Is it really a "Freedom" to bear arms?

[WilliamG]

OK, so hear me out here.

I'm a British citizen. I moved to Minnesota in 2002 to marry my American wife.

8 years later, I'm a permanent resident, living in Seattle, and got into guns. I bought my first one (five, actually), last week, as some of you might know.

Why? It started with my not feeling super safe at night/in general. Well, then there were some shots fired outside my house a few weeks ago (seven, total), and my house has a VERY open floor plan. Once through the front door/back door/garage door, there's NO doors all the way up to my bedroom where my wife and I sleep. I had been thinking about getting a gun or two (or five). Anyway, I bought some handguns and a shotgun...

When I was leaving the store that I purchased them from, I turned to the sales guy and said it's a shame I have to buy these, as I'm quite anti-gun, really.

He said to me, in a friendly way, "I don't understand! You just bought FIVE guns! You came to our country, and are now sharing in the freedom/right to bear arms! How can you complain about that!?"

I replied to him that it's not FREEDOM that has me wanting these guns. It's really the OPPRESSION that has me wanting these. This is not an "America sucks" thread. More of a "Shouldn't We Anaylze What's Going On Here?" thread. I don't feel incredibly safe in Seattle. I didn't feel incredibly safe in Minneapolis, either, before I moved to Seattle in 2009. I don't feel that safe anywhere, really!

There's no question the amount of confidence/empowerment by owning a gun/guns is... impressive. It calls for great responsibility, but also it scares me that I could go a bit mental and do something stupid, potentially.

Like we've discussed many times, guns don't kill people; people kill people. But it seems to me that, in this so-called first world, America, Land of the Free, living here seems to encompass so much fear, be it from our "fellow" man, or from the rest of the world.

I just call into question the rights/freedoms that we (you) have, and whether there's much freedom at all, really... It's not as if owning a gun/concealing a gun is a winning lottery ticket anyway...? Is it really freedom if some of us feel it's just simply "necessary?"

I'm really interested in what you all have to say about this.

 

[billdeserthills]

The Right to Bear Arms gives you the power & ability to defend yourself. A sad fact of life is that wherever you go, nobody in that place but yourself will always have Your best interests at heart, but you. Here in America instead of simply carrying the worry that you may sometime need to defend yourself, you also have a powerful guarantee that you may carry a firearm or Great Equalizer. The simple handgun makes an old woman equal in power to the 6'5" gangbanger, who outweighs her by 200 lbs.
Anyhow I'm sure many can answer your question better than I , but did you know that 5 Times now The Supreme Court has decided that Police have NO Duty to the private citizen? Only one person has a duty to guarantee your safety & that person is You

Now if you had the money to hire a bodyguard then you could have many people around to guarantee your safety, it's just another sad story...

 

[DeadManWalking]

OK, so hear me out here.

I'm a British citizen. I moved to Minnesota in 2002 to marry my American wife.

8 years later, I'm a permanent resident, living in Seattle, and got into guns. I bought my first one (five, actually), last week, as some of you might know.

Why? It started with my not feeling super safe at night/in general. Well, then there were some shots fired outside my house a few weeks ago (seven, total), and my house has a VERY open floor plan. Once through the front door/back door/garage door, there's NO doors all the way up to my bedroom where my wife and I sleep. I had been thinking about getting a gun or two (or five). Anyway, I bought some handguns and a shotgun...

When I was leaving the store that I purchased them from, I turned to the sales guy and said it's a shame I have to buy these, as I'm quite anti-gun, really.

He said to me, in a friendly way, "I don't understand! You just bought FIVE guns! You came to our country, and are now sharing in the freedom/right to bear arms! How can you complain about that!?"

I replied to him that it's not FREEDOM that has me wanting these guns. It's really the OPPRESSION that has me wanting these. This is not an "America sucks" thread. More of a "Shouldn't We Anaylze What's Going On Here?" thread. I don't feel incredibly safe in Seattle. I didn't feel incredibly safe in Minneapolis, either, before I moved to Seattle in 2009. I don't feel that safe anywhere, really!

