Why isn't Europe as crazy about guns as US?

[bradly1101]

From appearances, most non-criminal gun advocates would also call themselves good Christians. But would Jesus have carried a gun (if they were available at the time)? Would he have carried any weapon?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Please explain why the US does not require a militia? And second, does that mean that all militias should be outlawed?

We have a militia. It's every able-bodied man over 17 years of age.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 113-65. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code
• Notes
• Updates

prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[bradly1101]

Because you're historically, and legally wrong.

'well regulated militia' means every citizen trained to shoot guns. Look it up, either in history and language texts or legal opinions.

I know the Supreme Court agrees with you, saying that there is such a thing as a militia of one. But it seems like they redefined the word:

From Websters: militia

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

 

[Fayd]

The constitution can and has changed many times over the 200 years. What made sense generations ago, no longer make sense. With any luck, the 2nd amendment can be gotten to of.

I see all the gun nuts cry about their gun rights being infringed - but no one complaining about their 4th amendment rights being violated on a daily basis.

you're not paying attention. And if you're not objecting to it personally and vocally, then you're part of the problem.

 

[shortylickens]

From appearances, most non-criminal gun advocates would also call themselves good Christians. But would Jesus have carried a gun (if they were available at the time)? Would he have carried any weapon?

I'm and atheist and thats why I carry a gun. An awful lot of murder and enslavement was caused in the name of religion. The other reason I keep guns is because more people have suffered at the hands of their own government than an enemy.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The only European countries with lower density than the United States that I can think of are Norway, Sweden and Finland. If you are referring to population in absolute terms, I do not see why would that be relevant.

What you say about social infrastructure on the other hand probably does play a role.

It depends if we look at history, or only the current moment.

We just recently passed 50% urban dwellers, and only barely. Further our extremely high density in a few areas skews our overall density.

Even looking only at the now, the US is NOT very dense. It's listed as 179th in population density, whereas the UK is listed at 53rd for example (out of 241).

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

The UK is essentially London. The US is essentially the middle of Montana. These are not similar.

 

[Fayd]

I know the Supreme Court agrees with you, saying that there is such a thing as a militia of one. But it seems like they redefined the word:

From Websters: militia

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

I don't know about you, but as a US citizen I was required to register for selective service, coloquially known as the draft. That falls under the second definition of militia.

As evidence to this, we have government programs designed specifically to teach marksmanship to the US populace, with the primary goal to make our militia more effective were it to come to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program

 

[Tango]

It depends if we look at history, or only the current moment.

We just recently passed 50% urban dwellers, and only barely. Further our extremely high density in a few areas skews our overall density.

Even looking only at the now, the US is NOT very dense. It's listed as 179th in population density, whereas the UK is listed at 53rd for example (out of 241).

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

The UK is essentially London. The US is essentially the middle of Montana. These are not similar.

Right. So you agree almost all of European countries are more densely populated than the U.S., so high population (density) cannot be proposed as factor positively correlating with "having problems", thus other countries cannot have fewer problems because they are less populated.

 

[bradly1101]

I don't know about you, but as a US citizen I was required to register for selective service, coloquially known as the draft. That falls under the second definition of militia.

As evidence to this, we have government programs designed specifically to teach marksmanship to the US populace, with the primary goal to make our militia more effective were it to come to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program

Yes "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service." But that part of the definition seems arcane to me, only including men.

Plus, you get your weapon when you start military service, you don't bring one from home.

 

[rommelrommel]

From appearances, most non-criminal gun advocates would also call themselves good Christians. But would Jesus have carried a gun (if they were available at the time)? Would he have carried any weapon?

I'm a non-criminal gun advocate atheist but...

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

—Luke 22:36, NIV

 

[Fayd]

Yes "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service." But that part of the definition seems arcane to me, only including men.

Plus, you get your weapon when you start military service, you don't bring one from home.

