USA Gun Control

[king of the unknown]

There was a time when mass shootings were not common in the USA. Something is happening to USA culture that is making these kind of exceptional crimes happen more often.

I agree but it is hard to point at a single problem outside of the demonic influence. The fact is that this is a broken generation. Each one just a little more broken then the last. Kids without parents, tv with moral standard, and excepts of hate. Almost no child goes unscathed by the cruelty of man. It is really sad. The fact that gun control is even an issue just shows how many broken people now wander our streets searching for a solution to make them whole.

 

[tango]

Loss of gun ownership is not loss of freedom it's just not being able to own a gun unless you have a good reason for owning it.

Who defines what counts as "a good reason for owning it"?

Loss of gun ownership is a loss of freedom. It's having a freedom currently enjoyed taken away. What happens to all the guns currently legally owned? Are you going to just expect people to hand them over in exchange for nothing at all? What of criminals who own guns - how many of them do you think will stand in line to hand over their weapons?

Using the kind of language that you did in your post poses the question in the atmosphere of "the thin end of the wedge" argument that any diminishment of freedom means all freedom is threatened and will disappear.

When a government is given too much power it's pretty much inevitable that sooner or later it will abuse that power. How badly it abuses it is the question. I'm not sure why you say the language in my post suggests that losing one freedom inevitably leads to losing other freedoms, I merely observed that there is a cost associated with enacting new legislation and that cost includes financial costs, opportunity costs, and the costs associated with side effects of new legislation.

Yet the very people who lobby for guns (NRA) also were fairly docile about the Patriot act and appear to favour making flag burning and flag desecration into crimes. It is obvious that such hypocrisy from the NRA and from other groups that support gun freedom and oppose flag desecration freedom is a self serving one eyed form of argument that will not convince any but the supporters of gun freedom.

What has burning flags got to do with gun control? Can't we agree with a group (the NRA in this case) on some matters and disagree with them on other matters? I think I should be allowed to own a gun, I also think I should be allowed to burn a flag if I feel so inclined (assuming I own the flag, of course)

Australia has gun laws that the NRA abominates yet we are free to burn our flag and to burn any other flag ... seems that freedom doesn't automatically disappear when gun laws are enacted.

Honestly, I think you're presenting a strawman here. We don't have to accept or reject an entire package of beliefs just because one particular body supports them all. I don't think anyone is saying that if the government takes our guns away we might as well line up to enter the prison camps, just that government needs a compelling reason to take away freedoms and I'm just not seeing a compelling reason. If it's about saving lives we should be banning motor vehicles before banning guns, and if we're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year as a tolerable price for the freedom to drive around why should guns be any different? If it's not about saving lives, what is it about?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree but it is hard to point at a single problem outside of the demonic influence. The fact is that this is a broken generation. Each one just a little more broken then the last. Kids without parents, tv with moral standard, and excepts of hate. Almost no child goes unscathed by the cruelty of man. It is really sad. The fact that gun control is even an issue just shows how many broken people now wander our streets searching for a solution to make them whole.

Whatever the root causes of mass killings in the USA may be it is clear that the same causes (if they exist in Europe) do not have the same effect in Europe. Something is different. In Australia once the laws were passed to restrict gun ownership uniformly across the whole nation (each state mirroring the leas in the others) the mass killings appear to have ceased thus far. So gun controls may have some significant positive role to play in reducing mass killings. The leven of violence generally present in society is a different matter and gun laws may not play much of a role in that. Australia, like Europe, has far lower violent crime rates than the USA. I presume that the difference exists because of some cultural factors in the USA that are not present in Europe and Australia or that if present have different outcomes for some reason or reasons.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Who defines what counts as "a good reason for owning it"?...

The law makers, obviously. Probably after consultation with law enforcement and judicial authorities as well as consultation with interested parties in society (gun clubs, farmers, hobby shootists and such).

 

[king of the unknown]

Whatever the root causes of mass killings in the USA may be it is clear that the same causes (if they exist in Europe) do not have the same effect in Europe. Something is different. In Australia once the laws were passed to restrict gun ownership uniformly across the whole nation (each state mirroring the leas in the others) the mass killings appear to have ceased thus far. So gun controls may have some significant positive role to play in reducing mass killings. The leven of violence generally present in society is a different matter and gun laws may not play much of a role in that. Australia, like Europe, has far lower violent crime rates than the USA. I presume that the difference exists because of some cultural factors in the USA that are not present in Europe and Australia or that if present have different outcomes for some reason or reasons.

Of course, it is both one of the wonderful and terrible thing about man. We are different. The United States is a culture of mixing. Mixing everything together. It is so different and so extreme that places even an hour apart can have opposite beliefs. We are a country of pride and a country of illusion. We are privileged and yet we consider it staving. We are hypocrites on a mission to end hypocrisy. We are strong but we don't know it and that makes us weak.

