The right to bear arms

Lozze

As an Australian can someone explain to me the rational behind having semi automatic weapons available legally? I know the second amendment but its a right to a WELL REGULATED militia. Not a free for all. Having these guns legally available makes it easier to go on mass killing sprees. Look at the incident in China. 22 children were stabbed the same day. Clearly if someone is sick enough they will do harm, but those 22 children are going home. The two women who challenged this monster (I refuse to name him and I won't look at his picture. I'm remembering the people he took) could have potentially fought him off if he didn't have a semi automatic.

When we had a simillar incident we had some of the strictest gun laws in the world enacted. Between 1979 and 1996 we had 13 mass shootings. (Which apparently was simillar statistics to America per capita) Since 1996 (when the laws came in) we've had none.

I don't understand why the right to own a machine that's sole purpose is to kill trumps the right of American children to feel safe at school.

bathsheba_c

I personally agree with your reading of the 2nd Amendment, but there are a few reasons why the situation is what it is.

The first thing that you have to remember is that, because such a large part of the US is rural, many people own guns. Both because they enjoy hunting, or because they live somewhere where the police couldn't possibly get there in time to help them. As a result, there is a large part of the country for whom gun ownership is very important. Most of the guns used in mass shootings in the US are legally owned (though not necessarily by the shooter), and the shootings take place in non-urban areas.

The second important thing to understand is that, although the accessibility of guns is a big contributor, the weak mental health system in the US is also to blame. Basically, several decades ago, there was a major scandal about abuse in a living facility for mentally ill adults, which led many states to close their mental hospitals. There has also been a major move away from mandatory institutionalization and medication of the mentally ill. As a result, untreated cases of mental illness have skyrocketed, and many patients end up in jail or living on the street. If you actually need a gun, it is frustrating for that process to be held up because of poor social policy decisions.

Lastly, Americans are, and have always been, huge sticklers for the law. This was something that other countries were commenting on before the US became a country. For example, the Declaration of Independence exists solely to present the legal justification for revolution. As a result, we are going to lean towards the stricter interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than we are towards the more flexible one.

Lozze

As a result, we are going to lean towards the stricter interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than we are towards the more flexible one.

But it's not even am interpretation of it. The words well regulated are in the amendment itself.

I'd also argue that a law made I'm the 1700s when guns could fire maybe one or two bullets before having to be reloaded shouldn't be relevant in a time whe weapons are being made that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a minute.

Before 1996 Australia was simillar. We had lax laws on guns and had mass shootings. (13 between 1979 and 1996) After the Port Arthur massac stricter laws were put into place and there was a buy back scheme during the initial amnesty (you handed in guns that would soon be illegal and were paid for them) There are exceptions for hunting (I have friends that live on farms and are required to be hunters) People don't also require guns to defend themselves because with less guns available the criminals have less guns to use themselves)

You know how many mass shootings we've had since 1996?

NONE.

bathsheba_c

Interpretation 1: Militias are important to maintaining freedom. The government can't undermine the militias by restricting gun ownership.
Interpretation 2: People have the right to own guns. Especially so they can join the militia if necessary.

In interpretation 1, the point is to have a well-regulated militia. In interpretation 2, the point is that people have the right to own guns (the militia argument being the primary, but not necessarily sole reason). Interpretation 1 gives you a lot more flexibility to play around with gun ownership rules.

Don't forget that changing the situation isn't just an issue of changing the laws. The 2nd Amendment is literally a part of the US Constitution. It would take another constitutional amendment to weaken it.

marsellient

OP, as a Canadian, I don't get it either; however, there are things in many different cultures that are hard to understand, so I'm not willing to engage in a gun control debate with American citizens. They will have to figure out what is best in their culture. I certainly do not believe in light of the events this week, that having more guns around is an answer to preventing violence, especially automatic weapons. Someone could shoot you before you'd ever have a chance to respond. I did grow up in a home with hunting rifles, so I'm not unfamiliar with guns, btw. It's so difficult to comprehend why anyone would enter a school full of innocent children and do what was done, and I agree with you that he should be given the least notoriety possible.

KimmyEB

Crazy people are always going to find a way to get weapons.

Therefore, I will protect MYSELF any way I can. Yes, I have guns. Do I go crazy and shoot places up? No. But I will shoot someone if they enter my home uninvited.

the weak mental health system in the US is also to blame. Basically, several decades ago, there was a major scandal about abuse in a living facility for mentally ill adults, which led many states to close their mental hospitals. There has also been a major move away from mandatory institutionalization and medication of the mentally ill. As a result, untreated cases of mental illness have skyrocketed, and many patients end up in jail or living on the street. If you actually need a gun, it is frustrating for that process to be held up because of poor social policy decisions.

I personally agree with bathsheba_c here.

Lozze

You know the statistics on the fact that you're more likely to be shot be your own weapon?