There's no question the amount of confidence/empowerment by owning a gun/guns is... impressive. It calls for great responsibility, but also it scares me that I could go a bit mental and do something stupid, potentially.

Like we've discussed many times, guns don't kill people; people kill people. But it seems to me that, in this so-called first world, America, Land of the Free, living here seems to encompass so much fear, be it from our "fellow" man, or from the rest of the world.

I just call into question the rights/freedoms that we (you) have, and whether there's much freedom at all, really... It's not as if owning a gun/concealing a gun is a winning lottery ticket anyway...? Is it really freedom if some of us feel it's just simply "necessary?"

I'm really interested in what you all have to say about this.

We don't describe it as a Freedom per say but more of a God given RIGHT, confirmed by our Constitution. And you're right, owning a firearm isn't like winning the lottery unless . . . The old saw goes something like this; You never need a gun until you need a gun badly. But if you don't want to own a firearm, no one is forcing you, heck I'd bet more than half the people that live in seattle are as scared of guns as you sound. If your a liberal, you found your city when you moved to seattle.

Now as far as feeling safe in any city . . . my $.02, get the heck out of the city. There are hundreds of little towns and hour away from most big cities that will give you back your peace of mind. I hate cities, feel right at home in small towns or rural open areas.

 

[WilliamG]

There's always moving to rural areas, but then I feel like I'm missing out on life, people etc... I guess you can't have everything!

 

[computeruser]

It calls for great responsibility, but also it scares me that I could go a bit mental and do something stupid, potentially.

Strangely enough, I hear this point raised often. I cannot imagine, cannot conceive of going "a bit mental" and doing something stupid with a firearms. Can you? If so, have you sought help for this problem? Do you feel the same way about kitchen cutlery? Your car?

What I find particularly interesting is that this point gets raised mostly by European family and friends. Perhaps there is something on the other side of the pond that accepts that people can/will/do/should have occasional lapses in judgment of profound magnitude. I don't get it, and I surely don't accept that premise.

Regardless, your abstract argument is still interesting. Is something we feel "required" to do really a freedom, or is it a sort of de facto enslavement? Well, when we break it all down at the end of the day, every choice we make excludes us in some way or another from making some different choice, so no, we're never really "free" to have/do/experience/etc. everything, at least not all at once. One choice always fences out another.

The other interesting point you raise concerns feeling safe. It surprises me that one would expect to feel safe in the first place. This seems naive, childlike to expect to feel safe. The real world is full of people who, using their free will and the full strength of their intellect and talents, intend to do harm to their fellow man, and there isn't a damned thing we can do about these folks until after they act out wrongly. When we are young, sheltered from reality by our parents and teachers, that's one thing. But for adults to expect to cling to this expectation defies reality.

I see that two kinds of fear are often confused: fear of random, statistical anomalies, and fear of identified threats. Hollywood does a great job of making motion pictures which play on human psychology to conflate these two fears, when in fact they are actually quite different; if you seek to mitigate their respective risks separately, they are far easier for the human psyche to process. We mitigate some of our risks as to the statistical anomalies by the choices we make - how our house is laid out, whether we keep a dog, the neighborhood we choose to live in, the kind of profile we give off to the outside world, whether we have a fence, etc. This isn't a matter of caving to fear, it is common sense, a matter of finding a realistic and workable balance as between the reality of the world as it exists and the precautions we can take to protect our interests.

For the specific fears, well, those often are things we do have control over - our work, the people we run with, the neighborhood we choose to continue to live in after a statistical anomaly risk becomes a real, identifiable one. By way of a personal example, in my work I run across some unpleasant folks - psycho spouse abusers, child pornographers, stalkers, kidnappers, murders, gang members - whose present comfortable situation is likely to be gravely upset by my work. As a result, sometimes work follows me home. These things concern me, these are things I "fear." But it isn't a paralytic fear, just a heightened state of concern as to certain issues at certain times, versus the everyday level of concern and awareness devoted to other issues. I would not feel better or be more safe if I were to ignore these risks, or if I pursued my work with less vigor. So I accept, adapt, and mitigate as best as I can.

