"Guns take pride of place in US family values."

[vortexring 0]

Despite the spiralling rise in the daily number of shootings in the US, its arms culture has a firmer grip than ever, reports Paul Harris in New York

Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer


Shirley Katz is not afraid to fight for her rights. Last week the schoolteacher, 44, went to court in her home town of Medford, Oregon, to protest at her working conditions. Specifically she is outraged she cannot carry a handgun into class. 'I know it is my right to carry that gun,' she said.
Katz was in court in the week that someone else took a gun to school in America. This time it was a pupil in Cleveland, Ohio. Asa Coon, 14, walked the corridors of his school, a gun in each hand, shooting two teachers and two students. Then he killed himself. Coon's attempted massacre made headlines. But a more bloody rampage, the murder of six young partygoers by Tyler Peterson, a policeman in Crandon, Wisconsin, got less attention, even in the New York Times - America's newspaper of record - which buried it deep inside the paper.


Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years. Despite the fact groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) consistently claim they are being victimised, there have probably never been so many guns or gun-owners in America - although no one can be sure, as no one keeps a reliable account. One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream.
An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack. Yet despite those figures US gun culture is not retreating. It is growing. Take Katz's case in Oregon. She brought her cause to court under a state law that gives licensed gun-owners the right to bring a firearm to work: her school is her workplace. Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Now it is the battleground. 'Who would have thought a few years ago, we would even be having this conversation? But this won't stop here,' said Professor Brian Anse Patrick of the University of Toledo in Ohio. Needless to say, last week the judge sided with Katz and she won the first round of her case.

It is a nation awash with guns, from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the Midwest's farms to Manhattan's mansions. Gun-owning groups have been so successful in their cause that it no longer even seems strange to many Americans that Katz should want to go into an English class armed. 'They have made what was once unthinkable thinkable,' said Patrick, a liberal academic. He should know. He owns a gun himself. Even the US critics of gun culture are armed.

To look at the photographs in Kyle Cassidy's book Armed America is to glimpse a surreal world. Or at least it seems that way to many non-Americans. Cassidy spent two years taking portrait shots of gun owners and their weapons across the US.

The result is a disturbing tableau of happy families, often with pets and toddlers, posing with pistols, assault rifles and the sort of heavy machine-guns usually associated with a warzone. 'By the end I had seen so many guns and I knew so much about guns that it no longer seemed unusual,' Cassidy said. He keeps his in a gun safe in his home in Philadelphia. 'This turned into a project not about guns but about a diverse group of people,' he said.

At the cutting edge of weapon culture remains the gun lobby and its most vocal advocate, the NRA. Founded in the 19th century by ex-Civil War army officers dismayed at their troops' lack of marksmanship, the NRA has transformed into the most effective lobbying group in Washington DC. It has scores of lobbyists, millions of dollars in funds and more than three million members. It is highly organised and its huge membership is highly motivated and activist. They can have a huge influence on politics.

In 2000 Vice-President Al Gore supported stricter background checks for gun-buyers and the NRA organised against him, describing the election as the most important since the Civil War. It spent $20m against Gore in an election ending in a razor's edge result. Its influence was especially felt in Gore's home state of Tennessee, which he narrowly lost to NRA gloating. 'Their vote can select the President. They don't get to pick who goes to the White House. But they can tip the balance,' said Patrick.

Democrats have learnt that lesson now. Many shy away from gun control issues, wary of taking on such a vociferous lobby group. In the 2006 mid-term elections the NRA was able to back a historically high 58 Democrats running for office. Every one of them went on to win. Such influence over the past three decades has seen the NRA fight a successful campaign against new gun laws. It has in fact loosened regulations, spreading the ability to legally carry concealed weapons across 39 states. And this has all been done in the face of a fight from anti-gun groups, backed by much of the mainstream media. 'Politicians are so afraid of the gun lobby. They run scared of it,' said Joan Burbick, author of the book Gun Show Nation

