USA and the Gun Lobby

[MikeAussieGuy]

The latest shooting of 3 children on top of last weeks shooting of a girl at her school makes me wonder about the well known power of the Gun Lobby in the USA and its ability to scare the pants off politicians from even mentioning gun control.

I did some research amongst the hundreds of thousands of sites dedicated to this subject, both pro and anti. Just too much to go into it here however one site that reports gun violence in the USA is worthy of showing to gauge the true level of gun violence related crimes in the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/0,,182056,00.html It seems never ending.

As I understand it, when the Constitution was written and included the famous Second Amendment that states "every citizen has the right to bear arms" it was in the days of President Lincoln, and I guess it is obvious why it was included in those days. However this is 2006 and yet that clause in the Second Amendment remains today resulting with very little control in most states of the USA.

Further there is doubt that this Amendment so often used by the pro gun lobby does in fact mean what they construe it to mean and I quote from a recent Senate debate -

"Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service"[33] Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other" etc.

As late as last week a bill before the Senate was vetoed calling for the inclusion of child proof safety features on all guns, can you believe this?

What say my fellow TF'ers on this issue, should the Constitution be amended to commence bringing in gun control so as to take out the one salient point that the pro gun lobby continuously uses to thwart gun control?

[sunsnow]

Sorry, just wanted to add that you forgot that last Friday also a 15 year old shot a principal dead in Wisconsin. :-(

Not a citizen of US, so as an outsider who has not been grown up in the US environment and thus been brainswashed/understand better why there should be no gun control, I'd say: gun control huuray! (I mean, because I am not an US citzen, I can't understand the lack of gun controls or the big support for right to bear arms. )

But this is a very interesting topic, in Europe and in Japan as a whole there is totally different attitude towards guns.

Maybe something to reflect on the deep differences is an example I can share and know of: In Europe for example one religious group feels that guns are bad (just instinct, and general environment that people are grown up I guess then), and should be avoided. But some of the same people from the same group in USA feel that they see nothing "wrong" in having a shotgun at home to "protect" etc. And this, I like to emphasise, is from a group under very strickt GLOBAL rules: meaning everyone follows the same ways, there is no sects under the religious group. So to find out this difference in attitudes towards guns...is coming from something very deep rooted American here I think. It baffles me.

But statistically: everything shows that more gun control, less guns at homes (legally), less guns illegally at streets, means less gun related violence. Right? So, a mind game: AS many supporters of right to bear arms claim that "we need guns to protect us from evil people" as such is WRONG, right?(In a situation of "clean slate".) BUT what would indeed happen if you impose gun control and take away the EXISTING guns from their rightfull owners? The claim is from gun supporters that then the good people are left without protection and bad people can do what they want. After all, the situation IS so screwed up in USA that the bad people have a lot more guns than they do in Europe! Is this a vicious cycle then, that cannot be stopped, and everyone just have to be satisfied with the current situation and continue their gun powder filled lifes "as usual"?

Oh and what about those people who say this amendment was included to protect private citizens from the EVIL GOVERNMENT! This is also an intriguing difference I would like to say between US and Europe. Some claim guns are to protect from the government that comes and takes civil rights away or attacks against their own people if there is no guns at homes. And as long as citizens have guns,government don't dare to attack against them! (Irony? See how much US government has still been able to eat away privacy and rights of it's own people, just by legislation, little do the guns protect from this kind of government, eh....) This kind of reason to bear arms is also IMHO forgetting that the "eerie, evil" Government and its forces STILL consist from real humans made of flesh, meaning: to "attack" against citizens would require other humans, citizens to do the assault....And would that happen, after all, some moral, right??? Now, truth is, people should be afraid and question their governments actions sure, sometimes I feel that in Europe governments indeed run over it's citizens much more easily than in US...(But yet, :-D, US has spawned also very nutty groups that claim that governent should not require anything from it's citizens, and almost anything they try to regulate is evil conspiracy, I've seen the some new world order, whatnot BS and stuff like that claims that even having similar ID cards across the states is somekind of horrible consipracy plan...here every kid has it's social security card and have no reason to be scared that the Government is following his/her foot steps )

(But sometimes, goverments stand up for their citizens too, against other governments: take example of the US requirement of handing over flight traveller information and how EU is standing against this kind of invasion...)

