Gun ownership is MAD?

I live in a part of the world where every twelve year old boy is given a twenty two on his twelfth birthday, it's like a Bar Mitvah. Don't tell me young men don't equate their manhood with owning a "gun".

 

It's not just Northern California, bet it reaches into Texas and all other states that have rural communities. It's a rite of passage. Don't deny it. It's been an American state of mind for quite awhile.

 

Shoot a few rabbits, or squirrels, go on your first deer hunt and be blooded. Doesn't matter if you even like venison. You just need to make that kill. That's what cements your position in the male community.

 

Gun Control is good, it means you can hit your target


America and guns just go hand and hand. If not for guns there would never have been an America so we cant take away our guns.

 

Ok it seems to becoming clear that the idea that guns are very much needed for the protection of oneself and family is rather weak. Someone cannot have their gun out at all times and scoping anyone that comes near, they cannot be everywhere at all times, they cannot stand guard at their homes at all times and they cannot escort their partner or children wherever they go. So the actual possibility of ever being at the place and at the time needed and then being able to release and use a gun go down dramatically.

But there does seem to be an underlying fear that is not apparent in UK society and that seems to stem from the fact that Americans know that their society is so awash with guns. That means that they know that any encounter with another individual (with criminal intent, mental illness, drunk, or just plain angry) has a much greater probability of ending in injury or death because there is a much greater possibility that they will be armed.

But it seems to me that for many Americans that heightened level of stress (and the high number of gun related homicides) is an acceptable payoff for being able to play around with guns. That it seems is their choice.

Nothing will happen until those attitudes change.

**

So lets see what is acceptable or not?

Pitt you sound like a responsible gun owner with your heavy-duty gun safe.

So would you limit gun ownership to those of equal responsibility? Would you agree that those that keep a gun in the hatbox on top of the wardrobe shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun?

You’re a sports shooter and hunter.

So would you agree that guns designed only as battlefield weapons should not be sold to members of the general public? I mean the thing about the hunt or the field is the skill, the finesse. Is there any skill or finesse in firing an AK-47 at a deer or target?
So would you be happy to ban such things as assault and military grade sniper rifles?

 

For most people, death because of a car or truck accident is far more likely then being shot with a gun.

 

So yes and no, you would like to see guns held more securely but no, you wouldn’t do anything about it.

The thing is that seems to void your assurance that guns could not fall into the wrong hands during a burglary.

**

On the other questions you seem to be dodging. I’m the gun virgin here (I’ve held nothing but a twelve bore shotgun) so I think you would be better suited to say what you believe are ‘battlefield weapons”, and then we’ll see.

I mean I presume you understand I’m talking about ‘small arms’ not artillery pieces, tanks, or guns that one person could not hold? Off the top of my head I would say any weapon that can pump out bullets at a fast rate. Anything that ‘sprays’ bullets.

Are you saying you think the selling of such cheap automatic weapons as AK-47 and AR-15’s (the dear old armalite so much loved by the IRA) are reasonable weapons for people to have even if not held securely?

**

This is interesting, as I said earlier I believe that some Americans are more interested in having access to guns than limiting the fear they cause within their society. Do such people even fear the smallest limitations that might be placed on such things as AK-47’s.

**

 

Pitt

Just a thought, how about a law saying people that don’t have the appropriate security at home have to store their guns at a secure place (like a police station)? They could then just book them out for a going hunting or competitions.

 

That will never happen in the states Balbus, some of these NRA folks sleep with their weapons. They would never go for conjugal visits alone.

 

As I’ve said it seems to me that many Americans don’t want to do anything about the heightened level of fear and stress that a gun saturated society gives them.

**

So let us go back to the beginning.

"I don't like guns, i hate guns.
That said, as long as the only practical defense against firepower is firepower, I have no problem with an armed individual trying to protect himself and his family from an outside threat."
"A personal policy of mutually assured destruction is as decent a deterrent as i can think of.
You aim at me and i'll aim at you. Pretty simple."

Now while this person claims to hate guns I don’t think that in general the people that claim to want them for protection do, I think many Americans love guns.

As we have seen the ‘protection’ argument is in fact pretty weak. It quickly became clear that the only reason that Americans feel they need a gun to protect them is that they believe they are more likely to get into a situation with someone else with a gun. And the only reason for that is that the US has more guns in circulation.

So you would think that the most sensible thing to do would be to lessen the amount of guns in circulation, but no to many Americans the way to deal with this situation is to increase the amount of guns in circulation.

It is like a drowning man asking for a glass of water.

Why?

**

I’ve already mentioned the American mindset that seems more interested in dealing with perceived symptoms than searching for the underlying causes.

For example people that support guns often point to the fact that a high rate of crime involves the use of a guns and so tell people they should get armed to ‘protect themselves’.

But the reason why a high rate of crime involves the use of guns is because the society has a high number of guns.

They are highlighting the symptom of ‘gun crime’ without looking at the cause the number of guns in circulation.

This attitude seems common and can be seen in many Americans reaction to communism, drugs and Islamic Fundamentalism

They don’t ask why people might support leftwing political systems, grow coca or hate America they just go off to war against them.