What would really concern me would be to live in a time and place where I was specifically deprived of practical means to protect my interests as against the actions of those among us who don't abide by the laws and rules of man and of mankind. I happen to believe that my right to look out for myself and those for whom I am responsible does not exist because it is found in the codified law of my country, but because it is an innate human right which is vested in each human being.

Why would my fellow man wish to deprive me of these abilities, or to qualify their application, but to harm me or to render me more vulnerable to harm? Why would I want to defer to the judgment of another person in determining when, where, how, and with what mechanisms I might exercise my innate right to look after myself and those for whom I am responsible? Some things are not for the collective to decide. Some things are so innately personal as to beyond democracy, not readily adaptable to majority rule.

In reading your written words, it sounds to me that part of what is frustrating you is that you come from a worldview and background that holds, to some degree, that certain types of people are above certain types of human conduct; I submit that this proposition is gravely in error. First-world or third-world, nations are still full of people. And people are what people are. The sooner we accept this premise, the better off we will be. It is arrogant, and wrong, to presume that because we are (insert attribute), the rules of human nature do not apply to us. We cannot wish evil away, and we should not intentionally blind ourselves to it. Ignorance and denial may be blissful to some, but ignorance and denial are not what makes up freedom.

 

[RobertJ.]

There are plenty of small towns within driving (commuting) distance of Seattle. Look at Snoqualmie, or North Bend, or Fall City to the east. Or Black Diamond to the south. Or Monroe or Sultan to the north. Monroe is the exception to the rule in the Seattle area, it's filled with gun totin' rednecks! Granted, they still have crime problems, but nothing like Seattle.

I lived in Maple Valley for four years. While I wouldn't want to move back up there, (I go to sleep to the sound of the Pacific Ocean where I live now) Seattle is still one of my favorite places.

 

[LedFowl]

Very good, thoughtful thread. Thanks.

 

[WilliamG]

Thank you for the replies. Within commuting distance != being able to be downtown within 10 minutes as it does for me right now. That's important to me/my wife.

computeruser, thank you for your well-thought out response. In regards my "going a bit mental" statement, we often read in the news about someone who does something, - with a gun - and nobody saw it coming. Whether it's killing himself/herself or hurting others, - it does happen. While I'm not suggesting that I expect this sort of behavior to become my legacy, it does give me pause. And yes, it can easily happen with a knife/car, but somehow a gun is "easier." Less... messy/hands-on.

I agree my abstract argument was to raise the idea of slavery/freedom. Are we slaves to the need for firearm protection?

Growing up in London, there wasn't the fear/worry/paranoia that I experience in the US today. Now, admittedly, I've been out of the UK for over 8 years now, despite going back every 6-8 months to visit. I know England has its fair share of violent crime, though we tend to use knives quite a bit instead. Still problematic, yes.

While I wasn't trying to raise this point, I do believe that some people are above certain types of conduct. For whatever reason, perhaps because their world-view doesn't include those behaviors, it's certainly not invalid to suggest this may be true.

You say it surprises you that one should expect to feel safe in the first place. I do not disagree with you. However, I suggest to you that in America, in Europe etc - established democracies, - it surprises me that I should feel so unsafe.

 

[Janitor]

Feeing safe is really a frame of mind.

I choose to live in a small town. The violent crime rate here is most likely FAR lower than even in London (per capita). We have a great police force who are able to provide excellent response times. Yet I still make sure I have immediate access to a loaded sidearm in when out and about, and even in my home.

It has nothing to do with paranoia or high crime rates. The fact is, that random acts of violence are just that. Random, and unpredictable. We know that the odds of something happening are extremely slim. At least in the majority of environments they are. But they do happen and there's no way to know when or where they will.

