Gun culture in US - Why?

Great Debates
1

This is inspired by the current gun thread in the pit. I wonder why the US, given that Canada and the US have much shared history and problems associated with colonizing a vast ‘uninhabited’ land (notice the uninhabited in quotes) have such differences in their views of gun ownership. I have not been able to find good stats on ‘gun density’ for the two countries via casual googling. My feeling is that, outside of a few areas (Alberta and the western provinces especially) gun ownership is much denser in the US and that Americans are much more enamored with their guns than Canadians. Stats (I think) show that there is much more gun violence in the US than Canada. My question is, given our mostly shared early history, why does there seem to be much more gun violence and a more entrenched ‘gun culture’ in the US vs. Canada?

Out of my asshole, I think a few things could have contributed to this:

  1. Early western Canadian territories were better policed by the NWMP than early American western settlements were
  2. 2nd amendment rights have blocked attempts at gun control
  3. Americans in general seem to have a deeper mistrust of their government than Canadians do. This seems to be part of the ‘American individual spirit’ that Canadians do not (IMHO) share.

Also, I feel I should give my background in case this thread gets totally derailed:

  1. I grew up in Alberta and was taught to shoot by my dad with a .22 rifle and the many gophers in southern Alberta and Sask at the age of 8.
  2. I am ex-Canadian military
  3. I have legally owned a pistol in Canada. (which is apparently not as easy as in the US)

Having said all that, I would be willing to give up all gun ownership rights if I felt gun violence in Canada was getting out of control (which is subjective, I admit). This point of view does not seem to be shared by Americans. Why the disconnect?

2

Americans are proud of the Revolutionary War, in which citizens with privately owned guns formed militias to beat the strongest military on the planet and win their freedom. Canada never had such an experience, so Canadians are less likely to tie guns so closely with their national identity.

3

Ok, that I could definitely see be a contributing factor. But that was what- 200 years ago? Are you saying that traditions from 200 years ago are being passed on and are relevant now?

4

The Revolutionary War is part of our national mythology, and it’d be a mistake to underestimate its role in determining the construction of “Americanness”.

5

Hah. 200 years ain’t shit. Ever heard of “The Bible?”

6

This may be part of the mythology, but I don’t know how much the mythology matches the reality. In a thread from last year, we had the following posts:

**flurb **and spoke- offer a somewhat dissenting view, but neither denies that the militias would have gotten their asses kicked if it had been up to them and their private firearms.

7

Of course, but the writers of the Constitution themselves acknowledged the importance of citizen militias. I’m not debating that the militias were effective, but rather that our perception of history strongly ties privately owned guns and citizen militias to the defeat of tyranny.

8

Does anyone these days actually believe that a citizen militia would be any sort of protection against the US government if the government actually turned against its citizens? Seeing how this is pretty ridiculous since the will of the government is the will of the people (voting and all that), and secondly what are a few semi automatic (or even fully automatic) rifles going to do against the military? This seems like a completely retarded argument. To me, this does not justify easy access of firearms if net effect if detrimental to society.

9

Bullies, whether they be governments or individual people, choose the path of least resistance.

When I was in high school, I was bullied a total of one time. A big hardass farm boy twice my size who I was on the freshman wrestling team with was razzing me for something or other, and I said, “hey, I’m going to kick your ass - meet me in the mat room, now.” We snuck down to the mat room and the fight was on. We grappled on the ground for what felt like 20 minutes, grabbing, choking, and punching. Finally he got me in a headlock and choked me - I tapped out, and he let go. He had beaten me. But I had put up one hell of a fight.

After the fight, we were both sweaty, beaten up and breathless. Staring at each other, Billy (the guy I fought) clapped me on the shoulder or something, I guess as a gesture of manly friendship, and then started to hobble out of the mat room while the crowd that had gathered watched in amazement. As soon as his back was turned, I yelled - “fuck you, you motherfucker!” Billy left without a word.

The next day, we passed each other in the hallway. Billy gave me a smile and a manly nod of friendship. That was the last time I was ever bullied.

What’s the lesson here? Billy kicked my ass that day in the mat room. He put me in a choke hold, and I tapped out. By all rights, he won the fight. But the fact that I had fought him at all was enough. Even though I lost, I was respected anyway, and nobody messed with me again.

