Why isn't Europe as crazy about guns as US?

[IEC]

That's not what typically happens though. How many times in the last hundred years, have you seen a government, that didn't have at least minority support in the populace? At least in states that started out as democratic?

What you'll get in lieu of the revolution, would be more like a second secession. And then you'd have neighbors shooting at one another across makeshift barricades, while military and national guard forces take sides and add a full blown military conflict into the mix. If the military completely sides with one side, there will not be a war, but merely a slaughter.

And if you truly want to goose the government, it'd not with guns that you do it. A simple strike suffices. The French government is more scared of the unions, than it is of giving guns to everyone in the country.

More important than any personal gun ownership, is a military that is diverse, and in close relation with the public that it is supposed to protect. That is the idea of the militia, more than anything else. An army of the people, for the people. As long as your military will side with both sides of a conflict, at least there will be a balanced slaughter, instead of just the extermination of the trouble makers.

I think this fear of the government, that many in the US have, is on one side due to the strong bipartisanship, where there is no real alternative, and no escaping one of two ways of government. On the other side, the US is geographically large, and the federal government always appears to be a distant entity, that should have no say in most matters, as it's too far away.
People are far less worried about a state government going rogue.


As for relative violence ratings: I'm not sure you can really compare it, as most of Europe is settled much more densely than the US, which usually leads to more potential for violent crime. I wonder how immigration and organized crime figure into those statistics as well, as Europe is a more convenient immigration target, and immigration often does bring with it a number of social problems that can often end in violence.

And with regard to the militia issue: Why is it acceptable to stick to the 300 year old definition of militia (which apparently meant nothing beyond "some guy(s)"), but not the 300 year old definition of arm?

It's all a bit confusing. And I'm still not personally convinced, that in modern times a well regulated militia remains a requirement for a free state. But maybe, just as I use reasonable definitions for "militia", my definition of a "free state" is also "wrong".

Well, if you exclude Washington DC, Chicago, and some other major urban centers which coincidentally happen to have the "strongest" (read: most draconian) gun laws suddenly America looks very peaceful.

Because on the whole crimes committed with guns, particularly of the type politicians and the media want to demonize and ban are extremely rare outside of cartel and gang activity.

One might also argue that if school shooters and other whack jobs weren't glorified by the media, they would largely fade away as well.

Also LOL @ your "300 year old definition" argument. You do realize that the revolutionaries had heavy artillery (privately owned cannons), muskets ("assault rifle" of the day - it was made to shoot fast and that was it - useless for hunting with a smooth bore), and even privately owned warships? All of which the drafters of the Constitution were intimately familiar with and intended for private citizens to be able to keep and bear in defense of liberty.

 

[shortylickens]

Not the armed ones.

I'm scared.
Mostly of girls.
And spiders. Fuckin spiders.

 

[bradly1101]

They were at least unsure in earlier cases:

The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

 

[shortylickens]

They were at least unsure in earlier cases:

Fine, battle rifles it is.

I've always wanted a Mossy Nugget

 

[bradly1101]

I'm scared.
Mostly of girls.
And spiders. Fuckin spiders.

And bears. Bears will F you up. Especially if you wake one up.

 

[rudeguy]

Let me make this simple:

The government cracked down on alcohol and violence related to alcohol went up.

The government cracked down on drugs and violence related to drugs went up.

The government cracked down on guns and violence related to guns went up.

Are you people seeing the trend?

 

[Ruptga]

Let me make this simple:

The government cracked down on alcohol and violence related to alcohol went up.

The government cracked down on drugs and violence related to drugs went up.

The government cracked down on guns and violence related to guns went up.

Are you people seeing the trend?

Definitely, but to me that shows that our government is terrible at regulation, not that those things can't or shouldn't be regulated. I'd like to see Colorado's approach to weed applied nationally, and applied to guns as well.

 

[phucheneh]

Let me make this simple:

The government cracked down on alcohol and violence related to alcohol went up.

The government cracked down on drugs and violence related to drugs went up.

The government cracked down on guns and violence related to guns went up.

Are you people seeing the trend?

This is relevant to nations that already have non-strict gun laws. But IMO it's the same thing that makes solid correlation very difficult when a place has historically not had a lot of guns out in the general population, whether because of laws or simply a different public outlook/attitude towards them.

If you took a place that had plenty of crime, but low firearm availability, and repealed all firearms restrictions...of course gun crime would go up. Would crime in general go up? Hard to say. Would the violence of crime go up? I'd hinge my bets on it. For example, some crazy guy that would've [attempted] to rob a person/place...or simply go on a killing spree...whatever...

If all he had access to was a knife, and his sole intent was not intimidation (or, maybe you simply couldn't classify intent...because he's nuts), it's a lot more likely that someone would simply chase him off, or club him in the head with something. Or, again, gotta go with an open-ended 'whatever,' to possibly include resolution through police action...

...take the same guy and give him a gun. Likelihood of someone dying has gotta go up.

It's a lot different to take a country with more guns than people, where firearm violence is already common, and propose instituting more restrictive laws. That's why I laugh at anyone that tries to correlate the US to, say, Japan. It's just highly irrelevant. Rather than looking at a pipedream end result, they need to look at the immediate 'closing the barn door decades/centuries after the horse got out' effect. Read: nothing. There will still be plenty of available guns, especially to those with criminal intentions. The sole relevant example would be a crazy person with no guns available and no desire to go seek one out. A tiny, tiny fraction of crime.

This thread (or rather, the video in the OP) in highly relevant, I think. I am still unwilling to apply Swiss behavior to the US.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2364706

But I did find it very interesting, as I previously had no idea that the Swiss actually issued firearms to the population.

 

[rudeguy]

Definitely, but to me that shows that our government is terrible at regulation, not that those things can't or shouldn't be regulated. I'd like to see Colorado's approach to weed applied nationally, and applied to guns as well.

You would like to see gun dealers hauling around tens of thousands of dollars in cash since its a felony for banks to do business with them?

 

[Ruptga]

You would like to see gun dealers hauling around tens of thousands of dollars in cash since its a felony for banks to do business with them?

Uh, obviously.

It's a felony for banks to deal with them because the feds haven't decriminalized it. That problem is not at all a necessary component of the legalization, regulation, and taxation of weed.

 

[rudeguy]

Uh, obviously.

It's a felony for banks to deal with them because the feds haven't decriminalized it. That problem is not at all a necessary component of the legalization, regulation, and taxation of weed.

So then the government should just pass feel good legislation without thinking it through?

 

[Ruptga]

So then the government should just pass feel good legislation without thinking it through?

I can't tell if you're posting nonsense to mess with me, or because you think it's related. But, going out on a limb here, Colorado's weed law wasn't passed without some thought, as opposed to, say, the Patriot Act. What it seems you can't wrap your head around is this: there is no monolithic Government. There are state governments, and there are the feds. They do similar jobs and they often work together, but they are entirely different entities and sometimes they work against each other. The weed situation is a clusterfuck mostly because Colorado is trying to legalize regulate and tax the stuff, while the feds are determined to continue their war on drugs™, not because the legislation is catastrophically flawed.

 

[PrinceofWands]

A debate without end...

There are simple factual ends to it, just not ends to subjective preference and opinion. THAT is the key that so many miss. It isn't that one side or the other necessarily misses an objective truth (though both often do), it's that their beliefs are often incompatible polar opposites. One nation cannot serve two disparate peoples.

 

[rudeguy]

I can't tell if you're posting nonsense to mess with me, or because you think it's related. But, going out on a limb here, Colorado's weed law wasn't passed without some thought, as opposed to, say, the Patriot Act. What it seems you can't wrap your head around is this: there is no monolithic Government. There are state governments, and there are the feds. They do similar jobs and they often work together, but they are entirely different entities and sometimes they work against each other. The weed situation is a clusterfuck mostly because Colorado is trying to legalize regulate and tax the stuff, while the feds are determined to continue their war on drugs™, not because the legislation is catastrophically flawed.

So states should all pass laws in spite of federal law? We need more high paying jobs. We should legalize drug trafficking. Oh..and who cares about elephants? Let's get the ivory trade going again!

