Observations About Real America - 3 (Firearm Edition)

[Dreadnaught]

I just completed a journey to the United States. I got the unique chance to hold and fire a series of weapons for the first time. Contrary to what several people have insanely projected, I've never previously handled an assault weapon or rifle of any type. This past week I got to fire several of them.

It. Was. Awesome. Absolutely sobering and thrilling at the same time. I now totally understand how people get "into" guns.

I think my main takeaway (beyond wanting to SHOOT MORE) is that the whole US-based gun debate on the type of weapons/ammo available is a bit silly. All guns are deadly, that much I got from the carnage I was able to deliver with any of the guns. Debating AK-47 with 10 bullets vs. Glock vs. AK-47 with 30 bullets seems trivial and semantic.

Other observations-

+ I visited states that have low and no income taxes. Based on the New York Times editorial page, I expected a true Hobbesian dystopia. Instead it was fairly pleasant. Though I technically support income taxes over many other types of taxes.

+ There are more Americans out there who have kids at a really young age.

+ We need to get a handle on water usage in some of our desert states. It's out of control. Oddly enough the only time water seems priced appropriately is airport bottled water in our more arid states.

+ The Black Eyed Peas continue to mystify me sometimes.

[GGT]

I just completed a journey to the United States. I got the unique chance to hold and fire a series of weapons for the first time. Contrary to what several people have insanely projected, I've never previously handled an assault weapon or rifle of any type. This past week I got to fire several of them.

It. Was. Awesome. Absolutely sobering and thrilling at the same time. I now totally understand how people get "into" guns.

Were you a guest at an armory or shooting range....or at someone's property with lots of guns? Lots of people get into shooting for that "thrill" of holding a dangerous/powerful weapon and adrenaline rush. Then testing out different types, honing target-skills, and competing. My son got hooked as a Boy Scout and now belongs to an armory....he loves it.

I think my main takeaway (beyond wanting to SHOOT MORE) is that the whole US-based gun debate on the type of weapons/ammo available is a bit silly. All guns are deadly, that much I got from the carnage I was able to deliver with any of the guns. Debating AK-47 with 10 bullets vs. Glock vs. AK-47 with 30 bullets seems trivial and semantic.

It's not semantic or silly to have a few extra seconds -- to escape or intervene -- while a shooter reloads bullets. It's not trivial to the eleven Sandy Hook children who survived that way.

The bullets and type of weapon are what make guns deadly (in contrast to 'stun guns', rubber bullets, tranquilizing rifles). The proposed measures are aimed at preventing single events from becoming mass killings/massacres.

So far, NRA's opposition contradicts itself: "homeowners shouldn't be limited by bullet amounts when a bad guy is breaking into their house".... yet, "it only takes a couple of seconds to change clips/magazines/reload". They also (now) oppose background checks for buying guns, but would require background checks for the armed personnel/security they want at schools.

[Loki]

What percentage of all murders are committed with this type of guns? It's all a massive strawman.

[GGT]

What percentage of all murders are committed with this type of guns? It's all a massive strawman.

"The perfect isn't the enemy of the good".

It's not about the percentage of all murders, or eliminating all gun violence, but reducing the risks/damages certain types of guns/ammo can cause....and in the wrong hands. That's why gun safety legislation has multi-factorial components.

One of my preferences is eliminating existing legislation that prevents/precludes liability law suits for gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.

[Dreadnaught]

It's all pretty dangerous. Suing gun manufacturers is silly.

[Kazuha Vinland]

The rate of murder by personal firearms is 30 times higher in the US than in Japan. In Japan they have had strict regulations against owning or being in possession of guns since the end of WWII. In the U.S., everyone owns a firearm to protect themselves against firearms. Fairly ironic, but not something that has a reversible action over night. Sad as that is, I would love for the U.S. to carry out stricter regulations, warm up the morons to the thought of a ban on weapons being a sensible thing. Which it happens to be.

