my rules on the subject are simple, and can be summed up in two points:

1) gun safety taught at school by certified instructors, and each year for each classes

2)the one wishing to carry a gun has to go through a specialized and, before all, standardized class about guns, their use (I’m talking about technique -if the gun you have in hand is grabbed by the criminal facing you, it means you have been poorly trained), the legal side with minor variations depending on the local laws, and what carrying a gun implies, a strong emphasis on the fact that it’s neither a toy nor “something that makes you cool” but a tool build to kill and on the fact that your behavior must be exemplary if you wish to carry or to own guns.

when you look at those points, you notice that it’s quite already the case, that the rule concerning the specialized class is already applied even if unfortunately they are not standardized, only the rule number 1 is still lacking: teaching gun safety at school. so as to ensure that the children won’t see the gun as “a tool of power” or “something cool (or “that makes you cool”)” but as a potentially deadly tool designed to kill.

concerning the study by the Center of Disease Control, my reproach will be that it doesn’t give the most important data: the context.
what I want to know when I read such figures is for instance if these death are gang-related, for instance; knowing how the phenomenon of gang is wide spread in the USA I’d like to know the background of the victims, because there’s a huge difference between the innocent bystander killed by a criminal and gang members killing each other as these last ones have chosen this way of life and the danger it implies and as a matter of fact are not “victims”, while the innocent law-abiding bystander has not and is, him, clearly a victim if he is killed by a criminal, accidentally or not.

[about my previous post, it seems that whatever the reason a problem occurred... I don't have the time to post it once again unfortunately, so, too bad]

Of the almost 50.000 people dying violently (not necessarily by guns) in the USA (173 per day), around 50 % is caused by suicide.
On the 16000 cases studied in 16 states, 50 % were suicides, followed by 29,6% murders or legal intervention by police or citizens, 13.3 % by reasons unknown, and accidental killing by fire-arms : 0.7 %.

An Afro-american has a 50 % higher chance to die violently than his white brother, 60 % higher than the Asian Americans but the latin Americans or best off : they suffer 15 % less chance of violent death than the white man.

Most casualties occur between the age of 20 and 24. Men are 3 times more at risk than women.

So the New England Journal of Medecine (NEJM) dares to say : ” Deaths and wounded by handguns are a severe problem for the popular health and requires an answer from the government , the security services and the medical institutions.”

Guns kill a total of 30143 people in the US (2005). Of them : 17000 suicides, 12352 murders and 789 accidents.
Also 70.000 wounded occur by guns.
So in the US , every 17 minutes someone will be killed by a gun, and every 5 minutes a death or wounded will occur.

But all this says nothing as long as we think that only the bad guys die. It’s a very big country too, of course, and i do not think that suicide rates are lower in Europe.

But look at this : Living in a house where guns are present, increases the chances of murder with 40 to 170 % (depending on the region and environment you live in.). And the risk of suicide by gun increases with 90 to 460 % !

They also claim that the decrease in criminal statistics relative to the higher presence of guns is a myth.
Guns are now so wide-spread that they may endanger a “civil society”, they say.(in other words : in the end, courts would no longer be necessary as everyone is judge for himself.).

Wouldn’t it be safer for you to throw away your gun into the deepest river in your neighbourhood ? So you will not be challenged by your own gun, when you, God forbid, temporarely get deeply depressed by tragic events unforseen, or , when you think you have a chance against criminals, grab your gun and be killed in what these criminals will call for themselves “(il)legal self-defence” ?

But never mins stats : the discussion is, of course, endless.

I still think: when a gun is readily available in all circonstances, sooner or later it will kill (unnecessarily). It’s a rattlesnake in the house. Deterrent for others , yes, but you can never trust it.

I must say i never fired a gun, hesitate even to touch it, and no, i did not have education to handle it. The hunting gun of my grandfather was destroyed before my eyes by my father when he inherited it. I may reassemble it, one time, but I hope never to hear the sound of bullet shattering bone.

