Should people be allowed to own firearms?
Some would say yes and some would say no. In some U.S. states such as Alaska, Vermont and Wisconsin the ability to buy a gun is relatively uncomplicated. Should this be permitted? For instance when we consider the recent shootings at an Amish school in Pennsylvania where five girls were killed.

see http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/amish.shooting/

Then in the same week two other school shootings took place in Colorado and Wisconsin. This makes one wonder why laws are not made stricter for buying guns.

Some believe that Americans have the right to own firearms and that this right guarantees freedom in the U.S.A., but is this an accurate statement? No, not necessarily. The Second Amendment does not give the right to private individuals to own, possess or use firearms. The Second Amendment is often misinterpreted and many people assume that Americans have the right to own, possess and use firearms to defend themselves, their homes, their businesses and to hunt. This is inaccurate. The Second Amendment the way it was originally written by the Founding Fathers had this in mind: to ensure that the people, the citizens, had the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, or a foreign invading enemy; and, the person had to be a member of a militia in order to possess a firearm. No individual rights to own a firearm were ever included in the Second Amendment; however, a more modern interpretation permits individual private citizens to buy, posses and use fierarms ( the National Rifle Association has encouraged this interpretation).

But does owning a firearm ensure one’s freedom and a safer life in America? Would burglers think twice about breaking into a house if they knew the owner was prepared to shoot them if they intruded? Would crime decrease if more people owned guns? On the other hand, would stricter gun laws make the crime rate decrease? Some countries have strict gun buying laws but still have high crimes rates (crimes committed with guns).

When owning a firearm, a person becomes accountable when something goes wrong. Then we also have to think about the situations when a gun is taken and used to hurt or kill innocent people, as in the school shootings this past week.

Karin, I am not sure of this ( I will do some research ) but I think that, excluding the US, most of the country that allow guns without gun control are non know exactly for their freedom / freedom of speach etc ...

All European countries, from what I know, do have gun control and the European countries are within the most free ( I think ) -

Here in the US with the new Homeland security freedom is now challenged.. It was surely crippled during the Mc Carthy period in the 50s ( I hope I spelled it right ) and people still owned gun at the time.

Forbidding guns like for example in Italy will not take away guns from the Mafia or other organizations, as we all know, but it will make it much harder for unstable people to own a gun. It should however prevent Columbine or Amish style massacre...

Paolo

I recently read these two statements, posted on a website hosted by the History Channel. I have not checked the accuracy of these statements; therefore, I am not using them in any way, for or against gun ownership OR gun control.

In every oppressive regime to have ever existed, the people weren't allowed to have their own weapons.

It should also be no surprise that countries who outlaw guns also have higher crime rates than those who have fewer restrictions on them. An unarmed populace is an oppressed and defense-less one.

As a person who believes admitedly outwardly contradictory things about this issue -- people should be allowed to own guns/the ownership of guns by its very nature contributes to violent crime/gun control is important/don't tell me what I can own or not, and etc. -- I need to do more research before I make a claim about any of this.

If anyone finds stats either 'proving' or 'disproving' the above two statements, please let me know.

Teresa

__________________
###
InkWell International
www.inkwell-inc.biz
Cultural Writing Retreats Worldwide
Professional Writing and Editing

See my new book about Italy!
http://www.inkwell-inc.biz/dream.html

Some food for thought…..There are three interpretations of the Second Amendment, by various U.S. courts. I now cite the opinion from Silveira v Lockyer from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court [December 5, 2002] which dismissed the Second Amendment argument.
The Second Amendment can be interpreted in three ways:
(1) the ‘“individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA [National Rifle Association] and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a proliferic cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001)’;
(2) the ‘ “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.’; and,
(3) ‘The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights”model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. […] Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.’

Note: The Emerson case (above) was interpreted as going against ‘the basic purpose and effect of the Second Amendment’.

So, here I have presented the different ways (although only briefly) of how the Second Amendment has been interpreted. There is a fourth view also: the "sophisticated collective rights model" 270 F.3d at 219. That view of the Second Amendment holds that individual members of state militia may personally use and possess firearms, but only to the extent that they do so as part of their active military service.'

Teresa wrote:
"An unarmed populace is an oppressed and defense-less one."

I certainly agree with this, but not necessarily in the context stated above: the view is that, people should have 'the' right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. This was the exact intention of the Founding fathers of the Constitution; because they were concerned about a tyrannical British Monarch who had been oppressing them and they did not want their people/the colonies to encounter this again; and, if they had to, then they should be able to defend themselves (as a group). However, the writers of the Second Amendment enshrined the right to own and possess a gun within the context of being a member of a State citizen’s militia. This was the way to ensure their freedom, i.e. freedom from a government or foreign enemy that might oppress them. The Founding fathers were talking about a citizen’s militia as opposed to private individuals’ outright owning and using of firearms. There is no citizen’s militia in the U.S.A.(the National Guard is not a State Militia). For example, Switizerland has a citizen’s militia. And, If the current Government of the USA suddenly became tryrannical, should Americans be able to defend themselves, or from a foreign enemy (in the form of a citizens militia)? Of course, yes, because it would be the only way to ensure their freedom.

Modern Americans (20th-21st centuries) have now re-interpreted the guaranteeing of “freedom” (contrary to the founding fathers version) to mean, being free from being harmed by another person, who could violate their private inviolable sphere: to rape them, or who might be breaking into their house, or assault them, etc. Therefore, the logic that supports this "guaranteeing of freedom" is that their freedom to protect themselves has been respected because they were 'allowed' to buy a gun, possess it and use it when it was needed (in an emergency). So, this is how Americans basically see their freedom being guranteed, through the right to possess and of using a weapon if needed to protect themselves, or their family. However, various U.S. Courts have not interpreted the Second Amendment in this "individualistic" way. A good “classic” read on the rights of individuals is Robert Nozick’s: Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). It is also published in Italian.

Teresa wrote:
"It should also be no surprise that countries who outlaw guns also have higher crime rates than those who have fewer restrictions on them."

This statement is not entirely accurate. There are of course many countries where crime rate (crimes commited with guns) is high despite there being strict gun laws, but this does not mean strict gun control and low crime rate do not coexist in some countries. There are European countries who have very strict gun laws and have very low crime rates, for instance Denmark; Denmark is a very peaceful society and it is a society that Danes, and even foreigners who live there, claim makes one feel very free, i.e. safe, good quality of life etc. I lived in Denmark for many years, so I can vouch for that. Europe in general feels safer to live in as compared to the U.S.A.. There could be all sorts of reasons why a country that has strict gun-control laws has such high crime rates. The high crime rates could be due to poverty-- the great gaps between the have and the have-nots in a society--or other demographic variables such as city-geography. Poor people, or people confined to live in areas that are not very safe may resort to using weapons as a way to protect themselves. Whereas, more affluent people have the means to protect themselves (without possessing a gun) via walls, alarm systems, surveillance cameras, or even private security companies that patrol for clients living in affluent neighborhoods.

And, finally, if people are to be allowed to own, possess and use firearms, they should have to undergo 'very' rigorous licencing procedures for the purpose of ensuring that the greater population at large will not fall victim to irrational, erratic users of firearms.

kfscala

Just to make sure this Forum thread is accurate, I didn't write either of those statements in my last post about this gun ownership issue. They were quotes I found on an Internet site hosted by the History Channel. I haven't done any research on the truth or not of them, and I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either of them, until I know more.

I do agree with Karin in one area, certainly. Gun ownership comes with an incredible responsibility, and it is up to those who own guns to take them seriously, and take the dangers and possibilities seriously as well.

Rigorous and comprehensive background checks and gun safety training should, I think, be a requirement for owning a gun.

Unfortunately, criminals will of course be able to find guns regardless of any laws about them.

