Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[b]What prevents the USA from completely banning gun ownership
Two words: Civil War. That's not an exaggeration either. There would be an honest-to-god civil war in the south and the mountain west if the government tried to ban and forcibly confiscate guns. Besides that, it wouldn't work anyway. The people that you would need to orchestrate this (law enforcement and the military) tend to be supporters of gun rights.
As a European, one thing you don't understand are American crime patterns. Europeans have the impression that crime and gun violence are uniform throughout the country. This is not the case; depending on where you are in the USA, crime can be extremely low. It just so happens that the areas in the US that have crime rates similar to Europe are the areas that are demographically similar to Europe. The politically incorrect truth is that the really crime ridden areas are the ones that are diverse. Since there is little diversity in Europe, it makes sense the crime is so low.
You claim "guns" are the root cause, but fail to explain the US states where the non-firearms homicide rate is greater than the total homicide rate in the best parts of Europe. Or how several of the safest US states have lower violent crime rates and lower murder rates than many parts of Europe, yet these US states have no significant restrictions on firearms possession and use?
The explaination is really simple and should be obvious, most of those states don't have the diversity (read: poor / deprived hispanic and black population) and / or the sheer population size of other big cities / popular countries in America. Most criminals are more likely to thrive and concentrate their efforts in Memphis, Houston or whatever, rather than in the middle of nowhere in Utah or Vermont. Duh.
It takes a criminal to use a weapon against you, first of all. And if guns are everywhere, it's easier for those criminals to take advantage of them.
Remember that most violent crime in US is fueled by 'hot' guns.
Property crimes typically involve, among all things, searching for and stealing weapons and ammos which, oh, are so easy to find in your typical neighborhood because americans claim they wouldn't be safe otherwise! What a tragical paradox, isn't it?
And even in those "rare" (which should really not be classified as such, always comparing to other first world countries) occurrences like mass-shootings in schools by students themselves, murderers have claimed multiple times how easy is to find / acquire guns in the US territory, legally or not. They're everywhere. That's exactly the root of the problem. Remove them from all households, stores, whatever and the problem is mostly solved. They would have to import them from abroad (read: Mexico and South America mostly) and that is a lot harder, also considering that Mexico mostly gets its weapons by smuggling them from USA - not the other way around. Source
Comparing state by state crime is useless anyway, even city by city is equally useless since every city will have its particular "diversity" and socioeconomic conditions.
What really matters is that, in those cities / countries where criminals / thugs / gangs are more abundant, they have easy access to guns from all over the US territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
Two words: Civil War. That's not an exaggeration either. There would be an honest-to-god civil war in the south and the mountain west if the government tried to ban and forcibly confiscate guns. Besides that, it wouldn't work anyway. The people that you would need to orchestrate this (law enforcement and the military) tend to be supporters of gun rights.
As a European, one thing you don't understand are American crime patterns. Europeans have the impression that crime and gun violence are uniform throughout the country. This is not the case; depending on where you are in the USA, crime can be extremely low. It just so happens that the areas in the US that have crime rates similar to Europe are the areas that are demographically similar to Europe. The politically incorrect truth is that the really crime ridden areas are the ones that are diverse. Since there is little diversity in Europe, it makes sense the crime is so low.
Read what I wrote in reply to Nonesuch. Obviously it takes a criminal to cause violent crime, and unfortunately violent crime is often associated with "diversity".
I do know the crime patterns in USA, I can list you the safe and bad neighborhoods of most major US cities.
But don't be fooled by thinking that Europe doesn't have its "diversity" problem too.
For example in Rome, Italy a city with a population of almost 3 million, there's a TON of "bad" immigration: an incredible amount of desperate africans and gipsies flocking here causing all sort of "petty" crime. They're everywhere, in the stations, and city center. It sucks. The difference is that they have nowhere to easily take a gun from here in Europe, and not certainly by robbing households unlike the US, causing the crime to be "petty" and practically never violent.
The most they can do is threatening you with a knife. It actually happened to me, but I easily ran away like there's no tomorrow - not possible if you're held at gun point instead.
Last edited by TheDeltaOrionis; 11-03-2015 at 03:33 PM..
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS, and have none to govern but themselves.
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
Justice John Jay says government is an agent for the sovereign people, not sovereign over them. They govern themselves.
So when (the servant) government decides to unilaterally DISARM the sovereign people (the master), someone is asking for a "trip to the woodshed."
- UNLESS CONSENT WAS GRANTED.
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Europeans, being subjects of sovereign governments, have no experience with being sovereigns, and have no difficulty in submitting to the STATE. Americans, promised a republican form of government, wherein the people are sovereigns, served by - not ruled by - the governments instituted to secure their ENDOWED RIGHTS are in a different category entirely.
Americans may have forgotten their heritage, but it is still the law of the land.
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
- - - Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Last edited by Jeo123; 11-03-2015 at 07:07 PM..
