´óÏó´«Ã½

Guns kill. ban them ...

Firstly, a horrendous news story today. I find it hard to comprehend how someone could do something like this, and we can only imagine the pain of the families and friends. For them it won't ever be forgotten or traded in for the next news item.

No doubt this thread will be a long, heated debate about firearms. As Will points out, it always is. But firearms did not kill those people today: a man used them to kill people. Had firearms not been available, would his motive not have existed (whatever it was)? No, this is about what would cause someone like him to do something like this.

I've written extensively on the issue of guns (some of the relevant articles are available ). I'm a gun owner myself, as are most of the Americans I know. My county has a drastically, considerably lower violent crime rate than a similarly sized county in Northern Ireland. I repeat: this is not about guns.

So I'd suggest: if we're going to have any sort of a debate about this, let's make it about the motive, not the weapon.

I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. I do not contemplate ever owning a gun. But I would never give up that right. Guns and America are inseperable. The image of the American home during its earliest days is one of a gun over the hearth ready to be used to defend kith and kin against Injuns', Redcoats, and anyone else who was a threat. For all the people killed by guns every year in the US, the price is considered insignificant compared to the risk of disarming the population and leaving it at the mercy of the government. Unlike Europeans, Americans put their trust in their neighbors and their guns, not in their government. Government is always the enemy. It's part of our folklore and our credo as expressed in sayings like; "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and "nobody's life and property is safe when the legislature is in session." The American constitution unlike the EU constitution exists to deny power to the government and grant it only what must be conceded and then to break it up into fragments so small no one individual or group can gain complete power over it. This is why we hate the UN. You want to know when Al Gore was defeated for President? On June 2, 2000 when Americans were horrified to see on TV an armed US Army soldier in an American home in Florida in full battle gear taking a small child Elian Gonzalez away from his uncle by force under orders of Attorney General Janet Reno. That is one of America's worst nightmares, a military dictatorship against which it is defenseless. EVERY politician who comes out strongly in favor of gun control is eventually defeated and run out of office. The NRA could not wield so much power if the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't agree with them. We are not like you Europeans, not by a very long shot, our government does not own or control us, its the other way around here.

Many years ago, I read it was estimated that there were over 110 million guns in private hands in the US. By now there must be more than one gun for every man woman and child in the country. With those kinds of numbers, you will never disarm the criminals. And with America's social ethic, nobody will ever disarm law abiding citizens who want a gun to protect themselves against them. Gun violence in America. Get used to it, like international terrorism, it's a part of life.

Ok, after Mark's comment, it's obvious that he is actually a spoof. No one would write that without being psychologically deluded or engaging in extreme irony.

Guns kill, ban them?

Come on!

On that argument you could ban kitchen knives and house bricks.

SG

MODERN gun slinging America with its cowboy President has failed to understand the historical setting in which the bill of rights was originally conceived. The men who wrote it came from a rustic rugged undeveloped America in the year 1789 of the initial draft a frontier country; Article 11 was established December 1791, in a colonial setting, the context of that setting is totally different from the needs of 2007. America a super power on the world stage who are trying to police the troubles of world conflict, the insincerity of it is, they can’t even deal with and police their own gun crime and have failed to put it in order. They don’t even believe that they have a problem with the gun and the carnage which is the result of gun crime. America needs to bring its antiquated gun laws into the 21st Century; America needs to decommission the gun.

helenanne smith #4,
we might just as well live on separate planets as on separate continents. We do not see the world the same way and we never will.

Do you think secret police in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia would have had such an easy time of it rounding people up and leading them out to be slaughered if every time they knocked on a door they wouldn't know if there wasn't someone on the other side with a gun ready to shoot right through it? The right of individuals to own guns is even more enshrined in the US Constitution than the right of the government to raise an army. This is a dangerous place, it's not like Northern Ireland where nobody ever gets hurt or killed by violence.

MODERN gun slinging America with its cowboy President has failed to understand the historical setting in which the bill of rights was originally conceived. The men who wrote it came from a rustic rugged undeveloped America in the year 1789 of the initial draft a frontier country; Article 11 was established December 1791, in a colonial setting, the context of that setting is totally different from the needs of 2007. America a super power on the world stage who are trying to police the troubles of world conflict, the insincerity of it is, they can’t even deal with and police their own gun crime and have failed to put it in order. They don’t even believe that they have a problem with the gun and the carnage which is the result of gun crime. America needs to bring its antiquated gun laws into the 21st Century; America needs to decommission the gun.

Mark's comments are difficult to defend, negative and depressing.... even when he's partially agreeing with me!

The Christian Hippy #6
Northern Ireland sure taught America a thing or two about how to prevent gun violence didn't it? And to hear them tell it, Senator Mitchell was there just as a tourist and happened to give a few words of friendly advice to them, that's all. Besides, I'd rather have a cowboy for a president....than a poodle.

MODERN gun slinging America with its cowboy President has failed to understand the historical setting in which the bill of rights was originally conceived. The men who wrote it came from a rustic rugged undeveloped America in the year 1789 of the initial draft a frontier country; Article 11 was established December 1791, in a colonial setting, the context of that setting is totally different from the needs of 2007. America a super power on the world stage who are trying to police the troubles of world conflict, the insincerity of it is, they can’t even deal with and police their own gun crime and have failed to put it in order. They don’t even believe that they have a problem with the gun and the carnage which is the result of gun crime. America needs to bring its antiquated gun laws into the 21st Century; America needs to decommission the gun.

