|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: American 'gun culture' - fact or fiction?
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
but if the violent can't get their hands on guns, then that eliminates a pivotal symptom of the problem.
Something I've never understood is how gun control advocates practically expect to eliminate guns.
I've read there are scores of millions (200m?) of them extant. How realistic is it to assume you can get enough of them to preclude further violence?
Few criminals are going to hand them over and I imagine a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens would be willing to risk becoming a criminal in order to keep theirs.
Best I can see all you'll do is create a lot of ill will and red tape with the net effect of millions and millions of guns remaining in the hands of citizens, most of them bad guys, which I'm not sure is a desirable result.
What am I missing?
You are missing the fact that gun manufacturers pump a massive number of new guns into the system each year. End that, and over time the availability of guns will taper off. It won't be a matter of "here today, gone tomorrow."
The thing that I think an outright ban on private ownership of guns would accomplish in the long haul is a lowering of non-criminal gun killings. Yes, criminals will continue to find access to guns. But would the isolated young man who killed the VT people have the contacts to get guns from criminals? Would a drunk and irate husband be able to pull a gun out of his glove ompartment to kill his spouse?
I think that both of these kinds of killings would be reduced dramatically once the current stocks subsided. It appears that, as a society, we have elected to live with the slaughter in order to be able to have guns available to us. That is a pretty good working definition of a "gun culture" to my mind.
The fact of the matter is that signficantly more Americans want guns banned or sharply regulated than want the current system. However, those who want to keep guns cheap and legal are much more passionate about it than the rest of us. And the gun manufacturers are very active politically. Even so-called gun regulation laws are crafted carefully to give the appearance of gun control without actually controlling anything. This allows the politicians to claim a "moral" victory without unduly inconveniencing a powerful lobby or a rabid constituency.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Can anyone from America provide any insight or anecdote about how effective guns are as a defence?
John Lott is an anti-gun control type: scroll down a bit to find links to some of his data.
It looks like it requires registration but if you google his name you'll probably find something useful.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hedonism_bot
Shipmate
# 5027
|
Posted
quote:
O.P. by Dr Frog
a baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball.
True. But I remember reading something to the effect that one British sporting goods chain reported that in one year they sold something like 17,000 baseball bats, and 23 baseballs.
Posts: 778 | From: Running from the grand ennui | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think that both of these kinds of killings would be reduced dramatically once the current stocks subsided.
Assuming the 200 million number I've heard is anywhere close to correct, how long do you suppose it would take for the stocks to subside adequately to have a significant impact?
I just thought of one relatively immediate result if guns are banned: the price to obtain one would rapidly rise which may deter some from obtaining one.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Assuming the 200 million number I've heard is anywhere close to correct, how long do you suppose it would take for the stocks to subside adequately to have a significant impact?
I did a quick search, and was able to find statistics for 1994 in the US. Of all the transactions for hand guns in that year, 68% were purchases of new hand guns. For long guns, the figure was 60% new long guns. So introducing new weapons into the supply does seem to be a significant factor.
The number of years needed to effectively drain the swamp is, of course, very hard to estimate. Adding to the problem of anticipating the final effect is the fact that the majority of people who own guns own more than one.
Of course, eliminating the availability of new ammunition would have a direct and dramatic effect on the utility of the guns in circulation after a relatively few number of years.
However, all this seems pretty academic. I honestly can't imagine the US outlawing private ownership of guns in my lifetime, even if people were to come around to my view that the second amendment is about "well-regulated militias," not about gang-bangers' rights.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't know if he couldn't have done as well without a gun. [...] Certainly I don't know what the hell I could do besides die when attacked by a man with baseball bat and knives.
He might have done, who knows.
But I always think it's pretty telling to remember that shortly after the gun massacre of 16 at Dunblane primary school, there was a copy cat attack on another primary school, only this time the attacker ran rampage with a machete. He was disarmed by a rather small and frail-looking female teacher and while 7 people suffered cuts, no children or teachers were killed.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Of course, eliminating the availability of new ammunition would have a direct and dramatic effect on the utility of the guns in circulation after a relatively few number of years.
However, all this seems pretty academic. I honestly can't imagine the US outlawing private ownership of guns in my lifetime, even if people were to come around to my view that the second amendment is about "well-regulated militias," not about gang-bangers' rights.
