PDA

View Full Version : Please stop using other countries' gun policies to make a point


a1c
12-21-2012, 8:20 PM
I'm getting really annoyed of hearing fellow 2A advocates invoking the gun policies of other countries to support their argument.

Why?

Because in the huge majority of the cases they bring up, they are dead wrong, or misinformed.

Stop talking about the number of guns per capita in Canada. Stop talking about rising crime rates in Australia. Stop talking about gun ownership in Switzerland.

99% of the crap I read in forums like these, at the range or in gun shops about what is supposedly happening in other countries is BS.

Listen, this is 2012. The world is global. And most of you live in California, one of the most diverse places on the planet in terms of nationalities and immigrants.

What does that mean? That if you start talking about the horrible results of the gun confiscation that happened in Australia, sooner or later, some Aussie your buddy is friend with on Facebook, or who may be the guy next cubicle over is going to embarrass you. Because you think you know everything, but you don't. He's Australian. His dad may have had to surrender his guns, but he doesn't care. Some GOA spokesman got humiliated on KQED the other day when an Australian caller called in and told him he didn't mind a disarmed population because their gun violence rate is close to non existent.

Similarly, don't talk out of your *** about the gun ownership situation in Switzerland. First of all, things have changed over the past few decades over there. But if you think it's some gun rights haven, where anybody owns rifles and pistols and can carry and shoot wherever they want, you're dead wrong. Some of the Swiss gun laws make California's look tame.

It doesn't matter if those foreigners supporting gun control or downright bans in the US are wrong. It doesn't. Because what's important is that they know what the gun situation is in their countries better than you do.

So stop embarrassing yourself.

Do not make Second Amendment rights a universal right. Yes, I know, there is an underlying current in the 2A community to build it as a fundamental right. Well, that's not something most people in most other countries are ready to buy anytime soon. So one thing at a time. Don't use that argument. The Second Amendment is that of the United States Constitution, period. Let's keep things in context.

The fact is, plenty of people in other countries could argue that gun control in their country has been successful at curbing gun violence in their countries. You will not convince any of them of the opposite.

Instead, focus on the uniqueness of this country's history and culture. Even Howard Zinn agrees that this country was founded with guns. Pioneers used them to protect themselves from Indians (or take land away from them, depending on how you read it). Patriots fought the red coats with guns. The US fought Mexico and Britain one more time with guns. It had at some point an entire rebel army. The US has a history of civilian gun ownership from its very beginnings, something that doesn't quite exist anywhere else.

Guns are part of the American culture. And there are hundreds of millions of them. Anybody talking about a ban is completely unrealistic and has no idea what they're talking about.

Focus on that instead: the practical and cultural uniqueness of America, and how it's easy for well-off, sheltered suburbanites to talk about banning AR-15s, because they've never gone varmint hunting nor attended a service rifle competition.

But again, don't bring up other countries. Because sooner or later, someone from those very countries is going to show up - on a Facebook wall, in a radio show or in a dinner party - and will embarrass you, because you don't really know what you're talking about.

Remember: we have plenty of good arguments on our side. We don't need to invoke other countries in the debate.

Rant over.

DanInChico
12-21-2012, 9:12 PM
I think you're right, for the most part. Way too many uninformed people taking way too much for granted.

But there is a country where firearms are heavily regulated (think NYC-level regulations), which has plenty of regional diversity, a decent (if not US-sized) population, and isn't a third-world dictatorship.

And this country has double the homicide rate of the US.

So, if you're going to point to gun control and violence in other countries (violence as a result of culture, rather than as a result of available weapons), I think Russia is a perfect example of how gun bans don't stop murders.

Sure, Russia's got a thriving black market, but so does the US (see illicit drugs).

Their GDP per capita is much smaller, but that's not a relevant indicator of the average citizen's finances or quality of life (which is difficult to measure).

Their Human Development Index in 2011 was rated "High" at .77 out of 1 (vs. ours at .91, or the UK at .86)

I don't think it's unreasonable to compare the two.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that as a whole, Americans are just more a violent people than the people of the EU.

(Of course spree-killings are a different beast and may be motivated by additional factors: notoriety, mental instability, social alienation, "evil", whatever)

Doesn't mean that we're "bad", but we kill people more often. Guns or no guns, we just do.

As for Russia, I'd say they're more violent (on average) than we are. They clearly don't have the same access to the same type of weapons, but they're twice as likely to murder eachother.

My 2 cents, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments.

IVC
12-21-2012, 9:22 PM
Do not make Second Amendment rights a universal right. Yes, I know, there is an underlying current in the 2A community to build it as a fundamental right. Well, that's not something most people in most other countries are ready to buy anytime soon. So one thing at a time. Don't use that argument. The Second Amendment is that of the United States Constitution, period. Let's keep things in context.

The rights that we support or promote are a package deal. We either push for what we believe are the human rights, or we don't. No cherry picking.

