General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA sincere wish for our DU gun owners: visit Norway!
I just received a brochure in the mail about a trip to Norway, primarily for its scenic value. I thought it would be a good thing if more of our pro-gun Americans, including those here at DU, could visit a country with a gun-loving population who own guns, hunt with them and target shoot. I have mentioned Norway in past Gungeon posts but I thought I would recap here.
Norwegians love guns, own them and keep them in their homes, use them for hunting in their rugged mountainous areas and are avid sportsmen. Norway is a modern day representational democracy with a market economy, altho with a strong social safety net for its citizens. Norwegians are free to join shooting clubs.
Norway has had one "lone wolf" mass shooting/bombing in 2011, by a disturbed fanatic who had to spend 9 years getting the financing for his attacks. Compare that with the number of mass shootings in the U.S. in just one month or one year!
The Norwegians love guns but also strictly regulate them with gun safety laws that our U.S. gun owners claim would restrict our liberty and freedom. Yet here's the thing: Norwegians have, in the history just 70 years ago, actually fought, suffered and died for their liberty and freedom. Their heroism and tough resistance in the face of overwhelming power is unquestioned.
So why did those very Norwegians, who fought the Nazis (sometimes on skis in rugged terrains), pass strict gun control laws after World War II? They had real experience fighting tyranny. We have people strapping guns to themselves in public blithely claiming it protects freedom without one shred of evidence to the contrary, and certainly without any experience of true suffering and death in the face of real threats to freedom.
It is too bad that so many Americans, particularly now, cannot afford to travel to foreign lands to broaden their perspectives on what they are talking about when they cite "freedom" to oppose even the mildest of gun safety legislation. And I find it interesting that when I hear them "we aren't China" or some other repressive regime, that they don't cite Norway. Because they can't. Funny, that...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Little Star
(17,055 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I wouldn't be so concerned about the gun thing, I'd be interested in the energy and environment thing.
I'd like them to see the impeccably clean streets of cities in the Netherlands.
I'd like them to see the way people in the Middle East conserve water when they hand wash dishes.
I'd like them to see the modest size of cars in all European cities and the extensive use of bikes and rapid transit in so many other countries.
I don't think a visit to Norway would have such an impact on the gun question, but I think it would impact kids on these other matters.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)when our kids were 9 helped them understand the importance of taxation in the US. Streets are bad, infrastructure is bad, government buildings are in disrepair....but the tax structure is tiny..
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)clubs in Norway for both youth and adults. They would learn something about their culture, see their country and interact with people who share the same hobby or sport. I think it would be exciting to go on a hunting trip in the wilds of Norway, altho I don't and wouldn't hunt. Our gun lovers and theirs could discuss the laws governing guns in both countries and we could ask them how they, as gun hobbyists or hunters, feel about Norway's strict gun laws. I think it would be a helpful exchange of ideas...
Just a few thoughts...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Popular hunts include Moose, Caribou, Fowl, and Seals (ewww).
I get the impression, however, that it might be only for the elite and wealthy citizens and tourists.
http://www.novahunt.net/
http://www.visitnorway.com/en/What-to-do/Active-holiday/Hunting/
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)It's why I thought of club sponsorships of such travel.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Be they urban gangs or rural bumpkins, the people needing the most enlightenment, IMO, aren't the ones in families with money to do these trips.
However, if a benevolent gun club wants to support bringing underprivileged kids along, that would be terrific!
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)not have that experience, except as they might get from serving later in the military abroad...
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)to hustle up enough money to maybe fly to Ukraine this Winter to see my GF. Before we met online, I barely even knew the country existed. It definitely would be interesting to see what that country is like in comparison to ours. My folks have been telling me that they think that it is a pretty poor and regressive country, but when I look on YouTube, it doesn't really look too shabby to me.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)have far less to do with violence than social issues. The US has some 20,000 federal laws and restrictions on guns. Exactly what laws are you suggesting would mitigate the real reasons for violence in the US?
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)same time. I think it's just too easy to shrug and say "Social issues, so no can do..." It's not how we've solved our own problems in the past and it won't happen now if we don't try. How about more effort to pass stronger background check laws for starters?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)If you mean a start to an overall program of social change to ameliorate social problems like crime, poverty, bad education, lack of worker protection, I'm on board. And I support expanded BG checks as well.
But to many the expression "for starters" is a signal that more controls/bans are on the way. But perhaps you mean something else. If so, what are your proposals?
Incidentally, having grown up in the South and heard "______ lover" frequently, I suggest another expression since this one is a perjorative and in itself casts even more suspicion on the credibility if any worthwhile proposal.
I would love to visit other cultures, including Norway's, so different from our own.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)When I say, "for starters" I mean we can start with sensible gun regulation at the same time we try to improve our social situation. There's no reason we can't do both. We won WW2. We put a man on the moon. Whatever happened to the American slogan (actually the Seabees) "CAN DO"?
But here I add that you quickly added "a signal that more control/bans are on the way" and I don't know what you mean specifically. For instance, I notice that Norway has a regulation on the number of handguns you can own (legally). So try that one, just for the sake of comparison. How about requiring gun owners to have a working gun safe in their home? The Norwegian gun enthusiasts don't seem to have a problem with those two regulations.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I see no reason to have a ban on the number of guns one person has, given the "enthusiasm" of some, and the collector status of others. You didn't state why you wanted this, btw.
I support safe and secure storage of any functioning firearm. What legislation would look like is the hard part: Standards of break-in resistance, securing the "unit" to floor requirements, not impairing the owner's quick access, GPS requirements to track gun or owner, keep loaded or unloaded, COST, etc. These standards are ripe for abuse by those who have a peculiar interest in leaving gun-owners disarmed when in extremis. But I'm certainly open to non-intrusive proposals.
Incidentally, one proposal I have is for the firearms community to start a campaign on ALL media & the innertubes to promote safe, secure custody of firearms. This has been done to some extent, which probably explains the steadily-falling rates of childhood casualties due to firearms accidents. In addition, theft could be reduced.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)drunk driving but, of course, at the same time stricter drunk driving laws came into effect.
As for regulating the number of guns, well, why does Norway have this law, in your opinion? Right there, if there were a dialog between gun enthusiasts from both countries, that question could be discussed. There must have been a reason.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I don't know the reasons for this affirmative action on the Norwegians' part. I shouldn't have to speculate.
