Gun violence in America.

[curlyguy18]

There has been another shooting resulting in the death of 4 people. What's your opinion about gun violence in the USA?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24116260

Jr.

[gringito]

What's your opinion about gun violence in the USA?

Disarm law abiding citizens - criminals and crazy murderers will love this measure!

[victmanu]

There were 13 people killed included the shooter and many wounded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 34027.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 36876.html

[caliguy]

real sad to hear this news.
unfortunately, a lot of guns end up in the wrong (psychotic) hands.

[chi chi]

It's very easy to obtain a gun in the US.
So many people own a gun in the US so that a gun seems to be a normal household ítem. A gun isn't. It's a dangerous tool.
People easily pull a gun. A fistfight is more difficult and harder. A small emotional breakdown or discussion can quickly erupt in a deadly gunfight in guns are available.

Guns should be forbidden. They are only made for one reason: to kill people.

Not all people that got killed by a gun got killed in a criminal context. Often children find the gun of their parents and play with it with disastrous consequences.

[TShadow]

Guns should be forbidden.

Well chi chi you should know better that prohibition does not solve anything, on the contrary.

The USA have 315 millions of inhabitants with origins from all over the planet. They are proud of their constitution which permits them to have arms. Criminals or psychotics will always get arms, allowed or not.

In a country big as the USA with a melt pot of different people things like that are more likely to happen.

Besides, Peru is less than 10% in numbers of inhabitants and related to crime it's becoming worse under many aspects .

[sbaustin]

Guns should be forbidden. They are only made for one reason: to kill people.

chi chi's personal opinion aside, guns are made for protection against criminals and governments. I think most Americans realize that there will be gun deaths but that isn't enough a reason to remove them from society. In fact, it is a constitution right in the United States. You can read a little more about the history of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_k ... ted_States

And a little snippet from the constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

[tomsax]

Guns should be forbidden. They are only made for one reason: to kill people.

chi chi's personal opinion aside, guns are made for protection against criminals and governments. I think most Americans realize that there will be gun deaths but that isn't enough a reason to remove them from society. In fact, it is a constitution right in the United States. You can read a little more about the history of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_k ... ted_States

And a little snippet from the constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Okay so it's not enough of a reason because of the constitution. And people are proud of the constitutuion. I know its almost a crime in the US to say it, but for the moment, forget the consittution, decide on the basis of what is right.

Okay if there are valid moral or other reasons lets hear them, but don't keep falling back on the prop of the constitution!

Guns are made for protection against the government? Really?

Criminals and pychotics can more easily get hold of guns in the US than other place hence the frequent results. It's not rocket science.

[sbaustin]

Okay so it's not enough of a reason because of the constitution. And people are proud of the constitutuion. I know its almost a crime in the US to say it, but for the moment, forget the consittution, decide on the basis of what is right

If you want an opinion independent of the Constitution I think a majority of Americans believe it is a right, a moral right, to allow law abiding Americans the opportunity to protect themselves and their property with a gun.

The people against gun rights often talk about innocent people being killed by guns (it happens and is sad) and I think that most Americans understand this but still support the right to bear arms. Criminals and governments are part of the reason why the second amendment exists by the way, not sure why you are questioning that.

To your comment about crime, check out some of the info in this Havard report. There are some interesting statistics about countries with strict gun laws and the murder rates/etc: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

That's fine, possibly you are against the right of law abiding citizens to have guns, but many don't agree with you and feel like their ability to protect themselves is more important than you feel it might be.

[chi chi]

chi chi's personal opinion aside, guns are made for protection against criminals and governments.

Protection against governments??? In Syria, they are presently protecting themselves against the government with the use of guns. What a mess!!!

[falconagain]

Having lived in Peru and suffered several incidents when the use of a gun
would have helped me to avoid and deter damage to myself. I would rather
have a gun and the ability to use it within the law instead on relying on a
police force that cannot be everywhere all the time.

I would say that a signal of improvement within Peru is the allowance of
gun ownership to their citizens. Otherwise, we already have seen the alternative
solution. Death squads paid by the citizens.

[chi chi]

I would say that a signal of improvement within Peru is the allowance of
gun ownership to their citizens.

That will be disastrous. Peru will become the wild west.
I think there are allready too many guns in Peru.

In the US there's allready so much gun violence due to the second amendment.
In the UK, Japan, Australia and Ireland there are very strict gun laws so there's very little crime involving guns. Most pólice officers in those countries don't have a gun either.

[KenBE]

Personally I am not against guns being sold, but I do think that there should be restrictions in place. I think it might be a bit too easy in the US to get guns. So, I don't think guns should be banned completely, but they should be very strictly regulated.

[ironchefchris]

Tough topic. When I lived in the mountains of Colorado I was armed. It could take up to forty five minutes for the police to respond to my location should they be needed. There were also large critters up in there. Fortunately, I never had to use my pistol or shotgun to deal with either criminals or anything looking to eat me or my animals. Only used the pistol for target practice should I ever need need it for a real situation.

I am aware of the statistic that most guns aren't used for their intended purpose. Some guy buys a gun for home protection, comes home one day to find his wife in bed with some other guy, gets his gun, shoots them both out of rage. Or the child who finds the gun and accidentally shoots themself. I remember freeway shootings in Los Angeles - guys who get cut off by another driver, pulls the gun out of the glove box, cathces up to and shoots at the driver who cut them off.

There's no one size fits all solution. Canadians have more guns per capita than the US, they just don't feel the need to shoot at each other. Somalia has no gun control whatsoever and very small, limited government. I don't really buy the argument that guns are for protection against a tyrannical government. Not in this day and age. What kind of firepower would it take for US citizens to overthrow a tyrannical US governent? Not going to happen. However, gun ownership is a huge part of the US culture and firmly established. There is that Second Ammendmendt to the Constitution as well. I'm not in favor of banning automobiles because some get drunk and kill people people while behind the wheel. Maybe one day I'll become a statistic and be in the wrong place at the wrong time when some psycho opens fire in a public place. I still wouldn't want to see a ban on gun ownership. I'm all for restrictions. There's restrictions on driving a car so I have no problem with restrictions on gun ownership. Hunting rifles and shotguns/pistols for home protection is one thing, but I don't think people need to have high caliber, armor piercing, rapid fire weapons, or that they should be able to purchase a weapon instantly like they would a Coca Cola. Nothing wrong with having to wait for a background check.

I like comedian Chris Rock's take on the subject. There shouldn't be gun control, but bullet control. Make a bullet cost $2000 and you won't see drive by shootings or people shooting at each other for no reason.

[tomsax]

Okay so it's not enough of a reason because of the constitution. And people are proud of the constitutuion. I know its almost a crime in the US to say it, but for the moment, forget the consittution, decide on the basis of what is right

If you want an opinion independent of the Constitution I think a majority of Americans believe it is a right, a moral right, to allow law abiding Americans the opportunity to protect themselves and their property with a gun.

The people against gun rights often talk about innocent people being killed by guns (it happens and is sad) and I think that most Americans understand this but still support the right to bear arms. Criminals and governments are part of the reason why the second amendment exists by the way, not sure why you are questioning that.

To your comment about crime, check out some of the info in this Havard report. There are some interesting statistics about countries with strict gun laws and the murder rates/etc: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

That's fine, possibly you are against the right of law abiding citizens to have guns, but many don't agree with you and feel like their ability to protect themselves is more important than you feel it might be.

My main point was that deciding something only from the point of view of the constitutions doesn't necessarily give you the right answer. Certainly from the point of view of non americans like me!

I am aware that it is a complex issue and that many people will disagree with me.

I can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others and dare I say it, society as a whole. I am sure there are numerous studies in the states that aim to support the opposite case but it seems clear to me that for society as whole giving everyone the right to bear arms is not working in terms of defending people (I mean generally, not on an individual basis) from being shot.

Sure, we can point to countries with low gun violence with few restrictions on ownership but so what. All that shows is that there are other factors.

I am sure if everyone in the UK could suddenly buy guns on the high street then gun deaths of innocent people would shoot up. I can appreciate that in the US it is harder to go the other way, the genie is very much out of the bottle, but I think you need to consider how things can be improved in the longer term. It may take time but the situation you have at the moment just seems to be a vicious cycle of things getting worse.

[sbaustin]

can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others

There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.

[teamoperu]

Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.

[gringo from uk]

Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.

I agree - Violence in movies, in sports, in video games. I am not sure,but I believe Canadian government made a campaign,where they bought back guns from gun owners some 30 years ago. The campaign was a success.
All applicants for gun license should be screened with ultimate care.Various video games should be banned from the market yesterday.It is a fact, the violent video games, are the reasons for various public shootings.

[KenBE]

Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.

I agree - Violence in movies, in sports, in video games. I am not sure,but I believe Canadian government made a campaign,where they bought back guns from gun owners some 30 years ago. The campaign was a success.
All applicants for gun license should be screened with ultimate care.Various video games should be banned from the market yesterday.It is a fact, the violent video games, are the reasons for various public shootings.

Sorry, but I don't believe this. People who commit these shootings are mentally ill and that is why they kill people, not because of video games or movies. I love video games myself and I have never felt the urge to go out and kill someone after playing them. I agree with you that some games have become a bit too violent and immoral (Grand Theft Auto for example), but even these games will not turn a normal person into a mindless killer. The only people who will go out and kill people for no reason are mentally ill psychopaths who are probably at least partially born that way.

[ironchefchris]

I remember living in Oregon when they shut down state run mental hospitals due to budgeting concerns. Society, in general, just didn't want to pay with the taxes necessary to have the mentally ill committed and off the streets and indirectly chose to pay through crime committed by former mental patients now walking the streets. I've seen this in other states as well. I'm reminded of it every time the guy who shoots up a school, shopping mall, etc. is revealed to be mentally unstable or a former mental patient.