There are a whole lot of folks who reload ammo out there and casings can be re-used many times...
but I agree: it's academic. Ain't much gonna change.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hedonism_bot:
quote:
O.P. by Dr Frog
a baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball.
True. But I remember reading something to the effect that one British sporting goods chain reported that in one year they sold something like 17,000 baseball bats, and 23 baseballs.
and yet our papers are not full of reports of baseball bat killings. in fact, i've never read a one.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hedonism_bot
Shipmate
# 5027
|
Posted
Which is the point, really. British lowlifes wield knives and baseball bats and put people in hospital. American ones wield guns and kill them.
Posts: 778 | From: Running from the grand ennui | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Can anyone from America provide any insight or anecdote about how effective guns are as a defence?
John Lott is an anti-gun control type: scroll down a bit to find links to some of his data.
It looks like it requires registration but if you google his name you'll probably find something useful.
There's a link at the top of the page to his blog. It's mainly anecdotal stuff, and there's almost as much rubbishing environmental concerns as there is about guns. I see that he thinks Britain should have more guns because we would be safer.
If the death rate by guns was lower in the USA, I'd think about his suggestion. If it was, say double or treble in the USA, I'd think he was maybe losing the argument - but it's a different country, lost of them have to hunt to eat, they're always preparing to bring down the government, so we can't really compare. If it was five times the rate, then I'd think that whatever the special arguments it does look as if gun ownership must be a bad thing. If it was ten times higher in the USA I'd think, well I wouldn't need to think; as Dr Frog says, a no-brainer. In fact the death rate by gun in the USA is something like seventy times higher.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hedonism_bot:
Which is the point, really. British lowlifes wield knives and baseball bats and put people in hospital. American ones wield guns and kill them.
Um, British lowlifes also kill people with knives and baseball bats. The knives thing seems to be pretty trendy among teenagers at the moment, especially in London and Manchester.
I enjoy shooting and don't think guns should be banned. However, I truly hope guns don't become a greater feature of British society because we're a booze culture and God knows what we'd do with the damn things on a Saturday night after a 24 hour booze fest.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
ISTM a no-brainer that if guns are readily available legally then it is also easier for people to obtain them illegally, and that in a situation where guns are relatively easily available then they are an obvious tool for the violently inclined, and that guns are more effective at killing more people more quickly than other types of personal weapon.
The UK appears to have strict gun laws, but this doesn't preclude ownership by those who have legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun (Wiki page) so those who need guns to hunt could still do so. The ownership of handguns, however, appears to be almost completely banned.
While I guess nothing approaching this has any likelihood of appearing over the US political horizon in the near future, I am aware of the immense turnaround in the UK in the last two to four decades in attitudes to drink-driving, the use of car seatbelts, the wearing of motorcycle helmets, the social acceptability of smoking (and, with a kind of historical topicality, the huge improbability as seen in, say, 1745 that the slave trade or the ownership of slaves would ever be abolished) - the culture changed.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Besides pointing fingers, stereotyping an entire nation with some moral superiority thrown in, discounting "uncomfortable" situations in other countries, and reducing the VT tragedy to a one-themed event, has any new idea about how to reduce violence come from the two pages of this thread?
It seems like an opportunistic chance to play the blame game and do a bit of bashing to me.
I'm so far from being a gun advocate that there isn't room for anyone to be farther...and yet, I know that gun ownership is not the only issue in a world of violence.
Ask any child sholdier in Uganda...oh wait, never mind--it's the US which has the gun culture. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I gather from another forum that something like 11,000 people are killed by guns every year in the US, or just over 30 every day. In other words, the 32 deaths at VT are simply the number who die every day in the US from gunshot wounds. But noone organises memorial services, noone gets the POTUS to comment, noone seems to be worried in the slightest.
It is almost four times the number killed on 9/11, but noone has organised a "War on Terror" to combat this attack from inside the country, presumably because most of the perps aren't Arabic-speaking men in long white cobes.
No, all your threats are from nasty people outside the country, aren't they?
It would be 40 airliner crashes, at least three every month, but noone has called for regulation of the attacks, or laid blame on the companies involved or started scare campaigns to make people travel in safer ways or whatever.
But have one passenegr killed on a train, and all the mindless anti-tax people will be up in arms about wasting federal money on Amtrak.
What gives?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
What gives is that you just made the point of my previous post for me.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
One issue of this country that I've thought of is that when in doubt, we allow things.
When it's debatable whether or not certain speech is ethical, we allow it.
When it's debatable whether or not letting a group gather, we allow it.
When it's debatable whether or not having an abortion is ethical, we allow it.
I think gay marriage is the only exception, and even that seems to be pushing, slowly, into acceptance. And even then, gays can have sex however they choose. Even in the cases where there were laws against it, enforcement was pretty sketchy.
When the government is uncertain, it does nothing, and freedom ensues. And we pay the cost of having a free society. Sometimes that cost is great indeed, but yet we feel that it's worth it.
In terms of guns, I think it would be nearly impossible, especially in rural areas (like the one I grew up in) to track down every gun. The cops wouldn't want to do it. The people wouldn't want to do it, and as I said before, some have entirely practical reasons for owning rifles, and while they are a minority, I think it's unfair to take them away, not to mention impossible.
I think gun control advocates would do much better to focus on smaller, more incremental issues like strict licensing procedure and precisely which kinds of guns to "control" rather than going for an all out ban on firearms such as does not even exist on England (shotguns, anyone?).
It's also, as Gwai reminds me, much more practical to hunt in this country than it is to hunt in England. We've got much more open space.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Let's put it this way, as I did try before.
Let's say he built a bomb and killed 33 people.
Would we be talking about taking fertilizer away from people?
Why are people fixated on how he killed people and not why he killed people and how to stop that?
You seem to be assuming that if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have killed people.
At least once in US history, someone decided to kill people and did kill over 200 without a gun. And yet banning fertilizer hasn't been asked....
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And Pata has also made my point: don't talk about any form of control/licensing/limitation whatsoever and maybe it will all go away.
The Governor of Virginia was quoted on the radio this AM, during a news conference about the event, as saying that he could only feel "loathing" for the possibility that gun control might even be discussed in relation to this event - and that after a known (if not acknowledged) psycopath had easily bought a handgun with a poorly-filled-out application form.
Yes, there was one case of someone doing this in 1927, but ISTM that most of the US was a relatively peaceful place before WW2. It is only since flower power and Vietnam that fatalistic acceptance of mass murder has become the norm. Why do so many people simply not care?
[ 19. April 2007, 00:28: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman Bree:
Why do so many people simply not care?
I'm not sure it's not happened before. I remember hearing about a rape that happened in a public school in Cleveland back in the 1950's. School was tough, people just dealt with problems in different ways. Government did not have as much power to interfere, for good or ill.
Personally, I think it's just hard to care about statistics. Maybe that's why every time something like this happens pictures are posted on websites of each and every victim, as if it makes them suddenly human, and thus more likely to elicit sympathy.
And even then, to me, they're still pictures. I don't know them.
Maybe we just see so much of the world's horror on a national or international scale that we're rendered numb to the smaller, more local troubles.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
In terms of guns, I think it would be nearly impossible, especially in rural areas (like the one I grew up in) to track down every gun.
IMO it would be nearly impossible to track down more than 75% of them which means something like 50 million would still be out there; again, primarily in the hands of 'criminals'.
(For one example: how many guns, having been registered when legally purchased by the original buyer, were subsequently resold to a private party which requires no documentation?)
Even assuming you got 95% compliance which I think is wildly optimistic, 10 million guns would still exist, and a well made gun lasts for a long, long time: many decades at least.
I don't know one way or another whether banning guns is the 'right thing' to do; what I've yet to be anything close to convinced of is that it would do much more than disarm honest gun owners.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is only since flower power and Vietnam that fatalistic acceptance of mass murder has become the norm. Why do so many people simply not care?
If we "didn't care" we wouldn't be here on this thread. If we "didn't care" we wouldn't be talking about tyring to find the underlying causes.
We simply don't agree with you that It's That Simple. (And I'd bet the Governor was attempting to make a point about making political hay out of this incident, two days after it happened.)
Guns were widely available before flower power and Vietnam, too, you know.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
And crime was also very prevalent before flower power came along, especially violent organized crime (think mafia) whose heyday was the 1920's-40's.
Flower power has nothing to do with it, I'm afraid.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And people weren't going into schools and universities to kill students and staff, except for the one incident. I don't think this huge upsurge of school shootings has come about just because there is now better reporting.
