Gun control....

[Jeremy+3]

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html[/URL]


Little bit for both sides

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2569/have-great-britains-restrictive-gun-laws-contributed-to-the-rise-in-violent-crime[/URL]

At least we share a simular color designation on some charts.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html[/URL]

Look were neibors again:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes[/URL]

I see that pellet or bb guns are firearm offenses in GB. Oh and pepper spray. Also illegal??

Looks like GB has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. and rising.

If someone breaks into your house while your home and you confront and shoot them. Its considered murder?? I imagine it would be better to share some chips and a spot of tea before you politely ask them not to muss the house.


I do have to admit it was educational looking up the non-linked stuff you posted.

No thanks.

Ah, the daily mail who later had to admit that they compiled crime data from 20 years in GB and compared it to crime data from 5 years in SA, they also regularly publish articles praising white supremacy and the evils of anything non-christian.

Well you wouldn't have a gun for starters, but we have a law of reasonable force so no you wouldn't be, unless you were considered to use unreasonable force which would be for really stupid things such as attacking someone for just entering your garden. They also consider heat of the moment non-premeditated decisions as people are unlikely to be rational in discovering that someone has not only broken into their home, but they are still inside.

If you google reasonable force you should get a more clear definition, I can't copy on my phone so I can't paste the link.

 

[bssage]

I would draw your attention to the third data set on the link.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

and

The Tony Martin case, a cause celebre in Britain, may not be as clear-cut as some claim, but it's still pretty outrageous. The eccentric Martin lived in a dilapidated Norfolk farmhouse with only three rottweilers for company. One night in 1999 the place was broken into by Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, both of whom had long criminal records. Martin claims he heard a noise, grabbed a shotgun, headed downstairs, had a flashlight shone in his face, and began shooting. The following afternoon Barras was found dead in the garden; the wounded Fearon was arrested nearby. Martin was convicted of murder and given a mandatory life sentence, but an appeals court reduced the charge to manslaughter on grounds of mental illness. Martin was denied parole, in part because probation officers feared he would shoot additional burglars; he's out now.

 

[Jeremy+3]

I would draw your attention to the third data set on the link.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

and

Okay, thats weird the paragraph has gone.

Anyway, if you look at his case you can see his guns were illegally owned, he had in the past attempted to shoot multiple people (should have been in prison already!) and he spent most of his evenings lying in wait to shoot people, including people passing through a public right of way (which is the equivalent of shooting someone for walking on a sidewalk). He hasn't actually be released, he lives in a secure hospital where he is allowed out on day visits if accompanied.

You know the BNP I mentioned earlier, he is a member, the BNP used to publish his letters back in 2004, but the secure hospital had to place a no-contact order on him (by which even letters screened by staff cannot be sent by him or received by him, something that is reviewed every 8 weeks) as his letters started to become detailed plans on how he was going to murder other people.

Charles Heston (who at the time was the president of the NRA, I have no idea if he still is) essentially paid for him to be moved from a prison to a secure hospital and funded his BNP exploration.

That data set is fairly impressive, as it adds up to 174% it reminds me of the Russian election.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

Erm, so whats wrong with it? Some people have the intelligence to completely ignore a website created by members of the BNP who not only think those who are not British should be hung, but they also believe that a British person can only be considered British if all of their ancestors have been born in Britain in the last 10 million years, despite the fact that humans didn't even exist at this time.

ad hominem is a logical error. disliking the opponent's political affiliations doesn't prove a point in a certain argument.

After all, in our days one has to be a radical to speak out about things which the mainstream does not care or does not dare to address.

 

[bssage]

That data set is fairly impressive, as it adds up to 174% it reminds me of the Russian election.

My bad. I meant the third section of data sets which is "└ Britain".

As far as the 174% of the third data set on the page. And you are absolutely right. It would be completely impossible for someone to own a firearm for more than one reason: Like target shooting AND self defense. or even: hunting , target shooting AND self defense. Its especially insulting when the description of the data set uses a word like "reasons" (the plural form of reason). They must be using that crazy magical communist statistical math.

The real questions that you have either overlooked or avoided.

Is violent crime on the rise in GB?

Is mace or pepper spray banned?

Is there a movement to require a permit to own BB guns?

And you are OK with your government going house to house confiscating your property (guns in this case) ?

Some people have posted to the thread that they are for some type of gun control. And I think most of us are OK with that. I know I am. But I think most people understand if we get in a battle of charts and statistics. There is just too much information on both sides of the fence. It would be a never ending pssing match.

