"pros and cons" of gun ownership

[Bob Hayes]

First let me state that I am a gun carrying liberal. I created this post because the ?pros and cons? of gun ownership was filling up a thread about gun safety on the set. Lets keep our personal opinions of gun owner ship here in the off topic world.

 

This is a huge and complex issue. You want to debate it fine. Just do it here.

[Guest]

I knew it.

 

Now, a gun carrying Liberal? That's a bit odd. But I guess by US standards not really. Since there are Democrats who support the death penalty and oppose national health care.

 

Do you not find it odd Bob that the USA has very liberal gun laws, and the highest crime rate by far in the industrialized world? I mean America's crime stats are way out of whack compared to the rest of the G7.

 

There are more murders every year in one major US city than there are in all of Canada every year. So the idea that guns help prevent crime is clearly nonsense. As evidenced by the 14,000 people killed by guns every year in the USA. Even when you adjust for the population difference between the USA and Canada or England, that 14,000 figure is out of this universe.

 

And from reading US newspapers there is clearly a very large number of Americans who feel the same way I do, and are calling for stricter gun laws. It's not just a bunch of nosey foreigners who think America's guns laws need a serious over haul.

 

Again let's review:

 

Canada: Strict gun laws, low crime.

 

USA: Liberal gun laws, high crime.

 

R,

[Arni Heimir]

Greetings pinkos!

 

There is no need debating it. You cannot have one without the other. Gunownership is protected by the constitution. What else do you guys want to edit out the constitution? I am sure California could always break away from the confederated states and you could have your greetest actors draft the new constitution. I am sure it would be posted on the Huffingtonpost.com

So you all know, this is playful banter

[Guest]

"Gunownership is protected by the constitution"

 

Question: Have you actually read the second amendment? I suggest you do and play close attention to the "Well regulated militia" part. Also consider the time frame and context it was written in.

 

I suspect that if George Washington saw the USA today and discovered that millions of American civillians walked around with guns he'd die of another cold on the spot.

 

 

 

R,

[Bob Hayes]

Now, a gun carrying Liberal? That's a bit odd. But I guess by US standards not really. Since there are Democrats who support the death penalty and oppose national health care.

 

Wow Richard you are quite the advocate. First, people have complex values that often don't track along party lines. It is a trick of politicians to use these issues as wedge issues to divide the populations. So to lump gun owners, with pro-death penalty folks, with anti-national health care folks doesn't reflect the reality. For example the "gun lobby", of which I am not, is comprised of the NRA and many hunting organizations is one of the strongest environmental groups in the country. They are fighting tooth and nail the Bush administrations attempts to roll back environmental laws. They are also horrified by Bush administrations disregard for the constitution with the sneak and peak and wiretap with out congressional oversight. So politically speaking the Democrats might want to rethink their gun policies.

 

Personally I think guns and gun violence is a huge problem in the US. Guns are also very much ingrained in our society. It was so important we put it in the Constitution. I believe the right of a US citizen to have the means to defend his house is paramount. Liberals, of which I am one, are really funny. They are opposed to people having guns, they don't want police to use their guns, and they don't want police to rough up possible criminals. In short they view the police like quasi Gestapo. But as soon as they here a scary noise outside they expect the police to show up in two minutes to protect them. Most cops feel you should own a weapon to protect your home. They realize that in a bad situation they may not be able to respond quickly enough.

 

I believe violence in American is usually a result of an imbalance in how our prosperity is dispersed. Crime becomes a problem when people of lower income don't have the money to raise their families and their kids grow up with out hope of a better life. You want to fight violence in the US fight it on this front.

 

Guns are neither the answer nor the cause. Completely unregulated gun ownership is a recipe for disaster. Severe restrictions on gun ownership, besides being unconstitutional, leave honest citizens defenseless.

[Stuart Brereton]

Gunownership is protected by the constitution.

 

 

As I understand it, your constitution only provides the right to bear arms to citizens as part of an organised militia, who are engaged in protecting America from outside attack.

 

I find guns fascinating, but with gun crime on the increase in England, it is hard to be anything but against them.

