Nobody worships guns like America does

[Greg White]

With America it's not their obsession with guns that surprises me. It's how FANATICAL they get when there is even the slightest mention of introducing stricter gun laws.

Try doing the same thing with anything else from the Bill of Rights and you'll get much the same reaction for much the same reason.

 

[beastro]

If I had to cite the biggest area of friction between me and my relatives, it would be gun laws. I hold the opinion that maybe it would be nice if people stopped shooting each other for a few minutes, while they hold that they have a right and a need for guns - which is true. However, they have also convinced me of one other thing; that in America, we worship guns like nobody else does.

Now, I concede that in some situations, a small handgun is the best option for self-defense, maybe with a laser sight if you don't trust your accuracy. But for the love of god, why would you need an assault rifle? Or a shotgun? Or multiple quantities of each one? Have you pissed off any Terminators lately and need to be absolutely sure you're safe?

I can't tell you how many times I've seen a Facebook post praising the latest model assault rifle, or a comment about 'Gone to get a new pump-action shotgun!" or some new accessory like glow in the dark bullets or something else that's completely arbitrary. It's ludicrous how crazy people get over guns here.

You and your families positions are not mutually exclusive, I bet they'd be right on board agreeing with you in a second - their issue is that others disagree with your position and they are the reason why it's necessary to defend yourself with lethal weapons.

To answer your question: Because yours was the first culture raised with firearms as a key part of it, not only as self-defence but as a tool as critical as any other for living on the frontier. From the moment the Eastern Seaboard was settled you people have used them, that combined with your War of Independence and chronic need to be self-reliant when it came to fending for yourself for much of your history before the Seven Years' War left them as much a part of your past as the various other past times other people's have.

With that said, firing a gun as damn fun and it's even more fun destroying shit with one and that's the reason to own something beyond basic firearms, which is the equivalent of asking why a person needs an off-road vehicle or sports car: It's fun and if that is impossible to understand, then your mindset is warped.

 

[JupiterBase]

My dad took me and mt brother out at a young age to teach about guns how to fire, handle and use proper safety. He taught to shoot early so we would understand that this is a weapon not a toy.I personally don't own a weapon. As to why American's have a lot of guns I would say it almost feels traditional to have a working knowledge of how to use a gun. It also seems to bring a sense of empowerment. You have the weapon in case you need it you may never use it but you have it.

Lots of you from other countries or from very densely populated areas may not realize that their is still a lot of wilderness and areas where an officer of the law cant be relied on to protect you. I know somebody who had a bear try to break into his home in California up in the mountains. I have a family member who lives in the middle of nowhere New Mexico and he has had numerous people break onto his property. He lives in a place where it is SUGGESTED you remain armed.

Another thing that seems to drive some gun owners is a distrust of authority. Sometimes within reason due to personal experience unfortunately.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or a shotgun?

Home defense?

There's this really weird idea that the guns one finds acceptable are reasonable and anything else is madness.

Not that, either; if the government announced a ban on traffic cones, would everyone start hoarding those?

Probably, but there's no constitutional amendment that speaks of the right to bear cones in any sense.

But I ask you, are we not better than that? Does it really behoove us, as a nation, to adore and worship the same devices that are being used to kill hundreds of men and women every day?

Yeah, people should stop buying cars.

...Oh, you meant guns?

I suppose there's just a switch inside some people's heads that gets flicked when they look at weapons.

I would partially agree, but I think a good chunk of it also comes down to fear.

Basically: Americans value a sense of independence.

I would agree, if we didn't immediately surrender all our rights BUT the right to bear arms at the drop of a hat.

I'd also be really interested in seeing the number of gun owners on the government teat, because I'm betting it's pretty high. The most "independent" parts of the nation are also the welfare states, the ones who take the most money from the gummit.

You would be surprised, I believe it's happened twice in Asia in the past 5 or so years.

