Oz, Land of the Free and Home of the...

[t-ice]

Nice read this, color me flatfooted by heero actually leveling serious argumentation. I just wish the US constitution would have been written a couple centuries earlier, so that the unfortunate word "firearm" would have been replaced with "blade", "longbow", or somesuch. Because a modern assault rifle or automatic pistol bears about as much resemblance to a bow than it does to the musket the writers of that document knew of. Imagining Americans toting around their cities bearing huge arse swords for self decense, and firebrand lobbyist defending this constitutional right, makes me smile

in some areas of the US the police are out of control and regularly get away with murder.

Totally opposite to being a reason for everyone to carry a gun, I'd claim this has a lot to do with every other person these policemen face being a potential nutcase carrying a deadly weapon. Pretty much every human right violation comes from the need to defend "us, the good guys" against "them, the evil guys", with as heavy and effective means as necessary. And then us covering up for each other after those means turned just a little bit too heavy for the limelight. It's hard keeping up the friendly bobby culture when you know everyone you go to discipline could shoot you in the face.

The whole gun discussion do nicely show the reason why US backpedals on these "freedom" indices: fear. Americans are more afraid of each other and also external threats. It's easy giving everyone freedom in a safe place (whether real or perceived safety).

[I-KP]

I do not expect any of you foreigners to understand this relationship many of us Americans have with our firearms, but calling it 'unhealthy' is just plain ignorant. Unlike the rest of the western world, the US is not country with a largely homogenous citizenry. Some are (far) more homogenous than others, but for the most part you all come from countries where the general population shares an ethnicity, religion, and general set of morals/beliefs.

USA ethnicity breakdown[1]: White (79.96%) | Hispanic (15.1%) | black (12.85%) | Asian (4.43%) | mixed (1.61%) | Amerindian Alaska Native (0.97%) | Pacific Islander (0.18%)
USA religious breakdown[1]: Christianity (84%) | Judaism (1.9%) | Islam (1.6%) | Buddhism (0.91%) | ethnic religions (0.39%) | Hinduism (0.38%) | Bahá'í Faith (0.28%) | Sikhism (0.09%) | Spiritism (0.05%) | Chinese Universism (0.029%) | Shinto (0.02%) | Zoroastrianism (0.019%) | Taoism (0.004%) | Jainism (0.0026%)

Included for comparison:
UK ethnicity breakdown[1]: English (77%) | Scottish (7.9%) | Welsh (4.5%) | Northern Irish (2.7%) | black (2%) | Indian (1.8%) | other (1.6%) | Pakistani (1.3%) | mixed (1.2%)
UK religious breakdown[1]: Christianity (82%) | Islam (2.2%) | Hinduism (0.81%) | Judaism (0.52%) | Sikhism (0.39%) | Buddhism (0.28%) | Zoroastrianism (0.15%) | Spiritism (0.12%) | Chinese Universism (0.067%) | Bahá'í Faith (0.056%) | ethnic religions (0.012%)
Australian ethnicity breakdown[1]: White (92%) | Asian (7%) | aboriginal and other (1%)
Australian religious breakdown[1]: Christianity (77%) | Buddhism (2.1%) | Islam (1.6%) | Hinduism (0.56%) | Judaism (0.49%) | Chinese Universism (0.47%) | ethnic religions (0.28%) | Confucianism (0.25%) | Bahá'í Faith (0.18%) | Sikhism (0.087%) | Spiritism (0.031%) | Zoroastrianism (0.016%) | Jainism (0.0036%)

What exactly are the militant and dangerous elements within the USA that lead you to use your diverse ethnicity and religion as part justification to arm yourselves to the teeth?

Despite what you may think, you probably have far more trust in your politicians and laws than the average American, and your opposing political parties are oftentimes much closer aligned than what basically amounts to polar opposites on the wacko spectrum in the US.

USA Presidential Election turnout figures[2]:
2000: 50.3%
2004: 55.7%
2008: 57.1%

UK General Election turnout figures[3]:
2001: 59.4%
2005: 61.4%
2010: 65.1%

Not all that much difference there. Although these are very high level numbers they do at least give us an inkling as to how willing citizens are to engage with the political process. (The UK has its fair share of far right-wing movements, some of which are even gaining in popularity and until the last election one -- a nasty, isolationist nationalist group -- even had a seat in the House of Commons.) The USA is quick to defend Democracy, and enforce it in as many areas of the world as she can, and within a democratic nation the way citizens are meant to express their opinion is through a tick in a box, not a bullet in a chamber. If the democratic process is another justification for arming yourselves to the teeth, as you imply, then the USA is far more shafted than I ever thought it was. (As it happens, I do not believe that the vast majority of level-headed Americans share your insinuation on this point.)

