A poll on US gun ownership and so forth

We here at TOTJO have a decidedly international flavor. We have a great many Americans, and a large number of Jedi from elsewhere around the world as well. In light of this, I thought I would ask the opinion of non US TOTJO Jedi on the United States current spate of mass shootings and gun violence.

This thread idea was given rise by another recent one posted a few days ago here . In it, I read quite a few American opinions about the situation. That guns are a god given Constitution right. That unarmed people will just be prey for the armed. That it's a psychological problem, not a 'too damn many guns' problem. And so on.

But what do you foreign TOTJOers think of all this? Do you envy the US freedom to own guns? Do you think the only first world nation where large scale gun violence occurs regularly has lost its way? Or what?

Tho I specifically am looking for non US jedi answers, others can post as well. But as its an inherently touchy subject , please keep it civil.

Honestly, I have kept out of that other topic because I hate having the argument.
I personally don't believe it's anyone's right to own an offensive weapon like a gun (there is nothing defensive about one..) and I am very glad that gun ownership in my country is limited to a very small minority. I believe that gun ownership is a vicious circle.. the citizens have guns, so the criminals have guns, so the citizens have more guns, so the criminals have more guns...
I often see pictures online of Americans with guns and the ones that most bother me are where people (including kids!) are posing with guns and smiling as if it's some kind of game.. it's not..

I am incredulous that almost every week we hear about another gunman attack, or a child has shot a parent, or a police officer has shot someone... and yet there seems to be no change.. violent weapons come before innocent lives it seems.

I'm pretty much a pacifist.. I don't like violence of any kind if it can be avoided at all costs... so violent weapons? No thanks..

Thank you Des for posting this thread, because my opinion on this topic is something I never feel I can express at TOTJO..

(I'm sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant.)

Edan wrote: Thank you Des for posting this thread, because my opinion on this topic is something I never feel I can express at TOTJO..

out of respect for this sentiment i would like to encourage the temple members whose views are on the opposite side of this issue (which mine are) to simply allow people to express themselves freely without jumping in to prove them wrong - i know most of us dont need to be reminded of this

but in light of how the last discussion degraded to the point that it did, i think this represents an excellent opportunity to choose the general spirit of communal respect over that of personal opinion, which many of us voice freely on a regular basis

I come from a very "anti" gun nation.

In Denmark a great deal of people do think that the US gun ownership laws are a major flaw in the States.
Myself for that matter do not share this opinion.

I believe that every humanbeing have a right to defend their families and own life. In Denmark the law forbids you defending yourself with violence, UNLESS you respond in the same degree of violence. So if a burglar breaks into your home and threathens your family with a knife, you can't shot him. The few gun owners in Denmark who ever fired their guns at criminals have almost all been sentenced with jail time. So the law leaves you only one option and that is to "fight fire with water" and accept you are being robbed or fight back with the same degree of violence etc. A knife or maybe a Bokken (in my case). This I believe is a major flaw in my nation, even though it does reduce the risk of unnecessary fatalities.

It is all about culture.

I come from a country that, as above, has a very strict gun policy. However, I'm against it, because it doesn't work here.

In Brazil, criminals have better guns than the police, and some of the top organized crime factions have better guns than the Army. The police here is corrupt, and I say that having both a father and a stepmother who are cops. They are some of the few exceptions to all the corruption inside it.

They're lazy and their command is quick to obey orders to launch gas bombs and rubber bullets at students, but they aren't that willing to come to your place in case you are in trouble.

Because of that, I believe there should be an authorization for civilians to carry guns. Our police can't protect us, and robbers can come freely, because they know you have no means to protect yourself, since even knives are taken by the police if you carry them.

My country has strict gun control and relatively little gun related crime. Our murder rate (not just guns) is a fifth of the USA's.

The USA has a number of problems with guns. Perhaps the worst is its inability to recognise that itself. The perception that citizens in a highly developed western nation are so in need of protection that they should need to wander around homes, streets, shops with guns on their hips, based on rights granted in colonial times, centuries before... personally I'm proud that the constitution and relative safety of my nation has moved forward in those centuries. That the police of my country are equipped and trained well enough to protect me. That despite not having guns in my supermarket, people don't "use other weapons", as the perennial argument for keeping guns goes.

