Skieur's Why Do Americans Have Guns Thread

[Warren Peace]

Guns are made to kill. That is the american way.
Peace sells, but whos buying.

 

[skieur]

Well, the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 with more in the south, west and east and less in the centre/north area. The murder rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000 with more in the far north and west part of the country and less in the east

In both Canada and the U.S, the majority of murders have been related to domestic in-family disputes, which the police have usually been able to solve. The second largest group of murders have been drug or gang related. Violent home invasions have been targetted with drugs and/or gang involvement. The victim to use the clichee is often "known to the police".

Despite perceptions, by the way, the crime rate has gone down steadily in both Canada and the US. You have a much higher chance of being hit by ligtening or a car or having a member of your family critically injured in a car accident, than you do of being a victim of random violent crime.

So home protection is an excuse that cannot be justified for carrying a gun. Moreover, the era of the cowboy has long passed. Today, particularly in the US, you can get charged for shooting the bad guy and sued for several million if you critically injured him. On the other hand the bad guy can claim self-defence for killing you, because you brandished a gun at him or were threatening to shoot him. Then of course if you shot someone who turned out not to be carrying a gun, you could be charged with murder.

Too many NO WIN situations can result from carrying a gun for "protection".

skieur

 

[molested_cow]

I don't think guns have direct influence on crimes. If someone has the will to commit a crime, he will with or without a gun.

Secondly, I always feel better to understand then to not understand. Being accessible to guns allow me to understand them better whether I use it or not. I can go to a gun range and shoot a few rounds, or walk around in a gun store to admire the mechanics. Back home where guns are prohibited, it's such a mysterious thing. People always think negatively of guns because of how guns are portrayed on the media and simply because they have never handled one on person before.

 

[K8-90]

It must be terrible living in a place where you are constantly afraid of someone entering your house and attacking you family...

Do you seriously think that everyone is out to get you?

 

[K8-90]

...People always think negatively of guns because of how guns are portrayed on the media...

:lmao:

 

[SJGordon]

Guns are made to kill. That is the american way.
Peace sells, but whos buying.

Yep, mine have killed thousand of paper targets and a few bottles over the past 20+ years of owning them.

Typical strawman argument

 

[Overread17 5]

In part I see it as an arms race kind of situation which is going to always be partly based on personal viewpoints; media presentation; costs and of course legalities.

In short if people grow up in an environment where "everyone owns a sword" and the media portray such a display as well; added to the fact that the costs of a sword are not too great and the fact that the government restrictions are not too harsh - then the population will in general arm itself to a level with the sword.
This is little more than our basic human mentality to have the same "power" or more "power" than others around us and a weapon like a sword is a quick way to convey power to a person quickly.


Guns are much the same thing - only they offer far more empowerment for far less cost to the person (you have to practice with a sword to be any good - shotguns you just point and fire ). So when you have a society like the USA it makes sense that a large proportion will arm themselves despite not having any major actual reason to do so.

Canada however has stricter gun laws (as far as I am aware) and the media and social aspects in Canada make less an issue of having to own a gun - so the culture of the population as a whole differs and thus you have a reduced number of guns in circulation.

Come to the UK and you've pretty much got even stricter gun laws and you're down to mostly farmers; the upper class; those wanting to be upper class and gun/rifle clubs. The social structure; the social pressure I should say, just isn't there outside of those groups to own a gun and the legal preventions for the average person make it a significant trial to obtain ownership - so you have to put more effort and thought into acquisition - not to mention costs and availability.



As for if guns make you more or less protected who's to say - if you can own a gun the criminal can generally own one too so you've not really increased your security; you just lined up with the opponent. I don't know if that means you should or should not own a gun - just that it means an "armed population" is not necessarily any safer than an unarmed one.

 

[Trever1t]

Wolverines!!!

 

[digital flower]

Don't try and invade the US. You will be shot to pieces. :mrgreen:

 

[usayit]

Well, the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 with more in the south, west and east and less in the centre/north area. The murder rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000 with more in the far north and west part of the country and less in the east

Crime in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just more data.... although its wiki. What is interesting is the article actually states that the gap is closing as the rate in the US is falling a bit faster.

In both Canada and the U.S, the majority of murders have been related to domestic in-family disputes, which the police have usually been able to solve. The second largest group of murders have been drug or gang related. Violent home invasions have been targetted with drugs and/or gang involvement. The victim to use the clichee is often "known to the police".

Goes back to what I was saying. Guns are not the cause but a symptom. Why is domestic abuse the majority? Why is drug and gang next? Its interesting that the #1 and #2 spot is the same for both countries assuming different levels of gun control. Also consider that the US states bordering Mexico have additional "issues" to contend with.

So home protection is an excuse that cannot be justified for carrying a gun. Moreover, the era of the cowboy has long passed. Today, particularly in the US, you can get charged for shooting the bad guy and sued for several million if you critically injured him. On the other hand the bad guy can claim self-defence for killing you, because you brandished a gun at him or were threatening to shoot him. Then of course if you shot someone who turned out not to be carrying a gun, you could be charged with murder.

I beg to differ. There are dozens and dozens of reports of people (often young teens home alone after school) successfully defending themselves from an intruder. I could only imagine how bad the end result would be if they were left unable to protect themselves. The time between school end and parent's return home is often the most critical time for an intruder to strike.

