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

Perceval said:
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.

The same type "Give us your land and worship our god of love, or we'll kill you" culture wasn't any more pleasant before the invention of the firearm? Club, rock (catapult) stone ax, sword, metal ax, bow, etc, humanity has not changed, the weapons have just advanced technologically.
 
griffin said:
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.

This is a great example of emotional thinking. Nowhere in anything Perceval has written does he even vaguely suggest banning anything. You've created that out of thin air.

It should frighten you to realize that your thinking is so compromised by identification and emotion.

This is exactly the type of emotional non-thinking evidenced by 'gun-nuts'.

g said:
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.

That is ludicrous. Why so threatened by a simple sociological discussion?


g said:
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 where people have guns. You're really making no sense, griffin.

g said:
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.

Wow - you couldn't be more identified if you tried and I've not seen anyone project so strongly on this forum in a long time. Talk about having a major sacred cow!! You aren't even capable of following the discussion logically because your emotions are all tied up on your trigger finger. Honestly, griffin, all you've done is provided a great example of what societal programming does to a person's thought processes.
 
Timey said:
No, I would not be ok with having to kill someone. However, there is the unfortunate reality that, at some point, somebody might want to shoot me.
What am I to do in that situation?

Shoot him in the foot. An attacker is a lot less likely to be able to hit a moving target if he's hopping around on one foot. I have NO desire to send anyone to meet their maker, but if I, or anyone I love is violently attacked, that assailant is getting a Jesus foot!
 
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?

Sheer 'battle fatigue'. ;)

There is no getting away from the topic (and non-topic for most people locally) of gun control/ownership.

I get quite sick of it, in all its permutations. The last place I ever thought to see it crop up was here, and I got crabby. Let me 'walk it off' and see what shakes out, see if there's sense underneath the emotions....

My apologies.
 
griffin said:
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.

That's some pretty fancy 'observing' you're doing there, given you pulled it out of thin air. As I noted previously, some people are so identified with the "right to bear arms" that they're unable to even think straight on the topic, let alone understand plain English language comments made on the topic. I wonder if this would translate to an inability to shoot straight too...

griffin said:
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.

Yep, I'm all about targetting manipulative laws and political double-speak.

griffin said:
Perceval needs to find another crusade.

Now how would I carry on a crusade without my trusty sword (since according to you I want to ban them)?
 
[quote author=Timey]
[quote author=Alada]
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?
[/quote]
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. [/quote]

I’m not sure you could have one without the other, a lot has changed, if gun ownership became commonplace then I think an armed police force would follow soon behind.

You’re comment raises some interesting questions though:

Is there a connection between a police force being armed and it’s attitude/behavior toward the public it serves?

Is there likely to be an increase in pathological types attracted to joining the police when you throw in a gun along with the uniform? And if that is so and the profile of the police changes as a whole, how might criminals respond to this? How might society as a whole be affected?
 
Griffin, I wasn't aware that you are so caught up in the American myth that you actually believe, according to your comment in this post that:

Griffin said:
"the Second Amendment serves as a guarantee that authority rests with the people, and that the legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed. The Second Amendment exists to give the population the means to protect the rights of the people set forth in the other nine Amendments in the original Bill of Rights."

You obviously have no idea of just how far advanced things are vis a vis the enslavement of humankind. In short, you're dreaming while believing yourself to be awake.
 
Alada said:
Is there likely to be an increase in pathological types attracted to joining the police when you throw in a gun along with the uniform?

Oh yeah, especially since the image of Law Enforcement changed. I can remember when Sheriffs and other good guys would always shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand in books, movies, comics, even TV for a few short decades.

Good guys took the time to learn how NOT to kill...even if they were up against a killer. Roy Rogers, Dale Evans, Anne Okley, the Lone Ranger, etc. would either shoot the gun out of the criminal's hand, or at worst, shoot him in the shoulder or other extremity. The emphasis was placed on not becoming like what/who you were fighting. Over the years that has changed to the point that there's really not much difference between your average police officer and your average pathological killer anymore.
 
Guardian said:
Timey said:
No, I would not be ok with having to kill someone. However, there is the unfortunate reality that, at some point, somebody might want to shoot me.
What am I to do in that situation?

Shoot him in the foot. An attacker is a lot less likely to be able to hit a moving target if he's hopping around on one foot. I have NO desire to send anyone to meet their maker, but if I, or anyone I love is violently attacked, that assailant is getting a Jesus foot!
I kind of meant that you would have to retaliate to save your own skin. Would shooting someone in the foot really be a viable option in some-kind of stand-off scenario?
 
Timey said:
I kind of meant that you would have to retaliate to save your own skin.
Me too, I'm certainly not going to consider hurting another person for any other reason than to save my own skin, or the skin of an innocent.

Would shooting someone in the foot really be a viable option in some-kind of stand-off scenario?

Sure, why not? If you can get a "kill" shot, why can't you get a bead on an extremity instead? Of course it doesn't have to be a foot...a hand, arm, leg, etc. there's lots of alternatives to killing.

It takes a whole lot of the "mystique" out of the equation too. Can you imagine a criminal going to jail and bragging about an old lady shooting him in the butt?
 
I find firearms to be very unfair weapon and choice of cowards. Sure death or injury from knife, arrow, sword or baseball bat is not fun, yet there is still more or less fair play involved, because it gives a chance to fight back or escape the attacker. With gun, not so much chance. Try to outrun a bullet. Anyone can be a man with a gun, not everyone can be a man without it.

Why I think certain governments allow guns to be available to public - they can justify their own actions that they can pretty much shoot anyone claiming the person was a threat without much explanation to do or justify their own violence in any sort of public unrest. Another possible reason is to release firearms to public is to seed chaos, violence and terror among people , in hopes that one day people would willingly demand, normalize and welcome the Police State (seems like work in progress already). Heck, not so long ago in Chicago some were asking to bring National Guard on the streets to combat gun violence.

Seems like an old game or stuck record: PTB will supply you with threat and PTB are the ones who will offer "protect" you from it: be it violence -> police state, be it unhealthy environment -> big pharma.
 
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.

Gun culture started with the first immigrants to the US. The myths around guns aka "The Pioneer Spirit" in particular can set me off into a snit. Lies, all of it. This country was not founded by pioneers. It was founded by a bunch of greedy, murdering, land thieves. That's never ended, it's simply shifted around and been given a patriotic gloss. The romantic notion that having guns leads to freedom was something that was used by the wealthy landowners to drum up recruits to protect their land rights in the Revolution. Its always been about that, no matter what pretty bunting's been put on it. Its drummed into people from grade school onward: The right to bear arms is what makes this country(USA) 'great'. Supposedly, that means we can defend ourselves from the government. I know many people who are totally convinced that as long as they have guns, the government can't hurt them, as if they were fending off a vampire with a crucifix.

The reality is quite different. How bad 'gun culture' is depends in a large part on where you live, and what, historically, the state has allowed. Gun laws, permits, concealed carry...all those things can be different state to state. I couldn't even tell you what they are for mine, other than the most restrictions are on handguns, not rifles. When Hubby picked up a 'varmint gun', he had to register it on purchase, and get a permit to shoot 'pests'. That was it. Hand guns are totally different, and there are some states in which you can't own certain kinds of guns, like assault rifles.

Learning to shoot guns is also something that is passed down through families. It depends on how important firearm safety is, or how central to the family guns happen to be. In our family guns were used for hunting only. Sport shooting was consider a waste of money better spent elsewhere. I knew other families where becoming a marksman was considered a rite of passage for the boys, just as learning to sew clothes and can food was for the girls. In my family it was a matter of self reliance and independence: we all learned to shoot, sew, can, and cook. As a woman my father didn't demand I learn the ins and outs of keeping a gun. My brother was forced to learn whether he liked it or not.

So we have the propaganda about guns being central to maintaining freedom, and the added baggage of what the family traditions are that will set the course for how a person deals with the subject, plus what the media is going to bombard the public with at any given time. Right now in the US? We've been at war for the last eleven years, but no one talks about it. I hear 'support our troops', and when they come home and can't speak or walk, no one cares, or even wants to see them. Everyone wants to talk about how ready they are to fight a zombie apocalypse, and how good they are at head shots, and how the government better not think about taking away their "God given right to bear arms." To be frank, its disassociated madness. I don't have any way to even begin a conversation on this subject with anyone but a select few: my husband, and Guardian. I've learned to avoid it, along with a host of other subjects. Otherwise I just get too angry at all the myths that are taken as truth.


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.

The world still has areas in which human beings are on the menu: China, Africa, Russia etc. All of those countries have wild areas where having a gun is necessary to keep something else from eating you. In the US, Alaska is the one state that I can think of where gun ownership makes sense: its huge, wild, and they still have a decent population of bears. Living near one of the large parks where bears are is another reason to have a gun handy. The main danger from bears is over kills, stumbling across a sow with cubs, or from an old bear that isn't able to hunt well and goes for people.

To me, that's about it. Being able to hunt for food with firearms isn't about 'freedom'. I didn't learn the difference between the sound of a hand gun and a rifle until I lived in a city. When I could tell the difference between a Nine Mil, a 45, and a shotgun, we moved to the country to get away from gunfire at night. Out here in the country its rare to hear anything but a .22.

What I find more disturbing is the militarization of the police, seeing how its become 'normal' to see troops everywhere, and how eager people are for an excuse to hurt other people. That's getting worse all the time.
 
anart said:
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?

I think it goes back even further than that, and it's all about dominance. Before firearms were invented, swords were the same symbol of "freedom" and "power" to many individuals. Peasants in most cultures weren't allowed to own swords, and in some countries, possession of a sword by non "nobles" carried a death sentence. The best weapons available in any century have represented "freedom" to the subjugated masses. Of course we know that's just an illusion....but it is a very popular, and VERY old illusion. I don't think it started with guns, I think it began with which caveman could swing the biggest stick. "I have the god given right to carry this club, Ugg"
 
Guardian said:
anart said:
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?

I think it goes back even further than that, and it's all about dominance. Before firearms were invented, swords were the same symbol of "freedom" and "power" to many individuals. Peasants in most cultures weren't allowed to own swords, and in some countries, possession of a sword by non "nobles" carried a death sentence. The best weapons available in any century have represented "freedom" to the subjugated masses. Of course we know that's just an illusion....but it is a very popular, and VERY old illusion. I don't think it started with guns, I think it began with which caveman could swing the biggest stick. "I have the god given right to carry this club, Ugg"

When does it stop ? Seems like gap of un-proportional aggressive responses geometrically increases with time. How many people one can take out with clubs and swords vs guns ?
 
It should be said “Gun Business and the “right to hurt each other” in America, of curse, I came from a non-gun of any kind of whatsoever weapon to defend myself environment. And it is to me somehow difficult to comprehend the right to bear a gun/arm “legally” because of you want to kill/hurt, it can be done even with a feather. It is my understanding that the weapons industry do not care at all about your life, or your family that you will defend with their product.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom