So I was reading about Rosa Parks the other day, and that she remembered her grandfather standing inside the door with a shotgun as a KKK rally went down the street.

In my mess of a brain, various things have connected (US frats, current racial unrest, gun laws) and I was thinking maybe you guys actually do need gun ownership.

Over here, in regards to KKK and Frats etc. yes we have racism and yes our uni students drink, but it just seems so organised in the US compared to here. Although that's changing with globalisation (shortly before I graduated our uni formed a "Stone Cutters" student group, which seem to be mostly about drinking.).

Maybe our country just isn't old enough? Populated enough?

So in closing, looking at history and current events, maybe you guys do need the right to bear arms?

i wouldn't mind a gun to shoot the fucking minah bird on the roof that won't shut the far cup.

I think 'need' is a strong word to use - it may have been a need back when that was written since I think the early colonies still used militia. But we have a lot of regulatory bodies in terms of peacekeeping and crime prevention.

I am not anti-gun, but I think that the way purchase and distribution is handled is a joke.

Yeah, I have no desire to own a gun. I'm personally anti-hunting but I have no beef with people who want guns to hunt. And my father was a police officer so I grew up with them in the house, but my dad was so low-key about it, I just never cared about them.

I think that between the prospect of accidental injury and use in a crime of passion, they're just crazy to have around. I've often thought I'd be in jail for murder by now if I had access to one because I can get a rage on pretty fast.

i think the best use of guns in recent memory was black friday - those two toys'r'us morons who took each other out of the gene pool. no doubt each carried his gun for "self defence" no doubt each thought he was justified.

My mom & I were next door to the toys r us shooting - what kind of dipshit brings a gun into a toy store? Never mind, I know what kind. glad the are out of the gene pool.

I am for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. I actually understand some hunting (as long as it's to keep the population in check and the animal is eaten, like deer) but for the fucking life of me I do not understand why anybody would have a fucking unlocked, unsafe firearm in their home.

People have to take tests and get licensed and pay a bunch of money and show that they're responsible to get a license to carry concealed in TX (a state with some of the most lax gun laws ever), so why can't we do something like that with gun PURCHASE? Prove that you've got enough sense to lock that bitch up so that your 11 year old doesn't shoot themselves in the head with it trying to show off for their friends? Don't sell guns in pawn shops. Sell them in GUN SHOPS. Gah.

Me personally, I'd never have a gun in my house, not until my kids are grown. We have a big fucking aluminum bat that I keep nearby in case I get scared while alone at night. I lock my doors and keep my phone nearby, but if it's my time to check out, I'm not going to be able to keep a tweaker from shooting me in my home, even if I have a gun.

well, not to get all nitpicky, but we *do* have the right to bear arms. it's just prorated to fit our current social context, which is deliberate in the way the framers wrote the constitution. this is, of course, coming from a person who doesn't own a gun, is scared of loud sudden noises, and has shitty aim anyway.

honestly, the gun ownership issue isn't a hot one for me. i wish there weren't so damn many, but i kind of think they're like cigarettes: we're not going to solve the problem of their lethal-ness (lethality? see, now y'all have me inventing words) until we figure out a way to make them uncool. and we're really, really far away from being able to do that.

annaevilred, that must have been really scary! i hate being close to stuff like that. ugh. people used to get shot all the time in my old neighborhood in san francisco, and the sound of gunshots is just unmistakeable, terrible.

also, i hope i wasn't cavalier in my comment above in saying that the issue isn't a hot one for me, given that there are some folks on here who have lost loved ones to gun violence. i didn't mean to be. i guess i just feel really helpless about the issue.

What I don't understand is why the NRA tries to paint EVERY little attempt at safe regulation, like waiting periods, background checks, etc., and restrictions on assualt rifles, as a slippery slope to total gun bans? It's such silly argument but a certain segment of voters seems to buy it every time.

ruth, someone once explained that to me as changing the societal conversation. That, yeah, a law limiting this or that doesn't actually do much on its own, but it shifts the goalposts and, worse, shifts the conversation. Suddenly we're not talking about whether or not we should limit guns, but rather which limits are acceptable.

I think there are different topics I feel that way about, so it was an interesting idea for me. I'm not sure if that's what's really going on, but I guess it could be.

DaD, I don't mean to keep slagging Australia, but aren't you guys the ones who recently had the horrible racist attacks on the beach? Oh, yeah, I just looked it up. Thousands of white youths attacking some guys they thought were Lebanese? Not to mention the ongoing issue with indigenous peoples?

How is that any more or less organized than our racism? It's not like the KKK is openly active any more. I get that the media over there must make America out to be some kind of dystopic horror world, but I really don't think they're that different. Except you all have WAY more poisonous fauna, and much nicer accents.

There has been a huge run on guns in the US since Obama was elected. I just bought a gun, so I heard it from the dealer himself, in addition to TV reports.

The popular "wisdom" is that people are worried that Obama will pass more gun control legislation. The right wing gun nuts that I know think that it's racism. (I almost fell off of my chair.)

