12 ms·

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to unders

by fakeer 14y ago

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful and rich (mainly because of license red tape and high license fee) and operational equipment for criminals. But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane. I mean I just want to understand the logic behind it, if there's anything other than the logic that "the gun lobby makes sure it's open" - just like the tobacco lobby the world over even though it's perfectly clear that it causes cancer(i.e. it kills). I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security. There's one more doubt - is it as easy and as simple to get a gun in USA as it's projected in films or in the media? That looks like going to a store and asking for a new mobile handset. Maybe the latter is more complex.

BSousa 14y ago
Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next). So you have the lobbies, and supporting those lobbies you have 'ignorant' people defending their 'rights' on this issue. I can only imagine how hard it must be to try and do something about it.
- embwbam 14y ago
  I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when their guns get "taken away". You can see why new gun control laws might be alarming if you have this attitude.
  - BSousa 14y ago
    As I said, it was a supposition ;) I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong. In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.
    - rooshdi 14y ago
      I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      > In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. > but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them. It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.
    - sigzero 14y ago
      The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.
- lolcraft 14y ago
  It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce laws when there was no police or army able to do so for you. For instance, in the days of slavery, the 2nd amendment was used to justify groups of armed thugs [1] that hunted black slaves on the run. I've never understood the logic behind Republicans of the 20th century [2]. AFAICT, they think the 2nd gives them "the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government". That's clearly bullshit. First, because what constitutes tyranny changes a lot from person to person, and only legislation can define it clearly and "democratically". Second, because the former means you're legitimizing political violence in a democracy, precisely the system where that kind of shit should not be allowed. So in fact you're just making terrorism, or at least the kinds of terrorism you like, legal, with all the contradictions that would bring. Timothy-McVeigh-like bullshit ensues. [1] Of course, back then they were considered to be respectable persons that followed the law. [2] They're not the only ones, of course (cf. Black Panthers, which I personally am more sympathetic to, since IMO there was clearly oppression there), but they're the loudest.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. 2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true. 3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide. Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have. That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.
- dpiers 14y ago
  America was founded by revolutionaries; people who understood that tyranny and threats to liberty do not necessarily come from foreign powers. The right to bear arms and form a militia was established to protect citizens from their own government as much as any foreign power. The idea of a bunch of gun toting lunatics becoming fed up with the government and revolting is terrifying, but it's also how this country came to exist.
- damoncali 14y ago
  Almost. The constitution enumerates certain rights that are specifically off limits to the government to give them extra emphasis - the Bill of Rights , which are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The 2nd, of course is the right to bear arms. An interesting side note is that there was a debate as to whether or not to even include the bill of rights lest future leaders attempt to nitpick their language and twist them into restrictions of the people. Or still worse, that they would be perceived as the only rights protected by the constitution. Never were they intended to be justification for restriction of the people. But back to the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is steeped in American and Anglo culture and history. This is the best summary I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... The purpose of the amendment is quite certainly military in nature, and comes from a distrust of centralized government and a dangerous world in general. The authors wanted to make it totally crystal clear that the government could not subvert the people's obvious right to arm themselves and form military units, aka "militias". The nature of the threat to which those militias could respond was pretty much anything - the security of the state. The federalist papers offer context here. So yes, there is a constitutional basis for all this. But more than that it is a deeply ingrained part of American history and culture. People like to throw around the power of lobbyists, but that's not really it. The American people largely believe at a fundamental level that access to weapons is a strong and necessary counter to the existence of armed units within the government and elsewhere. The power of the gun lobby flows from that, not the other way around.
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  So a silly question: does the constitution protect the right to own ammunition as well as weapons?
  - MrMember 14y ago
    I highly doubt any ultra-restrictive form of 'ammunition control' would pass Constitutional scrutiny. Saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect ownership of ammunition is like saying the 1st Amendment only protects free speech in a literal sense (words coming out of your mouth) and not speech on the Internet.
  - damoncali 14y ago
    yes.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    The second amendment protects firearms, not bludgeoning instruments that are shaped like firearms -- so yes.
    - suresk 14y ago
      I have a question about the 2nd amendment: Is the right to bear arms absolute, or is it subject to reasonable regulation? Example: There are a lot of weapons I cannot legally acquire, for example: I can't buy an M249 machine gun, most automatic M-16s, a functioning fighter jet with all its armament, or a nuclear warhead. In your view, is this acceptable, or is it a clear violation of the 2nd amendment?
      - bmelton 14y ago
        So, regarding the fighter jet and nuclear warhead, it is not considered a man-portable arm, which the supreme court has narrowed the definition of firearm down to. There are arguments for and against whether or not it ought to be absolute, but clearly it is not, at least as presently governed. Thus far, the only known challenge on the National Firearms Act (which is what prohibits us from buying fully automatic machine guns) was US v Miller, in 1939. That was, as I mentioned in another thread, a very curious peace of legislation because Miller, a known gangster caught in possession of a sawed off shotgun, was being tried for possession of something he shouldn't have. He argued that per the second amendment, he should have the right to carry it, as it would be useful in the aid of a militia. There were some challenges in transportation, and portions of the trial were run with Miller in absentia, during which time the US Government testified that sawed off shotguns had never been useful to the army, and should not be considered useful to a militia -- despite the fact they had been in use somewhat regularly only 20 years prior, by the US military. Further, Miller was killed before the decision was rendered, but the trial went on. So, that said, if one believes that what the Supreme Court deems is Constitutional is, in fact what is Constitutional, then we are subject to 'reasonable regulation'. Looking more recently however, at DC v. Heller. At the time, DC's laws had an outright ban on handguns, and as such, prevented him from doing so. Heller was a security guard at a Federal building during the day (where he was armed), but went home at night to a very bad neighborhood with no means to defend himself. He petitioned for the right to bear arms, and ultimately, the decision was found that DC's outright ban on handguns was unconstitutional, and was struck down. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that weapons "in common use at the time" were exempt from outright bans. More recent cases since Heller have pretty much affirmed this, with bans in Chicago (Chicago v McDonald), Illinois (Moore v Madigan) and others being outright struck down as unconstitutional. Similarly, I believe that attempts to ban the AR15 (and similar popular weapons) will, if successful, be ultimately struck down as unconstitutional per the precedent in Heller. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today, and has been for a number of years, and is clearly "in common use at the time". Regarding fully automatic machine guns, the NFA provisions have not been challenged since Miller, which wasn't even a full challenge in and of itself, and certainly went far above 'unusual'. I suspect that within the next 10 years we'll see someone challenge the National Firearms Act restrictions, and quite possibly win. The reason I believe this is because the second amendment is provided "for militia" purposes and for "defense against tyranny, foreign or domestic." As it stands, we are far outgunned by our own military. Historically, the arms used in the Revolutionary War were almost entirely provided by the citizenry and militia men. Militia members were expected to show up ready to fight and armed with weapons "in common use at the time." That's where we got our rifles, but it's also where we got our cannons, mortars, ships and navy from -- all were provided by the citizenry at large. That said, since I think you were asking my personal view, I can't say whether or not it is or is not unconstitutional, because it has not yet been challenged on Constitutionality. I know that might seem like a copout, and I suppose it is, but as there isn't particularly clear evidence either way, I would say that I dunno. The biggest argument for it, right now, is that there are legally ownable fully automatic machine guns (interestingly enough, the densest ownership of them per capita exists in New Hampshire, which consistently ranks between the 1st and 3rd safest states to live in) by paying a $200 tax stamp. I don't honestly feel that automatic weaponry has advanced in technology all that much, so if it makes sense that people can own old ones, why shouldn't those same people be allowed to own new ones?
monochromatic 14y ago
If you're buying a gun from a store, you have to pass what's called a NICS check, to make sure you're not on a list of felons etc. that are not allowed to possess guns. In some states, you can buy a gun from an individual without a background check.
jstalin 14y ago
To answer your question: It depends. Some states are easy to purchase guns in, some are not. My own state, Michigan, has essentially no requirements to purchase a rifle. You can go to a dealer and purchase one on the spot. You are subjected to a federal background check, which is completed in a few minutes. Purchasing a handgun has a couple more hoops to jump through, but it delays things only a few days. I appreciate the point you make about your own country - that those with guns are either criminals or the well-connected. And please don't buy into the idea that the "guns lobby" is the reason for America's liberal gun-ownership laws. The estimates are that there are over 300,000,000 guns in private hands in the USA. Gun owners are very very serious about their rights to own firearms. The NRA is just an expression of that zeal.
kiba 14y ago
I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security. The poor latency of police response means that rampage killers(or anybody bent on harming anybody, really) can get away with killing several unarmed civilians before they can be stopped. In theory, concealed carry individuals can put a stop to the rampage or at least keep the killer busy until the police arrive. You can google news stories about concealed arm carriers defending themselves. So it does works.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  You know what else works? Locked doors. More guns is not the only, nor necessarily the most effective, solution.
  - nnutter 14y ago
    That obviously depends on the door. Do you really think your home offers physical security?
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      I think perhaps you misunderstand what locks are for. Locked doors are deterrents. Governments and lock makers do not assume/guarantee that locks are unassailable, they guarantee that they are unassailable for some unit of time. Active shooter situations are usually counted on the order of minutes, and when you're dealing with minutes, locked doors certainly do matter.
      - Simucal 14y ago
        They guarantee no such thing. A bump key will open most residential locks almost instantly[1]. A brick through a window works even faster. You stated that locked doors were a solution to security when they are little more than security theater. They keep out only the people who would passively attempt to enter your home. [1] http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s
cbau 14y ago
It's pretty simple-- As an American, I have a right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to give up any rights I don't have to. That includes the freedom to buy and carry a gun.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  But I DO have to give up the right to travel without being strip-searched. A nation of paradoxes.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - slouch 14y ago
    (on a federally regulated airplane)
    - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      Which is, almost all of them?
  - spydum 14y ago
    On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Indeed, you don't have to fly at all.
    - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      And you don't have to go outside, so no need for a carry permit. Its all about rights - does liberty include travel on public conveyance? Most of us would think Yes.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      > On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Which is fairly silly, considering it shouldn't be hard for Saudi billionaires to charter a 767.
cnlwsu 14y ago
phones are more expensive
- pessimizer 14y ago
  And with the weird contracts, harder to buy.
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    I've bought a phone and a pistol this year. The phone was by far the easiest: pick it up, pay, walk out. The guns were a lot harder. Background check had to clear, the waiting period had to pass. Two trips to the store.
    - cnlwsu 14y ago
      I own a pistol (for fun at the range) and a rifle (I deer hunt) and did not have a background check for either. One was private sale and one was gun show though.
      - bdunbar 14y ago
        Fair point. I wanted a Barretta Nano, and I know the gun store, didn't want to fool around with waiting for a gun show, or finding a private buyer, so I went with the store.
johngunderman 14y ago
A large part of this is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly protects people's right to bear arms. This has led to gun-ownership being an important topic to many American citizens, initially by people using to utilize guns (ranch rifles, etc) and then by collectors and other hobbyists. As for your second question, the difficultly of obtaining a gun in the US varies largely by state. However, it generally is not exceedingly difficult. As an example, here is how purchasing a firearm works in California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California#Firearm_sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California#Firearm_...
notdrunkatall 14y ago
>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.
- nnutter 14y ago
  The common response to that is that guns can't fight tanks, UAVs, etc.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    The common response is idiotic. Perhaps the people who make it have not been paying attention to the news since 9/11.
    - nnutter 14y ago
      Elaborate?
      - notdrunkatall 14y ago
        Afghanistan.
- 89vision 14y ago
  > You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders. or with AR-15's
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    You can fight with AR-15's just as well as you can with AK-47's, which is precisely what the Taliban have been doing for the last decade against the USA, and for another decade against the Soviets in the 70's.
smoyer 14y ago
I can take a gas cylinder pretty much anywhere I want to, but it's not wise to have one in an enclosed space (if it's leaking, it's going to become explosive when the oxygen gas mixture hits a certain ratio). As for the metal fork on an airplane restriction, please don't ask anyone to try to explain the TSA's rationale (for that and most of their other policies).
rplacd 14y ago
To be fair, you do have more options available than allowing ownership outright, having a regressive licensing system, and blanket banning. I think it's possible to maintain both the freedom to own arms (at the very least out of intellectual curiosity) and a the requirement that the state provide reasonable level of piece of mind (you don't have to necessarily formulate it as a right, but it is the raison d'etre of government) - it just requires judiciously formulated policy; and agreeing on where the line should be drawn is always the hard - but necessary part.
- bmelton 14y ago
  Outright banning is only legally permissible when a) the state can prove that they are able to NARROWLY infringe your rights and b) that they can demonstrate significant gains and c) if the firearm to be banned is not "one in common use at the time". For affirmations of this, you can reference the Supreme Court decisions in DC v Heller (and to a lesser degree, Chicago v McDonald). Both cases were notable for having overturned outright firearms bans in both DC and Chicago as they were Constitutional infringements. It's also worth noting that they're both relatively recent cases. The AR15 is the most common rifle sold in America today, and while a 1994 Assault Weapons ban was able to get passed, I genuinely don't believe it could happen today. There have been a plethora of recent Supreme Court cases affirming that citizens have the right to bear arms, even though the state might wish to prohibit it, and as these are SCOTUS decisions, they of course apply at a federal level. In the 94 ban, there hadn't been any challenges to gun control legislation since US v Miller, in 1939, and that was at the very least an odd case as Miller was tried in absentia, and actually died before the case concluded with an unfavorable verdict for him. Regardless, the cases are piling up in support of the second amendment, with Illinois' firearms ban having been affirmed as unconstitutional just a few days ago (though the initial ruling happened sometime last year). I realize this is a large rant in response to a fairly small statement, but I think that precedent pretty much eliminates either a regressive licensing system or blanket banning (on firearms in common use), though of course there may be other strategies (which I'm sure we'll find out as many states are passing clearly Unconstitutional legislation).
drone 14y ago
From my perspective, a key point to realize in the discussion, is that there are two major underlying cultural trends in America going on right now. One of these trends tend to relegate all power of violence to the State (as noted in your own statement regarding police), and one of these trends tends to follow a historical American position to balance the power of violence between the State and the People such that neither side may have a monopoly. Those who wish the State to have a monopoly of violence point to mass-shootings and homicides as their examples. (From Columbine, to Chicago, to Newtown) Those who wish to maintain the historical balance of violence point to egregious abuses of power by the entities of the State. (From the Ludlow Massacre, to Kent State, to Rodney King, Oscar Grant in San Francisco, and Robbie Tolan here in my city, to name a very few such incidents.) So, to understand the reason why so many people feel the need to have guns, you have to understand that a large cultural trend in the U.S. is to be wary of actors of the State, and to be cautious of the level of power given solely to them. It's not about gun lobbies - gun lobbies are often more about the commercial side of guns, who can sell them, what can be sold, where can they be sold, how, etc. It's important to not dismiss either side's position fully in the conversation - for if one cannot form an understanding in the mind of what the other party bases their beliefs on, you'll hit brick walls with each other nearly instantly. Those who wish to relegate the power of violence fully to the State do rightfully fear other citizens' intentions, do rightfully believe that there is a possibility of a peaceful society where no citizen is armed. Those who wish to maintain a balance of violence do rightfully fear the creation of separate classes of citizens who are given greater power than the average citizen to resolve conflict to their desire. They do rightfully believe that their analysis of history shows that monopolies of violence tend to result in forceful application of will from those classes to the common man. There are outliers in both groups, there are those among the Statists that would happily create violence to show why people should not have guns (e.g. Christopher Dorner), and there are those among the Libertarians who would give up many rights to satisfy a sense of peace. As for a particularly interesting read from someone who supports a balance of power, and their justification of it, check out: http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-... As for how easy it is to get a gun? It depends on what state you live in, and what your background looks like. In my state, with a clean criminal record, and a perfectly reasonable behavior, you can typically walk in with money and out with a pistol or rifle in about 30 minutes.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
The police are not always capable of helping you when you need them. The oft-quoted saying is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and it is very, very true. Guns used in lawful self-defense, which often involves nothing more than drawing the gun causing the attacker to flee the scene, stop an incredible amount of crimes every day. More so, the reason that gun rights are so fundamental in the US is that they are intended as a key tool to prevent the establishment of tyranny. It's easy to write that off as some outlandish idea, or as some preposterous hypothetical but that ignores the lessons of history. In the 20th century, of the 10 most advanced and most powerful nations on Earth only 2 of them never fell under the boot heel of an oppressive totalitarian regime. Fortunately mass use of guns in the hands of the populace was not needed to forestall tyranny in those 2 remaining countries but these statistics are a powerful reminder that tyranny is a very real threat and it will probably forever remain a potential threat to freedom. As far as acquiring a gun, it is not as simple as many fictional portrayals. Most of the time you will go to a gun shop and pick out a gun and then you'll have to fill out paperwork and the gun store will do a federal background check on you to make sure you are legally allowed to own a firearm. Depending on the type of gun you purchase and the state you live in there may be a waiting period before you can take ownership of your gun. As far as the ridiculousness of the TSA's rules, those are non-sensical and should not be used to inform other law making.
- jpk 14y ago
  > More so, the reason that gun rights are so fundamental in the US is that they are intended as a key tool to prevent the establishment of tyranny. It's unfortunate, but I find few people understand this and it warps the gun ownership/control debates. The people's right to be armed is for one purpose only: to preserve the right to revolution. I think gun rights people like to use anecdotes about stopping home intruders and whatnot -- and that stuff is nice -- but that's all secondary. > It's easy to write that off as some outlandish idea, or as some preposterous hypothetical but that ignores the lessons of history. I think this is the major stumbling block when I try to explain why gun rights are important. In our time tyranny seems distant. When it happens, it's somewhere else, somebody else. I've sort of resigned myself to seeing the United States slip into tighter and tighter gun control. Then in November of 2064 or something the president will call off elections and declare himself emperor of the world as all us greybeards hang our heads and say we told you so.
zaphar 14y ago
I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security. The original purpose of the right to bear arms in america was to give ordinary citizens the ability to stand up to police, military, para-military, and federal agencies should the government go off the deep end. It can be debated whether that is still a necessity today. However if that is the purpose of the right to bear arms then it hardly serves that purpose if you aren't allowed to bear weaponry that is sufficient to actually stand up to those groups. The authors of the amendment meant it as just another part of the balance of power.
jandrewrogers 14y ago
There are a few things that make it confusing for non-Americans and even some Americans unfamiliar with guns. First, the laws around buying and selling guns are set by each of the 50 States. In some States it is easy to buy a gun and in other States it is very difficult. Movies and television tend to exaggerate the availability and legality of weapons. A lot of television shows are set in places like New York City or California where buying firearms is difficult, restricted, and can take weeks. Second, while some places (like urban cities) have police close by, the low density sprawl of most American cities means it will commonly take 10+ minutes for police to arrive, at which point they are mostly just filling out a report. While it might be possible in theory to hire enough police to reduce response times, it would not be cost effective since crime rates are quite low in much of the US. Consequently, there is an understanding in many areas that even if you call the police you will be on your own for a while. If most American cities were more densely packed, like European cities, police would be more effective at responding immediately. Lastly, the US is a big and populous country with many different regions and cultures. In some parts of the US, guns are just a tool and ubiquitous enough that they are treated like any other dangerous tool. In some places like San Francisco, guns are treated as some kind of magical evil amulet because few people have seen or handled one and get most of their pre-conceptions from the media. In many other parts of the country, say Idaho, owning a gun is sort of like owning a chainsaw -- dangerous but with few social or personal implications.
giardini 14y ago
"Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed)." You assume that there _was_ a man and that he had a firearm. Both are likely to be false, especially the latter. "There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security." No, the police cannot protect the citizen from crime but they can report and investigate crime. Occasionally the police intercept a crime-in-progress. But their intervention is optional: officers may pass by a crime in progress during shift change; otherwise they'll be writing an offense report for hours. Old saying: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Also courts have consistently held that police are not required to protect someone. So people in the USA are in general allowed to protect themselves. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html "is it as easy and as simple to get a gun in USA as it's projected in films or in the media? " It was once much easier: IIRC in the "Death Wish" movie series, Charles Bronson's character obtains his firearms via mail-order. Today it's a more involved process: TO PURCHASE A FIREARM FROM AN FFL DEALER: The buyer must complete and sign a "4473 form" verifying his fitness to own a firearm (to lie is a crime). The buyer must provide identification information (e.g., driver's license). The dealer phones the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is given the buyer information plus the fact that the purchase is either a long gun or a handgun (no firearm serial numbers, etc. are given to NICS). NICS does a background check and either allows or disallows the sale. The buyer pays the dealer and is given the firearm. Afterward, in a separate "bound-book", the dealer records the 4473 info along with the firearms' identifying information. The 4473 forms and the bound-book are kept forever and, if the dealer goes out of business, those records are given to the government. http://www.atf.gov/applications/e4473/ http://www.atf.gov/applications/e4473/ http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-4473.html http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-4473.html So to form a registry of all purchased firearms in the USA would require linking the NICS information (which legally is mandated to be destroyed after a short period of time) with the 4473 information. Federal gun control laws have driven relentlessly toward that goal (combined NICS + 4473 = firearms registration) all the while saying that a firearms registry is fantasy. But there's more... TO PURCHASE A FIREARM FROM AN INDIVIDUAL: The buyer must provide proof to the seller that he may legally purchase a firearm in that state. This varies from state to state but usually consists of the buyer showing a driver's license from that state and then stating that he may legally own a firearm (essentially the questions on the 4473 form must be accounted for). To lie is a crime. No NICS check is performed and no records need be kept. This latter transaction is often termed the "Gun Show Loophole" although it can occur anywhere (no gun show is required). It is a private firearms transfer between private individuals: not dealer to customer, or customer to dealer. It is termed a "loophole" by anti-gunners because it prevents tracing firearms' with the combined NICS + 4473 information: it would render a firearms registry at least partially incomplete. So today we are two steps away from full firearms registration: - eliminate private firearms transfers between private individuals, - allow the government to collect and keep forever all NICS and 4473 information. PROBLEMS - It is unknown whether the (passed) NICS check information is discarded after 24 hours as is mandated by law (a failed NICS check is kept longer for investigation since it indicates a crime may has been committed). One who was thorough would inquire as to the logging and backup systems used by NICS. Worst case: ATF has all NICS check data in a database. - 4473 form information may be destroyed after 20 years. However the dealer's bound-book must be given to a business' new owner or handed over to the ATF when the business closes. Worst case: ATF has lots of 4473 information in a database. - There have apparently been instances where the ATF scanned (illegally) dealers' 4473 forms en masse during audits. - Worst case overall: ATF (illegally) has a combined NICS + 4473 database which is a partial registry of legally-purchased firearms in the USA.