So there is a big difference in point of view of course: i’m discussing here things i do not know. Most people talking in this forum know what they talk about and feel comfortable with their gun(s). I don’t mind. I’m not a preacher: you can be right i can be wrong. I know you’re all carefull and very reasonable . But i think we can agree on this : not any gun can be allowed in any hand at all times. So, what are the rules (preferably equal for all) ?

“Because, in reality : you will never be Dirty Harry. It is far more likely, you will be laying bleeding on the ground if you confront criminals with a gun. And if not and you prevail : forget about your cool one-liner : it will be a very shocking experience hard to live with for the rest of your live.”

Bold talk from a man who does not own any guns!!!

That’s not what the stats show. Most of the time the civilian prevails over the criminal and most of the time the civilian is glad they prevailed. Which is the way it should be.

Fran, anytime you want to show up with two other men of your choosing for a little force on force test using plastic BB pistols to test this out, be my guest. Three on one with you making the first move. I bet I can hit all three of you before you hit me.

The most heavily armed nations other than the USA are Finland and Switzerland, whose crime rates are similar to Belgium’s.

Here is a good link on civilian gun fighting.

http:\\warriortalk.com

wrong, because it implies a “cultural” side of the owning on guns, which leads precisely people to understand its meaning by defining “gun culture” as, from your words: “Is the possession of a gun romance ? The juvenile “Dirty Harry” feeling (…)”. Reason why I prefer to say “familiarity with guns” instead of “gun culture”, it’s longer to say but it’s much more “accurate” if I can say so :]

anyway, “familiarity with guns” means simply that, in a given era in a given country, its citizens are “close” from guns; understand they’ve already seen some before, probably have shot with some, in short they know that it’s not a toy and that there’s a big responsibility in owning a gun. thanks to the relatives and familial environment owning guns, people living in a country where there is a “familiarity with guns” don’t perceive the firearm as a tool of power: as it is something unusual, seen and known, the firearm is not seen as something “cool” and “attractive because it’s forbidden” as it is the case in countries that have lost this familiarity with guns.

in short, that’s the difference between an English teenager born and living in London and an American teenager born and living in a state where there is that familiarity with guns: the first, if he seens a gun, will be attracted by it as it is something unusual in his life and as the gun is portrayed in movies, series etc. as “cool”; the second, having been educated on the fact that a gun is not a toy and being used to see guns, will not be attracted by it. The result ? you can bet that the chances that the first teenager uses the gun he found like a toy and eventually shoots accidentally someone will be higher than if it was the second teenager that has found the gun.

education, as always… that being said, the familiarity with guns is not the panacea, it must be viewed as a solution of replacement for a real, standardized education about guns given during childhood by firearms instructors at school: the goal is not to teach SWAT techniques to the children, but to ensure that a qualified specialist will teach them the basic safety rules, and demythologizes the image of the firearm given in movies or in series (for instance, the fact that you can get shot in the arm and have absolutely no sequel after that. on the contrary, you can lose the complete mobility of your arm, depending on the unpredictable behavior of a bullet against a bone).

so as to sum up, we teach children the basic knowledge to have in order to avoid getting pregnant at 15, and that’s indeed extremely important, but we should teach children how to avoid shooting their buddies by accident after having discovered a gun and “played” with it.

you also said:

“And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.”

the government is a massive institution only because we allow it to do so

the government can (and should, it’s my opinion as a Libertarian) limited to the two main domains it can cover without screwing everything up anytime: Justice and Armed Forces, notice the “anytime” and what I imply using this word.

as an end to this post, please know that the so-called “wild west” (or “far west” in Europe) was far to be that wild… the way “wild west” is depicted in movies is romantic, hence historically wrong.

this is a good link to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A698538

” from guns; understand they’ve already seen some before, probably have shot with some, in short they know that it’s not a toy and that there’s a big responsibility in owning a gun. thanks to the relatives and familial environment owning guns, people living in a country where there is a “familiarity with guns” don’t perceive the firearm as a tool of power: as it is something unusual, seen and known, the firearm is not seen as something “cool” and “attractive because it’s forbidden” as it is the case in countries that have lost this familiarity with guns.

