Making guns illegal.

[gsdx]

This tragedy which happened in Montreal yesterday is not a common occurance in Canada. When it happens, it is big news. Sure, there is still crime. There always will be. But I feel good knowing that the kids can go to school and people can go to banks without worrying if someone is going to burst in with automatic machine guns with armour-piercing bullets and just start shooting.

When the criminals are better armed than the police officers, there is something seriously wrong.

Weapons aren't readily available here in Canada. We can't wake up in the morning in a pissed-off mood, go to the corner store, buy weapons and ammo, and go off and start shooting people.

Strict gun laws don't stop crime, and they don't stop tragedies like those in Montreal, but they certainly slow them down and make them much more difficult to accomplish.

 

[Swellegant]

Unfortunately, in the US, we have that pesky Amendment in the Bill of Rights that makes it impossible to outlaw guns altogether. It's a basic right and cannot be got rid of.

However, the manufacture of guns is not protected by the Constitution. I've long felt that gun manufacturers and importers should be taxed and licensed within an inch of their lives (with reductions for supplying law enforcement needs), thereby making guns and ammunition so expensive that the common man would be hard-pressed to stockpile weapons or use them lightly. Hunting will become a sport for the rich, gun-ownership will become a very fancy hobby, and the bulk of live ammunition will be in the hands of law-enforcement, perhaps tipping the scale back towards order.

The arguments about gun control are always centered on the ownership of guns, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and thereby pretty much inviolable; but nobody ever wonders where all these guns come from. Nobody ever wonders where the NRA gets so much of its immense funding, wonders who is actually keeping the gun lobby running in Washington. I believe the manufacturers are running the show, using their own best customers as a front.

Or maybe I'm just being paranoid. I know I would never have a gun in my own house... they make me very nervous.

 

[gsdx]

Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Oh, I think not.

You still astound me with your wisdom. The suggestions you make are incredible. I wasn't aware that the gun manufacturers weren't protected by the Constitution. Here in Canada, cigarettes are taxed to death by the government in an effort to get people to stop smoking, or at least to make them think twice about starting. Cigarettes are over $8 per package now. I can see how a tax system like that might work with guns as well.

I think a lot of it has to do with public education as well, though. People simply can't leave loaded guns in desk drawers, or in bedside tables, or hidden under mattresses.

 

[irish1]

This is an excellent thread.

Guns will always be available, even if they are outlawed. Those who want to own a gun will get one, regardless of the laws and regadless of the punishment for obtaining them.

Interestingly, we have other problems with violent crime. Nicole Brown Smith was murdered by a knife. Two of my friends were murdered in their home several years ago, and again with a knife. The four planes which were highjacked to commit the murders on 9-11 were commandered with box cutters.

Criminals will use any tool they have to commit violent crimes.

I also do not have a gun in my home. Most residential fatalities are due to misuse of firearms.

Too often, violent criminals are sentenced to long prison terms, and end up serving only a portion of their sentences. Perhaps we need to more strenuously enforce the punishments associated with crimes commited by violent criminals.

As an aside, I am very concerned about our young society, and the pitfalls placed before them. All the teaching, guidance and counseling they receive can not replace the love they do not receive at home.

I think it would be great to have parent support groups, particularly in our more impoverished neighborhoods, where crime is higher, and families are more at risk.

 

[JayHew]

For myself, I would not want to see guns outlawed. An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject.

It boils down to personal responsibility and doing what is right. What we hear of all the time is the crime committed by a person with a weapon, but almost never hear of the time when brandishing or using a weapon has prevented crime. The stats for this type of weapon use are astounding and outweigh the criminal aspects. In the States that have passed concealed carry laws, the violent crime levels have fallen, but to read or listen to the news, one could think it hasn't, what fails to be pointed out is the fact that tourists and visitors from outside the country are victims more often - this being partly due to rental car licenses having "special" numbers, etc.

Instead of focusing on an object or tool, we should focus on what things need to be taught to our children to help them become better citizens, teaching personal responsibility, become better members of society, empathy, compassion, etc. The emphasis for government should not be restricting or forcing people to do do certain things but to do only those things that the individual can't do for themselves (enforcing contracts, banking, etc).

It is a controversial subject, with hot rehtoric on both sides, but I for one would rather have the option to defend myself within the confines of whatever situation I may find myself than to not have that option at all. After all, in the US we have acknowledged that we have certain inalienable rights granted from God and one of those is the right to defend oneself against agression from another or even from his own government. This despite what the recent report from the UN Human Rights Commission says, that there is no right of the individual to defend themselves from anyone or anything.

Just MHO.