I would support your position only if we also pulled out of *any other* promotion of rights. That means we stop singling out China for the lack of freedom of speech, middle east for violations of women's rights, or most of africa for treatment of gays.

To do otherwise is to admit there are "tiered rights" and that 2A represents an "inferior civil right," which in turn would completely justify the treatment it's currently getting from the gun control cheerleaders.

radioburning
12-21-2012, 9:33 PM
No one's gonna make me look stupid for pointing out that the largest mass shooting in modern history happened in Norway, a place with strict gun control. I'm not even gonna mention Mexico's gun control to gun violence ratio...

Meplat
12-21-2012, 9:36 PM
The French.:rolleyes::facepalm:

strokesdmb
12-21-2012, 9:51 PM
No one's gonna make me look stupid for pointing out that the largest mass shooting in modern history happened in Norway, a place with strict gun control. I'm not even gonna mention Mexico's gun control to gun violence ratio...

Don't make me get someone from Norway or Mexico to prove you wrong and embarrass you :eek:
Sarcasm

IVC
12-21-2012, 9:52 PM
The French.:rolleyes::facepalm:

:rofl2: ... and I grew up in Europe too.

Cylarz
12-21-2012, 10:01 PM
Similarly, don't talk out of your *** about the gun ownership situation in Switzerland. First of all, things have changed over the past few decades over there.

How so?

But if you think it's some gun rights haven, where anybody owns rifles and pistols and can carry and shoot wherever they want, you're dead wrong.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that even the Swiss sell rifles like they do a pack of chewing gum....but the fact remains that most of their population do own semi (or even fully) automatic weapons. Overall per-capita gun ownership is nearly as high as the US. The fact of the matter is that blood isn't running in the streets over there, despite all these nasty "assault weapons" available. My cousin lived over there for three years and told me it was common to see people riding around on subway trains with various types of semi-automatics shouldered. It is no more controversial than boarding a train with a laptop.

The reason we bring up Switzerland in gun control debates...is because the antis try to claim that "Europe" (when they really mean just the UK and a few other countries there) is some gun-free/violence-free paradise.

Some of the Swiss gun laws make California's look tame.

Bull...and even if they have some rule here or there that does, so what? It's still a very gun-friendly country. Okay, fine...should I rely on Finland or Israel or Denmark instead, then?

We bring countries with high gun ownership rates / low crime rates in order to poke holes in the antis' argument that available of firearms contributes to violent crime. We know the problem is cultural (which I think is your reason for wanting to leave foreign countries out of the discussion).

It's not enough to just quote the 2nd Amendment because we're dealing with people who do not respect the Constitution. We are dealing with people who think it says, "Free speech for protected minorities, abortion on demand, end of Constitution." They throw stupid strawmen like, "Oh, so I can own a battleship, then?" at us. We need to show them hard data...not just go "The Second Amendment....la la la....I can't hear you." That doesn't settle anything.

IVC
12-21-2012, 10:12 PM
The reason we bring up Switzerland in gun control debates...is because the antis try to claim that "Europe" (when they really mean just the UK and a few other countries there) is some gun-free/violence-free paradise.

Much more importantly, the Switzerland example proves that availability and density of guns doesn't cause gun violence. Yes, a single example like that can disprove the conjecture that "more guns equals more violence," so it's an extremely important case in any scientific study.

GaryV
12-21-2012, 10:31 PM
I'm getting really annoyed of hearing fellow 2A advocates invoking the gun policies of other countries to support their argument.

Why?

Because in the huge majority of the cases they bring up, they are dead wrong, or misinformed.

Stop talking about the number of guns per capita in Canada. Stop talking about rising crime rates in Australia. Stop talking about gun ownership in Switzerland.

99% of the crap I read in forums like these, at the range or in gun shops about what is supposedly happening in other countries is BS.

Listen, this is 2012. The world is global. And most of you live in California, one of the most diverse places on the planet in terms of nationalities and immigrants.

What does that mean? That if you start talking about the horrible results of the gun confiscation that happened in Australia, sooner or later, some Aussie your buddy is friend with on Facebook, or who may be the guy next cubicle over is going to embarrass you. Because you think you know everything, but you don't. He's Australian. His dad may have had to surrender his guns, but he doesn't care. Some GOA spokesman got humiliated on KQED the other day when an Australian caller called in and told him he didn't mind a disarmed population because their gun violence rate is close to non existent.

Similarly, don't talk out of your *** about the gun ownership situation in Switzerland. First of all, things have changed over the past few decades over there. But if you think it's some gun rights haven, where anybody owns rifles and pistols and can carry and shoot wherever they want, you're dead wrong. Some of the Swiss gun laws make California's look tame.

It doesn't matter if those foreigners supporting gun control or downright bans in the US are wrong. It doesn't. Because what's important is that they know what the gun situation is in their countries better than you do.

So stop embarrassing yourself.