It also didn't help Nancy Lanza having all those guns. Hr son used them on her.

Azdak

The sick obsession with guns is a malignant pathology in American culture. That combined with an equally pathologic propensity for violence makes America unique among industrialized nations--and not in a good way. 30,000 people die in traffic accidents each year and we have numerous traffic laws and safety laws that no one say "boo" about. 30,000 people die from gun violence every year and we are not allowed to even have a serious discussion about it?

That's a sickness, not a "constitutional issue".

3.000 people died on 9/11 and we unpended our economy and our entire constitutional and legal system without even a thought. 30,000 people die each year from gun violence and we are not allowed to even have a serious discussion about it?

That's a sickness, not a constitutional issue.

The NRA's obsession with not only supporting gun "rights" but attempting to force unrestricted firearm ownership and usage into every part of our society reflects a cult religion more than anything else.

In a group society, no one gets to do exactly what they want to do all the time. All of our "basic freedoms" are abridged to some extent when the common good is deemed more important. That is a fundamental principle described in JS Mills' treatise "On Liberty" which provides much of our philosophical foundation. There is no reason why we cannot try to institute legislation that could curb gun violence while at the same time respect basic 2nd Amendment rights.

Brunner26_2

You know the statistics on the fact that you're more likely to be shot be your own weapon?

It also didn't help Nancy Lanza having all those guns. Hr son used them on her.

Some people here believe the statistics about you being more likely to be hurt in a gun accident than you are to successfully defend yourself, but others don't. Gun rights supporters will tout studies about how often guns are used for protection and talk a lot in anecdotes ( which can be more emotionally powerful than statistics) and what-ifs (what if all the teachers had guns? Then they could have stopped this guy before he killed so many people). People are going to choose to believe what supports their views, and the US is so divided on the issue that actually changing the laws will require an act of God (and I'm an atheist, sooo...)

Edited: grammar

Azdak

Crazy people are always going to find a way to get weapons.

Therefore, I will protect MYSELF any way I can. Yes, I have guns. Do I go crazy and shoot places up? No. But I will shoot someone if they enter my home uninvited.

the weak mental health system in the US is also to blame. Basically, several decades ago, there was a major scandal about abuse in a living facility for mentally ill adults, which led many states to close their mental hospitals. There has also been a major move away from mandatory institutionalization and medication of the mentally ill. As a result, untreated cases of mental illness have skyrocketed, and many patients end up in jail or living on the street. If you actually need a gun, it is frustrating for that process to be held up because of poor social policy decisions.

I personally agree with bathsheba_c here.

I understand the issue of personal defense and I give some latitude to individuals on that issue. I see it as one of those "macro vs micro" issue. Statistically, as others have and will point out, someone who owns a gun for "defense" is multiple, multiple times more likely to be killed by someone they know, by an accident, or by suicide than by any intruder--or to use that weapon on someone they know. In terms of general statistics, there is little argument that I know of in favor of personal gun ownership for "personal defense".

OTOH, at the "micro" level, there are numerous instances where people HAVE successfully defended themselves in their homes or at their business with guns. So for those people, the "statistics" are meaningless--and I respect that. I don't everyone's personal situation, so I am not going to dismiss anyone's personal concerns for their safety.

But you don't need assault rifles, large capacity magazines, military weapons, thousands of rounds lethal ammo, etc, to defend yourself. Fighting mandatory background checks doesn't make you any safer, nor does tighter regulation of gun shows, etc.

fbmandy55

Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is or you like the lady on the news who saw the Oregon shooter's Assault rifle and called it a machine gun? Most guns that hold more than one-shot are semi- automatic. Unless you are carrying around a muzzle loader, you probably have a semi (as far as pistols go).

People have owned personal guns for thousands of years. Countries that have made them illegal still have gun crimes and the innocent can't defend themselves? Want to make guns illegal? See drug prohibition. I am not aware of automatic weapons being available to any civilian, yet gangs and drug cartels have plenty...

Point is, you can put as many gun laws on the books as you want, and all that does it make it easier for criminals to harm innocent people with little to no chance of someone fighting back. The CT shooting was a perfect example. A guy took guns that didn't belong to him, to a gun-free school zone, broke into a school that was locked and killed 27 people. People who do these kinds of things are sick, they OBVIOUSLY do not care about laws. It could have been worse, he could have googled how to make a bomb and killed 227 people.

bathsheba_c

Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is or you like the lady on the news who saw the Oregon shooter's Assault rifle and called it a machine gun? Most guns that hold more than one-shot are semi- automatic. Unless you are carrying around a muzzle loader, you probably have a semi (as far as pistols go).

People have owned personal guns for thousands of years. Countries that have made them illegal still have gun crimes and the innocent can't defend themselves? Want to make guns illegal? See drug prohibition. I am not aware of automatic weapons being available to any civilian, yet gangs and drug cartels have plenty...

Point is, you can put as many gun laws on the books as you want, and all that does it make it easier for criminals to harm innocent people with little to no chance of someone fighting back. The CT shooting was a perfect example. A guy took guns that didn't belong to him, to a gun-free school zone, broke into a school that was locked and killed 27 people. People who do these kinds of things are sick, they OBVIOUSLY do not care about laws. It could have been worse, he could have googled how to make a bomb and killed 227 people.

So, I grew up in the US and now live in Israel, where gun ownership is extremely restricted (as in, you need to have a specific reason to own a gun, 40% of applicants are refused, and those who are accepted have their eligibility reviewed every six months). I feel MUCH safer here than I ever did in the US. With very few exceptions, women here are not afraid to walk alone at night, even at midnight. Gun violence is practically non-existent. Police presence is also incredibly light, and the idea of a police officer having a regular beat is a novel concept.

Azdak

Jacob Weisberg on Slate gave what I thought was a good summary of why the American political process is seemingly unable to deal with the issue of gun violence:

America’s inability to protect the public from gun violence is a case study in several kinds of democratic failure: the single-issue minority that overrides the weaker preference of the majority; the in-built rural bias of our politics; the entrenched power of a well-endowed lobbying organization; and the runaway interpretation of certain politically congenial rights by a conservative Supreme Court majority. Because of the scale of these systemic obstacles, liberals like Barack Obama, who are naturally inclined to support sensible gun-control laws, have in recent years shied away from taking on the issue at all.

MaraDiaz

Historically disarming the population before government becomes more repressive is common. Americans have been made aware of this through both regular history lessons and right wing propaganda. But I'm with the rightwingers on this one. A gun roundup would make me extremely uneasy about the near future.

I don't think they'd dare ban assault rifles and then require everyone to turn them in, either, they would just ban future (commercial, not even private) sales. So the ban won't even do any good. Americans are (rightfully) afraid of all the power being in the hands of government and none in the hands of people. However, we can argue that an assault rifle is pretty useless against a rocket launcher or a tank, making our 'power' to keep and bear arms pretty worthless.

I'm still pro-gun ownership, though.

If these people want to stop crazies from shooting up places, maybe it's time to make sure everyone has health coverage and the ability to see a psychiatrist or psychologist. Which won't stop all violence (including in this case) but would probably stop a lot of it.

treetop57

People have owned personal guns for thousands of years.

You seriously undermine your credibility when you post nonsense like that. "Thousands of years"?

The invention of gunpowder is usually attributed to Chinese alchemy, and is popularly listed as one of the "Four Great Inventions" of China. The invention was made perhaps as early as during the Tang Dynasty (9th century), but certainly by the Song Dynasty (11th century). Knowledge of gunpowder spread throughout the Old World as a result of the Mongol conquests of the 13th century. It was employed in warfare to some effect from at least the 14th century, although the development of effective artillery took place during the 15th century, and firearms came to dominate Early Modern warfare in Europe by the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder

Guns haven't even been around one thousand years, let alone the thousands you claim.

Azdak

People have owned personal guns for thousands of years.

You seriously undermine your credibility when you post nonsense like that. "Thousands of years"?

The invention of gunpowder is usually attributed to Chinese alchemy, and is popularly listed as one of the "Four Great Inventions" of China. The invention was made perhaps as early as during the Tang Dynasty (9th century), but certainly by the Song Dynasty (11th century). Knowledge of gunpowder spread throughout the Old World as a result of the Mongol conquests of the 13th century. It was employed in warfare to some effect from at least the 14th century, although the development of effective artillery took place during the 15th century, and firearms came to dominate Early Modern warfare in Europe by the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder

Guns haven't even been around one thousand years, let alone the thousands you claim.

You never heard of cavemen taking out a brontosaurus with an AK-47? I'm sure there's a picture of that in a creationist "museum" somewhere in Kentucky.

neelia

Gun control does not control idiots.

Making semi-automatic weapons illegal will stop killing sprees? Please tell me how criminals follow laws. Drugs are illegal...yet people still have drugs.

treetop57

Laws against murder don't stop murder so we should repeal laws against murder.

neelia

Laws against murder don't stop murder so we should repeal laws against murder.

Pretty sure we don't have an amendment protecting our right to murder.

treetop57

Nor do we have a constitutional right to all arms. Machine guns have been illegal for decades. The question is where to draw the line. I believe it is drawn in the wrong place. Your silly argument that laws are useless because criminals don't follow laws does zero to convince me otherwise.

Laces_0ut

You know the statistics on the fact that you're more likely to be shot be your own weapon?

It also didn't help Nancy Lanza having all those guns. Hr son used them on her.

link to those stats?

and those stats, if true, take everyone into account. for an individual who is responsible they are very unlikely to be shot with their own weapon.