what is it with americans and guns?

[Matt88]

there is a statistic I read a while ago (sorry, but no link) that said there are around 1,000 accidental deaths due to misuse of firearms, and about 38,000 accidental deaths due to misuse of cars, each year.

Should we ban cars, because, you know, they kill 38 times more people accidentally than firearms. They are dangerous weapons! A gun, as well as a car, are tools, and can only be used for misdeeds if a person controls it.

BTW, i can't wait until i get my first gun, a beautiful Marlin 336 hunting rifle, in .35 Remington. That'll be fun!

 

[mr.guy]

Should we ban cars, because, you know, they kill 38 times more people accidentally than firearms. They are dangerous weapons! A gun, as well as a car, are tools, and can only be used for misdeeds if a person controls it.

Uhmm...a tool expressly designed for killing, aka: weapon. Regardless of my own harsh critisisms of car culture, even i find this comparison absurd.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

A car's primary intent isn't to kill. While a gun might be used for protection, hunting or some other perfectly innocent thing, unlike a car, it's most dangerous when it's used for the reason of its primary intent: something to shoot things with.

But I see no reason to make them illegal. I just wish that some more thought was being put into things. As Sparc suggested, focusing on prosecuting violent crimes might be a step in the right direction.

 

[mr.guy]

...focusing on prosecuting violent crimes might be a step in the right direction.

Better yet may be questioning a cultural propulsion towards violence. Arguments holding up guns as mere "tools" are proponents of normalized cultural hostility; while i "need" a wrench to shut of my stripped shower tap, i also "need" a gun to occasionally kill things/people.

I don't question the legitimacy of general gun ownership, yet i think a culture's fascination and relationship with it's "tools" is telling of what sort of "work" it most values.

 

[PureX]

There is no other logical reason to own a hand gun but to kill another human being. That's what they're for. That's all they're for.

So when a person buys a gun, and keeps it loaded, in their home, in an accessible place, and their kid finds it and shoots themselves with it, don't blame the gun. It did exactly what it was designed and intended to do.

The problem isn't the weapon, it's human irresponsibility. So the question isn't about the guns, themselves, it's about the irresponsibility of the people who want to own them. But then all our laws are ultimately about our own irresponsibility and the danger that results, so there's no reason that we shouldn't have laws dealing with the irresponsibility of hand gun use just as we have laws dealing with the irresponsibility of automobile use, or any other kind of irresponsibility.

We don't let children drive cars because cars are very dangerous when irresponsibly used. And children tend to be especially irresponsible. Since guns are even more dangerous when irresponsibly used than cars are, the same rules should apply to guns, yet be even more strict.

When people drive drunk, we take away their license to drive, because they have shown themselves to be too irresponsible to drive an automobile safely. Since a gun is even more dangerous then a car when used irresponsibly, the same rule should apply to guns, only it should be more strict.

We don't let people drive cars who can't physically operate a car safely. We don't let mentally unbalanced people drive cars if we reasonably suspect that they might do something dangerous while driving. And since guns are far more dangerous than cars are when used irresponsibly, the same rules, and even tougher rules, should apply to the use of guns.

It's not an issue of freedom. It's an issue of social responsibility. We can't let anyone have guns any more than we can let anyone drive a car, or fly a plane, or perform surgery. The only people who can and should be allowed to do these things are people who have shown that they know how, and that they are responsible enough for us to trust with such powerful and dangerous tools.

So I believe that anyone who wants to own and carry a hand gun should be free to do so, once they have proven that they know how, and that they are responsible enough to be trusted with such a dangerous device. They should be at least 25 years old. They should have exactly the same hand gun training as any police officer, including the psyche tests, the accuracy tests, and the legal use tests. And they should be retested periodically to make sure they maintain their weapons fitness. Also, if they're convicted of any crime, or shown to be dangerous or socially irresponsible in any way, they will lose their license to own and carry a hand gun indefinitely.

I want people to own and to carry hand guns, but I want them to know how, and when to use them, and how not to. And I want them to be very trustworthy and responsible citizens, who will gladly give up their license to carry a hand gun should their fitness for such a responsibility slip even a little bit.

It's exactly the people who want to own and carry hand guns the most, who should never be allowed to have them. And it's the very people who don't want or need them that are the most likely to use them properly and only when absolutely necessary. So it's those people I want trained to carry them.

