing 60, a chance against punks weilding whatever weapon they choose, should they choose to break into my home. The handgun arguement is a mute point. First, handguns...next, ALL guns.

[island911]

Yeah, rid our streets of hand guns . . . make them impossible to get. . .just like drugs.

Personally I feel safer in Texas, where more people carry. Most people are good people, in my experience.

Also, in this new day of terrorist warfar, I hope no one has to turn to an emergency response service if they see a guy with a rocket lancher on his sholder and a 747 coming into range. (or whatever)

[nostatic]

Cam, awhile back I looked into immigration rules for New Zealand. You guys make it tough for a guy like me to come live there, although my teaching experience would help. I'd need a sponsor though

It is interesting that while I respect the opinions of Paul and Dr. Island, neither of them currently live in a serious urban area. Here in the midst of LA, relaxed gun laws would NOT make me feel safer. And with a 6 year old in the house, the last thing I want is a handgun lying around. Oh you say, I can properly store it and it will be safe. Well then it won't be very much use to me in an emergency.

What I don't understand is why the gun people are so against "smart gun" technology, etc. Can someone explain that one to me?

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
. . .It is interesting that while I respect the opinions of Paul and Dr. Island, neither of them currently live in a serious urban area. Here in the midst of LA, . . .

LA ? . . you own all the idiots? I don't think so. They're sprikled about. The Seattle high school I was intergrated in to, had a shooting, a stabbing and bombs. . .in one semester. . . . though one bomb went bad; the idiots didn't know w/a molotove-cocktail, gasoline will eat thru a PLASTIC bottle.

"a 6 year old in the house" I hope you don't have any knives in the house . . . they just can't be stored safely enough.

On the "smart gun technology" . . . I don't know a lot about that; but seem it's right up there with the law that put catalytic converters on all car, regardless of how clean they are.
. . .or laws on the size of toilet tanks.

I've come to the realization that the only laws that keep any given technology at bay are the laws of physics!

[nhurto]

This is a very polarized issue which comes down to how you look at the issue: A personal problem or a societal one. In America we have a problem with guns. The issue is a societal one in that we do not teach any form of firearm safety in public schools (at least, none that I know of). The gun control lobby takes the same stance on educating kids on the dangers of guns as the GOP does on sex ed: that if they talk about responsiblity they are condoning the use of guns. The fact that the US has more people killed by firearms is simply because we have more guns. What is interesting is that we have more people killed than other civilized countries. I won't get into that debate here (although, IMO, it is the more pressing question). I will echo the fact which I think is overlooked (or at least discounted) but the abolistionists and that is that the Second Amendment is a protective Amendment (as are the first ten Amendments). One thing many Americans have forgotten about, especially in post-9/11 America, is that the Framers were very cautious about the Government becoming too powerful. The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that should the Government of the United States become tyrannical, the citizenry would have the necessary means with which to overcome that tyranny. This "equalizing power" as many put it, is the reason why so many gun owners are resistant to gun registration and so-called "smart gun" technologies.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

[nostatic]

Originally posted by island911
"a 6 year old in the house" I hope you don't have any knives in the house . . . they just can't be stored safely enough.

oh puhlease Dr.I, that is claptrap. Sure, knives are dangerous, but if my son was playing around with one he'd pretty much have to stab a playmate quite a few times to kill him. Plus, he's have to try and do it (unless they are doing their circus knife throwing act, but that is another story). WIth a gun he could kill someone in another room.

Look, I'm as much for violence as the next guy. I just think guns make people much braver/stupider than they would normally be.

[tabs52]

PWD U still whining about my comments about you going to the R Gruppe meeting in Cambria by way of Stockton? BTW I made the comment only after he THREATENED to bring an assualt weapon into California. Which in the esteemable opinion of the Legislature of the Peoples Repblic of California is illegal.....

Smart gun technologies at this point in time don't work.

[dd74]

I honestly don't have a clear opinion. As a father, like Nostatic, I certainly agree with his points. And as a father, whether or not Dr. Island is one (I don't know), I agree with some of his points as well. I can only speak from many experiences where I've seen firearms (sidearms) as a positive and negative.

One experience where firearms became a paradox was in 1992. While working for the Los Angeles Times, our building was the second "hit" after the rioters moved from Parker Center (LAPD headquarters) west. The building went into a complete lockdown and remained that way for four hours. What the steel reinforced fire doors opened to around 11PM was a city on fire -- everywhere. What we saw in each others faces was utter fear. A day later, how that fear was responded to by roughly a third to half of a mostly democratic/near-liberal editing/writing staff was they carried handguns to and from their desks. In short, Glocks, Berettas and magnums could be found in a lot of briefcases and handbags.

Sure. Drive through Koreatown at that time, and you were "trained" by AR-16s, AK-47s and anything else that could fit on a tripod. Go to your parents house back then, and they're pushing the idea of you going to B&B in the Valley (if you had the nerve to drive), to buy a pump-action "home protection device" as my parents did with me. L.A.'s a fairly liberal city, but I kid you not, from Pasadena to Santa Monica, fear armed the city with stuff that could overturn governments.

