Libya poses an interesting test of the theory that the way to reduce gun violence is to have more guns. A small excerpt from a long story on Libya in this month's National Geographic: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/ancient-libya/draper-text Under Gaddafi, few people owned a gun, and gun violence was rare. Now the place is awash with arms, and gun violence is common. You can point to other factors -- the central government is weak and unable to enforce laws against violence, the old social order has been destroyed and it's still not quite clear what will replace it. Those certainly affect the statistics. But clearly, making weapons more available has resulted in more shootings, not fewer. I am *not* suggesting we should be like Gaddafi and ban nearly all firearms. I'm merely addressing the rather absurd idea -- put forth by the NRA and some posters on this site -- that more guns will lead to less gun violence.
I do not think the solution to violence rest with more or less guns. Using a country involved in a civil war is a poor example. Just like pointing to Mexico where civilians are rarely permited to own weapons as good case study in the success of gun control. It is also funny that many of those seeking to restrict Americans rights are in favor of giving actual military grade weapons, to the country your OP addresses.
Libya is no longer involved in a civil war. This is *postwar* violence. As I said in the OP, I'm not interested in severely restricting guns, and this thread is not about that. It's addressing one small facet of the gun debate: the NRA's idea that the solution to gun violence is more guns. Well, there's a difference between selling guns to a country's military and gun ownership among citizens. I have no issue with the Army having a fully functional, state-of-the-art M1 tank; I have a problem with my neighbor owning one.
Japan has a total firearms ban... and is one of the safest Countries on the planet. Canada has all the guns America has, but far less violent crime.
My bad I read Libya and thought Syria. It has not fully transitioned from the civil war. Bengazi should demonstrate that to a extent. Just because NATO is no longer involved, violent power struggles still exist. Much like Mexico is basically fighting a insurgency from the cartels. It is not a civil war but it is surely not peace. Even by US standards of the term. I read that and respect that. I am not a NRA fan I respect they offer defense for the 2nd yet dislike many of their ideas, and disregard for the other constitutional protections. As I said I believe guns receive far to much both blame and credit. Guns prevent some violence and make some violence worse. I would consider them neutral in the problem. I do not believe we sold guns to the military of libya. We provided weapons to a militia and air support. To help them defeat the military that had according to you, prevented the violence they are now experiencing. We provide arms and helped destroy the civil structure that controlled the country. That would be like Russia or China providing arms to the cartels in some south American countries. I would rather my neighbor have a Abrams,(you can own one if you got a few million) than my country using drones to kill children. The neighbor would have to follow laws or go to prison. Our leaders get to make up the laws as they go along. NATO is to blame for what has become of Libya.
Culture plays a large role look at the suicide rate in Japan. It has been acceptable to end your life there for centuries. Americans have a culture of violence that starts at the top of our government and is seen as acceptable to most.
So how do you explain Canada then? Same weapons, same movies, same video games, same music, same T.V. shows... but miles apart on violence in society. If you are blaming the violence on the American Government, I would to a degree have to agree with you.
Violence or "gun violence"? I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples here. The fact that Libya is seeing more "gun violence" is meaningless. Do you think Gaddafi released accurate numbers on those he imprisioned and executed, assasinated or otherwise killed as "gun violence"? It is my honest opinion that we are seeing more "gun violence" in this case simply because we are getting a more free flow of information.
I was referring to the government not the 1st amendment while I find some of the violence to be over the top. I do not think that is the reason for the high homicide rates in America. The war on drugs, income inequality, and our poor education system contribute to the problem. The government using violence to promote it's agenda leads by example. We lost over 3,000 civilians on 9/11 we had the sympathy of the world. The answer by our government was to kill several times that amount of innocents for revenge. We are no closer to winning the war on terror today than 11 years ago. For every terrorist we killed many more took their place. The US has many problems that would still exist if you took every legal gun away from it's citizens.
Man has warlike tendencies. The desire to control another is not an uncommon political goal, however when those folks do come to power it often results in inhuman suffering for the masses or at the very least, a loss of a dignified life of liberty. Some might point to one of the benefits of being ruled by a dictator is an elimination or at least a reduction of violence where a firearm is used. In that case, history shows, other "weapons" may come to use as a substitute. The history of Okinawa found invaders confiscating the weapons of that day from the people. The Okinawans adapted. Their centuries old style of martial arts uses "weapons" that are based on "agricultural tools" of that day. Hey, the invader has to eat, couldn't take those tools from the peasant. I believe the PR-24 (an LEO's nightstick of the recent past) had taken the design from one such agricultural tool. I think that the reduction or elimination of a right to arms is a beneficial and a necessary measure to insure control, especially when firearms (or any weapon of the day, an empowerment tool when diplomacy fails too) are taken from the people. When America battled for Her independence from England, it used the firearms of the day. England may have avoided the whole event at that time, possibly (though man's history shows an eventual aversion to subjection), by not allowing its subjects access to firearms. A revolution harbors and entertains lawlessness, at least when referenced to the previous existing order that all were once under. This lawlessness would be expected to continue until the emerging controlling person or group subjects the masses to his or that group's will. Someone/group/force will always have weapons, if the concentration is in the hands of the government, than the people will have no option other than to serve its (beneficent?) will. If these are in the hands of the people than it at least gives the ruling group pause to try cordial persuasion at least until it reduces or relieves the masses of their arms. The American founders believed as their revolution has shown, arms in the hands of a free people, is the last, best defense against tyranny, in all of its worldly presentations, but be most vigilant when the force of government will is portrayed as being in the People's best interest.
They attempted this, after taxing the colonies, demanding we pay in British Pounds and not our own currencies to finance their war with France that was on the other side of the world. Never mind sending their soldiers over to raid our homes and farms, and whom from time to time stole our possessions, food, and raped our women, then required us to watch spontaneous public hangings of our friends and family who supposedly disrespected the king one way or another. All this while they ruled over us by appointing governors from England who more often than not, did what politicians do best, creating a system of corruption with under the table deals to fill their pockets with money from smugglers, pirates, slave traders and thieves. They also appointed judges who were easily paid off but just as easily created false accusations to blatantly steal our merchant ships and possessions. Never mind the random stress of a Native attack and burning of our town settlements. And to think, most people believed the colonists just loved their Tea that much! When are we going to stop looking at other countries to see how their people dealt with guns or an abolishment of guns? We are not the English. We are not the Japanese. We are not the Swiss. We are not the Mexicans. We are Americans, we will respond differently than these other people from other countries. If you want a real solution to the gun problem read my blog The Gun Dilemma Solved, but it will never pass. It is lengthy, but the entire situation is lengthy and I believed that everyone gets exactly what they are looking for. “Dangerous” guns off the streets without loss of property or intrusion of personal privacy. Protection of personal possessions and loved ones with an increased real security against tyranny. While lowering taxes and reducing the defense budget and making our military defense stronger and better funded. Decreasing our presence in any country the president wakes up and feels the urge to invade without approval from congress. All we had to do, was leave this country like it was when we originally set it up in 1775, when did we start wondering off that path to where we are today? Since no one has commented on it, I really don't know whether or not I am on the right path. Or whether the American public is looking for a policy that works or they just enjoy arguing with each other more. If they do, it scares me to think people don't want to work together, all we have is 400 million armies of one. United we stand, divided we fall.