__________________
###
InkWell International
www.inkwell-inc.biz
Cultural Writing Retreats Worldwide
Professional Writing and Editing

See my new book about Italy!
http://www.inkwell-inc.biz/dream.html

Since this Forum is a space mainly to discuss Italy, and issues that affect Italy, I did some research and found this following information. I will assume it is accurate but also will do more research to confirm this. (And just to be clear, I am quoting somebody else. Everything in italics is somebody else's words. My comments follow.)

Italian citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to arms, and, unlike the Commonwealth countries, there is no common-law tradition either. Purchase of a firearm requires a police license and registration. As of 1996, there were 757,240 people licensed to possess shotguns for sporting purposes.

(So, in other words, there are at least 757,240 shotguns in Italy... assuming everyone licensed only has one.)

Handgun permits are much harder to obtain. Usually, permits are granted to those whom the government decides have a "need" to carry firearms for self-defense, such as jewelers or other persons who carry valuables for business purposes. These licenses have declined from 42,396 in 1996 to 31,850 in 1998.

(Which means 31,850 handguns, again assuming each permit = one gun. And while it would appear, at least from this article, that requirements for gun ownership are more rigorous in Italy, that's still a lot of guns in a country that does not have a constitutional right to arms.)

Dr. Paolo Tagini, assistant editor of the gun monthly Armi Magazine explains the complexity of Italian laws: "There are. . .fifty Italian gun-control laws, which have been passed over the last sixty years; such a ‘legal stratification’ has made possible the introduction of ever stricter laws, that have often failed in protecting honest citizens. The Italian system doesn't work with regard to the illegal import of guns (especially from the Adriatic Sea); on the other hand, honest citizens often must suffer useless torments whose never-stated goal is to move them away from guns."

Italy has a thriving illegal import/export trade in firearms, especially with Albania.

Actual use of a firearm for protection often leads to criminal prosecution.

So, my question to Italians or those who live in Italy is, what is your view on the 'rights' of citizens with respect to guns? And what effect do you see these laws having on your lives, the lives of people you know, and on Italy in general?

Teresa

(The above quotes come from this page http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Italy.htm, and again my disclaimer is that I know not whether it is accurate information. I will bow to those who have more knowledge than I do on this one so if you know a reliable source for gun ownership information about Italy, please let me know.)

__________________
###
InkWell International
www.inkwell-inc.biz
Cultural Writing Retreats Worldwide
Professional Writing and Editing

See my new book about Italy!
http://www.inkwell-inc.biz/dream.html

Yesterday evening I was watching FOX news and saw the report about the shooting in a mall in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. What a terrible tragedy. Five people were killed and several more injured. Can you just imagine going to your local mall to do some shopping and spend some time relaxing and all of a sudden some irrational person opens fire? This is what happened and the culprit was an 18 year old.

The tragedy here is that guns are just too easy to buy and obtain in America.
How does an 18 year old acquire a gun? Did he buy it? or someone gave it to him? We are not certain what the circumstances are, however there have been numerous cases of wild unrestrained open fire on innocents.

There are those who defend the right of Americans to own firearms based on the right of being able to defend oneself. Earlier in this discussion thread I emphasized those points. But when we see these tragedies on our daily news broadcasts what are we to think?

In light of these tragedies--and yesterday's--I certainly can say that the freedom and safety of American people is not guaranteed. Those people who were innocently shopping in the Salt Lake City mall did not have their freedom and safety ensured--it was taken away form them.

As we all can see is that society has not become a safer place. Instead, the public places have become zones of contestation and risk.

Is the culprit a responsible person? No. In this particular case he had a criminal juvenile record and obviously he did not learn from his previous bad acts. And, surprisingly, for technical reasons, it will not be used against him for the crime he committed at the mall; maybe that will change. But the main issue is: HOW did this 18 year old access a firearm? The Hows and Whys need to be answered.

kfscala

For many of us, guns are just tools like a hammer. I grew up in the country, and I was given guns for birthdays, Xmas, etc. To me they were wonderful presents, and I was taught to use them responsibly. For instance I once worked in the oil fields of Pennsylvania, and we carried a shotgun and a revolver because there were poisonous snakes. We hardly ever used them, but it was a measure of security. We kept them alongside our pipe wrenches - just another tool. Many people collect them because they are precision machines, and sometimes beautiful works of art.