Reason: Removed Red Font
And even in those "rare" (which should really not be classified as such, always comparing to other first world countries) occurrences like mass-shootings in schools by students themselves, murderers have claimed multiple times how easy is to find / acquire guns in the US territory, legally or not. They're everywhere. That's exactly the root of the problem. Remove them from all households, stores, whatever and the problem is mostly solved. They would have to import them from abroad (read: Mexico and South America mostly) and that is a lot harder, also considering that Mexico mostly gets its weapons by smuggling them from USA - not the other way around. Source
And you're accomplishing that how, magic?
It's entirely impossible that you would ever be able to ban or seriously restrict guns in your lifetime in the US given that you would need 38/50 states to support a constitutional amendment....and I'm not even sure you could get more than 5.
But ignoring that and saying the constitution was amended:
There are roughly 300 million in private hands and no records of who owns most of them. Most of their owners would sooner shoot whoever was trying to take it than turn it over and will not comply with registration laws either.
Gun rights are also supported by an outright majority of the US population, every level of government officials from politicians to police in rural and/or Republican areas, and most military personnel. You'd incite a civil war (or not, I suppose since one side has all the weapons), or if you didn't you'd just accomplish nothing other than destroying the legitimacy of the federal government.
Last edited by millerm277; 11-03-2015 at 07:36 PM..
Have you ever even been to the US? Seriously. Stop listening to the news media and their claims that it's the wild west here.
I feel perfectly safe in my community. I have a concealed weapons permit and do NOT carry a firearm...because I feel safe. I'm not going to lie, there are scary places to be in the US, but most people don't live there.
Gang violence is an issue, but for the average citizen they will never encounter this in their daily travels. The unfortunate victims here are the familys of the gangs that live in the area that they constantly fight over. So unless you like to hang out on tough street corners at 2AM or other sketchy parts of major urban towns, you'll probably never see this violence first hand.
I know many middle-class, white collar type gun owners. They don't fit the stereotype of a "gun nut" that you see portrayed on the media. They have firearms for home defense, or hobbies, and practive safe handling and storage methods. You don't hear about these types of owners because there is nothing to talk about here. Most people I know who own guns don't talk about them. Other than a once or twice a year shooting range trip, you never would even see them anywhere.
Don't buy into the media gun hype that it's the wild west here and guns are strapped to the thighs of everyone you pass in the street. Like I said before, I had never even seen a gun until I was 30 years old and bought one for myself.
^^^This. Most people don't go around spouting off about what firearms they have. Idiots who want to be a "big man" do but most law abiding citizens are just law abiding citizens. 99% of gun owners have never had their guns in hand in fear of someone attacking them because attacks are not as common as made out to be. I haven't heard of a house being burglarized in my area in years. Burglaries are non violent.
OP, what you are missing is that we have the NRA here in the US.
The NRA...National Rifle Association... is an industry advocacy group. They have very cleverly espoused the "rights" of everyone in America to own a gun, and advocated that "the more guns, the safer we will be" as a nation. That sort of rhetoric appeals to an ignorant part of the population who eats this stuff up with language like "they will pry my gun from my cold dead hands" as the only way I will give up my gun. Sadly, that is the reality of the gun death machine here in the US.
This group of misguided souls loyally pay their dues to the NRA, and become the voice of idiocy espoused by the NRA. More guns. Guns for everyone. Guns in the classroom. In church. In public buildings. Only if we are ALL armed will we "solve" the gun violence epidemic.
The NRA in turn takes the dues money and funnels it to Congressmen, who in turn, in exchange for what effectively amounts to a bribe in any other language, vote in favor of reduced gun control legislation, and in support of additional gun manufacturers. In essence, the dues from the individual's is used to advocate for the gun manufacturers who could care less about death; their sole objective is to sell more guns. What damage those guns do is irrelevant, and ignored. Sales and profit are the sole objective.
It is a vicious circle: Money controls legislation which advocates for more guns.
And we see every day in our media the results of this maniacal behavior: Death from shootings. Our record day probably reaches over one hundred deaths--children (research Newtown, CT) in many cases. And still, it is not enough to bring people to their senses. We MIGHT reach a point where enough is enough. A couple thousand gun deaths at a school function. Maybe a sporting event, or a band concert, or an elementary school graduation ceremony.
Sadly, we seem to be no where near that level of gun deaths where "enough is enough".
Do you see the fallacy in your post? How is the NRA more than big business - oil, corn, sugar? How about the banks? Banks have hurt this country more than the NRA could ever hope to.
How many owners of firearms - the proper term - belong to the NRA? I don't know many, including myself, therefore it is not our dues you speak of.
They have not brainwashed me or many other millions of Americans. We are free to do as we want.
BTW - keep believing the SHES hoax. The onus of proof of something happening lies with those who claim it did. What existed at other shootings which didn't at SHES? Evidence. Bodies, blood, firearms.
There was no real action from cops or EMS personnel whatsoever. Sure, they ran their mouths a lot but what did they show us? The media told you it happened. It was a drill on live TV and Adam Lanza never existed.
You better research Newtown, CT. yourself. Look hard; you won't like it when you find the truth.
