Us Decides Against Tighter Gun Control

[ChillDoubt]

..in what President Obama calls "a shameful day for Washington".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22194183

You really do have to marvel at the utter stupidity of the Senate at times, you really do.

I appears the nation's obsession for guns will never be assuaged, when you know the next Columbine or Sandy House is just around the proverbial corner.

[jake-the-peg]

This claims 40% of guns are sold in the US without background checks

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22816/40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-without-background-checks-because-of-people-like-larry-pratt

Is it wrong? If so what is the real number?

[jim360]

Isn't the US's standing higher though? Violent crime, gun crime, in the UK is certainly a very minor issue here. Though still one to be aware of, I suppose, it's at relatively low levels.

The issue for me is twofold -- firstly, while gun controls don't stop criminals getting hold of guns for good, they make it a lot harder. More guns in circulation = easier to get hold of them, surely? Then even the "common criminal" has the ability to get hold of a gun without too much difficulty, and criminals that were always going to be there suddenly become that much more dangerous. While relaxing gun controls might make self-defence easier, it will also mean that there are more dangers to defend from. So there's no net gain in safety.

Secondly, while in general most people are good most of the tie, we all have the potential to snap or lose control or goodness knows what. I went through, and still am going through in a way, a dark time, and have vaguely entertained (we're talking very vaguely here, but still) thoughts of suicide. At least some of the reason those never went very far was because it wasn't easy to see how I could do it. On the other hand, a gun in my drawer, I could just pull it out, pull the trigger without thinking, and... I won't say that I would have done that, but the speed and ease of access of freely available weapons would make me more dangerous to even myself. And I'm hopefully what the NRA would call a "good guy with a gun".

Indeed the whole "good guys/ bad guys" argument seems to overlook the fact that most humans have potential at some point or another to suddenly, without much warning, become a "bad guy" if only for a split second, losing their temper over nothing. If that happens, and they have a gun or a weapon that can harm at distance, again you have someone with ease of access to a weapon that was meant for "self-defence" turning into a "bad guy" and therefore again the gun has made that moment of madness far more deadly.

It's said that "guns don't kill people; people kill people". True. Guns help a lot though. Banning them, or controlling them, will never solve the problem entirely. But in banning guns, particularly the dangerous assault weapons, you are making it that much harder for people to kill people. And even if you also make it harder for self-defence, there is perhaps less of a threat. Some madman shoots me with a gun, I would have to react faster and shoot back at them. Some madman runs at me with a knife, I might be able to run away or fight hand-to-hand. I wouldn't last long in either case, probably. But the gun didn't make me safer if the other guy was able to get hold of it easier too.

The solution is more complicated than banning guns, yes. But they still make life more dangerous, I feel, and I do not see that it should be a right to carry them.

I hope this argument is at least coherent.

[jake-the-peg]

I think Clanad we'd actually just like to try and understand your point of view on this because from our viewpoint in the UK we just don't get it.

I don't think any of us understands why anyone in the US would oppose compulsory background checks before buying firearms to try to ensure that violent criminals cannot just simply buy guns.

We just don't see the downside

[Clanad]

Apologies to jake[i and [i]jim] for not getting back to you sooner...

First to jtp...good question, jake... as with the U.K., we, here in the U.S. have available a large range of newspapers as to their political direction... left or right wing. One of the major left leaning papers is the Washington Post. They are decidely liberal, but are fair in this examination. This link is a good discussion of the background check "facts": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html ...

Other such examinations seem to support about 20% of sales are not background checked.

You mention "compulsory" background checks... but that's exactly what is already in place jake. One cannot buy a gun, except through a private transaction, without the check. Applying this already in place law to private sales (newspaper ads where one buys a gun directly from another, etc.) is nigh on impossible, which is the reason that type of sale is exempted. Simply not enough manpower to apply the law.

Along that same vein, jim360 is this site from the Daily Mail in your own country: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/uk-has-highest-violent-crime-rate-in-eu.html ... this is representative of other statistical data I've seen. Granted, gun violence is rare, but you've a much smaller country and population plus years of gun control. I mentioned in an earlier thread that when the gun laws went into effect in the U.K., many owners hid theirs away and sometimes they're found years later rusting away in a wall of a house.

Actually, criminals do have an easy time of securing a gun... simply because they are criminals. Understand, no one is proposing relaxing existing gun laws... just enforcing the ones that are already law. As stated, not one of the new proposals would have any effect on the terrible carnage that was wrought at the hands of mentally ill individuals. They could have just as easily selected a knife, sword or other weapon... or as suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of just a few days ago, something as seemingly harmless as anhydrous ammonia... a common fertilizer (the primary component of the Oklahoma City bombing several years ago.

Jim, you have my profound sympathies for the 'dark times' you've been going through. I've been greatly blessed with contentment all of my adult life. But one of the basics contributing to that contentment (philosophical, I know) is the high sense of self reliance instilled by my 'old time cowboy' father. What he taught me in my formative years carries forward today... and it's one of the reasons I rely on myself to be prepared to defend my family and home. Leaving it up to the police (especially in the western U.S. where I live) is insanity... nearest sherrif's office is 40 miles away... but even if I lived in a city, the home invasion crimes and other violent actions we see (and were unknown several years ago) can only be defended against while it's occurring, not later. I can do that... not my neighbor, not my friends... I can do it. I'll not relenquish that ability.

