Should Guns be Banned in the US?

Still hip

Thank you, you seem to back up my theory. If you want to read the longer version please go back in this thread to posts 304 and 305.

But here is an edited shorter version.

*

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries…..

…..As I’ve said guns are a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ (and anyone else) will be too afraid to act badly.

The view prevalent among pro-gunners that America is a more polite society because of widespread gun ownership is also based on this idea of repression it basically about the threat of – ‘be polite or else’ - not real politeness but politeness at the point of a gun.

*

So is it true that an armed society is a politer society, or is it just that an armed society is a paranoid society that is just being polite out of fear?

And it begs the question, why not try and bring about a society where people are polite because they are polite not just out of fear that they might be shot?

The thing is that, maybe you already have it, maybe your society is as polite as it is and guns and gun ownership have nothing to do with it, it’s just a myth and says more about the mentality of pro-gunners than about reality?

Because I’ve been to the US (well California at least) and I’ve meet a lot of Americans from all over the states, and the thing is that they seem as polite (or not) as any other people I’ve meet and I’ve live and travelled extensively in Europe and I’d say that there is really very little difference in the range and the amount of politeness between those people and Americans, and it seems they don’t need the threat of getting shot to be polite.

So why is it that so many pro-gunners in the US think they need guns to have polite Americans?

 

Still hip

But not everything else has been designed specifically as a weapon.

A knife or baseball bat (the mostly commonly cited example of other weapons, if guns were banned) were designed with other purposes in mind, and yes they can be misused to kill - but shooting and killing someone with a gun is not a misuse of the gun that is what the gun was designed for so basically that is its purpose (not for hunting or collecting but for killing other human beings).

 

To repeat - I’m not against the law abiding and responsible people owning a gun – but how responsible is it to have a working gun on open display in a home or car?

According to the FBI virtually all the guns in criminal hands were once purchased legally but then sold on or stolen.

So how responsible is it to have guns around that could be easily stolen?

Once again I ask - Do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals

I know the default answer for many is simply – that can’t be done – but please would they go beyond that and answer yes or no – do they want guns out of the hands of the criminal and irresponsible?

And if so how far are you willing to go to achieve that?

 

Still Hip

As I’ve said I’m not against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, for hunting or collecting, or because they like to shoot at targets, but protection?

If someone wants a gun for protection then they are frightened, frightened of the very society they live in, so afraid that they feel they need to be armed with a gun to protect them from it. But why are they afraid?

Just saying as many seemed to – they just are and so need a gun – doesn’t cut it with me because it means little though has been given to the issue - and my point is that it seems to me that all to often when a person gets a gun the question of why is never addressed. The attitude just seems to become – I’ve got a gun I don’t have to care about that shit, if anyone tries to mess with me I can shoot them –

 

Well, I know that in WWII, right after Dunkirk, the Americans were asked to give up their personal firearms, which were shipped to England so the British citizens would have something to fight with if the Germans attempted an invasion of England. since the British had been stripped of most of their firearms before then by their benevolent government.
Broomsticks, and umbrellas will only do so much.
If you think this is a warm and fuzzy world, come live in any big American city, you will soon learn to pack heat, or face the consequences.

 

Observation: -
Over here carrying Guns is illegal (unless certified for hunting, farming and specific clubs)
Any holders are subject to Police checks and regular checks
- And still they accessible and carried by people of dubious nature and character
Make anything illegal and it will only go underground
For those in the US - It is iThink a cultural thing, they have been integrated into its lifestyle over a number of years and I guess are viewed as a utensil / tool (?)
I do not feel the necessity to own, let alone carry one – but I think that the is down to the people of the Nation themselves to make a decision of conscience, as to the desire to do so, or not - as the case may be
eace:

 

bullshit, have lived in sf, ny and la - in crappy neighborhoods and out a lot at night - without a gun

of course, i'm dead . . .

 

Lafin

In 1939 I believe the British army stood at 1.1 million, we also had the largest navy in the world and what turned out to be an excellent air force. I think you are confusing a propaganda style publicity stunt aimed at getting Americans on side (which didn’t happen until Hitler declared war on the US) with the reality of the situation. You know the kind of thing - plucky Brit’s with their back up against the wall need Americans guns.

 

Lafin

Oh yes! Thank you, this is exactly the type of mentality I’ve been highlighting.