The best known crazy knife attack happened like within a day of Sandy Hook. The major difference, of course, is that nobody died. In fact, the entire three-year spree of stabbings claimed about the same number of people as the Sandy Hook shooting in itself. Even treating Sandy Hook as an anomaly, it took us only a year from Sandy Hook to get to that number again. Just specifically form school shootings.

And I think that's the point of the parallel.

People like collecting things and in many parts of America the only thing not seen as nerdy or weird to obsess over is guns, thus they collect lots and lots of guns.

I disagree: cars, sports, booze immediately come to mind. Granted, two of them are yuppie things to collect because they require more fiscal investment, but people still invest a lot of energy and thought on them. There's also an obsession with food, though you don't so much collect it. In short, it and sports may be the only things it's okay to collect, but not that it's okay to obsess over.

Well it's like - no not like, but exactly - their second constitutional right. They certainly appreciate their right to carry guns. And I'm sorry it's never going to change because they could save a lot of lives that way.

When people are being shot over loud music and texting, you know what else could save a lot of lives?

 

[Something Amyss]

Try doing the same thing with anything else from the Bill of Rights and you'll get much the same reaction for much the same reason.

Except the first amendment, where Americans have loudly supported limits on free expression and religion. Hell, we're on a game site. Have you not noticed the number of pushes to restrict or ban video games of a certain nature?

And the fourth, what with the support of warrantless wire tapping (for the bad guys) and the lack of probable cause.

And the fifth, what with our acceptance of a lack of due process for "the bad guys." Include the sixth on that.

And the seventh, if you include doubl;e jeopardy.

And the eighth, given both excessive bail AND the cruel and unusual punishment clauses. In fact, people seemed largely fine with that gamer in Texas getting a massive bail requirement--something people should be aware of on this site.

And the tenth, unless you're a libertarian.

So that leaves the second, third, and MAYBE the ninth (though rights not enumerated have come under fire, I let this one slide).

I'm curious--can you name a single national lawmaker whose seat was threatened for these things? Hell, I live in the state of the author of the USA PATRIOT Act, and he's still in office. People get primaried over guns simply for suggesting that maybe you don't need a 30 round clip.

 

[michael87cn]

Why do you need a gun? If someone attacks you with a gun its likely too late to go fetch yours (which is probably locked away).

If someone attacks you without a gun you don't likely need its lethality to handle the situation. (a cell phone and running away will likely improve your odds of survival).

I don't subscribe to the idea of killing in self defense. Someone would have to be attacking me like a crazed maniac or a wild bear or something. And the odds of that happening are like the odds of winning the lottery....

You can't fight government takeover simply with guns anymore, so that's also not a reason to "need" a gun.

Looks like I disagree with your parents OP.

Guns are not necessary.

In fact, instead of finding ways to defend ourselves by killing others, we should find ways to protect ourselves, without harming anyone.

A nice, big, bullet proof shield. (yes, a shield!) would be a great way to accomplish this.

Something like what SWAT teams use. That would be great for personal protection. Maybe a gas mask and some kind of knockout grenade too.

Plus, if you don't kill your attacker, you're much less likely to lose a corrupt court battle and be sense to jail for manslaughter even though you were defending yourself.

 

[senordesol]

Why do you need a gun? If someone attacks you with a gun its likely too late to go fetch yours (which is probably locked away).

Likely, but not impossible. It's also possible (in a B&E scenario) that you've heard them come in before they realize where you are.

If someone attacks you without a gun you don't likely need its lethality to handle the situation. (a cell phone and running away will likely improve your odds of survival).

Because there's no scenario where fists, knives, or crowbars are lethal or because there's no scenario where you'll be cornered and unable to flee?

I don't subscribe to the idea of killing in self defense. Someone would have to be attacking me like a crazed maniac or a wild bear or something. And the odds of that happening are like the odds of winning the lottery....

Really? What's your nations violent crime rate vs. your lottery win rate?

