American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?

[Peikko 1,575]

Last week, Starbucks asked its American customers to please not bring their guns into the coffee shop. This is part of the company's concern about customer safety and follows a ban in the summer on smoking within 25 feet of a coffee shop entrance and an earlier ruling about scalding hot coffee. After the celebrated Liebeck v McDonald's case in 1994, involving a woman who suffered third-degree burns to her thighs, Starbucks complies with the Specialty Coffee Association of America's recommendation that drinks should be served at a maximum temperature of 82C.

Although it was brave of Howard Schultz, the company's chief executive, to go even this far in a country where people are better armed and only slightly less nervy than rebel fighters in Syria, we should note that dealing with the risks of scalding and secondary smoke came well before addressing the problem of people who go armed to buy a latte. There can be no weirder order of priorities on this planet.

That's America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC's navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.

The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn't qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.

To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it's worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Edward Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.

That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US is a staggering fact, particularly when you place it in the context of the safety-conscious, "secondary smoke" obsessions that characterise so much of American life.

Everywhere you look in America, people are trying to make life safer. On roads, for example, there has been a huge effort in the past 50 years to enforce speed limits, crack down on drink/drug driving and build safety features into highways, as well as vehicles. The result is a steadily improving record; by 2015, forecasters predict that for first time road deaths will be fewer than those caused by firearms (32,036 to 32,929).

Plainly, there's no equivalent effort in the area of privately owned firearms. Indeed, most politicians do everything they can to make the country less safe. Recently, a Democrat senator from Arkansas named Mark Pryor ran a TV ad against the gun-control campaign funded by NY mayor Michael Bloomberg – one of the few politicians to stand up to the NRA lobby – explaining why he was against enhanced background checks on gun owners yet was committed to "finding real solutions to violence".

About their own safety, Americans often have an unusual ability to hold two utterly opposed ideas in their heads simultaneously. That can only explain the past decade in which the fear of terror has cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars in wars, surveillance and intelligence programmes and homeland security. Ten years after 9/11, homeland security spending doubled to $69bn . The total bill since the attacks is more than $649bn.

One more figure. There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms. If any European nation had such a record and persisted in addressing only the first figure, while ignoring the second, you can bet your last pound that the State Department would be warning against travel to that country and no American would set foot in it without body armour.

But no nation sees itself as outsiders do. Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn't grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery. Astonishingly, when owning a gun is not about ludicrous macho fantasy, it is mostly seen as a matter of personal safety, like the airbag in the new Ford pick-up or avoiding secondary smoke, despite conclusive evidence that people become less safe as gun ownership rises.

Last week, I happened to be in New York for the 9/11 anniversary: it occurs to me now that the city that suffered most dreadfully in the attacks and has the greatest reason for jumpiness is also among the places where you find most sense on the gun issue in America. New Yorkers understand that fear breeds peril and, regardless of tragedies such as Sandy Hook and the DC naval yard, the NRA, the gun manufacturers, conservative-inclined politicians and parts of the media will continue to advocate a right, which, at base, is as archaic as a witch trial.

Talking to American friends, I always sense a kind of despair that the gun lobby is too powerful to challenge and that nothing will ever change. The same resignation was evident in President Obama's rather lifeless reaction to the Washington shooting last week. There is absolutely nothing he can do, which underscores the fact that America is in a jam and that international pressure may be one way of reducing the slaughter over the next generation. This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter

[Darnell 8,478]

Thanks for the StarBucks notice.

I've a line of public gun safes that's nice to push.

[Danno 1,228]

This must have been written by some Left-wing, one-worlder type still hanging onto dreams of Liberal utopia.. you can tell by the numbers he uses.

"Gun deaths" as if, without those guns, the lives would never have been lost.... when he knows that well over half of those "gun deaths" are from suicides.

We found in other places that banned and confiscated guns, the suicide rate remained the same.

Utopia-

A. Dreaming that something can make 300 millions guns go away when we can't even round up 12 million illegals who are at McDonalds, the post office and the Cheap grocery chain.

B. That anyone in the developed world would have the balls or will to come and try to remove guns from Amerikah.

[lostinblue 1,989]

"We dispensed with these rights long ago " Just another liberal using the First Amendment to try to gut the Second........... Sweet....

[Jacque67 7,328]

I am positive Putin will solve the problem!