What changed in the attitudes since WW2? I don't remember the US being thought of as a dangerous place (unless you were black - and even they were more often lynched than shot, ISTM). There certainly wasn't a perceived need for concealed weapons when I was growing up. Those laws are relatively recent. I'm pretty sure that most of the Americans I met then were not as gun-obsessed as seems to be the norm now.
What changed? Is it an outcome of Vietnam, for instance, or the increased paranoia brought about by endless live crime reporting or what?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So you say it's "live crime reporting," which again leads to my argument that we're desensitized by the daily parade of atrocities.
Also, I think our culture has gotten more alienated, though that trend predates the Flower Power and Vietnam War movements. There's an essay that was written, studying social behavioral trends going back to the '50s called "Bowling Alone." Maybe television and other individualized social media are as culpable as anything. We've become more dependent on machines for our information, our lives.
And the Cleveland thing wasn't just one incident. The guy I read said that kids got beat up all the time. And gangs definitely go back to the 50's and 40's, sometimes in reaction to gang-like organizations like the Klan.
And I fail to see how lynching is superior to being shot. And I'm sure they shot black people. It just wasn't as newsworthy in those days. people probably preferred not to see it.
Again, I think the government has just gotten more powerful, and as it has gained the ability to enact more laws and control more behavior (in the "common interest" of course) it has done so, for good and ill.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is only since flower power and Vietnam that fatalistic acceptance of mass murder has become the norm. Why do so many people simply not care?
Quite an indictment that "fatalist acceptance of mass murder" is a norm. Can you back this up? I mean with real evidence. I doubt it.
sabine
[ 19. April 2007, 01:09: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
I was told when I lived in North West Pakistan that in order to get a gun licencse you had to prove you had an enemy. That's a real gun culture!
A bit disturbing that when anything good happened people celebrated by firing everything they had into the air (eg Pakistan winning a cricket match, sucessful nuclear test, weddings etc)- I heard a number of tragic stories about the fall out from this at weddings.
I heard some stats on that from a man at church who has worked in Pakistan. This year Pakistan bombed out of the World Cup by losing to Ireland, and as a result one person has died - the coach, Bob Woolmer. In 1993 when Pakistan won the World Cup, at least five people died in the Wild West provinces (which is much wilder than any part of the USA ever was) from falling bullets. By that logic Pakistan should continue to lose all their cricket matches!
I think a great deal could be done to fix the view that the USA has a rampant gun culture if the second amendment was repealed. There is no need for every citizen to be part of the 'well organised' civilian militia nowadays since the National Guard has taken over that role. Nobody is going to invade the world's largest military state and legitimate law enforcement and military agencies would have no trouble putting down an insurrection these days. If someone did invade the USA the best way for civilians to repel the invasion would be get out of the way and let the armed forces deal with it rather than risk summary execution if caught fighting without legit military ID. The Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with some note making it clear that gun ownership is a privilege to be used responsibly, not a right.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And Pata has also made my point: don't talk about any form of control/licensing/limitation whatsoever and maybe it will all go away.
No, I don't think that it will go away. Some people want to kill other people, and sometimes many other people. How do we stop that? How does someone stop someone else from killing? If the only way people died was from a gun, then banning guns would be a very viable option. However, people can get very creative, or not so creative, and still kill people.
And I do think that there should be regulation about who can own a gun and how one can be bought and/or sold.
quote:
The Governor of Virginia was quoted on the radio this AM, during a news conference about the event, as saying that he could only feel "loathing" for the possibility that gun control might even be discussed in relation to this event - and that after a known (if not acknowledged) psycopath had easily bought a handgun with a poorly-filled-out application form.
Yes, the Virginia law was broken when he bought his gun. And it does need to be looked at and fixed as to how his background check came back clean when it shouldn't have. But I'm not sure how keeping a handgun out of someone's hand who only wants to do target shooting is a good thing. (Which as I see it a total ban would do.)
quote:
Yes, there was one case of someone doing this in 1927, but ISTM that most of the US was a relatively peaceful place before WW2. It is only since flower power and Vietnam that fatalistic acceptance of mass murder has become the norm. Why do so many people simply not care?
I'm not sure why we stopped caring for each other. But I'm not sure how getting rid of every gun (outside of the ones that the military has) would change people's attitudes.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Let's put it this way, as I did try before.
Let's say he built a bomb and killed 33 people.
