posted 07-15-99 09:08 AM ET        

The three events the article points to are the mass arming of the population during the Civil War, the efforts taken by Samuel Colt to popularize firearms in the 19th century, and the takeover of the NRA leadership by Hanlon Carter in 1977.

"America's gun culture is the product of different and sometimes conflicting social and economic pressures, rather than a consistant, deep-seated national preference for owning guns."

The article points to probate records, official surveys of gun ownership and problems recorded relating to civilian militias as evidence that "at no time prior to 1850 did more than a tenth of the people own guns." It also provides charts showing probate-based gun ownership, government gun production and murder methods in the 18th and 19th century.

posted 07-17-99 02:34 AM ET            

There is also the all-American "underdog mentality" which although often irrational nonetheless is part of the culture. Knowing this leads to an understanding of a distinctly American context for crime and punishment: A citizen who successfully defends against a criminal represents a "triumph of the underdog" while in a courtroom where it's the state versus an alleged suspect, the defendant, even if in fact guilty, to some degree becomes the "underdog".

posted 07-18-99 11:38 AM ET            

Well, I read the article, and find it fairly irrelevant. I've never really expected post-Revolutionary gun ownership numbers to be huge, and it has (to be fair, it also doesn't claim any) bearing on gun-rights issues. I don't agree that it's an impartial, reasonable effort, since it goes to great pains to talk about a gun ownership "cult", which is pretty far from impartial language on the subject.

If you're looking for reading material on the subject, the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott (a teacher at the University of Chicago Law School) is probably the single most comprehensive sutdy on the issue of private gun ownership and crime rates.

posted 07-19-99 01:42 AM ET            

As Wraith pointed out in the last gun thread, you can mix and match countries with high/low gun ownership and high/low crime to get whatever results you want. For example, Canada has much stricter gun controls that the States, and our crime rate is considerably higher.

You claim that if guns were outlawed, robbieries, ect would go way up, but what are the criminals going to do?

posted 07-19-99 05:28 AM ET         

Well this is obviously a complex issue and most opinions are well-stated and argumented. Hope I can do the same...
A very important fact is of course the simple truth that if gunpossession is 'outlawed' only outlaws will use guns (and obviously they are not the most responsible of users...) Unfortunate, maybe, but true...
I hail from The Netherlands and we are beginning to experience what we call 'senseless' violence (like killing someone because you simply don't like their face...) and much effort is directed into identifying underlying reasons for this new trend. First of all, I would like to state that the problem isn't primarily limited to guns, but to violence in general. Our society (and all global societies) have hardened and become more violent. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some bleeding-heart pacifist, but I do believe that there is NEVER an excuse for violence...there ARE lots of reasons, obviously, but never an excuse...
And I think that's where the main problem lies : many people seem to accept reasons as excuses and do not take sufficient responsibility for their actions (as also stated before in another post)...However, this attitude probably has underlying reasons as well...and I have some opinions of my own concerning those reasons.
Why so much violence ? That question begs to be put differently : why so much aggression ? Aggression is caused by many things, but the most probable are frustration and fear...and these of course can be caused by a multitude of different events. Another important factor is the 'new' individualism - obviously much more pronounced in hard-hitting survivalist capitalist countries - which promotes self and awareness of others' selves...Somehow the second part gets often mislayed and only self-interest remains. Roadrage is a 'fine' example of this, I think...A driver gets so frustrated that another driver doesn't drive 'as well' as he/she or that other drivers obviously don't care about the fact that YOU are in a hurry (or whatever) and this leads to frustration and misplaced aggression (there are many other factors contributing to roadrage, but it would take too long...)
Many people are frustrated with their lives and/or are insecure (= afraid) ; rather than accepting the fear and anger, taking a good look at where it comes from and facing it, they become more and more frustrated because they cannot or often out of sheer selfishness WILL not take this step. We live in a society which does not 'care' for people anymore - or so it's felt - simply because it cannot...it is too massive and people are more often data in a computer and not living, feeling, sentient beings..(as are criminals, by the way...)

