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

[Joe]

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.

Well it was you that added the condition of "not being able to move out of the country", which seemed to suggest that moving was an option for avoiding the need to have a gun to protect oneself.

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.

I'm not trying to engage in idealistic thinking, I'm trying to explore a topic that seems to be pretty touchy for some people, you in particular. So, what's your beef Gimpy? Are we not allowed to discuss this topic unless we quickly reduce it down to an over-simplified conclusion and then close it?

 

[Joe]

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.

That's actually what we were just discussing, that the gun culture is a legacy of the relatively short history of the US as a nation. Makes sense.

Certainly nutjob looney-toons should not be allowed to own a gun, but the problem is scientific identification of those unfit.

Indeed. And the refusal to scientifically identify those unfit to be political 'leaders' and 'captains of industry' and religious 'leaders' is at the root of many of the world problems.

 

[anart]

That's actually what we were just discussing, that the gun culture is a legacy of the relatively short history of the US as a nation. Makes sense.

Yes, people tend to be very emotional about their gun ownership, which speaks to societal programming. It's such deep programming, I think, because basically from the first day of school, kids in the US are taught that gun ownership is a constitutional right. There really is never a clear link pointed out or taught between gun ownership and murder by gun. It's really the most bizarre thing ever if you think about it.

I had rifles and shotguns in the house when I was growing up and learned how to shoot both in my teens, though the 12 gauge was always hard on my shoulder and I preferred the 16 gauge or the 22 rifle. I never hunted, but I did target practice in our back yard (we lived way out in the country). It was just a 'normal thing' to do so I never thought much about it until I reached college and realized that it wasn't what everyone did and that some people were actively against guns.

There is an active gun culture in the States which is a reflection of the US culture of death - but - if you really think about it, US culture has always been a culture of death even if people completely block that fact out and replace the word (and idea of) death with 'liberty' and 'freedom'. It's a pathological twist that is shared by all conquering empires - guns or no guns. I wonder if how the 'west was won' (gunslinging cowboys) has to do with the reverberating gun culture in the States, or if it's mostly linked to the revolutionary war, or a combination of both?

 

[Al Today]

[...]
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.

I think the U.S. gun culture is not a "good" thing. How can killing another person be justified? Even thinking I want to live another day is selfish, yes? But I do. Self preservation is one tough program to break.

Why is it the way it is here and not other nations? my simplistic possibilities:
1) By accident? It just happened this way. Is anything an accident?
2) Or by design? If there are indeed some sort of overlords that remain hidden from view, perhaps the USA is being groomed for a role, some sort of purpose.
3) Bad Karma, restitution, a learning opportunity...

This thread is enjoyable. Many observations to be made. Especially of my emotions.

 

[HiThere]

In my opinion the choice to own and to be ready to use a gun says something about the willingness to fight for one's existence down here on ol' Earth.
So a willingness to run the risk of killing a human to my eyes smacks of strong identification with this 3D excistence we chose to experience.
This again to my eyes signals a preparedness to make a 3D conflict one's top priority, over and above any idealistic opinions about an afterlife.

The American view on guns IS hard to understand for most Europeans in my experience, and I can't say I understand it myself.
I have never lived in the US but I suspect the fear level is higher in the US than most of Europe. Maybe one has to live in the US in order to understand this. M2C.

 

[Alada]

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 would you therefore be happy that if as a result of being allowed this choice, that all police officers in the UK were also armed? Would you feel safer if that were so?

How do you think those choices might affect the mass psyche of those living in the UK?

 

[Al Today]

[...]
how the 'west was won' (gunslinging cowboys)
[...]

The west was won by outright murder. Same thing happens over and over and again and again. Is that winning thing also happening in Palestine nowadays? Yep, we do seem to be a murderous race don't we?

 

[Mountain Crown]

[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]

It’s not surprising to me that the US has a gun culture considering its history. Founded on genocide, much of the ‘old wealth’ was built on the fortunes made by pirates and slave labor.