But the key question is not about the number of guns in America; it is about why people are armed. For many gun-owners, and a few sociologists, the reason lies in America's past. The frontier society, they say, was populated by gun-wielding settlers who used weapons to feed their families and ward off hostile bandits and Indians. America was thus born with a gun in its hand. Unfortunately much of this history is simply myth. The vast majority of settlers were farmers, not fighters. The task of killing Indians was left to the military and - most effectively - European diseases. Guns in colonial times were much rarer than often thought, not least because they were so expensive that few settlers could afford them. Indeed one study of early gun homicides showed that a musket was as likely to be used as club to beat someone to death as actually fired.

But many Americans believe the myth. The role of the gun is now enshrined in mass popular culture and has huge patriotic significance. Hence the fact that gun ownership is still a constitutional right, in case America is ever invaded and needs to form a popular militia (as hard as that event might be to imagine). It also explains why guns are so prevalent in Hollywood. Currently playing in US cinemas is the Jodie Foster film The Brave One, a classic vigilante movie of the wronged woman turning to the power of the pistol to murder the criminals who killed her boyfriend. Foster's character is played as undeniably heroic. 'There is a fascination with guns in our culture. All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun,' said Cassidy.

But this worship of the gun in many ways springs from economics and social problems, not the historic frontier. It took mass production and mass marketing to really popularise firearms. The Civil War saw mass arms manufacturing explode in America, including making 200,000 Colt .44 pistols alone. It saw guns become familiar and cheaper for millions of Americans. The later 19th century saw gun companies using marketing techniques to sell their weapons, often invoking invented frontier imagery to do so. That carries on today. There are more than 2,000 gun shows each year, selling hundreds of thousands of guns. It is big business and business needs to sell more and more guns to keep itself profitable. 'They will do anything to sell guns,' said Burbick.

But there are deeper issues at work too. The gun lobby's main argument is that guns protect their owners. They deter criminals and attackers whom - the gun lobby points out helpfully - are often armed themselves. Some surveys estimate there are more than two million 'defensive' uses of firearms each year. But others say that this argument is a shield, using guns as a way of deflecting harder arguments about how crime is caused by economics, poverty and racism. 'The argument over guns redefines a lot of social issues as simple aspects of crime,' said Burbick. She argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions. 'We have to take back the language of human security. To talk about solving those social issues in terms of safety, not just letting the gun lobby control that language,' she said.

It is a powerful argument. Critics of America's gun culture often point to other nations with high levels of gun ownership - such as Canada and Switzerland - but much lower levels of violent crime. The fact is that America itself is equally divided. Patrick lives in a quiet, rural part of Michigan just across the state line from Ohio and the town of Toledo where he works. 'I would be amazed if anyone within four miles of me did not have a gun,' he said 'But our homicide rate is zero.'

Then look at where Cassidy lives. He has an apartment in Philadelphia, a city that is just as flooded with guns as Patrick's rural idyll, but also suffers from inner-city social ills. It has a stratospheric murder rate. 'There is a murder here every day. This is something that America has to come to terms with,' he said. Yet the differences do not lie with the simple existence of guns. Both places are full of them. They lie with the root causes of crime and violence, such as poverty and drugs, that blight many big cities. Guns seem neither to be totally the problem and certainly not the solution.

However, that is a debate few in America are having. In the meantime, the gun culture is so firmly entrenched and society so full of guns that there is little prospect of it retreating. Even those who advocate much tighter laws have long accepted defeat of the ideal of creating a society where guns are rare in public life, or even completely absent. 'That notion is absurd. There is no way to de-gun America,' said Patrick.

To cap a grim week, as Katz was winning her court battle in Oregon police in Pennsylvania were giving details of a raid on the home of a teenager who was plotting to attack a school. They found seven home-made grenades and an assault rifle. His mother had bought it for him at a gun show. The boy was just 14.