[David Sweetman]

As evidenced by the 14,000 people killed by guns every year in the USA.

 

That's not very many at all. Especially since you're talking pragmatics. If you're talking sentimentality that's a different issue, but 14,000 is just not very many people. You're saying Americans can choose to own guns, and the freedom to make that choice results in 14,000 deaths each year. We can also choose to start smoking, and the freedom to make that choice results in 400,000+ deaths per year in the US. Would you deny a person the right to smoke? If you're talking pragmatics, you cannot deny a person the right to own a firearm and not deny a person the right to smoke.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

... I created this post because the ?pros and cons? of gun ownership was filling up a thread about gun safety on the set. Lets keep our personal opinions of gun owner ship here in the off topic world. This is a huge and complex issue. You want to debate it fine. Just do it here.

This bottom-of-the-page "Off Topic" forum is in some ways similar to the government-mandated, fenced-off, official outdoor "protest" areas which have recently become so popular in Land of the Free, Live Free or Die, God Bless America.

 

Sure, we can yell and scream just about all we want w---a---y over here, but nobody's watching (except the local & state police, FBI, NSA, CIA, and often: the local Nat'l. Guard) 'cause the corporate-owned media ain't covering us, except when Something Bad happens.

 

But don't mind me, please carry on ...

[Bob Hayes]

"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."

 

That?s the second amendment. It?s all about interpretation. I interpret this to mean the framers of the Constitution felt for the US to remain strong and independent we need the ability to pull together armed US citizens as a militia force seperated from the military. To insure our ability to do that they felt it was important to guarantee American citizens the right to keep weapons. This was designed not just to protect us from foreign threats but also a military or civilian take over of our government. In a way it is the darkest check and balance in the Constitution. It was also a huge risk. They felt Democracy was so important that they were willing to allow an armed civilian population. This was unheard of on the rest of the world.

[Bob Hayes]

This bottom-of-the-page "Off Topic" forum is in some ways similar to the government-mandated, fenced-off, official outdoor "protest" areas which have recently become so popular in Land of the Free, Live Free or Die, God Bless America.

 

 

If this keeps up I am never getting out of this house. I oppose fenced off free speech areas because they are designed to stifle free speech be removing it from public view. This "Off Topic" thread is as high profile as any thread on the board. It allows a open arena to have your views heard and discussed.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

"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."

 

That’s the second amendment. It’s all about interpretation. I interpret this to mean the framers of the Constitution felt for the US to remain strong and independent we need the ability to pull together armed US citizens as a militia force seperated from the military. To insure our ability to do that they felt it was important to guarantee American citizens the right to keep weapons. This was designed not just to protect us from foreign threats but also a military or civilian take over of our government. In a way it is the darkest check and balance in the Constitution. It was also a huge risk. They felt Democracy was so important that they were willing to allow an armed civilian population. This was unheard of on the rest of the world.

Excuse me, I gotta go out and milk my cow so I can have breakfast, cut some of the trees in my yard so I can make some paper so I can write a letter to me Mum, grow some hay/drill for some oil so I can feed my horse/fill-up my car ... ad naseum ...

 

Stop the presses: There are things in the US Constitution which are out-dated and just plain wrong, especially in this day and age!

 

Sure, "somebody else" has gotta milk a cow in order for me to put some on my breakfast cereal, but that's no reason for me to own a cow -- and there are a _million_ good reasons why urban-living residents _shouldn't_ own cows.

 

Likewise, licensed, trained professionals, selected democratically _should_ (probably) be armed, but that's no reason for me or most any other urban-living person to own a gun -- and there are a _million_ good reasons why urban-living residents shouldn't own guns.

 

As for cigarette smoking: No, "stupidity" isn't a right. Democracies rightfully restrict all sorts of "stupid" and anti-social behavior -- cigarette smoking is way up there near the top of the list of big ol' dumbass things which should be severely restricted.

 

Sorry, gotta run: I gotta go mine some graphite so I can make a pencil so I can ...

[John Pytlak RIP]

"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."