It’s typically American to idealize a romantic notion of rugged individualism and a great deal of its literature and films reflect this, colored with a morbid fascination with violence. Heroes are made of criminals like Dillinger and the like.

The country and its culture have been shaped by psychopaths from the beginning.

 

[Timey]

So would you therefore be happy that if as a result of being allowed this choice, that all police officers in the UK were also armed? Would you feel safer if that were so?

How do you think those choices might affect the mass psyche of those living in the UK?

.

I would have to say no. While the mentality of our police, as far as I am aware at least, is very different to that of the States, there are still instances of brutality and misconduct. I dread to think what throwing firearms into this would result in, but I doubt it would be good. Moreover, I don't think the average UK citizen could handle the sight of armed police everywhere. They all seem terrified of guns; our cops seems quite approachable, at least in my city, and I think the open carry of guns would destroy this.

However, an armed populace may not necessarily justify an armed police, at least in the UK; it was not that long ago that firearms ownership was allowed over here, and never in our modern history has the average patrol officer carried a side-arm, even when gun ownership was fairly common.

 

[Thomas Alan]

Whether a person can carry a gun for self-defense varies by the state in the US. Here concealed carry is legal, but there is an opt-out clause. All government buildings and nearly all business have signs on their front door prohibiting guns in that building. So if one is walking down the street it is legal to be carrying a concealed weapon. (After a background check i.e no criminal record). But you can't go into the grocery store or Burger King with it. Perhaps in Guardian's state the law is different.

We don't have a "stand your ground" law in this state yet but it has been discussed.

I agree that the horse is long out of the barn on gun ownership in the US. People here are armed and that isn't going to change anytime soon. On the 4th of July we even had a real gun fight here in town. 6 or so armed men went to a neighbor's house over a dispute. The man at the house had an AK47. Shots were fired by both the group and the man with the AK. Thankfully, no one was hurt. Only minor charges were filed against any of them, then the story soon just disappeared. This is really scary to me. This was a gun battle right in the middle of town. What is going to happen when civil order slips away? Even firing an assault rifle in a city is dangerous. Someone could be killed 1/4 mile away.

Some seem to think that privately owned guns will be used at some point to defend or revolt against the government itself. Such rebellions wouldn't stand a chance from my point of view. Local and state police are well supplied with military style weapons. Our local cops even have an armored personnel carrier.

I think Guardian's idea of shooting to wound rather than kill is good. If you choose to use a gun you just what to stop an attacker from doing what they are doing, not kill them. For home defense a 12 gauge pump would be just fine. Even the sound of it being cocked it likely to discourage an intruder. Or a shot over the head. (Might need some serious drywall patching afterwards)

Mac

 

[Guardian]

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.

Does it really matter if you're killed with a gun, a knife or a baseball bat? Many countries that do not allow concealed carry, or even private ownership, by citizens have a MUCH higher per capita homicide rate than the US, which does allow ownership and/or private carry by responsible citizens (in most places) ...so how is it worse? "Would you rather be shot, or hacked with a machete?" is like asking "Are you going to vote Democrat or Republican?"

I agree, guns make killing easier, and it was a LOT messier when all they had were swords and axes....but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Shoot, anyone who knows weapons can go to Lowes and buy everything they need to make a firearm ....and I'm not talking about just a little zip gun. With modern Mills a knowledgeable person can produce quality weapons in their garage, so how would it be possible, at this stage of the game, to prevent criminals from getting them?

Criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get guns, so we either allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves with state of the art weapons too, or the criminals get a significant advantage.

In every state where justifiable (self defense) homicide rates have gone up, murder rates have gone down. The aggressor is not guaranteed an helpless victim.

I totally agree with you that weapons (of any kind) would not be needed in a healthy society, but since we really can't use the words "human society" and "healthy" in the same sentence...it's all just wishful thinking osit.

