Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
When the constitution was written the Weak (US residents) taking on the Strong state (the British crown) *was* a very real concern. It made sense then, it does't make as much sense now. Unless of course you plan on taking on 'the state' (United states military).
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Indeed. The failure of various American gun-control schemes counts for something, but the relative success abroad counts for quite a bit as well.
Of course, there's also weight in the predictable counter-point: that gun-control isn't everything, and America is generally quite violent, not just in terms of guns.
What success? The UK is an island, in case you didn't notice. Australia is too. It's much easier to prevent the smuggling of contraband (like weapons) into an island than into a country with vast, undefended borders.
The UK is Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, some other pieces, and some of those are partially self-governing (I don't know much about how the Irish Free State works, etc). And then we have the ex-colonies and client states which still consider the Queen their head of state.
"Ireland" can mean either the island or the country called the Republic of Ireland, which is about 80% of the island. The Republic is not part of the UK, it is a completely independent country. Northern Ireland (the northern 20%) is part of the UK. The "Irish Free State" was the name of what is now the Republic of Ireland in the 1920s and 30s and is not a term used any more.
Technically true, but this doesn't really address Grishnakh's main point: an island (and it's not unreasonable to treat the UK as an island, all in all) is indeed probably easier to keep things out of. (Forgive the end-of-sentence preposition.)
Grishnakh's argument falls down [slashdot.org] when you compare the USA to France.
The problem with these stats is that they lump everyone in together. Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster. Homicides are the important stat. However, even here most gun-related homicides in this country are likely because of gang-related violence. If you're not a gang member or other violent criminal, you have much less to worry about. So how about some stats which exclude gang members? It'd be interesting to see how the US ranks there.
Last I heard, El Salvador was the most dangerous country for an adult male to live in, as every adult male there has a 1 in 9 chance of being murdered in their lifetime. What are the gun laws like there?
As for first-world countries, the US doesn't really count there. There's too much poverty and income disparity for the US to really be considered an advanced nation. Mexico has the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim), and lots of affluence too, but no one considers them an advanced nation either. It's not gun proliferation that causes America's problems with crime, violence, and poverty. Somehow liberals seem to think that if we just get rid of the guns, we'll suddenly turn into a gigantic version of Sweden or Norway. It doesn't work that way. Those countries are ultra-safe because of their culture. We don't have that kind of culture. Our culture is more like that of El Salvador, in many areas of the country.
Reminds of this bit [theonion.com] from The Onion: Oh, sure, if you’re going to compare us to first-world countries, we’re definitely not going to come out looking so good.
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
That's not backhanded, that's intended. The problem is that liberals in this country think that just by adopting policies of, say, Sweden, that somehow the USA will become just like Sweden. It doesn't work like that. A country can't just will itself to be like some prosperous Scandinavian country. You mi
Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster.
Actually no. A lot of people back out of suicide because it takes so long and requires enough preparation to give them a chance to reconsider. There is plenty of statistical and clinical evidence of them. Being able to pull a trigger results in more people going through with it.
The problem with these stats is that they lump everyone in together. Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster. Homicides are the important stat. However, even here most gun-related homicides in this country are likely because of gang-related violence. If you're not a gang member or other violent criminal, you have much less to worry about. So how about some stats which exclude gang me
Ok then, compare against France instead. Still not looking good.
France is #12 in the world [wikipedia.org] in firearm ownership, with over 30 guns per 100 residents.
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture. You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture.
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots. You might be right about the specific topic of guns, though. I don't know of any significant cultural shifts regarding guns, to point to.
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
Would they? They have a totally different culture, plus they have better social support systems. I don't think they're in danger of having the kind of ghettos that we have in Detroit any time soon.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots.
Those aren't prohibitions, they're exactly the opposite. People wanted something to be legal,
Germany isn't as anti-gun as the UK by a long shot. See this list. [wikipedia.org] Germany has 1/3 the gun ownership the US does, and about 5 times the gun ownership of the UK. Germany comes in at #15 worldwide. 30 guns (privately-owned) per 100 residents isn't a small number.
"Ownership" is quite a broad term and not a good measurement for this discussion. For example, according to the WaffG (gun's law), when inheriting a gun you need to prove that you've got a need for a (working) gun. If you can't prove that, but still want to own the gun, a blocking device needs to be mounted to the gun and all rounds handed over.