A civilian insurrection going up against a bigger, stronger bully of a government doesn’t need to WIPE OUT their enemy in order to win. All they need to do is make it not worth the enemy’s while to keep fighting anymore. It may cost lives, and it may take time, but it’s a proven tactic.

Vietnam. Barefoot farmers with rice-paper hats kicked us and our M16s and our Huey helicopters and our C-130 gunships back to America with our tail between our legs.

Iraq - need I say more.

It’s not such a ridiculous proposition after all, if you really spend some time thinking about it.

And in the case of a second American Revolution - there’s only so much force that the US military is going to be willing to put on an insurgent group. You really think they’ll start nuking cities in the Midwest and bombing innocent Americans (many of whom will be the families and friends of the soldiers doing the government’s fighting in the first place?) It would cost many lives, but eventually the citizen militia could win if the government decided it was no longer worth their while to keep fighting. And hey, if the whole country is nuked, then what is the government left with to rule.

Think about it. Really, think about it.

10

Argent I appreciate what you’re saying, really. But I do not see that scenario being played out in any democratically elected system. Really, worst case scenario, is the US gov’t + ~50% of the population against ~50% armed with semi automatic rifles. Which is hopeless for the side against the gov’t. They don’t need nukes. They can roll over everything in their way. Really? In my 28 years I’ve never once thought about taking up arms against the government, or even imagined it as a thought experiment. Do Americans really think about this sort of thing?

11

Note - the above is my explanation of why civilian militias holding their own is not completely out of the question. But it doesn’t really address the OP’s question. As to why there’s a “gun culture” in America, it’s a combination of many factors.

The first and most important one is that we have a second amendment, and that it’s easy to get guns here and always has been (until recent restrictions in the latter half of the 20th century, which I think can largely be blamed on the JFK, King and RFK assassinations, and the general ignorance of guns which spread as fewer people grew up shooting and hunting, and more people moved to the city.)

There’s lots of wide open land to hunt on. Hunting is a huge hobby here, of course, and so is target shooting. There’s also a large contingent of people who collect weapons just because they’re “cool” and they enjoy shooting them at the range. (This is the “assault weapons” crowd - by and large, hobbyists [including doctors and lawyers] who enjoy the novelty and versatility of military-style semiautomatic rifles.) Actual criminals very, very, very rarely use these so-called assault weapons in crimes.

And now there’s a whole new breed of gun people coming up - young guys, programmer and engineer types, who like interesting devices and technology, who enjoy the physics of ballistics or the science of gun design, who are getting into shooting evil “assault weapons” as well. Most of these guys (me and my friends among them) have no interest in traditional politics associated with gun ownership, like religious bullshit, abortion, gay marriage opposition, etc - they’re basically young hipsters with a libertarian streak when it comes to guns.

The gun culture of America is wide and diverse.

12

If 50 percent of the population mounted an insurrection, I think that at least SEVENTY percent of the US Military would join it. American soldiers and Marines don’t want to drop bombs on their own hometowns.

In the case of a smaller insurrection - you’re thinking about this in terms of small arms only. It’s not so. There’s also ordnance. Sabotage. Misdirection and confusion tactics. Traps. There are all kinds of guerrilla tactics that a rebel group can use. Not to mention, hiding out among the suburbs of middle America!

Take out a fireteam of soldiers with sniper fire from bolt-action rifles or a roadside bomb - now you’ve got yourselves a bunch of full-auto M16s and body armor besides. Sneak into an encampment with a well-trained squad (maybe former military themselves) and kill all the troops - you’ve got yourselves 200 M16s, rations, helmets, armor, and maybe even a tank or an APC.

And many, many American soldiers would defect to the rebel side, if the rebel side was well-organized enough and had a charismatic leader.

Like I said, it would be a slow and painful war, and MANY lives on the insurgent side would be lost. Just like what happened in Vietnam. But eventually they could grind down the Goliath if they nip at his heels enough.

13

But really, is that a credible threat? Do you really own firearms for protection against the government or insurrection? Or do you own them because you like shooting them (I love shooting them)? Would you be willing to give them up if there was a demonstrable benefit to society at large? If not, why not?