 

That?s the second amendment. It?s all about interpretation. I interpret this to mean the framers of the Constitution felt for the US to remain strong and independent we need the ability to pull together armed US citizens as a militia force seperated from the military. To insure our ability to do that they felt it was important to guarantee American citizens the right to keep weapons. This was designed not just to protect us from foreign threats but also a military or civilian take over of our government. In a way it is the darkest check and balance in the Constitution. It was also a huge risk. They felt Democracy was so important that they were willing to allow an armed civilian population. This was unheard of on the rest of the world.

 

If I recall my American History classes, the issue of a "well regulated militia" was one of state's rights. Much of the debate in writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights was how much power the individual states would retain, and how much the Federal government would assume. The National Guard is the successor to the states' individual militias. The states still often have to assert their authority over the Federal govenment in deciding how the National Guard (militias) can be deployed:

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060601-110902-4286r.htm

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed yesterday to send the California National Guard to the Mexican border, ending a 17-day standoff with the Bush administration, a Schwarzenegger spokesman said.

The two sides had been at odds over whether California guardsmen would join the effort to bolster the Border Patrol and who would pay for it.

They reached an agreement under which California will contribute about 1,000 guardsmen for border duty and the federal government will pick up the full cost, said Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for Mr. Schwarzenegger.

However, in a separate act that was not part of the agreement with the federal government, Mr. Schwarzenegger will sign an executive order that ends the California National Guard's participation on Dec. 31, 2008, state officials said.

"This allows us to participate in the plan to secure the nation's border while also addressing the concerns the governor had raised," Mr. Mendelsohn said.

 

The weapons allowed by law for individual ownership today are not likely to thwart "a military or civilian take over of our government", if that was ever the intent of the Second Amendment.

[Bob Hayes]

If I recall my American History classes, the issue of a "well regulated militia" was one of state's rights. Much of the debate in writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights was how much power the individual states would retain, and how much the Federal government would assume. The National Guard is the successor to the states' individual militias. The states still often have to assert their authority over the Federal govenment in deciding how the National Guard (militias) can be deployed:

 

The weapons allowed by law for individual ownership today are not likely to thwart "a military or civilian take over of our government", if that was ever the intent of the Second Amendment.

 

All great points.

 

 

Stop the presses: There are things in the US Constitution which are out-dated and just plain wrong, especially in this day and age!

 

I'm confused. It sounds like you agree with George Bush on the importance of the Constitution. Or did I miss something.

[Evan Luchkow]

one thing i've often wondered is: why do americans feel a need to own guns? i havn't spent a great deal of time around americans so i dont really understand, but i know that in canada i know very few people who feel that they are unsafe if they do not own a gun.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

If I recall my American History classes, the issue of a "well regulated militia" was one of state's rights. Much of the debate in writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights was how much power the individual states would retain, and how much the Federal government would assume. The National Guard is the successor to the states' individual militias. The states still often have to assert their authority over the Federal govenment in deciding how the National Guard (militias) can be deployed:

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060601-110902-4286r.htm

The weapons allowed by law for individual ownership today are not likely to thwart "a military or civilian take over of our government", if that was ever the intent of the Second Amendment.

Aack.

 

I bet if you ask most gun-owning Americans why they own a gun(s), fairly high up on their list of reasons/excuses is that they believe (correctly or not) that the US Constitution _encourages_ them to arm against the _possibility_ of a goverment take-over. I believe they'll even say this with some pride, because they've been brainwashed into believing that the goverment is their enemy _already_.

 

Further, if you could get them to make a private, of-the-record statement, they'd also admit one of the main reasons they own a gun is because they have the -- proven mistaken -- belief it makes them safe against imagined attacks from -- in most cases -- "brown"-skinned people.

 

Yeah, sure, there are plenty of "brown"-skinned people in the US who have guns -- as expected, since we're all drinking the same NRA-sponsored Kool-Aid -- but, duh! -- them "brown"-skinned folks are the _minority_, so who actually (just in terms of numbers alone) has more "reason" to feel paranoid and threatened?

 

I really don't care what NRA-sponsored Constitutional lawyers and NRA-apologists think the Constitution does or doesn't mean/say/allow. Your average Joe six-pack-of-beer gun-pack'n American doesn't much care either, becasue he knows he's right, tell you what.