Do not make Second Amendment rights a universal right. Yes, I know, there is an underlying current in the 2A community to build it as a fundamental right. Well, that's not something most people in most other countries are ready to buy anytime soon. So one thing at a time. Don't use that argument. The Second Amendment is that of the United States Constitution, period. Let's keep things in context.

The fact is, plenty of people in other countries could argue that gun control in their country has been successful at curbing gun violence in their countries. You will not convince any of them of the opposite.

Instead, focus on the uniqueness of this country's history and culture. Even Howard Zinn agrees that this country was founded with guns. Pioneers used them to protect themselves from Indians (or take land away from them, depending on how you read it). Patriots fought the red coats with guns. The US fought Mexico and Britain one more time with guns. It had at some point an entire rebel army. The US has a history of civilian gun ownership from its very beginnings, something that doesn't quite exist anywhere else.

Guns are part of the American culture. And there are hundreds of millions of them. Anybody talking about a ban is completely unrealistic and has no idea what they're talking about.

Focus on that instead: the practical and cultural uniqueness of America, and how it's easy for well-off, sheltered suburbanites to talk about banning AR-15s, because they've never gone varmint hunting nor attended a service rifle competition.

But again, don't bring up other countries. Because sooner or later, someone from those very countries is going to show up - on a Facebook wall, in a radio show or in a dinner party - and will embarrass you, because you don't really know what you're talking about.

Remember: we have plenty of good arguments on our side. We don't need to invoke other countries in the debate.

Rant over.

The problem I have with your point is that you're buying into the anti-gun BS of talking about gun crime and gun homicides, rather than all violent crime or all homicides. Of course if you reduce that number of guns significantly you will reduce the number of crimes in which guns are used. But that's an irrelevant point. The question is, did you reduce the total number of crimes? And when you ask that question, there are some extremely good examples from other countries that are extremely relevant to the current debate here. Australia, for example, did see a significant decrease in the number of homicides in which guns were used. However, their overall homicide rate did not drop, indicating that murderers simply switched to alternative weapons and remained just as effective at killing their fellow Aussies. And guns still are the most commonly used weapon in homicides there (~30%), even if they are used much less frequently than before.

All those figures come directly from an official Australian government report on violent crime covering the decade following the ban, so I couldn't really care less what someone from Australia thinks is the "real" situation there. If they don't know the statistics compiled by their own government on violent crime, then they DON'T know the situation there better than someone who does. As is obvious from listening to our fellow Americans, living in a country doesn't even remotely make you an authority on its patterns of violent crime or the effectiveness of its laws. And those figures do effectively prove the point that the ban in Australia did not make the public any safer; it just caused a shift away from guns as the preferred weapon without reducing the number of deaths.

Your rant shouldn't be about using or not using other countries' experiences with gun control as examples, but to only rely on primary reputable sources for your information if you're going to do so and make sure you know what you're talking about, rather than just spreading some BS you saw posted on the internet.

formerTexan
12-21-2012, 10:45 PM
Israel is a mixed bag, lots of guns in circulation, but are mostly issued by the gov't. Privately bought guns are not that common. I think Switzerland has a similar if not more accepting attitude about guns compared to the US, and is a good country to point out when rebutting anti's spiel about "Europe", but conveniently forget that the UK, Russia, etc have high violent crime rates, even though most guns that are usable for personal defense either banned or heavily restricted. The Swiss has a national shooting festival that is extremely popular, even among teens (OMG, teens with guns!), that is one thing we really need to import to here.

SickofSoCal
12-21-2012, 10:49 PM
Because sooner or later, someone from those very countries is going to show up - on a Facebook wall, in a radio show or in a dinner party - and will embarrass you, because you don't really know what you're talking about.

We've embarrassed them plenty of times, but some of them are shameless.

a1c
12-21-2012, 10:57 PM
You can be right, or you can be convincing.

The gun control lobby has no problems understanding this.

So sure, comfort yourself thinking you are right. That it's a "package deal." You're not going to convince anybody you need to convince. You're just going to preach to the choir, and not make any difference. Sure, you'll feel great having your similarly-thinking buddies nodding their heads in approval. But you won't convince anybody else. You won't begin to make a dent in their opinions.

Sure, biggest mass killing ever happened in Norway. But the Norwegians are not convinced by that fact one bit. They'll point out they still have one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world. And they'll be right.

Stop applying your logic to other countries. Stop using them to make a point. You hate it when other countries do the same thing. So don't make the same mistake.

For any point you think you can make by pointing at the silly gun policies of some other countries, someone will make a similarly valid point that will kill your argument.

So stop referencing other countries. They're not relevant. We're talking about the United States.

NoHeavyHitter
12-21-2012, 11:00 PM
So stop embarrassing yourself.

I've quoted your one piece of useful advice in hopes that you might consider taking it...

Your list of assumptions was quite amusing - so thanks for setting such a fine example of lecture-failure. :)

a1c
12-21-2012, 11:00 PM
The French.:rolleyes::facepalm:

Really? Is xenophobia all you've got?