by fakeer 14y ago

BSousa 14y ago

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next). So you have the lobbies, and supporting those lobbies you have 'ignorant' people defending their 'rights' on this issue. I can only imagine how hard it must be to try and do something about it.

embwbam 14y ago
I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when their guns get "taken away". You can see why new gun control laws might be alarming if you have this attitude.
- BSousa 14y ago
  As I said, it was a supposition ;) I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong. In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.
  - rooshdi 14y ago
    I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    > In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. > but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them. It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.
lolcraft 14y ago
It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce laws when there was no police or army able to do so for you. For instance, in the days of slavery, the 2nd amendment was used to justify groups of armed thugs [1] that hunted black slaves on the run. I've never understood the logic behind Republicans of the 20th century [2]. AFAICT, they think the 2nd gives them "the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government". That's clearly bullshit. First, because what constitutes tyranny changes a lot from person to person, and only legislation can define it clearly and "democratically". Second, because the former means you're legitimizing political violence in a democracy, precisely the system where that kind of shit should not be allowed. So in fact you're just making terrorism, or at least the kinds of terrorism you like, legal, with all the contradictions that would bring. Timothy-McVeigh-like bullshit ensues. [1] Of course, back then they were considered to be respectable persons that followed the law. [2] They're not the only ones, of course (cf. Black Panthers, which I personally am more sympathetic to, since IMO there was clearly oppression there), but they're the loudest.
- bmelton 14y ago
  To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. 2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true. 3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide. Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have. That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.
dpiers 14y ago
America was founded by revolutionaries; people who understood that tyranny and threats to liberty do not necessarily come from foreign powers. The right to bear arms and form a militia was established to protect citizens from their own government as much as any foreign power. The idea of a bunch of gun toting lunatics becoming fed up with the government and revolting is terrifying, but it's also how this country came to exist.
damoncali 14y ago
Almost. The constitution enumerates certain rights that are specifically off limits to the government to give them extra emphasis - the Bill of Rights , which are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The 2nd, of course is the right to bear arms. An interesting side note is that there was a debate as to whether or not to even include the bill of rights lest future leaders attempt to nitpick their language and twist them into restrictions of the people. Or still worse, that they would be perceived as the only rights protected by the constitution. Never were they intended to be justification for restriction of the people. But back to the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is steeped in American and Anglo culture and history. This is the best summary I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... The purpose of the amendment is quite certainly military in nature, and comes from a distrust of centralized government and a dangerous world in general. The authors wanted to make it totally crystal clear that the government could not subvert the people's obvious right to arm themselves and form military units, aka "militias". The nature of the threat to which those militias could respond was pretty much anything - the security of the state. The federalist papers offer context here. So yes, there is a constitutional basis for all this. But more than that it is a deeply ingrained part of American history and culture. People like to throw around the power of lobbyists, but that's not really it. The American people largely believe at a fundamental level that access to weapons is a strong and necessary counter to the existence of armed units within the government and elsewhere. The power of the gun lobby flows from that, not the other way around.
curiousdannii 14y ago
So a silly question: does the constitution protect the right to own ammunition as well as weapons?
- MrMember 14y ago
  I highly doubt any ultra-restrictive form of 'ammunition control' would pass Constitutional scrutiny. Saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect ownership of ammunition is like saying the 1st Amendment only protects free speech in a literal sense (words coming out of your mouth) and not speech on the Internet.
- damoncali 14y ago
  yes.
- bmelton 14y ago
  The second amendment protects firearms, not bludgeoning instruments that are shaped like firearms -- so yes.
  - suresk 14y ago
    I have a question about the 2nd amendment: Is the right to bear arms absolute, or is it subject to reasonable regulation? Example: There are a lot of weapons I cannot legally acquire, for example: I can't buy an M249 machine gun, most automatic M-16s, a functioning fighter jet with all its armament, or a nuclear warhead. In your view, is this acceptable, or is it a clear violation of the 2nd amendment?
    - bmelton 14y ago
      So, regarding the fighter jet and nuclear warhead, it is not considered a man-portable arm, which the supreme court has narrowed the definition of firearm down to. There are arguments for and against whether or not it ought to be absolute, but clearly it is not, at least as presently governed. Thus far, the only known challenge on the National Firearms Act (which is what prohibits us from buying fully automatic machine guns) was US v Miller, in 1939. That was, as I mentioned in another thread, a very curious peace of legislation because Miller, a known gangster caught in possession of a sawed off shotgun, was being tried for possession of something he shouldn't have. He argued that per the second amendment, he should have the right to carry it, as it would be useful in the aid of a militia. There were some challenges in transportation, and portions of the trial were run with Miller in absentia, during which time the US Government testified that sawed off shotguns had never been useful to the army, and should not be considered useful to a militia -- despite the fact they had been in use somewhat regularly only 20 years prior, by the US military. Further, Miller was killed before the decision was rendered, but the trial went on. So, that said, if one believes that what the Supreme Court deems is Constitutional is, in fact what is Constitutional, then we are subject to 'reasonable regulation'. Looking more recently however, at DC v. Heller. At the time, DC's laws had an outright ban on handguns, and as such, prevented him from doing so. Heller was a security guard at a Federal building during the day (where he was armed), but went home at night to a very bad neighborhood with no means to defend himself. He petitioned for the right to bear arms, and ultimately, the decision was found that DC's outright ban on handguns was unconstitutional, and was struck down. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that weapons "in common use at the time" were exempt from outright bans. More recent cases since Heller have pretty much affirmed this, with bans in Chicago (Chicago v McDonald), Illinois (Moore v Madigan) and others being outright struck down as unconstitutional. Similarly, I believe that attempts to ban the AR15 (and similar popular weapons) will, if successful, be ultimately struck down as unconstitutional per the precedent in Heller. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today, and has been for a number of years, and is clearly "in common use at the time". Regarding fully automatic machine guns, the NFA provisions have not been challenged since Miller, which wasn't even a full challenge in and of itself, and certainly went far above 'unusual'. I suspect that within the next 10 years we'll see someone challenge the National Firearms Act restrictions, and quite possibly win. The reason I believe this is because the second amendment is provided "for militia" purposes and for "defense against tyranny, foreign or domestic." As it stands, we are far outgunned by our own military. Historically, the arms used in the Revolutionary War were almost entirely provided by the citizenry and militia men. Militia members were expected to show up ready to fight and armed with weapons "in common use at the time." That's where we got our rifles, but it's also where we got our cannons, mortars, ships and navy from -- all were provided by the citizenry at large. That said, since I think you were asking my personal view, I can't say whether or not it is or is not unconstitutional, because it has not yet been challenged on Constitutionality. I know that might seem like a copout, and I suppose it is, but as there isn't particularly clear evidence either way, I would say that I dunno. The biggest argument for it, right now, is that there are legally ownable fully automatic machine guns (interestingly enough, the densest ownership of them per capita exists in New Hampshire, which consistently ranks between the 1st and 3rd safest states to live in) by paying a $200 tax stamp. I don't honestly feel that automatic weaponry has advanced in technology all that much, so if it makes sense that people can own old ones, why shouldn't those same people be allowed to own new ones?

