h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't think most gun owners look at it like it's some sort of dark hell. I just see it as part of life.

Every morning when I get up, I slip it into my belt along with my spare magazine, handcuffs, and belt badge. My new inside the wasitband holster is so comfortable sometimes I check to make sure it's still there. Most of the time, I don't give it much thought, although I do need to make sure my belt is tight enough to keep all the stuff on my belt from dragging it down. I also have to be careful when I'm chaning network connections at work. All the crawling under desks tends to make it ride up to the point where it could fall out. Sometimes, I think about how to draw it while driving. When I first started back at school in Atlanta, I would occasionally put a gun in a cup holder where I wouldn't have to dig under my clothes and seatbelt to draw it. At the end of the day, when I empty my pockets, it's just part of the routine to drop it into the fireproof safe and secure it.

I like having a gun, and I like shooting. There's nothing like the feeling of doing a task well. When I get into a shooting stance, I can pracically feel the energy go from my feet; through my bent knees; then through my torso that's slightly stretched out; my shoulders are rolled forward my elbos are almost, but not completely locked out, and the focus of the energy is the target down range that's just little fuzzy because my front sight post is in focus. Sigh. It's as spiritual as I get.

Obviously, the point of a gun is to either kill or greviously injure someone else so that they can't harm you. Convincing them that they need to stop what they're doing works just as well. That's really how most guns wind up being used. I suspect that most defensive use of firearms is never reported because a display of a gun is enough to make your point. Just as most armed robbers don't have to shoot people to get their money.

There's nothing wrong with a regular person who wants to own and maybe carry a gun. I think it's a responsiblity that needs to be taken seriously, but that's true of the exercise of any right.

For another look at people using guns who aren't out there doing mass shootings:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170391799/are-shooting-ranges-the-new-bowling-alleys

An excerpt from the article I linked to.

“Your uncle was a police officer, that’s one thing,” he began. “He’s been trained. But the NRA has this party line that everyone oughta be able to carry a gun for protection. That more guns make us all safer. That’s bullshit. You want to know what happens? I see this shit every day. Two friends go into a bar, they get tanked, they have an argument. One guy gets really pissed, he has a gun in his pocket, he pulls it out. Boom! His friend is dead. Some kid finds his dad’s gun in the dresser drawer. Boom! His baby sister is dead.”

Two Bit, a question for you. Do you accept that one of the effects of widespread gun ownership is that more people get killed as a side-effect of this?

I think people make choices. We should deal with the people involved when they commit crimes or negligently harm others. I don't think the gun is to blame.

Yes. Why not give everyone a few tanks and nuclear missiles then? I'm sure they do the right thing.

Hmm. So you don't accept that having widespread access to killing machines causes more people to get killed?

I think the question to ask 2bit and others is what limits they might be willing to consider in terms of the type and amount of fire power individuals of the USA should be allowed to personally own.

Is there a grading in weaponry in terms of firepower and at what grade if any should individuals be denied access / to personally own or use.

For example rocket propelled grenades - should they be allowed (presumably not?)
Should there be any limits to the number and type of semi-automatic weapon one can possess (what's the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic).

Are there limits to the amount of dynamite individuals can keep? etc

ps I heard a while back police forces of the USA complaining of being outgunned by the criminals.

Of course organised criminals will get weapons no matter what gun laws are in place.

I would be interested to know whether or not there are any restrictions in taking firearms into university (e.g. lectures, or exam halls), colleges, cinemas, libraries, nightclubs etc. I assume they would all be allowed because most US Americans would want to be armed and protected while they walked to college, university, cinema. library, theatre, shopping mall etc.

I presume visitors to the Whitehouse and federal government buildings would have to leave their semi-automatics etc at reception.

That was an exceptionally interesting newspaper article on the last page - i might send it round to a few RL friends - though the few US friends i have have spent at least half the year in the UK for the last three years at least - whether that being the reason or not, they're either pro gun-control, or very anti-gun

I don't care about the type of weapons a person has; I care about the type of person who has weapons, and to a lesser extent who can carry weapons outside their home or place of business.

I have no particular interest in changing what law-abiding citizens can own. The system we have in place is okay. You can own small arms. In order to own an automatic weapon, you need a federal Class III dealer's license, which just about anyone can get. Then you pay a few hundred dollars for a tax stamp and you can buy an automatic gun. I think it'd be a bit silly to actually buy one, but who am I to judge?

I think it could make sense to require background checks on gun purchases. It's a bit onerous for private sales, but straw purchases are a real problem that should be resolved(New York requirement to report a gun that is stolen is a good step in the right direction). However, there need to be limits placed on those checks so that they don't become a de facto system of registration. There's a strong history gun control advocates misusing data collected by the feds.

There should be a provision for people to buy weapons as gifts for non-prohibited persons. A lot of guns are bought as gifts, but the federal forms that purchases have to use don't allow that. Techincally, my wife committed a crime when she bought my backup gun and my rifle that I carry for work. Overly broad and unenforceable laws are typical with the feds.

Speaking of which, someone asked about where guns are permitted. Well, here's a federal approach to limiting the possession of weapons near schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

The history of the act is interesting in that it finally halted the ever expanding abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The central government is supposed to be limited to specified roles, and general police powers are supposed to be reserved to the states.

The law is absurd because this is really a state issue. It's not like there are federal agents who hang around schools and with for people with guns. The only way this would be enforced is if it was collateral to a federal investigation or if it was case adopted from a local agency which means that the state already had a law in place to regulate the activity.

Laws governing where and how you can carry a gun are almost exclusively state laws. So whether or not you can carry a gun at a theater may be different under each state's law. Georgia only prohibits the carrying of weapons at some bars, jails and correctional facilities, courthouse, state parks (unless you have a weapons license), churches, schools, and some transportation facilities.

I think most states have some sort of law governing the possession of weapons near schools and universities. As I recall, there are 18 states that don't have laws about guns on campuses. There's a strong move in Georgia to get rid of the ban near schools because of a series of robberies near Georgia Tech.

This news story is beyond irony:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article3676620.ece

>> A former Navy Seal (credited with killing more than 150
enemy combatants during four tours of duty) who became the
deadliest sniper in American military history has been shot
and killed at a hunting resort in Texas. <<


~jwf~

I am interested in the State - Federation (USA) perception of individual americans.

Does the average american (USA) feel a greater sense of connection with their "state" than the "USA". How strong is the feeling of "belonging" to a state compared to belonging to the "USA". In Europe some claim individial European nations are like individual "states of america" whereas the "European Union" is building towards the equivalent of the "USA".

Or are states more like British "counties", more a product of administration rather than a collection of people with a common sense of identity.

>Does the average american (USA) feel a greater sense of connection with their "state" than the "USA". How strong is the feeling of "belonging" to a state compared to belonging to the "USA". In Europe some claim individial European nations are like individual "states of america" whereas the "European Union" is building towards the equivalent of the "USA".

**********

That is an excellent question, and it does not have a simple answer.

This is a debate that has been ongoing from that day in July, 1776. The first two political parties in the US were the Federalists, who thought the Federal government should be the supreme law of the land, and the Anti-Federalist who though the power of the Federal government should be as limited as possible. It is not a coincidence that the two sides of the US Civil War were sharply divided along State borders. Even when the people of West Virginia refused to join the South the solution was not to divide the existing state, but to form a new state altogether(even though it was expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.)

Whether one's allegiance is to the state or federal government is a personal choice that varies from region to region and person to person. State's rights are more prevalent in the South (both Southeast and southwest) and rural areas, while most urban places seem to prefer strong Federal control.

Almost all laws are on a state, county or municipal level. It is a common expression here when someone is placing too much importance on a trivial matter to say 'Are you trying to make a Federal case out of this?'

