what is it with americans and guns?

[angellous_evangellous]

My roommate has a Colt .45. It's one of my favorite guns to shoot.

I'm not fond of handguns.

I love my Mossberg 12 gauge. Have you ever seen a hollow-point slug for a shotgun? I can kill a wild boar or just about anything else with no more than two slugs.

http://images.google.com/images?q=t...yusa.com/mediasvr.dll/image?saleitemid=212295

 

[Ðanisty]

An armed citizen is not behaving socially; it's the height of beligerence to wander about as if in a warzone. Considering the wealth of "ethical" prohibitions that americans are happy to comply with, i'm often astounded at how touchy they get about their guns; this defense to the exception of illegal (and less fatal) weapons is entirely a romantacization of handguns.

This is assuming first of all that gun owners "wander" about with their guns. Not everyone buys a gun for personal protection or whatever anyone wants to call it. I want a gun to take to the range for target shooting. I want a single-action revolver so I can get into competitive cowboy shooting.

Second, it assumes that people who do carry guns with them see the world as a warzone. There's a difference in being prepared to defend oneself and having some twisted desire to kill people. Guns don't even have to be used to kill. They certainly can be used to stop people. A lot of times, simply having a gun will deter a criminal whereas having a knife might not. Even if a gun has to be used to defend yourself, it doesn't mean it's necessary to kill someone. Injury is usually enough. Obviously this depends on how violent and persistent the criminal is, but I don't think I know anyone who would automatically shoot to kill.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by all of America's "ethical" prohibitions.

 

[egroen]

What is it with the Swiss and their guns?

From the very first years of Swiss independence, the Swiss were commanded to keep and bear arms and at the age of 20 every male goes through madatory militia training which is enforced periodically until they are in their 40s. In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Yet gun violence is virtually non-existant in Switzerland.

-Erin

 

[Smoke]

Even if a gun has to be used to defend yourself, it doesn't mean it's necessary to kill someone. Injury is usually enough. Obviously this depends on how violent and persistent the criminal is, but I don't think I know anyone who would automatically shoot to kill.

The first thing I learned about guns was:

1) Never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him.
2) Never shoot someone unless you intend to kill him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The first thing I learned about guns was:

1) Never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him.
2) Never shoot someone unless you intend to kill him.

My father taught me the same thing.

I've never pointed a gun at anyone.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is it with the Swiss and their guns?

From the very first years of Swiss independence, the Swiss were commanded to keep and bear arms and at the age of 20 every male goes through madatory militia training which is enforced periodically until they are in their 40s. In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Yet gun violence is virtually non-existant in Switzerland.

-Erin

Yes... I've heard that most folk in Switzerland are required to serve in the army and they keep their weapons. If this is true, not only do most homes have a gun, but the homeowners know how to use them very well.

 

[Smoke]

Yet gun violence is virtually non-existant in Switzerland.

Well, the Swiss are very tidy. No one wants blood all over the cuckoo clocks.

 

[mr.guy]

This is assuming first of all that gun owners "wander" about with their guns.

Considering that purex and i were discussing people wandering about with guns, i think it a very safe assumption. If not for ease of concealability and portability, what use is a handgun vs. a rifle?

Not everyone buys a gun for personal protection or whatever anyone wants to call it. I want a gun to take to the range for target shooting. I want a single-action revolver so I can get into competitive cowboy shooting.

You want a toy. Plenty of imitation projectiles could presumably fill that void, if playing with guns is your only perogative. This is largely a reliance on the american symbology of handguns; the conference of power via a big silver colt. While there a plenty of means to deter or "stop" people, the aesthetic and personability of a taser or stun gun do not hold up in contrast.

Second, it assumes that people who do carry guns with them see the world as a warzone. There's a difference in being prepared to defend oneself and having some twisted desire to kill people.

I would posit that if i'm arming myself with fatal implements, i'm effectively preparing for war. To quote Henry Rollins:

"I wonder...how you live your life without the gun?
'Cause i know how i live mine, 'cause you've got one.

Guns don't even have to be used to kill. They certainly can be used to stop people. A lot of times, simply having a gun will deter a criminal whereas having a knife might not. Even if a gun has to be used to defend yourself, it doesn't mean it's necessary to kill someone. Injury is usually enough. Obviously this depends on how violent and persistent the criminal is, but I don't think I know anyone who would automatically shoot to kill.

Ridiculous. If you are carrying a gun for the purpose of injuring foes, you are misapplying it. It's irresponsible and foolish to assume that i can point and shoot and guarantee no more than rendering my target prone. Similarly, i might consider the good thinking behind installing lightbulbs with the "jaws of life".

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

My Dad owns a couple of guns, I don't know how many or what kind they are. I know he has some kind of pistol that goes on vacation with us. The reason is simply because you never know who else is staying the same hotel as you! If someone tried to break into the house, I guess he would use the pistol in our self-defense there as well.

There is also a gun used for hunting. Turkey hunting mostly, but sometimes deer.

Fact is, we need guns. A killer will always be able to find some kind of weapon to kill with. Here are two scenarios:

1) A jealous ex-boyfriend breaks into his ex-girlfriend's apartment to shoot her. There's certainly not time to call the police, and he is blocking the front door. She shoots him.

