The US 2nd Amendment.....

[SIR]

The second amendment is here to stay in the USA, which is a very good thing. America's current crime problems directly relate to absentee fathers and a breakdown in the nuclear family, not with too many guns.

Absentee landlords also, i would suspect.

[mhosea]

I think crime is still fairly near historic lows, despite some up-tick. The reporting on the subject leaves something to be desired. Lots of statistical games are played in order to advance the gun control agenda. Officials in Massachusetts are fond of pointing out that we have one of the lowest "gun violence" rates in the country, but this honor is managed by including suicide in the mix. Massachusetts has a relatively low suicide rate, probably because of some success in providing services to head off suicide. If, however, you remove suicide from the statistics, the rate of gun violence in Massachusetts is middling, and we're easily bested by our neighboring states to the north, all of which have much more libertarian firearms laws. Furthermore, if you pay attention to what the courts actually do with our numerous and convoluted firearms laws, it's clear that they are primarily used as bargaining chips by prosecutors to get plea deals. The charges are almost always dropped, and when they aren't, judges here tend to deliver super lenient sentences as long as nobody died and the convicts are of the poor and downtrodden.

The areas in the US where things seem to be truly terrible (south side of Chicago, for example) are heavily urban and often areas where gun control is much stronger. Yet criminals have no difficulty obtaining firearms there. Funny that. The government can't stop the flow of drugs. They won't ever be able to stop the flow of guns to criminals, either.

We have had a spate of "mass shootings", and more particularly mass shootings at schools. That seems to be a sociological phenomenon, more or less following the script written by the Columbine shooters. You can't unring that bell, but there's no way to ameliorate the problem through any reasonable level of gun control. Certainly the level of gun control that exists in Australia is insufficient to the task. That's already been conclusively proven by the last one. So we would be talking about repealing the 2A in order to approach the problem via the availability of firearms. That's going nowhere, and even if that were not so, it would take decades of attrition to work. Meanwhile, the next two dozen mass shooters already have access to the firearms they will use. Now, it's up to you what you'd like to push for politically, but I would be thinking about a two-pronged approach, one for immediate effect and the other for the future: one based on security and the other based on psychological intervention. The latter will take time, but in tandem, these will solve the problem without punishing people (except by taxing them to pay for it) who have done nothing wrong and never will.

I note that security is pretty well-established as the orthodox way of addressing such problems. It's odd that we are talking about anything else. But I think that's probably because the urbanization trend may have produced a larger proportion of individuals in the US who actually have no experience with firearms used for lawful purposes. When I speak to people about firearms, it seems to me that they have a fear of guns per se. They are unable to see them as anything but instruments of death, and while they give lip service to the use of firearms by hunters, this is actually empty talk, an attempt to disguise their true feelings and present what they think will be a "reasonable" point of view. Their actual point of view is much more categorically negative towards firearms wielded by the general public for any purpose at all. The cure for that is obvious, albeit anathema to the radical left.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The root of the problem is cultural. The US citizenry has a relationship with guns that is quite different to what is seen in most other countries.* How you change such a pattern of thinking is far beyond my understanding.



*irrespective of whether people find this palatable or not, the fact that other countries do just fine without a 'right to bear arms' rule suggests a fundamental cultural difference between them and the US. Examining that difference may be more beneficial than relatively random stabs at solutions we see around today.

[mhosea]

The cultural difference may reside in the way firearms are regarded by law abiding citizens. That this has some causative rather than merely correlative relationship to crime, however, is doubtful, to say the least. More to the point with gun violence statistics would be suicide and gang and drug activity. When these components are removed from the stats, they become unremarkable. America’s appetite for illegal drugs coupled with the war on drugs driving the entire industry into the realm of smugglers and gangs is the largest part of it. Now how to change that is a fair question.

[dneal]

The root of the problem is cultural.

What exactly is the problem you are referring to?

[SIR]

I would agree the route of the problem is cultural, however, my standpoint is that crime is relative and only a symptom; a conscious criminal must always justify their choice of victim, at least to themselves - in some contexts banking, capitalism, and communism are all considered criminal ideologies/activities so realise why that is.

Largely, I support the view that firearms are a medium/facilitator, both to crime and defence; therefore, if you cannot control one, you must allow the other.

[dneal]

I would agree the route of the problem is cultural...

What is the problem? Crime? Gun prevalence?

[SIR]

I would agree the route of the problem is cultural...

What is the problem? Crime? Gun prevalence?

Lack of shared community values.

[dneal]

Interesting article.

