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

[obyvatel]

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.

Yes, it is big business for the industry. Not talking about forum members here - but the argument that guns are for self-defense gets weak when people buy military assault rifles like kalashnikovs. The gun industry laughs all the way to the bank as people exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

A New York Times article on how the civilian market in the US keeps gun factories in Russia alive.
_http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html

 

[Voyageur]

[quote author=obyvatel]
The gun industry laughs all the way to the bank as people exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

A New York Times article on how the civilian market in the US keeps gun factories in Russia alive.
_http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html
[/quote]

…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.

Thinking about this, the arms manufactures certainly contributed to ensuring their wares were available for all in the States and generally across the Globe; not to mention that endless war has helped build the culture – many a medal has been received for the act of pulling a trigger.

From the book [1934] ‘Merchants of Death" chapter one opens with:

To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrats and republicans, to Nihilists and Czar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestants and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man, white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes, and all crimes.-Creed of Undershaft, the arms maker, in Shaw’s Major Barbara

I appreciate the fact that the manufacturers of arms and ammunition are not standing very high in the estimation of the public generally.-Samuel S. Stone, President of Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Co.

Of this merchant aspect, the manufactures did more than just hammer steel, they owned many newspapers and helped shape the culture that we’ve come to know and have used all the tricks to keep it that way.

edit: spell/context

 

[doublea1535]

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.

Yes, it is big business for the industry. Not talking about forum members here - but the argument that guns are for self-defense gets weak when people buy military assault rifles like kalashnikovs. The gun industry laughs all the way to the bank as people exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

A New York Times article on how the civilian market in the US keeps gun factories in Russia alive.
_http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html

I am not sure I get your point. Are you saying that it is contradictory that people are buying AKs from Russian when their concern is self-defense, because supplying foreign arms dealers runs counter to building up defenses for oneself? Seems like you are just pointing out the absurd anti-foreign sentiment that runs strong in America more than anything else. That, at least some, Americans still consider Russia to be an enemy, and while defending themselves against some other enemy, they support another?

To mabar's point, does any company really care about the people they sell products to? Not in my experience they don't. I don't think very many gun advocates delude themselves on this point. They don't believe that good 'ol Mr. Smith from Smith and Wesson really cares about them. They make good guns, that's about what it boils down to.

 

[Gimpy]

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"

Fear of a perceived 'loss', be it of food, 'freedom', etc, is also a huge motivator that undercuts Gun Culture. When discussing famine and food shortages, the first thing mentioned by the other person is "I need to get more ammo." Supposedly, to protect the family food store, if there is one.

Personally, the best 'weapon' a human being has, if you're going to develop one, is your mind. Given the time to think, there's no reason to have to fight. (Though that can be wishful thinking if one isn't real careful.)

Psychopaths are masters at the care and feeding of fears. They stick to the basic insecurities when it comes to fear of loss: food, water, shelter, sex (disguised as 'protecting loved ones'..for them its more about access.)

Learning to have enough sane confidence, building trust with other people, and learning how to side step such dirty tactics can make the difference. Once it sinks in how over blown the hype on fear is, its then possible to learn how to deal with it. Most people are not even aware of this programming that's being dumped on them from every electronic device from TV to phone to radio.

 

[Guardian]

When does it stop ?

I don't think it does, just goes around in a circle until society destroys itself again, and we're back to clubs and swords again.

How many people one can take out with clubs and swords vs guns ?

That's an interesting question. While we don't have firm numbers, it appears more people actually died in the ancient "great" battles before firearms were involved.....Roman Empire expansion, Giengis Khan, the Samurai wars, the Crusades, etc.

Of course that probably has more to do with the medical care available than the weapons, and one atomic bomb can do more damage than swords and firearms combined, but again, does it matter what you're killed by? Dead is dead, no matter how efficient the killing mechanism.

What weapons are, or are not, available is really not the issue. Nothing will change until humanity fundamentally evolves. osit

 

[Tigersoap]

On the topic of violence and deaths there is a new book by Steven Pinker which states that violence has declined through the ages.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Believe it or not, today we may be living in the most peaceful moment in our species' existence. In his gripping and controversial new work, New York Times bestselling author Steven Pinker shows that despite the ceaseless news about war, crime, and terrorism, violence has actually been in decline over long stretches of history. Exploding myths about humankind's inherent violence and the curse of modernity, this ambitious book continues Pinker's exploration of the essence of human nature, mixing psychology and history to provide a remarkable picture of an increasingly enlightened world.

I haven't read it yet but they say it's thought provoking so it might be interesting to read.

