Tzuppy said he didn't want to discuss gun control, but went on to discuss it.  So for the sake of not derailing the homosexual marriage thread, I'm going to post my reply here.  He can respond if he likes, but certainly isn't required to (and of course, anyone else who wants to jump in can too).



But gun availability in London has always been lower than in US.</quote>

1)  False, the gun availability in London in 1900 was about equivalent to NY in the same period (why would it be otherwise?)
2)  Irrelevant.  Rapes have always been lower in London than NY as well, but that's not due to any lack of penises in London.  Prison violence has always been higher in the US as well, and assumedly the US focuses just as much on keeping illegal stuff out of prisons as London does.  Any sociologist can clearly point out that there are sometimes just cultural differences, a big one being things like diversity (which is clearly shown to increase crime levels)



Germany is a country, not a city, firstly.  Secondly, I don't have data at my fingertips, but I suspect that if you compare the crime rate in Berlin 1900 (pre-gun control) to the crime rate post-1920 (post-gun control and also post-WWI) you will find that the rate of crime skyrockets due to the tremendous inflation at the time.  Gun control became more lax from '29 until '38.  In '38, a new bout of gun control laws came out, including absolute restriction of Jewish ownership of guns.  Most Jews did disarm themselves, and were quickly rounded up and killed afterwards.  There is an exception, though.  In the Warsaw ghetto, containing about 50,000 Jews (including the elderly, women and children), a very small minority had a cache of illegal and home-made firearms.  Unlike the other ghettos, they held off the Nazi incursion for several weeks and successfully killed off several thousand Nazi soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising).

This disarmament of people in order to better rule them is the same thing we saw in the USSR (and having lived in the USSR for three years, I can assure you, I never wish to return there).  It is clear that the reason the Warsaw Ghetto took so long to pacify was because it was armed.  There is no other difference between it and all the other ghettos which were quickly and effectively wiped out.  However they were poorly armed, and eventually they too succumbed.  But there were millions of Jews under German occupation at the time, and here we have barely a handful of strong people with only a tiny number of firearms between them.  What if every Jew had been armed?  What if every Jew had been willing to defend their own rights, instead of expecting the State to do that for them?  I would not normally bring up Hitler, but this is your example that you requested...



I find it odd you have to cherry pick two countries.  What about all the rest of Europe?  France?  Austria?  Russia?  England?  Spain?  Or do they all support my argument and not yours?  What about Switzerland?  Or have do they actually require gun ownership and boast one of the lowest crime rates in the world?  If you'd really like to compare country to country, city to city, let's pick two nations randomly, one out of the 'guns are legal, first-world nation' category and one out of the 'guns are illegal, first-world nation' category, and standardize the crime rates based on prison violence rates (since, like I said, presumably a prison in one first-world nation permits just as few weapons as a prison in any other first-world nation, so the only significant difference is the culture of the people held inside).  That a fair bet?



As has been said, that doesn't mean it's not correct.  I think it interesting you'd rather accuse me of misguided patriotism than to address the arguments in my post.



I suspect if you honestly sat down and looked at the evidence, you would change your mind.  I was raised in a very anti-gun family in a very anti-gun state and, until I was about 20, was myself very anti-gun.  When I got into studying the Constitution I sat down and honestly tried to find evidence that guns lead to crime (not to gun crime, but to crime in general).  All the evidence I could find pointed to 'no' at best, and to the contrary at worse.  When the CDC and National Academy for Sciences comes out and officially says there is no evidence gun control decreases crime, that pretty much sealed it for me.  Gun control doesn't work, unless your goal is to control a people and invalidate their ability to fight back.

Just out of curiousity, when you say the CDC did studies that show gun control laws had no effect on crime, do you mean the center for disease control?

Correct.  The press release is here: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r031002.htm

The study is here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Interesting stuff.  I wouldn't have thought of the CDC looking into gun laws.  Anyway, I'd just be careful not to overstate the results of this study.  The results weren't "evidence shows there's no reduction in crime due to gun laws" but rather "there isn't enough evidence to tell if gun laws increase or decrease crime."  A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one.

For what it's worth, I'm weakly-to-moderately pro gun-rights.  I agree with the idea that the population needs to be able to fight back against an oppressive government, but I think that most of the time guns lead to more harm than good.  I kind of see gun rights as a sort of situation where we accept the costs (more people getting shot) in order to avoid an unlikely, but potentially much greater cost (a totalitarian government opressing the people).  I don't own a gun myself, and don't buy into the whole "an armed society is a polite society" idea.  Gun rights are more of an insurance policy against over-reaching government in my eyes.

