USA and the Gun Lobby

[falangboy]

One thing that you have to consider is that there aren't one set of rules for all of the US. Each state creates its own law. You would have a hard time to get all states to pass similar gun control laws. Compare Texas to NY for example.

Also, if you take a look at the statistics in the US, the states that have less restrictive gun laws tend to have fewer gun related crimes as well. I can't say its because criminals are afraid of their victims as I've never asked them but it may have something to do with it.

As for me, I was a gun owner before moving to BKK and I enjoyed using it (not on the mailman). I have no problems with stricter laws but most times the gun lobby fights these laws because you end up on a slippery slope. Before long, outright bans are in place.

The second amendment was put in place so that a leader couldn't disarm the population (the colonies at the time were very leary of higher authorities - as they still are). Centralized power is something that doesn't sit well with most Americans.

And just to go back a bit regarding the comment about the US being such a young country, actually, constitutionally speaking, we're one of the oldest. The structure of the US government has been in tact longer than just about any other country and was challenged only once (the civil war).

[GoldMember]

The second amendment was put in place so that a leader couldn't disarm the population (the colonies at the time were very leary of higher authorities - as they still are). Centralized power is something that doesn't sit well with most Americans.

And just to go back a bit regarding the comment about the US being such a young country, actually, constitutionally speaking, we're one of the oldest. The structure of the US government has been in tact longer than just about any other country and was challenged only once (the civil war).

...and herein lies the problem.Old laws which no longer hold much validity.Bit like British alcohol licensing laws.They were put in place during the 1st world war to stop munition workers from getting too pissed.Yet were only fully repealed about a year ago.Still,better late than never eh :wink:

[vbroker]

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...

I appreciate the request for further enlightenment rather than the usual "if you said this, you must mean this" going off on a wild tangent, putting words in my mouth crap. (This means you, NeoLib). So no, I don't think "shoot first, ask questions later" applies to me. Having said that, many states laws would allow for just that if it were shown a break-in occurred. The arguments for more restrictive laws seem to operate from similar, unreasonable assumptions: that the home/gun owner should find it easy to discern whether or not the criminal(s) is/are armed, what the intent is (simple burglary or worse) and how desperate he, she or they is/are. Often all of this needs to be processed and a conclusion reached in seconds or less. A break-in encounter by nature involves surprise and desperation by both parties. The laws are designed to give the doubt's benefit to the law-abiding, responsible gun owner; where it belongs. I would like to think I would aim low and disable the intruder if I felt discharging the weapon became necessary. The reality may necessitate a different outcome than my intention.

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.

The hand gun is more versatile and affords more single round firing opportunities (at least six shots to as many as ten or more) than the shotgun. Stopping power? Ever fire a Glock 19? Maybe it won't stop an elephant, rhino or hippo but it would a charging crackhead. I'll take a shotgun over nothing, though. If you mean handgun carry permit, I would tend to agree. Unless your profession requires your carrying alot of cash. If you mean outright handgun ban you know where I stand.

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

No and rare thus far. This doesn't mean they should be banned either.

[zeusbheld]

...I seriously doubt there will be any availlable statistics to compare on china

haha right, we can guess the official stat: NONE!

same as the official stat for do-gooders beat down by pimps in barfights: ZERO! (which of course includes the two i've seen).

[zeusbheld]

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

No and rare thus far. This doesn't mean they should be banned either.

personally i feel that full-scale assaults on homes should be banned.

as to assault rifles, where do you stand on full-auto?

[macca_tirana]

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

No and rare thus far. This doesn't mean they should be banned either.

personally i feel that full-scale assaults on homes should be banned.

as to assault rifles, where do you stand on full-auto?

Not in front

[vbroker]

personally i feel that full-scale assaults on homes should be banned.

as to assault rifles, where do you stand on full-auto?

I support and am behind them; especially just before the trigger is pulled.

[zeusbheld]

the australia stats do seem to support the idea that strict gun laws reduce gun-related injuries and deaths. i haven't looked into this in any detail and don't know the specifics of the gun laws, maybe someone can post that?

the louisiana and texas stats show a lot of gun deaths etc. these states have always had lenient gun laws. i dont know when the 'concealed carry' went on the books, however, it has been suggested in some quarters that gun deaths and injuries actually dropped after concealed-carry was allowed. anyone can back that up, feel free.

as it stands, looking briefly at the stats from a rational point of view (and not digging any deeper) seems stricter gun laws do in fact reduce gun-related deaths and injuries.

howevver, i think there is ZERO chance of such laws sticking throughout the US, there are just too many perfectly law-abiding gun enthusiasts. americans just plain like guns, i expect the only places stricter gun laws would pass (and stay passed) is in major cities. i doubt statistics, no matter how convincing, can change that. correct me if i'm wrong but none of the people touting stricter gun laws on this thread are americans?

