Americans love affair with guns...

[RyeSloan]

Was reading this on the BBC website about Americans 'open carrying' hand guns when doing their weekly shopping...I find this quite shocking really and really don't believe in the mantra that the pro gun lobby projects of more guns = more saftey.

Armed and ready to shop (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/03/armed_and_ready_to_shop.html)

Also think it is amazing that they feel the need to remove a law that limits hand gun purchases to one a MONTH!!

[Jack]

Absolute madness. I’m sure I read that more people are shot ‘accidently’ than anything else. For that reason alone it would appear that carrying guns = less safety.

[J-C]

We all know it's madness but remember where the Americans came from and their short little history, guns have been a major part in their lives for all this time, it's even written in the constitution about the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment.

[Tazio]

We all know it's madness but remember where the Americans came from and their short little history, guns have been a major part in their lives for all this time, it's even written in the constitution about the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment.

But there have been about a dozen amendments to the constitution since the start of the 20th century alone, so the constitution can be changed if a proposal receives the correct backing by a majority of politicians. But of course votes are more important than safety.

[J-C]

But there have been about a dozen amendments to the constitution since the start of the 20th century alone, so the constitution can be changed if a proposal receives the correct backing by a majority of politicians. But of course votes are more important than safety.


We both know that but it is the Americans we're talking about, they're not the sharpest tools in the box sometimes :greengrin
They still think all the worlds problems can be sorted by them charging in gung ho with their weapons and hey presto! everythings all better.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

But there have been about a dozen amendments to the constitution since the start of the 20th century alone, so the constitution can be changed if a proposal receives the correct backing by a majority of politicians. But of course votes are more important than safety.

Its a different mentality. I remember a mate who came over from Kansas and his views at 16 - if someone comes in my house I'll shoot 'em. Sets the tone from their everyone just gets tooled up.

Be good to get into the minds of the gun lobby to see whats rattling around in there.

Presumably its about selling guns and the right to hunt.

How many Columbines, how many folks "going postal" will it take for people to say enough is enough?

Current fear of terrorism makes it even more unlikely for folks to give them up.

How would/could disarming work practically tho?

[Tazio]

How many Columbines, how many folks "going postal" will it take for people to say enough is enough?


The problem is that the mentality is "if they've got guns we'll have more"

It's like the Sean Connery speech in The Untouchables. If they have a club we'll have a knife, if they have a knife we'll have a gun" etc etc, etc.

[Leicester Fan]

When I was in Florida they were selling rifles in Walmart.

[Andy74]

I always thought they had the right to arm bears. That seemed like a pretty fun thing to be able to do.

[ArabHibee]

The problem is that the mentality is "if they've got guns we'll have more"

It's like the Sean Connery speech in The Untouchables. If they have a club we'll have a knife, if they have a knife we'll have a gun" etc etc, etc.

:bitchy: I'm sorry, I can't have you mis-quoting my favourite line from a movie:

"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. And that's how you get Capone."


Absolute madness. I’m sure I read that more people are shot ‘accidently’ than anything else. For that reason alone it would appear that carrying guns = less safety.

I heard about this one on the lunchtime news yesterday. Tragic.

http://gamingbolt.com/2010/03/08/girl-mistakes-gun-for-wii-controller-shoots-herself/ (http://gamingbolt.com/2010/03/08/girl-mistakes-gun-for-wii-controller-shoots-herself/)

I remember watching the documentary "Bowling For Columbine" where they showed that in one particular American town, when you opened a bank account, your "free gift" was a shotgun. :dizzy:

[Speedy]

We all know it's madness but remember where the Americans came from and their short little history, guns have been a major part in their lives for all this time, it's even written in the constitution about the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment.
YouTube - Family Guy on Second Amendement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw)

[Arch Stanton]

When I was in Florida they were selling rifles in Walmart.

I must have a look in Asda to see if they have followed suit. Mind you, Britain being Britain, they probably can't sell them before 10am.

[Darth Hibbie]

I remember watching the documentary "Bowling For Columbine" where they showed that in one particular American town, when you opened a bank account, your "free gift" was a shotgun. :dizzy:

I'm in the hunt for a new bank account :greengrin

I think its going to be very difficult to change the "American" mentality in relation to guns. As has been suggested above that kind of thinking is not going to win votes which is why it gets left well alone.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm in the hunt for a new bank account :greengrin

I think its going to be very difficult to change the "American" mentality in relation to guns. As has been suggested above that kind of thinking is not going to win votes which is why it gets left well alone.