I agree the US culture is highly based on violence. Growing up in the states I know I've seen my fair share of murders and other violent acts. In the states, show a little skin on television, big trouble. Acts of violence, no problem. Never got into video games but I'm not unfamiliar. Grand Theft Auto, 1'st person shooters, etc. In spite of all this I've never pulled or used a weapon on anyone. My only fight (more of a quick scuffle) was when I was nine years old in the schoolyard. IMO, it's a combination of mental illness or a proclivity towards violence with a culture that emphasizes violence. Add the ease of obtaining firearms and you have mass shootings. This isn't even dealing with gang violence which doesn't necessarily involve mental illness or cultural issues. In those cases, guns are just a practical way to deal with adversaries.

Couldn't agree more with teamoperu's assessment of US foreign policy - "(do as we say or we'll bomb you)" Explains much.

[tomsax]

can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others

There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.

I have a friend who owns lots of guns in the UK. We do have them. He has a family and four lovely daughters but keeps them (I mean the guns) in a very secure "gun room" and only takes them out to go hunting. The only thing I find immoral about his bahaviour is his desire to shoot big game and then put their heads on his wall. Very questionable. But no, I don't think this is an issue of people owning guns being immoral per se.

I do think that if someone accepts (as I do) that controlling gun ownership would reduce the death of innocent people killed by guns, then if they still oppose gun control, then that is morally questionable.

[sbaustin]

I do think that if someone accepts (as I do) that controlling gun ownership would reduce the death of innocent people killed by guns, then if they still oppose gun control, then that is morally questionable.

I find it immoral to limit my ability to protect my family so that's just a difference of opinion. All that said, there are many other things that kill us more frequently than guns and based on your logic we should be morally obligated to regulate them as well. Cancer and Heart disease in the USA account for over 50% of all deaths each year (1.5 million) and we'd save more lives by a factor of 10 or 100 by regulating sugar, salt, and fried foods than by worrying about guns.

Gun deaths in the USA have dropped about 50% in the last 20 years. One of the interesting theories I read about the violent crime reduction which plays into this figure comes from the economist Stephen Levitt. He postulates that the legalization of abortion reduces crime and is an interesting theory.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun ... 24998.html
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abor ... u-believe/

[ironchefchris]

It's refreshing to see that even in a conversation about as controversial a topic as guns and the nature of violence that, in spite of differing opinions, the level of conversation is such that there is no name calling, threats of legal action or use of physical violence to beat someone up, or even something as extreme as popping a cap in someone's ass, simply for having a differing opinion or questioning the opinion of another.

[sbaustin]

It's refreshing to see that even in a conversation about as controversial a topic as guns and the nature of violence that, in spite of differing opinions, the level of conversation is such that there is no name calling, threats of legal action or use of physical violence to beat someone up, or even something as extreme as popping a cap in someone's ass, simply for having a differing opinion or questioning the opinion of another.

Guns can be much more effective than lawsuits!

There are extreme differences of opinions on this subject and although I nor anyone in my immediate family has ever owned a gun, I wanted to at least give you my American perspective since the topic is about gun violence in America. Hopefully some others can chime in as well.

[tomsax]

I do think that if someone accepts (as I do) that controlling gun ownership would reduce the death of innocent people killed by guns, then if they still oppose gun control, then that is morally questionable.

I find it immoral to limit my ability to protect my family so that's just a difference of opinion. All that said, there are many other things that kill us more frequently than guns and based on your logic we should be morally obligated to regulate them as well. Cancer and Heart disease in the USA account for over 50% of all deaths each year (1.5 million) and we'd save more lives by a factor of 10 or 100 by regulating sugar, salt, and fried foods than by worrying about guns.

Gun deaths in the USA have dropped about 50% in the last 20 years. One of the interesting theories I read about the violent crime reduction which plays into this figure comes from the economist Stephen Levitt. He postulates that the legalization of abortion reduces crime and is an interesting theory.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun ... 24998.html
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abor ... u-believe/

Interesting argument but there is a crucial difference. If I my son dies of a heart disease from stuffing himself with fries he is partly to blame even if the world bombarded him with messages that fries are just the bees knees. If he gets killed by some nutter with a gun just bought in a local shope he can in no way be blamed for that.

This is the problem with statistics- people choose the data to suit. Down by 50% in the last 20 years? Wonderfull if true. Wikipedia says it dropped in the last 20 yeasr but only after going up by the same amount int he 20 years before. Makes me wonder where you read that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg


Still, good if the trend isn't so bad as I assumed!

[sbaustin]

his is the problem with statistics-

I agree although I didn't cherry pick statistics and provided some links to the data.

You didn't really provide an opinion on guns only commented on mine so are you arguing that because an innocent person can be killed by a gun that they should be banned?

