When they drew up the US constitution it was a new country and people wanted to protect their new found land and property from outlaws or whathaveyou I guess. But I suspect when they drew it up they didn’t quite forsee the actual firepower a person could have at their disposal 200 years later. Probably a bolt action rifle would be as far as it’d go. No one except the miltary should have access to some of the weapons that ordinary Americans have at their disposal. It’s really ****** up IMO.This shouldn’t be able to happen in the first place 🙁

Seems to me there are far more pressing issues to be reviewed before they get to the gun laws in the US. First thing we hear when someone shoots up a school/cinema/mall is “ban guns”, never “more care, understanding and help for those with mental health issues” – while the easy access to guns doesn’t help the situation there needs to be a strong change in how the country treats its citizens and the fear they ram down their throat on a daily basis.

The US does seem to do a bloody good job of creating these disturbed individuals like no other country can

The US does seem to do a bloody good job of creating these disturbed individuals like no other country can

They have The American Dream. Most people can’t live it. Some people can’t accept it. Be it socially or financially.

I’m no gun advocate and would agree that a ban would reduce the ‘efficiency’ as was pointed out but whenever there is a ban called for it’s easy to focus on this and ignore underlying problems which cannot be got rid of by such a simple single action.

Oh definitely, people with mental health probs should have access to the treatment they need. But In my limited experience, people come on the mental health issues radar after something has happened for the worse in one way or the other. How often to you hear about someone going at someone with a kitchen knife? it happens. No one has a perfect life, and people lose the plot all the time. Usually best if no automatic rifles were available though eh?

As sad a reflection of modern western politics as it is, the only time such a decision will be made is not for the safety of a country’s children but whether more votes will be gained from the ban than those lost.

The question remains just what is it with the states that causes these things to happen?

Gun ownership is broadly similar in Canada (ie. number of households with guns) but mass shootings are very rare.

As for Aristotles’s point on the interpretation of the US Constitution, I would suggest you read the US Supreme court judgement on District of Columbia Vs Heller, that lays out in great care the intentions of those who drafted the law,

The US does seem to do a bloody good job of creating these disturbed individuals like no other country can
They have The American Dream. Most people can’t live it. Some people can’t accept it. Be it socially or financially.

hmm.. I’m not sure but I think this is a little naive..
I’ve spent time in UK psychiatric units, we’re just as capable of producing an army of fresh faced and eager disturbed folk, week in week out..
It seems though, that embarking on a brutal rampage with the contents of the cutlery drawer and the garden shed is always going to be a lot less appealing than the clean, swift physical and emotional detachment that only powerful guns can offer..

EDIT: well I guess the Canada point kinda messes with my theory a little bit.. I couldn’t say why..

But it’s all about “FREEDOM” (….as well as having the biggest collection of guns as a sign of virility or, vaguely, in case the “bad guys” or even the goverment come around)

We folk from pinko-socialist-liberal countries with our state-provided healthcare just can’t begin to understand it.

Look on almost any US web forum and there’ll be a thread showing posters’ gun collections, some of which are very extensive, accompanied by some quite disturbing, and some extremely gung-ho, points of view.

It doesn’t matter how clever you are Zulu11, or the psychology of US society or whatever you want to pull out the bag. Fact is, if the bloke had no access to those powerful guns, he wouldn’t have been able to kill loads of people so swiftly and easily. There is no reasoning it.
and anyway, if a country/society displays a propensity for gun violence isn’t that more reason to take them away from them? I dunno how like 😕

Re “it’s in the constitution”. It’s a lynchpin of many US pro-gun arguments, they have an inalienable constitutional right to bear arms which cannot be taken away. You can’t change that, not the 2nd… amendment… hmm.

I don’t have a strong opinion, it’s not my country and as observed, it’s not just about availability as availability alone in other countries doesn’t have the same impact. And frankly the genie’s out anyway. I just like picking holes in arguments 😉

I do think having done a bit of shooting that a firearm’s a very empowering thing- it’s action at a distance, and doing things that you couldn’t possibly do without it. And also, it’s remote and clean feeling- you point and something falls down, essentially. (butchering an animal you’ve killed generally causes more squeamishness than shooting the animal)

So I find the argument that people would find another way to go on murder sprees probably isn’t right. Not everyone who can point and have someone fall down, would be able to walk up to someone with a knife, or hit them with a car, or similiar.

As for Aristotles’s point on the interpretation of the US Constitution, I would suggest you read the US Supreme court judgement on District of Columbia Vs Heller, that lays out in great care the intentions of those who drafted the law,

Despite this, there is no real requirement for a citizen’s militia in the USA. We are not talking about groups of peasant farmers arming themselves in case they are required to form a militia for protection from the French, the British or Native Americans, we’re talking about suburban people living in a fairly orderly society, pretending/believing that guns are an important part of their existence. In 2012, there are organised Police departments and the National Guard.

Citizens’ militia have arguably been irrelevant for the past one and a half centuries.

