Sorry....NO. 'People' refers to the people or citizens of the United States, not some vague representation of 'community'. The 4th Amendment extends its guarantees to 'the people,' meaning 'the people of the United States.' As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.
So intertwining the founders interpretation of 'people' and yours, you then are saying that only a small number of people can be trusted to be endowed with freedom of speech, and anyone who doesn't agree with that must be in the more ignorant groups of the public.

"To disarm the people; that is the best and most effective way to enslave them . . . ." George Mason

USSC rulings and the intent of the founders makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens, or 'people' to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is important because it is the only one from which the other amendments may be defended. If the 2nd Amendment falls, there is no practical or effective way to defend the other amendments.

You would gain a tad more credibility if you characterized the anti-gun lobby in the same way as you do the NRA. Both have an agenda and propagandize, but only a clear mind can see that fact.

When someone can bring to the table a cogent argument for limiting handguns that takes them away from the criminal and doesn't leave the law abiding citizen at risk, I'll take a brief look at surrendering my right, as one of the 'people'.

And how in the world do you arrive at the conclusion that your 'small number of people' don't own any guns? Who are these people, and have you surveyed them? Or is is a baseless rant?

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature .... Wherever ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

And so what? Are you seriously suggesting America needs 200 million guns in the domestic environment to allow a sporting event?

In Britain, they took responsibility for their gun laws after the Dunblane massacre and banned ALL hand guns, including sports guns.


I'm not in your country.


I know everything I need to know about your culture. It is reflected in your art. Any anthropologist will explain this to you if you don't believe me.

What you, yourself, consider to be your culture, is neither here nor there since America has no one over riding culture as turnea recently proved to me, and so your idea of your culture, in the light of how it is exported across the globe carries no more value than my own. You have your idea, and I have mine.

Sure, there are nuances that defy my understanding, but this is just as true for you. No one fully understands all the details of a culture but we can understand the core philosophy's of a culture. Especially when these are written down in a constitution or reproduced in a million different media outlets all across the planet.

And really, if you think that as a European I don't understand the concept of a dangerous government, than I suggest you need to read a book about the history of the twentieth century because Europeans have had far more instances of our governments attacking us in the last century than Americans have!

We know perfectly well how dangerous a malicious government can be.


You are totally wrong.
Europe is still an armed camp with millions of weapons within the domestic arena, and easily available. In Denmark for example, the government freely arms any adult Dane who wishes it. Simply by joining the hjemmeværn (home guard) a Dane can acquire an automatic rifle, and 100 rounds of ammunition, to be stored inside the house.

I can assure you, a H&K G3, or a C5 (M16 clone) is more than adequate to 'defend a home'. We have plenty of weaponry floating about over here. The difference is, we don't have hand guns sold on the high street. It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon... even a knife unless you are also carrying a hunting permit, and a clearly visible hunters mark.

The end result of all this, is Europe's don't have to suffer the ridiculous violent crime that Americans do, and my chances of ever being shot at at far far less than yours.

It is complete folly to believe that owning guns can protect you from a malignant government. Such governments always come into power by popular support. By the time you realised you were under such a government, it would be far too late to use a 'legal fire arm' to prevent it.

And one last point. I am not projecting 'my culture' on to you. No one forces you to read or respond to me and frankly, this is not a question of 'European culture'. It is plain and simple common sense.

Instead of doing something about the problem of the gun culture in the USA, instead of doing something about children being gunned down in schools, about police officers being shot by heavily armed criminals and about the large numbers of people being killed by 'legal' as well as illegal guns, your just burying your head in the sand and standing by your right to own a totally useless tool that won't make any difference to changing the mess your country is in.

If you want freedom and security then the tools you need to be using, are the REAL tools of democracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


They commit no social harm by owning guns other than by the simple fact that because they are buying guns, then millions of guns are being manufactured and according to what you tell me, a lot of those guns are fuelling the criminal demand.

If fewer guns were being manufactured then there would be fewer guns available to the criminals.


As I mentioned to loreng59. Carrying a knife here is now made illegal after a child was stabbed and killed by another child with a 7cm blade.


Its very simple. A gun, especially a hand gun, has no place in a society where murder is illegal. It has no purpose. There are other ways of defending yourself if you are under threat.
You can call the police. In fact this is what you are supposed to do in a society that regards murder as illegal.
You can employ the use of a non lethal weapon if you do not trust the police.
or
You can run away. Which is more important, your house or your life?

That these options may strike you, and others here, as unrealistic, says much about the state of your nation and destroys any argument as to the freedom enjoyed in the USA.


Exactly.

The difference rests in the concept of a voluntary collective responsibility. For as long as America is a nation divided to the detriment of children gunned down in schools, then it can never be free. It will always be trapped in its gun culture by morals that are dictated by criminals.

All you've done is highlight how Europeans have willingly surrendered their freedoms little by little in the interest of the nanny state. Tell me...what will be outlawed next, because someone uses it improperly?

We have our share of chicken little's in the US also, who go around and shout nothing but 'think of the children!!!!'.....while doing nothing to address the root cause or how to protect average citizens. All in the name of them sleeping better at night.


It's very simple if the assailant doesn't have a firearm, isn't it? However if he does, should we cower in the corner and beg the nice man not to slay our family? Should we threaten him that the police are on the way?

I'm sure he'll see our side of it, but I'm, not about to bet my life or that of my family on it.

I would comment on your options, but you haven't given us any. Simply the utopian vision of one who claims more freedom than Americans, but is not allowed to defend himself as he desires.

Dontreadonme

What freedoms have we surrendered?

The right to bear arms? We can still 'bear arms'. We can go hunting, we can take part in sports (except for the English) all thats been banned is hand guns and concealed weapons.