Automatic weapons, assault weapons, and other military weapons, of course, are out of the question. The only people who want them are exactly the people who should never, ever, be allowed to have them.

 

[mr.guy]

But then all our laws are ultimately about our own irresponsibility and the danger that results, so there's no reason that we shouldn't have laws dealing with the irresponsibility of hand gun use just as we have laws dealing with the irresponsibility of automobile use, or any other kind of irresponsibility.

A ban on civilian ownership of handguns would also be in line of discouraging irresponsible use; there are precious few instances were "responsible" use of a handgun will come into play vs. it's liablity to be ill-applied.

When people drive drunk, we take away their license to drive, because they have shown themselves to be too irresponsible to drive an automobile safely. Since a gun is even more dangerous then a car when used irresponsibly, the same rule should apply to guns, only it should be more strict.

What this sliding scale fails to address correctly is that while a car is dangerous, it's utility extends beyond killing. To adjust the legal ramifications, availability and licensing based how perilous it is as compared to cars, hammers, combines, ham-radios, etc. is to skip over its function; they are quite clearly not interchangeable.

It's an issue of social responsibility.

Part of such responsibilities are to measure the worths of condoning the use and ownership of such specialized weaponry; couldn't we just glorify bowie knives instead?

So I believe that anyone who wants to own and carry a hand gun should be free to do so, once they have proven that they know how, and that they are responsible enough to be trusted with such a dangerous device.

To what end? The difficulty arises in what little constructive use any private citizen can put his pistol to. If we need a compact utensil to kill and maim, would you not suppose that the same rigourous testing and training you've suggested necessary, therein applied to other (less accident prone) weaponry a worthier endeavour? Perhaps we could wean americans of their colts if you legalized nunchuks?

And I want them to be very trustworthy and responsible citizens, who will gladly give up their license to carry a hand gun should their fitness for such a responsibility slip even a little bit.

Dude, that's a total buzzkill for most of those who would likely want a handgun in the first place. May i ask, do you perceive a use or benefit for handgun ownership?

 

[mr.guy]

You mean like a ramset gun? In ontario, no license is necessary, but one technically needs to be certified by the gun's manufacturer. But as for countersinks, wouldn't you need hollowpoint bullets anyway?

 

[PureX]

A ban on civilian ownership of handguns would also be in line of discouraging irresponsible use; there are precious few instances were "responsible" use of a handgun will come into play vs. it's liability to be ill-applied.

What this sliding scale fails to address correctly is that while a car is dangerous, it's utility extends beyond killing. To adjust the legal ramifications, availability and licensing based how perilous it is as compared to cars, hammers, combines, ham-radios, etc. is to skip over its function; they are quite clearly not interchangeable.


Part of such responsibilities are to measure the worths of condoning the use and ownership of such specialized weaponry; couldn't we just glorify bowie knives instead?

To what end? The difficulty arises in what little constructive use any private citizen can put his pistol to. If we need a compact utensil to kill and maim, would you not suppose that the same rigorous testing and training you've suggested necessary, therein applied to other (less accident prone) weaponry a worthier endeavor? Perhaps we could wean americans of their colts if you legalized nunchuks?

Dude, that's a total buzz-kill for most of those who would likely want a handgun in the first place. May i ask, do you perceive a use or benefit for handgun ownership?

I understand your objections, here, but it's not mine nor my government's place to dictate the value of carrying a hand gun. This is a free society. We are ALL free to carry a gun, by default. The restrictions come as a necessary afterthought, and that's exactly the purpose of government - to deal with those necessary afterthoughts.

My point is that it is not the place of government to decide the value of our desires. It is, however, the rightful function of government to see that our desires are carried out in a reasonable and safe (socially speaking) manner. I get angry when I hear people and especially politicians say that "driving is a privilege given to us by the government". Bull****! We own the roads and we own the cars and we have an automatic right to drive anywhere, anytime. The government does not own that right, that it can then bestow it upon it's citizens, or choose not to. The citizens own that right by default. BUT, the government is charged with executing our driving rights in a way that is safe and reasonable, and in the course of doing this, it may have to refuse some of us the ability to drive.

I don't know if I'm clearly explaining the difference, but I do think there is an important difference, here.

 

[mr.guy]

I understand your objections, here, but it's not mine nor my government's place to dictate the value of carrying a hand gun. This is a free society. We are ALL free to carry a gun, by default. The restrictions come as a necessary afterthought, and that's exactly the purpose of government - to deal with those necessary afterthoughts.

