The Gun Lobby in the US

[Alan Medic]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646358/viewpoints-gun-lobbys-gag-rule.html

I really do not understand why (some) Americans appear so convinced that it is a right to own a gun. This is an interesting article from a local paper in Sacramento after the latest mass murder in the US.

Maybe an American can explain?

[????]

I am not an American but given that at the time of the drafting of their constitution the fact that citizens had been able to bear arms meant that they had been able to rise up and overthrow their oppressors means that I can understand how this is of fundamental symbolic and actual importance to them however flawed that logic can appear to us.

I'm with Gil Scot Heron - Freedom to be afraid is all you've got

[StraferJack]

Im pretty sure that Gil meant that as a criticism, not as a call to accept a status quo

[BrandNewGuy]

US constitution: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Not sure how a "well-regulated militia" means they can "rise up and overthrow their oppressors". This poorly worded clause, it seems to me, was probably intended to mean that they didn't want a standing army (understandable - standing armies to be used more against the citizenry than against external enemies) but that citizens could and should band together if the country were threatened militarily.

If Americans think that that clause means any fruitcake can get hold of a gun and a mountain of ammo, then that's their lookout... along with 12,000 homicide gun deaths a year compared to about 30 here.

[Alan Medic]

Any guesses though, if you are not an American, as to what goes on inside their heads that they don't see that it would be better if guns were outlawed for the greater good of its people?

It almost seems as if the only thing that truly shocks Americans into taking action is a threat from outside the country such as 9/11. Sad as it may be, the fairly regular mass murders by Americans on Americans is an American right, or so it seems. It's potty if you ask me.

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Im pretty sure that Gil meant that as a criticism,

> not as a call to accept a status quo

Er, no shit Sherlock? You thought I thought he was defending it??????

[StraferJack]

Obviously. But your post came across differently. It came across as people shouldn't even try to repeal gun laws and you are "with" some you quoted out of context

Speaking for the American people's (with the caveat you aren't American) support of gun laws/amendment ignores the large number of American people who would like to see it changed

Yep, compared to 20 years ago, fewer people in the us want to change gun laws but in middle of economic gloom ( not caused by labour!!) that's a familiar pattern

I don't see how that pattern and those feelings will help ongoing problems like this

If people want to shout out against gun ownership, I'd be inclined to think that supporting them and showing the NRA who should be calling the shots, is better advice than "we screwed. Be afraid ". (I paraphrase obviously)

[????]

As I seem to have to spell it out to sj and bng I,ll make it clear . I think their gun laws are potty personally BUT I do understand the sanctity of that part of their constitution to many US citizens for the reasons I pointed out.

AM many US citizens to argue that very point that freedom to bear arms IS worth 12000 deaths a year...as mad as tht seems to many over here.

[????]

I think that you guys have very little understanding of America or the American psyche if you can't grasp this. It is fundamental to many Americans.

[????]

Sj you really didn't read read or aaaaunderstand my original post. you are getting almost carnallistic in your instant reaction to my posts. Where the fook do I say I support US gun laws? I, as Am asked for, tried to explain why I thought this whole issue isn't as clear cut in US minds as ours. GSH The Gun is an eloquent and excellent song in support of gun laws and as you know I am a fan how the fuck you'd think I'd post some of his lyrics out of context and against his beliefs is a bit bonkers.

[????]

To be blunt - You are trying to have an argument with someone who agrees with you but was trying to explain how many Americans felt in his opinion. Jerez.

[StraferJack]

Carnalistic or Carnell-istic? ;-)

I dunno. You still seem to be saying us minds as if it were a homogenous single entity. I know you don't think that way and I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative or oppositionist

Understanding where attitudes come from is important obviously but I think you cede too much to some people on this one. Gun ownership in 2012 isn't as relevant as it was at time of the US cosntitution, nor has it been for sometime.

It's ok to say to someone "I know why you feel this way but you are wrong" sometimes isn't it?

And rather than mutually nod along and respect each others pov, we can get angry when people die for want of better controls?

Isn't it typical of liberal wishy washy ism to understand too much and do too little?

[????]

Er I was respnding to AM's question, not making a plea to the US people. You're looking for an argument where there isn't one.

[nashoi]

There's plenty of people around here with an 18th century view of rights, it's not that surprising the Americans are stuck with it given the history and geography of the place.

[Alan Medic]

Why so nashoi?

[nashoi]

Firstly I ought to point out my last post was a enormous generalisation, SJ is quite right to point how disparate America can be.

My point was that what is meant by rights has evolved throughout history, roughly speaking:

Phase 1 eg Magna Carta, establishes habeus corpus and limits the power of the king, but largely about basic land and property rights for the aristos.

Phase 2 eg Thomas Payne, the french dec and the american constitution. Though some european states were nominally democracies they were essentially still aristocratic tyrannies of one form or another and this gave rise to the need for rights that defined an individuals relationship to the state. These were absolute rights without attendant responsibilities such as the first amendment rights to free speech (which often comes up on the forum), and the right to bear arms.

