RE: Misconceptions About Guns and Gun Owners
I've no problem with firearms, and enjoy shooting myself, however, you cannot ignore the fact that America has a big problem with guns. Its an extreme outlier amongst developed nations for deaths by firearms. For example, where I live in Poland, you are as likely to be killed by gun as by riding a bicycle. In UK, where i'm from originally, you are as likely to be be killed by gun as by agricultural machinery! In US, you are almost as likely to be killed by a gun as you are by a car crash.
Firearm related deaths are ridiculously common, which I believe is in a large part due to irresponsible regulation surrounding who can get hold of a gun. The checks for possessing such a powerful tool should be much better - pysch evaluations, references, and handling courses before a license is considered.
It seems to me partly due to a yeehaw cowboy culture, partly due to a slightly irrational fear of government reach, and partly due to fear of not being as well-armed as the next person.
I was living in the US during Sandy Hook, and I was absolutely sickened by such an occurance. As an isolated incidence, its a tragedy, but when it happens again and again, something is pretty fucked up at a more basic level.
I dont agree with banning firearms, but I do agree with restricting them, making it damn hard to get military grade hardware and handguns, and allowing the government to conduct frequent tests and checks on owners.
Military-grade firearms are heavily restricted. Do you have any idea how hard it is to legally acquire an actual select-fire assault rifle? The worst possible solution is to punish peaceful people with more arbitrary restrictions as a feel-good knee-jerk response. An AR-15 is just an ergonomic semi-automatic carbine made from modern materials.
As noted above, violent crime rates have plummeted. It's fallen by about half over the past 30 years. Meanwhile, violent crime is largely restricted to two areas: The black markets that arose with the War on Drugs, and areas where firearms are already heavily restricted or outright banned.
Im aware that it is difficult & expensive to get fully auto rifles, but then mods like bump-stocks make it relatively easy to get around this. Also, its possible to get fully auto rifles from pre-1986 (I think - maybe dependant on state?)
Im not a fan of handguns, because these are not meant for hobbyists or hunters, but rather designed as anti-personel and to be concealed. Does the average citizen really need one, and should they be so easy to get hold of? They are responsible for the majority of homicides and accidents.
Violent crime has fallen everywhere in developed nations, and not just US. However, only US has such a problem with firearm related deaths. Cause and effect of the ease of access to firearms is fairly evident here.
Is it possible to legally acquire fully-automatic rifles? Yes. But not at all easy. And an AR-15 is not a fully-automatic rifle, although many seem to believe it is.
Handguns are extremely useful. They are far easier to carry than a rifle, and that makes them superb for self-defense against wildlife or criminals. My rights to property and self-defense are not trumped by your opinions about whether I "need" them. Just because they are used in homicides, that doesn't mean that is their intended purpose or they need to be regulated more. And I can't find the stats easily, but if I recall correctly, ann firearm-related accidents have also been trending down as well.
If violent crime has fallen everywhere, including Australia (often cited as evidence that "gun control works!") and the US with relative increases in firearm freedom during the same time, it should be apparent that guns are not the key factor at all. There are essentially two Americas: The America with guns, and the America with rampant crime. The crime is associated with the violent black markets that arose out of the War on Drugs.
From Wikipedia:
If guns were the problem, these statistics would not be where they are. As I noted before, the US does not have an unusually high suicide rate, and is well below that of Japan (strict gun laws) and in between modern European nations like France and Sweden (I'm no expert, but they have less guns than the US, right?)
The kicker though is that bans mean you want government goons with guns enforcing your opinion, and that means you actually advocate gun violence against people who want to peacefully do things you don't like. That's not exactly civilized behavior, especially when your intent is to address a problem that is not related to your advocated power grab.
Im aware that AR-15 isnt fully auto, and for the record, I think it is an elegant piece of engineering that gets a bad press.
The point about handguns being easy to carry is in my opinion what makes them so dangerous - 90%+ owners will be highly responsible, but the small minority can do an awful lot of damage with them. Its difficult to tuck a shotgun or rifle into your pants and bring it to school, or a shopping centre, but alarmingly easy with a handgun. I dont agree with the argument that having a handgun makes you safer against wildlife and criminals, unless your the sort of guy (or gal) who rolls around town with a holster at all times and sleeps with it under your pillow! Most responsible gun owners will have it locked in a safe, where it is all but useless against the home invader coming in the small hours or the racoon springing a surprise on bin day.
As I mentioned earlier, I think you over-estimate the threat of a big bad govt coming to subjugate you - it sounds a bit tinfoil hat. Perhaps it stems historically from America's first rebellion against the Brits, when such things were actually happening, and this historical legacy has been passed on in your constitutional right to bear arms to prevent 'tyranny'.
Ultimately, we're not gonna agree on this issue, but I applaud your research and passion for this argument. In Europe we tend to forget how entrenched the idea of gun ownership is in USA, and I don't think it is ever gonna go away, nor are there easy answers.
Keep your safety on, and your barrel clean, that's probably the only thing we're gonna find common ground on!
You are simultaneously saying it's tinfoil hattery to be suspicious of government threatening my liberty while simultaneously advocating for government violence against me if I don't obey a new restriction you want them to impose. A bit odd, don't you think?
We have recent historical examples of government aggression against people. Police brutality runs rampant, the Waco siege was completely inexcusable, the Ruby Ridge standoff was pure governmental aggression, the army literally gunned down protesters at Kent State University, and the war on drugs is a blatant overreach used to excuse innumerable aggressions just for starters.
Remember, every government law is an opinion backed by threats of violence. Crime is not defined by the fluidity of legislative dictates. crime is the violation of universal and reciprocal rights. Trespasses against life, liberty, and property are crimes, and when these crimes are committed by governments under color of law every day around the world, it is entirely valid to say government is out to get you.
As for handguns, I live where bears, mountain lions, wolves, and moose are literally in my back yard. I have had a moose stare at me while her calf pawed through the pile of crass clippings I had just piled up, and had she decided I was a threat, it would have been very bad. It's hard to carry a 12 gauge or a rifle while working, and harder still to deploy it in a hurry, but a pistol on the hip is extremely handy.
As for urban carry, a handgun concealed out of sight makes you unobtrusive to any who may have ill intent, and gives you an option in the event of an emergency. As linked in the original article, the death toll when an armed citizen intervenes averages less than 3, while police intervention results in an average fice time shigher than that, so despite the unlikeliness of needing it as noted by the decreasing crime rate, it's absolutely an essential for those willing to take personal responsibility for the security of themselves and others.