Did you not understand what I wrote? We have weapons. LOTS of them. The difference is, we don't need to use them.


Oh give me a break. Little chickens?

So what does that make you? the 'Big Dog'?

The sky is not falling down and no one is crying about it. We haven't given up our freedoms. We've ensured them by making sure we have a police force that will arrive on time, by making sure guns can't be bought in street shops, by making sure weapon manufacturers cannot simply sell to citizens and by making sure illegal fire arms do not flood our criminal underworld. We hold our politicians accountable by actually turning out to vote!

Guns exist here. Of course they do. They just seldom get used.

And Yes. We do care about our children enough to protect them. We even extend that protection to the children of other families.


In the here and now? Your at the mercy of the criminals. Thats the conservative society your nation has repeatedly elected in power.

You are helpless, and having a gun in your hand doesn't change that. Your riding a tiger.


There is nothing utopian about Europe.

I have given you the answer. Its simple. Hold your politicians accountable. Stop voting for the status quo of your eternal two party system that holdsyou hostage in your own homes and at the mercy of well armed criminals.

Do something about it instead of thinking a gun will protect you.

Never said anything about dogs....not really sure where you're going with that........

You haven't ensured your freedoms at all.....you've ensured a modicum of security, possibly temporary at that. You see, there is a difference between freedom and security. You're willing to sacrifice some of one for some of another.....and I am willing to make the opposite sacrifice.
But do tell, other than being a fairly small (real estate wise) country to begin with, how you get your police force to be more timely. Maybe you don't have Dunkin Donuts in Denmark.........OK bad police joke.....

Quite wrong my Danish friend.


You've still given no realistic answer. If I gave up my gun tomorrow, how does that make me safe? If we give up our right to bear arms, how does that make us safe? Do you have the foggiest idea of how many years, decades or centuries it would take to police all handguns out of the hands of criminals?
And BTW, I do hold my politicians accountable.....I expect them to make tough laws concerning the use of guns while committing a crime, as opposed to passing meaningless laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
And until more politicians do so, I will continue to act as judge, jury and executioner for any who assault myself or my family with a weapon. And I quite care less if that makes me a 'cowboy' or a 'gunslinger' in the eyes of anyone who doesn't believe that right to be sacrosanct.

Dontreadonme - I think that the term 'Ugly American' can safely be replaced now. With attitudes like moif's has been stating it should more the 'Arrogant European' instead. Seems that Europeans want to change our laws to conform to theirs.

The way it looks most of Europe had few rights, and gave those away to a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Now they think that we should beg to be part of the EU by giving up our rights and culture. Boy do they not understand Americans at all.

moif to answer what rights you have given up. The vote to join the EU cost you ALL of your rights. You have none at all, unless the boys in Brussels give you some. They decide your labor laws, criminal laws, and civil laws. You have nothing left.

First of all. I do not speak on behalf of Europe, so your contention that 'Europeans want to change our laws to conform to theirs' is false.

Second. Perhaps you need to read about Denmarks' attitude to the EU and how often we've voted to not join its various treaty's or its currency, or its military or its police force before you start telling me about which rights I have given away.

Third, what do my personal opinions have to do with the thread topic?

When was the amendment made? Because if it was also nearly as long ago as the 18th century, it should have been updated long ago to keep up with modern times. It would never happen, of course. Too many people with too much power would easily obstruct any open debate on the issue. Its gone too far to be reigned in now. The gun crime stats in Florida compared to the rest of the world make shocking reading, but even that wouldn't have enough weight.



I don't seek to explain it, although I am happy to enter into a psycho-analysis of the reason's if you'd like. However, as stated above, the gun crime stats (as i recall - i can't find the source where i saw the stats compared...) of individual states such as Florida outweigh the number in the entirety of Northern Europe. Are you sure there's no problem? You think i don't give enough the average US citizen enough credit... maybe that's the case. I wouldn't trust the majority of people in the world with a gun. I don't 100% back the notion that every person has the right to make mistakes that affect other people. Thankfully i'm not in power - I have to accept "open" debate.


I assume he was / is an American. Well, i guess that must make Europe enslaved. Funny, i'd never noticed.


Not at all. There are plenty of intelligent people in the US who feel the same, but the opportunity to do so is hundred years out of date. Maybe we should build a huge wall, like the Israelis, to keep you all in. As for Arrogant, ironic that you should use the term the US has been given for the past decades...


Really? And yet we've been at this civilisation game longer than the US... I feel pretty free. Being invaded in ancient history didn't have anything to do with not being individually armed.


That would be blood sports. Hunting foxes on horseback, and allowing the dogs to rip them apart for "sport". The idiots involved can still shoot the captured fox, apparently. Just not allow a perverse and dubious sense of sport (8 dogs on one exhausted fox) to continue.


Not interested in characterising either side of the gun-ownership arguement. Simply pointing to the fact that the NRA conceal half the truth that might enlighten or raise questions in other minds. I don't doubt that the anti-gun lobby conceal the truth too. Still, the true stats are scary enough by themselves. Its too late to take guns away now, but it's your problem, not ours. That its a bad state of affairs is all that was being said. No sense in being bitter that we're safer on this side of the Atlantic than you.


If you're likely to have a baseball bat, then the crim won't have to have a gun. If you're likely to have a gun, then the crim will have a big gun, and shoot you first rather than risk getting shot themselves. How is that making it safer. Increase your security... far better to prevent than react.

(finally found some data on the subject, although not what i was looking for)
Use of guns in crime(2001).
Violent Crime: US (26%), Canada (3%), Australia (1%), UK (1%)
Homicide: US (63%), Canada (31%), Australia (14%), UK (9%)
Robbery: US (42%), Canada (14%) , Australia (6%), UK (4%)


In the end, it doesn't really make a difference to you if I have verifiable statistics. The rant wasn't baseless, but based on my experiences and the people I know.


