American National Anti-Gun Association

[Katy]

In general, I disagree with Scott's politics, but I agree with one point. Which is that Kelly in specific, and the vast majority of foreigners just don't have the information needed to make judgements about our laws. Kelly's opinion that it would be a good place to start to try to ammend the constitution is one great example of that lack of insight.

[Kelly Jones]

Although the lower murder rates in countries with stricter gun laws is a valid point, it is not the only causative factor. The education and mental health systems are better in other countries, and the cultural attitudes formed by both the media and the way people raise children are all causative factors as well.

Yes, removing guns from popular access is a corrective, and contextual. It's not an absolute.

Improving the cultural attitudes via the media, and backing it up with a range of other support systems is essential.

If there were more pro-reason and pro-wisdom people in America, who made it their whole life to speak up about American follies, then more people would get started along the path to thinking.

But, it is hard to be a courageous thinker, when someone might pull a gun on you. Or if you feel like you have to keep your gun handy.

I don't think most American states require gun owners to be trained in how to use them, which is another blooper.

Kelly, perhaps you are right about Australians having more thought-energy to focus on wisdom because they don't have to use so much thought-energy on safety/security issues, but guns are not the reason. No one needed a gun to smash out my car window and steal my chewing gum...

It is what guns symbolise: anger, fear.

It will take a lot of little baby steps for America to transition out of insanity and hell, to something a little more calm.

It may be too far gone, but why not avago.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly's opinion that it would be a good place to start to try to ammend the constitution is one great example of that lack of insight.

Well, choose where you want to start. Make the step on your own terms.

At least stand up.

[Kelly Jones]

material posession is not superficial, not once every criminal decides to take everything of yours once they see you won't do anything about it.

I thought I'd just respond to this post, then let the voters in America decide how the thread develops.

:-)

So, all the impoverished wise Americans (!) can set up a virtual gun-free state, with their own laws. Having no possessions to worry about, they can wander around barefoot like Gwei Chang Cain in "Kung Fu". Spreading ideas of non-attachment and getting killed occasionally, and inspiring others with their quiet speech, humility, and gentleness.

Of course, they'd be trained in wise karate, and how to play the shakuhachi.


-

[Katy]

But, it is hard to be a courageous thinker, when someone might pull a gun on you. Or if you feel like you have to keep your gun handy.

I don't think most American states require gun owners to be trained in how to use them, which is another blooper.

See, this is exactly why I think you aren't really prepared to make a statement about american gun laws. I personally have never been worried that someone is going to pull a gun on me. It's just not a worry I have. And I don't know many (if any) Americans who do worry about guns on a regular basis.

I certainly would not even vaguely start to wonder if I was going to be shot for thinking. I mean, if anything it would make me less likely to get shot since I wouldn't be interacting with as many people.

And I don't know about most states, but I know all that I have lived in (5) have required gun safety classes. I'm pretty sure that's universal for concealed carry since the mid 90s.

Fact is, I don't get out there and fight for gun control because i don't care about gun control. I think it's a lot of fuss being made over very little. I didn't even read this thread until today because guns dont interest me, but eventually curiousity as to why you were starting a thread on american politics won over that disinterest.

[Jason]

See, this is exactly why I think you aren't really prepared to make a statement about american gun laws. I personally have never been worried that someone is going to pull a gun on me. It's just not a worry I have. And I don't know many (if any) Americans who do worry about guns on a regular basis.

Yeah I was going to make a similar comment. Being an Aussie who has never been to the US, I can understand how some non-Americans might imagine that in the US you would be nervous that any random stranger who got pissed off could pull out a gun. But as you say, that's not how you actually feel about it, I'd be interested to know how other US posters feel about this.

[Kelly Jones]

So what's the big deal about having guns in the first place?

[DHodges]

I personally have never been worried that someone is going to pull a gun on me. It's just not a worry I have. And I don't know many (if any) Americans who do worry about guns on a regular basis.

Yes, it's not a part of everyday life, and it's really a minor political issue at most.

And I don't know about most states, but I know all that I have lived in (5) have required gun safety classes. I'm pretty sure that's universal for concealed carry since the mid 90s.

It does vary by state. In Pennsylvania (where I am) a Concealed Carry permit is a "must issue" - if I asked for one, I would get one. There is no requirement for a gun safety class. It might make sense to get the permit first, so you can legally take your gun to the range for the class.

So what's the big deal about having guns in the first place?

???
You brought it up. Seems to be a big deal to you.

Obviously the attitude toward guns in Australia is different from the US. Does the Wiki article sum it up okay, in your opinion?

[Kelly Jones]

Sorry, I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer:

Why do Americans need to have guns around anyway ?

In other words, do they need to use them or not?

-

[DHodges]

According to this the exact meaning of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." from the 2nd Amendment, is disputed. It might not actually be referring directly to guns and/or weapons.

I can see how you could interpret the US Constitution that way, although I think it's a bit of a stretch. The intent here seems clearer:

Pennsylvania constitution :

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

"In defense of themselves" makes it clear that is not just in the context of military service.

[Kelly Jones]

Pennsylvania constitution :
Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Is that a different constitution to the national one? I hope the rest of it isn't like that. Shall not be questioned!

What exactly is the right to bear arms in defense of oneself?

You have to shoot me now.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Dan:

I agree with Leyla (they're too far gone), and therefore by extension also with Scott (people need guns to protect themselves). I also agree with Kelly that the whole thing is utterly insane. American society cannot be saved in my opinion, it can only be managed. Damage control is the order of the day. Gun control was largely effective here because gun use and the mentality that goes with it wasn't all that wide-spread. In the US you have citizens arming themselves with military weapons, which is simply insane.

That’s right. How much bigger than a handgun can you get when any arsehole (in an argument or not) can get one?

No-one but a total gun happy freak could argue the legitimacy of that. And when you have a population that is prepared to kill others to defend something as superficial as material possession, then you have a situation where idiocy and delusions reigns. By then, such delusion is institutionalised there so it's to be expected. It's only better here by a matter of degree.

In 2004, statistics reveal that the total number of murders other than felonies was 6,792 compared to felony murder at 2,089.

The 6,692 total is broken down into: romantic triangle, child killed by babysitter, drunken brawls, drug related brawls, arguments over money or property, other arguments, gangland killings, juvenile gang killings, institutional killings, and sniper attack. Coming in at no. 1 we have “other arguments” with a total 3,758 homicides, of which 2,211 were committed with various firearms (handguns at 1,761). At number 2 we have juvenile gang killings at 804, 757 with firearms (687 handguns). Unfortunately, I cannot locate corresponding stats on how many of these handguns were in fact stolen or privately owned.

Burglary (a felony) crawls in with at 77 murders, 43 involving firearms and 28 of those being handguns.

There were also 4,943 murders with unknown circumstances, 3,437 with firearms and 2,562 of those by handgun. So, even if you add that to, say, the burglary statistic you still have just as much grounds for carrying a firearm to protect against burglary as you do to keep yourself from being killed in “other arguments.” Fantastic, eh?

(Table 2.12, Murder Circumstances by Weapon, 2004)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses ... urder.html

[Kelly Jones]

I wonder if there is any military group on Earth that doesn't have group prayers.

I didn't realise til watching a submariner documentary recently that Christianity is used to express the Australian defence forces' beliefs about why they are going to war. The submarine captain actually has to lead prayers on ANZAC day, for instance. (ANZAC means Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, I think.)

The "right to have firearms" is delusional thinking.

-

[Leyla Shen]

The "right to have firearms" is delusional thinking.

I agree.

[Kelly Jones]

Here's what the captain said in the Submariner documentary, to his entire crew assembled on the top of the submarine at dawn, on their way to a war games in Hawaii:

Let us pray.

Lord, as we go about our duties on this special day, grant us the grace to remember those who have gone before, and who have perished at the hands of other men, or in the face of your mighty oceans.

As we commemorate the deeds of the ANZACs, let us also remember sailors past and present, who have with honour served their country.

At 0230 on the 25th of April 1915, beneath the murky waters of the Dardanelles Strait, Australian submarine A2 successfully penetrated the treacherous straits where previous vessels had failed. Later news swept the beach-head and boosted the spirits of the beleagered ANZAC soldiers. Thus begun the legend of ANZAC.

Hypnotism, really. All for the sake of ....what else but.... women and children ?


-

[Jason]

Statistics:
~3 times more murders per capita in US than in AUS
~10 times more murders with guns per capita in US than in AUS

[Kelly Jones]

From Wikipedia:

Several studies have sought to examine the potential links between rates of gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide within various jurisdictions around the world. Although these studies do not offer a comprehensive account of all of the various causes of homicide and suicide (e.g. sources of depression and family conflict), they do provide relevant background data. For example, the chart [at right] presents an analysis by Martin Killias of the School of Forensic Sciences and Criminology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, utilizing data from eighteen countries gathered between 1989 and 1992. Perhaps even more importantly, the same work reports a moderate correlation between overall rates of homicide and rates of gun ownership (Pearson's R = 0.476 with better than a 95% probability of being statistically significant) and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.

Link here.

That is, people are not more likely to use another weapon to kill, when they don't have a gun.

Or rather, they're going to use their brain as a weapon instead. Which may not be all that bad.


-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That is, people are not more likely to kill when they don't have a gun handy.

Duh. No one is arguing that if we took guns away that it would increase homicide. We are arguing that it would not decrease homicide.
.

edit to explain that my quote of Kelly was from before she edited her post.
.
second edit-

the source you cited also says:

This article or section has multiple issues:

* Its neutrality is disputed.
* Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words.
* The examples and perspective may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

[sschaula]

Kelly,

Why do Americans need to have guns around anyway ?

In other words, do they need to use them or not?

Yes, they do need to use them for self defense in addition to hunting and sporting purposes. On a day to day basis, they're not needed. It's about being prepared for what might happen, but most likely won't.

But in case you haven't noticed, there's a war with terrorism going on right now, and the US is taking the heat. Just the other day 6 people were arrested in a plot to sneak into a military base and kill as many soldiers as they could. It's much better if people have weapons to be able to stop this kind of thing. If they don't, they stand helpless against these guys. Just wait and see...there will be more attacks on US soil in the coming years, all because of this widespread unconscious hatred for America. And who will be there to protect us? The police, who are busy writing speeding tickets? The National Guard, who is in Iraq or else can't be called up immediately?

There's a reason why the right was written for people to be able to defend themselves. It's because, by Nature, man does have that right and only corrupt governments take it away.

The "right to have firearms" is delusional thinking.

How so? I think the "government taking away our right to have firearms is a wise idea" is delusional thinking. Should we not be free? Should we not be able to defend ourselves legally? If not, then we are sitting ducks. Fish in a barrel.

Even in Australia, someone could come into your house trying to steal your possessions with a weapon. If you have nothing to defend yourself with, you are helpless against that person. Does the possibility not occur to you, simply because you're not used to the idea?

Just because another country shows lower homicide rates means nothing, when comparing the legality of weapons. There are many other factors involved, and I cannot believe that owning a weapon makes people more likely to kill. I believe people will kill with or without a weapon, and the planning phase of it takes place usually before they get their hands on one.

[DHodges]

Sorry, I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer:

Why do Americans need to have guns around anyway ?

I don't own a gun, and I never have. I shot a gun once at a skeet/trap range, back around 1982. Couldn't hit a damn thing. I blame it on having to shoot right-handed, because of the way the gun was set up. (I'm left handed.)

I don't own a newspaper, either, but I would argue in favor of freedom of the press.

[Jason]

There's a reason why the right was written for people to be able to defend themselves. It's because, by Nature, man does have that right and only corrupt governments take it away.

By Nature, Governments(corrupt or otherwise) have taken that "right" away. Yay for trying to use Nature to justify arguments.(one-upped you on the bolding, cos Nature's on my side on this one!)

[sschaula]

I'm not seeing your point, Jason, but good job on the bolding.

[Jason]

. <----There it is.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sorry, I'll rephrase my question to make it clearer:

Why do Americans need to have guns around anyway ?

The only time I've ever felt like I needed my gun was during alligator mating season, there was the sound of an alligator in my backyard (I'm against a conservatory, and I have an enormous philodendron taking up about half of my backyard) and I had to do some weeding. I had my gun with me then. the only other time I had a loaded weapon on me was when I had to spend a few nights in a warehouse, and my friend who owned the warehouse was concerned about my safety, so he told me to keep his gun on me.

Even in situations where I have been attacked though, using a gun would not have been appropriate. If I'd had mace, that might have been appropriate, although if I'd maced my ex, he would have just grabbed his gun and shot me. Having weapons available does not excuse one from thinking, and pulling a trigger rather than stabbing would not feel any less "real." And if one knows what one is doing, one would not have to "stab repeatedly" to get the job done, although there is still a disadvantage to the physically weaker person.

If you and a 6' 200lb guy each had a knife, and the guy wanted to carve you up into little pieces because that was part of his initiation into a gang, you might be able to knick him before he got the knife away from you (although there is less of a chance of him even getting knicked if he is wearing a leather jacket and loose jeans) - you'd get to die a slow and torturous death. Of course, I get the impression that they don't do that in Australia. Here there are groups where people have to kill someone to fit in (the Bloods and the Crypts, mainly) and if you're a kid and you don't want to "fit in" to that group, they will kill you. Once a person is past recruitment age for these gangs, they don't get pressured, AFAICT, but all adults not in their gang are potential targets, especially for recruits.
.

[Jason]

I'm not seeing your point, Jason, but good job on the bolding.

Why are you invoking Nature in your argument? A Government that removes the right to gun ownership is just as natural as anything. You seem to be one step away from proclaiming "God-given" rights.