AHC:an "NRA" in another country

samcster94

Banned
What can be done to replicate the U.S. gun debate in another country, even if on a milder level??? Bonus points if said country is not in Eastern Europe.
 
What can be done to replicate the U.S. gun debate in another country, even if on a milder level??? Bonus points if said country is not in Eastern Europe.

Mexico had a 2ndA equivalent in their Constitution till 1974, till it had a minor change of 'As allowed by Law' promptly followed by much more legislation that made many weapons illegal, no military calibers allowed, etc.
 
It probably has to come from a country with a long history of property ownership, civic self defense, and a practical use for guns particularly in rural life.

The best candidate I think would be Australia. Canada too I think would be a good candidate for this, although theirs would be an almost entirely rural/city split rather than a political one.

South Africa might be a good example, as there is significant unease over gun rights there. They have such a high crime rate that self defense is a very valid reason to own guns, especially in the Townships or Rural areas. But with the service delivery protests and the prevalence of gangs, its just as easily possible that the state could find itself out gunned and that would be a problem. However, the lack of competitive politics makes any "debate" somewhat superfluous.

To be honest, I don't understand the fixation with the NRA in some circles. Its a relatively small gun rights organization with a small lobbying footprint. Pinning the existence of controversy over firearm ownership to the NRA has always baffled me.
 
Your title says NRA, and there are such associations in other countries. Canada's is called the National Firearms Association.

First, I think on a cultural level, you have to have something jarring enough to make gun ownership a symbol of national identity. Not everyone in the country has to agree with that, of course, but it has to be there for at least some people to pick up on. There is a philosophy behind the Second Amendment. In contrast, even the most ardent gun rights activist in Canada would have a hard time drawing the link between his guns -- safely locked away in a separate cabinet from their ammunition, naturally -- and his national identity.

This will probably limit the number of stable countries that even MIGHT have a well-established gun lobby to countries which have had successful revolutions and/or very long traditions of militia and conscription service.

Obviously unstable countries have a lot of gun "rights."
 
To be honest, I don't understand the fixation with the NRA in some circles. Its a relatively small gun rights organization with a small lobbying footprint. Pinning the existence of controversy over firearm ownership to the NRA has always baffled me.

"Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association It's hard for me to think of that as "relatively small."

True, they spend less on lobbying than, say, the US Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Realtors or the American Association of Retired Persons. But the question here is influence, not money spent, and people in a position to know seem to disagree with you on that: "FORTUNE's annual survey of the most powerful lobbying organizations revealed that the National Rifle Association (NRA) was considered the most influential by lawmakers and congressional staffers_the capital insiders closest to the lobbying action. The NRA also ranked No. 2 overall in the annual, mail-in survey which asked all manner of Washington players, such as lobbyists, trade association executives as well as lawmakers and their staffers, to rate the influence of lobbying, coming in just behind the perennial No. 1 in FORTUNE's Power 25, the Association of Retired Persons (AARP)." http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/...eases-annual-survey-of-most-powerful-lobbying

Now of course some of those congressman and staff members may be gun control advocates who just want to make the NRA a scapegoat for their failure to get laws they want passed. But presumably pro-gun congressmen and staffers were included in the survey, too! And why would *other lobbyists* want to exaggerate the NRA's prowess?

In fact, it is precisely because the NRA is *not* a "relatively small organization" that it can be so effective without spending as much as the biggest business lobbies. Five million voters are not a trivial consideration for politicians.
 
"Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association It's hard for me to think of that as "relatively small."

True, they spend less on lobbying than, say, the US Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Realtors or the American Association of Retired Persons. But the question here is influence, not money spent, and people in a position to know seem to disagree with you on that: "FORTUNE's annual survey of the most powerful lobbying organizations revealed that the National Rifle Association (NRA) was considered the most influential by lawmakers and congressional staffers_the capital insiders closest to the lobbying action. The NRA also ranked No. 2 overall in the annual, mail-in survey which asked all manner of Washington players, such as lobbyists, trade association executives as well as lawmakers and their staffers, to rate the influence of lobbying, coming in just behind the perennial No. 1 in FORTUNE's Power 25, the Association of Retired Persons (AARP)." http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/...eases-annual-survey-of-most-powerful-lobbying

Now of course some of those congressman and staff members may be gun control advocates who just want to make the NRA a scapegoat for their failure to get laws they want passed. But presumably pro-gun congressmen and staffers were included in the survey, too! And why would *other lobbyists* want to exaggerate the NRA's prowess?

In fact, it is precisely because the NRA is *not* a "relatively small organization" that it can be so effective without spending as much as the biggest business lobbies. Five million voters are not a trivial consideration for politicians.
Out of a country of over 320 million. I have had an NRA membership for a few years now but I just find it difficult to imagine the idea that it's really that influential in a body of legislators that use terms like "assault weapons" and many of which cannot distinguish between a clip and a magazine. I just really like the ammunition coupons they send me in the mail, though, with the fundraising appeals.

Perhaps in some primary elections in rural states and districts, sure, they make a difference. But the idea that the NRA is nefariously influencing the government is false, as the reason for their so called influence comes from the fact that voters tend to agree with most of its positions on the desirability of gun rights and the importance of actually punishing gun crime.
 
Out of a country of over 320 million. I have had an NRA membership for a few years now but I just find it difficult to imagine the idea that it's really that influential in a body of legislators that use terms like "assault weapons" and many of which cannot distinguish between a clip and a magazine. I just really like the ammunition coupons they send me in the mail, though, with the fundraising appeals.

Perhaps in some primary elections in rural states and districts, sure, they make a difference. But the idea that the NRA is nefariously influencing the government is false, as the reason for their so called influence comes from the fact that voters tend to agree with most of its positions on the desirability of gun rights and the importance of actually punishing gun crime.