Would we be talking about taking fertilizer away from people?
probably not. you don't talk about taking away guns. In fact, at times like these the politicians actually have to go out of their way to stroke all the NRA types, lest the poor little dears get their feathers ruffled, and re-assure them publically that, just like the Governor of Virginia, they're as committed to guns and gun use and gun ownership as they ever were -- indeed they find gun control abhorrent. It just screams out for someone to ask 'Just who the hell do you think was the victim here?'
but there was a time when the sale of fertilizer was banned in N. Ireland except to legitimate farmers who underwent a strict licensing regime.
So not really all that ridiculous, actually. Although, admittedly, N. Ireland is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and several threads in it's own right! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Nobody is going to invade the world's largest military state and legitimate law enforcement and military agencies would have no trouble putting down an insurrection these days.
Well, this is exactly it. Many gun-types will tell you things like, 'I need my gun so that if the Federal Government ever becomes too repressive the citizens can put an end to it.'
But if we learned anything in Kosovo, it's that the United States is perfectly capable of winning a war (handily) against a country with quite advanced defense capabilities -- and win it without ever setting a single foot-soldier on the ground.
If any president ever decided to turn that kind of power against his/her own people, surely there's previous little a few farmers with a few shotguns could really do about it. In a best-case scenario, it'd just be a home-grown version of Viet Raq.
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
But I'm not sure how keeping a handgun out of someone's hand who only wants to do target shooting is a good thing. (Which as I see it a total ban would do.)
Again, I'm not sure that anyone was suggesting that. (I wasn't, at any rate.) It's entirely possible to have a licensed regime for such things and establish controlled conditions for where the guns are located. Certainly such schemes exist elsewhere in the world, including Britain. But the same guns are not then allowed at-will out onto the street.
My point in bringing up the thread is that to discuss these things, as we've been doing so well here, is anathema to the prevailing American political culture at large. For the Gov. of Virginia to have to (or even want to?) go out of his way after a tragedy like VT to say how much he likes guns -- can the people who make these decisions not see for themselves how twisted those values are? Or are they really so close and so invested in it they can't see the big picture?
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think gun control advocates would do much better to focus on smaller, more incremental issues like strict licensing procedure and precisely which kinds of guns to "control" rather than going for an all out ban on firearms such as does not even exist on England (shotguns, anyone?).
If you were to go down the control route this would probably make best sense as at least there would then be a track to follow for legally owned guns. However, no matter what degree of control the US opted for (if they did), it wouldn't stop mass killing if an individual was so inclined. Our only mass shooting of schoolchildren - in Dunblane - was performed by a fucked up man who legally owned a number of guns.
I agree with the point you made about the US opting to allow when faced with a situation such as the one in Virginia (though of course Americans have been keen to ban smoking, so the approach isn't universal!). Here in the UK our knee-jerk reaction is to ban or attempt to further control something when that something is involved in an awful event. So we banned handguns after Dunblane, and the Dangerous Dogs Act came in following a few maulings of children by certain breeds of dogs during the 1990s (which didn't stop the hideous dismembering of a young child recently by a dog, the ownership of which was not curtailed because the dog was not a pure breed and so didn't come under the Act).
Banning or controlling something can give a sense of security to people but I'm not totally convinced it actually works. That response can also be unfair in that it is often law abiding citizens who lose out thanks to the actions of one total whackjob or a few irresponsible individuals.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Banning or controlling something can give a sense of security to people but I'm not totally convinced it actually works. That response can also be unfair in that it is often law abiding citizens who lose out thanks to the actions of one total whackjob or a few irresponsible individuals.
No, it doesn't work in a simple, direct causal way. I think the effect of laws is often as symbols and signals. A widely supported law has a strong effect on people's behaviour. Laws against drink driving, for example, have helped to change attitudes to the point where it is now generally seen as so unacceptable that people will readily prevent even a good friend from doing it.
A law against handguns and automatic weapons, coupled with a long amnesty for people to hand them in and good, prolonged publicity, education and public debate, would take a lot of guns out of circulation, but more importantly it might shift opinion, and therefore behaviour.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The UK appears to have strict gun laws, but this doesn't preclude ownership by those who have legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun (Wiki page) so those who need guns to hunt could still do so. The ownership of handguns, however, appears to be almost completely banned.