 

[PrinceofWands]

That's not what typically happens though. How many times in the last hundred years, have you seen a government, that didn't have at least minority support in the populace? At least in states that started out as democratic?

What you'll get in lieu of the revolution, would be more like a second secession. And then you'd have neighbors shooting at one another across makeshift barricades, while military and national guard forces take sides and add a full blown military conflict into the mix. If the military completely sides with one side, there will not be a war, but merely a slaughter.

And if you truly want to goose the government, it'd not with guns that you do it. A simple strike suffices. The French government is more scared of the unions, than it is of giving guns to everyone in the country.

More important than any personal gun ownership, is a military that is diverse, and in close relation with the public that it is supposed to protect. That is the idea of the militia, more than anything else. An army of the people, for the people. As long as your military will side with both sides of a conflict, at least there will be a balanced slaughter, instead of just the extermination of the trouble makers.

I think this fear of the government, that many in the US have, is on one side due to the strong bipartisanship, where there is no real alternative, and no escaping one of two ways of government. On the other side, the US is geographically large, and the federal government always appears to be a distant entity, that should have no say in most matters, as it's too far away.
People are far less worried about a state government going rogue.


As for relative violence ratings: I'm not sure you can really compare it, as most of Europe is settled much more densely than the US, which usually leads to more potential for violent crime. I wonder how immigration and organized crime figure into those statistics as well, as Europe is a more convenient immigration target, and immigration often does bring with it a number of social problems that can often end in violence.

And with regard to the militia issue: Why is it acceptable to stick to the 300 year old definition of militia (which apparently meant nothing beyond "some guy(s)"), but not the 300 year old definition of arm?

It's all a bit confusing. And I'm still not personally convinced, that in modern times a well regulated militia remains a requirement for a free state. But maybe, just as I use reasonable definitions for "militia", my definition of a "free state" is also "wrong".

Because you're not using them the same. Arms meant 'what a soldier carries at any given time'. Therefore it meant slings, spears, and so on archaically, muskets and swords when written, and select fire m16a4s or equivalent today. The definition is the same, what it grants evolves.

Similarly, 'free speech' at the time meant spoken words in person, or written with quill and parchment, but today covers computers and cell phones as well. The word referred to the overall idea, not the specific item. For this reason, militia should also include females now, but we're still idiots in many ways.

If we can change the core meaning of the words in the Constitution without having to rewrite them (as originally intended) then the document itself has absolutely no value. Allowing the scope of impact from those words to evolve, however, is reasonable and working as intended. It really isn't a very difficult concept for most to get.

 

[Ruptga]

So states should all pass laws in spite of federal law? We need more high paying jobs. We should legalize drug trafficking. Oh..and who cares about elephants? Let's get the ivory trade going again!

Ok now I get it, you're just trying to derail the thread as much as possible. We got onto this tangent because I suggested the feds regulate guns more like Colorado does weed, and now you're bitching and ranting about states' rights.

 

[PrinceofWands]

They were at least unsure in earlier cases:

Not unsure at all. In Miller they were reinforcing what I've been saying all along. That the 2nd grants every citizen the right to whatever arms an average soldier in the army of the day is issued. Soldiers aren't issued sawed off shotguns, and therefore the 2nd conveys no inherent right to such a weapon.

What's funny is that the only weapons currently banned are the weapons the court agrees we have absolute right to. The weapons which could arguably be Constitutionally banned (hunting long rifles, shotguns, and pistols), never get a second glance.

Of course, this brings us to needing to acknowledge that the only reason the 2nd deals purely with military weapons was the personal possession of hunting and defensive weapons was such a given that they felt no need to go there on a federal level.

I'd be VERY happy to rewrite the 2nd for modern times. My personal suggestion would be:

The right of every enfranchised citizen to own such weapons, ammunition and equipment as are generally available and used by individuals in the given time for hunting, self-defense, or military purposes will not be infringed. Further, such citizens have an irrevocable right to carry such weapons for practice, sport, self-defense, or military action and to use them for such actions without being subject to criminal or civil litigation.