in short, that’s the difference between an English teenager born and living in London and an American teenager born and living in a state where there is that familiarity with guns: the first, if he seens a gun, will be attracted by it as it is something unusual in his life and as the gun is portrayed in movies, series etc. as “cool”; the second, having been educated on the fact that a gun is not a toy and being used to see guns, will not be attracted by it. The result ? you can bet that the chances that the first teenager uses the gun he found like a toy and eventually shoots accidentally someone will be higher than if it was the second teenager that has found the gun.

education, as always… that being said, the familiarity with guns is not the panacea, it must be viewed as a solution of replacement for a real, standardized education about guns given during childhood by firearms instructors at school: the goal is not to teach SWAT techniques to the children, but to ensure that a qualified specialist will teach them the basic safety rules, and demythologizes the image of the firearm given in movies or in series (for instance, the fact that you can get shot in the arm and have absolutely no sequel after that. on the contrary, you can lose the complete mobility of your arm, depending on the unpredictable behavior of a bullet against a bone).

so as to sum up, we teach children the basic knowledge to have in order to avoid getting pregnant at 15, and that’s indeed extremely important, but we should teach children how to avoid shooting their buddies by accident after having discovered a gun and “played” with it.

you also said:

“And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.”

the government is a massive institution only because we allow it to do so

the government can (and should, it’s my opinion as a Libertarian) limited to the two main domains it can cover without screwing everything up anytime: Justice and Armed Forces, notice the “anytime” and what I imply using this word.

as an end to this post, please know that the so-called “wild west” (or “far west” in Europe) was far to be that wild… the way “wild west” is depicted in movies is romantic, hence historically wrong.

this is a good link to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A698538

” from guns; understand they’ve already seen some before, probably have shot with some, in short they know that it’s not a toy and that there’s a big responsibility in owning a gun. thanks to the relatives and familial environment owning guns, people living in a country where there is a “familiarity with guns” don’t perceive the firearm as a tool of power: as it is something unusual, seen and known, the firearm is not seen as something “cool” and “attractive because it’s forbidden” as it is the case in countries that have lost this familiarity with guns.

in short, that’s the difference between an English teenager born and living in London and an American teenager born and living in a state where there is that familiarity with guns: the first, if he seens a gun, will be attracted by it as it is something unusual in his life and as the gun is portrayed in movies, series etc. as “cool”; the second, having been educated on the fact that a gun is not a toy and being used to see guns, will not be attracted by it. The result ? you can bet that the chances that the first teenager uses the gun he found like a toy and eventually shoots accidentally someone will be higher than if it was the second teenager that has found the gun.

education, as always… that being said, the familiarity with guns is not the panacea, it must be viewed as a solution of replacement for a real, standardized education about guns given during childhood by firearms instructors at school: the goal is not to teach SWAT techniques to the children, but to ensure that a qualified specialist will teach them the basic safety rules, and demythologizes the image of the firearm given in movies or in series (for instance, the fact that you can get shot in the arm and have absolutely no sequel after that. on the contrary, you can lose the complete mobility of your arm, depending on the unpredictable behavior of a bullet against a bone).

so as to sum up, we teach children the basic knowledge to have in order to avoid getting pregnant at 15, and that’s indeed extremely important, but we should teach children how to avoid shooting their buddies by accident after having discovered a gun and “played” with it.

you also said:

“And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.”

the government is a massive institution only because we allow it to do so

the government can (and should, in my opinion) be limited to the two main domains (my opinion always) it can cover without screwing everything up anytime: Justice and Armed Forces, notice the “anytime” and what I imply using this word.

as an end to this post, please know that the so-called “wild west” (or “far west” in Europe) was far to be that wild… the way “wild west” is depicted in movies is romantic, hence historically wrong.

here are some good links on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A698538

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-wild-west-of-myth-and-reality.html

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=572

Is it this feeling of unlimited power and victory, pointing a preferably huge gun, at an enemy already on the floor ? not to mention the appropriate one-liner you’re free to think of, meanwhile. (Saltherring) Every 18 year old boy is a dirty Harry.

