Economist (UK) discusses gun control in the US

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14632169

Gun control

Right to bear arms
Oct 12th 2009
From Economist.com

Support for banning handguns continues to fall in America

DESPITE electing an unusually liberal president, on at least one measure Americans are more conservative than at any time before. Public support for a ban on handguns has fallen to 28%, the lowest level in nearly 50 years, according to a new poll from Gallup. When Americans were first asked the question in 1959, 60% were in favour of introducing a law to ban handguns, but support has declined steadily. Enthusiasm for stricter laws relating to the sale of firearms is also ebbing, falling from 78% in 1990 to 44% today. Polls suggest that 43% believe laws should not be made tougher.

I read through the comments. It struck me that a lot of people (save for Americans with guns), did not care for
Americans with guns.

Of course, historically this attitude tends to change if they happen to need Americans with guns...

[depakid]

1. Here's a clue- no one abroad wants Americans with guns anymore

You've hearkened nothing but disasters over the past 50 years.

On edit- the NATO intervention in the Balkans was an exception to the rule.

[spin]

2. Explain to me how civilian gun ownership in the U.S.

was responsible for poor foreign policy by our elected leaders.

Different subjects entirely.

[depakid]

4. The OP noted the anachronism

[proteus_lives]

5. Wow, dk's standard issue anti-American rant is even less relevant than usual.

What does foreign policy have to do with domestic gun issues?

Besides, don't forget Korea. Vietnam and the Gulf conflicts were mistakes but the US and the UN did the world a solid by standing up to NK, Stalin and Mao.

[JonQ]

11. Duh, our army is made up of volunteers

taking their hunting rifles to war with them.

With a disarmed populace we would have no military.

Oh wait, is this 2009 or 1809? I get those confused all the time.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. No problem. When I am abroad I will leave my guns at home.

When I am in Texas and those states that Texas has reciprocity with, I will carry concealed. Everybody happy.

[yay]

3. when exactly have they needed americans with guns?

I'm just saying, civis have very little part in foreign defense. When they join the army those aren't exactly privetly owned guns.

[Endangered Specie]

7. Has it occured to you that its easier to train soldiers who already have experience

with guns before signing up/being drafted versus those that do not? Also, when was the last time someone invaded Switzerland?

Also, lets not forget how many guns and other war related items WE made for the UK during WWII (lend lease). British Lee-Enfield rifles with U.S. Property marks on them (made by Savage, hence often called "Savage Enfields") are always a neat thing to find at a gun show.

[TheWraith]

18. As I recall, the Civilian Marksmanship Program was actually specifically to strengthen that.

Some Senator, if I'm remembering correctly, saw how bad many of the soldiers deployed to the Phillipines were at marksmanship, and decided to institute a program to encourage the training of civilian riflemen.

[Endangered Specie]

30. Good point, I wonder how mant anti-gun types know the US Govt sells

M1 garands (high power sniper gun) and M1 carbines (bullet spraying assault gun) to the civilian populace.

[spin]

34. Here's a link to the Government site that sells weapons to clubs...

http://www.thecmp.org/

Note that the clubs can get semi-auto M1 Garands.

The M1 Garand (officially the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1) was the first semi-automatic rifle to be generally issued to the infantry of any nation. Called "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised" by General George S. Patton, the Garand officially replaced the bolt-action M1903 Springfield as the standard service rifle of the United States Armed Forces in 1936 and was subsequently replaced by the selective-fire M14 in 1957. However, the M1 continued to be used in large numbers until 1963 and to a lesser degree until 1966.

The M1 was used heavily by U.S. forces in World War II, the Korean War, and, to a limited extent, the Vietnam War. Most M1 rifles were issued to American Army and Marine troops, though many thousands were also lent or provided as foreign aid to America's allies. The Garand is still used by drill teams and military honor guards. It is also widely sought by the civilian population as a hunting rifle, target rifle, and military collectible. The name "Garand" is pronounced variously as /ɡəˈrænd/ or /ˈɡærənd/. According to experts and people who knew John Garand, the weapon's designer, the latter version is preferred.<4><5> It is now available to civilians in the original .30-06 chambering, as well as in .308 Winchester.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. If the OP had said Americans with privately held guns you might have a point.

[iverglas]

23. and if the Economist article had been referring to publicly held guns

then the OP and you would have had one.

You and the OP lost this one before you started.

E-qui-vo-ca-a-a-shun is making me laugh ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. So the Economist was referring to a handgun ban for who? The military, police, secret service?

[iverglas]

25. so here's how it went

You: If the OP had said Americans with privately held guns you might have a point.

Me: and if the Economist article had been referring to publicly held guns (you might have had a point)

You: So the Economist was referring to a handgun ban for who? The military, police, secret service?


I shouldn't have to say any more, I don't think.

The author of the OP cited an article about Europeans' negative feelings about "Americans with guns" and used that as a springboard to make one of the usual tired, creepy, dumb noises about how grateful Europeans are to Americans and their guns when they need them.

The Americans and their guns that Europeans might need are not yahoos with popguns in their pants as they promenade around the malls and movie theatres of the USofA. The Americans and their guns that Europeans might need are in the US military.

The subject of the Economist article was not the US military.

So the tired, creepy, dumb remark in the OP had nothing to do with the Economist article, which WAS about Americans and their privately held guns.

This would be why I pointed out that the Economist article was NOT about publicly held guns in the US, by which I obviously meant firearms under public control, i.e. not under private control, i.e. the firearms of the US military, specifically.