I am not so blinded by "love of country" that I am willing to overlook what other countries do better. I would have thought the Healthcare discussion had illustrated that. But I do think the US strives to balance our liberties with Civic responsibility. I am always fascinated by countries and culture's other than our's. But when the implication is that ours is less valid or thoughtful I become defensive.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

Well, for pellet guns one has to be 18. Nothing else really. But these guns are basically toys. And they come in bright orange color. It is illegal to repaint them

In terms of delf defense I think a slingshot would be deadlier.

 

[bssage]

Well, for pellet guns one has to be 18. Nothing else really. But these guns are basically toys. And they come in bright orange color. It is illegal to repaint them

In terms of self defense I think a slingshot would be deadlier.

I think the what I have been reading is that there is a subcategory of "Gun crime" in GB that involves using a pellet gun: implying it is a real firearm to facilitate a crime.

So is the use of pepper spray or mace also illegal?

And again you can find of accounts for whatever side of the argument you are on. But I see a lot of stuff indicating that violent crime has risen since the banning of guns. Is that also your perception? Or is it simply the media trying to stir debate like they typically do here in the states?

 

[mom2many]

I have a question Jeremy, it's one that has been nagging at me for a while so I'm just gonna come right out and ask/say it. Why is it that when you post, everything that goes on in your country/schools/life ect,.. is so very rosy and perfect? It's like you can't admit that your country/schools/life is just like any other country/person/school out there? Where there are humans there is error.

The information, from all sides says that GB crime rates are on the rise. Sure it may not all be from guns, but that doesn't negate violents crimes in your country. People will find away to harm another if that is what they really want to do.

 

[cybele]

Every country has violence, every country has crime, no country is immune from violent people, and that is unfortunate, but that is also life.

Lets put it this way, Australia, very low gun crime rates, because we don't have access to guns, so that's natural. However, whilst I can't find any worldwide statistics on it (probably because it is such an obscure crime) we probably have the highest incidences of glassing random strangers in the street (to a point where there are people lobbying for alcohol to be banned from being sold in glass bottles in bars and clubs).

Jeremy, some of what you are posting is sounding like some real conspiracy theories, and none of that relates to anything that has to do with this topic. What does the British National Party have to do with gun crime in America?

 

[bssage]

Although Jeremy has every right to have his own opinion. A lot seems to have the flavor of anti-American. Be it the implication that we live in rubbish: Have poop laying about the house: Or that our gun ownership population consist of the poor un-aristocratic as opposed to population in GB of substantial means and education. Its really the inferences deliberate or not that have caused me to respond. Any direct question that would deduct from his view is simply ignored rather than concede a single point.

This caused me to overlook Pstc's response. I think it was a well written thoughtful response. And even though: given a gun control poll I would assume we would have very different outcomes from each other. I can see that he is working to take a objective look rather than a single sided support angle.

 

[bssage]

I am sure I am missing arguments for both camps; the point is to look at it together above and notice that they are BOTH right (to an extent) which makes this issue especially difficult to grasp, let alone solve.

I agree with this. And I believe haveing groups on both sides of the fence who are completely unwilling to concede even a single point. Makes things that much more difficult. And reduces the effectiveness of their own campains.

if we want to change that, or solve it, we cannot do it by applying a small single solution.

I also agree with this.

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• 1. Guns are engrained deeply into the U.S. culture. They are part of the constitution (for ill or good reasons, that's not the point), they are in the house of at least 50% of US citizen, they are part of the country's history, they are part of 99.9% of every movie created by US movie industry.</LI></LIST>

• I think this should be two items. The second I completely agree with. But one thing I think is often over looked when discussing a ban in the states. Is the sheer mass of illegal arms available. And that if law abiding civilly conciseness people were to submit to a ban and turn in their legally owned weapons. There would not only be a few criminals with guns. There will be a massive amount of criminals with guns.
  

  [*]2. Mass media are manufacturing fear. Every story has an angle about how unsafe the world is, how you need to "protect" yourself, how your neighbor is out to get you, how people get crazy and start killing you, etc. Fear of other races is also part of the culture: black, latinos, white, etc.
  [*]3. Mass Media will also report on mass murder as if it was porn. They will discuss at length every possible detail about the killings and the murderer. They will show images. They will make it so every possible unstable crazy suicidal person will see these act as a way to get glory and fame, and go out in flame.

  IMHO without a doubt. And while I am a huge fan of "Free Speech" I am also a fan of being socially responsible. Kind of the "unsolvable riddle" type of thing.
  

  [*]4. The bulk of US citizens have below average education

  Not really sure how that could happen. I would think the average person would have and average education. Unless my understanding of "average" is incorrect.

  and high level of poverty, while also having a high level of religious beliefs. This makes it easy to develop binary thinking, seeing everyone in terms of "evil" or "good" people, no grey area. From this stems a generally accepted dichotomy, where people are quickly sorted into theses two categories. Hence, we see a lot of discourses from Americans that are very superficial: Bush' "they are with us or against us", to name only one, is one example that comes to mind.
  [*]5. Powerful lobbies such as the NRA, whose interest is to sell weapons, are heavily influencing the medias and the public discourses, poisoning the well, so to speak.

  Were not far enough apart on this for me to try and make a point. So I wont.
  

  [*]6. US is also the country with the highest prison population in the world (in industrialized world). Part of the culture is the idea of justice associated with vengeance, punishment, paying for crimes, etc. (as opposed to other countries where rehabilitation or the safety of citizen is the primary concern for how to handle criminals). US is also one of the last place in the industrialized world with the death sentence. In the US culture therefore, problems get solved with violence, and that's the norm.

  This could easily make a topic on its own. And although I agree cant argue the facts you state. I believe there is a lot of room to debate the details of our prison system and laws that keep the us in the number one spot.
  

  [*]7. Part of the US culture is also to develop the world biggest military, biggest military spending in the world, and the use of the military as a "solution" to handle the world's problem (by invading other countries, etc). Again, in the culture of USA, violence is how even the country itself handles its problems.

  Again I understand your use of this for this subject. But I do think you have oversimplified (probably for the sake of brevity)
  

  [*]8. Happiness is seen as totally related to money is US. It's a society for consumption, first and foremost. Being "at the top" means having more money, more things, more technology, more more more. Heath care is a product to be sold. Education is a product to be sold. Sex is a product to be sold. Success is measured by the bank account you have. The "American dream" is about becoming a millionaire. Profit is seen as desirable and normal for every corporation and everything.

  I know this is the face of America being sold in the media. But I don't think its true of my personal friends and family. I think we all want to make better lives for ourselves. But surely that is not specific to the us. And I think you will find that we are some of the most charitable people in the world.
  

  [*]9. Finally, in USA, the culture is about the individual. People build huge fences around their property. They do things alone. Corporation research R&amp;D alone. The individual rights trumps the collective rights.

Again I think much of this is the media portrayal that creates this image. While it is not without any merit. I believe if we all look introspectively at how our own countries are portrayed in the media you can see how effective this media construction is. Yes Canada and GB I'm talking to you. But I generally dont buy into the sales pitch. I have spent a significant amount of time with people from outside the US. I think countries are made up of people. I dont buy into a country full of bad people. Maybe a country with bad policy. Not bad people.

So what do we get?
Violence as a way of solving issues, fear of neighbors, fear of other races, highest murder rate, easiest access to gun in the world, self-centered culture focusing on the material gains and on the individual over the collective needs...

I suppose if you use the word stop instead of solve. IMHO the need to justify ourselves by saying to use guns as a determent is misleading for me at least. I have no misguided notion that knowledge of my gun ownership would stop someone from doing what they want. It is my notion that if I need to stop them I can. That I would never have to sit by silently as someone perpetrates whatever they want whenever they want.

All of this considered as a WHOLE SYSTEM (rather than looking at any of these single situation) and the mass murders can start to be explained. And as the US culture spreads to Canada and north America and then to other part of the world, some countries also start to have mass killings. But it remains isolated anywhere but in USA.

Really? So now were a blaming all the worlds mass murders on the US? Come on. They have been around since rocks were invented. Look at the bible. Look though any historic texts you can find. I am shaking my head. I cant believe you would make that implication.

So what's the solution?
Only a systemic solution will solve this issue on the long run. And such a solution must act on several issues all together:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Reduce fear. That involves changing the way the media operates. Clearly show the decline in crime rate. Don't make a big story of each little accident or murder. STOP reporting murders on the news.</LI>
  <LI>
• Stop giving an aura of glory to mass murderers. Don't ever name them on the media. Don't go back into their lives. Don't interview their relatives. Don't publish ANYTHING about them, ever. Ban what's already been published on other. Pass a law to make any mass murderer anonymous / confidential to the public, so that would-be new murderers will start to realize that will never get the glory they seek through this way. Instead, report on the courage of families, the heroic actions of people who saved other people, etc.</LI>
  <LI>
• Making assault guns and heavy-magazine clips illegal won't stop killings or mass murders immediately. But they will also, on the long run, allow the overall society to feel less threaten. It's an escalation process. You get a gun because the neighbor has one. The neighbor gets a shogun because you have a gun. You get a semi automatic rifle because he has a shotgun. And so on. Let it be known that tools of mass murder are no longer easy to get, so that eventually, over a few decades, it's not longer considered "normal" to have a tool that can kill 100 people in 20 seconds.</LI>
  <LI>
• Start social programs to help people in poverty. Remove some of the stress level that falls onto parents; which in turn means they don't have all the time or all the attention they could give to their kids, which in turns are the ones who become deranged and snap and end up mass-killing people. Less poor people = more people happy. More people happy = less fear of your neighbor. It's all inter-related.</LI>

</LIST>
Enough for a single post.
Food for thoughts, perhaps.

Peace.

Of course I cant argue your opinions. And I do with a few exceptions believe you put some thought into this. Your post will surely cause me to "dig a little deeper" as you have made some points that had not occurred to me.

 

[parentastic]

I agree with this. And I believe haveing groups on both sides of the fence who are completely unwilling to concede even a single point. Makes things that much more difficult. And reduces the effectiveness of their own campains.

yeah, I agree with you on this.
I know if I look back at my own views on this issue from say, five years ago, before I even heard of a systemic approach or complexity theory, I would have definitely be part of those unwilling-to-concede people.
Since then, I learned and realized how everything is interconnected and how the gun issue in US is so central to its culture (and to the world culture as it is shifting with globalization, too).

I think this should be two items. The second I completely agree with. But one thing I think is often over looked when discussing a ban in the states. Is the sheer mass of illegal arms available. And that if law abiding civilly conciseness people were to submit to a ban and turn in their legally owned weapons. There would not only be a few criminals with guns. There will be a massive amount of criminals with guns.

I think that the core issue here is the difference between short term and long term.

On the short term, yes, any ban on guns in US at large (not getting into specifics here) would result in law abiding citizen having less access to guns, while criminals continue to have black-market access to guns.
I think this is totally true and I don't see how this cannot but be taken for anything but fact.

On the long run, however, the idea is to shift from the spiral of escalation to the spiral of de-escalation.

The key question here is why is the fact that criminals could continue to have access to illegal guns should be an argument against the ban? After all, most mass murders were not criminals anyway, before they committed their act. They are usually deeply troubled people with mental issues. If you stop categorizing them as "evil" - they are just people with issues that were never helped.

At the bottom of this question lies the core assumptions behind the US culture, IMO: why assume criminals are necessarily out there to hurt you? It may sound totally evident to you, and if it does, then I would encourage you to wonder why it seems so evident.

To illustrate this, let me give you the perspective of a Canadian living in its biggest city. Can some criminals here access some illegal guns on the black market? Of course. yet I don't own any gun myself. I have lived here for 40+ years, never had any, never needed any, nor my family or parents ever before me. Yet I live in a 2 million people city, where violence do happen, just like everywhere else, to a certain degree.
But... in 40 years... I have never been robbed. Never been assaulted. Never witness an assault or even a break in. My parents were robbed twice. Both time, we were not there. A window was broken. A few stuff were stolen. No big deal: insurance covered it. End of story.
Were the people who robbed us armed? Possible, but doubtful. They knew that carrying a weapon in and of itself would make them much more likely to get a strong sentence if they are caught; and why would they need it anyway? 99.99% of chances, they will break into a house where people aren't armed either. If I meet the person who is breaking in, whether he is armed or not, hey, go on dude, take what you want. I am certainly not going to bother: my insurance covers it anyway. Not my job to stop you.
That's the Canadian mentality.

It only works here in Canada though, because it stems from a totally different overall culture. We haven't started an escalation of weapon. We don't think in term of "defending ourselves" with a gun. But on the flip side, we NEVER have strangers come in to rape us or murder all of us or things like that. Although violent crimes do happen, a HUGE % of it is between rival biker gangs or mafia gangs; most of the rest is a mad boyfriend over a breakup with his girlfriend or other similar situations you can find everywhere, and these situations rarely go THAT bad because, well, it's not even in the mentality of a mad person to get a gun (which they don't have on the spur of the moment anyway because no one has guns in their houses in big cities).

Back to the original question.
So criminals have guns and citizen don't have them anymore. So what?
Most criminals are only looking for a bit of cash, some materials to steel or some food to eat. The vast majority of them are NOT out to get you, to rape you or to murder you - at least, not in Canada.
If they do in USA, it might be because, well... there are more poverty, more people unhappy, more systemic issues that add increasing amount of pressure on the population and less access to a social net.
Or it might just be that the US population <I>thinks</I>that they are out there to get them, even if they aren't any more than in Canada.
Could be both, for all I know.

IMHO without a doubt. And while I am a huge fan of "Free Speech" I am also a fan of being socially responsible. Kind of the "unsolvable riddle" type of thing.

Free speech is great, and I am a fan of it too.
But nowhere is it pushed as far (to the point of ridicule) than in USA, where ANYONE can sue anyone for anything, yet at the same time, where the media can blatantly LIE to you about topics as important as election topics and policies and get away with it. Free speech is well, but hate speeches should never be tolerated; nor blatant lies to the public, IMO.
Yet in USA, the court case about the code of conduct requirements for news medias went all the way to the supreme court, who stated that news are a consumption matter owned by the news channel and so they can say whatever they want on it, with no more moral obligations from reporters and news staff. Crazy stuff, but it's true.