Well, please forgive me the gross generalisations in the above (and any typo's) and let me know what you think...I could say a lot more, but I'm curious as to whether or not some (or most) of you concur...

In short, guns aren't the problem, society is...and WE are the society...

posted 07-19-99 12:34 PM ET            

A private investigator from Alaska put it this way: "Criminals aren't stupid. They're dysfunctional."

posted 07-20-99 08:57 AM ET            

Has anybody ever changed his mind on the issue of gun control since 1977? Arguing about this is like fighting the tide. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I have heard anything new from either side. Here, let me summarize:

PRO: Guns are protected by the Constitution. An armed citizenry protects against tyrrany and crime. Current gun laws aren't enforced. Responsible gun owners outnumber irresponsible ones.

CON: Guns are underregulated given their lethality. There are many irresponsible owners who cause serious and fatal accidents with firearms. The large volume manufactured and the ease of making unregulated sales makes it easy for criminals to obtain guns. Gun ownership is poor public policy, because claims of benefits are overstated.

posted 07-20-99 12:52 PM ET            

Few law abiding citizens own guns "for the hell of it". We are gun owners because for one reason or another our security is threatened. We don't really care who is to blame, we just want protection, and we know the only place we can get protection short of running for office or becoming famous is owning and knowing how to use a firearm. Most of us own firearms for the same reason we buckle our seatbelts, brush our teeth, and check the batteries in our smoke detectors.

Gun control advocates don't believe us. They think we're a bunch of grown-up Beavises who see a gun and think, "Bang! Heh heh! Heh heh! Bang!" We are lower-order primates wielding phallic symbols to compensate for our own inadequacy. Not incidentally most gun control advocates are also politicians, who have Secret Service protection, or movie stars, who have private bodyguards. And the security guards, of course, are armed to the teeth.

For our part, we see that our security is threatened by gun control advocates and immediately overreact, seeing Big Brother in naieve people's well-meaning attempts at reducing violence in society. The outcome of our being rendered defenseless remains the same regardless of whether our opponents are conspiratorial or simply misguided, but we should behave like gentlemen nonetheless and give our opponents the benefit of the doubt. It is hard not to question our opponents' motives with our safety at stake, but the current atmosphere of mistrust prevents good reforms from becoming law, which ultimately undermines the very security we are fighting to maintain.

The pro-gun side completely ignores the benefits guns bring to society. When a crime is prevented because of a gun owner, but the gun is never fired, the position of the pro-gun side is that the gun was not "used" and therefore does not count in their statistics. They also downplay the problem of crime, brandishing national statistics without regard to what neighborhood gun owners might happen to live in. They don't really care what the circumstances of gun ownership are, because they know guns kill people so obviously nobody should have them ... well, except for security guards, of course. So a farmer who lives 30 minutes from the nearest law enforcement is just another gun-toting redneck prowling for minorities to persecute while a man in a crime-riddled neighborhood trying to keep his family safe is just another Travis the Taxi Driver on the verge of flipping out. Having never faced danger they don't perceive the threat, so they think we're all a bunch of "gun nuts". And they will use any means, true or not, to prove it.

They use tactics obviously designed to subvert existing law, and have a "war" mentality of "anything goes" to take away private citizens' arms by whatever means possible. In their minds fewer guns mean less crime and therefore any tactic is justified.

So gun owners are paranoid that ANY gun law that slips past will be used as an incremental step toward outlawing our means to defend ourselves while gun opponents give us every reason to believe that. In this kind of atmosphere nothing constructive can get done.