[Neo]

Yes to gun control. Until there are comprehensive laws against carrying guns there's no hope of reducing gun related crime rates in the US (which as we all know are ridiculously high). Right now there's little the police can do to take weapons away from thugs and criminals, they need the legislation to empower them to do so.

The famously misinterpreted 'right to bear arms' has come to mean this: "The right for your neighbour or the guy in the next car to point a gun at your face", Is that what American citizens really want? I hope not.

[eagle]

once again the thing about gun control is it doesn;t keep guns out of criminals hands or the cops. The obssesion with violence and power is whats wrong.and I'll shoot the first person who disagrees :shock:

[afook06]

What does this have any concerns, towards othere countries? What ever is right ot wrong with any gun issues in the USA, has to be decided by our citizens residing in the USA only Eddie

[The Punisher]

"Gun's don't kill people, people kill people" I beleive the famous saying goes. So obvioisly, we should not give guns to people.

[sunsnow]

The problem is when people get a hold of them..

True.

I guess that if there was more strict gun control in USA, there would be less innocent lifes lost. It would not mean that criminals would start rule the country (they already do ).

Nothing wrong with hunting rifles and hunting etc. But needless to say: in Finland is very strict gun rules, and still, time to time some depressed family man takes his licensed hunting rifle or shotgun and shoots his family and himself. This does not prove that gun regulations are useless and as well we should/could have more lenient rules on getting gun permits, because "people kill people with guns or without guns with these hard rules, so lets go the other way then". (Gun is an impersonal weapon, making killing maybe "easier", maybe there would be even LESS family killings if there were even less lisenced weapons!)

But the fact that the atmosphere is strict, has affect on the fact that there is not as much gun related violence as in USA. I wonder if anyone can deny the fact that less weapons means less gun related violence.

(BUT maybe the violence moves to other "equipment" if guns are not available? Finns prefer knives for example :-()

Is there then in general more violence in USA than in Finland for example? At least we don't have mass killings by knives...but would the general level of violence, because dead person is dead person whether he/she was killed with fists, gun or knive , be less if there were strict rules on guns? Dunno. :-O The atmosphere must change.

[MikeAussieGuy]

Interesting views, except for the obvious one.

I am doing some more research so I'll be back ASAP.

[Neo]

once again the thing about gun control is it doesn;t keep guns out of criminals hands or the cops. The obssesion with violence and power is whats wrong.and I'll shoot the first person who disagrees :shock:

I agree with the obsession comment. But while guns are legal and readily available to everyone nothing can be done to reduce their availability to criminals. If there weren't any gun shops and there weren't any law abiding gun toters then surely it would gradually become much harder for criminals to get guns. Just my opinion, since I don't live there (anymore).

Ok so shoot me :wink:

[eagle]

once again the thing about gun control is it doesn;t keep guns out of criminals hands or the cops. The obssesion with violence and power is whats wrong.and I'll shoot the first person who disagrees :shock:

I agree with the obsession comment. But while guns are legal and readily available to everyone nothing can be done to reduce their availability to criminals. If there weren't any gun shops and there weren't any law abiding gun toters then surely it would gradually become much harder for criminals to get guns. Just my opinion, since I don't live there (anymore).

Ok so shoot me :wink:

outlaws get their guns illegally anyway so your theory doesn't work

bang bang

[eagle]

from what I hear Cops in UK don't carry guns and people don;t shoot people as much and they have the same access. ??

[mnm]

To all of you who think gun control will end needless killing of innocent people, you are 100% incorrect. If someone is wants to kill someone else there are many other weapons for them to chose from. Should we also ban knives, scissors, rope, razor blades, or anything made of glass, which could be broken and a weapon created by doing so.

Let's be realistic criminals make stupid decisions, the most obvious is to break the laws. There will always be criminals, we as law abiding citizens have to come up with a better way of dealing with them to protect the innocent.

mnm

[Neo]

To all of you who think gun control will end needless killing of innocent people, you are 100% incorrect. If someone is wants to kill someone else there are many other weapons for them to chose from.