While I'm glad to think of Rosa Parks' dad having a gun in the face of the KKK, it seems to me that the likely outcome of a confrontation would've been a dead Parks family instead of some bullying. Having a gun tends to escalate the violence, and it seems unlikely that the KKK would've been unarmed. This is the flaw that I see in the logic of arming oneself against a greater power--ultimately, you're always going to be outgunned. You will feel safer, but I don't think you'll be safer. I can't think of many people likely to arm themselves as well as the wackos at Waco, and that didn't come out too well for them.

Fire up some Billie Holiday, Strange Fruit. Those fuckers didn't stop at bullying.

In times like those, the choice may be: Get taken out, or get taken out and take some of them with you.

I'm against gun ownership here and in general and I don't think we have less racism etc. I'm just making an observation and I wanted to see what you all think.

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? The final thesis of the movie, based on a comparison of US and Canada, is that guns don't kill people, irrational fear kills people.

I'm still trying to figure out how college fraternities fit into the scenario in your mind, DaD...?

LOL! You're right -- I didn't catch that, because KKK = Frats satisfied something in my subconscious.

They are both organised groups. :D

In terms of the Cronulla riots, (a) Sydney is a fucking hellpit, i'd cut it loose and set it adrift if i could. Everything supremely crap that has happened here for the last several decades, has been centred in Sydney (b) no guns, no deaths. Several people were hospitalised, but nobody died. Some people carried guns in the days that followed, there were reports of drive-by shots fired randomly into buildings and cars... but nobody shot anyone else. Nobody died.

A lot of the racism here is usually below the surface. It's unfortunate, because we have tried for a couple of decades to be very multicultural, and a lot of ignorant white people don't realise how much better off this country is because of the influx of immigrants in the last few decades.

This is very slightly off-topic, but this thread reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw and loved the other day that said
"hunting's not a sport unless the animals get guns too."

Heh. I'm not anti-hunting, muttermutter, but I see the point. It's the difference between boxing with an opponent and beating a bystander with bats. Both of which are, admittedly, aerobic.

I am pro gun rights. My cousin and his father both hunt. They will get all the meat they need for a year in one or two hunting trips. No need to go to the store for that. I feel that we should be able to own whatever kind of gun we want, be it a revolver, or a fully automatic .50 cal. However, there are a lot of stupid people out there that do a lot of stupid things, and they could hurt someone unintentionally. But, then again, you look at states that have very little gun laws, where you can actually open carry without a license, and there is very little gun crime. This is one of those strange arguments I can argue both sides of. I do think that it should be up to the states to make their own gun laws. You tend to see responsible gun owners move to states with the least restrictive gun laws, and that keeps them happy. The only real problem is that no matter what gun laws you have, the bad guys will still always get the guns.

All right, Cog, I'll bite. I live in Arizona, a state that is pretty free with its dispersal of person-killing tools. I'm using the Arizonans for Gun Safety site as my resource:

http://www.azfgs.com/the-facts/deaths.aspx

It states pretty much the opposite of what you do. To wit:

"Arizona’s gun violence death rate is among the highest in the nation. Arizona ranked 10th out of the 50 states in its rate of violence-related gun deaths in 2003. (Violence refers to suicides, homicides, and legal intervention.) Arizona’s violence-related gun death rate of 14.7 per 100,000 was considerably higher than the national rate of 9.9 per 100,000. "

Sorry Cog, I'm not trying to pick on you but perhaps you can answer a question I have always had about gun owners.

I completely understand owning rifles for hunting and if I liked the taste of game, I may be inclined to take it up myself to avoid buying commercial meat.

I'm also familiar with the argument of guns for personal safety, but I think along the lines of CPF about being outgunned or simply outdrawn.

I know that some like to target shoot and enjoy it as a sport.

But why does anyone want/need a fully automatic, or even semi-automatic, weapon if not for the sheer killing power of it? I'm truly not trying to be bitchy about this - I'm honestly curious as to the appeal.

I've always taken issue with the saying "guns don't kill people, etc". Not because it's necessarily inaccurate, but just, I don't know, incomplete. It seems to me that a lot fewer people would be could were it not for guns. They are easier to use, easier to carry and far deadlier than most other weapons.

I've had a life-long aversion to guns and I still do, though my husband wants to get one. The funny thing is, when we witnessed a shooting a few years ago, I was so freaked and so scared of the shooter and his posse coming after us that I wanted a gun in the house. For a few days, until I knew they were caught, I was psycho with worry and convinced that I would calm down significantly if we had a gun.

I came to understand, a little, why people wish to have a gun for safety reasons. But in my normal, rational state of mind, I no longer want one.

s/b "a lot fewer people would be dead were it not for guns."

"fully automatic .50 cal" - It wouldn't fit in my house anyway

>Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? The final thesis of the movie, based on a comparison of US and Canada, is that guns don't kill people, irrational fear kills people.

okay i haven't seen the movie, but i recall reading somewhere that it (or one of his other movies?) protrayed canada as being land o' guns. in reality, i am pretty sure we have fewer guns than in the states. we certainly don't have a "right to bear arms" up here. if anyone has actual numbers, i'd love to see them.

also, if anyone has some spare venison, please send it my way.

Hey, went to Wikipedia and found (guns per 100 people):

United States 90.0
Yemen 61.0
Switzerland 46.0
Iraq 39.0
Serbia 37.5
France 32.0
Finland 32.0
Canada 31.5
Sweden 31.5

Makes me want to go back to Bowling for Columbine and see what he actually says - been a few years. Still, it's a funny list, swinging wildly between countries that are not a surprise (Iraq, Serbia) and countries that are (Switzerland, France).

The list does NOT correlate to homicide per capita ratings (also Wikipedia). The only overlap in the first ten or so is (surprise) Iraq.

I'm not a genius at math or statistics, but I think it is safe to say that in a random group of people, you are going to have a certain number of members of that group who might just be cuckoo bananas in that special way. And of that group is it better for them to have access to *any* firearm they want? I'm going to have to go with 'no' on that one.

Because if the loony with a 9 mm Glock only has a magazine with 15 rounds, then that's a lot less damage than can be done with say a bigger gun with a larger capacity magazine. (If that's what the doohickey that holds the bullets is called. I'm not up on the correct vocab.)

And I don't believe for one second that having a gun to face down someone shooting up a shopping mall is going to do you much good - in my old hometown, the one guy who tried that is now in a wheelchair.

I think Zoe (Firefly) said it best - "Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later."

Straddling the issue (as a left-wing gun owner), I see one big problem: People who want to make the world safer by limiting the dangers of guns do so in ways that make no sense to gun owners.

For example, my gun nut friends are very supportive of background checks and waiting periods. It makes sense to all but the most rabid to see if the prospective gun owner is a known criminal or a loony.

On the other hand, gun nuts don't understand limits on clip size. In CA, it's limited to 10 rounds. But changing clips is fast, fast, fast. People train to see how fast they can get. Several on your belt, several in your pockets. The trick is to drop one after you have the next positioned to go in...

Also, there is a law that says that adding a handle to a type of gun makes it an illegal "assault" weapon (which I guess is in contrast to a "hug" weapon). Take the handle off, legal.

This stuff makes it hard for middle of the roaders from both sides to get together to makes things safer.

CPF, that made me laugh so hard i cried.

And T-Rex - a "hug" weapon - again, i was already crying (see CPF above), but i laughed a helluva lot anyway.

T-Rex - that is very true about the clips. I've target shot with both a 9 mm, and a Sig 38 and the people reloading them for me did so pretty quickly. But I still think that someone firing a handgun may hit fewer people than someone spraying bullets from an assault weapon. However, since that is an opinion based on nothing more than gut feeling, I'm completely willing to concede I may be wrong there.

Something else Know It All Sister told me when she was covering the courthouse beat for the newspaper she was at - one thing she noticed is that a lot of the time gun and weapons charges were the FIRST thing to be plea bargained out of, so that it's basically unpenalized to assault someone with a weapon. Maybe there needs to be some change there as well.

Hi MNM, I think that what you are talking about is the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic.

The handguns you used were semi -- you had to pull the trigger for each bullet. Fully auto really only belongs in the military (and parts of AZ - Hi CPF). There is basically no disagreement from gun nuts I know that fully auto would be a big problem.

Recent story: "SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - Three men, including a small-town police chief, were indicted Thursday on involuntary manslaughter counts in the gun-fair death of an 8-year-old who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi...."

Freaking Uzi is a military weapon that shoots 1,700 rounds per minute. I don't think you can have them at all in CA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28053880/

T-Rex, I don't know about the other countries on the list, but in Switzerland just about every man is considered a part of the army. So when they reach the age of majority (18? I think?), they go get trained and get a gun. Sort of like guys in the US have to sign up in case there's a draft. So they have a lot of guns, but a ton of them are government issued and kept locked up at home unless they're at a training exercise.

The breakdown of guns per country doesn't specify what type of gun... In France, hunting rifles are fairly easy to get, i imagine that sways the numbers a fair bit. They are very pro-hunting in France, either for sport, for food, or to kill foxes and other vermin. Other guns though, not so easy - although they do have a big black market gun problem.

Ah, T-Rex thanks for the explanation. Yes, that is what I meant!

I am okay with responsible gun ownership, I just don't understand why we as a population have so many kinds of them.

Personally, I don't understand why non-hunting guns are available to any human who is not using them for work... armed forces, police, etc.

Hunting rifles are for killing animals, which is leagal. **All other guns are for kiulling people, which is illegal. Therefore, why is ownership of the second kind legal? At all? If you had to protect your family or property, is your hunting rifle inadequate?

** is there another use for handguns, automatic or semi automatic weapons, etc. of which i am unaware?

It's context, Wook. Killing people in self-defense is not illegal, I'm guessing, in any of our Untied States. And I understand the gun-rights supporter's logic--it's easier to kill in self-defense when you've got one of them handy person-killing doo-dads. Downside is that it's also easier to kill in...self-offense?--with those same doo-dads.

I'm just sorry that I made Bol cry.

maybe i should have said "wept." Nobody says "wept" nearly enough these days.

Nor do i hear the words "enamoured," "affianced" and "poltergeist" much any more. Even a fab word like "smidgeon", it's falling into disuse, and that makes BoL sad.