If you want the full text please go and read posts 304 and 305 in this thread. But it seems to be all there –

1) The world view that it is a dangerous threatening world were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them.

2) The attitude that accepts the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control

3) Being afraid of their society

4) Trying to spread that fear.

It is my contention that if this mentality didn’t exist, many social and political problems (like the bad condition of many US cities) would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

 

Premise 1 is not needed to justify premise 2. A world view with a much less dangerous and frightening world would be sufficient.

 

Balbus: A few follow ups to your comments. The time period I'm referring to where people had guns on display in their homes and in their cars was in the 1970's and 80's. It was the tail end of a culture that my father had experienced growing up in the 40's, 50's and 60's and it was in the American Deep South, a region known for its genteel society and for historically being "behind" the rest of the country.

It was also a time before violent crime was as prevalent as it is today. In fact, it was a time when people rarely locked their homes or their cars and burglary was very, very rare. Unfortunately, even that region of the country no longer enjoys the benefits of low crime, a situation more accurately blamed on drugs than guns.

I can understand how, with your experience of the US being limited to you've been to California and met some Americans, you would have a difficult time understanding the cultural complexity and diversity that is this country. Even the single state you mention, California, is highly diverse. Known as the "Left Coast" by conservative Americans, California has some of the most violent inner city areas in the US while at the same time is a major farming state with large undeveloped areas. It has very oppressive gun laws yet this is the state where Bill Cosby's kid was shot and killed while changing a tire. This is the state where a white truck driver was beaten almost to death with a brick by a black mob. There's really way too much cultural complexity to even go into, it's a beautiful state and a wonderful place to visit.

Today, I live in Washington, DC, arguably the rudest city in the US. We have the most stringent gun laws in the country. Basically, it is illegal for a citizen to carry a gun in Washington and until very recently, it was illegal for a gun to be owned in the home. Now that you can legally own a gun in your home, we've adopted a very European type of ownership. You must register to own a gun before you can buy it. You must have it secured in your home and be available for inspection by law enforcement.

Simply from observation, the areas with the highest crime rates in the US are also the areas with the toughest gun laws. It appears that Europe is not immune, there's gun violence there as well. An unarmed citizenship is easy prey and gun laws do not stop criminals.

I previously mentioned the association between crime and drugs. And to define drugs, I'm referring to "street" drugs like meth, crack, crank, and now "bath salts" (which are a big news story the last few weeks). Hard to argue against the use of these drugs being the primary contributor to violence in the US and to the perceived gun problem.

Was the shooter in Arizona on meth? no. Was the shooter at Va. Tech on drugs? no. However, regardless of how well publicized and unfortunate these isolated events were, they are minor in relation to the violence experienced by those in inner city America and have their own root causes. Those were sick individuals who would have used a bomb or some other method of violence had a gun not been available, possibly leading to greater fatalities than what was generated.

Today, we have generations of youth raised in poverty and violence. Unfortunately, these issues are no longer isolated to the city but also impact suburban and rural America at increasingly alarming rates.

If the end game is to stop violence, you can't do it with gun laws. You have to address the problem and a big part of that problem is the street drugs that infect America.

Want to legalize pot, great, let’s do it. I'm all for it. I believe legalizing pot will address a lot of issues in this country and I don't see pot heads breaking the window of my car to steal the coins out of my cup holder or committing home invasions. (Don’t construe my comments as anti-pot, I see a big difference between pot and other drugs.)

 

This thread is the epitome of beating a dead horse, but I'll leave you guys with this to argue over

In gun news though, Swiss voters rejected an attempt to strengthen restrictions on home gun ownership.

Also a theory, countries born out of revolution and/or mass uprising, and especially ones that have had militia at the heart of their society continue centuries later to have a national psyche that revolves around it and leads to laxer gun regulation, at least in comparison to countries around them.(For example, both the US and Canada have relatively lax gun laws, but US's are far much more relaxed, same applies to Switzerland, Finland, Czech republic, even France when comparing it to the nations around it. All nations basically born from revolution and/or with militia mindset.) Discuss.

 

Well really he's right, as someone who's been to New York god knows how many times, to quote Ac/Dc, I feel safe in New York City. In fact I'd be more unsafe in an empty rural area. Cities are not inherently violent. New York got its act together and did wonderful things. D.C. and L.A., not so much.

 

you wouldn't say that if i had a gun

HA HA HA

kissy kissy!

 

Mad

The Swiss have still got a citizen army and many there seem to see being able to use a gun as part of their civic duty. They also have a rich society with a lot less of the socio-economic problems prevalent to some parts of the US. It also has a well developed social welfare system and their mentality towards prison rehabilitation and drugs is very different from the US as reflected in their prison populations Switzerland 69 per 100,000, US a massive 686 per 100,000.

France has a gun culture but at least when I was there, it was based very much around hunting rather than for personal protection. The country also has a well developed social welfare system (and a prison population of 85 per 100,000).

Hunting is also very prevalent in Finland (I believe personal protection isn’t seen as a valid reason for gun ownership while hunting is) The country also has a Scandinavia style welfare system (and a prison population 59 per 100,000).

Thing is that it is difficult to compare ‘national psyches’ but from my point of view many Americans seem to have a much more pronounced ‘individualistic’ ideas (as in freedom from government or pulling yourself up by your bootstraps) while many Europeans have a much more community based viewpoint (seeing government as a means of helping people).

To me this also seems to colour their view toward guns, in the US they are seen as a protection against government and socio-economic problems such as crime, while in Europe personal protection isn’t seen as such a priority and social welfare is seen as a means of tackling socio-economic problems.

 

Still hip

I’ve already addressed that when Mad brought it up -

(Post 288) “They see guns as a means to tackle the symptoms of the problems. And so it is not surprising that this mentality also promotes gun ownership as a means of tackling such things.

You are doing it again in your reply - you are promoting the idea that it is a ‘fact’ uncontested and undisputable that more gun ownership correlates directly (and by implication solely) to lower crime rates.

You almost scream the assertion - admit guns do play a role in crime........they lower it.

Well first that isn’t a ‘fact’ it is an opinion and one that is strongly and vigorously contested and disputed by others because it often seems based on a very subjective interpretation of the evidence and/or methodically dubious data. At best it is an unproven assertion, at worst a myth.”

As I said then and will say again this is an example of the mentality I’ve been talking about the problem is not so much legitimate gun ownership but the attitudes and mentality of gun owners, their viewpoint and outlook on their society.

To you the view that widespread gun ownership directly results in lower crime rates is a ‘simple fact’. But that view seems to me to be based on and promotes the mentality that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate means of societal control and as I’ve tried to explain this mindset seems to get in the way of such people actually working toward solutions to their socio-economic and political problems. (see posts 304-305).

And it’s not just about threat but being threatened being afraid. I mean look at your short post and you get -

“before violent crime was as prevalent as it is today”

“the most violent inner city areas in the US”

“Bill Cosby's kid was shot and killed while changing a tire”

“a white truck driver was beaten almost to death with a brick by a black mob”

“An unarmed citizenship is easy prey”

“minor in relation to the violence experienced by those in inner city America”

“committing home invasions”

All these heighten the idea of threat and while you do say the causes should be tackled that is rather vague while the massage that it is better to be armed with a gun is clear as is the promotion of gun ownership –

“It has very oppressive gun laws yet this is the state where Bill Cosby's kid was shot and killed while changing a tire”

“Simply from observation, the areas with the highest crime rates in the US are also the areas with the toughest gun laws”

“An unarmed citizenship is easy prey and gun laws do not stop criminals.”

“If the end game is to stop violence, you can't do it with gun laws”


PS:

Well I don’t know if you’ve ever visited Europe but for cultural complexity and diversity I think it wins hands down on the US. And having lived and travelled extensively in Europe I think I might have a little understanding of the phenomena.

 

Still Hip

To repeat from Post 313

“Now in the US as in other countries there are people campaigning to get such laws reformed or overturned so new methods not based on criminality can be pursued.

But a lot of the people in the US that are champions of gun ownership are also against having a drug policy aimed at decriminalisation, healthcare and helping addicts.”

And as I’ve been pointing out all along – the mentality of many pro-gunners is opposed to the very idea of socio-economic and political change that might actually improve the situation to the point where many Americans didn’t feel so frightened of their society and fellow citizens that they thought they needed a gun to protect themselves from them.

*

 

I saw something that came up on something in the BBC that I thought I'd share since it's relevant to guns and was a good article overall
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9398000/9398261.stm

230 years later and Americans still don't trust their government.

 

will let you know when i stop laughing

[i will probably be crying]

 

Not gonna lie, I laughed too.