Actually, Stephen, I would ban people from carrying kitchen knives in the street too. Your logic, as always, is impeccable.

Christian Hippy- You and I have been here before, haven't we?!

Marcus- It's already illegal to carry kitchen knives in the street. Does that stop people using them to assault pedestrians? No, and that's the point. (Was that supposed to be sarcasm?)

John, much as I respect your comments regularly, com off it on this one. Stephen seriously can't see a difference between guns and kitchen knives? Please don't defend your blog pal when he's talking nonsense. There's an obvious difference between items which can be used to inflict harm and items that are designed to inflict harm. Tut.

Jane Grey #16, now you've really gone and done it, you've hit a raw nerve. Here it is unbridled with both barrrels....and you can quote me on this one.....there is nothing more dangerous in this world....than an Englishman in a kitchen. :-)

Jane- I appreciate your respect, and it's mutual. But I think Stephen's point was that both kitchen knives and firearms are regularly used as tools of murder; banning them, therefore, has been proven an ineffective exercise. His comment was in response to #1 above, which used the logic that if something kills people it should be banned. His remark intended to demonstrate the error of that argument, which I would agree with. Bottom line: analysing the events of this morning is a much more complex issue than that, and the choice of weapon is a mere detail.

Christian Hippy wrote:

MODERN gun slinging America with its cowboy President .... they can’t even deal with and police their own gun crime and have failed to put it in order. They don’t even believe that they have a problem with the gun and the carnage which is the result of gun crime. America needs to bring its antiquated gun laws into the 21st Century; America needs to decommission the gun.

Oh dear - given 3000+ people killed in N. Ireland, a land mass no bigger than a couple of counties in Northern New Jersey, and given the laws that were in place with respect to the posession of firearms, plastic explosives etc. in NI, and given the number of troops that were on the streets as a percentage of the population living in NI to prevent the slaughter, tell me how the situation in the USA ..... you get the point ..... or should I mention something about people, stones and those 'who live in glass houses'?

Regards,
Michael

#18 John Wright
Yes it's true that guns and knives are both tools of murder but a kitchen knife in the hands of an Englishman preparing food is an especially heinous crime. What they do to a fine piece of beef for example makes strong men weep. They really should pass a special law about that.

115 people died in motor vehicle accidents in America today. Same as yesterday and the day before that and the day before that and it will be the same tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that.

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one month in America than all the American troops who died in Iraq in 4 years and more people are injured in them in 4 days as were wounded in battle there in 4 years. These are all media events taken out of perspective. It's easy to be taken in if you don't know all the facts.

Michael,

You should know better. You're trying to compare Northern Ireland during the troubles, a civil conflict scenario approaching civil war, with urban life in america. That's a pathetic comparison. America needs to address its weird obsession with guns.

Right on Kenny. These guys don't speak for america. As an american i support the repeal of the second amendment. Guns are for police, not nuts. Let's get the guns of the street, then we can let our children play in the street. I've visited Northern Ireland recently and it is MUCH safer than Philadelphia, where I live.

northern ireland had more deaths on the road during the troubles as a consequence of speeding than we lost through terrorism.

so what?

that doesn't justify terrorism. It doesn't lessen the harm done by terrorism either.

what is this mark guy SMOKING?

Morgan Mayler, what other amendments do you want to repeal? It's people like you who would take all of our rights away a small piece at a time so that we hardly notice it. It's what the US Supreme Court calls the "slippery slope." It will not allow even one step down it and your odds of getting repeal the second amendment in the Bill of Rights hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening. The government will fall before Americans voluntarily give up their guns. By the way, you won't get a repeal of the death penalty either. That's another American institution which will not go away.

Kenny says: "America needs to address its weird obsession with guns."

You're clearly more obsessed with guns than I, since you're the one blaming a tragedy with a motive on the weapon, rather than the motive and the guy who decided to kill.

Morgan says: "As an american i support the repeal of the second amendment."

Thank God most Americans disagree with you.

Morgan continues: "Guns are for police, not nuts."

This is a blatant, silly false dichotomy. I agree that guns aren't for nuts. And the current system does its best to forbid nuts from owning them. But there are plenty of responsible, law-abiding people in America (like me) whose gun ownership is an asset to their own safety and the safety of their community. Your false dichotomies and bizarre generalisations do nothing for your argument.

Morgan goes on: "Let's get the guns of the street, then we can let our children play in the street."

How do you propose to do that, Morgan? Why don't we ask the Metropolitan Police in London, who, despite all firearms (virtually) being outlawed, are dealing with the worst gun-related crime in city history? You are extremely naive to assume that lawmaking of any kind will affect those who intentionally plan on breaking the law.

Finally, Morgan concludes: "I've visited Northern Ireland recently and it is MUCH safer than Philadelphia, where I live."

Assuming that your anecdotal 'evidence' is valid, and granting that on a vacation you are capable of assessing and comparing the annual crime figures of an entire city, again, what makes you think that enacting more gun laws will remove the guns? Furthermore, what makes you believe that removing the guns (which is impossible to do, as is clear from the British situation among others) will reduce violent crime? Removing access to certain weapons will only cause criminals intent on committing violent crimes to look for effective alternatives. (Moreover, it has the added effect of disarming the potential victims of violent crime leaving them defenseless in the process, a fact attested to by many prolific criminologists such as Robert J Cottrol and Raymond T Diamond.)

1) We all agree that this is a tragedy

2) I agree with the comment that the USA is now so heavily armed that it cannot be disarmed. Disarmament at this point would only assist the criminal element.

