American Gun Culture

[An Céachta Dearg]

What are the opinions of posters on the issue of gun culture?

Is America too Liberal when it comes too guns?

Or should Europeans lighten up and allow our local supermarkets to stock them?

Does an Unarmed or Armed police force better serve a society, which one and why?


Whats side are you on in this debate and why?

[bay]

Oh my, some of these questions are pretty loaded red!

What are the opinions of posters on the issue of gun culture?Not sure you can call it a "culture," but the right to own guns is written into our constitution. The brits wanted to force the colonists to turn over their guns. The colonial rebels and founding fathers of our constitution recognized that an occupying force does two things to keep the civilians under control: takes away their ability for self defense, and takes away their freedom of speech.

Is America too Liberal when it comes too guns?It's not as easy as you think it is to get a gun in the US. In some cities, you can't have a handgun at all, like in Washington DC or Chicago. That didn't stop the beltway snipers from killing 11 defenseless civlilian motorists. You do have to go through a criminal background chedk. and most states have a "cooling off" period so you can't go buy a gun when you are hot and pissed off at someone. There's usually a 3 to 7 day wait.

Or should Europeans lighten up and allow our local supermarkets to stock them?I don't know about supermarkets. That's a bit silly! Supermarkets here don't stock them! You have to buy them from a gun store or a sporting goods store that deals in hunting/fishing equipment. And they are highly regulated by federal law. The customer has to fill out a mountain of paperwork. Gun serial numbers are tracked. Yea, it's easier here than in most countries, but you still cannot just walk into a store, pay your money, and walk out with a gun and ammo.

Does an Unarmed or Armed police force better serve a society, which one and why?Good question. I don't have the answer to that.


Whats side are you on in this debate and why?
Well, I've been on both sides of this issue in my lifetime. My boys did grow up with rifles. We lived in the great north woods, the back to the land life, and survied many winters on venison. They learned that if they shot something they were going to eat it, so no random plinking at a living being for the "fun" of it. After they ate squirrel al few times, they learned that I meant it.

Personally, I've been terrified of handguns for most of my life. But after my divorce from psycho man, I decided I better get over it. My brother is a shooting instructor for the military and he's been a good teacher, stressing safety, safety, safety.

I really didn't want to own a gun, but after my ex called my son and asked him "do you have life insurance on your mother," my son insisted on buying me one. I've got a safe place to target shoot. I live in the country and have a pond with a good size damn. I put the target stand up against the pond dam with the hill as the back stop so no living beings are threatened by my practicing.

I'm really a pacifist by nature. An earth mother type. Much prefer negotiations. Have never been one to fight physically.

[flax]

Oh my, some of these questions are pretty loaded red!


Is America too Liberal when it comes too guns?It's not as easy as you think it is to get a gun in the US. In some cities, you can't have a handgun at all, like in Washington DC or Chicago. That didn't stop the beltway snipers from killing 11 defenseless civlilian motorists. You do have to go through a criminal background chedk. and most states have a "cooling off" period so you can't go buy a gun when you are hot and pissed off at someone. There's usually a 3 to 7 day wait.


The wating persiod is one of the things that show even the americans know that somehow their gunculture/law is fucked up.

The concept is that "we know that guns makes it a LOT easier to do something you will regret if youre pissed off so we make it take some time to get a gun so you can cool off and maybe not shoot the guy youre pissed at"

But what about the people who ALLREADY HAVE GUNS when they get pissed at somebody, do they have to wait 7 days untill they can get it from the bedroom drawer and shoot the fucker in the face?


Its not rocket science that more handguns will lead to more gun violence.

Flax

[bay]

well, this week, news headlines included a story about a kid in a rampage in a school in Australia. Very tight gun laws there. He used a machete.

it's the culture, society that's the issue.

[flax]

well, this week, news headlines included a story about a kid in a rampage in a school in Australia. Very tight gun laws there. He used a machete.

it's the culture, society that's the issue.

Well give him a couple of semi's and guess the new death toll ?

Flax

[An Céachta Dearg]

Well give him a couple of semi's and guess the new death toll ?

Flax

Im currently Clapping to your point

[Phædrus]

Well give him a couple of semi's and guess the new death toll ?

Flax

Probably not significantly more. With most such events the shooter/machete-er/etc only kills a few people before the police arrive, then suicides. Things like VT are the exception.

And a gun isn't that much more efficient at killing someone than a machete. All the machete takes is a bit more muscle, and that's not so hard to come by.

[ciaranxavier]

well, this week, news headlines included a story about a kid in a rampage in a school in Australia. Very tight gun laws there. He used a machete.

it's the culture, society that's the issue.

the story your talking about was a prank the machete wasnt used to attack anyone they just smashed a bunch of windows. and glass hit some of the kids.

[ciaranxavier]

Probably not significantly more. With most such events the shooter/machete-er/etc only kills a few people before the police arrive, then suicides. Things like VT are the exception.