 

Just as one example of how bad things have gotten: When the "big one" (a truly major earthquake) next hits a Californian metroplitan area, and hundreds of thousands of people are without electricity, water, food, shelter, healthcare, money, jobs, transportation, police or fire protection for _WEEKS_ ... the earthquake "emergency kit" supplies a very few of of have dutifully stashed in our homes and garages won't do us diddly -- because local yokels, our mostly white civilian "friends and neighbors" WITH GUNS will take food and water out of the mouths of babys and grandmas and drive the rest of us out of what little safe shelter remains standing.

 

A perfect example of a good reason for more people to own guns? Yeah, right.

[Thomas Fant]

Well, I might as well throw in here by saying I am another member of that quasi-mythical species, a "liberal" that believes in the right to bear arms. To all those who would say that the second amendment is outdated, I would reccomend looking around and realizing there are quite a few people who seem to feel that way about numbers 1, 4 and 5, people who are able to do more about those feelings than debate them. People who make policy. Arguments about the founding fathers intentions can go on forever, certainly George Washington and company could never have imagined a world where there were weapons that could fire hundreds of rounds a minute. They also could never have imagined an America where women, let alone african americans could vote. What they did realize is that goverments can become dissatisfactory to their citizens, and without certain safeguards, liberty can rapidly wither. As barbaric as it may sound to citizens of other nations, the second amendment is intended as the last of these safeguards. As far as crime, America cannot really be compared with other countries in such a direct way. There is far less violent crime in Canada, but gun ownership is nearly as common as in the U.S., believe it or not, and Canadians are exposed to the same violent images in video games and films as Americans.

[Guest]

"That's not very many at all. Especially since you're talking pragmatics. If you're talking sentimentality that's a different issue, but 14,000 is just not very many people."

 

I guess this is the part of the American mind set that we "feriegners" just don't get. It's amazing that people in the USA look at the 14,000 gun deaths in the USA every year and say, "well it's not so bad."

 

But I guess when you grow up in a society as violent as the USA you get desensitized to these issues. By "Canadian standards" we could never, and would never, tolerate the kind of gun violence and crime that exists in the USA here. Just ONE(1) shooting on a Toronto street on December 26th, 2005, was enough to outrage Canadians that it tipped the balance of the election campaign and a more "law and order" style government was elected.

 

Now every night you can turn on the news here in Ontario and watch the Buffalo and Detroit stations, and HOLY COW!!!!!! Here's how both newscasts go. Item 1: Shooting, Item 2: Shooting, Item 3: Shooting, Item 4: Shooting, on and on and on. It's just incredible, yet there are people in the US who accept this as "normal."

 

Start by axing the long out dated and misused 2nd amendment and the US will start to enjoy the peace and safety Canadians, Europeans, & the Japanese, accept as "normal."

 

R,

[Bob Hayes]

"That's not very many at all. Especially since you're talking pragmatics. If you're talking sentimentality that's a different issue, but 14,000 is just not very many people."

 

I guess this is the part of the American mind set that we "feriegners" just don't get. It's amazing that people in the USA look at the 14,000 gun deaths in the USA every year and say, "well it's not so bad."

 

But I guess when you grow up in a society as violent as the USA you get desensitized to these issues. By "Canadian standards" we could never, and would never, tolerate the kind of gun violence and crime that exists in the USA here. Just ONE(1) shooting on a Toronto street on December 26th, 2005, was enough to outrage Canadians that it tipped the balance of the election campaign and a more "law and order" style government was elected.

 

Now every night you can turn on the news here in Ontario and watch the Buffalo and Detroit stations, and HOLY COW!!!!!! Here's how both newscasts go. Item 1: Shooting, Item 2: Shooting, Item 3: Shooting, Item 4: Shooting, on and on and on. It's just incredible, yet there are people in the US who accept this as "normal."

 

Start by axing the long out dated and misused 2nd amendment and the US will start to enjoy the peace and safety Canadians, Europeans, & the Japanese, accept as "normal."