Couple this with the fact that your nation (probably, are there currently any?) wasnt founded through open revolt and bloodshed to cast off an (percieved or otherwise, argue as you will) oppressor of a sovereign nation.

The US war of independence ended in 1782, if my history does not let me down, a struggle in which England played no small part. Forty years earlier England once again saw conflict on her own soil during the Jacobite invasions. (Let us also not forget the French Revolution that ended in 1799; the country transitioned from being feudal to a republic in a few, short years.) Come 1865 the US saw the end of its own civil war, nearly a hundred years after England saw it’s last serious conflict on her own soil (sans the struggles in Northern Ireland much later). (If proximity to the present day is to be your riposte, then consider the Hungarian Revolution of 1956; fighting in the streets of Budapest between the Soviets and the revolutionaries. Breaking away from the Warsaw Pact was no mean feat. Note that Hungarian gun laws are more lax than those of the UK but are still far more proscriptive than those of the USA.)

England has seen just as much conflict on her own soil as the US, and faced threats from her neighbours, throughout her history and yet, somehow, we now do not find ourselves in the grip of an unhealthy relationship with firearms. That is not so say that we have never faced difficulties in this regard, we have: up until 1988 firearms were prevalent in the UK and although strict licensing was in place it was a fairly trivial matter to obtain a firearm, for whatever intended use. In 1988 many forms of firearms were criminalized and since then the restrictions have been getting ever tighter, to the point that now nearly all forms of firearms are prohibited. The UK government of the time acted when they needed to, in no small part due to the Hungerford massacre of 1987.

Overall point being that none of the contributory factors that you cite above, either in isolation or collectively, unavoidably lead to the situation that the USA now faces. Frankly, they all sound much more like excuses to me (and to most of the rest of the developed world).

[1] source: Wolfram Alpha.
[2] source: Wikipedia.
[3] source: ONS (Officer for National Statistics).

[Stormseeker]

So U.K. is a little over 92% white. Point something out, many of us are here are a mix, on paper i am in the white group, but my background is Scotch,Irish,Cherokee,Osage,Blackfoot, and some type of Dutch/French/German Gypsy. Just a tad over 1/4 Native American and the rest European.

just thought i would add how odd we are and this is our definition of white.

The United States Census Bureau defines White people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported “White” or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish."[16] Whites constitute the majority of the U.S. population, with a total of 223,553,265 or 72.4% of the population in the 2010 United States Census. (72.4% = 63.7% "White + Not Hispanic or Latino" + 8.7% "White + Hispanic or Latino"

[Ronan]

Totally opposite to being a reason for everyone to carry a gun, I'd claim this has a lot to do with every other person these policemen face being a potential nutcase carrying a deadly weapon. Pretty much every human right violation comes from the need to defend "us, the good guys" against "them, the evil guys", with as heavy and effective means as necessary. And then us covering up for each other after those means turned just a little bit too heavy for the limelight. It's hard keeping up the friendly bobby culture when you know everyone you go to discipline could shoot you in the face.

Certainly true; keep your hands within visible sight when interacting with police in the US. I don't have stats on it (and wouldn't trust them anyway, given how many police reports contain fabrications), but the local police shootings which draw my attention were against people who obviously posed no threat whatsoever. I'd say its more a matter of police facing far fewer disincentives to use violence as responsibly as an ordinary person. Police do have a dangerous profession, but its less dangerous than delivering pizza or construction work (if anyone should be packing heat, it is pizza deliverers).

The whole gun discussion do nicely show the reason why US backpedals on these "freedom" indices: fear. Americans are more afraid of each other and also external threats. It's easy giving everyone freedom in a safe place (whether real or perceived safety).

More afraid of each other, sure; as noted we still have more murder here so this is rational. I'm not sure about external threats; most Americans find the anti-terrorist measures (e.g., the TSA) taken within the US to be profoundly silly.

What exactly are the militant and dangerous elements within the USA that lead you to use your diverse ethnicity and religion as part justification to arm yourselves to the teeth?