Exactly. It's the person holding it that needs to be taught better. The world stage has witnessed the widespread tendancy to shoot first and question later. It is something that is stuck at the heart of the US. Where and why? Only you as citizens can exercise the freedom to think about why that is, and whether you want to follow or lead.

I see just because an idea has been around for a while it should be updated? Then why are the rest of the amendments also not up for updates, like freedom of religion, or free speech maybe because those are some sort of 'protected' rights, but to give people a true voice should not be protected as well.

And yes Arrogant is great term for European attitudes, the United States is still the most powerful nation on the planet. You suggest that Europe should build a wall to keep us in. There is the arrogance that I talk about. With the French running the EU foreign policy you haven't enough white flags to take on a third rate power let alone the US.

England seems to appreciate and honor many ancient laws including the Magna Charter and traditions that date back several centuries. But to suggest that our laws of a little more than 200 years are outdated just because they are American seems very arrogant to me.

How much freedom should people have? Should they have it until they abuse it, or is that too late? Those that perform crimes with guns rarely do it with legally registered guns, i'm sure, so it is not the legal owners that are the problem in the main. BUT, that guns are so acceptable in US society is a concern, for me at least. I'm sure that such acceptability must have a major affect. That domestic violence raises such little concern and reaction amongst the police and in the courts, has not helped stamping it out.

Laws should be things that evolve, but not necessarily soften. There are many laws that should be looked at again, both here and there. I've read numerous stats that suggest that gun crime is increasing here more than there. But then these same stats convieniently fail to point out that the level over there has long been much higher, where as here it has been pretty low, historically. No doubt it needs to be examined, but culture has a lot to do with why it wasn't so prevalent here before, and is becoming so.

I'll offend many, no doubt, but it is the more ignorant parts of the UK that follow blindly what the US culture throws up. No suprise that these same groups take up illegal guns and continue about their daily crimes, better armed. Guns are used in a vastly smaller number of crimes than there. It makes sense that if you give someone a powerful tool, you give them more chance to abuse it. I wouldn't necessarily trust myself with a gun...


if only this right was truely upheld in the courts, especially in custody battles. Before you start, it isn't, from experience.

I pointedly joked that Europe should build a wall, referring to the Israeli wall. Don't lets start with throwing arrogant around. You're in no country to be throwing stones. As for France, history has proven we've not been cowed by France or Germany in the past. Let them wave their flags, whilst serving their polical agendas. We've always been closer to the US and it is the UK that has regularly reminded the US that it needs to be seen to listen to the world view.

I do not have the crime stats in either America or Europe. My little community I do have a pretty good idea of our level of crime. I was reading the report of all crimes reported to the police for the past week (they put it in the local newspaper). We had two shoplifting cases and one where a person drove off without paying for their gas. That's the great crime-ridden world I live in.

So if we had any gun crimes, that too would be a big change in our statics. One of the reasons may very well be that we are allowed to carry concealed firearms and most homeowners are armed. I can not prove it, but I fail to see any reason to change what we are doing here.

We are not asking you to change your laws, firearms are not in your culture. They are in ours and we intend to keep it that way.

this IS the focus of this topic though.

You can't ever say that having guns makes life safer. That is moot argument. Nuclear war hasn't made the world safer. Making a burgler worry about whether he might get shot when trying to steal is the ONLY positive that i'm yet to hear, but that can't outweigh making it easier for criminals to own them too.

I've said it before, if someone is on my property, in my house, threatening me or my family I won't consider their rights for a second. If i have a gun, however, they are more likely to end up dead than just unconcious, and i'm also likely to end up behind bars.

Increasing the rights on your property (and in reasonable circumstances) is something i'm all in favour of. But i would stop short of giving unrestricted licence to gun ownership. I'm glad your community is so friendly. Alas, that is not the norm in the world or your country.

You're not likely to find yourself behind bars if you lived in the US, we have the right to defend home and family.....one of our freedoms, if you will.
You seem to support the practice of defending one's home, but why do you seem to want to surrender your sovereign right of defense when you leave your property?


You earlier stated:

then wrote: So instead of attempting to answer the question, you try and deflect it and presume that I wouldn't listen to statistics. Very mature........



That's a no brainer........freedoms are human rights. They are not entitlements to be doled out by the state, or withheld on whims of politicians or citizens on moral crusades. I'm surprised anyone would seriously ask that question.

Actually, i did answer. I said that it was based on my own experience, and that of friends of mine in the states. It was not based on statistics.

On the second part, society is based on rules, and rules necessarily limit personal freedoms. Otherwise, theoretically, i could kill my neighbour on a whim, and then their family could in turn kill me etc. etc... Rules and laws are there to keep people in line - that necessarily takes SOME rights away.

as for the gun stats:


If you took guns away, would these stats be more or less? It goes without saying that the majority of gun owners don't use them for crime.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

No, and this is one of many issues, like national health care, that simply does not translate from inside the cities to out. OI sarge writes,



This is so short-sited! Before the mentally ill are in hospitals, they are mentally ill on city streets and before felons are in jail, they are out on the streets, commiting felonies. Furthermore, they are downt the street from the blue-voter, not the red-voter. I wish we had a nation that was willing to see the othersides point of view, until then, i watch ambulances fly past me every friday night because some teenager got his hands on a gun.



Would infringement of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

The 'foundations' of liberty and freedom,' as conceived in 1789 included endorsement of slavery, and genocide in the form of western expansion. Each of our first 8 or 10 presidents were great men for their time, each fully meeting socrates' criteria for a philosopher-king; privvy to the imperfection of their own creation (since no one of them ever built the exact government he desired), they left plenty of room in the constitution for amendment. I personally believe that we should live in a society where a gun sits on a shelf only to be used in hunting, qualified self-defense-- or as a statement to the federal government, a declaration of out willingness, as a people to defend our inalieable rights. But we don't. We live in a world, time, and in a nation, where tempers fly and short-sited people kill innocent people. The idea that, if we all had guns, no one would be killed, is nutty; if any of the libertarians had ever seen an innocent person killed, or had ever lost a loved one to either side (victim or perpetrator) of a senseless gun crime, they would feel very differently about the role of the gun in america.
I fully understand the argument that we are making for the second ammendment as it applies to personal liberty, but inside the cities, children are dying for non-urban america's 'right-to-bare' arms. Once privvy to reality, I don't understand how any conscious, moral argument can made against the illegalization of hand-guns in America.

Number one you do live in England and yes you want us to change our laws.

I can and do say having guns makes life safer. I have done so repeatedly and have yet to see a single thing to change it. By the way yes I think that having used nuclear weapons has made the world safer too.

If the weapons were legal to own, you would not end up in jail. Also for the most of the US they too are just a tranquil and peaceful as where I live. Ownership of weapons is no more dangerous than ownership of vehicles.

number one, I do live in England, and this discussion includes *shock horror* discussion of the rights or wrongs about Gun ownership as a right, thus a discussion of your laws.



I have no desire for this to be personal, but mate, you talk as though i've never been there. Apparently, for good or bad, i've seen more of the underbelly of the US than you have as a resident. Not to be rude, you don't know EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER. IF YOU DO THIS AGAIN WE WILL ISSUE YOU A STRIKE. about your country, if that's truly what you think. For the majority of the land, yes, but then very few people live in those few and far between places. In the populated areas, its a very different story.

As for Nuclear weapons making the world safer, i guess you mean that "surely no-one would dare start a nuclear war"... not thinking of the perspective, "any terrorist group / country could end the world as we know it, if they chose to". Look outside your community and smell the coffee.

I am glad that you like your gun laws. But the 2nd Amendment is ours, it does not endanger Europe. It doesn't even affect Europe.

I have never suggested that you haven't been here. I happen to live fairly close to the city of Cleveland and I know just how bad it can get, so what? Just as I have been to England and know that it has bad several parts get there as well. I have been to considerable part of the rest of the world as well as having lived from one end of the United States to another. Please do not claim that I do not know about the country that I reside in. I am stating the most of America is peaceful and has a very low crime rate. Yes our inner cities have a lot of problems, mainly from drugs.

So you had a bad experience in America. There is no reason to change our constitution, just because it makes you afraid. Legally owned and used guns do not cause the problems.

Assuming i'm allowed to discuss on this post, then i'm entitled to discuss the laws in question, since that's the basis of the thread. I'm not asking you to change the laws. I'm discussing the good and bad sides of it. Since gun's are part of the rights to self defence, its in the discussion.



Peaceful? Low crime rate? This has nothing to do with personal bad experiences, or personal anything. The statistics are very clear on the matter. There is a gun-crime problem in the US, and gun-crime is increasing from a relatively low level in the UK. The problem is worse in the US, so clearly that system isn't working. Its getting worse here, so something needs to be done here too.

You're lucky that were you live is nice and peaceful. Be thankful that you can afford to get away from a bad place to a better place. Others don't have the choice, and have to experience gun-crime far too close to home.

And actually, since it passed by unnoticed before, the US has an unfortunately large effect on much of Europe, especially the youth. Behaviour that is acceptable there becomes more acceptable here. Its just the way it is. It doesn't make you responsible, but its just another unfortunate fact that we have to deal with.


Indeed, i've stated this on numerous occasions. But that they are more available, and more acceptable must necessarily lead to more of the wrong people owning them, legally or illegally.

Now, that's a strange conclusion. Whatever makes you think you speak for every person who has ever lost a loved one due to a crime? I've know people who have seen loved ones die from guns and feel just the opposite. Few are going to win with their fists in a gun fight. I've never heard of a rape case in which the woman was packing a pistol. I have heard of cases when the woman extricated herself from a bad situation and saved herself from being raped and killed because she had a gun.

I just saw the movie 'Hotel Rwanda' last night. The entire time I was thinking how a few armaments within the houses of the Tutsis likely would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves? H E double toothpicks yes.

This keeps being said ..but it is not true. It is privately owned handguns..and I do believe there are a few...very very few exceptions also the police are permitted to carry handguns and I do believe soldiers can carry guns too in the UK. Sport guns are still legal in Britain and I do believe Britain as much as Germany, France or any other nation within Europe has a rich heritage and a piece of their own culture that does in fact involve guns. Gun culture is universal as guns are universal.

Just wonder why those who oppose the populace having access to these weapons feel it is ok for the government to have them? If guns are wrong should they not be wrong in all circumstances? Who are the police or the military protecting themselves from? Usually from people. Why isn't that such a silly absurd idea ? Why isn't the need for other nation's police forces to have to carry guns not seen as cultural failure? Or poor government?

I went to Williamsburg VA...it is the old capitol of the Virginia colony. They have the old British Governor's home there..all restored and you can take a tour. A common thing to do apparently back in those days was for the British Governor to display all his armament in the entry way of his home..where he received visitors etc. It was meant to be a form of intimidation to the locals..the Americans. When they came to pay their taxes and saw this military prowess they would think twice about revolting. I just don't understand why this form of "protection" is acceptable and yet in reverse it is horrifying.

This is a nation who won it's independence in a violent uprising. The history of a state shapes it's political ideals..the political ideals shape the peoples ideals and together they become the identity of a nation.