Going back to the original post where some teens shot up a mall, it just seems to me that the our society has devolved in to a nation of cowards (to put it mildly.) I once read an interview with Sonny Barger, the founder of the Oakland CA chapter of the Hell's Angels where he said there aren't enough fist fights anymore. What he meant was that people are afraid to get in someone's face when they have done them wrong. They would rather go home and get their gun and shoot the offender in the back, or come back with 12 friends to beat them, or in other cases sue them.

Guns aren't the problem, it's the cowardice to deal with a person one to one.

jim

PS for an interesting Italian gun site see: http://www.palmettoarms.com

Hi Jim

You said something really interesting:

"Going back to the original post where some teens shot up a mall, it just seems to me that the our society has devolved in to a nation of cowards (to put it mildly.) I once read an interview with Sonny Barger, the founder of the Oakland CA chapter of the Hell's Angels where he said there aren't enough fist fights anymore. What he meant was that people are afraid to get in someone's face when they have done them wrong. They would rather go home and get their gun and shoot the offender in the back, or come back with 12 friends to beat them, or in other cases sue them."

I think that is really true. People are more cowardice. People cannot face the one they disagree with or are in contention with, so they just go and do a "quickie" and blast them.

To look one's adversary into the eyes does take courage. When you look into their eyes you see their soul, i.e. you see another human being standing in front of you; you see their anger, their pain, their fear, and maybe even their love. You realize they are as much alive as you are and you may think twice before slugging them. There is always time for reflection. In the end, it was just about slugging each other out, getting even, but not for killing.

Back when I grew up (1960's-80's), fist fights were many times the way things were settled, among the males. We did not have students coming to school with guns. School yard fights were common. I can still remember it. People did not walk into bars with guns. Or, with adults they would just slug each other out over some diagreement, like stealing someone's girl friend or name calling etc. There was no intention to kill, rather it was just give a good punch in the face to teach that person a lesson and to gain respect from the other. It seemed in some ways to be a more fair way of fighting. I personally do not advocate physically fighting! But, in the end is an old fashioned fist fight just more preferable to a shootout? Of course , someone could be killed in a fist fight too. But with a gun there is really no room for error, once it blasts, that's it. But today that all has changed. People just go and grab a gun and blast it into someone whether its in the face or in the back.

Taking a gun and shooting someone is like being out of contact with "the" human and community; the gun is an excuse for not having to deal with the problems face to face, verbally and emotionally; its an act of agression not just against an individual but against the community itself. The gun is a quick solution to get rid of the problem: eliminating an individual as if they have no value. When someone takes up a gun and uses it they want to confront the other individual in a way that is not personal, i.e. "not human" , they don't want to be in physical contact with that individual. Oh no! They could never imagine looking into the eyes of the one they intend to kill. They instead want the gun to do the ultimate dirty job for them. They can shoot from a distance and in that way they do not have to look into the eyes of the other up close and personal. Fist fighting instead is an up-close and personal situation and therefore it is harder and takes more courage to really kill someone. Whereas when someone takes up a gun, I think, it is because they really want to distance themselves from the human condition.

Fist fighting is not something to condone either, but was it a better way to fight? The old fashioned fist fighting was in a sense a more human way of dealing with the problem? Human in what way? There was physical and visual contact allowing one to "see" and "feel" the other human who was there with you in the grips of fighting. Human in the meaning that you wanted your adversary to see how they pissed you off and how they hurt you or a loved one ,and so you retaliated in order to gain respect back. The fighters where in physical contact. It was two human beings interacting: seeing each others eyes and reading each other through the eyes. Then of course, one could always rationalize, stop the fight, and makeup.

It seems many individuals in our modern society seek quick, simple solutions--getting rid of the problem not conscientius about who they wound or kill--and, unfortunately using firearms is one of them.

kfscala