Gun control: I just don't know what to think!

[Evariste]

Since as long as I can remember, I've had an aversion to guns.

I don't like the things. They're loud, dangerous, and (so I thought) unnecessary. Whenever people mention that they own them, I'm involuntarily repulsed.


While I still hold a personal aversion to guns, as an American, I have inherent qualms when terms like "regulation", "restriction", and "control" start being tossed around.

Gun control is one of only a handful of issues that I'm completely undecided on.

Does less guns equal less crime? Can guns work in a free society? Are they necessary for a society to be truly free?

To try out the Youtube embed, here's something by John Stossel, one of the few people in the media that I respect, giving his take.

[removeduser_487563287433]

There should be sensible restrictions on guns. I think there is far too large a proportion of people, frankly Americans that do not approach firearms with the maturity and respect that is necessary when dealing with lethal weapons.

[Mangalore]

The simple question is: What's the purpose of gun ownership?

For sports, okay, for hunting, if it is necessary for wildlife preserves, security... Uhm, somehow most other western countries do not need guns for citizens to ensure their safety.

[mightyfenrir]

The simple question is: What's the purpose of gun ownership?

For sports, okay, for hunting, if it is necessary for wildlife preserves, security... Uhm, somehow most other western countries do not need guns for citizens to ensure their safety.

Do other countries have the home security issues we have though? But then, the criminal needs a bigger gun to get in your home... it's really just a vicious cycle...

[Vuk]

Do other countries have the home security issues we have though? But then, the criminal needs a bigger gun to get in your home... it's really just a vicious cycle...

With the exception of Slovenia, countries with a higher gun ownership rate have a lower crime rate per capita on average.
That should say something...
I own quite a few guns, and not one was ever used in a crime and never will be. One was used to stop a crime however.
Vuk

[mightyfenrir]

With the exception of Slovenia, countries with a higher gun ownership rate have a lower crime rate per capita on average.
That should say something...
I own quite a few guns, and not one was ever used in a crime and never will be. One was used to stop a crime however.
Vuk

I have a 12 gauge and a 30-30 and the most damage they've ever done was in hitting a few targets and clay pigeons... Well, there was that fake bear I had to pretend to shoot to get my Washington hunting license. You had to go on an obstacle course with the state instructor and find the animal they gave you a permit to shoot and then after you had to show that you could handle live ammunition by shooting at (I only hit three so I know you don't have to hit them all) five clay pigeons. It was fun but I was nervous the whole time.

[deRougemont]

I was raised with firearms around me as child. Naturally I think they are the keystone to American liberty. It's only when I drive through downtown Cleveland or Charlotte that I realize there really are some citizens who are not responsible enough to own them. Let's face it, we aren't the nation of English Yeoman than the founding fathers envisioned. Nevertheless, I would fight for the second amendment as much as the first; it is important for at least the core of American society to be armed not only for hunting or personal security, but as a reminder to the state that the people really do hold the ultimate authority.

[Mangalore]

I was raised with firearms around me as child. Naturally I think they are the keystone to American liberty. It's only when I drive through downtown Cleveland or Charlotte that I realize there really are some citizens who are not responsible enough to own them. Let's face it, we aren't the nation of English Yeoman than the founding fathers envisioned. Nevertheless, I would fight for the second amendment as much as the first; it is important for at least the core of American society to be armed not only for hunting or personal security, but as a reminder to the state that the people really do hold the ultimate authority.

With guns? Great... so they fate of the state lies in the hands of any idiot capable to shoot someone which... given the efficiency of today's guns is any idiot walking the streets. That guns can somehow control a government is imo a bit naive. Iraq, Afghanistan and in other regimes the possession of military grade weapons by the populace is normal, but somehow none of these regimes had any great problems beating any armed rebellions to a pulp if the need arose.

[morteduzionism]

Naturally I think they are the keystone to American liberty.

Why? Are you saying this because you were raised with them and you're suggesting that you really didn't have a choice in developing this opinon? Or do you have a separate rationale for thinking this?

