The Definitive U.S. 2nd Amendment Debate Thread

[Che Guava]

ok, if we do need some numbers to look at, let's start with a comparisan of homocides, suicides, and accidental deaths per capita in several afluent countries with different gun control laws:

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

This was taken from World Report on Violence and Health.

We can debate the validity of teh figures until the cows come home, but if we assume it to be correct, what conclusions do we draw from figures like this?

. Again, all figures and tables are welcome here and up for discussion, as long as they are linked/referenced. The only request that I have is that we don't adress tables with tables (i.e. "your numbers are wrong because mine are right, see??!!"); discuss what is up, then move on to new ones.

 

[theimmortal1]

As an outsider to the gun discussion, I have never been able to understand why Americans seem so afraid of the goverment suddenly turning into a tyranny and why they always want to "defend" themselves against criminals (by which I mean that they take action instead of the police). Europeans have grown up in a mostly gun-free culture, and it's my impression that most Europeans support the ban on guns.

I think I already have an idea why it is like this, but I would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this difference between the US and Europe.

Americans have much greater sense of personal responsibility and individualism than Europeans. When someone threatens myself or my family it is MY DUTY to protect them. Europeans would much rather call the police and pray to their athiest god they do not killed first.

Which is fine, you can have it your way. You have your freedom to be passive, and I should have my freedom to defend my property.

 

[Che Guava]

Americans have much greater sense of personal responsibility and individualism than Europeans. When someone threatens myself or my family it is MY DUTY to protect them. Europeans would much rather call the police and pray to their athiest god they do not killed first.
Which is fine, you can have it your way. You have your freedom to be passive, and I should have my freedom to defend my property.

Your point gets diminished by adding in a cheap shot.

So the logical question is: does a system of mutual responsibility (like that in europe) make for a safer community, rather than one of personal responsibility? Could a more communal ethic be bred into north america?

dang, gotta go work now, but I'll check in later...

 

[theimmortal1]

Of course it doesn't

Defending your property isn't unsafe. If someone uses a weapon to attack someone that has nothing to do with self defense or personal responsibility.

I don't see how Europe has 'mutual responsibility'. I would say it is more like they push the responsibility onto someone else. IE the government. In America your neighbors are much more likely to help you than a neighbor in Europe would.

 

[Che Guava]

Of course it doesn't

Defending your property isn't unsafe. If someone uses a weapon to attack someone that has nothing to do with self defense or personal responsibility.

It shows a lack of personal responsibility on the attackers part, and a misuse of a tool designed (supposedly ) for self-defense.

I don't see how Europe has 'mutual responsibility'. I would say it is more like they push the responsibility onto someone else. IE the government. In America your neighbors are much more likely to help you than a neighbor in Europe would.

It all depends on who you see as 'the people'. If the government is elected and is reponsible to the people, then is it not just a means of evenly applying social responsibility across a community; i.e. if you pay high axes to ensure that everyone gets looked after, whether or not they have good neighbours, then is tha not community responsibility?

 

[skadistic]

The real reason there is less crime in europe is the governments just give them everything. Why would someone who doesn't have to work to get money do crime? The gov. will buy you food and pay your rent for you. And this is payed for by the hard working people who have jobs and are taxed the hell out of. It has nothing to do with guns.

 

[Che Guava]

The real reason there is less crime in europe is the governments just give them everything. Why would someone who doesn't have to work to get money do crime? The gov. will buy you food and pay your rent for you. And this is payed for by the hard working people who have jobs and are taxed the hell out of. It has nothing to do with guns.

I see your point, but people on the other side of the fence might recontruct your words so they read like this:

The real reason there is less crime in europe is the governments puts money into social programs to take care of the less fortunate. Why would someone who isn't hungry do crime? The gov. will ensure that if nothing else, you will have a shelter and food to get by. And this is payed for by taxing everyone at a determined, reasonable rate . It has nothing to do with guns, because the government has attacked the roots of crime, instead of the criminals.

Again, thisis just the arguments that I've heard presented...

 

[skadistic]

I like the American versionof do for your self instead of the nanny state. I find extreamly unfair that those who work harder are punished and those who don't try at all are rewarded. But hey personal responceabilty doesn't mean much to some people. Pride in achievment is lost to slackers on the dole. The roots of crime are not adressed only apeased.