3) Gun bans only affect the innocent gun owner without affecting criminals; witness the UK gun laws, which have ruined the shooting sports yet leave us with armed gangs in the streets. Any law that only punishes the innocent without affecting the guilty is fundamentally unjust, (And don't forget that the shooting sports are just about the only type of sport - maybe chess too? - where men and women, young and old, able bodied and less able are able to compete together on a level playing field.)

4) Switzerland makes the ownership of an assault rifle ( a fully automatic rifle ) and ammunition mandatory for all citizens and expects them to be proficient in the use of the weapon. There is very little gun misuse in Switzerland. Gun ownership is not inherently dangerous or destabilising within a society. But maybe America needs to examine why it produces so many maniacs who love to kill?

5) That said, You cannot easily legislate against maniacs. They will build bombs, flamethrowers and booby traps; they will kill the innocent with knives, sticks and their bare hands. The lust to kill is such that no legal corpus in the world will deter them. If they wish to acquire firearms, they will.

As A Libertarian, I am for gun ownership if only to protect our freedom. If the students had a gun, this butcher would have been resolved.

I have another reason why I am in favour of gun ownership even though I believe in peace.

Cuba before Castro and Venezuela in its phase of Socialism with Democracy had a gun control law. Only members of the government could own guns. Chavez was voted in because of free elections and he has taken the guns from the police and military and given them to his supporters. Castro was able to obtain guns illegally to start his revolution.

In Ohio, Republicans and Democrats had gun control and they violated human rights.

Golem, Roberto- Thanks; I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Marcus and Jane:

Thank you for missing the point entirely.

The point is simply that according to Jilly's logic if something kills it should be banned.

Lets say the guy had driven a lorry into the grounds of the college and killed 30 students, would anyone seriously be suggesting that lorries be banned? Of course not. The debate is more complex.

Seemingly the two of you fell out of the stupid tree and managed to hit every branch on the way down.

SG

If we can't deal with gun crime by removing the guns, how do we deal with it?
Do we know anything else about the killer yet? I wonder if he's a believer? - blatant attempt to turn the conversation round to religion :)

In # 20. Kenny Bunkport wrote:

Michael, You should know better. You're trying to compare Northern Ireland during the troubles, a civil conflict scenario approaching civil war, with urban life in america. That's a pathetic comparison. America needs to address its weird obsession with guns.

Kenny: I do know better. In NI my first cousin was shot dead outside a bank in Belfast and another cousin remains paralyzed from a machine gun attack outside Augher in Co. Tyrone.

None of my extensive family in the USA has ever had any violence to their persons.

I deliberately compared NI with Northern NJ which contains major urban areas including Newark!

Regards,
Michael

I agree that US cannot be disarmed at this point - but surely the US Govt can cut out automatic and semi-automatic weapons - neither can be justified for hunting or self defense.

Switzerland and Canada are also countries with high gun ownership but yet do not seem to suffer the same level of gun crime. Micheal Moore made this point in Bowling for Columbine. And got no answer.

I'm just glad that, despite it's violent recent history, NI is not a society where ordinary people feel the need to carry a gun. It may sound as if I'm US bashing but I'm glad that I do not live in a society where owning a gun for self-defense is normal.

We're going to need all those tec-9s and AK47s in our border war with Mexico. Already the INS Border Patrols are outgunned by the Mexican drug smugglers when they are intercepted. The government doesn't seem particularly interested in sealing the borders against illegal aliens including possible Al Qaeda infiltrators, the citizens will have to take it upon themselves...and they are just getting started. The government doesn't like it BUT, because the population is so heavily armed, if and when enough Americans get angry enough to take the law into their own hands, there isn't much the government can do about it. It came very close to that after 9-11. The next time I'm afraid there will be no stopping them. How can you have government of the people, by the people, and for the people, if the people don't ultimately hold the power to fight the government with force if necessary? This is an axiomatic truism of American culture which Europeans and naturalized Americans born in Europe can never understand, government is the ultimate threat to freedom, not street criminals however violent their crimes.

Here's an example of government gone wild with power.

The first African American mayor of Philadelphia W. Wilson Goode got the nickname "The Angry Red Baron" after the song for having "bombed" the organization Move's house under seige.

Every time I turn on ´óÏó´«Ã½ now I hear a discussion about why America needs tough gun control laws. Where is ´óÏó´«Ã½'s equally shrill call for gun control laws elsewhere such as in .....Gaza. Wouldn't gun control laws in Gaza have saved Alan Johnston's life?

Artie says: "I agree that US cannot be disarmed at this point - but surely the US Govt can cut out automatic and semi-automatic weapons - neither can be justified for hunting or self defense."

I'm sorry but you're just wrong and very naive on this point. Fully automatic weapons are relatively rare in the United States. Those who wish to commit crimes with them have already committed several crimes by owning them. Semiautomatic firearms, meanwhile, are the most common kind! If you agree that the US cannot be disarmed, what makes you think it would be any easier to disarm it of semiautomatic firearms in particular? Could it be that you're basing your knowledge of firearms on negative news reports rather than experience? It's easy to think of firearms as evil in themselves when all you hear and see about them is negative.

By the way, self defense experts, including the Department of Public Safety officers that taught my training class, would choke on their sandwiches at your suggestion that semiautomatic firearms cannot be justified for self defense. In all self-defense textbooks, semiautomatics are the only firearms approved for self defense. After having become familiar with my semiautomatic firearms, I fail to see how any other type of gun would be useful in a self defense situation.

