Gun Culture and the "right to bear arms" in America

[Joe]

I suppose my point is that, overall, a society that is suffused with guns (for whatever reason) is a worse society than one that is not suffused with guns.

I think this is hair splitting. UK still has plenty of guns, they just happen to be in the country shooting animals, or in the military where they are still killing people. If someone really wanted a gun in the UK, they'd get one.

Not sure how it could be hair splitting. The fact that the UK has plenty of guns (although far fewer than the US) in the hands of hunters is very different from the gun culture and wide availability and promotion of guns to the public in the US.

Guns were always present in my parents house, used to hunt food. We were all taught to shoot, then forbidden to be near guns unless we wanted to learn how to hunt. There were plenty of times growing up that that was the only way we ate: Dad either got his quota of deer allowed through hunting, or he ice fished for the table. Or we didn't eat.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about guns for actual hunting in order to eat.

Guardian happens to be correct as far as violence against women goes.

I don't think I disagreed.

Every time I leave the house on my own, I have to be prepared to defend myself. That is just the reality of being a disabled person where I live. As times get harder, it does get worse. What would you do?

Not sure what you are asking here, but if it's "would I buy a gun if I felt the threat to my life was so great that it was required", I think I might consider moving first.

Learning to deal with that mindset is the challenge, how would you do that Perceval, if you couldn't leave the country?

I might try moving somewhere safer before buying a gun, but it would depend on the specific situation.

 

[Pierre]

There's one aspect of the US legal system I've always found peculiar. That is, correct me if I'm wrong, if someone enters your private property you're allowed to shoot him and kill him.

In many European countries shooting is legit only if it's an act of legitimate defense: the threat has to be real and your reaction has to be proportionate to the threat.

This aspect of the US law seems like an heritage of the far-west/settler culture where taking justice in one's own hand is, to some extent, accepted.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Gimpy]
I think the government is counting on people doing the job for them when things get worse...[/quote]

That's an interesting point. I got a shocker when I realized that the men in my family with the most emotional issues were also the ones with the gun collections. Scared the heck out of me. Extrapolating that to society also made me feel that having quick access to a gun could very well save my life some time, so I'm also in favor of guns for my own reasons.

Interesting that I still don't have one though and don't even think about it much. Physically, I can take care of myself within the 'close-in' fighting range so maybe I just don't feel threatened and motivated to get one? Something to think about, I guess.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

There's one aspect of the US legal system I've always found peculiar. That is, correct me if I'm wrong, if someone enters your private property you're allowed to shoot him and kill him.

In many European countries shooting is legit only if it's an act of legitimate defense: the threat has to be real and your reaction has to be proportionate to the threat.

This aspect of the US law seems like an heritage of the far-west/settler culture where taking justice in one's own hand is, to some extent, accepted.

Last time I looked, which was years ago, most states had something like the European system you have just described, and very few states had laws saying you could shoot someone for being on your property. South Carolina was one of them.

In practice in these other states, I have no idea how light or heavy the burden of proof would be to prove self-defense.

When I was very young and living in Texas, someone broke into my family's apartment and stole our christmas presents :( The policeman just straight up told us to shoot a robber if we were in the house when they broke in, so apparently, the burden of proof is pretty light in Texas.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Personally I am against guns. I think that better solution are martial arts, learn how to act in critical situations, stun guns and gas, expandable batons, when use it skillfully, I think, an individual can effectively defend self against an attacker without killing him. The gun can kill or seriously injure. The mere possession of a gun, especially if you can defend in a different way, it is already the first step to the crime, in my opinion. Tools needed for self-defense and training to defend oneself should be readily available to the public. Maybe there is justification for the possession and use of weapons, such when american army invades your country, for example. Generally possession of guns in the society I think that this is not a good apparition. There are some exceptions to the use of guns and it should be considered, but parallel to that it is need to consider, when killing a man is justified if it can be justified at all? My two cents. FWIW.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I just want to add that this question was all but decided in my mind before I left the US. I thought along Guardian's lines, that guns are a tool and making them scarce to average citizens would simply mean criminals would have them and normal people would not. Part of this attitude is probably partly due to them being all around me. Pretty much all of my family members have at least one firearm in their home. i have owned them myself. I did not start to think differently until I came to Europe because of 2 reasons:

(1) Most of the folks at The Chateau told me one day that they thought firearms are just instruments of darkness. I don't remember their exact words, but where they stood was in no doubt. And if I remember correctly, I was told that any job a gun could do as a tool could be done by some other tool. I decided at this point not to draw a line in the sand about my ideas towards citizens having easy access to firearms.

(2) Most Europeans that I have talked to about it find the easy access to firearms in the US just bafflingly strange. There honest shock at such a state made me realize that there are a lot of people who live without the ability to run down to the store and get a glock.

I can't say I am entirely decided on the whole issue, and I can't say the idea of everybody having some kind of weapon in there home is that strange to me. I still find Guardian's comments persuasive because I think Pandora's box is already opened in the US, and legislation won't put it back in. In some kind of healthy society, the police would be trained protectors of the people, and people would not need to know they have a weapon at hand. That does not seem to be the case mostly.

 

[Timey]

As a Brit, I think people should have the choice to own firearms if they want to. I don't really think the government has any right to tell you that you have no business owning a weapon while they themselves control a military and police-force.
It isn't really just a matter of defending oneself, although that is part of it, but an issue of choice.

 

[doublea1535]

There's one aspect of the US legal system I've always found peculiar. That is, correct me if I'm wrong, if someone enters your private property you're allowed to shoot him and kill him.

I doubt it's entering private property so much as entering a dwelling that is occupied. At least that is the case here in Colorado where we have the "Make My Day" law which applies only to homes, not the lawn outside or to a business.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/colorado-make-my-day-law_n_588914.html

The law establishes that an "occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling."
...
The law explicitly covers homes alone; it does not cover actions outside the home and does not cover businesses.