To claim the thoughts and feelings Americans have on this subject is not shaped by their history, or their political ideals, or even lifestyle of their country is not only to deny an entire nation of it's identity but I feel it is completely untrue.

Yeah, its privately owned guns we are debating...

Wow there, wait a minute. You allow your government to have these weapons? What in world could you be thinking, to quote a few people handguns have one use only to kill people? I thought the death penalty was out lawed in Europe. No no no, if these weapons are so dangerous to have in the community you must order that your government not have them either.

How in the world did you ever allow your government to have these terrible weapons in public? Think of all the danger to the children. My goodness this is simply terrible.

Europe must immediately ban their governments from having these terrible devising and protect the citizenry.

loreng59

Surely, thats an attempt at humour?

There wouldn't be much point in a police force unable to defend itself, right?

No one here has claimed that Europe does not have gun crime. In fact, I've made the point that we actually have a helluvalotta guns in Europe.

What your (apparently) misunderstanding is that the reason why we don't allow guns in the public domain, and why certain types of guns (namely hand guns) are illegal (depending on which European nation your in of course) is because the public do not need guns, and public opinion is against having them in the public domain (for the numerous reasons I have already posted)

Now, you can dispute my arguments as much as you please, and I apprecite the attempt at humour, but your perception of our laws does not mean we have given up any rights.

Nor do my arguments mean I am projecting a European attitude onto America, since I am not saying you must get rid of all your guns. All I am saying, is if you value your guns more than the lives of innocent children (and trust me when I tell you that our police do not kill our children) then your going to have to continue to live in a gun culture where a lot of kids get killed, either by each other or by criminals/ drunks firing guns.

As always the bottom line speaks for itself.

Not to sound cold-hearted, but the number of guns used in crime is irrelevant to me forming an opinion about my rights own & carry one.

My guess, if the statistics were corrected by number of lawful gun owners, the numbers wouldn't be so impressive for Europe.

A funny link.

57% of gun deaths in the US during 2001 were due to suicide. That leaves 15,000 accidental deaths and killings vs. 40,000+ on the highways. No ones calling for an abolition of the interstate highway system or curbing automobile use.

Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of adults in the US own a gun, some 70 - 100 million. Fewer than 0.02% of these owners kill anyone else each year. Out of personal anecdotal experience, the majority of these occur between two less than savory people, and in a few neighborhoods.

My point being that although each death is tragic, especially when an innocent person is killed, however innocent people are killed every day, and in greater numbers, by other causes (cars, hospital accidents for two). We accept these deaths because we like driving and we like going to the hospital when we're sick. In America, where gun ownership is widespread, and part of our heritage, and a fundamental right delineated in our founding Constitution, we accept them.

edited to add: for the record, I'm all for taxing guns such that their minimum selling price is $250. Anectdotally, most of the shootings I've seen has been done by cheap junk guns. Very few people buy a $1500 Kimber 1911 .45 to shoot people with.

I dispute whether its really irrelevant to your decision. If the criminals didn't have a gun, why would you need one (assuming its for self defence, rather than a fetish or for sport)?

I feel that possession of guns should be illegal in general, except by a well regulated militia. Assuming, that is, that the militia isn't likely to turn on the people. Simply on the basis that its civilised, rather than back in the darker ages. That people feel the need (rather than desire) to cling to arguably out-of-date rights says more out our supposed civilised society. Were we as successful in our world as we like to think, theoretically we'd have no need for such an attitude. We're not successful, and thus, we have to reflect this in the degree we go to defend outselves and family.

Edited to add:

and that we don't trust our police force to do the job on our behalf, or the system to prosecute criminals sufficiently to reduce crime in general.

Wait a minute are you trying to say that your police are separated from the public? How can that be, do they not live in your towns and cities? Do then not travel the same streets as the non-police? If so then how can they be considered not in the 'public domain'? Also if they are outlawed what do they need to defend themselves for?

Come on if it's good enough for the average citizen to be undefended then the police should be in the same boat. Heck in Japan that is the case.

I'm scaring myself here, but I actually agree with part of your assessment! I agree that we are not as civilized and advanced as we ought to be, as a society. The criminal underbelly that glorifies violence for its own sake, the gimme generation, and failure of many to acknowledge that their own life choices led to their current situation. Because so many think they are owed by society, and therefore must take - at the point of a gun, forces us to reflect this in the measure some of us will go to protect ourselves, our homes and families.
But I don't think that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is anywhere near the crux of the problem. In my parents day, guns were readily available, even to youth, many of whom grew up hunting and target shooting. Kids even brought guns to school, either to show a new purchase to friends or had them in vehicles to go hunting after school let out. Yet strangely, with guns not being labeled as politically incorrect or 'icky' and dangerous, there was not the level of violent crime and the movement to ban them.

Only with the advent of violent rap video's, hollywood action thrillers and the anti-gun movement, has this problem gotten worse. So instead of addressing the root causes of the problem of violence.....many would rather take away the tools to defend ourselves, when we need them most.

Stranger things have happened!

Likewise I feel that the world (not just the kids) need to be morally re-educated, and to do that they need decent examples to follow. However, although it portrays the particular culture and even cancer within society, i don't think you can blame rap videos either, because they are not the cause, but a response to. Down the years, people have blamed the current music trends (rock music, rave music etc), but why not blame Britney "i'll never have sex before i'm married" Spears, because she will have affected the youth by her turn around to showing no respect for marriage etc?

No, the cause is the prevalent attitudes in our society. There will always be people who are willing to take the short cut and steal rather than earn or work. I will always feel that the best way to stop the belief that this is ok, is to severely punish those who break the rules we "good" people have to live within. You get one chance. Why should you get two or three, when you don't give the old lady you mugged, or the father you killed a second chance.