... only men are subject to selective service. in the US, only men can be drafted. From what I recall, the only country I know of to have drafted women as well was russia during WWII (during germany's invasion)

proper marksmanship is something that is learned over a lifetime. not in 6 weeks of basic when you're learning everything else about being a soldier. also, the CMP sells military surplus rifles meant for training.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I know the Supreme Court agrees with you, saying that there is such a thing as a militia of one. But it seems like they redefined the word:

From Websters: militia

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

The didn't redefine it. Feel free to read primary sources from the day that discuss it. If you have academic database access you should be able to search old 18th and 19th century OEDs. You can also look up old legal cases which established the legal definition of the word separate from popular use. http://research.archives.gov is a good resource for this, especially for those without database access.

A lot of it comes down to general definition vs legal definition. Legally, every able bodied male citizen over 17 (currently) is a member of the militia. Period. In common use we expect them to assemble, drill, etc...but this has never been legally required.

 

[Venix]

To be called stupid by certain people is an honor. Thank you. I agree that we disagree.

You can't "disagree" with a fact. Much like you can't claim that a decline is an increase or that no correlation is an increasing trend.

I'm honestly perplexed by your inability to interpret facts and data. You don't even dispute the data's validity--you just insist that it supports the very conclusion it unequivocally disproves. Do you have comprehension difficulties or a learning disability, or are you just very young, or what?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Right. So you agree almost all of European countries are more densely populated than the U.S., so high population (density) cannot be proposed as factor positively correlating with "having problems", thus other countries cannot have fewer problems because they are less populated.

You misunderstood the nature of my initial statement. I shouldn't have put the population thing next to the area statement, as its confusing.

It's not that density is causal to crime or other specific issue (though there are good arguments for this sometimes), it's that low density makes enforcement or protection more difficult, forcing individuals to protect themselves.

In other words, if nearly all of your population is in a small area, tightly packed, you can police and protect them very easily. If your people are spread out all over creation there's no way to keep them safe or respond to emergencies fast enough to help them.

We never want to get into raw numbers as opposed to rates...they're simply not valid. Thus density can matter, while overall population really can't.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

From appearances, most non-criminal gun advocates would also call themselves good Christians. But would Jesus have carried a gun (if they were available at the time)? Would he have carried any weapon?

Why would he? He came with a purpose, to save man from sin by taking the punishment on himself. His death on the cross is according to his wish. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is a gift if you accept it. All you need is have faith in Jesus Christ, that he died for your sins, and He was resurrected after 3 days.

Live by the sword, die by the sword is a saying derived from a biblical parable to the effect that if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other people, you can expect to have those same means used against you; "You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want."[1]

The proverb comes from the Gospel of Matthew, verse 26:52, which describes a disciple (identified in the Gospel of John as Simon Peter) drawing a sword to defend against the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, but is rebuked by Jesus, who tells him to sheath the weapon:

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)​

He didn't want Peter to die at that time. Jesus wanted Peter to live and fulfill God's plan for Peter.

Jesus is also confirming an important principle: it's not a sin to use violence to stop violence.

Keep in mind that God is perfect Justice, perfect Love, perfect Mercy, perfect Patience, etc. None of those characteristic is dominant over the other. Therefore, to fulfill his perfect Justice, Love, and Mercy, God the Son in the person of Jesus Christ took it upon himself to take man's punishment for sin on the cross.

"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Rev.13:10 KJV)

 

[bradly1101]

You can't "disagree" with a fact. Much like you can't claim that a decline is an increase or that no correlation is an increasing trend.

I'm honestly perplexed by your blatant denial of facts and data. Do you have comprehension difficulties or a learning disability, or are you just very young, or what?

There may be less correlation between gun ownership and gun murder on a state level but more locally and as a country...

All I know is that there are a lot of guns in South Central, along with a lot of gun violence. Same for neighborhoods of Detroit or Chicago, or...

What are other countries with lots of guns and gun violence? Somalia? Afghanistan? CAR? Syria? Sudan?

Edit: changed 'murders' to 'violence'.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

There may be less correlation between gun ownership and gun murder on a state level but more locally and as a country...

All I know is that there are a lot of guns in South Central, along with a lot of gun murders. Same for neighborhoods of Detroit or Chicago, or...

Mexico bans all guns, yet murders and violent crime is Mexico is sky high. A lot of cities with the highest rate of murders and violent crimes in the USA ban (or make it very difficult to conceal carry one) guns for lawful citizens, like Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, District of Columbia, etc.