Blank guns - if you want to carry them around - also need to be registered and therefore are part of those numbers.
"Owning guns" and "owning guns capable to kill" is
As someone that's neutral on weather we have too much or too little gun control (it seems unlikely we have the perfect amount, but I suppose it's possible), I find the specifics boring and useless, because we have the second amendment, and I want the constitution to count for something./me naive
And these mass shootings, what percentage of firearm violence do they account for? Also, in these mass shootings, how often are handguns used to kill people?
Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.
Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If yo
The question was posed. Perhaps the Slashdot "editors" shouldn't forward on political hotbutton questions, and perhaps people here could be mature enough to not ask such questions.
Perhaps you could even take responsibility for yourself and ignore the hotbutton answer in favor of another answer or three... but that's asking a bit much, isn't it?
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation They're not criminals until they commit a crime. Until then, they're law-abiding citizens. Many of the massacres we've seen are first offenses.
no or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that. Yeah, if we outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns...but that's precisely the point. We now know who to arrest the person with the assault rifle who walked into a school. To wit, if regulating guns
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
False, the UK and Australia prove your assertion wrong.
Every single car driven by a drunk driver has been legally owned by someone at some point. Every. Single. One. Law abiding car owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated. Every single computer used for child pornography has been legally owned by someone at some point in time. Every. Single. One. Law abiding computer owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Self defense. It IS still legal to shoot someone who is threatening to do the same to yourself. Fortunately it is rarely necessary. Simply being seen to have a weapoin is enough to diffuse most situations.
Do you have personal experience with this? Are there any data on that? How many lives are saved per year by the threat of gun violence?
In the absence of a study, imagine a world in which every citizen (maybe older than, say, the legal driving age) is carrying a firearm. Imagine the major population centers like NYC where the statistics would matter. Would there be fewer gun-related deaths in that world than in ours? I can't see it that way. I would feel safer in a world where people are more encouraged to deal with conflict in a nonviolent way.
Self defense. It IS still legal to shoot someone who is threatening to do the same to yourself. Fortunately it is rarely necessary. Simply being seen to have a weapoin is enough to diffuse most situations.
Do you have personal experience with this? Are there any data on that? How many lives are saved per year by the threat of gun violence?
I have 3 times in just over 10 years but never had to actually draw. Just the look of being ready to defend was enough to stave off a more serious confrontation. The firs
Yes. 3 events. Two in which simply showing the gun was all it took to END the situation. In the third I didn't actually have a gun but convinced a group of muggers that I did. No one was hurt. Neither did I report these events to anyone. Nor has any statistician ever asked me about it.
Uh, where's your source data for that? That's an extraordinary claim considering the 10's of thousands of so-called "gun crimes" that happen in the U.S. every year (this includes any crime where a gun was possessed by the perpetrator, not just shootings). Where's your extraordinary evidence?
The National Guard didn't exist until the 20th century. The Founders didn't envision such a thing. If you want to go back to what the original Constitution allowed, you need to just have state militias.
I have a friend that lives in RURAL North Carolina, the nearest police station is over an hour away. She has drug dealers living near by, that while they leave her and her kids alone, their CUSTOMERS are not always so "polite". The police have made arrests and there have been convictions, but still the problem persists. When there is a problem she can call the cops and wait for them to show up, 45 minuets minimum to over an hour depending on where the single patrol car is at the time she calls. A few months
Many of them aren't even legal to own and therefore could not possibly be purchased legally.
Citation?
I'm sure there were guns smuggled illegally into the country and then sold, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single gun used criminally in the last several years that weren't perfectly legal to own.
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Not Every.Single.One. Not the 3-D printed gun I have under my pillow. I made that one myself.
A gun is a great equalizer. You can no longer just walk up to a woman who's physically weaker than you and attempt to rape her, because she might have a gun. Same with robbing an old grandma. You want to take away the right to self defense, so he or she has to fight with a knife, or a golf club, and possibly be subdued and murdered, simply because he or she is physically weaker? In fact poverty is the biggest enemy of gun ownership, people simply cannot afford a gun, like a lot of Latinos carry knives inste
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.
Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:1, Insightful)
Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:2, Insightful)
When the constitution was written the Weak (US residents) taking on the Strong state (the British crown) *was* a very real concern. It made sense then, it does't make as much sense now. Unless of course you plan on taking on 'the state' (United states military).
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:4, Insightful)
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Re: (Score:3)
How many mass shootings has the UK experienced since they banned ownership of handguns?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The failure of various American gun-control schemes counts for something, but the relative success abroad counts for quite a bit as well.
Of course, there's also weight in the predictable counter-point: that gun-control isn't everything, and America is generally quite violent, not just in terms of guns.
Re: (Score:1)
What success? The UK is an island, in case you didn't notice. Australia is too. It's much easier to prevent the smuggling of contraband (like weapons) into an island than into a country with vast, undefended borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ireland" can mean either the island or the country called the Republic of Ireland, which is about 80% of the island. The Republic is not part of the UK, it is a completely independent country. Northern Ireland (the northern 20%) is part of the UK. The "Irish Free State" was the name of what is now the Republic of Ireland in the 1920s and 30s and is not a term used any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true, but this doesn't really address Grishnakh's main point: an island (and it's not unreasonable to treat the UK as an island, all in all) is indeed probably easier to keep things out of. (Forgive the end-of-sentence preposition.)
Grishnakh's argument falls down [slashdot.org] when you compare the USA to France.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then, compare against France instead. Still not looking good. [wikipedia.org]
As first-world countries go, the US isn't doing great.
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with these stats is that they lump everyone in together. Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster. Homicides are the important stat. However, even here most gun-related homicides in this country are likely because of gang-related violence. If you're not a gang member or other violent criminal, you have much less to worry about. So how about some stats which exclude gang members? It'd be interesting to see how the US ranks there.
Last I heard, El Salvador was the most dangerous country for an adult male to live in, as every adult male there has a 1 in 9 chance of being murdered in their lifetime. What are the gun laws like there?
As for first-world countries, the US doesn't really count there. There's too much poverty and income disparity for the US to really be considered an advanced nation. Mexico has the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim), and lots of affluence too, but no one considers them an advanced nation either. It's not gun proliferation that causes America's problems with crime, violence, and poverty. Somehow liberals seem to think that if we just get rid of the guns, we'll suddenly turn into a gigantic version of Sweden or Norway. It doesn't work that way. Those countries are ultra-safe because of their culture. We don't have that kind of culture. Our culture is more like that of El Salvador, in many areas of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
All reasonable points.
Reminds of this bit [theonion.com] from The Onion: Oh, sure, if you’re going to compare us to first-world countries, we’re definitely not going to come out looking so good.
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
Re: (Score:3)
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
That's not backhanded, that's intended. The problem is that liberals in this country think that just by adopting policies of, say, Sweden, that somehow the USA will become just like Sweden. It doesn't work like that. A country can't just will itself to be like some prosperous Scandinavian country. You mi
Re: (Score:2)
Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster.
Actually no. A lot of people back out of suicide because it takes so long and requires enough preparation to give them a chance to reconsider. There is plenty of statistical and clinical evidence of them. Being able to pull a trigger results in more people going through with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then, compare against France instead. Still not looking good.
France is #12 in the world [wikipedia.org] in firearm ownership, with over 30 guns per 100 residents.
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture. You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture.
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots. You might be right about the specific topic of guns, though. I don't know of any significant cultural shifts regarding guns, to point to.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
Would they? They have a totally different culture, plus they have better social support systems. I don't think they're in danger of having the kind of ghettos that we have in Detroit any time soon.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots.
Those aren't prohibitions, they're exactly the opposite. People wanted something to be legal,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you don't accept the UK, take Germany as an example. Although you might argue that Europe + Asia "is just an island" ...
Re: (Score:2)
Germany isn't as anti-gun as the UK by a long shot. See this list. [wikipedia.org] Germany has 1/3 the gun ownership the US does, and about 5 times the gun ownership of the UK. Germany comes in at #15 worldwide. 30 guns (privately-owned) per 100 residents isn't a small number.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ownership" is quite a broad term and not a good measurement for this discussion. For example, according to the WaffG (gun's law), when inheriting a gun you need to prove that you've got a need for a (working) gun. If you can't prove that, but still want to own the gun, a blocking device needs to be mounted to the gun and all rounds handed over.