(1) I didn't say a word about whether the influence of the NRA was good or bad, benevolent or "nefarious." I don't think this is the place to debate it and I express no opinion on that whatever. However, on whether the influence is real or not I think that members of Congress, congressional staff, and lobbyists are in a better position than you (or I) to say, and they emphatically believe it is, as the FORTUNE survey above indicates.

(2) Saying that "only" 5 million people in a nation of 320 million is negligible ignores that in the first place the actual electorate is much smaller than that--about 136 million people voted in the presidential election of 2016, and fewer people vote in Senate and House races, and of course still fewer people vote in primaries. But even in the presidential election, a shift of 23,000 votes in PA, 6,000 in MI, and 12,000 in WI would have produced a different result in 2016. It's ludicrous to say that in a nation so closely divided in partisan terms--and with a lot of relatively low-turnout elections--five million people don't matter.

(3) With regard to saying that the NRA wins simply because the majority of voters agree with it on the issues, I might dispute that by citing some polls, but of course one can quarrel endlessly about the wording of polls, and anyway that would be beside the point. The real point is that whether a position is popular or unpopular, it does not somehow automatically prevail because of its popularity. The people who take a position--whether they have majority support or not--have to be mobilized. The NRA in the opinion of those familiar with those matters (whether they themselves are pro- or anti-gun control) seems to do a good job of mobilization.
 

Archibald

Banned
Pro tell like "tell me" or Pro Tell like Guillaume Tell ?
I think Slovakia or Slovenia (well a former Eastern block country) also has gun law debates. Also Finland (lots of guns there, from memory they are somewhat U.S look alike).
 
Last edited:
Don't forget there are lot of people who are not members of NRA but read their websites and listen to their recommendations so that amplifies their influence
 
Pro tell like "tell me" or Pro Tell like Guillaume Tell ?
I think Slovakia or Slovenia (well a former Eastern block country) also has gun law debates. Also Finland (lots of guns there, from memory they are somewhat U.S look alike).

In Finland the gun law debates do not have a political impact as they have, in my view, in the US. It has been also more difficult to get a gun, particularly a handgun, than in most US states. Due to two school shootings in 2007 and 2008 the license criterias for handguns have been tightened very much.

The cultural issue is, that a gun in Finland is meant for hunting or sports. Personal defense argument or political power argument is not relevant here. In fact, you haven't been able to get a gun license for personal protection in 20 years. The large amount of firearms per capita is a result of hunting enthusiasts having many different kind of guns for different kind of game (eg. shotguns for ducks and hare, small caliber rifles for birds, larger caliber rifles for moose etc.) than a gun in every house.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-8588611

An article in Finnish which you can use Google Translate to get the relevant details.
 

MrP

Banned
It probably has to come from a country with a long history of property ownership, civic self defense, and a practical use for guns particularly in rural life.
Such countries do exist, as you pointed out, yet they do not have the level of morbid fixation on firearms the US does. The really important factor is one you left out: a history of violent racial oppression. It isn't possible to make sense of American gun culture if one ignores the role of white supremacy.
 

Archibald

Banned
The cultural issue is, that a gun in Finland is meant for hunting or sports. Personal defense argument or political power argument is not relevant here.

In fact, you haven't been able to get a gun license for personal protection in 20 years.

The large amount of firearms per capita is a result of hunting enthusiasts having many different kind of guns for different kind of game (eg. shotguns for ducks and hare, small caliber rifles for birds, larger caliber rifles for moose etc.) than a gun in every house.

Thank you. France is somewhat similar (minus mooses !) there is a crapload of 22 long riffles just because hunting ranks second behind football in sports. There are 2 million hunters in france (from memory) albeit they are pretty old, average.
So far no terrorist tried to get his hand on these hunting guns, perhaps they are not *deadly* enough for them.
 
Such countries do exist, as you pointed out, yet they do not have the level of morbid fixation on firearms the US does. The really important factor is one you left out: a history of violent racial oppression. It isn't possible to make sense of American gun culture if one ignores the role of white supremacy.
Most European countries have a history of violent racial oppression.
 

MrP

Banned
Most European countries have a history of violent racial oppression.
Admittedly, most countries in the world do. I should have made myself clearer: What I meant is that the US has a history of chattel slavery followed by another century of state-sponsored white supremacy, and a lingering legacy of institutional racism that extends into the present day. This, I think, is the most important factor in the stridency of its gun culture.
 
Switzerland seems like a very likely candidate, to me; for reasons linked to the country's mandatory military service and to the Confederation's own history, they already have an outlook on gun ownership that's very "American" for the standards of western Europe; maybe if the country had been invaded during the second World War, the Swiss could become even more pro-gun than they already are in the aftermath of the war.
 

samcster94

Banned
Admittedly, most countries in the world do. I should have made myself clearer: What I meant is that the US has a history of chattel slavery followed by another century of state-sponsored white supremacy, and a lingering legacy of institutional racism that extends into the present day. This, I think, is the most important factor in the stridency of its gun culture.
There is a reason why the NRA is not occupied by Black separatists with Nation of Islam type beliefs.
 

MrP

Banned
Switzerland seems like a very likely candidate, to me; for reasons linked to the country's mandatory military service and to the Confederation's own history, they already have an outlook on gun ownership that's very "American" for the standards of western Europe; maybe if the country had been invaded during the second World War, the Swiss could become even more pro-gun than they already are in the aftermath of the war.
The Swiss gun culture is nothing like America's. There is very little emphasis on "self-defense" since there is no visible racial minority to "defend" oneself against*, and none at all on "protection against government tyranny".

* Not that xenophobia and bigotry don't exist in Switzerland. See, for example, the law against minarets.
 
Top