Why do Americans love guns so much?

[SJValleySkinz]

Impossible. It's clearly guns that make the person what they are. Badasses or criminals.

They do make the bi-polar, paranoid scyzos and the otherwise mentally ill extremely dangerous. Can we somehow keep them out of their hands while making sure those who shouldnt have them taken away kerp them?

[MartinC]

Why do so many Americans eagerly surrender more of any of the constitutionally protected rights? People are quick to say gun nuts are full of fear but what is the need to surrender rights? Oh right, for "safety" (read: fear).

 

Over 5000 people in the US are killed illegally with firearms every year. Adjusting for population size the same number in the UK is under 300. The UK is a very similar nation to the US - similar education systems, almost identical access to popular culture, advanced democratic Government systems. The key differences from my first hand observation are that the US is a much more religious nation than the UK and attitudes to and access to guns.

 

Yet more than 16 times more people in the US get shot and killed illegally every year than in the UK. 

 

The UK is not a less violent society than the US IMO. We have higher rates of assault than in the US for example - that suggests that in the same situation in the UK were you might get into a fight or argument and get hit in the US you get shot.

 

You have a problem.

 

Not much point talking about possible solutions until there is some consensus that the problem exists and I think as a nation you have still not reached that point.

[skinsmarydu]

I just saw the promo for tonight's episode of "Last Man Standing", and I thought of twa (and my dearly departed grandfather, lol) for some reason...
Tim Allen is sending his daughter off to prom with a nerd in "birth control glasses", and reminds the young man that they still have time to tour the gun cabinet...

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I've literally never seen a gun in my life outside of a cop's in it's holster.

But I do have a few older relatives from the country that have a few.

It's part or some ppl's family and culture just like sports

[Chants]

That America is seen as a bunch of gun nuts is not by mistake.  It's by design.  It is a deterrence against foreign infantry invasian.

[MartinC]

That America is seen as a bunch of gun nuts is not by mistake.  It's by design.  It is a deterrence against foreign infantry invasian.

 

I assume you are joking?

[twa]

I assume you are joking?

 

 

why would you assume that?

 

it also helps to prevent abuse by our own govt.

 

 

we are a prickly people, and somewhat paranoid.

[Chants]

I assume you are joking?

 

Not at all?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_%28military%29

why would you assume that?

 

it also helps to prevent abuse by our own govt.

 

 

we are a prickly people, and somewhat paranoid.

 

And hard to eradicate.

[MartinC]

why would you assume that?

it also helps to prevent abuse by our own govt.

we are a prickly people, and somewhat paranoid.

So you think someone considering an invasion of the US (let's leave aside who that might be for now) is being deterred not by the 1.4M people in active service in the US military, the 800000 in military reserve and the state of the art arsenal of weaponry available to them but by civilians with firearms?

As for preventing abuse by your own Government...... Paranoid does not begin to define it.

Not at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(military)

And hard to eradicate.

I refer you to my above response to TWA.

[Chants]

So you think someone considering an invasion of the US (let's leave aside who that might be for now) is being deterred not by the 1.4M people in active service in the US military, the 800000 in military reserve and the state of the art arsenal of weaponry available to them but by a civilians with firearms?

As for preventing abuse by your own Government...... Paranoid does not begin to define it.

 

 

Why would you assume it's "either/or" situation?  Deterrence from invasion is a combination of active arms, arms in reserve, and armed civilians.  Did you not study any military history? 

[Destino]

We own a shotgun and a rifle. We've made the sane, logical jump that someone checking if we should own these things isn't infringing on our rights. It isn't the fear. It's the paranoia. The paranoia that a police state is coming.

But then again, I don't see the police state coming because I'm one of the "sheep".

Why should you be allowed to own a shotgun or a rifle? It would be safer if you didn't.

[Tweedr01]

Why would you assume it's "either/or" situation? Deterrence from invasion is a combination of active arms, arms in reserve, and armed civilians. Did you not study any military history?

He wouldn't want to do that, we whooped that British butt

Why should you be allowed to own a shotgun or a rifle? It would be safer if you didn't.

Safer for who?

[MartinC]

Why would you assume it's "either/or" situation?  Deterrence from invasion is a combination of active arms, arms in reserve, and armed civilians.  Did you not study any military history?

It was my major. It's not 1857.

