Forums

There are few issues in our nation so heartbreaking, and so frustrating, as this one. Last year, I was certain that something major had to happen after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. No one, I thought, could watch those scenes, of young children slaughtered en masse, and so many parents grieving, without thinking that this, finally, would tip some kind of balance in the country.
But it didn't.
The very powerful lobbyists at the NRA got to work, and neutralized or deflected the emotional momentum of the killings. The NRA chief, Wayne LaPierre, even made the case, which some found credible, that it made sense to start arming every schoolteacher, in every school, so that all students might be 'safer.'
I can't tell you (Their America) how crushing it was to hear this argument repeated in earnest.
We're burdened with an insane gun policy in this country, and it will, I'm afraid, take many more tragedies to shift opinion against the gun lovers and their all-too powerful lobbyists.

One fact that continually depresses me about my own country is the support for broad gun ownership (and for minimal restrictions on such things as magazine size for automatic weapons and 'cool off' periods for gun buyers). The NRA is clearly getting results from pumping a lot of money into the political process, but there is, nevertheless, significant support 'on the ground' for their agenda (not from me, I might add, but certainly from people I know, even those who would otherwise consider themselves "liberals"). We've reached a kind of tipping point, I believe, in terms of the anxiety posed by wide gun ownership (about 1 gun per person, as the Salon article points out): the country is so well-armed now (including its criminals), that many citizens feel they, too, must be armed in order to defend themselves. Notoriously, events like Newtown actually bolster efforts to loosen gun restrictions, since a certain section of the population panics and looks to meet the threat of violence with more violence.
I'm afraid I've lost (most, if not all!) my optimism that things will, at least in the short term, somehow get better.

Thought I'd share my favorite political cartoon from 2013...

Through the eyes of an outside observer (especially one from a country with very strict gun laws), the situation in America seems insane. Of course, many countries in the world battle with gun crime, and mass shootings are not exclusive to the US. However, comparing the number of such incidents in the US and the rest of developed countries shows that in Europe (for example), these tragedies are exceptional, while in the States, they are all too frequent. It thus comes as no surprise that compared to the US, most European countries have very low numbers of firearms per 100 inhabitants and consequently very low (gun) murder rates. Contrary to the popular American belief that owning a gun for protection will lower crime rates and make living safer, almost all studies show that high gun ownership equals high murder rates. As already mentioned, most European countries have very strict laws concerning the acquisition of firearms. In Slovenia, for example, where murder rates are very low, the process of applying for a licence allowing the acquisition and possession of a firearm is long and very strict. To illustrate: one can only acquire a gun for hunting, sports, or protection (but only if the administrative office is provided with proof that one's life is so imperiled that one is in need of self-defence). For Americans, this may seem as a horrible violation of their 'rights,' but in fact, it only means that very few people own guns - less guns, less chances for one to actually be shot in the street or a public space.
However, the main problem in the US today is how to end gun violence and prevent mass shootings. The situation is definitely very complicated - since in the US, the mentality is different and the number of people already owning firearms is extremely high. Is there a solution that could be carried out in the short term? Taking people's guns away is something that seems unlikely (if not impossible), so what to do to stop this madness? Frankly, I don't see any solutions being effectively applied in the short term. Due to mistakes done in the past and loose gun regulations, many potential murderers already own guns or at least know someone who does. So is there any mechanism that would stop them from carrying out their vicious plan? And is arming teachers or putting barbed wires around school premises really the only solution? Fighting fire with fire? Short-term solutions would need to be strict and effective and need to happen now. Will they? - Unlikely, because of the strong gun lobby and the mentality of the people.
So in my opinion, what needs to be done and what seems as the only effective solution, is to work on long-term programmes for ending gun violence and enforcing stricter control. But even more important than that is to educate people to stop viewing guns as necessary and obligatory tools for self-defence, slowly reform them so that they will not buy guns in the future; thus gradually create a more gun-free society with less guns in the household and with more faith in the police and other trained and qualified individuals. The initiative must come from the people: demanding efficient programmes for reforming the mentality of US citizens, electing politicians that will vociferously fight for stricter regulations, and spreading the ideas among other people. Most importantly, the US citizens must realise that gun violence is one of the gravest problems in their society and not just a marginal issue. Very few other developed countries cry over loved ones killed in schools, shopping centres, or other public spaces that are deemed safe. Why shouldn't the USA be one of those countries?

Quote from jure04 on March 19, 2014, 06:04
Through the eyes of an outside observer (especially one from a country with very strict gun laws), the situation in America seems insane. Of course, many countries in the world battle with gun crime, and mass shootings are not exclusive to the US. However, comparing the number of such incidents in the US and the rest of developed countries shows that in Europe (for example), these tragedies are exceptional, while in the States, they are all too frequent. It thus comes as no surprise that compared to the US, most European countries have very low numbers of firearms per 100 inhabitants and consequently very low (gun) murder rates. Contrary to the popular American belief that owning a gun for protection will lower crime rates and make living safer, almost all studies show that high gun ownership equals high murder rates. As already mentioned, most European countries have very strict laws concerning the acquisition of firearms. In Slovenia, for example, where murder rates are very low, the process of applying for a licence allowing the acquisition and possession of a firearm is long and very strict. To illustrate: one can only acquire a gun for hunting, sports, or protection (but only if the administrative office is provided with proof that one's life is so imperiled that one is in need of self-defence). For Americans, this may seem as a horrible violation of their 'rights,' but in fact, it only means that very few people own guns - less guns, less chances for one to actually be shot in the street or a public space.
However, the main problem in the US today is how to end gun violence and prevent mass shootings. The situation is definitely very complicated - since in the US, the mentality is different and the number of people already owning firearms is extremely high. Is there a solution that could be carried out in the short term? Taking people's guns away is something that seems unlikely (if not impossible), so what to do to stop this madness? Frankly, I don't see any solutions being effectively applied in the short term. Due to mistakes done in the past and loose gun regulations, many potential murderers already own guns or at least know someone who does. So is there any mechanism that would stop them from carrying out their vicious plan? And is arming teachers or putting barbed wires around school premises really the only solution? Fighting fire with fire? Short-term solutions would need to be strict and effective and need to happen now. Will they? - Unlikely, because of the strong gun lobby and the mentality of the people.
So in my opinion, what needs to be done and what seems as the only effective solution, is to work on long-term programmes for ending gun violence and enforcing stricter control. But even more important than that is to educate people to stop viewing guns as necessary and obligatory tools for self-defence, slowly reform them so that they will not buy guns in the future; thus gradually create a more gun-free society with less guns in the household and with more faith in the police and other trained and qualified individuals. The initiative must come from the people: demanding efficient programmes for reforming the mentality of US citizens, electing politicians that will vociferously fight for stricter regulations, and spreading the ideas among other people. Most importantly, the US citizens must realise that gun violence is one of the gravest problems in their society and not just a marginal issue. Very few other developed countries cry over loved ones killed in schools, shopping centres, or other public spaces that are deemed safe. Why shouldn't the USA be one of those countries?

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above. What I would wish to add is the observation that all the commercials that are in favour of the NRA are put together in such a way they scare US citizens either into obtaining more guns, or into thinking that allowing such a high number of firearms per 100 citizens is normal. People are constantly being told their homes are not safe from criminals without a gun hidden somewhere in the house, and because self-preservation is a basic instinct, buying a gun goes hand in hand with it (according to the commercials, and people seem to believe them). Since this mentality plays with people's emotions - especially fear and paranoia (which are understandable, given the current number of massacres and deaths connected to gun violence - which only happen because of the shocking number and accessibility of guns - and we've gone full circle) not many people even stop to think that if attacked, most of them would not even make it to the gun nor have the nerves necessary to use it (compared to a criminal, who might not think twice before using theirs), let alone deal with the consequences that would follow if they actually shot someone. Furthermore, many families who own guns have them stored in a special safe-box or container where they are out of reach to small children, so in the event that your life would actually be in danger, the time needed to get your gun would probably be better spent running away or calling the police. So, I agree with Jure04 that apart from demanding a change in legislation, a gradual change in mentality is also in order, because as long owning a gun equals safety I do not see a change in sight.