That mindset is what is ultimately behind the second amendment.  18th century guns wouldn't really do a lot for gun control.  That said, I live in the DC area, and seeing the contrast between DC (very tight gun control laws), Maryland (moderate gun control laws) and Virginia (fairly liberal gun control laws) and their associated crime rates, I've definitely come to believe that letting responsible people carry a concealed weapon (as is legal in MOST of Virginia - college campuses not-withstanding) seems to be the biggest difference between a place with lots of violent crime and a place with not much.

I agree with Tycho. I think having access to guns is an important right, but one generally better as a defense against the government, not people.

I personally don't think gun control makes crime more or less likely, at least in any dramatic light. People who want guns are likely always going to find a way to get them. And I don't feel everyone having a gun makes gun voilence more preventable. I'm not an expert in the matter, but I don't think I have to be to believe that someone with the intention of using a gun on someone will always have the advantage over someone who doesn't even realise something is going to happen to them.

I have a personal preference for less guns though. Then again, as I've stated before, I don't particular trust people or communities.

   And here I thought the definition of gun control was being able to control one's gun ....

Wait a second. I have substantially reduced my responses there. I never said I was dropping the subject altogether.


Furthermore, I am well aware what US gun control arguments look like, so I am not overly enthusiastic about participating in one.


More to come later...
(when I type it.)

I'm in favor of gun control, not for reasons related to crime, but because I feel that guns are dangerous objects, and should only be owned by people who can demonstrate that they have the intellect and maturity to safely maintain, store and use a firearm. I believe that owning a gun should be like driving a car, you should not be able to do it until you can pass a series of practical tests demonstrating your ability to do so.

I should also point out that I don't consider gun ownership an intrinsic human right.

I don't know if I should really comment as I don't know what the gun laws are in Israel but from what I know I would say if a person wants a gun they can get one legally quite easily. Here you see guns every day, it's not an intimidating thing just part of how things are here, like I said I don't have satistics but I would say there is less street crime because of it, I am not afriad to go into town or the city late at night and walk around alone, in fact ive often done it. You very rarely hear of accidents happening with guns which I believe is because practicly everyone is trained in their use, and I'm sure I don't need to names cases where the fact that people having guns here has saved lives. But then Israel's situation isn't exactly the norm.

Because (prior to 1900) no government in Europe ever allowed mass production of firearms for civilian use. They have been producing firearms exclusively for military purposes.



No, that is due to police presence in London and dense population.



Yes, but Great Britain spends more per prisoner than US. They also provide less physical exercise.



I agree that systematic underdevelopment of Black and Latino neighborhoods in US is adding to the problem. No question about that.


What I cannot believe is that people in US are more violent than people in Balkans.



Like I didn't know that? So what?



Of course. But what's your point? All time during the good times Germany has had much lower crime rate.



Funny you mention communism to me. I was born in Tito's Serbia and have personally participated in struggle against Slobodan Milošević. I have learned what communism is much better than you possibly could in three years.



Using verb to pacify in this sentence is so wrong.



Jews were simply too disperse to offer any meaningful resistance to Nazis.



I beg you pardon?



They all support my argument. They all have tight gun control laws. It is about the only thing that is same throughout Europe.



Why prisons? Why not general society?



You can't say Europe (21st century Europe that is) has less respect for human rights than US, especially if we exclude Russia, Belarus and Moldavia.



Funny, coming from a culture which is very good in fighting back against stronger enemies, I can tell you that a nation always has enough weapons to defend itself. It needs not for the civilians to have it.

You also must make sure that kids can't get it. That part somehow escapes the gun owners in US.

Using verb to pacify in this sentence is so wrong.




That's not exactly true there were a number of places, most large cities in fact that had a large Jewish population. The fact is that the Nazi's hid what they were doing most of the Jews in the ghettos had no idea what was happening, so they thought that if they could stick it out things would get better. Warsaw Ghetto was something else, they found out early on what was happening and they organized, they started building a tunnel to get people out, that's what the fight against the Nazi's was about, to give them time to finish the tunnel and to get as many people as possible out. That they managed to hold out against the full might of the Nazi's for about a month with a handful of guns and molotov cocktails is amazing. It's that type of determination that gave birth to Israel and enabled it's people to win a number of wars against terrible odds.

But there were millions of Jews under German occupation at the time, and here we have barely a handful of strong people with only a tiny number of firearms between them.  What if every Jew had been armed?

That seems as much as a fantasy as the idea that guns can be eliminated from society. When has any large population group been completely armed?