The other way is to stop glamorising it. Unfortunately that means bye bye to all the films we love to watch... anything that glamorises stealing, murder etc...

Any one want to watch the Waltons?

AS long as there is a threat, each person has the right to meet it with due force. I'm against guns, but i'm very for self defence...

Ok, Coming late on the debate perhaps I can sum it up for both Europeans and Americans. Bear with me because some is a positive and some not so.

In the USA it is impossible to take away guns or convince US citizens to give up their guns, it isnt going to happen, no matter how much we suffer from our gun violent culture, no matter if we have to put metal detectors on every elementary school in the country, and no matter if our kids think shooting each other and themselves is 'cool'. We shall not give up our guns, because guns dont kill children, children kill each other with 'our' guns. We consider putting locks on guns as frivolous and we dont teach our children safe gun handling, nor are we ultimately responsible with our guns, and we are perfectly willing to take those consequences and our dead kids as part of that lifestyle and rationalize our way out of it in every way, and if you Europeans dont like that, well dont come here. Those are the facts, blatantly.

If we give up our legal guns, only criminals will have guns, and then we will be open and vunerable. Legal gun owners dont commit crimes. Most gun crimes are committed with guns which are stolen from legal gun owners. So, we need to keep buying more guns, always. That is how it is. That said:

We use guns to hunt, and fish, and play with. Noone is going to change that ever.
Many parts of the US are places you need guns, that is no far fetched story. We have animals both two and 4 legged that we need protection from because the US is a dangerous place. I live in Alaska and this is a truth. Besides we do get food. Everything is perpective. We have open spaces, we have game, we have farms, we have gangs and lots of crime, and that means we need guns, it IS the Culture, cowboy as it is. We are a culture of guns and guns are fun. Shoot one a few times and learn about them, you will see.

Gun safety is taught more in the US than ever before. I think gun safety should be a requirement to even own a gun. I dont see why not. We have driving and boat and plane licenses. This is the BIG problem, that people think they have a right to own a killing machine with no education or license to operate. This is how our kids and friends and neighbors get killed acidentally, or by some twitchy jacko with a paranoid or macho streak.

The founders may have given us the right to bear arms, but that was a different day.
Although we cant at this point eradicate guns in the populace of the US, and I dont think we should, that doesnt mean that everyone who wants to legally purchase a gun should not have to have a gun safety certificate of operation and required hours of shooting time.
Also, that 'we can bear arms' by Constitution, does not mean we can openly purchase every arm or gun ever made, some restrictions apply, because the big guns on the street are again, often stolen from 'legal' gun owners. We are not allowed to drive tanks down the streets or own operational howitzers, there is no reason we 'must' be allowed to own UZI's or sub-machine guns and the like. Its absolutely ridiculous and going beyond logic to kowtow to the gun nuts who want to take the rights granted in the Constitution as a minority self interest.

Alas, a key part of my family live in the US. But well, ok; when I come across the next American here in London (in about half an hour), complaining about this, that or the other, then you won't mind if I tell them the same thing.

this is about the rights and wrongs of the issue, not "if you don't like it, don't get involved". We're not asking you to change your laws, or threatening invasion if you don't.

I know guns are fun. Cars are fun, but given the choice i'd prevent people that can't be trusted with them from having them, because they kill even more people. The difference is that a higher percentage of car-killers actually have drivers licences. (edited to add) Do you have a right to have a car / gun, or is it a priviledge you have to earn (and have a high level of profficiency in / suitability for)?

I think I have mentioned it before on a different thread, but in Switzerland (I am unduly fascinated by Switzerland, I lived there for a while and it had a bizarre way of being very nice and yet very nasty at the same time)

Ahem, in Switzerland, every male Swiss citizen (with the exception of conscientious objectors, who are few in number) are members of the Swiss army. They are all trained to use rifles and are required BY LAW to keep a rifle in their home. Despite the vast majority of Swiss households owning a gun, gun crime statistics are so low that the government does not even bother to record them. Even accidental death by gun crime is very very low indeed.

This suggests to me that guns themselves are not a problem, but that society's attitude towards guns can be. Britain has broadly outlawed guns, which is what the majority of British citizens wanted, however I can't help thinking that this is more an admission that people in Britain would use guns irresponsibly.

I can't really say how the Swiss view guns, they seemed to treat them as a tool, but one to treat with a lot of respect and that ownership of a gun should not be taken lightly.

IMO if a society believes that gun ownership is a right, then fair enough. However, if that is divorced from the belief that gun ownership also confers responsibilities to use a gun wisely, then society has a problem. The majority of Americans know to be careful with guns, however a minority do not.

I am not disagreeing with the several opinions presented. In America there are a lot of guns readily available. Quite often to wrong sort of people. No argument there at all.

I even agree with the idea of the attitude toward weapons as a the prevailing problems with firearms. My problem begins with taking them away. How do you determine who is fit and who is not?

I mean in Europe the police carry handguns. What makes them so special? Is it training? If so I most likely have far more training than the average police officer. I have more than 30 years experience handling every time of weapon around from small caliber pistols to WMD. The number of weapons is in the tens of thousands. I have friends with tanks, fighters, automatic weapons, etc. all legally owned and never used in crimes. Now how is the government going to determine who is qualified to have these weapons?

Then once the government decides to disarm the people, who is going to watch the watchers? If the government disarms the population, then how does one go about making sure that is all the government takes away? We would then have no means to object in a meaningful way.

Loreng59

That's a very interesting (and good point).

You probably could not (easily) take guns away from Americans now. As has been stated earlier in this topic, the UK banned handguns etc a few years back and most people simply handed their guns in. However, many people also kept their guns and despite several police amnesties etc, people still have guns in the UK.

