This is not another thread about the Right to Arm Bears

Great Debates
1

I was wondering (as I often do in order to avoid actually doing work) what is the great love affair in America with guns?

Beyond the constitutional guarantee to allow each able bodied/minded american to own a gun, why is it that a percieved need for a domestic weapon is so heatedly defended?

Look at Canada. I use Canada because I know most about that society - being a Canadian myself. Perhaps it’s as easy to get a gun in Canada as in America but the fact is, far fewer people tend to have guns in their house (per capita). Yes, you can buy a shotgun at Canadian Tire but every time I go by the sport & camping dept, I see the same set of guns sitting on the shelf collecting dust year after year. There is simply no great turnover.

I have never entered a discussion with a fellow Canadian about whether or not they felt they needed a gun at home for protection. Frankly, that concept is very foreign to the average Canadian. Sure, we talk about the American love for guns, but that sentiment seems to elude the great majority of Canadians. Canadian statistics on gun ownership seem to support this view.

Even the Prime Minister of Canada, when confronted with a knife wielding intruder in his home, retreated to his bedroom and had his wife defend him with a blunt object (a statue as I recall) while he called the police. Let’s face it folks, who more than the PM is entitled to own a gun for self defense (especially with the job he’s been doing lately!).

As someone mentioned in another thread, guns may be easily obtained by the average Canadian, but the average Canadian does not rush out to arm him/her self. Why? Is it because, guns are not as much a part of the Canadian culture as they are in the US? But why? Is Canada’s wilderness any less threatening than the US wilderness? Are Canadian deer less tasty than their US cousins? Are Canadian bears more gentle? … or is it that once a person gets his/her first taste for guns and the power they yield, this begins a life long addiction to that kind of power? Is it the fact that controlling a weapon and wielding the power of life and death is a more powerful narcotic than anyone is willing to freely admit - even if one never uses that weapon for anything else than target practice? Thus, since few Canadians are introduced to guns at any time in their life they are less likely to desire to own and use one and equally less likely to pass on that desire to their children.

What is it about guns that so many more Americans (per capita) find irresistable than their culturally similar Canadians or Britts or many other Western European nations for that matter? What is superior about taking out a deer with a bullet compared to simply taking a snapshot of one? Would stalking the animal be any less rewarding if all you took home with you was a really good photograph to put in an album?

Keep in mind, I don’t want to debate the US rights of having guns or whether killing deer for sport/food is ethical or necessary in this day and age. I just want to understand the unusual drive that Americans seem to have for guns of all sorts. Many Americans claim that guns are necessary to defend themselves, their family, their property from an intruder or agressor. That may be so, but why don’t similar numbers of Canadians feel the same way? Do Canadians value their family and property any less than their American neighbours?

2

We’re just nicer.

(/humour)

3

In answer to your first question see ExTank’s essay in in this thread. (It’s on page three and this link should take you directly there.) He’s summed it up quite nicely.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22744&pagenumber=3

I have a question for you though. You have stated that Canadians and Americans are “culturally similar.” On what do you base this? Our different governance systems are not very similar, nor are our economic systems.

4

Thanks UncleBeer, it’s about what I expected. The gun culture of America is something steeped more in emotional attachement and indoctrination than hard logic. I don’t mean to make that sound like an entirely bad thing but it is now more of a societal characteristic than a real logical need (for guns).

I’m not going to dispute ExTanks (or your) reasoning for liking guns. It’s silly to argue with an individual’s personal likes and hobbies. I do however want to make this point: Very similar societies have managed to develope and thrive without the pervasive gun culture that seems to persist in the US. There are certainly merits in considering the alternatives to the current pro gun stance in America.

