Talk Elections

I really like examing trends in poll results, and even though Gallup has rather wordy questions, they retain the same phraseology over time in many of the questions so as to allow valid comparison.

In this case, the specific question posed was:

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"

Date          Should          Should Not          Difference

  3/91            43%                  53%                   10%

  3/93            42                     54                      12

  4/99            38                     59                      21

10/04            36                     63                      27

10/07            30                     68                      38


Difference    -13                   +15                      28

Amen Amen, they are seeing the light!   Now pardon me while I adorn my Christmas tree with bright shiny bullets that glow so lovely in the tree light.

Oh, you crazy Americans.

Oh Lord.

One of the few freedoms Americans are near the top at!

That's because you're the only people who consider it an essential freedom. :P

I'm surprised there are that many against the possession of hand guns.  Maybe they are confusing the ownership with the ability to carry a concealed weapon? 

The Swiss are even free'r. (free'r?)

They actually think that regular citizens owning hand guns makes for a more dangerous society.  And yet they claim to love freedoms.  Odd I know.

I believe "more free" is the proper way to state that.  "Freeer" would probably be the correct way to spell it though.

Sure MODU.. you claim to love freedom but confine yourself to the harsh rules of the English language.  Freedom hater! :P

Crazy people at it again.

This is always good to see.  :)

Hopefully the Supreme Court would move in the same direction, and besides striking down gun-bans at all levels of government, also make clear once and for all that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals (i.e. American citizens) -not only to government-created bodies like the National Guard and the regular military. 

This is why I would be completely unelectable if I decided to become a politician.

The issue that makes so many international people unnerved, even if, like Switzerland you have quite open gun laws, is the utter obsession that people have with this. If a well-armed citizenry made for a safer society, then America would be the safest country in the world... it's not. The over-abundance of guns leads to situations that interested parties can claim their need for them.

Need I point out that all the guns in the massacres, Columbine, V/Tech, all the other school shootings, the Omaha mall shooting were all legally obtained.

The logic of the gun lobby, completely boggles my mind.

Note that the question is asking simply if private citizens should be allowed to carry handguns. That's currently legal in Canada, in most of Europe including France, (UK = the exception, not the rule) and I'm pretty sure it's legal in Australia. There's nothing radical or unusual about the US allowing private handgun ownership.

No, it most certianly isnt legal to carry handguns in Australia.

But as far as I'm concerned the two ideas are linked anyway. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Neither is it in Denmark, nor Sweden, and I'm pretty sure that the Germans don't allow widespread handgun ownership.

You can point it out all you want, but it doesn't make it true.  Cite?

Yeah, there is.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294
- Virginia Tech

I'm still hunting for the others, I've heard something about others, so I'm tracking them down.

Although the complete unwillingness to accept that this gun obsession and over abundance doesn't have significant negative consequences is quite staggering.

Like in Switzerland.

No, in Switzerland guns are not treated as sacred.

Yes, the availibility is similar to the US (in fact well beyond), but yet, they don't go bonkers over them.
Also the Swiss laws will change next year when they become part of the Schengen treaty. The Swiss also restrict the degrees to which weapons can be carried outside of homes.

Plus the US has a sizeable military, the circumstances between the US and Switzerland on this key issue is so different that comparisons are pointless. Mind you the 2nd amendment was quite similar to this, mind you it was written before there was a standing Army.

Excuse me, but, there was indeed a standing army at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, if a rather small one.

Please do not make

Permit me to clarify.

It was written at a time when state militia would have been the first line of defence in the event of invasion.

Right, the comparisons between the US and ANY other country with regaurds to gun rights (education levels or socialized medicine or anything else you care to think of) are pointless.  We're a very unique country for many many reasons.Right, to protect us from that future standing Army.


How's the hunt (pun?) going?

Sorry, been wrapping presents, and mopping up after leaving a window open during a storm.

I suppose the bottom line of your point is correct.

The US is a "unique" place on many things.

No problem, we all make mistakes.

Have youself a Merry Christmas.

It always strikes a nice chord when I hear people talk about the right to bear arms to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

But, then logic comes in and I ask myself the question:

"Well, if we were in a situation where the government had become so tyrannical that the people could justifiably revolt, would we all be saying 'boy, I'm sure glad the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment, or we'd be really screwed!'"

