Do gun rights have anything to do with democracy?

@Vericrat: while I may agree, my point was that guns, intrinsically, are at least partially designed with stopping power in mind. Making some people inherently more nervous about a shotgun than a toyota.

The thing is, in the US, you need a license as proof that you are able to handle a car to a certain standard before you're allowed to drive without supervision. Not so with guns.

edited 24th Apr '12 5:19:55 PM by Qeise

^ I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the US Constitution that says the right to keep and drive a motorized vehicle shall not be infringed.

We really ought to get around to fixing that. I mean if you have to prove a certain level of competence to operate a two ton high speed lethal weapon/means of transport (aka. an automobile), why can't we do the same for a guns? I mean it's not like we'd be making sure that they can land twenty-nine out of thirty shots in a five inch radius at 500 metres, just making sure that people applying for a gun permit have to know and be able to demonstrate basic gun safety to get the permit.

A motorized vehicle is a weapon, and therefor could be construed as falling under the right to bear arms. It's a bit of a stretch, but alternatively, driving tests for licenses are unconstitutional.

edited 24th Apr '12 5:36:20 PM by Balmung

Everyone I know in gun-related fields makes a point of lecturing people on always-assume-it's-loaded and don't-point-it-at-anything-you-don't-intend-to-shoot. It's a critical enough axiom that nobody needs a bureau to press it home.

Really? Then why is I Just Shot Marvin in the Face such Truth in Television that we hear about it every other day in the media?

edited 24th Apr '12 6:16:01 PM by Fighteer

Because it's exciting?

So how does all of this have to do with the Op and thread title?

edited 24th Apr '12 6:29:05 PM by TuefelHundenIV

These stories get put out (usually in the context of the latest political gun debate) because some idiots don't pay attention. They won't pay attention any harder if it's the government issuing the disclaimers.

Everyone but the OP is pretty much agreed that guns by themselves do not representative government make, so we're feeling free to drift slightly off-topic.

edited 24th Apr '12 6:31:58 PM by DomaDoma

Yeah, back to topic. Sorry for abetting the derail.

Guns alone may not make it but they certainly can help in various circumstances.

I have wonder if the history of being the neighbour of the U.S. played a role in Canda having private gun ownership. Anyone have anything on this? It is easy to point out why for the U.S. but what about Canada and other nations?

In many states you do, including mine.

Anyhow, my stance on guns is this: I believe they do need to be more properly regulated, however, I don't think restricting certain models is the way to do it, and I don't think people should have to justify that they have a tangible need in their life to have a firearm. The way this has worked in California with CCW(You must either have powerful friends or write a really well justified letter to your sheriff, saying why you need to be able to conceal carry)

Some of us use guns for hobbies. I'm a competent motherfucker. I teach handgun competency courses as a part time job at the local range. I'm a military policeman in the National Guard. There is no goddamn reason why I can't have a gun, and I don't want to ever establish it so qualified professionals who want firearms but don't need them for personal use can't get a hold of them. And by qualified professionals, I mean normal citizens who can prove they know what the hell they are doing.

Gun licenses are good to go imho, what I want is a more in-depth test of a persons skills, showing they know how to use a gun safely before they are allowed to purchase one. I'll never support a politician who is out to infringe my gun rights, ever. I support people being safe, but nobody is ever taking my firearms from me, Govt ruling or no.

And honestly, in the opinion of someone well acquainted with the stupidity of the average American through law enforcement experience, I don't want civilians to have RPG's, grenades, or machineguns. I don't think they have a right to that sort of shit.

But fuck California, all I want is a carbine with some neat aesthetic and useful features with semi-automatic fire and a 30 round mag. My state won't give me that without a gimped ass "safety" mechanism that makes it take 5 times as long to reload a magazine.

edited 24th Apr '12 7:09:16 PM by Barkey

I believe that even the American military doesn't do full-auto any more, what with house-to-house fighting being such an effective tactic against them and all.

Gentlemen we are derailing.

Doma; please visit the gun thread and ask about fully automatic weapons in use by the U.S. Military you will likely be surprised.

^^

You're right. Each fireteam has only one automatic weapon in most cases, while there are 3 other people with semi-automatic rifles.

I think the entire point is that it takes 5 times longer to reload and you aren't supposed to have magazine-loaded weapons in the first place :P

In any case, if we were to fly back to the original purpose of the thread, the whole idea that armed revolution is aided by gun rights seems to ignore how all the cases of violent revolution were all in places that didn't have gun rights. So the concept that it would abet it to the point of success seems dubious, it would appear that gun rights are a small, if even one, factor in what makes a society more democratic.

The UK doesn't even have readily armed police officers, and despite whatever crime trends they have, the absolute crime rate is far far lower than the USA. I don't think that has anything to do with gun rights, but rather, gun rights don't appear to matter in deterring criminals.

Nor does it seem to matter about deterring poor government. Most of the crapholes in the world are even split between everybody having lots of guns (eg. Yemen) and nobody having any guns (eg. China). But, if you look at many of the western democracies, they all have very restrictive gun laws and the most liberal (excluding USA) is Switzerland, but most of those guns are in the hands of trained militia, not general gun ownership. Other places like Canada and Finland who have greater gun ownership than USA are also mostly just long guns, not hand guns or automatic weapons.

@breadloaf

I think you should consider the fact that those revolutions took place because basic rights, like the right to own a firearm, were restricted to the populace. Stands to reason, doesn't it?

And the UK's crime rates aren't necessarily lower than that of the US. They have less murder and gun crime, but violent crime in general, and home invasion robberies are much higher. The US shows trends where those states with increased firearms possession have less crime than those states with increased firearms restrictions.

California, for instance, has insane restrictions. My state requires licensing for only concealed carry, yet in 2010 California had 440 violent crimes per 100,000 people, and my state had only 369. Likewise, those states that legalized concealed carry currently have no more crime than those states that disallow it or heavily regulate it. Some of them experienced drops of varying severity.

There are about ~30,000 gun deaths per year in the US as a result of homicide/justified homicide/suicide/accidents, and ~9,000 per year due to just murder. Yet the number of defensive gun uses number between 100,000 (in the 1993 National Crime Victimization Survey) and 1.5 million (the Department of Justice's 1994 "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms") per year. Deterrent effect cannot be measured accurately, but we can see that self-defense is a perfectly valid use.

I highly doubt the rallying cry of the French during Bastille Day was "they took yur guns!" :)

On a more serious note though, the US is the only one that has ever concluded gun rights were necessary to democracy and they are the only ones to retroactively say that gun rights were a factor in the revolution. That of course, by itself, doesn't show it to be untrue.

I think UK's high crime rates is due to their massive amounts of poverty, same for USA. I don't think gun rights have much to do with it. Statistics lends evidence to that notion, while statistics on gun rights is extremely weak. Canada and Sweden, both countries with highly restrictive gun laws, experience much lower crime than USA.

Also, what is just non-crime related gun deaths? That's basically the cost of less gun laws that I think is more relevant.

What I feel is that revolutions appear to be more determined by the military than anybody here likes to admit.

edited 24th Apr '12 9:26:16 PM by breadloaf

If I'm not supposed to have magazine loaded weapons in the first place, why can I have them in 48 other states with way less bullshit involved?

I don't give a flying fuck about the point of it, it sucks and I don't like it. <Insert several paragraphs stating the statistics of how magazine fed long guns are less than 5 percent of crime in the United States and responsible for even less firearm deaths and how I bought a cheap 10 dollar magnetized work-around at a gun show that renders such nerfing of an AR null and void>

Regardless, I would have to reiterate that for the OP, the answer is no. Not to all democracies. They mean a ton to our particular American Democracy however.

^

Every democracy is vastly unique in both the culture of its people and the way it came to be. You also need to take Canadian and Swedish culture/population into account when calculating these things. Less clustered populations with tons of firearms have an extremely low crime rate, while massive population centers with low gun ownership spike through the roof. It is, as you said, an organized crime and poverty issue, not a firearms issue.

edited 24th Apr '12 9:40:40 PM by Barkey

I imagine California's crime rate is so high due to the huge urban population. Higher population density seems to have a particularly direct correlation with higher rates of crime, violent or otherwise, and at the same time, urban areas are more likely to have lower rates of gun ownership. Furthermore, those gun laws are likely by and large a result of the crime rate, not the cause of it.

As for the basic topic of relationship between gun rights and democracy? I don't think there is any actual relationship, and it's more that the US is an outlier.

I vaguely recall that most of Californias gun laws are useless since they effect hobbiests the most since they're aimed at long guns rather than pistols or other concealable weapons.

I still think that USA's gun rights don't work in USA Mainly that way guns are given to people, people think them to be so normal that they won't "respect" the gun in same way as majority of people in western countries don't respect such things as being able to go to school or eat safe food or have fresh water

I also believe that everyone having guns make idiots more courageous to do crimes because they believe they are so though because of the fact they have guns. Without guns, most of them wouldn't dare to break in a house even if they aren't planning to shoot anyone

Also, whats up with you being able to have big guns in USA? And don't argue with me that they are less dangerous than small guns because they are harder to hide, in that case why you don't allow citizens to only have big guns?

Also, you can technically own minigun in USA if you have one made before certain date

Your point being? A law abiding citizen with a handgun is no more dangerous than a law abiding citizen with a long gun; unless you happen to be breaking in.

Actually, they are for that exact reason. Long guns are intimidating, but don't contribute noticeably to crime due to being obvious. As a result, most of the emotional panic is directed at them.

Also, lawmakers tend to pass laws against them when someone commits a high profile crime with long arms. It makes them look like they're doing something while at the same time, it's far less controversial than restricting handguns for some reason.