The greatest positive effect on changing behavior regards DWI & smoking ceassation, IMO, is the massive education campaign without the implementation of criminal law. Only in the last 10 yrs or so have the prohibitionists muscled in to take charge or credit using complex, expensive and counter-productive banning schemes.
I am glad to see you support such a public ed plan. The greatest opposition to such, I believe, will be from MSM which must maintain a wholly negative image of gun owners, and might very well oppose such a campaign. By far, this would be the most cost-effective and fastest means of lowering both childhood gun-accident rates and gun theft.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)this latest conversation about it..I just believe it has to be done at the state level to be constitutional..that is why it wasn't done in the first place. There is no lobby interested in exempting private intrastate sales..it is a constitutional issue. This is the only change I can think of that I believe may actually have some effect on violent crime.
KT2000
(20,567 posts)My brother just returned from there and offered some observations:
First of all - they are happy! They are not complainers like we have become in the US. He couldn't get over the fact that when people gathered they were not complaining about everything.
Family is everything.
They do talk about the mass shooter and how they didn't even have a law that addressed what he did - just a murder charge.
The Nazi invasion is still fresh in their minds. You are right - they experienced the Nazis taking over their towns and having to escape to the hills where many had cabins.
The police work from 8 to 4 and that's it - two to a vehicle.
They are the 2nd wealthiest country in the world, they are 2nd I believe in environmental efforts (the green revolution was started by a man there), they have universal healthcare and subsidized advanced education.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)as the oil resources of THEIR country. Hence they use said resources to benefit themselves. All of themselves.
Novel idea that.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)yours sucks, btw.
Their attitude, that they benefit commonly, together, as a country, is antithetical to our attitude that we are all just bootstrappin' individuals who made it on our own and gotta keep it with our guns.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)
Squinch
(50,904 posts)I think we call that projection.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 18, 2013, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)
for more sensible gun safety laws. We greatly reduced drunk driving laws and people said that couldn't be done either...
KT2000
(20,567 posts)with strict penalties. We need mandatory training. We need prison terms for people who leave guns out and children end up shooting themselves or someone else with it. We need to instill in every gun owner the concept of responsibility and accountability. Responsible gun owners need to speak out against the losers that openly carry weapons to public events to intimidate.
But there is something that the laws won't change and that is the character of some of the American people. The "rugged individualist" has about run its course. Anger is the currency of some popular media. Narcissism is rewarded here. "Others" are competition rather than friends.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)When I was growing up people drove around with a beer in one hand. All of the characteristics you cite about Americans were in place back then. And people said stricter laws just wouldn't work. Well, they did. And yes, we need LOTS of public education around gun safety which, BTW, most Americans are fine with. We are letting a small minority of extremists control the conversation, keep funding on the effects of gun violence from getting funding, and feed the insane logic that guns=freedom from tyranny and that gun control necessarily has to evolve into a takeover of Americans' liberty by the government. So that, in addition to an exremist position on the 2nd Amendment by a radical Supreme Court's narrow majority, has been the REAL problem in the U.S. with regard to gun safety.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)But even so, Norway has similar issues on a much smaller scale - that are probably going to get worse before they improve.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2013/05/14/police-warn-of-rising-gang-violence/
Police warn of rising gang violence
May 14, 2013
As Norway moves into summer, gang-related violence is on the rise in the capital. Tension is so high between Oslo’s rival gangs, police warn, that armed battles can break out at any time.
Police worry that Oslo’s gang culture has become more widespread and more complex. Newspaper Aftenposten reported on Tuesday that gang battles motivated by revenge, territory and drug-related profits are on the increase.
Weapon seizures
Police confiscated a total of 22 firearms linked to organized crime last year, and 21 so far this year. Many weapons are believed to be in circulation.
Since January last year, there have been more than 11 shootings on the streets of Oslo. At least six were linked to criminal gangs, according to police calculations. Gang members have carried out both murders and attempted murders, and “none of these crimes has been solved, which raises the level of tension level,” Einar Aas, head of the Oslo Police District’s organized crime unit, told Aftenposten.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Huh? What did I miss here?
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)A small, homogeneous, oil-rich country with long standing culture of tempered collectivism is far easier to manage than our enormous and chaotic melting pot.
If you want more gun laws, that's fine - I agree with you. But thinking we can legislate ourselves in to Norway is a pipe dream, and thinking their stricter regulations are all that prevents them from looking like America is disingenuous at best.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)similarities in that they are a gun loving culture and so are we. They are a representation democracy and so are we. They deeply respect and have shown they will fight and die for freedom on their own soul and while we say we would too, we never have had to do so right here.
The other side often points to countries that are harshly repressive and have strict gun control and they say "OK, do you want THAT here in the U.S.?" I am saying that is offering a false choice. I think it is a far more honest argument to say, "OK, look at what they have in Norway, would you like THAT?" I think you'd get an interesting response...
branford
(4,462 posts)I understand that you believe Norway is a nice country; I see no reason to disagree. However, other than vacation advice, if you are not seeking legal changes in our country, what is the purpose of your post?
In particular, I do personally find your preference for Norway particularly relevant to gun rights in the United States.
First, Norway is very small, extremely homogeneous and exceedingly wealthy due to fossil fuel extraction. In comparison, the United States is very large and geographically and culturally diverse, with a multifaceted economy.
Our cultures and history also differ significantly. The American ethos is that of a young frontier country, borne of revolution, and containing a very individualistic spirit. Norway is an old, staid, Lutheran Scandinavian country with a strong collectivist spirit. For instance, their (as well as much of Europe's) concept of free speech is far less liberal than our own, including limitations against "hate speech" that would never be acceptable under our Constitution.
The social pressures, crime, wealth, cultural and religious issues, etc., between our countries bear little resemblance.
Lastly, although Norway has a somewhat liberal attitude towards hunting and sports involving firearms, this does not necessarily extend to their use in self-defense, especially as a cultural attitude. In Norway, one must provide a reason to the government to own a gun, and while hunting and sports might qualify, the need for self-defense usually does not. Such an attitude would be completely uacceptable in large swaths of America, including a majority of our representatives in Congress.