Even though you don't expect them, it's not wrong to be prepared. I don't expect my car to break down, but in the winter I carry spare boots & an insulated suit in the trunk - just in case. Is that a loss of freedom? Hardly. It's simply being prepared.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Think of it differently than you are. If you were back home in London, would you have the “freedom” to buy a gun to defend yourself? Were you even allowed to carry a defensive styled knife to defend yourself? At the risk of sounding paranoid, everyone is a target. It is your duty to make yourself a hard target and not a soft target. In my opinion, that is where the phrase “an armed society is a polite society”. You have now become a hard target. Buy a safe to store them in while you are gone. While you are at home keep one near you at the ready. Think about obtaining a WA state CCW permit. GO TO THE RANGE AND TRAIN. Maybe even take a class or two. Or three. Our (now your) system of government affords its people the freedom of taking responsibility for their own lives. If someone makes the life decision to break into your house then they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. You are free to defend yourself as you see fit. If you can hold them at gun point and call the police then that is good. If they endanger your life then you have the freedom to be able to defend yourself. Oppression comes from government. Not some scumbag. You were raised in a very restricted and indoctrinated passive society. And yet you still know there was violence. So the freedom to defend yourself is still a bit alien to you. When I visited your country I had to sit through a lecture telling me to take the pen knife off my keychain. Don’t even carry nail clippers in your pocket. It wouldn’t be worth the trouble if you are taken into custody. I was a bit shocked by British laws. We were even told not to intervene if we saw a crime being committed. To me that is just sad. Here in the United States we are currently suffering through a phase that I hope passes. I won’t get into our current political situation, but I think it is becoming fairly obvious that we have left behind a take care of those who cannot take care of themselves attitude to a take care of those who won’t take care of themselves. And the people that work for a living are waking up to the fact that we are enabling a portion of our society to not have to work for their fare. It’s our own fault and I think we will muddle our way through it and get back on track to maintaining that beacon to which everyone looks at for the greatest place for freedom, liberty, and happiness. I may be a bit late in saying this, but Welcome to the United States.

 

[Martya]

Excellent responses all!

Oppression?? Hardly.

Excerpted from 2001 NRA-ILA web page (reproduction allowed):
NRA-ILA :: Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries

Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.)

I see why you left England....

I believe your issue with not feeling safe is you now live in a country that allows you in many areas to make your own choices and decisions and choose alternative paths as you forge through life, and take responsibility for them. In this country, compared to many 'socialized' countries, there is no automatic safety net, no umbrella. Individuals are responsible for their decisions and actions and they live with the benefits or consequences.

You were raised in a country that takes a lot of that choice and subsequent responsibility away from the individuals. From the time you were born your government had your best interest in mind, and wants to do the best things for you all your life that you were unable to decide for yourself. Your government told you that you were safe under their direction and didn't need guns, and you believed it. Tell me that after your gun possession was legislated away your crime went down. It didn't. Tell me your citizens had a choice to legislate gun ownership away. They didn't. THAT is oppression.

In any country, citizens have a right to defend themselves. In this country, in addition to the right to keep and bear arms, that right to defend oneself extends to the freedom to choose a firearm to help in that defense, or not. In your old country, you did not have that option. (Interestingly, you come from a very restrictive country that made citizens turn in all guns and then you bought 5 guns here! Congratulations! I have owned guns for 50 years and never had 5 at one time.)

Owning and carrying a firearm is NOT a guarantee of complete personal protection or safety, not here and not in any country. You cannot beat a drawn gun, any more than you could defend yourself in your old country with a drawn knife at your throat. But maybe in your old country the police would always show up and save you and arrest the bad guy every time. Or maybe you just thought they would. Or maybe a proper gentleman would never be approached by a mugger. Here we are a little more realistic. Not only do we have a right to keep and bear arms - primarily due to our experience with your old country 200 years ago - but we also have the freedom to choose a firearm to aid in our right to defend ourselves. That does not make us slaves to anything, that is not oppression.

Maybe if you feel so unsafe you should move to a more safe, gun free area like Chicago or New York City, or maybe Germany or Italy(same NRA-ILA web page):
...strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Those citizens there are not "oppressed". I'm sure they feel completely safe all the time.