Our police don't carry guns, except for highly trained special officers. If someone saw someone with a gun in the street they would contact those special police and avoid the gunman. It works pretty well - we don't have guns, we don't need them, we don't miss them.

If you can buy candy bars in a supermarket, more people are gonna get fat. And if you can buy guns and ammo in one, more people are gonna get shot. Pretty simple stuff.

I've had several situations that have been a concern and I'm not getting any younger or stronger. I do not want to be a victim. Two were probable not life threatening and the third was a potential home invasion if I had opened the door.

When I was in college I was liberal and a pacifist. I was a conscious objector during the Vietnam war. When 20 I was a plan clothes security guard in a down department store store. That was a shocking awakening for this naive little boy. I also worked for three years in the inner city of Rochester as a Youth Worker. I saw and experienced a lot. Quite an awakening for a nice Catholic boy from the middle class family.

This is personal. I feel this is a personal decision and we/I have (for other they should) the freedom to do decide. I believe FREEDOM is the key word here.

I'm waiting for my permit to carry to be approved as I write this. I will take more training on gun safety and self defense. I do and will learn more about self defense laws. I'm learning practicing self defense with a staff and knife. It's good exercise and it is practical.

I don't expect to use any of these but if the randomness oft he universe puts my family, friends, innocent people and my self in harm's way I pray I do the right thing. If a bad guy is: dumb enough, high, drunk enough and is random enough then I desire to be prepared.

Anyone that wishes to discuss this then ask me a question in a separate thread.

Thank you.

Lol, sure I'll put down some thoughts, but I don't pretend to have answers!!!!

I get some of the intent behind it, I mean males in my family have been going off to fight wars for at least two generations... and one of them was right at our doorstep, quite literally a handful of miles away from being on our own soil against a foreign militant invader. That would have been every man women and child for themselves, and that was only 75 years ago!

So the image of a 303 rifle, a slouch hat and a horse is ingrained in many males here I reckon. It sounds a bit cowboyish, but when your relatives have been there and done that it sort of is hard to ignore the pictures and stories etc, and indeed perhaps foolish to think I'd be the one not having to go do the same thing (or at least not expect its likely). They were meant to hand them back after the war though, and I think most of them did. Gun's though have been a small part of the culture in the bush, but mostly rifles and not really a sidearm culture at all. With smaller populations it's not as bad I guess but the main thing would be we haven't not fought wars here amongst ourselves.

The Police can get around slightly more relaxed because the likelihood of everyone having one is not realistic, but they still carry a sidearm just in case, and of course tactical squad's are always on standby to respond if something is more challenging.

The downside is the tightness of the laws over reach a little bit. A bloke training for an Army selection course here recently caused a bit of a stir for doing pack marches on public street with a makeshift steel contraption shaped and weighed the same as the service rifle - the public thought he was a terrorist and so the Police responded in like - but it quickly became evident what was what and he just got charged for being a public nausance. You cannot even have a air rifle or paintball gun without a gun license and proper storage and use here!! Though it varies across States.

But all that is because basically guns in public or private homes are not welcome - and if they are seen/heard, the Police here swarm the place to get them. That is the approach, and coupled with penalties for illegal ownership/use the idea is to try and keep them off the streets.

It is impossible though, but the idea might not be to remove all guns because as yea that is unrealistic, but rather to reduce them from society to avoid the total number of incidents while also making their presence limited to criminals which means reactions to people with and without guns can be more proportionate. This same approach will probably continue with desktop manufacturing.