GutPunch
12-21-2012, 11:12 PM
Should we ignore history? Is that what you are trying to say?

Cylarz
12-21-2012, 11:15 PM
Of course if you reduce that number of guns significantly you will reduce the number of crimes in which guns are used.

I don't even accept the premise that gun control laws significantly reduce the number of guns, much less the one that suggests they do anything positive to the rate of gun crime.

Weapons already in circulation don't just dry up and blow away because some law was passed which makes it harder for them to change hands. Even if you criminalize possession, even the good guys aren't going to just turn them all in.

Cylarz
12-21-2012, 11:24 PM
You can be right, or you can be convincing.

I see no reason we can't be both.


The gun control lobby has no problems understanding this.

The gun control lobby has no problems using scare tactics, misusing the terminology, and generally demagoguing the issue. We're not going to resort to that.


So sure, comfort yourself thinking you are right. That it's a "package deal." You're not going to convince anybody you need to convince. You're just going to preach to the choir, and not make any difference. Sure, you'll feel great having your similarly-thinking buddies nodding their heads in approval. But you won't convince anybody else. You won't begin to make a dent in their opinions.


I'm trying really, really hard not to be rude here...but the best I can manage is to tell you that you are 100% flat-out dead wrong.

The message to get across is that high gun ownership rates do not equal high rates of violent crime. One way to accomplish that is to mention that other countries don't have this problem despite availability of weapons.

What are you suggesting, that we not engage these people on the other side? I've already said that quoting the 2nd Amendment over and over is what they find unconvincing. Okay, fine. We're not going to reach the DiFi types who want to take away everything down to the slingshots. But there are plenty of other people who are just....ignorant. We need to educate them. As a friend of mine puts it, we need to "stop an echo" by dispelling this nonsense that strict gun control = low gun crime rate.


Sure, biggest mass killing ever happened in Norway. But the Norwegians are not convinced by that fact one bit. They'll point out they still have one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world. And they'll be right.


What's your point? If their gun control program was such a bang-up success, that should never have happened.


Stop applying your logic to other countries. Stop using them to make a point.


No.


You hate it when other countries do the same thing. So don't make the same mistake.


I don't know what this means, but citizens of foreign countries clearly couldn't care less what I think of their rhetoric about the US, so I don't see why I owe them any such courtesy.


For any point you think you can make by pointing at the silly gun policies of some other countries, someone will make a similarly valid point that will kill your argument.

What "valid point" do you think they're going to make, when we can produce statistics that poke holes in it?


So stop referencing other countries. They're not relevant. We're talking about the United States.

They're very relevant, especially considering that we're trying to demonstrate that the problem of gun violence in the US is cultural (excess of violent video games, movies and music), lack of morals and respect for human life, lack of proper tools to diagnose and treat mental illness, etc.

odysseus
12-21-2012, 11:32 PM
Do not make Second Amendment rights a universal right. Yes, I know, there is an underlying current in the 2A community to build it as a fundamental right. Well, that's not something most people in most other countries are ready to buy anytime soon. So one thing at a time. Don't use that argument. The Second Amendment is that of the United States Constitution, period. Let's keep things in context.

Sure your point is there. However we do recognize it as a universal right, the right of self defense (and not just about being at home) - because our Constitution does not GRANT these rights, it recognizes them as human rights inherent to us as that which is at our birth. That is about the age of Enlightenment. And though our European brothers at times, like France, claimed to understand that and push of course all of this when speaking of 1A rights, they have failed. Simple, they have failed. We aren't doing that great ourselves either - but we don't have to accept their interpretation to mean we cannot argue ours.

IVC
12-21-2012, 11:48 PM
So sure, comfort yourself thinking you are right. That it's a "package deal." You're not going to convince anybody you need to convince. You're just going to preach to the choir, and not make any difference. Sure, you'll feel great having your similarly-thinking buddies nodding their heads in approval. But you won't convince anybody else. You won't begin to make a dent in their opinions.

It all depends on the subject matter. For example, 2A doesn't mention guns at all.

A message that "an oppressed woman in the part of the world that doesn't recognize women's rights can use a rock to defend against someone trying to rape her and should not be stoned to death for the act of armed defense" can resonate pretty well with many people who are afraid of guns.

wolfwood
12-22-2012, 1:07 AM
I had a girl friend who lived here for a year from Sweden. I got a pwnd because I thought they had no guns. Apparently every owns a rifle and regardless of what the laws technically are people keep them in their cars. Not for self defense purposes typically.

sharxbyte
12-22-2012, 1:51 AM
Amen.

MontClaire
12-22-2012, 2:03 AM
I think you're right, for the most part. Way too many uninformed people taking way too much for granted.

But there is a country where firearms are heavily regulated (think NYC-level regulations), which has plenty of regional diversity, a decent (if not US-sized) population, and isn't a third-world dictatorship.