So I'm sorry, but your next subject line:

So the Economist was referring to a handgun ban for who? The military, police, secret service?

is really just extra special dumb in compound ways.


typo fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. That is priceless in it's extra special dumb way.

So your argument is that you thought publicly held firearms meant government owned firearms. That's great, thanks for the laugh.

[iverglas]

27. uh, my statement is that *I* meant what I said

*I* said "publicly held firearms". *I* know what it meant, because *I* said it.

To try to help *you*: I said it in response to a remark of yours about "privately held firearms".

If I had been referring to the same thing -- privately held firearms -- then hmm, one might think I would have said, hmm, the same thing: "privately held firearms".

The fact that I used a DIFFERENT term might be your first clue that I was referring to something DIFFERENT.

Such strange concepts I know these are.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. So you think publicly held companies are owned by the military. That is some good stuff ivy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. I meant in the general sense- Like the 1st Infantry Division in WWII

Or IFOR in the 1990's (thanks to another poster for that example).

[oneshooter]

35. During WW2, after Dunkirk,

the civilians of the US, through the government, sent privately owned weapons to the UK, with the agreement that they would be returned to the owners at the end of hostilities. These included rifles, shotguns and handguns. The English were glad to get them as they had left behind more than half of the army's small arms when they left France. The total was over 50,000 weapons, plus ammunition for them. They were used by the Home Guard until 1944 when they were collected and DUMPED AT SEA!!! The English never paid for them.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[proteus_lives]

6. Why should they care? And why would we care what they think?

We don't write a lot articles about them banning knives and sharp sticks. :eyes:

"Of course, historically this attitude tends to change if they happen to need Americans with guns..."

That's the truth. They didn't mind when we had to clean up Europe's backyard in the 90s. (The latest example)

[Endangered Specie]

8. Reminds me of this image:

yes, its a little bit visceral

:hide:

[depakid]

10. Considering the crimes rates- and especially homicide and incarceration rates

are a fraction of what they are in the US- the image really is amusing- though I'm sure most won't get it.

[JonQ]

12. Maybe, maybe not

it seems there are vast differences in how we count crimes.

FOr instance, did you know that in the UK they don't count crimes committed by those under 16 in official records?

Also they advocate releasing "with a caution" people for a variety of serious crimes such as drug possession, burglary, threats of violence, actual violence, etc and hence those are not counted. And there's no counting how many crimes go unreported because residents are aware of the fact that nothing will be done.

No doubt if we were to follow their standards are crime rate would magically drop as well. But I doubt you'd give us the same benefit of the doubt that you give to europe.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that you are about 7 times more likely to be physically harmed in London than you are in New York (a larger city with comparable police budget).

I think the fact that we honestly address crime in the US rather than covering it up with misleading stats is a good thing. It means we have a better shot at doing something about it.

[Endangered Specie]

29. Of the various European nations, there are TWO that would be considered

pro-gun, or at least have relatively lax gun laws... Switzerland and the Czech Republic. They have low crime rates


the USA's crime rate is high due to other economic factors, and you have to consider alot of crime happens in anti-gun cities (Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, etc...)

Fact of the matter is, in this country, if someone breaks into your house with the intent to kill/rape you or your family, you have the right to own and use the most effective means to stop them.

[iverglas]

22. does "visceral" mean

"makes my stomach churn in disgust at the right-wing demagoguery" in your dictionary?

One never does know what words, er, mean, around here. But if so, I'll agree!

[GreenStormCloud]

32. I thought it was funny.

But it is definately your right to have whatever reaction pleases you.

[Euromutt]

9. The Economist is uncharacteristically illiberal when it comes to firearms

Given how the editorial position of the newspaper strongly leans toward legalization of drugs and prostitution on the grounds that prohibition does stop the trade in these products and services, but only drives them into the control of organized crime (which I consider a very realistic attitude), its position on firearms is strangely prohibitionist.

[JonQ]

13. That's different

people want drugs and alcohol so there's money to be made on them. Ban them and someone will start selling them illegally.

Whereas there is no demand for guns, people don't want them and have no legal right to claim them. So no black market would arise if they were banned.


That's just logical.

[armueller2001]

14. HUH?

There already is a black market for guns... I hope your post was created in satire because I'm thoroughly confused.

[JonQ]

15. Satire, yes

the notion that to get rid of guns all we have to do is ban them should be thoroughly discounted every time it is brought up. History has shown again and again that this will not work, but people insist it will. Madness.

[armueller2001]

16. Apologies

Some of the arguments of the grabbers here are so illogical that it's hard to tell what is satire and what is genuine ignorance.

[JonQ]

20. I know, it's sad

no apologies necessary.

[Blu_Statr]

36. You assume there is no demand....you shouldn't do that.

There's already a black market for guns where they are banned or heaily controlled to lawful owners. It exists in the UK, and in certain US metropolitan areas. And it ain't because they're going across the border to Mexico.

Outlawing guns in the USA would make the legal, Constitutional and criminological repercussions of Prohibition (alcohol) look like a grade school picnic. Instead of "bathtub gin", people would be building their own (not hard if you think about it), stealing, robbing or buying from those who have them, or smuggling them in.

The Viet Cong were making functional firearms with handtools in jungle camps - they just modeled the manufactured guns they captured. Don't think it can't be done.

[Ter]

33. 28% hate the Constitution

They should move.