I'm deeply troubled by the news I see coming out of England... the latest is ongoing. The homeowner used a carefully purchased and registered shotgun to defend his home... yet he is being prosecuted for "over zealous' defense... Amazing!

Your argument is perfectly coherent, jim. But I have a home and family that are, ultimately, my responsibility... a responsibility for which I choose to honor that 6 foot 5 inch, quiet horseman with the Powder River Stetson hat and Wyoming wind creased face that not only showed me it was my responsibility, but how to best exercise it... My various firearms do not make my life more dangerous... they make it much safer.

I do thank you both for well reasoned arguments though...

[jim360]

Well in the idea that guns make you safe we'll have to agree to differ. I think in the US perhaps part of the problem is surely that there are so many guns out there, so that an effective gun control on the scale I'd like to see would mean not just banning or restricting gun sales but also asking people to hand in the guns they already own. I think I'm right in saying that most Americans would not like this one bit.

I cannot understand though why anyone can compare guns with knives or swords. No-one who wants to go out and commit ass murder can do so as effectively with a knife or a sword as with a gun. The gun is long-range, harm at a distance all that, with a knife or sword you need to get close and that provides the victims with greater chance of escape or defence. So a knife is not "just as easy" - surely? And not just mass-murderers, or even deliberate murderers, but accidents too. It's not clear what happened yet, but Pistorius and Steenekamp? Did that gun make anyone safer? Either he shot her deliberately or by accident, only the trial will determine that, but the gun led to yet another innocent life being lost.

In the long run a ban on guns will never solve the problem entirely, there are other issues too. But in countries with gun laws the violent crime rates are far lower on average than in countries where gun controls are looser.

Guns make make you feel safer. I can understand why, to some extent. If ever you feel threatened, then being able to defend yourself in the blink of an eye would provide some comfort. But it's a hollow form of safety. If you were able to have a gun, he would be too - and who will draw first? The one who's the aggressor, usually.

No weapon will ever make anyone safer if the other person has one too.

[humbersloop]

//You really do have to marvel at the utter stupidity of the Senate at times, you really do//

or plain venality??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators

[LazyGun]

As I have mentioned before, Clanad argues eloquently in favour of the system over in the US,and it is useful to me at least, as a UK citizen, to get some US perspective on this issue.

Here is what I do not get though. The figure of 40% for guns purchased without a backgrond check may not be accurate - the figure might be as low as 20% - but why are you willing to countenance ANY sale of guns without a background check? And if the measure were in any event so unlikely to impact, why vote it down, against the majority wishes, it would seem, of the US population?

And yes, the sheer volume of guns in circulation might make controlling the private sales market extremely difficult - but is that really a reason to do nothing? This from the residents of a country that pride themselves on a can d- , get up and go,frontiersman spirit? Ban advertising of guns in media outlets, punishable by a fine. Pass a law that says guns can only be sold via authorised gun dealers. Declare an amnesty for people to hand in guns.

This is what happens when someone goes on a rampage in a college without a gun, but with a knife - 15 hurt, none killed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/10/campus-knife-attack-fantasy-stabbing/2071913/

Set that fact against the 29 dead children from Sandy Hook - dead in the space of 10, 15 minutes,

Since Sandy Hook, in the US there have been over 3,500 deaths through firearms - as a US citizen, are you really prepared to accept this as the price for "keeping your family safe"?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Now, onto comparisons between the US and the UK.
First, Clanad you talk about an ongoing case of a homeowner in England using a shotgun to defend themselves and are being prosecuted, and you profess amazement. But the only recent incident of that nature happened at the back end of last year to a couple at their farmhouse where they shot at their intruders
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19886504
Is this the case to which you refer? It would be helpful to provide a link if this is not it. They were questioned and formally arrested, since a gun had been discharged and there had been several casualties. The case might even come to court - I am not expert enough to figure that one out - but they will not be prosecuted, and they will not be found guilty. So trying to use this case as a defence against keeping guns in the US is a non sequitur, since we are talking about a shotgun anyway.

As far as the comparison in violent crimes is concerned, if we were to believe the figures as supplied in your John Arnott post from the DM, then yes, Britain appears to be a haven for viulent crime, especially in comparison with the US. Problem is, he either deliberately or in error completely misrepresents the facts by comparing data from different data sets. Take a comparison with the US. Those US figures are derived from the FBI crime stats, who classify violent crimes which only include aggravated assaults and forcible rapes. The figures provided for the UK come from a dataset which also includes simple assault,and all crimes against the person. As it currently stands, it is impossible to do a direct like for like comparison with the US. When you strip out the non-violent crimes, Britain still has a higher violent crime index per capita, but not that much different from the US.
And to get this, the US have not only a much much higher death rate from guns, but a much higher homicide rate in general - 4 times greater than in the UK. Thats a big downside to a culture of gun ownership.

Around 300 million guns in the US. Population roughly the same. But only 47% of households have a gun. Wilderness areas I can understand the need for a gun in the house, maybe a gun for hunting. Thats it.