Keep your guns but get rid of your myths America

Despite appearances I am not anti-gun

I believe American not only should keep its guns, as they seem to be an integral part of the society, but it should keep a fair degree of availability to it's citizens - that level of "fair" is totally up to you.

I used to be anti-gun but Americans persuaded me otherwise and I did see it was not the guns themselves but the attitude and myths surrounding them that is dangerous - not only to America but, thanks to the internet, to the rest of the world as well

So yes, in some ways guns don't kill people, people kill people but people are more likely to kill people with guns if a) there is the availability and B) people live in a culture that encourages this

So, what are the gun myths that need to be exposed, debated and debunked?

They can be split into various groupings and we may even have to start separate threads for each group

A) Societal impact

more guns means a safer society.

There is less crime where there are more guns.


b) Gun as a defensive weapon.

You are more likely to become a victim without a gun. Castle law and other interesting beliefs


c) Political - guns means freedoms (and beans means farts)

"Liberals are Anti-Gun and Anti-Second Amendment (not to mention, downright un-Patriotic)" (thanks Danct)

D) Legal - "We can't allow any new gun law because it will begin an automatic, inevitable, and fateful slippery slope into gun confiscations" (thanks Danct)

So - let the debate begin

 

And opinions are like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s,everyone's got one

 

I'll hit this one. This has happened before. This has happened in the UK and Australia. Sure it would take a couple of decades of Overton Window movement to make it happen here, but it has happened before.

Not to mention there isn't too much movement required. Several of our highest population areas already have very strict gun laws - to the point of nearly being bans. If that mentality spreads, a national ban could occur.

 

You seem to be under the delusion that you cannot own a gun in Australia

You can - you just have to meet certain criteria, same as holding a license to drive

 

You can also own a gun in New York or Washington DC. You just have to pay a HUGE fee and go through lots of registration and training requirements.

They make it really hard and expensive for the average citizen to own a gun. For someone who doesn't have a lot of time and extra cash it is impossible. Even though they claim to allow guns, it is still effectively a ban.

 

When driving becomes a right,you'll have a point
To quote some 'American hyperbole',

'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

 

I found this an interesting statement. One of the main reasons for the continuation of 'gun myths' is the lack of evidence-based conclusion making. Can we use this statement to help put that right? To do that I have two questions:

1) What is the gun ownership rate in New York or Washington? It would be useful to have a reasonably precise figure so we can evaluate how "effective ban" is being defined.

2) Training requirements was used within a "O, they make it difficult" context. When do training requirements become too burdensome?

 

No, it hasnt. That is incorrect. No legally acquired and held firearm has been confiscated in Australia.

 

Loose lips sink ships, poverty is owning a horse, baby on board, my other car is a mercedes, etc etc. All humorous but unintelligent bumper stickers.

 

Probably because none of the lambs objected,

 

read my post again. You were mistaken in your statement or you lied, which was it?

 

If the government convinces people to willingly give up their firearms, it is no different than a ban, it is just easier to accept.

That is part of why I mentioned the Overton Window concept. I'd bet that fifty years before the Australia buyback, the average Australian couldn't conceive of the idea of giving up their guns. But eventually their point of view on guns was shifted until they gave them up willingly. These even seemed to continue to the point where the average Australian can't seem to conceive of the idea of owning a gun.

There is a group of people in the US that seem to be attempting to do the same thing here. They demonize guns, attempt to portray them as dangerous and evil, emphasize the extremely rare cases where bad things are done with guns - all apparently with the goal of pushing the average citizen to fear and eventually give up any ownership of guns.

Even now, there are a lot of Americans who couldn't conceive of owning a gun. They are the ones who fight against gun safety programs in school. They are also the ones who support restrictive gun laws. They would already support a ban or effective ban. Luckily they are still a minority.

 

I dont know why it is so hard to understand, Australians have never had a history of urban gun ownership. We simply never developed a culture of using firearms to resolve conflict as Americans have. We didnt have guns to lose, get taken away, confiscated or whatever else you want to call it. The gun buy back scheme concentrated on unlicensed and defunct firearms. I dont know how I can put it more simply for you people to understand. If you cant understand and acknowledge this basic reality then there is no hope for any intelligent debate on this issue.