You can't fight government takeover simply with guns anymore, so that's also not a reason to "need" a gun.

You also can't build a house 'simply with hammers' either. Doesn't mean you don't bring one.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Why do people in this country love guns so much?

It's because of the Europeans. Think about it.

Look at

Spoiler: India

Hindustani Man: "Welcome! Find a seat, the curry is almost done!"
English Man: "In a moment old spot, just have to pin up this notice that Victoria is your Empress now first."
Hindustani Man: "What!? Why on earth would we accept Victoria as our Empress?"
English Man: "Because we have guns and you don't."
{Long pause}
Hindustani Man: "So how does the Empress like her curry?"

Or at

Spoiler: Africa

European Man: "From now on you will devote 30% of your land and time to growing these crops, which you will then send to us."
African Man: "Are you crazy? Why would we do that?"
European Man: "Because we have guns and you don't."
{Long pause}
African Man: "So, um, where do we get the seeds for these crops?"

Now obviously (at least I hope it's obvious) I'm being facetious, but really...

maybe it *is* because we are cognizant of the fact that we are sitting on land that was acquired when people with guns came over and told the people without guns that they had to live on tiny areas of land and take whatever they were given.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

But for the love of god, why would you need an assault rifle?

Ignoring the fact that "assault rifle" is a meaningless term I'll simply say that a rifle of any sort allows you to engage targets (whatever that happens to be) at longer ranges than handguns. The average person would be hard pressed to hit something the size of a person at 50m with a handgun while that is a trivial shot for a rifle. Extra rounds are used because often you want and/or need to shoot more than once.

Or a shotgun?

Baring their use in hunting (bird and other animals up to the size of deer) and other sporting endeavors (shooting clay pigeons), they have an obvious use as home defense weapons given their effectiveness at close ranges.

Or multiple quantities of each one?

Different models of weapons use different calibers and perform differently. Shooting a 1911A1 from Springfield is different from shooting the Glock 30 even though they use the same caliber of round. Likewise, different weapons have different purposes. A concealed carry gun probably meets a different set of criteria than the gun you want to go plink at a target with. The rifle you hunt a deer with could easily be different than the one you hunt hogs with. Purpose and preference, basically.

Bonus: Imagine a Hoarders episode where they visited someone whose gun collection had gotten out of control. Now imagine the sheer magnitude of backlash that would come out of that.

It is unlikely to occur simply because of the sheer cost of firearm collection is such that a massive collection tends to be well taken care of. It's hard to fill even a tiny house with objects that are the size of a trade paperback but cost hundreds of dollars each.

 

[RiseUp]

(Yes, I know, guns don't kill people. When's the last time you heard of a crazed man with a machete massacre?)

Well it was several crazed men, and they were technically really big knives, but last week.

More to the point, I agree with you. I understand someone's right to own a gun, whether that be for hunting or self defense, but the way a lot of Americans view firearms borders on fetishistic. I really just don't get it.

 

[legend of duty]

I say have as many guns as you can safely store.(e.g. hidden room, $80 safe) More than one gun out at a time is bound for trouble especially if you got kids there.

 

[Zipa]

From an outsider perspective it seems that a lot of the pro gun craze is left over fear of imperialists coming and try to take your country from you. That said I can see in some instances that they can be useful for home defence and the like but the need for assault rifles and automatic shotguns is maybe a bit far when a pistol can do just fine in the hands of a trained person. (You should be trained to use any type of firearm so you don't blow your dick off or something)

That said its a constitutional right so its never going to go away.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Yes, I know, guns don't kill people. When's the last time you heard of a crazed man with a machete massacre?

You would be surprised, I believe it's happened twice in Asia in the past 5 or so years.

I would love to go to America and see the touristy stuff, grand canyon, white house, all those monuments, times square ... weirdly, that building that always seems to be in spiderman (The Flatiron Building?). If America can do one thing it's landmarks! But I would NEVER go to America with it's current gun laws!