[Dreadnaught]

Japan also has a stunningly high suicide rate. Clearly there should be a law.

[Loki]

The rate of murder by personal firearms is 30 times higher in the US than in Japan. In Japan they have had strict regulations against owning or being in possession of guns since the end of WWII. In the U.S., everyone owns a firearm to protect themselves against firearms. Fairly ironic, but not something that has a reversible action over night. Sad as that is, I would love for the U.S. to carry out stricter regulations, warm up the morons to the thought of a ban on weapons being a sensible thing. Which it happens to be.

Are you seriously claiming that the murder rate is dependent predominantly on gun control regulations?

[Kazuha Vinland]

Japan also has a stunningly high suicide rate. Clearly there should be a law.

Can you tell me how these two are related? Seriously? Do people agree with me when I say that the least grown up aspect of this forum is that members unanimously are unable to stick to a sound argument, and has to come up with a bogus twist instead of acknowledging a fact going against them?

Are you seriously claiming that the murder rate is dependent predominantly on gun control regulations?

Not sure if irony or not, but I stated that murder rate by personal firearms are predominantly on gun control regulations, or rather, the circulation of firearms on the market. Like I said, Japan has disallowed any citizen to carry a personal firearm, let alone as much as touch one, since WWII. There are a few exempts, but the process of petitioning for the right to own a gun, is so extensive that any average citizen would not bother or be able to go through with it.
2
I redreckonize that Americans have a fetish towards shooting guns at a range for fun, that be a Colt, a Beretta M12 or whatever, but I don't hold it as a valid reason for them being allowed on the market.

[Wraith]

You're cherry-picking.

[Kazuha Vinland]

So pretty much if you can't solve all the world's issues at once, why even solve one?

[Loki]

Not sure if irony or not, but I stated that murder rate by personal firearms are predominantly on gun control regulations, or rather, the circulation of firearms on the market. Like I said, Japan has disallowed any citizen to carry a personal firearm, let alone as much as touch one, since WWII. There are a few exempts, but the process of petitioning for the right to own a gun, is so extensive that any average citizen would not bother or be able to go through with it.
2
I redreckonize that Americans have a fetish towards shooting guns at a range for fun, that be a Colt, a Beretta M12 or whatever, but I don't hold it as a valid reason for them being allowed on the market.

When you think of your average American with a gun obsession, you think some southern redneck, right? Well, have a look at the stats. Most gun-related murders involve young black men killing other young black men. If you take them out of the equation, America's murder rate is about the same as Canada's. Most murders are drug or gang related (usually both). Mass murderers make the news, but those kind of killings are a tiny portion of all the murders in a given year. At best, gun control might reduce the amount of murders by a few percent. It comes down to race relations, inner city culture, and drugs (particularly the crack epidemic whose ending happened to coincide with a 75% decrease in the murder rate in many major cities).

[Flixy]

When you think of your average American with a gun obsession, you think some southern redneck, right? Well, have a look at the stats. Most gun-related murders involve young black men killing other young black men. If you take them out of the equation, America's murder rate is about the same as Canada's. Most murders are drug or gang related (usually both). Mass murderers make the news, but those kind of killings are a tiny portion of all the murders in a given year. At best, gun control might reduce the amount of murders by a few percent. It comes down to race relations, inner city culture, and drugs (particularly the crack epidemic whose ending happened to coincide with a 75% decrease in the murder rate in many major cities).

I suspect if you take the gang related killings out of the Canadian stats, your murder rate is a lot higher again. If guns are easy to get and plenty around, it's no surprise gang violence is settled with guns. Ideally, with gun control you'd have less guns on the market, and can't sell them to criminals, which makes it harder for them to have guns, and therefore less likely to use them.

Of course that's in an America that isn't already flooded with guns, so it's not really any use now.

[Veldan Rath]

There is a large amount of gang gun deaths in Canookistan?