[Chants]

It was my major. It's not 1857.

 

You didn't answer my question.  Why do you assume that a potential foreign invader would only be deterred by either an armed population or formal active/inactive military, and not a combination of all three?

[Burgold]

People want guns because they want to arm murderers, rapists, and child abusers. Think about it. One of the popular arguments of gun rights supporters is that the bad guys will get their guns no matter what. That most guns used in crimes are stolen. If that's the case them a law abiding citizen who owns a gun is doing so to furnish future crime.

If guns used in crimes are stolen then the only sane way to remove guns is to get them out of the hands of so-called responsible owners who clearly are irresponsible with how they secure their firearms.

Partly serious.

[Dan T.]

 

Depends on how you classify gun nuts. To me a gun nut is someone who thinks the second amendment should apply equally to people with disorders such as Cho Sung Hui, Adam Lanza and James Holmes, not just normal law abiding citizens. To me a gun nut is also a law abiding citizen that thinks the NRA gives two bits of rooster poop about his or her constitutional rights.

I'm pretty sure all three of those guys were "law abiding citizens" before they opened fire. I'm pretty sure all three were legally permitted to possess firearms. Which illustrates the dilemma we face as a nation engorged with firearms. 

[Elessar78]

Why should you be allowed to own a shotgun or a rifle? It would be safer if you didn't.

 

 

More facile thinking. We don't keep the guns for safety from an in home invasion or Obama rolling tanks down Main Street (which we literally have). 

[The Caretaker]

It is embedded in the culture, particularly among the patriotic white population. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it is hard to eradicate similar to a child being spoiled with a particular toy. 

Personally, If the majority of the population want to have guns to make themselves feel safe, so be it. But don't sit there and argue against government regulation just because it has the "government" tag on it, Guns have been used for good and evil but to sit there and say "oh well" every time a shooting massacre occurs (every few weeks these days) is reckless. We need heavier government regulation on Guns, strict background checks. Yes, criminals will find ways to get the guns, but to say regulation won't help at all is ignorant and dismissive. If you see yourself as trustworthy enough to carry a gun, then you should have no problem with background checks. 

[Bang]

You didn't answer my question.  Why do you assume that a potential foreign invader would only be deterred by either an armed population or formal active/inactive military, and not a combination of all three?

Why you ignore the incredible logistical problem any invading force would face is beyond me.

Maybe this is part of the answer to the OP's question.. we love our guns because they make us feel badass, and ignorant to the ac tuality of our claims.

 

The US is isolated by the two largest oceans on earth. Pick any country you want to pretend would like to invade us. Any of them. China, the old Soviet Union,  NK,, any of them. Try and decide how you'd do it, and look at it from a realistic standpoint...  

Major huge big problem number 1:  no matter what, you must extend supply lines across the Atlantic or the Pacific. Likely the Pacific since that is where our traditional enemies are closest.

Thousands of miles of open ocean to maintain and defend. 

 

Now, let's pretend even further that somehow our navy, the largest and most advanced on the planet, cannot disrupt the ocean going supply lines. (first, lol at that idea...  but since we're pretending, may as well.).. so they get to the west coast and invade..  let's pretend they manage to establish a few beach-holds along a nearly 8,000 mile coastline.

Now what? 

How far do they go? What constitutes victory? Planting aa flag on a california beach?

Even if they capture a seaport like San Francisco or Seattle, they will have to hold it, and they still have to get the supplies across all that ocean, and then across a whole hell of a lot of land to progress eastward. (Very rough terrain, at that. deserts to the south, Rocky mountains to the east, and if you're in seattle, the cascades and a forest that covers three states...   it ain't gonna be a cakewalk.)

 

In order to stop the best equipped and highest educated military the world has ever known from simply throwing them back into the ocean, they will have to either 

A/ defend their toe-hold forever.

or B/ move inland and establish larger and larger beach-heads. 

Again, the best equipped and highest educated fighting force the world has ever known becomes a major problem.

And NOW those supply lines that already stretch across the entire Pacific ocean must go even further... across land which is much harder to maintain. How much of your overall fighting force must be deployed simply to guard your supply lines? as you go further, more and more are required. The distance from Beijing to Chicago..  how much resources are used simply to supply the vanguard?

(The answer is what we call "a ****load".)

