US gun culture

[I, Brian]

The site is an info site, and there's nothing graphic on the homepage. I even know what Ted Bundy looks like now!

And thanks for that, Nogodnomasters - ever I find the USA a strange place indeed.

[Susma Rio Sep]

This may sound simplistic.

U.S. gun culture. This is one country at present with the potentials for the quick complete and irremediable extinction of mankind and even life on earth for most species at least.

However this country is still civilized enough to look for acceptable pretexts in the use of its violence potentials, acceptable to other nations in terms of some traditional tenets of civilization and humanistic values.

The lesson to be learned here? If you want to be at the top you have got to acquire the capacity for the greatest of violence on others. Until then you can go the way of religion and talk about nirvana and going to the kingdom of God, post death.

Now, another question: Are Americans the happiest people on earth? Obviously they must be; so many want to get into their country and join them, and they are willing to risk death to get inside.

What about Muslim religionists like the followers of Osama bin Laden? who want to bring down the great Satan that is the USA for them? Sour grapes? So that they will be the next USA but with a Muslim veneer?

Susma Rio Sep

[Zazen]

Guns are a neccesity imho, although there is a problem with the sheer number of guns in this WORLD, not just USA but in this world there are so many guns, its like they outnumber the population almost..or atleast it feels that way, i know for damn sure theres more bullets then people

anyway, i think gun laws at present are underpar, but there isnt much you can do without going against the constitution which is a big no no in my book..

to me, i want to know that if there ever comes a time of anarchy or chaos, political agendas gone awry*cough* patriot act *cough*, i know id feel alot better that id be armed and able to defend myself and whomever else..

but there is a gun problem in the us, i mean im only 19 but i know atleast 3 different people i could get just about all kinds of guns off of if i really wanted, and thats nothing really cause everyone has guns here

i dont think that death by guns is as bad as the fact that guns are so easy to get a hold of, death happens one way or another it really isnt guns fault that people get murdered and stuff so often, sure it makes it easier to kill but, still irregardless if you wanna kill someone your gonna find a way to do it, its just circumstances really

i dunno who it was who said it but, israel has a more powerful military then the us? are you kidding me? has anyone here even served in the military? its funny there are bigger armys in the world then the U.S. korea..china..probably russia to but that still doesnt make them stronger, imho what makes our military so strong is the fact we are always 3 steps ahead of everyone else, conventionally it really is just a fact that the U.S. has the most powerful military, but then again not everyone fights conventionally..

amitabha

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Zazen

its funny there are bigger armys in the world then the U.S. korea..china..probably russia to but that still doesnt make them stronger, imho what makes our military so strong is the fact we are always 3 steps ahead of everyone else, conventionally it really is just a fact that the U.S. has the most powerful military, but then again not everyone fights conventionally..

amitabha

Hi zazen and welcome to CR.

Certainly different militaries, are and always have been, of different calibres.

For example, the Russian Army used to work on the principle of simply steamrollering with numbers, and that accurate firing was not as important an issue as much as the rate of fire. By that I mean the Russians were interested in havnig a large conscripted army that could spray a large area with bullets - hopefully destroying the enemy.

The British, on the other hand, believe in a small and highly specialised professional army, where quality is far more important than quantity. I'm under the impression that the US armed forces work on a similar theory.

Interesting point you raised there, zazen - and one I'd not considered before. Basically, by allowing the civillian population to be armed, you ensure that the government cannot become outright dictatorial. Hence "the people" represented a threat to attempts at totalitarian government. And liberal concerns would therefore represent a threat to the safety of that system by presenting an ideal tool for the disarmament of the public, and thus allow the eradication of the democratic and constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States of America?

Hm...I think I'm finally seeing the logic of the situation here, which is otherwise quite hard from here in the UK.

[I, Brian]

PS - Hi SocratesLite and welcome to CR as well.

I would certainly be interested in seeing your point put across more to explain your perception of the logic of gun issues, both current, past, and possible future - should you wish to. We're not against the civil expression of opinion here, you know.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

i made the statement concerning the US military compared to the Isralie Military.... however, in point of fact, i said that they have a more deadly and capable military, not a more powerful one. a small distinction, perhaps, but one that is necessary when we start to discuss military might.

and.. yes... i have served in the US military. did a tour of 4 years back in the late 80's to early 90's, i was in the Army.. went to a bunch of schools... Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, PathFinder, etc... i don't really like to talk about it too much.. it's difficult to relate to people that haven't had that experience...

though i do have a group of Vietnam Vets that i visit a few times a year... and they completely understand.. in fact... we don't even need to talk about it... we can share a look or a wry smile... and that completely communicates what needs to be communicated.

not to commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.. though i have a pretty good grasp of what i'm talking about in these regards

[Susma Rio Sep]

Considering that we as a species are still around notwithstanding the imminence of total extinction from the weapons of mass destruction most egregiously invented and hoarded by the U.S.A., is that some proof that a God concerned so far with keeping us around is in charge?