Citing diversity as a cause is sometimes a nice way of saying "blacks in the US kill a lot more often" (about 7x), because no one wants to be labeled a racist. Facts are facts, though obviously they can't and don't prove causality: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm (hispanics seem to be classified as white here, but I think they murder about 2x as often as whites, on average). I believe structural differences (i.e. poverty and unemployment among young males) has been shown to explain all of these racial differences with latinos, and about half of it with blacks.

Also the correct racial breakdown is 72% white (includes asians, white hispanics), 15% latino and 13% black. Your figures add up to over 100%. I think caucasians are about 66% (and shrinking) of the population. There is ample researching showing countries with more cultural and genetic homogeneity to be happier. Much of this is likely due to an irrational "us v. them" mentality, but its still true. These facts are rarely brought up because few people want to be thought of as racists, but I'm all out of f@#ks to give.

USA Presidential Election turnout figures[2]:
2000: 50.3%
2004: 55.7%
2008: 57.1%

UK General Election turnout figures[3]:
2001: 59.4%
2005: 61.4%
2010: 65.1%

Not all that much difference there. Although these are very high level numbers they do at least give us an inkling as to how willing citizens are to engage with the political process. (The UK has its fair share of far right-wing movements, some of which are even gaining in popularity and until the last election one -- a nasty, isolationist nationalist group -- even had a seat in the House of Commons.) The USA is quick to defend Democracy, and enforce it in as many areas of the world as she can, and within a democratic nation the way citizens are meant to express their opinion is through a tick in a box, not a bullet in a chamber. If the democratic process is another justification for arming yourselves to the teeth, as you imply, then the USA is far more shafted than I ever thought it was. (As it happens, I do not believe that the vast majority of level-headed Americans share your insinuation on this point.)

US voter turnout is < 50% in most election's; the UK's is around 75% I believe? Link.

Many states have tried to ban certain types of guns in various ways. Many of those laws were struck down as unconstitutional, and as far as I know none of them produced any statistical benefit (link; it also includes stats on the "right to carry" laws which allowed firearms in public places), therefore its hard for me to find fault with people being armed to the teeth if they want to be armed to the teeth.

[I-KP]

So U.K. is a little over 92% white. Point something out, many of us are here are a mix, on paper i am in the white group, but my background is Scotch,Irish,Cherokee,Osage,Blackfoot, and some type of Dutch/French/German Gypsy. Just a tad over 1/4 Native American and the rest European.

Excellent point. Bringing this kicking and screaming back into context: Which part of your heritage do you think scares Heero so much that he uses it as part justification to arm himself to the teeth to defend house and home from it?

[I-KP]

the UK's is around 75% I believe?

The last time the UK had a 75% turnout was twenty years ago. For reference, US turnout was about 50% at that time[1]. Since then UK turnout has fallen and US has improved. Regardless of the differences, which are slight given recent times, arming yourselves to the eyeballs with automatic weapons is a pretty damn bizarre way of improving engagement in the political process.

Your figures add up to over 100%.

They're not supposed to add up to 100% because the information is census driven and citizens are often allowed to tick more than one box where applicable.

[1] Difficult to get reliable figures as every state registered voters in different ways back then, and since, with some states even registering only at the ballot box. Weird lot.

[Witchdoctor]

Good debate here.

What is the underlying point we have moved to now? Is it to save lives? If that is the case then we are focusing our efforts on the wrong thing. We can go back and forth on this but none can argue that drinking takes more lives than gun ownership ever will. Why has the civilized world ignored this? Where is the ban on the biggest killers of humanity?

I would like to know how many who support gun bans own them now. I believe it is much easier to support banning something you do not care about under the guise of the risk to human life and then mold your case to justify your position than to jump on the "ban" wagon (( clever right?)) about things that you do care about.

Ban your whiskey, wine and beer then come back and I will listen to your point about guns.

Sincerely,

A responsible drinker and gun owner

[Stormseeker]

lol since i am a hillbilly, sometimes grouped with the classification "good ole boy", he doesnt gear up for protection from me. Can't speak for him but I gear up slowly from the threat of those in the cities and the failure of my goverment, In case of natural disaster or time,one of these things will be a threat to my family.
Always be prepared. If not for this generation then lay the foundation for the next or the next after that.

[Ronan]

...arming yourselves to the eyeballs with automatic weapons is a pretty damn bizarre way of improving engagement in the political process.

These two things are unrelated. Americans say they own guns largely for protection, hunting, and hobby (marksmanship) use. Also, automatic weapons are extremely rare, hard to obtain and are very rarely used in violence. Note that they (e.g. the iconic tommy gun) were first banned as a response to the gang wars which erupted around alcohol prohibition. I'm not sure if the bans were effective or not.

Heero was citing the original cultural roots of America's gun culture, which is had some of its roots in distrust of government. The second amendment was second (and not tenth) because everyone thought it was extremely important, as only a government with tyrannical intentions would not trust its citizens with the ability to protect themselves. The notion of not trusting ones government was reinforced by the very people who created our federal government. Note that historically (i.e. the 20th century) governments have been responsible for much more killing than individual homicides (3-4x I think, though I can't find the stats now), with their own citizens often being the victims. Even if we presuppose firearm bans save lives, it could have easily been worth the cost to prevent democide.

The second amendment was put in place to stop things like the German Weapon Act from being passed. It is easy to look back and say "it didn't happen here" (at least not on that scale...), but hindsight is hindsight. White on black violence was a much, much bigger problem than it is today.

Non-presidential elections in the US have turnouts of 35% and lower. The US consistently has very low voter turnout.

Witchdoctor, I have never owned a gun (though I've fired of thousands of rounds in others') and do not support a firearms ban. Also I believe history (and economics; shame we don't teach it in schools...) speaks for how well alcohol prohibition works

[SwordSaintMusashi]

lol since i am a hillbilly, sometimes grouped with the classification "good ole boy", he doesnt gear up for protection from me. Can't speak for him but I gear up slowly from the threat of those in the cities and the failure of my goverment, In case of natural disaster or time,one of these things will be a threat to my family.
Always be prepared. If not for this generation then lay the foundation for the next or the next after that.

You're the scary character from every zombie apocalypse movie who was just 'too prepared' for this kind of thing.

[I-KP]

...arming yourselves to the eyeballs with automatic weapons is a pretty damn bizarre way of improving engagement in the political process.

These two things are unrelated.

Exactly, which is why I mocked the idea that they were with a healthy dose of sarcasm.

Heero was citing the original cultural roots of America's gun culture, which is had some of its roots in distrust of government. The second amendment was second (and not tenth) because everyone thought it was extremely important, as only a government with tyrannical intentions would not trust its citizens with the ability to protect themselves. The notion of not trusting ones government was reinforced by the very people who created our federal government.

It made sense 222 years ago; now, it's an out-moded and unsustainable way of thinking.

Non-presidential elections in the US have turnouts of 35% and lower. The US consistently has very low voter turnout.

Local elections in the UK pull in about the same turnout.

Also I believe history (and economics; shame we don't teach it in schools...) speaks for how well alcohol prohibition works

I hope that smilie indicates that you're aware of that being an informal fallacy.

[Heero]

Excellent point. Bringing this kicking and screaming back into context: Which part of your heritage do you think scares Heero so much that he uses it as part justification to arm himself to the teeth to defend house and home from it?

Adanu, here is that mythical ad hominem you seek. "Heero has guns; therefore, Heero is a scared." Or a logical fallacy, at the very least.

It may or may not help to point out that the firearms I do own are all intended and used for various sporting pursuits, ie shooting deer, rodents, upland birds, waterfowl, and/or canids. That I dont own an 'assualt rifle' doesnt changed the fact that my purchase of an AR-15 would not increase my chances, which are basically 0, of killing someone.

To use another Adanu-ism (sorry for calling you out ), you missed the point, I-KP. I neither meant to nor think I did in any way insinuate Great Britain hadnt gone through its share of armed conflict nor spilled blood, on its own soil or otherwise, in defense of its freedom. Unlike the US, Britain's independence was not gained through open revolt by colonials seeking independence from a sovereign nation. Your (by 'your' I mean Britain's historically lower classes, you might be landed gentry for all I know so I apologize for insinuating you are common should this be the case) liberties have come much more slowly as the upper class conceded more and more to the common man.

The other Western British colonies differ in many a regard, as well. Whereas these other former colonials gained independence through good behavior ("Hey, weve been good, can we have a little autonomy?"; "Hey, this semi-autonomy is going ok so far, can we have a little more?"; "Hey, we are still doing ok, can we maybe declare ourselves our own sovereign nation now?"), the US is unique in that it asked for some autonomy, was told 'No', then took it by force.

