Guns and gun control

[Luftmensch]

In more civilized nations (by which I always mean Britain), the police aren't armed with handguns (maybe even guns at all? I'm not sure). You may recall that the UK wasn't able to compete in the Olympics pistol games because no-one was allowed even to practice and train on the mainland until special exceptions were made.

You may recall that following the civil war, the federal government made deals with the states that made it illegal to deploy army forces into a state without permission from the governor, even for aid. If you're interested in maintaining proper checks to power, perhaps you could petition for a clause demanding a disarmament of police forces as a condition to gun control? Or strictly limit military weapons onto bases or secure outposts, including reservists?

Or you could argue for more gradual controls: Stronger limits on the import and manufacturing of guns, tighter control over ammunition, requirements to take a ballistic "fingerprint" of every manufactured gun, have cartridges coated with special pollens that can be traced, imprint signatures on bullets to make them more tracable, require logs of everyone who buys ammunition as well as strict inventories with manufacturers and wholesalers, voluntary gun buyback programs, public awareness campaigns,&c.

I'm especially keen on the pollen solution: Pollen happens to be very good at surviving being shot through a gun, and there's one extra bonus: It contains DNA. DNA can be manufactured, sequenced, and logged in a database. If you required the whole gun industry to use genetic engineering before they were allowed to make ammunition, we'd have a lot more genetic engineering jobs, which is win-win.

I don't know that anime, what's she from? I might go and watch it. I just saw the picture and thought it was relevant.

[tegan]

I don't know that anime, what's she from? I might go and watch it. I just saw the picture and thought it was relevant.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's Homura from Puella Magi Madoka Magica. It's a pretty good deconstruction of the Sailor Moon magical girl archetype and it's only twelve episodes long. That particular character gets a backstory episode near the end of the series that reveals -among other things- why she uses actual modern firearms and incendiaries when everyone else uses nebulously magical weapons and why she seems to be weighed down by an overwhelming sense of nihilism.

Her only actual power is time manipulation. She's been using it to live the same few months over and over again to try to keep the girl she loves from either dying or becoming corrupted and killing everyone, but failing every time, leaving her jaded and bitter. She initially was reluctant to even use a golf club as a weapon, but gradually takes to stealing handguns and explosives. By the current timeline, she's bordering on emotionally dead and has built up a massive arsenal.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I appreciate that we see this from different sides of the fence, and I am just happy that I can have an actual discussion about this. The points I was trying to make was that the gun owning population sees an attempted disarmament as a step towards the government having free reign to infringe on any liberty we have. Being armed with muskets and choosing to stand up against tyranny was how this country was created, and many gun owners feel that the second amendment is the foundation on which the rest of the constitution stands. Without the ability to stand up against the government in the event they try to infringe on liberty, we are no longer a free nation. And i know earlier in this thread the argument was made that the government has tanks and drones etc. [Not to mention nuclear weapons.] but as it stands it is merely another common set of checks and balances that creates fear-based trust between citizen and governing body... not the best trust relationship, but the one the country was created with and therefore one that it continues to have.

I do understand that. I have a lot of American friends, so I do appreciate the "other side", as it were. It's just the most insane argument in the universe to imagine that America, a country where people get slightly teary at the word "freedom", could ever let itself lapse into a fascistic state. Not to mention that, if that truly was the reason for the populace to arm itself, then why aren't people gathered in some sort of military force in preparation. Why aren't they allowed to own grenade launchers, bazookers, Apache helicopters and nuclear bombs?

A friend of mine who studied US history told me once that the only reason that clause was included in the Second Amendment was because they were fearful of an invasion -- at that particular moment in time. Arming the populace, as part of a well-regulated militia, was a way of increasing defence.

(Any history buffs know if she was right?)

Finally, the scariest thing is just how much fear that mindset exhibits.

Any gun control initiative that helps keep guns in the hands of the responsible and out of the hands of the insidious I am all for. This is what we should be doing, but of course some on the right will ridicule anything Obama does because they are unable to look at it from any other position than their own, which happens on the left as well.

The problem is, as was pointed out by my friend's FB status on page one, is that it's impossible to assess someone as fit for ownership of a weapon. Even if that person is of perfectly sound body and mind when any test was given, it doesn't mean that when his wife leaves him for his brother on the same week he gets fired from his job that he won't go mental.