How does the LA Times fit in? Easy. The paper became its own victim. It reported violence and in '92 succumbed to it. The writer was writing stories about shootings while also carrying a gun. To me, it was the ultimate paradox.

These days, like I said, I haven't an opinion. I'm completely confused about the issue, and living in a big city doesn't help. When to use a gun and when not becomes hazed over daily. Sometimes, I think the easiest solution is to just move away.

But to where?

[nostatic]

I lived in Pasadena during the riots, and while it was scary, at no point did I think, "gee, I wish I had a gun". Maybe I'm just stupid. I also lived 1.5 blocks away from the well publicized Halloween shooting in Pasadena (heard the shots), but my response was not to go to the local gun stock and order a Glock.

As for a place to move? New Zealand would be my choice, but it is too tough to emigrate. I keep eyeing the central coast (good surf, less people), but there aren't decent jobs. So for the time being hang in LA until it gets too weird (ha!)

[dd74]

Originally posted by nostatic
I lived in Pasadena during the riots, and while it was scary, at no point did I think, "gee, I wish I had a gun". Maybe I'm just stupid. I also lived 1.5 blocks away from the well publicized Halloween shooting in Pasadena (heard the shots), but my response was not to go to the local gun stock and order a Glock.

As for a place to move? New Zealand would be my choice, but it is too tough to emigrate. I keep eyeing the central coast (good surf, less people), but there aren't decent jobs. So for the time being hang in LA until it gets too weird (ha!)

I agree with you. I never "wished" to have one. Seen too many and the damage therein. A lot of folks talk about ownership of a gun and under what circumstances they'd use one, but the after effects - the mental "blow back" is something you never hear about. How one can live with one's self after shooting something else is mystifying to me.

And no, you're not stupid. At least you're smart enough not to matriculate yourself into the idea that a gun would protect you at any given moment.

I was in Vancouver a couple months back. Beautiful city, beautiful people, multi-cultural, fresh air and one or two Porsches to become buddies with. Plus they have government-funded animation in Canada. If I change my Avatar to a Daffy with a maple leaf, you've got the inside scoop, my friend.

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
I just think guns make people much braver/stupider than they would normally be.

Are you just talking about cops, or military as well?

Come to think of it, the same argument can be re-applied:

SUV's make people much braver/stupider than they would normally be.

Sportscars make people much braver/stupider than they would normally be.

Surfboards make people much braver/stupider than they would normally be.

What should be obvious at this point is there are any number of things that "make people much braver/stupider than they would normally be."

The questions then are:
do you take theses things away on the grounds of "braver/stupider"?
does it happen to an outragous degree?
do these devices cause more problems than they solve?

If only the bad guys have them, then ya, they'll cause more problems than they solve.

[dd74]

Originally posted by island911

If only the bad guys have them, then ya, they'll cause more problems than they solve.

Not to incite anything more, especially this late, but one offshoot to that argument, Dr. Island, is the good guy who turns bad.

Because essentially, we're not all inherently bad, right?

An editor I knew in my journalist days was a guy who described almost every act of violence as one that stems from an "economical situation," i.e. poor vs. rich. I tend to believe this.

The editor described the LA Riots of '92 as an economical situation. (remember, for those old enough, LA has had at least four major riots in its lifetime, three of which have occurred after 1960). This editor touted this philosophy as he got into one of the paper's editorial cars (a Ford Tempo) and headed down to the riots' flashpoint at Florence and Normandie. The same editor continued to say "economic situation" when he returned, though he did so in a awkwardly repetitive way like a needle skipping on a record. To say the least, he was beaten nearly unconscious and the Tempo's roof had been crushed in - with him inside the car. Still in all, he was right in this regard...

I think deToqueville (sp?) says something close to this point. If not, I know it's a thought of Noam Chomsky - violence stems from economics and guns are more prone to violence than peace, at least peace that is not forced.

The best way, IMHO, to curb gun violence is to curb economic polarity. Hunters should not have their guns taken away, nor should the military. They mostly are not part of the gun violence equation, in my view.

[tabs52]

Strategic Air Commands motto is......"Peace is our profession"

[Milu]

Ultimately it's an emotional issue. I've never seen anyone change their position on gun issues because of a rational argument by the opposing view.

Regardless, as my position is pro I will post the following:

Do you feel that the police are able to protect you on the streets or in your home? If not, what is your real world solution?

How will strict/stricter gun laws take guns away from the criminals?

A firearm is a great equaliser. If your aged grayhaired mother lived in an isolated house 30 minutes from the nearest law enforcement would both of you feel more comfortable if she owned and could competently use a firearm?

[nhurto]

For those of you in the US and are interested in the larger debate about violence in our society, you should make the time to see Bowling for Columbine . It is an excellent movie which will leave you with a lot to think about. It is niether pro- nor anti-gun, but more a reflection on what makes our society so damned violent.

Great thread here, keep the replies coming!