[chi chi]

I don't understand what the topic has to do with Peru.

[gringito]

Guns should be forbidden.

Prohibition only affects the law abiding citizen not the criminal who will always get a gun. This is why society calls him a criminal.

They are only made for one reason: to kill people.

This is a stereotype. Though guns are no tools (at least not in the Law) but rather weapons they are in particular made to PROTECT people (for example against criminals)!

Not all people that got killed by a gun got killed in a criminal context. Often children find the gun of their parents and play with it with disastrous consequences.

Accidental death by guns is rare. MUCH (!) more kids get killed by drowning in a swimming pool. Forbid swimming pools?

Protection against governments??? In Syria, they are presently protecting themselves against the government with the use of guns. What a mess!!

1) 1) Yes, against governments! Read the U.S. Constitution.
2) 2) Read what Hitler, Stalin & Co thought about gun prohibition. Oh yes…the LOVED it!

I would say that a signal of improvement within Peru is the allowance of
gun ownership to their citizens.

That will be disastrous. Peru will become the wild west.

Guns are allowed for private citizens here in Peru. Naturally, you need a license.
No, it did not turn Peru into the Wild West!

In the UK, Japan, Australia and Ireland there are very strict gun laws so there's very little crime involving guns.

But crime rate increased…

There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.

I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!

I don't understand what the topic has to do with Peru.

= seems you run out of arguments….

[ironchefchris]

A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens.

I like this a lot. If only for the sentiment. Unfortunately, IMO, the US doesn't really trust its' citizens (or anyone for that matter). Can't speak to other countries that allow its citizens the right to bear arms.

[chi chi]

I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!

Effective means? Do we have to arm everybody now? Schoolteachers, the cashier at the checkout at the supermarket, the busdriver, the bartender. And all flight attendant and pilots? Why not? There's no police presence at 30000 ft.


http://gawker.com/lawmaker-leading-call ... 1216609648


If you see the amount of gun violence in the US then it's hard to believe that the US trusts it's citizens.

[28 de julio]

It would seem most people don't understand the constitution.

"As one commenter on the Blaze writes, "It is my God Endowed Unalienable Individual Right, secured by Our Constitution, to take any firearm I please anywhere I please. Shall not be infringed, means exactly what it says." I might ask him what he thinks "well-regulated militia" means, and whether he believes laws keeping guns off airplanes are similarly unconstitutional.

The second amendment, as courts have repeatedly made clear, permits private gun ownership and forbids states or cities from banning guns outright. But much ground exists between outright bans and taking "any firearm I please anywhere I please". Not all rights are absolute. The first amendment, for instance, protects free speech. Yet we still have laws against libel, slander and inciting a riot. I cannot stand outside my house at 3.00am and scream my opinions at the top of my voice and claim a first-amendment defence when the police show up to enforce an anti-noise ordinance. The first amendment also protects freedom of religion, but business owners cannot use belief in the Curse of Ham to deny service to black people. For the same reason, by the way, religious liberty cannot justify denying service to legally-married couples."

http://www.economist.com/topics/gun-control


http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... and-coffee

[28 de julio]

Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.

I thought crime was dropping in most of the Western World. Still, it would take me a lot longer to kill someone with my bare hands, especially if my opponent were bigger than me, than if I had a gun, but then if I had a gun, that would make it so much easier. And of course, if I wanted to kill a lot more people, I could get an assault rifle and of course, think how many people I could kill with nuclear weapons... Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do.

So if I have the right to bear arms, surely I have the right to keep sarin, nuclear weapons. I mean, if a well-armed militia these days is going to stand up to a tyrannous government, howitzers and tanks just aren't enough. It needs nuclear weapons, chemical weapons...

"HARRY REID finally announced he had evolved into supporting an assault-weapons ban on Wednesday, about a month after it might have made a difference. It probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway, of course. Had Mr Reid decided to let Dianne Feinstein's assault-weapons bill be part of a broader package of gun-control measures rather than stripping it out, it no doubt would have been voted down today, along with the Toomey-Manchin background-check bill. Still, Mr Reid had a pretty nice explanation of his change of heart, which I'm going to cite at length.

“
Reid said he had had to “reassess” his position after listening to the arguments against an assault weapon ban and deciding that they were “absurd.”

“The right to own a gun to protect your home and your family, to hunt, to go target practicing, I’ll continue to defend that right as long as I’m serving the people of Nevada,” Reid said. “But…you do not need an assault weapon to defend yourself or your property. Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only: to kill a large number of people really quick. This goes well beyond the purpose of self-defense.”

“The wish to arm ourselves against the police who keep our streets safe is not a reason to oppose an assault weapons ban. I believe that as Americans, we have a right to arm ourselves against criminals, but we don’t need the ability to arm ourselves against the army or the police. The United States military is not out to get us. Federal law enforcement, local police departments are not out to get us. These conspiracy theories are dangerous and they should be put to rest.”