I also want to mention that although I thoroughly appreciate the commraderie of fellow soldiers (brothers in arms, as it were), I also believe that arms should be laid down (practically and figuratively) once your service to your country has been completed. It’s my opinion that many former soldiers never quite let go that infectious feeling that they got from being in the military and wish to hand on to it through the continued practice of gun ownership and use. This is particularly true when people enlist into the military not out of a requirement but out of personal desire. In my opinion, the best soldier is the reluctant type, a kind who enters service because of a requirement to do so. He/she performs the military duties while in service but leaves them at the door once he/she re-enters civilian life again. An example of that is my father and my uncle. They were both required to serve in the military for three years in the USSR. My father was trained in the special forces as the soviet equivalent of the SEALs. He was released from service after 3 years (as is normal) but was required to return for several years later every six months to help train and asses new soldiers in tactics and paratroop exercises. He even competed in national competitions (while in service) in parachuting events. From what I gather, he was pretty damn good at all that stuff. But, I can count on one hand the number of times in my life that I heard stories about his military service. My father, like my uncle, and most of our male friends and extended family members, almost never spoke of their military exploits or experiences. If they did it was always in very vague and brief terms. (As a kid I recall hanging on every word but those conversations were preciously brief and rare and I knew in no uncertain terms that they did not wish to dwell on those experiences.) When they were discharged, they left the army behind them and never looked back. The military was a necessary duty they had to perform while soldiers and many excelled at it. But once their service was complete, they did not lament, romanticize or try to hang on to that feeling. In America (and Canada to a degree), I often see quite the opposite. Military life, as well as guns, are romanticized to such a high degree that there is something hypnotic about becoming a soldier in the US and owning a firearm. Perhaps that is how the military continues to recruit so many soldiers in peace time. The draw of guns and the power they wield is quite seductive. Exposure at an early age to all that power becomes a very powerfull force of endoctrination - particularly since it’s handed down from generation to generation by a loved and admired family member (father/brother/uncle, etc…).

Finally, to answer your question -

I find Canada very similar to the US in many many important respects which I consider to be more important than mere gov’t sturcture. Many Canadian bristle at the fact of being confused for an American while abroad but it’s no coincidence. Our language and speach idioms are remarkably similar (especially to a foreigner). Canadian media (what there is left of it) is dramatically influenced by the US media. A great majority of out TV channels are US network stations. Canadian programming is underfunded and the production quality is often lacking. Our food, household goods, cars, clothes and music is produced more often than not by American companies or Canadian divisions there of. Virtually every known consumer product or brand can be found identically situated on a store shelf in Canada as in the US. WalMart and Barnes & Noble have taken over the Canadian retail and literature scene almost entirely.

As for the economic systems, Canada’s economy is so closely tied to the US economy, it’s hard to know where one stops and the other begins. US is Canada’s major (and I don’t mean marginally major) trading partner. Whenever the Fed increases the prime bank lending rate, Bank of Canada follows suit within 24 hours and point for point.

About the only significant difference between US and Canada is our socialized medicare and education system. The latter is disappearing fast while public pressure has managed to keep the former in place (for now), but that will not hold out for much longer either. Gov’t is trying to privatize as much as possible these days and that includes selling the “free” medical system to the highest bidder (read: insurance companies). Americans are very familiar with what happens when insurance companies begin to control medical care. I see the complere dismemberment of the current Canadian medical system as just a matter of time.

There. Is that a long enough ramble for you?

5

(leaps into battle, flaming sword in hand)

Oh, no. If they want to get to my medicare, they’ll do it over the dead bodies of me, Svend Robinson, Alexa McDonough - and Marg, Princess Warrior!

6

…it would disturb me greatly were that actually come to pass (perhaps I was overly cynical in my original observation) but I don’t see many positive things happening to encourage me to think otherwise.

Doctors are already accepting cash payments for services rendered to patients (User fees?). Some patients are sent to the US for treatments they cannot get in Canada. Hostpitals and beds are closing at a greater rate than new hospitals are being built. Doctors are being told how much money they can make in a year (at least in Ontario and Quebec). Patients are told how often they can see a doctor per year. Qualified doctors and nurses are electing to move to the US for better opportunities both in carreer and financial compensation terms.