 

I was neither mistaken,or a liar.......I consider your country to be populated by lambs, if you gave your means of self defense up so readily..

 

Read my post again, no legitimately acquired and owned guns were confiscated. Australians have never had a history of resolving conflict or using guns for self defense, there was nothing to give up. You see, if you rely on the NRA for your information as you so obviously do it really makes you look a little simple. actually, let me state this again as It was only in the previous post I made and you might have overlooked it

Now, you were either mistaken or you lied. Which is it?

 

I never challenged what you said,I maintain you gave them willingly.....I await your apology for calling me a liar

 

Im sorry, you are not in my league. In fact, I think you are playing on a different pitch altogether, I say this without malice, your deficiencies in this regard should not be considered your own fault. If you cant comprehend basic english and logic then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Good night.

 

I understand you just fine,I just don't quite believe you when you say your population was bereft of firearms like you say...And I'm not trying to play in your 'league',nor do I have any deficiencies,I just have strong opinions.

Who knows, we may even share some of the same interests....

 

hiimjered,

Don't be shy now! I found your statement interesting:

Can you answer the following questions?:

1) What is the gun ownership rate in New York or Washington? It would be useful to have a reasonably precise figure so we can evaluate how "effective ban" is being defined.

2) Training requirements was used within a "O, they make it difficult" context. When do training requirements become too burdensome?

 

1 - I don't know, but if you think it will back your point, you could post those numbers.

2 - As soon as training requirements become too difficult, expensive or time-consuming for the average person to complete them, they are too much.

Or put it this way - we should put exactly the same requirements, fees, training and testing requirement toward voting as we do toward firearm ownership. If people think that the taxes and fees would be too high if applied to voting, they are too high for firearm ownership. If the training requirements are too time consuming or difficult to be applied to voting, they are too time consuming or difficult to be applied to firearm ownership.

 

You said there was a 'virtual ban'. Are you telling me you can't defend your comment? Golly gosh!

So it isn't about safety then? You're coming out with desperately vague comment. You might want to sort that out if you want to attack the comments over 'gun myth-makers'

 

Ok, in New York, there were roughly 36,000 legal gun owners and 2,500 concealed weapons permit holders. That is in a city with a population over 8 million so less than one half of one percent of its citizens can legally own a firearm.

in 2010 there were just over 1,000 legal firearms in Washington DC. That is in a population of 600,000 so a little over a tenth of a percent of its population - assuming each person only owns one weapon.

If we applied the same percentage numbers to other civil rights, such as speech or voting, I'm sure they would be considered to be effectively banned.

As for the cost and limits, I was pretty specific. Gun ownership is a civil right, so the same principles should be applied to gun ownership as are applied to voting. You have to register to vote, so we can make people register to own firearms. You aren't allowed to have any form of testing or fees for voting, so the same should be applied to firearm ownership.

 

You haven't source your figures (a poor mistake), but let's go with it as if you're right. So what's your definition of ban?

No you weren't. You rambled on about voting. I want you to tell me when training is too much. When is safety a red herring? When is safety dominating? etc etc etc. Don't dodge this time as you're beginning to worry me!

 

I was never talking about safety - that is irrelevant. The point I was discussing was:

Safety is irrelevant to the discussion - but the concept of unrestricted civil rights is.

Regardless, once government restrictions reach a point where something is not accessible for the average person, it is effectively banned. If an absolute elimination of something is required for it to be banned, nothing has ever been banned in history, since a protected group always has legal access. By such standards cocaine and heroin are not banned in the US, since people can legally obtain them with a doctor's prescription. Yet I doubt that anyone would consider them to be anything other than banned in the US.

 

I asked you to refer to two things. First, when does a gun prevalence rate become consistent with am "effective ban"? You haven't offered an answer yet! Second, when do training requirements become too burdensome? This resulted from your own comment "You just have to pay a HUGE fee and go through lots of registration and training requirements.

Let's not bother with your delaying prance. Answer the questions and be a good egg!