I dont think it is difficult to understand why the right to bear arms was written into our Constitution nor do I think it difficult to understand how this is a matter of pride for many Americans. It is understandable you find this strange; the private ownership of firearms by commonfolk in Britain, on the other hand, has never been held in any sort regards. Its understandable, quite frankly, as its not in the interest of those that fancy themselves elite by right of birth for their subjects to be armed, save as loyal troops fighting for the interests of the nation and, until more recently, under the strict command of solely those lucky enough to have been born into the upper tier of society. Ronan touched on this in regards to hunting and other sporting pursuits. While people from all classes have ample opportunity to hunt (or salmon fish) today, these pursuits, unlike in the US, were typically only available to the elite until modern times.

We are never going to agree on this matter, but thats ok because we dont really have to.

[Ronan]

It made sense 222 years ago; now, it's an out-moded and unsustainable way of thinking.

While its unlikely even a modern military would put down an insurgent revolt of armed citizens from within (look at how much trouble we had with little Iraq), its pretty clear that democracies are extremely unlikely to oppress their own people the way past regimes did.

However the costs of banning firearms in the US would be immense. The benefits in lives saved are questionable, though many lives would certainly be lost in enforcement. That you consider private firearm ownership "out-moded" or "unsustainable" says nothing of a causal link from firearms -> homicide. There are many people much smarter than us researching this issue, and they are generally honest enough to admit when they don't know the answer. When the costs are clear but the benefits are questionable, I tend to advocate "do nothing".

I am quite content knowing my neighbors may enjoy their firearms, and I don't feel any less safe for it. Violent crime has been dropping for almost two decades now; I'm perfectly content to not mess with success.

Voter turnouts:
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=GB

The US turnout is much lower on non-presidential election years.

[I-KP]

Excellent point. Bringing this kicking and screaming back into context: Which part of your heritage do you think scares Heero so much that he uses it as part justification to arm himself to the teeth to defend house and home from it?

Adanu, here is that mythical ad hominem you seek. "Heero has guns; therefore, Heero is a scared." Or a logical fallacy, at the very least.

Despite what you may think, you probably have far more trust in your politicians and laws than the average American, and your opposing political parties are oftentimes much closer aligned than what basically amounts to polar opposites on the wacko spectrum in the US.

Above used as part justification for gun ownership. A proactive defence is undertaken in fear of what might result through inaction, no matter how out-dated and backward that fear might be given modern times. Your words, bucko, not mine.

It may or may not help to point out that the firearms I do own are all intended and used for various sporting pursuits, ie shooting deer, rodents, upland birds, waterfowl, and/or canids. That I dont own an 'assualt rifle' doesnt changed the fact that my purchase of an AR-15 would not increase my chances, which are basically 0, of killing someone.

Good for you. I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking your point of view.

Unlike the US, Britain's independence was not gained through open revolt by colonials seeking independence from a sovereign nation. Your (by 'your' I mean Britain's historically lower classes, you might be landed gentry for all I know so I apologize for insinuating you are common should this be the case) liberties have come much more slowly as the upper class conceded more and more to the common man.

Leaving the not-so-well disguised slight aside for a moment...

The other Western British colonies differ in many a regard, as well. Whereas these other former colonials gained independence through good behavior ("Hey, weve been good, can we have a little autonomy?"; "Hey, this semi-autonomy is going ok so far, can we have a little more?"; "Hey, we are still doing ok, can we maybe declare ourselves our own sovereign nation now?"), the US is unique in that it asked for some autonomy, was told 'No', then took it by force.

Good for you, but guess what, that all happened hundreds of years ago. We got over it, why can't you? Some of this might explain why the US faces some of the problems that it does today but in no way does any of it explain why the US doesn't try to do something about it today, or didn't try to do something about it over the last forty years.

Here's the kicker, I don't think stricter gun control in the US will work either; it's too late. Something is going to have to give, however, and when it does the transition will be far more painful than it needed to be as a direct result of failing to act sooner.

[I-KP]

Voter turnouts:
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=GB
The US turnout is much lower on non-presidential election years.

You're not comparing like with like. The closest thing we have to a 'Non-presidential election' are the regional elections, i.e., non-general elections and bi-elections for local office, and for those turnout is ~30-40%.