Road rage in the US often results in death by gunshot wounds, in most other western countries it results in little more than a black eye.

And what about some kid deciding to end it all at school? So he's going to take out a dozen of his classmates with a pair of safety scissors from the art room?

And drive by murders with a knife? Gangs in the US shoot innocent people just for initiation rites, if they don't have guns are they going to kill that many people? Certainly not 100% of those who die today.

100% incorrect? Sorry that's incorrect. You'll need a better excuse to justify wild west gun laws in a 'civilised' nation.

[vbroker]

"Gun's don't kill people, people kill people" I beleive the famous saying goes. So obvioisly, we should not give guns to people.

Or knives, bats, cars, petrol, matches, rope, chemicals, pipes, screw drivers, sledge hammers, ice picks, pit bulls, etc.

I love guns, i think they are beautiful, works of art, in an engineering sense.

The problem is when people get a hold of them..

The problem is when criminals get a hold of them. The problem is not the vast majority of law abiding gun owners/users. One problem is lax law enforcement.

If there weren't any gun shops and there weren't any law abiding gun toters then surely it would gradually become much harder for criminals to get guns. Just my opinion, since I don't live there (anymore).

If there weren't any pharmacies and there weren't any law abiding pharmaceutical drug consumers then surely it would gradually become much harder for pharmaceutical drug abusers to get drugs. Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.

There will always be criminals, we as law abiding citizens have to come up with a better way of dealing with them to protect the innocent.

Enforce existing laws and start by removing judges and prosecutors who refuse to do just that.

And what about some kid deciding to end it all at school? So he's going to take out a dozen of his classmates with a pair of safety scissors from the art room?

He might with one of the latest crossbows. But why go through the hassle? A homemade bomb will suffice. How to instructions on your friendly neighborhood website. Let's shut down the chemical industry, shall we?

Fifty years ago there were far less gun restrictions then there are today. Drive by shootings, suicidal assaults on police, school children and other innocents were unheard of. San Francisco has one of the most restrictive gun policies in the U.S. So guess who have all the guns? And guess what we have one or two of per week here? The absolute disregard for respect for others and traditional values is the root cause. Where are traditional values learned from? Your community, neighbors, extended family and parents. And what happened to these traditional units? The utter attack on and trashing of traditional marriage. The anything goes attitude today's youth have toward authority. It is learned or untaught. Like racism is learned. Until that is addressed the problems will remain. The rest of the "remedies" target the symptoms.

[MikeAussieGuy]

I wont backtrack and comment on the posts as sufficient has been said and I dont want to turn this post into giving my own opinions on someone elses. I'm more interested in what peoples opinions are.

When writing this post, I couldn't help but think back to my first visit to the USA, I was attending a seminar in Fort Worth. I went across to Dallas to see the book store where Kennedy was shot, or supposedly shot from. There on the door was sign I will never forget that read along the lines of "please check your guns in at the gun holding counter".

My next trip was to the Scientific Triangle in Rawley in Carolina, can't remember if it was North or South. There at a supermarket, sitting in the back of a pick up that had a rack of guns fixed to the back window was a boy no older than 7 with a rifle cradled in his arms guarding his dads pickup while he went in shopping. I have absolutely no doubt given the way this kid looked at everyone that passed by he would not have hesitated to shoot anyone approaching the car. Bullets in the rifle? Dont know.

[PrinceofCalifornia]

Some interesting comments.

I agree yes to gun control....but, there has to be a serious plan to get the guns out of the hands of those who possess them already.

We have to right the wrong and address the future as well.

[sunsnow]

"Gun's don't kill people, people kill people" I beleive the famous saying goes. So obvioisly, we should not give guns to people.

Or knives, bats, cars, petrol, matches, rope, chemicals, pipes, screw drivers, sledge hammers, ice picks, pit bulls, etc.

I love guns, i think they are beautiful, works of art, in an engineering sense.

The problem is when people get a hold of them..

The problem is when criminals get a hold of them. The problem is not the vast majority of law abiding gun owners/users. One problem is lax law enforcement.