Stop talking about gun murders or violent gun crimes. Use of guns are just one method out of many to murder or do violent crime.

Talk about total murders instead. Talk about total violent crimes instead.


And how naive do you have to be to think that violent criminals will obey gun laws. Worst still, in the USA, ex-felons legally don't have to obey any gun registration laws.

I doubt the legality of a lot of those guns.

Why would anyone want to take guns away from law abiding people? It makes no sense at all.

It becomes down right stupid to gun grab from law abiding citizens when there are a lot of good studies saying more guns = less crime.

 

[Venix]

There may be less correlation between gun ownership and gun murder on a state level but more locally and as a country...

All I know is that there are a lot of guns in South Central, along with a lot of gun murders. Same for neighborhoods of Detroit or Chicago, or...

What are other countries with lots of guns and gun murders? Somalia? Afghanistan? CAR? Syria? Sudan?

Not "less correlation." No correlation.

You've noticed that gang-controlled neighborhoods in cities/states with strict gun control laws (a complete ban in Chicago's case!) tend to be awash in violent crime. Your conclusion is that gun availability is the root cause, and that even stricter gun laws will fix it. Interesting "logic."

Can you answer my question: Do you have comprehension difficulties or a learning disability, or are you just very young, or what?

 

[bradly1101]

Not "less correlation." No correlation.

You've noticed that gang-controlled neighborhoods in cities/states with strict gun control laws (a complete ban in Chicago's case!) tend to be awash in violent crime. Your conclusion is that gun availability is the root cause, and that even stricter gun laws will fix it. Interesting "logic."

Strict gun laws in other countries have worked.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Strict gun laws in other countries have worked.

No they haven't. Everything I have seen says the opposite. :biggrin:


Stop spouting ignorance and look at actual studies from reliable sources.

Hint: Read the actual study, not just the article.

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

A Harvard Study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” looks at figures for “intentional deaths” throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime. Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.
Read full article

 

[bradly1101]

Mexico bans all guns, yet murders and violent crime is Mexico is sky high.

Mexico has us to thank for their gun problem. Guns flow north to south easier than water.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Mexico has us to thank for their gun problem. Guns flow north to south easier than water.

Do you ask yourself where Mexico gets all its drugs from?

I'm sure it's not hard for them to get guns the same way.


How old are you? Still in Middle School or High School?


It's hard to tell with your terrible reading comprehension and lack of reasoning ability.

 

[bradly1101]

Can you answer my question: Do you have comprehension difficulties or a learning disability, or are you just very young, or what?

Again being called stupid by someone I would disagree with about probably most political issues is an honor.

I didn't attempt to insult you, why do you resort to that? This is what makes the Interwebs so un-fun. We were having a nice discussion...

 

[_Rick_]

I figured your response would start out with the military. Apparently you forgot that the second amendment is there to protect us from government, both foreign and domestic.

The military is made to defend the state, which is represented by the people's government.
The word state has a distinct connotation, and it's not something that can be seen to be independent from its own governance.

In any case, a government rarely turns against the majority of its populace. It's more likely to turn against minorities, which do not fall under the definition of "state".
Even the worst of dictatorships often have large amounts of loyalists.

But if you have civil war, there is no "state". There is a territory, a people and warring factions. If sufficient organization exists inside the factions, one might talk of two states.


As for those referring to my size comment: I meant by financial investment. Even by percentage of GDP there's few ahead.

Anyway, those that fear a potentially evil government: I'm aware of only very few national governments that actively work against their people.

Also, consider Israel. A state that works against its people, and even with heavy support from outside, the Palestinians cannot really do anything, whenever the Israeli "state" uses its army against them. And they are armed, legally or not. The situation in the US would not be much difficult, if indeed a rift were to be driven between two parts of the population, like it once was, with a government that is loyal to only one side.

 

[_Rick_]

We have a militia. It's every able-bodied man over 17 years of age.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 113-65. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code
• Notes
• Updates

prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This militia is not well regulated though. This is at best restricted to the National Guard. I would expect this well regulated militia to have service weapons, and not rely on personal arms in times of conflict.