Artie continues: "Switzerland and Canada are also countries with high gun ownership but yet do not seem to suffer the same level of gun crime. Micheal Moore made this point in Bowling for Columbine. And got no answer."

Exactly, yet Moore continued to make Bowling about firearms ownership rather than seriously considering other sources of violence! If that's not an irrational, unbeliievably ridiculous logical fallacy, I don't know what is. His argument, essentially, is this:

1) Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places.
2) Canada and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership.
3) Canada and Switzerland are not violent places.

Um. Wouldn't that have put a devastating hole in his convenient, leftwing theory, and convinced him he must be wrong and he'd need to make his lunatical film all over again? Nope, he considered it, and concluded that....

4) Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places.

Mooreon.

Artie concludes: "I'm just glad that, despite it's violent recent history, NI is not a society where ordinary people feel the need to carry a gun. It may sound as if I'm US bashing but I'm glad that I do not live in a society where owning a gun for self-defense is normal."

Northern Ireland is a very unusual situation. But have you ever considered that possibility that a populace owning firearms may actually reduce crime rather than proliferate it? It isn't lawful firearm-owning people that commit crimes; it's those to whom the laws are meaningless in the first place. I understand your reaction to such a suggestion since, a short time ago, I would have agreed with you. I read many texts and considered it very carefully before I ever owned a gun. The reason I do now is a direct result of carefully considered argument. You can find out more about why I did so (a good primer on the issue).

Jilly Green #1

Paraphrasing you

"Foreigners kill. ban them..."

Well, what do you think? If this is your position, I'm sure you would find a lot of people in many countries including America who would agree with you. We have a name for them. We call them..."the lunatic fringe."

Jane:

In addition to my short reply to you and Marcus above (no. 28) I should ask you why you see such a massive difference between knives, or any other object used to kill, and guns. You seem to hint that the difference is that guns are made to inflict harm whereas knives, bricks and lorries are not. But, why does this justify banning guns? Is inflicting harm intrinsically bad? It seems to me clear that there are obvious cases when inflicting harm is not bad at all - the most obvious being the infliction of harm in self-defence, or inflicting harm in the interests of justice (perhaps to over-throw an oppressive dictator), or inflicting harm through pest control (as would be the case for rural dwelling folks). Even if it is true that guns are built to inflict harm it still doesn't follow that they should be banned.

And the really funny thing is that you said it was ME talking nonsense....LOL!

On April 19 1995, Timothy McVeigh and his conspirators killed 187 people and injured over 800 in Oklahoma City. He blew apart an entire building and not a small one at that. Look at the aerial photograph of it in the link. He did not use or need a gun, he used a bomb made from a truckload of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Shall we ban fertilizer too? Determined murderers can make lethal weapons out of many common substances. What about the 7-7 bombers, they didn't need guns. Mindless kneejerk reactions may sound popular and get mindless agreement but they are no rational basis for any kind of effective government policy. They are instead the substance of counterproductive media soundbites.

Stephen- In addition, most of the guns I'm aware of are used more frequently for recreational purposes than to inflict harm of any kind, even in pest control. Shooting sports are an extremely popular activity here in the States, and handgun shooting is an Olympic sport.

I have to say I'm disappointed that this conversation (as I predicted in #2) has dwelled so deliberately on the weapons used in this act rather than the act itself and the motive behind it. It's nonsensical. Meantime, Australian PM Howard decides to make ill-informed, idiotic comments about America and its 'gun culture'. I'm pleased to see presidential candidate Arizona senator John McCain retort that this changes nothing about Americans' right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, and that no amount of gun law would have prevented the action of someone committed to the idea of murder.

John,
Your arguments are interesting. I must admit I think that you're probably right - there is no way that American gun culture can be changed. It's a pity - if not a tragedy.

As regards Moore's film I think you miss his point - which is basically that there is something wrong in the American psyche with regard to guns. The Canadians and Swiss can own guns but their gun crime is much lower. Some of the reasons might be that small arm ownership in Canada and Switzerland is relatively low and in the latter case all males are properly trained to use arms during military service.

I can understand if I lived in the US I might think that everyone has a gun, if I'm going to be attacked then the attacker will have a gun so I'd better get one too. I see the logic - it's clear. I'd probably go and buy a gun too.

But it's very unfortunate - a kind group paranoia that leads to a community arms race.

I'm glad that where I live this thinking has not taken hold (and it is surprising in many ways it didn't) but I won't be applying for US citizenship any day soon. How free is the land of the free if everybody has to carry a gun to feel safe?

John Wright #38
You're wasting your time and effort. They can vist, they can gawk, they can go away shaking their heads, they can spend half a lifetime, but if they weren't born and didn't grow up here, they'll probably never get it.

John!

Damn it! You're using cold hard logic! A deadly weapon!

BAN IT!!!!

SG

The mayor of Nagasaki who was running for re-election was shot to death today. The police captured a suspect, a gang member. I guess Japan needs more gun control too.

Artie- Thanks for your honest reply. As you'll have gathered from Mark's comment #40, Americans don't see it the way you describe. They don't regard it as a "pity" at all. As you'll also have gathered from Mark's remark, there is a certain advantage to being able to understand it from a U.S. resident's point of view, living in a nation where gun ownership is just commonplace and not at all a paranoid or fearful thing. If I could bring everyone reading this thread to my home in the American southwest and show you the practical, realistic optimism of average, everyday America, I believe your opinion on this and perhaps even your worldview to an extent would be changed by the experience. Mine was.