Its like Hitler before WWII. Godwin!!!! I win!!!!

 

[Che Guava]

I like the American versionof do for your self instead of the nanny state. I find extreamly unfair that those who work harder are punished and those who don't try at all are rewarded. But hey personal responceabilty doesn't mean much to some people. Pride in achievment is lost to slackers on the dole. The roots of crime are not adressed only apeased.

And that's yours to beleive, I think that europeans and most canadians beleive that its just unfair that some people have more money than others, especially when the wealthy don't always have to work as hard or risk as much as those who don't have money to begin with.

And while I balk at going off-topic what are teh roots of crime if not poverty?

Its like Hitler before WWII. Godwin!!!! I win!!!!

ok, you got the the 3rd reich faster than anyone here. Please pick up your "national socialists only do it with aryans" t-shirt on your way out...

 

[theimmortal1]

And that's yours to beleive, I think that europeans and most canadians beleive that its just unfair that some people have more money than others, especially when the wealthy don't always have to work as hard or risk as much as those who don't have money to begin with.

How exactly do people get 'wealthy' by not working as hard or risking as much as the poor? That makes no sense.

The reason people are wealthy because they do more productive work. Sometimes they work harder, sometimes they are just smarter, and sure sometimes they do get lucky.

 

[Che Guava]

How exactly do people get 'wealthy' by not working as hard or risking as much as the poor? That makes no sense.

Through inheritence, connections, corporate crime, or just plain luck. Do you think every rich person you have met deserves what they have? Working in a low-paying job is often costs a lot more in terms of time, personal risk and effort than, say, investing money that you already have.

The reason people are wealthy because they do more productive work. Sometimes they work harder, sometimes they are just smarter, and sure sometimes they do get lucky

I disagree; some of the lowest-paying jobs we have are among the most important. Take elementary school teachers for eg.

But we're far off-topic here. Let's try to keep it to arguments around gun ownership;

 

[skadistic]

There are many roots to crime. Greed. Drugs. Cultureal influences. Why did Ranona Rider go shoplifting when shes rich? Why do chavs beat people up in London? Poverty is an excuse not a reason.

 

[Che Guava]

There are many roots to crime. Greed. Drugs. Cultureal influences. Why did Ranona Rider go shoplifting when shes rich? Why do chavs beat people up in London? Poverty is an excuse not a reason.

Lots of reasons for crime, but I think most of them (not all) either come back to poverty or mental problems.

But again, that's a little OT

edit: Or maybe not. To bring it back to the gun argument and how it links to crime, why do you think in the figures that I introduced a little earlier, that the US has 8 times the homocide rate as comparable american societies like Canada. What is the root behind that disparity and does that related to individual gun use?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I disagree; some of the lowest-paying jobs we have are among the most important. Take elementary school teachers for eg.

Bad example, teachers are paid via the government not the private sector.



Anyway, back to 2nd Amendment....

The reason why we always have debates involving gun control, illegal drugs, etc is that people do not mind banning something if they are not affected by it. Someone who does not own a gun will generally not care if guns are banned. Someone who doesn't smoke pot does not care if marijuana is banned. Now I have mentioned that cars kill far more people than guns do but because most everyone likes to drive, no one suggests that private ownership of automobiles should be banned.

This is not how laws should work. Something should not be banned simply because a vocal minority want it banned and the apathetic herd agrees. Very anti-democratic but I am more concerned with rights than democracy.

 

[skadistic]

Lots of reasons for crime, but I think most of them (not all) either come back to poverty or mental problems.

But again, that's a little OT

edit: Or maybe not. To bring it back to the gun argument and how it links to crime, why do you think in the figures that I introduced a little earlier, that the US has 8 times the homocide rate as comparable american societies like Canada. What is the root behind that disparity and does that related to individual gun use?

There are things like population density and culture that need to be taken into account along with many other variables.

I've been dirt poor and I didn't rob and kill. I worked my way out of poverty. Just like any one else can. Individual gun use and crime are not equatable. Lets ay the US has 8x the gun crime Does it have 8x the gun owners? or 80x the gun owners. These crimes are comited by criminals not gun owners wich is why I'd like to see how many gun owners did not kill someone. Take the guns away and criminals will faind another weapon. The disparity comes from culture. It comes from folks being told that working hard is for chumps, that wellfair is owed to you, it comes from a lack of proper rearing by parents.