With this in mind, how does one's government go about dismarming it's citizenry of assault rifles, grenades, bioweaponry, etc.?

My point is that it is not the place of government to decide the value of our desires. It is, however, the rightful function of government to see that our desires are carried out in a reasonable and safe (socially speaking) manner.

An armed citizen is not behaving socially; it's the height of beligerence to wander about as if in a warzone. Considering the wealth of "ethical" prohibitions that americans are happy to comply with, i'm often astounded at how touchy they get about their guns; this defense to the exception of illegal (and less fatal) weapons is entirely a romantacization of handguns.

I get angry when I hear people and especially politicians say that "driving is a privilege given to us by the government"

Again, the comparison to cars is not terribly fruitfull. The intended utility of cars does not translate much to a discussion regarding "tools" designed expressly for killing; i guess if we throw a spikey ram-prow on the front of your car, i'd have to acknowledge some similarity.

 

[sparc872]

As I have stated earlier, the problem is not that we have guns, it is that we have people who misuse guns. The issue of gun control runs much deeper into our culture than most will give credit and that is precisely what we must address in order to effectively eliminate the problem.

I am going to pose a question here. Do you think it will be more effective to place a ban on all guns knowing that there will still be criminals out there who misuse them or would it be better to allow guns and then address the social issues that cause the dangerous activities attached to guns followed by increasingly tighter restrictions on guns?

I ask this question because we do have a serious problem to deal with in the US. Our crime rates are well above those of most other industrialized nations as well as developing nations. Why we have such a substantially higher crime rate is not the result of poor gun control, it is the result of poor cultural development.

The gap between rich and poor is ever increasing, racial tension is still present in everyday life and the majority of the US population has a highly stereotypical view of another group of people. Crime persists not because criminals have guns to use, crime persists because our country fails to address the issues that lead to moral erosion. We need to ask ourself why we have gangs, why we have people breaking into homes, why we have racially motivated attacks, why we have disproportionate amounts of minorities in prison compared to the majority group. We need to actually attack these issues head on, we need to understand the problems at hand and we need to make an effort to fix them. We CANNOT ignore the negative facts of our society because the ultimate outcome from doing so is a vicious cycle of increasing poverty followed by crime, followed by stereotyping, followed by even more poverty etc etc. The cycle just keeps going on.

 

[Valjean]

I'm surprised we've had over thirty posts without the figures indicating an inverse relationship between gun ownership and assaults & burglaries being brought up. Apparently there are even some jurisdictions in the US where gun ownership was made mandatory and crime rates immediately plummeted.

There is also the phenomenon of homeowner present burglary/home invasion. I understand this is not uncommon in the UK, whereas in the US, where handguns are legal, it's quite rare. An American burglar will, in fact, generally beat a hasty retreat at the slightest indication he's not alone in the house.

 

[PureX]

With this in mind, how does one's government go about disarming it's citizenry of assault rifles, grenades, bioweaponry, etc.?

An armed citizen is not behaving socially; it's the height of belligerence to wander about as if in a war-zone. Considering the wealth of "ethical" prohibitions that americans are happy to comply with, I'm often astounded at how touchy they get about their guns; this defense to the exception of illegal (and less fatal) weapons is entirely a romanticization of handguns.

Again, the comparison to cars is not terribly fruitful. The intended utility of cars does not translate much to a discussion regarding "tools" designed expressly for killing; i guess if we throw a spiky ram-prow on the front of your car, i'd have to acknowledge some similarity.

You are presenting the case that there are no legitimate reasons to carry a hand gun. But there are. Which is why the police and many other private security people carry them. And ultimately, the free citizen's desire to carry one is legitimate enough. However, that desire does have to be regulated in a safe and reasonable manner because guns are extremely dangerous. And it is the government's job to do that on behalf of all of us.

I can say that the more intently you want to own and carry a hand gun, the more I want you to be denied that possibility. But I don't have the right or the power to carry that out. The government doesn't have the right to say it, but it does have the power to carry it out if that's what we collectively decide we want it to do. I hope that someday we will collectively see that this is what needs to be done, and will empower the government to carry it out. Unfortunately, being free means being free to be stupid, selfish, and irresponsible. Which many of us are, and will continue to be. So I don't think we're going to see any reasonable gun laws any time soon.

 

[PureX]

As I have stated earlier, the problem is not that we have guns, it is that we have people who misuse guns. The issue of gun control runs much deeper into our culture than most will give credit and that is precisely what we must address in order to effectively eliminate the problem.

I am going to pose a question here. Do you think it will be more effective to place a ban on all guns knowing that there will still be criminals out there who misuse them or would it be better to allow guns and then address the social issues that cause the dangerous activities attached to guns followed by increasingly tighter restrictions on guns?

I ask this question because we do have a serious problem to deal with in the US. Our crime rates are well above those of most other industrialized nations as well as developing nations. Why we have such a substantially higher crime rate is not the result of poor gun control, it is the result of poor cultural development.

The gap between rich and poor is ever increasing, racial tension is still present in everyday life and the majority of the US population has a highly stereotypical view of another group of people. Crime persists not because criminals have guns to use, crime persists because our country fails to address the issues that lead to moral erosion. We need to ask ourself why we have gangs, why we have people breaking into homes, why we have racially motivated attacks, why we have disproportionate amounts of minorities in prison compared to the majority group. We need to actually attack these issues head on, we need to understand the problems at hand and we need to make an effort to fix them. We CANNOT ignore the negative facts of our society because the ultimate outcome from doing so is a vicious cycle of increasing poverty followed by crime, followed by stereotyping, followed by even more poverty etc etc. The cycle just keeps going on.

We have these problems because we're a free and open society, and that means we're free to behave like pigs and idiots, as well as like saints and geniuses, if we want to. There is no way to stop people behaving like pigs and idiots in a free society. In fact, there really isn't any way to stop it in any society.

You're talking about changing human nature, and I really just don't think that's possible. The best we can do is try to write sensible laws and enforce them in sensible ways that will ultimately set up a compromise between being free to behave like pigs and idiots if we want to, and not being so free that our idiotic choices and behavior seriously harm the other members of our society.

The problem was never the guns. The problem was always us. We need our choices and behavior to be regulated because many of us are too stupid and selfish to regulate our own choices and behavior appropriately. This has always been true, and this is why societies of human beings established governments in the first place - to regulate themselves. But ultimately, these governments are only going to be as effective at doing this as the people they govern are responsible and wise. A nation of idiots will set up a government of idiots. What decides the life or death of a society is whether or not they have enough wise and responsible people in them, and in positions of power, to overcome the natural human inclination to be selfish and stupid.

Right now it's not looking good for America.

 

[sparc872]

We have these problems because we're a free and open society, and that means we're free to behave like pigs and idiots, as well as like saints and geniuses, if we want to. There is no way to stop people behaving like pigs and idiots in a free society. In fact, there really isn't any way to stop it in any society.

You're talking about changing human nature, and I really just don't think that's possible. The best we can do is try to write sensible laws and enforce them in sensible ways that will ultimately set up a compromise between being free to behave like pigs and idiots if we want to, and not being so free that our idiotic choices and behavior seriously harm the other members of our society.

The problem was never the guns. The problem was always us. We need our choices and behavior to be regulated because many of us are too stupid and selfish to regulate our own choices and behavior appropriately. This has always been true, and this is why societies of human beings established governments in the first place - to regulate themselves. But ultimately, these governments are only going to be as effective at doing this as the people they govern are responsible and wise. A nation of idiots will set up a government of idiots. What decides the life or death of a society is whether or not they have enough wise and responsible people in them, and in positions of power, to overcome the natural human inclination to be selfish and stupid.

Right now it's not looking good for America.

You are right in stating this. We do live in a free society where people are free to behave however they want. However, we can take measures to influence how they behave. The best way to do so is inform them. There are many nations out there who act in a responsible way and behave much more reasonably between the different classes as well as the different races. Those countries do not seem to have the same sorts of problems as we do here in America and all we need to do is to change and conform to that model.

The only way to make progress is through action. In order for there to be positive change in America, we need to get out and push for that positive change, rather than being the mindless bunch or morons we sometimes seem to be. We cannot sit idly by while we have people living in poverty and rich folks with hundreds of cars and 10000 square foot mansions. We cannot let that sort of injustice continue. We must do our part to wake up the rest of America to the injustice that is occuring before we let the current state of affairs become aggravated anymore. Apathy is the path to destruction, it always has been and it always will be. It is time we start caring and do something about the problem that is creating all the violence we see in our culture today.

