Why exactly did gun culture blossom in the US and, seemingly, not in most other Western countries?

[Kimstu]

@DrDeth

Yes, those nasty racist white men were the fount of all todays liberties including your right to post here on this MB. :rolleyes:

You sound like you think that statement is somehow absurd or contradictory, but it absolutely isn’t. Can you really not manage to wrap your head around the basic historical fact that people in the past (or in the present, for that matter) could indeed combine being nasty racists in some respects with being principled pioneers of liberties in other respects?

@DrDeth

If by *all our current liberties- Right to a free press, freedom of religion, right for a fair trial, right to own a firearm- all of them, if you mean they were all *rooted in white racism, :rolleyes: well then fine.

Well, they were all fundamentally influenced by white racism, if you want to call that “rooted”. As was everything else in colonial society, too.

@DrDeth

But dont single out the 2nd Ad.

Nonsense: of course different aspects of colonial society were influenced by white racism in different ways. So it’s perfectly appropriate to “single out” early American gun-rights culture rather than, say, freedom of religion or the press in a thread specifically debating the origins of modern American gun-rights culture.

For one thing, 18th-century white American views on guns were very strongly affected by contemporary experiences with slave rebellions.

*n June of 1788[,] Virginia was holding a convention in Richmond to decide whether to ratify the Constitution the founders had drafted in Independence Hall the previous year. […]

The Virginia convention featured a dramatic debate between federalists, who favored ratification, and antifederalists, who opposed it. The debate pitted James Madison, a federalist and the principal drafter of the Constitution, against George Mason, the intellectual leader of the antifederalists, and Patrick Henry, Virginia’s governor and a renowned orator.

Mason and Henry raised many arguments against ratification. One concerned the militia. To appreciate their arguments, we must bear three things in mind about the time and place of the debate.

First, the majority population in eastern Virginia were enslaved blacks. Whites lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. Everyone knew about the 1739 slave rebellion in Stono, S.C., when blacks broke into a store, decapitated the shopkeepers, seized guns and powder, and marched with flying banners, beating drums and cries of “Liberty!” Up to 100 joined the rebellion before being engaged by a contingent of armed, mounted militiamen. Scores died in the ensuing battle.

Second, the principal instrument for slave control was the militia. In the main, the South had refused to commit her militias to the war against the British during the American Revolution out of fear that, if the militias departed, slaves would revolt. But while the militias were effective at slave control, they had proved themselves unequal to the task of fighting a professional army. Bunker Hill was the last militia victory during the Revolution. The Continental Army (aided by the French Navy) won the war.

Third, previously the militias were creatures of state governments. The new Constitution changed that. It divided authority over militias between the national and state governments, but gave the lion’s share of authority — including the power to organize, arm and discipline the militias — to Congress. […] “If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless […]” Henry declared.

In the fall, Madison ran for Congress. His opponent, the rising young politician (and future president) James Monroe, lambasted Madison for not including a bill of rights in the Constitution. […] Now he was fighting for his political life in a congressional district where a bill of rights was popular. Madison changed his position and promised voters that, if elected, he would write one.

As we know, he included a right to bear arms. Only four of the 13 state Constitutions had such a provision. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by none other than George Mason in 1776 when states controlled the militias, did not have one. Following its debate and decision to ratify, the Virginia convention proposed Congress consider a declaration of 20 rights, including a right to bear arms, and 20 constitutional amendments, including one giving states the power to arm their militias if Congress did not.

According to this not unreasonable take, the individual “right to bear arms” in the Bill of Rights was not so much a bulwark against governmental tyranny as a means to placate white slaveholders by reassuring them that Congress would not be able to weaken their own tyranny over their slaves by disarming their militias, whose main practical function was slave control.

[Melbourne]

@DrDeth

That’s what I said. Other people would say that “what’s utterly foreign is the concept that having a big dog would make me feel safer” or several others things. It’s Ok to be afraid of guns… or of big dogs.

But that’s you. Guns make most people feel safer.

That is to say guns make most white Americans feel safer. The question of the thread is why that isn’t the case in most other Western countries.

[msmith537]

@DrDeth

Actually, his statements are backed by historical fact.

Up until recently, a American could buy the same rifle that was issue to rifle companies- the Musket, the harpers rifle, the Springfield, the Garand.

I should have specified it was the “And the restrictions do not appear to make us safer as reflected by crime rates” statement doesn’t appear to be backed by facts, in spite of the rise in mass shootings. This statement I agree with.

@DrDeth

But gun control changed that, and for no good reason. Submachineguns are very ineffective, and certainly can’t take out a “rifle company” single handledly. :rolleyes:

In fact no one issues a submachinegun as their main battle weapon, they are only issued for special purposes, like undercover raids, and such.

Let’s try not to be obtuse or pedantic. I’m talking about a relatively untrained person walking into a crowded area and spraying 50 to 100 people with bullets at close range. A purpose the submachine is extremely effective at.

@DrDeth

The rise in Mass shootings is caused by media attention, not gun availability. Guns have always been available.

Which is the point. Guns have always been a part of the history and culture of America. Like everything else, amplified by mass media in recent decades.

@DrDeth

View Post But the big one is feeling safer.

From what exactly? For all their tough talk, conservatives seem to be some of the most timid and fearful people on Earth.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Melbourne

That is to say guns make most white Americans feel safer.

A minority of them, really - only about 30% of Americans own a gun, a number that has been shrinking, but the ones who *do *own more of them than they used to. Maybe the actual danger to a given individual (not the “felt” danger :rolleyes: ) is less now, since one can only fire one gun at a time even if it’s an assault rifle.

The question of the thread is why that isn’t the case in most other Western countries.

Given that the US is the outlier, the focus should be on it, not asking “What’s different about everybody else?”.

I’d add that it was certainly strengthened by the Wild West media, originally in dime novels and later in massive numbers of cheap movies and TV shows, that glorified gun use along with portraying Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, almost always white guys and somewhat browner guys respectively. Never mind that the reality was quite different; reality rarely has as much influence on culture as does mass media. That entertainment genre is quintessentially American, although it has been copied in other countries and is not as easily seen as reality-based. But even today, you hear or read gun fetishists describe their own roles as indistinguishable from those of a Saturday-serial singing cowboy in a saloon - there are Bad Guys who need killin’, and the Good Guys need to “feel safer” from them. All that’s missing are the white and black hats.

The Canadian comparison is interesting - AIUI, broadly speaking, the Canadian frontier was opened by the Mounties, who made peace with the Indians and established Law And Order *before *the white settlers got there. The settlers didn’t get there first and have to establish their land thefts at gunpoint.

[puddleglum]

@Nava

You’re not very familiar with our history, are you? We didn’t collect statistics back then, but we’ve had periods (about, oh, 150 years between the War of Independence to that of '36) where when there wasn’t a civil war there was an uprising, and in between police brutality that makes current American cops look nice, polite and mild-mannered; we’ve had militias armed by bishops fighting those armed by the unions in the streets of our towns.

More recently, my whole family from the youngest baby to the oldest spinster has been in the Death Lists. For years, my father refused the police escort he was offered, on account of “if I change how I live, they have won”. My regional government is likely to go to the second-most-voted party thanks to a different party, led by a murderer who’s never repented.

Part of the reason we treat guns with respect is because we know bloody well what they do. Because we don’t want to go back to those bloody times. Because too many of us have seen our fathers, our neighbors, our friends, shot before our eyes. And history tells us that the solution to guns is not more guns.

I am not as well acquainted with Spanish history as you are but my understanding is that current Spanish gun control laws are a legacy of a fascist dictator trying to restrict private gun ownership as much as possible in order to suppress the possibility of a successful resistance.
My understanding is also that the murders you are talking about are the result of organized political factions and not random criminals. Spain has also been much safer than the US for 30 years and that is what is shaping culture more than the political violence of the 1930s.

[DrDeth]

@Kimstu

You sound like you think that statement is somehow absurd or contradictory, but it absolutely isn’t. Can you really not manage to wrap your head around the basic historical fact that people in the past (or in the present, for that matter) could indeed combine being nasty racists in some respects with being principled pioneers of liberties in other respects? …
For one thing, 18th-century white American views on guns were very strongly affected by contemporary experiences with slave rebellions.
…

Yes, like i said- Presentism. Everyone in the past is bad , evil and backwards, while us modern people know better. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, the South did have that as a issue. But that’s a anti-gun Op-Ed piece, not a real cite. Not worth your cutting and pasting.

[slash2k]

@DrDeth

OK, then since 1987, it doesnt matter if gun rights were enshrined in the Constitution on 1787 or 1791 . But the North had almost entire banned slavery by either date, so your post " most of the Northern states had not abolished slavery by the time that gun rights were enshrined in the Constitution. " is false. Only two states hadn’t- NJ and NY and in both cases bills for abolishing slavery were being worked on and passed soon after.

In the 1820 federal census, there were still 10,088 slaves in New York, 7,557 in New Jersey, 211 in Pennsylvania, and smaller numbers in other New England states. In other words, thirty years or so after the enshrinement of gun rights in the Constitution, the “ban on slavery” you trumpet still left thousands of blacks lawfully enslaved in the North.

[DrDeth]

@Melbourne

That is to say guns make most white Americans feel safer. The question of the thread is why that isn’t the case in most other Western countries.

Pretty racist statement, as plenty of blacks, hispanics and asians own guns.

Guns make people feel safer all over the world.

The thread was about “gun culture” which equates to about 5% of Americans.

[DrDeth]

@slash2k

In the 1820 federal census, there were still 10,088 slaves in New York, 7,557 in New Jersey, 211 in Pennsylvania, and smaller numbers in other New England states. In other words, thirty years or so after the enshrinement of gun rights in the Constitution, the “ban on slavery” you trumpet still left thousands of blacks lawfully enslaved in the North.

Yes, and so? what’s your point?

[ElvisL1ves]

@DrDeth

Guns make people feel safer all over the world.

Not guns in possession of *other *people, eh?

The thread was about “gun culture” which equates to about 5% of Americans.

Gun owners, who are necessarily part of that culture, are more like 30%.

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

Not guns in possession of *other *people, eh?

Gun owners, who are necessarily part of that culture, are more like 30%.

Nope, since the gun culture people are in favor of less restrictions on buying firearms, and also in favor of open carry and “shall issue” CCW. They want more people to own more guns.

No, there you are entirely wrong. Gun owners are not necessarily part of Gun Culture. Many Gun owners own a gun simply for sport, hunting or self defense. Just like **Nava *said about Spain (altho she did say Self defense is not a important reason). The gun culture *people are the 5% who own lost of guns, and belong to the NRA, etc, the single issue voters.

It’s like the difference between people who own and drive a car, and those into *car culture. *

[slash2k]

@DrDeth

Yes, and so? what’s your point?

That you have been somewhat inaccurate in your statements on the status of slaves and slavery in the North at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Setting up a process to free slaves at some point in the future is not quite the same thing as “banning slavery.” Complete emancipation did not come to New York until 1827, for example, while there were still legally-owned slaves in Pennsylvania into the 1840s.

[Northern_Piper]

@DrDeth

Guns make people feel safer all over the world.

Then why do democracies all over the world put major restrictions on gun possession and use? Why don’t the citizens of those countries seek to overturn those gun laws? We don’t seem to think we need guns to feel safer.

[DrDeth]

@slash2k

That you have been somewhat inaccurate in your statements on the status of slaves and slavery in the North at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Setting up a process to free slaves at some point in the future is not quite the same thing as “banning slavery.” Complete emancipation did not come to New York until 1827, for example, while there were still legally-owned slaves in Pennsylvania into the 1840s.

They had passed laws banning slavery. The whole point is that someone claimed the reason for early American support of gun rights was that they were racists and afraid of slave revolts, even the Northern states- that simply is false. Yes, they realized that freeing the slaves wasnt something you could do overnite, so? **They passed the laws as they were against slavery.
**

Enough of this hijack.

[ElvisL1ves]

@DrDeth

Many Gun owners own a gun simply for sport, hunting or self defense. Just like **Nava *said about Spain (altho she did say Self defense is not a important reason). The gun culture *people are the 5% who own lost of guns, and belong to the NRA, etc, the single issue voters.