From my perspective as a life-long resident of this country, your perspective appears to be a bit conflicted. Perhaps you should live here a few more years and after you are more accustomed to out ways then comment on our oppressive society.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

The United States of America was founded on the concept of individual liberties, taking into account that if all men were angels there would be no need whatsoever for government. Our system of government is one of circumscribed powers and authority, specifically for the purpose of permitting the greatest degree of individual liberty in thought, word, and deed.

With liberty comes responsibility, including the responsibility for one's self. The person of normal intelligence and caution will avoid circumstances involving dangers, and will take necessary precautions for self-preservation, including the provisions required for defending one's self, family, and community.

There have been many approaches taken toward human communities that provide safety and security. None has ever succeeded in protecting all community members from the depradations common to human behavior due to greed, mental illness, sociopathy, substance abuse, or any of the other failures of some people.

People tend to gravitate toward major population centers, whether it be for cultural activities, employment opportunities, or opportunities to engage in criminal or anti-social activities. Living in a modern city, whether in the United States or any other nation, brings with its benefits the exposure to those who would abuse us.

As a retired cop I can tell you that law enforcement personnel seldom arrive in time to intervene in criminal activity. The individual will survive the crime, or not, depending largely upon his individual abilities, mental conditioning, and preparedness. Roughly one in 17 people (men, women, and children) will be the victim of a serious crime every year (Uniform Crime Reports, US Justice Department).

Your questioning of our view of "freedom", contrasting it to the oppression of living in a dangerous world, is appropriate. My response would be that this has always been a dangerous world, and will always be a dangerous world so long as humans exist in interaction with each other, and that limitations on individual liberties (including the right of self-defense and the means to effectively defend one's self) will not only fail to reduce the dangers, but will actually make it easier for those who would abuse us and increase the incidence of violent crime.

There are those who believe that a utopian society is possible, that humanity can somehow be perfected, and that peace and harmony will prevail once everyone has been shown the right path. I am not one of those people. I have spent much of my life dealing with good people doing bad things, bad people doing good things, and everything in between. Human nature will never change significantly, and there will always be those who will do evil things to other people.

Promises of peace, harmony, and tranquility are made all the time by those who would be our masters, if we allow them to. Such promises always require that we surrender our individual liberties, and our individual wills, for the greater good of all. No person or government has ever been able to fulfill the promises made. No nation and no community has ever provided meaningful, or even adequate, protections against every human tragedy.

Like it or not, each of us is responsible for our own safety and security, and collectively responsible for the security of our communities and nation. The thinking person will remain prepared.

The capitol of your native country, the City of London, has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Crimes of violence have become so common in many areas that normal activities are nearly impossible. Burglary of occupied dwellings is far more common in England than here in the US, largely because the criminals know that it is unlawful for anyone to have readily available weapons, and that self-defense is frequently treated as a crime in itself. Do these things make London more free, or less oppressive, than Seattle? When a thug breaks into a London home and assaults or terrorizes a British family, is that family any more free, or less oppressed, than the Seattle family?

I have heard it said that gun control assumes that the 110 lb. woman that has been robbed, beaten, and raped is somehow morally superior to the woman explaining to police officers how a man ended up with bullet holes in him. I don't buy that argument.

Best regards.

 

[handejector]

Why the Gun IS Civilization
by Marko Kloos
(posted with his permission)​

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Hey Supreme Court- Marko Kloos: Why The Gun Is Civilization

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Some great posts. Some of them should be considered for publication. I can sum up my feelings on the subject in one sentence. I cc because I must live in the world as it is, not the world I would like.

 

[dougb1946]

Science, using rats as a model, has shown that as population densities increase, violence increases. English response has been to remove weapons and watch the people closely. Cameras are everywhere, but violence still exists. Criminals are armed, as guns can be procured anywhere. Law abiding people wait for the cops to protect them.

Cops will protect you if they can, but the reality is there aren't enough cops to go around. The clever line is 'Why do you carry a gun? A cop is too heavy".