There is one thing wrong with this deduction: the cases MikeAussieGuy for example presented were done by these law abiding citizens! These were NOT criminals with criminal history ala gang bangers. I pondered exactly this: there will always be criminals and "law abiding citizens who kill people" BUT if we restrict the availability of guns, I GUESS it would lead to situation with LESS "mass murder": as said earlier: it is a bit hard to make drive by with knives etc. Having guns "lying around" lowers the limit of starting using this powerful killing tools, by the criminals and by the "law abiding" citizens, this is what I presume. Or what if gangs did the old fashioned way: kicking each others butts with shackles and sticks. No stray bullets hitting the kids in the ghetto...(But as the aclaimed documentary Bowling for Columbine suggested, it is not just the guns out there...as said here: for example ppl who want get what they want...It is maybe something much harder to root out, something in the "air" in US, BUT again, that should not stop taking the "easy" measures first by limiting availability..)

[GoldMember]

Guns like drugs will be available to anyone who wants to get them, regardless of law, some through legal reasons through the love of guns, some like criminals will get them because they want or need them.

Arseholes are arseholes, give them a gun and they become dangerous arseholes.

We need a law that identifies arseholes.

It's an argument no one will win.

Right in the UK guns are illegal yet easily obtainable.Cross the channel into France and its a different story...ditto most other west european countries.So what drives a guy to a get a gun? Has to be something to do with their upbringing and the community they live in.You only have to go to more affluent city districts/regions in the country to see that this sort of crime is far lower/virtually non existent.I've only ever seen one shooting in London and that was whilst strolling past a bank , some dumb ass crook was ambushed and taken out by undercover police when trying to hold up a Securicor van.Ambulance took ages to get to him.Should have scheduled a non rush hour heist.

[MikeAussieGuy]

I found this article in the Register Guard, it seems to me if the information is accurate the trend is towards a more relaxed view of the use of firearms rather than increased control. I had to read it twice to believe what I was reading.

Feeling lucky, punk?

A Register-Guard Editorial

Published: Thursday, August 17, 2006

Florida's groundbreaking "Make My Day" law is catching on since taking effect last October. Fourteen more states have passed similar legislation expanding the right of crime victims to kill people in self-defense, and another eight appear ready to join the posse.

Actually, a person doesn't have to be much of a victim to blow someone away under these so-called "stand your ground" laws. There's no obligation to prove fear of imminent harm.

The National Rifle Association's legal wizards have taken all the guesswork out of killing someone who doesn't belong in your home or car. Bottom line: Just do it. Fire at will.

Florida's law and its various clones contain an automatic presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home or a car is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. That presumption can't be countered with contrary evidence.

An inebriated next-door neighbor mistakenly stumbles through the wrong back door? Tough luck for him if the home is defended by the firm of Smith & Wesson. Case closed.

These laws also forbid the arrest, detention or prosecution of the "victims," or the filing of civil suits against them. Laws modeled after the Florida statute remove any requirement that citizens first seek a safe retreat from the threatening situation before resorting to deadly force.

The gun lobby has managed to give untrained, ordinary citizens "more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review," said Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association.

In reality, the safety of snuggling up with a warm Glock 9mm and a bowl of popcorn leaves something to be desired. Research shows that the use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death.

A gun kept in the home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to be used in self-defense.

Here's another heartwarming statistic the gun lobby neglects to mention in its efforts to arm America: The firearms-related death rate for children younger than 15 in the United States is nearly 12 times higher than that of the other 25 industrialized countries - combined.

Now, as the NRA pressures more states to copy Florida's bloodthirsty shoot-to-kill law, it's worth restating the core assumptions of such legislation: that human life is worth less than property or peace of mind; that unarmed burglars deserve the death penalty; and that within their own homes, citizens are free to be judge, jury and executioner.

Feeling safer yet?

[farang_subson]

Google something like "texas gun laws crime rate". Texas has, within the last decade or so, allowed licensees to hold concealed weapons (whereas other states don't)...making the state a laboratory for gun control studies. As usual in the real world, the issue is complex, and maybe the NRA has some arguments that shouldn't be offhandedly dismissed.