I don't think that's why it gets left alone. The main problem is that there isn't any real desire to change the mentality within the American ruling class - quite the opposite, it benefits them and the economic system they uphold to continue and promote gun ownership. There's an interesting, and pretty convincing, argument by a criminologist called Jeffrey Reiman that the American legal system (as well as others) is designed to fail at reducing criminal activity *edit: not in any conspiracy theory sense or anything like that*; particularly with regard to gun crime. It aids the accumulation of wealth not to take the fairly easy steps to reduce gun (and other) crime as well as the positive ideological effect of ensuring that crime in general is regarded as a problem isolated within the poorer (and, erm, 'blacker') sections of society. It's part-and-parcel of liberal, individualist ideology; 'the economy is neutral, it's their fault they're poor, it's their fault they commit crime, they need to sort themselves out, not society or the economy'.

And that's not to mention having a privatised prison system with a vested interest in not reducing (if not encouraging) rates of recidivism, an in situ prison economy with a vested interest in keeping prison populations high and an enormous arms industry with a vested interest in selling as many guns to as many people as possible.

The only thing about it I find inexplicable is the maniacal dullards quoted in the article SiMar posted who own guns as a response to the fear of 'tyranical big-government'. Apparently never having the fairly basic realisation that even if this fear had any basis in fact it still wouldn't make any sense to 'bear arms' since a semi-automatic rifle would act as ****-all protection against an Abrams tank or an F-16.

[marinello59]

We all know it's madness but remember where the Americans came from and their short little history, guns have been a major part in their lives for all this time, it's even written in the constitution about the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment.

It was not supposed to give individuals the right to bear arms but rather organised Militias. Or so some would argue. (Probably not in Texas though.:greengrin)

[ArabHibee]

I don't think that's why it gets left alone..........

.........all protection against an Abrams tank or an F-16.


Can I ask you - do you know everything about everything?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Can I ask you - do you know everything about everything?

I wouldn't have thought so, no. Why?

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't think that's why it gets left alone. The main problem is that there isn't any real desire to change the mentality within the American ruling class - quite the opposite, it benefits them and the economic system they uphold to continue and promote gun ownership. There's an interesting, and pretty convincing, argument by a criminologist called Jeffrey Reiman that the American legal system (as well as others) is designed to fail at reducing criminal activity *edit: not in any conspiracy theory sense or anything like that*; particularly with regard to gun crime. It aids the accumulation of wealth not to take the fairly easy steps to reduce gun (and other) crime as well as the positive ideological effect of ensuring that crime in general is regarded as a problem isolated within the poorer (and, erm, 'blacker') sections of society. It's part-and-parcel of liberal, individualist ideology; 'the economy is neutral, it's their fault they're poor, it's their fault they commit crime, they need to sort themselves out, not society or the economy'.

And that's not to mention having a privatised prison system with a vested interest in not reducing (if not encouraging) rates of recidivism, an in situ prison economy with a vested interest in keeping prison populations high and an enormous arms industry with a vested interest in selling as many guns to as many people as possible.

The only thing about it I find inexplicable is the maniacal dullards quoted in the article SiMar posted who own guns as a response to the fear of 'tyranical big-government'. Apparently never having the fairly basic realisation that even if this fear had any basis in fact it still wouldn't make any sense to 'bear arms' since a semi-automatic rifle would act as ****-all protection against an Abrams tank or an F-16.

Very good post LH. You could sub the legality of guns for the illegality of drugs in this argument, as both serve the same basic functions. 1) terrorise the populace keeping them and a state of fear 2) related, provide gore for the lurid media stories 3) service a criminal underclass 4) service the industrial-military complex and its newest elements, the privatised prison service and the surveilence and security industries 5) stigmatise the poorest and most marginal sections of society.

