The way to break gun violence is to teach people that the way to solve differences is not to make sure you're a bigger bad ass than anyone who might come in conflict with you.
Americans don't have a love of guns, they have a love of confrontation.
That was the most difficult cultural thing I had to learn when I moved to Japan.
Japan is a really serious outlier when it comes to not having a "love" of confrontation! I mean, their word for "you're wrong" doesn't even have that semantic content.
I suspect America is a lot closer to the middle than it.
I applied for my Georgia Firearms (Concealed Carry) Licence today. My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition)
Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."
To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns.
"My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition)"
Maybe a better comparison is gun control in other countries.
"Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.""
So what, "some truth to it" is a shockingly low standard.
"To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns."
To me this is nonsense because:
(1) Countries with gun control have neutralized gun violence without arming the entire populace.
(2) Allowing the entire US population to arm freely has had a net negative effect on controlling insane people with guns.
"England has a complete ban on guns. No UK citizen can carry a gun. Period. Not a one. Result? UK violent crime rate is 3 1/3 times higher than America. The FBI reports 386 violent crimes per 100,000 in the USA. The UK Home Office reports 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 in England."
Those statistics are not apples to apples. Notably the UK started classifying common assault (no injury) as a violent crime which more than doubled the "violent crime" rate.
You might ask why the people who fed you this talking point used a clearly deceptive statistic instead of an obvious one like murder.
the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different...
First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date...
Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”
When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes.
12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well.
I dont really think people that like guns are the problem though. I would not classify myself as someone that "likes" guns. On the other hand i know people that "like" guns, and it's not that they likes the power a gun has, but they certainly understand and respect it, and therefore take extra care. They like them because they appreciate them for the same reason that people appreciate works of art, or sportscars. For the Craftsmanship, for the minior details that went into the design of the gun, for the historical value of the gun.
"12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well."
Pretty sure they used large aircraft to kill people and no one is crying tyranny over the idea that large aircraft need a bunch of regulations to ensure public safety.
You mean we can wish problems away? Man, I have been doing this all wrong!
Guns have absolutely no effect on violence. Treat people better, make sure they have access to opportunity and caring about one another is how you reduce violence.
I own more than my share of guns and they have never made me violent, or invoked violence. I have a few knives, they too have never invoked violence in me.
I'm surprised this type of stuff hasn't gotten more attention here on HN. What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment. I will side with the forefathers who made this counter 100 out of 100 times in relation to any recent politicians.
No one ever said that Freedom was easy or that it didn't come at a cost. It does and always will. But maintaining freedom and our core principles as laid out long ago should be a goal we never stop working towards. This seems like a huge step backwards.
> What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment
So what? Maybe the 2nd amendment is wrong, or a bad idea, or a 200 year old proclamation that is no longer relevant in modern times? People's attachment to this clause is just... fundamentalist.
And why do people insist on equating gun ownership with freedom? You're not allowed to own bombs or missiles, does that also mean I am not free?
There's lots of things we're not free to do which actually makes us freer: not to steal, or house break, or kill people. I for one am glad my freedom is curtailed in this manner. It means i can live in a (largely) peaceful and safe society, and am free to go about my business with minimum threat to my existence or assets. And further adding to my sense of security is the knowledge that I am very unlikely to ever be threatened, injured or killed by a gun as almost no one owns one here - because they are illegal.
Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns, what makes american's so special? why do you need to own a gun? (yeah sure, self defence, but if no one had them in the first place that wouldn't be necessary)
Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns
Errr, that turns out not to be the case. Look at the results of the 2007 Small Arms Survey at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owners... and you'll see it's pretty well armed (drill down to the PDF and even legal registration levels are a lot higher than I suspect you think).
In the other direction, when it comes to mass shootings Europe has been doing worse than the US as of late:
From Wikipedia, school shootings in Europe in this century, last two numbers are killed and wounded:
I'm only counting "Western Europe", excepting the former East Germany, west of the old Iron Curtain for a whole bunch of reasons.