Set in the context of American culture, gun ownership is two things at one and the same time. It is firstly a precautionary measure, in the same way that a fire extinguisher or burgalry alarm are seen as options in case of emergency. There is little paranoia or fear or shame in owning a burgalry alarm; neither is there in owning a firearm for the purpose of protecting property and loved ones. Both items address the reality of emergencies. They aren't expected, they're prepared for. And the gun is secondly a recreational item for many Americans. Come here to California and you'll be amazed by the number of residents who own boats, skis, motorbikes, quads, jetskis, huge motorhomes, Jeeps, kayaks - in huge quantity and at huge expense - they go all out. Work hard and play hard is the ethic. Guns are just another recreational activity for millions of law-abiding, peaceful American families.

I agree with Mark on this point: guns cannot be separated from American culture. But I'd discourage people from seeing that as an awful thing. Firearms are tools which can be used for good, bad or just for fun.

It's those who wish to use them for bad and their motives we should be concentrating on.

I was born and grew up in New York City which has always had some of the toughest gun control laws in the United States. It is very hard to get a gun there legally. During the 50s and 60s there was very little gun violence. But in the late 60s, 70s, and 80s, it was awful, the murder rate rose very sharply. Guns were coming in from the outside along with drugs. So they came from places like Virginia but if the entire US had tough gun control laws they'd have come from outside the US. America can't keep out drugs, it wouldn't be able to keep out guns either. Right now the government will just be happy if it can keep Al Qaeda from bringing in anthrax, VX, and an atom bomb or two. Guns are a lower priority.

There are good reasons for people to have guns besides protecting themselves from criminals. In the west there are mountain lions, rattle snakes, and in the pacific North West Grizzly Bears. At a garden party I was at in Montvale New Jersey several years ago, a black bear cub wandered right into the back yard. We got the folks in the house very fast on the assumption mama bear wasn't too away. The spreading suburbs and wildlife are crossing paths more frequently now. And then about ten years ago, there was the nut in Jackson Township New Jersey who had her own secret tiger preserve which came to light when one got loose in the neighborhood and was killed by the police.

Got any private tiger preserves in Northern Ireland? How do you know, they might be secret too.

Mark- Funny you should mention snakes. Last summer I shot three rattlesnakes in our back garden by the pool on three separate occasions. It's just a fact of life out here, and people own guns just to deal with snakes. We also have cougars in some of the higher elevations.

I think a mountain lion and a cougar are the same animal. They are very dangerous. Most encounters with humans in the wild result in severe injury or are fatal to the human. They stalk humans and farm animals as prey. Many encounters are with joggers who are just running on a country road or in a new subdivision on the outskirts of a city in the west. Wolves have also been successfully introduced into areas where they had become virtually wiped out. Farmers and other residents didn't like it but environmentalists got their way. Attacks by wolves on humans are exceedingly rare.

John,
Let me flip the argument on you. You have grown up in a fearful even "paranoid" society. You don't really understand what it is like to live in a society where people do not feel the need to arm themselves.

I know the US has a frontiers history that has accustomed itself to guns and that hunting and shooting for sport is more common. But still 1/3 of americans own guns (that's what? 60-70 million people?). Most of them I suspect neither hunt or shoot for sport.

I cannot imagine what it is like to live in a society where 1/3 population own the means of taking another's life (and all have must have considered that they would have to or wouldn't have bought a gun).

It may be difficult for you to understand why so many in Europe would consider such a society unnerving I guess it is one of those unbridgeable cultural differences.

Artie:

Not all Europeans consider it unnerving - in Switzerland owning a gun is mandatory.

Can I ask: where do you live? I live in Northern Ireland, and do you know what is unnerving? The fact that all the bad guys here are armed to the teeth and have been for decades and yet as an honest and law abiding citizen I can't even own a small pistol to defend myself if necessary. That's unnerving. I would rather live in a country where good guys AND bad guys had guns, rather than just bad guys. That's your choice. The bad guys are armed whether you or your government like it or not.

SG

SG
I too live in NI.

Are you serious? Can you imagine what it would have been like during the troubles if everyone who wanted one had owned a gun??

The last thing we need here is more people taking the law into their own hands.

Where would it stop? Bad guys have guns, good guys get guns, bad guys get grenades. Good guys get grenades, bad guys get rocket launchers??

The baddies will always be better armed. Plus even a baddie may not feel the need to shoot me if he knows I cannot respond with deadly force.
If everyone has a gun the baddies will just shoot first. Gun ownership as is clear in the US doesn't stop violent crime.

To be frank, it's enough to fear the baddies without fearing your neighbours as well.

Artie #47
"I cannot imagine what it is like to live in a society where 1/3 population owns the means of taking another's life."

Then you haven't considered it very carefully. An automobile is a far more deadly machine and potential weapon than a hand gun. Every year 42 thousand Americans are killed by motor vehicles and 3 million are injured, many badly crippled for life. You say it is not a weapon? It is when the nut behind the wheel is drunk, on drugs, deranged, fleeing the police, or operating a mechanically unreliable vehicle. It's two tons of high powered high speed death on wheels and ANYONE in America over the age of 18 can have one.

Mark,
C'mon, Mark. What a dumb argument. A car is not a weapon. It can be used as one but that is not the reason for its manufacture.

A gun is manufactured to kill things. Or at least to put the fear of death in to someone.

I do want to live in a society where I would be so afraid of others that I would be prepared to kill them. Who wants to live in a climate of fear?