But the thing in Vietnam was that Ho’s communists where the ones fighting imperialism and for a Vietnamese national state and that was what many Vietnamese wanted they saw the Americans as just interfering foreigners like they had the French and Japanese. The reason why South Americans or Afghanis grow drugs crops is because they bring a higher return than other crops (many times because other crops are undermined by US/EU agricultural subsidies) and because there is a market for the product, supply and demand. People in the Middle East often hate America (and other westerners) because of their support for Israeli policies and the long-term interference in the politics of the region (the US following on from the British, Russians and the French)

Remember that protection was also often used as a justification for violence on these occasions as well, protection from communists, drug lords or fanatics.

The thing is that virtually everywhere the US has used this threat of violence, covert or open violence it has made a bad situation worse as well as blotting out any discussion of the causes behind the smoke of explosions and a mountain of body bags.

It often seems that many Americans believe that any problem be it political, social or economic can be solved with a gun. Since that seems to be their first response when confronted with a problem.

Why?

**

 

Where has it ever been shown that the less guns in circulation the less crime? Not in any of the countries with gun bans. Americans have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from Government clamp-down and control. You can fight back if you have your weapons. Protection certainly is a valid point. Lets take a little trip back in time before the invention of gun powder. Was there killing? Was there war? Was there crime? So even if you possibly remove all firearms(which you can't) killing and crime goes on. You would need a sword/bat for protection. In real life though if you outlaw guns the criminals will still buy them on the black market. Don't believe it? How has your country done eliminating "illegal drugs". Making something illegal does not make it go away. It just keeps the guns out of the peoples hands that would have used them responsibly in the first place.

Yea, and what is your point. There are a lot of countries out there that don' have Americas best interests at heart, how does it hurt us to protect our own interests. By the way it has been going on for thousands of years and it won't stop, no matter what country you are taking about they have tried to secure their interests.

 

Umm no, Dirk has kept pace with your arguements against personal protection every step. I wouldn't call those stats weak...

 

Dirk you have any stats on children and innocents injured by the misuse of firearms?

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/fact_file.asp

I kind of wonder how these stats compare to the ones, that mandated bicycle helmets, seat belts and child safety seats. Which caused more loss of life, and why can one be legislated and the other can't be?

 

Well with most American families having either single parents or both parents in the workforce, who's supervising these children and the parent's guns?

Shouldn't we be as concerned with fatalities caused by firearms as we are by those caused by bicycle or auto accidents?

Ever tried to force a nine year old to put on his helmet to ride two blocks to a friends, but I risk a fine for not enforcing that, but no one forces me to lock up my guns.

Who's more important the NRA or the Insurance companies?

 

H

It’s a good idea to skim through a thread to see if any subject has been commented on already before posting (I don’t always have time to do it myself but it is still a good rule of thumb)

Anyway in post 19 –

“The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appears in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

As several people here have implied here at one time or another the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this a justified and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back, get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them, and what if they had shot at the police would they have got general popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy, would people have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?”

**

“Yea, and what is your point. There are a lot of countries out there that don' have Americas best interests at heart, how does it hurt us to protect our own interests. By the way it has been going on for thousands of years and it won't stop, no matter what country you are taking about they have tried to secure their interests”

The point I was making is that many times the US government has acted against it’s own best interests, in a way and for ideological reasons that the American citizenry went along with because of their attitudes and viewpoint.

 

Pitt

LOL

Nice piece of misdirection.

The problem is that the question isn’t what type of weapons ban different people might put forward but what would be acceptable to the many gun-loving Americans.

As I’ve said there seems to be little will to actually lessen the fear and stress within the US caused by it being a gun soaked society, and until that attitude changes, there will be no change.

The other problem is that the oft-errorous arguments and attitudes of the pro-gun lobby have so permeated US culture that they have become part of it. So that many people believe that guns can be used as a solution for many social, political and economic problems.

That means that they come to rely on the gun rather than see other ways of dealing with their problems.

**

 

Guns will never be the solution. Only education and information will win in the end. Guns are a distraction that focus attention away from the true issues.

 

Sorry, but I grew up with a kid that could of been so much more, but on December 25th 1978, his friend picked up a gun and played around. He's in a wheelchair and he always will be from then on. His folks were good folks, and they kept tabs on their kids, but they didn't lock up their guns, and an accident happened. We didn't have terrorists then, it was a twenty two deer rifle. But the kid didn't kill a deer, he disabled their son so he would never walk again.

The whole family has been affected.

 

They were in the kitchen fixing Christmas breakfast. Both boys had gone through NRA rifle safety classes. I really think in this case the problem lay with the gun being accessible, not the people. And the rifle in question was a Christmas present to the son that will never walk again.

 

LOL Shane, remember when you said near the beginning of this thread -

“You're drowning Balbus! Quick, grab a biased source!”

Well I don’t believe I’ve linked to any biased sources, however Pitt has, and you make no comment?

Why?

Could it be that you are yourself biased?

But it is interesting that I haven’t and he has, makes you wonder who is on solid ground and who is treading water.

**

Anyway Shane you say –

“Umm no, Dirk has kept pace with your arguements against personal protection every step. I wouldn't call those stats weak...”

The only problem is that I’m not actually sure if you understand the arguments been presented, I mean you have done little more that snipe so far, so it’s impossible to know if your statement is based in understanding or bias?

**