Guns in the USA (and the world?): Now Printable!

[thecryptile]

I have a proposition to make. There were some spokesmen of the gun lobby claiming that the only thing that would stop a "bad" guy with a gun is a "good" guy with a gun, but there´s a problem. "Good" guys usualy have a conscience that gives them second thoughts, they don´t want to hurt innocents, "bad" guys don´t have that, they´ll shoot without hesitation. Many have been trained just as well as the "good" guys, since they often are soldiers or members of the law enforcement or children of weapon aficionados trained on computers as well as shooting ranges that experienced a trauma or some other trigger that switched them to psychopath.

You're rehashing the stale idea that a gun in the hands of a madman makes him invincible while the same gun in the hands of a normal person is useless. This is a pernicious myth. The fact is that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year in the US. The fact is that mass shooters are cowards who surrender or suicide at the first sign of resistance. The fact is playing Call of Duty is not "training."

There were four mass killing attempts the week of the Sandy Hook massacre. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

1.Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.

2.Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.

3.Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.

4.China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

So why not develop effective non-lethal weapons and train personnel to protect public places as well as a staff that teaches the correct and save storage of guns and live ammunition.

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. The correct term is "less lethal". Tasers can, and do, kill by inducing cardiac arrhythmias. Pepper spray and mace are ineffective against many people, and it is very hard to use mace without spraying yourself.

The immense cost should of course be covered by taxing the industry that makes profit by producing weapons. This would create a lot of new and jobs. It would limit arms sales without imposing a ban. It would make sense, since people who have to defend their property are enabled to do this responsibly.

This idea is as ignorant as saying we should force car manufacturers to subsidize horse drawn carriages to combat fatalities from drunk driving. Taxing an existing industry out of existence doesn't create jobs. It destroys them. The skilled workers who build fire-arms and ammunition are highly paid. One of the best jobs in my area is the Radford Arsenal, manufacturing ammunition. You see it marketed as "Lake City". Without the Arsenal, many local businesses would surely fail. This is true of other companies in other communities.

The gun industry also supports many additional industries, such as the manufacture of optics and accessories. It takes far more skilled laborers to build an AR-15 than a taser or can of mace. No one is buying a $800 scope for their can of mace.

Your plan would destroy thousands of highly paid jobs and replace them with a few poorer paying jobs in an existing industry. Less lethal manufacturers can increase production without hiring many people. The gun industry certainly has. Despite record sales and production figures, companies like Kel-Tec and Ruger are reluctant to expand given the uncertainty of the political climate.

Dealers and manufacturers wouldn't be the only ones hurt, hunting out-fitters and hunters would also be affected. Hunters pay for the State Parks through the fees for licenses. This would impact negatively on tourism.

True, but we don't have the stats to break it down further. If you want to assume that the majority of gun deaths are gangsters killing each other then feel free, but then that raises the question of what a Law abiding person needs a gun for when most homicide victims are career criminals....

It's an assumption shared by the police. "Today's suspect, Tomorrow's victim" they say.

Having a gun for protection is like having a flashlight or stockpile of canned food and bottled water. It's just a sensible precaution. You hope you never need it, but better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Law abiding people such as myself can also enjoy the shooting sports. Hunting (Shooting animals is much easier with a rifle than a bow), Plinking, Skeet, Cowboy Action, there are tons of fun activities for the whole family.

I should have said it gives them a chance to think about the legal ramifications of owning a gun. A punative five year prison sentence works as a deterent for illigal gun ownership, because people have time to think about what that means before getting their hands on a gun.

For violent criminals, weapons are necessary adjuncts to their profession. Criminals will have weapons regardless of the laws. It's only law abiding citizens who are affected by laws. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." We see that situation in Chicago and Washington DC, where until the recent SCOTUS decisions guns were banned. The bans didn't stop criminals from turning both cities into warzones where rival factions contend for turf.

Your arguments make it sound like your life is in constant danger from some criminal underclass, when I really don't think that's the case. I certainly don't get that feeling here in mostly handgun free UK.

You never know when your life might be in danger. It doesn't hurt to be ready for any eventuality. It's not like I'm walking around terrified of gangsters. I'm not involved in the drug trade so there is little reason for them to mess with me but I was a Boy Scout and I believe in the Boy Scout Motto: "Be Prepared."

My carry pistol is just like my wallet, cellphone and pocket knife. I don't leave home without it.

