Why do Americans value the ability to own a gun so much?

We thought OBL was fairly harmless, remember? Our CIA trained him how to mess with USSR. Then one afternoon he gets pissed off that USA troops are in his homeland Saudi Arabia bombing muslims back to the stone age, and he concocts a plan to take out Congress, the Pentagon, and the Trade Towers. These regional radicals could be the guys sailing that boat into the harbor and hitting the little red button. They don't have to be rocket scientists. They just have to trade stolen oil for a nuke and then buy a 100' sailboat on the Internet.

 

ROFLMAO. Do you really think you "shoo bears"? WOW. Google "bear mauling" and click on "images". Maybe those folks didn't go to class the day they covered "shooing" in school.

If you don't like firearms, move to Australia. Flights leave every hour; and that place doesn't have a Second Amendment. Personally; I think the Bill of Rights seems quite legit. But that's just me.

 

Might want to rethink Australia mate.

MELBOURNE, Australia....

. Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the unsuspecting ex-cons down - - and shot their testicles off! "The old lady spent a week hunting those bums down-and when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special way," said admiring Melbourne police investigator Evan Delp."

Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station, laid the gun on the sergeant's desk and told him as calm as could be: 'Those bastards willnever rape anybody again, by God.' Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost both his penis and his testicles when outraged Ava opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the seedy hotel room where he and former prison cellmate Stanley Thomas,29, were holed up. The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas' testicles to kingdom come, but doctors managed to save his mangled penis, police said.

"The one guy, Thomas, didn't lose his manhood, but the doctor I talked to said he won't be using it the way he used to," Detective Delp told reporters."Both men are still in pretty bad shape, but I think they're just happy to be alive after what they've been through."

The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her granddaughter Debbie was carjacked and raped by two knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/news/australia/030900a.html

 

If crimes are going to happen regardless, then that rule also applies to everyone owning a gun as well. So in the end, it's simply about trying to reduce the number of crimes. If by doing one thing it lowers the crime rate then it is a good approach to take. If it means that some security is lost individually but the costs of doing a crime go up exponentially to the point where committing a crime is harder to do, then that's a good approach.

Ha, I remember I had to make that argument when there was a bill in Arizona saying that cops should be able to carry I think it was Assault rifles on them at all times while on duty. In the end I enjoyed watching the concealed carry crowd squirm as they had no real response to this problem.

Favorite part of this, I already came up with the counter argument. I was making Grilled Cheese when it dawned on me while it doesn't matter what laws one state passes in terms of gun control and why it has to be all states that have to pass it. The answer is cars. Let's assume Homer lives in the town of Springfield where they don't allow guns. He lost his license and can only bike in a 20 mile radius. Let's say that town of Quahog is 50 miles away and they have a bountiful market of guns. Homer can't buy a gun there because the "costs" of buying the gun are too high (Cost doesn't refer to money, it refers to the decisions making process, what factors into making a decision). He can't bike that far without other negative consequences happening. But let's say he does get his license back, he can now make the 100 mile journey to Quahog to buy a gun, in other words the costs have lowered.

So in real life, our transportation system is designed with cars in mind, making it quick to go anywhere in the US. So a person can buy guns cheaply in a pro-gun state, and sell them at a profit elsewhere with next to no cost. In other words, the purpose of gun regulation laws is not about confiscation but the limiting of the market. Yes there can be millions of guns in circulation, but if the costs go up, the seller will have to charge more as a result. Fewer people can buy them, so in the end, the costs of doing a crime go up as well. That's how it reduces crime. Do we ban cars then? No, simply having the majority of states do it or the federal government restrict the buying and selling of guns will be enough.

"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

 

My word sir!! You aren't seriously suggesting that it is a simple matter to purchase a firearm in some sort of black market are you!!!?
I will remind you sir that we have laws!! And that those laws are always followed!!!

 

Thanks for the article! Where should Westerners send folks that hate the idea of firearm ownership? It's kind of cold on Antarctica, so that might not be a good choice. But they need somewhere to go that aligns with their delicate sensibilities. Some of them aren't smart enough for Mars One. Russia maybe? How is Putin with regard to citizens owning small arms?

 

Lol. 1) Does an older woman have a chance in a physical struggle against a fit male? No. 2) Would a gun in the hands of the woman and the man provide a more or less equal field? Yes.
Go ahead and try to mental gymnastics your way out. I'll wait. (I love this (*)(*)(*)(*) by the way, thought exercises. Hold a bachelor's in philosophy)
Also: Your stats? They come from PHONE SURVEYS that ask people to SELF REPORT. Which are inherently inaccurate because they are not verifiable and depend upon the honesty of people speaking to a complete stranger who wants to know lots of personal information in a cold call. <<< If you think those survey are even 50% accurate I've got a bridge in san francisco to sell you.

 

As soon as you repeal the 2nd amendment, you can get right on that.
DC v Heller
McDonald v Chicago
go read those cases and tell me you can pass the sort of gun control you want.

 

What's the title of this thread again? I'm not arguing my position on gun rights, rather I'm arguing why Americans are so gun ho. It has to do with a strong Classical Liberal tradition vs. Positive Liberalism.

 

Wow...that's profound.

 

Because a society with gun owning citizens makes it harder for tyranny to take hold.

 

I'm aware of that and do not necessarily disagree. I was responding to your post where you indicated that for gun control to succeed every state needed to pass the tripe you want. <<< You won't be able to do that without repealing the 2nd amendment. Get back to me when you've done that and we can talk about the gun control you want to pass.