In the UK, hand guns are completely banned. That's basically because no one could come up with sufficiently good reasons (ie: sporting or work related) for people to own them. There was some extensive discussion following Dunblane about whether or not to allow gun clubs to keep members weapons locked on site, but even that was finally not allowed. The only people it affects are a small number of people who engaged in target shooting with hand guns (I guess they must have made some temporary easing of the law to allow the pistol events for the Olympics in 2012, either that or those events won't be happening that year).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Let's put it this way, as I did try before.
Let's say he built a bomb and killed 33 people.
Would we be talking about taking fertilizer away from people?
No because fertilizer is not intended primarily for use as an explosive ingredient, let alone a product primarily intended for killing.
The primary purpose of guns in general is killing. Secondarily they are used in the sport of target shooting - though in general those kinds of guns are very different in design from the sort intended for killing. Some guns are intended for use in hunting - the legitimate (pace the anti-hunting lobby) killing of animals for food or for sport. Some guns are intended for killing people - this applies to most handguns and certain other kinds of multi-shot or maximum damage weapons.
It is in principle pretty easy to distinguish between the guns designed to be used for different purposes - tho' I'm sure that if a licensing regime did that there would be companies that developed weapons on the margins.
It would in principle, therfore, to produce a strict licensing regime which would only allow access to certain kinds of gun for the majority - indeed, to uphold the right to bear arms, but to insist that does not mean arms of all kinds.
In the meantime - given that a well made gun that is cared for and not used remains effective for a very long time, why not put restrictions on the sale of ammunition alongside a stronger licensing system for guns. Citizens wishing to buy ammunition would need to hold an ammunition purchasing license for the guns for which they need to purchase it. Sale of ammunition inappropriate to the licence or without production of a licence would be an offence. Use of ammunition in a gun for which a citizen does not hold an appropriate license being also an offence. No-one would be legally compelled to obtain a licence for an existing gun - unless they wanted to buy ammunition for it ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 19. April 2007, 10:06: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
For one example: how many guns, having been registered when legally purchased by the original buyer, were subsequently resold to a private party which requires no documentation?
Do you mean to say, someone needs to have background checks and cooling off periods to buy a gun from a gun store (in at least some states, the precise details varying from state to state), but they're then allowed to sell that gun on to whoever they wish? That just seems like a recipe for letting guns into unsuitable hands, and makes all those background checks pointless. No wonder people don't worry too much about doing the paperwork properly when someone wants to buy a gun, what's the point if all that happens when they get turned down is they buy a gun from Uncle Bob. It doesn't seem to be much of an infringement of the "right to bear arms" to limit sale of weapons to licensed gun shops, and if necessary include a requirement to demonstrate you still own the guns you've legally purchased at regular intervals (at the very least, prove you still own them when you want to buy another one).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(I guess they must have made some temporary easing of the law to allow the pistol events for the Olympics in 2012, either that or those events won't be happening that year).
Yes wiki page agian.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
BroJames, this is a problem with how some Americans see guns.
Where I grew up guns were seen as primarily for hunting or as protection against things that don't respond to logic at all (snakes for instance). Target shooting was second, and defense third.
So when someone brings up getting rid of them what they want to know is why. Their way of looking at guns is quite different than yours.
Realize that I don't have a problem with banning automatic weapons, speed loaders, or different types of ammunition. They don't have any place in hunting or target shooting.
And controlling who buys ammunition could be a problem. Even if you only sell to people who have a hunting license, those can be purchased for a lifetime in some states, and quite legally.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Do you mean to say, someone needs to have background checks and cooling off periods to buy a gun from a gun store (in at least some states, the precise details varying from state to state), but they're then allowed to sell that gun on to whoever they wish?
I should point out that's the way it was several years ago; however, I believe nothing's changed and it remains a point of contention. But I haven't been following the debate closely for some time so take it FWIW.
The registration regulations apply to FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealers, not private individuals.
You might have some potential civil liability in the event the new owner did bad things with the gun (conjecture on my part and I can't help but think it would be very difficult to prove the original owner's culpability) but to the best of my knowledge no criminal liability.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Random question alert re: restrictions.
Can anyone in America go out and buy a gun - are there gun-shops? Are there some restrictions? Does it vary from state to state? Would someone have to show identity/age/ check criminal record? Is it recorded? Do you have to apply for a license to own one?
In the UK - if I wanted to buy a gun what would I do? I assume there are some guns you can own for hunting/sport?
thanks ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Random question alert re: restrictions.
Can anyone in America go out and buy a gun - are there gun-shops? Are there some restrictions? Does it vary from state to state? Would someone have to show identity/age/ check criminal record? Is it recorded? Do you have to apply for a license to own one?
