America's Gun Culture - What can we do?

[Galactus]

While true there is no "natural" right to own a gun--not a gun specifically--there are property rights stemmed from a moral and ethical analysis of individual effort and cooperation. It doesn't matter whether guns are "necessary" to any given end; its use and value is determined by the one who owns it. A national registry seeks to lay claim or exercise an unjust priority to information it believes would mitigate any strong-arming prospects of curtailing a person's property right. And it's like I said earlier, the burdern of proof has not been met. I don't see the pragmatism. It's only practical as far as it concerns serving this paranoid notion that possessing a gun facilitates violence.

Well, it does. It's kind of the point of a gun, no? That it facilitates violence.

Whether or not it actually *increases* violence is a different question, but owning a gun certainly makes it easier to inflict greater levels of violence on people. (otherwise they wouldn't be used)

There's at least two ways guns increase the level of violence though: A) They're far more lethal than fists, boots, or even knives and other hand weapons. Perhaps as important they're far harder to use to inflict non-lethal violence with. You can pull your punches, but it's much harder and less practical to pull your bullets. Therefore it seems pretty clear that when violence occurs, guns tends to increase the severity of violence: IE: More deaths. People are far more likely to get out alive from a stabbing than a shooting.

B) And this is more on the cultural side (as we already had a thread about that) weapons tends to increase both the feel and justification for violence: When someone would have de-escalated with a weapon they are more likely to escalate, not to mention that a lot of violence is spur-of-the-moment: Ready access to weapons means a lot of people are going to end up killing people before they can think, or calm down. (which is part of the reason for the "store dissassembled and in a safe" regulations, hopefuly by the time you've assembled your moose-gun you've calmed down over the entire "my neighbour stole my tractor" thing)

I'm also not sure that you can argue that a registry violates property rights: Privacy rights, possibly.

[sologdin]

yeah, the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence is frivolous.

property rights stemming from moral and ethical

uh, no. rights are creatures of law. all legal title to property is a matter of public deliberation.

[Lady Woodland]

As far as gun ownership is concerned, I don't think anything should be done. The accessibility to a firearm, like with all goods, should be determined by a free and willful exchange. Those who put forward that fewer guns--or at the very least, a diminished access to them--leads to fewer acts of violence have not met their burden of proof. That is, stringent gun controls curb acts of violence. The mere possession, ownership, and use of a firearm does not constitute a violent trend, and therefore, any speculative causal links are just that--speculative.

I would disagree, in the mid 1990's in quiet place called "Port Arthur" on the island of Tasmania Australia, the worst mass murders in our history occured. The man charged & brought to justice was mentally ill & had gotten permission to buy a rifle which he did. The country was so shocked & outraged that we knew something had to be done to stop this ever happening again.

Australia had just elected a new Liberal government after many years of Labour parliament. In light of those tragic events BOTH sides of parliament & every state & territory government also collaborated & introduced a bill to ban the ownership of handguns & limit the licensing of rifles with much greater restrictions. We implemented a National buy back scheme for every gun & handgun in the country to be turned over for a decent percentage of it's value to encourage people to willingly hand back the guns, before being made illegal to posses them.

As a result thousands & thousands of surrendered weapons were destroyed, melted down & we are much better off. Yes people who are determined to do harm will still get hold of a weapon but it sure as hell isn't easy nor should it be. By what reason do people base their "right" to bear firearms? there is only one purpose for a gun - to kill, maim or cause grievous bodily harm to someone, why would you want to own a weapon that does that,? a weapon one of your children may accidently find & use?

Luckily for Australia we don't have a "Constitution" to deal with. Your 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's when you had won a war against the British Tyranny. You are a free nation now, supposedly one of the most evolved on earth, so by all means treasure the reference to that 2nd amendment as a footprint in the page of your history, but move on. It's a document written in a bygone age. America needs to ban gun ownership, starting now, no new guns. Even if it's one brave State at a time until they are gone, unless the American people can understand this simple truth, the massacre's & tragedy will continue. Please don't blame mental illness or other tripe, it's the easy availability of a weapon that causes this & nothing else.

[Ziggy Targdust]

My take is whatever bans on weapons occur, ban them for EVERYONE. This includes military and police. If a weapon is deemed to dangerous and harmful then don't allow ANYONE to have it.

Don't allow the weapon to even be made, ban the factory from even making the weapon.

I'm not ok with, "citizens! You can't have this weapon. But the police and military, well they still need it"

I don't get it. Whenever I suggest this even the most gun grabbing liberals are like "whoa, let's not get crazy, the police and army still need these weapons"

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Hmm. I don't know if you can disarm the military and send them into hostile territory. I also don't see what violent criminals have to fear if police don't have weapons.

