Gun Control

[gengwall]

I am not sure I buy the argument that things cannot change because they have been that way for so long. I mean, that´s the nature of change, after all: that things change.

For example, since last year we have strict laws prohibiting smoking in public places in this country. If anyone had come up with this idea 20 years ago, he would have heard the same argument: It won´t work because smoking has a centuries long tradition.

Anyways, I am wondering what it is with this obsession with owning guns. And, frankly, I don´t find it really surprising that America suffers from particularly high rates of violence, if the paradigms communicate that violence is an acceptable (maybe even favourable) solution for conflicts.

It would take a constitutional amendment to make such a change (unlike, as in your example, smoking bans). Not an easy deal to begin with and, judging by the large majority who support gun ownership, pretty much a no win.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I am not sure I buy the argument that things cannot change because they have been that way for so long. I mean, that´s the nature of change, after all: that things change.

For example, since last year we have strict laws prohibiting smoking in public places in this country. If anyone had come up with this idea 20 years ago, he would have heard the same argument: It won´t work because smoking has a centuries long tradition.

Anyways, I am wondering what it is with this obsession with owning guns. And, frankly, I don´t find it really surprising that America suffers from particularly high rates of violence, if the paradigms communicate that violence is an acceptable (maybe even favourable) solution for conflicts.

But Canadians own more guns per person than we do, and don't suffer from such problems (I mean, they also have fewer people).

It isn't about tradition. People can still smoke in their own homes (and maybe outside, I don't know about that over there?). If cigarettes were made illegal, it would be pretty hard to keep people from buying them on the black market, wouldn't it?

I'm all for taking many steps to make gun ownership safer (like gun safes, teaching children gun safety, background checks to own a gun, and waiting periods on handguns). But I don't feel that it would be possible, or even wise at this point, to try and get rid of all the guns in the US.

 

[quatona]

But Canadians own more guns per person than we do, and don't suffer from such problems (I mean, they also have fewer people).

Interesting. I didn´t know that.
So where do we find the reasons for those problems?

It isn't about tradition.

Well, if the argument is "we can´t change it, because it has always been that way" I would say it is about tradition.

People can still smoke in their own homes (and maybe outside, I don't know about that over there?). If cigarettes were made illegal, it would be pretty hard to keep people from buying them on the black market, wouldn't it?

I merely meant to give an example that dramtic paradigm shifts are possible.

I'm all for taking many steps to make gun ownership safer (like gun safes, teaching children gun safety, background checks to own a gun, and waiting periods on handguns). But I don't feel that it would be possible, or even wise at this point, to try and get rid of all the guns in the US.

Yes, from what I have seen, it would not be a good idea to do that immediately and rapidly. I guess there would be a riot or something. And I wouldn´t expect it to be an instant solution of the problems we are talking about.
Paradigm shifts are a matter of time and timing.

 

[gengwall]

Paradigm shifts are a matter of time and timing.

And again, in this case, constitutional amendment. Don't leave that out because it is crucial (and will never happen).

 

[quatona]

It would take a constitutional amendment to make such a change (unlike, as in your example, smoking bans). Not an easy deal to begin with

I didn´t mean to say it would be an easy deal. I am merely wondering whether it might be a goal worth pursuing.

and, judging by the large majority who support gun ownership, pretty much a no win.

When I discuss the pros and cons of an idea I don´t think "people don´t agree with your idea" is a particularly good argument. It may, however, be a good argument against a plan to immediately change the laws without a previous change of minds.
I consider discussions like these an opportunity to put everyone´s mindsets to a self test.

 

[quatona]

And again, in this case, constitutional amendment. Don't leave that out because it is crucial

Well, there are procedures to change constitutional amendments, aren´t there? So it´s not a no-no or something.

(and will never happen).

'It´s not a good idea because it will never happen.'

 

[gengwall]

I didn´t mean to say it would be an easy deal. I am merely wondering whether it might be a goal worth pursuing.
When I discuss the pros and cons of an idea I don´t think "people don´t agree with your idea" is a particularly good argument. It may, however, be a good argument against a plan to immediately change the laws without a previous change of minds.
I consider discussions like these an opportunity to put everyone´s mindsets to a self test.