I know, the vast, vast majority of Americans are probably the nicest people you will ever meet but if 1% of Americans are crazy, that means 3,170,000 nut jobs are allowed to carry guns!

Personally, I think owning a snub nose revolver would be over kill (unless you live in certain locations, like a bear is a common sight) but a shotgun to defend yourself with? If you need a shotgun for self defense, try being less of a dick! Tazer, pepper spray or some self defense classes is a form of self defense, a gun is an offensive weapon.

Most the gun nuts your worried about, don't actually live near those things, unless your talking about the people that needed some form of mental health care and bought a weapon long before they hit 'critical mass' and started shooting. In that case, you probably not safe where you are ether.

But ya, your not very likely to run into any trouble if your just hitting the sites.

I think Americans get a bit scary around guns when the issue of restrictions comes up, like if somebody says "what do you think about limiting the capacity of rounds in magazine (lets not get into the whole technical jargon)?" and all the gun toting 'muricans would shout "SECOND AMENDMENT! SECOND AMENDMENT! SECOND AMENDMENT! LALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER MY SECOND AMENDMENT!" ... take it down a notch guy!

Funny thing, those gun nuts that will fight tooth and nail to keep their high power assault rifles they don't need now, nor ever will, and will scream 'the guvrment tryen ta take away our rights!' at even the slightest improvement to gun laws, are the same degenerate assholes that will pretty much do fuck all when First Amendment issues come up.

>.>

cause, ya know, guns are more important the the right to not be arrested for tell Obama, or every other worthless, blood sucking, parasitic cancer in DC that's wrecking this country to go fuck them selves.

 

[Greg White]

Try doing the same thing with anything else from the Bill of Rights and you'll get much the same reaction for much the same reason.

Except the first amendment, where Americans have loudly supported limits on free expression and religion. Hell, we're on a game site. Have you not noticed the number of pushes to restrict or ban video games of a certain nature?

And the fourth, what with the support of warrantless wire tapping (for the bad guys) and the lack of probable cause.

And the fifth, what with our acceptance of a lack of due process for "the bad guys." Include the sixth on that.

And the seventh, if you include doubl;e jeopardy.

And the eighth, given both excessive bail AND the cruel and unusual punishment clauses. In fact, people seemed largely fine with that gamer in Texas getting a massive bail requirement--something people should be aware of on this site.

And the tenth, unless you're a libertarian.

So that leaves the second, third, and MAYBE the ninth (though rights not enumerated have come under fire, I let this one slide).

I'm curious--can you name a single national lawmaker whose seat was threatened for these things? Hell, I live in the state of the author of the USA PATRIOT Act, and he's still in office. People get primaried over guns simply for suggesting that maybe you don't need a 30 round clip.

The first is defended quite rabidly by many groups, to include the ACLU and is one of the few reasons Westboro Baptist is allowed to do what they do, however distasteful it may be.

Wiretaps people have been complaining about for years, ranging from protests to lawsuits.

Denial of habius corpus hasn't been much of a problem in recent history that I'm aware of, neither has double jeopardy(also the reason the Attorney General couldn't try to prosecute George Zimmerman, however badly he may have wanted to).

Excessive bail is questionable, especially in border states, but that's his lawyer's area. As for cruel and unusual punishment...can't think of anything that violates that in recent memory off the top of my head unless you mean capital punishment(which is perfectly legal and quite humane compared to what they did to earn it).

As for the 10th Amendment, you seem to forget that there was a war fought over that in the 1860's.

 

[Something Amyss]

The first is defended quite rabidly by many groups, to include the ACLU and is one of the few reasons Westboro Baptist is allowed to do what they do, however distasteful it may be.

And yet laws targeting the WBC have been enacted in multiple states to prevent them from protesting soldiers and the like. Name someone who's been primaried for that.

Freedom of speech has been an issue for over a decade. Where are the death threats and violence and calls for first amendment remedies?