And a gun isn't that much more efficient at killing someone than a machete. All the machete takes is a bit more muscle, and that's not so hard to come by.

a machete takes more muscle but i cant swing a machete at a rate 650 - 750 times per minute. where as an assault rifle can. and it can shoot at a range of 460 meters where a machete can only go maybe a couple feet. so a gun is far more efficient when it comes to killing someone.

[Phædrus]

a machete takes more muscle but i cant swing a machete at a rate 650 - 750 times per minute. where as an assault rifle can. and it can shoot at a range of 460 meters where a machete can only go maybe a couple feet. so a gun is far more efficient when it comes to killing someone.

A semiautomatic weapon cannot fire 650 - 750 times a minute. And in a school shooting the range is generally less than 25 yards (30 meters? I'm bad at metric). It's not like a 17 year-old can walk into Walmart and buy an AK-47. And it's actually quite difficult to get a fully automatic weapon in America.

Maybe one thing I should point out. An assault rifle is a very carefully defined thing. You seem to be one of the crowd that equate "full automatic" and "assault rifle." An assault rifle is defined as:
- A carbine length rifle
- Medium caliber (such as 7.62x39mm or .223 REM)
- Capable of select fire (meaning it can fire semiautomatic and burst and/or full automatic)
Actual assault rifles that meet all of those criteria are nigh impossible to get in the US.

Others have already pointed out that gun laws in America aren't as loose as you think, but the information seems to have gone in one ear and out the other.

[donquixote99]

Its not rocket science that more handguns will lead to more gun violence.

Flax

You're right. Rockets actually fly.

Well, enjoy your 'those awful Americans and their awful gun culture' thread.

BTW, did you miss the recent thread on this subject here? I was asking about DuPage County Illinois. If you believe more handguns will lead to more violence, how do you explain a place with huge lots of guns and no violence to speak of?

http://worldagenda.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3829&postcount=38

[flax]

Probably not significantly more. With most such events the shooter/machete-er/etc only kills a few people before the police arrive, then suicides. Things like VT are the exception.

And a gun isn't that much more efficient at killing someone than a machete. All the machete takes is a bit more muscle, and that's not so hard to come by.

You are seriously postulating that "And a gun isn't that much more efficient at killing someone than a machete"

Why do you need your precious guns then?

looking at myself i know that I could kill a LOT more ppl if i was armed and had a decent supply of ammo then if i had a machete.

Flax

[flax]

You're right. Rockets actually fly.

Well, enjoy your 'those awful Americans and their awful gun culture' thread.

BTW, did you miss the recent thread on this subject here? I was asking about DuPage County Illinois. If you believe more handguns will lead to more violence, how do you explain a place with huge lots of guns and no violence to speak of?

http://worldagenda.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3829&postcount=38

Without guns you cant shoot ppl it kinda obvious to me.

And as a general most of the ppl opposing guncontroll are very happy to apply it to the international arena.
Thats kinda hypocritical as i think consitancy are an important part of your worldview.

My views on gan laws are shown on:
http://worldagenda.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3671&postcount=19

[donquixote99]

Without guns you cant shoot ppl it kinda obvious to me.

And with them you don't have to shoot ppl, or people either. I dispute whrether there is a strong correlation between gun possession by the general populace, and crime.


And as a general most of the ppl opposing guncontroll are very happy to apply it to the international arena.
Thats kinda hypocritical as i think consitancy are an important part of your worldview.

Don't know what you are on about with the 'hypocritical' comment. Opposition to Iranian nukes or something?

My views on gan laws are shown on:
http://worldagenda.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3671&postcount=19

The government 'monopoly of force' need not be an all or nothing proposition. That strikes me as a false dichotomy.

[micfranklin]

Somehow, some way I knew this topic was going to be here.

Someone here mentioned VT, think it was Phaedrus. But let me ask everyone some questions: do you think armed students or at least police officers would've been able to take down the shooter before he had gunned down 32 people? Or any other school shooting for that matter?

Do you think criminals will pay any attention to a law that says "no handguns allowed here?"

[White Rabbit]

Is America too Liberal when it comes too guns?

No. Just too liberal about using them.

Whats side are you on in this debate and why?
Liberty. I don't trust the government to have a monopoly on guns. Governments always abuse every legal power they are given.

[Finny]

I find it funny.. the Irish gang is talking about Gun control.

[An Céachta Dearg]

I find it funny.. the Irish gang is talking about Gun control.

The vaste majority of Irish people oppose violence Finny.

[Finny]

The vaste majority of Irish people oppose violence Finny.

I am not saying they aren't. Americans are the same way.

But the reason why I was laughing was the fact that the Idea of Irish Independence can not come about without violence through the barrel of a gun. So for any one believing in Irish nationalism or Irish Republicanism making comments on the American's view of guns as wrong.. needs to be reminded of this.

As American's understand the same concept as you. To be free or obtain freedom you need to have access to such weapons. :D

[bay]

But the reason why I was laughing was the fact that the Idea of Irish Independence can not come about without violence through the barrel of a gun. So for any one believing in Irish nationalism or Irish Republicanism making comments on the American's view of guns as wrong.. needs to be reminded of this.