 

Why would I do that? All I have to do is show another country with similar car ownership rates and strict gun control laws to prove my point.

 

Every human has the capability of committing aggression.. no matter how passive a person may seem. Everyone is capable of being broken.

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/1

Your move

 

How do the guns themselves cause all the problems? Are they defective and just go off accidently, or do people pull the triggers?

Why did the guns in American not cause so many problems back before the early 1960's when they were in statistically more households?

Was it because the guns almost overnight became over 3 times more effective and caused the crime rate to go up the same amount?

What wonder guns came out around around 1963 that were directly responsible for the giant crime increase?

 

I suspect it's mostly symbolic. They like to think of gun ownership as a mark of freedom and power, like they're all in charge as long as they have their gun and aren't just tools of Big Government.

I've said before and will say again here and now that guns are basically a pacifier. As long as Americans have them to cling to and suck on, they're content and won't revolt against the government. It's not the only thing that has this effect, however, as the faux electoral system likewise provides some ease of mind to those who are jerked around by government, as well as giving a false sense of personal responsibility for government policies since "they voted for these people and these policies." I say it's false because we don't have any real choices, at least not at the national level, where having a choice is becoming more and more crucial since the federal government continues to grow and usurp control.

 

And 99.99% of them use the guns lawfully, and cause no problem to other people. They are exactly the people who you want with guns--solid, law-abiding citizens without a history of or tendency towards criminality. My owning guns harms or endangers no one.

 

We value the right to bear arms because we like the idea of being self sufficient. My owning guns is on the same sort of thinking that causes me to own a generator, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, survival blankets, life jackets, emergency whistles and fishing rods (yes, some of it is for sporting reasons). As I said in an earlier post, I live in hurricane country. It is very easily conceivable that in the next few months I will be in a situation with no electrical power, possibly no phone communications, etc. I will have no way to call the police easily, and even if I could, they might be busy with other emergencies. It is comforting to me and my wife that I have a shotgun for those sort of instances, and yes, I have actually lived in those circumstances for a week.

Gun ownership might not fit into your emergency needs. They do in mind, and as a person with an absolutely clean criminal record, I get irritated with people that want to make it harder for me to own a gun. Go after the criminals and prosecute them, put them in prison, and throw away the key. Leave me alone.

- - - Updated - - -

Revisionist history. All I have ever heard about OBL is that even early on in his participation in Afghanistan, he refused to have anything to do with American aid.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with owning guns. I own a couple myself. But let's not pretend that grannies defending themselves from gangbangers are the reason Americans value our right to own guns. It makes for an easy appeal to emotion, but that's not the reason there are so many guns in the US.

 

Yes.....I've done it. Not only that I've gotten in between mother black bear and her cubs but I've got pictures of them. Which was and accident. She just looked at me and I looked at her......what a beautiful bear she was, and she just turned away and wondered off into the woods.

I've also stumbled on them going to my barn/workshop at night.

You eliminate the food source you eliminate the bear problem. Now I'm talking about black bears.....not Grizzlies. Where you are at you only have black bears.

As for me......I'm strong second Amendment supporters. I view my guns as tools, hunt etc. But more importantly I view my guns as a insurance policy against tyrannical government that wants to impose authoritarian state......not because I'm scare of bears.

My neighbors are welcome to transverse my yard, eat my apples, eat my berries.....as long as they don't take a dump on my path to the truck or barn/workshop I'm find with them. I rather enjoy their company.

 

The grannies with guns comment was made to rebut the idea that martial arts is the solution to all self defense needs. It was a side argument. Look at my exchange with Tram Law on that.

The real reason we value guns is that we view ourselves as self-sufficient. It is part of the American view point, and being able to defend ourselves is part of that. I have a 20' long shelf with empty gas cans in my garage. Why? For the next hurricane (and yes, I used them all in the last hurricane that hit here). I view my guns as necessary for that same reason.

 

Citizens who are otherwise unable to protect themselves from the predations of criminals being able to protect themselves through the use of a firearm is certainly 1 of the compelling reasons for american gun ownership. the other 4 being: sport shooting, hunting, in case the government needs correction, and of course the classic becuase (*)(*)(*)(*) you that's why.

 

So we are on the same page? I think a person can own firearms for the following reasons:
1) Tyrannical Government, as per the fears of the Founding Fathers.
2) Unorganized Militia. Though it appears that the old Militia Act of 1792 was replaced with one that actually defines the National Guard and Air National Guard; so maybe this one doesn't matter anymore? Not sure.
3) Hunting.
4) Protection. Protection from bears, snakes, etc. while hiking, or while being on your property in a rural setting, or while being on State and Federal lands camping and hiking
4) Protection - concealed carry. Protection from criminals, basically.
5) Protection - home and property / Castle Doctrine / No Retreat, etc.
6) Target shooting - could be a hobby or even professional (you can win money at those IPSC competitions and trap/skeet shooting competitions) etc.
7) Collecting - Class III weapons are going up a LOT and so it's a good investment

 

Who did that - the CIA? Because back in the day, the story was the CIA trained him in those guerilla tactics to try and chase USSR out of Afghanistan. He never took training from us? I'm actually not surprised that you tell me this - I think we get lied to an awful lot by the government and media. It's a shame actually. Now you turn on Fox or CNN and you don't even know if you should believe them. I'm to the point where I just run a BBC app on my phone and try not to believe too much from other sources.