Licensing would be great, if we could trust the government not to make the license impossible to attain, and if it didn't have to be renewed. (Getting a knock on the door and losing your great-grandfather's pistol because you didn't renew your gun license is not acceptable.) Voluntary gun safety classes in high school are an excellent idea. But of course the politics would have to be kept out of it, which pretty much cooks that idea. Banning armor-piercing ammo is a good idea, but not when "riders" get attached to the bill that also outlaw calibers and ammunition types that provide "stopping power", a critical safety feature in a critical situation. And lastly giving higher penalties for "gun crimes" is a great idea unless it means automatic felony charges for a law-abiding citizen who inadvertently violates some obscure regulation or a dealer who makes an honest mistake filling out a form.

posted 07-20-99 01:33 PM ET            

1) You generically accuse the opposing side of dishonesty.
2) You decry your opponents' extremism.
3) You blame their policies for making improvements to the system impossible.
4) You claim that the needed trust on your side is impossible because the opposing side is not worthy of trust.

posted 07-22-99 02:57 AM ET         

First of all, would any of you responsible gun owners actually kill another human being out of self defense ? And, most importantly, would you feel sorry - even if it was out of self defense ?
I worry about this, because I still haven't seen any clear ideas about where that leaves the non-criminal gun owners...Again, I think using a gun may have a lot of reasons, but is there ever an excuse for killing ?

Now please allow me to explain why I seem so stuck-up about this : a (very) good friend of mine woke up in the middle of the night in Amsterdam (my country's capital and largest city) to find a couple of older drug addicts (as he thought) wandering through his house and with a large sack with stolen goods between them...He had a gun (and his arguments about why this should be so were no differrent from what I've seen here) and when one of the criminals pointed a gun at him, he shot him and he died...(The other one was so shocked he gave himself up)...

Now, that criminal's gun was not loaded, but I guess you'd say "Hell, I'm not gonna' take that chance, either him or me...!" and you would be right...
BUT, my friend was and still is a morally respectable human being and his happiness in life (to coin a clich�...) ended the moment he realized what he'd done...the fact that the other gun wasn't loaded didn't make things better, of course, but that didn't take the guilt away from realizing that he could have done something - anything - other than shoot...(even though his ideas about this, like falling to the ground and AIMING or even using a bat or something are maybe not the best - or even realistic - alternatives, but they are not impossible)

So, if you would feel threatened, you would hardly think, but react on instinct...and that instinctive fear coupled with a gun in your hand, makes one not only dangerously unstable but deadly...

All your points are well stated, but fail to take into account that the event of feeling you have to use that gun will not be the most rational or stable moment in anyone's life...so rationally discussing the issue seems a bit moot - even though it's necessary...

For whatever reason, if you kill another human being you should realise what you've done...The criminals do not put you into a position wherein you have no other choice (even though alternatives may be hard to find), you MAKE that choice...

BUT, i hear you say, if someone threatened my family, I'd protect them at all costs...and I concur...
Just don't assume that you can reach that same seemingly obvious conclusion when you're actually IN such a completely chaotic and stressful situation...
Unless you're a completely unfeeling hardened trigger-happy survivalist who's glad to have some new targets to practice on...;-)

My last point, what would all of you have your children learn from this ? That as long as one perceives a threat any action is justified without (personal or otherwise) consequences...even if it is just to feel sorry for having to have hurt another human being ?

So, let's stop acting as if gun ownership is such a problem : it isn't...It's acting as if gun ownership is not a problem at all and God's giving right to any man that is...

Reasons are not excuses when people can get hurt...

posted 07-22-99 03:17 PM ET            

If the act of killing doesn't bother you, then you SHOULDN'T have a gun. People who lack that kind of empathy are borderline psychotic. Anybody who preaches about responsible gun ownership should understand the psychological consequences of shooting somebody, even in self-defense.

posted 07-23-99 03:22 AM ET         

Wise words from a cool head...

As you may - or may not - have noticed, I have some difficulty expressing myself 100% clear in English, so it is very satisfying to see one's ideas put down so eloquently...

There is however one thing I would still like to comment on :
"If the act of killing doesn't bother you..." Obviously, this thread mainly deals with "killing", but would you concur that your statement could/should be "If the act of hurting someone else doesn't bother you..." ?
This may seem like taking matters to the extreme, but I'm not saying people should not hurt each other, because it happens to all of us all the time...But I think people should be bothered more if they hurt others and certainly if they intentionally place themselves in a situation where this is unavoidable...(like politics, maybe ?)