Quite an interesting article with areas I've found relevant highlighted. I tend to agree with what's said. Does anybody strongly disagree with any areas of the article? And why?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Douva 0]

I hope you'll excuse me for being brief, but I have to leave in a few minutes to re-qualify for my concealed handgun license. I had to skim the last few paragraphs.

1. In 2004, the last year for which CDC statistics are available on the CDC website, 2,045 individuals (5.6 per day) under the age of 19 died of gunshot wounds. Only about 69% of those were homicides (1,291) or gun accidents (121). So that's roughly four people under the age of nineteen dying in gun accidents or gun related homicides every day. According to FBI crime statistics, well over half of those individuals are involved in gang activity at the time of their deaths.

2. The statistic "A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defense against an attack" is misleading for several reasons.

A. It includes suicides, as if people couldn't find another means to kill themselves (Japan's suicide rate is more than twice the U.S. rate; yet, they have an almost absolute prohibition on the civilian ownership off firearms).

B. As in my first point this statistic involves households involved in gang or other criminal activity.

C. This statistic compares gun DEATHS to defensive DEATHS, not gun DEATHS to defensive USES. Some studies have found that as few as 1 in 1000 defensive uses of a gun result in the death of the criminal and that the gun is fired in less than 1% of those instances.

I wish I had time to say more, but I have to go shoot. Later.

3. The homicide rate in America is 35% lower than it was 25 years ago. The 2007 homicide rate was down from 2005 and 2006. "Gun deaths" don't constitute the whole story.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[1969912 0]

Some clarification:

Quote

Despite the spiralling rise in the daily number of shootings in the US...

....Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years.

No one can be sure what the author means by "shootings" because that term is not used by the FBI or DOJ. Ditto for the term "Gun Crime". There are also no data that reflect "daily number of" crimes of any kind. Might as well assume the author means murders per year.

Below are some official numbers for murders using firearms:


FBI UCR, Firearm Murders, 2002-2007:

2002 - 9,528

2003 - 9,659

2004 - 9,385

2005 - 10,158

2006 - 10,177

2007 - 9,994 (preliminary)

NO evidence of a "spiraling rise" in murders. NO evidence that murder has "risen steeply over the past three years."

So far, the title and one sentence are either lies or sloppy journalism, and that's before reading even the first two paragraphs. Why would anyone who takes the issue seriously read any further?

All the article does is demonstrate how illogical and out of touch with reality the anti-gunners are.


FBI UCR data: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Lefty 0]

As dubious as the results of the studies quoted in the article are, I am more interested in the philosophy behind an issue instead of the numbers. Right now, there are at least two very vocal cultures in the U.S. who claim guns as important tools.

The first culture is the rugged individualism that has been around since the frontier days. When the author of the article refers to most settlers as "farmers not fighters", I think he/she is viewing the stereotypical farmer in today's context. You can be damned sure farmers back in the old days had guns or, if those were too expensive, at least some weapon that they'd run to get if their homestead was threatened. The pioneers were the same way. There were no cops out there to provide one with the illusion of security, and if you got into trouble you would have to get yourself out. This is a good culture, and it's the mindset around which I base most of my opinions about concealed-carry and 2nd Amendment rights.

The other culture is the "thug" gang member culture. When the author cites the inner city murder rates, you can bet this is the culture that is dominating that area. Unfortunately, these two cultures are being grouped together and are referred to collectively as "American" gun culture. Even worse, the actions of individual (we'll consider them separate from gang members) criminals are being attributed to this American gun culture. I don't see these criminals as subscribers to any particular culture; they're just doing what criminals do. If guns weren't around, they'd use something else.

Bottom line, the gun culture this country was founded upon is still applicable today. These are the people who use guns as tools for self-defense and not as instruments of crime. This is the culture I am a part of, as are most of the gun owners in this country. I hope we never reach the point of Great Britain, or any other country that disarms the law-abiding to their detriment. As for "American" gun culture, it has unfortunately been hijacked by street thugs and gang-members. These types make for more interesting news, so I'm not surprised that this deviant culture is the one more prevalent in the public's mind.

edit: grammar

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[vortexring 0]

Sure, no worries - I appreciate your input. When you've the time, have you an opinion on the claim that politicians run scared from the gun lobby - and of course, its influence on American politics?