 

[gsdx]

It is a controversial subject, with hot rehtoric on both sides, but I for one would rather have the option to defend myself within the confines of whatever situation I may find myself than to not have that option at all.

Ah, but there is the interesting thing. I am 54 years old. In my entire life, I have never had the need to defend myself against anyone wielding a gun. There is no need for me to carry one, let alone own one.

 

[Jonotrek]

Actually the Constitution says this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By the loosest stretch this allows anyone in the U.S. to bear arms. By the strictest sense, to be allowed to bear arms, you must belong to a free State's militia so you can protect the security of it.

I never forsee a time where the Supreme Court of the United States would ever follow the strictest definition of Amendment II... because conservative judges are most likely to find the right to bear arms is a right, even though they are more likely to stick with the written word of the Constitution.

The problem with Article II is that it was passed as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791 when the citizens of the country had to deal with the threats to their lives that the Native Americans, French, Spanish and English as well as bear, wolves, etc... could provide. Also, don't forget about the need of colonists and frontierspeople to need guns to hunt with.

The state militia system wasn't as well-regulated then as it is now - so the right to bear arms has become a "right" when it is more of an "obligation for self defense." Of course, the NRA and all their lobbying dollars sees it a different way. And I wonder which presidents in the past twenty years might happen to be current or former NRA members... I'll give you two guess (no cheating now).

 

[JayHew]

^^That is your option and experience, one that I would gladly defend, but your set of circumstances are not mine and because you have not had the unfortunate experiences of having to defend yourself doesn't mean that you should have the option of removing my ability to do so. I would not use my option against you, but I would defend you and the right of you to have your opinion. And I am 58 and have had to defend myself.

 

[JayHew]

At the time of the writing of the second amendment to the US Constitution the definition of a militia was, made up of the whole population between the ages of 16 to 65.

Another point, in all the other articles it is not necessarily explicit about a "right" but in the second amendment it states "the right of the people". That instill an individual right to the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[tbonez]

So here is a socially relevant thread as opposed to a fluff piece of self contradictory dreck. Lets see how many people who complain about the "lack of substance on JUB these days" participate with the same regularity as they do when complaining about the fluff, shall we?

My two cents,

There is a well established correlation between availability of guns and gun crime. Here's a little know factoid: In Canada you are something like seven times more likely to be the victim of gun violence in rural areas than urban settings. Why? Farmers etc have guns lying around in greater numbers than people in cities (statistically).

The vast majority of gun related homicide is the result of domestic violence, NOT robbery or random drive-by. If things get heated and there happens to a loaded gun at hand there is far better chance some one is going to make their point with a bullet. If your wife attacks you with a frying pan or rolling pin you have a greater chance of living to complain about it than if she is packing a Glock in her spice rack.

While I think the US is likely one of the 10 or 20 greatest countries in the world, their politics baffle me at time. How is it that the President can entertain the idea of amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage but the right to own AK-47's and assault rifles is a sacred constitutional right that can't be altered?

Note: The stats I threw out are off the top of my head, please feel free to source some more accurate ones. I would If I had the time but I'm on a lunch break from school and just don't have the time to do my usual due diligence.

 

[lukylok]

For myself, I would not want to see guns outlawed. An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject.

It boils down to personal responsibility and doing what is right. What we hear of all the time is the crime committed by a person with a weapon, but almost never hear of the time when brandishing or using a weapon has prevented crime. The stats for this type of weapon use are astounding and outweigh the criminal aspects. In the States that have passed concealed carry laws, the violent crime levels have fallen, but to read or listen to the news, one could think it hasn't, what fails to be pointed out is the fact that tourists and visitors from outside the country are victims more often - this being partly due to rental car licenses having "special" numbers, etc.

Instead of focusing on an object or tool, we should focus on what things need to be taught to our children to help them become better citizens, teaching personal responsibility, become better members of society, empathy, compassion, etc. The emphasis for government should not be restricting or forcing people to do do certain things but to do only those things that the individual can't do for themselves (enforcing contracts, banking, etc).

It is a controversial subject, with hot rehtoric on both sides, but I for one would rather have the option to defend myself within the confines of whatever situation I may find myself than to not have that option at all. After all, in the US we have acknowledged that we have certain inalienable rights granted from God and one of those is the right to defend oneself against agression from another or even from his own government. This despite what the recent report from the UN Human Rights Commission says, that there is no right of the individual to defend themselves from anyone or anything.

Just MHO.

Of course if God granted you the right to kill to defend yourself, ..... you leave us speechless.