It's only when I drive through downtown Cleveland or Charlotte that I realize there really are some citizens who are not responsible enough to own them.

While driving through these areas have you inadvertently got caught in a shootout? Have you personally witnessed gun violence in these areas? Are you implying that every single person in the suburbs is responsible? Are you suggesting that there aren't numerous accidents involving children/firearms or teens/firearms? Are you implying that people in the suburbs don't committ violence with guns?

it is important for at least the core of American society to be armed not only for hunting or personal security,

My feelings about hunting with a gun are beside the point. But personal security!? When was the last time someone successfully defended themselves with a gun? Bernhard Goetz? Discharging a weapon in a subway car?

but as a reminder to the state that the people really do hold the ultimate authority.

This is what I don't understand the most. How likely is this to happen? Or are you thinking about your grandchildrens grandchildren? Just in case some nut President tries something fishy.

Arguments for gun ownership is one thing. Using the threat of the state...that's a little lame.

The original intent was to provide a measure for a states defense in a time when states bordered hostile neighbors. I don't mean like Ohio and Michigan.

That time is gone.

Unless you think Canada has eyes for expansion...oh yeah...and you live on the border. Or you're a resident of a southern border state and you plan to personally defend your state from invasions of immigrant workers. Otherwise, what do you need a gun for?

[leeho730]

I agree that people are the problem.

So we have to make sure that only qualified people can get the guns who can store guns securely and can handle guns responsibly and that people around him/her such as neighbours, classmates and relatives feel safe for the owner to have guns.

And gun control does not ban people from using it for self-defence. We, in NZ, had several cases of using guns for self defence during home invasion and the gun owner was not charged.

Like Virginia shooting case, the offender shouldn't get the gun in the first place. Student arming themselves with pistols in campus is really ridiculous. Might as well arm all the teachers with pistols to make it even safer!

What kind of society is this?

I was raised with firearms around me as child. Naturally I think they are the keystone to American liberty. It's only when I drive through downtown Cleveland or Charlotte that I realize there really are some citizens who are not responsible enough to own them. Let's face it, we aren't the nation of English Yeoman than the founding fathers envisioned. Nevertheless, I would fight for the second amendment as much as the first; it is important for at least the core of American society to be armed not only for hunting or personal security, but as a reminder to the state that the people really do hold the ultimate authority.

I believe Swiss interpretation of 2nd Amendment (self-armed militia to reduce cost spent by the federal government) is what Forefathers intended, and Swiss people in general are way more disciplined in terms of use of guns, thanks to compulsory military training. Swiss as a nation practically copied US constitution and seem much better at implementing than US! Less corruption, better democracy, people have real power over the government, relatively crime-free etc etc.

Mind you, they also had a small scale civil war between lefties and righties hundreds of years ago...

[deRougemont]

I believe Swiss interpretation of 2nd Amendment (self-armed militia to reduce cost spent by the federal government) is what Forefathers intended, and Swiss people in general are way more disciplined in terms of use of guns, thanks to compulsory military training. Swiss as a nation practically copied US constitution and seem much better at implementing than US! Less corruption, better democracy, people have real power over the government, relatively crime-free etc etc.

In fact, Switzerland is exactly our model for the 2nd amendment, but not for economic reasons. Even a cursory look at the founding fathers' writings will show you that their ideas of gun ownership were purely political. Now comparing the US with Switzerland today is bogus. They have a homogeneous society (being composed almost entirely of West Europeans), and are very small. The United States is huge, and has become multi-ethnic. That's where the problems begin. But in the beginning, we mirrored Switzerland politically as much as we did the English culturally. Admittedly, under Swiss (or Israeli) conditions, citizen ownership of firearms works best.

With guns? Great... so they fate of the state lies in the hands of any idiot capable to shoot someone which... given the efficiency of today's guns is any idiot walking the streets. That guns can somehow control a government is imo a bit naive. Iraq, Afghanistan and in other regimes the possession of military grade weapons by the populace is normal, but somehow none of these regimes had any great problems beating any armed rebellions to a pulp if the need arose.