Wow I love metaphors!

 

[tango]

The law makers, obviously. Probably after consultation with law enforcement and judicial authorities as well as consultation with interested parties in society (gun clubs, farmers, hobby shootists and such).

And there you create another problem. Lawmakers are politicians driven by a desire to be re-elected above all else. So at a stroke "a good reason to own a gun" has a high probability of being defined as "anything the masses in urban areas who have no need for a gun consider a good reason to own a gun", which effectively means "there is no good reason".

In the UK the Olympic shooting team aren't allowed to practise their sport. They have to travel abroad to practise. That's where gun control can end up, when left to lawmakers in the aftermath of a shooting.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
What has burning flags got to do with gun control? Can't we agree with a group (the NRA in this case) on some matters and disagree with them on other matters? I think I should be allowed to own a gun, I also think I should be allowed to burn a flag if I feel so inclined (assuming I own the flag, of course)
...

It addresses the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument present in your post. Your reply vitiates your previous argument insofar as your current comment indicates that curtailing a freedom in one area of life does not mean that other areas will also be curtailed and each move to reduce freedoms will be opposed by different groups in society sometimes only small groups will oppose and sometimes very large groups will which very likely means that the outcomes will differ too. One recent example is the supreme court's decision on same sex marriages, this was a freedom curtailed for a long time because most of society opposed granting the freedom to marry to same sex couples but now the court has ruled that it is a freedom included in the amendments to the USA constitution that folk call the bill of rights. Obviously curtailing a freedom in one time does not meal it will always be curtailed. So the argument that curtailing gun ownership necessarily means that all other freedoms will be lost is incorrect and your own reasoning in the post to which I am replying supports that conclusion.

 

[tango]

Whatever the root causes of mass killings in the USA may be it is clear that the same causes (if they exist in Europe) do not have the same effect in Europe. Something is different. In Australia once the laws were passed to restrict gun ownership uniformly across the whole nation (each state mirroring the leas in the others) the mass killings appear to have ceased thus far. So gun controls may have some significant positive role to play in reducing mass killings. The leven of violence generally present in society is a different matter and gun laws may not play much of a role in that. Australia, like Europe, has far lower violent crime rates than the USA. I presume that the difference exists because of some cultural factors in the USA that are not present in Europe and Australia or that if present have different outcomes for some reason or reasons.

It might be useful to compare statistics based on area rather than countries as a whole. To look at "the USA" and compare to "Europe" may miss a large part of the issue. Europe pretends to be united but really isn't and might as well still be lots of different countries not pretending to all be friends. The USA is a single country made up of many states even if one or two of them might like to secede from the union.

To talk of "Americans" and "Europeans" makes no more sense than talking of "black people" and "white people" as if all members of a particular group are identical in every way.

It's probably more useful to figure why people decide to go and start killing other people, than to fuss over which tools they use to do the job once that decision is made.

 

[tango]

It addresses the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument present in your post. Your reply vitiates your previous argument insofar as your current comment indicates that curtailing a freedom in one area of life does not mean that other areas will also be curtailed and each move to reduce freedoms will be opposed by different groups in society sometimes only small groups will oppose and sometimes very large groups will which very likely means that the outcomes will differ too. One recent example is the supreme court's decision on same sex marriages, this was a freedom curtailed for a long time because most of society opposed granting the freedom to marry to same sex couples but now the court has ruled that it is a freedom included in the amendments to the USA constitution that folk call the bill of rights. Obviously curtailing a freedom in one time does not meal it will always be curtailed. So the argument that curtailing gun ownership necessarily means that all other freedoms will be lost is incorrect and your own reasoning in the post to which I am replying supports that conclusion.

I wasn't making a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, merely observing that introducing legislation has costs. I'm generally not a fan of thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments because so often they move from a genuine concern to all sorts of Chicken Little style posturing.

The government taking away guns doesn't mean that martial law will follow within a week. It didn't happen in England and I don't suppose for a minute it would happen in the USA.

My concern is that the government has better things to do than fuss over law-abiding citizens owning guns. If the concern is about saving lives they might be better off focussing on motor vehicles. If the concern isn't about saving lives I'd like to know what is driving it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wasn't making a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, merely observing that introducing legislation has costs. I'm generally not a fan of thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments because so often they move from a genuine concern to all sorts of Chicken Little style posturing.

The government taking away guns doesn't mean that martial law will follow within a week. It didn't happen in England and I don't suppose for a minute it would happen in the USA.

My concern is that the government has better things to do than fuss over law-abiding citizens owning guns. If the concern is about saving lives they might be better off focussing on motor vehicles. If the concern isn't about saving lives I'd like to know what is driving it.

Government is not an individual it is a large body of people and as such it can do many things at the same time. Gun control is just one of many things that it can deal with without losing focus on other matters that are important.