You're clearly happy to and you are welcome to it.

Artie;
The door to America is always unlocked from the inside. If you are not wanted by the police as a suspect in a crime, you are free to leave at any time (it seems to be unlocked from the outside too with the doors left wide open and a sign saying enter at will but that's another story.) If I didn't like it here, I could easily live somewhere else. I tried it in France for almost 2 years and couldn't wait to get back home. Funny how many people from around the world want to come here with all of its drawbacks such as easy access to handguns and how few want to leave. If I meet any who do, I'll be sure to recommend that they go to a nice safe place (where did you say you live) like Northern Ireland. No guns there. :-)

Was this the worst mass shooting in US history? Maybe in numbers but not in consequences.

By the way, today being April 18, it's more than Zimbabwe's independence day, 232 years ago on this very day;

And if they ever come back....we will be ready and waiting for them.

Artie Artie Artie. I just have to respond.

You say: "Let me flip the argument on you. You have grown up in a fearful even "paranoid" society. You don't really understand what it is like to live in a society where people do not feel the need to arm themselves."

I grew up in Northern Ireland, Artie. I moved to the United States in 2004. I have a complete experience of both places, and I thought I had explained that America is not a fearful or paranoid society? I can tell you that I understand the fear of being at the whim of whoever wishes to do me harm. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, aggressors have firearms; their victims do not. That story is told repeatedly on the pages of daily newspapers. THAT is real fear. You need to stop seeing firearms in a negative light and start seeing them as tools which save lives.

"...still 1/3 of americans own guns (that's what? 60-70 million people?). Most of them I suspect neither hunt or shoot for sport."

When I say 'shooting sports', I'm not necessarily talking about organised competition (which is nevertheless a huge thing worldwide). I'm talking about recreational use of firearms, and - again from experience - I'm telling you that every firearm-owning American I know uses their firearms more often for recreational shooting than for anything else. It's fun to go into the desert, set up some targets and see who can hit the most. You should try it sometime. The point is that your negative view of firearms is irrational (possibly hoplophobic).

"I cannot imagine what it is like to live in a society where 1/3 population own the means of taking another's life..."

You already do. In fact almost 100 percent of people own the means of taking another's life; you just don't think of it that way. You -again- are separating firearms from everything else and making them different to suit your purposes, without any justification. Mark points out vehicles, which constitute the central means by which humans take others' lives, whether purposeful or not. The IRA used fertiliser for years to make bombs, making fertiliser the means of taking another's life. Why do you continue to treat firearms differently despite the lack of any differences?

"It may be difficult for you to understand why so many in Europe would consider such a society unnerving I guess it is one of those unbridgeable cultural differences."

As I pointed out above, I AM European. Just like you. It isn't a matter of culture but rather a matter of worldview.

"The last thing we need here is more people taking the law into their own hands."

Let me be absolutely clear: owning a firearm is nothing whatsoever to do with taking the law into your own hands. Anyone who takes the law into their own hands is treated severely by our legal system in America, probably more severely than they are in Europe. Owning a firearm is a means of self-defense and then only when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to life. The law is very clear. It may be used for protection but may not be used for retribution or revenge or for putting "the fear of God into someone". The only reason I'm having to explain this, Artie, is because you are prejudiced against firearms ownership in general. Would you be taking the law into your own hands by hitting a mugger in the head with his own baseball bat as he tried to attack you? No, you'd be saving your own bloody life. Same with the use of a handgun.

"Plus even a baddie may not feel the need to shoot me if he knows I cannot respond with deadly force. "

That's strange logic, and I've only ever encountered it in Europe. The best thing, therefore, to do when confronted by an attacker is to be at his every whim, cowering on the floor giving your life to him voluntarily, in the hope that he won't kill you? Even when there are options available that may save your life? You're willing to take that chance? Fine. That's your choice, as it is in America. But how dare you advance a lawmaking exercise that removes from OTHERS the right to make that decision for themselves merely because they live within the borders of Northern Ireland? You may be willing to trust the judgement of aggressors with the lives of yourself and your family; I'd suggest many people would not agree. What you're arguing here is consistent with saying that, if you lived in America, you would choose not to own a firearm, rather than choose to own one. That's your choice in America already. It's certainly not an argument for making gun ownership illegal across the board, which constitutes making that decision for other people.

"To be frank, it's enough to fear the baddies without fearing your neighbours as well."

What do you have to fear from gun-owning, law-abiding people? Are you saying that the one-third of gun-owning Americans (like 70 million people) are scary to you? I'd suggest that that's not true at all, and -again- is a result of lack of experience and a fertile imagination. After all, you don't fear your neighbours because they own cars which could kill you just going for a newspaper; what changes when it's a firearm? If for some reason it is true, then I'd suggest you have deeper issues than we're discussing.

Finally: "Gun ownership ... doesn't stop violent crime."

The first response to this is that it doesn't proliferate it either. You need to do some reading. Home invasions in the U.S. in gun-owning states are virtually non-existent. Incarcerated felons took a prison survey where 34 percent of them admitted to not committing some violent crime for fear their would-be victims had guns. Crime in gun-owning states is lower than in states where guns are restricted. A 328-page report was issued by The National Academy of Sciences on this very issue. It was based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. It's conclusions: not one of the laws curtailing or restricting firearms ownership could be linked to reduced levels of crime, in fact it suggested just the opposite.