Simply, although there is certainly a discussion to be had about gun culture in the United States, suggesting gun owners and their supporters visit Norway, as even a partial panacea to our social ills, fails to appreciate the level of complexity and emotion of the gun debate in America, and adds little to resolving our issues.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)I'm fine with improving our social safety net and I think it is important, too. But your basic point seems to be that we just can't do anything, not anything at all, to change our violent situation in this country. When I was growing up in Texas in the 1950s I simply never saw/heard or experienced much about guns, even tho some members of my family went dove hunting every September. I knew they had guns but I never saw them. Nobody talked out needing this gun or that gun for self defense, I never handled a gun, my parents never used them, my uncle who was a state senator was concerned about increasing paved roads and highways and never discussed guns, I never felt unsafe, nobody walked around openly carrying guns in public. Oh, and Texas got rich on fossil fuel extraction, too. Oh, and members of my family held old, staid Protestant views.
No, we don't need to be Norwegians in many, many cultural ways, but we CAN learn from them in some ways.
hack89
(39,171 posts)great people, great scenery, great food.
I wish our healthcare, education system and social network were like theirs - it would significantly reduce gun deaths in America. Especially the healthcare.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)They obviously saw a need for gun safety regs, so your argument doesn't work here, unless you think that they don't know any better or don't love freedom as much as we do.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not an issue of loving freedom - they had a different problem with a different solution.
Since the majority of gun deaths in America are suicides then healthcare is the logical first step.
branford
(4,462 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)CTyankee
(63,883 posts)enjoy hunting and sports shooting. I don't think we have to eat lots of herring and drink their strong spirits...
branford
(4,462 posts)We certainly have some similarities with Norway, but our cultural and other differences are quite substantial and cannot easily be minimized or ignored.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)learn. As I said to my kids "you've got to learn to solve your own problems."
We've solved our own problems in the past. We can do it again.
branford
(4,462 posts)Is it that many Americans value firearms and are quite willing to use them to defend themselves, that we have a large level of violent crime, including guns, primarily connected to the drug trade in the inner cities, our suicide rate is rather high and the instrument utilized is often a gun, that no "civilized" individual needs to own a gun, or something else?
Each of these alleged problems and others have many causes and possible solutions, often without interfering with firearm ownership.
Although I'm certainly not accusing you personally of ulterior motives, the arguments about "reasonable regulation" and proper education are often just smokescreens for incremental methods of ultimately outlawing most guns, regardless of the nature of the alleged problem or their usefulness of value to many Americans.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)What exact problems do you believe we need to address and what are your ultimate goals.
I'm not questioning your sincerity in any way and believe we both want a safer society.
However, different problems require different solutions, and guns are often only a symptom of larger issues or cultural disagreements. For instance, tackling our suicide rate is radically different then seeking to reduce inner city drug violence.
Most importantly, what are your ultimate, overarching priorities? Do you accept that firearms ownership and use has a somewhat unique history and cultural priority in America that must be respected, including allowing, for the most part, universal adult ownership of firearms to those without criminal convictions or who have been judicially determined to be a danger to themselves or others? Alternatively, do you ultimately seek to demonstrably limit or reduce ownership of firearms to otherwise qualified American adults as part of the solution to your perceived problems?
There is a distinct lack of trust among the different camps in the gun debate. Precisely stating the alleged problems, potential solutions, as well as one's long-term goals, will help facilitate any discussions.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)radical right wing in this country to take over our politics? Not just with regard to guns, but also abortion and public education and the whole consensus that had been built up over decades on Social Security and Medicare? Once we start discussing how that happened and what we need to do to turn that around, we can discuss the finer points.
branford
(4,462 posts)You have been polite and thoughtful, and I have attempted to do the same.
However, as with all policy discussions, particularly on matters of culture, intent, priorities and ultimate goals, are extremely relevant.
We almost definitely agree on matters of abortion, public education, Social Security and Medicate, and likely most other financial and social issues. We apparently differ to some extent on the issue of the ownership and use of firearms in the United States.
If compromise on the issues relating to firearms is to be reached, I would assume that I would be considered the "low hanging fruit" in any discussions since I'm a loyal Democrat, liberal, I do not own firearms, and already indicated that I would support some restrictions like universal background checks (subject to the actual wording of the particular statute).
Therefore, I would be very curious to know what particular gun problems you believe have priority or represent the greatest risks, what solutions would you propose in the United States that could pass constitutional scrutiny, and most importantly, what is your ultimate position on universal gun ownership.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)ruling in the Heller case. I would like to see a change in that ruling, back to what the court said prior to Heller about the original meaning of the 2nd A. I would imagine that my reasoning on that would be in accordance with Justice Ginsburg's dissent. Since I disagree strongly with the Heller decision, I obviously feel that a lot of our problems today stem from the sequelae in state legislatures from that decision, similar to what we are seeing now in state leges with regard to voting rights, since the last SCOTUS ruling. And what I fear will be a likely outcome if Roe v. Wade gets reconsidered and possibly overturned. All of these decisions are not unrelated to that larger political issue to which I referred, they are part and parcel of what is happening in this country, which I call radical. You don't see the connection but I do, very clearly.
As for my thoughts, well, besides background checks, I would call for a serious re-looking at what happened in Newtown that would not have happened if not for the Heller decision. Does a hunter need that many rounds fired in such rapid succession? Does anyone need that for protection of his property? And do you have suggestions about the proliferation of handguns? Because if any gun problem is crying out for a solution, that one is. I think Chris Rock did a fine job in his comedy routine about bullet control that highlighted the utter insanity going on with handguns...
For a state legislature, my CT lege has my full support. If we had a pre-Heller situation, we could at least choose which state we would want to live and bring up our children in, without fear of having our legislative wishes carried out statewise overturned by a federal court based on a radical interpretation of the 2nd A.
I would start there and then get to the larger issue of illegal transport of guns through states, despite state laws. Stronger state enforcement won't mean anything if the laws get thrown out.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)NickB79
(19,224 posts)You can own semi-automatic weapons, including high-power rifles.
You can own up to 4 handguns, including semi-auto models in popular calibers such as 9mm.
You can legally own silencers with no licensing required. In fact, you are often required to use them to limit noise pollution at shooting ranges and hunting.
You must be 18 to own a rifle or shotgun, and 21 to own a handgun.
You can legally store up to 15,000 rounds of ammo in your home.
You can own certain types of fully automatic weapons so long as you have the proper permits as a collector.
There is no mention of magazine limitations on Wikipedia, but another article I found stated hunting guns can only hold 3 rounds (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/28/282174/breivik-gun-clips-united-states/). It also said the Norwegian mass murderer did legally purchase his Glock 30-rd handgun magazines in Norway, though.
In trade, the Norwegians are required to take a 9-30 hr training course, complete with testing at the end.
They must either purchase a hunting license and enroll in the hunting registry annually, or maintain an active membership at a shooting club/range.
Their guns must be secured in a safe, and the police are allowed to inspect it. However, they must give you 48 hr notice, and can only view the safe and leave.
Getting a gun for the express purpose of self/home defense is not allowed, but then again, a shotgun or handgun purchased for hunting and target shooting would work just as well for home defense if required.
No conceal-carry whatsoever.
And, as others have pointed out, you get a comprehensive social safety net.
I'd take that trade in a heartbeat. On the other hand, I know many DU'ers here that would choke on their own bile before accepting many of the rights that the Norwegians get.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...I'd be fine with these measures. Sure the "not for self-defense but okay for hunting...nudge nudge, wink wink" nonsense is silly, but I suspect that was a political bone thrown to some voter contingent or another.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Getting a gun for the express purpose of self/home defense is not allowed - Violation of the Connecticut State Constitution: SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
The others would not be so bad. The only reason for gun owners to oppose most of them is the same reason why I oppose nearly all restrictions on abortion. Once the new restrictions are in place, opponents of the right to keep arms will keep working for further restrictions. You will end up like some states and their abortion laws with every clinic shut down and restrictions so cumbersome that women can't get the abortion in a timely manner. I grew up in the South, served as a minor officer in the Virginia Democratic Party, and spent years trying to counter the anti-abortion movement. I know how this game is played.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)A gun is just a potentially very lethal tool. If we simply treated it like what it is, instead of a heroic talisman and cultural icon, if we classed it with other machinery that can very easily end lives through regular operation, rather than a mark of maleness and patriotism... maybe we could fix the fucking problems we have with guns.
It's not the hammer that's the problem, it's the people who think whacking things with hammers is a sacrament.
branford
(4,462 posts)You are certainly free to hold these views or any others, but such an attitude will not change the hearts and minds of those you need to alter the purported "gun culture," and more likely, will further entrench their positions.
I do not own any guns, and would support some additional restriction such as universal background checks. However, when I hear and read the venom and bile directed at many peaceful and law abiding (and surprisingly diverse) Americans, I can certainly understand why they would not give an inch in the gun debate.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I've known plenty of men and women who don't.
The only one generalizing is you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)shooting other repeat-felons, largely in the same geographic areas. That is manifest.
What is difficult is gaining constructive attention to this problem and addressing policies which can reduce this festering problem.
I don't think gangs and hooligans have patriotism in their collective minds when they are daily shooting at other hooligans, and hitting those in between.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)NTTAWWT, but most of the obvious antigun posters take great pains to deny they're trying
to wage cultural warfare. I find your candor rather refreshing.
This thread is worth bookmarking for that post alone, so it can be referred to when another DUer denies that there's a cultural war being waged against guns...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023481555#post29
29. America's problem isn't guns. It's GUN CULTURE.
A gun is just a potentially very lethal tool. If we simply treated it like what it is, instead of a heroic talisman and cultural icon, if we classed it with other machinery that can very easily end lives through regular operation, rather than a mark of maleness and patriotism... maybe we could fix the fucking problems we have with guns.
It's not the hammer that's the problem, it's the people who think whacking things with hammers is a sacrament.
More to the point, I'd *love* to visit Norway, as some of my ancestors hailed from those parts...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The way our society attaches so much cultural on something with the mechanical complexity of a disposable lighter baffles me, and i'm pretty certain it's certainly a contributing factor in the rate of gun crime in the US.
That's not to say that gun-centered media makes people go out and shoot a place up. But then, rape culture doesn't actually make anyone go our and commit rapes, either. What it does instead is engender a sort of justification / apathy attitude about it all.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If you look at the "gun culture", that is people who are real firearms enthusiasts, what do you see? They are knowledgeable about firearms, have a great interest in them, and often go shooting. They jump through the legal hoops to get a concealed carry license.
If you look at the vast majority of gun crime in this country, you know who isn't committing it? The people in the "gun culture". Take the crowd at your average gun show or firing range on a given day, or your average concealed carry permit holder. For your premise to be correct, we would expect those people to committing the bulk of gun crimes.
But that isn't the case.
There are culture problems in this country, those do lead to crimes and violence- including gun violence. But it isn't gun enthusiasts or the "gun culture" that are the problem.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Did I say anything about gun owners, criminal or otherwise? Did I say anything about licensing? Did I say anything about firing ranges? Nope.
I was talking about the gun as an object and its portrayal and perceptions in the US culture, which is markedly different from how these tools are portrayed in any other industrialized nation.
There's no argument that the automobile created a definitive "car culture," an American subculture that dissolved into the mainstream and led to everything from benefits such as the US Interstate system and vastly superior food distribution systems... to the obvious downsides of oil dependence and urban blight and suburban sprawl.
There can be no argument that firearms also play an iconic role in American culture, complete with their own distinct and not-totally-dissolved subculture. I think it's perfectly fair to have a look at what impact this reality has on our overall culture and the way we use, perceive, and treat these particular objects.
That so many, including you with this post, wish to engage in a bunch of hand-waving and obfuscation in order to batter the very idea of such an examination down, tells me that perhaps things aren't as on the up-and-up as I'm being assured by you.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)"Gun culture" is what I described above- the people who are gun enthusiasts and who collect, shoot and use guns.
Blaming violence on them is like blaming drunk driving on car enthusiasts.
No, what you described above is more accurately described as the culture of violence or lack or regard for human life we have developed in all our media.
The way Hollywood and the gaming industry treats guns, where most youth get their exposure to them now, is quite markedly different than what you find among real gun enthusiasts, and you will find that most in the "gun culture" are consistently disappointed in how Hollywood and video games treat guns as much as you are.
I get what you are saying, but calling what you are describing "gun culture" doesn't fit with what really is the gun culture in this country.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Look, I know what you're going on about here. I've done this before.
When someone like me makes a mention of the very odd cultural hangups and ideologies we Americans have about guns, someone like you will always - and I literally mean ALWAYS - run up and start not only taking this as some hideous affront against "responsible gun owners," but will start reading off of their index cards about crime rates, carry concealed permits, Tipper Gore, the Brady Act, and god only knows what else. They trot out the No True Scotsman defense, they roll their eyes and try to behave like constitutional scholars, and htey point fingers fucking everywhere.