Some 'consuelo de bobo'. But then isn't the human species for all its intelligence is essentially 'bobo', for its capacity to get to the moon but its perverse resistance against living in peace.

Not all 'bobos' are equal, though. I choose to be more equal by believing in a benign God. However 'bobo' such a belief be, it affords a 'consuelo' where otherwise none would be available in a world populated and ruled by 'bobos' hoarding their cache of WMD's, diabolically in the name of insuring their security.

Susma Rio Sep

[BlueCanary]

"Interesting point you raised there, zazen - and one I'd not considered before. Basically, by allowing the civillian population to be armed, you ensure that the government cannot become outright dictatorial. Hence "the people" represented a threat to attempts at totalitarian government. And liberal concerns would therefore represent a threat to the safety of that system by presenting an ideal tool for the disarmament of the public, and thus allow the eradication of the democratic and constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States of America? "

Yes, it is my belief that this is exactly right. Though it may seem paranoid, there is always the possibility that any governement could (at some future point) become totalitarian or a dictatorship. If people are not armed, they might be forced to submit to the wishes of their armed government, no matter how evil those wishes are. The idea is, if the president ever oversteps his bounds we can impeach him, if he ever assumes outright dictatorship we can fight for our rights if need be.

Charlton Heston once made a speech in which he read a pro gun-control statement and then revealed its writer - adolph hitler. Most gun-control advocates just saw it as an attempt by heston to demonize them by comparing them to hitler. What I think he was really trying to express (albeit badly - and I don't agree with all the things Mr. Heston has to say about gun control) was that the fiirst step in any dictatorship includes making sure civilians don't have weapons. If they do, the chance that they will stand up for themselves using force if necessary is too great. Making sure that the right of a person to own a reasonable sized gun is upheld, guarantees (or at least increases the chances) that a dictatorship can not be established, which would remove our other more basic rights.

[Nogodnomasters]

It is difficult to talk about the American gun culture without mentioning the main advocates of gun ownership, the "redneck." They believe they have a "God given right" to own guns. They believe the second Amendment to the Constitution applies to them, even though the top court in the land claims otherwise. They believe there should be no restrictions in the right to bear arms except people who have committed felonies, except police officers who beat their wives. Now there is no restriction in the constitution for felons, however the NRA never fights for their rights to own guns. It allows the government this restriction for the public saftety, but no others are allowed.

I live in a rural area. I own a shotgun, which I keep loaded for my protection. It would take the police an hour to reach my house. The gun lovers believe private citizens have this right to protect themselves from the government. Of course everytime private citizens have used guns to protect themselves from law enforement agents, they either die or go to jail.

It is also believe the real reason Hitler never invaded the US was because our citizens owned guns and he realized it would be too much of a battle. An amazing twist of history. It totally ignores the problems Hitlet had in moving an army across the ocean, conquering an area larger than Europe, and the fact he was already fighting a war on two fronts.

For more information on our redneck culture, type Jeff Foxworthy into a search engine.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

It is also believe the real reason Hitler never invaded the US was because our citizens owned guns and he realized it would be too much of a battle. An amazing twist of history. It totally ignores the problems Hitlet had in moving an army across the ocean, conquering an area larger than Europe, and the fact he was already fighting a war on two fronts.

Do people really make that argument?? Hitler couldn't even successfully mobilise the German Army across the English Channel.

With the length of time required to ferry troops across the Atlantic, it would have been an act of military suicide - no surprise element and a good few days for the US forces to set up major coastal defences on all potential landing sites - or else fly Enola Gay over the sea convoy and drop a "Fat Man" or "Little Boy" on it mid-Atlantic.

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Do people really make that argument?? Hitler couldn't even successfully mobilise the German Army across the English Channel.

With the length of time required to ferry troops across the Atlantic, it would have been an act of military suicide - no surprise element and a good few days for the US forces to set up major coastal defences on all potential landing sites - or else fly Enola Gay over the sea convoy and drop a "Fat Man" or "Little Boy" on it mid-Atlantic.

In fact I heard Hilter had a plan to invade the US via Texas, but gave up the idea becuase of personal gun ownership. I found it bizzare too.

[Anzac]

From reading through the thread I can see a number of things surfacing about the whole "culture" thing in the US and WMDs, other countries, violence and the like (best understood by reading them, I won't lessen anyone's point of view by trying to sum it up).