Indeed, the gains that have been made to this point came through the barrels of guns. When Belfast Catholics needed protection, they needed real protection. The RA didn't say a few chants and hope for the best.

And big surprise, most American households do not have guns! It took a combination of intellectuals and men with guns to ensure that we didn't have pictures of the queen on our money.

[ciaranxavier]

I am not saying they aren't. Americans are the same way.

But the reason why I was laughing was the fact that the Idea of Irish Independence can not come about without violence through the barrel of a gun. So for any one believing in Irish nationalism or Irish Republicanism making comments on the American's view of guns as wrong.. needs to be reminded of this.

As American's understand the same concept as you. To be free or obtain freedom you need to have access to such weapons. :D

what do gun laws have to do with believing in armed struggle???? id think youd at least know that the guns used in the struggle werent bought at a corner store legally. they were shipped in illegally from other countries or stolen. not bought legally at a store. which is what gun laws deal with.

[bay]

what do gun laws have to do with believing in armed struggle???? id think youd at least know that the guns used in the struggle werent bought at a corner store legally. they were shipped in illegally from other countries or stolen. not bought legally at a store. which is what gun laws deal with.

aha! See, gun laws don't keep out guns. If people really want them, they;'ll get them!

Would the struggle have been more successful with legally obtained weapons? I don't have an answer to that. but my guess is the last thing the brits want is an armed populace in ireland

[quirk]

Thats a very good question Bay and I think it would have depended on what kind of weapons would have been freely available. If there had been guns available in the same way that they are in the US then it would have made a hell of a difference.

[Chookie]

Someone here mentioned VT, think it was Phaedrus. But let me ask everyone some questions: do you think armed students or at least police officers would've been able to take down the shooter before he had gunned down 32 people?

Your question postulates some other questions:-

1. Why should students be armed?
2. Why would armed police be at a school?



Hell no.

[QUOTE=bay;8328]And big surprise, most American households do not have guns! It took a combination of intellectuals and men with guns to ensure that we didn't have pictures of the queen on our money.

Not here it didn't. Our folding money is and always has been monarch-free. That's without the use of guns.

BTW. The Irish didn't do it properly........

[Phædrus]

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2008/023/5/8/Victim_Disarming_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg

Not seriously, of course. If everyone at school had guns, shootings would be a once a month event at the least. But if one of the victims at VT had had a gun, Cho might have been killed before he killed as many as he did. Who knows?

And as I've said before, guns aren't as freely available in America as you seem to think. You can't go down to the corner store to buy guns. Of the guns in America, more than half are hunting weapons, mostly .30-06. Of the remainder, about two-thirds are handguns, .22LRs, and shotguns, and more are antiques. There are relatively few assault weapons in America, and even fewer assault rifles. You see them from time to time at the range, but it's not like everyone in America has a Kalashnikov ready to hand in case of a revolution or invasion.

My dad has a large collection of guns--he collects and target-shoots antique military firearms (it started because he was a Civil War buff, and he picked up a Civil War-era musket, then bought another and learned to shoot it, then got a WWI-era gun...). However, about half of his collection is single-shot weapons and more are bolt-actions. He only has three semi-automatic rifles: An M1 Garand, an M1 Carbine, and a Yugoslavian SKS. He's representative of the average collector, though maybe with a larger collection than most. Most other gun owners are hunters or people who own a gun for self defense or just have a .22 for target shooting.

So don't go thinking us Yankees are a bunch of AK-toting, whiskey-drinking, trigger-happy rednecks (though we do have a few of those--they're just vanishingly uncommon). We're just normal people, except we can own devices of war. If it happens that a few people can't handle that responsibility, well, that's human nature for ya'.

[Finny]

what do gun laws have to do with believing in armed struggle???? id think youd at least know that the guns used in the struggle werent bought at a corner store legally. they were shipped in illegally from other countries or stolen. not bought legally at a store. which is what gun laws deal with.

Bay and Quirk... got what I was saying..

[micfranklin]

1. Why should students be armed?

At certain schools I would trust students to be armed.

2. Why would armed police be at a school?

Because of incidents that happen on a day-to-day basis.

[Kizzume]

I think that gun culture is too entrenched in U.S. society to be able to ban them. If we ban them, only criminals and people who used to NOT be criminals before the ban would have them. The only way to get guns out of the hands of everyone would be akin to martial law, a scenario I sure wouldn't want to live under.

I WISH guns weren't around, but they are, and since they are, and since so many people are religious about owning them, we shouldn't even bother making guns really hard to get--instead we should make doing illegal things with them have harsher consequences than if they would have used other weapons or implements to do those illegal things.

[Slap]

Whats side are you on in this debate and why?

I'm in the NRA. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Any state regulation should be reviewed under strict scrutiny, the hardest test for legislation affecting fundamental rights.

Here's a good link to a good decision.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2724

I also support extensive "shall issue" licensing of concealed weapons to law abiding citizens.

The responsibility of self defense can't be pawned off on someone else. I believe the second amendment is a necessary safeguard for a free citizenry.