In theory, I would agree (at least if guns were there solely to defend against crime or for hunting and sport).  However, if your goal is to defend against the government, letting the government decide who can and can't own a gun is of course ridiculous.  I hope I don't need to point out that part of the Nazi campaign (since that's the example on the top of my head, having had to research it for Tzuppy) made that precise process part of how they disarmed those they disagreed with while arming those who supported them.  We see the same thing in DC right now, actually.  It is extremely difficult to get certain licenses to carry certain guns.  However, those with political connections (including certain gun control group leaders) have the permits to carry weapons with them where ever they go, but average, law-abiding people cannot because, of course, they don't have those connections.



Switzerland law currently requires every household have a military rifle, if memory serves (Switzerland also has a very low crime rate, and it's not because of their excellent chocolate).  Israel doesn't require gun ownership, but I do believe they strongly encourage it.  I don't have any data on the actual percentage.  In the US, gun ownership is about 25% of the eligible population, so I believe that's about 60 million people?  The Japanese Admiral in WWII was quoted as saying something like 'an invasion of the American mainland would be impossible, because there is a gun behind every blade of grass'.  The same was not said of China, England or Canada (although I understand Canada may have had a reasonable gun ownership rate at the time).

"Didn't allow"?  You're going to have to get a source for that, I had never heard that claimed before.

(As an aside, both Sherlock Holmes and Watson had guns.  I'm just using this as a cultural reference to indicate that the sentiment at the time was average people could and at times should be armed.)



You can attribute what causes you like.  The point is, you need to standardize your statistics.  If you standardize, you'll see that London's gun control has not been particularly successful, and in fact marks a clear INCREASE in crime (I read somewhere London's gun crime rate went up 340% since the ban).  There was a report recently on Australia's gun crime rate, which has also skyrocketed since the ban.  After all, if I'm a criminal, I don't care if there's a ban.  And now that I know my intended victims are unarmed, there's more reason for me to go commit crime.



There could be causes for that.  Underreporting in the Balkans, overreporting in the US, etc.  But I can definitely believe people in the US are more violent than people in Japan.  It's a different culture.  We can talk more about which cultures are more violent and why if you'd like.  I've always found it a fascinating topic, myself.  But the US espouses ideas of individual freedom and initiative, the goal of getting rich or seeking personal wealth, and the idea of strong individuals making their own fortunes.  Plus we have a lot of poor people and a lot of rich people living in close confines, and a lot of racial and ethnic diversity.  All of these things ultimately result in a culture with a lot of individuals who think it's okay to break the law to get ahead.



I don't want to nitpick, but if you're doing statistics, you really want to compare the same sorts of things.  Non-urban areas almost always have lower crime than urban areas.  I'm pretty sure the crime rate of the whole US is lower than Berlin, but all of Germany is lower than NYC, so let's try to stay statistically honest here.




I was comparing London to NY, from 1900 to the present.  You asked about Germany (since I presume you went online to find two nations who have done better under gun control laws rather than all the nations that did worse).  So I took Germany and examined Germany's fascinating gun control laws and their effects on society between 1900 and the present.  That would include Hitler and how he actively disarmed his enemies so he could kill them more quickly.



And their crime rate has gone up.  I want to confirm, if I make a list of limited-gun-control nations on the one hand (a short list, I admit), and a list of tight-gun-control nations on the other (most of Europe and Australia) and randomly chose one from each using the dice roller here, then standardized their crime rates and looked at crime increases or decreases based on when those gun control laws came into effect, you think that they would show gun control helps reduce crime?  I'm up for the challenge if you are.




The only way you can standardize based on general society is if you find a time when the laws were similar in both countries.  That's why London and NYC are great examples, because in 1900 that was more or less the case.  So we multiply London's crime rate by some number so it equals NYC's, then fast forward the timeline and compare.  We can do the same with Melbourne or possibly Paris, but we can't do that very well with say Moscow, because Moscow was under an oppressive monarchy at the time and was just too different, nor can we do it with Tokyo because Tokyo was also a completely different bird.  So when we can't standardize based on that, prisons are a nice 'cheat' since prisons in Japan are probably just as restrictive in regards to what the inmates are allowed to do as they are in the US.  Not perfect, but when it's all you got...




I can and I have (just did it again).  But that's a topic for another thread, and it isn't especially bad.  I'm not talking China loss of human rights, but for instance how in England the new ABSOC (is that right?) laws can make it technically illegal for me to do something like insult someone or paint my house a funny color.



Actually Britain doesn't.   Right now they're petitioning the US to send more guns as they're having a shortage in Iraq.