 

[Guardian]

I believe the point being made was that guns kill, and having a gun increases the chances that you will kill someone,

For me it's just the opposite, it's MUCH easier to avoid killing someone with a gun than it is with an ax...which would probably be my second choice since I always keep a double bit in the truck.

 

[Guardian]

Or a shot over the head.

Don't do that! What goes up, must come down...probably on your head. If you have to fire a "warning" shot, or you need to chase the deer, crows, etc. out of the cornfield or something like that, shoot into the ground, preferable a bank ....NOT the air!

 

[Atuya]

IMO, "the right to bear arms" is vastly more militant than, say, "the right of access to a firearm". The former practically ensures (and history shows) that a society will be armed to the teeth and carrying. The latter allows for some sensible restraints from legal and/or social agreements, and also provides hunters and countryfolk to access what is clearly an expedient tool.

I also grew up with an appreciation for guns and have fond memories of hunting with my father and grandfather. But the "gun culture" in the US is truly out of control. It seems the militaristic mindset of the revolutionaries clouded their thinking about future peace and prosperity. Or rather, they were clearly seeing how "prosperity" could be achieved by peace at the end of a smoking barrel (after the war, we're gonna need another war).

 

[griffin]

Wow. I mean, for gawd's sake! Those stats (and other stats relating to gun ownership and homocide) are more than enough to conclude that the widespread availability of guns in a society lead to people dying from being shot with guns! It's not rocket science!

Very true. There's also no denying the violent crimes stats have dropped in states that have adopted "stand your ground" and right to concealed carry laws, whereas violent crimes are on the rise in most states (and countries) that do not allow citizens to defend themselves.

_http://watchdogwire.com/blog/2012/07/23/florida-lowest-crime-rate-41-years/
"The number of violent crimes (murder, forcible sex offenses, robbery and aggravated assault) was down by 3.7 percent."

The UK has a complete gun ban, yet it has a MUCH higher violent crime rate than the US.

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz29T4HYXHg

"Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries."

"The UK has a violence rate of 2034 crimes per 100,000 residents,"
"The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents,"

<snip>

A gun is a tool, no more or less dangerous than an automobile, both can kill if used recklessly, and both can save lives when used responsibly. If we didn't have vehicles, no one would be killed by drunk drivers, but more people would die without ambulances, firetrucks, police cars, etc. If we didn't have knives, no one would be stabbed to death, but cutting our steaks would be kinda difficult.

A tool does not decide how it's used, and evil people will always do evil, regardless of what tools are available to them. osit

I agree with you, Guardian, and observe that Perceval seems to be on a mission to justify abolishing the individual's inalienable natural right to self defense due to his apparent desire to ban guns. If these were ancient times, he'd probably want to prohibit swords, spears and especially bows and arrows as far too dangerous. It is just as foolish a proposition today as it would have been at any other time in our history. Without the means of self defense, people are helpless to stop evil doers, but with access to weapons, we have at least a fighting chance to defeat attackers.

It is true that supposedly disarmed societies suffer more violent crime, because of course criminals don't observe the law. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." And as the UK crime statistics you cited show, depriving the populace of guns only promotes violent crime, because ordinary people can't easily defend themselves and so are vulnerable to casual strong-arm violence and knife crimes.

The few American cities that have gun bans also have far higher rates of violent crime. Look at New York City, Chicago and Washington, DC. Their inner cities are practically war zones in some neighborhoods, where people can't walk the streets.

And, as you noted, those US states that have "stand your ground" laws and permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons have far lower violent crime rates.

Yet Perceval is targeting the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights added to the US Constitution, which declares, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People tend to overlook that prepositional phrase about the militia, but it contains the drafters' intention to provide for the people's common defense, not only against external aggression, but also against a tyrannical government power.

A well armed population has the chance to remain a free society, come whatever, but a disarmed populace is easily enslaved. That's the real reason for the Second Amendment.

Perceval needs to find another crusade.