[Bookkeeper]

I don't think that's why it gets left alone. The main problem is that there isn't any real desire to change the mentality within the American ruling class - quite the opposite, it benefits them and the economic system they uphold to continue and promote gun ownership. There's an interesting, and pretty convincing, argument by a criminologist called Jeffrey Reiman that the American legal system (as well as others) is designed to fail at reducing criminal activity *edit: not in any conspiracy theory sense or anything like that*; particularly with regard to gun crime. It aids the accumulation of wealth not to take the fairly easy steps to reduce gun (and other) crime as well as the positive ideological effect of ensuring that crime in general is regarded as a problem isolated within the poorer (and, erm, 'blacker') sections of society. It's part-and-parcel of liberal, individualist ideology; 'the economy is neutral, it's their fault they're poor, it's their fault they commit crime, they need to sort themselves out, not society or the economy'.

And that's not to mention having a privatised prison system with a vested interest in not reducing (if not encouraging) rates of recidivism, an in situ prison economy with a vested interest in keeping prison populations high and an enormous arms industry with a vested interest in selling as many guns to as many people as possible.

The only thing about it I find inexplicable is the maniacal dullards quoted in the article SiMar posted who own guns as a response to the fear of 'tyranical big-government'. Apparently never having the fairly basic realisation that even if this fear had any basis in fact it still wouldn't make any sense to 'bear arms' since a semi-automatic rifle would act as ****-all protection against an Abrams tank or an F-16.


:agree: I've never understood this thinking either. What kind of country allows it's citizens to bear arms as a means to protect themselves from the government. America is so suspicious of its own government that it doesn't seem to want a decent public health service either. Why? Where does this paranoia come from?

[ArabHibee]

I wouldn't have thought so, no. Why?

Just wondered. You have very articulate posts on most subjects discussed on the Holy Ground. Some I agree with, some I don't. Please take it as a compliment. I don't hand them out very often.

:greengrin

[Removed]

Just wondered. You have very articulate posts on most subjects discussed on the Holy Ground. Some I agree with, some I don't. Please take it as a compliment. I don't hand them out very often.

:greengrin

:faf:

It's ok, your probation is over, you can say what you really think :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Very good post LH. You could sub the legality of guns for the illegality of drugs in this argument, as both serve the same basic functions. 1) terrorise the populace keeping them and a state of fear 2) related, provide gore for the lurid media stories 3) service a criminal underclass 4) service the industrial-military complex and its newest elements, the privatised prison service and the surveilence and security industries 5) stigmatise the poorest and most marginal sections of society.

Absolutely. And possibly a sixth entry concerning funding proxy wars and proxy regimes from the Contras to Karzai. Or mibbies that's covered in #4.


Just wondered. You have very articulate posts on most subjects discussed on the Holy Ground. Some I agree with, some I don't. Please take it as a compliment. I don't hand them out very often.

:greengrin

Ha, fair enough.

[Mixu62]

We all know it's madness but remember where the Americans came from and their short little history, guns have been a major part in their lives for all this time, it's even written in the constitution about the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment.


You should read Bill Hicks opinions on the interpretation of that amendment. I'm sure the actual wording is something along the lines of "there being no organised local militia, you have the right to bear arms". i.e. if it wasn't for the local sheriff's office, the national guard and the state police, then you can have a gun. It does not mean that every Tom, Dick and Cleetus can go out and arm himself to the teeth. But try telling the gun lobby that.

[Lucius Apuleius]

And the stupid thing is that are not allowed to carry spring loaded knives. Reasoning behind this my learned colleagues tell me is because they are easy to pull out and open when you are close to someone. WTF. Why do you need to get in and close when you can just pull out a gun and shoot the muther?

[GlesgaeHibby]

Why does the guy in the article need a gun anyway? Look at the size of his arms! Nobody would even think of messing with him.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

There was a half-wit on the BBC last night said they got their priorities right 1st Amendment on freedom of speech and the right to practise any religion

the 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms to protect the right to practise any religion.

Are they really deluded that they fail to see how such statements appear to other fair minded intelligent folk?

[Geo_1875]

The problem is that the mentality is "if they've got guns we'll have more"

It's like the Sean Connery speech in The Untouchables. If they have a club we'll have a knife, if they have a knife we'll have a gun" etc etc, etc.

But do you want to be the guy who takes knife to a gunfight?

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I have a gun visible so if I'm in the parking lot someone thinks twice about going for me and picks on someone else.

Eh like the serial killers that were sent down for sniping at people at petrol stations from the inside of a van? That handgun could have protected the victims.

That said its perhaps revealing and interesting to not that we haven't had the view of the girls on this one.

I can see how for example the prevelance of weapons and some of the nutters out there would be something that women would consider in the circumstances.