Secondly, looking back, while you asked some good questions, you don't seem to have said a single thing or brought a single shred of evidence (aside from statistical cherry picking) to counter any of my arguments.  And honestly, I don't expect you to.  The reason I have my position is because when I followed both arguments to their conclusion, one side was supported by honest concerns, statistics and history, and the other was mostly supported by emotional reactions.  There's a reason why you can comment on and visit forums for most pro-second amendment sites because they want reasoned debate, but I have as of yet to see an anti-second amendment site that allows the same.  The argument simply isn't there.

So again, I open a challenge to you.  Do your own HONEST research.  Put aside your personal bias for a bit, look at the numbers, see what both sides have to say.  If you go through and find support for restricting weapons in civilian hands, come back and share it, I honestly want to see it.  I looked for it for about four months and didn't find much of it.

In theory, I would agree (at least if guns were there solely to defend against crime or for hunting and sport).  However, if your goal is to defend against the government, letting the government decide who can and can't own a gun is of course ridiculous

Rebellion is your national heritage, not mine. I believe that in a representative democracy like Canada or the United States, it is possible for the people to put a stop to government abuses before it gets to the point where rebellion is necessary.

Remember, the Nazi party took power because it had popular support of the German population. While there were criminal actions involved in its rise to power, it did not seize power against the will of the people.

Stopping things like Nazism from taking power in our countries requires education, not gun ownership.

Switzerland law currently requires every household have a military rifle, if memory serves (Switzerland also has a very low crime rate, and it's not because of their excellent chocolate).  Israel doesn't require gun ownership, but I do believe they strongly encourage it\

Switzerland and Israel also have mandatory military service (something I'd imagine that you would be incredibly opposed to). I was thinking more of an example of a religious or racial group living in a country, a group that could be targeted by ethnic cleansing by the government. Has there been any group like that which was universally armed?

Edit: Oh, and another thing I found while researching the Swiss military. The rifles in every Swiss home? The owner is forbidden from using them for any reason except for after he's been activated by the military and is own his way to join his unit.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:39, Thu 13 Mar 2008.

Im a little conflicted here, on one hand that many people have guns in Israel I feel it is a good thing, just last week an extremeist went into a Yashiva (A school where they teach the Talmud and the deeper meaning of the bible) in Jerusalem and opened fire on the students inside if an off duty soldier hadn't thought the man looked suspicous and followed him inside I don't know how many more people would have been killed before the extremeist was stopped and that is just one example there are many more. But on the other I don't like the idea of a person buying a gun and not knowing how to use it or take care that it doesn't end up in childrens hands. I agree with the person (sorry i don't have the strength on checking through all the posts) that it should be mandatory for anyone buying a gun should have to enroll in classes teaching people how to use it, and if they already know how to use it, either provide proof or past a test as to that skill. After all a person cant get behind the wheel of a car without taking a test, it only makes sence that a gun should follow similar rules as both can kill.

The military service in Israel may be mandatory, which I know I for one do not like, but I doubt Israel would be here without it, because of it effectively all of Israel's citizens are reservists, in fact for a month every year you have to serve in the army here even after a person has done their national service, there are of course exceptions to that rule.

Just to note about Sherlock and Watson, from what I remember Sherlock only carried a gun once maybe twice from what I remember when I read the stories, he often told Watson to bring his gun but then Watson had served in the British army, which is where he got his gun.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:33, Thu 13 Mar 2008.

Yes, Elana, I agree with what you say regarding the Sherlock Holmes stories.

1). The United States began after people living here rebelled against the government.  2) The US hasn't even been around for 250 years and it's already had one civil war that about tore the country apart.

It's common for people to believe that something which hasn't yet happened to them personally won't ever happen.  Sure, we're elightened today.  Things like that ancient rebellion and that old civil war couldn't possibly happen today.  But people said the same things back in the early 1900's.

Actually that's not strictly true.  The Nazi power got power due to popular support.  It took control of the government because firstly Hitler was appointed (not voted) onto the cabinet due to party politics, and then the parliament (not the people) voted in the Enabling Act of 1933, allowing the cabinet to create laws.

Once Hitler had the ability to create his own laws, then he went on to make it illegal to form new parties and one by one ousted the existing ones.  I don't think you'd say that a one-party election accurately represents the will of the people.



I think it's interesting in one breath you say people can put aside government abuses in a democracy, then go on to say Hitler won through the popular vote.