That's fair enough (ignore my other post as I was posting at the same time). But you have to understand the strength behind the 2nd amendment position. Think about it. If we couldn't get the Equal Rights Amendment passed here at the height of the feminist movement, how can you possibly envision swaying a vast majority of people to a cause they have between no inclination and deadset detrmination against supporting?

Remember an amendment needs to be approved by 3/4ths of the states. That means it takes just 13 to block it. I could easily come up with a list of more than 13 states that currently have greater than 50% gun ownership by household. It is simply an impossible uphill climb. I am impressed by your determination to influence an outcome but peeing into the wind still only results in one thing.

 

[quatona]

That's fair enough (ignore my other post as I was posting at the same time). But you have to understand the strength behind the 2nd amendment position. Think about it. If we couldn't get the Equal Rights Amendment passed here at the height of the feminist movement, how can you possibly envision swaying a vast majority of people to a cause they have between no inclination and deadset detrmination against supporting?

Out of interest: Has there ever been made a change to any of the constitutional amendments?

Remember an amendment needs to be approved by 3/4ths of the states. That means it takes just 13 to block it. I could easily come up with a list of more than 13 states that currently have greater than 50% gun ownership by household. It is simply an impossible uphill climb. I am impressed by your determination to influence an outcome but peeing into the wind still only results in one thing.

Your prediction may be completely right. It doesn´t affect my actual point, though.

 

[gengwall]

Out of interest: Has there ever been made a change to any of the constitutional amendments?

There have been 27 ratified amendments, with the first 10 being the bill of rights that were ratified shortly after the constitution. The most recent, which restricted congressional pay raises, was ratified in 1992. The only amendment which has itself been "amended" was the 18th amendment which instituted prohibition. It wasn't really amended, it was repealled by the 21st amendment. I don't believe any other amendments amend other amendments, only the constitution itself. But I may be wrong about that.

Your prediction may be completely right. It doesn´t affect my actual point, though.

true enough, and I appreciate your optimism.

A quick review of states leads me to believe that at least 19 would NEVER support a gun ban due to the prevalent hunting industries in those states:

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia

Some may argue with a few on the list but I am pretty sure that it is sound. In addition, there are another 9 which probably should be on the list

Oregon, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisianna, West Virginia, Michigan

That is over half the states which are very, very pro gun without any inclination or motivation to change. It is simply such an overwhelming uphill battle that I am comfortable saying it is impossible.

 

[quatona]

true enough, and I appreciate your optimism.

Actually, it isn´t even any of my business.
It´s just that from a (probably naive and unsufficiently informed) outside view I see a country in which people define their liberty by gun ownership, a country in which there is a lot of support for spanking children, a country that has no problems justifying an unprovoked attack on another country - and I wonder why people wonder why this country has a violence problem.
Anyways, I wish you all the best for solving it, but it seems to me that this won´t happen without paradigm shifts.

 

[gengwall]

I see a country in which people define their liberty by gun ownership,

Amongst a great many other things.

a country in which there is a lot of support for spanking children,

the merits of which are still constantly debated

a country that has no problems justifying an unprovoked attack on another country

LOL - well I don't know where you are from so I'm not sure I should accuse the pot of calling the kettle black. But anyway, "unprovoked" is pretty debatable. Proactive doesn't necessarily mean unprovoked. If the US ends up taking out Iran's nuclear weapons capability, would that be "unprovoked"?

and I wonder why people wonder why this country has a violence problem.

Well, there's no doubt about that.

Anyways, I wish you all the best for solving it, but it seems to me that this won´t happen without paradigm shifts.

Thanks

 

[Wednesday]

So would criminals and tyrants.

If you'd like to read about one person who shared your opinions that private ownership of firearms should be abolished, go here:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/article-nazilaw.html

Once again, a model of level-headed and well thought out argument

Would you like to use logic sometime?

 

[keith99]

I wonder about the reasons why strict gun control works very well in my and other countries, but would not work in America.

Several reasons. Most important is how many guns are already out there. In the U.S. yuo have a situation where almost all the criminals have or can get guns, guns that are outside any legal records. How well it works elsewhere might well depend on who you ask. The English rather like gun control, an Irishman might just feel a bit different about it.