You might want to re-read what I actually wrote up there, because you are reacting to common arguments that I actively tried to avoid making.

The bit in the middle wasn't a direct response to your post, but a general response to common anti-self defense arguments.

And where I come from liberty and responsibility rule. I have a right to self-defence, but it is assumed I am mature enough to act at an appropriate level and have taken conflict avoidance into account. Both aspects that at times seem missing from the practice in at least some US states.

European liberty and American liberty are very different things. For instance, you have Freedom of Speech- as long as your speech isn't too unpopular. Our Freedom of Speech OTOH, is near absolute. Comparing American liberty and European liberty is like comparing a lion in the jungle to a lion in a zoo. Superficially they are the similar, but on closer inspection the differences are great.

You trust in your government to protect you, and I hope it does. But the government can't protect everyone. In the US, it doesn't even have an obligation to try. When knife wielding maniacs attack and seconds count, the government is twenty minutes away. Yes, that is very rare statistically- but statistics don't matter when it happens to you.

My government recognizes that I'm mature and responsible enough to "act at an appropriate level"- that's why I have a CCW permit. Conflict avoidance is something I practice.

[The Marquis de Leech]

European liberty and American liberty are very different things. For instance, you have Freedom of Speech- as long as your speech isn't too unpopular. Our Freedom of Speech OTOH, is near absolute.

Nonsense. Every socially-created right operates within the limitations imposed by society; the US Supreme Court recognises limits on freedom of speech in a similar way to European authorities (albeit that Europeans are less inclined to support the notion that money equates to speech).

[thecryptile]

No, it's not nonsense. In America, Truth has long been a defense to accusations of libel or slander. Truth is not a defense in Britain.

In Europe offensive ideas are banned, in the US we trust the competition of ideas to weed out the bad ones. For instance, in Europe you can't say "The Holocaust never happened." You'll go to prison. That's not freedom of speech like we have in America. In the US, you can say "The Holocaust never happened." You won't be imprisoned for your idiotic idea, instead someone else will say "Fuck you, you Nazi bastard- How stupid are you?"

Threats and fraud are about the only non-protected forms of speech in the US.

ETA: On the libel/slander issue, in America it doesn't even have to be really true- the standard is whether you believe it's true.

[Hereward]

No, it's not nonsense. In America, Truth has long been a defense to accusations of libel or slander. Truth is not a defense in Britain.

Yes, it is.

In Europe offensive ideas are banned, in the US we trust the competition of ideas to weed out the bad ones. For instance, in Europe you can't say "The Holocaust never happened." You'll go to prison. That's not freedom of speech like we have in America. In the US, you can say "The Holocaust never happened." You won't be imprisoned for your idiotic idea, instead someone else will say "Fuck you, you Nazi bastard- How stupid are you?"

So, exactly the same as Britain, then.

[thecryptile]

Yes, it is.

English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in US courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

So, exactly the same as Britain, then.

I wasn't talking about Britain per se with that example. I was referring to this:

European Union Framework Decision for Combating Racism and Xenophobia (2007)

The text establishes that the following intentional conduct will be punishable in all EU Member States:

- Publicly inciting to violence or hatred , even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.- Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising - crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and- crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nuremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

The reference to religion is intended to cover, at least, conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#European_Union

[Seli]

...

Having a gun for protection is like having a flashlight or stockpile of canned food and bottled water. It's just a sensible precaution. You hope you never need it, but better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

...

Bad analogy time;

Having a gun for protection is closer to having a can of gasoline around for starting a fire. There are plenty of good reasons for having a can of gasoline around. But starting a fire with it is hardly ever a good idea. You run the risk of using it to help light the barbecue even if that is not needed, but with all the risks that entails. And you are more likely to store it close to sources of ignition (because, hey it is convenient and I will need it soon anyway), increasing the risks associated to having the can around even more.

Thousands of people will be fine and never have an accident, tens will get injured in accidents or watch loved ones be hurt, a few will use it to start the fire to clean up leaves. And of course there are other good reasons to have gasoline around, and relatively safe ways to store them.

The bit in the middle wasn't a direct response to your post, but a general response to common anti-self defense arguments.

European liberty and American liberty are very different things. For instance, you have Freedom of Speech- as long as your speech isn't too unpopular. Our Freedom of Speech OTOH, is near absolute. Comparing American liberty and European liberty is like comparing a lion in the jungle to a lion in a zoo. Superficially they are the similar, but on closer inspection the differences are great.