Is there a better a solution than gun control to ensure the above doesn't happen?

Any gun ban on a type of gun because it is scary and has become a symbol of this type of tragic violence is a convenient solution that will accomplish nothing but creating more of a rift between those who are comfortable with guns being in society and those that are not. I am comfortable with guns being in the hands of the police because I am a law abiding citizen, but I would not be comfortable with the guns being in the hands of the police and government if I wasn't afforded the same rights. That is a level of trust for government and elected officials that I simply don't have, and I know I am not alone.

Yes, I can see this. In the UK, only a tiny minority of the police carry guns... because they don't need them, because the populace isn't generally armed. That seems fair to me. (I take it nobody listened to the Bill Hicks video I posted?) I don't care about the Army, though -- to fight an army we'd need the same weapons.

possibly, but there really seems to be some underlying causes here that should be the main focus. In the fifties there were many gun ranges and gun clubs within schools, and teenagers were taught to use them responsibly while the term school shooting hadn't even become a thing yet.

I'm betting that the number of guns per capita wasn't the highest in the world in the 50s :-/

I don't have an answer to this, I just think that blaming and banishing a tool is a step in the wrong direction. If I get a DUI, I do not blame my car for not driving straighter. I know if I were the parent of a child like this I would blame myself, regardless of his age...especially if he used my weapon.

This makes no sense. It's not about appointing blame, it's about prevention. Nobody is blaming guns, they're blaming gun laws. If it was legal to drink and drive, and you ended up killing someone while doing it, somebody might think that making drink driving illegal was a step in the right direction.

[Armchair General]

I find it absurd that a country as advanced as America wants to keep guns just incase their government tries to infringe their liberty. If that's truly the case and not just some bullshit argument, it exposes just how thin the veneer of civility is in the USA. They have so little faith in the laws and fellow citizens of their country that they are prepared to let awful tragedies occur just incase their elected government turns against them.

I'm afriad I may be being a dick over this, but I cannot for the life of me understand the fascination America has with firearms. Don't get me wrong I'm not anti - American, far from it, I am pleased they police rogue states in the main, but jeez, GUNS.

[Stash]

Not to mention that, if that truly was the reason for the populace to arm itself, then why aren't people gathered in some sort of military force in preparation. Why aren't they allowed to own grenade launchers, bazookers, Apache helicopters and nuclear bombs?

Simply put, they are (arming themselves in preparation, not owning WMD's and heavy artillery) and if every hillbilly could have an Apache, believe me, it would be parked in their front lawn right next to the broken down car they use for target practice. But none of those would be practical for defending against a home invasion, where as an AR in the hands of a trained individual is very practical.

The problem is, as was pointed out by my friend's FB status on page one, is that it's impossible to assess someone as fit for ownership of a weapon. Even if that person is of perfectly sound body and mind when any test was given, it doesn't mean that when his wife leaves him for his brother on the same week he gets fired from his job that he won't go mental.

Is there a better a solution than gun control to ensure the above doesn't happen?

I wish there was.

I'm betting that the number of guns per capita wasn't the highest in the world in the 50s :-/

I am sure it was still up there, we had all of the firearms from WWII as well as the arms race gearing up between us and Russia. But probably not at nearly a 1 to 1 ratio, which is pretty mind boggling. I did like that Bill Hicks clip, I saw that documentary about him but haven't checked out much of his other standup, but now it is on my list.

This makes no sense. It's not about appointing blame, it's about prevention. Nobody is blaming guns, they're blaming gun laws. If it was legal to drink and drive, and you ended up killing someone while doing it, somebody might think that making drink driving illegal was a step in the right direction.

But by this analogy, its not the drunk driving they want to make illegal, its corvettes because they are faster and thusly more dangerous. Or school buses because they have a high capacity for people and more people = more mass =more force = more possible destruction if out of control. Evil, evil schoolbuses.

[Luftmensch]

But by this analogy, its not the drunk driving they want to make illegal, its corvettes because they are faster and thusly more dangerous. Or school buses because they have a high capacity for people and more people = more mass =more force = more possible destruction if out of control. Evil, evil schoolbuses.