And this country has double the homicide rate of the US.

So, if you're going to point to gun control and violence in other countries (violence as a result of culture, rather than as a result of available weapons), I think Russia is a perfect example of how gun bans don't stop murders.

Sure, Russia's got a thriving black market, but so does the US (see illicit drugs).

Their GDP per capita is much smaller, but that's not a relevant indicator of the average citizen's finances or quality of life (which is difficult to measure).

Their Human Development Index in 2011 was rated "High" at .77 out of 1 (vs. ours at .91, or the UK at .86)

I don't think it's unreasonable to compare the two.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that as a whole, Americans are just more a violent people than the people of the EU.

(Of course spree-killings are a different beast and may be motivated by additional factors: notoriety, mental instability, social alienation, "evil", whatever)

Doesn't mean that we're "bad", but we kill people more often. Guns or no guns, we just do.

As for Russia, I'd say they're more violent (on average) than we are. They clearly don't have the same access to the same type of weapons, but they're twice as likely to murder eachother.

My 2 cents, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments.

They can buy and carry traumatic pistols that fire a rubber projectile. Russians prefer to fight with fists but sometimes those form southern republics like to settle everything with knifes, so traumatics come in handy. It will hurt like hell and will allow a victim to escape but it wil not kill unless you put a nail inside a rubber ball and fire at the scull. They can also buy tear gas firing pistols, .410 AKs, Vepr's any other type of smoothbore rifles. It's also not very expensive to buy yourself some LEO credentials and carry makarovs. Nobody dare will check the serials if credentials check out.

shakes88
12-22-2012, 2:04 AM
IBFP

myk
12-22-2012, 3:14 AM
What, we can't use accurate data anymore? What the hell is going on around here? We've got some Calgunners who actually agree on additional gun control as a "compromise", and now we've got other Calgunners who are trying to mess with the first Amendment also. Maybe the world DID end yesterday...

GaryV
12-22-2012, 8:41 AM
You can be right, or you can be convincing.

The gun control lobby has no problems understanding this.

So sure, comfort yourself thinking you are right. That it's a "package deal." You're not going to convince anybody you need to convince. You're just going to preach to the choir, and not make any difference. Sure, you'll feel great having your similarly-thinking buddies nodding their heads in approval. But you won't convince anybody else. You won't begin to make a dent in their opinions.

Sure, biggest mass killing ever happened in Norway. But the Norwegians are not convinced by that fact one bit. They'll point out they still have one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world. And they'll be right.

Stop applying your logic to other countries. Stop using them to make a point. You hate it when other countries do the same thing. So don't make the same mistake.

For any point you think you can make by pointing at the silly gun policies of some other countries, someone will make a similarly valid point that will kill your argument.

So stop referencing other countries. They're not relevant. We're talking about the United States.

If we follow your logic here, then our side would just shut up completely and never try to offer any argument in defense of our views, ever. It doesn't matter whether you're using examples from other countries or from right here in the US, all your supposed "reasons" for not doing what you don't want us to do would apply no matter what argument you make and no matter what evidence you used. The zealous antis would still not be swayed; someone could offer a counter-argument; etc. Your confusing "valid point" with "point you personally don't know how to counter because you either don't have enough information or can't think well enough on your feet to point out the flaws in the other person's argument". That's not a valid reason to avoid using examples from other countries anymore than it is for not using examples from the US. It's the risk you take whenever you get into any argument about anything when you don't have all the facts and you're not good at logic. That's a problem with the debater, not with the example used.

What goes on in other countries is often extremely relevant to the discussion here. The problem is when people either base their arguments on shoddy information (using the media, blogs, forums, and partisan sites for their sources, instead of looking up real facts from primary sources) or construct poor arguments with the information they have. But that's no more a problem when using the information from other countries than it is when talking about examples from here in the US. Anyone making either of these two mistakes will look just as much the fool no matter what the discussion is about.

The fact that you personally cannot apparently differentiate between good and bad arguments (for example, the fact that Norway has a low crime rate is in no way a valid counter to the point that they had a deadly mass shooting despite strict gun laws - and no one is trying to convince Norwegians anyway) is not a legitimate reason to criticize perfectly good arguments that others are quite capable of making using examples from other countries. In fact, the only point you're making is that anyone incapable of making a good argument based on well-sourced facts should keep their mouth shut about everything.

a1c
12-22-2012, 9:19 AM
Listen, the only point I'm making is that if you want to start using arguments that invoke other countries' gun policies, you better be prepared and know exactly what you're talking about.

You better know the laws, the culture, the history as well as the locals.

Because sooner or later, someone from that very country is going to show up. And he might not be ignorant about firearms at all. And there is a good chance he'll shut you up and will tell you to do your homework, and that his country doesn't need your advice, and that what's valid in the US doesn't have to apply to his country, and vice-versa.