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  Most democracies have a long history of those in power oppressing the minority who can't get the political strength to fight back.  It's certainly been true in the US.  Women and blacks especially haven't been able to vote for the majority of America's history.  Why is that?  Why in a state where the blacks outnumbered the whites, the blacks didn't just vote to give themselves the right to...

And this is where gun control takes a bent I wasn't expecting to bring up.

Gun control in the US has historically been a racist proposition, and is inherently a sexist one.  It's only in the past fifty years that US lawmakers started feeling maybe stating outright 'negroes can't own guns' may be a poor idea, but the general trend continues.  Governments in the US have a long history of supporting gun ownership rights for those in power, and denying them for those who deserve power.  Why would they do this?  Why would I, as a rich, white, male lawmaker deny the tools of government change to poor, black families?



I actually have mixed feelings on that :P  I haven't done enough research either way.



Off the top of my head?  Branch Davidians.  Other fundamentalist churches which feel the government would be happy for them to follow the Davidians' example.  Native Americans tried towards the end, but it was basically too late for them.  Those people in Nigeria getting oppressed due to oil rights.  Ungandan farmers used to be armed, but then they were disarmed with the help of the UN (and, surely a coincidence, that immediately preceded 8 years of genocide).  Kenyan herding tribes were also disarmed with help from the UN, again, completely coincidently, preceding decades of genocide.  The UN has since stopped its support of both disarmament programs.  Oh, and Rwanda.  In '94 or thereabouts, the UN disarmed the population.  Shortly there-after the Hutu-led military (who did actually still have guns) began a full-scale genocide of the Tutsis.

But no, generally, when a government is going to oppress a minority, the first thing they do is disarm that minority, and when a minority can't be disarmed, the government avoids oppressing them because the price would be too high.  You bring up an excellent example.



So I'm sure then there are plenty of records of Swiss people being sent to jail for using their rifles in self-defense?



Do you consider the right to self-defense an intrinsic right?


Elana, you bring up a great example.  I was very surprised none of the news outlets here mentioned the brave man at the Yeshida who pinned down the extremist until military forces could arrive.  That man saved dozens of lives.  He deserves far more recognition than he got.

I didn't see the international news that day when it happened though I usually check them out when somethng happens here, so there wasn't much on the news about it? Sigh that is always the case, the extremist killed eight people and injured dozens of others and it barely makes the news but if Israel does anything in responce to provocation it's on all the networks branding Israel like some rouge, bloodthirsty monster. I really don't understand the some of the international news networks sometimes they sound pro Israel at other times against, I used to think it depended on which reporter reported the news and the policies of the particular network at others i think they're a bit scitzo.

A little casual view on Gun Control. Not to be taken seriously, but laugh it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXIjQM4Mkg

Youtube is blocked at work.  If you find it on google video I'll watch though :)

I think it's interesting in one breath you say people can put aside government abuses in a democracy, then go on to say Hitler won through the popular vote.

My primary point was that the majority of the German people were actively and willingly involved in the genocide, this was not a case of the government forcing something upon the entire population.

I'll admit that democracy breaks down when you get a large population willing to be involved in such heinous crimes, but I don't think that gun ownership is the answer to that problem.

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  Most democracies have a long history of those in power oppressing the minority who can't get the political strength to fight back

But likewise, our democracies resolved these issues without resort to rebellion or major acts of violence.

I actually have mixed feelings on that :P  I haven't done enough research either way.

It's possible you would be in favor of the government teaching every citizen to obey the government unquestioningly?

But no, generally, when a government is going to oppress a minority, the first thing they do is disarm that minority, and when a minority can't be disarmed, the government avoids oppressing them because the price would be too high.

Fine, I'll give you that point, and admit that it's an argument in favor of gun ownership in the poorer and more war torn areas in the world, but I'll deny that it applies to a modern, democratic, developed nation.

So I'm sure then there are plenty of records of Swiss people being sent to jail for using their rifles in self-defense?

Well, they can't use them for self defense anymore, except as a club. They're not issued ammunition for their rifles anymore.

Do you consider the right to self-defense an intrinsic right?

Certainly. And if you can demonstrate yourself to be competent enough to own and use a firearm, you can even defend yourself with one. Otherwise, you'll just simply have to make do with less than lethal or non lethal defense mechanisms, or knives or marital arts training.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:20, Thu 13 Mar 2008.

I just reminded you of how the US started from a rebellion and the Civil War that tore the country apart.  The US hasn't even been around for 250 years -- in historical terms it's a baby country.  It sounds like you're saying, "Oh, that could happen in other countries, but we're better, that couldn't happen here."  That would seem to be ignoring the historical record which would indicate otherwise.