“I’ll vote for the ban because maintaining the law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters and false flags,” he said.”


http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... adf5773841

[28 de julio]

can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others

There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.

Surely that's a relative judgement. Owning a tool that's specifically designed to take a life, or many lives, could be considered by many to be immoral.

You could say there's nothing inherently moral about nuclear weapons stockpiles if you're a Russian nationalist, or the Russian government. Or there's nothing inherently immoral about having a nuclear weapons programme if you're North Korea, or the Iranian government, after all their stated aims are peaceful.

[tomsax]

his is the problem with statistics-

You didn't really provide an opinion on guns only commented on mine so are you arguing that because an innocent person can be killed by a gun that they should be banned?

It's not my country but I certainly think there should be more gun control yes. Not just becuase an innocent person "can be killed" but because I'm sure it would reduce the number of innocent people shot and considering a range of rights, not just the right to bear arms which seems to be a fixation peculiar to the States.

[TShadow]

Governments trusting its citizens? I highly doubt it. The NSA affair speaks clear words about that.

Certainly I also understand people who are against guns. The mere possession does not mean you will be protected, on the contrary, if you don't undergo a training for its use, you might become a danger for yourself and others. Another fact is that you never should forget that most criminals are having very low inhibitions when pulling the trigger whilst most normal people do have.

I also agree that buying a gun should not be like buying a Hamburger, background checks should always be made. Also you absolutely should feel comfortable managing a gun, it's a dangerous object, the same goes for handling your car.

I'm not sure about violent games, I played them when I was younger, my children played them and their friends also, my son and his friends also were eagerly watching quite bloody and violent TV series like Tigerman and similar. Nobody of them has any violent inclinations, nor do I as I did not shoot at my ex wife as @ironchefchris mentioned. I pulled my gun only when I found myself face to face with someone in my house who didn't belong there and another time when some persons tried to force their entry into the flat from a neighbor.

All in all I believe people should be allowed to have arms, there should be background controls, they also should go regularly exercising.

In most European countries it also is forbidden to carry knifes and anything which could be used as a weapon. So if there are less guns available, criminals easily could get other types of weapons like taser guns, which are freely sold but forbidden to carry with you.

[sbaustin]

I think ironchefchris's comment about trust was with regards to the framework for the government trusts citizens over the government which is why Americans are allowed by right to have guns. The actual government does not trust its citizens which I don't think is unusual for any government in the world at any time.

The USA government has checks and balances (different branches) because nobody can trust the government to do the right thing especially if power is concentrated too much. There are also state's rights which exist to also limit the federal government's reach into Americans' lives. I'm no history scholar and I guess if we are going to outlaw guns because innocent people are hurt by them, we might as well tackle alcohol and cars as well, both of which cause many many many innocents to lose their lives.

[gringito]

Surely that's a relative judgement. Owning a tool that's specifically designed to take a life, or many lives, could be considered by many to be immoral.

1)
It is neither a relative judgement nor should it be considered immoral:
2)
Legitimate self defense, even if it results in the death of the perpetrator, is considered as a natural right in the majority of countries and jurisdictions on this planet.
3)
Nearly all (!) major religions on this planet consider it moral to kill a perpetrator in legitimate self defense. Consequently, at least from this point of view, even a tool that is specially designed to take a life, or the ownership of such toool, is not immoral.
4)
Why should ownership of a gun be considered immoral as long as said ownership is legal and legitimate?

...y but I certainly think there should be more gun control yes. Not just becuase an innocent person "can be killed" but because I'm sure it would reduce the number of innocent people shot and considering a range of rights, not just the right to bear arms which seems to be a fixation peculiar to the States.

I cannot get rid of the idea that the aforementioned statement contains an error in reasoning:
Gun control only works on people that abide the law or a treaty. Consequently, though you reduce the number of guns owned by law abiding citizens/people, criminals will continue owning guns….with the result that criminals will get a sort of monopoly in gun ownership. Great…!

Even in case of extremly strict gun control, criminals will opt for other "tools". Great Britain is an example: After extensive gun control measures knife crime increased dramatically. Now Great Britain implemented strict knife laws. What do you think will happen next?

I think ironchefchris's comment about trust was with regards to the framework for the government trusts citizens over the government which is why Americans are allowed by right to have guns. The actual government does not trust its citizens which I don't think is unusual for any government in the world at any time.

Good point!
@TShadow: which means that the original idea was trust....however, trust in the citizens quite obviously deteriorated which does not make me feel well...since governments which confiscated guns quite soon put people in concentration camps (not only in Germany, BTW).

[gringito]

I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!

Effective means? Do we have to arm everybody now? Schoolteachers, the cashier at the checkout at the supermarket, the busdriver, the bartender. And all flight attendant and pilots? Why not? There's no police presence at 30000 ft.

Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
Maybe YOU do not like guns. That's ok! But do not dictate how other persons should defend themselfs.

On who' s side are you on, BTW? On the side of the criminals????

Nearly every person I know that was personally seriously victimized supports guns or other effective weapons for self defense.

If my girl can defend herself in a dark Lima or Miami night and shoots a thug...OK!!!
Better SHE survives!
But I will definitly not tell her "forget effective self defense means...and when it happens..well...then lay back and enjoy the ride!".

I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!

[28 de julio]

Opponents of gun controls may respond with familiar flurries of statistics. In Hartford, for instance, several pro-gun demonstrators cited the same talking point, claiming (falsely) that home invasion rates soared in Australia after that country banned the most powerful forms of guns in 1996, following a mass shooting. Actually, home break-in and robbery rates have fallen sharply in Australia since 1996, as have gun-death rates, with no corresponding rise in other forms of homicide.

The most recent Australian crime statistics may be found here, and set out the historical trends clearly. As this newspaper noted shortly after the Newtown killings:


“
America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are “out there” in the United States, more than one for every adult”

Mr LaPierre of the NRA is a proud patriot. But when he talks of mentally ill "monsters" and "lunatics" walking the streets in such numbers that all prudent citizens must arm themselves to the teeth, he is slandering both them and his country, just as surely as any American-hating bigot.

[28 de julio]

Er...thou shalt not kill. Seems pretty clear to me. Or how about Buddhism...

The Mahayana Brahajala (Brahma Net) Sutra explains the first precept this way:

"A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.

"As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a major offense."

[28 de julio]

Much of the gun industry favours universal background checks, which the NRA opposes. Even some pro-gun Republicans express private disdain for the give-not-an-inch tactics of the NRA, whose executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, says the correct response to Newtown is armed guards in every school, and doing more to track the “monsters” and “lunatics” whom he blames for the mass shootings. The NRA’s logic on mental illness is hard to follow. It says it wants background checks improved with better mental-health reporting, but opposes using the database more often, saying universal background checks are a ruse for creating the national register needed to confiscate arms.

The gun lobby still mounts shows of defiance. March 11th saw the NRA and other groups summon hundreds of gun-owners to Connecticut’s capital, Hartford, to lobby state legislators over gun curbs. Less than an hour’s drive from Newtown they waved signs reading “Stand and Fight” and “Feels Like Nazi Germany”. An effigy was brought of the Democratic governor, Dannel Malloy, as an 18th-century British redcoat. But the fervour seemed undercut by a defensive note. Unbidden, activists sought to explain away a modest turnout, saying thousands more would have packed a weekend rally. Several cited identical talking points while swatting away facts that did not appeal. When Australia outlawed many guns after a mass shooting in 1996, home invasions rose a “horrible” 30%, and the same would happen in America, shuddered a gun-owner, Bob Brzozowski. The same statistic was cited by others there; but it is false. Australian robbery and break-in rates have fallen since 1996 (Australian gun-murder rates fell sharply too, with no offsetting rise in other homicides). As for polls showing majority support for universal background checks, Chris Duffy, one of the event’s organisers, declared: “I’ve never seen an opinion poll that wasn’t biased.” America is “a republic, not a democracy”, argued a demonstrator, Scott Pardales, to murmurs of agreement: 99.9% of voters could oppose guns, but the constitution would still protect the right to bear arms.

Such wagon-circling is understandable. In Connecticut and a few other Democratic states, tough local gun controls have passed into law or will do soon, even as federal action is stalled. Though America is saturated with guns, many are stockpiled in a shrinking number of homes. Recent surveys found guns in “only” between a half and a third of households, with steep declines among the young and Democrats.

People kill people, but guns make it easy

In that divided America, when exceptional horrors such as mass shootings prompt a search for exceptional causes, a growing number may turn their gaze to guns. That is why the NRA and allies offer an alternative narrative about America as an exceptionally violent dystopia, whose streets are prowled by mad or bad “monsters” that hand-wringing liberals refuse to lock up—so that good citizens need semi-automatics for what Mr LaPierre calls the moment when “glass breaks in the middle of the night”. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, talks of keeping an assault rifle against gangs that might roam unchecked after a natural disaster or cyber-attack. Fear is potent stuff: 48% of gun-owners told a new Pew Research Centre poll that protection is their main reason for owning a gun, up from 26% in 1999.

Mr Graham may face a primary challenge from the right in 2014. He would not be the first politician, whether Republican or centrist Democrat, to use gun rights to earn conservative credentials. The self-interest of politicians represents the gun lobby’s true source of power. Interests can change, however. A political fund started by Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, recently spent millions attacking a pro-gun Democrat in a congressional primary, who duly lost. Republicans in suburban districts may regret representing “the party of assault weapons”, says Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut. There will be more mass shootings, predicts Governor Malloy, and politicians will answer to voters. In a country where gun rights run deep, that is the right way to fight for common-sense controls that might save lives. An embattled gun lobby is poised for a depressing victory. But democratic accountability may win out in the end.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... adf5773841

[Timmy69]

I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!

Effective means? Do we have to arm everybody now? Schoolteachers, the cashier at the checkout at the supermarket, the busdriver, the bartender. And all flight attendant and pilots? Why not? There's no police presence at 30000 ft.

Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
Maybe YOU do not like guns. That's ok! But do not dictate how other persons should defend themselfs.

On who' s side are you on, BTW? On the side of the criminals????

Nearly every person I know that was personally seriously victimized supports guns or other effective weapons for self defense.

If my girl can defend herself in a dark Lima or Miami night and shoots a thug...OK!!!
Better SHE survives!
But I will definitly not tell her "forget effective self defense means...and when it happens..well...then lay back and enjoy the ride!".

I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!

Now, that is just a silly argument about women and old people - I'd imagine that most 200lb criminals who attack people want to commit robbery and are going to have a gun. Pulling a gun on a criminal who is already holding one to your face will just get you shot. All advice when you get mugged by a criminal is to give them your valuables and walk away with your life.

And look at Aaron Alexis, he entered a navy facility where there were plenty of armed people to stop him, but he still managed to kill a dozen people and maim countless others. I think most people who worry about guns aren't quacks, but are worried about the easy availability of assault weapons and their child, husband or brother will be shot by someone with a grudge who has easy access to guns.

I don't think the argument is about being anti-gun, but about guns being so easily available. If I lived in a dangerous neighbourhood, I would certainly feel safer with a gun beside my bed. However, I wouldn't dream of wandering the streets with it. So being against easy access to guns is very different from saying all guns bad and standing up for criminals and lunatics. It's the easy access to guns that makes life dangerous.

[chi chi]

Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
Maybe YOU do not like guns. That's ok! But do not dictate how other persons should defend themselfs.

On who' s side are you on, BTW? On the side of the criminals????

Nearly every person I know that was personally seriously victimized supports guns or other effective weapons for self defense.

If my girl can defend herself in a dark Lima or Miami night and shoots a thug...OK!!!
Better SHE survives!
But I will definitly not tell her "forget effective self defense means...and when it happens..well...then lay back and enjoy the ride!".

I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!

So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?

[gringito]

Now, that is just a silly argument about women and old people - I'd imagine that most 200lb criminals who attack people want to commit robbery and are going to have a gun.

Thank you for indicating, Sir, that you are the competent gray eminence for deciding what is silly and what not. Anyway...

I referred to said example in order to express that there is usually a considerable imparity of forces between most victims and perpetrators. An effective weapon is a suitable means which ENABLES a weaker or handicapped person to defend itself against a physically much stronger offender.

Your aforementioned imagination is insofar stereotypic as that there is no guaranty at all a) how an offender will react and b) that he will not harm you or take your life even when you do not resist and hand over all your valuables. There are many crimes here in Peru where a victim was killed for just some Soles.

Pulling a gun on a criminal who is already holding one to your face will just get you shot.

Who says you may not have a chance to see it coming or that you MUST react in such moment in a certain way? Your reaction has to depend on the specific situation and not depending on wishful thinking.

All advice when you get mugged by a criminal is to give them your valuables and walk away with your life.

Though this is ONE possible option your advice is stereotyoic and dangerous for the reasons already mentioned above. There simply is no automatism in how an offender will react.

And look at Aaron Alexis, he entered a navy facility where there were plenty of armed people to stop him, but he still managed to kill a dozen people and maim countless others.

And if they would not have stopped him violently and quickly he would have even killed MORE people!
Who stops violent criminals? Yes, Sir, people with guns! Oh...you mean only police should have them? Ok...then lean back and watch the slaughtering UNTIL they arrive. And while YOUR kid/wife/mother/ etc. is under attack, pray that they arrive BEFORE they get killed because without a gun they have NO DEFENSE.

I think most people who worry about guns aren't quacks, but are worried about the easy availability of assault weapons and their child, husband or brother will be shot by someone with a grudge who has easy access to guns.
...
I don't think the argument is about being anti-gun, but about guns being so easily available.

This is only ONE aspect of the problem and primarily reflects the FEAR and RESERVATIONS of anti-gun or gun control advocates.
It is a fact that guns ARE easily available - and even if they were not, offenders get them illegally. I.e. simply making access more complicated for law abiding citizens but failing (as usual ... because it is much more complicated) to do more against CRIMINALS will not solve the problem.
Moreover, if you are already concerned that you or your loved ones ARE in jeopardy then it is not only negligent to abstain from suitable measures to protect yourself and your loved ones but also shows, from a psychological point of view, denial and/or displacement.

If I lived in a dangerous neighbourhood, I would certainly feel safer with a gun beside my bed. However, I wouldn't dream of wandering the streets with it.

Why not?! Do you REALLY think a dangerous neighbourhood (!) ENDS at the boundary fence of your plot? huhh???