A lot of people like having guns. That’s all there is to it. Unfortunately, the love of guns *and the enthusiasm for using them* has had some negative results on the USA.

If all non-hunting guns were removed from the USA (“goodies” and “baddies”), the country would not collapse.

I’d tend to agree with Zulu on one point, why doesn’t this happen in anywhere near the same level in Canada.

US society and culture has been described by many shrinks as psychopathic.

This guy wants to tell me we’re living in a community? Don’t make me laugh! I’m livin in America, and in America you’re on your own. America’s not a country, it’s just a buisness… now **** pay me!

– Killing Them Softly

Aristotle

However, with respect, the nature and existence of the citizens militia was also seen, from the beginning, as a limitation on the power of government to subjugate ‘the people’ – so your argument that there is an organised, armed police and national guard is actually a justification for the right to bear arms, and the supreme court ruled categorically that that right was an individual one, not tied to military service.

But, you know, its not unusual for a country to be hung up on its constitution.

Theres shed loads of really practical reasons why our own constitution is outdated and anachronistic, with things like a right to trial by jury, freedom of speech, etc. all having perfectly lucid and realistic arguments against them – but I think most of us feel that they have to be protected even if there is a cost to society (like known terrorists walking free)

Wikipedia suggests Canadian gun ownership is significantly lower than USA.

Country Guns per 100
residents (2007) Rank
(2007) Comments
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2 [5]
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32 8 [6]
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13

England and Wales 6.2 88

Scotland 5.5 93

Thats guns per capita – one person owning a hundred plus guns in the US skews the figures heavily – most agree that the more reliable figure is number of households with a firearm, as that indicates how easy it is for most people to actually access a gun.

Survey data from the US shows about thirty to thirty five percent of households owning at least one firearm – Canada shows somewhere around 28%. broadly similar.

The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

Also, lets remember that the real figure people are bothered about is the firearm homicide rates, rather than overall gun related deaths – again they can skew the figures unrealistically.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

However, with respect, the nature and existence of the citizens militia was also seen, from the beginning, as a limitation on the power of government to subjugate ‘the people’ – so your argument that there is an organised, armed police and national guard is actually a justification for the right to bear arms,

It’s a circular argument, though. The people vote for their representatives and are governed by their elected representatives (albeit with flaws). At some point this needs to be accepted, rather than continuing with the somewhat ridiculous Wild West/Rambo fantasy.

“Expressions of freedom” through the medium of the possession of and the concealed carrying of assault weapons that provide the potential for the extremely efficient, mechanised murdering of school children really is an anachronistic nonsense.

That Michael Moore film Bowling For Columbine adressed the Canadian thing, where citizens had guns but also lived with their front doors unlocked and little gun crime. I don’t remember what conclusion he came to though other than the US population is pretty paranoid and fearful. is it a leftover from the cold war? did they really have it drummed into them so much that the guy on the end of the street could be your enemy? I know I’m going off on a tangent..

The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

Indeed. I was just illustrating that the US and Canada weren’t necessarily that similar in their gun ownership profiles.

Also worth remembering that each state in the USA has it’s own gun laws.

Generally, states with strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice versa). That doesn’t mean that “gun control” leads to murder and crime, but it doesn’t seem to have ever lowered rates, either!

Also worth remembering that each state in the USA has it’s own laws.
Generally, states with strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice versa). That doesn’t mean that “gun control” leads to murder and crime, but it doesn’t seem to have ever lowered rates, either!

Gun control in small pockets of the nation doesn’t cause crime or necessarily reduce it.

The weapons are in circulation, there is a ‘tradition’ of gun ownership and use and the ‘culture’ is one of individuals looking out for themselves, possibly encouraged by the supposed ‘right’ to bear arms.

I don’t think it’s anything to do with the Ruskies. The USA is a divided society with a history of racial intolerance. The fear that makes people want to hold guns isn’t of some external force, it’s of their “neighbours”.

Country Guns per 100
residents (2007) Rank
(2007) Comments
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2 [5]
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32 8 [6]
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13

England and Wales 6.2 88

Scotland 5.5 93

Stats fail.

It’s interesting eh DruidH. The US has such a short history and it’s mostly a history of US and THEM! Of division. We like to think we live in enlightened, liberal and tolerant societies in modern developed countries but you only have to look at The US and incidents like this to see it’s still a pretty screwed up human race we have here and it is time to EVOLVE!

It’s honestly very simple. Most reasonable people agree that these mass killings are carried out by other people who are demented. Take away the availability of firearms and the scale of their wrath is diminished.

How hard was that Mr. President? It may very well take 50 years to take guns out of society, you may very well be in your grave by the time it happens, but get the ball rolling.

How hard was that Mr. President?

Very hard!

First, the president does not have to authority to change the constitution. Amending the constitution for any reason is a difficult process; it was set up that way on purpose. In fact, it has only happened 27 times since the constitution went into effect in 1789. And 10 of those (the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment) were all adopted at one time during the first session of Congress in 1789.