2) Guns have been outlawed in the USA. A serial killer break's into a family's house with a knife. He plans on stabbing them. They don't have a gun. He succeeds.


Which situation seems better to you? Guns, or no guns?

 

[mr.guy]

1) A jealous ex-boyfriend breaks into his ex-girlfriend's apartment to shoot her. There's certainly not time to call the police, and he is blocking the front door. She shoots him.

2) Guns have been outlawed in the USA. A serial killer break's into a family's house with a knife. He plans on stabbing them. They don't have a gun. He succeeds.

I'm sure you didn't realize this in your scenario, but don't you find it curious that in the first example (with gun), the "good guy" is painted as more likely to prevail when both are equally armed?

 

[pedro]

America is like the overly powerful teenager who on realising that such things as "cool" as guns exist must have one and play with it until his hearts content. England however is past this stage and is now satisfied to take a more conservative approach.

 

[mr.guy]

England however is past this stage and is now satisfied to take a more conservative approach.

It can also be argued that the english at large, with less rural populations, have not the same utility for firearms as north americans. Fact is, when i come across a rabid animal, i'm sure we're both grateful that i'm able to shoot it rather then bash it's head in with a stone.

 

[pedro]

Of course. I live in rural england and go shooting, although i accept that it is not quite the same as North America. However until teh laws are tightened in America gun crime will still be a major issue. The ease at which you can get a gun in america is a clear reason why gun crime is so high. Gun education should also be greater.

 

[Valjean]

Of course. I live in rural england and go shooting, although i accept that it is not quite the same as North America. However until teh laws are tightened in America gun crime will still be a major issue. The ease at which you can get a gun in america is a clear reason why gun crime is so high. Gun education should also be greater.

But Canadian gun ownership is comparable to that in the US, but cun crime is quite low there.
I don't think gun crime correlates directly to gun availability. There's more to it than that.

 

[mr.guy]

However until teh laws are tightened in America gun crime will still be a major issue.

That's a pretty hefty statement; we have much tighter gun laws in canada, but illicit american guns find their way to our larger cities with little trouble. I'm not sure it's just the ease of gun purchase and ownership that's the issue (but i am convinced it plays a role).

I might evidence that despite the ease with which americans sign and vote away their freedoms, plenty of them are still pretty touchy about their guns. Part of the international stigma assumes that guns are a critical and integral part to american self-identity; thus the myriads of apologetics regarding the flexibility of their usage and mythmaking of the insured conference of safety. Fact is, guns are special.

 

[pedro]

as i said gun education is vital, and it is in the american nature to be aggressive. such is the mix in cultures across America, deep south to the east coast, that it is harder to control. a gun law for all the states it almost impossible as the opinions of some states vary from others.

 

[kevmicsmi]

as i said gun education is vital, and it is in the american nature to be aggressive. such is the mix in cultures across America, deep south to the east coast, that it is harder to control. a gun law for all the states it almost impossible as the opinions of some states vary from others.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh..............hence states rights:areyoucra

 

[pedro]

i understand state rights, but i am saying that they are the reason why gun crime in america will remain high.

 

[egroen]

I would love to see the USA to simply finally admit: "OK, we have guns; it is ingrained into our culture and even constitution -- they aren't going anywhere", and instead of pouring effort into banning legal guns, work on educating and training the public in regards to firearms and having realistic regulations, much akin to a country like Switzerland. Focus on the illegal ones, not the legal ones.

-Erin

 

[Ðanisty]

1) Never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him.
2) Never shoot someone unless you intend to kill him.

Certainly. I understand that. There's no point at all pointing a gun at someone if you don't have the guts to kill them or if you aren't prepared for the fact that you might kill them. That doesn't mean you must shoot to kill and that's the point I'm trying to get across. You could also knife someone to death or stun someone to death, etc. However, it's generally considered unnecessary.

Considering that purex and i were discussing people wandering about with guns, i think it a very safe assumption. If not for ease of concealability and portability, what use is a handgun vs. a rifle?

Well I'm sorry but you and purex are not the only participants in the conversation and I am perfectly capable of responding to anything either of you says. As to your question, the simple answer is that different people prefer different kinds of firearms. Some prefer a rifle, some prefer a handgun. A lot of people think it's weird that I prefer a revolver. Whatever. Not all guns are the same.

You want a toy. Plenty of imitation projectiles could presumably fill that void, if playing with guns is your only perogative. This is largely a reliance on the american symbology of handguns; the conference of power via a big silver colt. While there a plenty of means to deter or "stop" people, the aesthetic and personability of a taser or stun gun do not hold up in contrast.

So what if I do. A lot of people enjoy target shooting and competitive shooting. It's a hobby. People who want to own a gun for these purposes are at least never intending to kill another person in the first place, so I have a hard time understand why you care.

I would posit that if i'm arming myself with fatal implements, i'm effectively preparing for war.

Well, that is your opinion and the fact that Henry Rollins agrees with it doesn't make it any closer to fact.

Ridiculous. If you are carrying a gun for the purpose of injuring foes, you are misapplying it. It's irresponsible and foolish to assume that i can point and shoot and guarantee no more than rendering my target prone.

Read above as I already addressed this.

I love how everyone has just completely ignored Seyorni's posts...