pyat

So, basically, they're talking about legitimizing gang violence? Great. An armed society not necessarily a polite one; it's a nervous, twitchy, paranoid one. Besides, having a gun doesn't mean you're going to be able to employ it effectively in a panicked crowd. That takes a lot of training.

There is a concern on my part, though. The security situation in Philly is getting bad enough that I am thinking about a conceal carry permit. This is street crime, not anything to with a crazed shooter. Only problem is that concealing and carrying to me workplace is grounds for automatic dismissal and a criminal trespass complaint. That's not entirely fair. I'm thinking that there has to be a middle ground. That's probably one where conceal carry permits are neither just rubber stamped or entirely unobtainable, but are rather a certification process that involves rigorous training. Of course, the best solution to the local street crime is more jobs that don't require graduate degrees around here. That's what's really happening. In addition to all the firearms violence this past couple of years, young people are really starting to lose it over the no future thing. So they're just kind of ambushing people on subway platforms and beating them senseless. To lesser degree these kind of beatings have been happening on the campuses in University City. So, I'd rather have better police coverage, a more just economy and a city, state and federal government that gives just half a shit about what's going on. Guns are really damned poor alternative.

From:

mrs-dm.livejournal.com

I hear your dilemma, but even considering a concealed handgun is a very strange and disturbing concept to me and most Canadians, I think. I guess it's one of those cultural things that are really different between Americans and Canadians -- something to do with the fact that a U.S. catchphrase is, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", whereas in Canada, it has always been, "Peace, Order and Good Government".

Nevertheless, I have to ask myself, if I were a male, living in a really dodgey area of Toronto, the kind where there is a fatal shooting about every month or so, would I feel the same way? Or would I want some means of protecting myself? I think I would have to still say no.

The reason is, I think a concealed gun would provide only a false sense of security. I think it's much more likely (and statistics show) that gun would be stolen and/or used in a suicide or violent crime. The completed suicide rate in the U.S. is much higher than in Canada, simply because there are more guns readily available. In other words, the shadow side of a gun culture seems infinitely worse than the positive aspects.

Michael Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine" may be seen as a Liberal polemic in large parts of the U.S., but most Canadians thought it was pretty accurate.

P.S. I saw a CNN news item that, indeed, violent crime has been increasing in large cities in the U.S. for the first time in 15 or 20 years, probably due to the diversion of federal funds from local and state policing to fund the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Reminds me of the fall of Roman Empire.

From:

See, most Canadians would not associate Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness with a culture where everyone is packing. Life implies, you know, not killing people. Liberty implies lack of coercion. Pursuit of happiness implies not pursuing fear and threats of physical force.

From:

Yeah, I remember LA in the 1980s. My own patch wasn't too bad, just a little ways up the boulevard, things were really tense because everyone was indeed packing. Someone opened up on a house party was I at once and the panic was such that the only thing anyone could do was hit the ground. Idiot's aim was so bad that he put a bunch of holes in the roof so no one got hurt.

As I've said, if firearms start looking like necessity, you're society's got real problems and they're not the kind that can be solved by asserting 2nd Ammendment rights or one's particular interpretation of it.

From:

kisekileia.livejournal.com

That increase in violent crime could be related to veterans with PTSD, too.

From:

Not really. Increase in poverty, more like.
Or perceived oppression.

From:

Yeah, this is pretty much my own thinking. When you clear the holster, you've passed the point of bluffing. If the aggressor backs down, well and fine, but you never know. And, if you react to a perceived threat, what happens if you find out after the fact that there was no threat? Bad karma, big time. Like I said in another of Pyat's posts, if you're having this debate, you really have more serious problems going on. I think Obama was spot on about small town working class Americans clinging to guns and religion. These are both key cultural underpinnings of the rural US. And neither is harmful as such. Religion can turn corrupt and the gun trade is out of control. Guns are symbol of independence and a physical piece of heritage for many. The latter is why I almost bought an M1 Garand rifle many years ago. However, the illegal trade in the cities is very destructive in that the guns escalate feuds very quickly. I guess it's the old double standard. I trust people like me to have guns, but those freaks over there not so much.

The one thing that makes me serious consider getting a gun other than a target shooter, is the US Christian Right. They're been escalating both rhetoric and actions against librarians. Plus, if you teach Evolution in public school or even college, you're a target in some places. This makes both my wife and I feel like we have targets on our backs.

From:

The right to bear arms was not codified as a supplement to a working police force. The assumption at the time was that you use guns to hunt, to protect yourself from marauding Indians (no comment on how meaningful THAT was) and to protect yourself from tyrants, by joining with your fellows and driving their armies from your country.

Heinlein had a rather intriguing speculation in one of his books, wherein gun ownership and carrying was mandatory for citizens - but so was considerable training, in much the same way that driving an automobile requires considerable training.

From:

The Swiss kind of put Heinlein's proposition into action. They use a national militia and most able bodied men have to commit time to the service. They're issued rifles, but the rifles are the state's rifles and the militiaman is responsible for the weapon has to account both for it and its ammunition.

But, yeah, the gun debate here in the US has gone off the edge. It's just that the powers that be seem to abdicating their sovereignty over a lot of the country by trading social services for lower taxes to a few(my taxes never seem to go down). Here in Philly, a lot of people perceive the police force not as antagonistic, but as absent. So no small amount of the violence in the past few years has been score settling taking place in absence of any respected arbiter. I can't wait to get out of this pit and back to someplace that has self respect.

From:

athelind.livejournal.com

Considering the Swiss have been doing something like that for a LONG time now, I suspect that Unca Bob may have cribbed the idea from them, rather than vice versa.

From:

but so was considerable training, in much the same way that driving an automobile requires considerable training.

Guess which kills more people?

From:

pyat.livejournal.com

Well, I imagine if people were walking around several hours a day with their guns out, firing them constantly as they did, they would likely kill more people than cars.

From:

Per use? I'd say guns are right up there.

Then again the purpose of a gun is to wound or injure something. The purpose of an automobile is not.

From:

After correlating the numbers in this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#Safety), it appears that each year cars kill about four times more people in the United States than there are gun homicides there (about 42 000 to 10 000).

From:

Irrelevant and misleading. There are far more automobile users than gun users.

From:

That's the point. If something as basic as our common mode of transport is killing this many people, without either a push for either higher operator standards or its elimination, then trusting any random kid with things designed to kill seems incredibly bizarre.

From:

How far are you willing to let other people decide what you may or may not do?

I have no problem with other people having guns as long as they know what they are capable of, what they are for, and how to properly care for and use them. If their intentions are malicious, and they have demonstrated this, there are already things that should be done to keep them from hurting others, and whether or not they have a gun is not going to materially change this.

Your argument is a profoundly better one against allowing people to own and drive cars.

From:

How many of those car-related deaths are the result of someone trying to run someone else over?

I have no problem with other people having guns as long as they know what they are capable of, what they are for, and how to properly care for and use them.

I think we might have different standards for these things.

From: