Gun culture in US - Why?

[Nunavut Boy]

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?

[Mosier]

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.

[Nunavut Boy]

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?

[FinnAgain]

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".

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Nunavut Boy

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?

Hah. 200 years ain't shit. Ever heard of "The Bible?"

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Originally Posted by Mosier

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.

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:

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

To some extent you have to accept that there are two kinds of native troops from the American Revolution. The various militias, as exemplified by the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, or even Breed's/Bunker Hill, were using private arms. They also were poorly trained, unable to stand up to the Redcoats, and more noted for glorious defeats, than they were for winning battles*.

Then there's the Colonial Line troops who were effectively a European-style army, not made up landowners (or their sons) as was the case with the Minutemen, and who had their arms mostly supplied by the Congress via the Army.


*Let me make it clear I am not critiquing the courage of the militias, just their effectiveness. For example, it's worth noting that the militiamen at Breed's/Bunker Hill set up on the wrong hill, which substantially contributed to their eventual defeat. For real break-your-heart-stupidity there are numerous incidents of militia military idiocy from the War of 1812. My favorite is how the NY State Militia refused to evacuate General Winfield Scott's Army across the Niagara - because they were only tasked with defending the State of NY. Not helping their nation's troops. They fought with great courage and individual determination, but as units militias have earned a somewhat shaky reputation.

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.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Sophistry and Illusion

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.

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.

[Nunavut Boy]

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.

[Argent Towers]

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.

[Nunavut Boy]

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?

[Argent Towers]

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.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Nunavut Boy

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.

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.

[Nunavut Boy]

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?

[Argent Towers]

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.

[Nunavut Boy]

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?

[Argent Towers]

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.

[Half Man Half Wit]

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.

[Nunavut Boy]

Ya, it's super late. Later.

[E-Sabbath]

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.)

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

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.

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".

[SenorBeef]

To follow up on the tangent, long ago I made a thread about the prospects of fighting a modern army with small arms. I didn't get a lot of agreement in the thread, but that was the case I tried to lay out for it.

[Wendell Wagner]

First, let's look at the statistics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o..._gun_ownership

http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html

So from the first set of statistics, you would think that there are vastly more gun owners in the U.S. per capita than in Canada, since there are three times as many guns per capita. But then you look at the second set of statistics. In fact, there are only about a third more gun owners per capita in the U.S. than in Canada. Clearly this means that there are a lot of gun owners in the U.S. who own many guns.

Note something further. Less than 40% of the households in the U.S. have guns. So why is there a perception that everybody in the U.S. has a gun? It's mostly because the distribution of gun owners in the U.S. is wildly uneven. The proportion of gun owners apparently varies quite a bit by factors like the region of the country, by family income, by whether the family lives in a rural or urban area, by political opinions, etc. What this means is that within various social groups, it is to be expected that some social groups will have a vast majority of its members owning guns and some will have only a small proportion owning guns.

I have no intention of debating whether gun ownership is a good thing or a bad thing. I only want to note that it's useless to go by personal anecdotes on whether most people own guns. There are many people in the U.S. who notice that nearly everyone they know owns guns. There are many people in the U.S. who notice that nearly nobody they know owns guns. These people are all correct if they are talking about just people they personally know. Your anecdotes about gun ownership may well be true for your own experiences, but they say nothing about gun ownership over all the U.S.

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Nunavut Boy

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?

People often say this sort of thing, but in conversation it generally comes out that they're more concerned about being prepared for widespread civil unrest. If you read some of the wingnut rags, they're pretty straightforward in the expectation of a future race war. It seems kind of farfetched, but if you'd been in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, you'd have found it indistinguishable from a modern-day civil war, and you'd probably be glad to have a shotgun by your side while you're waiting for the national guard to secure your neighborhood.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

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.

You are actually mapping out scenarios in your head where you revolutionary heroes stand up to the government . That is so sick. Wow. Do you get to marry the princess in the end?

[E-Sabbath]

Yes, but she was from a different dimension. It was a lovely game. I got to drive over zombies in a stolen police car. Why do you ask?