monochromatic 14y ago

If you're buying a gun from a store, you have to pass what's called a NICS check, to make sure you're not on a list of felons etc. that are not allowed to possess guns. In some states, you can buy a gun from an individual without a background check.

jstalin 14y ago

To answer your question: It depends. Some states are easy to purchase guns in, some are not. My own state, Michigan, has essentially no requirements to purchase a rifle. You can go to a dealer and purchase one on the spot. You are subjected to a federal background check, which is completed in a few minutes. Purchasing a handgun has a couple more hoops to jump through, but it delays things only a few days. I appreciate the point you make about your own country - that those with guns are either criminals or the well-connected. And please don't buy into the idea that the "guns lobby" is the reason for America's liberal gun-ownership laws. The estimates are that there are over 300,000,000 guns in private hands in the USA. Gun owners are very very serious about their rights to own firearms. The NRA is just an expression of that zeal.

kiba 14y ago

I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security. The poor latency of police response means that rampage killers(or anybody bent on harming anybody, really) can get away with killing several unarmed civilians before they can be stopped. In theory, concealed carry individuals can put a stop to the rampage or at least keep the killer busy until the police arrive. You can google news stories about concealed arm carriers defending themselves. So it does works.

knowtheory 14y ago
You know what else works? Locked doors. More guns is not the only, nor necessarily the most effective, solution.
- nnutter 14y ago
  That obviously depends on the door. Do you really think your home offers physical security?
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    I think perhaps you misunderstand what locks are for. Locked doors are deterrents. Governments and lock makers do not assume/guarantee that locks are unassailable, they guarantee that they are unassailable for some unit of time. Active shooter situations are usually counted on the order of minutes, and when you're dealing with minutes, locked doors certainly do matter.
    - Simucal 14y ago
      They guarantee no such thing. A bump key will open most residential locks almost instantly[1]. A brick through a window works even faster. You stated that locked doors were a solution to security when they are little more than security theater. They keep out only the people who would passively attempt to enter your home. [1] http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s

cbau 14y ago

It's pretty simple-- As an American, I have a right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to give up any rights I don't have to. That includes the freedom to buy and carry a gun.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
But I DO have to give up the right to travel without being strip-searched. A nation of paradoxes.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- slouch 14y ago
  (on a federally regulated airplane)
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    Which is, almost all of them?
- spydum 14y ago
  On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Indeed, you don't have to fly at all.
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    And you don't have to go outside, so no need for a carry permit. Its all about rights - does liberty include travel on public conveyance? Most of us would think Yes.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    > On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Which is fairly silly, considering it shouldn't be hard for Saudi billionaires to charter a 767.

cnlwsu 14y ago

phones are more expensive

pessimizer 14y ago
And with the weird contracts, harder to buy.
- bdunbar 14y ago
  I've bought a phone and a pistol this year. The phone was by far the easiest: pick it up, pay, walk out. The guns were a lot harder. Background check had to clear, the waiting period had to pass. Two trips to the store.
  - cnlwsu 14y ago
    I own a pistol (for fun at the range) and a rifle (I deer hunt) and did not have a background check for either. One was private sale and one was gun show though.
    - bdunbar 14y ago
      Fair point. I wanted a Barretta Nano, and I know the gun store, didn't want to fool around with waiting for a gun show, or finding a private buyer, so I went with the store.

johngunderman 14y ago

A large part of this is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly protects people's right to bear arms. This has led to gun-ownership being an important topic to many American citizens, initially by people using to utilize guns (ranch rifles, etc) and then by collectors and other hobbyists. As for your second question, the difficultly of obtaining a gun in the US varies largely by state. However, it generally is not exceedingly difficult. As an example, here is how purchasing a firearm works in California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California#Firearm_sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California#Firearm_...

notdrunkatall 14y ago

>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.

nnutter 14y ago
The common response to that is that guns can't fight tanks, UAVs, etc.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  The common response is idiotic. Perhaps the people who make it have not been paying attention to the news since 9/11.
  - nnutter 14y ago
    Elaborate?
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      Afghanistan.
89vision 14y ago
> You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders. or with AR-15's
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  You can fight with AR-15's just as well as you can with AK-47's, which is precisely what the Taliban have been doing for the last decade against the USA, and for another decade against the Soviets in the 70's.

