Yes, so long as criminals have that same ability. Unless, of course, there’s some way to protect those people after you take away their defense.
Ehhh…
It seems to me that folks outside the US have the impression that a lot of people here are CCW holders in the US. I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t own a gun except my Mom. None of them, as far as I know have a CCW. I live in a community where owning a gun or 5 is almost a given.
I live in the mountains in Colorado. Small towns. Maybe it’s different in the cities. But, I get to Denver a lot and never see an indication a person is carrying a weapon. Such as a coat on a warm day.
I doubt that criminals are worried that someone is packing. But that’s just where I live. However, I don’t doubt that just about every house around where I live has a gun in it. And I have never heard of a burglary in the ‘community’ that I live. About 150 houses. I’ve lived here for 12 years.
As a side note, I think that carrying a gun around, and keeping it concealed, would be a total pain in the ass.
Do what about what?
I was addressing that people were restricted from owning firearms because of a variety of reasons, not just murder.
It can be. I find it a lot less of a pain in the ass to strap it to my hip than to worry about having to unload it, lock it in a case, lock the case up separate from the ammo, worry about if anything will happen to my car while I’m having dinner after my trip to the range, etc.
It’s much easier on me, and eliminates the risk of it being stolen from my car, if it’s just on my hip and out of sight under my shirt.
Oh, sorry, I thought that when you said “Mental illness, participation in lesser crimes, incompetence, threats, all these are far more common than illegal killings”, you were talking about these as issues that were a bigger problem than gun killings; my mistake.
I’m going to bed now; I’m not actually sure I really want to come back to this thread as its all a bit heated for my liking.
Map & Graph: Crime: Manslaughters (Top 100 Countries)
Country Description Amount
6. Italy 1871 (2000)
11. Japan 511 (2000)
14. Australia 296 (2000)
19. Portugal 99 (2000)
20. Spain 95 (2000)
24. Canada 52 (2000)
25. Norway 41 (2000)
34. Denmark 21 (2000)
37. New Zealand 10 (2000)
38. Ireland 9 (1999)
This site
The US doesn’t even show up.
Isn’t manslaughter one of those :“crimes of passion?” some of you are so worried about?
Map & Graph: Crime: Manslaughters (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
Country Description Amount
7. Italy 0.03 per 1000 people
10. Australia 0.01 per 1000 people
16. Norway 0.00 per 1000 people
24. Finland 0.00 per 1000 people
27. Japan 0.00 per 1000 people
28. Denmark 0.00 per 1000 people
32. New Zealand 0.00 per 1000 people
34. Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
40. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
Yeah, time for me to move on for the day, too.
So far, in relationship to the OP, we have NOT proven that a relationship exisits between crime and firearm ownership. In fact, we haven’t even had a good indication that there *might * be a relationship!
If you believe we’ve showed otherwise, please let me know in what post that occurred: I missed it.
So since there’s no demonstrated relationship, I propose we do nothing.
SnakeSpirit
S¬
…^
Catsix-
Whatever works for you. You should be able to get a CCW. How CCW is restricted, I just don’t know. That’s way beyond the debate in this thread. I sure don’t see anyone carrying guns where I live.
You make a good point that always carrying a gun gets you accustom to it and how to carry properly. It becomes second nature. And if you need it you will have it.
Ehhhh. Carrying a gun is too much constant responsibility that I don’t particularly want to deal with. And I don’t feel the need to carry. Not at all. If I felt the need to carry. I would probably move. Easier said than done. I know that.
Where I live, my Wife and I are on our own as far as Police, Fire, or Ambulance help. That’s one of the reasons I own guns.
I am comfortable keeping my guns at home. The only defense I have used them for is black bears. That’s a bonus. Otherwise, I enjoy target shooting.
And, I guess the knowledge that if I have to defend myself against a 2 legged intruder, I may be able to.
Uh, you don’t think that might be because statistics on the subject weren’t available (for free, at least) to the Nationmaster site? If there were statistics indicating that the US had a negligable manslaughter rate, the US should show up on the list…at the bottom. The absence of the US from the list does not tell us anything about the manslaughter rate.
Well, I’m the last one to make assumptions. Especially about a subject as important as this.
Perhaps the manslaughter rates got folded in with the murder rates? Perhaps they weren’t available? I don’t know.
Statistics are funny that way. It’s hard to get statistics free from bias (evidently), and statistics can be slanted so easily, a word here, a number there…
Some people reject some statistics, and embrace others.
Too often I see statistics embraced that support one’s own point of view, and rejected when they don;'t.
Now why would murder statistics be available to nationmaster and manslaughter statistics not? It doesn’t make sense.
Similarly, the UK doesn;'t show up on some of the statistics list. **Sentientmeat ** used this to demonstrate something, I forget what…
So, can we find some consistant, reliable statistics? If so, what do they tell us?
Sssssss
I think you’re right actually, Snake - the audience has long since made their own minds up on the statistics and departed. Us two arguing over whether the US knive assaults being more lethal than a given country accounts for that higher murder rate will likely be to an empty house.
We agree that the US has a high murder rate compared to similar industrialised democracies. I, personally, think it a bit of a ‘no, duh’ (as DSeid put it) to say that this is a consequence of firearm access given that so many of them use firearms.
As I said on the first page, I am pretty sanguine (if a little sad) about the US ‘doing nothing’. The US stands as a statistical testament to its own policies.
I have one. Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms.
Then don’t. I’m not saying that everyone should, only that there I have never, ever demonstrated any reason that I should not be allowed to.
So long as those policies are Constitutional and a majority of the 3/4 majority does not feel they need to change said Constitution, what the hell is it to you to be sad about it?
As I have posted in one of the other discontinued threads (BTW, thanks for that Snake), IMO, regardless of whether you think we have easy access to firearms, I maintain that our murder rate would still be significantly higher than the UK. Maybe there’s some cultural pathology that exists when you knock a guy down, you stomp 'im into a mudhole. This cultural difference was touched upon earlier.
Actually, the US isn’t doing nothing. There exist two major factions in regard to this issue, and the US, and its future, is a test of all the things we have been talking about.
There is a faction that wants to ban guns as an easy fix to a perceived problem.
There’s another faction that says, wait a minute, let’s not be hasty, we have to consider all the options; let’s not ban guns until the problem is understood!
Books have been written about the effect of other countries having established gun bans, and the disappointing statistics that have resulted in response to those bans. Gun bans do not stop crime, and there is some indication (though evidently still in an argument phase) that banning guns increases crime.
The United States, though a developed, industrialized society, and arguably the richest (I doubt that) and most powerful country militarily, is still a young country. 228 years old. Young as countries go. And we are still “the land of rugged individualism.” We embrace freedom as opposed to subjugation. Shit, we practically define freedom! Why do you think France gave us a gift of the Statue of Liberty? Freedom is important to us. We fight for freedom and some of us die for it. Sometimes we are misled. For instance, I think we were misled in VietNam, and perhaps Korea. Maybe in Iraq, also. History will reveal our mistakes.
At this moment there are legislators who hate guns, and who want to ban all guns. Our second amendment to our constitution, part of what we call our Bill of Rights says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Just the way it was written hints that even when it was written there was controversy. For 200 years people have been trying to figure out exactly what that means. At the time it was written, there was some concern that the citizenry might need arms to revolt against a corrupt government. There was also a concern of foreign invasion (war of 1812, for instance).
Arguably, too many people have died. In wars, in domestic altercations, in terrorist attacks, in accidents. There are those who would rather have us roll over on our backs and surrender rather than losing another life.
Then there are some of us who look at the world, and see people enslaved, abused, used, tortured and murdered by despots in positions of power. I don;'t think I need to name them. We ralize that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we believe in freedom, not just for ourselves, but for all mankind that chooses to be free.
When I was 19, I went to war. I didn’t want to go, I didn’t believe my country was being truthful. But I fought. I fought for the freedom of a foreign people. It didn’t work out, and over 52,000 Americans gave their lives and even more gave their quality of living to help a foreign country be free. Billions of taxpayer dollars were spent. The US has been in turmoil for decades. Perhaps we are approaching some changes because of that. As Bob Dylan once said, “it don’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” And we are in a cyclone. The outcome of which will determine if we stay the “Land of the Free.” Or if we become “The Land of the Closely Managed.”
I believe in freedom, partly because I have tasted it. Partly because I knew a young Cambodian girl who escaped her country and came to South VietNam to sell CocaCola to soldiers because she wanted freedom from a repressive government. Partly because I know of people who were murdered because they didn’t have freedom.
And I know the price of freedom. When I was 19 I desperately did not want to die. I jus wanted to put in my time and go back home. Now, decades later, knowing what I have learned, I will gladly give up my life to promote freedom for all people who desire it.
There are those in positions of power today who think we have too much freedom, and they want to take some of it away. They point to things like a high murder rate to try and take away our freedom to defend ourselves. I think that’s a contradiction in terms, a no-brainer. I think they want to take away our freedom because they are scared. Teddy Kennedy had two brothers assasinated, he has a right to be scared. But they were assasinated because they, too, believed in freedom. As was Martin Luther King. Looks like someone desperately does NOT want us to be free. I think they are the real threat. Those who want to curtail our freedoms have assasinated courageous world leaders. Those who want to curtail our freedoms have proposed legislation to infringe on our first and second amendment rights. Those who want to curtail our freedoms have created a popular rhetoric saying that guns are bad, and those who support guns are worse.
