America's gun laws: madness sanctioned by history

[SecularMotion]

Gun ownership in the United States is, of course, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in 1791 as part of the so-called Bill of Rights.

The relevant clause reads in its entirety: “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.”

The Founders, who had recently come through the War of Independence, were understandably anxious to defend the infant republic against all comers. They did not intend that, as in the Wild West, citizens should be ready to answer any slight with an armed confrontation that ended with one or more of the participants lying dead in the street. Nor – unlike the U.S. gun lobby – were they suggesting that the entire audience at the cinema in Aurora should have been packing – and if they were, then they must surely have anticipated that James Holmes would have opened proceedings with a [legally held] bazooka or even a chain gun mounted on his Hummer.

It astonishes me that so many Americans see the Second Amendment as giving them carte blanche to walk the streets with an arsenal more appropriate to Special Forces in the field than peace-loving, law-abiding citizens in their own country. But they do. To them, the occasional murderous rampage that kills their loved ones (or preferably someone else’s loved ones) is the price they pay for freedom. It’s too bad, but, hey, waddygonnado?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/walterellis/100173224/americas-gun-laws-madness-sanctioned-by-history/

[pipoman]

1. "the so-called Bill of Rights", eh? LOL...them brits are a laugh a minute..

[Reasonable_Argument]

26. No kidding

A lot of good men died to ensure we have those "so called rights". Many such men died when we were throwing his countrymen back into the ocean. I'm not really interested in a person's opinion on our rights when they spend centuries under the control of the crown and didn't have the backbone to overthrow it.

[DrDan]

2. deserves a big rec, particularly this paragraph . . .

"It astonishes me that so many Americans see the Second Amendment as giving them carte blanche to walk the streets with an arsenal more appropriate to Special Forces in the field than peace-loving, law-abiding citizens in their own country. But they do. To them, the occasional murderous rampage that kills their loved ones (or preferably someone else’s loved ones) is the price they pay for freedom. It’s too bad, but, hey waddygonnado?"

[holdencaufield]

3. P.A. Luty

was a British campaigner for gun rights. He saw how his countrymen had been stripped of their ability to defend themselves in post-war Britain and attempted rectify the situation by publishing several books teaching home gun-smithing and detailed plans and instructions to build weapons of all kinds (from single shot .22's to fully automatic machine pistols) using readily available machinist tools and materials.

Though arrested many times he was never to my knowledge convicted of a crime but he was able to demonstrate the futility of attempting to rid a populace of weapons by attacking only the law-abiding citizens.

[PavePusher]

13. Unfortunately for you, hyperbole and non-factual assertions are meaningless. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

14. LOL Your post is the very definition of hyperbole.

[DrDan]

25. "non-factual"?

The assertions are demonstrated on a regular basis in this forum.

[Ashgrey77]

31. Prove it then.

[upaloopa]

4. This is a more rational piece than the gun owner propaganda we get here at DU.

At least the Telegraph isn't going to let itself be bullied by the gun lobby like so many Americans allow themselves be bullied.

But America is waking up to the fact that we can't continue this de-evolutional slide back to a wild west mentality.

I applaud the Telegraph for it's willingness to speak truth to power no matter how regressive that power is.

[Glaug-Eldare]

5. Naturally, no mention of the fact

that the "Wild West" wasn't all that bloody. Today's gun-controlled megalopolises are far more prone to gunfights than all but the most lawless frontier towns ever were. The root cause of gun violence isn't in our holsters -- it's in our heads.

[Hoyt]

6. Guns certainly enable violence, and help cowards intimidate others (Zimmerman as example).

[Glaug-Eldare]

7. And doors help keep the police out. Ban all doors.

Or at least restrict the number and types of doors private citizens are allowed to have, and require them to demonstrate need for a police-stopping door.

[4th law of robotics]

11. So why is it states with higher rates of gun ownership

don't have higher rates of crime?

Are there genetic differences between the denizens of Wisconsin and say Michigan that make one group more violence-prone?