The other 25% or so simply don’t exist anywhere else, not in substantial numbers, especially those who claim “self defense” (nice of you tack that on at the end, since it’s the bulk of them). So, yes, they’re part of it.

[aruvqan]

@pabstist

I’d love to know why my neighbor has dozens of guns. I’m cool with people having guns, but geez. Is any other country like this? He hunts, but that takes what, like 1 or 2 guns? I try to avoid certain topics with him.

We asked him one day about what happened when his teen-age son and 5 friends got some hassle from the police when they were in the woods up the hill and decided to fire off a few hundred rounds from a few dozen guns in about 5 minutes. He just said proudly- “Boys will be boys!”. And the boys did not get in any trouble, totally legal here.

Another friend had trouble with his estranged daughters boyfriend threatening them, now they have 6 different guns, for self defense. He does not hunt. You can only shoot one at a time…

I could go out tomorrow and buy a shit ton of guns, no one would look at me with any suspicion. But I just never had the desire to do that. And I was in the Army reserves for infantry, so I’ve been around a lot of guns. I just have no need to have one laying around.

Well … household of 3 people here, myself, husband and our roomie.
We each have a small shotgun for birding [mine is an old Ivers Johnson .410 that had belonged to my Mom] a larger shotgun [some rules for hunting larger game are requiring a shotgun with a slug barrel, and some larger game birds are hunted with a larger gauge shotgun] and my Dad’s issue M1 for hunting game that is not required to be taken with a shotgun. I also have a daily carry hand gun, and a hunting sidearm [Ruger Service 6 revolver] and 2 hand guns my father personally ‘looted’ in WW2, as well as 2 revolvers that are antique collectables belonging to my great grandfather. My husband has a similar assortment, as does my roomie [though the roomie only has her hunting side arm] I do not shoot the antiques or collected hand guns, they are currently display only though kept in working order and I do have limited ammunition for them [I really don’t want to ‘play’ with an ivory gripped Bulldog … nor the ‘Luger’ P.08]

I will confess that we have a random .22 varmint rifle suitable for ‘ratting’ at a garbage dump, it is also good for shooting small game.

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

The other 25% or so simply don’t exist anywhere else, not in substantial numbers, especially those who claim “self defense” (nice of you tack that on at the end, since it’s the bulk of them). So, yes, they’re part of it.

Are the 250 Million car owners in American all part of “Car culture” or just those into collection, showing and racing them?

Actually, Nava has said gun ownership for hunting in Spain is quite common, and is is also common in Canada.

[wolfpup]

@aruvqan

Well … household of 3 people here, myself, husband and our roomie.
We each have a small shotgun for birding [mine is an old Ivers Johnson .410 that had belonged to my Mom] a larger shotgun [some rules for hunting larger game are requiring a shotgun with a slug barrel, and some larger game birds are hunted with a larger gauge shotgun] and my Dad’s issue M1 for hunting game that is not required to be taken with a shotgun. I also have a daily carry hand gun …

Emphasis mine. “Let’s see, do I have everything I need to go grocery shopping … keys, wallet/purse, handgun …”. Only in America could such a statement be made, and considered unremarkable. Not intended as a personal criticism, this is the prevailing culture, and it’s absolutely unique to America among all advanced industrialized countries. That’s what this thread is about. Why are far more Americans shooting themselves than the citizens of any other such country on a per capita basis? Because the population is around 330 million and possesses nearly 400 million guns, with a casual attitude toward all of them, so inevitably some of them get used – every single day.

[Melbourne]

@DrDeth

Guns make people feel safer all over the world.

Have you ever actually even been outside the USA?

[DrDeth]

@Melbourne

Have you ever actually even been outside the USA?

Yep, and gone shooting with my relatives in Canada, and fellow Federales in Mexico.

People all over the world own guns for protection. True, in the USA, owning guns is more common, but it’s not rare in many other places.

Overview of gun laws by nation

Note that 46 out of 65 nations allow owning a gun for personal protection. Thats 2/3rd. Really it’s not weird and not uncommon.