Is it power for the powerless ? Because this message is also conveyed in many comments : the mistrust against a government that seems overwhelmingly powerfull and uninfluencable by “normal” people.

Is the USA too big and too divers for many people so they do not feel represented in or by their government ? (but you will have the last word, after all, because you have a gun and shoot the whole world down.)

Is the possession of a gun romance ? The juvenile “Dirty Harry” feeling, or the feeling of power over a seemingly careless and stupid government ?

Because, in reality : you will never be Dirty Harry. It is far more likely, you will be laying bleeding on the ground if you confront criminals with a gun. And if not and you prevail : forget about your cool one-liner : it will be a very shocking experience hard to live with for the rest of your live.

And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.

So is the “culture”-thing something from way back and far West, in times it mattered to have a gun : total freedom for all, no law, no order and lots of enemies around. A thing that persists now : a romantic feeling (good old days)for times long ago ?

I’m just trying to understand. Not to offend anybody or certainly not our friend Saltherring, the only man i trust with a gun, because he lives so far away in a rural area, there is hardly anyone to be hurt.

“Saltherring, i sympathise with you, and it’s easy to say for me not to have a gun in Belgium, such a densely populated country that the police is never more than 10 minutes away…
People rarely have a gun here and it is almost impossible to get a licence to carry one.
Shoot-outs between criminals and victims are consequently also very rare, thus saving lives on both sides. I do not think that we have more criminals because we have less guns though.Criminality is a social disorder and will arise in all societies , even in the most tranquil ones but more in the disrupted ones.”

-About the curious fact that unlike in the US, in France and Belgium the criminals only rarely use firearms when they attack law-abiding citizens,it’s simply because they prefer to use firearms “only for business”. They typically use shotguns and Kalashnikovs assault rifles (AK) so as to attack big, valuable targets for which they need enough firepower to do so. For instance, a couple of years ago, a little supermarket deep in the country (near Belgium, actually) had been assaulted by four men armed with pump-action shotguns and bulletproof vests (aka body armor). From what I’ve learned, having been “close” from that kind of people at a certain period of my life, they also use firearms when they attack each others (gang wars), but never when they target the law abiding citizen. When they do so, they prefer to use knives, scissors, brass knuckles, box cutters… anything that « does the job » but isn’t bigger enough to draw attention. Knowing how it is easy in France in Belgium to find who’s the shooter when a gun has been used during a criminal act (thanks to scientific methods used by police forces, for instance), they just prefer to keep using cheap weapons they can throw away after use for “that part of the work”. Price of a boxcutter: 2 Euros (same in USD), available in every supermarket; price of a shotgun in what is called with fancy “black market”, if memory serves: 800 Euros… throwing away 2 Euros is easier than 800

About gun control, on the contrary of what people think, it’s a waste of money that can’t solve the “problem” -”problem” invented by people who visibly have an interest in disarming loyal, law-abiding citizens. Keep in mind that you can, provided you have the little amount of knowledge and « know-how » necessary, to make ammunition thanks to a little box of that http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allumette and some pieces of wood… and that’s for people who are alone, those who don’t know anyone with the machinery and tools that could help them to make a real firearm. You can for instance look at the situation in London, England: the number of homemade weapons discovered by the local police forces, weapons made in garages or clandestine workshop, has risen by 300 % since they banned firearms in UK. Cellphones, flashlights… English criminals convert everything they find in cheap homemade firearms that can look like a pen but fire real ammunition.
All you need is a buddy of yours who works as a mechanic, some tools, some steel, and here it goes; several hours of work later you’ll end up by having your own homemade weapon, firing in semi-auto or full-auto (burst), according to your will.

*Diggs said: “Holding a discussion with a European about handguns is like holding a discussion about sex with a nun.
They may have an opinion, but it is grounded in faith, not facts.”

-Please avoid to live by clichés… the stereotype you’re talking about is the norm in Europe, but that norm is not followed by every European…