I agree with jure04.

I wrote the following just after the Sandy Hook massacre but it is relevant today as well:

The absurd claim of the NRA supporters is: “if you give more weapons around, the streets would be safer because people would protect themselves in an event of a shooting assault.” It’s such a totally ill-founded, lacking of proof, stupid argument. Has there ever been a case in America in which a civilian with weapon neutralized or killed a mass murderer in the middle the act? I guess not a single case. It is like believing in some deity, alien of other phenomena with no evidence or proof of its existence. It’s like a religion. That religion of the NRA kills kids. It’s one of those times I think Israel – with its wars and Terror – is saner than the US.

Neither any member of my family nor anyone I know at work or neighborhood – some hundreds of persons, most of them in Jerusalem and some of them in the West Bank – no one of them holds a gun or has been talking with me about buying one, not even during the great Terror wave of about 10 years ago. Perhaps it’s because there’s nothing you can do against a suicide bomber that explodes somewhere, but I think the main reason is simpler:

We give every aspect of our life to experts. We let our health to be taken care of by Doctors, our cars – by mechanics, our money – by bankers and investments counselors, our apartment contracts – by lawyers, etc., but when it comes to the most precious thing – our personal and our kids’ security – and when it is most dangerous to try to deal with an emergency situation unprofessionally, all by ourselves – that’s just the time many Americans don’t trust the professionals – police, National Guard, Army, professional security guards. Instead of giving the defense of their children lives to pros, they give it to amateurs: themselves. This senseless inconsistency makes me furious.

One US Congressmen once said: “what are we supposed to do? Put an armed and trained security guard at the gates of each store, mall, bus, school and university? It’s insanely impractical!”

So it means that Israel is insane, after all, because that’s exactly what we do here for the last 10 years. Whenever I enter a mall or a drugstore, there is an armed security guard at the entrance and most of the times (unless I’m holding a baby or so) I’m demanded to open my bag, empty my pocket and go through this machine that beeps when you carry any metal thing. No weapon is allowed, period. Not a gun, a pistol, not even a knife. The bag of every 90 years old feeble woman is checked at the entrance to every restaurant or a cinema, every national of municipal office, every public space. Once there was an armed security guard on each bus, next to the driver, and also in many bus stations. Meanwhile they stopped it – we don’t need it now – but when it was necessary it was done – and it was proven practical and operative.

The only armed people around are the trained and authorized ones. This fact is seen by all in Israel as the most natural thing. I don’t want to be armed. I would feel unsafe had I been armed. We all know we pay more taxes to finance this extra-guarding, and it’s fine with us.

At the entrance to every school there is an armed guard. Every school in Israel. No matter where. No weapon, not a knife and surely not a gun are allowed at school, at any condition whatsoever. Period.

The only guns my kids have ever seen are random toys at the toy stores. We don’t hold such toys at home, except of water guns to shoot water each other in the balcony in the summer, guns that look more like pumps. It’s not that we have anti-weapon ideology. Not at all. It’s the fact that weapon is in no way a part of our culture. We respect weapons, but the second emotion towards them isn’t love or pride; it’s a deep fear. I don’t know if it’s a cultural thing. It may seem as a paradox, in a war-experienced state such as Israel, but that’s how it is here.

Good job, Canada, on handling a report of gun violence sensibly!
(This reasonableness is part of the reason why Canada has a better gun control policy than we do down here.)
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2014/10/cbc-ottawa-shootings-cable-news

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today gave a master class in calm, credible breaking news reporting.
Anchored by the unflappable Peter Mansbridge, news of the shootings in Ottawa unfolded live on the CBC much like they do here in the United States: lots of sketchy details, conflicting reports, unreliable witnesses, and a thick fog of confusion. All of that was familiar. What was less familiar was how Mansbridge and his team managed that confusion, conveying a concise and fact-based version of fast-moving events to viewers across Canada and the world.

This live bit of level-headed reporting by Mansbridge, from around 11:10am Wednesday, should be given to journalism students around the country. It basically contains everything you need to know about why CBC did its audience proud [...]

I have to agree with Rich's comment about the US becoming increasingly more and more desensitized to gun violence. Guns are almost sensationalized through media. People watch television, play video games, and take in media covering and exploiting gun violence. While I am sure that everyone taking this media in clearly understands that gun violence is bad, the constant exposure to it makes it almost impossible to not become desensitized to gun violence.

It seems that this desensitization is not only in the US. Canada, their neighbour, recently just experience a shooter near Parliament Hill. The officer who is credited with shooting down the suspect is from Miramichi, New Brunswick, which happens to be my hometown. This officer certainly did his job well, and Miramichi is celebrating their new found hero. I find this very strange and almost disturbing. In no way am I trying to take away from what this officer did. He made the right choice and probably saved lives in doing so. However, justified or not, taking the life of another human being is a very weird thing to celebrate. It seems this is another way gun violence has been sensationalized, even in tragedy.

I think this speaks volumes on the impact that America has on the rest of the world, especially its close neighbours. Canada shares so many cultural ties with America, and this strange fascination with guns is one of them.

I agree completely with the comment above about the glorification of guns adding to the reoccurring theme of good versus evil in America. Society enforces the idea that the police are a representation of good in the fight against evil, they stand and protect our cities by putting their lives at risk. What they do deserves to be respected and appreciated, but what we cannot allow is that they are exempted from the laws that they are enforcing on society. There needs to be a line drawn that determines what is acceptable behaviour when it comes to the use of guns in the police force, it is necessary to keep our communities safe but the answer to developing safety is not through the use of a gun.
I think that the approach communities are taking to focus on the heros of these tragic shootings that have occurred recently is a positive approach, but we have to watch the extent that we praise these so called heros. Children watching the news begin to pick up that it is okay to harm others and use violence if it is in defence of something they believe in. If communities do not find a way to praise the men and women who risk there lives -- without focusing on the use of their guns -- the shootings that have been so frequent in the last few months will only continue to go up in numbers.

This video may not be completely relevant to the discussion that is progressing here. But I found it very interesting none the less.

I'm always wary whenever someone proposes increasing the number of guns in the population (or doing this indirectly by loosening the regulations for acquiring said guns), particularly when the primary reason given is "self-defence." Call it a holdover from an idealized childhood education, but I thought that a big reason our societies have police was so that I don't necessarily have to defend myself. There are people who are hired, trained, and equipped by society specifically for the purpose of protecting others.

If you want to argue that police are failing in this capacity, that's fine. There are a large number of instances where police have not protected members of their society as well as they should have (and that's putting it gently). But it doesn't seem to make sense to me to have both a gun trade designed around protecting oneself and a police service dedicated to protecting everyone. Pick one, fix the system so that it actually works, and eliminate the other one. Having both - particularly when both are causing their own problems - is both redundant and harmful.

Guns in America have been a source of debate and anxiety since its founding. From the beginning of the colonization of America and the legendary wild west the image of the 'Gun Wielding Free American' has grown up to become the way in which americans are represented both internationally as well as part of their own nation identity. Not all lovers of America however loved guns. Crèvecoeur identifies a link between anti-social behaviour and guns in his meditations on the newly formed United States, Letters from an American Farmer . While Crèvecoeur's cautions centre around the effect guns have on farming productivity, saying that once a man becomes reliant on his gun, he no longer tends to his farm and property (Crèvecoeur 316), what Crèvecoeur does identity that applies to contemporary society, is the anti-social behaviour associated with gun possession. In the hands of the back-settler, guns were used to protect against hostility and competition in the woods from animals or other threats to their livelihood. In the hands of a contemporary American the hostility that guns are taken up to protect against becomes a little more ambiguous. The line between friend and foe in contemporary America seems to be a conceptual and interpretive one, in the case of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, who was shot while walking with a hoodie on, the hostility the gun wielder allegedly interpreted was in fact, no hostility at all or a much lesser one, as Martin was not carrying a gun himself. In cases such as these, that could have been deescalated in a far less violent manner it seems reasonable to make the case that something so conclusively violent as a gun should not be made readily available in a society where the threat of hostility is an interpretive one, which cannot always be conclusively decided.

