You guessed it, another shooting.

[Simon_Jester]

The Duchess is entirely correct about my lack of understanding about the necessity of guns for self defence (against people and dangerous wildlife) in a large country. I didn't think of it from that angle. However, that could be covered by restricting gun sales to non-automatic weapons of a certain ammunition capacity (as others have suggested) and this would prevent or reduce the lethality of gun crimes.

It is already forbidden for US civilians to own automatic weapons outside of a few very specific (and expensive) exceptions. Essentially, civilians can't own automatic weapons in the US, so that's already in effect.

Many, if not most, locations also restriction ammo capacity - so that, too, is already in effect.

I can't recall any sort of gun crime in my lifetime involving automatic weapons (my parents dimly remember such a time, but that was pre-WWII). The guns typically used in crime do not have extended capacity magazines. So I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that those "changes" (which are, essentially, already in effect) will "prevent or reduce the lethality" of gun crimes.

Do keep in mind that "gun crime" doesn't always involved someone getting hurt - more often, a gun is used to threaten violence and/or gain compliance.

Right. The typical gun crime is committed with a pistol- and the problem with outlawing pistols is that they're very good self-defense weapons because you can carry them easily. Taking them away from the criminals, even if that's possible, means saying to all the private citizens that they have no right to carry weapons for self-defense.

As in quite a few other countries around the world, that is not seen as a good thing in the US. Insisting on it and scrambling to find ways to make it happen is a stupid policy goal. It would be like searching for ways to privatize the health insurance system in (for example) Germany. It would be possible. You could do it, but why? It would make many Germans hate you and not really improve matters very much.

How foolish would I look to you if I went "well, the German health care system is public, and that's bad, so the Germans should do this that and the other thing." And you said "the Germans don't want to do that, and trying to do that would alienate a lot of German voters." And I said "well, they should do this and that anyway, but maybe we should compromise on the other thing..."

If you can't adjust your policy proposals to the fact that different places have different needs and cultures, you have no business trying to talk policy in the first place.

[madd0ct0r]

the thing that really got it for me was that discussion we had a while back about lefty vs righty values.

it was actually impossible to construct an argument against gun control in america that was based on the right wing value set. Not just difficult, impossible.

The closest I could get was a call for right thinking folks to leave their guns at home, since the chance of them wounding an innocent was so much higher then helping, but actually banning the guns? no way.

and now this thread is starting to bring me round to the idea that gun control is a distraction. you want to reduce the killings - social safety net, better healthcare and mental health care. Get those right and the gun density becomes irrelevent. Ignore them, and people will still get shot or knifed daily.

[Broomstick]

^ This is correct.

The killings - by gun or other means - are a symptom of societal dysfunction. Gun carry in the US used to be even more common in the past than today. In the Twilight Zone episode starring a pre-Star Trek William Shatner the character is sitting in an airplane, pulls out a gun, and starts shooting. That's pretty incomprehensible these days, that someone could get a gun onto an airplane like that, but it wasn't until the early 1970's that became illegal. I remember air travel in the days before passenger searches and no doubt many people carried firearms onto commercial airplanes all the time, there was no law against it. Elderly men these days still tell of being school boys in a rural or semi-rural area, carrying something like a .22 rifle to school so they might bag a rabbit or other small game on the way to or from school. There wasn't mass carnage in the streets despite all the weaponry being carried around on a routine basis.

[Tritio]

Thank you all for your inputs. I understand a little more about the situation now. I guess I was just coming from my own perspective and trying to apply that to the situation in the US.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course, it's different in urban areas. New York state had a permit law for firearms as early as 1911, called the Sullivan Act. Without a license you couldn't own a gun in New York, during the entire period Broomstick is talking about.

But New York is a relatively densely populated state, and it's politically dominated by New York City, which is a large urban center. So it's a great illustration of how gun culture in urban America is different from gun culture in rural America.

[Spoonist]

New York state had a permit law for firearms as early as 1911, called the Sullivan Act. Without a license you couldn't own a gun in New York, during the entire period Broomstick is talking about.

Most of the US used to be more restrictive a couple of decades ago than it is today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
I'd also point out that gun ownership in olden days is heavily exaggerated. During frontier/western times a gun was really relly expensive, especially so breech-loading stuff with moving parts. Its not until the 20's 30's you see a drop in pricing making it more available to the average income earner. (Which is a side effect of WWI)

Also, the funny thing when looking at the meaning of "arms" it used to be that this included swords, knives etc. I think a sword cane was one of the first big fights in re the 2nd amd in the US. But you don't see anyone fighting about the switchblade or bowie laws nowadays...

[Saxtonite]

Doesn't anyone think that the solution should be to ban all guns for civilians?

NO. If you lived somewhere other than an Island City-State with a population density enough to make Venice look like a rural farmstead, you might understand that, in fact, sometimes you will be somewhere in which a Black Bear decides to say hello to you.

AFAIK even Singapore has forested and jungle parts with snakes and whatnot which occasionally threaten those in the built-up areas. They normally have animal control take care of it but yeah.

If Singapore did not have the culture it has, I would think gun ownership would be a good idea there too. Speaking of that, does anyone know the average gun ownership rate in nearby Malaysia? Say in the smaller villages?

Of course, snakes are a bit different and arguably easier to deal with than bears.

