Yes, the government doesn't have the right, but the people do. The people overwhelmingly do not favor strict gun control, gun registries, gun confiscation, etc. So it can't happen. Which is fine with me, I don't think we need any of those things either. I don't think we need more government regulation of pools, or household poisons or the internet. -XC
Again you avoided my question :) I fully realize that Guns are a complex issue for a lot of people. And even in this discussion the range of topics have covered Freedom of Speech, Government Control, Federalism etc. There is a huge amount of swirl thrown on top of the topic of Gun control. People make their country, Humans like to conform to social norms. For gun carrying to be allowed it must be socially acceptable; which follows that people (the majority) in that society are happy to put up with the violence around them as long as they get to have a gun. That's whats normal to the group. But what about the individual? What do you think, regardless of the rules? As a poor example, I live in Ireland, renowned throughout the world for its drinking culture. Alcohol is a large part of our society and actually makes up part of our image in a similar way Guns do in the US. Alcohol is killing people everyday here, young and old. I have seen friends lost to it. Like you I see how its almost impossible to change the society; but I also recognize that our relationship with alcohol is out of control and its not good for our country. I don't want to ban it, I enjoy it myself but never to excess, I'd like to change how freely accessible it is. I'd like to change the mindset that you need to have a drink in order to have a good time. We have crossed from a healthy relationship into an abusive one. Personally I think this mirrors the relationship with Guns in the US. As they say in AA, recognising you have a problem is the first step. Do you think you have a problem with guns?Yes, the government doesn't have the right, but the people do. The people overwhelmingly do not favor strict gun control, gun registries, gun confiscation, etc. So it can't happen.
I have answered your questions several times - maybe my American English is bad. No, we don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with violence. A "glass is half empty" person might say that everyone else is "enjoying" too little violence. But I think the correlation between a violent and a creative society is likely to be very weak. See also Rome. As to your "I'd like to change how freely accessible [alcohol] it is" I would ask you why? Why do you think the answer to any problem is to constrain people? I'm not a Big-L libertarian or an anarchist or anything, but in the course of human history we can see that the things that government gets right when they start to control people are pretty few relative to the amount of control they seek. -XC -XC
A "glass is half empty" person might say that everyone else is "enjoying" too little violence. But I think the correlation between a violent and a creative society is likely to be very weak. See also Rome.
There is a famous Orson Wells quote hidden in there dying to get out. Cuckoo clocks.As to your "I'd like to change how freely accessible [alcohol] it is" I would ask you why? Why do you think the answer to any problem is to constrain people? I'm not a Big-L libertarian or an anarchist or anything, but in the course of human history we can see that the things that government gets right when they start to control people are pretty few relative to the amount of control they seek.
Well I never mentioned Government as the tool to enact change. I mentioned that we have a cultural problem, our society has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol but there is no Government action capable of dealing with that effectively. Over here Governments keep the lights on and the ship on course. They are not as powerful as perhaps their US counterparts are. Any change to our relationship to alcohol has to come from inside the society, a popular movement or such. This is happening slowly because people see that we have a problem.No, we don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with violence.
So Guns play no part? I could say we don't a problem with alcohol, we have a problem with alcoholism but that's a cop out. One way to improve the society for everyone is to tackle the problem and make it less acceptable (note: less acceptable, its still legal) to be drunk in the street at 1 in the afternoon.
While at the same time, we people overwhelmingly favor stricter gun control...The people overwhelmingly do not favor strict gun control,
I'm not even sure they know, given their confusion about simple terms like magazine/clip and semi/automatic. Here's the deal, it is not complicated. If you are a registered firearm dealer (FFL - Federal Firearm License "holder") then you have to comply with federal, state, and local laws regarding firearm transfers. This includes background checks, local permitting, etc. For example, in some counties in NC you have to have a "sheriff's permit" to purchase a pistol. So if you're a Robison county FFL holder and you see a guy from Wake county, you have to collect his Sheriff's permit before sending him a pistol. If the buyer is from Carteret then you don't. Like that. Horribly complex, a patchwork of laws. But the vast vast majority of gun buys come from FFL holders. If you are a non FFL then you have to comply with a number of other federal laws (can't sell a pistol to someone under 21, someone you know has a mental illness, etc) and sometimes with local laws. I can sell a pistol to a Wake County resident without asking to see a permit. When I've sold handguns in the past I've asked to see their CCW because that covers pretty much all the rules. Anyway, so there is no background check for non-FFL holder transactions. This is the so-called "gun show looophole." Here's the deal: something like 96% of sales are FFL, and something like 99% of non-FFL sales do not take place during a gun show. My understanding is that a majority of non-FFL sales take place between people who are acquainted. Personally, I've bought and sold about as many guns from people I know as from strangers. I dunno, did I answer your question? _XC
Unless I'm reading that wrong, you can buy a gun at a gun show from someone who is not FFL without a background check as well as buy a gun without a background check from non-FFLs pretty much anywhere else. I guess I'm not sure where the ambiguity comes from polling saying people overwhelmingly want those exceptions closed, -even when they clarify that the sales are between two non-dealer citizens. Pretty much the only way you can even break even is to word it so family members have to get background checks on family members. That still leaves overwhelming support for increasing background checks to many more gun sales, if not every.
So, you've never been to a gun show, yeah? The tables are almost exclusively dealers, for various reasons. I've only been to gun shows in NC, SC, CA, VA, TX, TN, MA, and FL, so there may be shows that aren't that way, but I'd be surprised. But, again, look at the transfer numbers, non-FFL transactions are very very small. So the reason those polls are ambiguous is that people think (a) it's a serious problem that will (b) make a difference. If you phrased it differently you'd get a different answer. -XC
I think this is an assumption. Sure, I already pointed this out. But the key takeaway is no matter how you phrase it (without actively trying to spin the poll), you get a clear majority wanting increased background checks. Fairly unambiguous, but if you drill down: Still a clear majority. And this doesn't even speak to gun shows. This involves two private citizens making a sale to each other. People aren't misunderstanding the question here. This isn't that tricky. The poll isn't asking if people think that it will solve a serious problem. Part of the reason this might enjoy such large support is because people perceive it as a small "no-brainer" that might only chip away but should be done nonetheless. That's a guess like your guess. What we do know is that people favor some form of increased gun control. Overwhelmingly.So the reason those polls are ambiguous is that people think (a) it's a serious problem that will (b) make a difference.
If you phrased it differently you'd get a different answer.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.
Huh, I had not seen that second one. That first one is completely useless. Is it asked before the second one? I am always reminded of the "Ban Bi-Hydrogen Oxide" stuff. Side note: it's not increased gun control, it's control of the transfer process. -XC