Firearms Possession by 'Non-State Actors': The Question of Sovereignty

Abstract
The international gun prohibition movement seeks to severely restrict of eliminate the possession of firearms by non-state actors. This article argues that the prohibition on arms possession by non-state actors is contrary to the fundamental principle that the people, not the government, possess the sovereignty. The article examines the relationship between arms possession and sovereignty in several contexts: ancient Greece, Cambodia, Japan, China, East Timor, Bougainville, Niger, Angola, Zimbabwe, Uganda, the Warsaw Pact, and Bosnia.

[SIR]

Because Einstein?

"World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones..."

Can only happen if folks don't stockpile guns n ammo



BTW, British Army's latest revision to their 'Individual Weapon', the L85A3 (aka SA80A3), is looking fairly reasonable.

https://www.army-technology.com/news...fles-a3-model/

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The interesting article (post 449) would have been more interesting had it compared and examined similar states. It's important in any kind of comparison to eliminate any confounding factors so as to lay bare the differences that may be caused by the factor of interest. Comparing, via this thread, the state of play in the US with that in Angola, is simply not realistic by almost any measure.

As has been noted many times by many people, there are quite a few first world democracies that have laws against personal gun ownership and public carry. These countries, by and large, do not have a populations who feel that they have to arm themselves against their own government.

No, the problem the US has with gun ownership is firmly attached to its national origin story and has very little (if any) relevance in a modern democratic state, in my opinion.*


*there will be US members who will dismiss this opinion because I am not an American. Parables leap to my mind, I'm sure they will to others.

[SIR]

there are quite a few first world democracies that have laws against personal gun ownership and public carry. These countries, by and large, do not have a populations who feel that they have to arm themselves against their own government.

Fucking idiots.

As nice as the existence of the police may be, they are glorified cleaners and will never be able to stop a crime before it has been committed.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Arming the populace doesn't either, and as I understand it crime-busting is not the principle reason behind the 2nd Amendment.

[dneal]

The interesting article (post 449) would have been more interesting had it compared and examined similar states. It's important in any kind of comparison to eliminate any confounding factors so as to lay bare the differences that may be caused by the factor of interest. Comparing, via this thread, the state of play in the US with that in Angola, is simply not realistic by almost any measure.

And Moby Dick would have been a more interesting book if it had space battles. The point of the article is not to compare gun ownership in different states, but to examine the value of gun ownership in terms of self defense (from individuals, mobs and governments).

As has been noted many times by many people, there are quite a few first world democracies that have laws against personal gun ownership and public carry. These countries, by and large, do not have a populations who feel that they have to arm themselves against their own government.

And there are plenty of historical examples where the society broke down, and that proved to be folly. The question revolves around the probability of it happening again. I'm reminded of a friend whose wife is German, who grew up in East Germany when the country was still divided. Her grandmother had a "go bag" that she took everywhere. No one understood why she had it, and she explained that "they" told her she didn't need it when the Russians invaded at the end of WWII, or when the border was established and the wall went up. From her perspective, "they" were wrong twice; and she wouldn't be caught unprepared a third time.

Now it's reasonable to suppose that something of that magnitude is unlikely, but there are plenty of more recent examples of the social contract breaking down and the human right of self defense proving itself critical. Wars in Bosnia/Croatia, the financial and governmental collapse of Argentina, or natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina all show the value of gun ownership in particular and preparedness in general. That's the metaphor of the "Zombie Apocalypse". The undead are simply representative of human masses in an area of societal breakdown and scarcity of resources.

No, the problem the US has with gun ownership is firmly attached to its national origin story and has very little (if any) relevance in a modern democratic state, in my opinion.*


*there will be US members who will dismiss this opinion because I am not an American. Parables leap to my mind, I'm sure they will to others.

I do not reject your opinion because you're not an American. I do reject your opinion based on its substance, or lack thereof. It's a premise you would have to argue before we continued to any implications.

[dneal]

Arming the populace doesn't either, and as I understand it crime-busting is not the principle reason behind the 2nd Amendment.

Addressing SIR's comment and your response, it's not for vigilantism or "crime busting". It's for self defense against criminals, which is only one example of the human right of self defense recognized by the 2nd Amendment.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The security of a free state in the historical context of the 2nd amendment refers to the maintenance of a state governed by an appointed and approved government that upholds individual freedom. Prevention of the removal of individual freedom by a hostile government then is the over-riding principle of the 2nd amendment, and it was only in 2008 that the right to self-defense was allowed by the Supreme Court. So, the self-defense part is recent and not original nor recognized by the original document.