I know that my wife would never consider it but thats not to say she's representative. Although I could imagine most women abhorring the thought of owning a gun.

[Beefster]

I'm all for the right to keep a gun safely in the home for self-defence against intruders. However, carrying it around in a holster whilst you're shopping or socialising seems a bit much.

I think folk would be shocked by the amount of guns in this country though, especially shotguns and rifles.

[J-C]

You should read Bill Hicks opinions on the interpretation of that amendment. I'm sure the actual wording is something along the lines of "there being no organised local militia, you have the right to bear arms". i.e. if it wasn't for the local sheriff's office, the national guard and the state police, then you can have a gun. It does not mean that every Tom, Dick and Cleetus can go out and arm himself to the teeth. But try telling the gun lobby that.

I remember the Bill Hicks stand up when he was talking about this, the guy was the best at this form of comedy. :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

I can see how for example the prevelance of weapons and some of the nutters out there would be something that women would consider in the circumstances.

I know that my wife would never consider it but thats not to say she's representative. Although I could imagine most women abhorring the thought of owning a gun.

Pretty much very piece of polling evidence in the U.S. suggests support for strict gun control is strongest amongst women and minority groups.

[Killiehibbie]

Why does the guy in the article need a gun anyway? Look at the size of his arms! Nobody would even think of messing with him.

John Wayne on steroids, not a good mix.

[heretoday]

The US gun lobby types are very self-righteous and it's tedious to listen to.

There's an increasing amount of that over here as well. You only have to listen to "Mr Angry" in the pub or on some of the radio phone-in programmes making wild and uninformed generalisations about crime, morality etc.

Unfortunately, the media seems set on encouraging him to join a lynch mob.

[NYHibby]

The US gun lobby types are very self-righteous and it's tedious to listen to.


Aren't all lobby groups like that? If anything, the anti-gun lobby is more seld-righteous. The one side says that you may own a gun if you wish (and the current laws don't prevent you). The other is saying that they know better than the individual and thus they have decided that you can't own a gun. Which sounds more self-righteous to you?

[Big Ed]

Aren't all lobby groups like that? If anything, the anti-gun lobby is more seld-righteous. The one side says that you may own a gun if you wish (and the current laws don't prevent you). The other is saying that they know better than the individual and thus they have decided that you can't own a gun. Which sounds more self-righteous to you?

That is a fair point, well made; however sometimes people have to be proctected from themselves.
What if you were to take out the word gun from the anology and replace it with tiger?
(I know that it is different in that a gun left on it's own won't do any harm, whereas a tiger will, but both are, in their own way, killing machines and are the responsibility of the people who look after them).

[RyeSloan]

Aren't all lobby groups like that? If anything, the anti-gun lobby is more seld-righteous. The one side says that you may own a gun if you wish (and the current laws don't prevent you). The other is saying that they know better than the individual and thus they have decided that you can't own a gun. Which sounds more self-righteous to you?

So the anti gun lobby are self righteous because the say they 'know better than the individual'?

Or is it down to the simple fact that they know high gun ownership rates in a country is directly related to the number of firearm deaths that will be inflicted upon the population?

[Steve-O]

:faf:

It's ok, your probation is over, you can say what you really think :greengrin

I thought ArabHibee didn't believe in probation though...? :wink:

[HibsMax]

I think that more people openly carrying guns has a good chance of leading to even more guns falling into the wrong hands. I have no idea how easy it is to steal a gun from someone when they have it on their hip but it has to be a lot easier than stealing it from their locked gun closet.

It's a really tricky topic though because people see it as their right to bear arms and that's going to be really tough (unpopular) to overturn. I've considered taking classes and purchasing a gun to keep in my house but it's never occurred to me to own a gun with the purpose of carrying around with me. I seriously believe that I would feel less safe. Just carrying a gun is not enough. You have to have what it takes to actually use it if you want to be completely "safe" and then what happens if it's stolen? What happens if you try to defend yourself and shoot a bystander? There are so many reasons why I think the general public should not be carrying guns (which I believe is a separate issue from owning one).

I'm 100% confident there are many people out there who can carry a gun openly safely but unless everyone can, I think it's a bad idea. I just keep coming to the scenario where a guy carrying his gun is bonked on the head and someone runs off with his gun. Seems like a pretty easy way to get your hands on an illegal weapon to me.