Wiretaps people have been complaining about for years, ranging from protests to lawsuits.

And yet the laws and policies persist, nobody's threatened to be dead or in prison if it weren't rectified, etc. Name someone who has been primaried for that.

Denial of habius corpus hasn't been much of a problem in recent history that I'm aware of, neither has double jeopardy(also the reason the Attorney General couldn't try to prosecute George Zimmerman, however badly he may have wanted to).

Watch some Fox News. Not only will they report on the stories, but justify why they should happen. And on America's #1 news network.

Excessive bail is questionable, especially in border states, but that's his lawyer's area. As for cruel and unusual punishment...can't think of anything that violates that in recent memory off the top of my head unless you mean capital punishment(which is perfectly legal and quite humane compared to what they did to earn it).

Nobody's flipping tables over excessive bail, which was your point. Trying to write it off as it bveing his lawyer's issue doesn't change that. Name someone who's been primaried over it.

As for the 10th Amendment, you seem to forget that there was a war fought over that in the 1860's.

I didn't forget it. It's well over 100 years old. That's hardly relevant to the current state of things.

This is one case where you might actually be able to name someone who was primaried over it. Which is still one out of seven examples. And even then, there hasn't been the same kind of radicalised response as for guns.

And finally, I'll just leave you with this, though it is from a comedian:

 

[Raptor05121]

I just tl;dr'ed this entire thread. I'm addressing OP here:

Take your original post, and replace every word "gun" with "car" and every word "shooting" with "run over".

Do you see the point?

I am an American. I own two rifles and one pistol. I'm not one of those redneck preppers that has a bunker with 50,000 rounds of ammo. I think those people are retarded. Yes I do have them for home defense, but that is a secondary purpose. I bought/built because us men are competitive. I love taking my gun outside with some friends and seeing who can hit the target the best. Its camaraderie, its teamwork, its fun. The same reason you guys play video games.

Yes they are cool. They do look nice, and the looks do excite me. But so does a 1967 Mustang fastback or a Mooney M20J 201. However, I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pour into those hobbies.

 

[NerAnima]

I just tl;dr'ed this entire thread. I'm addressing OP here:

Take your original post, and replace every word "gun" with "car" and every word "shooting" with "run over".

Do you see the point?

I am an American. I own two rifles and one pistol. I'm not one of those redneck preppers that has a bunker with 50,000 rounds of ammo. I think those people are retarded. Yes I do have them for home defense, but that is a secondary purpose. I bought/built because us men are competitive. I love taking my gun outside with some friends and seeing who can hit the target the best. Its camaraderie, its teamwork, its fun. The same reason you guys play video games.

Yes they are cool. They do look nice, and the looks do excite me. But so does a 1967 Mustang fastback or a Mooney M20J 201. However, I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pour into those hobbies.

And his entire statement has gone right over your head, although I'm glad you at least admitted that you didn't read the entire thing. He said that he's okay with responsible gun ownership, many in his family own guns. What he's not okay with is the fetishizing of guns. Please, next time, read the first statement, if not the following statements.

 

[AntiChri5]

I just tl;dr'ed this entire thread. I'm addressing OP here:

Take your original post, and replace every word "gun" with "car" and every word "shooting" with "run over".

Do you see the point?

I am an American. I own two rifles and one pistol. I'm not one of those redneck preppers that has a bunker with 50,000 rounds of ammo. I think those people are retarded. Yes I do have them for home defense, but that is a secondary purpose. I bought/built because us men are competitive. I love taking my gun outside with some friends and seeing who can hit the target the best. Its camaraderie, its teamwork, its fun. The same reason you guys play video games.

Yes they are cool. They do look nice, and the looks do excite me. But so does a 1967 Mustang fastback or a Mooney M20J 201. However, I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pour into those hobbies.

WHY do people compare guns and cars? It happens so often, and makes absolutely no sense.

Cars are a means of transportation, guns are weapons. There is a world of difference between them.