[Ziggy Targdust]

Hmm. I don't know if you can disarm the military and send them into hostile territory. I also don't see what violent criminals have to fear if police don't have weapons.

Don't send the military into hostile territory then.

As for police, the same logic could apply to a citizen. What does somebody who wants to enter my house and harm me have to fear if I have no weapon.

[awesome possum]

What can we actually do?

Hope not to be a victim of the next inevitable massacre.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Don't send the military into hostile territory then.

As for police, the same logic could apply to a citizen. What does somebody who wants to enter my house and harm me have to fear if I have no weapon.

Being cut up, I guess. My fear is in how far we might go for security sake. We take away guns and then everyone is using knives. And you have people asking "What am I supposed to cut my steak with if I don't have any knife?"

"Eat it with your hands! It's for the safety of the children!"

And it'd just keep getting worse from there. I don't think we should be outlawing guns, I think people who hope to obtain them should have to go through the god damned run around to get it. Submission of medical history, a mental evaluation, probable cause for why you're wanting to make the purchase and multiple photo ID's, three or four of them.

[Ziggy Targdust]

I'm fine with that, I'm just not fine with "hey, we still need this gun but you can't have it"

If the weapon is too dangerous then don't allow it to even be manufactured.

[baxus]

Luckily for Australia we don't have a "Constitution" to deal with. Your 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's when you had won a war against the British Tyranny. You are a free nation now, supposedly one of the most evolved on earth, so by all means treasure the reference to that 2nd amendment as a footprint in the page of your history, but move on. It's a document written in a bygone age. America needs to ban gun ownership, starting now, no new guns. Even if it's one brave State at a time until they are gone, unless the American people can understand this simple truth, the massacre's & tragedy will continue. Please don't blame mental illness or other tripe, it's the easy availability of a weapon that causes this & nothing else.

While I do agree with you on 2nd amendment being a relic of times long past, I must say that one can not just choose to ignore some parts of the constitution.

I don't know what the procedure would be in the States but in my country you would need 2/3 of the parliament to approve of the changes and vote in the new Constitution.

Also, while easily available guns certainly play a part in massacres it is far from being the sole reason for it.

If memory serves, Finland has a very high number of guns per capita and, though I must admit I don't follow Finnish news that closely, I can't remember reports of a mass shooting in Finland.

I did some googling and this came up.

My country is second only to United States, and though we do have our share of gun violence, it's nowhere near the level of the United States.

I also don't see what violent criminals have to fear if police don't have weapons.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, most British police officers bear no firearms.

They have a baton, mace spray and maybe a taser. That's it.

The thing is, if someone shoots an unarmed police officer they're up the shit creek without a boat, never mind a paddle.

And we're not talking about other officers beating them senseless, we're talking about severe punishment by law.

[awesome possum]

We live in a country where people believe this kind of behavior is okay.

According to the criminal complaint, Drake didn't like the way the father was teaching his daughter to ride a bicycle.

"I guess Gary came out and was trying to give tips," Helgeson said.

The father told Fox 9 News he's still shaken by the encounter. He explained that when he and his daughter got down to the cul de sac, Drake began yelling from his porch. When the father responded to say, "I've got it," Drake allegedly said, "If you don't like my advice, get off the street."

At that point, Drake appeared to get angrier -- but as the father and daughter prepared to leave the area, Drake allegedly went inside his home, grabbed a Remington 870 shotgun, pointed it at the father and threatened to kill him.

He was rightfully arrested, but did he learn his lesson? Of course not. This MURICA!

police said he didn't appear repentant when he was booked. In fact, he allegedly told officers, "Maybe next time. I should have shot him."

As long as we allow mentally unstable people to own guns, we are going to keep seeing unspeakable tragedies. Since one of the biggest lobbyist groups in this country spends millions of dollars to ensure we don't even have a conversation about taking away guns from crazy assholes, as I said in my first post: just keep hoping you're not a victim of the next inevitable massacre.

[sologdin]

self-defense, possy, contra bad cyclist trainees. can you imagine if bad cyclists are allowed to propagate? we'll have an epidemic of assholes going the wrong way on one-way streets, blowing stop signs, getting doored, chaining their shit up everywhere.

[Stannisaurus]

I find the gun-debate thing in the U.S. kinda fascinating. In my country we have tons of people hunting as a hobby. Furthermore, there is an obligatory (male) army service so almost every guy knows the basics of using one yet we don't have mass-shootings. On the other hand that doesn't mean that restricting guns wouldn't help in the U.S. case.