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Nunavut Boy

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?

Yes, I do. Guerrilla warfare is an extremely effective strategy against an otherwise superior force. Not only that, in the event the "government actually turned against its citizens" this would be a situation of chaos where not all members of the government force would be in favor of what they were doing and therefore would not obey orders. At least not in the long run.

Also, the "government" does not have to be the feds. There was a situation about 50 years ago where locals had to rise up against a tyrannical county sheriff.

Then there are the situations of unrest where the government force is of no help to the people. Quite a few private citizens in New Orleans were damn glad to have their own private arms during the Katrina disaster.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

You are actually mapping out scenarios in your head where you revolutionary heroes stand up to the government . That is so sick. Wow. Do you get to marry the princess in the end?

Those cites on handguns in Colonial America, gonzomax; where are they? You keep showing your face in these gun threads and I keep thinking "this time he has them!" but you keep dashing my hopes.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Those cites on handguns in Colonial America, gonzomax; where are they? You keep showing your face in these gun threads and I keep thinking "this time he has them!" but you keep dashing my hopes.

I'd definitely hold my breath if I were you. Soon now he's going to offer up a cogent, well thought out post chocked full of well cited links with all of the relevant information thoughtfully quoted and highlighted for clarity.

Seriously...it could happen....

-XT

[elucidator]

Yeah, Gonzo's just the kind of guy to go totally off topic to vent his spleen about another poster! Good catch, there, XT.

[Llama Llogophile]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

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.

After wading through many gun debates, here and elsewhere, I've come to feel that the above sentiment represents the distilled truth.

While its honesty and frankness is refreshing, I find it a rather selfish point of view.

[XT]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Yeah, Gonzo's just the kind of guy to go totally off topic to vent his spleen about another poster! Good catch, there, XT.

Mister Pot...Mister Pot...call for you on line 3. It's Mister Kettle and he is calling you black...

Thank you 'luci. Good catch yourself.

-XT

[smiling bandit]

In any kind of civil repression situation, even a few hundred people armed and willing to use violence could seriously damage the processes of govenrment (read: tyranny). Just one person can deal considerable damage to soft targets.

With the knowledge I possess, for example, I could probably destroy the bulk of Washington DC's central government area. People would freak if they how easy certain things were, and it's probably a good thing that terrorists aren't too bright and more concerned with theatrics than efficacy. With other knowledge, I could waste millions or billions in government funds having them chase false leads and nonsense. Anyone could do it, with a little basic know-how.

Fortunately, you don't have to fear me, because I've no intention of doing it. But you ought to keep in mind, and any would-be tyrant, too, that I could.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by Mach Tuck

After wading through many gun debates, here and elsewhere, I've come to feel that the above sentiment represents the distilled truth.

While its honesty and frankness is refreshing, I find it a rather selfish point of view.

Selfish, because he ws answering a question about why he enjoys something? I too own guns because they are fun to use. I shoot at a competitive level in a few different groups. The fact that they can be used to put food on the table and defend my life are added benefits.

[XT]

Ah...the OP. Yes. Why the 'gun culture' in the US and not in, say, Canada? I think it's already been answered up thread. Whether myth or reality or something in between, America and the American revolution has always been intertwined with our sense of personal gun ownership. The FF's made much of personal weapons both as the means of our victory in the Revolution and their preference for citizen soldiers picking up their own arms and defending the country...or keeping it from becoming a tyranny. Whether this is now or was ever realistic is beside the point...it's ingrained in American's very concept of themselves.

It's not like we are unique in this either...it's just that for whatever reason personal gun ownership has become our own collective symbol. Other countries have other symbols that are part of the makeup of their own collective image....and many of them are based on quasi-reality or myth as well.

-XT

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Mach Tuck

After wading through many gun debates, here and elsewhere, I've come to feel that the above sentiment represents the distilled truth.

While its honesty and frankness is refreshing, I find it a rather selfish point of view.

I don't see how it's selfish to have a hobby and enjoy it and not want it to be restricted because of OTHER PEOPLE'S crimes. This word "selfish" is getting thrown around way too much here.

[Lumpy]

I have no idea why the US should have always had a gun culture, and why Canada does not (or stopped having one in modern time). But then I don't know why Canada and the US are different in so many other ways. Some facts are needed. Did Canada have a well-armed "frontier" period like the US, or has it always had fewer guns?

If I'm not mistaken, South Africa also had a flourishing "gun culture" during apartheid, but since majority rule the authorities have been pushing heavy restrictions on guns, much to the displeasure of gun owners there.

I hate to draw the connection, but- could the US have been more gun orientated because of slavery, and the perceived need to be prepared against slave insurrection?

[XT]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I hate to draw the connection, but- could the US have been more gun orientated because of slavery, and the perceived need to be prepared against slave insurrection?

Doubtful. If that were the case then the 'gun culture' would be focused mainly in the South. Yet it's really in the West (were slavery was never really instituted) where, IMHO anyway, most of the 'gun culture' has been most prevalent. And you wouldn't get much 'gun culture' in from the North if it was a case that the focus of it was about slavery and being prepared for slave insurrections and such.

Then there is the whole thing about...well, it's been a while since folks had to worry about slave insurrections in the US. Since, like, 1860ish...

-XT

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

You are actually mapping out scenarios in your head where you revolutionary heroes stand up to the government . That is so sick. Wow. Do you get to marry the princess in the end?

Whatever he may or may not do in his spare time, this comment is both off-topic and personally insulting and you will refrain from posting this way, in the future.

[ /Moderating ]

[Northern Piper]

just getting back to the OP's repeated reference to the "shared culture" between Canada and the US - yes, there's a lot in common, but one of the key dividing points was over the Revolution. Large parts of Canada (Ontario and parts of the Maritimes) were initially settled by people who rejected the Revolution, while Quebec suffered an invasion from the Americans.

I think that contributed to a mirror image view of guns in the two countries: in the US, guns were an important step in achieving freedom and self-government; for those who fled or were invaded, guns in the hands of the rebels were a major threat to property and good government.

Yes, it's +200 years, but in my opinion, helps to explain the much different attitudes.

There's also the point that in western Canada, the establishment of law and order, via treaties with the First Nations and the arrival of the NWMP, preceded most of the settlement by immigrants, who arrived to find effective government in place. The one major uprising by Métis and some First Nations was effectively and quickly suppressed by federal troops.

Guns were not needed to establish self-government, nor to protect the western settler population, so did not acquire the same mythic sense of importance as with our neighbours to the south.

[Llama Llogophile]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I don't see how it's selfish to have a hobby and enjoy it and not want it to be restricted because of OTHER PEOPLE'S crimes. This word "selfish" is getting thrown around way too much here.

Selfish because I accept the premise that some types of guns, despite their legitimate uses, are the source of some societal problems. While I suspect most within the "gun culture" wouldn't accept this premise, I've met quite a few who do and yet say, "Well, I like my guns. So there." I think that's selfish.

Also, it speaks to the idea that some people don't really care about rights or defense against an oppressive government. They just like their guns, and use those issues as talking points. I think that's selfish too, and borderline dishonest.

In the final paragraph of the OP, Nunavut Boy says he would be willing to forgoe gun ownership if he felt it was for the greater good. That's rather unselfish of him.

[elucidator]

Its hard to make any headway with a rational debate on a subject that rests on an non-rational foundation. I like guns, myself. Wanna go out to the arroyo and plink beer cans with a .22, this hippy is on board. But I loathe violence, which is the main reason I loathe handguns. I'm not entirely alone on that, there is that rifle/handgun divide, but when the debate gets heated, you are pressed to "take sides", all or nothing.

Like a lot of lefties, for me, its "fuck it, keep the goddam things!", the fight just isn't worth it.

But to the subject: its also hard to seperate cause from effect. Do American men crave guns because they had toy guns as children? Do Canadian boys crave toy guns more than American boys? Do boys in general crave toy guns from some instinctual attraction to objects of power? Do men? And why do "pro-gun" advocates often feel the need to stress the "home invasion" scenarios. As a Master of Cringing Mantis Kung Fu, I've protected my home just fine, on the other hand, I've got nothing much to steal.

If I've got to pick something, I'd say its because, for good and ill, American culture leans toward the boisterous, aggressive and impulsive. Its a good part of why we are so beloved of the nations. Yes.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Those cites on handguns in Colonial America, gonzomax; where are they? You keep showing your face in these gun threads and I keep thinking "this time he has them!" but you keep dashing my hopes.

Reread what he wrote and come back with a clue.

[Blaster Master]

Just dropping in to say that I agree that the gun culture largely traces back to the Founding Fathers and the Revolution. If there's one thing Americans are anal about, its our freedoms, whether it's speech, or something symbolic like a gun. Hell, gun ownership is encoded in the Constitution as a freedom, which Canada does not have.

The symbolic nature of the freedom of gun ownership traces back to our FFs, but it's been constantly instilled in our culture every generation or so. How many of our heros and major events have involved guns? Besides the revolution, you have other major wars that helped to associate the gun with overcoming injustice and tyranny. You also have the "Old West" and the "Frontier", both of which are inexorably associated with guns and are big parts of the American culture; I don't think any other country has an equivalent.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Reread what he wrote and come back with a clue.

That sound you hear is my dreams being shattered once again.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

You also have the "Old West" and the "Frontier", both of which are inexorably associated with guns and are big parts of the American culture; I don't think any other country has an equivalent.

Sure there are equivalents in other countries. Think Samurai and the sword or the Brits and their Fleet. In Mongolia today the horse is STILL considered a huge symbol, as well as having a practical value. There is a country in Africa (who's name currently escapes me) who has the symbol for an AK-47 on their flag. Nearly every culture has such symbols. With ours though it's more personal or less exclusive...every American (well, in theory) can own a gun.

To American's the idea of the gun is similar to the idea that the Japanese have for the Samurai sword...except that our idea of the gun is more inclusive instead of exclusive. But the symbol is very similar IMHO and is tied up in our national identity and the roots of our collective ideals.

-XT

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by xtisme

There is a country in Africa (who's name currently escapes me) who has the symbol for an AK-47 on their flag.

Mozambique.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Sure there are equivalents in other countries. Think Samurai and the sword or the Brits and their Fleet.

I don't think the Fleet is a very good example, since it's not an individualist symbol, but the epitome of a collective/government symbol. The Fleet was only possible through the people of Britain acting together, through their government.

[XT]

Thank you for the link.

As for the Fleet...I think it's very similar but I'm willing to concede that it's debatable. The Brits have other symbols...the Royal Family, say, or even the Brown Bess rifle.

My point though was that gun ownership in the US is similarly such a symbol IMHO...Freedom of Speech is another one. They are symbols that we identify with being American, as well as practical rights that we enjoy.

In Canada they have other symbols that they associate with being Canadian. And that's why there exists a 'gun culture' in the US but not a similar one in Canada...or in most other countries. JMHO of course.

-XT

[foolsguinea]

It should also be pointed out that the US is very far from homogenous when it comes to attitudes toward firearms.

In urbanized areas, guns are hated in the extreme, Second Amendment be damned. And I mean be damned--people want it repealed, desperately.

In some cultures with a sort of "minority resistance" or "mafia" culture, guns are seen as a means to power. "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

In more rural cultures, guns are normal, they are used for hunting.

Some people react against the urban hatred of guns by creating an ideology of gun glorification. This then excites the anti-gun crowd, & rhetoric gets ramped up.

Really, this country needs internal borders & checkpoints to keep high-powered weapons which are inoffensive in New Hampshire or southern Illinois from getting into New York City, most of Massachusetts, or Chicago. But that's hard work, & would offend somebody. So guns with a lethal range of six city blocks get smuggled into high-population areas, & gun hatred in cities grows, & the rural types, unaffected, still don't get it.

[Scumpup]

Yeah, those rural folks are just stoopud, aren't they?