In that incident, I think the fact that the person was shot as he was trying to flee is pretty reprehensible. But I agree with the basic premise of the law.

 

[Joe]

As a Brit, I think people should have the choice to own firearms if they want to. I don't really think the government has any right to tell you that you have no business owning a weapon while they themselves control a military and police-force.
It isn't really just a matter of defending oneself, although that is part of it, but an issue of choice.

So, in an ideal society, even a pathological nut job should be afforded the choice to own a gun? In which case, everyone else has to own one to protect themselves against the nut job.

 

[Joe]

(1) Most of the folks at The Chateau told me one day that they thought firearms are just instruments of darkness. I don't remember their exact words, but where they stood was in no doubt. And if I remember correctly, I was told that any job a gun could do as a tool could be done by some other tool. I decided at this point not to draw a line in the sand about my ideas towards citizens having easy access to firearms.

I believe the point being made was that guns kill, and having a gun increases the chances that you will kill someone, and killing someone is not something anyone would ideally want to have on their conscience.

I can't say I am entirely decided on the whole issue, and I can't say the idea of everybody having some kind of weapon in there home is that strange to me. I still find Guardian's comments persuasive because I think Pandora's box is already opened in the US, and legislation won't put it back in. In some kind of healthy society, the police would be trained protectors of the people, and people would not need to know they have a weapon at hand. That does not seem to be the case mostly.

Just to make it clear (although I think it's pretty clear from my comments so far); it was not my intention that this discussion should be about challenging the right of any one individual to carry a gun for whatever reason. My intention was to look at the gun culture situation in the US in a general way and try to figure out why it is the way it is, and, to suggest the idea that a society like the US, with a strong culture of gun ownership is, in a general sense, not a good thing.

I also couldn't help but notice that that several members who have commented on this topic seem pretty identified with their own choice to own a gun to the point that they cannot separate their own personal choice (and reasons for that choice) from the question of whether or not the gun culture in the US (or anywhere else) is a positive thing, and why and why such a gun culture has developed in the US and not other 'developed' nations.

 

[Timey]

As a Brit, I think people should have the choice to own firearms if they want to. I don't really think the government has any right to tell you that you have no business owning a weapon while they themselves control a military and police-force.
It isn't really just a matter of defending oneself, although that is part of it, but an issue of choice.

So, in an ideal society, even a pathological nut job should be afforded the choice to own a gun? In which case, everyone else has to own one to protect themselves against the nut job.

That is a fair point, but we don't live in an ideal society. Why should I not be allowed to protect myself against said nut-job? If he really wants a gun he can get one. Just look at that Bird guy over here who went out into the street and started shooting people. He got himself a gun just fine.

I suppose in an ideal society we would be able to detect pathological nut jobs.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Perceval]
My intention was to look at the gun culture situation in the US in a general way and try to figure out why it is the way it is...[/quote]

I think I now recall why I stopped thinking much about the issue. To me, it seems like a gun is more of a cowards weapon when used offensively. When used defensively, a gun is more like a leveler of the playing field, so to speak.

 

[Joe]

That is a fair point, but we don't live in an ideal society. Why should I not be allowed to protect myself against said nut-job? If he really wants a gun he can get one. Just look at that Bird guy over here who went out into the street and started shooting people. He got himself a gun just fine.

Yeah it's a pretty sticky situation. Would you be ok with the fact that, as a result of choosing a gun as your form of defense, you shot someone (possibly dead) who tried to hold you up, for example? Which brings up the question of whether or not there are other adequate forms of protection other than guns that don't involve the risk of taking someone's life.

 

[Gimpy]

I might try moving somewhere safer before buying a gun, but it would depend on the specific situation.

It is not possible for many of us to move to 'safer' locations. (The concept is weird to me...safer than what? There is no such thing as a 'safe' place or a 'safer' place. That's just a lie to comfort you from the reality of things.)

There is only dealing with what's here as it is, with whatever we have, as best we can.

I believe the point being made was that guns kill, and having a gun increases the chances that you will kill someone, and killing someone is not something anyone would ideally want to have on their conscience.

Of course not.

Reality tends to spit in the eye of idealistic thinking, osit. If you don't like guns, don't have one. Its not that difficult.

 

[doublea1535]

My intention was to look at the gun culture situation in the US in a general way and try to figure out why it is the way it is, and, to suggest the idea that a society like the US, with a strong culture of gun ownership is, in a general sense, not a good thing. I find it pretty interesting to note that several members who have commented on this topic seem very identified with their own choice to own a gun to the point that they cannot separate their own personal choice (and reasons for that choice) from the question of whether or not the gun culture in the US (or anywhere else) is a positive thing, and why and why such a gun culture has developed in the US and not other 'developed' nations.

In the US, much of the historical imagery we are taught and shown as children display guns in a very positive way. It's how we conquered this land, and how we overthrew the British establishing ourselves as an independent nation. We never could've overthrown the British without guns (because they had them), and to prevent against a standing army in the future it was written into our constitution that we have the right to bear arms. It was largely militia (untrained civilian) forces that kicked the British out, so the idea is it was the common man banding together (with guns) that established our freedom, and what will be necessary in the future to protect it.

Certainly nutjob looney-toons should not be allowed to own a gun, but the problem is scientific identification of those unfit. Otherwise it's left up to bureaucrats to define who is and who is not capable of responsible gun ownership. Problem that those in power are constantly trying to accumulate more, and taking power away from others is the best way to do that. They might not all see it that way, but that's the net-effect of it. Moving power away from the average man towards a more consolidated central source like the police or military - always for our own good by the way.