[i_love_som_tam]

One thing that you have to consider is that there aren't one set of rules for all of the US. Each state creates its own law. You would have a hard time to get all states to pass similar gun control laws. Compare Texas to NY for example.

Not true. The federal government CAN pass a law banning firearms. This becomes the law of the land. The individual states can pass laws that are add more jail time or fines to the federal law but they can not pass laws that are less restrictive. Didn't you listen up in Civics?

[Dave40]

Guns really have only one use and that is obvious, as for banning knives etc they have more than one use what will you eat your dinner with tonite an AK 47 or a shot gun I don't think so, the less guns the less killing simple.

There will always be people (criminals) who can get guns but we can make it harder for them to get them

As for people who want to use them for recreation (hunting farmers gun clubs etc) have them licenced and locked away when not in use not foolproof I know but it is harder to get a hold of them.

[DJCrystaL]

MikeAussieguy will you please furnish me with the senate bill number you spoke of in your original post, I am searching the library of Congress and I can not find it.

[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:

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

bang bang

Actually my theory was put into practice and proven correct. Recently an american police force shut down a gun shop after discovering that most of the weapons recovered from criminals were coming from that one shop. This had a significant effect on the number of weapons recovered from criminals in that city.

[DJCrystaL]

Whilst areas of France lay in ashes and it's populace cowers in fear we lecture the United States about the dangers of personal gun ownership. The fact of the matter is, the United States is not the only country in the world that does not have gun control. Canadian citizens own more guns per capita than do the citizens of the United States. However, they do not have the problems with violence the United States does.

The countries with the highest murder rates in the world do not have citizens who are armed with weapons, and the murders committed in said countries without guns are higher than the total murder rate in the United States. Taiwan, Philipines, Mexico, South Africa etc.

Violence in a population has many contributing factors, the ownership of guns or the right to bear arms is the least of these. High up on the list are ethnic and cultural clashes, disputes over property and rights, and criminals (drug dealers etc) handling "deir bidness." I think this last would explain why Columbia is so high up on the list of countries dealing with this issue, and would explain some of why the rates of gun violence in the United States have climbed.

All of this aside, the overall crime rates in the United States have seen a steady decline in the last twenty years, despite laws that allow individuals in states such as Texas to carry concealed weapons. In fact, as these laws have passed in states such as Texas, their crime rate has dropped dramatically. If one could so easily correlate violence and violent criminal acts to gun ownership implying direct causality, then it should follow that when these laws pass the areas with the laws and greater gun ownership and carrying should see dramatic increases in violent crime, not dramatic decreases. It is difficult, to say the least, to draw a correlation implying causation from these facts.

In fact, correlation is never causation, it's a fallacy-post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Ice cream sales do not cause greater violence, etc.

Saying that the United States does not have gun control laws and has higher violent crime rates than some European countries who have gun control laws, and pointing to this legal difference as the ONLY explanation for the difference in violent crimes is to over simplify the case, and to commit the above fallacy-correlation=causation.

The United States DOES have a problem with violent crime especially compared to certain countries such as Norway and Sweden, however, those countries do not have the gun control laws which are the topic of this particular thread. So it seems the more important question is what does the United States not have in common with these countries, even Canada. It seems to me one of the differences between the United States and these countries is our "melting pot" multi-culturalism among other things.

Even in the countries with gun control laws, murder occurs, though murder by gun is obviously lower, the overall rate, is not necessarily lower. I understand that some people find the United States and its citizens offensive. I understand the need and desire to make the statement, "We find your ignorance offensive." Nonetheless, I don't think that presuming to "teach" the United States how to be less arrogant through arrogance is necessarily the way to accomplish anything. Teaching by example is one thing, but I don't think it is what is going on here.

I understand that many Europeans, though not all, have an intense dislike for the United States and its citizenry, and they feel it is necessary to grasp each and every opportunity to bash away and express their distaste, it would just be so much more effective if the discourse was not so obviously biased. It is one thing to lecture others and support your statements with facts, it is quiet another to lecture others from your position of prejudice/bias with emotive tactics.

I don't think that the European angst leveled at the U.S. is going to change their laws. In fact, it is quite possible that it will push them the other way, I mean psychologically speaking, if they are but children, you will have expect rebellion to your demands. Technically speaking it is called reactance, and I'm sure there will be plenty of it. The greater the pressure to conform the less the dissonance the greater the reactance. -dissonance theory. To psychoanalyze an entire population, one should attempt to familiarize themselves with the principles in social psychology and understand this type of approach is likely to breed the opposite of the desired end.

So perhaps someone could explain the differences between Sweden/Norway and the United States, and they may actually hit upon some causation, or at least some of the factors which are ACTUALLY contributing to the violent crime rate in the United States vs. these countries-instead of hitting on fallacious correlation after fallacious correlation.

[i_love_som_tam]

All of this aside, the overall crime rates in the United States have seen a steady decline in the last twenty years

One of the main reasons for the "steady decline" of crime rates in the USA is not due to new laws imposing lengthy prison or jail terms. It's all in the reporting of the crimes by state and local law enforcement agencies. The US Department of Justice compiles all statistical data that these agencies provide.

In the 1980's new reporting protocols were established by the DoJ. No longer were certain crimes, such as petty thefts and other misdemeanor crimes, reported to the DoJ. This, in turn, gave the appearance of a decrease in crime.

Granted, some laws imposing longer sentences have curbed crime in some areas, other laws, such as the three strikes laws, have actually increased the number of felonious assaults in law enforcement officers.

It's all a numbers game.

[DJCrystaL]

It's true there have been changes made to the ways crimes have been reported and this has impacted the overall crime rates. I obviously misspoke there and said overall, when I should have remained specific and said violent crimes have seen a steady decline.

It is true that to some degree it is a numbers game, I think that is the nature of statistics. However, there has been a decline in violent crime. In the U.S. media however there has been an increased reporting and sensationalizing of the violent crimes which are committed.

This is not a denial of the presence and existence of violent crime in America, but more a realistic evaluation of the factors which contribute to the violent crimes in America. I won't begin to address the laws and harsher penalties you mentioned, as my intent in commenting on this thread was to address a specific concern mentioned in this thread and a specific idea that gun control will end the violent crimes in America, or the implication that no guns would equal no murders.

In essence, you are correct, crime reporting has changed and has impacted the statistics regarding overall crime, and I should have been more specific in my previous posting. Regarding punishment for the commission of crimes, I think that is another topic entirely and not one I am willing to cover in a thread on gun control.

[zeusbheld]

One thing that you have to consider is that there aren't one set of rules for all of the US. Each state creates its own law. You would have a hard time to get all states to pass similar gun control laws. Compare Texas to NY for example.

So you're telling me the US Government can dictate the entire world what to do, but can't keep their own states in check ?

pretty much, yeah.

[zeusbheld]

One thing that you have to consider is that there aren't one set of rules for all of the US. Each state creates its own law. You would have a hard time to get all states to pass similar gun control laws. Compare Texas to NY for example.

Not true. The federal government CAN pass a law banning firearms. This becomes the law of the land. The individual states can pass laws that are add more jail time or fines to the federal law but they can not pass laws that are less restrictive. Didn't you listen up in Civics?

pssst... falangboy... lissen to the man, he's a cop....

[zeusbheld]

I think this last would explain why Columbia is so high up on the list of countries dealing with this issue, and would explain some of why the rates of gun violence in the United States have climbed.

i think you mean Colombia, Columbia is a half-decent school and the gun violence rates are only slightly higher than the rest of the city of New York.

[i_love_som_tam]

I think this last would explain why Columbia is so high up on the list of countries dealing with this issue, and would explain some of why the rates of gun violence in the United States have climbed.

i think you mean Colombia, Columbia is a half-decent school and the gun violence rates are only slightly higher than the rest of the city of New York.

could be columbia, south carolina. a lot of murders there. and can also be considered another country :wink:

[zeusbheld]

I think this last would explain why Columbia is so high up on the list of countries dealing with this issue, and would explain some of why the rates of gun violence in the United States have climbed.

i think you mean Colombia, Columbia is a half-decent school and the gun violence rates are only slightly higher than the rest of the city of New York.

could be columbia, south carolina. a lot of murders there. and can also be considered another country :wink:

true. Deliverance country.

<<played off to: "dueling banjos">>

this is an in-joke amongst north carolina snobs, don't feel bad if it soars majestically over your head..

[Neo]

Even in the countries with gun control laws, murder occurs, though murder by gun is obviously lower, the overall rate, is not necessarily lower.

erm.. take a look at the figures (I have) there aren't many countries in the world with murder rates anywhere near that of the pillar of US civilisation: Washington DC.

I understand that many Europeans, though not all, have an intense dislike for the United States and its citizenry, and they feel it is necessary to grasp each and every opportunity to bash away and express their distaste, it would just be so much more effective if the discourse was not so obviously biased.