Obviously it needs to be cleaned up and clarified a bit, but overall that's what we SHOULD have.

 

[rudeguy]

Ok now I get it, you're just trying to derail the thread as much as possible. We got onto this tangent because I suggested the feds regulate guns more like Colorado does weed, and now you're bitching and ranting about states' rights.

You said we should model gun laws after CO. I am trying to show you how bad of an idea that is.

Guns are a right. The law we should follow is the Constitution.

 

[davmat787]

I am just wondering why it seems European countries are not that into guns as the US? What makes us different? Is there something particularly special in our history?

Historically, only the nobility were allowed to own the premier weapons of the day, outside of the military of course. Great way to keep the commoners in check.

Commoners could only own blunted arrows too, so they couldn't hunt anything larger than a rabbit.

This has gone on for so many centuries that the idea of a "commoner" owning a firearm is laughable to most and simply accepted.

Worked out great for the jews when it was made illegal for them to own firearms and ammunition.

I am sure there is way more to this issue, but I would think what I mentioned above is at least part of it.

 

[davmat787]

You said we should model gun laws after CO. I am trying to show you how bad of an idea that is.

Guns are a right. The law we should follow is the Constitution.

:thumbsup:

Considering how many firearms exist in the US, I think we are doing a pretty damn good job in limiting their illegal use. Plus the vast majority of the illegal uses of firearms are concentrated in certain areas.

 

[mikeford]

I know it sounds silly to say but if there were no guns here there would be no gun violence. Duh.

But there are so many guns in the U.S. that we'll always have this problem, unless every gun owner suddenly became a responsible, law-abiding citizen. Crime exists. Guns make crime even more dangerous and deadly. They also make crime easier to perpetrate.

Even if we stopped manufacturing them now, they would still be easily available well beyond our lifetimes. But that's never going to happen.

It's too late for us, but Canada, save yourselves (from the NRA)!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nra-involved-in-gun-registry-debate-1.923766




Edit: Added 'They also make crime easier to perpetrate.'

Nonsense, no guns or other civilized weapons simply make it easy for any brute to force their will on anyone of lesser ability. A gun allows a little old lady with no real physical skill and very little training to stop almost any attacker.

A functional gun is trivial to fabricate in the modern world, as is ammunition.

The war against firearms is the same as the laws against the crossbow, it placed the wealthy and powerful at some risk from peasants. Funny that current peasants don't understand history.

 

[mikeford]

So states should all pass laws in spite of federal law? We need more high paying jobs. We should legalize drug trafficking. Oh..and who cares about elephants? Let's get the ivory trade going again!

If there was an ivory trade, elephants would be highly prized and protected with large herds that were well guarded and maintained. Elephants would be no more at risk than cows are.

 

[phucheneh]

You said we should model gun laws after CO. I am trying to show you how bad of an idea that is.

Guns are a right. The law we should follow is the Constitution.

...uh, problem is that the Constitution isn't law. Not in the way you wish to think of it.

We have to have courts, with lawyers arguing on both sides, to interpret legal code...the stuff intentionally written to address specific issues and say 'this is legal' and 'this is not.' When in doubt: look at precedent.

The Constitution was written as even more vague 'guideline' and had been modified twenty-seven times. If you lump in the first ten amendments and consider them to be 'pretty much' part of the original Constitution, you're still arguing over how to interpret that original document that was put into effect in 1789.

There exists no legal precedent that says you are allowed to own any kind of firearm you want. Just as there is no precedent that says you are only allowed to own muskets.

Therefore, it is still very much 'open to interpretation,' and any argument that we should simply follow the second amendment because 'it's the law' is completely absurd, because literally no one knows what that law is. Welcome to Constitutional Law 101.

 

[Ruptga]

You said w should model gun laws after CO. I am trying to show you how bad of an idea that is.

Guns are a right. The law we should follow is the Constitution.

Do you even have an idea of what I suggested? I doubt you do or you wouldn't be getting so emotional. Colorado treats weed like alcohol. Anyone 21 or older can buy it, and gift it to anyone that can buy it. Here's exactly what was implemented, with words changed to apply to guns.

Since the enactment of*Colorado Amendment 64, adults aged 21 or older can keep up to six firearms (with no more than half being fully assembled), privately in a locked space, legally possess all ammunition for the firearms they keep (as long as it stays with the firearms),[1]*legally possess up to three firearms while traveling,[2]*and give as a gift up to three firearms to other citizens 21 years of age or older.[3]*Use is permitted in a manner similar to alcohol, with equivalent offenses proscribed for driving.[4]*Public use remains illegal.[5][6][7]*Amendment 64 also provides for licensing of product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores.[8]

That's it, all of the restrictions are right there. Now, the restrictions on numbers are in there to deter illegal dealers, for guns we would probably throw out those and replace them with something about a background check, or a do not sell list, but I hope you get the idea.

And as much as I hate to admit it, phucheneh is right, you can't simply "follow the constitution" because it is just a framework. Legislatures spell out the practicalities for the rights that the constitution guarantees, and the courts keep the legislatures honest.

 

[_Rick_]

Because you're not using them the same. Arms meant 'what a soldier carries at any given time'. Therefore it meant slings, spears, and so on archaically, muskets and swords when written, and select fire m16a4s or equivalent today. The definition is the same, what it grants evolves.

Similarly, 'free speech' at the time meant spoken words in person, or written with quill and parchment, but today covers computers and cell phones as well. The word referred to the overall idea, not the specific item. For this reason, militia should also include females now, but we're still idiots in many ways.

If we can change the core meaning of the words in the Constitution without having to rewrite them (as originally intended) then the document itself has absolutely no value. Allowing the scope of impact from those words to evolve, however, is reasonable and working as intended. It really isn't a very difficult concept for most to get.

But there is something that the constitution can not account for: A changing environment. The clause of the importance of the militia is - in my opionon - no longer true. It was true in a much more direct sense, at the time the colony liberated itself from the former British proprietors. Then, there was no army, there was threat of invasion by foreign powers, and the defense consisted in that militia, which faced the conservative powers of the world.

Today, no external danger to the freedom of the people exists, that is not dealt with by either the army, or the well-regulated militia, that is the national guard. While in 1776 a scenario where the public was to defend was something that was imaginable, today this is simply no longer the case. Therefore, the second amendment covers an antiquated use case and is obsolete.

And don't get out the "but if the government suddenly goes rogue" argument, which is a tea-partier's wet dream - in the real world it doesn't happen. If a government turns on its people it does so through the people. If a turned government is wiped out, it's rarely because the people have a soldier's weapon, but either because of outside interference (Afghanistan?) or through more peaceful measures (South Africa).

In the real world, the second amendment holds no relevance.

This doesn't mean, that guns shouldn't be legal to own, BUT it means that the base of discussion should NOT be the constitution in its current form.
The constitution is NOT a holy book, that needs to be handed down over the ages. It is a text of law, which should be written in such a way, that ANYONE can understand it, as otherwise it becomes useless in its key function of empowering the people. If the word militia does not mean militia in the sense that is commonly used, this wording should be corrected. If something that was pertinent in '76 but isn't anymore today is used as the basis of a constitutional right, this basis should be re-evaluated.

If the second amendment read: "The self integrity of man is a key aspect of personal freedom and dependant upon the ability to defend one self against any threat, therefore the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", this discussion might still happen, but it would at least be grounded upon a reality.

I have no issue, with the "an armed society is a polite society" approach to things, even if the premise might be wrong - but at least its a better excuse than "omg, the poms (i.e. the gubernment) are out to get us!".
And declining the right to bare arms from a personal integrity standpoint is a much more modern, thing to do. Even the German Grundgesetz, one of the more recent constitution-like documents puts personal dignity as article number one, right up front. It wouldn't feel out of place to give the individual the ultimate means of assuring that this dignity is indeed untouchable.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope that this exposes, that I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun, I don't really care either way as long as I don't get shot, and that even a constitution can decay over time, and truths that are self-evident at one point in time, for one people, are no longer relevant a few centuries on. And despite the fear mongering, the protection of American freedom by individual fire power is just such a thing.