This is not to start up a whole new discussion, just tell me what you think...

posted 07-23-99 11:25 AM ET            

It is wrong to lock people in cages -- unless they've committed a crime. It is wrong to feed a person sugar -- unless that person is not a diabetic. It is wrong to kill people -- unless it is reasonable to believe they pose an immediate threat. It is wrong to expel a child from school -- unless that child is preventing others from learning. It is wrong to lie -- unless you're lying to protect the innocent (like lying to the Nazis about the refugees stashed in the attic.)

posted 07-23-99 08:20 PM ET            

Well, both sides have their dishonesty, it goes with extreemism. The problem is that the theoretical neutrals in the arguments (those who are claiming to be impartially and objectively reporting the facts) are biased.
For example, this story took place on July 6, but I'll bet almost no one hear has heard it.
A gunman took three hostages at a San Mateo, Calif., shooting range. He had left a note announcing his intention to kill hostages and then himself, so this was worse than even the usual hostage situation. At his point an anonymous employee of the shooting range took one of the guns on the premisises and shot the gunman, freeing the hostages.
Every story about a child killed by a gun is front page news, but stories about guns saving lives are lucky to appear in the second section, and you can forget it as far as the major networks are concerned.

--"2) You decry your opponents' extremism."

Well, naturally That's what fanatics do, after all, and at least some of the claims are perfectly true.

--"3) You blame their policies for making improvements to the system impossible."

Again, this one often has facts behind it. Although Clinton regularly brags about how many people his Brady bill has stopped from buying guns, he never mentions that there have only been about a dozen arrests from it, and that this is because it has never been his policy to actually enforce these laws he thinks are so important.
(BTW, there's several "insider" type books out there on the Clinton administration, one of which was written by a former FBI agent. They are something anyone concerned with American politics should read, and be scared of.)

--"4) You claim that the needed trust on your side is impossible because the opposing side is not worthy of trust."

Pretty much seems to be the case. The anti-gun rights people seem to believe that the average citizen can't be trusted with a gun, and the gun rights people seem to believe that the government can't be trusted to limit itself. Look at the Constitution, look at the current US Government, and tell me how valid you think the latter belief is...

--"They are only trying sensible plans like waiting periods and child safety locks."

For one, this is not the case. There are several areas (California, DC, and New York featuring largely on the list) that go way past that, all the way to outright banning of handgun ownership.
For another, since when do waiting periods do anything? I'll be happy to argue this issue. The BATF says that the average age of a gun used in a crime is six years... a far cry from the representation that it's common for someone to run to a gun store so they can kill the guy next door that evening.
There are similar arguments against this mandatory child-lock thing. If you don't have kids, this is fairly pointless, and becomes little more than a government subsidy for the trigger-lock companies. I should also point out that the number of kids killed accidentally by guns is far lower than the number of kids killed by drowning in buckets (no, this is not a joke). If you want to regulate the one, what about the other?

--"First of all, would any of you responsible gun owners actually kill another human being out of self defense ?"

Under the correct circumstances, yes, I would. For some strange reason I think that my life has value, and that I am entitled to go on living it.

--"would you feel sorry"

That would probably depend. I'm sure it would be something of a shock at first, but killing someone in a self defense situation is a far cry from cold-blooded murder. Our armed forces personel can deal with the fact that their jobs will require them to kill, and we're still products of evolution, so the concept of survival is still rather central to us.

--"but is there ever an excuse for killing ?"

Of course there is. If the situation is simply "kill or be killed" are you saying we should quietly give in to the would-be murders, perhaps helping them out by slitting our wrists so they can hurry on their way? Lethal force is a suitable response when you or someone else is in danger of death or permanent harm.

--"but that didn't take the guilt away from realizing that he could have done something - anything - other than shoot."

Ah, how we love to wallow in our self-pity these days. There was not much else he could have done in this situation. He could have pretended to still be asleep, and hope they went away. Of course, if they did have ammo for their gun, and decided they wanted to take no chances on witnesses, he would have died. And either way they'd go on to rob someone else, with the possibility of murder later on down the line (they're already breaking laws, after all). He could have surrendered his gun, and hoped they did nothing more than tie him up and run away, with the same chances above (not knowing in advance that the gun was unloaded, he would most likely have been shot before he could surrender). Or he could have shot, as he did. It was the best of his options when the guy pointed a gun at him his choice was pretty much made, regardless of what you seem to think on the issue. If someone points a gun at you, you have to assume that they're willing to kill you with it. If the guy had simply frozen, your friend would not have shot. He could have told the guy to drop his gun, which he likely would have, and then he would be able to hold the crooks until the police arrived.

Your attitude on this issue is certainly not helping your friend deal with his feelings on this.

--"arnt going to be purchasing any sort of firearm illgaly(sp)."

Excuse me? They'll be able to buy drugs illegaly, regardless of the moronic War on Drugs that has been carried out for years, but they won't be able to buy handguns? When, presumably, the dealers will be able to? You don't think someone will spot the market there and black-market guns just like they did drugs?

--"But to mourn for one's own conscience when one was in the right is a naieve and pointless waste of effort. "

**Applause**

posted 07-25-99 11:09 AM ET            

For an adult, this is rather difficult, but not for a small child. Take a look at the neighbors little kids if you don't have any. Children's heads are large in porportion to the rest of their body (even by human standards), and a child who falls head-first into a bucket can become trapped because they're top-heavy. It doesn't take that much fluid in the bucket to do it, either.

posted 07-26-99 04:11 AM ET         

Some very good points stated well...I feel I must still clarify some things though...

"Your attitude on this issue is certainly not helping your friend deal with his feelings on this."

I resent this most fiercely, because my attitude has mainly been formed by this incident and how my friend has dealt with it (and still is...). I have tried - again and again - to quell his guilt and remorse with all previously mentioned points, but to no avail...He is a very intelligent and caring human being who has never - and still doesn't - wallowed in self-pity, yet he cannot free himself from the choices and consequences he made...I have tried to make him see that he did the right thing - regardless of what I may personally feel - but his own conscience tells him this is not so...

"But to mourn for one's own conscience when one was in the right is a naieve and pointless waste of effort. "

True, but unfortunately neither I nor my friend have this remarkable capacity to know exactly when one is in the right...You make a choice and live with the consequences, but please don't pretend it's right or wrong...it's a choice, no more, no less...one cannot do more than take responsibilty for one's choices...

And I think I now know what's been really bugging me about this issue : as I've stated before I am not so naieve as to think there aren't a multitude of REASONS for any kind of violence, but does a reason make something right ? I do not think so, but somehow human beings need this illusionary security that provides them with the ultimate excuse, namely that it was right.

"For some strange reason I think that my life has value, and that I am entitled to go on living it."

Of course your life has value, and of course you are entitled to go on living it, but at what price ? As long as you convince yourself what you did was right, that makes it allright ? I would be very, very sorry if this is the lesson we teach our children...

posted 07-26-99 09:05 AM ET            

If you place I high value on human life, then taking it cannot be anything but traumatic. The right or the wrong doesn't enter into it, any more than it enters into overeating, phobias, psychoses, or matters of taste. It's human psychology.

posted 07-26-99 03:50 PM ET            

If morality is to be divorced from the question of self-defense then I may defend myself the same way a mother bear kills to protect her cubs: by evaluating a threat and neutralizing it. She does not judge the predator's moral character, nor does she harbor personal feelings toward it. She simply evaluates and neutralizes. No hard feelings.

If I cannot judge the predator then neither may I be judged. The predator makes a choice, I make a choice, que sera sera. Nothing personal.

posted 07-27-99 08:58 AM ET            

I think that killing people is wrong. It makes for bad policy. The protection of life is one of the things which makes modern civilization possible. I'm an atheist, so I don't have any "God-given" problems with killing. Rather, I feel that society functions best when each person understands that they are secure from threat of violence.

