How to Solve The Gun Problem in USA 101 - an European perspective (Congressmen, Afghanistan)
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.
Me = new poster, yeah, forgive me starting in a thread like this!
But this is a poor question if you actually take the time to read the US history regarding guns and gun control - they do not agree that there is a problem with guns, much less that removing guns from the general population is the right direction. ('they' of course, is deceptive - it's huge country and opinions are as diverse as anywhere.) It is often said that to solve a problem, one must first identify the problem.
I live in australia myself, and the idea of other ordinary citizens (not criminals, just your average adult) around me having guns scares me. The thought that my kids might go to a schoolfriend's house and there might be guns in that house is scary. The notion of one of the other parents at the school having a gun in the car or bag as they drop off and pick up kids is scary. Therefore, I when I listen to a perfectly sane and sensible seeming friend who lives in the US, has a handgun, permit and everything in order, and does exactly that... it's a disconnect.There is a huge great big gulf between my thinking and theirs. They think it is perfectly sane and sensible and normal even. I freak at the thought, much less the doing! They do not think the US has a gun problem. End of story. So why would they support a government intervention (which the US culture holds in dislike at the best of times) to solve a problem they don't think exists?
The US is a fascinating study at times - full of contradictions. It is humanity writ large - flawed and faulty and extraordinarily great at the same time. To understand their stance on guns, consider it in context. In particular, look at how it was formed and the struggles that surrounded it. I'm no expert, but I can still point to slavery and the war of independence having shaped the early values of the US. Freedom - particularly individual freedom is valued differently. I would even venture to say that individual freedom is valued well above what is best for the majority. Like it or not, logical or not, that's a core part of the US culture. And no matter what the rest of the world does, they're not going to go against it until they change... which may or may not happen but either happens slowly and naturally or fast and violently. In either case, the result wouldn't look like the US we know today.
Welcome. This is a very good post. I bolded the portion I am addressing here in my response.
Individual freedom IS INDEED at the core of the Constitution and the basis of this country's entire government. That is very perceptive of you and also historically factual and easily verifiable.
I do take exception with the next sentence however.
I don't know if it is valued "well above what is best for the majority", but it is certainly very important. So important, in fact, that you had better have a very very strong case, devoid of emotional tugs and hyperbolic sensationalism, if you have any chance at the average American supporting any erosion of individual LIBERTY.
I would take it even a bit further and say that to use the term "what is best for the majority", when discussing the idea of disarmament in the US, is hyperbolic in itself. This is because gun violence in this country has, even at the worst of times, hurt only a very very tiny fraction of the population. It has NEVER been harmful to the "majority". Nor has it even come close.
Last edited by chadgates; 11-03-2015 at 08:18 AM..
TheDeltaOrionis, we in the U.S. don't have a gun problem; we have a socio-economic problem among the mostly Black disenfranchised youth in ghetto neighborhoods of our largest cities. These are the spots where most of the gun-related homicides occur. The FBI has provided the statistics at bjs.gov and you should go read them. Most of the shootings in this country are black-on-black. Most white deaths from guns are suicides.
If you were to disregard the black-on-black shootings that comprise the majority of gun homicides in this country, actually our per capita homicide rate would be about the same as in Canada and western Europe, or maybe one percent higher. The non-ghetto homicide rate is lower than Mexico and almost anywhere else in Latin America and South America, except for Costa Rica. Lower than Africa; lower than eastern Europe and Russia; lower than much of central Asia.
Ironically, it is thanks to a black President who has focused wrongly on guns and the behavior of white police while ignoring the behavior of the guys who cause much of the violence and mayhem that Americans are finally waking up to the real problems in our society -- the ghetto culture that glorifies violence.
We, or at least some of us, are starting to realize we need to go into these ghetto areas and have the equivalent of a Marshall Plan to provide basic economic opportunities and better education to the dead-end, single-parent, drug-soaked population and get them out of the doldrums and join the modern world. It's got to be possible.
But it's a difficult and charged subject and it's so much easier to focus on the guns, as though taking away the guns will magically transform a welfare and violence mentality. Surely you don't believe that, Delta?
As for mass shootings, horrible though they are, they constitute a tiny percentage of all killings in a country of 320+ million people. The fact is, once again, we have a mental health issue, not a gun problem. We need to restore the budgets for institutional mental health treatment, including involuntary incarceration, to protect the most vulnerable people from hurting themselves and others. We can't totally stop these shootings but we can at least provide more treatment for mental illness that leads to the violence. We should try to better identify sociopathic behavior in the schools to locate those individuals early on and provide them with the treatment they need. Gun control will not change this picture, but better public health policy will.
Lastly, TheDeltaOrionis, you're most welcome to come to the U.S. as millions of others had, and help us to make this a better place. Just don't believe everything you read in the liberal media in Europe (and in the U.S.). Guns are to them a kind of religious agenda that can't be dealt with logically.
These pro gun people are disconnected emotionally from the rest of humanity and are in a 'Me vs Them' mentality. They got that way from probably beaten as a child. Thats been my experience.
Get a grip on yourself ! I live in Los Angeles and in my 50 years here, have never had a gun drawn on me.
Same here. I've lived in Los Angeles, Chicago, Providence, and many other parts of the country, and have seen a lot of crime, but never encountered a criminal armed with a gun. I moved to NH because I was tired of petty criminals breaking into my car and generally stealing anything that was lightly nailed down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates
EVERY country on any list of "developed" countries that we are compared to do not have hardly ANY racial diversity at all. Compare the inner city ghettos of the US with the third world countries and compare the less racially diverse cities of the US with Europe and you'll see a pretty even comparison.