 

[History_Buff]

There are things like population density and culture that need to be taken into account along with many other variables.

I've been dirt poor and I didn't rob and kill. I worked my way out of poverty. Just like any one else can. Individual gun use and crime are not equatable. Lets ay the US has 8x the gun crime Does it have 8x the gun owners? or 80x the gun owners. These crimes are comited by criminals not gun owners wich is why I'd like to see how many gun owners did not kill someone. Take the guns away and criminals will faind another weapon. The disparity comes from culture. It comes from folks being told that working hard is for chumps, that wellfair is owed to you, it comes from a lack of proper rearing by parents.

Well, if you look at the murder rates on comparable regions of the two countries (Windsor and Detroit for one), you see the same trend. The culture can't be all that different, since the only thing between the two places is a river.

And is looking at homicide in relative terms really something thats so acceptable? Does having 1000 people killed by something get better just because there are more people in a that country vs. another?

 

[Che Guava]

There are things like population density and culture that need to be taken into account along with many other variables.

When it comes to density, the figures are adjusted so that they are expressed as murders/100 000, so the relative size of a country shouldn't matter. When it comes to actual density, I know that at least Japan and most european countries have a higher population density than the US, and Canadians, despite being only a fraction of the population of the US, still live mostly in areas that match the population density of most of the american nation (i.e. we are both comprised of mostly mid-size cities and suburban areas)

As for culture, I can't say i could be an expert in american culture, but living close to the american border for mos of my life and having lots of contacts with americans, I don't think we're as different as some would like to have us beleive.

I've been dirt poor and I didn't rob and kill. I worked my way out of poverty. Just like any one else can. Individual gun use and crime are not equatable. Lets ay the US has 8x the gun crime Does it have 8x the gun owners? or 80x the gun owners. These crimes are comited by criminals not gun owners wich is why I'd like to see how many gun owners did not kill someone. Take the guns away and criminals will faind another weapon. The disparity comes from culture. It comes from folks being told that working hard is for chumps, that wellfair is owed to you, it comes from a lack of proper rearing by parents

Not everyone deals with poverty in the best way, I can admit, but I do beleive that dire circumstances sure makes the wrong way look a lot more attractive. When you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain, get-rich quick schemes start to actually make economic sense...

As for the gun rate as to the number of gun owners, I think what you have to do instead is look at the service they provide to society as a whole vs the total cost to society (and I'm not implying that this necessarily means that individual gun ownership is bad)

Also, I have to point out that anyone who has a gun is a 'gun owner'. Not just the law-abing.

 

[warpus]

In America your neighbors are much more likely to help you than a neighbor in Europe would.

source?

anus?

 

[Elrohir]

Che, don't you think the higher level of welfare available in Europe is more significant than gun ownership when talking about crime figures? If you're poor, you are more likely, statistically speaking, to commit a crime - but if you're being paid, and are living off of the states dole, and have no need to rob, or get a job, I would think that would decrease crime. (Although I don't think that is a worthwhile trade off)

It seems to me that the US has a higher crime rate because we don't support poor people as much, as a result of a higher devotion to individualism, rather than as a result of higher gun ownership. Crime is higher in Washington D.C. than a few minutes south, in Fairfax county - in DC, handguns are banned, but there are more poor people, while in Fairfax handguns are allowed, and people are generally more affluent. I believe this is a good point towards my argument.

 

[Che Guava]

Che, don't you think the higher level of welfare available in Europe is more significant than gun ownership when talking about crime figures? If you're poor, you are more likely, statistically speaking, to commit a crime - but if you're being paid, and are living off of the states dole, and have no need to rob, or get a job, I would think that would decrease crime. (Although I don't think that is a worthwhile trade off).

On its own, no, but taking on poverty directly does have other side benefits

It seems to me that the US has a higher crime rate because we don't support poor people as much, as a result of a higher devotion to individualism, rather than as a result of higher gun ownership. Crime is higher in Washington D.C. than a few minutes south, in Fairfax county - in DC, handguns are banned, but there are more poor people, while in Fairfax handguns are allowed, and people are generally more affluent. I believe this is a good point towards my argument

I agree.