Also; "she argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions."

Now, I don't quite expect you to agree completely with this statement, but I feel it's a very important area that doesn't seem to get enough attention. Especially here on SC when gun issues are discussed, hence the reason I'll mention social issues so often. It's my opinion that this aspect is often disregarded in the gun debates, simply through the problem being seemingly unsolvable. But shouldn't everyones attention and priorities lie here?

Where people might think I'm anti-guns through recent arguments, I'm actually more interested in looking at the social aspects and cultural areas surrounding the issue.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Thanks for your time providing the stats. You asked; "Why would anyone who takes the issue seriously read any further?" I'd answer that other important areas of the debate are at least mentioned - so it'd be interesting to hear an opinion on these too.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

You know, I liked your answer so much, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to tackle the points I disagree with. I need a clear head.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[rushmc 23]

This may a bit off the topic but, JohnRich gets lambasted by the Brits here for speaking to gun laws in the UK. Why should I or anybody else in the US care what you think about US guns culture and law? Your opinion, similar to ours, is colored by the media we are exposed to and the news sites we frequent.

So, conversely, why do YOU care about US gun law and culture?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Quote

Thanks for your time providing the stats. You asked; "Why would anyone who takes the issue seriously read any further?" I'd answer that other important areas of the debate are at least mentioned - so it'd be interesting to hear an opinion on these too.

My statement was a bit strong. Sorry. The point is that a lot of wild claims are made, and it's important to know the truth. The gun-rights people do it too, but not nearly as often. Anyway, I did read it
-------------
Anyway, regarding your reply to douva:

The NRA is a politically powerful group working to protect the rights of gun nuts, and that's exactly what we pay them to do. There are anti-gun groups as well, being paid by others, and they are also powerful. I hope that the NRA has as much influence on (gun) politics as possible, and hope the antigun groups have none. Of course, the anti's feel the same way about their groups vs. ours. I don't know how much influence either side has. I'm not sure if politicians run scared from the "gun lobby", but you can bet they run scared from anything that might make people vote against them. If a politician loses an election for being antigun, it's no different than another politician losing because he's "anti-abortion".
---------
Re:

"she argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions."

She seems to understand that guns are not the cause of crime, and that efforts should be focused on issues other than guns, which is correct. In the first part of the sentence, though, she implies that the real causes of crime cannot be addressed while Americans are armed (it's unclear what she means by "...not to arm them with guns..."). What do you think she's saying?

In any case, why aren't the real causes being tackled right now, guns or not? I agree with you completely in that all attention should be directed at the real causes of crime. The problem is that a large number of people believe that the cause is guns and not social/demographic/racial/economic, or whatever.
------------

Don't have time to look at it now, but a lot of the text you highlighted was true. Example: "The role of the gun is now enshrined in mass popular culture and has huge patriotic significance". Absolutely right, but it goes way beyond patriotism (Note: IMHO criminals are NOT part of the gun culture, they're abusers of it and all other good things). The "enshrining" is nothing recent, and it's totally irreversible, gun laws or not.

gotta go

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Well said.

I'd like to add that the Brady bunch are at the very least as powerful a political lobbying force as the NRA, if not more so. They get MUCH more airtime than the NRA/GOA/JPFO, etc.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

Well said.

I'd like to add that the Brady bunch are at the very least as powerful a political lobbying force as the NRA, if not more so. They get MUCH more airtime than the NRA/GOA/JPFO, etc.

Think so? I'd always heard that the NRA was way more powerful, but losing ground in the last 20 or so years. By airtime do you mean press coverage/quotes, or paid advertising?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Well said.