As I tried to explain at the beginning, I didn't just decide one day that it would be cool to own a gun. I came to the United States, was introduced to the concept, and did a lot of reading before I ever shot one. My gun ownership and my subsequently obtaining a concealed weapons permit from the Department of Public Safety were based deliberately on the ideaology gained from reading, talking to law enforcement and thinking very carefully about the subject. I would suggest that everyone do that for themselves on important issues such as self-defense and safety.

"I grew up in Northern Ireland, Artie. I moved to the United States in 2004. I have complete experience in both places."

With all due respect Mr. Wright, um no you don't. Insofar as the United States is concerned, you have dipped your toe in the water and it feels good. I am coming to the conclusion after reading thousands of blog entries from all over the world and listening to foreign broadcasts that nobody can actually understand the US unless they were born and raised here. That does not mean that in time you could not become a citizen and be fully accepted but you will not actually ever be able to completely understand it.

While William Crawley's awe at the 272 word Emancipation Proclamation is commendable and he has grasped its signifigance, it pales by comparison to two other documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The Declaration of Independence and the American revolution were far more than a rejection of British rule, they were a rejection of every single accepted concept of society at the time, evey notion of government, religion, and power, and how people relate to it. For the very first time in human history, it asserted inalienable human rights which could never justifiably be taken away by anyone. It meant that nobody could ever say that people are subservient to government but that it is in fact the other way around, government is subservient to people. It established the right of people to destroy the government if that is what it takes to defend their rights. That would not be possible if the people are disarmed, the true reason for the second amendement to the Constitution. This was not merely a rejection of Europe, it was a rejection of the entirety of all past and existing civilizations and explains why Americans will never be subservient to anyone from the outside or the inside. Americans will fight to their last breath and die to defend those inalienable rights. Americans are and will remain prepared to wipe out all life on earth including themselves to prevent having to live enslaved and it has the means and will to do it if it ever comes to that.

The Constitution of the United States created a government which reduces the risk of ever having the need to destroy the government but if it came to a war between the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence and the government under the Constitution, the Declaration would wins hands down. And it has in the past. The US can and will set aside the Constitution to preserve America. It did during the Civil war and it did during world war II. It seems headed that way again during this war on Islamic terror.

The founders of the United States expected that one day their country would take its place among the other great nations of the world. They would be astonished to know that it came to dwarf them. America alone holds the power to be both the most constructive and destructive force humanity has ever created and it is beyond the control of anyone on the outside. That is why its true enemies hate it so intensely.

Artie:

I think John has covered much of what I would say in response to you and since he's thrown quite a lump of reason in your direction I'll not add to your workload!

Looking forward to your response to John.

SG

Wow, looks like I emptied out the church ;-)

John, Mark, Stephen.

We will have to agree to disagree about the normalisation of firearms - I just don't think it can be a good thing.

Let's drop the guns are no worse than cars/fertilizer etc. argument. Anything can be a weapon if you choose to use it that way. Conversely, a gun need not be used kill or maim a human being but it's primary purpose is as a weapon and, in my opinion, a society that allows virtually free ownership of weapons will see those weapons used in ways that even decent gun owning folk would not like to see.

As I said in an earlier post, the baddies will always have bigger and better weapons. Owning a gun will not save you from them. So why carry one? In NI there are campaigns to get people to stop carrying knives for the reason that are frequently use to harm the those who carried them for protection in the first place. I imagine the same goes for guns - in spades.

As for home invasions - I have found a family dog usually prevents them quite satisfactorily.

Your carrying of a concealed weapon for ideological reasons John, kinda freaks me out I must admit. I am freaked out by anyone who will kill or die for an ideology.

When I see an 80 yr old Charlton Heaston raise a rifle above his head and intone "From my cold dead hands!" in the great voice his to the whoops of the crowds at a NRA rally, I really wonder if all Americans are as reasonable as you claim when it comes to owning guns.

Artie- You've clearly watched too much Michael Moore. The man is a deranged lunatic. You need deprogramming. ;-) We'll agree to disagree, though you haven't actually refuted any of my arguments... I just want to clear one thing up:

"Your carrying of a concealed weapon for ideological reasons John, kinda freaks me out I must admit. I am freaked out by anyone who will kill or die for an ideology."

You've misunderstood. I don't carry a concealed weapon for ideological reasons; I was persuaded of the reason that no government should prevent the possession or carrying of firearms by a libertarian ideology. I don't often carry my firearm; when I do, I'm carrying it not for ideological reasons but for self-defense.

Artie, you seem like a nice guy. You may be interested in a rather lengthy reply I gave to a comment on my blog tonight - I'll leave you with his comment and my reply.

------------

John

You are of course right on quite a number of points.

The present European need (it's far from a liberal thing - conservatives are among the worst)to sneer at all things American is to be deplored and this story was immediately siezed on from that perspective.

Your logic (and that of the NRA) that guns don't kill people, people do, is also impeccable. But it's addressing the wrong point. When someone kills someone deliberately (by whatever means)it is wholly their responsibility and the relative ease of availability of particular weapons does not diminish their responsibility.

However, you frame the argument as follows: 'Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places'. You then debunk this quite effectively. But this is a very convenient way (from your perspective) of framing the argument. I suggest that it is better framed as follows:

'Countries with high levels of gun ownership are more violent places than they would be with lower levels of gun ownership'.

The point you fail to address is "ease". Guns facilitate killing better than most things (it's what they're designed for). If Seung-Hui had not had access to guns, he may well have tried to carry out a similar atrocity. But it is difficult to think of other means of doing so that would have been quite as "effective" (from his perspective) and easy. If he had not had acess to guns, his desire to committ the atrocity may well have been stymied by the relative difficulty of either creating or wielding that weapon. At least, the casualty count would have been likely to be lower.