Most of the banter so far has been over safety issues...does owning a gun make the holder and his family safer? That's an important question, but don't forget to mix "freedom" into the equation. That used to be part of being American...you sacrifice a bit of safety for an extra measure of freedom.

[Neo]

If there weren't any pharmacies and there weren't any law abiding pharmaceutical drug consumers then surely it would gradually become much harder for pharmaceutical drug abusers to get drugs. Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.

Yes I think it would make a difference to the amount of abuse if the drugs were not available over the counter. In fact that's why there are restrictions on certain types of pharmaceutical drugs in the US. You already have laws that effectively reduce such drug abuse.

However I do agree that the legal availability is not the heart of the problem, but if changing the law saves even 10% of the lives lost through gun violence isn't it worth it? Bear in mind it's not only thugs that kill people with guns, it's children, road ragers, people 'defending' themselves from unarmed robbers. Where does it say in the constitution, "you have the right to kill?"

[vbroker]

Now, as the NRA pressures more states to copy Florida's bloodthirsty shoot-to-kill law, it's worth restating the core assumptions of such legislation: that human life is worth less than property or peace of mind; that unarmed burglars deserve the death penalty; and that within their own homes, citizens are free to be judge, jury and executioner.

Feeling safer yet?

Yep. I am feeling safer. The "human life" that breaks into someone's home with harm intent IS worth less than property and peace of mind. Alot less. I'm a simple guy and this is very simple: If you break into my home and put me and my family's life in danger, I have the right to defend myself and end the threat by ending you. I wonder...is the Register Guard a western European publication? It would not surprise me if it were.

Most of the banter so far has been over safety issues...does owning a gun make the holder and his family safer? That's an important question, but don't forget to mix "freedom" into the equation. That used to be part of being American...you sacrifice a bit of safety for an extra measure of freedom.

It is YOUR responsibility as a registered gun owner to keep your weapon out of the hands of others esp. your children. This is no different than safeguarding drugs or poisons you may have in your home. Better to train your children in safe gun use. That there are accidents once in a while is testament to the human condition; we make mistakes sometimes with brutal consequences. That is not an argument to summarily ban everyone from owning a gun. It is also your responsibility to know how to use your weapon by getting down to a firing range once in a while.

Yes I think it would make a difference to the amount of abuse if the drugs were not available over the counter. In fact that's why there are restrictions on certain types of pharmaceutical drugs in the US. You already have laws that effectively reduce such drug abuse.

Drug abusers have always found ways around any law; that's not to say such laws shouldn't be in existance. I'm not going off topic here; let's just say I believe you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Again.

...but if changing the law saves even 10% of the lives lost through gun violence isn't it worth it? Bear in mind it's not only thugs that kill people with guns, it's children, road ragers, people 'defending' themselves from unarmed robbers. Where does it say in the constitution, "you have the right to kill?"

This is ingenious. Maybe those people "defending" themselves from unarmed robbers should cower in a room corner and allow those robbers to take everything; maybe a child or two too, huh? Hey, he's not armed and everyone gets to live. All's well that ends well. Looney Tunes left wing reasoning at its apex. Your "argument" is no argument; it's blabbering ignorance. I can't wait for your next pearl of wisdom.

[sunsnow]

Yep. I am feeling safer. The "human life" that breaks into someone's home with harm intent IS worth less than property and peace of mind. Alot less. I'm a simple guy and this is very simple: If you break into my home and put me and my family's life in danger, I have the right to defend myself and end the threat by ending you. I wonder...is the Register Guard a western European publication? It would not surprise me if it were.

This is ingenious. Maybe those people "defending" themselves from unarmed robbers should cower in a room corner and allow those robbers to take everything; maybe a child or two too, huh? Hey, he's not armed and everyone gets to live. All's well that ends well. Looney Tunes left wing reasoning at its apex. Your "argument" is no argument; it's blabbering ignorance. I can't wait for your next pearl of wisdom.

Essentially you think you kill person robbing your house without thinkin' twice, right? It doesn't realy matter does he threaten you, as long as he/she is just robbing your home, you can kill the perp? Because you mention "threaten your family" but essentially everything else around that wording is just saying that as long as someone is ROBBING your place, you can kill him.