Well, I support Freedom. And to answer the OP: Should we do something? I think we all should support freedom, even if it costs a few extra lives. It’s worth it.
SnakeSpirit
Noble sentiments, Snake - I’ll leave the last word to you. But I must briefly answer catsix’s direct question:
I like Americans, and do not like to see them dead in such vastly greater numbers due to that high murder rate. Snake and I fundamentally disagree on whether a freedom which costs so many extra lives is really ‘worth it’.
Well said Snake.
I suspect this is fulcrum on which this argument balances. With one caveat, we don’t really know if more laws, or outright banning would make a difference.
Just a final chewed-over comment from me here; it would probably help people like myself in this sort of debate if arguments based on Constitutional Rights were presented in such a way that the emphasis was put on exactly what it is about this or that Constitutional Right that is of genuine usefulness and importance, rather than that it is just a right and nobody should be able to take it away.
-In other words, I think it is far more useful (within the context of a hypothetical debate) to say something to the effect ‘He doesn’t have to speak and shouldn’t be forced to speak, because, although innocent, there might not be any way to express himself that doesn’t present a risk of making himself look guilty’ than it is to say ‘He doesn’t have to speak because he has the right to remain silent and nobody can take that right away, because it’s Constitutional’.
I don’t mean this as any kind of criticism (and I’m certainly not suggesting anyone made such an absurd statement as I detailed above); just sharing a perspective.
Just want to add another thought that might serve to demonstrate we are not as far apart as we think.
If I could find a way to reduce the loss of innocent lives (and I say innocent here because I think certain chosen lifestyles lead some to untimely firearm death that I do not bemoan) without compromising the security of those who choose to obey the law, or unnecessarily curtail their freedom of expression, certainly I would do it.
Indeed, if I could find a way to direct those whose circumstances edged them into a life of crime back into the mainstream (and I think our culture and our economics play a big part here) I’d do that to. If we didn’t have legions of the poor who can only see illegal activities as a way to survive, I think our crime and death rate would go down. Part of the problem stems from the great divide between the haves and the have nots. It is obscene what benefits congressmen and representatives alone get - for life - compared to what opportunities are available to a child in a poor family. Injustice abounds in America. If every child truly had the same opportunity, I think things would be different. Please, treat these as explanatory comments, and not as hijacks. If you want to argue poverty as a cause of crime, let’s do it in another thread, please!
As far as an explanation of a Constitutional right, Mangetout, I think others are more qualified than I, but, here goes.
Although the meaning is still being debated, most of us interpret the Second Amendment to mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The earlier parts, about “A well-regulated militia” and “the security of a free state” I see more as explanatory introduction. Most of us in America see guns as a way to preserve our way of life, to keep the freedom we have. If we were disallowed from having guns, our government could become (a slice at a time) a totalitarian dictatorship. Paranoid? Maybe, but some of the early discussions on the second amendment brought up just that point. If the citizenry is armed, in fact if the citizenry is the military (militia), then there is little chance of a dictator coming to power.
Things have changed over the years. Our culture has evolved. We established a standing military. Our chances of successfully revolting against a government that sought to enslave us is slim, even armed as we are. But perhaps that one thing is what keeps us as free as we are, we don’t, and can’t, know. Our government, during my lifetime, has evolved from a government by, of and for the people into a more restrictive government that doesn’t listen to will of the people as much as we would like. Our involvement in VietNam being one example.
Our culture of firearms has evolved, too. In 1776 we had muzzleloaders. Now we have rapid fire. Our citizenry not only has to be concerned about security from abroad and from within our own government, we have to be concerned about security from our fellow citizens who couldn’t rise up from poverty through legal means. When I can no longer defend my self, my family and my property adequately because of my government’s dictates, then I am a slave.
When VietNam happened, I was unwilling to put my life on the line because I didn’t believe in the “cause.” But I went, because I was ‘called.’ Still, I looked for an out. I was ‘peace, love and understanding,’ I didn’t want this shit.
I went, and served, and suffered (though not as much as many others), and when my tour was over, I went home gladly.
When Kuwait happened (under King George I), I believed that what we were doing was right, but by then I was too old to play.
Freedom for another group of people is worth my life. I treasure my freedom. Perhaps I am as brainwashed as the “Big Brother” lefties; I can hardly know.
I know that Americans are not as free as we used to be, unless we are willing to go to extraordinary measures to demonstrate that freedom. Little by little collective acceptance is replacing “Freedom.” It gets harder and harder to even define freedom.
The forces of collective democracy hold the cards. And the ticket stubs.
How can I vote for peace, love and understanding? It’s not on the ballot…
Oops, there it goes, slipped between my ankles, no sweat. Bush vs. Kerry.
Both got some way to go to convince me they are worthy, but what other choices, real choices, do I have?
Nite-nite…
S-<