Where do you get 85 school shooting deaths (?) in this century? VT 32 + Newtown 24 = 56. (In all cases I do not count the shooter if he died.) Plus I'm also pointing out that there were a lot more school shooting incidents.
It's too late for me to go into spree shootings, but ... when I just added up the deaths for Europe from my list, I got 157.
I just output the wiki lists it appeared you were working from. Once you start selectively editing you open yourself up to acts of cherry picking so I didn't edit anything. It's possible that I missed string entries that didn't follow a sort on the date column, I'll take a look again later but here is my list for us school spree shootings this century:
Lanza 27
Goh 7
Kazmierczak 5
Cho 32
Roberts 5
Weise 9
Total 85
Fair enough on the US side, although your addition on others still looks to be off, e.g. I get 53 for European schools, and you still haven't addressed the 157.
But arguing over simple body counts reeks of Vietnam War insanity; that Europe is not doing well in this is undeniable, worse or not is a debatable point, the statement that "Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns..." is obviously falsifiable in every particular, i.e. they have lots of guns and they misuse them as well.
What makes American's so special is the fact that we are a unique country. A country that was built on our core values, as they are laid out in our constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us wrong.
We are the same country that came to the worlds aid (and europe, especially) during WW1 and WW2.
Our beliefs aren't perfect. They just happen to be less wrong then others, IMHO... and in the opinion of a large majority of our country.
If you can't understand why the right to keep and bear arms is an essential aspect of being american then you are short sighted and have refused to see how history repeats itself over and over throughout mankind.
I 100% believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said the following: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Once you start picking apart our constitution, little by little, you soon open up the flood gates for rights and liberties to be taken away much more easily.
They can already wire-tap without a warrant. Now they want the guns. This is how it starts...
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Lets modify the above...
First they came for the assault rifles,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one.
Then they came for the bolt action rifles,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one.
Then they came for the pistols,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left with the capabilities to defend me.
Having the ability to arm yourself and defend yourself and uprise against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT should the need arise is specifically why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was... and I believe they felt very strongly about this. It's #2 on the list after all.
When we try to outsmart the people that made our great country, we usually mess it up.
Errr, without accepting slavery there wouldn't have been a Constitution or United States of America. And it did provide a mechanism for outlawing it, although that of course just ratified the outcome on the battlefields.
I agree that making something illegal won't make it go away and that is why I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else. I'm not talking about wacky conspiracy theories or a government military takeover but something along the lines of someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation. I don't think it's "to protect Americans" but to pad the pocketbooks of politicians, appease lobbyist or some other sort of twisted expression of this recent uprise in government corruption.
The article mentions a staggering obvious truth, "Why would we rush to ban guns, when almost all of our mass murders and most of our violent crimes occur in places with the strictest gun control?" There is also the fact that the proposed gun control laws all talk about assault rifles. That's fine, go after assault rifles but don't overlook handguns too. Last year in Chicago, more people were killed by handguns than the total number of those killed in all of the mass shootings over the last decade. How can those proposing gun control ignore that? Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US yet it has one of the highest rates of murder in the US…most of which results from the use of handguns. Yet, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are the problem….
"I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else..... someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation.'
So you're saying that the universal outrage over all these children being murdered couldn't possibly lead to good faith attempts to reform society to prevent similar events? You're saying it's probably a front for ... something? That the powerful archery, knife and karate lobbies were just waiting for any pretext to get rid of guns so they can start raking in the bucks?
No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns from everyone because of this. It is not logical.
32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car.
If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?
I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to understand?
Let me put it a different way.
Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in prison.
Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.
"32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car."
Plenty of new regulations related to cars and highways every year to make them safer.
"If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?'
Are you really asking that if reality was completely different would I maybe believe different things then I believed in this reality? Maybe. The Newtown tragedy is not a singular event. It's just the latest event.
"how is this so difficult to understand?"
How is the empirical fact that gun control works and limits deaths in many countries so hard for you to understand?
I'm not completely convinced all of his facts are backed up, but I do agree with his sentiments. Gun control will never be an answer to violent crime, far too easy to obtain illegally. I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban.