What you guys - and yeah, "you guys," you're obviously not the first person to lob this katamari ball of junk at me - never seem to realize is that not only is your heaving, vigorous defense of guns unneeded in the context, but it also makes you look like desperate, defensive, frightened people who will use any old bullshit so long as it throws a shield up around guns, as if they were sacred relics that should never be so much as gazed at by heretics and unbelievers.
Which actually just ends up reinforcing my point that Americans have some pretty fucking weird psychological shit going on with regards to guns.
This line of yours amuses me:
While I don't necessarily disagree... I think it's odd that you are trying to disassociate this notion from the one tool that completely dominates media violence. The gun. As if there were no meaning or impact on our culture from this, I suppose.
If it helps you wrap your head around any of this, try to imagine the subject of "American Culture" as a very large venn diagram. Lots of overlaps going on. Your "gun enthusiasts" are not a separate category from "gun culture" is not a separate category from "culture of violence" is not a separate category from "rape culture" is not a separate category from "emotionally damaged people" is not a separate category from "people who make duckfaces on instagram."
Response to CTyankee (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)During the (Second World) war over 16 million Americans served in the United States military,
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War I
Gulf War II
I don't see how you can do the Friday Art Challenge and simply ignore history in cultural development. American culture was built on travel. You know, that whole westward expansion across a continent and development into the largest empire since Kublai Khan thing. And we used weapons, specifically guns, to do it.
Do you and your family travel abroad? Do you know how you're able to do that? Wealth stolen and defended with guns.
And by the way, Norway is one of the founding members of NATO.
...participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Here I am pleading for a little cultural exchange on the issue of guns and alluva sudden we're in the westward expansion and the Cold War and the founding of the UN? Much of which, btw, happened in my lifetime and about which I am fully aware (does making Hawaii and Alaska states count in "westward expansion"?). Can you narrow this down to get to my original point, please? As a Navy friend of mine used to say "don't get wrapped around the axle on this..."
I don't normally format a post this way, but you are the one that made the comparison between the second world war and Norwegian culture.
So why did those very Norwegians, who fought the Nazis (sometimes on skis in rugged terrains), pass strict gun control laws after World War II? They had real experience fighting tyranny. We have people strapping guns to themselves in public blithely claiming it protects freedom without one shred of evidence to the contrary, and certainly without any experience of true suffering and death in the face of real threats to freedom.
Yeah, Americans wouldn't know anything about fighting in snow. And of those sixteen million Americans that served the 290,000 that died and 670,000 that were wounded were just tourists our for a lark. Also, since time moves at more or less the same pace all over the planet I doubt there are many more Norwegian veterans than there are here (although many more probably remember the Cold War).
Norway has had one "lone wolf" mass shooting/bombing in 2011, by a disturbed fanatic who had to spend 9 years getting the financing for his attacks. Compare that with the number of mass shootings in the U.S. in just one month or one year!
And while we're on the subject of population: Population of Norway 5,051,300 (2013) Population of the United States: 316,477,000 (2013). Your comparison is, at best, foolish.
It is too bad that so many Americans, particularly now, cannot afford to travel to foreign lands to broaden their perspectives on what they are talking about when they cite "freedom" to oppose even the mildest of gun safety legislation. And I find it interesting that when I hear them "we aren't China" or some other repressive regime, that they don't cite Norway. Because they can't. Funny, that...
As a member of NATO, Norway was little more than a forward operating base for the United States against the threat of another repressive regime, so you could say we paid the cultural price of "gun love" for them.
And yes, the making of Alaska and Hawaii were part of our westward expansion.
Since you were alive when many of these events happened, especially given your interest in history, you should be more aware of the complexities of cultural development. Unfortunately, you are so busy assuming the worst of people based on their ownership of guns, you're reduced to viewing history through the narrow lens of your own prejudice. I have been lucky enough to travel a bit myself, although not as much as I'd like. I've seen abstract expressionist brushwork in a Tintoretto and the remains of litter strewn pillboxes on the Italian coast. Indeed, this ain't China. I've seen children with missing fingers begging in Guangdong and lepers begging on the bustling streets of Bangkok. I've seen hundreds of Hong Kong citizens in line in front the American consulate waiting to get paperwork to get out of town before its return to the Chinese. And walked right past them with the wave of my passport so I could get special passes to tour the USS Abrham Lincon that happened to be anchored in Victoria Harbor. And I own guns and I have questions about the wisdom and constitutionality of the "mildest of gun safety legislation" you so blithely describe with such Luntzesque spin.
Your condescension is insulting. If you can afford to travel, good for you. You can afford to think the way you do because the grandchildren of world war II veterans are currently garrisoning the planet for the empire that is the United States. We can't be like the Norwegians because we have a different history, geography and cultural identity. We're not angels by any stretch of the imagination, but we're a whole lot better than the other luminaries of twentieth century imperialism.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)I wish only the best for you, rrneck.
denbot
(9,898 posts)They too have reasonable gun laws.
Cheetos stained yahoo's take note.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)the war faced destruction and hunger on a widespread basis. That is when most of the Western democracies there passed strong gun safety laws.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)I would also like us to move closer to their drunk driving laws
Alcohol can have a serious affect on judgement and your ability to drive. The legal limit is 20 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliltre of blood. There are severe penalties for drink-driving. Some medications should be avoided if you intend to drive. These are marked with a red triangle.
Three weeks in jail at hard labor, one year loss of license. Second offense within five years, license revoked for life.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)sarisataka
(18,474 posts)it would be .02
An old news article summarizes:
A 120-pound woman would have to stop drinking sooner -- before finishing her first 12-ounce mug of beer. (One 4-ounce glass of wine, imbibed over the same 60-minute period, is sufficient to put both people over the legal driving limit.)
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)I think the French and the Italians consume more alcohol than that at their meals.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)but they came up with a solution, if you drink-don't drive. I believe bars have free non-alcoholic drinks and food for designated drivers. Otherwise people who drink take taxis. It seems they also rate the fines to your income.
One example I located (then lost- it was a Canadian news source) was millionaire fined $85,000 and sentenced to 30 days of chopping wood for a .07 DUI, no accident involoved.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)I admit I have no idea what it is in CT.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts).08 for most, .04 for commercial drivers and 0.0 under 21
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)While I agree with much of your post, you cannot be serious in implying that the number of mass murder incidents in a country of 5 million should be compared on a non-adjusted basis with those occurring in a population of over 310 million, can you? Norway's population is about 1/62nd of of the US population, and to meaningfully compare violence you have to do it on a population-adjusted basis.
Norway is a country with low crime rates and low murder rates.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
And it has relatively high gun ownership rates. Note that gun ownership rates don't correlate all that well to homicide/murder rates globally:
Given Norway's high gun ownership rates and low murder rates, I suspect there's a cultural factor, not gun control laws. Norwegians are a very law-abiding people, on average.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)And they have very strict laws respecting guns. Every Norwegian is not a law unto him/herself when it comes to guns.
We have a culture in this country that, aided and abetted by the hijacking of our politics by the radical right wing, has regular events of mass shootings. That is insane. The point of my post was that you can have a gun population that loves guns, owns them and uses them properly and still lives peacefully with laws restricting them.
branford
(4,462 posts)Many Democrats and independents support gun rights. The divisions are not always by party, rather geography or an urban / rural divide is often determinative.
Also, the reason, culturally, why Norway may have a very low crime rate is the fact that the country is very small, extremely homogeneous and comparatively rich. It's the same reason why well to do suburbs are very safe in our country, but poor inner cities neighborhoods incur the wrath of gun crime at a much greater rate. Gun crime statistics vary significantly over different areas in the USA.
I would additionally point out that although mass shootings are no doubt tragic, they are little more than a infinitesimally small anomaly in the much larger gun crime statistics. An emotive issue, for sure, but a very poor basis for major policy initiatives. As is evident from recent events, many Americans believe that incidents like mass shooting are evidence that they need to own a gun for their own protection, not give up their rights as you suggest. In fact, applications for gun permits have substantially increased in Newton apparently because of the shooting.
Norway will also not permit gun ownership solely for self-defense purposes. Apart from the clear American constitutional problems with this position and other related Norwegian laws, it's simply a non-starter for most Americans in the gun debate.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)takeover of politics using gerrymandering to achieve their goals state by state and sending people to Congress who do their bidding. We know about ALEC and we know about the Koch brothers. This isn't news to you, is it? It is a pattern now, so the evidence weighs heavily in favor of my side of the argument. Of course, you don't like and you don't want anyone to believe it. But see for yourself, who are the liberals and moderates who dissented in Heller and who are the extreme right wing justices who voted FOR it? Do you, as a self proclaimed liberal, think those guys are in favor of ANYTHING that DU stands for? For a liberal on a progressive website such as DU, your predicament is problematic.
When you say "support gun rights," it is not all the same thing for all Dems and Independents. Some believe in an individual's right to own a gun but want stricter guns laws to keep guns out of the hands that should not have them. Some do not feel that their individual right to own a gun means that the gun of the Newtown shooter is just fine for everyone to have. And many want universal background checks. All of this has been impeded by our Tea Party controlled House of Representatives, which, QED, has been carefully picked by the radical right wing in gerrymandered districts. The gerrymandering itself was the power grab that has diminished our democracy and set us back in the opinion of the world. We were once the beacon of democracy and our Constitution was used as the basis for many developing democracies around the world. Now it is not and it is viewed as unworkable in modern societies. That was more than just a blow to our ego. It has signaled a decline in our very ability to see what is surely coming. Read Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly," written about the time we were realizing we couldn't go on in Vietnam. From the Trojan War onward in history, empires have fallen despite warnings and despite knowing what steps to take to avoid it.
It doesn't surprise me that applications for gun permits went up after Newtown. Some of it is doubtless great fear, certainly not logic. But I think there are some people very susceptible to the NRA propaganda that the government is out to take away your freedoms. So I have to wonder "Gee, why are such fears suddenly springing full blown at just the right moment?" Contrary to what you might believe about Newtown, CT is not a very receptive place for the Tea Party. But a drumbeat of propaganda from an organization that has lots of money and has bought off the Congress has its effect, doesn't it? Funny how that happens...but the law still stands and most CT voters approve of it.
Finally, reading your dismissal of that "emotive issue" being a very poor basis for major policy initiatives leaves me with a loss for words. I thought you should know that.
branford
(4,462 posts)I am proof. Although I support gun rights, I also have no objection to universal background checks as I believe they would be both constitutional and may somewhat effective. If I cannot be convinced of the value of many proposed gun regulations, the chance of reaching stronger or more absolutist gun rights proponents is minimal.
FYI, I'm not some rural Southerner or other "redneck." I am a very liberal, politically active attorney in NYC. I live in a high-rise apartment across from the United Nations with security like a fortress. I walk to work in a similarly safe building and neighborhood. I do not own a gun, nor wish to, because I feel very safe. However, I realize that many Americans do not enjoy my level of safety or security, and would not seek to deny them the best known means to defend themselves or their families. I also know many VERY liberal friends and colleagues who own firearms, many whom members of this forum would never suspect, including outspoken defense attorneys and minority businessmen.
I also believe in and support the entire Bill of Rights. I am constantly astonished that liberals who often and loudly demand that the Constitution be interpreted to protect the maximum level of civil rights and personal liberty, suddenly find exception after exception when it comes to the Second Amendment. How one view guns should not determine how one interprets the Constitution. If one does not believe in substantial and broad gun rights, the answer is relatively straightforward. We have a clear mechanism to amend the Constitution. Moreover, many regulations are still permissible under current legal constraints.
Your complaints about Heller also miss the forest for the trees. First, regardless of your opinion concerning the decision, it is now the law of the land, just like Roe v. Wade. More importantly, even if the Court held differently, very little would change in the country. The Second Amendment only limits regulation of firearms, its absence does not impose any limitations on firearms. If the Amendment disappeared, the states and federal government would have greater authority to regulate. However, many states have Second Amendment analogues that would prevent many regulations that you would prefer, and gun control advocates would still need to gather popular support to change existing laws. The states with tight controls may get a little tighter, states with less restrictions would likely remain unchanged, and as the composition of Congress would remain as it is, I would foresee few, if any, new federal laws. If Congress cannot pass universal background checks after Newton, stronger restrictions in the near and mid-term appear to be a pipe dream.
I also stand by my analysis of Newton. It was undoubtedly a tragedy and my heart goes out to all the victims and their families. However, regardless of brutality the crime, mass shootings like Newton represent the barest fraction of gun crime. Many of the laws proposed after Newton would not have altered the outcome of the massacre or even addressed the vast majority of gun deaths, including suicides. Newton is being used to push a very broad anti-firearm agenda that is unconnected to the actual events in Newton. It is, quite frankly, no different than anti-choice advocates using Gosnell as a smokescreen to pass new abortion restrictions. The axiom, "Bad cases make bad law," is no different if the issue is abortion or firearms.