That's all I'm saying. I've seen a few pro-2A people recently - friends and public figures - embarrass themselves by talking about the gun policies of countries they have never even visited.

That's not a mistake one should do if they want to retain some credibility. We already are credible. We don't need to destroy our arguments by exposing our ignorance on the fine points of some other countries gun regulations.

Manolito
12-22-2012, 9:23 AM
I think I understand a few of the better informed educated and well placed people like you should be left to defend our rights. None of us individuals should have an oppinion or voice that opinion for we may make a mistake.

Sounds an awful lot like let the government make your choices they know better.

I fought and killed for the right of freedom of speech and you want me to give that to you?

Sorry.

When I hire you as my attorney I will shut up and allow you to speak until then I will keep my opinion and I may often be wrong. But I will keep the right to voice my opinion.

billmaykafer
12-22-2012, 9:38 AM
I'm getting really annoyed of hearing fellow 2A advocates invoking the gun policies of other countries to support their argument.

Why?

Because in the huge majority of the cases they bring up, they are dead wrong, or misinformed.

Stop talking about the number of guns per capita in Canada. Stop talking about rising crime rates in Australia. Stop talking about gun ownership in Switzerland.

99% of the crap I read in forums like these, at the range or in gun shops about what is supposedly happening in other countries is BS.

Listen, this is 2012. The world is global. And most of you live in California, one of the most diverse places on the planet in terms of nationalities and immigrants.

What does that mean? That if you start talking about the horrible results of the gun confiscation that happened in Australia, sooner or later, some Aussie your buddy is friend with on Facebook, or who may be the guy next cubicle over is going to embarrass you. Because you think you know everything, but you don't. He's Australian. His dad may have had to surrender his guns, but he doesn't care. Some GOA spokesman got humiliated on KQED the other day when an Australian caller called in and told him he didn't mind a disarmed population because their gun violence rate is close to non existent.

Similarly, don't talk out of your *** about the gun ownership situation in Switzerland. First of all, things have changed over the past few decades over there. But if you think it's some gun rights haven, where anybody owns rifles and pistols and can carry and shoot wherever they want, you're dead wrong. Some of the Swiss gun laws make California's look tame.

It doesn't matter if those foreigners supporting gun control or downright bans in the US are wrong. It doesn't. Because what's important is that they know what the gun situation is in their countries better than you do.

So stop embarrassing yourself.

Do not make Second Amendment rights a universal right. Yes, I know, there is an underlying current in the 2A community to build it as a fundamental right. Well, that's not something most people in most other countries are ready to buy anytime soon. So one thing at a time. Don't use that argument. The Second Amendment is that of the United States Constitution, period. Let's keep things in context.

The fact is, plenty of people in other countries could argue that gun control in their country has been successful at curbing gun violence in their countries. You will not convince any of them of the opposite.

Instead, focus on the uniqueness of this country's history and culture. Even Howard Zinn agrees that this country was founded with guns. Pioneers used them to protect themselves from Indians (or take land away from them, depending on how you read it). Patriots fought the red coats with guns. The US fought Mexico and Britain one more time with guns. It had at some point an entire rebel army. The US has a history of civilian gun ownership from its very beginnings, something that doesn't quite exist anywhere else.

Guns are part of the American culture. And there are hundreds of millions of them. Anybody talking about a ban is completely unrealistic and has no idea what they're talking about.

Focus on that instead: the practical and cultural uniqueness of America, and how it's easy for well-off, sheltered suburbanites to talk about banning AR-15s, because they've never gone varmint hunting nor attended a service rifle competition.

But again, don't bring up other countries. Because sooner or later, someone from those very countries is going to show up - on a Facebook wall, in a radio show or in a dinner party - and will embarrass you, because you don't really know what you're talking about.

Remember: we have plenty of good arguments on our side. We don't need to invoke other countries in the debate.

Rant over.

nice use of your 1st amendment right to tell others to not use their 1st amendment right to write about their 2nd amendment right....i spent 21 years in us military defending US Constitution,what makes you think telling me to shut up will work???

taperxz
12-22-2012, 9:47 AM
I think some here should read the OP a little closer. I don't think the OP is telling anyone not use their 1A to speak out. I just think he is trying to tell people here to NOT spread mis information or false facts about other countries gun laws .
In other words, don't be like the antis and the media by spreading BS or wrong information because it does more damage than good and makes us look as ignorant as the antis arguments on gun control.

a1c
12-22-2012, 9:51 AM
I think some here should read the OP a little closer. I don't think the OP is telling anyone not use their 1A to speak out. I just think he is trying to tell people here to NOT spread mis information or false facts about other countries gun laws .
In other words, don't be like the antis and the media by spreading BS or wrong information because it does more damage than good and makes us look as ignorant as the antis arguments on gun control.

Thanks, taper. That's exactly it.

taperxz
12-22-2012, 9:55 AM
Thanks, taper. That's exactly it.