So being against easy access to guns is very different from saying all guns bad and standing up for criminals and lunatics. It's the easy access to guns that makes life dangerous.

I got YOUR point. However, it is not the easy access to guns that makes your life dangerous. Dangerous people make your life dangerous.

So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?

I mean that
a)
it has to be YOUR OWN decision if you own and carry a gun or not (assuming that you live in a country where it is legal to own and carry guns);
b)
YOU are not entitled to decide what OTHER persons have to do about their personal safety, in particular as long as YOU and/or the State cannot GUARANTEE for MY and my loved ones safety;
c)
a gun itself does not release you from responsibility, in particular your legal responsibilities, ethics, common sense and utilizing your grey cells; and
d)
I strongly belief that it is immoral if individuals, institutions, legislators and states consider it more moral to SACRIFICE a victim by rendering it DEFENSELESS, i.e. by bereaving it of effective means of self defense and extraditing them to criminals and offenders
instead of
ALLOWING effective means of self defense for law abiding citizens, thereby enabling them to defend themselves against criminals and offenders in case it becomes necessary.
Which means I fully agree with this:

[Timmy69]

Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!

I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!

So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?

I've deleted this post as it was unfair to Gringito's comments, which I hadn't actually read.

[tupacperu]

I am not into guns, but everyone should have the freedom to own. But, I am for a national database of gun owners to identify who owns guns and who cannot own. This should be at the time of purchase. With the invention of Smartphones and internet, even the private gun sales can easily be updated. The NRA has a national database, the NSA can have access to your personal information, why are gun owners exempt from gov't oversight?

[TShadow]

Having a photo of Klaus Kinski as an avatar, who famously threatened Werner Herzog with a gun on the sets of both Aguirre Wrath of God and Fitzcaraldo, doesn't inspire confidence in someone who suggests we'll only all be safe from criminals once we're all heavily armed to the teeth. I can't say I'd like to have an argument in a bar with Gringito over the subject of gun control. He'll probably be packing something under his jacket and after a few beers if I push him the wrong way, who knows what he'd do with that weapon. Scary.

That seems to be a very personal assumption and offensive. Interesting if someone can judge a person by the only means of his avatar without knowing him personally. Until now the discussion was very unbiased. Furthermore you should read better some arguments, nobody suggested that we should go out 'heavenly' armed. Wearing a gun is a personal choice, acceptable if you have the right attitude and respect.

Letting the offender take all your belongings might not safe your life. There are many many examples of assaults where they killed you in order to get your values without hassle.

Until know there's freedom of choice, and assuming that someone who is favoring gun possession might harm you after getting drunk is merely ridiculous. Very often your quite and nice neighbor in reality could have a very dangerous personality and gun you down because your dog is noisy. So how' do you know?

[Sergio Bernales]

Perhaps it's time to close this thread before squabbling breaks out, as all parties are only stating their positions and are unwilling to debate or to change their viewpoints and the topic of gun ownership in Peru hasn't been addressed, but rather only the US.

[curlyguy18]

Well, I have only JUST realised this was quite a debate! I wanted to point out that the US is also violent and people's lives are also in danger, just like in Peru or anywhere else for that matter.

[ironchefchris]

Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!

I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!

So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?

That seems to be Gringito's argument, Chi Chi. Wants us all walking around with AK47s to protect us from the 200 lb ex-cons. There appears to be a 20,000 word justification of his position, which I'm sure is a nicely argued and coherent response to my comment, and definitely not a gibberish rant, but I don't have the time to read it.

Having a photo of Klaus Kinski as an avatar, who famously threatened Werner Herzog with a gun on the sets of both Aguirre Wrath of God and Fitzcaraldo, doesn't inspire confidence in someone who suggests we'll only all be safe from criminals once we're all heavily armed to the teeth. I can't say I'd like to have an argument in a bar with Gringito over the subject of gun control. He'll probably be packing something under his jacket and after a few beers if I push him the wrong way, who knows what he'd do with that weapon. Scary.

How can you make a valid comment on something you admit you haven't read? It wasn't that long. I'm guessing it took more time to articulate and type out a response to something you haven't read than the time necessary to read the comment in the first place. Having read gringito's comments, I found no mention of AK-47's or other high powered, assault weapons (though I have no idea what his opinion on them are) so putting words in his mouth about his wanting everyone walking around with AK-47's seems unfair.

Even in case of extremly strict gun control, criminals will opt for other "tools". Great Britain is an example: After extensive gun control measures knife crime increased dramatically. Now Great Britain implemented strict knife laws. What do you think will happen next?

I'm not quite so worried about the criminal who can't access a gun (due to stricter gun control) opting for other "tools." You don't read much about psychos going on mass stabbing sprees. A psycho with a knife in a strategic position on the floor above the food court at a shopping mall will kill far fewer than if that same psycho had a high powered assault weapon.

Keep the calibers reasonable, no need for military style, rapid fire weapons in the hands of the public, register guns and their owners.