The allegation that the citizens of Connecticut are also now uniquely "susceptible to the NRA propaganda" insults the intelligence and free will of these individuals. If they are frightened and seek a means to defend themselves, they do not need the NRA or me, to suggest how they should respond. The implication that those who disagree with your position do so only because they are brainwashed, stupid or infantile is not only repugnant, but is most assuredly not going to win any converts to your cause.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)about the latest interpretation of the 2nd A. Nor that they view that amendment as a relic needing placement in better context and not helpful in our modern society. I am in that group. Heller to me is no more God's Holy Writ than other RW rantings. Sorry.
Oh, you are doubting the influence of the NRA over swaying public attention? My goodness, they should stop wasting their money, what are they, stupid? I'm sure they will stop with their scare tactics immediately! But I find it interesting that you don't think their propaganda amounts to much of anything...tell them that...
I often, in these posts, point to a pre-Heller world, the one I grew up in, but in Texas, not in Manhattan. The Second Amendment had been interpreted differently, as you know, and quite simply guns weren't that big a deal. We surely did not have mass shootings on a regular basis and certainly not in a school or a movie theatre. Those in my family who had guns for hunting did so and as a child I never saw their guns, ever. And nobody strutted around loudly proclaiming their right to do so in public. Nobody held forth on his individual right to carry his gun, concealed or otherwise. I'm sure people did but we didn't live in fear that a shopping center would get shot up or the Saturday matinee would be under attack. We've come to a pretty place, haven't we? I don't know who to thank for that.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Thanks to NickB above for the summary-lets look and see and compare how they line up with gun laws in the States.
You can own semi-automatic weapons, including high-power rifles.
OK, so they are actually less restrictive than many US states, equal to others. Net is that Norway has fewer restrictions in this regard overall.
You can own up to 4 handguns, including semi-auto models in popular calibers such as 9mm.
The limit of 4 is a bit tighter, but since most people outside collectors of vintage guns own less than 4, no real big deal. Score that slightly more restrictive Norway.
You can legally own silencers with no licensing required. In fact, you are often required to use them to limit noise pollution at shooting ranges and hunting.
Silencers are only legal in 38 US states, and in states where they can be had require onerous Federal paperwork, a 200 tax, and right now between a 6-11 month wait for the BATFE to do the paperwork. Score one for Norway being less restrictive.
You must be 18 to own a rifle or shotgun, and 21 to own a handgun.
Same as the USA, so equal.
You can legally store up to 15,000 rounds of ammo in your home.
No limits in Federal Law, some municipalities limit it via fire codes. Very few people keep that much, so no real effect. Score this slightly more restrictive Norway.
You can own certain types of fully automatic weapons so long as you have the proper permits as a collector.
Only legal in some US states, with the same burdensome paperwork required and 6-11 month wait as a suppressor. In addition Congress froze the supply to full auto weapons available to the public in 1986 to what was already available. The foxed supply means prices are way high to where only 1%er types can buy them. Score one for Norway being much less restrictive.
There is no mention of magazine limitations on Wikipedia, but another article I found stated hunting guns can only hold 3 rounds (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/28/282174/breivik-gun-clips-united-states/). It also said the Norwegian mass murderer did legally purchase his Glock 30-rd handgun magazines in Norway, though.
I checked, no mag limits. There are mag limits in many US states, so score another for Norway being less restrictive.
In trade, the Norwegians are required to take a 9-30 hr training course, complete with testing at the end.
This is more restrictive, but not more than what some states require for a concealed carry permit. Score one for Norway being more restrictive.
They must either purchase a hunting license and enroll in the hunting registry annually, or maintain an active membership at a shooting club/range.
I imagine in Norway there are less parcels of private land where one can shoot. This is equal to what Illinois does now, requiring a Firearms Owners ID card. Doesn't seem to help prevent crime there. Score one for Norway being more restrictive, but some states here equal them.
Their guns must be secured in a safe, and the police are allowed to inspect it. However, they must give you 48 hr notice, and can only view the safe and leave.
Many states require safe storage, but warrantless searches would never fly here, for good reason. Score one for Norway being less free.
Getting a gun for the express purpose of self/home defense is not allowed, but then again, a shotgun or handgun purchased for hunting and target shooting would work just as well for home defense if required.
So in effect, no change. Call it equal.
No conceal-carry whatsoever.
Definitely more restrictive, since now all 50 states will have some form of it very soon
All in all, in some ways gun owners are less restricted there, in some ways more. Aside from mandatory safety training- that I think should be done in high schools anyway- no real change. Calling what they have "strict gun control" isn't really accurate.
So a gun owner in Norway can own suppressors and machine guns, a gun owner in IL can't. Both have to have some sort of permit (FOID in IL, hunting license in Norway) to own the gun. Concealed carry is still banned for both until IL gets its house in order. IL residents can buy a gun without mandatory training and don't have to have a hunting license. Some municipalities in IL ban "assault weapons" and normal capacity magazines, none of that in Norway.
I would say gun owners in Norway have fewer restrictions than gun owners in IL....
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I would LOVE to be able to buy a suppressor for my pistol to avoid hearing damage. No real interest in full auto, but I would like to have a rifle with a barrel under 16" without paying a $200 tax and waiting a year for a background check and paperwork.
Training- I say take it a step further. Don't just require a class if you want to buy a gun. Mandatory gun safety training for EVERYBODY, not just those who choose it. Do it in high school just like drivers ed and sex ed. That way even a person who somehow accidentally comes across a gun knows how to safely handle it.
Only 2 I have issue with is no concealed carry and warrantless searches. Scratch that and I am fully on board, especially when it makes suppressors easily available with no wait to taxes.
But honestly, it wouldn't change much. The laws are not that much different now, and the big differences between the USA and Norway and what crime is there are not found in how we regulate guns.
Honestly, do you think gun control advocates would trade allowing more full auto and silencers and eliminating states AW bans and mag bans in exchange for nationwide mandatory training and licensing?
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)We have let the situation get far too serious to start at that point. So let's talk about mandatory gun safety training for everybody. Start there. Why would anything have to be "exchanged" for that, since you have said you are all in favor of it? Or is it nothing more than a bargaining chip for your side? Either you think it is a good thing in and of itself or you don't.
