Why Americans Love Guns

Why would anyone carry a weapon of any kind, if not out of fear of others trying to harm them?

I'm not saying that it is impossible for citizens to own and use firearms in a responsible manner.

My point is that, in my opinion, civilians feeling they need a firearm to protect themselves is not something to be proud of.

 

So what you suggest? I'll give you an example. My dear old mom. Has concealed carry a gun for most of her adult life. She was a prison, jail and psych ward nurse for 40 years. That profession puts her at a certain risk because the possibility of someone recognizing here from there time locked up. From working the lock up for that long she's got a command presence and a sense of caution that most people outside of law enforcement never obtain. But the reality remains she's a pretty 5'4" 110lb female.

After an incident or two on the street she realized early on that safe is better than sorry. Subsequent to carrying a firearm there have been two situations where it's come down to her going home alive as a result of being armed and able to defend herself.

Is she proud of it? Pride doesn't enter into the equation. She has a family at home to take care and provide for and a responsibility to them and herself to get home alive. It's hardly an issue of pride. She certainly never bragged about it or talked it up. Her main concern was her safety and her kids. Of course it would be.

So what do you suggest in cases like that? I'm genuinely curious. Or for any of the number of people who have successfully defended themselves and their children or families against a criminal element that have absolutely zero inhibition about hurting, maiming or murdering someone during the commission of a crime. It's not like stories of strong arm robberies gone wrong are rare. Thankfully the media actually reports when someone does defend themselves with a legally owned firearm.

No shortage of examples of people in prisons who have absolutely no scruples of hurting or killing innocent people. Many of them ended up in prison precisely because of that.

So I'd love to hear your suggestions.

 

Something about my point isn't sinking in...

Your mum's attitude sounds like the "necessary evil" attitude I mentioned before. She carried a gun because she was in fear of her safety.

It's not just the media who are proud about the right to bear arms. Real people also believe they have more freedoms than I do because of it, and many treat an ammendment to a national constitution as if it were the word of God.

Plenty of people in the U.K. and other countries manage to work as psychiatric nurses without ever being armed. I happen to think that an unarmed civilian population is good for society.

I don't know enough about it to give policy advice for the U.S. on gun control. That was never my point. I was merely expressing my befuddlement at the people who think arms=freedom and are proud of their country because of it.

 

Obviously not.

As would anyone who is accosted by a physically bigger, stronger ex-con with some misplaced grudge issues. Twice was enough to make her go the route of 'better safe than sorry'. No small issue to consider given that she had a house of three kids to raise as well. Making the decision to be armed was a very worrying decision for her to have to make. It's why we all learned about guns and gun safety very early on - which is rather different that most kids who learn about such things early on as this was in an urban/suburban area... not a rural area where firearms at a young age is commonplace.

err.. huh? Perhaps if your sole window into American news is Fox News or it's affiliates. There are any number of media sources that are not biased towards gun ownership and it's not hard to find a media source that is American that is downright critical of the state of affairs.

Yes there are those out there. And thats always going to be what makes it onto Fox News when they bleed red, white and blue. That much is obvious. Perhaps not for someone who's not American simply down they may not actually understand that there is also a gun owning population that isn't the NRA nutbar.

As for the Constitution. Yes it's pretty deeply enshrined in law in the US. What did you expect? I'd imagine your country also has legal documents that have that carry a similar amount of weight and baggage. Most countries do in one form or another.

The better part of 40 years isn't as a psych nurse. It's as a prison nurse. That there are other people that work in nursing does nothing to change that fact that she was able to come home and continue to raise her family and work and go on living life precisely because she was armed against a very real threat. I don't know if you can't understand that or simply refuse to because of your stance on the issue... but it is what it is.

Sure... always your right. No argument there. I think if you consider the context (history, culture, law, perceptions) and what makes the news it goes a long way towards giving insight into that issue.

 

I have conversed with actual, real life Americans before. Some of them on this forum.

I know. I've watched a few.

When did I say that all Americans were NRA nutbars?

I can't think of any other country that is so zealous about constitutional documents.

You know what? We have prison nurses here too.

I can sympathise with her choice to arm herself, but I cannot fathom why anyone would think that is a good thing or a sign of a healthy society.

 

She's certainly not on to feel that having to be armed to protect ones self is a sign of a healthy society. Again - the very vocal get the media attention. That'd be NRA supporters in middle America stoked up and supported by the gun lobby. I think if you actually have been in the states you find that it's actually a far cry from what the media export it. I think there is a very large portion of the population in the US that view the gun ownership issue as a sign of something very, very unhealthy with American society.

And yes I'd expect you have prison nurses there too. But again... the society and the culture are entirely different. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I can't see how it would have any effect on my moms decision and right to protect herself. Arguing that the UK has prison nurses is hardly a realistic deterrent when being attacked. Context is everything.

I'd also hardly take speaking to a few MAP members as representative of the whole. But if that's what leads you to your conclusions on the topic then fair enough. That is your choice and it's not a point I can argue with per se.

Always interesting to see how people who haven't lived in the US view the issue. Not always entirely out of line with many of the people live in the US. However not that you'd hear those voices much because the media lives on sensationalism.