If anything, Iraq and Afghanistan (and the North Ireland for that matter) prove that armed citizens can thwart even the greatest powers in the world.

While driving through these areas have you inadvertently got caught in a shootout? Have you personally witnessed gun violence in these areas? Are you implying that every single person in the suburbs is responsible? Are you suggesting that there aren't numerous accidents involving children/firearms or teens/firearms? Are you implying that people in the suburbs don't committ violence with guns?

No. Yes. No. No. No.

Something I've been wondering: does the perception of gun ownership act as a deterrent to crime?

Yes. The greatest example being Israel. Crime is extremely low there for no other reason than most males are armed; an interesting side effect of defending against terrorism...

[ZaPPPa]

Yes. The greatest example being Israel. Crime is extremely low there for no other reason than most males are armed; an interesting side effect of defending against terrorism...

Crime in the Netherlands is also extremely low (compared to the US) and we have strict gun control laws.. Your argument is invalid.

It's more about culture than anything else if you ask me. The US is very aggressive as a culture and fear is used as a way to control people. Politicians constantly instill fear in people as well do the media. This causes people to want to defend themselves. This is not the case in most western European countries. I lived in both countries and I feel less safe here in the US, even though rationally I think I am safer here because of the type of neighbourhood I now live in.

In the Netherlands only few burglars will carry a gun, because they know the home-owner will not have one. At most there will be a confrontation and someone will pull a knife. In the US every burglar will carry a gun, because they know the home-owner will likely own one. Logically this leads to more shootings.

I think it's fine to ban semi-automatic and assault weapons. A Glock-17 will do the job nicely, so there's no reason to own anything bigger if all you want is to be able to defend yourself.

[deRougemont]

Crime in the Netherlands is also extremely low (compared to the US) and we have strict gun control laws.. Your argument is invalid.

Smaller, more homogeneous countries tend to have less crime. The fact that they are smaller and tighter-knit usually equates to having lower levels of crime. And I would wager that the crime you do have comes primarily from your minorities rather than your natives (as is the case here). It's the dirty little secret about multi-cultural societies.

It's more about culture than anything else if you ask me.

Absolutely.

The US is very aggressive as a culture and fear is used as a way to control people.

I've never lived in fear in the US, and I've been here almost my entire life.

Politicians constantly instill fear in people as well do the media.

Depends on what you're talking about I suppose.

This causes people to want to defend themselves.

Fear tends to do this, which is quite reasonable.

In the Netherlands only few burglars will carry a gun, because they know the home-owner will not have one. At most there will be a confrontation and someone will pull a knife. In the US every burglar will carry a gun, because they know the home-owner will likely own one. Logically this leads to more shootings.

Most burglars, in fact, don't. At least not where I live (and everyone seems to own guns here, it's as safe as it gets. Most of our crime, again, comes from minority neighborhoods.)

I think it's fine to ban semi-automatic and assault weapons. A Glock-17 will do the job nicely, so there's no reason to own anything bigger if all you want is to be able to defend yourself.

The point of the 2nd Amendment however, is that the citizens will own small arms on par with the military. This would include "assault weapons" theoretically.

[Condell]

Absolutely.I've never lived in fear in the US, and I've been here almost my entire life.

deRougemont where do you live in?
I think he is trying to imply us americans kinda like guns and not really hesitant to use them

i lived most of my life in south carolina and va
and to be honest down south i occasionaly get worried of a bullet in the ass when passing through someone's property/fields etc..

[ZaPPPa]

The point of the 2nd Amendment however, is that the citizens will own small arms on par with the military. This would include "assault weapons" theoretically.

That's very debatable.

Let's take a closer look shall we?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

First of all, the amendment should only apply to a well regulated militia and not a bunch of individuals. If a group of citizens decide to come together and become an official militia endorsed by the local law enforcement and pledging to come to the defense of all civilians then yes, they should be allowed to arm themselves. However, uncle Buck, who is a drunk and has a mean streak keeps a 12 gauge shotgun near his bed, does not really comply with the term 'well regulated militia' in my opinion.