Not really sure how that could happen. I would think the average person would have and average education. Unless my understanding of "average" is incorrect.

I meant below average compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
No need for extensive diagrams or data to know this. When university costs you 20K to 50K per year, and the average education debt is 100K, and the vast majority of the people are considered poor (as the middle class get smaller and smaller every year), it's no magic to realize the difference in education. It's also why the South remains, IMO, so religious. Not even 50 years back into our own history in Canada, we were totally religious too, under Duplessis. And it took what was called here the "quiet revolution" - when education became a prime target for government and measures were taken to provide near-free education to everyone - this quietly killed religion and the grasp of church on people within just a couple decades.

This could easily make a topic on its own. And although I agree cant argue the facts you state. I believe there is a lot of room to debate the details of our prison system and laws that keep the us in the number one spot.

Yes. This was not written as a critic of all prison systems, nor a door to debate prisons in USA; only to make the point that as part of the US culture is the idea of retribution and punishment, as opposed to rehabilitation or coaching or education.
At the core of US culture is the idea of this "bad" and "good" person, the good one according to popular myth, being the one who should always be able to "fight" his way out of a shitty situation and work his way up by sheer force of will and work. Therefore, if you are in the criminal system, if you are stuck at the bottom, if you are poor, if you are uneducated, for US people, it means you are not a "good" person, you deserved it, why should law abiding citizen pay for them, etc etc.

Again I understand your use of this for this subject. But I do think you have oversimplified (probably for the sake of brevity)

Yes, I apologize for this, I did. We could discuss for hour on that topic too! Fact remains: 47% of the whole PLANET military is USA alone. This number should make any person seriously think about what it means, in terms of USA culture.


.../follow in next post

 

[parentastic]

.../ follow from previous post

I know this is the face of America being sold in the media. But I don't think its true of my personal friends and family. I think we all want to make better lives for ourselves. But surely that is not specific to the us. And I think you will find that we are some of the most charitable people in the world.

Let me get this straight: American are one of the most generous and charitable people in the world. I have dear friends from USA that I'd give my life for. But the key here is that they are *charitable* (as in, charity, giving, generosity, etc) but not *social* as in giving for the greater cause, giving for a the common good, not judging anyone, etc.
I realize I am generalizing. There are people not like this too of course. But culturewise, Americans are both community people and individualistic people. But when they are community people, it's about THEIR community. Their family. Their race. Their nest away from all the "other" strangers. Their community mentality is still an "us against them" mentality.

I have spent a significant amount of time with people from outside the US. I think countries are made up of people. I dont buy into a country full of bad people. Maybe a country with bad policy. Not bad people.

Again, let me be crystal clear here: I am not saying Americans are bad people, not at all. I am talking about the overall American culture.
There is a huge difference. The culture of a country is made of an intangible web of assumptions, mental models, history, etc. It's like a tint over your glasses. Everybody has a different tint in their glasses, depending which culture they come from. USA culture is a very peculiar culture that is especially centered around the individual. That doesn't make anyone bad people. In fact, the theory behind systemic culture states that you can take anyone and move them into a different culture and slowly they transform and change. The environment has a powerful influence on people.

It is my notion that if I need to stop them I can. That I would never have to sit by silently as someone perpetrates whatever they want whenever they want.

But underlying this is the mental model that criminals are bad people who necessarily want to perpetrates horrible things on you.
In many other countries, this is a weird idea.

Really? So now were a blaming all the worlds mass murders on the US? I cant believe you would make that implication.

I am not saying that mass murder wasn't present way before USA even existed. But I am saying that USA culture is powerfully prevalent. Because of its place in the world economy and the huge amount of world policing they do through the use of USA military, their culture of individualism, happiness through money and material consumption and culture of fear of thy neighbor is spreading and influencing other countries.
However, to be fair, I'd say it's an inter-related process: the world environment (globalization, etc) influences the America culture as much as the American culture influences the rest of the world: finding who is responsible for the first push is a sterile debate that leads nowhere.

Of course I cant argue your opinions. And I do with a few exceptions believe you put some thought into this. Your post will surely cause me to "dig a little deeper" as you have made some points that had not occurred to me.

I'd be happy to discuss the systemic approach anytime with you, if you'd like to hear more. It's fascinating stuff.

 

[bssage]

I'm just going to make a couple of points because dinner is ready.

I am a huge fan of the "systemic approach" I think it would go a long way in correcting the ills of the world, our country, my family. But the question: is it realistic or actually achievable?