And yes, the criminals life is more worth than anything I own! I would not kill anyone just protecting my TV. Seriously! Shoot to kill? Oh that is hard. Just to balance out, I think the home owner should hitry to get rid of the robber in other means than just banging the offenders head off with a gun! Or maybe I just don't get your sarcasm (?)...

I agree with your own words: simple person. Anyone who thinks that anything he/she owns s worth killing for, well, indeed has very simple moral and ethical values. (Intriguing is also how in USA these kinds of attitudes run wild among both fundamental christian circles as well with more liberal circles, but as you use words "Looney Tunes leftwing" when referring to gun control and safety issues, my guess then in similar way is that you are more into voting "conservative, right wing gun toting rebulicans with NRA as their bookmarks in web browser" into parlament? )

I would definetly defend my LIFE or my familys life with (deadly) force if it goes there by accident, BUT I damn am not going to say and would promote and legislate laws that push forward idea of "yeah, kill the ***** if he is robbing your home"...Thats the tone I got from your reply.

Seriously, maybe you can enlighten more, now it seems you are shooting first anything that moves and don't even bother ask the questions later.... Which I hope is not the "true" picture...

Ok,

[Neo]

Feeling safer yet?

Yep. I am feeling safer. The "human life" that breaks into someone's home with harm intent IS worth less than property and peace of mind. Alot less.

Wow thats astounding. Well there's no arguing with someone who thinks his property is worth more than other peoples lives. Hail to the just and mighty judge jury and executioner, who just accidentaly killed the mailman.

Yes I think it would make a difference to the amount of abuse if the drugs were not available over the counter. In fact that's why there are restrictions on certain types of pharmaceutical drugs in the US. You already have laws that effectively reduce such drug abuse.

Drug abusers have always found ways around any law; that's not to say such laws shouldn't be in existance. I'm not going off topic here; let's just say I believe you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Again.

So you're advocating no laws against criminals because they don't work. Or not? Which is it? Either way you just contradicted yourself. Again.

...but if changing the law saves even 10% of the lives lost through gun violence isn't it worth it? Bear in mind it's not only thugs that kill people with guns, it's children, road ragers, people 'defending' themselves from unarmed robbers. Where does it say in the constitution, "you have the right to kill?"

This is ingenious. Maybe those people "defending" themselves from unarmed robbers should cower in a room corner and allow those robbers to take everything; maybe a child or two too, huh? Hey, he's not armed and everyone gets to live. All's well that ends well. Looney Tunes left wing reasoning at its apex. Your "argument" is no argument; it's blabbering ignorance. I can't wait for your next pearl of wisdom.

So it's better to have a fatal shoot out (where the 'victim' is statisically as likely to die as the 'criminal') than to lose a stereo and an ipod? Hmmm, strange ethics you have there Mr vbroker.

I guess if you're gonna put money and property ahead of lives it makes it easier to justify things like pharmaceutical companies denying aids riden coutries badly needed medicines. All part of the Republican ethic apparently (although not very Christian I might add). The god given right to make money and kill people. I stand enlightened.

[zeusbheld]

aside from the question of whether it is both legal and ethical to shoot someone who tresspasses in your house, perhaps a more interesting question is...

do you really need a handgun to defend your house? seems to me the stopping power of a handgun pales in comparison to buckshot. i dont see why anyone who is not a crimiinal or a cop needs a handgun, perhaps someone can explain this to me.

secondly, does anyone really need an assault rifle to defend their house? how often do criminals stage a full scale assault on a home?

i can't see why anyone would anything but a shotgun for killing people, unless they had to conceal it (and to my mind if they need to conceal their gun they're already up to something, but then i come from hillbilly country where every pickup had a gun rack). shotguns offer the added benefit of poor penetration: assault rifles might go right through your wall and kill the honors' student in the next house, whereas shotguns dont penetrate a wall generally.

as to whether banning handguns actually works, it would be interesting to see two sets of statistics:

1) gun-related crimes in texas, since concealed-carry by civilians was allowed

2) gun-related crimes in china, where guns are highly illegal and the penalties serious.