smoyer 14y ago

I can take a gas cylinder pretty much anywhere I want to, but it's not wise to have one in an enclosed space (if it's leaking, it's going to become explosive when the oxygen gas mixture hits a certain ratio). As for the metal fork on an airplane restriction, please don't ask anyone to try to explain the TSA's rationale (for that and most of their other policies).

rplacd 14y ago

To be fair, you do have more options available than allowing ownership outright, having a regressive licensing system, and blanket banning. I think it's possible to maintain both the freedom to own arms (at the very least out of intellectual curiosity) and a the requirement that the state provide reasonable level of piece of mind (you don't have to necessarily formulate it as a right, but it is the raison d'etre of government) - it just requires judiciously formulated policy; and agreeing on where the line should be drawn is always the hard - but necessary part.

bmelton 14y ago
Outright banning is only legally permissible when a) the state can prove that they are able to NARROWLY infringe your rights and b) that they can demonstrate significant gains and c) if the firearm to be banned is not "one in common use at the time". For affirmations of this, you can reference the Supreme Court decisions in DC v Heller (and to a lesser degree, Chicago v McDonald). Both cases were notable for having overturned outright firearms bans in both DC and Chicago as they were Constitutional infringements. It's also worth noting that they're both relatively recent cases. The AR15 is the most common rifle sold in America today, and while a 1994 Assault Weapons ban was able to get passed, I genuinely don't believe it could happen today. There have been a plethora of recent Supreme Court cases affirming that citizens have the right to bear arms, even though the state might wish to prohibit it, and as these are SCOTUS decisions, they of course apply at a federal level. In the 94 ban, there hadn't been any challenges to gun control legislation since US v Miller, in 1939, and that was at the very least an odd case as Miller was tried in absentia, and actually died before the case concluded with an unfavorable verdict for him. Regardless, the cases are piling up in support of the second amendment, with Illinois' firearms ban having been affirmed as unconstitutional just a few days ago (though the initial ruling happened sometime last year). I realize this is a large rant in response to a fairly small statement, but I think that precedent pretty much eliminates either a regressive licensing system or blanket banning (on firearms in common use), though of course there may be other strategies (which I'm sure we'll find out as many states are passing clearly Unconstitutional legislation).

drone 14y ago

From my perspective, a key point to realize in the discussion, is that there are two major underlying cultural trends in America going on right now. One of these trends tend to relegate all power of violence to the State (as noted in your own statement regarding police), and one of these trends tends to follow a historical American position to balance the power of violence between the State and the People such that neither side may have a monopoly. Those who wish the State to have a monopoly of violence point to mass-shootings and homicides as their examples. (From Columbine, to Chicago, to Newtown) Those who wish to maintain the historical balance of violence point to egregious abuses of power by the entities of the State. (From the Ludlow Massacre, to Kent State, to Rodney King, Oscar Grant in San Francisco, and Robbie Tolan here in my city, to name a very few such incidents.) So, to understand the reason why so many people feel the need to have guns, you have to understand that a large cultural trend in the U.S. is to be wary of actors of the State, and to be cautious of the level of power given solely to them. It's not about gun lobbies - gun lobbies are often more about the commercial side of guns, who can sell them, what can be sold, where can they be sold, how, etc. It's important to not dismiss either side's position fully in the conversation - for if one cannot form an understanding in the mind of what the other party bases their beliefs on, you'll hit brick walls with each other nearly instantly. Those who wish to relegate the power of violence fully to the State do rightfully fear other citizens' intentions, do rightfully believe that there is a possibility of a peaceful society where no citizen is armed. Those who wish to maintain a balance of violence do rightfully fear the creation of separate classes of citizens who are given greater power than the average citizen to resolve conflict to their desire. They do rightfully believe that their analysis of history shows that monopolies of violence tend to result in forceful application of will from those classes to the common man. There are outliers in both groups, there are those among the Statists that would happily create violence to show why people should not have guns (e.g. Christopher Dorner), and there are those among the Libertarians who would give up many rights to satisfy a sense of peace. As for a particularly interesting read from someone who supports a balance of power, and their justification of it, check out: http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-... As for how easy it is to get a gun? It depends on what state you live in, and what your background looks like. In my state, with a clean criminal record, and a perfectly reasonable behavior, you can typically walk in with money and out with a pistol or rifle in about 30 minutes.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

The police are not always capable of helping you when you need them. The oft-quoted saying is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and it is very, very true. Guns used in lawful self-defense, which often involves nothing more than drawing the gun causing the attacker to flee the scene, stop an incredible amount of crimes every day. More so, the reason that gun rights are so fundamental in the US is that they are intended as a key tool to prevent the establishment of tyranny. It's easy to write that off as some outlandish idea, or as some preposterous hypothetical but that ignores the lessons of history. In the 20th century, of the 10 most advanced and most powerful nations on Earth only 2 of them never fell under the boot heel of an oppressive totalitarian regime. Fortunately mass use of guns in the hands of the populace was not needed to forestall tyranny in those 2 remaining countries but these statistics are a powerful reminder that tyranny is a very real threat and it will probably forever remain a potential threat to freedom. As far as acquiring a gun, it is not as simple as many fictional portrayals. Most of the time you will go to a gun shop and pick out a gun and then you'll have to fill out paperwork and the gun store will do a federal background check on you to make sure you are legally allowed to own a firearm. Depending on the type of gun you purchase and the state you live in there may be a waiting period before you can take ownership of your gun. As far as the ridiculousness of the TSA's rules, those are non-sensical and should not be used to inform other law making.