I'd like to add that the Brady bunch are at the very least as powerful a political lobbying force as the NRA, if not more so. They get MUCH more airtime than the NRA/GOA/JPFO, etc.

Think so? I'd always heard that the NRA was way more powerful, but losing ground in the last 20 or so years. By airtime do you mean press coverage/quotes, or paid advertising?

I was speaking mainly to press coverage/quotes/appearances - I honestly don't know that much about their paid advertising.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

I was speaking mainly to press coverage/quotes/appearances....

Agree completely. Probably many more reasons for it than just the one I'll leave unmentioned. 'Nuther thread.

How do groups like NRA or Brady put presure on politicians? AFAIK, they can't buy them stuff. Is it as simple as just convincing them that they have a large block of voters/concerned citizens behind them?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I was speaking mainly to press coverage/quotes/appearances....

Agree completely. Probably many more reasons for it than just the one I'll leave unmentioned. 'Nuther thread.

How do groups likeHRA or Brady put presure on politicians? AFAIK, they can't buy them stuff. Is it as simple as just convincing them that they have a large block of voters/concerned citizens behind them?

Basically...and convincing those voters/concerned citizens to write to the congresscritter in question...something that the NRA is getting better on, from what I've seen.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Extremely well written

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Steeler 0]

Bleh. Didn`t make it through the whole article before my stomach started turning. On a side note, looky what followed me home yesterday!!!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Bleh. Didn`t make it through the whole article before my stomach started turning. On a side note, looky what followed me home yesterday!!!

HEY, you had better keep a dam good eye on it. Everybody knows it has to cause a crime soon

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Douva 0]

Quote

Sure, no worries - I appreciate your input. When you've the time, have you an opinion on the claim that politicians run scared from the gun lobby - and of course, its influence on American politics?

I don't think they're necessarily running scared from the gun lobby, but they're definitely running scared from the issue of guns in general. I've heard it suggested by the media that many gun rights advocates tend to consider the issue of gun control a much higher priority when voting than do gun control advocates. If that's true, which I believe it is, supporting gun control is a bad career move for politicians.

The gun lobby is not the all-powerful Illuminati that the media portrays it to be. The gun lobby wouldn't have any power at all if it wasn't backed (both financially and at the polls) by tens of millions of registered voters.

Anti-gun organizations like to portray the gun lobby as one tentacle of the evil corporate interests destroying America from within; however, according to a March 18, 2000, article in the New York Times, the firearms industry is composed of "small, marginally profitable companies" with combined revenues of $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year, so they're not exactly big tobacco (Philip Morris, alone, has an annual revenue of about $101 billion and spends about $17 billion per year on lobbying).

Quote

Also; "she argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions."

Allowing law-abiding citizens to own and, if trained and licensed, carry firearms is not mutually exclusive to the goal of combating urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction, and racial divisions.

Quote

Now, I don't quite expect you to agree completely with this statement, but I feel it's a very important area that doesn't seem to get enough attention. Especially here on SC when gun issues are discussed, hence the reason I'll mention social issues so often. It's my opinion that this aspect is often disregarded in the gun debates, simply through the problem being seemingly unsolvable. But shouldn't everyones attention and priorities lie here?

Where people might think I'm anti-guns through recent arguments, I'm actually more interested in looking at the social aspects and cultural areas surrounding the issue.

I think you'll find that most proponents of gun rights place the majority of the blame for America's high crime rate on America's social problems. Not all of those gun rights proponents are interested in doing something to fix those problems, but most of them would agree that those social problems, not guns, are behind America's crime problem.

If people truly concerned with the high rate of crime in this country--as opposed to people with moral or philosophical oppositions to gun ownership--would focus on the complex social issues which set America apart from many other industrialized nations and which, unlike guns, significantly contribute to the high crime rate in this country, they might see broader support for the search for a solution.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

This may a bit off the topic but, JohnRich gets lambasted by the Brits here for speaking to gun laws in the UK. Why should I or anybody else in the US care what you think about US guns culture and law? Your opinion, similar to ours, is colored by the media we are exposed to and the news sites we frequent.

