So why do Americans want their guns so badly anyway?

[Lago PARANOIA]

What the title says.

There seems to be no benefit for self-defense, since the vast majority of handguns get used in the same household or in local crime. Everyone wants the brown people to stop shooting proud white Christians. So what gives?

[Cielingcat]

Because apparently higher gun ownership is a direct cause of low crime. More guns does not only (sometimes) correlate to low crime, it is the sole reason for it.

Also they need to be able to rebel against the government. Violently. Whenever they feel like.

[Heath Robinson]

There's evidence for every opinion out there. Canada has similar gun distribution to the US but less in the way of gun crime. Japan has similar gun laws to the UK, but a significantly smaller murder rate, whilst the UK and Canada have very similar murder rates. Switzerland has national military service and requires many people to keep and maintain a rifle but has a lower murder rate than many European countries. All rates are per 1000 people.

Switzerland and Japan are relatively xenophobic, relatively affluent and quite racially homogenous. The UK is in the process of banning everything that kids in London are using to hurt each other (which causes them to move onto a new weapon).

In short, this crap is confusing and it's part of the constitution of the US. Very few people want to ammend the US constitution again.

(NB: all statistics according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita)

[Josh_Kablack]

Bonus points for anyone who digs up the story of the town down the road from Kennesaw Georgia.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Well, I own guns because society is going to collapse in my lifetime, and it is wise to have a stockpile of weapons and ammo.

And if they make guns illegal, then I guess I'll become a criminal. That's all there is to it.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, I own guns because society is going to collapse in my lifetime, and it is wise to have a stockpile of weapons and ammo.

And if they make guns illegal, then I guess I'll become a criminal. That's all there is to it.

Look into being self-sustainable for food and water; or at least having long-term endurance with regards to food and water.

Deodorant and soap are also awesome.

Rare stuff like salt, pepper and coffee will also be valuable.

Guns alone will mean that you're one of the bandits, not one of the people defending their homesteads with punji sticks and attacking invaders with damaging and maiming, but non-lethal, injuries.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

good advice, I will add those to my plans. But I'm keeping the weapons cache in addition to that stuff.

[Koumei]

Mostly it seems to be "So that we can rebel against an oppressive government."

In which case I say "GET THE FUCK ONTO IT ALREADY!"

Seriously, how oppressive does it have to get before you rise in glorios revolution and overthrow the tyrants, ushering in a new era of peaceful communism and more importantly ending the prohibition so that I can get the pain relief I need.

[Cielingcat]

The people who want guns to overthrow the government in this day and age don't want peaceful Communism. They want a near anarchy where there is almost no government and the free market rules everything.

[IGTN]

The people who want guns to overthrow the government in this day and age don't want peaceful Communism. They want a near anarchy where there is almost no government and the free market rules everything.

This. But, in a free-market isolated government world, there would be no prohibition and building peaceful communism would be (theoretically) possible. If, y'know, you don't get stomped on by the bigger people first.

Sadly, the left-wing militia/armed labor union is a thing of the past in the first-world, it seems.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Mostly it seems to be "So that we can rebel against an oppressive government."

In which case I say "GET THE FUCK ONTO IT ALREADY!"

Seriously, how oppressive does it have to get before you rise in glorios revolution and overthrow the tyrants, ushering in a new era of peaceful communism and more importantly ending the prohibition so that I can get the pain relief I need.

Because the government has tanks and nukes. There isn't a lot of stuff that civilians can get that will stand up to that.

I don't want to overthrow the government, that seems counter-productive at this point in time.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The people who want guns to overthrow the government in this day and age don't want peaceful Communism. They want a near anarchy where there is almost no government and the free market rules everything.

This confuses me. We already have places in the world like that. They could move to those places and live in that kind of society. Granted, none of those places are nice places to live. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's some kind of direct correlation.

[ubernoob]

I want guns to be banned for civilians completely. If you're not hardcore enough to kill someone with your bare hands you don't deserve to take a life at all.

[JonSetanta]

Switzerland and Japan are relatively xenophobic, relatively affluent and quite racially homogenous. The UK is in the process of banning everything that kids in London are using to hurt each other (which causes them to move onto a new weapon).

o_O
I wrote (paraphrased) that same statement months ago, here.

Although, perhaps I had referred to Sweden, which is equally homogenous yet perhaps not as xenophobic.

Lago: We like our guns kthx. It's part of our American heritage. Literally.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago: We like our guns kthx. It's part of our American heritage. Literally.

Why doesn't the American people pick something NOT as homoerotic, posturing, and deadly?

I mean, the sheer level of fetishism over these exploding dildoes is absurd.

[koz]

Not an American here, but I would like to chime in that, while gun ownership for self-defense is something I consider logical or sensible, I would like to own a gun (but no ammo), just so I can look at it and hold it, because I think many guns are works of very cool workmanship. But then again, I like swords and such too, so I guess it makes sense I'd like them too.

And heck, if I feel that way, I'm sure others would too.

[Draco_Argentum]

Count, add toilet paper to your stockpile list. No toilet paper would suck so hard.

[Koumei]

Because the government has tanks and nukes. There isn't a lot of stuff that civilians can get that will stand up to that.

Exactly. Basically, it's not happening any more, so there's no need to have the guns any more.