I don't actually expect a zombie horde or aliens to come visiting, and if a foreign nation attacked me and my assault rifle is not going to do much of anything useful no matter how ninja I think I can be. So it just comes done to counter-crook, and that can be achieved by good locks (and using them), solid doors, accessibility/redundancy in communications to Police/Security, alarms and some thoughtful planning and good awareness and avoidance. The only other thing is psychological, it would make me feel more comfortable having a gun, but that is countered by the fact that would mean my neighbours would have them, strangers would have them, and anyone who got into my house might have one or take mine.... so it seem's a bit short sighted to give so much power to the sense of security a gun might provide when at the same it creates a huge field of randomness outside of myself.

Since a gun is a tool designed to kill as effectively as possible, and their variants are variations on the types of targets and engagement parameters to that end, IMO there is no place for them in society. The legal avenue for killing someone should be surrounded by the weight of proportionality and distinction. How do you measure those things in abnormal social circumstances like crime, not very well..... and if I think about it, it is a type of class warfare probably. You are inadvertently affording greater civil protections to people who can afford the widest range of weapons, the most current and effective training, and who can afford the best legal representation - regardless of truth it comes down to what can be proven or spun to a jury. That rich South African runner being an interesting example. He used the excuse of self protection to kill her IMO, and nearly got away with it. There are probably very real issues associated with gun ownership which exist as perhaps an overlooked part of the debate.

If you think about colonialism it was the ownership of firearms which gave them the power, not control of money. The guns gave the power and the money was meant to keep the peace. So in this regard I tend to view gun ownership as an extension of slavery in a way, but against the poorer - but done so to hedge against the risks of the very poor, hence the guise of self protection. While it has a very real deterrent value, its a bit of a red herring to the broader social impacts caused by gun ownership, IMO.

It seems to be case of competing views of what is ideal, and then there is the consideration of what is realistic. Both things can be individual and both things are different in different countries.

In the fiction the Jedi were protected by their capacity to shield themselves, and respond with finely measured proportional response if they were forced into a corner. That is an unrealistic ideal obviously. One of the things in A New Hope was probably meant to be the very small value given to life in general society, someone gets killed in the pub, no big deal keep partying. That is not a very ideal society, but given human nature a realistic possibility.

The US model I guess is if someone gets shot in the pub, everyone pulls their gun and captures or kills the shooter depending on whether they can spin it as self defence or not. This is pretty messy IMO. It really flies in the face of professional conduct with weapons so sounds more like an extension of a bar fight then anything, where everyone joins in and trashes the place because someone pushed someones drink over. It has the real chance of being less then ideal in tragic way, but again is very real possibility and 'can' be ideal.

If I put my own interests aside, I like the balance we have here with gun laws. There are still handguns and the odd shotgun floating around in criminals hands yes, but they tend to become 'prized' and hidden by crims here because they are relatively hard to come by. Basically it would be if Han shot Greedo we'd all hide or run and wait for the Stormtroopers to arrive. Though I think the Stormtroopers were really only there to find the droid's.... I mean who needs cops when anything goes right
:S
If I was in the US I'd want a gun. Which is my other concern, tourists in the US cannot have a gun yet many US citizens think they need a gun to be safe in the US!!!!! Which means it must not be safe for tourists, and would logically make tourists an easy target for crime. Which makes me reflect again on that concept of types of social 'class' and how it perhaps creates a distorted social fabric.

Just some random thoughts though, I guess non-US people don't give it much thought as we are more concerned about our own local problems to worry about other peoples local problems as much.

In sweden you can't own weapons in the same way as in the US
And the few people who get a weapon gets it from illegal trade. And the max of weapons used in attacks is usually.. Swords, belive it or not.
The recent school attack was by a neo-nazi with a sword

I belive if gunowning became as free as in the US things would become much worse, we have a very separated society in sweden and some places like malmo (malmö in swedish) is full of immigrants, and it gets conflict between them sometimes..
Not to be rascist but that's how it is sometimes
however i don't think there are any rights or wrongs in this subject, becouse it is all about perspective

It is all about the culture of the society people grow up in.
Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.

There would be no gun related issues if the world was at harmony. Mankind however have always been lured by greed, hate or desperation to pick up the weapons of misfortune and use them against others. In good or bad.

Guns is not the issue. People are generally.