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.
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.
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."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.
Pro tell like "tell me" or Pro Tell like Guillaume Tell ?
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).
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.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 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.
Most European countries have a history of violent racial oppression.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.
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.Most European countries have a history of violent racial oppression.
There is a reason why the NRA is not occupied by Black separatists with Nation of Islam type beliefs.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.
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".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.