Only the most serious crimes, such as treason, or interstate and international trade violations are properly covered by Federal law. All minor offences such as murder, rape or robbery are a state matter.

I have often thought that the EU movement is very much like the United States in its early years (under the 'Articles of Confederation' the states had even more power than they do today.)

I hope this helps answer your question, I am sure others will disagree

FS

That's a good summary of the political view, FS.

On another note, though, about connectedness - I believe most people in the US, city or country, tend to have a more local or regional sense of belonging.

Although there are obviously a lot of people who are into 'patriotism', still, most in the US think of themselves as belonging to their city or region first - western Pennsylvanians think of themselves as western Pennsylvanians, whether they live in Pittsburgh or the rural areas, and think the people on the Philadelphia side of the state are weird. Elektra moved from Philly to Pittsburgh to go to uni. All the Pittsburghers thought she had a strange accent, and she grew up on the other end of the PA Turnpike.

My grandfather in Tennessee remarked that he liked 'that Yankee gal'.

My parents were from neighbouring states - they had a mock feud about accents, and the only time my mom watched football was when it was Ole Miss versus the University of Tennessee.

Think southern England versus Yorkshire, maybe? Oh, and the Carolina Piedmont thinks those mountain people are way weird, and Virginians are conceited, and people in Florida are nutty as fruitcakes, and mostly Yankees in disguise.

Can't disagree with your last line, although I might request another 'most'

It seems complicated. The to me the USA is a "continent", its vast. Some Europeans say that the average american is "insular" or don't know where Berlin is on the map. Yet the average European probably wouldn't be able to tell where Kentucky was, let alone where its capital is located or what its capital is called. The impression I get is that there is quite a strong sense of regionalism (southern states versus northern states), East coast states versus West coast states and so on ...

There is an old joke here;

Should the Capital of Kentucky be pronounced 'Lewisville' or 'Looville'

The correct answer is it should be pronounced 'Frankfort' as that is the Capital

Interesting to get some genuine USAsian perspective on all this.


Something FS said about making a Federal Case reminds me of
a strange distinction between Canada and the US. The era of
Prohibition in the US led to a lot of gangster activity which
is celebrated in film and telly today with often surprising
details about the rise of Federal policing agencies.

In the bad old days, the bad guys only had to cross a state
border to escape the law. Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger and
others were famous for thumbing their nose at county sheriffs.

The establishment of the FBI saw new laws of illegal interstate
transport that gave Federal officers the right to pursue bad guys
across state lines and prosecute them for violations of Federal
Laws, such as Income Tax evasion which brought Al Capone down.

In Canada we have 'always' (well since the mid-1800s) had a
national police force - an extension of the red-coated British
army, the first group being called the Royal North West Mounted
Police formed to put down rebellions on the Priaries. Today they
are the Mounties or RCMP.

Like the US Federal Marshalls of the late 1800s who brought law
to the wild west of America, areas outside of established states,
our Mounties were and are the Law in our Northwest Territories.
US Marshalls served in western frontiers.

Only two provinces, Ontario and Quebec ever created their own
provincial police forces, and Mounties serve in other provinces
being the police force in rural areas outside of big city police
department jurisdictions. In later years there has been a trend
for smaller muicipalities to give up on maintaing a small two or
three man police department and to rely on the regional Mounties
to serve their village or town.

Anyway, it was mention of the rise of the FBI and the 'Federal
Case' that made me aware that the USA did not really have any
sort of national policing until the 1930s.


~jwf~

Actually a lot of that is still true today. The FBI have to have a good reason to get involved in a case.
I commute between 3 counties on my way to work and back, including a seven mile long bridge with the county line running through the centre of it. If a Sheriff from the one county is on the bridge, as is often the case, after I cross the line into the other county he is not allowed to stop me no matter what I do, he has no jurisdiction.
FS

Was prohibition a federal government imposition on states - did each state agree to prohibition - did prohibition apply to all states or just those that agreed to it. Were there any attempts to get prohibition written into the consititution in terms of an amendment?