A car is used to get from one place to another. In most of the civilized world, it's a necessity. When someone dies due to a car accident it is almost always either the result of irresponsible misuse, or a tragic accident. Sometimes cars are deliberately used to kill, but everything not designed as a weapon can be used as one. When someone gets killed by a car, the car is not being used as it was intended to be or designed for.

A gun is a weapon. An item designed to kill. Im not going to climb up on a soapbox and rant about that being evil or anything, it isn't good or evil it just is. But that is it's function. In a decent society, no one should need them. Depending on where you live, some might need them. But they aren't needed nearly as much by nearly as many people as cars. And they can be used to hurt people much much easier because thats what they are for.

When some nutter walks into a classroom and kills 20 kids the gun is performing it's function perfectly and efficiently. Thats what it's there for, to enable a person to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

[newfoundsky]

I just tl;dr'ed this entire thread. I'm addressing OP here:

Take your original post, and replace every word "gun" with "car" and every word "shooting" with "run over".

Do you see the point?

I am an American. I own two rifles and one pistol. I'm not one of those redneck preppers that has a bunker with 50,000 rounds of ammo. I think those people are retarded. Yes I do have them for home defense, but that is a secondary purpose. I bought/built because us men are competitive. I love taking my gun outside with some friends and seeing who can hit the target the best. Its camaraderie, its teamwork, its fun. The same reason you guys play video games.

Yes they are cool. They do look nice, and the looks do excite me. But so does a 1967 Mustang fastback or a Mooney M20J 201. However, I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pour into those hobbies.

WHY do people compare guns and cars? It happens so often, and makes absolutely no sense.

Cars are a means of transportation, guns are weapons. There is a world of difference between them.

A car is used to get from one place to another. In most of the civilized world, it's a necessity. When someone dies due to a car accident it is almost always either the result of irresponsible misuse, or a tragic accident. Sometimes cars are deliberately used to kill, but everything not designed as a weapon can be used as one. When someone gets killed by a car, the car is not being used as it was intended to be or designed for.

A gun is a weapon. An item designed to kill. Im not going to climb up on a soapbox and rant about that being evil or anything, it isn't good or evil it just is. But that is it's function. In a decent society, no one should need them. Depending on where you live, some might need them. But they aren't needed nearly as much by nearly as many people as cars. And they can be used to hurt people much much easier because thats what they are for.

When some nutter walks into a classroom and kills 20 kids the gun is performing it's function perfectly and efficiently. Thats what it's there for, to enable a person to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Let me tell you why the comparison exists.

Because, like a rifle is not only used for killing, a car is not only used for transportation. Guns can be used for sport, as I pointed out before they can be used to remain self sufficient, family bonding, and other various hobbies (collecting, I for one enjoy cleaning my air rifles while enjoying the weather and conversation of friends and family, trading).

Cars are the same way. People enjoy driving, racing, and even events where the primary purpose is to crash them. When was the last time you heard of a sport where the point was shoot another guy in the face with a lethal weapon?

A rifle is more than just your perception of its use, as is a car.

 

[AntiChri5]

So what if people shoot for sport? Guns are still designed to kill as efficiently as possible. Whether thats humans or animals. That people find it fun to shoot clay and paper is irrelevant.

Racing is just an extension of the original function of a car. It's a test of how fast a car can go. It's done on a track in front of an audience, but it's still the same. A harmless bit of fun that grew up around a necessary means of transportation.

Shooting targets is equally harmless. But that doesn't change what the gun is made for. That doesn't change what it is. It is still designed to kill. It is a weapon, a car is not.

People finding ways to have safe fun with tools is different then people finding ways to have safe fun with lethal weapons. One is, due to it's design and function, inherently more dangerous. There is nothing wrong with enjoying guns. They are damn cool. But people really shouldn't lose sight of what they are.

Guns aren't cars. They aren't even remotely similar. In any way.