 

[Renaissance]

On the topic of violence and deaths there is a new book by Steven Pinker which states that violence has declined through the ages.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Believe it or not, today we may be living in the most peaceful moment in our species' existence. In his gripping and controversial new work, New York Times bestselling author Steven Pinker shows that despite the ceaseless news about war, crime, and terrorism, violence has actually been in decline over long stretches of history. Exploding myths about humankind's inherent violence and the curse of modernity, this ambitious book continues Pinker's exploration of the essence of human nature, mixing psychology and history to provide a remarkable picture of an increasingly enlightened world.

I haven't read it yet but they say it's thought provoking so it might be interesting to read.

I think it looks like he's promoting the illusion of so called civilized man. The current means of warfare, 3rd world exploitation/ starvation etc, are masked better than they were years ago, and I'm taking a guess that he probably doesn't take that into account.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Guardian]
What weapons are, or are not, available is really not the issue. Nothing will change until humanity fundamentally evolves. osit[/quote]

That's usually where my off-forum gun discussions wind up--and sometimes back to Cain and Abel. In Kahneman's terms, a person's system 1 experiences his act of slaying his own brother; system 2 intellectualizes the act--justifying and rationalizing the act until conscience is pretty thoroughly buffered. Once that happens, system 1 and 2 become self-reinforcing.

Next step becomes the first step in weapons development where star-warz class weaponry becomes the technological norm and being very, very far removed from a direct experience of one's actions becomes the psychological norm.

As others have said, each in their own way, until the underlying thought structures are dismantled, then, when one 'dictatorship' collapses, another just rises in its place. In the meantime, we're just talking cultural and historical variations and matters of scale, OSIT.

 

[obyvatel]

I am not sure I get your point. Are you saying that it is contradictory that people are buying AKs from Russian when their concern is self-defense, because supplying foreign arms dealers runs counter to building up defenses for oneself? Seems like you are just pointing out the absurd anti-foreign sentiment that runs strong in America more than anything else. That, at least some, Americans still consider Russia to be an enemy, and while defending themselves against some other enemy, they support another?

The arms industry is usually non-partisan as far as any conflicts go - they serve all parties who are interested in wiping each other out. So the country in which the weapon is manufactured is not the issue. The purpose of posting a link to the NYT article was to show that military assault rifles are in high demand in the US domestic market, which was news to me when I read it though I understand that it could be quite well-known to many people here. I should have clarified that point in my previous post.

As an outsider, it is both absurd and horrifying to see that civilians of this country seek to arm themselves with military assault rifles designed to kill a large number of people efficiently and passing it off as self-protection. Even police forces of many countries do not have access or use of military assault rifles - and this includes places where there is a lot of violence and crime. Neither do people in other countries who suffer from a worse law and order state in their environment compared to the US clamor for arming themselves on a large scale.

IMO, it appears like a significant amount of paranoid and schizoidal thinking has influenced this gun culture from its inception to its present state. Adding more guns and arming civilians is not likely to solve the problem of violence. There could be some local effects which show some reduction in crime rates as a result of allowing "concealed carry" but that is quite far from addressing the issue at its root. Maybe there is no easy solution since the pathology has spread so far and deep and cataclysmic cleansing is the only alternative.

 

[plaintiger]

I think with the whole issue of gun ownership, in a society like the U.S. where it is allowed, and in some ways, even advocated, it has got to be an individual free will decision. Given the history of guns and violence so eloquently outlined on this thread, I think it’s important to differentiate what is important for the body vs. the soul. No doubt, that line can be and is blurred in many cases, but as possible STO candidates, one thought keeps coming back to me: do we really want to accrue any bad karma at this juncture? Not that shooting and killing someone in defense of oneself or loved ones is in itself evil – it may even be perceived as a good thing – but isn’t it essentially STS to keep oneself alive at the expense of another? And this is where it gets hairy: is one essentially supposed to weigh the possibility of themselves doing more STO actions in their present lifetime if they survive vs. the lack of STO actions they might have done if they died? (I leave out “lessons learned,” because striving too much for 4D seems like STS thinking.)

I think part of what it comes down to is in fact the lessons we need to learn. If one has a strong proclivity to own a firearm, perhaps it’s something in that’s person’s life blueprint that draws them to purchase one…whether it be because there is ultimately someone they need to protect – even themself – in order to survive to learn that lesson, or perhaps teach something to another by their example, e.g. how they react in a situation with the gun on their person. And on the other side of the coin, perhaps a given person’s aversion to gun ownership is in the life blueprint as well, also for any number of reasons.