Agreed, you have a good point. Thank god I'm from New Zealand :wink:

[zeusbheld]

I understand that many Europeans, though not all, have an intense dislike for the United States and its citizenry, and they feel it is necessary to grasp each and every opportunity to bash away and express their distaste, it would just be so much more effective if the discourse was not so obviously biased.

Agreed, you have a good point. Thank god I'm from New Zealand :wink:

yeah you only have to put up with sheep-shagging jokes.

[afook06]

Dear members of Thai Friends,

The issue of gun control in the USA is really an issue of American's freedom and rights. Of course this right, has been abused by many and so many people use the guns to kill many innocent people, this is wrong....however very tough to control in this crazy world of ours! Violence begins with kids today playing the crazy shoot'em up video games, they are allowed to play these vicious games 24/7......then one day reality happens, they get their hands on a gun set out to do the real thing. The minds of people are so complexed, it's really difficult to try to determined who is sane and isn't? Most of these weird killers are from disfunctional families, having on love or good morals to look up to? I believe these killing video games should be banned, however no such thing like that in America, because it's another right to the people here towards free speech, etc!

Forget about the bad people here, if they want to steal your car, they will. If they want to get a gun for any reason, they will be able to obtain one illegally! Yes.......guns do not kill anyone, it's the person behind the trigger, for whatever sane reason or not. America is at war now with Iraq and not with the majority of choice from our people.......but it is okay to send our military over there to kill, but it is not okay to see all of our body bags coming home either, not to even try to imagine the wounded men/women coming back from the war missing parts of their bodies and trying to make a life again?

I live in Hawaii, it is a state that is very tough on ownership of any handguns. But like any big city, you still read about somone getting shot or killed, including law enforcement!

I lived in California for many years b4 Hawaii, I have always been a law abiding citizen. I have a gun collection there, and guns were my passion. I have never abused my rights as a gun owner and am proud of this.

I remember Columbine school shootings in Colorado, and thought about selling my guns away? I remember when this crazy guy tried to kill innocent kids in a Jewish school in Los Angeles, and killed innocent people along his way to escape the police in pursuit. I was actually on the internet with an auction site gun dealer.........I had won my bid for the gun, however I told him, I had a change of mind after this recent crazy shooting in LA. I said I did not want the gun, and was thinking about getting rid of my gun collection? I was deeply moved after that gun incident! The gun dealer put me on a blacklist for not buying the gun! He could not understand my thinking, all he cared about was money for selling his guns!! He gave me negative comments on the site, to warn other sellers to beware of me!!! He said that he was a veteren, and that I was a crazy person, and never was in the military, as if that had anything to do with my thinking towards of buying his gun??

My gun days are over, and although it was a great hobby when I was in my younger years, owning a gun now doesn't really matter. I do retain that, if a burglar trys to invade my home, in the middle of the night. I will shoot him first and let the police ask questions later Eddie

[DJCrystaL]

It might be refreshing to compare the USA with an economically equal nation, instead of naming Cuba, South Africa, Brazil etc. because IMO criminal behaviour is strongly linked with economical status of the individual.

If people can get by, then most of the time they will.

If you're born broke, in a -broke for generations family- and you have to feed your kids, then it's quite understandable (not acceptable) that you won't hold back to feed them.

Where do you think the mojority of our violent crimes come from? Not upper class caucasion America. The majority of our violent crime comes from immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".

[i_love_som_tam]

Dear members of Thai Friends,

The issue of gun control in the USA is really an issue of American's freedom and rights.

If you truly examine the US Constitution you will see that it does not give us the right to "keep and bear arms" as private citizens. It refers to arming the "well regulated militias" that are now our National Guard units.

The true meaning of the "keep and bear arms" statement has been distorted over time by those that want to possess firearms. Unfortunately our founding fathers failed to have the fore sight to see this coming.

As far as private gun ownership for self protection is concerned.... In 20 years of law enforcement I have only seen one time where a gun owned for self protection was actually used for that purpose, All the other times I came into contact of legally owned firearms purchased for self protection, they had been used to commit intrafamilial homicides, suicides, settle neighborhood diputes, road rage. More times that not, they are not used for personal protection.

In the years I worked undercover narcotics I was involved in the purchasing of several handguns and recovering firearms while executing search warrants. Guess what? 100% of those weapons had been stolen from people's homes. The private gun owner is just as responsible for all the armed felons on the street as the unscrupulous gun merchant.

Then you throw in the factor of an unsecured, loaded firearm and a curious child. Seeing that may make you think about a person's "right" to own a firearm.

But for now people can leagally own firearms, some can even own fully automatic weapons. For those that do own them I urge you to lock them up so that if, for some reason, you decide to used them to settle a problem, you have time to think about your actions while you are trying to get to them.