Or is it something else unrelated to human nature or guns?

[Hoyt]

44. Actually, look at southern states -- they have highest rates of gun ownership AND violent crime.

Don't know where you did your research, but sounds like one of those right wing gun sites.

But, why try to be truthful when you are trying to protect your precious guns?

[4th law of robotics]

49. And western states have the highest rate of gun ownership and lowest rates of crime

look you asked a trick question because any source that doesn't say "grr guns bad!" is defacto a rightwing source as far as you are concerned. Right?

You won't accept it but here goes:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

[Hoyt]

50. Your citation completely refutes your claim. Read the dang thing before offering it as "proof."

[4th law of robotics]

51. How does "no direct causal relationship" refute my claims when I'm claiming that

there is no direct causal relationship?

I think living in a constant state of gun hysteria has rotted away your frontal lobes.

[Hoyt]

52. Your post #11 said states with higher rates of gun ownership don't have higher rates violent crime.

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Your way of posting it was, "So why is it states with higher rates of gun ownership
don't have higher rates of crime?"

The link you cite says nothing like that, basically just the opposite. Nor, did post #11 say anything about "casual" relationships.

In fact, states with higher rates of gun ownership, do tend to have higher crime rates.

[4th law of robotics]

53. Some states with high gun ownership rates have high crime rates

most do not.

Ergo there is no causal relationship.

If your theory (hurr guns bad. guns cause crime. durr) held true then there would only be high crime rates in states with high gun ownership rates.

Your theory is clearly wrong. And yet you persist in it.

[Hoyt]

55. My theory is guns in public - snd the crud that go with them - are bad for society.

[4th law of robotics]

57. Great. Now what comes after formulating a hypothesis?

Data!

Do provide it.

/oh and define what you mean by "bad for society" and what is the crud that goes with guns in public.

[Hoyt]

59. Don't have time now to splain everything to you. What do guns in your pants contribute to society?

[4th law of robotics]

61. So you reject the scientific method

some people will start with a conclusion and work backwards by generating data to support it.

Not great but at least they provide data.


You start and finish with the conclusion. Data is tiresome to you. Rational interpretation is beyond your grasp. So instead it's just claims and the personal attacks on those who disagree.

Kind of like a religion.

[Hoyt]

63. "Scientific Method" is seldom applicable to politics and issues impacting society's future.

Things aren't that simple, yet simpletons try to view everything as 1 + 1 = 2. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

[4th law of robotics]

64. I guess some things just don't have to be studied for you to "know" they're true

is that right?

/just like we don't have to do studies on whether throwing virgins in the volcano appeases the gods, you just know it.

[Hoyt]

65. Correct, I don't need a study to tell me "throwing virgins in volcano does not appease gods."

Nor do I need a study to tell me a lot of folks are bigots and carry guns for reasons other than "self-defense."

Studies in this context are just ways to delay any action.

I don't need a study to tell me Zimmerman -- without a gun -- would have sat in his car and played with himself rather than chasing down and shooting Trayvon Martin.

[4th law of robotics]

66. Ahahahahahaha

Funny thing about going with your gut: the gut has very little neural tissue. It's good for producing excrement, ahem, but not so good at creating well thought out ideas based on a rational synthesis of empirical data.

[Starboard Tack]

15. "the "Wild West" wasn't all that bloody" - Really? By whose standards?

The root cause of violence is in our heads, you are correct. The kinds of heads that think guns are like fire extinguishers and spare tires. The kinds of heads that don't think when they step out of the house with a gun strapped to their body. The kinds of heads that think guns solve problems rather than create them.

Go tell our native American brothers and sisters how the "Wild West wasn't all that bloody"

[gejohnston]

16. that wasn't because of

Jim Bridger or some homesteading rancher. That was the US Army.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Right. That doesn't make it violent when the army does it.