[Lonestar]

AFAIK even Singapore has forested and jungle parts with snakes and whatnot which occasionally threaten those in the built-up areas

Not really. The whole island is smaller than San Diego county(700ish sq km v. 10,000ish sq km) with twice the population. The only forested and jungle parts are parks.

Hell, it's smaller than Fairfax County and has over thrice the population. I don't think you understand just how small Singapore is and how urbanized it is.

[Simon_Jester]

New York state had a permit law for firearms as early as 1911, called the Sullivan Act. Without a license you couldn't own a gun in New York, during the entire period Broomstick is talking about.

Most of the US used to be more restrictive a couple of decades ago than it is today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
I'd also point out that gun ownership in olden days is heavily exaggerated. During frontier/western times a gun was really relly expensive, especially so breech-loading stuff with moving parts. Its not until the 20's 30's you see a drop in pricing making it more available to the average income earner. (Which is a side effect of WWI)

It's exaggerated- but there's two different questions here. One is "did all early Americans own guns?" The answer is "no." The other is "how does that fact tie into the question of gun rights," which is not the same thing.

Again, I think that's about the definition of citizenship. People can differ on this, but I think there are some valid reasons to define "the right to own the means of self-defense" as part of being a truly free citizen.

Also, the funny thing when looking at the meaning of "arms" it used to be that this included swords, knives etc. I think a sword cane was one of the first big fights in re the 2nd amd in the US. But you don't see anyone fighting about the switchblade or bowie laws nowadays...

Why bother? Cheap repeating firearms replaced swords and knives that were popular weapons in the early 19th century, much like you said.

[Spoonist]

Most of the US used to be more restrictive a couple of decades ago than it is today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
I'd also point out that gun ownership in olden days is heavily exaggerated. During frontier/western times a gun was really relly expensive, especially so breech-loading stuff with moving parts. Its not until the 20's 30's you see a drop in pricing making it more available to the average income earner. (Which is a side effect of WWI)

It's exaggerated- but there's two different questions here. One is "did all early Americans own guns?" The answer is "no." The other is "how does that fact tie into the question of gun rights," which is not the same thing.

Of course they are not the same thing. What I was pointing at was that a lot of the ideas/concepts people are talking about in reference to earlier eras are simply wrong. Both sides of the fence make up a history that never existed to fit their view of how things are supposed to be today.
When it comes to Gun Control I'd say that most such forays into history is moot points with little relevance. While the real historical tidbits are usually really interesting and thought inducing.

Again, I think that's about the definition of citizenship. People can differ on this, but I think there are some valid reasons to define "the right to own the means of self-defense" as part of being a truly free citizen.

That is a very weak defintion with a scotsman sitting close saying something about the necessity of a kilt without undies to be considered truly free. Now while in that area, size rarily matter, if those who want to remove your "freedoms" always have them bigger where it counts.

Also, the funny thing when looking at the meaning of "arms" it used to be that this included swords, knives etc. I think a sword cane was one of the first big fights in re the 2nd amd in the US. But you don't see anyone fighting about the switchblade or bowie laws nowadays...

Why bother? Cheap repeating firearms replaced swords and knives that were popular weapons in the early 19th century, much like you said.

It's more an allusion to the historical argument being moot. If one argues that citizens should have the right to arms due to 2nd amendment, then the kind of arms should not matter. Just like it was argued in Bliss v. Commonwealth.
Since there are laws that clearly restrict certain types of arms over other types, we should be able to agree that that kind of historical argument has become irrelevant after 1934. So it would be more productive to argue what is or isn't true today.

[Saxtonite]

Not really. The whole island is smaller than San Diego county(700ish sq km v. 10,000ish sq km) with twice the population. The only forested and jungle parts are parks.

Hell, it's smaller than Fairfax County and has over thrice the population. I don't think you understand just how small Singapore is and how urbanized it is.

Yeah. I just remember some documentary on animal control in Singapore and they mentioned Pythons and other snakes were a constant problem in the city.

[Tritio]

Yeah. I just remember some documentary on animal control in Singapore and they mentioned Pythons and other snakes were a constant problem in the city.

Maybe in the past, but certainly not nowadays.

[mingo]

I appreciate the political angle behind the idea that historically citizens living in rural areas have felt alienated by Democratic gun control measures designed for big cities, but really - it's hard to sympathize with this. The root of the problem seems to be more that people living in rural areas seem to have this aversion to government regulation, probably because they rely a lot less on societal infrastructure and thus don't really see a need for that much government influence in their daily lives.

Regardless, I do think it makes sense to more have relaxed gun restrictions in less populated areas.

Having lived in a rural/gun culture area, I can attest to this being part of it. The other part is that, even though I lived on the west side of Michigan's lower peninsula, not Alaska, when we called the police, we could expect them to arrive 45 minutes later, on a good day. As you can imagine, all kinds of bad shit can happen in that time. Even though neither myself or my family was ever the victim of any violence, knowing you've got to handle anything that comes up for 45 mins, makes you hesitant to be totally unarmed. I'm intending to move to Drummond Island, where they have 1 sheriff deputy for an Island approx 10 by 15 miles, 95% of it tractless wilderness. Trust me, it's not a good idea to screw with folks there, they are prepared.