As for the "I appreciate fine workmanship" aspect, you can have them made into display weapons, with the inner mechanisms removed (but the trigger still there so it looks good), the barrel filled or whatever. Or for that matter, how about appreciating the workmanship of something that isn't designed for killing people, like furniture and vases?

Sigma: being ruled by British is also a part of your heritage. And spreading diseases to other cultures. "It's part of our heritage" is a pretty crappy argument.

[JonSetanta]

Koumei:
What happens when you take gun rights away from many Americans?
They get irrationally fearful and/or violent, just like if you take away rights to a turban, kippah, or burkah to other subcultures.
That's definitive of a heritage enough for me.
We might as well be suckling our infants on Colts.

But seriously, this is a nation more diverse than many on this planet can imagine.
It's rough sometimes and there's weird people coming in with their own qualms and directives, as well as internal strife by supposedly legal-legit extremists with personal goals, to the point where sometimes you just want to make them go away and leave you to live life the way you want.
For that, there are guns, and they are used to resolve anything from crimes of passion to assassinating presidents. It's what Gets Things Done here because as a whole we Americans are too stubborn to agree on anything.
That's how American always has been and that's the way it (unfortunately) will continue to be.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Because the government has tanks and nukes. There isn't a lot of stuff that civilians can get that will stand up to that.

Exactly. Basically, it's not happening any more, so there's no need to have the guns any more.

Ah, but when society collapses and the government can no longer protect us from ourselves, then there will be need for guns again.

And toilet paper.

[Judging__Eagle]

No Count, when toilet paper becomes scarce, it's worth more than money.

Meaning you won't wipe your ass with it.

You'll seriously sell toilet paper so that people can have second-rate medical supplies or rolling paper for cigarettes.

A post-apocalyptic world would be very Muslim or Polynesian with respect to how everyone takes a shit. You will always need a bottle of water when you go commune with nature and you will never eat with your left hand, not because it's "spiritually unclean", but because it's physically unclean.

[Judging__Eagle]

Because the government has tanks and nukes. There isn't a lot of stuff that civilians can get that will stand up to that.

Exactly. Basically, it's not happening any more, so there's no need to have the guns any more.

As for the "I appreciate fine workmanship" aspect, you can have them made into display weapons, with the inner mechanisms removed (but the trigger still there so it looks good), the barrel filled or whatever. Or for that matter, how about appreciating the workmanship of something that isn't designed for killing people, like furniture and vases?

Sigma: being ruled by British is also a part of your heritage. And spreading diseases to other cultures. "It's part of our heritage" is a pretty crappy argument.

I appreciate the workmanship of a tool designed for one, and only one goal.

The termination of life at a range that keeps me from immediate physical harm from most of my affected targets.

Stopping that tool from being able to continue performing its original function is like hanging up a painting behind a curtain. I know that it's there, and what it's for, but it's no longer doing what it was supposed to do.

Also, every tool is a weapon and every weapon is a tool.

Wrench, crane, pencil, eyeglasses, watch, textbook, tent pegs, barbecuelighter all can be used to cause harm and create damage.

((I however, am merely a tool. ))

[RandomCasualty2]

Because the government has tanks and nukes. There isn't a lot of stuff that civilians can get that will stand up to that.

Actually you may think that, but there have been lots of guerrilla wars that were won with small arms and homemade explosives. The US Vietnam war and the USSR's attempt to take over Afghanistan are only a couple examples. Iraq is of course the modern day example. I really don't buy into the idea that the government is all powerful.

Whenever you try to occupy an area, personal firearms are a big deal, because regardless of the army, the number of civilians is pretty much going to outnumber the soldiers. Arming those civilians can easily lead to a victory through attrition. It won't be pretty, but it can be done.

On the subject of gun control itself: This is one of those rare areas where I actually side with the Republicans. Gun control is one of those issues that just baffles me. I'm really not sure people think that it will have some huge effect on crime prevention. Black market guns are always going to be out there and criminals will get them. Now I can understand wanting to have background checks on people to make sure you're not handing out a gun to some guy with paranoid schizophrenia, but the extreme philosophy of "Lets just ban guns" totally baffles me. I mean does anyone actually think that would really work?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Now I can understand wanting to have background checks on people to make sure you're not handing out a gun to some guy with paranoid schizophrenia, but the extreme philosophy of "Lets just ban guns" totally baffles me. I mean does anyone actually think that would really work?

Is anyone actually in favor of banning guns wholesale? As far as I know, most of the gun control proponents are about 'no full-auto' and 'no grenade-launchers,' and 'no pistols.'

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Even the most hardcore gun people generally think it's a bad idea for civilians to have heavy artillery, grenades, armored vehicles and such because they don't want people to be more powerful than law enforcement.

Sure, any rebellion is going to get crushed fairly quickly in America. However, a guy with an armored humvee and a heavy automatic gun mounted on the roof can really fuck up local law enforcement until the military arrives.

And very few people want that to happen.

But there are people that want all guns banned because guns are meant to KILL things. Most people don't respect that fact, and even the most careful and respectful gun owner might accidentally shoot himself during maintenance. It's definitely not a safe item to have in your house.

Then again, almost slicing my thumb off while sharpening my greataxe didn't stop me from collecting melee weapons either, some of us are just stupid like that.