Personally I think the US is too far along the road to ever become a peaceful unarmed country (as far as the populace is concerned). It is a road that will inevitably bear unwelcome fruit, and indeed already has.

A question comes to mind: do the people of the US want a gun-free and peaceful country?

[dneal]

The security of a free state in the historical context of the 2nd amendment refers to the maintenance of a state governed by an appointed and approved government that upholds individual freedom. Prevention of the removal of individual freedom by a hostile government then is the over-riding principle of the 2nd amendment, and it was only in 2008 that the right to self-defense was allowed by the Supreme Court. So, the self-defense part is recent and not original nor recognized by the original document.

Personally I think the US is too far along the road to ever become a peaceful unarmed country (as far as the populace is concerned). It is a road that will inevitably bear unwelcome fruit, and indeed already has.

A question comes to mind: do the people of the US want a gun-free and peaceful country?

Unfortunately, you’ve simply got the history wrong. Here is a good primer on the 2nd. I recommend reading it, and Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller. The principle of the founding, to include the 2nd; is that the people are sovereign. That’s also one of the major points in the “interesting article”.

The U.S. is quite peaceful, contrary to the sensationalism in the news. The majority is quite happy with the state of guns in America, also contrary to what the main stream media might try to have you believe.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Interesting article, but still rather vague with regard to modern application. The simple observable fact that many modern democracies survive and prosper without having a populace armed is ample testament. Being armed is part of the American psychology of fear.

Currently I live in New Zealand - one of the most stable countries in the world - and before that I lived in the UK. In neither place have I felt naked for not being allowed to go armed.* And in neither place have I felt that my freedoms were infringed by any Government. I accept certain limitations that are in place for the larger social good.

Given these differences with the US, I wonder how secure Americans feel travelling to other countries where they are not permitted the illusory safety of a personal weapon.


Anyway, perhaps you should read this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/


*note, I served, so I am not unfamiliar with weapons and their application.

[SIR]

So, EOC, if you were being your most critical, what would be the worst you would say about your perception of the UK?

[dneal]

Interesting article, but still rather vague with regard to modern application.

I felt the same way reading Herodotus. Great historical account, but very vague with regard to modern application... Pretty much makes it worthless, I guess. :/

The simple observable fact that many modern democracies survive and prosper without having a populace armed is ample testament. Being armed is part of the American psychology of fear.

Glib assertions of opinion with no evidence - particularly the last sentence. The U.S. survives and prospers with an armed populace. Other democracies see the value as well from Switzerland to the Czech Republic. As I've pointed out to you many times, you like to ignore Hobbes. When it all goes bad, arms are vital to defense of self and state. In 1940, the U.S. Government maintained a position of neutrality with regard to Europe. Fearing imminent invasion, the "American Committee for Defense of British Homes" begged for donations from the U.S. citizens to assist "British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The request was published in the NRA's "American Rifleman". Estonia and other Baltic and Eastern European countries fear Russia might do the same thing to them that they did to Ukraine. Don't think an armed populace could withstand the Russian military? Ask the Afghans about that.

Currently I live in New Zealand - one of the most stable countries in the world - and before that I lived in the UK. In neither place have I felt naked for not being allowed to go armed.* And in neither place have I felt that my freedoms were infringed by any Government. I accept certain limitations that are in place for the larger social good.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, you seem to have done a whole lot of feeling and mistaken it for thinking. The majority of Americans go about their daily lives, safely, without being armed. Your subjective acceptance of a circumstance, or feelings about your government, do not convey any objective truths. People of other nations (and not just the U.S.) differ. In the case of the U.S., it is based on a clearly articulated philosophy.

Given these differences with the US, I wonder how secure Americans feel travelling to other countries where they are not permitted the illusory safety of a personal weapon.

They do it all the time, with little concern.

Anyway, perhaps you should read this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

An opinion piece with cherry picked facts. She liked to cite the CDC when it served her purpose, but ignored the 1993 CDC study that verified Professor Gary Kleck's study on defensive gun uses. That's not surprising, since the CDC tried to bury it. That is why, by the way, Congress limited their funding for gun study. They had directors who publicly stated they would treat gun ownership as a epidemic and eliminate it.

*note, I served, so I am not unfamiliar with weapons and their application.

So what? We've already been through this in this thread. I enlisted when Reagan was President, have combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and am still on active duty. That does not make me a "gun expert". There are plenty of people who have or do serve who don't know crap about firearms, best demonstrated by LTG Mark Hertling's "fully semi automatic" debacle. It's a fallacious appeal to authority.