[Athias]

Well, it does. It's kind of the point of a gun, no? That it facilitates violence.

Whether or not it actually *increases* violence is a different question, but owning a gun certainly makes it easier to inflict greater levels of violence on people. (otherwise they wouldn't be used)

There's at least two ways guns increase the level of violence though: A) They're far more lethal than fists, boots, or even knives and other hand weapons. Perhaps as important they're far harder to use to inflict non-lethal violence with. You can pull your punches, but it's much harder and less practical to pull your bullets. Therefore it seems pretty clear that when violence occurs, guns tends to increase the severity of violence: IE: More deaths. People are far more likely to get out alive from a stabbing than a shooting.

B) And this is more on the cultural side (as we already had a thread about that) weapons tends to increase both the feel and justification for violence: When someone would have de-escalated with a weapon they are more likely to escalate, not to mention that a lot of violence is spur-of-the-moment: Ready access to weapons means a lot of people are going to end up killing people before they can think, or calm down. (which is part of the reason for the "store dissassembled and in a safe" regulations, hopefuly by the time you've assembled your moose-gun you've calmed down over the entire "my neighbour stole my tractor" thing)

I'm also not sure that you can argue that a registry violates property rights: Privacy rights, possibly.

It can facilitate violence depending on the nature of its use. However, the mere ownership, possession, and use of a firearm does not facilitate violence--which was more my point. We can speculate as to what the motives are behind shootings. You cannot, however, establish cause--that is, the gun is what motivated the act of violence. If you feel that you can establish this, I would love to see some research and/or logical rationalizations.

As for what is more "likely," if I stab you in the heart or shoot in the arm, which wound is more likely to cause you to succumb?

yeah, the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence is frivolous.

property rights stemming from moral and ethical

uh, no. rights are creatures of law. all legal title to property is a matter of public deliberation.

How is the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence frivolous? Are you suggesting that violence is inseparable from firearms?

On another note, rights are not creatures of law. They are creatures of self and its preservation. Public deliberation is meaningless because the public does not have a will. The concept of "public authority" is a means to mitigate the coercion of minorities by majorities--or those who'd presume to act on behalf of a majority.

I would disagree, in the mid 1990's in quiet place called "Port Arthur" on the island of Tasmania Australia, the worst mass murders in our history occured. The man charged & brought to justice was mentally ill & had gotten permission to buy a rifle which he did. The country was so shocked & outraged that we knew something had to be done to stop this ever happening again.

Australia had just elected a new Liberal government after many years of Labour parliament. In light of those tragic events BOTH sides of parliament & every state & territory government also collaborated & introduced a bill to ban the ownership of handguns & limit the licensing of rifles with much greater restrictions. We implemented a National buy back scheme for every gun & handgun in the country to be turned over for a decent percentage of it's value to encourage people to willingly hand back the guns, before being made illegal to posses them.

As a result thousands & thousands of surrendered weapons were destroyed, melted down & we are much better off. Yes people who are determined to do harm will still get hold of a weapon but it sure as hell isn't easy nor should it be. By what reason do people base their "right" to bear firearms? there is only one purpose for a gun - to kill, maim or cause grievous bodily harm to someone, why would you want to own a weapon that does that,? a weapon one of your children may accidently find & use?

Luckily for Australia we don't have a "Constitution" to deal with. Your 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's when you had won a war against the British Tyranny. You are a free nation now, supposedly one of the most evolved on earth, so by all means treasure the reference to that 2nd amendment as a footprint in the page of your history, but move on. It's a document written in a bygone age. America needs to ban gun ownership, starting now, no new guns. Even if it's one brave State at a time until they are gone, unless the American people can understand this simple truth, the massacre's & tragedy will continue. Please don't blame mental illness or other tripe, it's the easy availability of a weapon that causes this & nothing else.

Your presumption that my advocacy for the uninhibited ownership of guns being based on the 2nd Amendment is false. I couldn't care less about a piece of parchment. And your assumption that the Gun Ban in Australia--with which I'm already familiar--having a noticeable impact on reducing violence is also false. Here, I took the time to perouse old arguments and gather some information for you:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html

All the statistics can be found here:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html

The U.K. enacted a similar ban around the same time (1996) and became known as the violence capital of Europe in 2000.

Here's a paper by Don Kates and Gary Mauser that questions the efficacy of gun bans:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Here's an essay by David Kopel describing the effect of gun-control in Japan:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

When one argues that stringent gun cuntrols will reduce violence, one is arguing a cause and effect. Controls being the cause and reduced violence being the effect. So far, this link has not been established consistently when taking into account the national policies of countries--and its effect on crime--around the world.