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once—in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment—has the convention method of ratification been employed.

So it is very difficult to change the US Constitution! In fact, the 27th amendment was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789, but was not adopted until 1992. Over 200 years!!! 😯

There is a lot of pretty good info on Wikipedia, and I believe that the crowdsourced nature of it means that the entries on things like the US Constitution are pretty factual.

Scotland 5.5 93

Guns for show, knives for a pro.

The 2nd Ammendment people always miss out the first bit -about a “well regulated militia”. It’s a historical artifact, like that law about being able to shoot a Welshman with a longbow.

Quite. A well regulated militia doesn’t really describe quiet, introverted, angry young lads with a collection of automatic weapons or even paranoid, red-blooded rednecks in the backwoods of Michigan (despite what they might think) who are scared of the government in 2012.

It may more accurately describe a criminal gang fighting a turf war to some extent, although the aims of such gangs are more financial than philanthropic.

There are 2 facets to this:

1 The legal, whereby learned people (with political leanings) will pore over the ambiguities of a constitutional amendment written to suit a situation very different to that of today and arguably unfit-for-purpose. The mythology that has grown up around it being a hindrance.

2 The real world, in which the generally accepted human rights and freedoms do not actually require the possession of automatic assault weapons, and every few months somebody goes mad and shoots lots of people.

The large proportion of US citizens who don’t support the “Gun lobby” should make themselves heard. The ridiculous “culture” needs to be changed and a move made toward a less heavily armed society.

The constitutional experts can then talk about it at great length for the subsequent century, whilst everybody just gets on with it.

The large proportion of US citizens who don’t support the “Gun lobby” should make themselves heard

It’s hard to know how to get there from here. I’ve got lots of family in the States – none of them own guns, but the gun culture is even ingrained for them – my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn’t have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn’t have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

Me too.
Unfortunately the gun isn’t the problem here as the knife attacks in China have demonstrated. These people will always find a way to get their message across.
Horrible for the families and friends of the victims.
RIP. 🙁

Think about this:

The military moved away from relying so heavily on sharpened blades when firearms became more readily available.

The military moved away from relying so heavily on sharpened blades when firearms became more readily available.

And now they use bombs. 🙁

Unfortunately the gun isn’t the problem here as the knife attacks in China have demonstrated.

The gun is precisely the problem, and the example in China proves it. You’re always going to have disturbed people – when all they have access to is a knife, then (while distressing), no-one gets killed or seriously injured and the attacker can be overpowered. When they have access to guns, they’re unstoppable and able to kill easily.

bencooper – Member

It’s hard to know how to get there from here. I’ve got lots of family in the States – none of them own guns, but the gun culture is even ingrained for them – my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn’t have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

Some of the “Pro-Gun” people I’ve spoken to appear to have a fear of not being armed. They must be terrified when/if they travel to a foreign land.

Having personally travelled to countries in which guns are widely owned, and carried visibly in some cases, I’ve so far managed to survive without the need to carry one.

When these US college/school/mall/cinema shootings happen ….every few months or so…, it makes me pleased to have been born in Europe, where the response to such things is different.

davidjones15 – Member
And now they use bombs.

…but by your argument, perhaps they should still just be using sharpened flints or maybe large rocks because the weapon isn’t important?

Yes, because firearms are a more efficient means of neutralising an enemy, both at range and close in*. It is not surprising that militaries all over the world try** to use as much new technology as possible when it comes to fighting.

* Depending on how close and the type of firearm. Pistols may be better at really close rage than rifles, but a knife may still have the edge (pardon the pun) at arms length.

** Despite what people think about our army being slow to adopt new technology, in general, people do use a lot of cutting edge stuff if it means they can kill other people more effectively and with fewer of your own side getting hit.

willard – Member

Yes, because firearms are a more efficient means of neutralising an enemy, both at range and close in*. It is not surprising that militaries all over the world try** to use as much new technology as possible when it comes to fighting.

* Depending on how close and the type of firearm. Pistols may be better at really close rage than rifles, but a knife may still have the edge (pardon the pun) at arms length.

** Despite what people think about our army being slow to adopt new technology, in general, people do use a lot of cutting edge stuff if it means they can kill other people more effectively and with fewer of your own side getting hit.

the point well and truly missed.

🙄

You’re always going to have disturbed people – when all they have access to is a knife, then (while distressing), no-one gets killed or seriously injured and the attacker can be overpowered.

I would ask you to have a read of this and a little think for the families of the 21 dead and 90 injured.

A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People’s Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some 90 injured. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]

Hypothesis:

The USA could function perfectly well without members of the public possessing automatic weapons as a constitutional right.

This is all a bit pathetic, a thread about an awful act of violence descends into arguments about guns and personal attacks if an opinion differs.

Aristotle – Member

the point well and truly missed.

How so ancient philosopher?

I’m just catching up on this thread and may have missed out on a few posts typing that last, so do please forgive me making the odd mistake.