Guns why do you americans love them so much?

Great Debates
81

Freedom: No, I won’t move to NJ, sorry bud. :slight_smile:

Anyway, you do have the ability to learn about this. Find out if they have any bodyguard/security guard training in your area. They teach at a minimum all the stuff I teach, and are almost undoubtedly better at it too.

With the security guard approach you might have to take a couple of basic classes before they teach you more advanced concepts, it all depends on the school.

Also, talk to your local police force, often they will offer courses or can make a recommendation.

Some police officers are even willing to teach you what they know on the side. No, this isn’t typically illegal (it depends on the self defense class licensing requirements of your area), but some police departments frown on the practice but that is up to each individual police officer to decide to risk the wrath of his supervisors.

82

Occasionally this is true, especially regarding gun control debates. I don’t get like that at all in face to face confrontations though; just here where you think it would be easier to control emotions. I guess I get a bit too upset over this issue because it just seems so simple to me. However, my post just above was written while I was mentally chuckling. SuaveSkin is horribly misinformed and he’s berating others for their supposed lack of education on this issue. I found it way too ironic.

83

Voltaire wrote:

[quote]
In that case, you may be interested to know that there are more civilians with guns
then there are police with guns. Yet, police are involved in a higher ratio of accidental
shootings (i.e. shooting the wrong person) then the civilians. You would think that if
civilians were so incompetent and the police were so qualified, it wouldn’t be so.

Lesson #1: Don’t automatically put your trust in someone who’s armed based solely on
the fact that they’re wearing a badge.

Lesson #2: Don’t automatically distrust a civilian who carries a firearm. They may
someday be in a position to save your life.

[quote]

Voltaire: while I agree with the sentiment of your post, you of all people (being a self-described hater of misleading statistics) should realize that your statistical comparison is meaningless. Police shoot more people accidentally because their line of work automatically puts them in more situations where the use of guns is required. I’d like to see a stat on accidental shootings involving off-duty cops at home vs. those involving civilians. My money is on the cops for safety.

I have to say that I despise guns and everything they represent in society. However I would never support a repeal of ownership rights and I agree with several posters on this board who point out that the anti-gun lobby is often poorly informed and manipulative. The only way guns could be removed from society without disadvantaging the honest citizen is to make them non-existant, which will never be the case. :frowning:

“I don’t get any smarter as I get older–Just less stupid”

84

Yes, I see your point. But I’m not so sure that this is even the main reason for the disparity. Afterall, most criminals do their best to stay away from an armed altercation with the police.

I think that there are two MAIN reasons why the police are involved in more accidental shootings. First, they often arrive on a frantic scene and must quickly decide who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, this often leads to mistakes. Second, police are basicly trained to unload their guns on someone after they have decided to use deadly force. This greatly increases the chances of them hitting the target and killing them.

Conversely, a civilian protecting themselves or their family does not usually have a problem figuring out who the bad guy is. They are more in tune with what’s going on at the scene, and are far less likely to make an erroneous judgement call based on someone’s stereotype or profile. Generally, the armed civilian, having not been trained to, will not unload the entire clip after having decided to use deadly force. This reduces the chances of them hitting and killing the target.

I’m sure there are plenty of other factors, not the least of which is the fact that police are probably better shots on average so that when they have mistakenly decided to shoot someone, they are more likely to hit them in the right places and kill them.

The point is that I think a populace where the majority of law-abiding civilians are armed is inherently more safe then one where none of the law-abiding civilians are armed and all of the crime-control is left to the police. I, as one of those law-abiding citizens, (well, most laws anyway :smiley: ) would rather not have to wait for the police to arrive during the aftermath and have them kill me, my family, or any other innocent bystanders.

85

ManGeorge: I’m strictly civilian now, it’s just that the company I work for does military contracting, mostly in Communications Electronics and Logistics.

I’m currently working at Ft. Bragg, N.C., but we’re doing upgrades to the N.C. Nat’l Guard’s tactical commo systems (tanks, Bradley IFVs, HUMMERS, etc.)

Having caught up, I can only say this: WOW!

I wish more of you had been around some time back (a year or more) when I felt I was fighting this battle by myself, uphill, humping a “Ma-Deuce”, tripod and 1,000 rounds of ammo while zipperheads are popping rounds at me.

Sentinel, your rebuttal not only missed the point, you’ve been ejected from the range for firing out of your lane. But you do get points for coherency (don’t cream your jeans, as this is graded on a curve, and your only comparison is SuaveSkin) so keep plugging, your almost to the point of a coherent, logically consistent post.

Ahhhh, SuaveSkin? Kinda ballsy jumpin’ into a hot topic on your 3rd post, ain’t it?

Anywho, welcome to the Straight Dope Great Debates board (you too, Sam Stone; I haven’t seen you here before, so if this is your Straight Dope hangout, this “howdy” is just from me.)

Digressing from the O.P. a bit, SuaveSkin, but there are a few standards at The Great Debates that are generally adhered to if you wanna be taken at all seriously:

  1. Differentiaite from Opinion and Fact. Opinions are fine, and accepted at face value (generally), but they are not Fact.

  2. Facts are usually backed up with Citation (previously accomplished works by acknowledged or professional experts) and links to those people’s work. If you don’t know how to link, check the FAQ’s for directions.

  3. Enjoinders to agree with you because “only I am right” are usually interpreted as whining, and will get you slammed so fast you’ll have to change your screen name and move to a different state.

These should help you get started towards being a “Great Debater”, and check this out as well (it’s a hyperlink; double click on it and off you go):

Logical Fallicies
Back on topic:

There’s nothing that I can add that hasn’t been covered well by others. Makes me wanna go to the range and blow some ammo at some targets (7mm Magnum Armor-Piercing-Fin-Stabilized-Discarding-Sabot-Depleted-Uranium-Heat-Seeking-Laser-Guided-Smart-Gun-Cop-Killers, at that!). :rolleyes:

You know; just to let 'em know I’m out there and shoot straighter than they do. :stuck_out_tongue:

ExTank
“Call me sick and wrong, but I like it when Authority is nervous about what I can do”

86

MC wrote:

Not only that, but they weren’t interchangeable at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, either.

However, there was one concept that did exist in the U.S. at the time of the Bill of Rights that no longer exists, and that is the concept of compulsory State militia service. Most States required everyone who wasn’t in a legitimate volunteer militia corps, and who was a 17-44 year old male capable of shouldering arms, to train for and show up for militia “musters” held a couple of times a year – and the participants had to bring their own firearms.

Thus, one of the reasons for the second amendment was to protect the militias of those States whose governments could not afford to provide arms for all of their militia members. The reasoning was that, should the Federal government try to waltz in and take over one of the States by force, the State could repel the invasion by means of its own militia.

Of course, by the time the Civil War broke out, most States had disbanded their compulsory militia services – which may have helped the Union win the war. But I digress.

87

I’ve learned a lot on these many gun topics, and have come to a couple of conclusions;
(Generalizing profusely)
“Guys want guns to defend their country.”
Bullshit
“Guys want guns to defend hearth and home.”
Bullshit

The OP:
“Guns why do you americans love them so much?”
Answer:
Well, Mommy, because they’re GUNS.
:wink:
Peace,
mangeorge
Ain’t got no guns. Don’t want no guns. But you go ahead. Just don’t hurt nobody with it.

88

Damn, why can’t I keep away from these debates ?

voltaire:

voltaire, according to your logic, Scandinavia is inherently less safe than the US. I do believe the stats say otherwise.

It’s a cultural thing - generally speaking, even the criminals hardly carry guns around here. Why should they ?

When I first entered these debates, I naively thought this model would work everywhere: “Ban the bloody guns, it works for us!” But I’ve come to see that the US culture is wildly different from us on this issue. I do believe you’d live safer if more people (especially the criminals, of course) decided against owning & carrying a gun. But that’d obviously have to be a major cultural changeover, and these things take time.

I’ll try to just lurk from now on…

Norman

89

I thought that the U.S. Code (sorry, I don’t remember the section, but it was posted in another thread) still exists that says able-bodied males between 18 and 45 are by law part of the “unorganized militia”?

90

If you personally served during WWII then I thank you Sir for the liberty which I now enjoy. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

91

Here you go…
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/10/311.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

I am not sure how to prove it, but this looks different than the last time I quoted it. It still says the same thing, but I recall it being more clear last time.

I will skim through the old threads and see if I quoted it in here.

Well, I think we are coming due for another trip over the pond to save your butts. Are you sure you don’t want to apologize now so at least we WANT to help you guys out?

In addition to coming over twice in the 1900’s, don’t forget that we stayed for close to 50 years just to hold your hand and make sure you didn’t get attacked again.

Maybe you guys should consider following Switzerland and America’s example, get yourself some guns. :slight_smile:

92

So you personally will protect me? Makes me feel a whole lot safer. It is really infuriating to read the posts of jingoistic crackpots like you who use the military action of genuinely brave men and women to inflate thei own sense of self-importance. I repeat: if you serve in the armed forces, good on you. If you don’t, shut the f*ck up.

93

Incidentally, America did not enter either World War just for the sake of helping their British chums, they had a lot to lose if Germany had been victorious. Indeed, it was the unlimited use of submarine warfare and poisonous gas during The Great War (violations of International Law) that led to America’s involvement. In WWII we were buying war materials from America, by 1941 we were unable to pay for them and the Lend-Lease Act was passed allowing the American president to lend or lease war materials to nations whose defence was thought important to the United States. This is not the cavalry charge you suggest. The Japanese attack Pearl Harbour and away you go…America involved in the scrap proper.

94

MadHun said:

and

[Moderator Hat ON]

Cool it, MadHun. This isn’t The Pit. That goes equally for the rest of you guys, too.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

95

No problemo…read and posted after a fairly heated exchange in The Pit. Apologies. Although it was deserved right :wink:

96
      • I agree with you on this; I’d guess if I asked everyone I knew who was a gun owner not one would say they’re preparing for the day the Russkies or Chinese or FBI or whoever comes over the horizon. Quite frankly, I’d worry if they did. Most would say that they just like shooting, with a few mentioning home protection (particularly the ladies that live alone).
  • I also do not understand what is so objectionable about allowing people to own firearms, or why firearm ownership has to be “justified” more than anything else. If the US as a nation decided to outlaw anything that could be deemed as hazardous to the public, the first thing to go would be cars. Every argument you can make for eliminating guns, is even greater for banning automobiles.
  • What concerns me is that the process of liability law is currently being drastically undermined by progressives seeking a way, any way, to hold gun manufacturers liable for deaths that they are not by any regular legal standards responsible for, with little regard to how these laws might be applied in the future. - MC
97

voltaire:

Voltaire, Your line of thinking makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that only the police are confronted with making quick decisions about who is a threat and who is not in dangerous situations? I have no numbers to quote here, but I am led to believe that differentiating good guys v. bad guys (i.e. thinking it’s a burglar but it’s really your son coming home late) is the main reason for most accidental shootings in the home. Feel free to show me some figures to the contrary.

98

One thing I note about this debate is that we Brits are obsessed about the American obsession for guns . Pick up any British newspaper & you will find a ‘crazy yank gunman’ story or else if it’s a ‘crazy Brit gunman’(very much rarer-the gun bit that is) a bystander will almost inevitably say something that incudes ‘The wild west’ or’Chicago’ or ‘The Bronx’.
My conclusion is that Brits love guns too ,it’s just that we don’t happen to own the objects of our affection.
By the way ,I looked round for some info about gun stats pro and anti ,good grief!Looks like I need a bigger hard drive.

99

One thing I note about this debate is that we Brits are obsessed about the American obsession for guns . Pick up any British newspaper & you will find a ‘crazy yank gunman’ story or else if it’s a ‘crazy Brit gunman’(very much rarer-the gun bit that is) a bystander will almost inevitably say something that incudes ‘The wild west’ or’Chicago’ or ‘The Bronx’.
My conclusion is that Brits love guns too ,it’s just that we don’t happen to own the objects of our affection.
By the way ,I looked round for some info about gun stats pro and anti ,good grief!Looks like I need a bigger hard drive.

100

One thing I note about this debate is that we Brits are obsessed about the American obsession for guns . Pick up any British newspaper & you will find a ‘crazy yank gunman’ story or else if it’s a ‘crazy Brit gunman’(very much rarer-the gun bit that is) a bystander will almost inevitably say something that incudes ‘The wild west’ or’Chicago’ or ‘The Bronx’.
My conclusion is that Brits love guns too ,it’s just that we don’t happen to own the objects of our affection.
By the way ,I looked round for some info about gun stats pro and anti ,good grief!Looks like I need a bigger hard drive.