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.
First, let’s look at the statistics:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
Yeah, Gonzo’s just the kind of guy to go totally off topic to vent his spleen about another poster! Good catch, there, XT.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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 ]
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.
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.