You trust in your government to protect you, and I hope it does. But the government can't protect everyone. In the US, it doesn't even have an obligation to try. When knife wielding maniacs attack and seconds count, the government is twenty minutes away. Yes, that is very rare statistically- but statistics don't matter when it happens to you.

And I was careful to try and avoid those common arguments, because they tend to derail/stop conversation.

European (ignoring all local variation) and US notions of liberty are quite similar, but with a slightly different focus and corresponding issues. While the US system is more focussed on the individual to do anything they want regardless of society, the general system in European nations is more focussed to allow any individual to do as much as possible in society. Or basically the point where a fist hits a nose is at a different place, but the notion that it is supposed to be the validation for legislation is the same.

We (again generalizing) don't trust our governments to protect us, that would be stupid for any but the largest scale threats. We trust our governments, our society, our individuals, to maximize freedom in safety for all involved, with the mechanisms in place to interfere when that goes wrong. And that includes giving up things as well as taking responsibility.

[Hereward]

http://en.wikipedia...._defamation_law

I think the balance of our libel laws need reworking too, but your claim was that truth was not a defence. It is.

[lupis42]

Bad analogy time;

Having a gun for protection is closer to having a can of gasoline around for starting a fire. There are plenty of good reasons for having a can of gasoline around. But starting a fire with it is hardly ever a good idea. You run the risk of using it to help light the barbecue even if that is not needed, but with all the risks that entails. And you are more likely to store it close to sources of ignition (because, hey it is convenient and I will need it soon anyway), increasing the risks associated to having the can around even more.

Thousands of people will be fine and never have an accident, tens will get injured in accidents or watch loved ones be hurt, a few will use it to start the fire to clean up leaves. And of course there are other good reasons to have gasoline around, and relatively safe ways to store them.

I don't think your analogy is that much better, primarily because (as you said) a can of gas isn't a very good way to start fires.

I'd tend to go with a CO2 fire extinguisher - it's not something you ever want to use around the house if you don't have to, it can do a lot of harm if mistreated, and can be worse than useless if you don't know what to do with it in an actual emergency, but when you need one, the "second best" option is exponentially less reliable/effective/available.

Incidentally, whether talking about fire extinguishers or gas cans (or firearms), you're off by a couple orders of magnitude - tens of millions of people keep them around the house/vehicle/person, which means that if your ratio was correct, there should be hundreds of thousands of deaths...

[Seli]

I did warn about the bad analogy I was going to make :) (and note how I sneakily did not mention time periods :P)

Fire extinguishers in a kitchen are actually a better example in the dangers involved, having seen demonstrations of what happens when they are used improperly on an oil fire. But they do lack the alternate proper uses guns and cans of gasoline can have.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gas and lighter fluid make anything cooked over the coals taste terrible.

[The Marquis de Leech]

No, it's not nonsense. In America, Truth has long been a defense to accusations of libel or slander

As it is across the Common Law world. Continental Europe has a Civil Law system, so comparisons rather break down.

In Europe offensive ideas are banned, in the US we trust the competition of ideas to weed out the bad ones. For instance, in Europe you can't say "The Holocaust never happened." You'll go to prison. That's not freedom of speech like we have in America. In the US, you can say "The Holocaust never happened." You won't be imprisoned for your idiotic idea, instead someone else will say "Fuck you, you Nazi bastard- How stupid are you?"

The countries that impose bans of Holocaust denial (Germany and company) are the ones for whom the Holocaust was a direct experience. It's not an abstract debate, but rather (to borrow the US terminology) a clear and present danger. And, of course, there are plenty of countries that don't ban such denial.

Threats and fraud are about the only non-protected forms of speech in the US.

Fire and crowded theatre?

ETA: On the libel/slander issue, in America it doesn't even have to be really true- the standard is whether you believe it's true.

If you make a statement that you can't prove on balance of probabilities (the threshold in civil proceedings), is presented as fact, rather than as simply opinion ('free comment' is another defence against defamation), isn't in public interest (newspapers can hide behind this when they comment on public figures), and causes people to think significantly less of someone, shouldn't the someone who is hurt by your misinformation be able to do something about it? If you want to say something dodgy about someone, present it as an opinion.

[thecryptile]

I think the balance of our libel laws need reworking too, but your claim was that truth was not a defence. It is.