To get back to serious arguments : in a civilised society, there should be no need to defend oneself, it is the privilege of the police forces.
No one should be allowed to make his own justice.
The right to own or carry an arm is just an outdated custom from the wild "Far West".
Most countries carry such obsolete "privileges".
In France, it is the right to hunt. Privilege considered as a spoil of the Revolution, more than 200 years ago. Even if there nearly no more wild birds or beasts....
But even there they have enforced restriction on the possession of arms.
The stats are very clear, the less arms around the less aggressions and murders,... and accidents.
I understand that in the US there is a very strong lobby lead by a very aged ancient actor, and evolution will be painful.

But, eventually, the light will come !

 

[JayHew]

joeslifeyork, I appreciate the thought process and agree if it were a viable option it is most certainly something to consider. But at this point in human history it is just not going to happen. Until such time the human condition advances to the point where the want of dominion over our fellow man can cease, the means of throwing off tyranny will always have to be available. As pointed out, the UN Human Rights Commission has reported it is not a right of anyone to defend oneself against anyone or anything, that if someone wants to become aggressive against you, you have no option but to submit. I don't feel like becoming a part of the Borg.

And yes I have had to defend myself with a gun. Not at all a pleasant experience and not looked upon as a favored thing, but was happy to have the ability to do so. And it may be a minority happening, but to the person who needs it or experiences it, it is 100%

 

[gsdx]

It is a two-headed coin.

It is a Constitutional right to own and carry guns in the United States. However, it's not a Constitutional right to use them. The boys in the Columbine incident had the right to carry the guns. Had they survived, they would have been punished under the same Constitution for using them.

The whole concept is self-contradictory.

 

[JayHew]

The Founders were in hope that a free people would do what is right most of the time and take personal responsibility for actions, etc. But as pointed out in various articles and studies, this is not always the case. Eric Fromm's book, "Escape from Freedom" covers how free people eventually move toward dictatorship over time and it is mainly because we do not renew our dedication to "to thine own self be true".

That is the root of the question, our basic instinct to know right from wrong, wants from needs, etc. It doesn't matter if there are guns, because if there weren't any, it would be knives or clubs or rocks. What we fail to deal with is how to change the basic human need/want for dominance.

The US Consitution is a marvel document and there has been none like it since it was written and if studied with logic and without preconceived ideas interferring, one can see it places a lot of responsibility upon the individual. If we are to change anything, eliminating objects or tools will do nothing, changing our way of thinking, attitudes and premise of our existance will.

 

[Yves]

I didn't want to start this debate in the other thread because that would be pretty insensitive. But do you think if guns were completely illegal that any of the crime would dwindle down?

My answer, not by much. Look at the other things that are considered illegal in this country already and how highly they circulate around. Not to say we should not do anything about this gun control system, but completely making them illegal wouldn't do too much at all considering how much of the population already own them.

Gun Availability is key as mentioned before. Violent crime in the US is correlated to gun availability (Domestic violence is just one of the many examples). More effective gun control measures should result in lower deaths/disability rates but those control measures are not popular with the public (and politicians & the gun industry) given dominant views on guns ("It´s my right to bear arms" etc.) and the economic/political power of the gun industry. The society is more accepting of gun violence in some degree.
The discussion on gun control it´s not different from what we saw with the tobacco industry in the last decades in the US (It took a while for the government and society to recognize tobacco use as a health risk even though public heatlh data on death rates and morbidity were reliable and available).
The US has a more "relaxed" approach to gun control regulation compared to European countries (on average). I don´t think guns should be illegal, but we clearly need to decrease availability through better public policy.
The international data on gun control is very clear. Countries with "relaxed" regulations (US) exhibit higher rates of gun-related violence. All major public health organizations in the US have recognized gun-control violence as a "disease" that is spreading because of lack/inadequate gun control mechanisms.
BenBrowderArse has presented data that represents international trends in gun-related violence. The data seems clear but sadly not to everybody. Once again this is not different to what happened with the discussion on tobacco control in the 70s-80s in the US. Tobacco companies went as far as to deny the health effects of tobacco in order to sustain an industry that generated millions...

I do not understand why so many in the US are so desperate to keep their right to bear arms:


Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

 

[Croynan]

^ Not quite true.. the kids here have the same problems, pressures, issues etc - we dont hire therapists, social workers, psychologists etc too - kids are left on their own here too, many parents dont give a shit too... but guns are illegal - thus, there hasnt been a shooting of this description since the law was changed to outlaw ownership of such weapons. The only reason it happens your side, is because firearms are still so readily available. Once that is understood, these terrible incidents will continue to happen.

How often has this sort of thing happened that side of the pond since say 1990. Then look at how often its happened here since 1990.

Both the US and UK government stats suggest that you are more likely to be victim of serious violent crime anywhere in the UK than you are in the US... yet we havent had such an incident since 1996 - 10 years ago.