Yes, but they don't have the mentality "YOU CAN PRY MY GUN FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS".

Quite frankly, I, along with pretty well the rest of the world, find the average American attitude towards guns to be sick and strange.  It's no wonder American society has gun problems when they're so amazingly paranoid about everything.

Except when the government has unrestricted access to your phone calls and library records.

Then it's to fight the terrorists.

Sometimes, you've gotta kill someone to defend yourself. If you know martial arts, or are skilled with other weapons, good for you. But some people want to be able to defend their lives with the utmost of ease.

Just point and click.

So what about France and Canada?

Er, that article says it IS legal to own handguns in Australia, just only ones below a certain size.

Own them yes, but not to carry them around.

Yeah, ownership is all that I'm referring to, since that's what the poll's about. It's not legal to carry them in every state either. It is Minnesota but only about 1% of the population does so based on the permits issued to do so, so there isn't quite an obsession here either that people are talking about.

But gun bans are not an effective tool at reducing crime, either. Look at the U.K. The crime they're having to endure is bonkers. Hell, just last year, I think it was Al, he posted a BBC article stating Scotland is the most dangerous country in the developed world.


Hmmm. I've wondered that myself. Maybe it's cause the the U.S.' involvement in the World Wars, or us being a world superpower, or maybe it's cause the media puts shootings on page 1 is why we're so paranoid. Why we are this way I don't know. Being trigger-happy is not a good thing. But being trigger-sad is just as dangerous. I guess that's why I find the gun grabbers' ideas sick and disturbing. There are evil people out there who want nothing more than to hurt the innocent. No amount of gun control can change human nature. I don't believe guns are the problem. I believe it to be evil people who refuse to control themselves.

Good for you.  Some Americans (the majority) feels the "wrong" way about a subject you care a lot about.  We don't find your attitude towards guns to be sick and strange.  We respect your right to have your govt produce different laws.  Why the anger and hate from your side?  I could even understand Americans against gun ownership getting angry and irrational over the subject, but not somebody without a dog in the fight.  Maybe you should go shoot some clays or hunt a squirrel or maybe even just fire a few hundred rounds into a rusty car, that would calm your nerves.  Maybe that's not your bag, but why must we take it away from other people who's bag that is?

..and American society doesn't have "gun problems".  We're a nation of 300,000,000 most with a basic set of freedoms that includes gun ownership.  Sometimes 1 of those 300,000,000 will steal a legally owned gun, or even manage to purchase one themselves and use them against others.  Taking guns away from regular people wont change that or stop it from happening.  In fact,it has the potential to make things much much worse.  Look at what "gun free zones" got them at V. Tech.

I still can't comprehend the mentality of these gun control nuts.  They'll argue tooth and nail for the legalization of drugs, but they somehow think Prohibition-style gun control is going to work.

If people didn't have guns, they would just kill each other with axes or something like that.  Or chainsaws.

It seems that the people who are paranoid about people owning guns (and these are the same people who call those that want to keep guns paranoid about them) are scared of them because they don't own them and others do.

The UK banned handguns, so now most crimes are likely to be committed with knives, doesn't change a thing.

Hey, you're free to think what you want, but the United States still has by far the highest murder rate per capita in the entire Western world.  Something's obviously wrong there.

The murder rate with a firearm per capita in the United States is 28 times what it is in the United Kingdom.  For all the talk I hear of "banning firearms means that only criminals will have them", I sure don't see evidence of that.

OK, let's say the US banned all guns and required their confiscation. How many law enforcement officers are going to get killed by NRA members? Probably more than people killed by guns per year. You really think the gun nuts will peacefully surrender their guns? You know what the phrase "from my cold dead hands" means? Banning guns would cause A LOT more problems in the US than it would solve.

I think this issue is far too complex to state that guns (or a lack thereof) will either contribute to or decrease gun violence. Hell, look at various locations in the United States. New York City and DC both have strict gun laws. The former is one of the safest cities in the United States, while the latter is one of the most dangerous. Obviously, other factors, such as socio-economic status and poverty levels, contribute to this disparity.