Well actually, that's more or less what we already do. It's illegal to drive a vehicle on public roads that doesn't meet these honestly pretty strict safety standards. We tolerate certain statistical risks including high top speeds and low driving ages because there's a huge cultural demand for them. Which might have something to do with the fact that the US has more traffic related deaths per capita, per vehicle, and per mile than all of Scandinavia, France, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and even Italy. Culture's hard to change, but the law, fortunately, keeps the damage down.

[ThunderPeel2001]

But by this analogy, its not the drunk driving they want to make illegal, its corvettes because they are faster and thusly more dangerous. Or school buses because they have a high capacity for people and more people = more mass =more force = more possible destruction if out of control. Evil, evil schoolbuses.

Eh? We were talking about gun control, not just assault rifles. (You said, "I just think that blaming and banishing a tool is a step in the wrong direction.") Now you're trying to make out that you were just talking about assault rifles, which means, by your argument, that the public should be allowed to own landmines, miniguns, explosives, AFVs... because keeping them banned is like banning school buses and Corvettes...? I'm not convinced. (All of the above would be extremely helpful in preventing a home invasion, after all.)

[Luftmensch]

AFVs...

I, for one, stand behind any measure to ban America's Funniest Home Videos.

[Ben X]

This is a really basic pro-control article, but it's well-put:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

[James]

Eh? We were talking about gun control, not just assault rifles. (You said, "I just think that blaming and banishing a tool is a step in the wrong direction.") Now you're trying to make out that you were just talking about assault rifles, which means, by your argument, that the public should be allowed to own landmines, miniguns, explosives, AFVs... because keeping them banned is like banning school buses and Corvettes...? I'm not convinced. (All of the above would be extremely helpful in preventing a home invasion, after all.)

Although I lean towards being for gun control, I don't think the drink driving analogy works entirely in your favour. The point is that banning guns because people can commit crimes (homicide) with them is like banning either cars or alcohol because people can commit crimes (drink driving) with them. That would be how you deny the tools required to cause the damage.

It's a messy analogy, though, because the main thing we're concerned with when it comes to drink driving is accidental death, whereas the main thing we're concerned with when it comes to firearms is deliberate killing, so all the reasoning for one argument doesn't necessarily carry over to the other: if someone is set on drink driving, they're being irresponsible, but if all goes according to plan, nobody dies; if someone is set on shooting people, if all goes according to plan, people will die.

Still, how many deaths a year are alcohol-related? Even if we exclude self-inflicted mortalities, it must be a fair number. Can what pleasure we derive from it really justify that? It's by no means a necessity. Should we ban alcohol, too? I wouldn't like that, but am I a hypocrite for not supporting it?

[ThunderPeel2001]

Although I lean towards being for gun control, I don't think the drink driving analogy works entirely in your favour. The point is that banning guns because people can commit crimes (homicide) with them is like banning either cars or alcohol because people can commit crimes (drink driving) with them. That would be how you deny the tools required to cause the damage.

It's a messy analogy, though, because the main thing we're concerned with when it comes to drink driving is accidental death, whereas the main thing we're concerned with when it comes to firearms is deliberate killing, so all the reasoning for one argument doesn't necessarily carry over to the other: if someone is set on drink driving, they're being irresponsible, but if all goes according to plan, nobody dies; if someone is set on shooting people, if all goes according to plan, people will die.

Still, how many deaths a year are alcohol-related? Even if we exclude self-inflicted mortalities, it must be a fair number. Can what pleasure we derive from it really justify that? It's by no means a necessity. Should we ban alcohol, too? I wouldn't like that, but am I a hypocrite for not supporting it?

As I said before, the "tools" for drunk driving are a car AND alcohol, which ARE illegal together. You can't even legally drive with an open container of alcohol in the car. And, of course, Prohibition WAS tried in the US, but it caused more problems than it solved. The cure can't be worse than the illness, and banning vehicles would be hugely detrimental to the US. Same goes for alcohol.

[Nachimir]

In more civilized nations (by which I always mean Britain), the police aren't armed with handguns (maybe even guns at all? I'm not sure).

Police aren't armed by default, but I have seen them carry MP5s and Glocks in my home town. Typically, they're in cars rather than patrolling on foot or guarding anywhere. There's a more comprehensive list here: http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

Handguns were banned for civilians after Dunblane, and since then rules have been tightened up for air weapons and imitation firearms too, which either have to have a part such as the slide brightly coloured, or the owner has to be registered with an airsoft club. Pretty much the only things a civilian can get a license for are shotguns and rifles, and certainly not auto/semi-auto ones. Pest control and reenactment seem to be the most common reasons for gun ownership here now.

[James]

As I said before, the "tools" for drunk driving are a car AND alcohol, which ARE illegal together. You can't even legally drive with an open container of alcohol in the car.

But shooting people is illegal, too. The point is that by banning drink driving, you're not denying the public the ability to drink drive, you're merely telling them not to. If they want to, people can still do it, and countless do. They might get caught, they might run someone over, or they might get to their destination safely. The argument for banning guns is that people shouldn't even have the opportunity to shoot anyone, because obviously its being illegal isn't deterrent enough for everyone. To deny people the ability to drink drive, you'd have to restrict their access to one or other of the necessary components. A better analogue for drink driving law would be for guns and bullets to be legal, but for it to be illegal to load your weapon. It's probably easier to catch people driving drunk than loading weapons, though.

And, of course, Prohibition WAS tried in the US, but it caused more problems than it solved.

That's true. I guess some people are worried a "prohibition" on guns would be just as bad. I don't buy it, though.

[ThunderPeel2001]

But shooting people is illegal, too. The point is that by banning drink driving, you're not denying the public the ability to drink drive, you're merely telling them not to. If they want to, people can still do it, and countless do. They might get caught, they might run someone over, or they might get to their destination safely. The argument for banning guns is that people shouldn't even have the opportunity to shoot anyone, because obviously its being illegal isn't deterrent enough for everyone. To deny people the ability to drink drive, you'd have to restrict their access to one or other of the necessary components. A better analogue for drink driving law would be for guns and bullets to be legal, but for it to be illegal to load your weapon. It's probably easier to catch people driving drunk than loading weapons, though.

Fair enough. If anything, it seems like the drink/driving analogy doesn't work at all. You'd have to ban cars and/or alcohol to stop drink driving completely, and neither of those are feasible solutions because of the problems they would cause. So what's left? Well they can make it illegal to have an open container of alcohol in the car -- even if it's being drunk by a passenger. They can stop drive-throughs from serving alcohol. They can allow police to issue breathalyser tests. They pretty much do everything they can to prevent/discourage it except banning cars and alcohol -- which would be worse than the problem they're trying to solve.

With weapons, it's difficult to believe that banning them would create more problems than they would solve -- although pro-gun owners often try to claim that that's exactly what would happen. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned it so far, but I'm glad they haven't: I've seen folk make statements like, "they banned weapons in Australia, and now home invasions have gone through the roof!" -- except the stats don't support that at all.

The bottom line is that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the facts state. We're irrational beings Which just brings me back to the idea that change can't happen until the society in question is ready for it. And America isn't ready for it yet, if you ask me.

[Gormongous]

A large part of America is ready for it, but America itself isn't ready for it. That's been the really weird thing about living in the States this past decade, with healthcare and gay marriage and now gun control.

[tegan]

A large part of America is ready for it, but America itself isn't ready for it. That's been the really weird thing about living in the States this past decade, with healthcare and gay marriage and now gun control.

This is kind of a weird fascinating thing, for me. Apart from the "America go democracy too early" explanation posted earlier, can anyone provide an explanation of this phenomenon to me?

It's something that seems to basically be unique to America. For example, when I someday meet the Lara to my Skipper Croft, I'll be able to get married because the major gay marriage debate in my province lasted for four months (with one month of that being a waiting period for paperwork and such), even with a conservative premier who opposed the idea.

[syntheticgerbil]

But by this analogy, its0 not the drunk driving they want to make illegal, its corvettes because they are faster and thusly more dangerous. Or school buses because they have a high capacity for people and more people = more mass =more force = more possible destruction if out of control. Evil, evil schoolbuses.

Can we rest with these kind of analogies? Here's why your drunk analogy doesn't work: Vehicles are not manufactured with the purpose of killing people. End of story.

I don't want to hear anymore that we should in turn ban hands because I could strangle someone or that a knife I could use to cut chicken in the kitchen should have the same kind of restrictions that guns would. This is always an attempt to pretend that in every case that restrictions on anything you could potentially kill someone with is equal and therefore control laws are always inept. This kind of stuff just avoids and derails the argument of gun control, yet I keep hearing it crop up everytime I see or hear a discussion on the internet or in real life.

I think this is just one of those issues where you need to look at the issue as a unique issue itself and just hone in on what you have to say about it.

[ThunderPeel2001]

This is kind of a weird fascinating thing, for me. Apart from the "America got democracy too early" explanation posted earlier, can anyone provide an explanation of this phenomenon to me?

It's something that seems to basically be unique to America. For example, when I someday meet the Lara to my Skipper Croft, I'll be able to get married because the major gay marriage debate in my province lasted for four months (with one month of that being a waiting period for paperwork and such), even with a conservative premier who opposed the idea.

Yeah, same here. I don't recall gay marriage being that much of a big deal here in the UK. I mean it was cool when a lot of gay celebs started getting married, but I don't recall it being all that controversial.

[Luftmensch]

I think it helps that you have a queen who can wave her royal scepter and tell both the government and the church that dudes marrying dudes is totally okay.

You may not know about this, but here in South Carolina, we had two Episcopalian diocese, based out of Columbia and out of Charleston, but the diocese of Charleston actually seceded because it didn't like that the Church of England supports gay marriage. I'm not a member of the Church of England but hearing about that weird schism makes me sad to be from this state. Dammit, first you secede from England, then from the Union, and now from England again??

[miffy495]

I remember it being a bit of a thing in Alberta, but Alberta is backwards as fuck by Canadian standards. Still, we did it with the rest of the country, we just complained loudly for a while and then got distracted by something shiny. Or oil. Probably oil.

[Merus]

It was very strange to see Australia's gun laws in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre come up as a response to the Sandy Hook massacre, because we banned a bunch of guns, sure, but we also didn't have a culture that deified them. We were basically just taking them away from crazy people, farmers and hunters, and the latter two groups were basically told there were plenty of alternatives and to stop their bitchin'. I don't think it would work the same in America; Australians are, on average, much more trusting of the institution of government, although we're on average a bit more socially conservative than Americans are. The problems we faced then and the problems America faced aren't really that similar; we had far fewer gun deaths but a bunch of massacres, whereas America has so much more gun death that it's only the sensational massacres stand out. We also don't have any gun manufacturers in Australia so it's a lot harder for them to get into the country in the first place.

I think it's important, also, to remember that amongst the gun aficionado community there's a certain amount of contempt for feeling so secure that you're not watching for potential threats. The reasoning is that people not being ready to defend against crime at a moment's notice are letting it fester, which to me seems like surrendering to the idea that crime can't be prevented so you just have to defend against it. I am not sure how I'm managing to argue that gun nuts are soft on crime but I'll take it. (I do think it's ironic that so many appear to be concerned about the government taking their guns and then their liberty away in the country with the highest proportion of incarcerated people in the world.)

Honestly I think it's a social and cultural problem that requires a massive shift in how America sees itself, which considering I say that a lot essentially means that I don't have any idea; in the same way that after the recent London riots a ton of social commentators had columns that boiled down to "these riots were because of this thing I've been writing about for years, everybody listen to me, I'm right". So I guess I don't have answers other than 'Australian-style gun control will not fix the problem of people loving guns too goddamn much'.

Wait, wait: how about we get one of the Jackass guys to burst into an NRA meeting with a paintball gun? See how many people he can hit with it before someone tries to shoot him, and then we'll know for sure how much having a gun at your side and the requisite training to use it makes you safe.

Okay, yeah, I don't have any ideas.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I think it helps that you have a queen who can wave her royal scepter and tell both the government and the church that dudes marrying dudes is totally okay.

The Queen doesn't interfere with our government, we're a democracy, not a fascist state.

[James]

Pedantry: I the Queen were to interfere, would it not be better described as despotism rather than fascism?

[osmosisch]

dotcom idea: despotify.com

It dictates what you listen to.

[Lu]

And then bills you for every track automatically.