Blank guns - if you want to carry them around - also need to be registered and therefore are part of those numbers.
"Owning guns" and "owning guns capable to kill" is
Re: (Score:2)
So work on an Amendment repealing the Second Amendment. Noone's going to stop you from trying to get things changed.
But don't pretend it doesn't exist because it offends your sense of rightness. It's there, deal with it. Either by accepting it or repealing it.
Oh, and good luck with that. I'm pretty sure you'll have about as much luck as trying to repeal the First Amendment, but that's your business....
Re: (Score:1)
This, yes, thank you.
As someone that's neutral on weather we have too much or too little gun control (it seems unlikely we have the perfect amount, but I suppose it's possible), I find the specifics boring and useless, because we have the second amendment, and I want the constitution to count for something. /me naive
Re: (Score:3)
Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.
Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If yo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Therefore we should have no laws, because criminals would just ignore them anyway.
It's utterly predictable that Slashdot glommed onto the gun question and is ignoring everything else Bruce had to say.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The question was posed. Perhaps the Slashdot "editors" shouldn't forward on political hotbutton questions, and perhaps people here could be mature enough to not ask such questions.
Perhaps you could even take responsibility for yourself and ignore the hotbutton answer in favor of another answer or three... but that's asking a bit much, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation
They're not criminals until they commit a crime. Until then, they're law-abiding citizens. Many of the massacres we've seen are first offenses.
no or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Yeah, if we outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns...but that's precisely the point. We now know who to arrest the person with the assault rifle who walked into a school. To wit, if regulating guns
Re: (Score:2)
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
False, the UK and Australia prove your assertion wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Every single car driven by a drunk driver has been legally owned by someone at some point. Every. Single. One. Law abiding car owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Every single computer used for child pornography has been legally owned by someone at some point in time. Every. Single. One. Law abiding computer owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the other use of a legal hand gun? Hunting pigeon, hammering nails, switching off the television?
Re: (Score:3)
Self defense. It IS still legal to shoot someone who is threatening to do the same to yourself. Fortunately it is rarely necessary. Simply being seen to have a weapoin is enough to diffuse most situations.
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have personal experience with this? Are there any data on that? How many lives are saved per year by the threat of gun violence?
In the absence of a study, imagine a world in which every citizen (maybe older than, say, the legal driving age) is carrying a firearm. Imagine the major population centers like NYC where the statistics would matter. Would there be fewer gun-related deaths in that world than in ours? I can't see it that way. I would feel safer in a world where people are more encouraged to deal with conflict in a nonviolent way.
Re: (Score:3)
I have 3 times in just over 10 years but never had to actually draw. Just the look of being ready to defend was enough to stave off a more serious confrontation. The firs
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. 3 events. Two in which simply showing the gun was all it took to END the situation. In the third I didn't actually have a gun but convinced a group of muggers that I did. No one was hurt. Neither did I report these events to anyone. Nor has any statistician ever asked me about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Target shooting, competitive shooting, hunting and self-defense are other legal uses of handguns.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, where's your source data for that? That's an extraordinary claim considering the 10's of thousands of so-called "gun crimes" that happen in the U.S. every year (this includes any crime where a gun was possessed by the perpetrator, not just shootings). Where's your extraordinary evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
The National Guard didn't exist until the 20th century. The Founders didn't envision such a thing. If you want to go back to what the original Constitution allowed, you need to just have state militias.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a friend that lives in RURAL North Carolina, the nearest police station is over an hour away. She has drug dealers living near by, that while they leave her and her kids alone, their CUSTOMERS are not always so "polite". The police have made arrests and there have been convictions, but still the problem persists. When there is a problem she can call the cops and wait for them to show up, 45 minuets minimum to over an hour depending on where the single patrol car is at the time she calls. A few months
Re: (Score:3)
>>Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One.
Umm... No. Many of them aren't even legal to own and therefore could not possibly be purchased legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
I'm sure there were guns smuggled illegally into the country and then sold, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single gun used criminally in the last several years that weren't perfectly legal to own.
Re: (Score:1)
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Not Every.Single.One. Not the 3-D printed gun I have under my pillow. I made that one myself.
Re: (Score:1)
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One.
Very witty, except that you have no fucking clue [latimes.com] of what you're talking about. [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)