I would venture to say that if Norway experienced the level of gun violence daily in their society that we do today and weaponry such as that which was used in Newtown were used against their citizens they would see the issue differently and handle it accordingly. But they don't have this problem, even if you adjust for size of population. If they started having Breivik's mass shootings on a regular basis you bet they would.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Lets be a bit honest about what you want, at least.
You said why don't we have the laws Norway does, I asked if gun control (lets quit calling them gun "safety" advocates since they never teach nor advocate safety, only control) would really accept Norwegian laws, which would mean becoming looser on many restriction we have here while tightening others.
So one reason we don't have Norways laws is that gun control advocates don't want them, at least some of them. My question was pointing this out, so you can't just blame the NRA and gun enthusiasts. If you are honest and want the laws Norway has, all of them, and just not the ones that are more restrictive than US laws.
Yes, I am for mandatory gun safety training, for 100% of people, done in high school. I already said that. Lets make it happen. I bet if you propose it like that you will get broad support from gun enthusiasts and the NRA, and it will be the gun control groups who oppose it.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)gun safety regulations.
I don't know anybody in the pro-safety regulation movement who opposes mandatory training per se.
This is a public safety issue to me and everyone I know in the movement. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with my views that I designate these regulations as "gun safety" ones.
If gun safety proponents oppose the mandatory training it will be because they are proposed as part of a package that contain provisions we could not support. Therefore, I support a stand alone mandatory training provision. Why not?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I know when it has been proposed before, it has always been Democrat politicians who fought it and gun control advocates or teachers unions who screamed "guns have no place in schools", even for education.
A few examples:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/virginia-school-districts_n_976126.html
From above link:
But critics called for more inclusive standards and guidelines if districts choose to include gun safety in its curriculum. Lori Haas, spokesperson for the Virginia Center for Public Safety and mother to a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, told FoxNews.com last April that the legislation is an unnecessary burden on the school board, as well as a "freebie to a special interest group."
"I personally don't think firearm safety has a place in the schools. That's up to the parents to teach that at home," Haas told FoxNews.com. "For the General Assembly and governor to dictate to the Board of Education in writing curriculum is not their area."
http://www.pressherald.com/politics/Gun-safety-bill-shot-down-by-committee.html
From above:
"It's just one more thing on top of schools that they don't need, and this is not really under their bailiwick, as far as I'm concerned," said Rep. Victoria Kornfield, D-Bangor.
More opposition to gun safety training, this time on a college campus. http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130510/woodland-hills-warner-center-neighborhood-council-wants-to-stop-nra-gun-classes-at-pierce-college
There are plenty more examples- if it is brought up and defeated it is almost always someone from our side, to say the left, doing so. Part of that is a knee-jerk response because the NRA provides most gun safety materials, even though they are non-political. We should be applauding the NRA for doing gun safety work and training, but way too many just reject it out of hand, which is foolish. I have actually seen the NRA's programs at work, there is nothing political and nothing glamorizes guns in them. But gun control groups, in their zeal to bash anything the NRA does, claim it somehow is the equivalent of "Joe Camel", a ludicrous statement but keeping with the level of intellectual dishonesty I expect from them.
We had a thread on here not long ago lamenting the fact that a new school in GA had a rifle range in in, for just this kind of education among other things.
But lets still be honest about your intention here- first you say you want Norwegian style laws- now you only want selective parts of them, and want to keep some laws more restrictive. You have changed your stance form "I want Norways Laws" to "I want some of Norways Laws" once it was pointed out that many of their laws are less restrictive.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)It doesn't have to be its own course, it can be woven into general safety training and most certainly the NRA is not the only organization that could provide this information. I am sure there are local resources that can help. I would envision it as being part of a series on public safety training, such as driving. Some schools have marksmanship as part of their sports program and that is fine, certainly gun safety would be part of that.
So it doesn't necessarily have to be in the public schools, if the issue is funding. But certainly, giving kids the information they need to be safe around guns they might find lying around, what to do if you find one, and other basic common sense precautions are laudable.
For adults, mandatory training would have to be something else. Obviously, a person should be required to have a certificate of basic safety rules before he/she tries to obtain a gun legally. Just as my daughter, her husband and my granddaughter had to take mandatory training in boat management in order to get a license to drive a boat. They had to pass a both a written and a hands-on test. That was in MA.
AS I said in my OP, we could certainly learn something from visiting Norway and learning about their laws and customs with guns that we could adapt/use in this country. I think it would have good effect on our own public policy. For some reason, you find that strange, but well,that's you...
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)That's #1. Not acceptable - EVER. As far as I am concerned, the prime reason to own a firearm is self and home defense. Not hunting or target shooting or gun collecting. The police can not be everywhere. The idea of prohibiting armed self and home defense is utterly, totally and completely off the table for discussion.
That's #2. Not acceptable - ever. Because the percentage of people with CCW is very low (1-2%), and the percentage of them who misuse the right is very low (1-2%).
That's #3. Not acceptable. Not without a warrant. And there has to be probable cause. Little thing called the 4th Amendment. Or do you think that is outmoded, too?
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)emerging nations no longer favor modeling their constitutions on ours? Even Justice Ginsburg said as much, when she said if it were her new country she would prefer the Constitution of South Africa, which spells out guaranteed rights more specifically, especially women's rights. Of course, in America half the population isn't enough to make into mention in the U.S. Constitution. Don't you think THAT is a tad "outmoded"?
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)in memorable history, experience with the question you pose in your #1 and #2. The U.S. population has not endured an actual invasion, takeover and its repressions that followed such as what Norway went through. It goes EXACTLY to the question I raise, e.g.: why, immediately after WW2, would that country enact a law that, at least in your estimation, expressly "prohibits home/self defense? I don't have an answer for you, except that perhaps they weighed the benefits of the home/self defense argument vs. the spectre of having people stockpile guns in a way that could threaten public safety. They came down on the side of public safety. Thus, in some Americans thinking, opening the way for repression by the government, if I follow the argument through to its logical conclusion. So my question was: why did such repression not ensue? Because if I hear your argument through to its logical conclusion, it SHOULD have happened.
It's an interesting discussion topic and I look forward to hearing from you!
otohara
(24,135 posts)where there are no guns.
REP
(21,691 posts)But mostly I'd just love to visit Norway 
I've seen enough Norwegian movies to think I'd do well in the climate: lots of it looks beautiful; and there seems to be a dark sense of humor afoot. Plus Viking Ship Museum.