jpk 14y ago
> More so, the reason that gun rights are so fundamental in the US is that they are intended as a key tool to prevent the establishment of tyranny. It's unfortunate, but I find few people understand this and it warps the gun ownership/control debates. The people's right to be armed is for one purpose only: to preserve the right to revolution. I think gun rights people like to use anecdotes about stopping home intruders and whatnot -- and that stuff is nice -- but that's all secondary. > It's easy to write that off as some outlandish idea, or as some preposterous hypothetical but that ignores the lessons of history. I think this is the major stumbling block when I try to explain why gun rights are important. In our time tyranny seems distant. When it happens, it's somewhere else, somebody else. I've sort of resigned myself to seeing the United States slip into tighter and tighter gun control. Then in November of 2064 or something the president will call off elections and declare himself emperor of the world as all us greybeards hang our heads and say we told you so.

zaphar 14y ago

I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security. The original purpose of the right to bear arms in america was to give ordinary citizens the ability to stand up to police, military, para-military, and federal agencies should the government go off the deep end. It can be debated whether that is still a necessity today. However if that is the purpose of the right to bear arms then it hardly serves that purpose if you aren't allowed to bear weaponry that is sufficient to actually stand up to those groups. The authors of the amendment meant it as just another part of the balance of power.

jandrewrogers 14y ago

There are a few things that make it confusing for non-Americans and even some Americans unfamiliar with guns. First, the laws around buying and selling guns are set by each of the 50 States. In some States it is easy to buy a gun and in other States it is very difficult. Movies and television tend to exaggerate the availability and legality of weapons. A lot of television shows are set in places like New York City or California where buying firearms is difficult, restricted, and can take weeks. Second, while some places (like urban cities) have police close by, the low density sprawl of most American cities means it will commonly take 10+ minutes for police to arrive, at which point they are mostly just filling out a report. While it might be possible in theory to hire enough police to reduce response times, it would not be cost effective since crime rates are quite low in much of the US. Consequently, there is an understanding in many areas that even if you call the police you will be on your own for a while. If most American cities were more densely packed, like European cities, police would be more effective at responding immediately. Lastly, the US is a big and populous country with many different regions and cultures. In some parts of the US, guns are just a tool and ubiquitous enough that they are treated like any other dangerous tool. In some places like San Francisco, guns are treated as some kind of magical evil amulet because few people have seen or handled one and get most of their pre-conceptions from the media. In many other parts of the country, say Idaho, owning a gun is sort of like owning a chainsaw -- dangerous but with few social or personal implications.

giardini 14y ago

"Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed)." You assume that there _was_ a man and that he had a firearm. Both are likely to be false, especially the latter. "There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security." No, the police cannot protect the citizen from crime but they can report and investigate crime. Occasionally the police intercept a crime-in-progress. But their intervention is optional: officers may pass by a crime in progress during shift change; otherwise they'll be writing an offense report for hours. Old saying: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Also courts have consistently held that police are not required to protect someone. So people in the USA are in general allowed to protect themselves. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html "is it as easy and as simple to get a gun in USA as it's projected in films or in the media? " It was once much easier: IIRC in the "Death Wish" movie series, Charles Bronson's character obtains his firearms via mail-order. Today it's a more involved process: TO PURCHASE A FIREARM FROM AN FFL DEALER: The buyer must complete and sign a "4473 form" verifying his fitness to own a firearm (to lie is a crime). The buyer must provide identification information (e.g., driver's license). The dealer phones the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is given the buyer information plus the fact that the purchase is either a long gun or a handgun (no firearm serial numbers, etc. are given to NICS). NICS does a background check and either allows or disallows the sale. The buyer pays the dealer and is given the firearm. Afterward, in a separate "bound-book", the dealer records the 4473 info along with the firearms' identifying information. The 4473 forms and the bound-book are kept forever and, if the dealer goes out of business, those records are given to the government. http://www.atf.gov/applications/e4473/ http://www.atf.gov/applications/e4473/ http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-4473.html http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-4473.html So to form a registry of all purchased firearms in the USA would require linking the NICS information (which legally is mandated to be destroyed after a short period of time) with the 4473 information. Federal gun control laws have driven relentlessly toward that goal (combined NICS + 4473 = firearms registration) all the while saying that a firearms registry is fantasy. But there's more... TO PURCHASE A FIREARM FROM AN INDIVIDUAL: The buyer must provide proof to the seller that he may legally purchase a firearm in that state. This varies from state to state but usually consists of the buyer showing a driver's license from that state and then stating that he may legally own a firearm (essentially the questions on the 4473 form must be accounted for). To lie is a crime. No NICS check is performed and no records need be kept. This latter transaction is often termed the "Gun Show Loophole" although it can occur anywhere (no gun show is required). It is a private firearms transfer between private individuals: not dealer to customer, or customer to dealer. It is termed a "loophole" by anti-gunners because it prevents tracing firearms' with the combined NICS + 4473 information: it would render a firearms registry at least partially incomplete. So today we are two steps away from full firearms registration: - eliminate private firearms transfers between private individuals, - allow the government to collect and keep forever all NICS and 4473 information. PROBLEMS - It is unknown whether the (passed) NICS check information is discarded after 24 hours as is mandated by law (a failed NICS check is kept longer for investigation since it indicates a crime may has been committed). One who was thorough would inquire as to the logging and backup systems used by NICS. Worst case: ATF has all NICS check data in a database. - 4473 form information may be destroyed after 20 years. However the dealer's bound-book must be given to a business' new owner or handed over to the ATF when the business closes. Worst case: ATF has lots of 4473 information in a database. - There have apparently been instances where the ATF scanned (illegally) dealers' 4473 forms en masse during audits. - Worst case overall: ATF (illegally) has a combined NICS + 4473 database which is a partial registry of legally-purchased firearms in the USA.