O yeah, I totally messed up on that, that's why I struck out the offending comment. I was thinking about John Wilkes and the Founding Fathers of the US. Of course, things have changed in the last 200 years.

The countries that impose bans of Holocaust denial (Germany and company) are the ones for whom the Holocaust was a direct experience. It's not an abstract debate, but rather (to borrow the US terminology) a clear and present danger. And, of course, there are plenty of countries that don't ban such denial.

We allow groups like the Black Panther Party, KKK, and Nation of Islam to preach the violent overthrow of the US government (as long as they keep it abstract and don't go into actual planning), and the Klan at least has dominated areas of the South and Midwest. These groups are certainly as dangerous as Neo-Nazis in Europe.

Fire and crowded theatre?

I consider this an example of fraud, because it's only a crime if there is no fire. I'm not a lawyer though, so I might be wrong there.

If you make a statement that you can't prove on balance of probabilities (the threshold in civil proceedings), is presented as fact, rather than as simply opinion ('free comment' is another defence against defamation), isn't in public interest (newspapers can hide behind this when they comment on public figures), and causes people to think significantly less of someone, shouldn't the someone who is hurt by your misinformation be able to do something about it? If you want to say something dodgy about someone, present it as an opinion.

Regardless of the morality of the issue, believing your own BS is a valid defense in US courts.

[Penguin king]

We allow groups like the Black Panther Party, KKK, and Nation of Islam to preach the violent overthrow of the US government (as long as they keep it abstract and don't go into actual planning), and the Klan at least has dominated areas of the South and Midwest. These groups are certainly as dangerous as Neo-Nazis in Europe.

I thought the violent overthrow of the US government was a Third Amendment right :)

[The Marquis de Leech]

We allow groups like the Black Panther Party, KKK, and Nation of Islam to preach the violent overthrow of the US government (as long as they keep it abstract and don't go into actual planning), and the Klan at least has dominated areas of the South and Midwest. These groups are certainly as dangerous as Neo-Nazis in Europe.

None of them have a past record of coming to power, then starting a World War, and trying to exterminate the human race: with that sort of immediacy in mind, a better analogy would be President Grant suppressing the original KKK in the 1870s, something I don't think anyone minds. For what it's worth, the German authorities were deciding whether to kick a certain Austrian back to Austria in the 1920s (for being a rabble-rousing shit-stirrer). They decided against it, because they thought that Hitler enjoyed freedom of speech.

I consider this an example of fraud, because it's only a crime if there is no fire. I'm not a lawyer though, so I might be wrong there.

Regardless of the morality of the issue, believing your own BS is a valid defense in US courts.

Forcing the hurt party to demonstrate that the defendant doesn't really believe what they say is considered too low a standard elsewhere: there's too much scope for lying. After all, if you (falsely) call your next door neighbour a paedophile out of spite, then claim that you truly believe he's a paedophile, and so get away with ruining his life, is that really fair?

[thecryptile]

By advocating speech restrictions, you are only proving my point.

[TrueMetis]

By advocating speech restrictions, you are only proving my point.

That the US is insane?

[thecryptile]

Insanely awesome, maybe.

This is the point:

European liberty and American liberty are very different things. For instance, you have Freedom of Speech- as long as your speech isn't too unpopular. Our Freedom of Speech OTOH, is near absolute. Comparing American liberty and European liberty is like comparing a lion in the jungle to a lion in a zoo. Superficially they are the similar, but on closer inspection the differences are great.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Insanely awesome, maybe.

This is the point:

Well, no. You're setting up the UK and Commonwealth standard of "if you say horrible things about someone, and present them as fact, you ought to be able to show those things are (probably) fact" vs the US standard of "if you say horrible things about someone, and present them as fact, you can escape liability if you claim you believe them to be true," as some sort of meaningful distinction about protecting unpopular opinions. You've claimed (falsely) that Europe only permits popular speech, setting that up against the US, which will protect you no matter what. The UK, after all, won't jail you for Holocaust Denial.

[thecryptile]

Well, no. You're setting up the UK and Commonwealth standard of "if you say horrible things about someone, and present them as fact, you ought to be able to show those things are (probably) fact" vs the US standard of "if you say horrible things about someone, and present them as fact, you can escape liability if you claim you believe them to be true," as some sort of meaningful distinction about protecting unpopular opinions.

It is a meaningful distinction. It shows the American commitment to Freedom. While I despise the Westboro Baptist Church, Neo-Nazis and the Nation of Islam, I would never advocate restricting their speech. That is the difference between our cultures.

