Gun Ownership

[j2k4]

A hearty and heartfelt thanks to y'all.

Clocker-do they still make Zima? the day I drink one of those, you better be on the barstool next to me, bud.

Sara-where the hell have you been? And how the hell are you?

Rat-I am actually reasonably wrinkle-free for one of my particular antiquity; however, I still get my youthful ration of one pimple per week, so I guess it all evens out, huh?

B)

[Ardor]

I'm not that interested in fuelling the fire here, but I don't think gun-ownership is the issue here. I don't think it is illegal to possess a gun anywhere in the world (with some exceptions, I'm sure) , as long as you have a licence. However it is the ease at which people can get their hands on a gun, which is really worrying. Little or no training, indicates that most likely the gun-owner will have little or no safety-instruction on its use, storage, and whatever involved. I am reminded of a case of a 4-year old who took a gun from home to school and shot another 4-year old (bowling for columbine?). Now is that parent really someone you want as your neighbour?*

I draw a parallel with getting a drivers-licence. Comming from Holland, which as far as I know is one of the hardest places to get a licence, I know it is also one of the safest to be on the road. Other countries, like Italy or Portugal, where the license-testing is not quite as rigid, are much unsafer. I do acknowledge the fact that Italy's mountain roads are relatively difficult to drive on.

So the point I make is that with a realistic training, license and registration requirement a country can be safe, even without impeding gun-ownership. Like any sane person, I would get nervous if someone shoved a gun under my nose, either with the intent of robbing or killing me, or only showing off. Either way, I am convinced that such a person is either unaware of the danger, psycho, or very stupid, all this being related to how well trained they are. Remember that training in a professional institution, can even help filter out the psychos.

Of course, more training would mean that Americans would have to pay more taxes, which I believe is where the essential conflict lies. Just think on how much money would be saved on jails**...

(*: I believe in this case, the parent was a single mother, whose spouse was in jail or dead, and was forced to work full-time in another city, while often leaving her 4 year old unguarded. That's a whole different issue, but single mothers and their children are the biggest casualties of not having a welfare-state.)
(**: between 1990-2001, the state of California built 20 prisons versus 1 public University. The union of prison-guards in California, is the 2nd biggest contributor to political parties, after the Doctors-Association.)

[ilw]

I think most here would agree that there should be some training required before getting a gun, and i think the consensus was that the use to which the gun was put was also important, ie home defence in America which means the gun must be rapidly accessible (ie insecure).
I asked a question a page or so back which was mostly directed at Americans, but it got passed over in the Michael Moore fiasco, but which i am curious about peoples opinions

Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie high gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove 99% of the guns from peoples houses and the majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)

[lynx]

Originally posted by Ardor@17 July 2003 - 13:10
(**: between 1990-2001, the state of California built 20 prisons versus 1 public University. The union of prison-guards in California, is the 2nd biggest contributor to political parties, after the Doctors-Association.)

We should be careful when quoting statistics like these; they are easily manipulated, and are often given out of context to support a particular argument.

We cannot tell from this what constitutes a prison, how many prisons were decommisioned, etc.
More meaningful would be the percentage increase (decrease ?) in prison capacity, we may find it is in direct proportion to the increase in crime.
A new university - built in proportion to the increase in student intelligence - unlikely.

But that is an aside, I think you are right in your assertion that more training is required. It may even be that if training were mandatory, many people would not bother to get guns, and possibly that having had training they would realise just how dangerous it can be to have easily accessible weapons around and get rid of their guns.

On the down side, I can see that it could become a status symbol (Look at me, I've got an MA in sub-machine guns), and people would go and buy weapons to match their certification. Still at least the training would have taken place.

Edit: clarity

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by ilw@17 July 2003 - 13:20
Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie high gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove 99% of the guns from peoples houses and the majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)

I think this question hits the heart of the matter. I don't see any reason why there should be so many guns in the hands of private citizens, in a country as advanced and politically stable as the USA...its like frickin afghanistan, after all.

If i could wave a magic wand, I would make the US like the UK as far as guns are concerned -- the problem is a vicious cycle of baddies getting guns, and goodies buying guns to protect themselves from baddies who get more guns, etc. So unfortunately, there is a certain logic to arming yourself to the teeth.

Americans have a peculiar notion of private firearm ownership, inextricably linked to the idea that the citizenry may one day have to launch a revolution against their own government. The war of independance with the brits is central to the mentality, but unfortunately its anachronistic in modern society imho. It may also constitute clinical paranoia en masse....

(but then again, in the 1960s the joint chiefs of staff planned to bomb and kill americans on american soil, blame it on cuban terrorists, and thereby justify ousting Castro. See "body of secrets" by james bamford; books webiste is at: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/home.html)

things are very rarely black and white....

[clocker]

Originally posted by ilw@17 July 2003 - 06:20


Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie high gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove 99% of the guns from peoples houses and the majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)

In general- yes.

As this is clearly a blue sky question however, I would suggest a more reasonable method of couching it might be; " Would I prefer to see non-sporting weaponry disappear?"

Again yes.
The ban on assault weapons in the US is due to expire next year and the Bush administration is working mightily to delay discussion on the subject until after the election. It's basically a no-win situation for him as either way he alienates a significant bloc of voters.
My guess is that (should Bush win reelection- please Jesus, no!) Dubya would once again allow citizens access to high powered assault rifles and the like.
I am not a hunter, but if folks want to Ted Nugent their way through the forest, then fine with me. Why people insist on carrying concealed weapons ( currently a very hot topic here in Denver) is completely beyond me. Most of the people I know (and there aren't many ) who carry weapons are far more likely to shoot themselves.
On second thought, perhaps just another instance of Darwinian selection?