[Loki]

I suspect if you take the gang related killings out of the Canadian stats, your murder rate is a lot higher again. If guns are easy to get and plenty around, it's no surprise gang violence is settled with guns. Ideally, with gun control you'd have less guns on the market, and can't sell them to criminals, which makes it harder for them to have guns, and therefore less likely to use them.

Of course that's in an America that isn't already flooded with guns, so it's not really any use now.

As Veldan pointed out, there isn't much of a gang problem in Canada.

[Ominous Gamer]

There is a large amount of gang gun deaths in Canookistan?

they do have established gangs. there was a gang war in 09 around Vancouver that was noticeable enough that I remember it.

[Loki]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-...561-eng.htm#a5

[Flixy]

We don't have a big gang problem here, but still a good portion of homicide are crime (i.e. drugs or organised crime) related.

[Wraith]

So pretty much if you can't solve all the world's issues at once, why even solve one?

No, I meant you shouldn't ignore all the data points that run counter to your hypothesis. The issue is not as simple as you're making it out to be. There are many countries with very high rates of gun ownership, and very low rates of violent crime. Switzerland is the example I trotted out last time; they even have a large number of assault rifles stored in private homes there, and those are already illegal in the US. And yet their violent crime rate is lower than most countries that do ban firearms.

You can even find the same story within the US. Washington State has one of the weakest sets of gun laws in the country, and a very low violent crime rate. California is about as close to banning them as they can constitutionally get, and they have a very high violent crime rate. The correlation between violent crime rates or murders and strictness of firearm laws is incredibly weak. If your intention is to reduce violent crime, and not just to prevent people from having things you don't want for yourself, then you'll be best served by looking elsewhere to achieve these goals.

[GGT]

It's all pretty dangerous. Suing gun manufacturers is silly.

What's "silly" is that we have laws specifically protecting gun manufacturers from law suits.

[Dreadnaught]

What do you expect to sue them for? Murder? It's almost like suing a restaurant for making you fat.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sad as that is, I would love for the U.S. to carry out stricter regulations, warm up the morons to the thought of a ban on weapons being a sensible thing. Which it happens to be.

I'd have no problem with stricter regulations, education, and licensing requirements. Hell, make it as bad or worse than the DMV. But I can't agree with banning weapons entirely, even if it will demonstrably and incontrovertibly result in significantly lower death rates. Make people take classes on firearm usage and safety. Drill it into them that they or their loved ones are more likely to die from accidental gun use than they are to be in a situation where it will help them defend themselves. But let them still make that choice. Otherwise we bear responsibility for what happens to those who want to and would have been able to defend themselves but who we actively prevented from doing so.

[GGT]

What do you expect to sue them for? Murder? It's almost like suing a restaurant for making you fat.

I'd expect the judicial system to decide that, like any other product injury law suit. The point you're missing is that legislation protects gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers from law suits. I don't recall atm if that was during the 90's assault weapons ban negotiations (which has since expired) or safety/trigger lock regulations.

[Kazuha Vinland]

When you think of your average American with a gun obsession, you think some southern redneck, right? Well, have a look at the stats. Most gun-related murders involve young black men killing other young black men. If you take them out of the equation, America's murder rate is about the same as Canada's. Most murders are drug or gang related (usually both). Mass murderers make the news, but those kind of killings are a tiny portion of all the murders in a given year. At best, gun control might reduce the amount of murders by a few percent. It comes down to race relations, inner city culture, and drugs (particularly the crack epidemic whose ending happened to coincide with a 75% decrease in the murder rate in many major cities).

The reason I think of southern rednecks is because they are the ones who use guns for fun, and have an attitude that they also need them to protect themselves against an attack from the government. They are the ones who would be the most in uproar if a new law forced retrieval of all weapons. More than likely they would barricade themselves within their homes, and protect it with their lives.. using guns. After all, apart from protection against the government, it is also part of their culture.