Having said all that, this is trying to put the genie back in the lamp territory. Whatever, those of us in favour of less availablity of guns may think, the point has been reached where, even if European style gun control laws were introduced in the US (highly unlikely), there are so many guns in circulation that it would make little or no difference.

The question that interests me, as someone who loves the US, is why is it such a (by my standards) relatively violent society?

Steve
Cardiff, Wales, UK

-------

Steve- Your comment was insightful and thoughtful. That much is a rarity among those who wish to discuss this issue in particular; what we have instead is a lot of hyperbole, a lot of tense people and a lack of understanding the dynamics of the debate. I suppose at least part of that is to be expected on a subject that, like the abortion issue for example, deals with life and death. I've been quite busy contributing to some media and other blogs on the topic, and I'm quite surprised upon my return tonight that my own blog is so quiet about it! (Where is everyone? Where are the pitchforks and sentiments of hate? Where is my fellow LR blogger Stephen Graham?) Anyway, I appreciate the comment and thought it warranted a proper response.

You're right to say that I don't address the point of "ease" with which one can gain access to firearms; I presume you mean in the sense that worse things can happen when guns are available than when they're not. Insofar as that affects my argument that America's 'gun culture' is not responsible for this tragedy, you're right; Hoi may not have been able to murder 32 people with such ease had he not had (relatively easy) access to firearms. But I think it's worthwhile pointing out that such a concession doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that firearms should be banned.

Say, for example, we invent a method by which to load an arrow onto a bow automatically once the previous arrow has been fired from the bow. This would allow the competition of archery to move along at a greater pace and increase the enjoyment of the sport. Say, then, that Hui decides to murder as many people as possible at his university campus. Are the dynamics of this debate the same, given that scenario? All I've done, of course, is to re-invent the semiautomatic pistol, with a slightly different look and an old-fashioned projectile. In each case it's a deadly weapon, and in each case it's principal, original purpose was to inflict harm.

The point is that we can identify any number of weapons which may inflict mass-harm with ease: oil trucks, nailguns, chainsaws, bulldozers, homemade explosives, toxic substances, sharp objects. Surely the best action of a society is not to ban or curtail the use of all possible deadly weapons, but to be vigilant against those who would seek to use them in such a way? And the fact that firearms are used daily millions of times more often for legitimate purposes than for murder surely destroys the argument from 'design' in an attempt to ban them? Banning guns, of course, did nothing to prevent the Dunblane tragedy in Scotland.

You're right, of course, that it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle (ie. remove guns from America, or even disinvent the gun, come to that). But I'm not so sure it would be that great a feat even if it were possible. America is a much more peaceful society than many of the pre-firearm societies (think ancient Greece, Aztecs, native Americans).

You asked a great question toward the end of your comment: "Why is it such a (by my standards) relatively violent society? This question has perplexed me for years.

Firstly, I don't think it's quite as violent sometimes as people think. The American media loves violent, dramatic stories, and they're responsible for creating part of that image. Where I live in Arizona there are no murders, few burglaries, no beatings, no muggings, no rapes. There's a little domestic abuse, some (nonviolent) drug use and a lot of drunk driving. I noted with interest that Bill Bryson, in his book 'I'm a Stranger Here Myself', upon returning to the States after living much of his life in England, relates his surprise at the low level of crime where he lives in New England.

Second, the United States is huge. I think we sometimes forget that. Three-hundred-MILLION people! With such an enormous population, it isn't half surprising that there are daily news reports of violence somewhere in the nation.

And I truly believe that racial tensions are responsible for a lot of violence also. Nowhere have cultures, races and religions been mixed so hastily as in the great melting pot of the United States. It's ironic: the fact that makes America so great is the fact that has the potential to make it so violent. Never before the existence of America were so many different groupings of people expected to live together, in peace, as equals. And I think we're still seeing the sparks of resolving culture today, between Hispanics, Jews, Africans, Irish, Italians, Latinos, Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners and more. Give those people so much personal liberty and freedom on top, and you have the potential for violence. Isn't it surprising, in a way, that there isn't more violence in America sometimes? Most people really just have a great time living out their lives in this country, which is what makes it such a great place to live.

I see no difference between a deranged man in Virginia committing mass homocide and suicide with a gun and rationalizing it by his gripe against life than I do with deranged Moslems committing mass homocide and suicide with a bomb worn in a vest and rationalizing that by their gripes against life. You can see the hypocricy of those who blame everything about America including its gun laws for the killer in Virginia but passively accept not only the suicide bomber but the fact that his mentally deranged friends, neighbors, and relatives in Palestine for example consider him a national hero and his crimes justifiable as well. In fact the world seems ready to allow them to have a state of their own. Insanity.

The problem is more simplistic than anyone here has stated. We must increase the penalties only.

The peanalty for owning an illegal firearm should be manditory death on site. We need to have a law stating that If you flee the authorities either on foot or any other means, that you forfeit your right to being innocent before proven guilty and are to be shot on site. If you are driving drunk and kill someone, you are to be shot on site. If you carjack someone and get involved in a high speed chase, you are to be shot on site.

Only with more severe and swift action can we eliminate the people not thinking twice about their actions.

We will never be able to defend against someone willing to die as in this tragedy, but in almost ALL cases, they've done something before where they would have been eliminated.