[Seli]

A solution seems to be a return to the view and use of guns as tools. And remove the association with death and killing.

One way to do that could be changing lethal force in self-defence to an allowable last resort option, rather than a right. This could lead to a change in attitude to guns from things meant to kill (intruders and attackers) to tools (for hunting, or sport). Of course that isn't something that is even less likely to happen than stricter gun-control.

[Altherion]

I think this argument about guns is an unproductive distraction. You might not like the Second Amendment, but it is there and there's nothing that can be done about it. The Constitution was designed to be difficult to change and the consensus for changing it in this way just isn't there. Furthermore, it is by no means certain that further restrictions on guns will reduce violence. It's true that guns are more lethal than knives and the like, but they're less lethal than explosives which are nearly impossible to ban because they're constructed from easily available substances that are necessary for industry and agriculture. If somebody is truly determined to hurt many people, it is very difficult to stop them.

In my opinion, it would be much more productive (although probably much more expensive) to focus on the gunmen rather than on the guns. Several of these tragedies were preceded by warnings which were not followed up on with sufficient thoroughness, either because the authorities lacked the resources to do so or because they lacked the ability to identify the threat. In the short term, it would be best to understand the reasons for these failures and attempt to remedy them. In the long term, I think we must understand why there are so many people in the US willing to do such things.

[Weeping Sore]

I think that every movie, show or video game in which a gun appears should be re-cut with CGI to have any character attempting to fire shoot themselves in the groin, bleed out, and then the screen cuts to black.

When the media psyche becomes a relentless equation of guns = bloody self-castration, fewer little boys on power trips will use them to express their frustrations.

[Roose Seal]

I think this argument about guns is an unproductive distraction. You might not like the Second Amendment, but it is there and there's nothing that can be done about it. The Constitution was designed to be difficult to change and the consensus for changing it in this way just isn't there. Furthermore, it is by no means certain that further restrictions on guns will reduce violence. It's true that guns are more lethal than knives and the like, but they're less lethal than explosives which are nearly impossible to ban because they're constructed from easily available substances that are necessary for industry and agriculture. If somebody is truly determined to hurt many people, it is very difficult to stop them.

See this is something I've never understood. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, some people view The Constitution as some kind of unshakable, supreme, and absolute Force, as if it's Gravity itself, some kind of abstract concept that Man cannot interfere with.

The Constitution has been amended and modified several times about many things, why should the 2nd amendment be immune to change?

When more than half the country is dissatisfied with an issue such as this, isn't it the Government's job to at least address it?

[Weeping Sore]

See this is something I've never understood. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, some people view The Constitution as some kind of unshakable, supreme, and absolute Force, as if it's Gravity itself, some kind of abstract concept that Man cannot interfere with.

The Constitution has been amended and modified several times about many things, why should the 2nd amendment be immune to change?

I agree we need an attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment as a first step to serious gun control. Though the 2/3 majority needed to amend the constitution is all but politically impossible, it might help move the Overton Window.

[Nerolunar]

If anyone is interested, Michael Moore posted this on his Facebook the other day:

With due respect to those who are asking me to comment on last night's tragic mass shooting at UCSB in Isla Vista, CA -- I no longer have anything to say about what is now part of normal American life. Everything I have to say about this, I said it 12 years ago: We are a people easily manipulated by fear which causes us to arm ourselves with a quarter BILLION guns in our homes that are often easily accessible to young people, burglars, the mentally ill and anyone who momentarily snaps.

We are a nation founded in violence, grew our borders through violence, and allow men in power to use violence around the world to further our so-called American (corporate) "interests." The gun, not the eagle, is our true national symbol. While other countries have more violent pasts (Germany, Japan), more guns per capita in their homes (Canada [mostly hunting guns]), and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do -- and yet we don't seem to want to ask ourselves this simple question: "Why us? What is it about US?"

Nearly all of our mass shootings are by angry or disturbed white males. None of them are committed by the majority gender, women. Hmmm, why is that? Even when 90% of the American public calls for stronger gun laws, Congress refuses -- and then we the people refuse to remove them from office. So the onus is on us, all of us. We won't pass the necessary laws, but more importantly we won't consider why this happens here all the time. When the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people -- people kill people," they've got it half-right. Except I would amend it to this: "Guns don't kill people -- Americans kill people." Enjoy the rest of your day, and rest assured this will all happen again very soon.