 

[jonny]

another post got me asking this, in britain handguns are banned in fact you can get five years in prison if found with one,i would be interested in american opinion on this
i realise some of you may be poles apart on this but if you can discuss religion you guys can discuss anything. i thought it was a kind of leftover from cowboy days that was never sorted out.

I don't see a problem with guns. I've got a rifle and my roommate has a couple shotguns, a handgun, and a bunch of rifles. When we go camping I feel much safer having a gun around (usually the handgun).

I don't know about other areas of the country, but around Utah it seems like everyone has a gun.

I understand if people have problems with them, but these are usually people who haven't been around them much. I do think that we need better education and training when it comes to guns, but I don't see a problem with responsible adults owning them.

 

[jonny]

So yeah, we have guns. Of course, nobody admits he owns guns because he has a little **** and needs to prove his manhood, or because he gets off on violence. We own guns for self-defense (against criminals, Commies, Muslims, the FBI, or whoever else is thought to be threat), for legitimate collecting purposes, for hunting, as an investment. It's all very rational, see?

Despite what must seem like my contempt for gun nuts, though, I'm not really convinced that guns ought to be banned. I do think that people ought to be held strictly accountable for how they use them, and for whose hands they allow them to fall into. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the fact that we're so stupid about them.

Or maybe people own guns because they enjoy the sport. It has nothing to do with my enormous ****.

I enjoy going out and shooting clay pigeons, for example. It's a challenge and it's fun. I wouldn't put anything I've ever done with a gun in the category of "violent."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No problem with guns here.

I spent quite a bit of time on my grnadfather's ranch as well as some time on farms in West Texas. We used handguns, rifles, and shotguns for shooting just about everything from stuffed animals, stray dogs, sick animals and other vermin such as feral cats, praire dogs, and wild boars (excellent for sausage). I used Grandpa's Colt .45 and .357 Mag - both with hollow points - to kill cats and finish off wild boars.

We found guns to provide a clean farm and entertainment (shooting bottles of beer, old TVs, and an occasional tailgate -- guys who kept sis' out a bit too long).

Granpa put up the Colt when they stopped making them, but he still travels with the .357 in the door of his truck - something that I personally oppose, but he does drive the most car-jacked truck in Texas. I have a cousin who also travels with a handgun and he's actually pulled it a couple of times in Abilene, but he's a bit more hot-blooded than the average redneck.

After the Columbine shootings in Colorado, the schools in West Texas started making sure that me and my fellow classmates remembered to take all of the shells and guns out of our trucks from the work that we did over the weekend. There was more than one kid who left his guns in his gunrack before coming to school on Monday - some of them made the news, but the principals were usually wired into the local aristocracy to keep the fellers out of real trouble.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It has nothing to do with my enormous ****.

Yeah, I've never had any complains about either guns.

 

[ProudWiccan]

I don't own a gun, and never will. I hate being around guns, but to each his own.

However, I would fight tooth and nail to keep the protections offered by the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") in place. We have the right to bear arms, and that is something I don't ever see going away.

In addition, the talk that "if we outlaw guns, then we will be safer" is rather ridiculous. How many gun-wielding criminals get their guns through legal channels?

 

[jonny]

No problem with guns here.

I spent quite a bit of time on my grnadfather's ranch as well as some time on farms in West Texas. We used handguns, rifles, and shotguns for shooting just about everything from stuffed animals, stray dogs, sick animals and other vermin such as feral cats, praire dogs, and wild boars (excellent for sausage). I used Grandpa's Colt .45 and .357 Mag - both with hollow points - to kill cats and finish off wild boars.

We found guns to provide a clean farm and entertainment (shooting bottles of beer, old TVs, and an occasional tailgate -- guys who kept sis' out a bit too long).

Granpa put up the Colt when they stopped making them, but he still travels with the .357 in the door of his truck - something that I personally oppose, but he does drive the most car-jacked truck in Texas. I have a cousin who also travels with a handgun and he's actually pulled it a couple of times in Abilene, but he's a bit more hot-blooded than the average redneck.

After the Columbine shootings in Colorado, the schools in West Texas started making sure that me and my fellow classmates remembered to take all of the shells and guns out of our trucks from the work that we did over the weekend. There was more than one kid who left his guns in his gunrack before coming to school on Monday - some of them made the news, but the principals were usually wired into the local aristocracy to keep the fellers out of real trouble.

My roommate has a Colt .45. It's one of my favorite guns to shoot.