In the UK - if I wanted to buy a gun what would I do? I assume there are some guns you can own for hunting/sport?
thanks
There are restrictions about who can buy a gun. And some of those vary from state to state.
In general: One cannot own a gun if they have commited a felony or have been involuntary commited to a mental health institution due to you wanting to hurt others or yourself. to purchase a gun one needs to be at least 18, however a parent can purchase a gun for a younger child to use.
There is a ten day waiting period, unless you purchase a gun at a gun show ( ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ). There is a background check run to make sure that you have not lied on your form. (Although that doesn't always work).
Carrying a gun is another thing altogether. That is state by state. In general one has to pass certain tests to be able to conceal a gun and carry it legally.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Yes, you have to provide ID if you buy from an FFL dealer.
quote:
There is a ten day waiting period, unless you purchase a gun at a gun show ( ).
Isn't that a function of buying and selling used guns between private parties, not of being at a gun show?
I thought FFL dealers have to comply with the regs no matter where they do business.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, though I've never even thought of buying a gun, the restrictions are even more severe over here. Basically, in addition to showing that you're a fit person to own a gun (eg: not a convicted felon, not known to have mental issues) you also have to show a good reason why you need a gun.
If you want to take up a sport involving guns, then you're best course of action (in fact, probably only course of action) is to join an existing club. You'll then have use of guns owned by other club members, or owned by the club itself, at club meets. Then, if you enjoy the sport and want to take it further they'll be able to help you a) buy a suitable weapon and b) go through all the legal stuff.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
In the UK - if I wanted to buy a gun what would I do? I assume there are some guns you can own for hunting/sport?
thanks
Broad picture from Wiki. Basically you would need to approach the police first to obtain a licence appropriate for the kind of gun you wanted to buy (Home Office info) and then you would need to go to a gun dealer. Try Googling 'buying gun uk'
[ 19. April 2007, 13:18: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Thanks
Someone earlier suggested you can just go into wall mart and buy a gun. Does that mean after registering interest 10 days in advance?
If you sold a gun privately do records have to be sent off (Im kind of imagining the uk veichle registration which gets sent off when cars change hands - so *in theory* all veichles are logged.)
We talked a bit about this in class today (13/14 year olds) and they were all shocked that there was a right to own guns. I suspect that USA students would be similarly shocked that they are restricted in the UK? It was such a good example of cultural relativism that I often wonder if i would have differnet moral beliefs if brought up elsewhere.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Someone earlier suggested you can just go into wall mart and buy a gun.
Unless they've recently changed, federal regs allow you to buy and immediately take possession of a longgun contingent on completing FFL form 4473, meeting age requirements and the like.
(IIRC there may be additional state and county restrictions requiring a waiting period. And BTW WMT stopped selling handguns years ago.)
Not all that long ago (didn't the Brady Bill change this?) you could do the same with a handgun.
Now, for handguns there is a federal mandatory waiting period which involves the applicant obtaining a background check from the local authorities.
But I ought to stop commenting: it's been too long since I was up to speed.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, if this incident brings about any changes, perhaps Alan has come up with the best one, that we make you prove you still have the weapon you purchased legally years back - kinda like your car registration. A complication could be in physically showing the thing, but hey, why would I pay a registration on something I no longer have? And if you don't pay, they come for the gun. A little too "big brotherish" in some ways, but a concept nonetheless. The fringe in America would not like this as they see the government as a possible enemy that would confiscate the weapons to protect gov't. power (i.e. to prevent a revolution or to set up a police state), but hey, in a chaotic situation such as that, it wouldn't matter, would it?
I think PataLeBon has summed up the proper attitude nicely:
quote:
Where I grew up guns were seen as primarily for hunting or as protection against things that don't respond to logic at all (snakes for instance). Target shooting was second, and defense third.
For most of America, particularly when I was growing up, this was the attitude, if you thought about it at all. my cousins were hunting at age 12. I was on the target team at school (my family was too squeamish for killing, cleaning and grilling wild game.)
But no matter what you do, and I do mean no matter what, right up to an outright ban on all firearms, criminals will get them - notice the resounding success of all our "war on drugs" campaigns. It may well influence attitudes, as hatless has pointed out, and that would be good, but I think a general moral revolution is what is needed in America. That said, I'd like to reiterate my support for tighter licencing, as Alan has suggested.