Sure, there are still guns in circulation - gun related murders etc. But the chances of being a victim of such crime is far lower now that all guns (handguns) are totally illegal. Rifles and shotguns are allowed, but you have to apply to the police for a criminal check, back ground check and approval from the home office before one is granted. You also have to have a police firearms officer check where it is stored to ensure it is safe.

Im not from the Guns kill camp.. i have fired enough weapons in my military days to understand that guns dont kill people, people kill people.

HOWEVER...

By putting guns in easy circulation, you are giving ordinary tom dick and harry the means and the temptation to use those weapons. Where as if they werent easy to come by (i.e. illegal) most but the uber extreme people would give up looking for one, and just get on with their lives. Only the most Psyhco people would actually source one. (and of course gangs and criminals).

By legislating properly and ensuring that correct background checks are performed, the risks and probability of such attrocities happening can be massively reduced to more acceptable levels.

If you dont beleive a word of what im saying - just look at the UK - its living proof it works.

Prior to '96 - handguns were legal - many people owned them - my dad had two. Since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, only criminals own them (and Gun Clubs).

My new glasses must be playing tricks? on me - this is probably the most sensible posting you have ever done and with some logic and thought thrown in in addition. My congratulations. Will wonders never cease.

 

[irish1]

I do not understand why so many in the US are so desperate to keep their right to bear arms:


Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

This is a frightening statistic.

I recall reading something very similar to this after the Columbine High School massacre.

Many of these homicides are committed with illegal hand guns (I am definitely not trying to split hairs here).

I mention this statistic because several of my friends are sportsman (hunters), and they support gun control, complaining that most deaths by handgun are by the use of illegal handguns.

Does anyone have any information supoort this statement?

Also: is there a way of calculating ratios for the United States and other countries by way of population (again, please understand that by no means do I decrease the importance of any one life by asking these questions).

I am very distressed by the events in Canada, but am pleased that such an intelligent thread, and discussion, has come from it.

I have offered my prayers for the victims and their families.

 

[Croynan]

We need the appropriate strong and rigid gun laws passed and enforced. And for repeat offenders - let's start setting some major jail time associated with these laws.

We need to offer some insentive or reward program (maybe to raise funds for a major group of charities) to turn in guns.

The gun manufactuers and dealers need to be prevented from making any financial contriubutins to any political candidates for any office at all levels of government.

We need to go after the gun manufacturers and put rigid controls on what they produce and for what reasons.

We need to pass strict and rigid laws for anyone involved in gun trading, selling and or importing of all weapons.


If the U.K. and Canada can exist in the enviornments they do with the gun laws they have, then there is no reason the United States cannot do the samething.

The 2nd Amendment

*The Right to Bare Arms* - I don't think the writers of the constitution intended this country to be a free for all when it came to "baring arms." It needs to be stopped and it needs to be stopped NOW.

 

[Snickers52]

I don't think it would help in America at all. Guns have been to much a part of our society for too long and this country is far too large to adequately police it. I think legalizing most drugs would go much farther to stemming gun violence than anything else.

 

[Yves]

Also: is there a way of calculating ratios for the United States and other countries by way of population (again, please understand that by no means do I decrease the importance of any one life by asking these questions).

There are a good number of public health indicators commonly used to measure the impact of gun violence. Those indicators are usually expressed by 100,000 habs in order to correct for population size and facilitate comparison among populations. A denominator is needed in order to understand the relative importance of the problem in a given context (100,000 is the usual denominator used for comparison). The denominator allows to compare the relative impact of gun violence to other public health problems (chronic diseases, cancer, etc) and or contexts (gun violence in the US vs. Denmark or the UK).

Indicators may vary depending on the type of violence. Violence from a public health perspective is defined in three broad categories: self-inflicted, interpersonal and collective. Indicators are available for each category. An example is gun-related mortality rate (Number of gun-related deaths in a year per 100,000 habs). Mortality data represent the tip of the iceberg though. For everyone who is killed, very many more are injured, psychologically undermined or disabled for life. Additional indicators are available. Some examples: gun-related disability rates, economic impact of violence in the society or correlation between gun violence and social class, literacy, crime history, etc. A good number of studies have been conducted in specific areas of the US (Chicago, etc) and other places (Brazil, etc.) trying to understand local factors that might influence violent behavior and gun use.

Most developed countries have some sort of surveillance system that collects data on violence in general (police report, hospital records, surveys, etc). Standard definitions are available and the info is collected and presented in annual reports. The World Health Organization, United Nations and the World Bank are some of the international organizations that have data online for comparison (country level data).