E-Mail Post To A Friend
Email a copy of 'The American Gun and Safety Paradox' to a friend
Loading ...
39 Comments to "The American Gun and Safety Paradox"
-
bean
April 27th, 2008 at
12:27 pm
You showed a ton of bias in the sections of the article that you chose to quote. Here are some important parts left out:
“At the moment, there is an effort being made to overturn a ban on some types of weapon in Washington DC.
Among those dead against this plan - those who claim it would turn the nation’s capital into the Wild West - is a lanky black man (he looks like a basketball player) called Anwan Glover.
Anwan peeled off articles of clothing for our cameras and revealed that he had been shot nine times.
One bullet is still lodged in an elbow.
His younger brother was shot and killed a few months ago.
Anwan was speaking to us in a back alley in north-east Washington. If you heard a gun shot in this neighbourhood you would not feel surprised. ”
“Wait till you get to London Texas, or Glasgow Montana, or Oxford Mississippi or Virgin Utah, for that matter, where every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun.
Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you.
They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake,”
“What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime.Doors are left unlocked, public telephones unbroken.
One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none. “
-
Ben B.
April 27th, 2008 at
1:03 pm
Fine. Now ask Anwan how many of those bullet holes came from licensed, trained gun owners.
I’ll wager he answers “none.” The odds, and history, favor the idea that they are most likely either the work of criminals or of the police (and the latter, if so, raises the question of what Anwan himself was doing when he was shot.)
Why is this so? Because it isn’t legal gun owners that are a threat. It never has been. It is criminals — and the key thing to wrap your head around is that they will own and use guns regardless of the laws. They’re… CRIMINALS!
So in fact, gun laws only disenfranchise law-abiding citizens, preventing them from defending themselves from home-invaders and worse.
They represent false hope for no shootings in a form that destroys liberty and does NOTHING to stop criminals from having guns. Supporting anti-gun legislation makes no sense.
…and one more thing: Gun laws are uniformly unconstitutional, impositions on rights that the government was never given any authority to impose. Now, if you want to change that, the constitution allows for amendment. Failing amendment, guns laws are the act of an out of control dictatorial government. Period. And before any of the usual morons pipe up, go look up what “milita” meant when the 2nd amendment of the constitution was written; then pay attention to the fact that regardless of the explicatory phrase, the operative phrase doesn’t change its meaning one whit.
-
L
April 27th, 2008 at
1:15 pm
“there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none”
Give me a break. I’m not sure which is more absurd… the part about an absence of public drunkenness or the “polite America” part.
Legal gun owners may not be a problem in most cases. However, how many people are there like the Virginia Tech shooter who have never been diagnosed as mentally unstable (but who actually are) and who go and purchase guns? Yes, I know they knew he was unbalanced, but he still managed to purchase guns. Unless you can patch up all such cracks in the system, there remains a danger.
-
Tom
April 27th, 2008 at
1:27 pm
I’ve never seen a group of drunken youth running about in the night, and I live in a college town. Three days into a trip to Germany, I was almost assaulted by a group of soccer hooligans.
So yeah, America is safer. The armed populace keep the good, honest people from taking questionable or threatening actions. This is why you never see street brawls in this country. It’s not worth the risk, unless you are committing some other crime.
-
Dan
April 27th, 2008 at
1:51 pm
These Brits didn’t find America so peaceful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI
Anecdotal? Sure. A powerful message to the British? You bet. Why am I talking like Donald Rumsfeld? Who knows.
-
Goober
April 27th, 2008 at
1:51 pm
The Sopranos is fiction, dude. It’s not real. Seriously.
-
Thomas
April 27th, 2008 at
2:02 pm
A gun in your home is about 20 times more likely to kill you or someone you know than some home invader.
-
Miss Cellania
April 27th, 2008 at
3:01 pm
I’m not surprised that tourists are ready to see a violent America, considering the movies and TV shows we export. I’m a little surprised that people still travel here for a visit, considering how welcome Homeland Security can make one feel.
-
Auz
April 27th, 2008 at
4:00 pm
My couple of anecdotes about living in New York or London is more supportive of my view on gun control in the US or UK than your view.
-
Craig
April 27th, 2008 at
4:09 pm
@ Ben B Thank You!
-
Lamonstrous
April 27th, 2008 at
4:43 pm
On the one hand, the myth of “violent America” is because the whole world sees the U.S. through its news, TV and movies (like the Sopranos) which distorts the view people have.
That being said, the murder rate in the U.S. is much higher than in other countries. Britain has a lot of assaults, but much fewer murders.
Canada has severe restrictions on guns and has a much lower gun and crime rate. There are more than just two ways of doing things.
-
fsmarch
April 27th, 2008 at
7:24 pm
I agree w/ Ben B. To use a worn-out old expression, ” Guns don’t kill people, people do.”
-
Geekazoid
April 27th, 2008 at
7:36 pm
Tell these visiting British to spend some ‘quality time’ in places like Bayview Hunters Point, Cabrini Greens Housing projects, or the Jungles of South L.A. before giving us this America isn’t so violent claptrap.
-
Ride Fast
April 27th, 2008 at
8:00 pm
Quoting “facts” that have been shown to false doesn’t prove your side is right. That “gun in the home is more dangerous to you than others” is BS.
The murder rate in the United States is higher than some countries, not all. Instead of comparing the US to little Britain or Japan, compare the US to Europe, or Russia. You may be very surprised. And Canada just doesn’t count, they’re so damned polite
Canada had almost no gun control until recently and their crime problems are rising, btw.
-
sam
April 27th, 2008 at
8:15 pm
That’s one good thing about a country that is so litigious. You know if you say one wayward word, you’ll find yourself in court and about 200,000 dollars lighter. People would rather just go about their business.
-
ted
April 27th, 2008 at
8:39 pm
Here we go again…
Canada has a lower crime rate than the USA because of its vastly smaller population, especially in urban centres. I saw parts of Bowling for Columbine and couldn’t believe how Canada was represented as such a peaceful utopia.Gun laws do nothing to stop the criminals.
Airport security is tight in the USA, but I’ve never been groped in public like I was at Heathrow. I think the security guard was checking to see if that was all me.
-
Dave
April 27th, 2008 at
8:58 pm
Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than all my guns combined.
-
Tim
April 27th, 2008 at
9:41 pm
More Guns, Less Crime book by John R. Lott. Professor at University of Chicago. Read it at http://books.google.com/
-
frankfrankfrank
April 27th, 2008 at
10:30 pm
As soon as a registered gun owner kills someone s/he becomes a criminal. So anyone that shoots someone is a criminal.
Having lived in 4 countries including the US - US is the scariest so far. Police get out of their cars with their guns drawn around here (in the US).
It is a culture of violence - just look at the way the gun advocates respond to this type of post - with their ‘it is our god damn right!’ to own a gun. Now if only they would get so angry about real issues…..
-
Geekazoid
April 27th, 2008 at
11:14 pm
Right on the money Frank. I too have visited numerous countries overseas, and the U.S. where I live is by far the scariest. In California there have been a spate of seemingly random shootings where simple road rage caused people to use their guns. It doesn’t help that Hollywood movies continue to churn out violent gun laden movie after another.
-
anathema
April 27th, 2008 at
11:52 pm
I wouldn’t live anywhere except America, partly for this right. I trust my fellow citizens down here in El Paso to be responsible firearm owners. I live gunfree for now, but my father owns a handgun, my uncle owns a rifle, and I’ll probably pick up a small one for myself soon.
As an addendum, I just wanna mention I’m happy with Neatorama for presenting articles that come from both sides of the political aisle.
-
dazz
April 28th, 2008 at
12:54 am
More guns less crime is garbage.
The reason crime has dropped in the US, is because the laws have been tough on crime.
Highest incarceration rate in the world == less crime.
As for only illegal guns shoot people. Well are these illegal guns stolen from legal owners? probably. So if the legal owners don’t have guns then less guns to be stolen.
So you people actually think that the guns are preventing the crime? and not having the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the most people in jail?
Getting rid of the guns would hopefully prevent a lot of those high school shootings. Even if it prevented half of them, it would be a good thing.
-
anathema
April 28th, 2008 at
1:34 am
Illegal guns don’t just come from gun theft. They can also come from weapons trafficking and smuggling.
-
K!P
April 28th, 2008 at
2:34 am
@ride fast: US murder rates are high, most of europe are lower. Crime rate is a bit higher in some parts of europe, just be advised you cant speak of one europe in this regard, HUGE cultural differences.
-
JET
April 28th, 2008 at
4:52 am
No roving gangs of hooligans in the US? Well, duh. Everyone’s in cars instead. Violence is more prevalent in the US than in any other Western nation, and the incarceration rate is through the roof, higher than any other nation in the history of the world, including the worst dictatorships. Land of the free, huh?