It was all a myth. Funny how myths take on a life of their own and now here we are 150 years later and a bunch of nutcases think they are living in a world that apparently never existed in the first place. Point is, it is irrelevant how wild the west was, but how crazy urban America is becoming.

[gejohnston]

24. you missed the point

the wild west myth is about duels and having shoot outs over card games and petty disputes over how close you tied your horse to the next guy's.

Urban America was always like that. Most of the "toters" were in urban US and Europe at the time. Those would be the same city slickers that today would drive their luxury SUVs to the time share to "rough it" in the Jacuzzi.

[Starboard Tack]

29. No, I don't miss the point.

The gun carriers of today are living the myth and perpetuating the myth and that's why they are held up to ridicule by most thinking people.
I really don't understand why you keep siding with the extremists.

[gejohnston]

32. in your opinion

but they are not living the myth, they are living the reality of urban American and Europe at that time.
Extremists would be someone who would repeal the NFA and GCA to allow mail order machine guns without a background check.

[Ashgrey77]

33. I live in the "Wild West", I have my whole life, from Wichita to Midland to Denver.

And it's nothing like you think it is, and never was anything like you think it was.

[Starboard Tack]

38. And how do I think it was, according to you?

I have no illusions about how "wild" the west was. I am familiar with the myths. The urban gunslingers of today are the ones who buy into Hollywood's version.
Gangs and lawlessness were major factors, exemplified by feuds, cattle barons, gold prospecting, water rights and land wars, such as the Lincoln County wars. Greed always spawns violence and the exploration of the west was a violent period in this country's history.

[Ashgrey77]

40. You sure do seem to buy into "Hollywood's version", hook line and sinker.

[gejohnston]

41. The gangs and contract killers had better

PR than their more plentiful urban counter parts. Lincoln County and Johnson County wars were two rare events. The latter involved hired mercenaries. While range wars did occur, the death tolls probably nothing compared to NYC's Five Points on any given week.

[NewMoonTherian]

37. Gun carriers aren't living or perpetuating any myth. Nor are they extremists.

You're painting a large, diverse group with a broad, ignorant brush. From our past interactions, I think you're much more intelligent than that, so what gives?

[Starboard Tack]

39. Not all gun carriers are extremists, but indiscriminate carrying is extreme behavior.

There are always going to be situations when it makes sense to be armed and prepared. When I cross deserts or oceans I carry plenty water. When I go shopping I take a cart and bags. If I were on a SWAT team, I would carry a gun. If I were out to kill someone, I would take a gun. If I knew someone was out to kill me, I'd either carry a gun, stay home, or move.

Those who promote this indiscriminate kind of behavior, IMO, are extremists and do nothing to further progressive ideals. I am in no way suggesting that they are extremist in other ways. I've known many individuals in my life who are extreme in one way or another. Doesn't make them bad people. I come from a country where eccentricity is the norm.

[NewMoonTherian]

42. I think I understand better, then.

We simply disagree in regard to what we consider extreme. There certainly are extremists among gun carriers.

For what it's worth, I don't consider the simple act of carrying a handgun extreme, in almost any case. For me, extreme would be openly carrying in a blatantly inappropriate situation, like the freak with the "Water the tree of Liberty" sign and the AR-15 outside... whatever political rally(sorry, I've totally forgotten whose it was and I don't feel like looking it up. You know the one). Not that I support banning open carry in those situations, but I feel actions like that are extreme to the point of stupidity.

[Starboard Tack]

71. I don't consider the simple act of carrying extreme either.

I consider the habit extreme, unless there exists some ongoing threat. That could include living in a high violent crime area, where the carrier fits the victim profile. Personally, I'd relocate before adopting such a habit.

[Hoyt]

46. Cowboys had enough sense to require folks to turn in their guns before going into a bar.

[Jenoch]

67. The 'cowboys' weren't requiring anything.

It was local law enforcement that required that to happen. The cowboys were the ones who had to go into the bar unarmed. geesh....

[Hoyt]

68. Fact is, they didn't go into bars armed --who gives a crud about whether it was cowboys, or elected

officials who laid down the law. Apparently, the cowboys were fine with going in unarmed. It's only today's gun cultist who support the NRA's attempts to pay off legislators to let the gun cultist go any place they please (without regard to public's desires).

You guys just spend your life obfuscating because there is no moral or other justification for toting guns in public where 90+% of population feels fine without a gun.

[Trunk Monkey]

69. If that's true why did so many shootings happen in bars?

Hardin was shot in the back in a bar

John Selman (the man who shot Hardin) was shot in a bar

Hardin was involved in several shootings in bars as was James Butler Hicock

Clay Alison was involved n quite a few shootings in bars as well.

The whole "No guns in Bars" thing generally only applied in the part of town reserved for cattle drovers and drovers generally weren't allowed in other parts of town

[Jenoch]

70. You made a factual error. I simply corrected it.

In the Minnesota CCW classes another point stressed to the nth degree is to NOT carry when going to establishments where a CCW holder is going to consume liquor.

I don't happen to carry a concealed weapon nor do i have a permit to do so. However, it's not my problem if somebody else is 'uncomfortable' if someone is carrying a concealed weapon when it is legal for them to do so.

[Hoyt]

72. Lots of things are legal, but immoral and an affront to society.

[Jenoch]

73. I strongly agree with you.

[Hoyt]

79. I bet you do.

[gejohnston]

74. I agree

allowing credit card companies to charge rates that would make a loan shark blush being among them.
Toting really isn't.

[Hoyt]

80. In my view,toting falls right in their with displaying swastikas,, confederate flags,greedy

corprotists, polluters, etc.

[4th law of robotics]

19. Indeed, guns in the hands of an organized military force can be quite dangerous

Ask the US cavalry what happened to the native population.

But even the strongest anti-gun advocate doesn't push for disarming the military. So I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[Starboard Tack]

22. So that makes genocide OK if they were wearing uniforms?

Obviously you don't see what that has to do with anything. That's the problem and a mindset like yours contributes to the problem. It's called denial. "It wasn't us, it was the military"
Growing up in Europe in the forties and fifties, I heard a lot of same feigned ignorance and denial of responsibility.

[4th law of robotics]

23. I don't know if they give out awards for strawmen

but if they do you deserve one.

We're discussing civilian gun ownership.

Can you acknowledge the historical fact that civilian gun ownership wasn't a major contributor to the genocide of the native population here?

If you want to have a thread on "hur guns are bad derrr" then go for it.

That's not what's being discussed here however.

Consider: if we'd never had the 2nd amendment. If Americans were never allowed privately held guns. Would that have stopped the genocide of the Native population by the US military that was never affected by the 2nd amendment?

[EX500rider]

56. "Can you acknowledge the historical fact that civilian gun ownership wasn't a major contributor.."

Even guns in the hands of the military wasn't the major cause of the natives tribes decline, the major cause was disease.

[NewMoonTherian]

43. The point, as I read it...

was that it wasn't private ownership of guns that resulted in the mass bloodshed of the mid-to-late 1800's. It was action on the part of the government, and the strictest of gun laws wouldn't have prevented it. Civilian gun ownership and carry are what we're discussing, so I don't think US military action should figure into this particular discussion. It could figure into a different, broader discussion though.

[spin]

75. Firearms for self defense are indeed a lot like fire extinguishers and spare tires ...

I don't expect my house to burn down or to get a flat tire but it MIGHT happen. It is nice to be prepared. I did have to use a fire extinguisher 25 years ago. I can't remember the last time I had a flat.

I legally carry a handgun but I really don't expect that I will ever have to use it. The weapon I carry is a .38 caliber snub nosed revolver. It is extremely light and easy to carry. If I actually had any reason to worry, I would carry a much more powerful handgun.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Don't you not see how absurd that statement is?

You don't carry a fire extinguisher or a spare tire concealed on your person. Neither do you carry them for self defense.
You keep them in your home or car for emergencies like fire or getting a flat tire. You carry a gun for the purpose of defending yourself from some unknown assailant. The only way to effectively defend yourself with a gun is to point it at your attacker and, if you deem necessary, shoot them. How you equate that scenario to putting out a fire or changing a tire, quite frankly, boggles the mind.

[spin]

82. Of course you can use a fire extinquisher for self defense ...

Obviously a 12 gauge shotgun is a far better home defense weapon. Of course you can't easily conceal either. That's why I carry a snub nosed revolver.

If you have a fire, you point the fire extinguisher at the base of the flames and spray. My 12 gauge shotgun or my revolver would do little good against a fire. You always want to use the proper tool for the job. My snub nosed revolver is a great little tool for self defense both on the street and in the home.

[ileus]

8. uk blogs... relevent to US rights?

[Starboard Tack]

17. Relevant to leading the way to sanity and away from arrogant stupidity.

[Reasonable_Argument]

27. If by sanity

You mean at the mercy of others than sure. Personally, no thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Sorry, I have no idea what your post means.

[Missycim]

34. He means

being at the mercy of a criminal.

We cant always use a bike tire to defend ourselves

[hack89]

58. That is why we have cans of beans. nt

[spin]

76. Or we can always use a can of beans! (n/t)

[ileus]

54. Well Said...

[Jenoch]

9. I wonder what the OP thinks about this opinion

piece in a British publication?

[NewMoonTherian]

45. I think he agrees...

but isn't brave enough to try defending that position with rational debate of his own. Does that about sum it up?

[rl6214]

83. You can't ask him/her otherwise you will be called a stalker

[4th law of robotics]

10. I think the special forces would be pretty upset if they had to carry

AR-15s. Even if they did have a shoulder thing that went up.

More hyperbole.

[holdencaufield]

12. 28 Gun Crimes Commited Daily in UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

"There were 10,182 firearms offences in the year to the end of September compared with 9,755 in the previous 12 months - an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week."

[Starboard Tack]

18. How many dead? How many were real guns?

How many of those "gun crimes" would be considered crimes in the US?
Do you really want to talk numbers on this? No, I didn't think so.

[gejohnston]

21. most probably were real guns

they are not hard to get.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/i-bought-a-submachinegun-within-24-hours-6613202.html

using SMGs is more common in the UK than here.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Anyone can get a gun if they don't mind facing the consequences if caught with it.

[Missycim]

35. Did you actually think before you

typed that thought out? So by your own words new gun laws won't actually stop a person from getting a gun?

[4th law of robotics]

36. Consider murderers who are facing life in prison or possibly the death penalty

what other penalties would it take to deter them if they've already accepted that first one?

Death . . . plus a 1000 dollar fine.

Death . . . plus community service.

Death . . . plus being placed on a registry.

[NewMoonTherian]

47. That last one would actually make me pretty angry.

Death is quick and, in this country, painless. But then I get stuck on a stupid list for the rest of eternity? That sucks.

[4th law of robotics]

48. Chances are if you go on a killing spree you'll at least get a wikipedia page

It's hard to be forgotten in this day and age.

[Clames]

60. So-called Bill of Rights?

Author sounds like he's a bit jealous and still angry that the colonist rebelled in the first place. How rude of them.

[glacierbay]

62. So called Bill of Rights.

That's all I need to see.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. The Brits are concerned? They should be concerned with England and Wales, and the great number

of knife attacks occurring on that side of the pond.

Great Britain publishes annual crime reports which can be purchased by news agencies and others. One which was purchased for the use of the UK's Daily Mail indicated that England and Wales were seeing knife attacks which were equivalent to one every four minutes in 2007.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

Presumably there are similar governmental reports up to the present, but it is unknown whether the Daily Mail has purchased them and reported on such knife attacks after its earlier report.

[rDigital]

78. This is quite disturbing considering that England is only a little bigger in landmass than

the State of Ohio.