Having had the opportunity to spend 50/50 of my time over the past 10 years living in both Canada and the US, I see very striking similarities between the two medical systems.

Frankly, it pains me to say this, but I don’t believe anything good can come of this for Canadians… with all due respect to you, Svend and Alexa. :smiley:

7

**

How come? Arms are used in this country for a wide variety of recreationl activities. And so far as the figurative thing goes I don't believe anyone should totally lay down their mental arms. I think every man, woman, and child in this country needs to know how and when to knock some heads in. Sure beats being a pacifist.

[Quote]
**
In my opinion, the best soldier is the reluctant type, a kind who enters service because of a requirement to do so. He/she performs the military duties while in service but leaves them at the door once he/she re-enters civilian life again. An example of that is my father and my uncle.

[Quote]
**

I take the opposite view. I believe the best soldier is someone who believes in the cause so much that he or she is motivated to enlist. My example would be every male member of the family except for myself. My sister enlisted not out of requirement but because she wanted it.

[Quote]
**
In America (and Canada to a degree), I often see quite the opposite. Military life, as well as guns, are romanticized to such a high degree that there is something hypnotic about becoming a soldier in the US and owning a firearm.

[Quote]
**

Military life isn't romanticized very much these days. In fact other then the Marines the Armed Forces are having a hell of a time getting enough people to enlist.

[Quote]
**
Perhaps that is how the military continues to recruit so many soldiers in peace time. The draw of guns and the power they wield is quite seductive.

[Quote]
**

 Most of the people I know these days who signed up for hte military did so because of scholarships and other educational opportunities.

Marc

8

The opposite of being a card carrying member of the NRA or even pro-gun supporter does not necessarily make one a pacifist. Every man, woman and child in this country needs to know that there are many better ways to settle a dispute than by knocking heads or pulling out your gun. Sadly, some of the youth in this country see a gun as the only means of settling an argument.

Well it’s no wonder. Have you seen those TV commercial for the marines. Sometimes it’s all I can do to keep from getting up off my couch and running down to enlist myself.

Let that be a lesson to the Armed Forces… they don’t need new weapons, they need a killer commercial campaign!

[QUOTE]

 Most of the people I know these days who signed up for hte military did so because of scholarships and other educational opportunities.

[/QUOTE}

Isn’t it the Armed Forces that advertise those educational opportunities to improve recruitment? Funny how that doesn’t work as well as molten lava monsters and shining swards campaigns work for the marines. Perhaps the armed forces need to introduce some video morphing and explosions into their recruitment drive commercials. [sarcasm]
All those education and technical training opportunities seem to attract all the brainy types. Everybody knows that all those brainy types don’t know how to fight or shoot straight.[/sarcasm]

9

What about Marg?!

Anyway, some food for thought: “The citizenry insist and insist and insist that they are proud of the Medicare system and that they want it to work. They continually send instructions to this effect to their governments. They do so in every imaginable way. And yet, day by day, the governments and the bureaucracies chip away at the system as if in the hope that, by opening holes in it and creating a new ineffectiveness, the citizenry will drop their commitment to it.”
-John Ralston Saul, Reflections of a Siamese Twin

10

[QUOTE]
**

 I'm not the one who suggested that people who are leaving the military need to lay down their physical and figurative arms. That sounded like pacifism to me.

[QUOTE]
Isn’t it the Armed Forces that advertise those educational opportunities to improve recruitment? Funny how that doesn’t work as well as molten lava monsters and shining swards campaigns work for the marines

Yeah, a real riot. Actually the Marine Corps has managed to maintain a higher level of morale among their people then the Army, Navy, or Air Force. That's probably one of the biggest reasons they don't have problems filling their ranks.

Marc

11

Gonna put on my cynical hat and toss out a couple of WAGs.

Are Americans more greedy, selfish, and insecure than our industrialized brothers? Individually and as a nation, we got ours by whatever means worked, now we will use force if necessary to prevent other folk/nations from catching up.

Does an excessive feeling of defensiveness suggest a basic questioning of merit? If I feel my self/property/lifestyle so threatened that I need to prepare to use force in anticipation of their defense, does that suggest I may feel I have more than I deserve, or others in society may not have as much as they ought?

Look at our national posture on one issue. The only SUPERPOWER. In addition to our many privileges, each American is ENTITLED to ridiculously cheap gas, and can use military force to define and project our national interests and use military force to influence the internal affairs of sovereign countries.

Why do Americans think we are so uniquely deserving? Are we not largely the fortunate recipients of the recent development of a huge resource? Didn’t our taking over a virgin continent play at least some role in our current status, rather than simply resulting from our personal characteristics and dashing good looks?

How bout the element of romance, reflecting the unrealistic notions of a young country? For example, how prevalent is the image of the American cowboy driving cattle to market, the pony express, and the Indian wars, a period that lasted, what, at maximum 40 years? Because we had huge resources (manifest destiny anyone?) we were always pushing the frontier for the first four of the past five centuries. So there was always a rural portion of the population dependant upon firepower for self provision. I suspect an element of folk who are somewhat uncomfortable with their overly comfy current life romantically view guns as a link back to “When men were men!”

Another element, in addition to subsistence them frontier men needed guns to defend themselves against the indigenous folk they were dispossessing. Tie back to insecurity mentioned above.

Then there’s fear. Why do so many folk feel threatened despite evidence of declining violent crime stats? Is it the case where one cop gets shot at, talks about it in the locker room, and every cop feels as tho he was shot at? Further, to what extent are our material goods worth injuring/killing someone? First rule of self defense, someone with a weapon demands your wallet, give it to him.

I suspect there also is an element of a lack of respect for our fellow man. Look at the income/asset inequity in our population. Look at the opposition to socialized medicine, spending on social programs. Look at how politically advantageous it is to propose small tax breaks. Yeah, that extra $500 is gonna completely change my lifestyle. Certainly better than giving it to some drug addict welfare queen. I got mine. Screw you.

Then there is the element of governmental distrust. I am not sure why so many folk strongly believe the government is out to harm them, and fear a plot to deprive them of their guns. I feel very fortunate and comfortable with my lifestyle, and am very aware of and thankful for the benefits I have received from my government.

Til now, these observations have addressed the haves. For the have-nots, I think we Americans have institutionalized the existence of a disenfranchised, impoverished class. For them a gun may represent power. Whatever the inequities, a poor man with a gun can certainly end a rich man’s life. What are the other available avenues of self advancement? Even if education and work opportunities exist, taking something from someone else is certainly easier, and isn’t that what our system is all about?

In this vein but back to the comparison of individual to state, why do those nasty little countries want nuclear weapons? Aren’t they satisfied that we have them? Why should we pay our UN dues? Or sign the Law of the Seas Treaty? And why won’t they institute strict pollution controls?

End of rant.

Understand, I am very happy living in the US. All of these do not necessarily represent my personal views, but I think some of them might suggest the motivations of some Americans. I hope gun owners take the opportunity to inform us why they feel so strongly about the need or want to own guns. As a non owner, I can only hypothesize.

Perhaps in addition to explaining why, gun owners can describe in general terms the number and type of firearms the own, and how they used them (meaning, how many are used for hunting/target shooting). (See, I’m compiling this database for eventual confiscation.) I doubt the majority of gun owners were simply reading the Constitution, got to the 2d amendment and said, “Gosh darn it, it’s in the Constitution, so I have to exercise that right! And dammit, I’m gonna peaceably assemble while I’m at it!”

Sorry this was so long.

12

Yes, violent crime is declining but two points of interest:

  1. It is still very high.

  2. The violent crime that is being committed is increasingly vicious. Criminologists believe that this is largely for two reasons. First, the vast bulk of violent crime, somewhere between 66% and 90% is committed by recividists, who are hardened to violence, and perhaps more importantly feel a vendetta against the people that deprived them of their freedom. Second, the decreasing age of violent offenders.

No, it is a case of deciding if having a weapon is worthwhile on the chance that you will become a victim of violent crime. Most gun owners do not want to draw or use their gun, although studies suggest that many people will when they first get a concealed carry permit will try to flash their holster just a little. This typically ends the first time that somebody calls a police officer or security guard and spoils their day, that or they simply lose interest in flashing their gun. Again, violent crime rates are still very high and a firearm plays a very real role in the concept of self protection, looking at it from the perspective of the force continuum (which is the range of actions along a continuum of force, starting with avoidance and ending with lethal force). In some situations, countervailing violence is simply the best response available to the person who wishes to be safe, and in some cases that violence, in order to be most effective, needs to be potentially lethal.

It is the criminal who puts a person’s life in the balance with their own. The citizen is then forced to weigh their life and contribution to society as a law abiding citizen who is under attack through no fault of their own vs. the criminal who has attacked them. Although some people are not comfortable with the concept of triage (a concept in combat medicine where you save those who can be saved, and focus all your efforts on one person at a time rather than trying to save everybody), some recognize that injuring or killing the criminal is ethically justifiable over letting the criminal kill them. This is not small decision with enourmous repercussions, that sadly many people do not consider, including (as I have covered elsewhere before): “The Mark of Cain” complex, impotence, insomnia, possible civil & criminal lawsuits. But for some these consequences are seen as acceptable, and that is their decision to make.

And many would agree with you. But again you miss two critical issues:

  1. You have no means of knowing the ultimate intent of the violent criminal. In fact, as above, violent criminals are becoming more prone to murdering or severely injuring their victims (there just happens to be less of them, which is why the crime rates are going down).

  2. It is entirely possible that material loss can be as devasting as physical suffering. I am pretty sure that your landlord wouldn’t be all to sympathetic that you were mugged and couldn’t pay the rent. Similarly, neither would the heating company. Likely, your boss wouldn’t continue to pay your salary because you couldn’t get to work on time because your car was stolen. Etc. There are plenty of circumstances by which a person could be seriously harmed by material loss, and if nothing else the criminal certainly has no claim to your possessions. Does the fact that a person is alive give them claim to your possessions without resistance if they try to take them? If so, please tell me where you live and what size TV you have. I would like to pay you a visit. :wink:

No, the first rule of self defense, is avoidance. Compliance, which is typically ill-advised unless accompanied by other action, is higher up the chain.

13

Glitch -

I really do see what you are getting at, but consider this - every society in every age has had it’s share of problems with crime and violence. In today’s societies (for the sake of argument let’s talk about first world countries and not places like Siera Leon where chaos currently reigns) violence is still a matter of fact. Now, some countries choose to let their citizens own and use guns for self protection, while other countries insist that gun onwership and use by civilians in illegal. Can it be successfully shown that US citizens are less victimized by crime due to the liberal view towards guns than say their Canadian or Swedish counterparts? Is it possible to say such a thing with clear statistical proof? I am not even talking about the evidence that shows that accidental deaths caused by guns in the home is significantly lower in Canada than the US (for obvious reasons).

To my mind, like in any natural system which tends towards equalibrium, firepower eventually begets equal and opposite firepower. Criminals and violent offenders have and will always exist (at least in the foreseeable future). If some criminals have guns and the public at large acquires guns to defend themselves then the criminals will not simply find a new career path but will acquire more and better guns to compensate for the growing threat from the well armed opposition. Conversely, if the civilian population does not permit guns in it’s midst, relatively fewer criminals will feel the need or be presented with the opportunity to posess a gun. Now realistically, unless every single gun on the planet is melted down into paperclips, some criminals will find a way of getting a gun. But keep in mind, if society and law enforcement makes it exceedingly hard for a person to get a gun in a given country, then the criminal will have that much harder of a time in acquiring one. I believe that the laws of supply and demand work equally well in the criminal world. Fewer guns = higher price for guns but also less availability to the average criminal.

No-one, especially me in particular, is suggesting that getting rid of guns would solve every criminal act. But I suspect it would go a long way in reducing gun related violence. And that’s got to be a good thing, right?
But that’s not what the OP asks. I believe that Dinsdale presented some very lucid and compelling reasons with this enduring trend in the US. To what do you attribute the American fascination with guns? Surely in your line of work you must have some very interesting insights.

14

The “Guns as Self-Defense” issue…

There seems to be a misconception that the defense aspect of a gun comes only if you shoot and kill an intruder/whatever. As I’ve said in the Rosie thread, the Law of Averages comes into play here… hypothetical situation: if a criminal, who has managed to get an illegal gun, knows that few homeowners will have a gun in their house, due to either banishment or heavy restriction, he’ll be more willing to risk breaking into a house, since he won’t have to face another gun. However, if he knows that there’s a good chance that people might be able to fight back, he’ll think twice.

I don’t think you’re going to find a single member of the NRA who buys a new gun and prays for somebody to break in, just so he can test out his new toy (after all, that only happens in Weird Al songs). A gun purchase is the triumph of realism over hope… they hope they won’t ever need the gun (and hope that it’s not involved in any accidents around the house), but realistically they acknowledge that they may need it someday.

I, for one, wish that guns only existed for target shooting (man, it’s fun as hell, trust me…), but I know that there are wackos out there who get a rush from the sense of power that turning a gun on someone else must bring. If this were to ever happen to you (Spam forbid), you’re not going to be thinking “Well, at least I didn’t sink down to his level!”… you’re going to be thinking, “Man, I wish I had a gun… then this wouldn’t have happened!”

My apologies for the rantish thread… I’m still coming down from the Rosie thread. If you’re interested in gun control, go give it a read… it gets hijacked into GC numerous times (several of which are completely my fault, I’m sorry to admit…)

15

Rantish POST, rather.

16

Spoofe -

I understand your reasoning (and that of many pro gun people) as to why you feel you need to have a gun. However, I’d like to know if you are willing to accept the following (run-away?) train of thought…

Suppose, just suppose, that the (2nd?) ammendment in the US constitution allowing civs to keep and bear arms never existed. Much like it does not exist in the Canadian constitution and the constitution of a great many other first world nations. Nations where anarchy and crime does not run rampant. Nations where there is an effective and just criminal law system which punishes criminals to the full extent allowed by the laws of the land. Nations where citizens live in peace and where they feel relatively secure despite their inability to keep and bear arms. Surely you must admit that many of these societies have a thriving and growing socio-economic system where people as a rule do not live in dread and fear of the criminal element (which unfortunately exists in every society - even the well armed and supposedly trained American society).

So what do you think about those nations? Places where guns are not handed down from parent to child through the generations. Places where ownership of guns even for target practice is a rare occurance. Do you believe that those people are somehow deprived or denied a necessary pleasure in life which you so freely practice in your country?

Hard as I try to convice myself otherwise, I simply do not see how gun ownership (or lack there of) has any significant effect on the criminal element in society. There has been and presumably always will be an anti-social element in every society that presumes to take by force what it thinks it cannot have by peacefull means. The gun wielding society in the US has not managed to eliminate the threat posed by criminals. I don’t believe that it even had a significant effect in combating crime in general. We are seeing a drop in crime in general because the economic times are good. Wait until the tables are turned and more people find themselves out of work and broke. I think the trend will reverse itself quite quickly and crime rates will begin to rise again despite a well armed civil populace.

So if you tell me that guns are part of American culture because their use and ownership has been handed down through generations then I will readily agree with you. If you tell me that guns are part of American culture because they have a positive effect on decreasing crime in society then I doubt you will ever get me on your side of this issue.