From that perspective, gun ownership has more negative externalities than positive benefits. The gun owner increases his own sense of security, but he may decrease those of the people around him. Rationally or not, neighbors can view his possession of a firearm as a threat, especially in locales where people are strangers to each other.

This argument doesn't take into account the positive benefits of stopping crime, so let's take a look at that.

Most burglaries and home intrusions take place when the home is empty. The exceptions tend to be very rare -- although they tend to generate tremendous amounts of publicity when they happen. Most murders and such take place between people who know each other, also implying that the "intruder" scenario isn't likely. I would argue that because these circumstances are rare, the benefits of deferred crime is canceled out by the probably equally rare incidences of accidental shootings, gun theft, etc. Of course, I don't have solid statistics on either. How many criminals are stopped in the home vs. accidents? For arguments sake, I'm assuming both are uncommon.

Do firearms contribute to crime? There isn't a crime that can't be committed without a gun. You can rob a bank with knives and explosives, for example. Guns do have particular advantages, however. They would be range, rate of fire, ease of use, and portability. That's why soldiers carry guns instead of knives, bows or grenades as their primary weapon.

Saying that having a gun makes a crime easier to commit is too simplistic, however. Opponents of gun control argue that outlawing guns would not prevent criminals from obtaining them. They also argue that current laws are enforced haphazardly. This second statement is undoubtedly true, and it seriously brings into question the priorities of gun control advocates who push for bans without fighting to see existing laws enforced.

An economic argument could be made for gun control, however. If it became very difficult to acquire a firearm, thus restricting demand, theoretically the supply of firearms would drop and prices would rise, making them more difficult to obtain. This is too simplistic, though. Firearms are durable goods, and there is a huge supply currently available in the marketplace. Military decomissioning and the sale of "black market" weapons used in various minor wars and insurrections throughout the world would no doubt also contribute to the supply. It seems unlikely that a direct ban would signficantly impair the ability of somebody to illegally obtain weapons.

posted 07-27-99 12:13 PM ET            

By far the most common "use" of a gun involves a victim drawing one, the criminal running away, and the crime being thus prevented without the gun ever being fired. These are serious crimes being prevented, too, like rape and home intrusion. I personally know people who have saved themselves with a handgun -- without ever firing a shot.

posted 07-27-99 03:32 PM ET            

A) Too expensive
or
B) Criminals lack the chemical knowlage to make a household bomb.

posted 07-27-99 06:36 PM ET            

It is a difficult thing to measure and the good studies admit it. Estimates vary, but the middle-of-the-road ones tend to be about 1 million defensive gun uses per year, a number rather higher than the number of gun-related crimes per year. These number have been gathered a couple ways, which is why there's a wide range. The best over-all analysis of this is probably Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991). Part of this based on US government figures, such as U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, International Crime Rates, Special BJS Report, May 1988.

posted 07-27-99 07:37 PM ET            

What nation allows that? Where *I* live the police will investigate the incident and the shooter may very well have to stand trial for murder to defend his actions.

Or are you using a fourth-hand story about a publicized incident where someone shot someone else in the aftermath of a traffic accident? It sounds like one that happened in my state. The media somehow forgot to mention that the person shot was physically assaulting the shooter and said shooter came out of that with a fractured eye socket.

"Countries that have strict no-gun laws such as Japan have a fraction of the crimes commited that America does."

posted 07-31-99 03:43 PM ET            

Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated already. You have to undergo tons of special paperwork, pay hundreds in fees, and get a federal permit to own one legally.

--"but also you should limit the number of them being built."

Uzis, if I recall correctly, were orginally built by an Israeli company, who have since licensed out the design to others. I'm not really sure how you think we're able to regulate weapon production of foreign countries.

--"I think the main reason for the whole mess are the gun manufacturing corporations."

As opposed to the murders and other violent criminals?
As it stands now, less than 1% of guns in the US are used in crimes. Further laws will do nothing about it, but as already been suggested several times here, actual enforcement of existing laws would help.

--"Those corporations only do harm to the society, but they are tolerated because they bring money and jobs."

Funny. You could replace "corporations" with "governments" and be totaly accurate...