My choice is to live in a smaller town. We still have problems, but the difference is I know the people involved. We don't even have full time cops, but rely on the county sheriff.
I worked hard to get what I have, and will protect my family and property if possible. I have always hunted, so I have always had guns in the house. The house and its contents are mine. I am getting older and heavier, and can not run really fast, and police response time can be quite long. Someone comes into my house while I am home, I would rather use the 12guage, but the 9mm is a good back up. It probably will never happen and the guns will only be used for hunting and poking holes in paper, but it is nice to have the option available.

The presence of guns does not increase violence. The Swiss demonstrate that. They get to keep machine guns in their closets. When MN went "shall issue", the doomsayers forecast increased death and destruction. They were wrong. By definition, law abiding gun owners obey the law. Crime actually does decrease in areas of high gun ownership. You want to see a home invasion or robbery, put up a sign that says your house is a gun free zone.

Our founding fathers believed that the people were the power, and that the people were to be trusted . That is, in my view, a difference between being a citizen and being a subject

 

[P&R Fan]

First of all, Sir, welcome to the United States.
I'm intrigued that you moved here and are fearful. Was there no violent crime in the UK? I've heard that crime has accelerated there with the very anti-gun policies. Perhaps I was mistaken.
I want you to understand some things about the Second Amendment. The first thing is it should more properly be referred to as Article Two of the Bill Of Rights. It's main purpose was not necessarily to protect us from criminals. That's really a by-product. It was designed to protect us from governments, foreign and domestic. The founders realized that an armed citizenry cannot be controlled by an oppressive government. We broke away from one over 200 years ago, without arms, we could not have done so. This God-given right also allows us the means of self protection, which you, as a new arrival have availed yourself of. There are not a lot of countries where that could have happened.
With freedom comes responsibility. When I am armed I take the responsibility to protect me and my loved ones very seriously.

 

[DeadManWalking]

Thank you for the replies. Within commuting distance != being able to be downtown within 10 minutes as it does for me right now. That's important to me/my wife.

computeruser, thank you for your well-thought out response. In regards my "going a bit mental" statement, we often read in the news about someone who does something, - with a gun - and nobody saw it coming. Whether it's killing himself/herself or hurting others, - it does happen. While I'm not suggesting that I expect this sort of behavior to become my legacy, it does give me pause. And yes, it can easily happen with a knife/car, but somehow a gun is "easier." Less... messy/hands-on.

I agree my abstract argument was to raise the idea of slavery/freedom. Are we slaves to the need for firearm protection?

Growing up in London, there wasn't the fear/worry/paranoia that I experience in the US today. Now, admittedly, I've been out of the UK for over 8 years now, despite going back every 6-8 months to visit. I know England has its fair share of violent crime, though we tend to use knives quite a bit instead. Still problematic, yes.

While I wasn't trying to raise this point, I do believe that some people are above certain types of conduct. For whatever reason, perhaps because their world-view doesn't include those behaviors, it's certainly not invalid to suggest this may be true.

You say it surprises you that one should expect to feel safe in the first place. I do not disagree with you. However, I suggest to you that in America, in Europe etc - established democracies, - it surprises me that I should feel so unsafe.

"You say it surprises you that one should expect to feel safe in the first place. I do not disagree with you. However, I suggest to you that in America, in Europe etc - established democracies, - it surprises me that I should feel so unsafe."

Not sure where your "fear" originates, maybe it's just firearms in general or maybe Americans? But I see the biggest difference between your culture in the UK and ours here in the US as; "Armed we are citizens, unarmed we are subjects." That does take a wee bit of time to fully embrace. We welcome you to this country as a citizen, but please do not try to change us into being what you left just because you are uncomfortable with our "RIGHTS". Top of the day to you. =';'=

 

[WilliamG]

While I appreciate people's responses here, I do detect some jingoism, which is not surprising of course.

Please note I'm not talking about England's problems. I fully realize what is going on there.. I could express my displeasure on that topic for many hours. Many, MANY hours!

I'm not necessarily trying to change anything in the USA, really. However, I take a LOT of issue with the argument: "It's our right," or, "The Constitution states X..."