The part that revolts me about your post, however, is how you blandly put "might reduce the amount of murders by a few percent". Do you have any idea how much money Norway puts into road improvement just to slightly lower the number of road accidents? How can you say that lowering the percentage by just a bit, isn't worth it, when the numbers are close to 10 000 every year. Even if it was just the minority of mass murders being kept in check, that would still be a positive thing, wouldn't it?


Look very carefully at this picture before you protect the owners of guns.

No, I meant you shouldn't ignore all the data points that run counter to your hypothesis. The issue is not as simple as you're making it out to be. There are many countries with very high rates of gun ownership, and very low rates of violent crime. Switzerland is the example I trotted out last time; they even have a large number of assault rifles stored in private homes there, and those are already illegal in the US. And yet their violent crime rate is lower than most countries that do ban firearms.

It is funny how you would mention Switzerland with their low crime rate and in your opinion low rate for death by firearm. Now as I see it from this graph, they are actually 2nd to the U.S. on the worst list... this despite having a low crime rate. Hmm.

You can even find the same story within the US. Washington State has one of the weakest sets of gun laws in the country, and a very low violent crime rate. California is about as close to banning them as they can constitutionally get, and they have a very high violent crime rate. The correlation between violent crime rates or murders and strictness of firearm laws is incredibly weak. If your intention is to reduce violent crime, and not just to prevent people from having things you don't want for yourself, then you'll be best served by looking elsewhere to achieve these goals.

I am fully aware that guns are not the only cause of crime. I get that. I really do. But again we are on the topic of making one difference for the better, even if it doesn't necessarily resolve the entire situation. Guns make it significantly easier to threaten or and kill. A society where guns are overflowing, is a society living in constant fear where the population has to take precautions against strangers all the time. It is relatively speaking not something to strive for. I am addressing the gun culture because it is the topic at hand, and then we can address other causes in a different thread. No problem.

What's "silly" is that we have laws specifically protecting gun manufacturers from law suits.

That is very true. Obama pledged today that they could get stricter regulations, and the majority of people agree with him. Yet the lobbyists keep struggling against, and he has a hard time convincing a majority of the Congress to support his reforms. Sounds to me like a major economy pulling the strings short term rather than perfect sense.

I'd have no problem with stricter regulations, education, and licensing requirements. Hell, make it as bad or worse than the DMV. But I can't agree with banning weapons entirely, even if it will demonstrably and incontrovertibly result in significantly lower death rates. Make people take classes on firearm usage and safety. Drill it into them that they or their loved ones are more likely to die from accidental gun use than they are to be in a situation where it will help them defend themselves. But let them still make that choice. Otherwise we bear responsibility for what happens to those who want to and would have been able to defend themselves but who we actively prevented from doing so.

To me, personal firearms has one purpose. They make lethal force accessible for a person at any time. They are made to kill. That is why I do not want ANYONE to own a gun, who is not a police officer, or protector of other orders, including the army of course. Give me one good reason people should be allowed to own weapons in a society where weapons is not a threat to them?

[GGT]

Loki, you sound practically racist in this regard, not making correlations between entrenched poverty, criminal activity, and the War on Drugs.

The "stats" are pretty clear. The US populace is heavily armed, with more guns in circulation than our entire adult population. More guns per capita than any other industrialized/democratic nation. US gun owners comprise less than 35% of all households, but make up 75-90% of all gun sales....which means fewer people own guns, and a minority are stockpiling.

Those stats reflect gun sales based on legal registration and sales. Gangs, cartels, and mafias aren't included in those stats, so it's actually worse. Go, go USA, #1.

[Wraith]

Look very carefully at this picture before you protect the owners of guns.

I usually stop talking to people once they start trotting out pictures. Once you resort to making a purely emotional argument, logic tends to be right out the window. Emotions are a terrible way to decide policy.

It is funny how you would mention Switzerland with their low crime rate and in your opinion low rate for death by firearm. Now as I see it from this graph, they are actually 2nd to the U.S. on the worst list... this despite having a low crime rate. Hmm.

You're cherry-picking again. Of course countries with zero guns have less gun crimes, but that's not a very important statistic, is it? If you ban TVs, you can prevent television thefts. If you ban sharp implements you can greatly reduce stabbings. But that's just silly, right? I mean, they'd just get replaced by stealing laptops and bludgeonings.

A better statistic is the actual murder rate. UK, with no guns, has 1.2 per 100k people per year. Switzerland is at 0.7. Or we can go all the way, and bring in Mexico which restricts gun ownership mostly to government employees, with they're 22.7 rate, about five times higher than the bordering US.

(Switzerland is not the lowest violent crime rate, but their very high gun ownership rate makes them a good example. Other countries with permissive gun laws exist with even lower levels of crime, including Guam if you count it as a country, and it's legally part of the US and subject to it's laws).

I am fully aware that guns are not the only cause of crime. I get that. I really do. But again we are on the topic of making one difference for the better, even if it doesn't necessarily resolve the entire situation. Guns make it significantly easier to threaten or and kill. A society where guns are overflowing, is a society living in constant fear where the population has to take precautions against strangers all the time. It is relatively speaking not something to strive for. I am addressing the gun culture because it is the topic at hand, and then we can address other causes in a different thread. No problem.

What society is living in constant fear where the population has to take precautions against strangers all the time?

Guns aren't just not the only cause of crime, they're not even a very significant factor. That's what I'm trying to get across. Other factors are much more significant. Trying to take firearms away from people is largely a waste of time if your goal is to stop violent crime (which, by the way, has been falling on it's own steadily since 1993).

[LittleFuzzy]

To me, personal firearms has one purpose. They make lethal force accessible for a person at any time. They are made to kill. That is why I do not want ANYONE to own a gun, who is not a police officer, or protector of other orders, including the army of course. Give me one good reason people should be allowed to own weapons in a society where weapons is not a threat to them?

To me, alcohol has only one purpose. To poison the human body. It screws up your thinking. It screws up your body while your liver desperately tries to filter its toxins from your body until it can't handle it anymore and starts getting damaged itself. People drinking are killing themselves and, far too often, they manage to kill others as well. And that's not even touching the emotional damage it results in. And plenty of them are doing it because they're sick. They're addicts, they have a diagnosible illness and rather than being treated they're being enabled. For what POSSIBLE reason can you or anyone else think this is acceptable? And don't even get me started on fucking tobacco.

You don't GET to to be a judgemental and closeminded hypocritical ass without being called on it.

[Aimless]

Give me one good reason people should be allowed to own weapons in a society where weapons is not a threat to them?

But weapons ARE a threat to them, see for example how many people are killed with weapons every year in the US

[Ominous Gamer]

visited states that have low and no income taxes. Based on the New York Times editorial page, I expected a true Hobbesian dystopia. Instead it was fairly pleasant. Though I technically support income taxes over many other types of taxes.

you've visited florida several times already, we've never had an income tax. how is this just now dawning on you?

+ There are more Americans out there who have kids at a really young age.

compared to what or when?

[Enoch the Red]

To me, personal firearms has one purpose. They make lethal force accessible for a person at any time. They are made to kill. That is why I do not want ANYONE to own a gun, who is not a police officer, or protector of other orders, including the army of course. Give me one good reason people should be allowed to own weapons in a society where weapons is not a threat to them?

Ignoring the obvious banality of the conceit that personal firearms have only one purpose, (there are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands, only a fraction of a fraction of a percent are used to commit a crime) this is generally a spurious claim. Police do not prevent the vast majority of crimes, they investigate and make arrests. The old adage certainly rings true, "When seconds count, police are minutes away." Your personal safety and well being are absolutely not guaranteed by the existence of police, nor should it be.