Remember the progressive left's agenda....disarm the American public. Didn't Obama say he was going to fundamentally transform the nation by hook or by crook? He has started and a republican POTUS needs to stop it. All of it.
Op, if your only concern about the United States is the gun problem, rest assured that 99.9% of the citizens of this country are not exposed to any gun violence whatsoever.
It does totally depend on where you live, too. I live in the city of over 300,000 people who are very much armed with guns. The homicide rate is less than 1.5 people per year.
Why?
$ + education.
300,000 people is bigger than many European cities, and this isn't even a big city in the United States.
And we see every day in our media the results of this maniacal behavior: Death from shootings. Our record day probably reaches over one hundred deaths ....
Sadly, we seem to be no where near that level of gun deaths where "enough is enough".
Yes, we see every day in the media what the media wants to hype, the false perception of high crime and high gun violence they want to give:
The reality is that "violence" in the USA is not uniform across all states and cities, or even all neighborhoods within cities, and for most Americans (those not involved in illegal drugs), your risk of being the victim of violent crime is lower in the USA than in Europe.
Even in years when homicides in the USA were high, it was just a few cities that drove the average up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeltaOrionis
The explaination is really simple and should be obvious, most of those states don't have the diversity (read: poor / deprived hispanic and black population) and / or the sheer population size of other big cities / popular countries in America. Most criminals are more likely to thrive and concentrate their efforts in Memphis, Houston or whatever, rather than in the middle of nowhere in Utah or Vermont. Duh.
It takes a criminal to use a weapon against you, first of all. And if guns are everywhere, it's easier for those criminals to take advantage of them.
So your plan is to change the constitution and disarm the law-abiding folk in Utah, Vermont because criminals exist in Memphis and Houston?
Quote:
Comparing state by state crime is useless anyway, even city by city is equally useless since every city will have its particular "diversity" and socioeconomic conditions. What really matters is that, in those cities / countries where criminals / thugs / gangs are more abundant, they have easy access to guns from all over the US territory.
So you want Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) protection for these thugs by removing defensive arms from the everybody else? This is what you think is a wise plan of action?
Quote:
The difference is that they have nowhere to easily take a gun from here in Europe, and not certainly by robbing households unlike the US, causing the crime to be "petty" and practically never violent.
To the OP, one set of questions and two observations.
The Question: Let's assume all the anti-gun arguments have validity, how exactly do you propose to remove 300-320,000,000 firearms from the population? Where and how will you start and end? What then? How will you prevent the entry of guns into a country with 151,400km of coastline (source: NOAA) and 12,022 km of open border with Canada and Mexico (Source: US Customs)? As you formulate answer know upfront no sane gun-owning American would even consider relinquishing a firearm until the bad guys do so first, police and military forces within the US have a massive reduction in force and demilitarization of tactics, and there is a post-gun plan. Only then would gun owners allow even a few brain molecules to think about relinquishment.
Observation #1 of actual data. Murder rates by gun are heavily concentrated. Murder rates in Gun-culture states are 40% of that of the US overall (Source: FBI Crime Stats).Further, in those states, gun murders as a percentage of total murders is around 40% VS. 67% for a country as a whole. Clearly, there hell hole zip codes in which the murder rates are 10-20 times that of the vast majority of the US where murder rates are only a hair above those of Europe--quite incredible, really. So again back to you, how would you implement a plan?
Observation #2 of actual data. Cross country comparisons are packaged in such a way to make the US look bad. A quick comparison of the US to its "peaceful" will show you immediately that the region of the Americas is incredibly violent. 8 of the top 10; 15 of the top 20; 20 of the top 30; 25 of the top 40; and 29 of the top 50 countries with the highest intentional homicide rates are in the Americas (source: UN). In the fact the US murder rate is one quarter that of the region. Given that many of the progeny of these countries have immigrated to the US, it is again incredible that the US rates are so low. without a hardcore border policy, one must assume that criminal entry of criminals and guns--coming in from the most violent region on earth--will always be part of our reality. And given that all of the Americas were raped and gutted by European colonization and left impoverished by independence it is again incredible that the murder rates are so very low. I suspect another decade of Angela Merkellian policies and Europe's murder and rape rates will pass those of the US, all without guns.
Senseless deaths are of course tragic, but the real tragedy would be investing in placing the pipe dream of hand-holding people singing kumbaya in the minds of the innocents soon led to the slaughter.
But if gun freedoms are to be suspended, propose a law to let them first start in certain zip codes and among known offenders. Try that out for a generation and see if it works. Or let it start in the 9-digit zip codes of the most ardent anti-gun crowd and in DC. Confiscate legal guns from the legal bodies first. Then move on to the most hardcore zip codes and clean the hel* out of the area. Let % of crime dictate which places to start. But before the sweep starts, all law abiding citizens should be given firearms and training, while the bad the guns get moved out first. Once clean for say a generation, then start taking back the loaned guns.
In a couple of generations, we will likely see a huge fall in gun murders.
But sadly, any such plan will be deemed unconstitutional and the political kryptonite.
S.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