I disagree @Ashley-Wilson, giving people the right to owning a gun would only provide opportunities for violent crimes to be committed, for there will be unnecessary use of the gun if not by the owner than someone else. It would make fire arms easily accessible to those willing to commit a violent crime or to someone who was impulsive in the moment. The question is: what do we want? We want guns completely removed from society and be only limited to highly trained professionals that require a gun due to their profession. This would better ensure the safety of the people. No other civilians should have the right to own or have access to fire arms. But people will claim that they need it for their protection as @Ashley-Wilson mentioned. So let me ask you, what is police enforcement for? Laws and code of ethics? The constitution (In America)? Are these not all put into place for the protection of the people? No matter how many statistics or the number of innocent lives lost due to gun violence, Americans will continue to want their right to owning a gun. So reality of the matter at hand is that, America needs to implement strict gun ownership laws, provide seminars on the benefits and drawbacks to owning a gun and have an intensive gun training program. I would go to as far as saying that gun owners should receive a yearly gun check up and anyone that used a gun inappropriately should lose their right to one forever. I think it is safe to say that owning a gun only leads to violence, which is shown in these statistics: 294 mass shooting, 45 school shootings, 9,956 people killed in gun incidents and 20,000 injured in gun incidents. Other countries like Canada and Australia have lower gun related homicide rates so why do Americans require gun ownership? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34424385).

Out of respect for the deceased and their loved ones, I will not indulge into my own personal critiques of the American government's practices and actions abroad concerning other nations. However, I will ask one question: who is left? Guns have killed men, women, children, elderly, animals, and nature. Who or what is left? How long before all fifty states purge residences of firearms, so that another sane ("mentally ill") or seriously ill person is prevented from going on a shooting rampage? I wouldn't blame parents for pulling their children out of school and choosing to home school them, or worse, sending their child to school with a knot in their stomach because they're worried it may be the last time they are sending them off.

All of the previous posts about gun control in America address the issue of gun ownership, and who exactly should be allowed to own a firearm or if owning a firearm should even be allowed to be considered as a constitutional right. The fear of crime has risen over the increase in mass shootings; Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Century 16 movie theater, the list goes on and on and there seems to be no additional measures taken to ensure incidents such as the ones mentioned, never happen again. These events are unarguably tragic, but what about incidents of accidental suicide or minor to severe injuries that go unreported due to a misfired firearm? According to the Children's Defense Fund, approximately every thirty minutes a child is either injured or killed by a firearm. I am not about to make an argument against the fact that maybe America should consider revoking the right to carry a gun on one's person. After all, it is an individual's given right as a means of self defense and protection. However, if someone decides to use their right and finds themselves obtaining a license and subsequently a firearm, then I believe measures need to be taken to ensure that the gun remains in the possession and care of that sole individual.

Eighteen year old, Kai Kloepfer, of Boulder, Colorado, has stepped into the media spotlight when he suggested applying biometrics (technology used for personal identification) to gun technology. The idea behind personal identification firearms, also known as smart gun technology, is to allow for the gun to only be used by the individual whom it belongs to. If any other individual gains access to the firearm and attempts to fire the weapon, the gun will not go off; the technology requires fingerprint authorization by the owner of the gun in order for it to work. Although Kloepfer's invention is still in the prototype stages, there has been an outpouring of support from police agencies, war veterans, and even victims of gun violence. They all wish to see the misuse of firearms as an issue of the past.

Yes, this still does not solve the issue of individual's whose fingerprints are authorized on their weapons from turning the barrel on innocent lives. However, owning a gun does not make someone a bad person, there are just some people who make bad choices, and I believe that if there are ways to limit the occurrence of these bad, or even accidental, choices, then we should pursue them. As much as people would like to deny it, America's gun laws are proactive in the sense that it allows the government and gun authorized retailers to keep track of who is in possession of a firearm. Completely eliminating the use of firearms could make the situation even worse as individuals will then resort to less legal measures to obtain weapons against the knowledge of the state. On that note, I also believe that the process in order to receive a gun license should be a lot more vigorous; someone's age is not nearly enough to authorize their ability to walk into their local hunting store and purchase a gun. Gun violence is an ongoing issue that requires a lot of attention, not only from government authorities, but also from community members. However, it needs to be looked at from all sides of the argument; there is more to it than the simple debate of guns are good or guns are bad.