 

Concrete rule of conquest: the longer your line of supply, the more vulnerable you are to collapse.

the further you go, the more you twist your lines back on themselves to protect it. Your front shrinks considerably.

 

 

Movies like "red dawn".. completely impossible. A fantasy. No force, NONE, can penetrate very far simply for the distance it will have to cover and the ground it will have to hold.

the citizens being armed? This is a minor problem.

extremely minor. 

every military knows that it will lose soldiers in any action. An enemy that is adept enough to establish the lines of supply so securely as to be able to actually invade is going to kill anyone who shoots at them.

So while you may think you're a "well regulated militia" with your popguns, you're not, and a well organized military, organized enough to attempt such an invasion; will make very quick work of you. VERY quick work.

it'll go like this..  you will shoot one soldier... and then a fighter jet will level your block.

Or, you will shoot one, and two hundred will show up and kill everyone on your street.

Or you will shoot one, and some REMF will order artillery to destroy your town.

either way, you shooting one or two or ten or even a hundred will not deter them. 

Soldiers rushing into battle somewhat expect to be shot at, and their commanders are willing to sacrifice a number of them to achieve their goal.

How about you? You willing to let your wife go out and draw fire while you pluck one off with your rifle? 

 

In world war 2 we extended our supply lines across the pacific. Against a much smaller enemy with a suicidal fighting plan. and it was still so devastating to us that we opted to unleash the atom bomb rather than try to invade a country roughly the size of California.

 

 

the US is unable to be invaded  simply by it's size and locale. Any enemy we have is not going to be able to figure out the logistics of doing it. even if they establish bases of operations from neighboring countries..  first, canada will have no part of that, and second, they still have to extend across the pacific.

 

this is why ICBMs are practically the only threat we face in terms of any military action meant to bring us down. but it's fun to think about while diddling our triggers. The inflated sense of strength is part of gun ownership in some.

 

~Bang

[twa]

they steal them from the police and military as well Bur.

 

the guns are not the real problem, some people are.

[Dan T.]

 

the guns are not the real problem, some people are.

While there is some validity in that statement, "guns don't kill, people do" is a tired argument. I would suggest that a tool which a person can use to instantly kill someone with the twitch of a finger might be part of the problem as well.

[MartinC]

You didn't answer my question. Why do you assume that a potential foreign invader would only be deterred by either an armed population or formal active/inactive military, and not a combination of all three?

Anyone with the military resources to invade the US and who could reasonably expect to defeat the US military would have no problem policing the civilian population however well armed.

Since you bring up military history do some reading around the German occupation of Eastern Europe during WWII. There was no shortage of firearms in civilian hands in those Eastern European countries but they were of little use against Panzer divisions and did nothing to deter invasion. Armed guerrilla and partisan activity did tie down significant police and security forces - at a bloody cost to the local populations through reprisals. Armed insurrection on an organised scale was tried once, in Warsaw in 1944 - it did not end well for those who rose against the military occupier even at that late stage of the war.

It revealing though that you think this way. It points to the deep mythology in the US around an armed militia and the cultural roots of the gun problem you have.

5000 people a year are being murdered with guns - it's 2014 what was appropriate in the 1800's might not be appropriate today.

[mistertim]

That America is seen as a bunch of gun nuts is not by mistake.  It's by design.  It is a deterrence against foreign infantry invasian.

I want to sincerely thank you for giving me a laugh. This morning was starting out crappy but now it's better.

 

[Elessar78]

There are all kinds of checks on our other freedoms. One cannot just yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and claim protection from the Freedom of Speech, for example. But 2nd Amendment "defenders" want no kind of check on any citizen's ability to obtain a firearm.  

[Chew]

Man...not looking to start any trouble, but why are some folks so against guns?  In the hands of a safe, responsible citizen, they're harmless.  Much like a drill, axe, or lawnmower.

 

I am completely all for more intrusive and in depth mental health checks in order to purchase guns.  I'm sure we all agree that 90% of the mass shootings are carried out by people with mental/social issues/problems.  But outside of that, what's the big deal if I want to have assault rifles and assault shotguns?  The gubment tells me I can, so I do. 

 

Some people like collecting baseball cards, some folks like to work on old cars, some people like to play with model trains, and some folks like midget p0rn.  I like guns. I'm not gonna hurt anybody, unless they break into my home and threaten my family.  so why can't I have guns and not be frowned upon?