I agree that mental illness awareness is a much better place to spend the $500 million Obama just asked for gun control.
If you are not convinced of his facts, check the relevant websites yourself. There's a great drill-down on the statistics in this video and you can go to the same (official) websites and pull the stats yourself: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0
Or you could look at the US and UK murder rate and conclude that gun control radically reduces murders even when one country is possibly more violent than another.
You are looking at only one type of violence, murder, and then assuming that murder rates are affected by guns.
Then you turn around and say that one country is possibly just naturally more violent than another and it has nothing to do with the deterrent affect guns have on violent crimes of any kind.
Murder provides a nice apples to apples comparison because, as noted elsewhere on this page, violent crime statistics for the US and UK is an apples to pineapples comparison.
Japan isn't the same as the United States. We don't want to be the same as Japan, because to do so would be to give up what this country was built on. We have always had firearms and our constitution says we SHOULD always have firearms.
Nevermind the fact that we have millions more guns in our country -- making guns illegal after they've hit such a penetration level would be impossible.
Japan has forbidden the keeping and bearing of arms by normal subjects since 1588; the collective guilt based controls that followed during the Shogunate were sufficiently hideous that I really can't see any utility in comparing the two nations in these areas.
Handguns were outlawed in 1958 and new rifles since 1971. Shotguns are available but heavily regulated.
"I really can't see"
The point I was making was pretty obvious but I'll repeat it here again: it is actually very possible to make it hard to obtain a gun. Japan is hardly the only exhibit.
If you're considering joining the NRA for the same reasons as in this article, I'd strongly suggest you also join the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is also well regarded, and if you're a Californian, Calguns (or in other states, your state's gun association).
If you want effectiveness, though, I only recommend the NRA (reluctantly, details upon request) and the SAF, since the latter has been the major driver in the lawsuits that started with Heller. The JPFO has done some good propaganda, but the last time I checked went off in a bad tangent with L. Neil Smith (who got too extreme for me not too many books after The Probability Broach). The GAO is too partisan and into conservative and Republican causes beyond the RKBA to be of much use even in their ratings, and they have very very little influence.
SAF is probably my favorite. Firearms Policy Coalition (which seems to be Calguns + SAF) is also nice, and new.
My big problem with NRA is how spammy they are to members. NRA-ILA is one thing, but being offered overpriced auto insurance, etc. all the time was really annoying. I eventually got off all the marketing lists, but it took a few tries.
I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby against stupid gun laws.
However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the longer term (10+ years out) outlook.
That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA.
I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are.
I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have had a nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes from Florida in 1987 to Wisconson in 2011, totaling 42 states (with Vermont, Washington and maybe Indiana already having been there before it started)?
8 million outstanding licenses and counting, plus who knows in the 4 states with "Constitutional Carry" (no license required if you're not forbidden), Arizona having a substantial population (6.5 million, 15th in the nation).
And I don't believe the gun grabber propaganda that the same people are just buying more guns; for one extreme claim, someone did the math and came out with an average $100K investment per gun owning citizen.
But, yes, the NRA's pop-culture stuff, especially gaming, was an own goal and doesn't help in the long term. But there are plenty of RKBA types like myself who are happy to poison young people's minds about the NRA ^_^, so we'll see what happens after we get past the current mess.
Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes."
I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.
"but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by current first amendment jurisprudence"
You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.
7-2 decision seems fairly solid to me. Breyer is being... Breyer (whose judicial philosophy seems to be more of "that's just like your opinion, man..."), and I would say Thomas' dissent is more focused on "in loco parentis" role of the state (in line with his other decisions involving minors) -- which I haven't really noticed amongst other prominent jurists (given Thomas is generally very solid on 1A).
The law overturned in Brown [originally -- in irony of all ironies -- Schwarzenegger] vs. Entertainment Merchants Association was created by a fellow who is currently better known for gems like these:
Americans don't have a love of guns, they have a love of confrontation.
That was the most difficult cultural thing I had to learn when I moved to Japan.