Quit typing in French!:facepalm::hide::rofl2:

You owe me a bottle:eek:

a1c
12-22-2012, 9:57 AM
And I owe you a visit when I get back! I'll bring a bottle. Ou deux.

bigmike82
12-22-2012, 10:28 AM
I don't think he was using his first amendment rights to tell you to stop using yours. He was using his first amendment rights to tell those who bring forth ignorant arguments to do some research first. We really don't want Swiss gun laws here, for example. That'd be a massive step backwards.

FastFinger
12-22-2012, 10:32 AM
It's a debate - verbal warfare. If you can make points with valid arguments, statistics and logic, then score those points. Just be sure you can back them up.

The problem I have with using info from other counties is that there is so much more involved than gun stats. Cultures are complex systems - it's almost impossible to isolate just one aspect and treat it as a island. We can argue that USA has made the most contributions to the betterment of mankind than any other nation in history. That's not due to any one feature, it's the entire package - including our history with guns, and even our culture level of violence.

Let's say that somehow it were possible to remove all guns from our society, there is no way that we'd be the same culture going forward. Would we be as creative? Aside from gun rights would we have the same freedoms of expression, balance of power in regards to state vs. individuals?

It is impossible to change just one thing.

IVC
12-22-2012, 11:05 AM
I think some here should read the OP a little closer. I don't think the OP is telling anyone not use their 1A to speak out. I just think he is trying to tell people here to NOT spread mis information or false facts about other countries gun laws .
In other words, don't be like the antis and the media by spreading BS or wrong information because it does more damage than good and makes us look as ignorant as the antis arguments on gun control.

That is not *entirely* accurate. Part of the post was about 2A in the context of civil rights outside the USA. That is the only part I objected to, but also an important part that added "color" to the initial post.

socal2310
12-22-2012, 11:10 AM
a1c,

I think you might have over-stated your argument.

The problem is NOT with using information about other countries to make your point, the problem is with broad generalizations and information that is just flat-out wrong, and the majority is related to the former.

In other words, control variables.

I fundamentally disagree with you about the relevance of the Constitution. A fundamental point of disagreement between Madison and many of us who live downstream is that Madison never believed that he was granting us rights by writing the Bill of Rights.

He believed he was writing a document to protect rights that we have by virtue of being living, rational beings and he did so reluctantly because of fears the ninth amendment implicitly addresses: that at some point, the only rights anyone would have were those specifically enumerated.

We passed that point a long time ago and are trying to hold out on just a few enumerated rights.

Ryan

anothergunnut
12-22-2012, 1:26 PM
Here's an interesting article on Townhall.com http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/12/21/what-difference-would-banning-guns-make-n1471616
which has a number of studies that compares US to Canada. The big difference that these studies try to prove is that US has significantly different demographics than Canada. Canada is a very homogenous country whereas the US is very ethnically diverse. If you control for demographics, the US and Canada murder rates are similar. There's also an interesting study that considers that the lack of handguns leads to substitution of other methods of killing.

The problem with citing the study is that you are forced to confront an unpleasant, politically incorrect answer about who is killing who in America.

a1c
12-22-2012, 1:48 PM
That is not *entirely* accurate. Part of the post was about 2A in the context of civil rights outside the USA. That is the only part I objected to, but also an important part that added "color" to the initial post.

My point was also that yes, the 2A right as a civil right is already an uphill battle in the US.

In other countries? Forget about trying to make that point. You're talking about countries where freedom of speech is often strictly defined. In many Western European countries, there are specific laws prohibiting certain types of speech (hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist or homophobic speech, for instance) - and most people in those countries are perfectly OK with that. Many people over there are perfectly fine trading individual freedoms for the illusion of safety. So imagine trying to make the 2A a civil right for those people. It's a huge gap.

So be ready for a culture shock if you try making the RKBA a civil right in those countries. The huge majority of the people over there won't even consider it for a minute.

It doesn't matter if you think they're wrong. Our battle right now is to convince minds. You do that one step at a time. And advocating 2A rights as civil rights is something most people in those countries have often never even considered.

Right now - IMHO - our priorities should be:

- Demonstrate why a so-called "assault weapon" ban makes no sense.
- Demonstrate that the RKBA is the law of the land - especially since Heller and MacDonald.
- Demonstrate that ARs are not just "assault rifles", but a highly popular hunting and competition platform, and why.
- Demonstrate that just because sheltered soccer moms don't feel the need to own a gun doesn't mean they should dictate to the rest of us that we can't.

One step at a time.

jdouglas
12-22-2012, 2:05 PM
I saw Norway brought up in some of the previous posts.

I think they are actually a strong point in the "people kill people, not guns" argument. They have one of the highest guns per capita of any country in the world (around 30 per 100 people; which I think is second highest in Europe, behind Switzerland). Yes they do have a lot of restrictions, but the guns and ammo are there.

And Norway's murder rate is half that of the UK which (if you believe everything the gun-grabbers say) is the most violence-free and happiest place in the world.