 

Where did you get the idea that I think that every person who owns a firearm in the US is an NRA nut?

I have tehnically been in the States... but only as far as outside the entrance to Miami airport

Terrible coffee. Rude staff. Don't think I'll be going back

My only argument is with those who would argue that your mother had more freedom because of the civilian right to bear arms, as compared to a country with very few civilian firearms.

Yeah, no.

I've met and been friends with a fair few Americans in actual, face-to-face, touchy-feely reality. I only mentioned the ones on MAP as an example.

Actually, I've seen far more Americans on TV who are pro gun control and anti-NRA nuts.

 

If it might be hard to define what a militia exactly is I think you can define some things that it's not?...

It wouldn't involve having public gun shows where almost any old person can go and get a gun.
It wouldn't involve having pink guns targeted specifically at children. Hell it wouldn't involve children having guns at all because children can't be considered to be "in" a militia no matter how you define it (like ain't like Red Dawn!).

 

I haven't lived in the USA, but I have visited it. I must say that the difference between how it is generally portrayed in the media here and how it actually is when you go there is enormous. Given the coverage that it gets over here, it's no wonder that lots of Brits think that the USA is populated mainly by loonies. It's the media's fault.

 

Maybe if the only way to get a gun was to join the "Pink Militia", shootings would fall dramatically?

 

Thank you, I'm rather amased you're the only one who noticed!

But we weren't terribly close.

No, she didn't commit suicide to protest the gun lobby but said that her method was a protest. I believe you are right about the reasons why women choose overdose rather than firearm and I believe it also probably applied to her, but her being so caught up the trappings of political posturing, the en vogue of 'making a statement' - combined with her being mentally off-balance ( yes, still passing her views on to the student body with the full blessings of her dept ) - it was only natural for her to want to seem as "boycotting" the gun industry or something.

 

Anyone who derives their opinions based on what they are led to believe by the media, either here or there, is being severely mislead.

I don't think it necessarily on purport but rather the nature of news media business, sociology, human psychology, etc.,

 

The US definition's right here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

However, the right to keep and bear arms isn't limited to militia. It's the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

No? If not "any old" sane and law-abiding citizen, then who shall be the special few who can "get a gun" (i.e. lawfully purchase and possess firearms)? How will those other than those special few defend themselves against armed violence from a criminal element that will violate laws to get firearms and other weapons, or from a tyrannous government? And why do you maintain that sales at gun shows are different than any other sale of a firearm?

I never understand why some people keep forgetting that violent criminals don't obey the laws with regards to obtaining and possessing firearms.

I suspected not.

So if we define some people's possession of weapons as being an "overstocked" armory, what quantities then do you define as being an appropriate stock, and what would you consider to be understocked?

The matter of American government tyranny is not illegitimate; The American government has been violently tyrannical before, and the targets certainly weren't limited to "rednecks".

I don't personally much care about anyone's idea of Christ or anti-Christ, but America also has freedom of religion and free speech as enumerated in its First Amendment. Are you saying you prefer societies where such don't exist, and where one's rights can be infringed upon for having the wrong opinion on those matters?

 

:topic:

The argument over the 2nd ammendment pertaining to individuals or "militia" has been argued.


http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/gunconst.htm

Read the ammendment:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

Understand that Bill of rights was written, in order, so that the 1st ammendment was supported by the 2nd, the 2nd by the 3rd, etc.

 

Yes I think down that way you'd have to get down to little Havana and order a Cuban style coffee to make it worthwhile.

 

Where do you think you are more likely to face a criminal with a firearm?

In a country with millions of legal firearms among the civilian population?

Or a country where there are very few legal firearms owned by civilians?

I understand that in a country awash with firearms, many people will feel the need to own one themselves. But I don't think that is anything to be proud of. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

Well there you go then. That narrows gun ownership down quite a bit. No kids, no women (except national guard women) and no old people. That's a start at least.

What I'm getting at is that gun ownership would be gained via being a member of the well regulated militia. You wouldn't go and buy a gun and then join the militia if you felt like it. Membership and training first, gun ownership second (like in the wording of the amendment).
You wouldn't need gun shops or shows because by joining the militia you would be provided with a gun or guns. Like joining the arm or national guard.

As badly worded as the second amendment is I think it's clear that the right to bear arms is meant to be closely related to the well regulated militia. Doesn't appear to cover arms for personal self defence, sport shooting, kids shooting uzis at ranges or even hunting. It seems to me the second amendment is meant to be very serious and cover a very serious concern but modern America seems to have a bit of a "guns are fun toys!" mentality at odds with that.

And we in countries with low gun crime can never understand why Americans can't see that if guns are strictly controlled violent criminals find it much harder to get hold of them and as such their use in crime becomes so limited it's not something normal people have to worry about.
It seems to me that criminals getting and using guns is directly proportional to the ease with which anyone can get a gun.

 

i don't even know how to find this information out. but are there statistics on weapons used on a low-gun country? like in gb, is there something i can find regarding blade use in street crime?

i think it would be interesting to note rate of, say, street crime and weapon used (or not) in different countries and of course, lethal outcomes.