Oh, I just remembered this, it's a slight tangent. A reporter was asking about, "would it be right for kids on college campus to be allowed to carry firearms? (empahsis mine)
Hello! Why are they "kids" on a college campus, and yet an 18 year old has essentially full adult priveledges -to marry, to contract, to become a soldier... We have 18 year old "men and women" fighting in Iraq, and 18-22 year old "kids" on our college campuses.
I was trained on M-14's, M-16's, and the venerable military .45 caliber my first year at school, and I didn't turn 18 until midway through my first term.
I won't go so far as to say that a student with a legal permit to carry, and that actually was carrying, could have stopped the carnage. Well, actually I just did, but it's just kinda "Rambo", and a bit improbable. Keeping a piece on you all the time is just a pain, I know I probably wouldn't do it in such a low-threat situation.
Nevertheless, the proper use of guns turns on the problem of proper training and attitudes, but the real wrench gets thrown in the works when you factor in human sinfullness, human silliness, and mental illness.
I'm blathering on now, so until later,
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Someone earlier suggested you can just go into wall mart and buy a gun. Does that mean after registering interest 10 days in advance?
not sure off-hand about the waiting-period. Interestingly, MSNBC reported about a year ago that Wal-Mart dropped the gun lines from around a third of their US stores where demand was down: seehere . The NRA apparently fretted and fretted over all those poor maltreated people in those communities who wouldn't then have access to guns. Seems they needn't have worried; as it turns out, we can order one from Wal-Mart online .
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Emma:
quote:
We talked a bit about this in class today (13/14 year olds) and they were all shocked that there was a right to own guns. I suspect that USA students would be similarly shocked that they are restricted in the UK? It was such a good example of cultural relativism that I often wonder if i would have differnet moral beliefs if brought up elsewhere.
Sure you would. Back during the first Gulf conflict, I spent about a week in training with a Saudi national. He said he had two Uzis in his house, and plenty of ammunition. I asked him if that was typical, and he said that his people are prepared to fight for their country - if Saddam wants to fight, let him come. it was an eye-popper.
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
intended as an edit to my previous post; messed up, so it's here now:
Almost amusingly, I can't access Wal-Mart's online music shop because I use Linux with the Firefox browser. But the guns I can find just as big as life.
[ 19. April 2007, 14:05: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Seems they needn't have worried; as it turns out, we can order one from Wal-Mart online .
[pedant]
It says 'find' online; 'order' in store.
[/pedant]
But decades ago you could buy guns mail order here. IIRC it was RFK's assassination which put an end to that.
So maybe we can conclude the US has something of a 'gun culture', whatever that is, and now we have a bit less of one?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
No, it doesn't work in a simple, direct causal way. I think the effect of laws is often as symbols and signals. A widely supported law has a strong effect on people's behaviour. Laws against drink driving, for example, have helped to change attitudes to the point where it is now generally seen as so unacceptable that people will readily prevent even a good friend from doing it.
A law against handguns and automatic weapons, coupled with a long amnesty for people to hand them in and good, prolonged publicity, education and public debate, would take a lot of guns out of circulation, but more importantly it might shift opinion, and therefore behaviour.
OK - but what about my friend, who purchased a handgun after she was raped? Does she have to live in fear, thinking she can't ever defend herself?
What you suggest is a good idea, until you get down to details like this.
There should definitely be a waiting list, and no instantaneous purchases. People should be required to prove they can shoot straight, maybe; there are tests to get driving licenses, after all.
But the real issue here was that this particular kid was known to the mental health system, and the legal system (he'd been accused by two women of stalking) - and the gun seller didn't know it. That's a travesty.
I don't think anybody here is raving about an unrestricted right to own firearms. But people do hunt, people do feel they need a gun for safety, and are we supposed to tell them they can't have these things?
And again: I really think it's the coarse, uncaring, violent culture that's the problem. Guns have always been freely available here; only recently do we have regular mass shootings.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
And again: I really think it's the coarse, uncaring, violent culture that's the problem. Guns have always been freely available here; only recently do we have regular mass shootings.
Yeah. That's about how I see it. One might call that a "gun culture," but I don't think it's all about guns, and I think it's a totally different culture than hunting culture, at least based on the hunters I've known. Hunters who own guns, IME, tend to be very responsible with how they use and maintain their firearms.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