I am looking into systemic therapy for Chloe. The way I understand it. It is going to involve everyone being (in my case) trained together. And on the same page throughout.

So if my understanding is correct on how what you proposing works. I just am not sure if a truce could be called in long enough to get the fundamental pieces in place to pull it off. Not that its a bad idea. quite the opposite. Its a great idea. I just think in the current social climate its not achievable.

The other point is that my fear is not crime per say. Its one crime. A good example would my talk with Cole about the school shootings. While we covered all the aspects and any concerns he had. One thing that is specific to this debate is that we talked about a gaurd at the school. I explained if we looked at "school shootings" in our town. The frequency would be less than one in ten years. Less than one in fifty years. Less than one in a hundred years. So how do you justify putting someone in place for something that has never happened. Well we justify that by the fact that one time is one time to many. And we protect against "one time"

If I have not already mentioned it. I really use my guns as a past time more than anything else. Cole and I both really enjoy target shooting. And it give us something to connect with together.

So like you I have lived in my town for over thirty years. Never had a need to use a gun against someone. Also been walking around Chicago for the last 9 years. Never had a need. And I realistically do not ever anticipate the need.

But if it did. I would want to say I did all I could. That this is the unemployment line for life. Its not a line to be crossed.

 

[parentastic]

I am a huge fan of the "systemic approach" I think it would go a long way in correcting the ills of the world, our country, my family. But the question: is it realistic or actually achievable?

It is absolutely achievable and realistic, but it's not easy and it's not on the short term. It's the very topic of my Masters, so there is quite a bit of work to get there, and only a few hundred of people who know how to do it effectively in the world.
The cornerstone authors for these, if you are interested to research it a bit, try these authors: Edgar Schein, William Kahn, Chris Argyris, Merrelyn Emery and Peter Senge. There are many more, but these will get you solidly started.

So if my understanding is correct on how what you proposing works. I just am not sure if a truce could be called in long enough to get the fundamental pieces in place to pull it off. Not that its a bad idea. quite the opposite. Its a great idea. I just think in the current social climate its not achievable.

Ah, I see your objection better now.
See, the idea of suspending everyone into a truce for a set amount of time to discuss and implement a systemic approach would already be, in and of itself, a linear solution. It wouldn't work.
Systemic changes to such a large and complex human system would have to come from multiple levers being pulled over a long period of time by multiple change agents, both aiming at long term deep changes and at changing the <I>capacity</I> for the system to change.
For instance, raising the average level of education for all the population in USA is already one of the way the system could increase its capacity for change; but that in itself is already a huge systemic change that will require a lot of additional effort in a big set of areas.
Evidently, nobody - even with the proper training - can do this at such a scale alone. Even if that person was the US president, he'd still be stuck within the constrains of the culture and the society. Complex systems require long term solutions.

Banning guns, for instance, may trigger a series of changes on the long run that may de-escalate and change the culture. Changing it for what, however, is not easy to say: it could just as well be worst if the system reacts with more paranoia against government, for instance, which in turn may well deepen the very reasons for which there are so many mass murders in USA. Sometimes, in systemic complex systems, the "solution" may end with a series of cascading consequences that tend to bring the culture right back where it started.

The other point is that my fear is not crime per say. Its one crime. The frequency would be less than one in ten years. Less than one in fifty years. Less than one in a hundred years. So how do you justify putting someone in place for something that has never happened. Well we justify that by the fact that one time is one time to many. And we protect against "one time"

If you had, let's say for the sake of argument, this magic energy shield that actually makes you invincible to all gunshot, then yes. I would totally see how having that gizmo in your home might save you from the "one time", and regardless of statistical possibilities, it would be a good thing. The problem is that guns don't "protect". They allow you to stand a slim chance against a determined opponent, providing you play the ever-lasting escalation game, but let's be clear. If guns really "protected" people, USA would be the SAFEST place on earth. It's far from the case. For each situation where you may have escaped and protected your family using a gun, a LOT more murders are done with these same killing tools. The best it really gives you is, IMO:
a) a (false) sense of security, of not feeling helpless like a sheep, and
b) a way to have a deterrent to hope it scares the opponent before he tries it (I think I have made it pretty clear how that strategy is obviously not working because of the culture)
and finally c) a possible vengance or retribution

If I have not already mentioned it. I really use my guns as a past time more than anything else. Cole and I both really enjoy target shooting. And it give us something to connect with together.

Nothing wrong with that in my book! I did some target practice at a friend's country house at some point in my past, it was quite fun. Many friends of mine also hunt. But there is no need for that in a city, IMO. For that, you go to a club. And you don't need to practice with a 100 rounds magazine in a semi-automatic rifle to have fun shooting things with your son, IMO.

So like you I have lived in my town for over thirty years. Never had a need to use a gun against someone. Also been walking around Chicago for the last 9 years. Never had a need. And I realistically do not ever anticipate the need.

Yep. Statistics actually show that crime rate is going down in US (as in every other country worldwide globally). But that's not the general <I>perception</I> of it in USA.

But if it did.

I don't carry a thunder rod with me at all time just because I might be hit by lightning... and yet that rod would certainly protect me better than a gun would for a mass murderer. The logic here could be applied to so many other WAY MORE prevalent threats; yet I don't think it is used for these other threats. Why is that?

 

[ElliottCarasDad]

I just dont understand how we are a "first" world country with the worst overall per capita healthcare, murder, and prison rates among them?

(Actually that is rhetorical, because I DO UNDERSTAND)

 

[NancyM]

I'll use GB as an example of a country that is pretty much without guns, being my own country its possibly the easiest one for me to use as clearly I'm accustomed to our laws and I can see them in effect, instead of merely hearing about it etc.

The GB has one of the lowest rates of gun use in the entire world, we also have one of the lowest rates of gun death in the world.

As our law standards all automatic and semi-automatic guns are banned. Rifles are permitted, however you must gain a license to own one, be considered to have good reason (so a farmer wishing to shoot foxes).

All licenses to both own a firearm and to own ammunition are granted by the police, the person in question is heavily investigated as are all family members and anyone who may regularly frequent the property e.g. a member of staff. A license lasts for a maximum for five years and you must submit to any visits by police to ensure both firearms and ammunition are stored correctly and only the agreed items are owned. Any person who has spent time in prison is not allowed a firearms license (this used to just be for those who have spent more than three years in prison). The applicants main doctor must also be interviewed, they must have been their main doctor for at least two years and all medical information must be made available to police.

Only certain times of ammunition is legal, the most dangerous type is expanding which must only be used in deer hunting, a gun owner can only possess a limited amount of this ammunition and inform police of any activity with said gun/ammunition before use.

Guns must be stored in a locked container (type specified in your license) that is bolted to the ground, so someone living in a flat or a gypsy living in a caravan would be unable to use a gun. Ammunition is must be stored in the same way, but in a separate container.

In the last hundred years there have been two mass shootings in GB, the first being the Hungerford massacre in 1987 where a man killed 16 people and himself. Secondly we had Dunblane in 1996 where a man killed 16 primary aged children and a teacher. These are the worst gun related atrocities in the UK. In I believe 2010 a man killed 11 people with his guns.

In the last year there were around 11K firearm related offenses in the UK the majority of these involved air weapons and imitation firearms. There were 60 deaths caused by guns.

In the UK our police are not armed as they generally don't need to be, we do have specialist gun units, however these are only used in extreme circumstances and are only allowed to shoot to kill.

If we take the number of mass shootings in America you will see that there is a mass shooting every five days. We have had three in the last 100 years.

Any possession of an illegal firearm, illegal ammunition, illegal use of ammunition or breaking the requirements of a firearm license incur a ten year prison sentence and an unlimited financial fine.

In America there are 98 civilian owned guns for every 100 residents, 40% of all legally civilian owned guns in America are bought without the need of a permit or background check.

In America on average 5,700 children are killed by a gun each year, that is a child every three hours, a third of these incidents are accidental. I would be able to count such deaths here on one hand.

In 2010 just shy of 13,000 people were murdered in America 8,775 of those were caused by guns so around 80% of all murders, just over 95% of those involved legally owned guns. In the same year 51 people in the UK were killed by guns, 1/3rd being by armed police, then the rest are mainly legally owned (and accidental) with a minority being illegally owned/crime related.

Between 1990 and 2012 1132 police officers were killed by guns, most of these were legally owned. Within the same time period 10 police officers were killed in the UK.

Clearly the UK numbers will be smaller anyway as we have a smaller population, however if you were to divide the figures to take population difference into account the numbers are still horrendously different. Generally 3.5 people per 100,000 are killed by guns each year in the US, in the UK the figure is 0.01 per 100,000.

More people are murdered every day in America with guns than they are murdered in the UK in two years.

In the states those who legally owned guns are much more likely to be both killed by a gun, not due to where they live, but due to the poor decisions they are likely to make. The same can be very easily seen for those who carry knives.

Some American people believe it is their right to own virtually any gun, when in reality the only gun the amendment intended them to own was a musket for use during war. Another interesting thing about America if you look at guns per household, generally the more guns per household the poorer that households education, the lower their income and the more children they are likely to have. Where as in the UK more guns generally means more money, highly educated and likely to be part of the aristocracy.

Interesting.