I realize this is a lot of speculation on “what it is one is here to learn” and what might be in ones’ soul profile, but I wanted to add that additional dimension to this discussion. The question then becomes, which is more important – at any given time – doing whatever’s necessary to survive in 3D, or to polarize as much as possible to STO while alive? Both, it would seem, have their possible merits and downsides. And just to be clear, I’m not passing judgment on one who would harm or kill another person in self-defense or for another justified reason, I mean, who truly knows what they would really do until they were tested, and who knows how that would be measured against their blueprint/profile? Personally, I err on the side of not owning a gun so that it’s less likely I would be put in a situation like that, but if it happens to be part of the plan, it would seem that a scenario like that would occur regardless of whether I went out and bought a gun or not. Just some more food for thought.

 

[Beau]

I realize this is a lot of speculation on “what it is one is here to learn” and what might be in ones’ soul profile, but I wanted to add that additional dimension to this discussion. The question then becomes, which is more important – at any given time – doing whatever’s necessary to survive in 3D, or to polarize as much as possible to STO while alive? Both, it would seem, have their possible merits and downsides. And just to be clear, I’m not passing judgment on one who would harm or kill another person in self-defense or for another justified reason, I mean, who truly knows what they would really do until they were tested, and who knows how that would be measured against their blueprint/profile? Personally, I err on the side of not owning a gun so that it’s less likely I would be put in a situation like that, but if it happens to be part of the plan, it would seem that a scenario like that would occur regardless of whether I went out and bought a gun or not. Just some more food for thought.

I tend to agree. I'm not inclined to kill someone to ensure my survival in this world. Dying isn't the worst thing ever. I really do not want to attract the kind of karma associated with killing someone else either. I don't know about shooting to wound, that seems like a situation that sounds good in theory but in practice is a whole different animal. How many people have experience with that? I'd rather not have any experience like that. If you need protection, surely there are less extreme options that can scare away others. We also have the ability to talk our way out of a tight spot. Anyway, I can't see any way that I would shoot someone else in order to save my own life. Now, put me in the position of saving someone I loved who was being attacked, I might feel differently. I don't know what I'd do since I've never been in that position before. But keeping a gun to protect my survival, in this world, just seems ridiculous.

 

[Alana]

IMO, it appears like a significant amount of paranoid and schizoidal thinking has influenced this gun culture from its inception to its present state. Adding more guns and arming civilians is not likely to solve the problem of violence. There could be some local effects which show some reduction in crime rates as a result of allowing "concealed carry" but that is quite far from addressing the issue at its root. Maybe there is no easy solution since the pathology has spread so far and deep and cataclysmic cleansing is the only alternative.

Perhaps the solution has more to do with trying to find new ways to deal with violence instead of following the same old instilled pathological ways? The way I see it, if we keep doing what we've always done, we'll keep on getting what we always got!

I tend to agree. I'm not inclined to kill someone to ensure my survival in this world. Dying isn't the worst thing ever. I really do not want to attract the kind of karma associated with killing someone else either. I don't know about shooting to wound, that seems like a situation that sounds good in theory but in practice is a whole different animal. How many people have experience with that?

Well, though I don't like the idea of guns, I did take Guardian's solution to hurt instead to kill into consideration. But you are right, it's not going to be practical for all of us gun-inexperienced. if I take my experiences into account, it's a recipe for disaster. My father took us hunting when we were kids and my first shot pushed me violently with my back on the ground, though I was glad I didn't kill or harm anyone/anything else. Never touched a gun again in my life, though my father always had his hunting rifle and my brother keeps his army Kalashnikov (sp?) at the house, because where I come from we are in a state of emergency (war wise) most of the time. But, to learn to shoot and own a gun back home, you have to either be in the army, the police force, or have a hunting license. So, I did grow up around guns (like everyone else in Cyprus) but I remember only a handful of gun related crimes all of my life. So it rings true to me, what many of you shared about the American gunslinging heritage, that is not how many guns are available around that causes the biggest problem, but the belief system of the people who own them.

 

[Timey]

IMO, it appears like a significant amount of paranoid and schizoidal thinking has influenced this gun culture from its inception to its present state. Adding more guns and arming civilians is not likely to solve the problem of violence. There could be some local effects which show some reduction in crime rates as a result of allowing "concealed carry" but that is quite far from addressing the issue at its root. Maybe there is no easy solution since the pathology has spread so far and deep and cataclysmic cleansing is the only alternative.