14

Nah, I mostly just love shooting. That’s why I’m part of the gun culture and I think that’s the same for most people who are part of it. I doubt there’s going to be an evil tyrannical government that takes over and a second American revolution, but hey, on the off chance that it does happen, at least I’ll be prepared. I’ve got relatives who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto. Better to die with an empty magazine and a gun in your hand, than to die in a gas chamber. And of course - personal defense. Who knows when you might need to defend yourself? And if you’re ever forced to, why NOT have the best possible means of doing so? (And what if you’re in a wheelchair, or 90 years old, and don’t have a chance in hell of fighting off an attacker.) Call the police? Sure, but while I’m waiting for them to come, I’m waiting with a loaded shotgun.

No, I would not give up my guns even if there was a “demonstrable benefit” to society. There would be a demonstrable benefit to society if CRIMINALS all gave up THEIR guns. There would be NO benefit to society if I gave up MY guns. So I am keeping them, thank you very much.

I like that you’re being civil and reasonable. It’s really nice to have a gun discussion like this, instead of the kind where all you see is “small-penis-compensation” bullshit and strawman arguments. See, this is the difference between having a gun discussion - or even a gun debate - with a shooter, versus having one with people who have never handled a gun in their life and don’t know an M16 from a Marlin 60.

15

Well…pistols at least can’t be used for personal protection in Canada (your weapon has to be locked at the case and at least a trigger lock on the pistol itself, plus the ammo has to be stored separately, locked away) so in Canada that argument doesn’t work. I’m pretty drunk, but I guess my point to your post would be that in a society that banned guns, criminals would not have easy access to guns like they do now in the US…law abiding people can buy them and have them stolen, or if they’re not that law abiding sell them for a profit on the black market. I guess a better question would be why guns are so much more prolific in the US vs Canada seeing as how it’s not that hard to get a pistol in Canada (go to a weekend course, write a test). I just don’t get it I guess, why Americans see guns as such a big deal. Truth be told, I hide the fact that I was in the military in Canada as most people find it a bit creepy, which from my time in the US (in the army, everyone wanted to talk to me) is not the norm. Maybe part of the same phenomenon?

16

Guns can be stolen from law abiding citizens (although it should be their responsibility to keep them locked up properly!) but they can also be smuggled in, or even manufactured in small workshops. As I’ve said before, it’s easy to make simple firearms, and in the current economy, it’s not exactly inconceivable to imagine a down-and-out machine tool operator making a little money on the side by selling homemade guns.

As for people in Canada finding military service to be creepy, I don’t know what to say about that. But it sounds weird to me, and not very pleasant. I do know that Canada has a very honorable history fighting alongside the United States, and for that I have a lot of respect.

I gotta go to bed. (What time is it over there where you are?) Enjoy the booze, talk to you tomorrow.

17

I’ve always wondered if it’s not tied to another archetypical American cultural phenomenon – the self-made man. There seems to be an emphasis on bettering one’s position through hard, honest work in American culture, to the point where not merely the fruits of this labour are viewed as status symbols, but the fact that one is hard working itself is, as well. There’s this whole idea of dishwasher-to-millionaire. Americans are, in the rest of the world, generally seen as possessing an incredible work ethic, and nowhere are there more workaholics. Thus, Americans generally have worked hard for what they have – not merely their possessions, but their place in life, and in a way, their (cultural) identity. They’ve earned what they have, and what they are. The thought of losing this to some low-life crook in one single instant, to have everything they worked for undone merely because somebody didn’t play by the rules, and possibly possessed stronger means of coercion (like, for instance, guns), must be extremely unsettling; thus, this is something one must protect oneself against, by all means necessary. Guns are symbols of this protection, of having done everything to be safe.

Anyway, that’s how it looks like to this European from far across the ocean; closer observation might, of course, reveal that I’m full of shit.

18

Ya, it’s super late. Later.

19

I think at least half of it is due to the gun control lobby. People are never so tenacious as when their rights are threatened. And when you have an established group of backhanded liars trying to take your guns away, you tend to get a bit pissy.
(Note: Individual members may be perfectly honest. However, the movement as a whole tends to ask for an inch, take a mile, and ask for another inch.)

20

I can assure you, if there is a tyranical government, 99% of the US Military would support it, and many of the gun-toting “patriots” would do so as well. Governments don’t wake up one day and say “you know what, oppression is a dandy idea”. Usually such governments show up at a time of national peril (real or imagined) and they say something like “yes I know, freedoms are precious, but this has to be done, for the country”.