[RGinWA 816]

Funny if some country intervened here we'd lose our collective s#it. But we intervene everywhere.

[Karee 4,190]

Send in the UN. They do such a great job everywhere else.

[Protocol417 161]

I'm very disappointed to see that this was published by the Guardian. Even as a liberal, I could not take this seriously.

Also, the Starbucks decision was a weak one. They are merely asking people politely not to bring in guns. If someone does so anyways nothing will happen. Employees are being instructed not to ask the patron to remove the gun or leave the property.

(The observations regarding being "obsessed" about second-hand smoke are kind of interesting, though.)

[lostinblue 1,989]

Some people in open carry states did open carry.. Made some people nervous.. That is understandable.I agree that open carry was not the smartest thing to do, Even in deer season here you never see a firearm in a eating establishment even at 4 am opening day.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'm very disappointed to see that this was published by the Guardian. Even as a liberal, I could not take this seriously.

Also, the Starbucks decision was a weak one. They are merely asking people politely not to bring in guns. If someone does so anyways nothing will happen. Employees are being instructed not to ask the patron to remove the gun or leave the property.

(The observations regarding being "obsessed" about second-hand smoke are kind of interesting, though.)

Yeah it was a PR move with no actual rule changes. They walked the fine line to get themselves out of the attention of the pro/anti gun lobbies.

[Sousuke 1,214]

This must have been written by some Left-wing, one-worlder type still hanging onto dreams of Liberal utopia.. you can tell by the numbers he uses.

"Gun deaths" as if, without those guns, the lives would never have been lost.... when he knows that well over half of those "gun deaths" are from suicides.

We found in other places that banned and confiscated guns, the suicide rate remained the same.

Utopia-

A. Dreaming that something can make 300 millions guns go away when we can't even round up 12 million illegals who are at McDonalds, the post office and the Cheap grocery chain.

B. That anyone in the developed world would have the balls or will to come and try to remove guns from Amerikah.

Lets face it. Guns make the best suicide method, so where they are legal a majority of suicides will be completed with them. If firearms were legal in high suicide rate countries I doubt their death rates would increase. The gun would surely climb to to the prefered method however.

[Danno 1,228]

Lets face it. Guns make the best suicide method, so where they are legal a majority of suicides will be completed with them. If firearms were legal in high suicide rate countries I doubt their death rates would increase. The gun would surely climb to to the prefered method however.

Thats exactly right, taking away guns merely changes the method of suicide.... at least for men, women prefer other means.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I think the world should intervene in anything they do not like about the United States. Our rights should be determined by oher countries. I mean, Obama has Putin to tell him how to handle foreign policy...why shouldn't Russia dictate our laws regarding Gay Marraige, Free Speech? I think you have a point, "the Truth"

Personally I agree with you that I would like for Switzerland to handle our gun laws. I knowyou and other gun control advocates want us to have Swiss laws and hand out 30,000,000 machine guns to Americans so we can match the per capita ownership of machine guns in Switzerland.

North Korea can dictate our wage and hour laws.

Clearly the USA has no idea what is good for our own people and we need someone to tell us how to run our own country. The Brits used to until we so stupidly booted them out....TWICE. How silly of us to think we should be independent, have rights and freedoms.

Actually I have never read anything more retarded my life...but we DO have Freedom of Speech.

At any rate.

No new gun control laws.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Thats exactly right, taking away guns merely changes the method of suicide.... at least for men, women prefer other means.

Suicide should be illegal. With strict punishment for committing suicide. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide 25 years should be added to their sentence. THAT will keep guns from being used for suicide.

Why on earth would anyone with a functioning brain cell discuss suicide in the same topic as gun control? It is only one click less retarded that suggesting other countries should dictate our internal laws.

Moonbats!

Edited September 22, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh...and by the way

I amnot a coffee drinker so I am not likely to go into a Starbucks, but if I do, I will bring my gun and if they don't like it they can go ####### off.

While they are private property, they are open to the public and in a FREE state like Vermont, I cannot be prosecuted for entering property open to the public while in compliance with state law. They can ASK me to leave (why? How will they know I have a gun? It is concealed) and I can comply with the request or not. If I chosse not to comply they can call police to issue a trespass warning.

Like I give a flying fig about Starbucks or a trespass warning. If you want to surrender your rights, by all means do so.