 

[NancyM]

I agree that of course we need gun 'control' and believe it or not, America does have gun control. Hundreds if not thousands of people are turned down for gun permits all the time.

I know a few people who have been turned down for one reason or the other and it's not uncommon.

I'm not a big fan of giving guns to everyone, although apparently, it says in our constitution that we have the right to carry and bare arms, every one interprets this a little differently and so the debate is always open.

Americans are afraid to loose our rights which are written in our federal constitution, we don't want to live in a country where our freedoms are dictated to us, and most of us know if we let this happen one time where the government decides for us how we live, it will happen with all of our constitutional rights, so we fight everything.

I legally own a hand gun as does my husband and son. It's not for everyone, and obviously is very dangerous in the wrong hands. But I prefer to exercise my constitutional rights, than not to. And I would defend anyone's constitutional rights even if I don't agree with the policy for myself.

I do think it necessary to do complete back ground checks on anyone who requests a hand gun permit, however I'm not in favor of having to expose our medical backgrounds.

Again, our right to privacy gets twisted into this. It's fine to question neighbors, relatives, spouses and even children, IMO but I don't approve of snooping into a persons medical background.

It seems to me that if you question the right people, someone will let you know they think/or have reason to believe, the applicant isn't stable. And with that, the gun control people can take the next step, either investigate further, or allow the applicant to explain or be turned down for the permit.

 

[cybele]

I guess where it is hard for me (and probably others outside of the US) to understand is that the right to own a weapon sounds like such a pathetic right, in comparison to rights that people in other first world countries have that the US doesn't (ie: affordable healthcare).

I also don't understand the government control argument because, to my knowledge, the only first world country that has the right to own a weapon in their constitution is in America, yet the rest of us aren't horribly dictated to by our government, I have to admit, when I read things like mayors trying to ban large sized drinks or whatever, I often think that our government is much more lax, despite our lack of ability to obtain deadly weapons.

 

[NancyM]

I guess where it is hard for me (and probably others outside of the US) to understand is that the right to own a weapon sounds like such a pathetic right, in comparison to rights that people in other first world countries have that the US doesn't (ie: affordable healthcare).

I also don't understand the government control argument because, to my knowledge, the only first world country that has the right to own a weapon in their constitution is in America, yet the rest of us aren't horribly dictated to by our government, I have to admit, when I read things like mayors trying to ban large sized drinks or whatever, I often think that our government is much more lax, despite our lack of ability to obtain deadly weapons.

I'm not sure which countries your talking about exactly, and I would have to read their countries political and constitutional policies before I can make a halfway intelligent argument, (I'd rather not believe everything <I>my </I>country's media tells me about a particular country because I also realize much media information isn't 'fact' but rather opinionated and reported to the public as they want you to know it) but America is still a young country in comparison to other countries in the world in general. (and we're still learning)

Every developed country at one time, began the same way we did. They had to fight civil and revolutionary wars to get what their government believed to be in it's country's best interest.

The right to own a weapon may very well be a 'pathetic' right to fight for, and some Americans believe the same way you do. The beauty is, we can fight for both or many rights at the same time, such as 'right to bare arms' and right to 'affordable healthcare' at the same time. It's called 'Proposed Legislation' we have a great deal of proposed bills going on all the time. Perhaps this is confusing to outside countries, but anyone can read and learn about it today on most U.S. Government websites.

We have many 'pathetic' rights, I suppose, the point is no matter how pathetic someone feels our argument is for or against an issue, we're still allowed to fight for them, outright, and in public if we choose (by protest) and are still free to dispute courts decisions when that decision may infringe upon our constitutional liberties. So even once a law is passed or in progress people can protest it, as is happening with gun control and other issues.

I guess that's the difference between American and other countries, we abide by our federal constitution that's where we find the law that fits into a specific issue, and run with it to court. And when those laws become outdated, we amend them to fit into our modern lives. That's where most controversy comes from, interpreting, and adding an amendment to the constitution. Many people don't like change and want to take the constitution literally to the letter, so it starts a dispute in congress and it hits the media who than interprets what's happening many different ways. By the time the news hits other countries Im sure it's distorted even ten fold. Which can mean your not getting the true story.

Aside from those laws which are Federal,each state has it's own constitution, and each state can make it's own laws pertaining to, say gun control, that's why you may hear many different arguments or aspects of the same laws when you read your newspapers, or are listening to your news media. Sometimes they're disputing in state courts, not federal courts. Outcomes/penalties are different, and can spark yet another argument about the same issue.... Yes it can be confusing.

Most Americans had to laugh as well about the large drinks being banned, Americans know when a law or regulation is funny as well, so we brought humor to other countries, that's ok. We laugh at other countries policies all the time, we have media here too

I hope I was able to clarify it for you some.