One should note Switzerland historically had gun possession levels far above what the U.S. has with no problems.

 

[keith99]

There have been 27 ratified amendments, with the first 10 being the bill of rights that were ratified shortly after the constitution. The most recent, which restricted congressional pay raises, was ratified in 1992. The only amendment which has itself been "amended" was the 18th amendment which instituted prohibition. It wasn't really amended, it was repealled by the 21st amendment. I don't believe any other amendments amend other amendments, only the constitution itself. But I may be wrong about that.


true enough, and I appreciate your optimism.

A quick review of states leads me to believe that at least 19 would NEVER support a gun ban due to the prevalent hunting industries in those states:

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia

Some may argue with a few on the list but I am pretty sure that it is sound. In addition, there are another 9 which probably should be on the list

Oregon, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisianna, West Virginia, Michigan

That is over half the states which are very, very pro gun without any inclination or motivation to change. It is simply such an overwhelming uphill battle that I am comfortable saying it is impossible.

I think I'd add Alaska. I've never owned a gun, but if I lived 10 miles from the nearest other house where there are potentially dangerous wildlife I'd feel pretty exposed without an effective weapon. Since most Alaskans can at least identify wtih that situation I don;t think they would support a constitutional ammendment either.

 

[gengwall]

I think I'd add Alaska. I've never owned a gun, but if I lived 10 miles from the nearest other house where there are potentially dangerous wildlife I'd feel pretty exposed without an effective weapon. Since most Alaskans can at least identify wtih that situation I don;t think they would support a constitutional ammendment either.

Oh yes, absolutely. I was looking at just a continental US map. Certainly Alaska would be against it.

 

[talkingmonkey]

And the fact that you can get MILITARY GRADE guns freely, is scary.

"Gonna go down the store and pick me up a Carl Gustav, 5 AKs, an M203 and 5000 rounds of ammo. That should do the weekend, huh?"

Here in Australia, we had strict gun laws come in after an insane individual decided to off 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania. His name was Martin Bryant.

Our laws now constitute no weapons that are fully and or semi-automatic. We have different classes for weapons too.

Here's an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

We had a buyback scheme for people with restricted weapons. Of course, if you did that in the "land of the free", the country would have another deficit equal to that of the Iraqi war.

 

[gengwall]

And the fact that you can get MILITARY GRADE guns freely, is scary.

"Gonna go down the store and pick me up a Carl Gustav, 5 AKs, an M203 and 5000 rounds of ammo. That should do the weekend, huh?"

Here in Australia, we had strict gun laws come in after an insane individual decided to off 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania. His name was Martin Bryant.

Our laws now constitute no weapons that are fully and or semi-automatic. We have different classes for weapons too.

Here's an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

We had a buyback scheme for people with restricted weapons. Of course, if you did that in the "land of the free", the country would have another deficit equal to that of the Iraqi war.

You really don't know anything about American gun laws, do you.

 

[talkingmonkey]

You really don't know anything about American gun laws, do you.

No, not particularly

But rhetoric hasn't stopped others in the past...

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You really don't know anything about American gun laws, do you.

Comments like that really don't help. He was describing the situation in Australia, and making a single comment on what might happen if such a policy was implemented in the US.

And, of course, despite your attack on him, such a policy could be implemented in the US, on a state-by-state basis. No amendment to the constitution would be necessary. All that would be required would be for a given state to pass a law that restricts gun ownership (say, by making private ownership of automatic weapons illegal) and for the SCOTUS to hold that such a restriction did not violate the constitution.

 

[gengwall]

Comments like that really don't help. He was describing the situation in Australia, and making a single comment on what might happen if such a policy was implemented in the US.

And, of course, despite your attack on him, such a policy could be implemented in the US, on a state-by-state basis. No amendment to the constitution would be necessary. All that would be required would be for a given state to pass a law that restricts gun ownership (say, by making private ownership of automatic weapons illegal) and for the SCOTUS to hold that such a restriction did not violate the constitution.

Wrong and wrong. He was making an assumption about the ability to purchase military grade assault weapons in the us which was totally incorrect.