 

R,

 

I wish I knew what you meant by more of a ?Law and Order? candidate. But my guess is that this is how it starts. And I don?t mean gun control. The right wing will take an incident of violence to run a ?Law and Order? candidate. Then you will find the political conversations move toward spending more on police, more on the prison systems, and reducing civilians? rights to protection against search and seizure. Then the politicians start to imply when they are talking about ?crime? they really mean minorities. You pick the group. Then the ?Law and Order? guys start to profit from announcements of crime. Hmm. The more news talks about the ?shootings? the better the law and order candidates do. Add to that the huge profit the prison systems generate for private industry. Then you start pulling money from the school, health care, and public services to pay for prisons and protect yourself from them. Hey welcome to the club.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

I'm confused. It sounds like you agree with George Bush on the importance of the Constitution. Or did I miss something.

Apparently, quite a bit.

 

Not about cimematography, of course; about that I have no doubt you've forgotten more than I'll ever know.

 

But concerning the myth of "gun safety" and the value of guns in America, yes it seems you've missed quite a bit.

 

George Bush and I agree that various parts of the US Constitution are out-dated/misguided/inconvenient/wrong. However, in his case, as the President of The United States and the single most powerful human being on planet Earth, his opinion not only carries a trillion times more weight than mine, his opinion also signals and works at the behest of Global Corporate Capitalism ... whereas my opinion (in constrast) is only the faintest whif, a bit of vapor, a mere nothing.

 

So, what's your point? That as an (apparent) "liberal" I shouldn't be critical of the US Constitution because GWB is, too? Huh?

 

There was a time when most Americans thought racism and racist jokes (and far worse) were OK, when sexism (and far worse) was OK, and other attitudes and behavior (such as cigarette smoking, and far worse) were OK -- and when many of these were officially or semi-officially sanctioned -- but now that some (not all, but some) of these things are no longer officially sanctioned, Americans are _beginning_ to see them as wrong.

 

Someday soon I hope widespread private ownership of guns will be outlawed, the sooner the better.

[VincentD.]

As is usually the case, the liberals here aren't using LOGIC.

 

First, let's get this figured out: Who uses guns to kill people? Criminals. Are criminals (in other words: those who break the law) going to be stopped by a LAW that says you can't use firearms? No.

 

Now that we have that figured out, let's move on. The reason America has such a high crime rate compared with the rest of the Western world is because of the root problems, not because of gun ownership. The fact that a large part of the inner city community is made up of 1 parent homes. The fact that America is the world's biggest illegal (and probably legal too) drug consumer. The fact that our culture glamorizes criminals, but villanizes people of faith. I haven't seen 1 honest film about Christians, that show them as multi faceted characters, and which was seen by a major audience, in the past decade. Probably even longer.

 

Want to solve the violent crime rate? Encourage ethical behaviour in our inner cities. Produce an environment where a child is given his RIGHT to a father and a mother. But for the love of God, don't take away an honest citizen's hand gun, which he uses to protect himself from criminals who wouldn't give up their guns even if there WAS a law saying they had to.

[timHealy]

As is usually the case, the liberals here aren't using LOGIC.

 

First, let's get this figured out: Who uses guns to kill people? Criminals. Are criminals (in other words: those who break the law) going to be stopped by a LAW that says you can't use firearms? No.

 

So I think VincentD's liberal vs consertive arguement doesn't really hold much water. Look At former NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani who is republican and is in favor of gun control laws. So is current NYC mayor Bloomberg. He's a republican too. They have seen what guns can do at it's worst. I wouldn't label them liberals, would you?

 

This argument also seems to forget that some states like NY have tough anti hand gun laws, but other states like Ohio and South Carolina, which have weaker gun control laws, are specifically mentioned as the sources of handguns in NY City.

 

So having lived in NYC and it's urban environs my entire life, I personally am an advocate of gun control laws specifically concerning hand guns and automatic weapons. There are just way too many people in a dense population area that just can't be responsible in their use.

 

A federal law prohiting all sales in all states would greatly help the issue.

 

I am willing to make an exception for hunting rifles and the like, especially in rural areas.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

best

 

Tim

Edited July 5, 2006 by heel_e

[Thomas Fant]

I haven't seen 1 honest film about Christians, that show them as multi faceted characters, and which was seen by a major audience, in the past decade. Probably even longer.

 

 

How about "Saved" ? It doesn't portray Christians as heroes or villains, but real humans, at least that's my view, 40 light years off topic though it may be.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

As is usually the case, the liberals here aren't using LOGIC.

"As usual", you forget that at least two of the people participating in this discussion describe themselves as LIBERAL gun-supporters/owners.

 

First, let's get this figured out: Who uses guns to kill people? Criminals. Are criminals (in other words: those who break the law) going to be stopped by a LAW that says you can't use firearms? No.

What, no mention of the thousands of accidental gunshot injuries and deaths caused annually by "law-abiding" citizens?

 

In other, more civilized nations, criminals use clever wordplay, card tricks, dead fish and such to overpower their victims. For further details on the meaning behind the numbers in the G7 countries' crime statistics, please refer to Monty Python.

 

Now that we have that figured out, let's move on. The reason America has such a high crime rate compared with the rest of the Western world is because of the root problems, not because of gun ownership. The fact that a large part of the inner city community is made up of 1 parent homes.

So it's actually all Mum's fault?

 

Danger: Even sharper right turns ahead!!!

 

The fact that America is the world's biggest illegal (and probably legal too) drug consumer.

So, wait, the rest of us should own guns because our culture encourages stupid or unhealthy or dangerous behaviour?

 

The fact that our culture glamorizes criminals, but villanizes people of faith. I haven't seen 1 honest film about Christians, that show them as multi faceted characters, and which was seen by a major audience, in the past decade. Probably even longer.

"Villanizes"? Wow, you think WalMart, CocaCola, General Motors, Exon, et al _villanize_ "people of faith"? After all, these are the big corporations who _pay_ for most popular culture. Why would they try to alienate/victimize the majority of their customers? You do understand that most Americans consider themselves "religious" or "church going" and such?

 

In reality, a whole mess of self-described "religious" types actually _like_ (in a sneaky kind of way) guns-n-tits-n-ass in their culture, otherwise a big chunk of the money that pays for all that junk would disappear overnight. It's just like the "liberals" who support/own gun ownership: They know it's wrong, but they just can't help themselves.

 

If you're looking for scapegoats, instead of picking on "defenseless" low-income single Moms (who in reality could whoop yo' ass in a fair fight), why don't you instead have a long heart-to-heart talk with your porno-buying-gun-pack'n-bible-thump'n brothers and sisters? _That's_ where the money and the power is.

 

Of course, if you really did this, you might learn that many of them really don't want to give up their violence-and-violent-sex-riddled culture, thank you very much. So _then_ what do you do, have a nervous breakdown? Damn them to eternal hell? Kill them all?

 

Hint: It's a lot easier to just use the brain She gave you and lighten up. Guns don't kill people; it's people who think guns are AOK who kill people.

 

Want to solve the violent crime rate? Encourage ethical behaviour in our inner cities.

No, not just more ethical behaviour in what you mean by "inner cities" (code for where "brown"-skinned people live), but rather much, MUCH more ethical behaviour in the true centers of power of our cities: Especially, and starting first with the White House, Senate, and House of Representative in Washington, DC ... and corporate headquarters in NYC ... and Chicago ... and LA ... and where-ever it is in the midwest that all the other corporate mafia headquarter. True American Patriots, one and all!

 

Produce an environment where a child is given his RIGHT to a father and a mother.

Sorry, missed this one: Did this get into the US Constitution already? Myself, I'd much rather a single parent love me than have two parents who hate eachother, me, and their miserable lives. Anyone who thinks a single parent can't successfully raise a child in a _civilized_ country has really, really not been paying attention. Notice, I didn't say "in America" -- I can't use "successfully raise a child", "civilized" and "America" in the same sentence. (Whoops, just did ...)

 

But for the love of God, don't take away an honest citizen's hand gun, which he uses to protect himself from criminals who wouldn't give up their guns even if there WAS a law saying they had to.