How about the Luby's incident? which was the direct reason for the TX concealed weapon law. 32 people dead and 20 injured simply because no one had the means to return fire.

Key point:

" The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person in an establishment that served alcohol."

Too many NO WIN situations can result from carrying a gun for "protection".

skieur

We see it the other way. It is a no win situation for citizens if an armed intruder can look down a block of houses "knowing" with certainty that no one in those homes can defend themselves adequately.

Gun control only works on those that abide by the law.... not the ones who intend to break it. I'm also in the mindset that each and every "region" (state in the US) needs the right to set regulations appropriate for their constituents. Each area is different with different needs, and different opinions and cultures.

In Texas, it is not uncommon for children to be taught at a very very early age how to handle and respect a firearm. This attitude is carried throughout life as well as population. Another reason why gun control to protect citizens from themselves is unnecessary in TX. I bet that some 13 year olds are a better responsible gun owner than many adults here in the North East.


When Derrel said "Its a Canadian Thing" and when I stated that we have a share of problems in the US... the important thing to remember is that you can't blanket a stance on this issue without total understanding.


Someone also mentioned that the people should always have the means to overthrow a government that no longer serves the people. A distinct distrust for big government ingrained in our culture not shared by everyone (including Canadians up north).

 

[usayit]

btw... crime is ramping up in my home town.... Sad... much of it coincides with Katrina as Houston took in many "refugees" but did not have the means to help them start a new "productive" and "law biding" life. Desperation does bad things.

Teenager Fatally Shoots Intruder - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

Deputy Constable's Son, 15, Shoots Intruder - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

From one of the stories:

"Neighbors said home invasions have become too frequent on their street. Jenny Evans supported the teen's actions.
"I can't blame him," she said. "I'd shoot him if he was in my house."



These stories are quite common and I hear it via my family who lives in a nice quiet neighborhood. My brother and his girlfriend was car jacked recently right in front of our home. This shocked everyone in the area.

 

[Rekd]

In part I see it as an arms race kind of situation

A race in which I am easily winning in my neighborhood. :thumbup:

Cars and drowning kill WAY more people than guns ever did. Why not outlaw cars and swimming and a hundred other things that are higher on the kill list than guns?

And then we'll outlaw spoons for making people fat. Yeah, that's it!

Finally, look up some stats on mass (gun) murders in the UK vs in the US. The list is much longer and more distinguished in the UK.

Just sayin'.

 

[FranDaMan]

It's a discussion without an end.
Stats are thrown around, together with strawmen arguments.

Why not have the Americans keep their guns and the Canadians live without them ?
Everyone happy !

 

[Destin]

In part I see it as an arms race kind of situation which is going to always be partly based on personal viewpoints; media presentation; costs and of course legalities.

In short if people grow up in an environment where "everyone owns a sword" and the media portray such a display as well; added to the fact that the costs of a sword are not too great and the fact that the government restrictions are not too harsh - then the population will in general arm itself to a level with the sword.
This is little more than our basic human mentality to have the same "power" or more "power" than others around us and a weapon like a sword is a quick way to convey power to a person quickly.


Guns are much the same thing - only they offer far more empowerment for far less cost to the person (you have to practice with a sword to be any good - shotguns you just point and fire ). So when you have a society like the USA it makes sense that a large proportion will arm themselves despite not having any major actual reason to do so.

Canada however has stricter gun laws (as far as I am aware) and the media and social aspects in Canada make less an issue of having to own a gun - so the culture of the population as a whole differs and thus you have a reduced number of guns in circulation.

Come to the UK and you've pretty much got even stricter gun laws and you're down to mostly farmers; the upper class; those wanting to be upper class and gun/rifle clubs. The social structure; the social pressure I should say, just isn't there outside of those groups to own a gun and the legal preventions for the average person make it a significant trial to obtain ownership - so you have to put more effort and thought into acquisition - not to mention costs and availability.



As for if guns make you more or less protected who's to say - if you can own a gun the criminal can generally own one too so you've not really increased your security; you just lined up with the opponent. I don't know if that means you should or should not own a gun - just that it means an "armed population" is not necessarily any safer than an unarmed one.

Your missing the biggest point. Whether or not the population is armed in general, the criminals ALWAYS will be. If you wanna get a gun in the UK but don't wanna go through the legal hoops I guarantee you can get one on the street quickly, easily, and dirt cheap. Your right, speaking of the general population, but your not taking into account how criminals actually get guns. If they walk into a gun store and buy/register it, then they are about the stupidest criminal in the world.

Would I own a gun if I lived in the suburbs? Probably not. But as it stands, I live in a rural area, and happen to enjoy target shooting. Occasionally I have to shoot a woodchuck to stop them from tearing out lawn to shreds too. And in a few years I plan to start deer hunting. So around here there is a perfectly good need for a gun. And since I have them, I keep them wear they are quickly accessible in my house, should I ever need to defend myself. Will I ever use it for that? I doubt it. Does it make me sleep better at night? You bet.

 

[usayit]

Oh btw....

I have never heard of a story in TX of anyone being held legally liable if a person has been shot in self defense. I'm sure it has happened but the right to carry a concealed weapon is not to be confused with being a freelance police officer. Most people with such a license (its has requirements that must be met) understand this.

Its stories out of TV...