You've claimed (falsely) that Europe only permits popular speech, setting that up against the US, which will protect you no matter what.

It's not a false claim at all, as this Wall of Text demonstrates. I didn't say all unpopular speech is banned, just speech that is "too unpopular". You surely see the difference between the two statements.

The UK, after all, won't jail you for Holocaust Denial.

The UK isn't the only European country. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Poland, and Luxembourg all prosecute people for Holocaust denial. Other European states don't explicitly outlaw denial but often prosecute offenders on other statutes, like inciting racial hatred.

It is illegal to wear the burqa in public in France. There is a 150 euros fine for women wearing it.

Eight of Germany's 16 states contain restrictions on wearing the hijab by female teachers: first Baden-Wurttemberg, then Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony, the Saarland, Bremen, North Rhine-Westphalia and Berlin. The city-state of Berlin banned all religious symbols in public institutions, including the Christian crucifix and the Jewish kippah.[42]

Five of these states that ban religious clothing, contain an exception for Christian symbols and clothing: Baden-Wurttemberg, Saarland, Hesse, Bavaria, and North Rhine-Westphalia. In Baden-Wurttemberg, the state prohibits Muslim teachers from wearing the headscarf, but allows teachers to wear Christian clothing, such as the nun's habit. The state courts upheld an appeal against the ban by several Muslim teachers, on the grounds of religious discrimination, since Catholic nuns are allowed to teach in full religious habit. The state government has appealed the decision. The regulation in North Rhine-Westphalia is similar to that in Baden-Wurttemberg. Bavaria also allows the nun's habit, while banning the Muslim headscarf.[43]

http://en.wikipedia....dress_in_Europe

Despite laws against masks in many US states, Islamic dress is protected under the First Amendment.

Flag desecration is another example. It is protected speech in America. This isn't the case in many European States. In Croatia it is illegal to "desecrate or to treat any flag in a disrespecting manner." Offenders are punished with up to 3 years of imprisonment. In Finland it is illegal to "desecrate the flag, treat it in disrespecting manner or remove it from a public place without permission." According to French law, "outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities" is liable for a fine of 7,500 euros (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering). In Germany it is illegal to "revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public." Offenders can be fined or sentenced for a maximum of three years in prison.

The European Convention on Human Rights, which legally binds all EU states and supersedes domestic law, explicitly guarantees "the right to freedom of expression" including "the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority."

This provision is in keeping not only with the U.S. Bill of Rights, but with the central instruments of international human rights law to which Europe and America claim adherence. Yet Europe's interpretation of free expression has diverged markedly from America's broad deference to First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly and religion.

American courts have upheld the publication of false, even racist materials, the right of neo-Nazis to rally in Jewish neighborhoods, and the objections of some citizens to the Pledge of Allegiance and to school dress codes on religious grounds.

European governments, on the other hand, have consistently trampled analogous rights, outlawing publication of hate speech, trade in Nazi paraphernalia, and the wearing of distinctive religious clothing, to name but a few recent examples. (...)

Likewise, suppression of young Muslims' rights to dress or worship as their religion requires lends government sanction to already widespread anti- Muslim attitudes. This official xenophobia in turn breeds simmering resentment that has already exploded into mass violence and been manipulated by radical Islamists to recruit willing terrorist agents from within European society.

While European leaders should be praised for their belated conversion to the cause of free speech, outraged Muslims around the world are right to allege a double standard. Until Europe consistently respects its own guarantees of free expression, and actively promotes tolerance instead of clumsily stifling dissent, its brave rhetoric will ring disappointingly false.

http://www.nytimes.c...rojan.html?_r=0

[TheRaggedWildling]

/snip

I understand, and I totally support the idea of firearm ownership. What I was getting at was how Lykos was suggesting the formation of a group of citizens that protect their communities. Technically, we already have that, in the form of police. Having a whole new funded organization wouldn't really solve the issue, IMO, as the money to train, equip, and employ these people has to come from somewhere, and I don;t support the taxation-to-death of an entire industry to fund programs that we are already underfunding. Now, if those people were to volunteer their time, with their own training and equipment, like a militia or community defense group, I'm all for it. It could spur more firearm education (a good thing), promote community pride/solidarity, toughy-feeling stuff yadda yadda yadda. However, Lykos' idea didn't really make sense