Phase 3 post WWII, the UNDHR and the ECHR (UK Human Rights Act). After the war rights thinking evolved to become more about defining our relationship to each other rather than just to the state. These rights are qualified not absolute, it may sound cliched to talk about rights and responsibilties already, but the responsibilties (primarily that of recognising the rights of others) are essential. Main reasons for this evolution being we are now living in countries which are genuinely more democratic and so have no need to fear the aristos quite so much and it was also an attempt to find a basis for moral authority in a secular world.

Just to reiterate, America is a disparate place, obviously there are large chunks of Americian society very compatible with the 'phase 3' rights, but their constitution is not. I would be wary of anyone arguing Britain needs a written constitution as it's much easier to evolve without one.

My point about the geography was just that a country big enough to still maintain the fantasy of escaping into the wilderness is always going to have a different culture to the likes of Britain and most european countries.

[david_carnell]

There is something far more invidious at play than just gun laws though.

By head of population, Canada has higher levels of gun ownership than the USA and yet their levels of gun related crime and deaths are much lower.

As if to prove the absurdity of the situation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974

On a more light hearted note:

[El Pibe]

Here's pretty much every stat you could ever want

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

(about 8mb pdf, if you're on a slow connetion be warned)

It is of course true and there are a host of factors.

Innefective government/governance, corruption, a preponderance of criminal activity and civil war are of course the biggies in high homicide rates.

Outside of that high firearm deaths are directly correlated to high gun ownership as is a high degree of firearm homicide.

The Canada thing seems to be something of a modern day myth.

This from the Canada MOunted Police website http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/deaths_deces-eng.htm

From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years.

Between 1970 and 1996, 14% of all firearm-related deaths involved homicides.*

Between 1987 and 1996, there were approximately 183 firearm homicides per year.

In the northwest territories firearm deaths is almost 20 (ie about 3 for homicide) per 100,000, that's a HUGE figure.

In more urban(e?) Ontario (yes, with high prosperity, low crime, high community buy-in but significantly low gun ownership) that falls to 2.9 (ie 0.5ish).

England's homicides per year is only 1.17 and of that figure a miniscule proportion is from firearms.

THe US murder rate hovers around the 4.5 - 5 mark (and the gun is the favoured method) and I dread to think what the firearm death rates amount to!!!!

*this brings up side debate about how easy it is to commit suicide. A cry for help is pretty inefectual once your brains are splattered across the ceiling I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[El Pibe]

To me that means the arguments about self-protection, deterrence and so forth are absolute nonsense.

Gun control obviously isn't enough, social welfare, economic stability, rule of law and good governance are also paramount.

Given the choice give me socialist gun control europe over individualist flooded with weapons US any day of the week.

[Loz]

"The right to bear arms - the right to arm bears - it's all madness" - Robin Williams

[motorbird83]

??? is right-- those who fervently defend gun ownership rights as he has laid it out. They also point out the Canadian stats showing that gun ownership by itself doesn't result in higher homicide rates. 3rd common argument is that illegal guns would continue to be available to criminals and then only the baddies would be armed while law abiding citizens lay helpless. I am American and am in favour of stronger gun-control but this triad of arguments, particularly that guns are not responsible for the homicide rate are part of the American pysche. Also, there are lots of anti-government militias (remember Waco Texas?) so that side of the argument isn't as antiquated as you might imagine!

[El Pibe]

"They also point out the Canadian stats showing that gun ownership by itself doesn't result in higher homicide rates."

I think I've demonstrater that it does result in high homicide rates, just lower than the US, which I guess skews the debate somewhat. Canada has a higher rate than any (non ex soviet bloc) European state (see links above).

I guess the third argument holds water better considering that the guns are out there now. But that simply means there isn't the political will to do anything about it rather than that it can't be done and therefore gun-control is unworkable.

I think your penultimate comment has it, it's just in the psyche, it's part of the national fabric. Going postal occasionally and high homicide rates are the acceptable corolloray to the right to own your own gun.

[????]

"it's just in the Physche"...careful with that one EP, SJ will have you in the Tea Party for pointing it out....

[Ridgley]

In relations to ownership of guns America does have a history of fire arms stems from the 19th century and the glamorisation of the wild west etc???. I don?t think that mentality has really gone and as others have said on various thread it is a political issues as well.

[nashoi]

Just before this thread shuffles off I just wanted to make the following point loosely related to El P's comment

"I guess the third argument holds water better considering that the guns are out there now. But that simply means there isn't the political will to do anything about it rather than that it can't be done and therefore gun-control is unworkable."

Talking to a legal friend of mine last week he pointed out that guns are fairly easy for criminal gangs in this country to obtain, but genuine ammunition is not. This means they often use home made ammo, sometimes recycling spent cartridges, refilling with a propellant, adding a 'bullet' and then crimping it shut with pliers, all with predictably poor results.

An american present claimed that ammo sales always rise when a democrat enters the Whitehouse, skyrocketing when Obama got in. This begs the question, if your opponents expect you to act and take active steps to mitigate that then isn't that an open invitation to act?

I was reminded of this when I saw http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/08/01/should-online-ammunition-sales-be-banned, hardly seems like much of a step.