One may argue that guns are a good thing and that we "should" be allowed to own them etc etc. That's sits just fine with me. But let's be honest - the Constitution was written with a very different America in mind.... I truly believe the Constitution should be restructured. I'm not trying to take away guns or freedom of speech etc, but really... let's move into the 21st Century, shall we?

For example, I believe for anyone buying a handgun it should be mandatory to take a gun-safety class. I imposed that law on myself before buying any guns, and I feel much safer for it. I'd like knowing that the guy next to me concealing a weapon took at least ONE class to familiarize himself with said weapon. Is that the be-all/end-all of learning? Of course not! But we do need to impose some more stringent measures on who actually gets guns. In fact, you could call that an unwritten Constitutional law: To bear arms is a "right," but to bear them responsibly is an even greater right.

Will that stop shootings like Virginia Tech/Tucson/Columbine etc? No, it won't, but surely every prevented accidental/unforeseen death is worth it, right?

As it happens, I don't think guns themselves cause all the crime in the USA. I believe it's the student/loans/work-24/7 mentality that does people in here and make them go "a bit mental."

And 32-round magazines....? Well, they don't help.

 

[kewpie]

However, I take a LOT of issue with the argument: "It's our right," or, "The Constitution states X..."

I can see your point (up to here ) and can also see the slight 'jingoism' you refer to as well, there being varied grades of how adamant some gun owners can be adn how they express their rights to same.

I can also agree with your advocating some kind of safety measures established for the exercising of the aforementioned 'rights.'

I think, at the same time, that your argument or query would be better served without the above quotation form your last post.

Facts are : It IS our right, and the Constitution DOES state as much. That that is perhaps somewhat unclear to non-US citizens as a rule, has no bearing on the "IS" and the "DOES" parts. Annd that some have and always will abuse their rights is obvious in a system of imperfection which is what human beings are. But those rights are and will remain (hopefully) rights, etched in stone, blood, and spirits.

Nothing at all personal or vindictive. Hoping your stay here is as safe and peaceful as anyone's can be.

(And don't worry - the fact that you asked the question ensures that you will 'learn' the answers - just pick up any big city newspaper )

 

[stantheman86]

Welcome to the US.......you are now a gun owner, so you don't have the right to be "anti-gun" anymore. If you are anti-gun, you don't own guns.....it's not a hard thing to understand. How can you go to a gun shop and buy 5 guns for protection, but then be like "It's wierd that I'm buying guns, because I'm anti-gun". I am confused as to your whole point here.........you want to know if owning guns is "really" a freedom? Well it seems you moved to the US for a reason.......was it, MORE freedom? Again, what is your point? You're complaining that you have too much freedom now? That America is so unsafe we need to own guns?


The US is not the UK, and the UK is not the US. Why compare apples to oranges. In the UK most of the police officers don't even carry sidearms, this is something most Americans can even wrap their heads around......how is an unarmed policeman supposed to enforce the law? It takes deadly force out of the equation. Try asking an NYPD, Chicago, Cleveland, etc. police officer how he would feel working his next shift without a gun on his hip.......

People from Canada say "I can't believe they let Americans walk around carrying guns" This is not Canada, either. A great many Americans have died and risked their lives defending the freedoms we have today in the United States. I spent a year of my life in Iraq doing my part for the freedom of not only the US but all free nations.......terrorists attack freedom, not just the US....... It's a shame Europe, the UK, and Canada have stricter gun laws, only the good people suffer. We all have servicemen in harms way, UK, US, Canada, many others. I just can't fathom risking my life in combat but then not being able to own a gun, carry a handgun to protect myself, or go shooting whenever I want as a civilian. That wouldn't work for me.....if I'm good enough to use firearms to fight the enemy, than I'm good enough to own them as a private citizen. I'm not about to keep my shotgun locked up at a club, and have to call a Constable to unlock my guns for me, so I can shoot my alloted 30 rounds of ammunition and then lock them back up.......or be limited to owning only blackpowder revolvers or smoothbore shotguns.......

There are many anti-gun people who want to make the gun laws of the US more like those of Europe and the UK......we see what happens there, it just turns the good people into victims.