 

[tango]

Government is not an individual it is a large body of people and as such it can do many things at the same time. Gun control is just one of many things that it can deal with without losing focus on other matters that are important.

So how much time do you propose the government spends on compiling, discussing, debating and consulting before passing legislation?

The fact it's a body of people doesn't change the fact that doing all those things takes time that might be more usefully spent doing other things.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So how much time do you propose the government spends on compiling, discussing, debating and consulting before passing legislation?

The fact it's a body of people doesn't change the fact that doing all those things takes time that might be more usefully spent doing other things.

As much time as one court, one advisory council, and one or two hearings need.

Remember that there are many courts, many advisors, and many hearings.

Gun control was enacted in Australia without government grinding to a halt.

 

[tango]

As much time as one court, one advisory council, and one or two hearings need.

Remember that there are many courts, many advisors, and many hearings.

Gun control was enacted in Australia without government grinding to a halt.

I never said anything about grinding to a halt, just that when government is discussing one thing they aren't discussing other things. That's the concept of "opportunity cost".

I don't really want sweeping legislation passed by a committee of just a few people.

 

[king of the unknown]

So how much time do you propose the government spends on compiling, discussing, debating and consulting before passing legislation?

The fact it's a body of people doesn't change the fact that doing all those things takes time that might be more usefully spent doing other things.

The Government of the United States of America is build bottom heavy. It was created this way to make the Federal Government weak in compared to the State Government. In fact originally the Government that was established before the current government didn't even have the power to tax. This make the system deliberately slow. This is one of the reasons very little gets down a reasonable amount of time. It doesn't help that Congress is built around representing every state equally in the Senate and proportionally in the House this mean the two group almost always have a different leaning. The government was also built around a much smaller country. This makes are political system much more paranoid about controversial topics such as gun control. No party want to push something that wont get them elected next term.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I never said anything about grinding to a halt, just that when government is discussing one thing they aren't discussing other things. That's the concept of "opportunity cost".

I don't really want sweeping legislation passed by a committee of just a few people.

I disagree, USA government has hundreds of thousands of employees so when one set discuss gun control other sets discuss the economy, medical needs, charity, foreign aid, and so forth. Nothing stops because one group talks about gun control. In fact it is likely that a gun control group has constantly been around for the past 100 years ...

 

[king of the unknown]

I disagree, USA government has hundreds of thousands of employees so when one set discuss gun control other sets discuss the economy, medical needs, charity, foreign aid, and so forth. Nothing stops because one group talks about gun control. In fact it is likely that a gun control group has constantly been around for the past 100 years ...

Most of those employees are part of the bureaucracy and a completely different beast all together.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Most of those employees are part of the bureaucracy and a completely different beast all together.

Yes, and they do most of the work for the committees of politicians and judges and tribunals to mull over before making a decision. It really is a massively multiperson decision making and enforcement machine.

 

[king of the unknown]

Yes, and they do most of the work for the committees of politicians and judges and tribunals to mull over before making a decision. It really is a massively multiperson decision making and enforcement machine.

I'm not sure if you have any personal experience with the bureaucracy but it is a mess. A real mess. I don't deny that it gets stuff done but in a government job were there is no active opposition (in terms of normal market influence) your standard are completely different.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not sure if you have any personal experience with the bureaucracy but it is a mess. A real mess. I don't deny that it gets stuff done but in a government job were there is no active opposition (in terms of normal market influence) your standard are completely different.

I have bountiful experience with the state and federal governments in Australia and I know how they work and how slowly the wheels grind at times but for all that it is big and cumbersome yet productive in ways that many private industries are not. So if gun control were to be legislated in each state of the USA I'd prefer the governments to work the matter out rather than leaving it to private interests.

 

[Highlander]

There is no need for more gun laws in the USA. The real need is for the authorities and legal system to have the WILL to ENFORCE the gun laws that already exist.

As for "gun control" in terms of taking weapons away from law abiding American citizens -- that is something that will never happen and something that should never happen. In fact, legislating guns out of citizens' hands is not possible on a state by state basis because federal law supercedes any state or local legislation.

It is estimated that 27,000 American citizens protect themselves from criminals every single day through the use of a firearm. In many of these instances, the weapon does not even have to be used. Just the presence of it is a threat to criminal elements. Without arms among the American citizens, their lives would all be in danger.

Remember that one of the first goals of any communist movement in any country is to disarm the citizens so they cannot protect themselves. One of the sayings among dictators around the world is that "The USA will never be conquered because there is a gun behind every damn blade of grass." Gun ownership is one of the things that has kept the federal government from becoming too abusive of the citizens because the citizens are capable of protecting themselves against an intrusive government.

It is a great system and has, in part, helped the USA to become the greatest nation the world has ever seen.