So, conversely, why do YOU care about US gun law and culture?

In a sense it doesn't matter at all what I think. But then, why ever post on an international forum? To answer your question properly, I think a lot of the heated debates (in SC) over American gun issues arrive through ignorance more than anything else. Regarding the issue being argued on an international forum, we can witness completely different mentalities providing their opinion. If you don't wish to read a non-American opinion, well, what can I say? Go to a national forum?

I expect you may find it a bit insulting to have non-Americans saying what they're saying, as the role is often found to be reversed when John mentions British aspects to his arguments. But hey, that's the nature of the beast. And it makes the whole thing a bit more interesting, don't you think? Isn't it educational to hear such varied international opinions!?

As an example, I've known for years how important gun issues are to a lot of Americans. I've also known how strange and almost weird a lot of Europeans think of this mentality. But, as an example, when you read Lefty's reply above, you can obviously see that in fact, it isn't strange or weird at all really. So you learn something.

And by learning that bit more, it enables adult discussion on a relevant issue, with a bit less heat and pointless arguments spoiling it.

As for my interest, I suppose it comes from travelling to the states quite often, and working with Americans. And I like to learn about all the countries I visit and work in. It's no big deal.

So, to conclude, where in the past I've perhaps been a bit 'mischievous' in my arguments over this issue, I continue to learn. And I see the opposite argument with more clarity, and hope the same works both ways.
p.s. as a further point, I was in the states watching the news events unfold concerning the Virginia shootings. The Fox news team referred to the opinion of a 'School shootings expert'. I guess that struck a nerve too.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Bleh. Didn`t make it through the whole article before my stomach started turning. On a side note, looky what followed me home yesterday!!!

Very nice, but shouldn't you secure the 'thing' before it jumps up and starts shooting people!?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sure, no worries - I appreciate your input. When you've the time, have you an opinion on the claim that politicians run scared from the gun lobby - and of course, its influence on American politics?

The NRA is probably the second most powerful interest group in DC, after the AARP (retired people). It doesn't get this from the gun manfucturers - the civilian business is only a couple billion $ in revenue. It has this power because there are 3-5M (depending on political times) due paying members and they do vote in very high numbers, and they are one of a handful of reasons why Al Gore isn't finishing up as President.

On the other side you have gun control organizations like Brady (which has had many names) and the Million Mom March (which never had more than 1/4th such claimed numbers). They are funded by large donations from a relatively small number of people like Soros, and this is why their power is far smaller than the gun advocates.

Politicians should be scared- we are the people. The same ones that founded the country, even though most of us are descendants of people who immigrated after the 18th Century.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

To look at the photographs in Kyle Cassidy's book Armed America is to glimpse a surreal world. Or at least it seems that way to many non-Americans. Cassidy spent two years taking portrait shots of gun owners and their weapons across the US.

The result is a disturbing tableau of happy families, often with pets and toddlers, posing with pistols, assault rifles and the sort of heavy machine-guns usually associated with a warzone.

Most of this opinion piece was garbage, but this section stood out to me. I'm pretty sure he didn't see any machine guns in people's houses, but it's normal for the gun control side to use words like machine gun or automatics or assault weapon to describe your basic semiautomatic rifles.

It's also a bit ironic (or perhaps intentional) that his title sounds so much like Arming America, a book released a few years ago that tried to argue the same thesis as seen in this piece, that guns weren't not a common tool for the frontiersmen. The author committed academic fraud in his attempt and was discredited, and fired from his university.

[1969912 0]

Quote

The Fox news team referred to the opinion of a 'School shootings expert'. I guess that struck a nerve too.

Geezzz. I didn't know we had school shooting experts. He/she was probably a "disaster relief expert" during Hurricane Katrina in '05 and a terrorism expert before that. People have to go with the flow and stay flexible in their careers these days.

School (or any) mass shootings are very rare, but there have been a few big ones in the last 8-10 years here. There's a list of well-known school shootings on the link below. As terrible as things like that are, they really are rare. The news media is really good at turning them into a nationwide crisis. Kind of like that article talking about gun murders spiraling upward. You guys probably picture kids here going to school in kevlar armor. Of course, some of us picture you guys as being stripped of all rights and protection against a government intent on watching your every move, which isn't really true either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#List_of_school_shootings

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

This may a bit off the topic but, JohnRich gets lambasted by the Brits here for speaking to gun laws in the UK. Why should I or anybody else in the US care what you think about US guns culture and law? Your opinion, similar to ours, is colored by the media we are exposed to and the news sites we frequent.

So, conversely, why do YOU care about US gun law and culture?

In a sense it doesn't matter at all what I think. But then, why ever post on an international forum? To answer your question properly, I think a lot of the heated debates (in SC) over American gun issues arrive through ignorance more than anything else. Regarding the issue being argued on an international forum, we can witness completely different mentalities providing their opinion. If you don't wish to read a non-American opinion, well, what can I say? Go to a national forum?

I expect you may find it a bit insulting to have non-Americans saying what they're saying, as the role is often found to be reversed when John mentions British aspects to his arguments. But hey, that's the nature of the beast. And it makes the whole thing a bit more interesting, don't you think? Isn't it educational to hear such varied international opinions!?

As an example, I've known for years how important gun issues are to a lot of Americans. I've also known how strange and almost weird a lot of Europeans think of this mentality. But, as an example, when you read Lefty's reply above, you can obviously see that in fact, it isn't strange or weird at all really. So you learn something.

And by learning that bit more, it enables adult discussion on a relevant issue, with a bit less heat and pointless arguments spoiling it.

As for my interest, I suppose it comes from travelling to the states quite often, and working with Americans. And I like to learn about all the countries I visit and work in. It's no big deal.

So, to conclude, where in the past I've perhaps been a bit 'mischievous' in my arguments over this issue, I continue to learn. And I see the opposite argument with more clarity, and hope the same works both ways.
p.s. as a further point, I was in the states watching the news events unfold concerning the Virginia shootings. The Fox news team referred to the opinion of a 'School shootings expert'. I guess that struck a nerve too.

Thanks and for the most part I agree. I too learn.


One point I would make however is overall "school" shooting are down. The ones that do occur however are blown out of proportion by the media circus created.

Thanks again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[vortexring 0]

Thanks for the link. Where I have to disagree with you though, is in your statement that school shootings are rare. From your link it says there was 2 in 2005, 4 in 2006 and 3 in 2007. How can this be rare? What are the chances for another couple of such incidents in 2008? Very high? Very likely? By saying school shootings are rare seems to imply it's unlikely there will be any in 2008, yet past history indicates otherwise. Even with a few years being incident free from the list.

Whilst most people are aware the media will dramatise anything it thinks will sell it's papers, it's still a massively unacceptable situation. And of course, the majority of them are happening in America. So that raises a question of why.

Whilst I see the logic for non-criminal gun users often mentioned here, I struggle to understand this as an effective argument.

Simply because of the number of shootings that have been carried out by previous non-criminals, or young male adults using their non-criminal parents weapons.

I think this is an area where pro-gun owners can get a bit sensitive - there's almost an implication that all non-criminal gun owners are potential murderers or are irresponsible in the security of their guns. Although anyone with half a brain should know this isn't the case.

But.... With almost half the country owning some sort of firearm and with possibly 200 million firearms within the country, you'll always have a significant amount of people who do become murderers, who don't secure their guns properly.

So it seems this fact is disregarded to justify gun-ownership and even worse, the situation, whilst unacceptable, is essentially part and part of the parcel, as there aren't any apparant or effective solutions.

If it's considered almost impossible to ban private firearm ownership and almost impossible to change peoples motivation to own a firearm, what are the solutions then?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'