Perhaps the solution has more to do with trying to find new ways to deal with violence instead of following the same old instilled pathological ways? The way I see it, if we keep doing what we've always done, we'll keep on getting what we always got!

I tend to agree. I'm not inclined to kill someone to ensure my survival in this world. Dying isn't the worst thing ever. I really do not want to attract the kind of karma associated with killing someone else either. I don't know about shooting to wound, that seems like a situation that sounds good in theory but in practice is a whole different animal. How many people have experience with that?

Well, though I don't like the idea of guns, I did take Guardian's solution to hurt instead to kill into consideration. But you are right, it's not going to be practical for all of us gun-inexperienced. if I take my experiences into account, it's a recipe for disaster. My father took us hunting when we were kids and my first shot pushed me violently with my back on the ground, though I was glad I didn't kill or harm anyone/anything else. Never touched a gun again in my life, though my father always had his hunting rifle and my brother keeps his army Kalashnikov (sp?) at the house, because where I come from we are in a state of emergency (war wise) most of the time. But, to learn to shoot and own a gun back home, you have to either be in the army, the police force, or have a hunting license. So, I did grow up around guns (like everyone else in Cyprus) but I remember only a handful of gun related crimes all of my life. So it rings true to me, what many of you shared about the American gunslinging heritage, that is not how many guns are available around that causes the biggest problem, but the belief system of the people who own them.

This really does seem to be the issue here. While discussing this with someone else, the point was raised that gun-crime, like all violent crime, is reflective of the society that it takes place in, and isn't necessarily the result of an armed citizenry (their words, not mine.)

To those who are saying that their lack of experience would hinder them with a firearm, I guess that if you make the decision to purchase one, part of the responsibility is to learn how to use it safely and correctly.

Heimdallr raises a good point - would the act of taking a life in order to save ones own have karmic backlash? This is assuming that there is no other option present, apart from letting yourself get killed.

 

[seek10]

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.

Gun discussion is interesting in view of survivor episodes we are watching.

Though I agree with the idea that British imperialism is facilitated by Guns, I have reservations about the idea that guns could have prevented losing freedom. it is the deadly combination of Guns+pathology+Ignorance of pathology in losers. How long south africa took to get freedom when compared with india is an example.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Well, though I don't like the idea of guns, I did take Guardian's solution to hurt instead to kill into consideration. But you are right, it's not going to be practical for all of us gun-inexperienced. if I take my experiences into account, it's a recipe for disaster. My father took us hunting when we were kids and my first shot pushed me violently with my back on the ground, though I was glad I didn't kill or harm anyone/anything else. Never touched a gun again in my life, though my father always had his hunting rifle and my brother keeps his army Kalashnikov (sp?) at the house, because where I come from we are in a state of emergency (war wise) most of the time. But, to learn to shoot and own a gun back home, you have to either be in the army, the police force, or have a hunting license. So, I did grow up around guns (like everyone else in Cyprus) but I remember only a handful of gun related crimes all of my life. So it rings true to me, what many of you shared about the American gunslinging heritage, that is not how many guns are available around that causes the biggest problem, but the belief system of the people who own them.

Found these stats for the most recent years on record (from _http://www.gunpolicy.org/):

USA:
-rate of private gun ownership - 88.8 firearms per 100 people
-rated #1 country in terms of rate of private gun ownership
-homicide rate - 4.6/100,000 people
-gun homicide rate - 2.98/100,000 people

Switzerland:
-rate of private gun ownership - 45.7 firearms per 100 people
-rated #3 country in terms of rate of private gun ownership
-homicide rate - 0.7/100,000 people
-gun homicide rate - 0.52/100,000 people

Cyprus:
-rate of private gun ownership - 36.4 firearms per 100 people
-rated #6 country in terms of rate of private gun ownership
-homicide rate - 1.7/100,000 people
-gun homicide rate - 0.62/100,000 people

Canada:
-rate of private gun ownership - 23.8 firearms per 100 people
-rated #13 country in terms of rate of private gun ownership
-homicide rate - 1.8/100,000 people
-gun homicide rate - 0.5/100,000 people

Here's the top 15 countries, in terms of rate of gun ownership:

United States 1
Yemen 2
Switzerland 3
Finland 4
Serbia 5
Cyprus 6
Saudi Arabia 7
Iraq 8
Uruguay 9
Sweden 10
Norway 11
France 12
Canada 13
Austria 14
Germany 15

It's interesting to compare Switzerland to Canada. Switzerland has about twice as many guns per person, and less than half the murder rate. But 3 out or 4 homicides are gun homicides, whereas in Canada, that number is close to 1/4.