So why does the United States have such a high gun violence rate in comparison to other developed nations? I don't know. Maybe it's the gun culture here. Maybe there's something pervasively wrong with American society. But to say that the relaxation or tightening of gun laws will solely reduce or increase gun violence rates in the United States is naive.

The claim is that having an armed society decreases crime in general, not just muders with firearms. Besdies, most of those crimes happen in inner cities, where gun laws are in general stricter.

Exactly.

You can't solve the US's gun problems through legislation.

Glad you finally admit that. Maybe you'll soon also realize your fast food tax idea is not popular and opposing it does not mean one eats tons of fast food.

i dont care.  it isnt like i want to run for office.

Yes, but you have in the past referred to your views on guns as "normal" and have acted like I'm some sort of nut for opposing your fast food tax idea which has not been implemented anywhere in the world and assume the only reason anyone can oppose is they must eat tons of Big Macs.

An armed population is the ultimate guarantee against tyranny.

Nice to see you back and posting.

Nice to see you again too :)

Just been psycho busy - very busy at work, have a new girlfriend which um, ah,  keeps me, un, ah, also busy :) -

She is in Germany over the holidays seeing her family so I have a week to catch my breath as it were, so I am catching up with the forum again.

I do like the trend on gun ownership too BTW.

The first thing the Communists always did when they took over a nation was to seize control of the media and then take away people's guns.

I guess people started appreciating their rights more as the government got more right-wing and took away more rights.

Yeah, no kidding.  I can't believe how right-winged Clinton was until you pointed that out.  Only a 6% change?  SHEES!  Bush did 9%!  hahahaha

:P

Handguns. Whoop dee do. I think it's worth noting that even in the early 90s, the more popular response to this question was the same.

I wouldn't use the word sick, but in essence I agree.


Absolutely! The power of the American Government would be no match for you and your gun!
LOL

We in the United States have a clear constitutional right to own a handgun and have the right to defend ourselves and our family with that handgun should someone breaks into our house.

What is supposed to be the controversy?

So you think the average guy in the police and the military likes the Federal govt more than they like their fathers, brothers and uncles?  Who's going to come take these guns away?  Leftists with flashlights?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.  It's easier for the left to ignore this fact and make jokes that don't make any sense in the real world.

You seem to be confused.
I didn't suggest that anyone liked or disliked the Federal Government; nor did I suggest it would be a prudent course of action to try and disarm the American populace at this stage.

What I did suggest was that the idea that having a gun protects you from tyrannical government is remarkably silly. The idea that people genuinely believe this notion I find both amusing and disconcerting.

If a tyrannical government is after me I'd much rather have a gun than not.  I find it amusing (but not disconcerting...I couldn't care less if somebody else protects themselves or not) that some people think they'd have a better chance against a tyranical government without one.

(by the way, I don't own a gun, have never owned one and may never own one.  I have no need for one.  I live in a safe neighborhood and rarely go into unsafe ones.  I didn't grow up with them.  My father never owned one.  But I would never ever vote for somebody that wanted to take away my right to own one.)

Help me out here - under what circumstances does having a gun increase "your chances" against a hypothetical tyrannical American Government?


Good for you.
FTR, I don't own a gun; have never owned one; and an hugely unlikely ever to own one. I certainly have no need for one. Indeed, the great majority of our police force is unarmed. My father may or may not have had one, I'm not sure - though in the farming community it's not uncommon for persons to possess a rifle of some kind - though these aren't for reasons of protection (or to protect themselves against a hypothetical tyrannical government). Gun ownership isn't a substantive political issue here so is of no consideration when it comes to voting.

Seriously?  You can't think of any reasons why it would be beneficial to have a gun (or hundred) when a tyrannical govt comes for you.  Do you think guns only kill innocents?  Do you think the govt and it's people are invulnerable to firearms?  I don't understand how somebody couldn't see how a gun would be handy when a govt entity comes for you.  I'm not suggesting I'd win, I'm suggesting that if everybody that had a gun put up a fight when they came to take it, they'd stop trying after awhile or better yey, they wont try in the first place.

I agree.  We're different.  I understand you guys don't have a long history of a gun culture.  Great.  That's awesome.  I'm not saying being pro-gun is the right way, it's just the American way.  We like our guns, most of Europe doesn't.  We share a lot of cultural similarities, but we also have some differences.  Guns is one of them.  Feel free to look down your noses at us because of it, we've gotten used to it from you guys.  We really don't care that much anymore.  We're different, get over it.

Jas as someone with knowledge in Irish history, you should be aware what happened the last time a significant group of armed men (with common weapons) decided to take aim at a supposedly tyranical government. Though as I imagine most gun owners here major reason to owning a gun is "not getting killed" that route would not seem most desirable to them. Indivually alone the common gun owner is a flea near a massive vacuum cleaner when approached by the forces of the so-called "evil federal government".

Anyone else on Black helicopter watch?

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?


You seem quite keen to place me on the defensive. I don't look down my nose at Americans - which isn't to say I don't vociferously agree with various American ways and means (which includes American gun politics).

We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and its exaltation among the nations.

Anyway, as I recall, the said government proceeded to declare martial law; use their armed forces with bigger guns (and indeed gunship) to shell a much geater area of the city than was under their opposition's control (to the point where the occupying forces started firing at each other believing themselves to be under fire from the insurgents). Having been met with uncompromising and sever force, the matter was over within a week with the unconditional surrunder of the rebel force, much to the apparant liking of the general populace.

Then the said government's response to the misadventure, over-zealous executions; deportations; arrests; etc... proceeded to underline the arguments about tyrannical government, swung popular support behind the removal of said government as reflected in the next elections; a unilateral declaration of independence (ignored by our American friends and others while they happily granted and recognised other claims); a war of independence; and so on...and so on...and so on....

[BTW, trying to write about such things from a nuetral perspective is incredibly difficult, and even so, I think I was from from suceeding...]

Sure, the support of the masses..... with guns.  An individual with or without a gun isn't going to be able to do much with a tyrannical govt against him.  A group of individuals with guns would.

But this is a pointless argument anyway.  There isn't a tyrannical govt out to get our guns and if there was, they'd have nobody to enforce it.  Do you really think the guys in the police and Army are going to shoot Americans because they won't give up their guns?  We have the 2nd Amendment, and an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with it.  We've heard all the arguments against them and we've decided that the pro's outweigh the cons.  You can think we're wrong, that's cool.  But guns ain't going anywhere.

Really. I beg to differ. For example, I refer you to this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi) and this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.). No guns, but they changed things utterly.


I never suggested that the American government would or should try to forceably disarm Americans at large. I don't deny that there may be a majority in favour of their right to hold all manner of lethal weaponry.

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

How so?

Well in Iraq insurgents with Ak-47s, RPGs and handmade explosives are proving to be pretty daunting. In Somalia, they were able to drive out toe US Army.

You're comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the case of an individual American with a gun who holds it in the belief he'll need it to protect himself against a hypothetical tyrannical government comes after him?

No, I'm comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the hypothetical case of a mass organized armed uprising with significant popular support against a hypothetical domestic tyrannical government.

And under your theory a group of Americans who felt the current American govenrment was tyrannical and followed the example of those Iraqi insurgents who use their Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs against their fellow Americans would be better off doing using arms rather than through the ballot box or some other form of non-violent movement?

Ok, I'll give you Ghandi.  MLK wasn't fighting a tyrannical govt, he didn't do anything alone and many others also fighting for the same goal he was DID use guns.  Anne Frank fought a tyrannical govt without guns.  Lots of people died in Soviet gulags that fought tyranny without a gun.


And I keep telling you I'd rather die FIGHTING a tyrannical govt rather than die up against a wall and blind folded.

Do you even read what other people write?  Do we even agree what tyrannical means?  Part of the definition of Tyrannical is the inability by the masses to change it for the better through voting.  Or has Tyranny lost it's worth as a word due to overuse by idiots like "gulag" and "Holocaust"?

The type of governments Ghandi and MLK were fighting can not be compared to a true tyrannical government, like the Stalinist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and all the brutal dictatorial regimes in the world today, like Burma and whatnot.