Um, that's one of the things civilized people "gladly" pay taxes for ... so that trained, licensed, and democratically selected professionals can keep criminals in check.

 

Of course, most religious organizations and corporations pay little or no taxes. Isn't that interesting?

[VincentD.]

heel, just because somebody belongs to a certain party doesn't make them "conservative" or "liberal".

 

Neither Giuliani or Bloomberg would be considered conservative when it comes to the gun control issue, and certain other issues too.

 

Also, nothing you said refuted my "root of the problem" theory. What does the fact that most guns in NYC come from certain states show you? Criminals, by their nature, will break the law to get what they need. If we outlawed guns nationally, the crimanls would go to Mexico or some other country to get them. Then what would happen? The guy who owns a restaurant and is trying to feed his family is gonna get robbed, and he's gonna lose his entire life savings because he couldn't protect HIS PROPERTY.

 

Address the root of the problem, and laws wont be needed. In the 40s, 50s, and 60s we didn't need gun control laws. Crime rates were low. I find it a little odd that as the above mentioned problems start taking hold in our cities, the more of a problem the crime rate became.

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

I guess this is the part of the American mind set that we "feriegners" just don't get. It's amazing that people in the USA look at the 14,000 gun deaths in the USA every year and say, "well it's not so bad."

 

Start by axing the long out dated and misused 2nd amendment and the US will start to enjoy the peace and safety Canadians, Europeans, & the Japanese, accept as "normal."

 

R,

 

As VincentD. said in a post before mine, it has nothing to do with law obiding citizens. What "you feriegners" seem to love criticizing but don't understand is the element of crime and sources of violent crime are not lawful owners, and educated gun users. They are criminals, many of them are not first time criminals but career criminals. They do not own liscensed, registered guns, but buy black market, often illegal guns.

 

John_P_Pytlak said in an earlier post:

 

"The weapons allowed by law for individual ownership today are not likely to thwart "a military or civilian take over of our government", if that was ever the intent of the Second Amendment."

John, I could hardly disagree with you more. Our country won it's independence with rifles and cannons that were deemed far inferior to those of our foes. Even today, our military is being fended off by unorganized, and rudimentary tactics used by foes with weapons that are unlikely to thwart our "superior" tactics, weaponry, and troops.

 

Peter DeCrescenzo said:

 

"Just as one example of how bad things have gotten: When the "big one" (a truly major earthquake) next hits a Californian metroplitan area, and hundreds of thousands of people are without electricity, water, food, shelter, healthcare, money, jobs, transportation, police or fire protection for _WEEKS_ ... the earthquake "emergency kit" supplies a very few of of have dutifully stashed in our homes and garages won't do us diddly -- because local yokels, our mostly white civilian "friends and neighbors" WITH GUNS will take food and water out of the mouths of babys and grandmas and drive the rest of us out of what little safe shelter remains standing."

 

Situations exactly of this sort have already happened. In the aftermath of Hurrican Kitrina, it was in fact "local yokels" but they were both white and black and they took whatever they so desired from those individuals who did not have any such preparation for "the worst case scenario", namely a way to protect them and theirs until civil order had been restored.

 

Legislation is not the issue at hand, CRIME is. Looking at Australia for example the statistics show that tighter legislation is not going to change who is using the guns...

 

For example, in Australia, knives are 2-3 times more likely to be used in robberies than a firearm.

The numbers of legal versus illegal firearms, in areas with laws legislating proper gun ownership, are also glossed over. For example, 90% of all firearm related homicides in Australia are committed with unregistered firearms (since the 1995 & 1996 regulations).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

 

 

Other countries have far less regulation and legislation on gun ownership than the United States and don't have the gun violence problem that we have...

 

Switzerland is one example... (They)have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.)

 

Curiously, crime continues around the world despite the ownership rights or subsequent ban of such rights...

 

English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.

 

In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

 

 

In closing, it would appear to me that as a world community we have a crime problem. Gun ownership allowed or denied, crime persists and banning guns will not stop criminals from using them nor will it stop crime. Any argument to the opposite in my eyes is merely wishful thinking that hopes for a magic pill that will cure crime. Banning firearm ownership is obviously not that magic pill.