Second of all, nowhere in this amendment does it say anything about being on par with the military. The founding fathers had no way of knowing that guns would be pumping out tens of bullets per second and each of these bullets would be able to penetrate wooden walls and armor with ease.
Honestly, the law could be confined to muskets only and it would not be unconstitutional in my mind.

Obviously, the supreme court would determine what is allowed and what is not and I agree with you that the law won't be changed any time soon. There's too many guns and it's nearly impossible to take them away. If the Democrats are smart, they'll leave this topic alone until they get elected in a landslide (which may never happen).

[Mangalore]

If anything, Iraq and Afghanistan (and the North Ireland for that matter) prove that armed citizens can thwart even the greatest powers in the world.

No and yes, they prove that democratic countries should not get entangled in asymmetrical warfare. If you look at how quickly Saddam put down the Shia rebellion you see a difference between what a totalitarian regime can do with its military assets and how a democratic fledgling state like Afghanistan is under constant threat of falling apart as any group is armed to the teeth.

The violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is also not even directed against the population alone. Those armed citizens are also busy killing each other and have no problem doing so thanks to the availability of all kinds of weapons anywhere in the country.

The problem arises through the necessity of a democratic country to obey to its own laws (which usually forbids summary executions of civilians) otherwise the claim that this gun control is helping protecting oneself against tyranny, the casualty figures are not in the favour of the citizens...

[leeho730]

In fact, Switzerland is exactly our model for the 2nd amendment, but not for economic reasons. Even a cursory look at the founding fathers' writings will show you that their ideas of gun ownership were purely political. Now comparing the US with Switzerland today is bogus. They have a homogeneous society (being composed almost entirely of West Europeans), and are very small. The United States is huge, and has become multi-ethnic. That's where the problems begin. But in the beginning, we mirrored Switzerland politically as much as we did the English culturally. Admittedly, under Swiss (or Israeli) conditions, citizen ownership of firearms works best.
If anything, Iraq and Afghanistan (and the North Ireland for that matter) prove that armed citizens can thwart even the greatest powers in the world.
No. Yes. No. No. No.
Yes. The greatest example being Israel. Crime is extremely low there for no other reason than most males are armed; an interesting side effect of defending against terrorism...

No, you've got to study YOUR country's history again, mate.

US constitution was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. They were ratified by various other states, such as Rhode Island which ratified constitution on May 29, 1790. The Bill of Rights, with its first ten amendments (including two), were adopted between 1789 and 1791.

On the other hand, Swiss Federal Constitution was laid with the promulgation of the Constitution of 12 September 1848.

Are you saying that 2nd amendments to the US constitution, adopted before 1792, was deeply influenced by Swiss Federal Constitution which was laid on 1848?
American Politicians at that time must have possessed time machine in 1789!

And do you recognize Swiss population is homogenous? That country has four official languages: Swiss German, French, Italian, and Romansh. Resident foreigners and temporary foreign workers make up about 21% of the population. The country itself has 7.5 million population, divided to 26 cantons ("states" in US).

Therefore, Switzerland adopted US constitution, not other way round, and the level of democracy it has exceeds any other countries in the known world. It is the most advanced form of direct (pure) democracy since Athens.

Long story short....

Yes Swiss adopted US constitution but Swiss way looks much better... Swiss population seem way more disciplined in terms of handling guns than US population and Swiss government also actively encourages rifle sports for militias to train their skills.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's also a counter-productive approach because it will cause more net deaths and injuries due to accidents.

[Zinian]

Gun control is good, but too much is worse. For instance, if just one person had a CCW permit during the V Tech shootings, it would have ended MUCH faster.

[leeho730]

Gun control is good, but too much is worse. For instance, if just one person had a CCW permit during the V Tech shootings, it would have ended MUCH faster.

Who knows?

Might have become a classic Western-style gun fight (mind you, Cho was also very, very well prepared), or might even have evolved as a hostage situation.

Would have been much more preventable if Cho didn't get the gun in the first place.