IVC
12-22-2012, 2:19 PM
I am not trying to make a point that 2A should be incorporated overseas. I am making a point that it shouldn't be dismissed just because the people overseas are not receptive to it.

All I am saying is we should keep the "armed self defense" as a concept that is part of the civil rights package we believe in, instead of relegating it to a second tier right that only applies in the US. This is how the antis see it today.

For example, just because Saudi Arabia is not receptive to allowing women to drive doesn't mean we should remove women's rights from our list of civil rights.

rla_2000
12-22-2012, 2:22 PM
1 word: "Mexico"

Meplat
12-22-2012, 8:53 PM
Really? Is xenophobia all you've got?

Not afraid, just amused. :D

TheYellowDart
12-23-2012, 1:46 AM
From what I gathered the OP had these main points;
1. Lets win the debate on gun control by choosing the most advantageous arguments
Agreed

2. Fact-finding before soapboxing
Yup, Agree with this too

3. Foreigners understand the situation in their own country better than we do
Not necessarily - A individual citizens perception of a nations status is biased as they are inherently drawn to incorporate their own experience into their belief. It's highly unlikely that an "individual" would be able to fully disassociate his/her personal experiences, beliefs and ideologies from their assessment of a nations standings. To overcome the biases of the individual we must look to the statistics. Fortunately, in this age of information such results are relatively easy to access. Essentially, just because someone currently lives, has lived, or at one time visited a country doesn't mean they are more or less informed on the statistics of violence than someone who has not, if anything their personal experience only hinders their ability to view the research material objectively.

4. Comparing the US to other countries is like comparing apples to oranges.
True, the US has a set of beliefs unique unto itself and has a different economic standing, etc. However, despite the differences, there are sufficient similarities such that the findings in one nation be of value to another. Their value is in their ability to assist our predictions regarding the potential outcome of a variety of things ranging from health care, general economics, up to and including gun control.

press1280
12-23-2012, 3:01 AM
From what I gathered the OP had these main points;
1. Lets win the debate on gun control by choosing the most advantageous arguments
Agreed

2. Fact-finding before soapboxing
Yup, Agree with this too

3. Foreigners understand the situation in their own country better than we do
Not necessarily - A individual citizens perception of a nations status is biased as they are inherently drawn to incorporate their own experience into their belief. It's highly unlikely that an "individual" would be able to fully disassociate his/her personal experiences, beliefs and ideologies from their assessment of a nations standings. To overcome the biases of the individual we must look to the statistics. Fortunately, in this age of information such results are relatively easy to access. Essentially, just because someone currently lives, has lived, or at one time visited a country doesn't mean they are more or less informed on the statistics of violence than someone who has not, if anything their personal experience only hinders their ability to view the research material objectively.

4. Comparing the US to other countries is like comparing apples to oranges.
True, the US has a set of beliefs unique unto itself and has a different economic standing, etc. However, despite the differences, there are sufficient similarities such that the findings in one nation be of value to another. Their value is in their ability to assist our predictions regarding the potential outcome of a variety of things ranging from health care, general economics, up to and including gun control.

Agreed. A better way to assess stats is compare the US's crime rate to that before/after X law was passed. We know there are countries with strict gun control with much higher violence and those with much lower violence. The worst is when these idiots say something like the UK has only 35 GUN deaths per year. Best counter is ask them what the violent crime rate was before and after that law was passed........

Creeping Incrementalism
12-23-2012, 12:25 PM
Listen, this is 2012. The world is global. And most of you live in California, one of the most diverse places on the planet in terms of nationalities and immigrants.

What does that mean? That if you start talking about the horrible results of the gun confiscation that happened in Australia, sooner or later, some Aussie your buddy is friend with on Facebook,

"This is 2012"... I think you are about a decade behind the times.

I've been debating gun control with Aussie's on the web, off and on since 2002-3 or so, and I'm sure I wasn't the first one. They/Europeans are sometimes clueless about their own country's laws or statistics, and especially the laws of a country that isn't further away to them than Texas is to us (i.e. UK-->Switzerland). It isn't hard to find research to back up our opinions. Here's a British criminology report saying the Aussie gun ban did not reduce gun crime: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf

Books on gun control, both pro and con, have used examples of other countries for decades now, so I don't know why we can't continue with that online.

dieselpower
12-23-2012, 1:40 PM
I didnt read all the replies...

Just because one guy called a show and said the speaker was wrong doesnt mean that guy was correct.

Fact- Australia's crime rate SKYROCKETED after their AWB. look it up on wiki.

Mullins
12-23-2012, 2:19 PM
So stop embarrassing yourself.

Do not make Second Amendment rights a universal right.


The Second Amendment is a universal right granted to every person on this earth at birth!

Yes, I know, there is an underlying current in the 2A community to build it as a fundamental right.
Explain?

We are protecting our rights from tyrants, not trying to "build it as a fundamental right" (imo)