Too bad the OP has specifically written off the rural and less racially diverse parts of the USA. He wants to be able to live in the worst part of Chicago without having to face his phobia about being shot, and is okay if it requires disarming all the rest of the country (and driving up our overall violent crime rate) to achieve his fantasy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeltaOrionis
I currently live in Europe, I dream about permanently moving to USA.
There's only one thing that truly disgusts me about the US, and it's actually a big scary thing: guns and how they're so widespread in the population for both the law-abiding citizien and the criminal.
In most of Europe you can live in the worst areas of the city on the cheap, and generally still be really safe, you just wouldn't be in a desiderable and hip area with many amenities. You don't ever even think about guns in the EU or the possibility to be ever shot at. I'm not saying there's no crime - just that being held at gun point is not something that ever crosses the mind of an EU citizien, not even walking in the worst parts of the city. ...if there are practically no guns in the entire country and if it's really hard to obtain one, the place is automatically safer from violent crime.
The common, Moderator cut: Charged Language argument, is that the cities with the most gun control in USA (like Chicago) are actually the most dangerous and these rules apply only to the law-abiding citiziens.
. . . Ban the guns
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeltaOrionis
I already addressed that. I'm not defending Europe, nor is the place I want to live. I vastly prefer the USA. Read my words: I dislike Europe, I just want USA to be the safe first world country it deserves to be when compared to the rest of the civilized world.
I'm aware that there are a lot of smaller communities which are mostly free of those problems and that the average american is a law-abiding citizien, while your average thug - racist or not - is most of the times an illegal black or hispanic.
But this doesn't negate the problem itself, which still exists in big cities (which is, by defition, where most people go to live).
Because the ultra conservative right wing Judge Antonin Scalia got us into this mess legally and now the NRA won't let us get out. Read the below thoroughly please:
Your argument is flawed as you and others don't wish to follow the law of the land. You know well what the 2A says and your link proves so. Judge Scalia got us into no mess; he upholds the Constitution as should you and every other citizen. The NRA has nothing to do with the amendment and that particular body is less influential upon us than the EPA. What if congress repealed all 27 amendments? It would be virtually impossible as 3/4 of the USA would need to ratify it.
Are you familiar with the 10A? It makes all interpretations unnecessary and proves those against the 2A to be wrong.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The ruling which tries to put the power of gun control into states hands is trumped by the Constitution. SCOTUS cannot legislate from the bench nor can any other federal judge. POTUS cannot even attempt to do so as only congress has such power. That which is enumerated in the Constitution is law; due process is the only manner in which to repeal any. Don't count on anything happening in your lifetime.
In my opinion, if any amendment is repealed all should be. Why should the majority succumb to the will of a few? Is fascism/authoritarianism the end game?
The European perspective can stay in Europe where it belongs as this is America, land of the free and home of the brave.
We have liberties and freedom, also known as free will, which should be the bedrock of any aspect of this debate.
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".
No, re-read my post. I was just quoting the common counter-argument against gun control: gun-control opponents love to cite Chicago as an example of why "disarming law-abiding citiziens" doesn't stop crime.
My point is that isolated gun control doesn't do anything if anywhere else in the country is so easy to steal / traffic / own weapons.
And I think that that gun "control" is not enough, I'm talking about gun banning.
No one, other than armed forces, should own a gun in a first world country. Period.
That's how it works in the rest of the first world, and it works well.
The more guns are there in the country, the more criminals can steal and use against you.
Why don't you put your efforts into moving to another country if you believe what is in bold?
This is the USA not the rest of the world; keep your fantasies to yourself.
Are you familiar with the saying which ends with "my cold dead hands?".
We, or at least some of us, are starting to realize we need to go into these ghetto areas and have the equivalent of a Marshall Plan to provide basic economic opportunities and better education to the dead-end, single-parent, drug-soaked population and get them out of the doldrums and join the modern world. It's got to be possible.
No, it isn't possible. And for the same reason as the one that resulted in the new Trans-Pacific Partnership even after the economic disaster of NAFTA has been acknowledged: distributed opportunity among Americans is counter to the wishes of the 0.1%. Having black Americans educated and competing with other demographics for jobs, housing, etc. would in a stroke raise the overall unemployment index to 10% and cause huge spikes in the rental markets. Unacceptable. So the warehousing of low level, non-violent black men; the tacit acceptance of a high murder rate among violent black men; and the sanitization of the entire problem for public appeasment, via a visible black participation in society depicted in fictitious dramatizations in TV ads, Sitcoms, Movies, etc. will continue apace.
I challenge the notion that if black-black homicide were removed from the equation, that what would be left would be just a percent or so higher than Canada or The UK. What about the 25 or more thousand deaths a year that are due to guns and are NOT homicide? 20K suicides? 400 Police Shootings? 800 accidents. These deaths don't happen anywhere else called a First World Country. Black people are a visible scapegoat, trumped up to hide what is actually a serious white-white culture of casual violence. There are hundreds of white-white first degree murders committed with guns. There are road rage shootings and of course there are the growing number of school, church, mall and other mass location shootings all of which involve white Americans and occur nowhere else in the developed world.
Isn't America tired of being ranked with despotic, Failed State crapholes like Honduras, or Bangladesh for important metrics concerning quality of life and International Competitiveness? No? Never mind then. Carry on.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Europe is not immune to mass shootings either. Remember the 67 killed in Norway? 12 shot dead at Charlie Hebdo? How did those people still get weapons?
I'm moderate on gun rights. As the constitution says it should be regulated. I don't want everyone being able to buy suitcase nukes at Wal Mart. I support background checks. But there is no system that will prevent all mass killings.
The vast majority of USA gun deaths are non White criminals killing other non White criminals. They chose the lifestyle knowing the risks.
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.