-
drukus
April 28th, 2008 at
8:03 am
Spin it anyway you want. The US is a scary place. Anyone who has lived in both the US and another developed country knows it. But it isn’t about the laws, it is about the culture. You can regulate all you want but if people want guns people get guns.
When guns are involved things escalate quicker. Right now, I live in Canada. However, I have lived in the US (Texas). In Canada, when something escalates (like a drunken fight at a bar) someone gets put in the hospital with fists and feet, worst case a knife. Same thing in the US, worst case is a gun.
I’d rather not be shot, if I had the choice.
-
Alannah
April 28th, 2008 at
8:09 am
*Dan*
I don’t think you can use Jeremy Clarkson as an authority on anything American. He admits that he hates everyone. Not to mention that Top Gear is a COMEDY.
-
DanO
April 28th, 2008 at
8:21 am
all guns should be banned, handguns first.
-
sparge
April 28th, 2008 at
10:08 am
So they are comparing the tourist districts of Manhattan to South London? Gee, I wonder which will be safer.
-
someguy
April 28th, 2008 at
11:08 am
It’s interesting people think that guns should be banned, even though a ban is explicitly prohibited in the constitution.
But somehow it is a constitutional right to have an abortion, based on a “right to privacy.”
Something seems backwards about that.
-
Ride Fast
April 28th, 2008 at
12:35 pm
@ K!P - I suggested a comparison to Europe because the population numbers are closer than comparing to Great Britain.
There tend to be huge cultural differences comparing America to anyone else.
Also, comparisons on a larger scale seem more illustrative than just looking at this month, or last years crime rates.
Compare Europe to the US over the whole 20th century and blips in local crime don’t matter so much. Of course, periods of open warfare have to be ignored for fairness.
-
Jacques
April 28th, 2008 at
2:23 pm
Since when did Rupert Murdoch buy the BBC?
This has more to do with the overabundance of drunken yobs in england than anything else.
-
fool
April 28th, 2008 at
3:33 pm
This BBC article doesn’t really seem to have a point or coherent argument.
Why is the foreign press under the impression that the US is some kind of monolithic place, and are always so suprised to find different kinds of people and different conditions in different states and cities? I’ve obviously felt safer travelling around the countryside in England than I did in London. And I felt safer in the commercial center of London than in more dangerous neighborhoods…. and the same in New York….
Anyway, gun ownership is sort of independent of overall crime levels. It just happens that where they intersect there is the possability that people get shot. No different in any other country, except that it’s easier to get a gun on the black market in the US than in the UK.
-
Allen
April 28th, 2008 at
5:09 pm
The factoid about guns being ‘20 times more likely’ (actually, the famous study said ‘43 times more likely’) was a terribly flawed study. It was done by totalling homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths in a single county (King county, WA), and comparing the number against the number of justifiable homicides. During the period they looked at, there were a total of four justifiable homicides. The vast majority of the firearm related deaths (nearly 90%) were suicide. If the absence of a firearm made suicides less likely, that would be one thing, but multiple studies have found no correlation between the availability of guns and the rate of suicide. Gun control reduces gun suicides, but has no effect on the general rate of suicides.
Ditch the suicides from the study, and you get a 2.4 rate of accidental deaths or homicides to every justifiable shooting (of course, by that time, your sample size is small enough to question the validity of the data). Some might argue that’s still a good reason for gun control, in that more people die unjustifiably than justifiably, but the study did not take into account any situation where a gun was used non-lethally (whether as a deterrent or by wounding) to stop a household invader. The study also included among the murderers a few who were charged with murder but acquitted by juries on the grounds of self-defence.
-
aj
April 28th, 2008 at
6:55 pm
Wow Dazz,
You’re seriously claiming that having the highest incarceration right in the world and not the absolute largest murder rate is somehow a sign of success?
That’s astounding. -
Ride Fast
April 28th, 2008 at
10:18 pm
@ Allen - Worse, the study only looked at homes where someone had been shot. No homes with guns where no one was shot were included.
-
Skipweasel
April 29th, 2008 at
12:56 pm
I also wonder to whom in Britain he’s been speaking. I don’t feel threatened walking around towns here, nor does my 4′9″ wife!
-
Wheat
April 29th, 2008 at
7:16 pm
Come to peaceful Baltimore:
Stay in the inner harbor… Enjoy!
-
Wheat
April 29th, 2008 at
7:17 pm
P.S.
Play with the drop down menus, it’s fun!
Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!