On the whole what came across to me is the idea of personal defence in having individual firearm ownership fo defend personal space and the like.

In my opinion I think this is where the whole idea of "civilized" and "guns" goes well out of the window.

The idea that in order to defend yourself from the uncivilzed you must have guns to remove them in my eyes, is quite hypocritical. We all look back at the Romans (drifting off the point here) where there was a great civilization of superior people. Look at them - hordes os slaves, butchered each other and had the biggest bureacracy known in the ancient world ruled by corrupt individuals and the like. The notion of civilized people in this context eludes me - but anyway - back to guns.

The concept of defending what is "yours" with the use of arms again, is an idea that I don't particularly see into. The idea of someone taking away what is yours, and the best solution is to kill them... it seems "eye for an eye" comes in all over again. People feeling the need to take up arms and kill other people purely to keep what is "theirs" is an absurd idea to me.

Then people will say "what about all the evil dictators and people who will take what is mine". This to me seems the heart of the matter and true scaremongering. If everyone stopped thinking that then the dictators wouldn't surface and there wouldn't be the problem. The fact that there are those who like to take power is part of the problem. It's a vicious circle which I fear humanity won't ever leave. Killing one another to defend what is ours always leaves someone without. They want, and so again it must be defended by those with guns.

To me this is seen quite clearly in the US today. Not only the US (to try and be more fair), but the rest of the western world. The western world has the idea that what they say goes and is civilized and in doing so creates the whole vicious circle of "defence". The whole idea of then defending what is rightfully yours comes into a more grand scale with not allowing anyone else to share my wealth. After all - to have capitalism someone must be inevitably exploited (and I would like to add before I become named a communist propogandist - I think it's just the same but on a more grand scale. Capitalism by definition involves one group of people profiting off of another and defending their right to do so).

Why does the rest of the world not shoot each other like the US? Several reasons I feel come into this.

1. The "old world" of Europe went through (and is going through)the same phase and massacred each other, well, less than 50 years ago really and to this extent it is just as hypocritical. However, Europe is supposedly heading in a new direction whereby all the slaughter comes to an end - and to an extent this is true. In certain parts (like Britain, France, Denmark etc.) there is "civilized" living and the like. In others (former Yugoslavia, Greece) there is still a large element of what is seen as "uncivilized" and "backwards". In the greater context though, this is beginning (I can't emphasise beginning enough) to come to an end.
2. The US is miles away from anywhere else, having only two real borders. One with Canada (war of 1812) and one with Mexico (the Rough Riders and the like for about 20 years around 1900). This means the US can dabble in just about anywhere it wants and have no real context. While Germans and Brits can go to France to massacre people the US must travel abroad. When they can't travel abroad they kill each other in their own country (which is what happens most of the time - 8000-9000 people is a lot of people for the "most civilized nation on earth" and the "land of the free").
3. It says so in the US constitution (need I really say more, but i will anyway ). Written way back in 1776 with the other "evil empire" at the door, it declares the right to shoot the English until they get out of their country. When they've finished massacring the English army (kind of like Vietnam but without the Truman Doctrine) they then eject anyone that doesn't agree with it (again, I'm drifting off of the point) and then expand across to the west, massacring Indians. No one then though they should remove the right to own arms because that would be infringing on freedoms, as the free deserve to have guns as much as those who aren't...

Finally as a slander on the US culture in general terms of international policy (not only the US again, Europe and the "civilized west" are again guilty). How is it that the only nation to use weapons of mass destruction against people are those who stop others from using them. This brings back into the fold the vicious circle of defending your own. Also after this fact is uncovered and the US has by far the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons (even if some would like to believe it is Russia, how many would actually leave the bunkers? and how many would still work?) - you must then question. Why the need to defend yourself as the land of the free? But they aren't weapons of mass destruction - they are strategic weapons of defence. In any document of declaration of these weapons neither the US or Europe (especially France) refers to them as WMDs, they are strategic weapons of defence. So is this just defence for nations as is defence of the individual with guns? The same thing but on 100,000 the scale - can anyone get the hint that violence isn't the answer. When has shooting your neighbour solved anything?

* as a disclaimer I think it is just as bad to commit terrorist atrocities as it is to do this. I don't see it as right for either side to do what they are doing but what I am saying is if someone wants to make progress then who is willing to risk taking the first step towards something "civilized".

[I, Brian]

Btw - has anyone seen "Bowling for Columbine"?

Watched it the other night. Funnily enough, it seems to reject the idea that gun ownership is the main cause of gun deaths in the US, especially in comparison to Canada, where guns are also common but gun deaths are rare. It seems that Michael Moore boiled down the entire argument down to American paranoia. Great peice of journalism, though.