Below is a clip of Kai Kloepfer speaking about smart gun technology:

I completely agree with and support one's right to defend themselves. That being said, I do not equate 'carrying or possessing a firearm' with self defense, as this would suggest that all who reside in countries that do not allow its citizens to carry firearms are unable to adequate defend themselves. Yes, if your aggressor is carrying a gun you will have a hard time defending yourself without one, but I am confused as to how does this is an argument in favour of the right to carry firearms. If neither you, nor your aggressor can carry a gun, then chances are you can still find some way to defend yourself. Frankly I'd rather face off against someone twice my size and gunless than someone half my size with a gun. Furthermore. using guns for 'self defense' is really just perpetuating violence. It instills the idea that it is okay to shoot someone if it's for a 'good reason' (like self-defence) into people's minds. This makes people more willing to use a gun violently, as they believe that this act can be justified. Personally, I believe that gun control should be much more closely monitored and have much stricter policies. If not allowing citizens to carry them really isn’t an option than the vetting process regarding who can have one needs to be a lot stricter.

In my opinion, there is clearly an inherent combative aspect of the American national identity. Possibly one of the most telling comparisons is to that of the Swiss, who are undoubtedly the exact antithesis of the Americans. Switzerland also has a strong gun culture (sharpshooting in the countryside is actually a sport deemed appropriate for all ages), as many European cultures still conscript men between the ages of 20-34, and train them in use of weapons. Despite this, there are only 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 - compared to 5 per 100,000 in the US.

What can be deduced from this? Well, the Swiss conscript mainly due to a sense of paranoia; they're a tiny and neutral country, so the threat of a surprise invasion could theoretically overwhelm them very quickly, hence the mass proliferation of weapons easily accessible to every reserve soldier. However, at the root of it, guns are actually treated with the due respect in Switzerland, while in America they are glorified in hip hop music, in popular cinema, and even on the news by lobbyists. The culture that the USA has in regards to guns - as tools that are needed to defend self rather than one's nation - is what I would argue leads to the types of human beings that would actually argue for teachers in American schools being given guns. How ridiculous.

(source: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/)

I think the gun control is a very subjective issue because where people live and what they're exposed to. Gun violence has in-deed caused many domestic problems within the country causing many citizens fearing for their safety. But, in contrast regulations that govern and administer weapons to the public have to be held accountable to the fact that severe background and medical checks have to be undergone in order to issue a gun permit to a citizen. With all the mass shootings that have taken place, most perpetrators have been identified as having mental illness, questioning how they were able to get their hands on firearms in the first place. Stricter laws need to be in place of who may possess and carry a firearm, but not neglecting civil liberties in the process. In Canada, the chances of you carrying a gun openly in public is illegal, but in the united states the leniency has led to many unforeseen problems. I agree with SN_America's point, if gun's were controlled and restricted, ways to possess illicit weapons would increase the price and cost of firearms making them less appealing to people. Support from both parties makes this a very grave topic for many citizens because guns and weapons have been a civil liberty rooted in American culture making it hard to restrict. Martial law, police misconduct and civil infringement also ties into why many people feel the need to stand up for they're rights to bear arms.

When it comes to gun control in the United States, the one thing that continuously perturbs me is gun ownership. Anybody has the right to own a gun, there are no strict rules put in place to ensure that guns are safe in the hands of all individuals. Mass shootings in schools, churches, offices, cafes have been the result of the lack in gun control and yet, no measures have been taken to prevent these horrific and inhumane acts. There is no longer a sense of security amongst American citizens who all have easy access to guns. To own a gun is to have power and this thread puts emphasis on the number of deadly events caused by the poor distribution of power. Emily Dickenson’s poem “MY LIFE HAD STOOD – A LOADED GUN” addresses this issue in the following manner. Dickenson states that power is influence. A guy with a gun has a lot of power, or at least thinks he does. And the scary thing about being in power is that it can be taken away at any point, however if everyone has power, the result of this is chaos.