Most police in Britain are unarmed, except those guarding potential terrorist targets. They have to undergo a lot of training to use those weapons. There is nothing special per se about those people, except that they have proven themselves worthy of being placed in a position of trust. Most people in Britain could probably use a gun responsibly, even though many people in Britain do not seem to think so.



I think that is really the real difference between Europe (edited to add: although of course Europe is NOT one country, or one culture, or one people, or one set of beliefs, but a collection of the above with varying degrees of similarity) and America. We have a trust in our governments that allows us to surrender our right to use weapons. The US may be wiser in not wishing to trust the government that far.

Most people in the UK tend to believe that in the event of the Government wishing to overturn democracy, the Army would step in to restore democratic rule (the British, as a whole, have a huge amount of respect and belief in our armed forces, much as Americans do). It is also worth remembering that ultimately the Monarch is the head of the armed forces in Britain and the Queen 'allows' the Government to use her army! In the case of an overly authoritarian government, there is a widespread belief that the Queen would step in and restore democracy (because constitutionally she has that power). Crazy, but true.

loreng59

They wear uniforms, or are required by regulations to identify themselves as police officers.

It is understood they are armed, so there is no ambiguity as to the concealed weaponry.

As civil servants, they are answerable to the state. They are not free to do as they wish with their guns.

They are not allowed to use their guns unless attacked.

Their ammunition expenditure is tightly monitered.

Their weapons are only used for enforcing the law.

And to whom does the state answer to? If they do not feel they should obey the idea to answer to the people, what can you do about it? Who decides that they were 'attacked'? Who monitors the expenditure of ammunition?

I may not trust the US government at all, but I trust all European governments far less.

The police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens, and cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so. I know many policemen in the US, and all of them believe in the right of the individual to own arms. I lived in Gainesville, Florida, when the serial killer (Domer) was making his rounds. Policemen in that area made it very clear that they had no means to prevent another serial crime from happening. They carry guns primarily to defend THEMSELVES, not us, and almost always arrive AFTER the crime has been committed.

Ptarmigan..it is true that most police in the UK are unarmed..but there is a pretty substantial increase in police units who are in fact policing the country armed. And there are incidents where the use of these weapons by these "firearm" officers has in fact been questionable..the very recent incident where there was a man shot and it is said he may have been unarmed is an example of this.

Even if the intent of arming these police is to "protect" the intent is not always true in every single incident.

I fail to see how the American intent of gun laws is any less benign than any other nation's gun laws. I think if you are to argue the law and what the law's intention is that unjustified murder is not a fair point to argue as it is illegal to murder someone with no lawful justification (self defense) here in the US.

The electorate.


There are two options. The first is to vote the government out of power.

If that becomes impossible, then the second option is to force the government out of power.


Do you mean the police? If so, then the legal system (the courts) decides that.


For the police and the military, this would be themselves, and there after the treasury I suppose.


Then you are making a foolish assumption that all European governments are alike.


Yes. This is why prevention is better than response.

The answer to this debate, seems to be that in a nation like the USA, where you consider yourselves 'free', you need to be armed to ensure your 'freedom'.

I have a gun so no one will mess with me... except all the 'bad guys' with guns.

Where as we in Europe, whom you Americans do not appear to consider as 'free' as you are, actually do not need to be armed to consider ourselves free.

No one messes with me, so I don't need a gun... even though we do have a lot of military grade weapons lying about

Put into context of Geneisblade's quoted 'Use of guns in crime in 2001', I think the self delusion of the pro gun position speaks for itself.

Violent Crime: US (26%), Canada (3%), Australia (1%), UK (1%)
Homicide: US (63%), Canada (31%), Australia (14%), UK (9%)
Robbery: US (42%), Canada (14%) , Australia (6%), UK (4%)

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=975&full=1





I can't believe this...



So the question arises...is it guns or the actual people who are dangerous? Is gun violence due to the number of guns, or the attitudes of the people who use them? If a person is angered by another are they more or less likely to inflict harm if they had a handgun rather than any other weapon?

Gun control doesn't work as very specifically outlined in the CATO Institute policy analysis i linked above. The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. And Court decisions are going towards that belief more and more.

The problem with this belief that only military and police have guns is in itself the root of the problem...only military and police will have guns! Both entities are under the direction of the state. The people would be unable to rise up if they feel their gov't has wronged them. A country where only military and police have guns is called a police state. As Joseph Stalin once said, "I don't want my people to have opinions, why would i want them to have guns?"

The first thing a dictator does to gain control of the population is destroy all firearms.

Gun control does not and will never work for the simple reason that these laws only effect those law-abiding citizens who would never use the guns for violence. A criminal is not going to hand in their firearm or even buy it legally when they can acquire one illegally...hence the title criminal.

Okay I am going to try to get this right. The government is suppose to answer to the electorate. If the government doesn't then you are to force the government out of power with what? Last time you said that you are disarmed. The government decides when the government is justified in the use of handguns, and the government answer to itself on ammunition expenditure. I would say that is a rather foolish assumption that all European governments will always answer to the will of the people. History has proven the opposite on too many occasions.

Again who is watching the watchers?

The government does answer to the electorate. Thats the point of democracy. No?

Have you actually read my posts thus far? Most European nations have various military defence organisations or 'militia's' as I believe the wording in your constitution calls them. As I mentioned earlier, we have lots of weapons.

Yes. The weapons to which I refer, such as those in Switzerland mentioned earlier, are owned by the state and subject to strict laws.


Yes, but since the government is subject to the law, as well as the electorate, then the government is not operating in a vacuum

We do not live in history. We live in the present.

I advise you to look at what happened in Spain when certain elements of the military tried to re-establish the military dictatorship.
The people in Europe are far more aware of the threat of tyranny than you give them credit for.

The people.

It is true about the Swiss arming of every man..or male citizen. I just wanted to highlight the fact that even as moif justifies this as safe because the intent of this arming is heavily assured by laws...
when I lived in Switzerland some old guy took his state issued automatic assault rifle and shot up the local government house. He killed 14 people all over some dispute about him not paying his bus fare.
It happened in Zug which is a tiny little canton in a remote area of Switzerland.

I'm going to play devils advocate here for a second and ask the question - how realistic is this whole ideal of "rise up and defend yourself" in today's times? In Thomas Jefferson's day it might have sounded good, and heck it even worked, we did win the American Revolution through the actions of common people taking up arms.

But today we live in the age of M-1 Tanks, F-15's, Heavy Artillery, machine guns, helicopters, drones and smart bombs. Our military is the most technologically advanced in the world and also has some of the best training in the world. Who here really believes that if our government took a wrong turn that all the gun toting NRA members in America could do anything about it, that is simply ridiculous. Even if you are one of the super gun nuts that has a whole shed full of automatic weapons, do you really think you are going to stand a chance of survival if the pentagon sends a battalion to your home town? Ask any country we have invaded in the past two decades about that, because they had just a tad bit more firepower at their disposal.

Society has changed and this idea of defending yourself from tyranny of the government with your small arms is ridiculous, unrealistic and outdated. Standing up to that only happens in movies on the big screen.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?
Sure, I see no reason why people should not be able to have firearms if they so choose. However, the Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to automatic weapons and I think the government does have the right to limit the types of firearms that can be purchased for the safety of everyone.

My position on the second amendment in general is that while I disagree with gun ownership and don't want them anywhere near me I do not believe I should make that decision for others. However, there are and there should be greater limits. I have no problem with people owning rifles, shotguns or pistols, but when we start getting into things like semi-automatic and automatic weapons there is absolutely no need for that. You want to fire automatic weapons, go join the military and use them for their intended purpose - killing people efficiently. If you are just a gun enthusiast that likes to hunt or shoot targets then you don't need that kind of firepower nor is it guaranteed to you with a strict reading of the constitution.

And your point is...?

Its already been established that gun crime exists over here. The stats themselves show this to be so. There are always people who go beserk. In Europe and in Switzerland these people are the few exceptions to the norm that justify our police carrying guns.

The rest of us however, do not need to carry guns to defend ourselves against such criminals because such criminals are very rare.

You're right, I shouldn't speak for all victims of gun violence.
However,
Arguably, a can of mace is equally effective tool for self-defense as a gun in a rape attempt, and has the added benefit of not killing any one if a child gets his or her hands on it. Maybe an attempted rapist deserves a gun-shot over a can of mace in the eye, but that sounds to me, like a decision we should be able to trust the gov't to make.
And as far a gun fight is concerned, I don't believe two guns per pair of upset club-goers is somehow a less volatile situation than one. I actually think the average citizen is not, and probably can't be expected to be able to accuratly fire a weapon at an agressor, after distinguishing that the target is indeed a life-threatening agressor in the legal sense. Crossfire kills more innocent victims that 'agressive gun operators,' that is why it is called 'crossfire' and not 'repeat bull's-eyes.' Everyone on this page will agree that gun ownership is a major responsibility; I don't think that a five day waiting period and the ability to cough up 250 dollars are proof enough of a gun purchasers responsibility; in fact,
Finally, Hotel Rwanda did not depict the reality that about 1/10 of the interahamwe in Rwanda were armed with firearms, instead of machetes, usually assault rifles, in addition to the fact that grenades were often used as a precursor to the attacks. (source: Gourevitch, P. "We Wish To Inform you That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families," 1998; Picador, New York. Chapter One.) So yes, the Rwandans had guns, both the Hutus and the RLF; still, I will hesitate to comment further about the effect increased gun ownership would have had on the country, as that is a unique scenario, and would be grounds for a whole different debate.

Personally, I have little issue with the legalization of Rifles as hunting weapons and items of self-defense, restricted to within the household. Handguns, for me, are the issue: you can easily take them out of the house, sneak them into a club or party, hide them in a coat pocket and commit armed robbery.
Without suggesting that every mortal american should own a gun for self-defense (such a society is, in my mind, a volatile, derranged place ), I would actually like to hear an argument as to why, as a nation, we believe in concealable, easy to operate affordable firearms such as handguns. Also if someone can find a statistic as to how many accidental and intentional gun deaths result from handguns as opposed to more expensive, less concealable weapons, that would trill, too.

That's extremely easy to answer. Every citizen who wishes to, should be able to defend his or her person or family in a commensurate measure as the threat posed by the criminal element. It is pure fantasy to think that the police will be able to protect you at the moment an assault could occur. We are required to subordinate our lives to the state often enough as it is, I choose not to subordinate my personal or family's safety.

Nobody should be required to own a firearm if they choose not to, but it would be tyranny to charge such an obscene amount as to limit the right of defense only to the very wealthy; similar to our more *ahem* liberal states that deny CCL to anyone without the requisite political or monetary capital, or those high murder rate locals that deny them altogether.

To me, you have just given the perfect, textbook reason for second amendment protections. Police and troops in Rwanda had government-issued firearms. The genocidal government regime also gave firearms and training to trusted civilians and issued to its supporters permits to buy them (the interahamwe, for example, which you mention). The victims were almost entirely unarmed. Gun control laws enacted in November of 1964 and May 1979 kept them from legally buying firearms for self-defense. The film also (thankfully) failed to show Tutsis with any money to their name attempting to pay off their attackers to shoot them to death instead of hacking them to bits slowly with the machetes.


I can only speak for myself, but I find the revolver a better weapon for home defense. I can't imagine trying to take a cumbersome rifle out to protect myself and my family.